Gyroscopic Investing

PS, Can you provide a link or three on what Sam Harris stuff you are devouring? I've mostly watched his stuff where he is attacking organized religion. Thanks.

barrett wrote: PS, Can you provide a link or three on what Sam Harris stuff you are devouring? I've mostly watched his stuff where he is attacking organized religion. Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdfsA8VIRJE

Someone once told me that if a person is talking to me and it's bugging me and I want to end the conversation quickly and efficiently, the two best ways to do it are:

1. Tell the other person that the police academy is recruiting and how exciting that is. "Oh, hey, this is really exciting.  Did you hear that the police academy is recruiting new police cadets?  I just think that's so cool.  I've always wanted to be a police officer.  I don't know what it is about police work, but it's just very interesting to me, though I'm probably too old now.  Have you ever thought about joining the force?  Hey, where are you going?"

2. Start talking about my religious beliefs.  "Would you mind if I changed the subject a little bit because I wanted to tell you something that's really important to me, and it involves your eternal soul.  Have you ever thought about what will happen to you when you die?  Well, believe it or not, a lot of people are concerned about your soul, and I am one of them.  If I gave you a pamphlet from my church, would you be interested in reading it?  Our next service is Wednesday night at 6:30.  Our pastor is amazing and I think you would like him a lot.  His name is Chuck and he has the sweetest family.  Hey, where are you going?  I was going to tell you about the building program Chuck has been working on.  He's SO excited about it."

Desert wrote: MT, that is some nice material!  I'll keep it in mind. 

I once heard a comedian state how to handle Jehovah's Witnesses and the like, when they come to the door.  He would say "Hey, your religion sounds really interesting.  I was just running a bath.  Why don't you come on in, let's take a bath, and we'll talk about it." 

Of course, the danger is that the proselytizer will take you up on the offer.

That would make me want to shower, with lots of soap, and lots of water, ick.  It's easier to just say I'm one of the 144,000. 

... Mountaineer

What is mysticism?

The person who's viewpoint and wisdom virtually all of what I post comes from used to say that mysticism is practical i.e. how to make your life work.  Regarding the Tao Te Ching he said (bolding mine):

"He [Lao Tzu] was a simple man, yet a profound mystic.  He left behind no ponderous treatises, no great band of disciples, just one slim book, the Tao Te Ching.  But what a beautiful vision it holds; the essence of simplicity and naturalness.  I embrace this man because he has stripped away all the spiritual bullshit and defined the mystic way of simply being natural."

http://www.thewayofseeing.com/article_tao.html

The way is so simple that complicated minds cannot see it. (Benjamin Hoff Tao Te Ching)

The way is simple and natural but we are clever and complicated.  Which reminds me of this sufi story (and we all do shit like this at one level or another).

The Grammarian and the Dervish

"One dark night a dervish was passing a dry well when he heard a cry for help from below. 'What is the matter?' he called down. 'I am a grammarian, and I have unfortunately fallen, due to my ignorance of the path, into this deep well, in which I am now all but immobilized,' responded the other. 'Hold friend, and I'll fetch a ladder and a rope,' said the dervish. 'One moment, please!' said the grammarian. 'Your grammar and diction are faulty; be good enough to ammend them.' 'If that is so much more important than the essentials,' shouted the dervish, 'you had best stay where you are until I have learned to speak properly.' And he went [on] his way"

Pointedstick wrote: I'm really enjoying your perspective, Benko. You have a lot of wisdom on this subject. I think it's interesting that the whole "you naturally become more compassionate as a result of becoming more spiritually aware" is similar to things that Christians have echoed in the other thread: that once you let go and trust in Jesus, you sort of transform into a person who wants to do good things. It all seems to be part of the idea of giving up control. Once you "surrender" to whatever it is that's the keystone of your spirituality--be it Jesus, or enlightenment, or whatever--the psychological freedom you gain from this sort of re-orders your mind in positive ways. It's something I can very much see and understand, and it doesn't seem to require any kind of mysticism to explain it, either; Sam Harris says that modern neuroscience backs all of this up from a purely biological, medicinal perspective.

It is similar to things Christians have echoed because there is a truth underlying it all and if you read "real stuff" from whatever tradition, they will say similar things. 

"It all seems to be part of the idea of giving up control"
What do we actually have control over in our lives?  This is not something for academic discussions, but given who you are today with your jobs, bills, dwelling, etc how much control do you actually have in your life?

"psychological freedom"
Psychological freedom is an oxymoron.  YOur mind is the source of your prison, not freedom.  Your mind is useful for doing your taxes or creating programs to calculate trajectories for rockets to reach the moon.  But for enjoying your life, for enjoying a sunset or the appearance of an attractive person? For interacting with people?  For growing spiritually?  Your mind is useless, a hindrance actually. This is not at all obvious but is a vitally important point.  I don't expect anyone to believe me just tossing it out now.  I'll elaborate later.

interactive processing wrote:

Benko wrote: What is mysticism?

The person who's viewpoint and wisdom virtually all of what I post comes from used to say that mysticism is practical i.e. how to make your life work. Regarding the Tao Te Ching he said (bolding mine):

"He [Lao Tzu] was a simple man, yet a profound mystic. He left behind no ponderous treatises, no great band of disciples, just one slim book, the Tao Te Ching. But what a beautiful vision it holds; the essence of simplicity and naturalness. I embrace this man because he has stripped away all the spiritual bullshit and defined the mystic way of simply being natural."

http://www.thewayofseeing.com/article_tao.html

The way is so simple that complicated minds cannot see it. (Benjamin Hoff Tao Te Ching)

+1

I'll say it again, Benko: I love hearing your perspective. Please, feel free to continue as much as you'd like.

interactive processing wrote: i posted this a long time ago in figuring out religion, but the mystical interpretation discussion never really caught in that thread, if you are interested i thought this was a good movie on what religions have in common, when viewed along the lines benko is bringing up.
http://www.withonevoicedocumentary.org/ if you look around netflix and maybe you-tube will have the full movie...

Pointedstick wrote: I'll say it again, Benko: I love hearing your perspective. Please, feel free to continue as much as you'd like.

It got me so juiced up I decided to re-write the forum rules in Tao Te Ching-speak.  Here they are:

Please write your best and be kind. 

What Does The Future Of Religion Look Like?
https://youtu.be/H1qtTY0VdEY

For those who may have more interest in Mysticism and/or some of the key players.

... Mountaineer

Mysticism (from the Christian Cyclopedia) http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=M&t2=y

(from Gk. mystikos, “mystical; secret”).

A. Term applied to a wide range of phenomena (e.g., demonology,* magic,* dreaminess, weird experiences, occultism [see Spiritism; Theosophy], certain philosophies of life). Mysticism may be divided: (1) Contemplative (as in Augustine* of Hippo, J. Eckhart,* R. W. Emerson,* Plotinus*); (2) Personal, emphasizing personal communion with God (as in Thomas* à Kempis, Fra Angelico,* F. de S. de la M. Fénelon,* G. Fox,* T. Kagawa*); (3) Nature (as in Francis* of Assisi, W. Wordsworth*); (4) Practical, marked by sacrificial service prompted by love.

The goal of mysticism is the alleged intuitive and emotional contact with the Absolute (“that which is,” “the Good,” “God,” and many other ultimate spiritual values). In its practical aspects, mysticism is the attempt to apperceive, use, and enjoy ultimate values.

Following steps may be distinguished in mysticism: (1) freeing oneself from wrong; (2) freeing oneself of the phantasmata of the world; (3) departure into the realm of the pure through contemplation and yearning; (4) mystic view or experience. Mysticism is not so much a doctrine as a method of thought, a reaching for the Infinite through methods of reasoning and attempted direct contemplation. The word “contemplation” is often used for mystic experience in pre-Renaissance W writers.

In his early period M. Luther* ed. Deutsche Theologie (see “German Theology”) and commended the work of J. Tauler* (St. L. ed., XXIa, 56). J. Staupitz* was a mystic. But Luther's system centered in the external Word of God and its doctrine of justification. He condemned the mysticism of Sebastian Franck,* A. R. B. v. Karlstadt,* T. Münzer, K. v. Schwenkfeld,* N. Storch (see Zwickau Prophets).

B. Other mystics include Adam* of St. Victor, Angela* de Foligno, J. Böhme,* Bernard* of Clairvaux, Bonaventura,* N. Cabasilas,* Catherine* of Siena, Clement* of Alexandria, R. Crashaw,* Dionysius* the Areopagite, (2), Gertrude the Great (see Gertrude, 1), Gregory* of Nyssa, Guyon,* Hildegard* of Bingen, W. Hilton,* F. v. Hügel,* Hugh* of St. Victor, W. R. Inge,* Jacopone* da Todi, W. James,* John* of the Cross, R. M. Jones,* Julian(a)* of Norwich, W. Law,* Luis* de Granada, Mechthild* of Hackeborn, Mechthild* of Magdeburg, M. de Molinos,* Richard* of St. Victor, R. Rolle* de Hampole, J. v. Ruysbroeck,* H. Suso,* Teresa* of �?vila, E. Underhill.* EL

See also Buber, Martin; Mystical Union; Sufism; Taoism; Yoga.

C. A. A. Bennett, A Philosophical Study of Mysticism (New Haven, Connecticut, 1923); W. K. Fleming, Mysticism in Christianity (London, 1913); E. C. Butler, Western Mysticism, 3d ed. (London, 1967); M. Smith, An Introduction to the History of Mysticism (New York, 1930) and Studies in Early Mysticism in the Near and Middle East (London, 1931); R. M. Jones, New Studies in Mystical Religion (New York, 1927); W. R. Inge, Christian Mysticism (London, 1899) and The Philosophy of Plotinus, 3d ed. (London, 1929); E. Underhill, Mysticism, 6th ed. (London, 1916) and The Essentials of Mysticism and Other Essays (London, 1920); R. Otto, Mysticism East and West, tr. B. L. Bracey and R. C. Payne (New York, 1932).

Lao-tzu (from Christian Cyclopedia)

(Lao Tzu; Lao-tse; Lao-tsze; sometimes identified with a Li Erh and Li An; perhaps ca. 604–ca. 531 BC). Details of his life and activity uncertain; b. perhaps Ch'u State, Honan Province, China; stressed mystic adherence to right conduct or the spirit of righteousness in opposition to Confucius' emphasis on proper form and ceremony. Traditionally, founder of Taoism* and author of Tao Tê Ching (“teaching of Tao”). See also Chinese Philosophy, 2.

Taoism (from Christian Cyclopedia)

1. One of the 3 main religions of China (the others: Buddhism* and Confucianism*); traditionally founded by Lao-tzu.*

2. Taoism was first only philos.; it became an organized religion in the 5th c. AD and was made a state cult 440. Embodies elements of quietism.* Named after tao (a key term in all ancient Chinese philos, schools; hard to translate; has been rendered, e.g., “way; truth; doctrine; path; road; course; reason; principle; logos [Gk. 'word'; cf. Jn 1:1]”); has been regarded as the eternal and ubiquitous, or universal, impersonal principle, or Spirit, by which the universe was produced and is supported and governed (see also Chinese Philosophy, 2), a kind of primary or first cause (see Causa secunda); other concepts include nature, providence, order of the universe, rotation of the seasons, time, absolute. Hence, acc. to Taoism, all true virtue and the highest goal of human development consists in being one with tao. He who in self-effacement, suppression of desire, and in meditation tries to understand tao will not perish in death but be saved. Lao-tzu emphasized welfare of the individual, advocating gentleness, moderation, modesty, and love for one's fellowmen.

3. Taoism began to degenerate after Chuang-tzu. It became intertwined with Buddhism, which was introd. into China during the Han dynasty (202 BC–220 AD).

4. Modern Taoism (regarded as founded by Chang Tao-ling [fl. 1st c. AD]) is characterized by superstitious magic, occultism, and a quest for the elixir of immortality. Its pantheon, which to some extent reflects docetic Buddhism, includes San-Ch'ing (“Three Pure Ones,” of which Lao-tzu is the 3d). Yü Hwang Shang-ti (Yü-huang shang-ti) is the supreme Taoist god. There are gods for almost everything (e.g., stars, ancestors, parts of the body, ideals, famous hist. beings), temples, a priesthood, and a monastic system with a kind of “pope” (who, however, is not recognized as head by all the Taoist priesthood). Confucianism gained ascendancy over Taoism, but the latter's spirit of harmony, naturalism, peace, and simplicity continues to mark and mold Chinese life.

See also Chinese Philosophy, 5; Chinese Term Question.
See bibliography of Religion, Comparative.

Buddhism (from Christian Cyclopedia)

1. Religious system founded by Gautama* Buddha, 6th c. BC, in N India; revolt against Brahmanism.* Denies authority of the Vats, rejects Brahmanic caste system, ritual, and philos. speculations, and offers a new way to salvation. The 2 canonical languages of Buddhism: Pall, of S or Hinayana (Theravada) Buddhism, and Skt., of N or Mahayana Buddhism.

2. The texts on which our knowledge of early Buddhism is based are sacred books found in Ceylon, written in Pall and called Tipitaka (Skt. Tripitaka), that is Three Baskets (Pitaka), namely the Baskets of Vinaya, Sutta, and Abhidhamma (monastic rules and disciplines, teachings of the Buddha, and Buddhist higher philos., resp.). Other books come from Nepal, written in Skt., and from China and Tibet, written in the languages of those countries. In a way, Gautama's doctrine is not religion but practical atheism. Of the 5 requisites of religion, i. e., “the belief in a divine power, the acknowledgment of sin, the habit of prayer, the desire to offer sacrifice, and the hope of a future life” (F. M. Müller*), not one is found in Gautama's system. Though he did not deny existence of traditional gods, yet he held that prayer and sacrifice to them were of no avail, as they, like men, were subject to death and rebirth and in rebirth might sink to the level of inferior beings, while men in rebirth might rise to the level of gods. In anatta (absence of soul) he likewise denied the existence of the soul (see Transmigration of Souls). But, in common with Brahmanism, he held the pessimistic view that life was not worth living; that in his “five aggregates” of being (corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), man was subject to a continuous round of rebirths; that a man's karma, i. e., his acts in one existence, determined his lot in future existences; that salvation consisted not in escape from sin and hell (neither of which are recognized by Indian philosophies), but in obtaining freedom from rebirths; and that ignorance (avidya) is the cause of all evil. But as he rejected the Vedas and taught a new way of destroying ignorance and obtaining freedom from rebirth, his doctrine, like Jainism,* was considered a heresy by the Brahmans. He was also against the caste system.

3. Buddha's entire doctrine is based on the socalled “four noble truths,” which speak 1. of the universality of suffering, 2. of the causes of suffering, 3. of the cessation of suffering, and 4. of the path that leads to the cessation of suffering. Birth, decay, disease, death, separation from what we love, contact with what we hate, and failure to attain what we desire n. d. all is suffering. This suffering is caused by “thirst,” i. e., craving for life and its pleasures, and this attachment causes rebirth and continued misery. Freedom from rebirth and consequently from suffering can be obtained if this craving is completely destroyed. The path that leads to this end is the “noble eightfold path,” namely, “right belief, right aspirations, right speech, right conduct, right means of subsistence, right effort, right mindfulness, right meditation.” This path is called the “middle path,” as it is removed from the extremes of a sensuous life and of asceticism. He who follows this path to its end becomes an arhat, or saint. He has destroyed his ignorance, become perfect by knowledge, and broken the fetters that bind him to the wheel of life. The supreme and final goal of this spiritual discipline is nirvana (Pali nibbana), literally “a blowing out,” namely of the desires and passions that lead to rebirth. As the old karma is exhausted and no new karma is added, the round of rebirths ceases and ends in an unconscious state. Whether this is equivalent to the annihilation of personality was not stated by Gautama, but many Buddhist texts interpret it in this sense. Nirvana may in a certain sense be obtained in this life by the arhat, but it is entered upon completely only at death.

4. The followers of Gautama soon were organized into a mendicant order open to all men over 20, physically and legally fit, without caste distinction. The monks (Pali bhikkus; Skt. bhikshus, i. e., “beggars”) obligated themselves to keep 10 commandments forbidding 1. taking of life, 2. theft, 3. sexual impurity, 4. lying, 5. use of intoxicating liquors, 6. eating at forbidden times, i. e., bet. noon and the following morning, 7. taking part in dancing, singing, music, theater, 8. using ornaments and perfume, 9. sleeping on beds raised from the floor, 10. receiving gold or silver. Every monk had to take the vow of absolute celibacy and poverty. Great stress was laid on the virtues of benevolence (even to animals), patience, and humility. Twice a month he had to confess his faults before the assembled brethren. He had to dress only in rags, beg food with an alms dish in his hand, live much of the time in forests, and spend many hours in contemplation. Thus an elaborate system of rules governed his entire life. Subordinated to the monks were the nuns, whom Gautama, according to tradition, admitted to the order only with great reluctance. Beside this monastic order also a lay membership was organized. But the rules for the lay members were far less strict. They were obligated to observe only the first 5 of the 10 commandments mentioned above and to practice benevolence and charity at all times. As Buddhism is atheistic in principle, it makes no provision for a cult or priesthood. Wherever these are found in modern forms of Buddhism, they are a later development.

5. Shortly after Gautama's death the first great council, attended by 500 arhats, met at Rajagaha (Rajagriha, modern Rajgir) to decide and take measures to preserve the authoritative teachings of the Buddha; here the canonical Tipitaka (Tripitaka) was formulated. A hundred yrs. after the death of the Buddha, after certain schismatic monks had been defeated, the 2d great council met at Vesali, under King Kalasoka's patronage. Zealous Buddhist Emperor Asoka convened the 3d great council at Pataliputra (modern Patna). Heretics were expunged and missionary plans were laid. Asoka sought the extension of Buddhism throughout his empire and the entire world. Other great councils were held ca. 25 BC, AD 1871, and 1954–56. A council called by King Kaniska (Kanishka) in the first c. AD is not recognized by the Theravada (see 6) but apparently left its mark on Buddhism in Tibet and China.

6. The later hist. of Indian Buddhism is marked by the great conflict bet. the schools called Hinayana (“Little Vehicle”) and Mahayana (“Great Vehicle”). This led to a permanent division into 2 sects. The Hinayana (Theravada) is the conservative system. It is based on the Pali canon, holds to the original teachings of Buddhism, regards Gautama as a mere man, and teaches that salvation can be obtained by only few mortals. It maintained itself in the S part of the Buddhist sphere (Ceylon, Burma, Siam). Mahayana Buddhism, on the other hand, called so because it claimed to be the better vessel to take man across the stream of existence to nirvana, follows the Skt. scriptures. It transformed Gautama into a god or an incarnation of the Absolute. It is the N form of Buddhism (Tibet, China, Korea, Japan). The peculiar hierarchical form into which it developed in Tibet is called Lamaism.* The last phase of decadent Indian Buddhism is that called Tantrayana, which developed from the Mahayana Buddhism of Tibet and introduced esoteric worship and magic and even sensual practices that weakened Buddhism and made revival almost impossible after the Muslim invaders destroyed the Mahayana temples and monasteries. Buddhism apparently lost out in India to Hinduism (which converted Buddhist temples into Hindu temples) and to Islam (which opposed Buddhism with violence); internal decay also contributed to the temporary disappearance of Buddhism from India. But it continued in Ceylon, Burma, Thailand, China, Indo-China (Vietnam), the East Indies (Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Bali, and Borneo), Korea, and Japan, and reached into the W world. After WW II it made some converts in India among the scheduled castes or untouchables; also some intellectuals showed interest.

7. The 6th conf. of the World Fellowship of Buddhists (WFB) in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, November 1961, increased world interest in Buddhism. The WFB, est. 1950, has tried to secure unity among the branches of Buddhism in teachings and in cultural, educational, and missionary activities. A 1958 conference in Thailand dropped the distinction between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, but differences bet. them were strongly in evidence at the 1961 conference. Political problems of the nations represented (e.g., disarmament and differing regimes) disturbed the delegates, but joint work continued on the Encyclopaedia of Buddhism as planned in 1955.

8. In China Buddhism became intertwined with Taoism* and Confucianism,* in Japan with Shinto.*
See also Buddhist Churches of America; Chinese Philosophy, 5; Nichiren; Nichiren Buddhism; Nichiren-sho-shu; Sacred Literature; Soka Gakkai; Theosophy.
K. W. Morgan, The Path of the Buddha: Buddhism Interpreted by Buddhists (New York, 1956).
AJB

Mountaineer,

1.  One important lesson in what you posted:

"Shortly after [Bhudda's] Gautama's death the first great council, attended by 500 arhats, met at Rajagaha (Rajagriha, modern Rajgir) to decide and take measures to preserve the authoritative teachings of the Buddha"

Whatever the great council came up with, you can be sure they injected some of their own views into what they passed off as the views of the Bhudda.  When people today read Tao Te Ching, they only have to deal with translators like Steven Mitchell trying to pass off his views as those of Lao Tzu, but Jesus and Bhudda have had whole organizations crop up around them over the centuries.  Thus determining what Jesus and Bhudda (and others) actually believed vs what has been added afterwards is not always straightforward.

2.  The description of mysticism you posted comes across to me as gobbledygook.  Compare that to reading the simplicity of Lao Tzu*. In addition, if the person Lao Tzu never existed (as you've posted some people believe) and the Tao Te CHing had been written last month by Obamas press secretary it would not matter. Once you realize what he is talking about the truth of what he is saying is obvious. 

"In Zen there is a saying: "Look at where the finger is pointing, not at the finger." Don't emulate or attach undue importance to the life or manners of any particular teacher. Don't study the Buddha. Study what he was trying to convey to his students."
http://thewayofseeing.com/article_on-help.html

3. What you've posted is a scholarly overview of several areas, but I'm not sure how helpful that is to people.  Even if everyone you list in the mystic section were Bhuddas (which I doubt) I don't know that the comments of all are equally helpful.  The important thing is what is out there to help you improve your life and grow spiritually.  Again, I'll post of list of ones I know to be helpful with some comments.


*The best version of Tao Te CHing by Benjamin Hoff is of course out of print but you can still find some on Amazon.  It is not a literal word by word translation, but gets the spirit better than any of the others.  This is the opinion of the person at the link above who had a whole shelf of versions. 

Desert wrote:

MangoMan wrote:

Benko wrote: What is mysticism?

The person who's viewpoint and wisdom virtually all of what I post comes from used to say that mysticism is practical i.e. how to make your life work.

Apologies if I missed it, but to whom are you referring?

Good question.  I missed it also.

Ken Russell (not the director) was the name of the person.  He is now deceased but the website he had created is still at:

www.thewayofseeing.com

Some of the same articles and a coupla of other ones were posted by a student of his here:

https://www.insidemoves.org/Resources/Category/101/
There is a nice one called "Real Religion" at this link which many/most people here might enjoy.

Bhudda's Diamond Sutra is the highest truth but people come from different backgrounds and are at different places on the "spiritual path" and I don't know how many people here it would "click" for (it didn't click for me last I looked at it).  I am That is one of the best books to assist  spiritual transformation, but it took me a decade before it was accessible to me.  Same for Sufi Stories and things Ken has written--different articles are written for different audiences (some for his students) and and people at different places on the spiritual path.  Reading them over a period of years, I came to understand more of the Sufi stories and more of the passages in I am That.

The most important thing for spiritual growth is sincerity, the desire to grow:

"Oh Help"
http://thewayofseeing.com/article_on-help.html

Would it be too much to ask that the participants in this discussion at least spell the Buddha's title correctly? Thanks.

Benko wrote: "Shortly after [Bhudda's] Gautama's death the first great council, attended by 500 arhats, met at Rajagaha (Rajagriha, modern Rajgir) to decide and take measures to preserve the authoritative teachings of the Buddha"

Whatever the great council came up with, you can be sure they injected some of their own views into what they passed off as the views of the Bhudda.  When people today read Tao Te Ching, they only have to deal with translators like Steven Mitchell trying to pass off his views as those of Lao Tzu, but Jesus and Bhudda have had whole organizations crop up around them over the centuries.  Thus determining what Jesus and Bhudda (and others) actually believed vs what has been added afterwards is not always straightforward.

That's interesting that they formed a council to preserve the teachings shortly after his death. Christians did not do this and I think it's pretty obvious why they didn't. It's because Jesus was preaching an apocalyptic message so it took a while to figure out that the Kingdom of God wasn't really at hand just yet. 

Benko wrote: "In Zen there is a saying: "Look at where the finger is pointing, not at the finger." Don't emulate or attach undue importance to the life or manners of any particular teacher. Don't study the Buddha. Study what he was trying to convey to his students."

I think Jesus said something like this too .. "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?".  And I think Christians pretty much went down the road he told them not to.

I've been a quiet lurker on this forum since the inception, and have followed the "Figuring Out Religion" thread with interest.  One thing that continually jumped out at me as I perused all 168 pages of that thread was how the discussion devolved (as usual) into either a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" referendum on mainstream, evangelical Christianity.

In my own life, I've come to view that traditional, evangelical tradition as something quite distinct from, and more often than not opposed to, the actual teachings of Yeshua.  Try reading just the "red letter" sections of the Gospels, and you get a very different picture of the man Jesus than the one sold to us by mainstream Christianity--the latter of which, I would argue, has been largely hijacked by the Pauline tradition.  Read alone, without the usual Pauline overlay, the Gospels paint a picture of a mystic whose message has an unmistakably "Eastern" feel and could easily be mistaken for that of Buddha or Lao Tzu.

Also of interest are the so-called Gnostic gospels, which remained buried for centuries and which therefore could be considered one of the purest accounts of the teachings of Yeshua since they presumably were not among the texts that were tinkered with by Emperor Constantine and his minions pursuant to their quest to establish a uniform set of doctrines to support an official state religion.  The Gospel of Thomas, for example, reads like something right out of the eastern Zen tradition.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... fifth.html

interactive processing wrote:
+1

the bible just makes so much more sense when read from an outside the mainstream Christianity or evangelical tradition, i have just recently downloaded "the GNOSTIC BIBLE" edited by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer and the "the gnostic gospels" by Elaine Pagels they are rapidly climbing up my reading list and i am looking forward to seeing whats in both, i have read through the gospel of Thomas a few times in the past, what a difference between its message and that of "standard" Christianity... very much in keeping with the wisdom and teaching of all the eastern greats...

madbean2 wrote:

Benko wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: What is so special about a Catholic church?

There are a lot of mystical elements in the Catholic church that you just don't find among the Protestants. You have the priests in robes, the burning of incense, lighting of candles, holy water, and at every mass the miracle of transubstantiation where the bread and wine supposedly gets turned into the "real presence" of Christ. There is nothing like this in Protestant churches but I believe you do do find much the same among the Orthodox.

I'm going to look into meditation myself. Maybe it will fill the void left over from my habit of prayer when I was a Christian.

Actually the Catholic Church has become decidedly "low church" in its liturgical praxis since Vatican II.

Maddy wrote: In my own life, I've come to view that traditional, evangelical tradition as something quite distinct from, and more often than not opposed to, the actual teachings of Yeshua.  Try reading just the "red letter" sections of the Gospels, and you get a very different picture of the man Jesus than the one sold to us by mainstream Christianity--the latter of which, I would argue, has been largely hijacked by the Pauline tradition.  Read alone, without the usual Pauline overlay, the Gospels paint a picture of a mystic whose message has an unmistakably "Eastern" feel and could easily be mistaken for that of Buddha or Lao Tzu.

Whaaat, the Holy Bible isn't the literal "Word of God"?  I'm shocked.  Shocked!

But, welcome officially to the forum!  I imagine you must have had numerous temptations to register and post a thought over the years, but this one finally did it, huh?

MachineGhost wrote: But, welcome officially to the forum!  I imagine you must have had numerous temptations to register and post a thought over the years, but this one finally did it, huh?

You hit the nail on the head--and thank you for the kind welcome.

I don't know if I have ever met anyone converted by tracts or logic or theological discourse. Christianity is an inherently experiential faith. The other stuff comes later.

When ISIS was preparing to kill those Coptic Christians (20 in all) on the beach there was another who was captured with them. His name was Mathew Ayairga and he was not Egyptian or Christian in faith. In the photos he was the only black, being from Chad. ISIS had demanded that the Christians all apostatize and each in turn refused knowing what was coming. At the end, the ISIS assassins knowing he had no faith asked him if he rejected Christ. Witnessing the bravery and faith of his friends Ayairga replied "their God is my God," thus sealing his fate. He died on the beach with his friends and is commemorated as the 21st martyr saint.





I suggest a week at St. Anthony's Monastery... https://youtu.be/SQqkRZqe8Q8.

Maddy wrote: Read alone, without the usual Pauline overlay, the Gospels paint a picture of a mystic whose message has an unmistakably "Eastern" feel and could easily be mistaken for that of Buddha or Lao Tzu.

Sure, Jesus is mentioned in a number of the Sufi teaching stories and it is likely he studied with spiritual teachers.  Truth is truth. 

Benko wrote:

Maddy wrote: Read alone, without the usual Pauline overlay, the Gospels paint a picture of a mystic whose message has an unmistakably "Eastern" feel and could easily be mistaken for that of Buddha or Lao Tzu.

Interesting, because Paul was accused of being the apostle to the Gnostics by one of the early Christian writers named Tertullian.

Maddy wrote: Sure, Jesus is mentioned in a number of the Sufi teaching stories and it is likely he studied with spiritual teachers.  Truth is truth.

I can buy that only without all the apocalyptic stuff. And the Jewish angry God of the Old Testament stuff. And the hell stuff.

On second thought, I probably don't buy it all. I'm wondering how many quotes of Jesus you could add up that would suggest he was influenced or had anything in common with Buddhist teachings. I'm guessing around 10 or less but I haven't really undertaken the exercise and, as always, I could be wrong.

But this idea goes along with my own theory that people basically make up their own Jesus.

More on Gnosticism for those who are interested:

(from Gk. gnosis, “knowledge”). 1. Syncretistic movement with roots in pre-Christian times; flowered in 2d–3d c. AD; continued to the 7th c.; involved occult lore, magic watchwords, and secret names; claimed to have a divinely-given secret message that held the key for a higher life.................

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... GNOSTICISM

And more on the Apocrypha, including reference to non-Canonical gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, among many others:

Apocrypha
(Gk. “hidden things”).
A.
Term applied in patristic literature to esoteric or otherwise obscure writings and to books whose authorship was unknown (extended to mean “spurious”); gradually came to be identified with the books excluded by non-Hellenistic Jews from their canon as “outside books.” Prot. scholars of the Reformation period narrowed the application of the term to the uncanonical books in the Vulgate and called other outside books “pseudepigrapha” (Gk. “falsely ascribed”)................

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... =APOCRYPHA

... Mountaineer

Well, I'm diving into all this really cool Gnostic/Buddhist/enlightenment/etc stuff. While I have no doubt that there is relevant material to be found in the Christian canon and I look forward to reading it, the mission to convert me to any flavor of remotely mainstream Christianity seems like it's doomed to failure even more now than it was before. The types of Christianity that are actually extant seem so primitive and tribal to me in comparison with this other stuff. There's so much focus on a history that doesn't resonate, a God whose actions are inherently contradictory, and a faith in things that that exist in the realm of things that are provable or disprovable but cannot possibly be true yet are claimed to be true or even provable. There's just nothing there for me, sorry. I thank everyone here for introducing me to this other new material. It's really resonating.

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Well, I'm diving into all this really cool Gnostic/Buddhist/enlightenment/etc stuff. While I have no doubt that there is relevant material to be found in the Christian canon and I look forward to reading it, the mission to convert me to any flavor of remotely mainstream Christianity seems like it's doomed to failure even more now than it was before. The types of Christianity that are actually extant seem so primitive and tribal to me in comparison with this other stuff. There's so much focus on a history that doesn't resonate, a God whose actions are inherently contradictory, and a faith in things that that exist in the realm of things that are provable or disprovable but cannot possibly be true yet are claimed to be true or even provable. There's just nothing there for me, sorry. I thank everyone here for introducing me to this other new material. It's really resonating.

MediumTex, I'm holding you personally responsible for this.  Please report to my office in the morning and we'll discuss your performance improvement plan.

Proverbs 9:7-9English Standard Version (ESV)

7 Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse,
    and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury.
8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you;
    reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser;
    teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.

Proverbs 28:10-12English Standard Version (ESV)

10 Whoever misleads the upright into an evil way
    will fall into his own pit,
    but the blameless will have a goodly inheritance.
11 A rich man is wise in his own eyes,
    but a poor man who has understanding will find him out.
12 When the righteous triumph, there is great glory,
    but when the wicked rise, people hide themselves.

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote:

madbean2 wrote: But this idea goes along with my own theory that people basically make up their own Jesus.

I think your theory is correct, in many cases.  I've heard non-Christians refer to Jesus as sort of a John Lennon/hippie figure; "everything's OK, man.  Live and let live."  But when you read what he actually said, he wasn't like that at all.  He's actually pretty harsh.  Especially when talking to religious people. 

So I do think some people have this mental text of things they wish Jesus had said.

I think they've been doing this from the very beginning. I'm not one of the mythicists who believe Jesus never even existed but I do believe that a historic Jesus is pretty hard to nail down. You have the very abbreviated gospel of Mark which was the earliest of the four and it contains no nativity or resurrection narratives at all. Then you start to get add-on narratives in Matthew and Luke which don't agree with each other and then comes John as the very last gospel presenting a much elevated view of Jesus' divinity. If you accept the Bible as the Word of God and believe in inerrancy then you aren't allowed to be skeptical about these kinds of things but I don't have that constraint any more and I see human hands all over it.

Desert wrote:

madbean2 wrote:

Desert wrote: I think your theory is correct, in many cases.  I've heard non-Christians refer to Jesus as sort of a John Lennon/hippie figure; "everything's OK, man.  Live and let live."  But when you read what he actually said, he wasn't like that at all.  He's actually pretty harsh.  Especially when talking to religious people. 

So I do think some people have this mental text of things they wish Jesus had said.

I think they've been doing this from the very beginning. I'm not one of the mythicists who believe Jesus never even existed but I do believe that a historic Jesus is pretty hard to nail down. You have the very abbreviated gospel of Mark which was the earliest of the four and it contains no nativity or resurrection narratives at all. Then you start to get add-on narratives in Matthew and Luke which don't agree with each other and then comes John as the very last gospel presenting a much elevated view of Jesus' divinity. If you accept the Bible as the Word of God and believe in inerrancy then you aren't allowed to be skeptical about these kinds of things but I don't have that constraint any more and I see human hands all over it.

Mark does contain the resurrection story (Mark 16). Mark also contains accounts of miracles, healings, etc.

You're right. I should check out my failing memory better before spouting off. Mark 16 does start with a brief resurrection story though the earliest manuscripts stop abruptly after verse 8 and the rest is considered a later addition, as most modern Bibles at least acknowledge in the footnotes.

But it doesn't have a birth narrative. It starts with Jesus' preaching and then we get to meet Mary in chapter 3.

3:21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

and then a few verses later....

3:31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.

Forget the part about Jesus' brothers and what it says about the Catholic belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, how is it that Mary can show up here in the first known gospel manuscript thinking Jesus is out of his mind? Isn't that the same Mary that was impregnated by the Holy Spirit,  took a trip down to Bethlehem to give birth receiving gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh from the kings of the Orient,  before fleeing to Egypt because Herod was trying to kill him, shepherds keeping watching over their flocks at night until a multitude of the heavenly host shone round about them,  etcetera, etcetera, according to both Matthew and Luke?