Jump to content

The kernel of truth


immortal
 Share

Recommended Posts

Immortal,

 

Well thankyou for the context of your linkage.

 

You and I have attended and posted on enough threads for me to "guess" at your intent. And as you already know, I alternately back you up and oppose you, depending on whether you are going toward what I am trying to express/discover about our consciousness/existence or whether you are veering from what I judge to be reasonable and supportable.

 

Operating on the deep agreements we have, I can understand your support of WHR's call to "not be constrained" by scientific method. For the simple logical reason that no matter how much one downplays subjective experience, and promotes objective reality, two facts remain. The subjective experience has to occur in and of objective reality. And objective reality has to be subjectively judged to be the case, inorder to be aware of it. Therefore to allow ONLY objective reality to be the case, you ignore the one most important component in the judgement equation. The judge.

 

But this is already obvious and true, to both atheist and theist. What differs is the determinations of where this judgement originates and where is it going. How much of it is yours, and how much of it is yours alone. How much of it is information and how much of it is form itself.

 

I would back you up, suggesting that we MUST contain some of the form itself, and therefore can realistically claim personal knowledge of it and inspect reality, as a partial owner, and unremovable participant...but I would fall away from your take, once you tell me what jewels god wears. Because these are images ONLY subjectively produced, and do not actually exist.

 

Likewise, with WHR. He cannot manipulate information and images in his imagination, in his subjective model of the universe, see that something fits together, there, in his model, and assume that this means it MUST work for real. It MIGHT be true, but has to be put to test. If it cannot be put to the test, it MIGHT be wrong. And smart money would say it most probably IS wrong.

 

So please do continue to support the logical, forced reality of the wisdom and truth contained in the teachings of the masters, but be advised of the possibility, that they were and are just as prone to mistake their model of reality, for reality itself as the rest of us are. And scientific method is a darn good way to determine where one should judge the line, between fact and fiction, to be.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

BTW you never did tell me if i got the jewels god wears right... confused.gif

 

- Moontanman

 

Quite a few members have asked me about this jewel thing but I am not sure what concept they have in mind. Actually the meaning of it is quite esoteric and don't understand how much of it is turning out to be true.

 

One needs to read the teachings in the Tibetan Buddhism to understand it and they have explicitly explained it.

 

http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/bardo.pdf

 

Just read it once.

 

 

Question: You talked about the peaceful and wrathful deities. Most Westerners don’t know they exist. Is it possible to recognize fear, anger and wrathful things in bardo?
Rinpoche: This is the reason Trungpa Rinpoche had the Tibetan Book of the Dead translated, printed, and distributed everywhere. It is very beneficial in introducing people to the bardo.
Question: Who taught these teachings and where were they first revealed? Were they from the historical Buddha or from the Tibetan tradition?
Rinpoche: These are Tibetan teachings, but the source of these teachings is found in the tantras. In the tantras you can find the 42 peaceful and 58 wrathful deities. You can’t find this complete teaching in the tantra though, but you can recognize deities in specific tantras and know about what is held in the hands and all contents of this teaching. That was taught by the Buddha

 

Its true that westerners don't know that the orthodox traditions seriously believe in the existence of these deities and I actually don't find any good academic scholar even talking about it in his works, so for people hearing it for the first time might find it ridiculous but its actually quite an intellectual topic.

 

What's interesting is that these light rays or coloured jewels also embody the deities of the Vedic Aryan religion, if one reads the Secret of the Vedas by Aurobindo one can get a glimpse of it but the deities described in the Vedas are different but the theory is the same.

 

The Neo-platonic Christianity especially the Valentinian monism also has the same theory but the Aeons described in them are different, Carl Jung's cosmogony or his seven sermons of the dead also describe the same theory but again his is a completely different pantheon.

 

Dr. Alan Wallace is right in putting forward such a hypothesis.

 

The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation." In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory."

 

and he further concludes.

 

 

Conclusion
While Buddhism is deemed nontheistic, the Vedas are regarded as polytheistic, and the Bible is monotheistic, we have seen that the cosmogonies of Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory. Moreover, the commonality does not end there, for in the Near East, the writings of Plotinus (205-270) also influenced Islamic and Jewish theories of creation. This apparent unity could be attributed to mere coincidence, or to the historical propagation of a single, speculative, metaphysical theory throughout south Asia and the Near East. For example, the Upanisads may well have influenced the writings of early Mah›y›na thinkers in India, and they could also have made their way to the Near East, where they might have inspired the writings of Plotinus. On the other hand, Plotinus declared that his theories were based on his own experiential insights, and similar claims have been made by many Buddhist and Vedantin contemplatives. If these cosmogonies are indeed based upon valid introspective knowledge, then there may some plausibility to the claims of many contemplatives throughout the world that introspective inquiry can lead to knowledge, not only of the ultimate ground of being, but of the fundamental laws of nature as well.
I strongly claim that these light rays of a different ontology do exists and it can confirm the existence of the numinous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my own concept of "numinous," but what is yours? Many of us acknowledge transcendent experience and altered states of being or consciousness, but none of that (to me) in any way, shape, or form relates to deities or other mythology. I call all of those things the "numinous," but suspect you have a different idea in mind. If we're going to have a rational discussion, we need to share and agree upon the meaning of our key terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

immortal,

 

If you look through eyes almost closed, various rays eminate from light sources. I don't know the scientific explanation, but I would imagine it has something to do with the way light rays are affected as they pass between the eye lashes. I remember something like Frehoffer lines or some such name describing the interference lines when a light source is seen through a slit. Eyelashes are sort of like a bunch of slits.

 

I say all this, in this context, because you are looking for a reason why there should be such parallels as you have noticed between the lore of varied religious traditions. One "possible" reason would be a group of the same gods, wearing the same jewels, but we probably would have picked them up on radar, or caught them in a a random cell phone picture, by now, if they existed. In fact, given the detail to which many investigators of reality have taken their investigations, I would say that we probably would have the names and addresses, (the exact location and characteristics) of all 42 good gods, and would have smoked out the 58 bad guys by now, and found some way to counteract their influence.

 

No, I think it more likely, that there are things about our neurology, and our anatomy, our ledgends, and our "way of thinking", dreaming and halucinating, that tend to follow the same patterns, for the same reasons. This is why I think the search for God, from an empircal, evidence prone, perspective, would be more successful, if we didn't take it so literally, as to expect to find it in the clouds, but look for the actualy literal connections and common experiences we have with each other, that have been parlayed into specific "gods" over the years. Still would be God we would find, but it would be a "common" one.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my own concept of "numinous," but what is yours?

 

This concept of numinous is a specific type of idealistic concept and that whatever exists including this empirical universe cannot exist independent of Self consciousness, or in other words it is a top-down approach to the view of the cosmos that the empirical universe is a simulated virtual reality which means the brain, the planets, the supernova and all the awe that exists in the cosmos doesn't exist independent of us.

 

Many of us acknowledge transcendent experience and altered states of being or consciousness, but none of that (to me) in any way, shape, or form relates to deities or other mythology.

 

That's where deities or their light rays come into the picture, the altered states of being are due to the influence of these light rays who structure our body and mind, the traditional religious view just for you to give an example is that people go to sleep due to the influence of the light rays of the goddess Usha Devi1 of the Rig Veda.

 

1. The goddess of dawn. Aurora Of Roman mythology.

 

Psychologists who view things only from the phenomenal world think that people enter sleep due to different brain wave activities.

 

http://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/sleep_stages.htm

 

The question is if the traditional view is true then how can changes to one's brain chemistry or brain mapping affects one's experiences and the answer to that is you have no control over your actions and everything the cause as well as the effect is a simulated reality and free will is just an illusion. The traditional view of the Karma lingpa's teachings of the peaceful and the wrathful deities is that all phenomena appears as the activities of the peaceful and wrathful deities and hence the whole cosmos is working under the influence of these light rays.

 

That's an another common feature of these religious traditions that deny any notion of free will whatsoever whether you take the Gnostic view or the view of the Vedic Aryan religion.

 

Eosteric Christianity - Spiritual freedom from moral codes - but metaphysical determinism/fatedness, predestined election.

 

Exoteric Christianity - Spiritual enslavement to morality - with delusion of free will and choosing faith oneself.

 

- Elaine Pagels

 

You already know that, I presume. All sentient and insentient things, all immovable and movable beings, are under the control of these devathas. They eat nothing but are satisfied by mere sight and they have everything under their control. Forgetting all this, mainly the tender compassion and vast powers of the Gods(devathas), if you declare that it is your own choice that helps you do the deeds, you are labouring under a delusion. Remember, that it is our power and might that are responsible. Everything in creation is subject to the universal law of devathas and are at their mercy. The daffodils that dance in the gentle breeze, the springs and sprouts that wave their heads in the wind, the the diamond-studded golden ornament suspended from the ear ring of Menaka which springs gently and attractively whenever she nods her head, all these happen at our behest. The lily which I am holding in my hands twists and turns according to my wish. Everything in creation, their birth, being and movements, happens as per our wish. But one thing I'll clarify. The devathas are not perceptible to the naked eye, they are imperceptible. It is not their way to stand visibly before one and issue commands or get things done. Just as an engineer builds a dam to arrest and store the waters of a fast flowing river, we are right behind every one of your actions, your mind and intellect, your choices and ego.

 

- The traditional Vedic Aryan View.

 

I call all of those things the "numinous," but suspect you have a different idea in mind. If we're going to have a rational discussion, we need to share and agree upon the meaning of our key terms.

 

As I said this concept of the numinous is quite idealistic and I doesn't want to argue for one particular pantheon of gods but for a common single theory of the existence of these light rays of a different ontology which can take the form of anthropomorphic gods and also influence the functioning of the cosmos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This concept of numinous is a specific type of idealistic concept and that whatever exists including this empirical universe cannot exist independent of Self consciousness, or in other words it is a top-down approach to the view of the cosmos that the empirical universe is a simulated virtual reality which means the brain, the planets, the supernova and all the awe that exists in the cosmos doesn't exist independent of us.

 

That doesn't provide the type of definition I was seeking. It reads to me as a bunch of hand waving and word salad. Try to recall that I didn't come into the discussion as someone who agrees with your preconceived notions or worldview. This is your attempt to show me why it's worth my time or merits any further consideration.

 

How are you defining numinous? I see it as a sense of awe and wonder before the universe... a feeling of something greater but hard to describe... a transcendent unity across all things... but not anything to do with deities or magical dragons or other such stupid crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How are you defining numinous? I see it as a sense of awe and wonder before the universe... a feeling of something greater but hard to describe... a transcendent unity across all things... but not anything to do with deities or magical dragons or other such stupid crap.

 

What you are not understanding is that introspection towards that feeling of something greater but hard to describe, a transcendent unity is what led these ancient traditions to discover the existence of deities.

 

According to the psychologist David Fontana, mandala's symbolic nature can help one "to access progressively deeper levels of the unconscious, ultimately assisting the meditator to experience a mystical sense of oneness with the ultimate unity from which the cosmos in all its manifold forms arises."

 

Its double standards to believe in some kind of transcendent unity and at the same time not believe in the existence of deities because one cannot exist without the other. Either both exists or both doesn't exist. That's the basic theory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What you are not understanding is that introspection towards that feeling of something greater but hard to describe, a transcendent unity is what led these ancient traditions to discover the existence of deities.

 

According to the psychologist David Fontana, mandala's symbolic nature can help one "to access progressively deeper levels of the unconscious, ultimately assisting the meditator to experience a mystical sense of oneness with the ultimate unity from which the cosmos in all its manifold forms arises."

 

Its double standards to believe in some kind of transcendent unity and at the same time not believe in the existence of deities because one cannot exist without the other. Either both exists or both doesn't exist. That's the basic theory.

 

 

 

I know what iNow means, that sense of awe you get when you see or conceive of certain things in certain ways but you are saying that feeling cannot exist unless gods exist? Is this what you are getting at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are not understanding is that introspection towards that feeling of something greater but hard to describe, a transcendent unity is what led these ancient traditions to discover the existence of deities.

 

I understand it quite well, thank you. The issue is that the ancients did not "discover" deities, but instead they "invented" them. That's a rather important distinction about which you seem rather consistently obstinate and willfully ignorant.

 

 

Its double standards to believe in some kind of transcendent unity and at the same time not believe in the existence of deities because one cannot exist without the other. Either both exists or both doesn't exist.

 

Rubbish. You're presenting a completely invented distinction and false dichotomy. Of course one can believe that there are mental states not yet understood, but still quite moving and transformative and life altering, without accepting in parallel that Thor causes the lightning or Poseidon rules the seas or storks deliver babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I know what iNow means, that sense of awe you get when you see or conceive of certain things in certain ways but you are saying that feeling cannot exist unless gods exist? Is this what you are getting at?

 

That's not the definition of transcendent unity which I have, its not simply a feeling, I don't call feelings as transcendent unity. We laugh, we cry, we get excited and these all are feelings but its not a transcendent unity.

 

Transcendent unity is non-dualistic thought, its the place where all the opposites meet into a single unity.

 

 

The qualities are pairs of opposites, such as—

The Effective and the Ineffective.
Fullness and Emptiness.
Living and Dead.
Difference and Sameness.
Light and Darkness.
The Hot and the Cold.
Force and Matter.
Time and Space.
Good and Evil.
Beauty and Ugliness.
The One and the Many. etc.

- Seven Sermons to the Dead, Carl Jung.
For me transcendent unity has a locality, a local existence, its not simply a feeling.

 

 

I understand it quite well, thank you. The issue is that the ancients did not "discover" deities, but instead they "invented" them. That's a rather important distinction about which you seem rather consistently obstinate and willfully ignorant.

 

Nope, that seems to be your preaching and its not the consensus of religious scholars investigating different religions.

 

"Our forefathers who discovered or received Vedic truth, did not arrive at it either by intellectual speculation or by logical reasoning. They attained it by actual & tangible experience in the spirit,—by spiritual & psychological observation, as we may say, & what they thus experienced, they understood by the instrumentality of the intuitive reason."

 

- Aurobindo

 

That's what Plotinus claimed and the adherents of these different tradition claim, you have to support your assertion with something in order to show that ancients were liars and that they invented gods just to socially control people other than your wishful thinking.

 

Rubbish. You're presenting a completely invented distinction and false dichotomy. Of course one can believe that there are mental states not yet understood, but still quite moving and transformative and life altering, without accepting in parallel that Thor causes the lightning or Poseidon rules the seas or storks deliver babies.

 

If I was just talking about feelings of awe like you then there is obviously no need to assume the existence of deities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.