The I Ching being silly

[Tohpol]

I meant 'personal effort' as opposed to surrender to Grace - or how shall we call it? - and allow it to do the work. I hesitated to use the word 'personal' because it has a special meaning in the Gurdjieff system (personality - essence). So I wrote 'individual', but I didn't mean 'individualistic'.
G's system of course also has its surrender, to the Work, the school, its principles, the teacher, and so on. Still, if you compare it to Subud, for example, that is a different approach. I think that is clear from what Rosada wrote about it?

Yes I see - thanks for clarifying.

Oh, I didn't say that it is easy. Far from it, if you really open up and allow the Divine (or ...?) to work with you, well, better fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a very bumpy flight. And a few crash landings, or worse.

Yeah, for sure!

I wouldn't deny that there are levels of being. Although it's not a simple ladder. You may have developed being qualities that I didn't develop while I have developed other qualities that remained latent in you till now.
I'm more 'awake to' this, you are more 'awake to' that. How to compare? I'm a tulip and you are a rose.

Undoubtedly, and that is wholly natural. There are certain qualities and purely mechancial patterns that can be common to all however. These can certainly be worked on within a like-minded environment and progress made that would be nigh on impossible on one's own. We can honour the Tulip and honour the Rose and see the distortions and deformations common to all.

Topal

 

[Tohpol]

So I'm probably doing you a disservice even writing about Subud because now if you ever do run into someone who is a member you maybe inclined to think, "Oh, I already know what that is, " when really it would probably be better if you not "know" anything about it at all but just experience it for yourself.
So I thank you for asking and I apologize if my words have led you astray!

Not at all Rosada! I genuinely find it interesting. I fully understand what you say in the above, in that sometimes words do inevitably muddy the meaning. I'll certainly look into it more in order to gain a little more background while taking aboard what you say about first hand experience.

Topal

 

[jesed]

Hi Bruce

Jesed, when I said King James, I really meant any of the accepted modern versions.

At any rate, the Thomas account I quoted is not the same as the other Gospel writings of the same event - though your expansion on it is, as I said, interesting.

What I'm saying is that there are at least 2 accepted versions of the canonical Bible that translate the quote of Luke in the same way than the quote of Thomas.

But even the version you use to quote Thomas' Gospel is an un-accurate transliteration from the original.

Example, instead of "basilea", it uses a dualistic combination "ávánauaiq" (rest) and "kosmos" (universe, world). So, if your focus is not in historial-heuristic tools (because your position is that there is no way to know what the meaning was) but the textual words, the quote is not "When will the Father's imperial rule come? It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' 'Rather, the Father's imperial rule is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."; it is more like "The disciples asked him: When will the rest and the <new> world come? He said: the rest you are waiting for is already arrived, but you don't notice it"

Best

P.S. Another translation; this time not mine just to point that this is not an issue of my "expansion" of a quote, but an issue of translation work:
51. His disciples said to him, "When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?" He said to them, "What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it."
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
For an word-by-word transliteration coptic-english
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9068/splith.htm (saying 51)

 

[bruce_g]

Firstly, I do hope you're fine Bruce. Geeze. I've heard that scorpian stings are one of the most painful around. Yikes! Make sure you rest up...Where did it sting you?? What a rude awakening...

Yes, I'm fi... ack... ack!... ack!... gasp!...... (just kidding)

Yes, it was a rather impolite scorpion . Bark Scorpions are climbers, which is how they got their name: living in and under the bark of trees. This one must have climbed up the bed covers, and where the cover met my bare arm is where it stung. I jumped and rubbed my arm, then got up to pee. When I came back, the scorpion was making its way from the section of cover where my arm was.

It's not the first one I've seen in the house. There have been at least four others I can remember. Scorpions aren't the real threat here, brown recluse spiders are, and I've seen three of those inside before, plus two more on the front porch. I've lined my bedroom baseboards with cedar chips, which serves as a deterrent to the recluse. Soon the rattlers will be out, sunning themselves. In fact a diamondback was alongside the road we walk the other day. This place keeps you on your toes.

Of course, all life is Divine. I think there are two faces of God: the light and the dark - both equally Divine. A beautiful truth but not much help, for example, when the psychopath/or narcissist has just put one over you for the fourteenth time because you were refusing to see his/her manipulations and your own patterns that attracted such a dance in the first place. How can we honour that Divinty? I think by seeing things as they really are whether the purest evil or the purest good. The graduations inbetween is what makes it tricky. It is precisely because of this that we must learn to discern what is truth and what is lies.

How can we not honor that divinity? It is there. How we honor it is up to us. We can choose to fight it, as Krishna encouraged Arjuna to fight, or we can submit to it, as Jonah to the belly of a fish, or we can try to reason with it, as Heraclitus might argue with Homer or Einstein. Btw, which of them would you consider to be light or dark? Say light and dark is born, no?

In that slow process of learning how to choose what is conscience driven and conscience-less we can acutely feel that suffering that exists as a part of that learning or we can just think happy thoughts and go the route of the comfort-zone and subjective denial. The latter doesn't fuel anything except a comfortable stasis. That said, positive emotions are absolutely vital but so often we allow them to buffer unpalatable truths. There seems to be a peculiar human aversion to things that are a threat to our rose-spectacled view of this world - and I include myself in that evaluation.

I think this is a pivotal matter, with more than one option. The Buddhist sort of nihilism is one. The crusade against evil is another. But I think the Yijing teaches a way to enjoy all of life - including Maya - rather than to obliterate it, which also means obliterating our sense of self, where self then becomes the enemy. In any case, how we relate to it (the dark, death, destruction, evil, etc) is the way we relate with it. For me, it seems the more I recognize divinity in my oppressor, the less oppressive he becomes. My Black Boar dream/story describes that. Talk about rude awakenings!

 

[bruce_g]

Jesed, ok. I’m no translation expert, that’s for sure.

However, if you scroll down from 51 to verse 113 on your first page link, you’ll see the actual quote I used. So, it’s the same translation, in this case, but a different verse.

 

[bruce_g]

Jesed, all this up to interpretation, but I interpret those verses as Jesus saying "Open your eyes, the kingdom is already here." And whether he meant it that way or not, it's how I see it. I don't claim to be a Christian, or at least not in the literal or religious sense. I'm rather allergic to isms and anities.

 

[Sparhawk]

I'm rather allergic to isms and anities.

Hey, I can share some of my religious Benadryl with you. Also, I have some anti-dogma Calamine...

I was raised Catholic, mind you, and at 17 I was with a foot in the Seminary... Somewhere along the line I decided the hair of some women were stronger than steel cables in towing you away from a pious life... (actually, there is a saying in Spanish regarding women and hair and men being towed away that's not for minors; I'm sure Rodrigo knows it... ) Nowadays, every time I go to church and dip my fingers in the Holy Water, I'm afraid it will start to sizzle and steam...

BTW, Rodrigo, that was very interesting, indeed.

L

 

[Tohpol]

This place keeps you on your toes.

Well, I'm glad you're ok. Quite a battle-zone out them thar desert...

How can we not honor that divinity? It is there. How we honor it is up to us.

Honour in the sense of choosing which Stream of Creation to follow. It is indeed up to us and only us.

We can choose to fight it, as Krishna encouraged Arjuna to fight, or we can submit to it, as Jonah to the belly of a fish, or we can try to reason with it, as Heraclitus might argue with Homer or Einstein. Btw, which of them would you consider to be light or dark? Say light and dark is born, no?

"Divinity" as a word, is maybe far too ephemeral and abstract when it comes to deciding whether or not we are actually "growing" our soul or allowing it to atrophy. The simple fact in my mind is if we believe a lie, whether lying to ourselves or the events we are witness to in the world we diminish our relationship to Divinity or the Sacred until eventually, we are on the opposite path of Non-being by default. You can be an Einstein or a Homer and still lie to yourself and have an ego the size of Mt. Etna. One can still be in the basement in terms of one's connection to something more real and authentic.

I think this is a pivotal matter, with more than one option. The Buddhist sort of nihilism is one. The crusade against evil is another. But I think the Yijing teaches a way to enjoy all of life - including Maya - rather than to obliterate it,

Who said anything about obliteration? Enjoying life is crucial, as is having positive emotions. Enjoying Maya is one thing, but to be consumed by it is another. Sure, I think it is seriously pivotal. It also depends perhaps on whether or not you have had enough of the party and yearn to get the out of this hell hole Maya then becomes a very real danger does it not? It becomes much more subtle to know when Maya has gotcha! Intellectually, emotionally or physically. One doesn't need to obliterate Maya or Illusion or anything - I think it's just about choices defined by our ability to SEE. Again, knowing what is illusion and deception etc. and what is a level of Truth. By doing that we can let illusion go on its way as a vital part of life. It has taught us something.

which also means obliterating our sense of self, where self then becomes the enemy.

If one is moving along the line of an extreme - that can certainly be the case. But that wasn't at all what I was talking about. There's a middle ground. Having our Gods dashed to little pieces is the start of seeing things much more objectively and from which we can gain greater insight into knowledge of ourselves and outer events. You know this from your own suffering. You are either more alive with more humility or you are broken and turning inwards and eating the light of others due to one's lack.

Life really becomes a joy having come back from the Abyss and lived to tell the tale and most importantly to share that energy. I think that's why those of us as potential extensions of a Creative half of Divinity as oppose to those of the destructive half, are being called to honour that potential by making the choice to turn towards our conscience and to ACT upon it.

In any case, how we relate to it (the dark, death, destruction, evil, etc) is the way we relate with it.

Sure but that could be seen as a cop-out. (I am who I am even if I haven't a clue who I am) I think It is a process or it is stasis. I can look at death and destruction and pretend it doesn't exist outside my white picket fence. No problem. It is a perfectly valid choice. Or there is a third option that one is fully cognizant of the suffering and one chooses to "anchor" this creative energy in meditation away from the active world.

Or I can actively do what I can to alleviate those dynamics not because one wants to change the world, but because it is who one is. This is something authentic, something that is REAL rather than a choice for illusion as an end in itself. Therefore, that is a connection to the Creative aspect of the Divine.

For me, it seems the more I recognize divinity in my oppressor, the less oppressive he becomes. My Black Boar dream/story describes that. Talk about rude awakenings!

I can recognise the divinity in a Jaguar stalking me into a corner. But it will still eat me.
That's what Jaguars do.

Topal

 

[jesed]

Hi bruce

1.- Yes, you are right... I take the wrong verse. 113.. even if I would translate a little diference, here the word used has consistency with the greek basileia.

2.-

Jesed, all this up to interpretation, but I interpret those verses as Jesus saying "Open your eyes, the kingdom is already here." And whether he meant it that way or not, it's how I see it.

Now here is the interesting point. Because my original post was in the direction that "Open your eyes, the kingdom is already here" is also in Gospel of Luke (and not only because I like more this interpretation, but because of the use of greek word "entos").

So, we see the same; you see it only in Thomas, and I see it both in Thomas and Luke. That's all.

Best

 

[bruce_g]

Wow, Topal, you give me so much to respond to! But rather than address each thing, let me clarify something. I was pointing out options (i.e. nihilism), not directly addressing each option as a counter point to your comments. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said.

I also still perceive a subtle difference, however, in the way we each perceive things like the abyss, darkness, good/bad and the rest. But then I think my view of this doesn’t sit well with a lot of folk. Brad and I still can’t agree on 44, for example.

 

[bruce_g]

So, we see the same; you see it only in Thomas, and I see it both in Thomas and Luke. That's all.

I see more or less the same points made throughout the discourses of Jesus. I was referring to a specific statement by Thomas, not similar statements in other passages. That particular event was recorded differently in the other Gospels than it was by Thomas. That's what you contested and rolled eyes at. I'm still not sure why.

 

[bruce_g]

Hey, I can share some of my religious Benadryl with you. Also, I have some anti-dogma Calamine...

Actually? I'd prefer a nice, dry red wine.

 

[jesed]

Hi bruce

I'll try to express myself better

According with historical tools on biblical texts, one statement is not necesarly one event.

Very often, one statement mixes 2 or more events; on the other hand, one event has been split in two or more statements. And this happens not only if one compares canonical/apocryphal gospels; it also happens if one compares between 2 "canonical" gospels.

Taking in mind this, the historical-heuristic actual attempt of reconstruction seems to point that

historical Jesus DID say something about the God's imerial rule not only as something to expect in the future, but as something already present in the earth but not recognized. This historical expression <event> was present in (at least) two diferent traditions of the easter comunities: the one of Gospel of Luke... and the one of Thomas.<statement>

So, Thomas and Luke account the same event (Jesus teaching the Kingdom not as something to be waited in the future, but something already present), even with diferent statements. And, what matters to the original post, this account is not bounced from the final canonical text.

Maybe another example... with a foundamentalist reading (focused on "statement"), one can get confused because one canonical gospel says that you shouldn't use sandals... and another says you should use sandals.

One Gospel was wrote where sandals was used for middle-class people, and simple people didn't use sandals; the other one was wrote where middle-class people used boots and simple people used sandals.

So, both Gospels account the same "event" (Jesus teaching to use what simple people use.. to walk simple), with diferent statements.

Best

P.S. Well... I'm having enough of biblical chat by now; otherwise, I face the risk to star going to preachings uggg

 

[bruce_g]

Well, Jesed, you're sincere and diligent in your studies. I respect that.

Since I don't know what specific other versions quote Luke identically with that particular Thomas quote, I still have no way of knowing if you are correct in your assertion. I've only read it in the Gospel of Thomas. If you locate it, please PM it to me. I think this board must be tired of reading about it here.

 

[bruce_g]

I'm up for a little while, and this subject still interests me. So...

Honour in the sense of choosing which Stream of Creation to follow. It is indeed up to us and only us.

Not sure what "choosing which Stream of Creation to follow" means. I meant honoring it directly, as you would a god. Honoring even the most deplorable demons as being elements of your own psyche. The Tibetan Book of the Dead teaches a great deal about this.

"Divinity" as a word, is maybe far too ephemeral and abstract when it comes to deciding whether or not we are actually "growing" our soul or allowing it to atrophy. The simple fact in my mind is if we believe a lie, whether lying to ourselves or the events we are witness to in the world we diminish our relationship to Divinity or the Sacred until eventually, we are on the opposite path of Non-being by default. You can be an Einstein or a Homer and still lie to yourself and have an ego the size of Mt. Etna. One can still be in the basement in terms of one's connection to something more real and authentic.

I think "divinity" is a perfect word for life. To imagine all the things that need to happen in such a complex, phenomenal way, that a single cell life form can materialize and function on a material plain - that's miraculous and divine in my book. And this plain, teaming with life, each cell dependent on the others... what is more divine that you know of than this?

So much emphasis on being tricked and lied to makes a person at war with the world. I'm simply trying to point out that these things are not our enemies.

Life really becomes a joy having come back from the Abyss and lived to tell the tale and most importantly to share that energy. I think that's why those of us as potential extensions of a Creative half of Divinity as oppose to those of the destructive half, are being called to honour that potential by making the choice to turn towards our conscience and to ACT upon it.

Please explain "Creative half of Divinity". So then, is death the destructive half, which is not to be honored? Or perhaps you are speaking entirely of humans, and not nature. Because nature knows nothing of good and evil.

R.e. "how we relate to it (the dark, death, destruction, evil, etc) is the way we relate with it":

Sure but that could be seen as a cop-out. (I am who I am even if I haven't a clue who I am) I think It is a process or it is stasis. I can look at death and destruction and pretend it doesn't exist outside my white picket fence. No problem. It is a perfectly valid choice. Or there is a third option that one is fully cognizant of the suffering and one chooses to "anchor" this creative energy in meditation away from the active world.

Let me restate it again, with emphasis: "how we relate to it is the way we relate with it". All I'm saying here is that, our relationship with it determines how we relate to it. There's no cop out there. If you want to win a fight with a demon, don't go blow for blow with it, because that's what a demon feeds on. Relate to it with more awareness and respect, and it will honor your mastery, and will become your ally and friend.

I can recognise the divinity in a Jaguar stalking me into a corner. But it will still eat me.
That's what Jaguars do.

Indeed it is. Shouldn't that be honored?

 

[Sparhawk]

Actually? I'd prefer a nice, dry red wine.

Ah, my kind of friend...

L