In 553 Catholic church forbade any teachings about reincarnation and karma
Max
reincarnation and karma. Justinian the Roman emperor was behind it.
The catholic church at that time was selling salvation to those who
could afford it and were trying to increase their membership, while at
the same time burning people who dared to disagree with them at the
stake.
Talk about sensible things like reincarnation and karma was terrible
for their shady business, because those truths had the power to set
people free. It would have been enough for many to break off from what
they called "God's holy church" and free from supporting a bunch of
men who were bloated with arrogance, greed, and lust for power.
The consequences of their dark actions continue to adversely effect
mankind today with millions of Christians foolishly believing and
spouting ridiculous non-sense.
-----------------
Articles about reincarnation, karma, & past lives
http://www.mindlight.info/dir-reincarnation.htm
...the ‘ban’ on the teaching of reincarnation is based on historical
misrepresentation and has no ecclesiastical authority. It was in fact
a ‘fait accompli’, brought about by Justinius, [the Roman Emporer]
which no-one within the Christian church has dared to challenge in the
course of some 1500 years. What is worse is that the subject has been
totally ignored..." Peter Andreas
"As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood
to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A
sober person is not bewildered by such a change. " Bhagavad-Gita 2-13
The average Christian confuses the Law of Rebirth with what he calls
"the transmigration of souls," and frequently believes that the Law of
Rebirth signifies the passing of human beings into the bodies of
animals or of lower forms of life. Such is by no means the case. As
the life of God progresses onwards through form after form... the life
of God passes into the human kingdom, and becomes subject to the Law
of Rebirth and not the law of Transmigration. AAB/Djwhal Khul
"...progressive existence after death, the conditions of which
depended upon the man’ s actions during life, and it was considered
wrong and the man’ s actions during life, and it was considered wrong
and ungrateful to mourn for the dead, because the Deity did not like
to see his children suffer." Lives of Alcyone Part 3, p. 43
"So as through a glass and darkly, the age long strife I see, Where I
fought in many guises, many names, but always me." —General George S.
Patton
"Each soul enters the world strengthened by the victories or
weakened by the defects of its past lives. Its place in this world is
determined by past virtues and shortcomings." Origen
"Karma is the eternal assertion of human freedom. Our thoughts, our
words and deeds are the threads of the net which we throw around
ourselves." Swami Vivekananda
"Reincarnation will gather around him all those other Egos who have
suffered, whether directly or indirectly, at the hands, or even
through the unconscious instrumentality, of the past personality."
H.P. Blavatsky
"The true understanding of the maxim of the Christ, that what we sow
we reap, will transform human existence in all its aspects. Tolerance
and harmlessness not known before will replace the present separation,
as men recognize the justice and the logic of the Law." The Master --
"We ourselves are responsible, by our actions and thoughts, now and in
the past, for what befalls us. There is nothing, moreover, in our long
series of incarnations, to which we are not related. We have made and
are making our lives. Our achievements and our mistakes are ours alone
and we are for ever responsible for what we are and do. A point that
perhaps should be emphasized is that for most people the ‘good’ far
outweighs the ‘bad’. The Law, wielded by the Lords of Karma, is not
only just but forgiving." Benjamin Creme
Articles about reincarnation, karma, & past lives
http://www.mindlight.info/dir-reincarnation.htm
Tom
>
> Talk about sensible things like reincarnation and karma
"Sensible", eh? Which sense detects reincarnation and karma?
> millions of Christians foolishly believing and
> spouting ridiculous non-sense.
In that, they are no different from you. Your own beliefs and
spoutings are no less foolish or ridiculous or nonsensical.
Etznab
Didn't think I would respond to this. Except for a Speed Bump
comic in the newspaper today (by Dave Coverly).
A little boy and grownup man are sitting on a couch. The boy
looks up to the man and says:
"YEAH, WELL, I DIDN'T BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION WHEN
I WAS YOUR AGE, EITHER.
Meltdarok
>
> The consequences of their dark actions continue to adversely effect
> mankind today with millions of Christians foolishly believing and
> spouting ridiculous non-sense.
> -----------------
Today it's "Christ, my Bodhisattva."
The biggest religious problem is karma. Jesus is the bodhisattva who
fulfilled his dharma to pay for people's karma. "Not
only is Jesus a sanatan sat guru, he paid for karma. He paid our
karmic debt."
--Christianity Today, May 2007.
--
Meltdarok
Offramp
Tom
>
>
> a Speed Bump
> comic in the newspaper today (by Dave Coverly).
>
> A little boy and grownup man are sitting on a couch. The boy
> looks up to the man and says:
>
> "YEAH, WELL, I DIDN'T BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION WHEN
> I WAS YOUR AGE, EITHER.
Ah, belief jokes.
I don't believe in reincarnation, but I did in a former life.
I'm a Virgo; we don't believe in astrology.
Said the Buddhist to the hot dog vendor: "Make me one with everything."
Tom
> Was there a catholic church in 553AD? I mean, was it called that?
Yes.
In his letter to the Smyrnaeans in 107 AD, Ignatius of Antioch wrote,
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be;
even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Ignatius was the Bishop of Rome following the death of the first
Bishop of Rome, St. Peter himself. Thus he claimed direct apostolic
succession, which is what the label "Catholic" is all about. As Peter
was first of equals among the twelve apostles, so the early Christians
saw Ignatius as first among equals among the other patriarchs, in the
cities of Alexandria and Antioch. The followers of the Patriarch of
Rome were "Roman Catholics", those of the Patriarch of Alexandria were
"Eastern Orthodox", and those of Antioch were "Oriental Orthodox".
In 380, the Catholic Church was made the official religion of the
Roman Empire under Emperor Theodocius and the term "Catholic" was
defined in law.
"It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to
our clemency and moderation, should continue the profession of that
religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle
Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now
professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a
man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the
doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one Deity of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We
authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic
Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are
foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the
ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their
conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place
the chastisement of divine condemnation and the second the punishment
of our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven will decide to
inflict."
Harrumph.
Venerable Rinpoche
> In 553 AD, the catholic church officially forbade any teachings about
> reincarnation and karma.
So? It's not what you believe, but how you act.
>
--
One thousand blessings
SIR Peter Alexander Baron von Ustinow
> Max wrote:
> > In 553 AD, the catholic church officially forbade any teachings about
> > reincarnation and karma.
Today it's "Christ, my Bodhisattva."
The biggest religious problem is karma. Jesus is the bodhisattva who
fulfilled his dharma to pay for people's karma. "Not
only is Jesus a sanatan sat guru, he paid for karma. He paid our
karmic debt."
--Christianity Today, May 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, belief jokes.
I don't believe in reincarnation, but I did in a former life.
I'm a Virgo; we don't believe in astrology.
Said the Buddhist to the hot dog vendor: "Make me one with
everything."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, belief jokes.
I don't believe in reincarnation, but I did in a former life.
I'm a Virgo; we don't believe in astrology.
Said the Buddhist to the hot dog vendor: "Make me one with
everything."
Is nothing sacred ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a great thread. The above 3 answers are indeed *answers*,
Answers sought, they could convert any catholic ...........
SIR
Tom
> Max wrote:
> > In 553 AD, the catholic church officially forbade any teachings about
> > reincarnation and karma.
>
> So? It's not what you believe, but how you act.
That leads me to wonder what "it" is.
Venerable Rinpoche
There are 6,530,000,000 entries on the Google search engine for the word "it",
almost as many entries as there are human beings in this world.
--
One thousand blessings
Slarty
Did you watch the video? Aren't you being a little hard on the guy?
Aren't you engaging in semantic quibble? Was your intent different
from what it seems to this casual observer?
Slarty
WOW! I never thought I'd see that. Unless the rest of the article is
"well them Indian's don't know nuffin, but if they did, it would be
the case, that:"...
Slarty
Thank you. For 1, I'd never heard of the Oriental Orthodox church.
Looks like it's "another 1 of those deals", tho. There seems never in
history to have been a major denomination, that I know of that does
not come off to me as against the goals of what I think of as
romanticism. Makes sense. Christianity was/is the saying no to
Hellenism. The tightening of the reigns to what they are right to
think can become just so much con games and gobbledy gook, and hokus
pokus (seeing them @ xtians @ their best. @ worst they are beyond
fowl). To the degree that xtianity say's no thank you to unneccasary
extravagance, while there is still a world to be won, it must; I
think; be respected; but is extremely hard to like.
Meltdarok
> On Jan 4, 8:38 pm, Meltdarok<meltda...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 1/4/2010 7:37 PM, Max wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The consequences of their dark actions continue to adversely effect
>>> mankind today with millions of Christians foolishly believing and
>>> spouting ridiculous non-sense.
>>> -----------------
>>
>> Today it's "Christ, my Bodhisattva."
>>
>> The biggest religious problem is karma. Jesus is the bodhisattva who
>> fulfilled his dharma to pay for people's karma. "Not
>> only is Jesus a sanatan sat guru, he paid for karma. He paid our
>> karmic debt."
>>
>> --Christianity Today, May 2007.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Meltdarok
>
> WOW! I never thought I'd see that. Unless the rest of the article is
> "well them Indian's don't know nuffin, but if they did, it would be
> the case, that:"...
No. It's about being prominent in business, politics, philanthropy, and
religion in London.
--
Meltdarok
Tom
So you actually don't have the slightest clue what you were talking
about when you wrote "It's not what you believe, but how you act"
because you don't know what you meant by "it".
You presumptuously adopt the title of a guru (rinpoche) and then
blather on, not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
Tom
> On Jan 4, 8:12 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 4:37 pm, Max <maxhem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Talk about sensible things like reincarnation and karma
>
> > "Sensible", eh? Which sense detects reincarnation and karma?
>
> > > millions of Christians foolishly believing and
> > > spouting ridiculous non-sense.
>
> > In that, they are no different from you. Your own beliefs and
> > spoutings are no less foolish or ridiculous or nonsensical.
>
> Did you watch the video? Aren't you being a little hard on the guy?
Yes, I'm being hard on the guy. Just as hard as he is on the other
guy who believes different foolish nonsense than he does.
> Aren't you engaging in semantic quibble?
By criticizing a pointless argument about how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin? The discussion was a semantic quibble from its
very beginning.
> Was your intent different
> from what it seems to this casual observer?
Probably. It is not "sensible" to argue about where we go after we
die. There is no evidence beyond someone's say-so that anybody goes
anywhere. These are matters of faith, not sense. To call someone
else's faith "nonsense" is to admit that one's own faith is open to
exactly the same charge.
Tom
>
>
> Thank you. For 1, I'd never heard of the Oriental Orthodox church.
They split off from the Roman Catholics fairly early over the issue of
the divinity or humanity of Jesus, during the Council of Chalcedon in
451 AD. Roman Catholics supported the belief that Jesus had a dual
nature, being both a man and God, whereas the Oriental Orthodox
supported the belief that Jesus was God whose human nature was
completely absorbed by his divine nature.
It seems like a quibble, but they thought it was very important at the
time.
The Eastern Orthodox Church never renounced their attachment to the
Pope (the Bishop of Rome), but the Oriental Orthodox Church did.
Today, there are about 22 million followers of some spin-off of the
Oriental Orthodox Church, mostly in the Middle East.
> Looks like it's "another 1 of those deals", tho. There seems never in
> history to have been a major denomination, that I know of that does
> not come off to me as against the goals of what I think of as
> romanticism.
What do you think of as romanticism?
Master Bait
> On Jan 5, 7:01�pm, Venerable Rinpoche <kyaga...@infoflash.cn> wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> > On Jan 5, 10:53�am, Venerable Rinpoche <kyaga...@infoflash.cn> wrote:
>> >> Max wrote:
>> >> > In 553 AD, �the catholic church officially forbade any teachings about
>> >> > reincarnation and karma.
>>
>> >> So? It's not what you believe, but how you act.
>>
>> > That leads me to wonder what "it" is.
>>
>> There are 6,530,000,000 entries on the Google search engine for the word
>> "it", almost as many entries as there are human beings in this world.
>
> So you actually don't have the slightest clue what you were talking
> about when you wrote "It's not what you believe, but how you act"
> because you don't know what you meant by "it".
Yes I do have an idea what I mean by 'it'.
If you don't then so what?
>
> You presumptuously adopt the title of a guru (rinpoche) and then
> blather on, not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
Not only Rinpoche, little one, but Venerable Rinpoche.
You don't know your place.
Tom
> Tom wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 7:01 pm, Venerable Rinpoche <kyaga...@infoflash.cn> wrote:
> >> Tom wrote:
> >> > On Jan 5, 10:53 am, Venerable Rinpoche <kyaga...@infoflash.cn> wrote:
>
> >> >> So? It's not what you believe, but how you act.
>
> >> > That leads me to wonder what "it" is.
>
> >> There are 6,530,000,000 entries on the Google search engine for the word
> >> "it", almost as many entries as there are human beings in this world.
>
> > So you actually don't have the slightest clue what you were talking
> > about when you wrote "It's not what you believe, but how you act"
> > because you don't know what you meant by "it".
>
> Yes I do have an idea what I mean by 'it'.
So far we have no evidence of this. Your response indicates that you
don't know.
> > You presumptuously adopt the title of a guru (rinpoche) and then
> > blather on, not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
>
> Not only Rinpoche, little one, but Venerable Rinpoche.
I don't see anything venerable in your performance so far. You can
posture all you want, but it doesn't look like anyone actually
believes you. Clearly I don't.
> You don't know your place.
My place is where I am, not where you think I ought to be.
Slarty
"There is of course, the mystical. But of that, we can say
nothing."--Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Whats the use of worrying? What's the use of hurrying? What's the
use of anything?"--Sir Paul McCartney
Slarty
>
> - Show quoted text -
I consider that miraculous, or @ the very least, close to such.
Slarty
Not what wikipedia thinks. They seem to think it's all about heroism,
or something, while as in my take, that is only "symptomatic" (for
lack of a better word, @ this moment). To me, Romanticism is: We are
between animal and gods/therefore quite good/we can and should get
even better. If I have Romanticism wrong, that's my philosophy, @ any
rate, and if someone has a philosophy like that whos name is more
appropriate to my philosophy, then great! I'll take it. If no
philosophy of that sort exists, maybe I better git to namin'.
Venerable Rinpoche
> On Jan 6, 1:28�pm, Master Bait <mb...@swnews.net> wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> > On Jan 5, 7:01�pm, Venerable Rinpoche <kyaga...@infoflash.cn> wrote:
>> >> Tom wrote:
>> >> > On Jan 5, 10:53�am, Venerable Rinpoche <kyaga...@infoflash.cn> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> So? It's not what you believe, but how you act.
>>
>> >> > That leads me to wonder what "it" is.
>>
>> >> There are 6,530,000,000 entries on the Google search engine for the word
>> >> "it", almost as many entries as there are human beings in this world.
>>
>> > So you actually don't have the slightest clue what you were talking
>> > about when you wrote "It's not what you believe, but how you act"
>> > because you don't know what you meant by "it".
>>
>> Yes I do have an idea what I mean by 'it'.
>
> So far we have no evidence of this. Your response indicates that you
> don't know.
Have you settled what what it is that you wonder?
>> > You presumptuously adopt the title of a guru (rinpoche) and then
>> > blather on, not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
>>
>> Not only Rinpoche, little one, but Venerable Rinpoche.
>
> I don't see anything venerable in your performance so far.
You're simply being told the way it is by me. Take it or leave it. This isn't a
show -- it isn't a gift. It's an exercize in teasing pixels on a computer
screen.
> You can
> posture all you want, but it doesn't look like anyone actually
> believes you. Clearly I don't.
With six and a half billion individuals depositing their precious turds in their
world every day, why should I care about your beliefs?
I got you to respond to me, not the other way around. And you, a singular
fraction of that 6.5 billion -- you really don't count for shit in the larger
picture -- except for the precious turds you leave behind. If you died today, I
wouldn't know it.
In 100 years, nobody would know of your death or life or any of what you think
you accomplished.
Why should a semantic concern for 'it' trouble a grain of sand on an endless
shore? How much is that worth, little one?
>
>> You don't know your place.
>
> My place is where I am, not where you think I ought to be.
You're stuck in a place -- a prisoner of the planet.
--
One thousand blessings
Meltdarok
Tom
Romanticism is a philosophy that values imagination and free emotional
expression over the emotional restraint and predictable forms of
classicism. It asserts the basic goodness of the simple which is lost
when things become too complex. So it seems reasonable to label your
philosophy, as you've expressed it here, as a sort of romanticism.
While Christians are generally into emotional restraint, they are
often also believers in the innate goodness of simplicity, so it's not
like they're completely unromantic.
Tom
> Tom wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 1:28 pm, Master Bait <mb...@swnews.net> wrote:
> >> Tom wrote:
> >> > On Jan 5, 7:01 pm, Venerable Rinpoche <kyaga...@infoflash.cn> wrote:
> >> >> Tom wrote:
> >> >> > On Jan 5, 10:53 am, Venerable Rinpoche <kyaga...@infoflash.cn> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> So? It's not what you believe, but how you act.
>
> >> >> > That leads me to wonder what "it" is.
>
> >> >> There are 6,530,000,000 entries on the Google search engine for the word
> >> >> "it", almost as many entries as there are human beings in this world.
>
> >> > So you actually don't have the slightest clue what you were talking
> >> > about when you wrote "It's not what you believe, but how you act"
> >> > because you don't know what you meant by "it".
>
> >> Yes I do have an idea what I mean by 'it'.
>
> > So far we have no evidence of this. Your response indicates that you
> > don't know.
>
> Have you settled what what it is that you wonder?
Here's what I've settled: It's quite clear that you are not inclined
to clarify what you wrote, so there's not much use in encouraging you
to do so any further.
> You're simply being told the way it is by me.
Here comes that unspecified "it" again.
> Take it or leave it.
There's nothing either to take or to leave in your drivel.
Slarty
Is that article online, yet/would you be ok w/provide a link?
Slarty
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually there is no simplicity clause in my position. I am not sure
I'm a transhumanist, because I am not sure if I trust chips in the
brain, and I don't discount automatically even the wackiest seeming
mumbo-juimbo, if I see signs it helps. I'm not sure trans-humanists
follow me there, as I'm not sure I follow trans-humanists to chips in
the brain. But other than those 2 distinctions, I suppose I am a
trans-humanist. How would you relate romanticism, and transhumanism?
Slarty
>
> - Show quoted text -
So Roussau (sp?) would then be the quintessential Romantic, w/his
"Noble savage"?
Meltdarok
Tom
> On Jan 7, 9:27 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 4:18 pm, Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 8:59 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Romanticism is a philosophy that values imagination and free emotional
> > expression over the emotional restraint and predictable forms of
> > classicism. It asserts the basic goodness of the simple which is lost
> > when things become too complex. So it seems reasonable to label your
> > philosophy, as you've expressed it here, as a sort of romanticism.
>
> > While Christians are generally into emotional restraint, they are
> > often also believers in the innate goodness of simplicity, so it's not
> > like they're completely unromantic.-
>
> I'm a transhumanist, because I am not sure if I trust chips in the
> brain, and I don't discount automatically even the wackiest seeming
> mumbo-juimbo, if I see signs it helps. I'm not sure trans-humanists
> follow me there, as I'm not sure I follow trans-humanists to chips in
> the brain. But other than those 2 distinctions, I suppose I am a
> trans-humanist. How would you relate romanticism, and transhumanism?
Transhumanists are romantics who like science fiction. So I don't see
any conflict for you in describing yourself either way. But, getting
back to your complaint that no Christian group expresses a philosophy
like yours, what is the "Resurrection of the Body" in Christian
mythology but an anticipated step beyond our mortal humanity? In that
way, Christians are as much "transhumanistic" as you are.
Tom
>
> So Roussau (sp?) would then be the quintessential Romantic, w/his
> "Noble savage"?
Rousseau. Yes, the "noble savage" is a very romantic notion.
Slarty
I still find that amazing! Thanx for the post. The context was
Indians explaining JC to Indians. Still amasing, but I'm not as
impressed as I might've been. Thanx Very much for posting it. I
might read it more than the quick skim I just gave it sometime.
Maybe even soon.
Slarty
Maybe. I think I've reached that point where I muxct bow out of
Christianity discussions, tho.
Slarty
So I probably am a romantic, and might be a transhumanist. But what
of my comment that I don't have simplicity as a clause in my
philosophy. Also, wasn't the great debate @ romanticisms hayday,
Romanticism vs. naturalism? Wouldn't naturalism be more likely to be
into simplicity than romanticism?
Slarty
Thanks for this repkly and the previouse 1. I found them quite
helpful. How do romanticism / magick square? I can't imagine the
answer would be "not well". Wasn't Crowley a HUGE fan of 1 of the
Romantic poets?
Tom
The simplicity aspect of romanticism comes from an assumption of a
basic, natural goodness to humanity that becomes obscured by the
complexity and artificiality of industrial civilization. So, human
beings who live simply are most likely to clearly display that basic
goodness. This sort of goes along with the idea of free expression of
emotion. The best example of freely expressed emotion and imagination
is that of a child, whose view of the world is the least complex it's
ever going to get.
> Also, wasn't the great debate @ romanticisms hayday,
> Romanticism vs. naturalism? Wouldn't naturalism be more likely to be
> into simplicity than romanticism?
The kind of "naturalism" that romantics conflict with is actually
realism. Philosophical naturalism rejects the supernatural and
asserts that all phenomena are natural, and therefore knowable. The
"natural philosophers" (among whom we can count students and
practitioners of magick) were the forerunners of science. Once we
assert the notion of an impossibility (that which is not natural is
impossible) the romantic heart rebels. Since we can imagine that
which science asserts to be impossible, science must be wrong because,
to the romantic, imagination is supreme.
In your other response on this topic, you asked how magick squares
with romanticism. I went round and round with our good friend Carroll
Runyon over this very issue a number of years ago. He contends that
magick is essentially romantic because magicians believe that they can
accomplish anything they imagine. My position is that it's only the
superstitions of occultism which have been appended to the lore of
magick that give it a romantic tinge. While there is almost always
some way to accomplish some goal, the means for doing so are not
unlimited. In other words, we can do great things, but it's not
simply because we imagine doing them. There's more to it than that.
Kinpa
it's all a matter of how we imagine, simple as that...imagining of
something we want doesnt work, imagining from the state of a realized
goal creates miracles, literally, anything we imagine, solidifies into
reality...
Slarty
I think the 1 to whom all things concern reveals us it's majesty most,
when we can get our imagination and our belief to come to an
agreement. You decide which side I fall on from that. Thank you.
The above is meatier than I'm prepared to deal w/@this exact moment.
Maybe I'll get back; reread/rerespond, later.
Tom
As I say, there's more to it than that. I can sit around imagining
things all day and see no progress at all towards achieving them. It
takes action to realize the imagined, and not just any action. It
takes the right combination of actions. Those actions wll conform
with the underlying laws governing specific natural events or the
consequences will not be the realization of what one imagines.
"Magic is the highest most absolute and divine knowledge of natural
philosophy advanced in its works and wonderful operations by a right
understanding of the inward and occult vertue of things, so that true
agents being applied to proper patients, strange and admirable effects
will thereby be produced; whence magicians are profound and diligent
searchers into nature, they because of their skill know how to
anticipate an effect which to the vulgar shall seem a miracle." --
The Lemegeton
> imagining of
> something we want doesnt work, imagining from the state of a realized
> goal creates miracles, literally, anything we imagine, solidifies into
> reality.
What you're saying needs a lot more elaboration. What it sounds like
you're saying is that if you imagine something you already have, "the
state of a realized goal", then you will have it because you imagined
it. Obviously, if you restrict your imagining to that which you
already have, you can make it appear to yourself that uyour
imagination made it so, but the minute you imagine something you
*don't* have, your imagination suddenly isn't enough. Nor does
restricting your imagination to things you already have meet the
spirit of romanticism, which insists that the imagination be freed
from restriction instead of being confined to classical forms.
Tom
>
> I think the 1 to whom all things concern reveals us it's majesty most,
> when we can get our imagination and our belief to come to an
> agreement.
When we make our belief coincide with only our imagination, we have a
neat formula for the production of a delusion.
Kinpa
first of all, im not speaking of magic...what im saying is that the
outer reality, the world of sense that we perceive begins inwardly, we
make an agreement to perceive it in a certain way...if we imagine from
the state of the desire fulfilled rather than imagining upon a thing
we want, we create the means by which it solidifies and is realized in
the outer world, with no care for worrying about the logical means of
it manifesting...i am not commenting on naturalism or romanticism
either, just creative imagination...there is some good reading on the
subject, not only in the terms of mystical writing, but also
scientific writing...these both are speaking of the very same latent
creative ability of the imagination...
Neville Goddard-The Awakened Imagination
http://www.archive.org/stream/AwakenedImagination/Neville_awakenedImagination#page/n0/mode/2up
a scientific study that was posted by another here not long ago...
William A. Tiller
Professor Emeritus, Stanford University
Tom
Whether you call it "magic" or some other term, you mean the same
thing.
> what im saying is that the
> outer reality, the world of sense that we perceive begins inwardly,
What independently observeable evidence do you have to support this
assertion that reality begins "inwardly"? Where did the "inward" come
from? Was it "inward" too? Is it turtles all the way down?
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a
public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around
the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast
collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a
little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you
have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on
the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile
before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very
clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles
all the way down!" -- From Stephen Hawkings' "A Brief History of
Time".
> we
> make an agreement to perceive it in a certain way..
When exactly do we make this agreement. What happens before we make
an agreement that we can't fly? Are all the people who don't agree
flying around?
"I just flew in from New York, and, boy, are my arms tired." -- Henny
Youngman
> if we imagine from
> the state of the desire fulfilled rather than imagining upon a thing
> we want, we create the means by which it solidifies and is realized in
> the outer world,
All by itself. We just sit there and believe something and it
suddenly appears? Poof? And you say you're not talking about magic?
> a scientific study that was posted by another here not long ago...
>
> William A. Tiller
> Professor Emeritus, Stanford University
>
> http://tillerfoundation.com/ConActsCreation.pdf
Dear old Dr. Tiller. The poor old guy was once taken in by the
hackneyed magic trick where you seem to be taking pictures with the
camera's lens cap on, a little trick made popular by former bellhop,
Ted Serios, way back in the 60's. Dr. Tiller means well, but nobody
takes his "experiments" seriously anywhere in the scientific
community. Every now and then he gets called in as an expert witness
by the defense in some medical quackery trial, because he has a real
degree, but he never seems to convince anybody who isn't already
convinced.
The key to good science is not whether you have a degree or used to
work in a college. The key to good science is that it is
independently replicable by other careful researchers. Tiller's work
does not replicate.
Kinpa
no one has tried to replicate, that doesnt mean it does not replicate,
furthermore, the idea itself DOES replicate, try it yourself...i do
NOT mean magic that is a completely different thing, this is a
manifestation of Spirit, not magic...
Kinpa
read...the independently observable source is an irrelevance required
by you, but that does not make it required nor does it disprove what
ive said...
Tom
So while nobody has tried to replicate it, people have replicated it.
Is that your argument?
> try it yourself..
Yes, it's amazing how easily we can fool ourselves, if we are
careless.
Dr. Tiller is not the first highly credentialled scientist to fall
into disrespect because of his irrational beliefs in faulty
experiments.
Check out the strange case of Dr. Blondlot and the N-rays.
http://www.rexresearch.com/blondlot/nrays.htm
> i do
> NOT mean magic that is a completely different thing, this is a
> manifestation of Spirit, not magic...
You mean the production of strange and admirable effects by means that
seem miraculous to those who don't know how they're done. That is
precisely what magic is. You just don't want to use that word for it.
Tom
You think you can dodge the question by waving vaguely at some badly
written book? That's not good enough for me. If you think the author
has answered my question somewhere in that book, you point out to me
exactly where. Otherwise, the obvious conclusion is that you don't
actually have an answer and are trying like hell to avoid having to
admit it.
> the independently observable source is an irrelevance required
> by you, but that does not make it required nor does it disprove what
> ive said...
The request for independently observeable evidence to support a claim
is not something I just made up. It's been the hallmark of all
intelligent searches for what's really going on for the last 200
years. And, no, a persistent lack of evidence does not "disprove"
your claim, it only makes it increasingly unlikely.
JR
>
> Romanticism is a philosophy that values imagination and free emotional
> expression over the emotional restraint and predictable forms of
> classicism. It asserts the basic goodness of the simple which is lost
> when things become too complex. So it seems reasonable to label your
> philosophy, as you've expressed it here, as a sort of romanticism.
Starry-eyed Romantics, The Mechanistical engineer, group religious
epiphany, or singular mystical realization -- whatever or however you
brew your daily motivation, It and your essence combines the element
of Sound and Light into your personal singular experience; the
experience that wears your shoes and talks your talk.
Here is a taste of what it is like to experience the objective and
subjective simultaneously:
Your connection with what I choose to label the Absolute Good, is your
own, and you may repeat it without the need to be approved by anyone.
JR
Kinpa
i disagree, a lack of evidence doesnt make anything but a lack of
evidence...unlikely is a matter of perspective, nothing more...i
suggest you read the book, and then try it's ideas for yourself,
observe your own evidence as i have mine, it's really just as simple
as that...
Kinpa
that's also precisely what science is, before it's mechanisms are
understood (and a great many parts of science are STILL mere theory)
and yes, i do choose which term to use for it, as well as how to view
it, however, it exists regardless of how one chooses to view it,
explain it, or which terms one uses to speak of it...prove that it
ISNT true...forget the doctors and scientists, read the book, it's
free, what do you have to lose?
Tom
> On Jan 7, 9:27 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Romanticism is a philosophy that values imagination and free emotional
> > expression over the emotional restraint and predictable forms of
> > classicism. It asserts the basic goodness of the simple which is lost
> > when things become too complex. So it seems reasonable to label your
> > philosophy, as you've expressed it here, as a sort of romanticism.
>
> Starry-eyed Romantics, The Mechanistical engineer, group religious
> epiphany, or singular mystical realization -- whatever or however you
> brew your daily motivation, It and your essence combines the element
> of Sound and Light into your personal singular experience; the
> experience that wears your shoes and talks your talk.
Your poorly articulated, simplistic declarations and hackneyed cliches
are a failed effort to make yourself seem spiritually profound.
Tom
> On Jan 11, 12:16 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > The request for independently observeable evidence to support a claim
> > is not something I just made up. It's been the hallmark of all
> > intelligent searches for what's really going on for the last 200
> > years. And, no, a persistent lack of evidence does not "disprove"
> > your claim, it only makes it increasingly unlikely.
>
> i disagree, a lack of evidence doesnt make anything but a lack of
> evidence..
Of course you disagree. That's because you have no evidence.
Therefore, you must rely on something other than evidence in order to
believe your own bullshit.
But any person with even a modicum of intelligence knows that if
someone says there's an apple in this closed bag, and you open it only
to find that there's no apple, that makes the claim increasingly
unlikely because of the lack of the apple.
A guy comes home to find his best friend in bed with his wife.
Confronted, the friend denies that he was in bed with her at all.
"But I saw you with my own eyes!" declares the husband. His friend
replies, "Are you going to believe your eyes over the word of your
best friend?"
Now, let's talk independently observeable evidence for your claim or
you can just give it up now and stop embarrassing yourself.
Kinpa
im not embarrassing myself, i have proof, i see it everyday, you are
the one requiring it, not i...why dont you go ahead and prove me
wrong...are you able?your examples prove nothing at all relating to
the subject, your intelligence is not as great as you claim...try
harder...
Tom
> On Jan 11, 12:02 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 10:25 am, Kinpa <kinpaconqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > i do
> > > NOT mean magic that is a completely different thing, this is a
> > > manifestation of Spirit, not magic...
>
> > You mean the production of strange and admirable effects by means that
> > seem miraculous to those who don't know how they're done. That is
> > precisely what magic is. You just don't want to use that word for it.
>
> that's also precisely what science is, before it's mechanisms are
> understood
Of course it is. Did you entirely miss the part in the conversation
where I told you that "natural philosophy" is the progenitor of both
magick and science?
"The 'natural philosophers' (among whom we can count students and
practitioners of magick) were the forerunners of science."
> (and a great many parts of science are STILL mere theory)
The lore of science is *entirely* theory. That's the beauty of it.
But the enquiry part of science comes in when those theories are
repeatedly being challenged by experiment. No amount of replication
will make a theory anything more than a theory but the more evidence
accumulates in support of a theory, the more likely it is that the
theory is accurate. If it is not, then it undergoes revision. Those
ideas that are not checked or checkable, are called "hypotheses" and
nobody declares whether or not they are likely to be valid until some
independently observeable evidence comes along that supports them over
alternative hypotheses. At no time are there any unquestionable
assertions of truth in science, as there are in religious faith such
as yours. Independently corroborated evidence is the means be which
intelligent people decide what is more likely and less likely to be
true. "The word of your best friend" is no substitute for it.
> and yes, i do choose which term to use for it, as well as how to view
> it,
Then you're not actually talking to me, since, in order for us to have
a conversation, we must come to some agreement on the terms we use.
If you reject mine and insist on your own, then you'd better be very
clear exactly what you mean. So, I want you to define precisely what
"magick" is and how causing something to appear miraculously by merely
imagining it is not magick. If you cannot or will not make this
clear, you are not even in this conversation. You're just lecturing
instead.
> prove that it
> ISNT true...
Proof is whatever convinces us.
When you say there's an apple in the bag and when I look there is no
apple in the bag, that's proof to me that you were wrong.
You say that, in order to have whatever you desire appear out of
nothingness, all you have to do is believe that you have already done
it. I've believed I've done all sorts of things and then discovered,
to my surprise and chagrin, that I didn't actually accomplish what I
thought I did. This happens to everybody. The only people who deny
it are those who live under the deluision that they're all-powerful,
which, by observation, we can all see is not really the case.
So, if you think you're all-powerful, if you can suddenly create
anything you want, regardless of any of the current, highly supported
theories of physics (mere theories!), let's see you do it. Nothing is
impossible for you, so you should be able to instantly teleport
yourself to my living room right now and introduce yourself. If you
will not, then I'll conclude you cannot and the matter will be settled
once and for all that you are wrong. So, if you want to convince me,
you have only to exercise your omnipotence a little bit.
> forget the doctors and scientists, read the book, it's
> free, what do you have to lose?
The time it takes to wade through all that unsubstantiated crap. And
the memory of what doctors and scientists have done for centuries in
their labor to figure out what's going on. I'll lose that, too. One
other hand, what have you got to lose by teleporting into my living
room? I'll even make you dinner, so you not only have nothing to
lose, but something to gain. Somehow, however, I don't think you'll
be showing up. What I suspect I'll be getting isn't a visit, but
merely an excuse for your failure to appear. Let's see if I'm right
or wrong.
Kinpa
have it your way then~! but mentally speaking, youre not doing as well
as you'd have others think...keep trying...
Kinpa
so then, you accept that a few centuries ago the world was indeed
flat? and then it just suddenly popped into a shere after that fact?
proof is NOT whatever convinces "us", not by any means...
=====================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
was this your attempt to get a date? there are no excuses, i simply
wont be appearing in your living room for any reason, not because my
claim isnt true or that i cant prove it, but because your ego needs
this so called victory so desperately...id really hate to leave you
with nothing to believe,what would you do then?
JR
A crumb for Tom the Censor....
Jib-jab your argumentum ad hominem, last word with someone else, you
bloated ol' catfish.
Here, take a cue from your old man....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNyVxx1JaYk
JR
Slarty
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe that Colin Wilson has spent most if not all of his writing
career obsessing over matters of this sort.
Tom
I suppose it would have been too much to expect for you to have
capitulated with dignity instead of with a gratuitous and spurious
attempt at insult.
Tom
> On Jan 12, 11:51 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 10:31 pm, Kinpa <kinpaconqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > prove that it
> > > ISNT true...
>
> > Proof is whatever convinces us.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> so then, you accept that a few centuries ago the world was indeed
> flat? and then it just suddenly popped into a shere after that fact?
> proof is NOT whatever convinces "us", not by any means...
Why should I? Where was the convincing evidence? People with brains
have known for more than 2500 years that the earth was roughly
spherical. Only the ignoramuses ever believed it was flat. By the
5th century BCE, no self-respecting Greek philosopher asserted that
the earth was anything but a sphere. Pythagoras, Herodotus, Plato,
Aristotle, all of them taught about the spherical earth.
But "proof" is still a subjective term when it comes to assertions
outside of pure mathematics or formal logic. We think something is
"proven" by whatever convinces us. There's no "proof" to an adamant
theist that there is no god. There's no "proof" to an adamant atheist
that there is.
> > You say that, in order to have whatever you desire appear out of
> > nothingness, all you have to do is believe that you have already done
> > it. I've believed I've done all sorts of things and then discovered,
> > to my surprise and chagrin, that I didn't actually accomplish what I
> > thought I did. This happens to everybody. The only people who deny
> > it are those who live under the deluision that they're all-powerful,
> > which, by observation, we can all see is not really the case.
>
> > So, if you think you're all-powerful, if you can suddenly create
> > anything you want, regardless of any of the current, highly supported
> > theories of physics (mere theories!), let's see you do it. Nothing is
> > impossible for you, so you should be able to instantly teleport
> > yourself to my living room right now and introduce yourself. If you
> > will not, then I'll conclude you cannot and the matter will be settled
> > once and for all that you are wrong. So, if you want to convince me,
> > you have only to exercise your omnipotence a little bit.
...
> > On other hand, what have you got to lose by teleporting into my living
> > room? I'll even make you dinner, so you not only have nothing to
> > lose, but something to gain. Somehow, however, I don't think you'll
> > be showing up. What I suspect I'll be getting isn't a visit, but
> > merely an excuse for your failure to appear. Let's see if I'm right
> > or wrong.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> was this your attempt to get a date? there are no excuses, i simply
> wont be appearing in your living room for any reason, not because my
> claim isnt true or that i cant prove it, but because your ego needs
> this so called victory so desperately...
As I pointed out before, just because you don't want to use a word
does not mean it is not an appropriate descriptor of what you mean.
You just offered an excuse for why you won't be demonstrating your
claim, whether you want to call it an excuse or not. In this case,
it's because you want to indulge my ego by not demonstrating that I'm
wrong. It's laughable as an excuse, but then again, what excuse
wouldn't be laughable under the circumstances?
> id really hate to leave you
> with nothing to believe,what would you do then?
You're too late. I already believe nothing. I'm a skeptic. Not one
of those sham "skeptics" who only doubts that which he doesn't
believe, but a real skeptic who invests no personal value in any
belief at all. If you suddenly appeared in my home, I'd be overjoyed,
rolling on the floor laughing, and then promptly starting work on that
dinner I promised you. On the other hand, if you actually tried to
teleport and failed, what would *you* have left to believe? I
understand completely why you declined to try. It's what I predicted,
after all.
Tom
I'm a critic, not a censor, you illiterate imbecile. Say what you
like, and I'll say what I like.
Tom
> career obsessing over matters of this sort.
Wilson was trying to convince people that ghosts and psychic powers
existed but was frustrated by the fact that he could find no
replicable evidence to support those beliefs. Instead, he spent all
his time collecting spurious and uncheckable anecdotes, hoping that
they would be enough. They weren't.
omprem
> In 553 AD, the catholic church officially forbade any teachings about
> reincarnation and karma. Justinian the Roman emperor was behind it.
> The catholic church at that time was selling salvation to those who
> could afford it and were trying to increase their membership, while at
> the same time burning people who dared to disagree with them at the
> stake.
>
> Talk about sensible things like reincarnation and karma was terrible
> for their shady business, because those truths had the power to set
> people free. It would have been enough for many to break off from what
> they called "God's holy church" and free from supporting a bunch of
> men who were bloated with arrogance, greed, and lust for power.
>
> The consequences of their dark actions continue to adversely effect
> mankind today with millions of Christians foolishly believing and
> spouting ridiculous non-sense.
> -----------------
>
> Articles about reincarnation, karma, & past liveshttp://www.mindlight.info/dir-reincarnation.htm
>
> ...the ‘ban’ on the teaching of reincarnation is based on historical
> misrepresentation and has no ecclesiastical authority. It was in fact
> a ‘fait accompli’, brought about by Justinius, [the Roman Emporer]
> which no-one within the Christian church has dared to challenge in the
> course of some 1500 years. What is worse is that the subject has been
> totally ignored..." Peter Andreas
>
> "As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood
> to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A
> sober person is not bewildered by such a change. " Bhagavad-Gita 2-13
>
> The average Christian confuses the Law of Rebirth with what he calls
> "the transmigration of souls," and frequently believes that the Law of
> Rebirth signifies the passing of human beings into the bodies of
> animals or of lower forms of life. Such is by no means the case. As
> the life of God progresses onwards through form after form... the life
> of God passes into the human kingdom, and becomes subject to the Law
> of Rebirth and not the law of Transmigration. AAB/Djwhal Khul
>
> "...progressive existence after death, the conditions of which
> depended upon the man’ s actions during life, and it was considered
> wrong and the man’ s actions during life, and it was considered wrong
> and ungrateful to mourn for the dead, because the Deity did not like
> to see his children suffer." Lives of Alcyone Part 3, p. 43
>
> "So as through a glass and darkly, the age long strife I see, Where I
> fought in many guises, many names, but always me." —General George S.
> Patton
>
> "Each soul enters the world strengthened by the victories or
> weakened by the defects of its past lives. Its place in this world is
> determined by past virtues and shortcomings." Origen
>
> "Karma is the eternal assertion of human freedom. Our thoughts, our
> words and deeds are the threads of the net which we throw around
> ourselves." Swami Vivekananda
>
> "Reincarnation will gather around him all those other Egos who have
> suffered, whether directly or indirectly, at the hands, or even
> through the unconscious instrumentality, of the past personality."
> H.P. Blavatsky
>
> "The true understanding of the maxim of the Christ, that what we sow
> we reap, will transform human existence in all its aspects. Tolerance
> and harmlessness not known before will replace the present separation,
> as men recognize the justice and the logic of the Law." The Master --
>
> "We ourselves are responsible, by our actions and thoughts, now and in
> the past, for what befalls us. There is nothing, moreover, in our long
> series of incarnations, to which we are not related. We have made and
> are making our lives. Our achievements and our mistakes are ours alone
> and we are for ever responsible for what we are and do. A point that
> perhaps should be emphasized is that for most people the ‘good’ far
> outweighs the ‘bad’. The Law, wielded by the Lords of Karma, is not
> only just but forgiving." Benjamin Creme
>
> Articles about reincarnation, karma, & past liveshttp://www.mindlight.info/dir-reincarnation.htm
The Church was against karma and reincarnation long before Justinian.
Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in 325 AD to combat the
ideas of Origin and Arius both of whom promoted the idea that the
human soul is spiritual in nature and therefore each of us has direct
access to the Divine. This notion was a threat to Constantine and to
the clergy. Justinian merely enacted draconian measures to stamp out
those who professed the accessibility of all to God (karma and
reincarnation are offshoots of this idea because they contain the idea
of human perfectability and the ability of humans to eventually attain
God Consciousness and know God directly and know themselves as God.)
Those who deny karma, reincarnation, human perfectability and the
eventual attainment of God Consciousness also deny the central message
of the New Testament and ignore the very words of Jesus, namely, “ Be
ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is
perfect.” (Matthew 5: 48). This promise of our Divine Nature is
repeated in all the books of the N.T. and yet most professed
Christians either deny or ignore it.
Tom
>
> The Church was against karma and reincarnation long before Justinian.
> Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in 325 AD to combat the
> ideas of Origin and Arius both of whom promoted the idea that the
> human soul is spiritual in nature and therefore each of us has direct
> access to the Divine. This notion was a threat to Constantine and to
> the clergy.
Yes, a very important point in all hierarchial religions is the notion
that there are a privileged few who have access to God, and everyone
else must obey those people in order to obey God. It's pure
capitalism, gain control of the resource and make others pay you to
get it.
> Justinian merely enacted draconian measures to stamp out
> those who professed the accessibility of all to God (karma and
> reincarnation are offshoots of this idea because they contain the idea
> of human perfectability and the ability of humans to eventually attain
> God Consciousness and know God directly and know themselves as God.)
Now there you spin off the track.
A belief in reincarnation is not necessarily predicated on a belief in
one's own divinity. While some Hindu schools, particularly Vedanta,
believe that each person is a spark of Brahma and that perfection
means being absorbed back into Brahma once again, this is not quite
the same as saying that people will "know themselves as God". In
fact, by becoming absorbed into Brahma, there are no "themselves" to
know anything. Other Hindu sects, such as Bhakti, see perfection as
not being God but of being with God, which is very similar to how
Christians regard heaven. Yet other Hindu sects, such as Samkhya, are
mostly atheistic and don't believe in any God at all, although they do
believe in reincarnation.
So a belief in reincarnation was forbidden by the Christian church not
because of some objection to human perfectibility, but simply because
it disagreed with the concepts of Judgment Day, Heaven, and Hell.
Perfection is reserved for those who successfully pass through the
Judgment, which happens all at once in the End Times, not on a
continuous, one by one basis. It's simpy a cosmological objection,
not a philosophical one, if I may make such a distinction.
> Those who deny karma, reincarnation, human perfectability and the
> eventual attainment of God Consciousness also deny the central message
> of the New Testament and ignore the very words of Jesus, namely,
Which is precisely the opposite conclusion reached by the Council of
Nicea. I have yet to see any independently verifiable evidence for
either position.
omprem
> On Jan 26, 6:55 am, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Church was against karma and reincarnation long before Justinian.
> > Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in 325 AD to combat the
> > ideas of Origin and Arius both of whom promoted the idea that the
> > human soul is spiritual in nature and therefore each of us has direct
> > access to the Divine. This notion was a threat to Constantine and to
> > the clergy.
>
> Yes, a very important point in all hierarchial religions is the notion
> that there are a privileged few who have access to God, and everyone
> else must obey those people in order to obey God. It's pure
> capitalism, gain control of the resource and make others pay you to
> get it.
>
> > Justinian merely enacted draconian measures to stamp out
> > those who professed the accessibility of all to God (karma and
> > reincarnation are offshoots of this idea because they contain the idea
> > of human perfectability and the ability of humans to eventually attain
> > God Consciousness and know God directly and know themselves as God.)
>
> Now there you spin off the track.
Your saying so doesn't make it so.
> A belief in reincarnation is not necessarily predicated on a belief in
> one's own divinity.
Wrong. Reincarnation is necessarily predicated on the Divine nature of
humans. There would be not point to the former if the latter were not
the case.
>While some Hindu schools, particularly Vedanta,
> believe that each person is a spark of Brahma and that perfection
> means being absorbed back into Brahma once again, this is not quite
> the same as saying that people will "know themselves as God". In
> fact, by becoming absorbed into Brahma, there are no "themselves" to
> know anything.
You equivocate on the word "self". One's essential self is not what
is evident to the senses but rather that which lies beyond the senses
as they operate in the phenomenal world.
>Other Hindu sects, such as Bhakti, see perfection as
> not being God but of being with God, which is very similar to how
> Christians regard heaven.
And the next step for Bhaktis is to know their innate Divinity (which,
of course, may not occur during the life of a particular Bhakti)
>Yet other Hindu sects, such as Samkhya, are
> mostly atheistic and don't believe in any God at all, although they do
> believe in reincarnation.
You totally misunderstand Samkhya Yoga. Samkhya is Raja Yoga by
another name. It views Brahman as God, ultimate reality, ultimate
truth. It states that all is Brahman including humans and that humans
have the capability of knowing this and their true nature as Brahman.
> So a belief in reincarnation was forbidden by the Christian church not
> because of some objection to human perfectibility, but simply because
> it disagreed with the concepts of Judgment Day, Heaven, and Hell.
> Perfection is reserved for those who successfully pass through the
> Judgment, which happens all at once in the End Times, not on a
> continuous, one by one basis. It's simpy a cosmological objection,
> not a philosophical one, if I may make such a distinction.
Your conclusion does not follow from your 'evidence'. The rejection of
reincarnation was a ploy to retain power Constantine and his
successors. They co-opted a few prelates by giving them a bit of power
(more accurately, the illusion of a bit of power) to do the work of
them and so disguise the political nature of the campaign against
karma and reincarnation by colouring it as religious.
> > Those who deny karma, reincarnation, human perfectability and the
> > eventual attainment of God Consciousness also deny the central message
> > of the New Testament and ignore the very words of Jesus, namely,
>
> Which is precisely the opposite conclusion reached by the Council of
> Nicea. I have yet to see any independently verifiable evidence for
> either position.
The state of God Consciousness, the central message of Jesus, is not,
of course, open to logic or the senses as both of the latter can
operate only in space and time and depend on difference while God and
God Consciousness is beyond space and time (although they create space
and time) and constitute wholeness.
The entire message of Jesus is to seek transformation (in the manner
of Paul) so that God, God Consciousness and the Divine nature of man
becomes known.
Tom
> On Jan 26, 11:47 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 6:55 am, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Church was against karma and reincarnation long before Justinian.
> > > Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in 325 AD to combat the
> > > ideas of Origin and Arius both of whom promoted the idea that the
> > > human soul is spiritual in nature and therefore each of us has direct
> > > access to the Divine. This notion was a threat to Constantine and to
> > > the clergy.
>
> > Yes, a very important point in all hierarchial religions is the notion
> > that there are a privileged few who have access to God, and everyone
> > else must obey those people in order to obey God. It's pure
> > capitalism, gain control of the resource and make others pay you to
> > get it.
>
> > > Justinian merely enacted draconian measures to stamp out
> > > those who professed the accessibility of all to God (karma and
> > > reincarnation are offshoots of this idea because they contain the idea
> > > of human perfectability and the ability of humans to eventually attain
> > > God Consciousness and know God directly and know themselves as God.)
>
> > Now there you spin off the track.
>
> Your saying so doesn't make it so.
That's why I didn't just say it, but backed it up with verifiable
evidence and specific examples.
> > A belief in reincarnation is not necessarily predicated on a belief in
> > one's own divinity.
>
> Wrong. Reincarnation is necessarily predicated on the Divine nature of
> humans. There would be not point to the former if the latter were not
> the case.
Your saying so doesn't make it so. Please provide some verifiable
evidence in support of this claim. I've already cited several sects
of Hinduism that accept a belief in reincarnation and that do not
accept that human beings are God. Now, are you going to argue that
those sects don't exist? Or what?
> >While some Hindu schools, particularly Vedanta,
> > believe that each person is a spark of Brahma and that perfection
> > means being absorbed back into Brahma once again, this is not quite
> > the same as saying that people will "know themselves as God". In
> > fact, by becoming absorbed into Brahma, there are no "themselves" to
> > know anything.
>
> You equivocate on the word "self". One's essential self is not what
> is evident to the senses but rather that which lies beyond the senses
> as they operate in the phenomenal world.
I fully appreciate that you have a lot of faith that this must be the
case, but not everyone who believes in reincarnation agrees with you.
And since you are claiming that a belief in reincarnation must be
based on a belief that human beings are God, then nobody who doesn't
believe that human beings are God could possibly believe in
reincarnation. Since I've already established that quite a few people
who *do* believe in reincarnation *do not* believe they are God,
you're claiming something that has been demonstrated to be false.
> >Yet other Hindu sects, such as Samkhya, are
> > mostly atheistic and don't believe in any God at all, although they do
> > believe in reincarnation.
>
> You totally misunderstand Samkhya Yoga.
Or you do.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/philo/samkhyayoga.asp
"Prakriti or the primal nature, is the independent, nonintelligent,
and primal cause of all material manifestation. While everyting else
has a cause, prakriti has no cause. It is eternal and without end.
It manifests itself because of the disturbance in the equilibrium of
its gunas and produces several principles or tattvas which join
together to become objects and beings. Prakriti is a blind force and,
according to one branch of Samkhya, neither controlled nor guided by
any external agent other than itself. Its processes are more or less
automatic or on autopilot without any external triggering mechanism
such as God."
Richard Garbe, cited in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics",
Vol. 11:
"The origin of the Sankhya system appears in the proper light only
when we understand that in those regions of India which were little
influenced by Brahmanism the first attempt had been made to solve the
riddles of the world and of our existence merely by means of reason.
For the Sankhya philosophy is, in its essence, not only atheistic but
also inimical to the Veda. All appeal to sruti in the Sankhya texts
lying before us are subsequent additions. We may altogether remove the
Vedic elements grafted upon the system and it will not in the least be
affected thereby. The Sankhya philosophy had been originally, and has
remained up to the present day, in its real contents, un-Vedic and
independent of the Brahmanical tradition."
http://www.indianetzone.com/9/samkhya_philosophy.htm
"It is generally accepted by all that the Sankhya has two schools of
philosophy. One is the theist school and the other is the atheist
school of philosophy."
I can go on and on with reference after reference, all disagreeing
with your assertions. That means your assertions are not universally
accepted, and their universality is exactly what you're claiming. To
make my point, all I need do is to show that at least some people
disagree and the validity of your claim disappears. A belief in
reincarnation does not necessarily mean that one believes that people
are God.
> > So a belief in reincarnation was forbidden by the Christian church not
> > because of some objection to human perfectibility, but simply because
> > it disagreed with the concepts of Judgment Day, Heaven, and Hell.
> > Perfection is reserved for those who successfully pass through the
> > Judgment, which happens all at once in the End Times, not on a
> > continuous, one by one basis. It's simpy a cosmological objection,
> > not a philosophical one, if I may make such a distinction.
>
> Your conclusion does not follow from your 'evidence'.
Very good. You've asked me for evidence. So I thought I'd better get
something more persuasive than my weighty pronouncements vs your
weighty pronouncements. I checked the recorded proceedings of the
Council of Nicea and, as often happens when you seek evidence for your
beliefs, discovered that things were not as they seemed.
First I checked the English translation of the canons of 1st Council
of Nicea. Here it is; look it over carefully.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
You will note that there is absolutely no mention of reincarnation or
any denunciation of anybody who allegedly believed in reincarnation
anywhere in the records of the Council. Apparently, the subject never
came up.
As it turns out, the Nicene Council didn't have doodly squat to say
about reincarnation, no matter which urban myths you and I have been
listening to that say otherwise. Here are some pages that seek to
debunk the idea.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar14.htm
Now, on the other hand, I can't find any articles that offer any
documentary reports that show that the Council of Nicea actually did
discuss reincarnation and made the doctrinal choice to reject it. All
the web sites making that claim do so without recourse to verifiable
evidence.
It seems to me that we're arguing about the motivations for an event
that, in all probability, never actually happened at all. Silly of
us, really.
omprem
Tom: “ Please provide some verifiable evidence in support of this
claim [that reincarnation is necessitated by our Divine nature]. I've
already cited several sects of Hinduism that accept a belief in
reincarnation and that do not accept that human beings are God. Now,
are you going to argue that those sects don't exist? Or what?
Omprem: No. I am pointing out that you do not have least understanding
of those branches of Hinduism that you cite as ‘evidence’. They do
not claim what you say they claim. In fact, they state the opposite of
your stance. Please inform yourself fully about a religion/spiritual
path before attempting to misuse to prop up your contentions.
Tom: “I fully appreciate that you have a lot of faith that this must
be the
case, but not everyone who believes in reincarnation agrees with you.
And since you are claiming that a belief in reincarnation must be
based on a belief that human beings are God, then nobody who doesn't
believe that human beings are God could possibly believe in
reincarnation. Since I've already established that quite a few people
who *do* believe in reincarnation *do not* believe they are God,
you're claiming something that has been demonstrated to be false. “
Omprem: All you are doing here is to repeat your false notions about
Samkhya Yoga. Your repetition of an untruth does not magically turn it
into a truth.
It is interesting to see your internet citations. First, because your
being reduced to looking for such citations evidences your initial
lack of knowledge (just as I pointed out). Second, your citations are
as erroneous as you are in their views of Samkhya Yoga. Beware the
fake internet scholar. As the top of the Samkhya hierarchy lies
Brahman. Brahman is another term for God, God Consciousness, Christ
Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, Nirvana or any other term used by
any religion or spiritual path to indicate the non-dual state of
consciousness that lies within and beyond space and time and creates
space and time and all things in it.
Your problem and that of those you cite may be that you are all only
looking at only one aspect of Samkhya Yoga, namely the relative one
located in space and time that precedes the extinction of individual
ego, desires and karmas. You are looking at only aspect of a figure/
ground relationship. If you change your consciousness throught
spiritual practice then instead of seeing a relative world with as
only a minute part of that world you see no differences, no otherness
and no individuation, only God.
Tom: “I can go on and on with reference after reference, all
disagreeing
with your assertions. That means your assertions are not universally
accepted, and their universality is exactly what you're claiming. To
make my point, all I need do is to show that at least some people
disagree and the validity of your claim disappears. A belief in
reincarnation does not necessarily mean that one believes that people
are God. “
Omprem: You cannot disprove a contention by submitting false
information as evidence that a contention is false. As I said earlier,
your saying something is false does not make it false. And yet that is
exactly what you have done and continue to do. It doesn’t matter that
you or others misunderstand Samkhya Yoga. Your lack of understanding
does not change Samkhya Yoga or the fact that reincarnation exists
only so that we can eventually exhaust all of our desires and having
done that let go of ego and come to know our divine nature.
As for the Council of Nicea, I agree that it says nothing directly
about reincarnation but it was aimed at wiping out the views of Arius
and Origen. Origen wrote that the soul passes through successive
stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God and that is
reincarnation in a nut shell. Arius’s views that God and Jesus were
different threatened the Church and Constantin in that if Jesus could
be created and therefore different but similar to God then so to could
any other person, again, reincarnation.
You really need to stop being a literalist and think about the
concepts you are attempting to use and their implications.
Tom
>
> Tom: “ Please provide some verifiable evidence in support of this
> claim [that reincarnation is necessitated by our Divine nature]. I've
> already cited several sects of Hinduism that accept a belief in
> reincarnation and that do not accept that human beings are God. Now,
> are you going to argue that those sects don't exist? Or what?
>
> Omprem: No. I am pointing out that you do not have least understanding
> of those branches of Hinduism that you cite as ‘evidence’. They do
> not claim what you say they claim. In fact, they state the opposite of
> your stance. Please inform yourself fully about a religion/spiritual
> path before attempting to misuse to prop up your contentions.
Dear boy, I was not paraphrasing or interpreting. I was quoting my
sources directly. So what I wrote was not simply *my* understanding
of those branches of Hinduism but the understanding of other people
who believe what they believe as strongly as you do. As I told you,
if you wish to declare your knowledge to be superior to that of my
sources, you will have to establish that your interpretation of
Hinduism is based on evidence that is so superior to theirs that no
reasonable person would be able to disagree with you.
> Tom: “I fully appreciate that you have a lot of faith that this must
> be the
> case, but not everyone who believes in reincarnation agrees with you.
> And since you are claiming that a belief in reincarnation must be
> based on a belief that human beings are God, then nobody who doesn't
> believe that human beings are God could possibly believe in
> reincarnation. Since I've already established that quite a few people
> who *do* believe in reincarnation *do not* believe they are God,
> you're claiming something that has been demonstrated to be false. “
>
> Omprem: All you are doing here is to repeat your false notions about
> Samkhya Yoga.
As I say, I quoted sources who believe differently from you. You have
only make your own bald statements as to the universality of your
beliefs.
> Your repetition of an untruth does not magically turn it
> into a truth.
Nor does yours. Evidence, my lad. You should provide us with some
evidence that everyone who believes in reincarnation believes that
humans are God.
> It is interesting to see your internet citations. First, because your
> being reduced to looking for such citations evidences your initial
> lack of knowledge (just as I pointed out).
I make no claim to expert knowledge of anything, certainly not an
expert knowledge of the truth or falsehood of any religious belief
that cannot be empirically tested. I always seek out evidence to
support of detract from any claim, even my own. I don't rely on
arguments of authority myself, nor do I esteem anyone who does. When
I decide I'm right, it's because I have found pretty good evidence for
it. If you have any good evidence (that is, beyond your bare
assertion) that all belief in reincarnation stems from a belief in
human divinity, trot it out and let's take a look at it. If I agree,
I'll let you know.
> Second, your citations are
> as erroneous as you are in their views of Samkhya Yoga. Beware the
> fake internet scholar.
As far as I am aware, you are an "internet scholar" yourself. Whether
or not you're a fake has yet to be established.
As for my sources, Richard Garbe's quotation was from the Encyclopedia
of Religion and Ethics which has been around for almost 100 years,
long before any scholars were "internet scholars". Garbe was a highly
respected Professor of Indiology at Tuebengen University and author of
"The Philosophy of Ancient India". While Hinduwebsite.com and
Indiazone.com are not sponsored by any particular scholarly
organization, they seem pretty comprehensive and don't seem to be
grinding any axes. However, when it comes to one's personal beliefs,
I don't think that only experts are allowed them. You have yours,
they have theirs, and I don't have any firm ones at all. When you say
that all belief in reincarnation is based on a belief in human
divinity, it seems reasonable to me to ask a few Hindus and find out
if they all agree with you. Apparently, some of them don't. Now as
to whether or not their beliefs are "wrong", I couldn't say. Nor do I
believe you have any authority to say so either. It's sufficient for
me that they disagree, as that establishes that at least some people
who don't believe in human divinity do believe in reincarnation.
> Your problem and that of those you cite may be that you are all only
> looking at only one aspect of Samkhya Yoga, namely the relative one
> located in space and time that precedes the extinction of individual
> ego, desires and karmas.
I'm looking at the Samkhya , Bhakti, and so forth, that people
believe. Extinction of egos and all that other stuff is not the
issue. It's what people believe that's in question and obviosuly they
don't all believe what you say they all believe. Your opinion of the
rightness or wrongness of their beliefs are irrelevant.
> Tom: “I can go on and on with reference after reference, all
> disagreeing
> with your assertions. That means your assertions are not universally
> accepted, and their universality is exactly what you're claiming. To
> make my point, all I need do is to show that at least some people
> disagree and the validity of your claim disappears. A belief in
> reincarnation does not necessarily mean that one believes that people
> are God. “
>
> Omprem: You cannot disprove a contention by submitting false
> information as evidence that a contention is false.
The only evidence you offer that this information is "false" is your
own opinion.
> As for the Council of Nicea, I agree that it says nothing directly
> about reincarnation but it was aimed at wiping out the views of Arius
> and Origen. Origen wrote that the soul passes through successive
> stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God and that is
> reincarnation in a nut shell. Arius’s views that God and Jesus were
> different threatened the Church and Constantin in that if Jesus could
> be created and therefore different but similar to God then so to could
> any other person, again, reincarnation.
No such argument was ever made at Nicea. Reincarnation, as you admit,
was never mentioned. Origen was never mentioned.
Here is the full account of just what the Council of Nicea decided
regarding Arius and those associated with him.
"First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign
Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety
and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously
decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized,
together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he
indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from
things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and
that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by
his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a
creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even
enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous
words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, you
have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should
seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting
recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety prevailed,
that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of
Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest."
There is nothing there to indicate that the Nicean Council found any
fault with Origen at all.
The group that purged Catholicism of Origen's ideas was in fact the
Second Council of Constantinople in 552, a kangaroo court assembled by
Emperor Justinian. The Council was mostly Oriental Rite Catholics
with a few bishops from Africa. Pope Vigilius' concurrance with the
Council's decision having been forcibly coerced by Justinian.
Constantine had nothing to do with it, being long dead (with no
evidence of reincarnation) at the time.
> You really need to stop being a literalist and think about the
> concepts you are attempting to use and their implications.
On the other hand, I'd say you should stop being a fantasist who
imagines motives for actions that never took place.
omprem
Tom: “Dear boy...”
Omprem: Your condescension is a form of argumentum ad hominem. As such
it is a logical mistake (and should be out of character for someone
such as yourself who claims to value logical thought) which clearly
indicates the last gasp of the person who has been defeated in an
argument.
Tom “I make no claim to expert knowledge of anything, certainly not an
expert knowledge of the truth or falsehood of any religious belief
that cannot be empirically tested.”
Omprem: Spiritual truths lie beyond the scope of logic, science and
empiricsim. The latter are linear, dualistic and consist merely of
comparing, contrasting, and counting sensory data. Spiritual truths
are by nescessity non-dual. There is no subject/object/predicate, no
other in spiritual truths. Because God is One and is everywhere,
there can be no ‘where’ that God is not therefore therefore there
cannot be logic or sensory distinction utilized to know God. Every
rite and practice in every religion/spiritual path is intended to
change the everyday consciousness of the seeker so that he/she can
know the Divine directly. In short render unto Caesar only that which
is Caesar's.
Tom: “ The group that purged Catholicism of Origen's ideas was in fact
the Second Council of Constantinople in 552, a kangaroo court
assembled by Emperor Justinian.”
Omprem: Are you aware that Origen had been dead for 300 years before
Justinian attempted last gasp, draconian efforts to finally stamp out
Origenism. Emperors since Justinian had been trying to stamp out
Origenism but had not gone to the extremes finally decided on by
Justinian.
Also, you seem to be unaware that the followers of Darius cited the
works of Origen as further validating Darianism’s view that the Son
was subordinate to the Father. So when you agree that the Council of
Nicea was focused on Darianism you are also including Origen in that
focus.
You continually try to cite as "evidence" that which is wrong and/or
that which you do not understand. You really do need to educate
yourself much more fully on these matters as well developing a better
appreciation of the elementary principles of logic and spiritual
pursuits.
HG
> Omprem: Spiritual truths lie beyond the scope of logic, science and
> empiricsim. The latter are linear, dualistic and consist merely of
> comparing, contrasting, and counting sensory data. Spiritual truths
> are by nescessity non-dual. There is no subject/object/predicate, no
> other in spiritual truths. Because God is One and is everywhere,
> there can be no "where" that God is not therefore therefore there
> cannot be logic or sensory distinction utilized to know God. Every
> rite and practice in every religion/spiritual path is intended to
> change the everyday consciousness of the seeker so that he/she can
> know the Divine directly. In short render unto Caesar only that which
> is Caesar's.
In simpler and plainer words:
You can make up any bullshit you want, and call it a "spiritual truth".
And many do.
HG
omprem
Not at all. I am pointing out that there are states of consciousness
that are intended to reveal Divine Truths about the cosmos and
ourselves which are different from the linear state of consciousness
based on sense impressions that enables us to live in this plane of
existence. That you are unable to even conceive of the possibility of
states of consciousness beyond the mundane despite others through
millenia extolling their virtues speaks volumes about your inability
to expound on such topics as these. You have my full sympathy. But do
not worry, all will be revealed to you in future lifetimes.
Tom
>
> Tom: “Dear boy...”
>
> Omprem: Your condescension is a form of argumentum ad hominem.
If so, then your claim that I am wrong because you say I "do not have
least understanding of those branches of Hinduism" is precisely the
same sort of argumentum ad hominem. If you expect to be treated
without condescension, then you should stop condescending yourself. I
don't think you're capable of that, though, so expect more of it as
you continue to struggle clumsily to regain your lost credibility.
> As such
> it is a logical mistake
Which might matter if we were actually engaged in a logical debate,
but we aren't so it doesn't.
If you think that your bald, unsubstantiated assertions about your
version of "spiritual truth" are "logical", then you don't have the
least understanding of logic, dear boy.
> Tom “I make no claim to expert knowledge of anything, certainly not an
> expert knowledge of the truth or falsehood of any religious belief
> that cannot be empirically tested.”
>
> Omprem: Spiritual truths lie beyond the scope of logic, science and
> empiricsim.
But not beyond the presumptive claims of a self-absorbed, strutting
martinet, evidently.
> Spiritual truths
> are by nescessity non-dual.
Unless, of course, you are a dualist. You keep thinking that you and
you alone are the arbiter of "spiritual truth", when, in fact, you're
just a self-righteous hypocrite. "Non-dual". Heh. If you insist I'm
wrong and you're right, then you're a dualist, too.
> Tom: “ The group that purged Catholicism of Origen's ideas was in fact
> the Second Council of Constantinople in 552, a kangaroo court
> assembled by Emperor Justinian.”
>
> Omprem: Are you aware that Origen had been dead for 300 years before
> Justinian attempted last gasp, draconian efforts to finally stamp out
> Origenism.
Of course I am. And you mistakenly thought that the Nicene Council
purged Christian dogma of reincarnation, and had dreamed up a bunch of
bogus reasons why Constantine supposedly did what he did not do at
all. Your credibility went out the window right then. Do you really
think you're going to get it back now by preaching your little
catechism at me?
> Also, you seem to be unaware that the followers of Darius cited the
> works of Origen as further validating Darianism’s view that the Son
> was subordinate to the Father.
The guy they anathemized at Nicea was Arius, not Darius, you dipshit.
The blatant fact is that you were talking out of your ass and got
caught at it. Letting your ass do even more talking now isn't helping
you.
omprem
Tom: “As for my sources, Richard Garbe's quotation was from the
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics which has been around for almost
100 years, long before any scholars were "internet scholars". Garbe
was a highly respected Professor of Indiology at Tuebengen University
and author of "The Philosophy of Ancient India". “
Omprem: In their day, there were many highly respected people who, for
example, believed the world to be flat or that the earth was the
center of the universe. But respected or not, they and Garbe are
wrong in their views. In Garbe’s time, religions such as Hinduism were
viewed from a Euro-centric, imperial position. Today knowlegeable
people know his views on Hinduism such as those you cite are and were
wrong.
Incidentally, your promoting the acceptance of Garbe's views based on
his being highly respected in his day is a logical error known as
argumentum ad verecundiam.
FYI: An internet scholar is someone such as yourself who does not have
the least grasp of the topic he is discussing and when his lack of
knowledge is pointed trolls the internet looking for others who agree
with his wrong views. He doesn’t have sufficient grasp of the topic to
assess correctly whether the sources he finds are accurate.
Tom: “While Hinduwebsite.com and
Indiazone.com are not sponsored by any particular scholarly
organization, they seem pretty comprehensive and don't seem to be
grinding any axes.”
Omprem: IndiaZone.com is owned by a guy of Los Vegas. It is
essentially a commercial travel site that also has ads for a variety
of products and services from grease guns to insurance. The article
you seem to be cite from Hinduwebsite is flawed in other areas than
the one I pointed out. For example, in footnote 26, the author
supports the Aryan Invasion Theory of Indian settlement, a theory that
has been long shown to be erroneous.
Once again, as an "internet scholar" you need to develop a lot more
expertise in your topic before you are qualified to evaluate the
reliability of the websites for which you troll. Of course, if you had
that expertise you recognize that your positions are incorrect. As it
is now, it is a waste of time to try to discuss issues with you.
omprem
Tom: "...your claim that I am wrong because you say I "do not have
least understanding of those branches of Hinduism" is precisely the
same sort of argumentum ad hominem. "
Omprem: pointing that your statements are factually wrong is not an
argumentum ad hominem. It is the whole point of debate.
Tom
>
> Tom: "...your claim that I am wrong because you say I "do not have
> least understanding of those branches of Hinduism" is precisely the
> same sort of argumentum ad hominem. "
>
> Omprem: pointing that your statements are factually wrong is not an
> argumentum ad hominem. It is the whole point of debate.
There is no "debate" if all you have to say is that what someone else
says is wrong. Let me refer you to a site where "debate" is
explained.
http://www.idebate.org/debate/what.php
Now, if you want to debate whether or not Constantine suppressed the
belief in reincarnation at the Nicene Council of 325 because he didn't
want people thinking that humans were divine, you need some evidence.
I've presented evidence shows that this Council did not even consider
the question of whether or not reincarnation was a Christian
doctrine. You, on the other hand have presented no evidence at all.
So there has been no debate on that subject at all.
Then you claimed that all Hindus believe that humans are divine and I
cited several examples of where Hindus did not endorse that idea.
Then you said those Hindus were wrong. Again, you presented no
evidence for this. You simply declared it to be so on the basis of
your superior spiritual knowledge. That's not a debate either.
If you want to debate, get some evidence and let's debate rationally.
If you are incapable of this, just keep doing what you're doing and
I'll continue making fun of your floundering efforts to preach your
way out of the hole you've dug for yourself.
Tom
>
> Tom: “As for my sources, Richard Garbe's quotation was from the
> Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics which has been around for almost
> 100 years, long before any scholars were "internet scholars". Garbe
> was a highly respected Professor of Indiology at Tuebengen University
> and author of "The Philosophy of Ancient India". “
>
> Omprem: In their day, there were many highly respected people who, for
> example, believed the world to be flat or that the earth was the
> center of the universe.
Ah, so expertise actually doesn't matter to you, since you now say
experts can be wrong, too. It appears that you believe *you* are the
only person who can never be wrong. Even when direct evidence of your
errors are on display for all to see. The Nicene Council called by
Constantine said absolutely nothing on the subject of reincarnation
nor the teachings of Origen, but you said they did. You have yet to
confess that you were wrong about this. I suspect you just can't
humble yourself enough to admit it.
> Incidentally, your promoting the acceptance of Garbe's views based on
> his being highly respected in his day is a logical error known as
> argumentum ad verecundiam.
His inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics was based
upon wide respect for his academic qualifications and reputation in
the field. But that's neither here nor there, since, as you said
earlier, even if he was respected, you'd still be sure that he was
wrong, because he disagrees with *you*, and as we all are coming to
realize, you don't believe it is possible that *you* might be in
error.
> FYI: An internet scholar is someone such as yourself who does not have
> the least grasp of the topic he is discussing and when his lack of
> knowledge is pointed trolls the internet looking for others who agree
> with his wrong views.
Whereas you simply assure us of your infallibility without providing
even a jot of supportive evidence. You say to us in essence,"Trust
me, I'm more expert than you. If I tell you pigs can fly, you should
believe me without question. I don't lower myself to any base
reliance on mere evidence. I say it and therefore it must be so."
> Omprem: IndiaZone.com is owned by a guy of Los Vegas.
Now there's the very argumentum ad hominem you were protesting about
earlier. Apparently, you expect us to believe that one cannot know
anything about Hinduism if one lives in Las Vegas. Does that seem
logical to you? To me it looks monumentally hypocritical.
JR
be silent. -- ECK Master Epictetus
Venerable Rinpoche
> Preach not to others what they should eat, but eat as becomes you, and
> be silent. -- ECK Master Epictetus
That is so wrong. America and much of Europe are suffering from an epidemic of
obesity and diabetes.
--
One thousand blessings
Tom
> JR wrote:
> > Preach not to others what they should eat, but eat as becomes you, and
> > be silent. -- ECK Master Epictetus
>
> That is so wrong. America and much of Europe are suffering from an epidemic of
> obesity and diabetes.
Eating food of types or in amounts that make you sick or weak would
not be eating as becomes you, would it?
Venerable Rinpoche
A lot of good that does, eh fatty?
--
One thousand blessings
Tom
Chock full of little assumptions, aren't you?
Master Bait
> On Feb 3, 11:22�am, Venerable Rinpoche <kyaga...@infoflash.cn> wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> > On Feb 3, 9:32�am, Venerable Rinpoche <kyaga...@infoflash.cn> wrote:
>> >> JR wrote:
>> >> > Preach not to others what they should eat, but eat as becomes you, and
>> >> > be silent. -- ECK Master Epictetus
>>
>> >> That is so wrong. America and much of Europe are suffering from an
>> >> epidemic of obesity and diabetes.
>>
>> > Eating food of types or in amounts that make you sick or weak would
>> > not be eating as becomes you, would it?
>>
>> A lot of good that does, eh fatty?
>
> Chock full of little assumptions, aren't you?
Time to put another notch in that belt?
HG
> JR wrote:
>
> > Preach not to others what they should eat, but eat as becomes you, and
> > be silent. -- ECK Master Epictetus
> That is so wrong. America and much of Europe are suffering from an epidemic
> of obesity and diabetes.
Curious. Both America and Europe are simply chock full of people who
are constantly telling other people what they should eat. It's simply
impossible to live here without hearing the preaching, over and over and
over again, of what you should and what you shouldn't eat.
But we're still fatties.
So it seems that Master Epictetus' point is valid.
HG
HG
I'm well aware of the existence of extraordinary states of consciousness.
Hell, my profession depends on people being moved out of their ordinary
everyday consciousness by what we do, and it's even outside rational thought
and analysis.
I'm an opera singer. I just came home from a huge hall full of people who
paid money to experience something beyond rationality, beyond their mundane,
everyday existence.
And as for people experiencing becoming one with everything, seeing God,
achieving nirvana, samadhi, whatever - why not? Why shouldn't such things be
possible and achievable?
What I'm objecting to is your way too common faulty thinking:
"Extraordinary states of consciousness exist - therefore whatever bullshit me
and my friends happen to make up must be true!"
> You have my full sympathy. But do
> not worry, all will be revealed to you in future lifetimes.
See? See right there? That's some utter bullshit you and your predecessors
made up. "Future lifetimes" my ass. "All will be revealed to you" - yeah,
right, and a Nigerian prince wants to give me loads of money.
You're just one of the gazillions who cannot tell the difference between
wisdom and gullibility.
HG
Master Bait
> Venerable Rinpoche <kyag...@infoflash.cn> writes:
>
>> JR wrote:
>>
>> > Preach not to others what they should eat, but eat as becomes you, and
>> > be silent. -- ECK Master Epictetus
>> That is so wrong. America and much of Europe are suffering from an epidemic
>> of obesity and diabetes.
>
>
> Curious. Both America and Europe are simply chock full of people who
> are constantly telling other people what they should eat.
Mostly in the form of shiny commercials for crappy food full of starch, fat, and
high fructose corn syrup.
I, Master Bait --The One Maitreya-- have strict dietary guidelines for My
devotees. They obey or are forced to pursue other, lesser spiritual paths.
JR
> HG wrote:
George Seldes' book of quotes also has an Epictetus quote about evil.
Wikipedia Monkeys say:
The hundredth-monkey effect is a supposed phenomenon in which a
learned behavior spreads instantaneously from one group of monkeys to
all related monkeys once a critical number is reached. By
generalization it means the instantaneous, paranormal spreading of an
idea or ability to the remainder of a population once a certain
portion of that population has heard of the new idea or learned the
new ability. The story behind this supposed phenomenon originated with
Lawrence Blair and Lyall Watson, who claimed that it was the
observation of Japanese scientists. One of the primary factors in the
promulgation of the myth is that many authors quote secondary,
tertiary or post-tertiary sources who have themselves misrepresented
the original observations.