The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

So...I don't see Jesus or Buddha as overblown per se. They do have wisdom and guidance to offer. I see them as simply more gifted in certain areas than most of the rest of thus far (historically and humanity to date). Just like Bolt is faster, etc. I don't think this means they are to be enshrined or to never be questioned

I don't think this is the premise of Buddha or Jesus. Where do these assumptions come from?

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

The fault is not Buddha or Jesus but rather that we put them on a pedestal rather than seeking more direct guidance or insight, IMO.

Not sure where this comes from especially as Jesus and Buddha both encouraged insight and provided direct guidance. Also happy that the group here have forgiven them

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Let's say we could fly and also teach others to fly...same thing applies...we have knowledge in this area but flying or being more advanced at centre doesn't make us holier or more worthy.

These assumptions seem a bit presumptive as Buddhism is premised on none of the things spoken about here between you and Gem. Gem considers himself not to exist, and that the Buddha is an imaginary figure, so maybe this is in a line of different interpretations.

BT

[blossomingtree]

So... is the spiritual conversation difficult? I think it looks like it's not that spiritual conversations are difficult, and in fact they can be very very easy, it's that people have different ideas of spirituality. In fact, anytime I've encountered any genuinely spiritual people, there is never discomfort

BT

[muffin]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

So... is the spiritual conversation difficult? I think it looks like it's not that spiritual conversations are difficult, and in fact they can be very very easy, it's that people have different ideas of spirituality. In fact, anytime I've encountered any genuinely spiritual people, there is never discomfort

BT

Good afternoon blossomingtree

" So... is the spiritual conversation difficult?"

I don't see it as difficult, just keep quite, listen, watch the single thread interwoven between them

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

So... is the spiritual conversation difficult? I think it looks like it's not that spiritual conversations are difficult, and in fact they can be very very easy, it's that people have different ideas of spirituality. In fact, anytime I've encountered any genuinely spiritual people, there is never discomfort

BT

Exactly. Only contention makes it difficult.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Kioma

Exactly. Only contention makes it difficult.

I find genuinely spiritual conversations actually very enjoyable.

Thanks for the input.

muffin offers muffins, that's always a nice treat too.

BT

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

...muffin offers muffins, that's always a nice treat too...

Wiser words were never spoken.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

I look to my own mind and it's clear to me that elated personas such as Buddha and Jesus are imagined out of iconography and stories I have heard in the past.

Hello Gem,
I allow for their reality but I also allow for the enshrinement and thus to some extent the misrepresentation and/or misdirection of their respective messages by a lot of folks.

Yes, we get impressions from the imagined 'superhumans' and compare that to our imagined selves (super compared to us). This leaves us comparatively inadequate, so we start to strive to become 'the other' imaginary figure rather than the imagined comparative self.

All too common, unfortunately. And/or, we may seek to act in ways that seem to be aligned with the ways they modeled. If these ways naturally direct/align/inspire and become us, we make them our own. Otherwise, the fit is not good and lacks integrity.

This too can either present a challenge and call for self-reflection in some way that is meaningful to us, or not. It's not always a bad or misdirected effort. It may be that this challenge is the path that is most beneficial to us. Or it may be something in between. Regardless, we have to own our path and who we are. If Buddha or Jesus (man or message) inspires, then great...if not, then that's where we are at. A message or example of lovingkindness or equanimity may or may not resonate, depending on where folks are at.

Likewise however, I recognise that many have understandable challenges getting past the institutional rubbish and biases that have been overlaid onto a very simple core message.

My point is endeavours to be humble are vain.

To me, humility is beautiful, is full of grace, is not self-effacing or self-debasing, and resonates deeply as a natural reflection of who we are at core. We can be both confident yet humble with regard to who we are and our place in the world. But I don't think this is necessarily the same as the endeavouring to be humble that you describe.

Again however, what you say about endeavouring is also neither bad nor good, IMO. If one feels that a moderation of an arrogant tendency might be a good thing for themselves, then endeavouring to move the needle and self-correct is an exercise in perseverance, and a good one that will tend to bear spiritual fruit and generally increase self awareness, as with any similar focus. Even if adjustments seem small by whatever external measure (relevance questionable), it's just one working with themselves.

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

I don't think this means they are to be enshrined or to never be questioned

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

I don't think this is the premise of Buddha or Jesus. Where do these assumptions come from?

Hello there Blossom, I think a core part of my discussion with Gem and with you has been that these two figures and many, many others have in fact been enshrined and are referred to as "Lord", etc., by millions...perhaps billions, LOL I acknowledge with a high probability that this was not the likely intent of Jesus or Buddha, at least. Do you see what is wrong with this picture so far, hahaha ??? ;)

Not sure where this comes from especially as Jesus and Buddha both encouraged insight and provided direct guidance. Also happy that the group here have forgiven them

For myself, I never condemned them and have always honoured their guidance. That's not to say almost all of them fail to a lesser or greater degree to address the core obstacles in the manifest reality and context of humanity and human society. And for most anyway, this simply reflects where both humanity at large and they themselves were (also being human).

(In some areas, the greatest masters are still far ahead of where we are today...think Jesus's manifest treatment of women as both social and spiritual equals was more than 2000 yrs ahead of his time and has still not been equalled. This is far from the case for most masters IMO, even many in the modern era.)

However, I also think that other folks have a right to bring their voices and opinions to the table regardless of whether they align with your perspective, or with mine, or whomever's. Many have quite a poor view of the icons and the institutions both, and that is at least in part due to historical failings of the institutions, corruption of the message, enshrinement of wise men (almost no women really, hahaha) as gods or "lords", and so forth. These are traumatic, dehumanising, alienating experiences common to vast swaths of folks historically and they deserve to be heard IMO. This is a conversation that we need to have, IMO, although I very much realise it will not be easy for an awful lot of folks.

These assumptions seem a bit presumptive as Buddhism is premised on none of the things spoken about here between you and Gem. Gem considers himself not to exist, and that the Buddha is an imaginary figure, so maybe this is in a line of different interpretations.
BT

The purity of the message, the enshrinement of the icon(s), the pervasive biases and injustices which the institutions underwrite...sadly, all these things are mixed together. That is our imperfect reality.

So, what you say is true regarding the purity and the noblest of the wisdom teachings of any tradition. And it is to those truths I myself look, along with the integrity of the messenger.

However what I and/or others say is also true regarding the manifest reality of our idol worship, our corruption and misrepresentation of the core messages (of lovingkindness and equanimity) and the historical biases upon which our institutions and much of their teachings rest.

I recognise all these as true.

Peace & blessings
7L

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Many have quite a poor view of the icons and the institutions both, and that is at least in part due to historical failings of the institutions, corruption of the message, enshrinement of wise men (almost no women really, hahaha) as gods or "lords", and so forth. These are traumatic, dehumanising, alienating experiences common to vast swaths of folks historically and they deserve to be heard IMO. This is a conversation that we need to have, IMO, although I very much realise it will not be easy for an awful lot of folks.

Of course people can say this, 7L, if this is their experience.

The fault is not Buddha or Jesus but rather that we put them on a pedestal rather than seeking more direct guidance or insight, IMO.

Just so you know, 7L it is not hard for me to hear - at all - it's just that the statement suggests that their way is not direct guidance or insight. Speaking from my knowledge of Buddhism, that is simply untrue. Apart from the superstitious/cultural aspects of Buddhism in East Asia, Buddhism is all direct guidance and insight - it's the very premise of the religion/practice, therefore I made the comment FWIW.

You and others are free to lament the sorry state of religion and imperfections of the Masters etc. of course.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

The purity of the message, the enshrinement of the icon(s), the pervasive biases and injustices which the institutions underwrite...sadly, all these things are mixed together. That is our imperfect reality.

So, what you say is true regarding the purity and the noblest of the wisdom teachings of any tradition. And it is to those truths I myself look, along with the integrity of the messenger.

However what I and/or others say is also true regarding the manifest reality of our idol worship, our corruption and misrepresentation of the core messages (of lovingkindness and equanimity) and the historical biases upon which our institutions and much of their teachings rest.

OK. Just so you know the teachings are not just about loving kindness and equanimity, although these obviously form the core base of this and is not contrary - it also points to direct knowledge of the formation of worlds, consciousness, Truth and spiritual Gnosis.

Thanks.

BT

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Gem,
I allow for their reality but I also allow for the enshrinement and thus to some extent the misrepresentation and/or misdirection of their respective messages by a lot of folks.

That sounds most reasonable.

All too common, unfortunately. And/or, we may seek to act in ways that seem to be aligned with the ways they modeled. If these ways naturally direct/align/inspire and become us, we make them our own. Otherwise, the fit is not good and lacks integrity.

I am a more radically views person and I say it all lacks integrity, but I would have to qualify that in a particular way.

This too can either present a challenge and call for self-reflection in some way that is meaningful to us, or not. It's not always a bad or misdirected effort. It may be that this challenge is the path that is most beneficial to us. Or it may be something in between. Regardless, we have to own our path and who we are. If Buddha or Jesus (man or message) inspires, then great...if not, then that's where we are at. A message or example of lovingkindness or equanimity may or may not resonate, depending on where folks are at.

Yes, everyone discerns for themselves.

Likewise however, I recognise that many have understandable challenges getting past the institutional rubbish and biases that have been overlaid onto a very simple core message.

Indeed, that sums up the difficulty.

To me, humility is beautiful, is full of grace, is not self-effacing or self-debasing, and resonates deeply as a natural reflection of who we are at core. We can be both confident yet humble with regard to who we are and our place in the world. But I don't think this is necessarily the same as the endeavouring to be humble that you describe.

Yes, you describe a different thing to what I was describing - the efforts to be alike an imagined ideal is like the truth that one is not alike the imagined ideal. 'Supermen' are illustrative of such ideals. Hence religions have icons, deities and so forth, so we have something to emulate, imitate, pretend to be - humble, holy, spiritual and so forth... it is this imitation role that I claim reflects on integrity.

Again however, what you say about endeavouring is also neither bad nor good, IMO. If one feels that a moderation of an arrogant tendency might be a good thing for themselves, then endeavouring to move the needle and self-correct is an exercise in perseverance, and a good one that will tend to bear spiritual fruit and generally increase self awareness, as with any similar focus. Even if adjustments seem small by whatever external measure (relevance questionable), it's just one working with themselves.

Peace & blessings
7L

Indeed, as it comes back to ourselves, we don't have anything external to rely on. Yes we basically have a process of seeing through our delusions, so we might realise something like, I believe the Jesus story because people told it to me. But I have no idea if it's true myself.

I was raised in a Christian household among a Christian social setting, and was convinced of the saviour and all that because it was just 'taken-to-be-true', but one night when I was 19, it just vanished in a second and could never persuade me again. The larger affect was nothing could persuade me, so I can't take anything Buddhist as true or anything else. I can't believe any teachers because the 'truth-structure' of belief itself collapsed all those years ago. Of course I still have beliefs, but I already know they have no truth in them - and they are completely subject to change or complete abandonment. I don't care about them or give them the slightest importance.