. . . it is a fact however, that all ADVANCED spiritual seekers will agree with me. . . .

Well . . . (harrumph) . . . if you say so, Bwanah

There are the teachings of the Christianity of today and then there is what Jesus taught. They are different.

Actually, we know nothing about what Jesus taught except what Christianity has handed down.

While he was alive, what would he have had to say about an event that had yet to happen, namely his crucifixion?

You should read the Gospels sometimes to find out.

In the three years of his living ministry on Earth, of what value would their have been in teaching of a time of suffering on a cross? I surely haven't read anything in my Bible about those teachings.

Obviously, you haven't.

The Bible was put together 400 years after Jesus died, at the Council of Nicea. Is it not reasonable that the men who banded this new book didn't have the spiritual understanding needed to weed out what Jesus' true teachings were?

The writings that have become the Christian scriptures were widely circulated in the early communities before the end of the first generation of Christians had passed away. It is not reasonbale that the people who wrote them lacked spiritual understanding or knowledge of Jesus and his teachings. The canonical collection was established long before Nicea.

Please, now . . . enough of these dogmatic pronouncements, especially since with regard to Christianity, you mostly don't know what you're talking about. You think kinesiology is a valuable tool? Fine with me. As I've noted, however, it didn't even work to diagnose my son's problem, and I'm certainly not willing to consider it a basis for evaluating spiritualities and teachings.

Thanks for the discussion. We've hit up against a paradigm you won't be able to see beyond unless you expose yourself to Hawkins work directly. Once you have given it a fair chance I'm sure you'll see that we actually do have a way to verify the teachings of all the worlds great spiritual traditions and teachings.

Seriously though. Where does Jesus teach the need for suffering? Please give me one tiny verse from the Bible where Jesus says that.

And I'll finish this post with the Caveat for page xiv from Hawkins second book, Eye of the I, as I feel it is extremely relevant:

"The traditional religionist or the spiritually timid are forwarned that the material herein presented may be disturbing and therefore better bypassed.

The teachings are presented for the seriously committed spiritual student who is seeking God as Enlightenment.

The pathway to Enlightenment via radical truth is demanding and requires surrender of belief system. Only then does the ultimate reality reveal itself as the sought after I of the Supreme."

. . . we actually do have a way to verify the teachings of all the worlds great spiritual traditions and teachings.

What do you mean: verify? What, exactly, is being verified? And how? You do realize, I hope, just how absurd it seems to suggest that a world religion can be verified by kinesiology?

Where does Jesus teach the need for suffering? Please give me one tiny verse from the Bible where Jesus says that.

"If one wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross, and begin to follow in my footsteps." (Mt. 8: 24)

But, fwiw, the discussion wasn't on Jesus teaching the "need for suffering" and I wouldn't characterize his teachings as such. The teaching above is in reference to embracing the sufferings that come from following in his way. You had asked: what value would their have been in teaching of a time of suffering on a cross? And Jesus did have much to say about that as well.

See this thread for a discussion on Enlightenment and Christian spirituality. In Christian spirituality, we are not "seeking God as Enlightenment." We are seeking relationship with God through faith and love that transforms our human nature through grace. Different kind of journey than the "road to enlightenment."

One final fallacy I will address: There is only One reality and it is undeniable and glaringly obvious once you experience that state. I can tell you that ice cream tastes great, everyone can tell you that. You might even choose to believe that 'ice cream tastes great' is a true statement. But until you taste ice cream for yourself, you don't know that to be experientially true.

True, but we don't all taste it the same way. When you move from a simple taste response to a Supernatural Being, the likelihood of a variety of experiences increases. We see this in our human relationships. I am me, and everyone who knows me experiences something that they can all relate to with one another. But we all have different relationships; my wife knows me in a different way/level than my children, siblings, friends, etc. So it is with God. There is no reason to suppose that all the world religious leaders had the same kind of experience of God; it would be very odd indeed if they did. And it wouldn't be inconsistent with a Personal Being (like God) to Self-disclose more intimately with one group than another. Just something for you to think about.

It seems you're signing off the discussion TBiscuit. Thanks for making a round. Welcome back any time.

I'm definitely tracking with you here, Phil,
but is is at times very difficult to find a common language in describing this "ice cream" or "love relationship" to other people.

I was involved in a four way discussion with a Christian freind and two former Catholics, one from a Course in Miracles perspective and another from a Buddhist/Hindu backround.

We agreed to a certain point, but then one fellow says it all comes down to my imaginary freind is better than your imaginary freind. I could see his point of view, but my "imaginary freind" is very real to me and I believe intercedes for me continually before the Throne of the Most High. Now I'm not sure that it is an actual throne as might be pictured in religious iconography or statuary, but the function is that of a High Priest and Advocate as well as Brother and Freind, etc. This relationship is very intimate and private and difficult to describe. It is perhaps inappropriate to attempt to describe it, as would be some aspects of any intimate relationship.

The other freind from The Course in Miracles proceeds to say that everything is an illusion, including the Crucifixion and the idea of linear time itself. One can become a spiritual hovercraft with this type of thinking, and Thomas Merton would say that one of my freinds is into false mysticism on the intellectual side and the other is into false mysticism on the emotional side.

After the others went home, my other freind and I experienced that mysterious harmony engendered and facilitated by the Holy Spirit known as "fellowship" to some and "ice cream" to others.

chocolate/vanilla.com <*))))><

What do you mean: verify? What, exactly, is being verified? And how? You do realize, I hope, just how absurd it seems to suggest that a world religion can be verified by kinesiology?

I mean that Dr. Hawkins work, and they don't hand out PhD's for garbage, has conclusivly indicated that every human has within the capacity to tell truth from falsehood. Open your mind, then your front door, get down to the bookstore, read the book, get educated opinion on this topic, and then we'll talk. Don't take my word for it, and don't form your own opinions based on ignorance.

"If one wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross, and begin to follow in my footsteps." (Mt. 8: 24)

Yeah, deny the self. That means stop feeding the ego and seek Truth. You can do that without suffering however as long as you don't resist pain. Suffering is only caused by resistance to what is.

And it wouldn't be inconsistent with a Personal Being (like God) to Self-disclose more intimately with one group than another. Just something for you to think about.

God is not a personal being. You're projecting your own beliefs onto a Deity. God is not a man nor anything close to a man. God is the source of All That Is, and being that, He doesn't have favorites, as He is All.

I pray that the light does shine on your darkness. You're currently too caught up in the party line to see that a new paradigm has emerged. Expose yourself to Hawkins work. If you email me your address to tmillar@hotmail.com I will gladly send you a copy of Power vs. Force so that we can continue this conversation on more equal footing.

True, but we don't all taste it the same way.

We DO all taste it the same way, as long as we're tasting the same thing. The way we describe that taste may be different, but we are all eating the same ice cream.

One taste of the Source of All (God) is the same as the next taste. An Eastern mouth may describe it differently than a Western mouth, but they've both been eating the same thing.

This consciousness has tasted that thing too. Because I've tasted it I can see that every great mystic and mystical writing on earth is describing that same thing I tasted. It is describing 'The Kingdom of Heaven' in Christian terms, and it is describing 'Nirvana' in Buddhist terms. Call it what you will, they're all trying to say, "The Experience of God's Love tastes great! Drop your belief systems, which aren't a part of that experience, and you can taste it too!"

On the board you refered me to above, you wrote:

Do you want enlightenment? If, yes, then you will need to deconstruct your human consciousness so you can eventually perceive reality without the inconvenient mediation of the mind and will.

On this board you quoted:

"If one wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross, and begin to follow in my footsteps." (Mt. 8: 24)

'Deny his very self' and 'deconstruct your human consciousness' are synonymous. They mean the exact same thing. So if you're to follow the teachings of Jesus, you better start that deconstruction you've been avoiding.

It's very contradictory to say you're turned on by suffering via stringing your self on the cross, as Chistians apparantly do in your hood, and then be turned off by sustaining "an intense spiritual practice to keep your "illusion-bound" human consciousness deconstructed--counting breaths, repeating mantras, doing yogic postures, and all sorts of other exercises intended to frustrate the re-integration of the mind with the body and spirit."

Are you willing to 'suffer' the work it takes to move beyond your mind-made self or not?
Do you have any spiritual practice outside mental masterbation?

Hi, I'm delighted to read an erudite discussion on these matters, so I thought I'd pitch in my bit.

Buddhism and Christianity for me are complementary but different.

It is one thing to have opinions about Christian tenets, but the Christian society I live in brings me the precious rights to do so, so I think caution in criticism it is perhaps appropriate. It's bigger and older than me, I say. :-)

I feel that many Christians emphasize suffering and cruxifiction over salvation and the resurrenction. For me Christ's message is nobler and more empowering than his untimely murder at Roman hands. The resurrection is about life at large for me.

Salvation is not membership in Paul or Peter's church in my understanding, it is the presence of unconditional love in one's life. Operationally this manifests as selfless service and kindness. I feel god is not fooled by our belief systems; god unconditonally loves us, I feel, and wants us embody unconditional love. And that is my practical, operational definition of salvation.

Rumi writes that without the church in your heart, you cannot have your heart in the church.

Hope I don't tread on toes with these words. I do not much like it when christian fights christian, but that seems to be a feature of the religion. Buddhism by contrast has a strong dogma that other buddhisms must be respected. Both have groups within that make universalist claims for their faith, and to such claims I wonder who could claim to own sunlight or rain. Peace, love, respect, freedom, willingness to surrender to god's will, vigilance against sin, are universal spiritual principles whose practice has a clear effect in the world. I believe god notices too :-) I do not understand how god could be sectarian any more than he could be less than unconditionally loving.

This loving aspect of god is not compatible with judgment, but only with mercy and understanding and kindness, so there again i part ways with conventional Christianity in asserting that god is nonjudgemental.

As regards kinesiology, I have been using it for several years and i find it frustratingly imprecise. I have read Dr Hawkin's work and understand it's use, however, and it is a significant discovery:

People below 200 test weak. People above 200 test strong. Those who test weak are in thrall to negativity (100 to 199) and sin (1 to about 99). By putting your ring finger against your thumb and testing the level of resistance it's easy to discover yourself who tests strong and who tests weak.

This is a startling thing to begin with. You can tell who is a positive influence in your life this way. You can tell who cannot be relied upon to be a positive influence from those who test weak. Realising that those people who test weak create mostly negativity in your life comes with time.

This fundamental knowledge is a genuine breakthrough, because for the first time we can tell the sheep from the goats.

I have explored the methodology a lot and I admit that it has not usually met the expectations that Hawkins work aroused in me. But the use of muscle testing I mention above is absolutely life-changing, given that discernment does not seem to be a feature built into humans.

Given our fallibility as humans, it is no wonder such methodologies as kinesiology attract people so much. It is kinder to say that kinesiology is unreliable for precise calibrations, but great for testing for positive and negative influence.

It is fruitful to muscle test each book of the Christian bible to see which test strong.

The calibration is of the person's alignment with an impersonal field of awareness. For Hawkins the way it expresses in the visible world is an effect, not a cause, of what ensues. So the field effect of a, say, cat that calibrated at 250 will have certain qualities which are not caused by anything in the cat's world, but rather arise and manifest from the field itself.

Truthfully, I cannot answer the claims to Christian universalism directly because they do not need answering. A spiritual principle is self-evident and needs no defending: clearly understanding is better than judgement, peace better than war, love is better than hate, life better than death, or kindness better than cruelty.

To the degree Christianity embodies spiritual principles there is nothing for me to disagree with. The field of Christianity means that people aligned with that field will tend to be kind anyway.

it is when a group tests weak that there is good cause for caution.

Try muscle testing some friends and see who tests weak and why.

Fantastic post paw.

There is one thing I've been wondering about lately and it relates to what you wrote here:

It is one thing to have opinions about Christian tenets, but the Christian society I live in brings me the precious rights to do so, so I think caution in criticism it is perhaps appropriate. It's bigger and older than me, I say. :-)

The church at the time of Jesus was not teaching the Truth. That's why Jesus came and taught. He wouldn't come to teach the same old, Old Testament lessons. There is no purpose in that.

As I'm sure you know from your muscle testing, all of the Old Testament, except three books, do make you go weak. This makes further sense when you read about a vengeful and terrifying God in most of those same books that cause weakness.

Jesus got crucified because he threatened the lessons and organization of the church at that time. The church was broken, so Jesus came to fix it. It pissed a lot of people off a lot, so they killed him.

2000 years later we have another church built on distorted Truth. We still use the Old Testament for crying out loud! As I watch all of my brothers and sisters following a wolf in sheep�s clothing, should I do nothing? or should I at least present my opinion in a way that forces some reflection?

Or should I do more? Should I truly sacrafice all that I know and value? Should I speak the truth, at all costs, knowing that nothing Real can be threatened and nothing 'not-real' exists? My unconditional love of All That Is tells me this is what should be done. This would truly be following the Way, the Truth and the Life of our Lord.

And to MysticMike, you said this:

and Thomas Merton would say that one of my freinds is into false mysticism on the intellectual side and the other is into false mysticism on the emotional side.

What I am trying to describe is an experience beyond the intellect, as well as beyond emotions. It is the source of both. It is the formless from which these forms (intellect and emotions) as well as all forms, arise out of.

You can't have hear noise without a background of silence. Emotions are noise, thinking is noise, Oneness, and the experience of the Kingdom of God within, is of unwilled Silence, all-ways present yet rarely noticed.

I think the Christian Churches are just fine as they are, TBiscuit. It is rare to find a church that does not calibrate quite high, and most Christians are aware of and avoid the low calibrating Christian cults.

I have quite recently done a 180 degree turnabout on Catholicism, when a Roman Catholic basically scolded me for speaking about it without due respect. She was right. It is slow to change because it is cautious and wise, not because it is scared and stupid.

Have you calibrated your own level of consciousness? The lower the level, the more likely the 'noise' will obscure the message.

These are complex matters, easy to misunderstand and misinterpret. Were spiritual principles easy to convey we would all be much wiser and happier! :-)

Phil, you said:

In Christian spirituality, we are not "seeking God as Enlightenment." We are seeking relationship with God through faith and love that transforms our human nature through grace. Different kind of journey than the "road to enlightenment."

I have found the relationship to God through Faith and Love that is transforming that you are seeking. I can tell you from this space that the next step is to know God is in a state historically described as Enlightenment. I can also tell you that to get to the goal you have just described, you must have Faith and Love and Trust enough to rest in a state where belief systems are no longer relevent.

That state is not in dead words, but is rather the Living Now with the Living God. This is the Way to the Truth of Life.

God is not a personal being. You're projecting your own beliefs onto a Deity. . .

TBiscuit, you really don't seem to understand very much about Christianity, so your points don't carry any weight, really. Furthermore, your use of fallacies in your arguments, the misinformation you base your judgments on, and the dogmatism that pervades your posts makes it just impossible to discuss this issue with you. It feels very much like trying to dialogue with a fundamentalist.

------

pawbard, welcome to you, and thanks for your sharing. I would certainly agree that Christianity and Buddhism are simultaneously complementary and distinctive. Many of your other points make sense as well.

pawbard, you say, The calibration is of the person's alignment with an impersonal field of awareness. How can it really be known what the calibration is measuring in reference to? Why an "impersonal field of awareness?" Awareness in what sense? And why "impersonal." Philosophically, this would imply an awareness without intelligence and volition, which is an absurdity. What kind of awareness is that?

Perhaps I should read Hawkins' book (you should see the stack of stuff I already have that I "should" read), but the more it goes, the less inclined I find myself to doing so.

Quick question . . . how did you find your way to this discussion? Is it showing up on a search engine somewhere?

From Michael: The other freind from The Course in Miracles proceeds to say that everything is an illusion, including the Crucifixion and the idea of linear time itself. One can become a spiritual hovercraft with this type of thinking, and Thomas Merton would say that one of my freinds is into false mysticism on the intellectual side and the other is into false mysticism on the emotional side.

Well-put. Maybe you could elaborate on this some more in the thread on the Course.

Quick question . . . how did you find your way to this discussion? Is it showing up on a search engine somewhere?

It's showing up on google if you type Map of Consciousness.

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear...

Once you've had the experience of God that you claim to be looking for, you'll find that all religions are irrelevant in the end. You are one with the Source of All and that source is impersonal. We are so loved by this impersonal source that we're allowed to make up all the fantasies we want inside of it, including the passionate defense of un-truths.

Look for the Truth in my words rather than where my words clash with your beliefs and maybe you'll let the light shine through the darkness.

If there was a Christ among you, would you be wise enough to recognize him and listen to the Truth of his words, even though they go against what you've learned in your church and what your society currently embraces?

Or would you string him to a cross because you knew you were right?

Alright. Let's go back to Hawkins work. If your current beliefs are offended by it, good. But please don't negate it without internal investigation.

This a map of the Ultimate Reality as described in the third book by Hawkins called 'I':
(reprinted with no permission)

Form

Register

Recognition

Watcher/Experiencer

Awareness

Observer/Witness

Light of Consciousness

Manifest as Allness/Self

Unmanifest (Godhead)


This shows what's happening in all of us always. The problems are the world today because we are mostly attached to form. Form is what we think 'we' are.

Thoughts pass though our head and we say those are 'me' or those are 'I'. They are not. If they were, we could control them. We can't control our mind, it's constantly running and we are constantly in fear of what it's going to be up to next. If we were our mind, we could control it. The mind is an impersonal mechanism that has been programmed by the conversation we were born into.

Spiritual work starts with realizing you are not the mind or the body. You are the source of those things. To realize this, simply observe what the mind is doing without being attached to it. Shine the light of awareness onto the mechanics of the mind without believing it anytime it mentions, 'me' or 'mine'. Use perspective of the witness of the mind to say "Not me, not mine" any time a thought arises.

Once you stop registering with the form that fills your mind you will observe quite easily that there is an unwilled stillness from which all form is arising. It is a stillness which is beyond cause. You will observer that nothing is 'causing' anything else in a left-to-right Newtonian kind of way, but rather, everything is supported from the 'top-down' consistently and never-endingly. This is the Presence of God.

Instead of seeing or feeling form and calling it 'me', start thinking of 'me' as the infinite potentiality from which all form arises. Expand your consciousness from being the content that things 'happen' to, into the context from which everything arises.

Try it. You'll quickly see all your troubles melting into the realization of what you really are.

Straight and narrow is the path. Waste no time.

TBiscuit, I know you won't believe that I know and understand the experience you're talking about, but I do. Read around this web site a bit and try to be a little more careful and respectful, especially since you claim to be so plugged in to love at its Source.

You also might not believe this, but I've no real ojection to that Form > Unmanifest hierarchy. It's when you say things like, You are one with the Source of All and that source is impersonal that I have a problem. Maybe you can share what you mean by "impersonal;" what it generally means is pertaining to personal being, especially qualities like intelligence and volition. So to say that one is loved by God implies that God is Personal Being, for without intelligence and freedom, it's pointless to speak of love. And if God is really Personal Being, then the possibility of relationship with God opens as well. So now we're in the realm of theistic spirituality, at least, which enables one to let go of what is false and live by what is true. Christian spirituality is a type of theistic spirituality which moves one as I've just described, only in relation to Christ in the Spirit.

If there was a Christ among you, would you be wise enough to recognize him and listen to the Truth of his words, even though they go against what you've learned in your church and what your society currently embraces?

I hope so. He didn't fare very well when he did come, however.

Spiritual work starts with realizing you are not the mind or the body. You are the source of those things.

That's a noble spiritual pathway (jana and raja yoga), but not the only one nor the one most travel. Spiritual work can also begin when one recognizes that one's life isn't working, or that one hungers for more, or that one wishes to know life's meaning. Truly, there are many ways in which people enter the spiritual journey, and many pathways they travel. The most common, actually, is to develop a relationship with God that leads one from an old self to the realization of a new identity in God. That's actually what all the Western religions and many from the East not only aim for, but help people to realize.

Once you stop registering with the form that fills your mind you will observe quite easily that there is an unwilled stillness from which all form is arising. It is a stillness which is beyond cause.

Yes. I have written about all this at great length. The practice you describe is called dis-identification and it does enable one to "tune in," as it were, to a field of spirit in which we exist.

This is the Presence of God.

It is one of many ways in which people experience the divine.

So to say that one is loved by God implies that God is Personal Being, for without intelligence and freedom, it's pointless to speak of love. And if God is really Personal Being, then the possibility of relationship with God opens as well.

The love I am pointing to is not the fleeting and conditional love that humans typically experience in observable relationships. Love is not dependant on conditions. An old county song says, "I just don't love you no more." A love that has the potential to start or end, is not love.

Impersonal means all encompassing. It means you do not have a choice whether or not you want to have a relationship with God, all relationships take place within this thing labeled God. The choice lies in attaching your sense of self to the content that is form, or the context, which is Reality.

Impersonality does not judge. There was no judgment in the Garden of Eden. Personality is the judge of good and evil, and it steps out of Reality every time it does. It is because of Its impersonal nature, a nature beyond good and evil, that God is the eternal comforter.

The value of the Sun lies in it's impersonal nature. It does not keep it's light from any being. You can have a personal relationship with the Sun, but it's just an illusion in your head. If, in your homemade relationship with the Sun, you piss it off, it's not going to stop shining on you. So it is with the Love of God.

Spiritual work can also begin when one recognizes that one's life isn't working, or that one hungers for more, or that one wishes to know life's meaning.

That's true. That was my experience as well. True advances in consciousness for me didn't start until I moved beyond identification with the content of mind. From this perspective I can see that this is true for all human consciousness that will evolve.

Truly, there are many ways in which people enter the spiritual journey, and many pathways they travel.

All the paths do converge. If this was not true, Christ would not have been able to claim his being as the Way. Nor would he have been able to say that 'no one comes to the Lord except through me'. This convergence has been verified by the personal experience of this entity as well.

TBiscuit, I don't think you understood what I said about personal. You're using impersonal to signify "constancy" and "impartiality," which isn't at all in disagreement with what I wrote about that.

quote:

Impersonality does not judge. There was no judgment in the Garden of Eden. Personality is the judge of good and evil, and it steps out of Reality every time it does.

Impersonality cannot judge because there is "no one" to do the judging.

There was judgement in Eden. The consequences of the disobedience ruptured the relationship with God and that's a kind of judgment. Read the Bible; God sent them out of Eden and placed an angel with a flaming sword to prevent their return. I know that's just a story, but it's a stretch to say there's no judgment involved in it.

Judging between good and evil is a basic moral obligation. Having a personality is a basic human attribute. I do not think spiritual growth eliminates personality or the responsibility to judge between good and evil.

So much of what is written by "enlightement" people seems nonsense to me. I followed that way for awhile and found it was making me crazy. The dogmatism alone should tell us this is not what it's making itself out to be.

- Mike

Impersonality... hm. Phil, the field of awareness I refer to are founded in some details of science. You could not go far amiss in reading Power v Force, since it tends to make reading many other books needless by discussing issues in a certain inclusive context.

Yes, mlk, you are correct in saying that a judgment occurs in the marvellous and ancient genesis story. Would you be willing to accept the discernment between a judgement that discerns what best a person needs to suffer in order to grow, and a judgment motivated by vindictiveness and anger at having had one's rules broken. I would suggest God would not indulge in vindictiveness. It is certainly a beautiful story that can give rise to such an infinite number of interpretations :-)

Phil, I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that impersonality can have no volition or intelligence. Volition and intelligence appear to me as impersonal qualities that manifest within the person under the appropriate conditions. What is your understanding of this?

Among the devotees to Krishna the idea of god as an impersonal quality is shunned. Impersonalism they say is a denial of the inner reality of Krishna.

A lot of these ideas are highly contextual too, and so just communicating the words without consideration for the hearer will give rise to different interpretations.

Dr Hawkins describes the map of consciousness after carefully positioning it in the context of the science, his professional career, and the work he's done on it already. It makes so much more sense in that context.

Hi mlk. I'm responding to your thoughts here:

"Impersonality cannot judge because there is "no one" to do the judging."

This is playing with words. Impersonality is a quality of divinity, not some extra bit that is independent from god. God is not personal simply because he is not human,but Jesus is both human and divine. To project onto God our human virtues and vices is denying that god is perfect.

"Judging between good and evil is a basic moral obligation."

I think respect, acceptance, willingness to understand, and kindness are basic moral obligations. I read this as referring to judgmentalism, which is a form of sin, and I am sure that is not accurate to your view. Do you mean "understanding others" when you refer to judgment?

"Having a personality is a basic human attribute. I do not think spiritual growth eliminates personality or the responsibility to judge between good and evil."

Agreed to both. In fact, from our viewpoint it is essential to distinguish carefully between what is good for us and bad for us, guided by the holy spirit. If you are inferring that some enlightened people are seem without personality and irresponsible, then I agree too. Genuine enlightenment is extremely rare. But again I would say that this is playing with words in a way: personality and responsibility alter as we mature; we can't understand as a child the life of a grown man, so why should the expression of responsibility and personality NOT change in enlightened states?

"So much of what is written by "enlightement" people seems nonsense to me. I followed that way for awhile and found it was making me crazy."

Then dont! Jesus' teachings are excellent for spiritual growth. Jesus teaches not to judge, but to simply avoid negativity and sin. I have found that basic teachings on self-control and emotional management are most useful for me, and, yes, I agree that the perspective of enlightenment can drive you crazy.

Dr Hawkins is positive and down to earth, however, and very much enlightened.

"The dogmatism alone should tell us this is not what it's making itself out to be."

Dogmatism is the domain of lucifer, the subtle deceptions that lead to the gross abuses that we describe under the rubric of satan. Sin in the luciferic form is shiny but not sunny, seductive but not attractive and seems good but tastes bitter, and always relies on a subtle distortion of context to open up a person to negativity.

More relevant to the question of discerning truth, I understand it is almost impossible at present for humans to perceive luciferic tempations unaided, and Jesus wisely advises us to avoid it all and stay with the good. No-where does Jesus advise us to be dogmatic against others it seems to me, javascript:void(0)


Warm regards,

Pawbard

This conversation has just taken off into a stunning realm. Here's to all involved!

See you tomorrow.

pawbard, thanks for your thoughtful posts. I'll reply to a few points and see where it goes.

Impersonality is a quality of divinity, not some extra bit that is independent from god. God is not personal simply because he is not human,but Jesus is both human and divine. To project onto God our human virtues and vices is denying that god is perfect.

It seems that you and TBiscuit are using the word impersonal in a highly ideosyncratic manner, mostly to signify that God's love is unconditional, persistent, consistent and that God is a being far beyond the human (i.e. super-natural). You probably already know that Christianity teaches all this, so when we say that God is personal, that's not what we mean. We mean:
1. That God is a Being, not simply a kind of inanimate spiritual force field.
2. That the Being we call God has been revealed by Christ to be Abba, who is loving, relational, conversational, purposeful -- personal!
3. That these qualities of God are not projections of humans onto God, for, having been revealed by Christ, they answer the question "what kind of a God is God?" and imply a summons to relationship.
4. That the reason we humans are personal (in the sense of being intelligent, free and relational) is because God is Personal; iow, we are personal because we are "images of God."

As you can see, there's just no way any of this can be refuted by kiniseology or any other kind of teaching since, for Christians, the revelation of Christ trumps all else. One can try re-making the Christian message (as TBiscuit has done) into something indistinguishable from other religions, but that doesn't work either and turns out to actually be disrespectful of what is unique and beautiful in each of the world religions.

Re. judgments, good and evil, I'm with both you and mlk. Good and evil are out there and we do need to be discerning, but Jesus makes it clear that we need to take "the plank out of our eyes" to see clearly. IOW, we must be detached from selfish agenda and open to the guidance of the Spirit.

There is a difference between discernment and judgment. Discernment is: it's raining outside. Judgment is: rain is bad or rain is good.

If a thing happens, it happens. If someone looks upon a past happening and says that it was either good or bad they have diluted themselves and stepped out of Reality and into a vain arrogance.

Any event occurring takes the totality of the whole universe to happen. One piece of dust floating in a room takes all the air currents in that room, the walls in the room, the house the room is in, the land it's sitting on, the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe and all universes, add infinity. God is creating all happenings, to look back on a happening and say it was right or wrong is futile and the source of all guilt and fear.

Take each moment as it is, without the filter of your past memories or the projection of an expected future, and then you will never need to judge again. You will be back in Eden which is Heaven on Earth and is within.

If you think all talk of Enlightenment is nonsense it is because you are trying to use the mind to comprehend it. The state of Enlightenment is beyond the mind and can only be experienced once your attachment to the mind as 'who I am' is surrendered.