Taoism Insubstantial

Originally Posted by Sentientno1

Unless asked otherwise this is the last i'll say on what may be unwanted dialog.

shanti

Hi Sentientno1: Informed and open discussion is always welcome.. i will ask you, as i have asked others, why do you suppose 'omnipotent deities' speak in riddles? Why is it necessary to 'explain' that which would alter the consciousness and understandings of they that would understand if the message were presented directly? I have long been intrigued by deities that reveal themselves to only one culture, or the claims of a culture that supposes its understandings are superior..

Be well..

Originally Posted by Sentientno1

dharma keshetra, Kuru keshetra...the story is about the internal battle between duty and heart

Bhagavad-Gita is a historical fact it is not a “story” or an “analogy”. Kurukshetra is real place and archaeological evidence confirms that the battle took place there. There is also archaeological evidence that Dwarka is real place.

Originally Posted by Sentientno1

yoga which unites the two and transcends them to the final realisation of the impersonal reality

This is nonsense! Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead krsnas tu bhagavan svayum – Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28. He says that avajnati mam mudha, “Fools deride me when I descend in this human form. “ If Krishna is just ordinary man who needs to transcend Himself then what is the value of Bhagavad-Gita, which means the Song of GOD. What is its authority? And why is it held in such high esteem? How can you quote from the Gita when you are offensive towards Krishna?
Krishna says brahmana he pratista aham, “I am the source of impersonal Brahman”. If there is energy there must be an energetic. Just like electricity has a power station and sunshine has the sun. What evidence is there of there ever being energy that has no source.
Why does Krishna come to this world? “To annihilate the miscreants and re-establish the principles of religion”; the battle between good and evil is both within and without. To simply ignore the evil in this world shows a lack of compassion and selfishness. This is a result of being in raja-guna and tama-guna. A saintly person is not an idle meditator, they are active for Krishna.

Greetings..

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Bhagavad-Gita is a historical fact it is not a “story” or an “analogy”. Kurukshetra is real place and archaeological evidence confirms that the battle took place there. There is also archaeological evidence that Dwarka is real place.
This is nonsense! Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead krsnas tu bhagavan svayum – Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28. He says that avajnati mam mudha, “Fools deride me when I descend in this human form. “ If Krishna is just ordinary man who needs to transcend Himself then what is the value of Bhagavad-Gita, which means the Song of GOD. What is its authority? And why is it held in such high esteem? How can you quote from the Gita when you are offensive towards Krishna?
Krishna says brahmana he pratista aham, “I am the source of impersonal Brahman”. If there is energy there must be an energetic. Just like electricity has a power station and sunshine has the sun. What evidence is there of there ever being energy that has no source.
Why does Krishna come to this world? “To annihilate the miscreants and re-establish the principles of religion”; the battle between good and evil is both within and without. To simply ignore the evil in this world shows a lack of compassion and selfishness. This is a result of being in raja-guna and tama-guna. A saintly person is not an idle meditator, they are active for Krishna.

Why are you preaching on a 'Taoism' thread?

Be well..

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Hi Sentientno1: Informed and open discussion is always welcome.. i will ask you, as i have asked others, why do you suppose 'omnipotent deities' speak in riddles? Why is it necessary to 'explain' that which would alter the consciousness and understandings of they that would understand if the message were presented directly? I have long been intrigued by deities that reveal themselves to only one culture, or the claims of a culture that supposes its understandings are superior..

Be well..

Tzu, that's an excellent question, one i've never thought to ask myself. Wanna explore it together? Maybe i can be excused for not thinking of it because it's been a long while since i've thought of any divinity being omnipotent. Authoritive because it is powerful, or powerful because it is authoritive? In the first there would be a punitive divnity and in the second there would almost have to be a consensus that A- the first applies and one better walk the line and include the second part too. OR that is another application "B" of the second part that offers something other then reward and punishment, usualy knowledge to periennial questions. That sort of sets the stage for human valuation don't you think?

For now, i think most sacred writings are the result of some inner knowledge revealed, couched in language and analogy appropiate to the time and culture it was written, on themes that transcend time and culture.
It's not an amazing earth shaking thought and maybe you will have a deeper insight.
For me...the study or reading of any sacred knowledge has to have 2 criteria, to be as inclusive as possible according to the limits of man's present knowledge, and all the pieces must make up a logical sequence, to a logical solution within the contex of the writing. if it doesn't i question my knowledge limits and then that of the writing. So there is no omnipotent divinity in the sense of final authority. OR, the proof is in the pudding.

Best i can do now Tzu, offered for your consideration

Greetings..

Originally Posted by Sentientno1

Tzu, that's an excellent question, one i've never thought to ask myself. Wanna explore it together? Maybe i can be excused for not thinking of it because it's been a long while since i've thought of any divinity being omnipotent. Authoritive because it is powerful, or powerful because it is authoritive? In the first there would be a punitive divnity and in the second there would almost have to be a consensus that A- the first applies and one better walk the line and include the second part too. OR that is another application "B" of the second part that offers something other then reward and punishment, usualy knowledge to periennial questions. That sort of sets the stage for human valuation don't you think?

I do not consider 'authoritative or powerful' to be necessarily linked to 'punitive'.. authority and power can be used beneficially, and.. ultimately, both authority and power are given by those that could be dominated by such attributes.. people choose their existences, because everyone inherently knows what is appropriate, but they often choose what is 'convenient'..

Originally Posted by Sentientno1

For now, i think most sacred writings are the result of some inner knowledge revealed, couched in language and analogy appropiate to the time and culture it was written, on themes that transcend time and culture.
It's not an amazing earth shaking thought and maybe you will have a deeper insight.
For me...the study or reading of any sacred knowledge has to have 2 criteria, to be as inclusive as possible according to the limits of man's present knowledge, and all the pieces must make up a logical sequence, to a logical solution within the contex of the writing. if it doesn't i question my knowledge limits and then that of the writing. So there is no omnipotent divinity in the sense of final authority. OR, the proof is in the pudding.

Best i can do now Tzu, offered for your consideration

I sense your understandings to be very 'appropriate'.. i sense that everyone has a basic understanding of the most appropriate relationships for advancing harmony with Life.. people don't really need authorities or deities to compel them to act appropriately, people need to be honest with themselves.. invoking deities and rules are just ways of separating the individual from its responsibility with the whole..

We share a similar criteria for validity.. Sacred texts should be as inclusive as possible, and as understandable as possible.. nothing that is valid is limited by culture or geography, hence the 'inclusive' criteria that would extend beyond unique cultural boundaries.. to be understood by peasant and philosopher alike indicates a theme of inclusiveness, avoiding a hierarchy of accessibility, or accessibility by affordability.. valid spiritual themes should not challenge simple common-sense, this is the same Life and beings that Live it, from which riddles and complexities would incite degrees of separation.. valid spiritual themes inspire unity, not exclusion.. valid spiritual themes just 'make sense', like:

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you;

Love your neighbor as you love yourself;

Let those that are without guilt cast the first stone;

Live simply, that others may simply live;

We are traveling to where we have always been, from ignorance to enlightenment.. awareness is the vehicle.

We are each parts of a greater whole, which is greater by the collective synergy of its parts..

We are like snowflakes, unique patterns of exactly the same stuff.. energy, spirit, 'God'..

Hurt one/hurt all ~ help one/help all..

Be still, and know.. that you are 'that which is'..

You are not this temporary aging body, you are the eternal energy that animates it..

Be well.. be still, and see that this is so..

Sentientno1, that reminds of something that Swami Prabhupada said to his Guru; "Absolute is sentient thou hast proved. Impersonal calamity thou hast removed". It interesting that you name yourself sentient when you think that the Absolute is in-sentient, but then i suppose that you think you are greater than God since you are sentient and He isn't.

I take your non-response to my arguments as acknowledgement of the superiority of Krishna's philosophy or perhaps you simple want to run away from the battlefield like Arjuna did.

Greetings..

Originally Posted by I-Ching

I take your non-response to my arguments as acknowledgement of the superiority of Krishna's philosophy or perhaps you simple want to run away from the battlefield like Arjuna did.

"Krishna" is just one culture's 'story' about their beliefs.. and, that story is not superior to other stories.. it is your type of zeal and fervor that incites real conflict in society..

Be well..

[Gem]

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Sentientno1, that reminds of something that Swami Prabhupada said to his Guru; "Absolute is sentient thou hast proved. Impersonal calamity thou hast removed". It interesting that you name yourself sentient when you think that the Absolute is in-sentient, but then i suppose that you think you are greater than God since you are sentient and He isn't.

I take your non-response to my arguments as acknowledgement of the superiority of Krishna's philosophy or perhaps you simple want to run away from the battlefield like Arjuna did.

These things have to be seen for what they really are, and I know nothing of Krishna's philosophy, but the superiority isn't in that. If you examine more closely it is only your own interpretation of what you have read that you deem superior, but many people have read extensively and every religous zealot considers his particular interpretations superior, but this only rests with the individual's own desire to have something which makes himself superior.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Sentientno1, that reminds of something that Swami Prabhupada said to his Guru; "Absolute is sentient thou hast proved. Impersonal calamity thou hast removed". It interesting that you name yourself sentient when you think that the Absolute is in-sentient, but then i suppose that you think you are greater than God since you are sentient and He isn't.

I take your non-response to my arguments as acknowledgement of the superiority of Krishna's philosophy or perhaps you simple want to run away from the battlefield like Arjuna did.

A breath of fresh air. I'm used to having Christians preach at me. Now I get to see a Vedantist Fundamentalist preach at Taoists. LOL

Isn't your exclusive 'us and them' attitude kind of contrary to the nondual consciousness of Vedanta gurus?

I-Ching,

for your edification from which i doubt you will profit

Sentient= aware
No1= because 1 requires space to be 1, and there is no where the Absolute is not so it cannot be called 1, it is not dual so it cannot be called 2. Do you get it? There will be no further explanation...see below paragraph.

As for my non response.....i choose for this moment on, not to feed that delusional egoic, misguided, ranting persona called I-Ching, with attention that will further fuel the self deception that it is NOT rajistic. You are in spiritual peril, i will not feed it.