Cheshire Cat

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,757

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cheshire Cat

  1. Posted

    1 hour ago, Fa Xin said:

    My question to you would be -  is it necessary to believe in such things to call oneself a Christian?

     

    No, it's enough to know very superficially the story of a man you don't really care about... and then decontextualize the few words Jesus allegedly said and that a specific tradition reported in its sacred text for purposes that you don't know and frankly don't care about. 

     

    You then project your own opinions and ideas on such decontextualized sayings of Jesus so that he apparently speaks about the marvelous secrets of the universe that you happen to know in advance so that you can actually explain to others how Jesus meant this and that with metaphors and coded words. 

    Discard what really doesn't make sense because you're not a miracle worker yet. 

     

    How would you define a person that teaches people the things that you actually would like to teach to other people ?  A genius! 

    How great is dzogchen Jesus! How great is Yogi Jesus! How great vedantin Jesus! Etc... 

     

     

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    6 hours ago, Jeff said:

    There is no contradiction, it is his "fulfillment" that creates new options and potentials "within the law".  Thomas Aquinas explained it like this...

     

    This precise point was widely discussed in Jewish circles from every possible angles. 

    The conclusion is that a new law is as much an absurdity in Jesus' native cultural background as the idea of virginal birth and being the son of God. 

     

    The trick of playing with words that edulcorate this conceptual reality of Christian theology is an old tradition, but we are spiritual seekers and we can face this truth without much discomfort, can't we? 

     

    The idea of "surpassing"  or "fulfilling" the old Law includes bizarre theological concepts that - for example- create parallels between the Adam (disobeyed to God and was condemned to mortality) of the old Law and Jesus (who sacrifice himself to gain immortality for humankind) , and more. 

     

    But please, ask a Jewish Rabbi why he can't accept the idea of a New covenant that "surpasses" ( meh) the old Law and you'll receive a very accurate answer. 

     

    27 minutes ago, Spotless said:

    these are not trick questions and I have no agenda to argue any point - I am actually just wondering)

     

    Where are the Christians? 😅

  3. Posted · Edited by Cheshire Cat

    15 hours ago, Jeff said:

    Very similar to buddhism and its higher yanas that came later.  It is described well in Hebrews...

     

    Hebrews 8:6-13.

     

    Jesus explicitly says in the gospels that he's not there to abolish the old Law. 

     

    “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18).

     

    But Pauline theology talks about a new covenant, a new law. 

    There are philosophical solutions to this contradiction, but they require the inclusion of the Torah into the Canon. 

    15 hours ago, Jeff said:

    There are many such living traditions.  One much simply seek and they will find...

     

     

    I'm talking about living traditions that use the apocryphal texts since the time they were written, and not about modern reconstruction of ancient gnosticism. 

     

    For example, Buddhists tend to explain and neutralize non-buddhist teachings in Buddhist philosophical categories: the theistic religions can't take you beyond the world of desire (because they worship worldly gods and not buddhas) , the immortal daoist is immortal because he cultivated a divergent (and inferior) path, etc... 

    But when you close your mind in such a way, thinking your Dharma is so great that incorporates all other dharmas, you can't really understand other dharmas at all because you see your religion everywhere and - most importantly- you can't get anything from other dharmas. It's like the white man in Africa that thinks himself to be so superior to actually believe that Africans were savages before he came with civilization. 

     

    You can use buddhism to explain religions that you actually don't know, but you're really just explaining buddhism itself. 

    This exercise is done at various degrees: Bill Bodri do this in at least a couple of his books for example. 

     

     

     

     

  4. Posted

    1 hour ago, Jeff said:

    I would disagree with some of the comments in the posts above. For me, the gospels (in the Bible) are an accurate set of teachings of Jesus.

     

    There are certain elements in the gospels that could be considered actual teachings, but they're far from being accurate instructions of a method of self-realization in my opinion. 

     

     

    1 hour ago, Jeff said:

     

     

     

    1 hour ago, Jeff said:

    Simply throw away the Old Testament and add something like the gospel of Thomas and you have a simpler and better text to work with regarding the teachings of Jesus.

     

    I think that the old Testament is there mainly for two reasons: the first one is that Jesus said that he's not supposed to abolish the Law (thus forcing Christians to formally adopt the Torah as a textual source)... and the second is about the various prophecies that Christians claim are present in the Old Testament and that confirm that Jesus is the Messiah. 

     

    Regarding the gospel of Thomas, in my opinion the problem is that without a living tradition we can't really know what they believed and practiced.

     

    The text is so abstruse that I could use it to explain the advaita vedanta philosophy which - far from being a universal philosophy- is something very peculiar to a certain culture. 

  6. Posted · Edited by Cheshire Cat

    Regarding Christianity, it's not surprising that people not familiar with "traditional churches" reaffirm with strength the principle known as Sola Scriptura ( religion based on scriptures and nothing else) to get in direct contact with the gracious teachings of Lord Jesus Christ. 

    How wonderful would be to have the actual words of the Lord as the foundation of religion! 

     

    But traditional Christianity was shaped very differently: the theological tradition of St. Paul evolved for a few hundred years before the authorities felt the need to have Sacred Scriptures and even then, the traditions of the Churches were the primary and the most important sources for those seeking Jesus' wisdom. Scriptures were chosen (and written) to specifically represent an already developed and explored theological doctrine. 

    That's how the concept of "divine inspiration" of Sacred Scriptures was created. Also, many books were added to the collection of sacred texts just to have a reasonable number of volumes. Probably, at the time authorities thought that very few would be able to read them... so, they picked up texts without much care (think for example at the book of Daniel, which is apocryphal for Judaism and is totally irrelevant for Christians). 

     

    Every single "early" Christian text was written to give a superficial mention to already explored concepts and teachings to avoid forcing the tradition to remain unchangeable forever. That's why you can read Jesus' words, but they're not actual instructions. They are general statements that can support various doctrines.

    Many books were just controversial (nephilim, giants, God that commands to wage war, etc...) 

    In fact, when (over the course of the centuries) too many people were able to read, the catholic church decided to prevent them from reading the Bible by adding it to a special Index. 

    Even the apocryphal gospels used to represent specific theological and philosophical doctrines and they were written with the same principles used for the accepted Gospels. 

     

    Christian textual sources were not traditionally thought to serve as the accurate report of Jesus teachings: the historical consequences of assuming the already mentioned principle of Sola Scriptura are the birth of hundreds of christianities and even more confusion. 

     

    The harsh truth is that we can't get in touch with Jesus original teachings directly. We can explain the texts in the light of oriental philosophy and convince ourselves that we "cracked" the code and did better than the Church. But the exercise is purely speculative and IMO meaninglessness.  It's like using Arabic grammar to explain Gaelic languages. 

     

    • Like 1

  7. Posted · Edited by Cheshire Cat

    I've practiced the WH breathing method for a while and I think that none is authoritative enough to define and describe the long term effects of this exercise at this time. 

     

    The breathing pattern (without the retention segments ) is sometimes seen as a spuntaneos reaction to keto-acidosis in diabetic patients and it's called Kussmaul breathing pattern. 

     

    In my personal experience with the practice, I started to have hairloss after a few weeks of 1+ hrs of daily exercise. So, I stopped the routine and went back to normal. 

    Maybe it's just me and my hormonal balance, but I decided not to rely on it as a main practice. 

     

    I do it occasionally to get relief from occasional muscolar pain (due to excessive exercise) or to reduce sugar's level in my blood: I haven't tested this with scientific means, but I have the subjective impression that it does so... mainly because I always feel a titanic hunger for sweets after the practice. 

     

    So, no more than a session every 2-3weeks or so (or even more) for me, and it's a nice weapon in my spiritual armory. Thank you Wim ;)

    • Like 4

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, Nungali said:

    Cons :   I dont  need   one

     

    Maybe you need it, but you don't know it yet. 

     

    Maybe it's the materialized form of a special spirit that wants a role in your life. 

     

    But most importantly, if you buy it, you perform your duty as a consumer and contribute to the economy. 

    • Like 1
    • Haha 2

  10. Posted

    Mantras can be pretty much anything: invocations, incantations, spells, praises, etc... 

     

    If you don't receive a mantra from a Guru, then the results can be impredictables at times. 

     

  12. Posted

    On 27/5/2019 at 8:41 AM, lifeforce said:

     

    It is definitely a shocking revelation. But when looking deeper, you find it scattered throughout the various Buddhist traditions, buried under the no self/soul doctrine. There is nothing wrong with the practice of Buddhism, it is only that it becomes just another vehicle (yana) for realisation of the Absolute.

     

    I don't think that the practice of buddhism is wrong, I just tend to believe that it's mostly ineffective since in this Path, experience doesn't lead to understanding.

    On the contrary, some people realize Anatta while others discover that buddhism is advaita vedanta, which -as some scholars believe- was developed specifically to counter buddhist philosophy in India.

     

    Now my level of interest in buddhist practice is below zero...

    • Thanks 1

  13. Posted

    During countless years, people have practiced Buddhism to discover Anatta, the absence of an immortal self. 

    The term Rebirth has been created to differentiate the concept from Reincarnation. 

     

    The Buddha left methods to uncover the true nature of reality: in general there are many instructions on how to reason about the absence of a Self and then meditate on whatever understanding comes from it. Also, he left methods on how to uncover Anatta through pure meditation in order to perceive reality without the medium of a conceptual mind. 

    I personally think that the Buddha relied on experience of transcendental states rather than on philosophical speculation, but maybe that's just an idealized Gotama in my fantasies. 

     

    Now, the idea that people can rely on that same Buddhism to discover the immortal within, forces me to question the efficacy of Buddhism itself. 

     

    It starts to appear as a palliative, a placebo set of exercises that gives you the impression of perceiving whatever understanding of reality you prefer. 

     

     

     

     

  15. Posted

    11 hours ago, lifeforce said:

    Just as you would any other Buddhist practice, meditate and inquiry into the human condition. Inquire into the citta. The practices are the same, and the goal, release from suffering. Only there's the realisation of the permanent, unchanging, eternal Brahman.

     

    My guess is that if the methods are the same, the result must necessarily be the same. 

     

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    According to the Bible's teachings, we know that in human beings to have a soul is equal to be alive. Therefore, only a dead body doesn't have a soul. 

     

    Since this thread is also about theosophy, it's relevant to mention that in dvaita vedanta there's the same biblical concept, but extended to all living beings. 

     

    In shamanism, it's more about "Spirit" than Soul... even though the terms are used interchangeably.    Spirit is something like Consciousness: to be conscious is to have a spirit... you are conscious because you have a spirit. 

    For shamans, literally everything have a spirit: the cat, the dog, the car, the train, etc... 

     

    I've heard that there's a guy who actually buy human souls, but he can harvest them only at the time of death. 

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    10 hours ago, AstralProjectee said:

    Is there enough information on the Internet that would allow me to attain immortality? And what are the best resources that would allow me to do that? Thanks. 

     

    There is more than enough information on how NOT to become immortal. 

     

    Therefore, the best strategy would be to invent a totally new method (this is harder than you may think because people are experimenting since time immemorial) and to sincerely hope that it works. 

     

    • Like 2

  24. Posted

    12 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

     

    thanks! Yes I think I was relying on someone else telling me this

     

    Yes. Considering the fact that the bottle wind practice is the favorite breathing practice of Master Nan and in that practice the sequence is exhale, inhale, hold... it's very unlikely that he suggested to hold after exhale. 

     

    At some point, I think that anything will do... none is going to fly in the air anytime soon and we just want some tricks to reduce random thoughts.