Post Reply
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Switch to Forum Live View Guilt by Association
4 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2011 - 5:54PM #71
Markezuma
Posts: 289

Feb 14, 2011 -- 3:16PM, mainecaptain wrote:


Feb 14, 2011 -- 3:03PM, Heretic_for_Christ wrote:


As always, mainecaptain, your spiritual aliveness shines through!


I agree that describing one's experience of God is expressing something personal, not declaring a universal rule. To that, I would add:


1. When people argue on the basis of what is written in a set of sacred scriptures, they are not expressing their own experience, and I have to wonder whether they even have any personal experience of God.


2. When we are speaking with someone who is looking, seeking, lost, confused, or conflicted, our willingness to share our own experience of God is not proselytizing or proclaiming "rules"; it is just saying, "Well, once I was also lost and looking, and here is what I found... it isn't the answer for everyone, but maybe it will be an answer for you."



Yes. I agree  :)


To be totally honest I actually enjoy sharing some experiences. My own and hearing about those of others.There is something heart warming, and even inspiring in knowing others have been touched in such an incredible way


 I don't have a problem sharing experiences with those who may not have had any yet. It might open them to receiving their own, or being more aware. It may just make them smile. But I am never trying to convince them of anything. And would not force my experience on someone not interested.


I genuinely respect those experiences of others. Many times there is a message in the experience, other times the contact is just to say hello or show love. Although you can verbally convey the experience. It is still a personal thing.


IME the message is not one that is universal. Because I believe that if the God(s) wish to convey a message they can do so personally, they don't need me to tell someone else what to do.


 


Thank you HfC for helping me to better word how I feel. I had some writer cramp there :)


 




For some of us personal experiences are not enough. That is not to say that I haven't had experiences that I associate with the divine, but rather to say I do not trust myself so implicitly that I would ignore traditional sources of wisdom. They are certainly not everything that can be said about God or gods but at the same time they are not nothing as it seems some of the posts here seem to be suggesting. In discussing what is real and important about the divine a common frame of reference helps me. Yes I suppose God could reveal to me all the truths my little head could handle, but I don't think She does.  I think and I could be wrong that we are expected to make an effort to understand the divine. Something that is given to us without that effort would seem to me to be less valuable.

"Better a live sparrow than a stuffed eagle" -E. Fitzgerald
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2011 - 6:32PM #72
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

I personally think we all have our own journey. I do not think every piece of information is given to us. I would never remember everything if it was.(insert blushing smiley here)


I really do not think the point is to know everything in this life time.


I think we must do our best.  :o)

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2011 - 3:46AM #73
Jm8
Posts: 784

all,

> Facets, whatever, it's semantics.

The difference is crucial. Advaitins posit only one being who appears in various forms which are considered illusionary. VaiSNavas recognize multiple individual beings and one of them is supreme.

> Well, there are common path boards out there.  This is a multi-faith board.

Therefore I mentioned some basics here, on Mark's request.

>> Do you speak about Odin? Who else?

> Thor, Freya, Baldur.

Did you recognize them from a previous life? Did they mentioned their names?

>> Depending on the time passed by I may need a reminder from our common friend to recognize him.

> I didn't say "see", I said "meet".

I meant "meet" too. Sometimes we meet people we can't immediately place. Someone remembers faces better, someone else names. When they say their name and mention something common from our past, it helps.

> Ah, so you need to make sure that it matches what you already know about them before you will consider it real.  Cram it into your little belief box, and if it don't fit, you through it out.

Not in every case. Some experiences are self-evident.

But every matter-bound jIva is subject to the four material defects: bhrama (the tendency to commit mistakes), pramAda (the tendency to be illusioned), vipralipsA (the tendency to cheat) and karaNApATava (imperfect senses).

So if a person isn't sure about the dream/vision/message, doesn't have a positive feeling about them, etc. he may be a victim of illusion (mAyA) or a negative being using mental manipulation. Then circumstances need to be evaluated by several methods to minimize errors.

> It is just a bunch of words on paper.  That's all it is, and all it ever will be.

Not at all. It's verifiable by experiments. There's tonoscopy, studies on prayer/mantra effect, Masaru Emoto's studies on sound effects on water molecules, etc.


HfC,

> 1. When people argue on the basis of what is written in a set of sacred scriptures, they are not expressing their own experience, and I have to wonder whether they even have any personal experience of God.

it's enough to simply ask.


mainecaptain,

> IME the message is not one that is universal. Because I believe that if the God(s) wish to convey a message they can do so personally, they don't need me to tell someone else what to do.

I believe they can choose various ways to convey it.

> I really do not think the point is to know everything in this life time.

> I think we must do our best.  :o)

Agree with both.


Mark,

> I think and I could be wrong that we are expected to make an effort to understand the divine.

Yes. Without our interest, G/god/s won't bother us. There're also interesting experiences of atheists when they become inquisitive.


Hope this helps. Hare Krsna
Your servant, bh. Jan

www.vrindavan-dham.com
www.veda.harekrsna.cz
www.krishna.com

dvaitaM bandhAya mokSAt prAk prApte bodhe manISayA
bhaktyarthaM kalpitam dvaitaM advaitAd api sundaram

"Duality is bondage before moksa and wisdom after realization. The duality accepted for the purpose of bhakti is sweeter than even non-duality." (from mangalacarana to Advaitasiddhi sara sangraha by Madhusudana Sarasvati, former advaitin)

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2011 - 2:46PM #74
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:46AM, Jm8 wrote:



The difference is crucial. Advaitins posit only one being who appears in various forms which are considered illusionary. VaiSNavas recognize multiple individual beings and one of them is supreme.



Why should I care?


 


Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:46AM, Jm8 wrote:



Did you recognize them from a previous life?



 


LOL!


Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:46AM, Jm8 wrote:


Did they mentioned their names?



Sometimes. 


Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:46AM, Jm8 wrote:



Not in every case. Some experiences are self-evident.



Yes, they are.


Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:46AM, Jm8 wrote:


But every matter-bound jIva is subject to the four material defects: bhrama (the tendency to commit mistakes), pramAda (the tendency to be illusioned), vipralipsA (the tendency to cheat) and karaNApATava (imperfect senses).



Or so your beliefs say. 


Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:46AM, Jm8 wrote:


So if a person isn't sure about the dream/vision/message, doesn't have a positive feeling about them, etc. he may be a victim of illusion (mAyA) or a negative being using mental manipulation. Then circumstances need to be evaluated by several methods to minimize errors.[/quote}


Yep, crammed in your box. 


 



Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:46AM, Jm8 wrote:


Not at all. It's verifiable by experiments. There's tonoscopy, studies on prayer/mantra effect, Masaru Emoto's studies on sound effects on water molecules, etc.



 


 


It is just a bunch of words on paper.  That's all it is, and all it ever will be.


 


all



Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2011 - 3:20PM #75
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

I have said this before, when you meet a god and it tells you it is not an aspect of one giant central god, are those who believe their is only one god are saying their god lies?

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2011 - 3:49PM #76
Heretic_for_Christ
Posts: 5,488

Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:20PM, mainecaptain wrote:


I have said this before, when you meet a god and it tells you it is not an aspect of one giant central god, are those who believe their is only one god are saying their god lies?





By definition, doctrinal religion sets up walls to separate itself (representing right beliefs and true faith, which please God) from other religions (representing wrong beliefs and false faith, which anger God). As such, each doctrine considers all other doctrines false. At its worst, other doctrines are deemed deserving of destruction. 

I prayed for deliverance from the hard world of facts and logic to the happy land where fantasy and prejudice reign. But God spake unto me, saying, "No, keep telling the truth," and to that end afflicted me with severe Trenchant Mouth. So I'm sorry for making cutting remarks, but it's the will of God.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2011 - 4:03PM #77
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

You are correct HfC, it is sad but true.


 


Idealistic and unrealistic, but I really wish we could all get along

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2011 - 4:10PM #78
Markezuma
Posts: 289

Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:49PM, Heretic_for_Christ wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:20PM, mainecaptain wrote:


I have said this before, when you meet a god and it tells you it is not an aspect of one giant central god, are those who believe their is only one god are saying their god lies?





By definition, doctrinal religion sets up walls to separate itself (representing right beliefs and true faith, which please God) from other religions (representing wrong beliefs and false faith, which anger God). As such, each doctrine considers all other doctrines false. At its worst, other doctrines are deemed deserving of destruction. 




We would all like to believe we are correct in our assessment of the world. That tendency is simply mirrored in religion. In my own tradition (LDS) we are told to seek out everything that is virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy. The question that I would pose is whether you believe that there are in fact correct answers to be found (is objective truth knowable?). If you're answer is no then we need to have an argument that is prerequisite to the nature of the divine.

"Better a live sparrow than a stuffed eagle" -E. Fitzgerald
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2011 - 1:29AM #79
Jm8
Posts: 784

all,

I see. Sorry to waste your time.

HfC,

this is not the case of Vedic tradition. Its various subtraditions are understood as levels
of understanding meant for specific times, places and people and they present a varying amounts of teachings with universal validity.

Mark,

sure, objective truth is knowable to various beings to various extent but it requires to undergo a process, like in every discipline. Or there's a revelation which needs to be evaluated as per above.

I guess this quote is pertinent:

"Post-modernism in a variety of ways has made inroads into the thinking even of non-intellectuals. It is no longer politically correct to assert the unqualified reality of anything, or to assume that one can know truth." (Klaus Klostermaier, theologian, Oxford)


Hope this helps. Hare Krsna
Your servant, bh. Jan

www.vrindavan-dham.com
www.veda.harekrsna.cz
www.krishna.com

dvaitaM bandhAya mokSAt prAk prApte bodhe manISayA
bhaktyarthaM kalpitam dvaitaM advaitAd api sundaram

"Duality is bondage before moksa and wisdom after realization. The duality accepted for the purpose of bhakti is sweeter than even non-duality." (from mangalacarana to Advaitasiddhi sara sangraha by Madhusudana Sarasvati, former advaitin)

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 19, 2011 - 11:27PM #80
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,891

Feb 2, 2011 -- 9:18AM, Heretic_for_Christ wrote:

The questions posed here are similar to those in the thread entitled "Can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?" on the Christianity Debate board. All of these paradoxical questions come about because of the insistence on thinking of God as an external superbeing possessed of infinite, magical, physical powers, sitting somewhere "out there," scowling at human folly, and periodically zapping miscreants, rewarding the righteous, and performing miracles just to remind us of who's the boss. To me, this is all nonsense. Those are descriptions of Zeus, or Santa Claus, or Superman. God, to me, is indwelling spirit, embuing us all with the capacity for rationality, creativity, love, courage, and compassion. As such, all considerations of God in some external role -- father, mother, judge, rewarder, punisher, magician who says "Poof!" and creates worlds, and lifter of heavy stones -- become not merely irrelevant but utterly meaningless.


Can God create a stone so heavy that not even he could lift it? That to me would imply that God knows that there is a limit to his  own strength. If God has any limitation how can he be God?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook