Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Yes, it was much in line with what I was thinking.

 

39. Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."

 

Yes, and the passage in it's entirety reads a bit like righteous anger, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Yes, and the passage in it's entirety reads a bit like righteous anger, doesn't it?

 

Honestly,

 

He seems disappointed and sad rather than righteous anger.

 

Of course the NIV version gives it a little different taste than the KJV that I prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lakshmi said:

Anger as such is not righteous or not, cause that's a categorization made by the rational mind - while anger is a simple emotion emerging from an instinctive base level of consciousness. It is partially linked to the muladhara or root chakra. That chakra energizes our adrenal glands and ties in with the well known fight-or-flight response.

 

Anger is therefore a natural reaction to certain stimuli which helped our ancestors survive the threats posed by their environment. And we still sometimes need this response even in our somewhat more civilized modern times. Not only in more extreme situations when we are faced with the threat of violence and the like, but as an occasional counterbalance even in our regular social interactions. In other words, it is a normal and healthy emotion like any other: allowed to flow, it will seek its natural expression within appropriate limits and/or spontaneously turn into something else eventually.

 

Problems only arise as a rule when we allow the judgemental mind to impede the flow of our emotions. Anger stored in our chakras (besides in muladhara especially in manipura or the solar plexus) for too long can get the better of us at the slightest provocation, temporarily delude our mind and turn us into a raging bull. Or it can lead to a chronic condition in which we are seeing our world through a filter created by frustration and resentment.

 

Much better not to impede any of our emotions. We should acknowledge their existence, allow ourselves to feel and naturally express them and move on from there. This will help us keep our chakras well balanced. :)

Wisdom Speaking. Thank You.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

I think you are confusing them and what people have done in their names.

 

One of the classic stories of Buddha is him laughing at two drunks who had destroyed their lives and misused their wealth.   Jesus threw tables to the floor in the temple and said that this sinful and adulterous generation will get nothing except the sign of Jonah.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suicidal "spiritual" people who find endless ways to cut off their dicks, their anger, their hair ... their whole life.
What a disgrace, even the animals are grateful for their lives.
It's so f-ing lazy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that what most people need is to be held and hugged, received, loved and listened to.

And underneath a lot of big talk in spirituality is this need.

And the talk gets bigger the more that need is not asked for, people don't know how to ask for love, and often not how to give it.

Maybe after a lot of hugging and holding, then deep questions could be revisited in a different way.

 

>> there you go, I am not a complete maniac

Edited by rideforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rideforever said:

 

One of the classic stories of Buddha is him laughing at two drunks who had destroyed their lives and misused their wealth.   Jesus threw tables to the floor in the temple and said that this sinful and adulterous generation will get nothing except the sign of Jonah.

 

I think you are leaving things out of your story which would provide context.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I think you are leaving things out of your story which would provide context.

 

 

 

I think you're avoiding the point. :D

 

As he is attributed as saying, Jesus didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

I think you're avoiding the point. :D

 

As he is attributed as saying, Jesus didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. 

 

 

A sword is a figure of speech.

 

Jesus came to wake people up, to challenge what was taught and to show the way. Doing so would cause conflict between father and son.

 

We both know Jesus didn’t preach violence.

 

If you would like continue along your point I am game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rideforever said:

 

One of the classic stories of Buddha is him laughing at two drunks who had destroyed their lives and misused their wealth.   Jesus threw tables to the floor in the temple and said that this sinful and adulterous generation will get nothing except the sign of Jonah.

 

Here is the throwing tables story...

 

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭21:12-14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

A sword is a figure of speech.

 

Jesus came to wake people up, to challenge what was taught and to show the way. Doing so would cause conflict between father and son.

 

We both know Jesus didn’t preach violence.

 

If you would like continue along your point I am game.

 

I would say that Jesus definitely preached disruption of the standard hierarchy and views of the mind.  Buddha was also radical relative to the normal hierarchy of hindu culture and views. But at a physical level, he was all about giving unto Caesar what is caesars...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

I would say that Jesus definitely preached disruption of the standard hierarchy and views of the mind.  Buddha was also radical relative to the normal hierarchy of hindu culture and views. But at a physical level, he was all about giving unto Caesar what is caesars...

 

He might have preached disruption for a certain reason.  May even have acted like an upset person inorder to bring about some changes.  But I consider it entirely unlikely that he was ever in the sway of anger or got carried away with rage and acted it out, because he felt it was righteous.  Neither Buddha for that matter.

 

Harsh action or violent response may be the only right course of action under certain circumstances.  The alternate course of action (or inaction) brininging a much greater harm at a larger scale. This is most likely what Jesus or Buddha did in certain cases.  He may have preached disruption in certain cases, out of compassion because it is only right course of action in that given situation.  

 

I know you did not mention that either Jesus or Buddha did such acts out of anger or rage.  I still felt compelled to point this out since the topic is about righteous anger and rage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

A sword is a figure of speech.

 

Jesus came to wake people up, to challenge what was taught and to show the way. Doing so would cause conflict between father and son.

 

We both know Jesus didn’t preach violence.

 

If you would like continue along your point I am game.

 

The passages certainly seem to indicate a righteous anger. 

 

While I'm finding this side path mildly interesting, it is more @rideforever's point than mine. I'm just playing along, and think I'll leave him some time to respond, if he wishes. 

 

Thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, s1va said:

 

He might have preached disruption for a certain reason.  May even have acted like an upset person inorder to bring about some changes.  But I consider it entirely unlikely that he was ever in the sway of anger or got carried away with rage and acted it out, because he felt it was righteous.  Neither Buddha for that matter.

 

Because you've labeled righteous anger as bad..

 

1 minute ago, s1va said:

Harsh action or violent response may be the only right course of action under certain circumstances.  The alternate course of action (or inaction) brininging a much greater harm at a larger scale. This is most likely what Jesus or Buddha did in certain cases.  He may have preached disruption in certain cases, out of compassion because it is only right course of action in that given situation.  

 

In Bön there are wrathful beings/deities, and it is understood that they are like a mother who yells and swats her child's hand away from a hot stove. 

 

1 minute ago, s1va said:

I know you did not mention that either Jesus or Buddha did such acts out of anger or rage.  I still felt compelled to point this out since the topic is about righteous anger and rage.

 

In the passage I previously shared, Jesus repeatedly called the Pharisees names..

 

And now I'm going to go putter around in the kitchen. Have a nice day guys, and I'll check back later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Because you've labeled righteous anger as bad..

 

 

In Bön there are wrathful beings/deities, and it is understood that they are like a mother who yells and swats her child's hand away from a hot stove. 

 

 

In the passage I previously shared, Jesus repeatedly called the Pharisees names..

 

And now I'm going to go putter around in the kitchen. Have a nice day guys, and I'll check back later. 

 

I think we may have different definitions of anger itself.  What you mention as righteous anger (or rage) is not even anger in my definition as I explained in the earlier post.

 

I agree with your statements on the actions of wrathful deities.  But, I don't think these deities are doing such action in anger or rage.  They are doing this out of compassion to help.  Controlled aggression in order to do some good or help others does not automatically qualify as Anger or rage (at all) in my definition.  Aggressive acts does not necessarily imply anger or rage, just by the virtue of that act alone.  In my opinion you may be mixing up these two.  Also, a violent action, just due to the virtue of that action does not imply anger or violence.  A doctor cuts open a person's body with sharp knives to remove a tumor.  The patient dies for some reason in the surgery.  The actual act that surgeon's do, taken out of context -- cutting open a person's body with sharp knife is a violent action.  Is the doctor acting in anger or rage?  No.  The actions of wrathful deities, even if there is some controlled aggression is not done with anger or rage, but with the intent to help.

 

Acting out anger and rage in my definition is getting carried away with emotions+instincts and doing things that a person normally does not do and regrets later. The action of wrathful deities or Jesus does not fall under this category with my definitions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most important thing I can say is that spirituality is a one to one transmission.  Just sitting with someone, a teacher and sharing, this is the only way.   Large groups are illusions.   Take this approach when you read and practice also.    Perhaps you will have to initiate yourself on your own; nevertheless, initiate yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

He might have preached disruption for a certain reason.  May even have acted like an upset person inorder to bring about some changes.  But I consider it entirely unlikely that he was ever in the sway of anger or got carried away with rage and acted it out, because he felt it was righteous.  Neither Buddha for that matter.

 

Harsh action or violent response may be the only right course of action under certain circumstances.  The alternate course of action (or inaction) brininging a much greater harm at a larger scale. This is most likely what Jesus or Buddha did in certain cases.  He may have preached disruption in certain cases, out of compassion because it is only right course of action in that given situation.  

 

I know you did not mention that either Jesus or Buddha did such acts out of anger or rage.  I still felt compelled to point this out since the topic is about righteous anger and rage.

 

I think you may be missing part of my point or what I am trying to say.  Remember first what the “temple” really is to Jesus...

 

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:16-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬
 

And now think of Jesus coming into the presence (or sharing space) with a group of people as described in the actual text...

 

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Here is the throwing tables story...

 

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭21:12-14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

 

So Jesus connects/radiates/shares presence... Into the deeper “you” that is the temple of God, and for all those that are simply worldly “moneychangers” all of their tables and natural desires are thrown out (mind cant support it with his sharing). But for all that “came to him” (accepts his presence or sharing) they are healed.

 

The concept is the same as when other traditions talk about dharma protectors. Whether you see it at a physical level, or at a higher mental or spiritual level, the passage is about Jesus kicking out all of the crap in the “temple of God”.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I think you may be missing part of my point or what I am trying to say.  Remember first what the “temple” really is to Jesus...

 

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:16-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬
 

And now think of Jesus coming into the presence (or sharing space) with a group of people as described in the actual text...

 

 

So Jesus connects/radiates/shares presence... Into the deeper “you” that is the temple of God, and for all those that are simply worldly “moneychangers” all of their tables and natural desires are thrown out (mind cant support it with his sharing). But for all that “came to him” (accepts his presence or sharing) they are healed.

 

The concept is the same as when other traditions talk about dharma protectors. Whether you see it at a physical level, or at a higher mental or spiritual level, the passage is about Jesus kicking out all of the crap in the “temple of God”.

 

I chose to go with the literal meaning for the purposes of this topic.  But, you are right.  Many times there is a higher meaning and purpose to normally sounding words or sentences from the prophets or scriptures, that is completely missed or overlooked.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I think we may have different definitions of anger itself.  What you mention as righteous anger (or rage) is not even anger in my definition as I explained in the earlier post.

 

The definition of righteous is morally correct.

 

 And I have not touched the idea of rage. 

 

55 minutes ago, s1va said:

I agree with your statements on the actions of wrathful deities.  But, I don't think these deities are doing such action in anger or rage.  They are doing this out of compassion to help.  Controlled aggression in order to do some good or help others does not automatically qualify as Anger or rage (at all) in my definition.

 

 

Hence the qualifier 'righteous'.

 

55 minutes ago, s1va said:

 Aggressive acts does not necessarily imply anger or rage, just by the virtue of that act alone.  In my opinion you may be mixing up these two.  

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not mixing anything up. 

 

55 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Also, a violent action, just due to the virtue of that action does not imply anger or violence.  A doctor cuts open a person's body with sharp knives to remove a tumor.  The patient dies for some reason in the surgery.  The actual act that surgeon's do, taken out of context -- cutting open a person's body with sharp knife is a violent action.  Is the doctor acting in anger or rage?  No.  The actions of wrathful deities, even if there is some controlled aggression is not done with anger or rage, but with the intent to help.

 

Acting out anger and rage in my definition is getting carried away with emotions+instincts and doing things that a person normally does not do and regrets later. The action of wrathful deities or Jesus does not fall under this category with my definitions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 2:05 PM, s1va said:

 

You might want to check out the Abhinavagupta's works in Kashmir Shaivism.  In my opinion they have a model that explains things in some detail and with clarity that is better than many others that I have come across.  But, one needs to be patient and start with some simple texts until they get familiar with all the terms and definitions used in this tradition.  I am writing a post about the 36 tattvas (principles) in KS in my PPD -- under the Tantra subsection -- this explains how we descended from the divine and unbounded state into our own individual and limited state of septate sentient beings.  If you are interested check it out.  It is better to take the top down approach at times when we ask such questions of who, what and why.

 

Instead of starting off with the septate individual sentient bring, who is nothing but the creation of the habit energies and mental formations of the mind, or in other words the divine veiled and feels separated due to the effects of the maya tattva (principle).  We can approach it the other way around.  Five acts of the divine who is Shiva in Kashmir Shaivism (there is a thread about this also in my PPD), the act of veiling which conceals our true nature, and then later the act of Anugraha or divine grace that leads to liberation or back to our true nature.

Link please

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Honestly,

 

He seems disappointed and sad rather than righteous anger.

 

Of course the NIV version gives it a little different taste than the KJV that I prefer.

Hmmm I Don’t know wasn’t there but everything I ever read or saw made into a movie with the tossing of the tables in the temple that was Angry Jesus. Pissed off Jesus too. Sad? Not so much Dissapointed and kicking butt yep!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke 4

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;

26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.

27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.

28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,

29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way,

 

In v21 Jesus "insults" (tells truth to)   the synagogue, but in v22 it's clear they didn't understand and feel complimented.

He has another go in v27 which they do understand and then try to throw him off the cliff in v29.
But he passes through them as if invisible.
I have been surprised very how people read but do not read, and also I have been surprised at the power of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pilgrim said:

Hmmm I Don’t know wasn’t there but everything I ever read or saw made into a movie with the tossing of the tables in the temple that was Angry Jesus. Pissed off Jesus too. Sad? Not so much Dissapointed and kicking butt yep!

 

😊 How many of those that made the movies ever thought of the teachings as a more non dual way?

 

I think we all know movies tend to take dramatic liberties.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

A sword is a figure of speech.

 

Jesus came to wake people up, to challenge what was taught and to show the way. Doing so would cause conflict between father and son.

 

We both know Jesus didn’t preach violence.

 

If you would like continue along your point I am game.

Pretty sure you both just said the very same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites