--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote:
It could be because consciousness is just us, flesh and blood, neurons firing and hormones secreting. And enlightenment is accepting this and being joyful and at peace with the instant we exist and with the connections we make in the natural world. > Tip of the hat and deep bow. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I certainly am not a biblical expert, > > > > Nope. Neither am I. > > > > > I read the bible back in college years ago. So the > > > current message of accepting Jesus as your lord and > > > savior isn't enough, you have to fear and tremble too. > > > At least according to Paul. > > > > It's more complicated than that. If you sincerely ask > > for God's forgiveness, you get it unconditionally. But > > that doesn't mean you sit back and coast. > > > > As my favorite minister, William Sloane Coffin, was > > fond of saying, "Christianity hasn't been tried and > > found wanting, it's been tried and found difficult." > > > > > Where for Christianity, God is there, you just accept > > > it. Some say you need to ask for forgiveness to get > > > to heaven or to be part of the "kingdom of God," > > > others say Jesus took on your sins so all is already > > > forgiven. Jesus wasn't exactly straightforward about > > > what exactly is the kingdom of god. But I am not aware > > > of any sort of meditative process to reach this kingdom > > > of god. The basic theory of Christianity seems to be > > > that Jesus did the work for you. > > > > That's how the Christian Scriptures have been > > interpreted. My original point, of course, which > > you appear to have missed entirely, is that there > > may be other valid interpretations (not least > > because what has come down to us in written form > > may not be exactly what Jesus actually taught--the > > notion that Jesus "did the work for you" comes > > from Paul, who never met him, at least in the > > flesh). > > > > That Jesus may have taught some form of meditation > > is a fairly widespread notion, not limited to TMers > > by any means. Some of the extracanonical texts such > > as the Gnostic Gospels contain pretty pointed > > suggestions to that effect. > > > > Plus which, if he did teach meditation, it would > > likely have been an oral teaching that got lost or > > was even suppressed when Christianity became organized > > and created a hierarchy on which one was dependent > > for the sacraments. > > > > And in any case, Christianity is not devoid of > > meditation techniques by any means (e.g., "centering > > prayer"), some of which are quite similar to TM. > > > > See: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing > > > > "In a follow-up to The Cloud, called The Book of Privy > > Counseling, the author characterizes the practice of > > contemplative unknowing as worshiping God with one's > > 'substance,' coming to rest in a 'naked blind feeling > > of being,' and ultimately finding thereby that God is > > one's being. > > > > "The Cloud of Unknowing draws on the mystical tradition > > of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, which has reputedly > > inspired generations of mystical searchers from John > > Scotus Erigena, through Book of Taliesin, Nicholas of > > Cusa and St. John of the Cross to Teilhard de Chardin. > > ... It has been described as Christianity with a Zen > > outlook, but has also been derided by some as anti- > > intellectual." > > > > And then there's always Meister Eckhart, of whom > > Schopenhauer wrote: > > > > "If we turn from the forms, produced by external > > circumstances, and go to the root of things, we shall > > find that Sakyamuni [the Buddha] and Meister Eckhart > > teach the same thing; only that the former dared to > > express his ideas plainly and positively, whereas > > Eckhart is obliged to clothe them in the garment of > > the Christian myth, and to adapt his expressions > > thereto." > > > > The point is, we don't know how much "clothing in > > the garment of Christian myth" has taken place > > since Jesus' day. We don't even know how much Paul > > himself did to create the myth to serve his own > > purposes, or how much the institutionalized Church > > did to protect its own interests. > > > > But as Karen Armstrong pointed out in what I quoted > > in my original post, it's only in relatively modern > > times that forming new interpretations of scripture > > has been discouraged. > > > > > A religion was only born after Jesus died and it is a collection of stories > and myths, the focus of which was resurrection. If Jesus was trying to > promote something else, like a meditative practice or a search for advanced > stages of consciousness, he was not very successful. I do know that the > gnostic gospels have a less literal flavor than the biblical version. But > they did not make the history that is the Bible did and did not become a > major religion. > > I am less interested in what a religious teacher has to say than how the > myths and legends develop after the fact to make the religion. I think it is > the myths that people want and maybe often need. The myths of life after > death. Of superhuman powers. Anything that indicates we might be more than > flesh and blood. Why did MMY not just stick to TM 2 times 20 but get into > superhuman powers? It is what people want to see. > > Frankly, whether a gospel is gnostic or bibical, I think that they are all > myths and who knows anything "for sure" about Jesus or if he existed. > Religious myths tell me things about people and what people need and want, > but they don't tell me anything about consciousness or God. It could be > because consciousness is just us, flesh and blood, neurons firing and > hormones secreting. And enlightenment is accepting this and being joyful and > at peace with the instant we exist and with the connections we make in the > natural world. >
