Dialogue Between A Christian and a Master

[lazydullard]

Dialogue Between A Christian and a Master:

Master: Bible does not promote optimum harmony. Promote me.
Christian: Optimum harmony? How about what's right?
Master: Right is just a feeling, man.
Christian: Right is more than a feeling.
Master: More than a feeling? Therefore, the action of right gives you value, and the action of wrong either loses you value or chalks up punishment. Conclusion: You are using a feeling to gather value or avoid punishment.
Christian: Counter: It's more than a feeling.
Master: Then, you are using an undefined process to gather value or avoid punishment. Optimum harmony ensures you don't harm other people's efforts to do this.
Christian: Counter: What you propose is wrong.
Master: Conclusion: You are losing value or gaining punishment through an undefined process when I perform wrong actions. Therefore, you are hurting yourself in response to my actions. That is a definition of evil and manipulation.
Christian: Counter: You're not suppose to do wrong things.
Master: Riposte: You signify wrong things with the feelings of right and wrong. You have turned right and wrong into an idol.
Christian: Weak Counter: God does not want you to do wrong things.
Master: You are worshiping an idol. From your source material, you are doing wrong. In terms of optimum harmony, you're annoying.
Christian: Stubborn Counter: I am not worshiping an idol and you are doing wrong.
Master: Clarity. It's not your fault. You're experiencing ... correct logic on a bad premise. How can I save you from your premise? God is not communicating with you through your feelings of right and wrong. You are turning feelings into God, a form of idol worship.
Christian: Counter: God has imbued us with knowing what's right and wrong.
Master: That was the devil from your source material.
Christian: Counter: Logic is from the devil as well.
Master: Hah! Logic can exist without good and evil because:
Good increments.
Evil decrements.
Logic can prevent you from incrementing or decrementing. Thus, logic can neutralize good and evil. It is the cure to the devil. These are the premises that will slay your bible with a proof. See if you can figure it out:
A good idea rises, a bad idea falls.
Logic redefines the scale.
A sliding number line.
Mathematical slight of hand to pierce God's heart (because God is the devil)
I redefine nothing to slide the number line into God's heart (because God is the devil).
Death to religion. Do you see the proof? (Out of character: Can anyone finish the proof for me? I have damaged rigor and cannot define the terms and steps closer than this, though I can provide greater hints if you like).
Master's closing statement: Zero is neutrality is nothing is lack of good and evil. Kill the devil with logic. Can you save yourself? If you make me draw it out for you, I shall have to lash you!

 

[Xorkoth]

Is this something you're writing? Interesting stuff, I think it would be more effective though if you didn't convey so much subjectivity in who is the "right" one (which you do through attaching words like annoying, etc). Also a master (I presume of some sort of spiritual practice but perhaps I'm wrong) seems to me to perhaps not be likely to speak of lashings or pass judgments.

Overall though, cool thing to be writing about, and cool way of presenting it.

 

[lazydullard]

thanks for reading, appreciate it

 

[Ninae]

I think the divide into "masters" and "Christians" can be a bit unnecessary, in that it doesn't really have to be that way even if it can be, or not all can be confined to either of those stereotypes, although humans love simplifying like that.

There has also been masters from a Christian background, like any other, and my idea of real Christianity is more what is called esoteric Christanity more based on personal mystical experiences. Peter Deunov is a good example of someone who got an education in traditional orthodox Christianity but eventually decided those frames were too constricting to practice within. So we don't really need that divide and higher wisdom is not confined to Eastern traditions (familiarity breeds contempt).

Like with many of these things I find it's not so much that this divide is necessary but more that many still choose to uphold them. Or for some reason many are still very invested in grouping people in different ways, either as being of different faiths/religions or being identified as either scientific/religious, when this is not really necessary. But I guess it appeals to the need to have something to identify with and belong to and also the competitive instinct in human nature. A lot of the time it works like supporting rivaling football teams, also a substitute for fighting or war, and speaking up for your "side" (I don't think many are really above this).

 

[Ninae]

By the way, you should also keep in mind what you call "logic" has limited value or only applies to what you can achieve on the mental level, and there are also other levels of activity and accomplishment. Like the level of physical activity, the level of emotions, and what is termed as the "spiritual" level, or the level of the more individual soul and the impersonal spirit (sometimes called "egoic" and "monadic").

Or life isn't just an intelligence contest. Some might feel it would be easier if it was, but it's not. The level of action might, or the level of dicipline, self-control, and hard work, can be the most demanding for many, also the moral level, and the social level can be very challenging for some.

But it seems common for people to make up what they lack on one level on another, so accomplishments on the mental level can be used to justify failure or lack of success on other levels. But you should avoid trying to pretend the levels you don't perform well on or don't want to deal with matter, or even exist. Although I think almost everyone does to some degree and it's not something most like being reminded of.

Maybe try asking yourself "Why is the level of logic, or whatever, that important for me or what am I trying to make up for?". When you give too much energy to one side you can become imbalanced, and of course there are worthwhile people who don't excel on the level of logic at all, or just have other strengths. My strength used to lie more on the level of love, not so much logic in particular, so I had to start re-organising my energies and now I'm more the other way around.

Do I think I'm better now? I don't know, I was happier before, but things are easier now. I think it was a kind of necessary development. It's just that as a human you have limited energy to invest and you can't cover it all at a time. So you tend to lead it into specific channels, maybe what you are lead into from birth, or born with an inclination towards. But you don't have to stay that way for your whole life and most go through stages where they focus on different things so they get to develop more sides to their nature.


- The level of action
- The level of emotion
- The level of thought
- The level of spirit
- The moral level
- The athletic level
- The financial level
- The level of work/career
- The level of education
- The creative/artistic level
- The social level
- The level of physique
- The level of charm/personality


etc.

What matters most? I tend to think all matter, but it's a bit overwhelming so most spend a lot of energy trying to prove some matter more. I guess intelligence/social skills/finance are the most vital to survival.

 

[lazydullard]

I'm attempting a cultural takeover of the world by promoting my values as the correct answer.

You need to keep in mind the bottom, truest level of the universe is that everything is nothing but opinion and posturing.

I am the alpha mind and I've come to fix the world. It's all illusion. There is no balance between sides. I'm not unbalanced. Everything increments, and that is the only action. All levels of life are an opinion surrounding the increment.

I greatly appreciate the time you spent to develop me.

 

[murphythecat]

I think the divide into "masters" and "Christians" can be a bit unnecessary, in that it doesn't really have to be that way even if it can be, or not all can be confined to either of those stereotypes, although humans love simplifying like that.

There has also been masters from a Christian background, like any other, and my idea of real Christianity is more what is called esoteric Christanity more based on personal mystical experiences. Peter Deunov is a good example of someone who got an education in traditional orthodox Christianity but eventually decided those frames were too constricting to practice within. So we don't really need that divide and higher wisdom is not confined to Eastern traditions (familiarity breeds contempt).

Like with many of these things I find it's not so much that this divide is necessary but more that many still choose to uphold them. Or for some reason many are still very invested in grouping people in different ways, either as being of different faiths/religions or being identified as either scientific/religious, when this is not really necessary. But I guess it appeals to the need to have something to identify with and belong to and also the competitive instinct in human nature. A lot of the time it works like supporting rivaling football teams, also a substitute for fighting or war, and speaking up for your "side" (I don't think many are really above this).

definitely agree with that.

if the ''master'' was truly a master, he wouldnt speak like that.

Ayya khema, a buddhist nun, realized after studying some christian mystics that I forgot the name, but quite a few, describes in their experience the Jhanas. I'll try to cite some name for you ninae. but ayya khema was sure that some christian mystics definitely experience the jhanas. the jhanas in buddhism are very important and are one of the most important mean to gain insight into reality in order to get enlightened.

What matters most?

purification.
the only way inside of ourselves is with a pure mind, secluded from any sense contact, fully concentrated on the now.


what matters is to stop to think and begin to experience reality.
you cannot think AND experience at the same time.

 

[lazydullard]

What do you people think masters are for? What is the purpose of a master? To be nice? Are you saying he's not a master because he's not nice?

you cannot think and experience at the same time, but you can experience and KNOW at the same time.

"purification.
the only way inside of ourselves is with a pure mind, secluded from any sense contact, fully concentrated on the now."
That is escapism. What are your masters trying to teach you?

Experience is the most active thing you can possible do. If you are reserved and so politically correct as to not care about other people, as the masters you two describe are, then you are not experiencing. You are posturing.

True love is not belonging and acceptance. That is poison.

 

[murphythecat]

what religion are we talking about here.
a buddhist master normally do teachings. what a master do is try to teach the method to follow in order for the student to reach the same knowledge the master has.

in oder to learn, you need to have meaningful experience. a master show the way to bring those experience.

masters teaches techniques. he doesnt have to confront, nor convince, simplly to teach the methods. once teached, if the student is serious, he will realize what the teacher showed as long as he do the practice.

What do you people think masters are for? What is the purpose of a master? To be nice? Are you saying he's not a master because he's not nice?

you cannot think and experience at the same time, but you can experience and KNOW at the same time.

"purification.
the only way inside of ourselves is with a pure mind, secluded from any sense contact, fully concentrated on the now."
That is escapism. What are your masters trying to teach you?

Experience is the most active thing you can possible do. If you are reserved and so politically correct as to not care about other people, as the masters you two describe are, then you are not experiencing. You are posturing.

True love is not belonging and acceptance. That is poison.

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah I guess I'm not really clear on what a master refers to in this case. And in my opinion an idea is communicated most effectively to the greatest number of people if it doesn't come across as judgmental... that was the gist of what I was trying to say with that. By using descriptive words to paint the christian in a mocking light and give him an overt sense of moral inferiority, almost any Christian reading this will be immediately put on the defensive and your message will likely not be heard. I assume you want to write this to be instructional in some way... if not and it's just a creative writing piece then this may not apply - in that case, write it however you want to.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Economy is everything. Christianity's morale just exist to appease those who like to see suffering and like people whom suffer. The Spirit of Christianity is strength through suffering.

 

[swilow]

To be fair, a lot of world religions emphasise the inevitability of suffering. Its as if there is this idea that we are inherently impure or weak and destined to suffer, so we need to try and dig our way out. With some desperation. No-one can pretend that humans are perfect, but such a designation is pretty much impossibly on the macro scale of the universe. It would seem like our nature is just our nature, and not really worth denying IMO.

 

[murphythecat]

To be fair, a lot of world religions emphasise the inevitability of suffering. Its as if there is this idea that we are inherently impure or weak and destined to suffer, so we need to try and dig our way out. With some desperation. No-one can pretend that humans are perfect, but such a designation is pretty much impossibly on the macro scale of the universe. It would seem like our nature is just our nature, and not really worth denying IMO.

hum, not very constructive to make such generalisation.
at least, buddhism doesnt claim what you just said.

buddhism claim, with good reasons, that stress/suffering/ unsatisfaction is our constant companion in this life and that all experienced things contain some sort of stress. many are not totally aware of the stress/suffering inherent in any experience, but its there, if you look.
why all experienced things are unsatisfying? because its impermanent. all experienced things, no matter how beautiful, will end.

how can you build your happiness on impermanent experienced things?

now, if you want to think its our nature to suffer and that we cannot do anything about it because its our nature, fine. but I do believe that most of our suffering/stress comes indeed because of our cravings to be, craving for sensual desire, ect. that actually we create our suffering because of all our desire, need, cravings, ect.

as long as we try to find satisfaction with the senses and with the world, I really do think we will always be unsatisfied because as soon as a desire is fullfilled, theres another one right after. it never ends.
hence the need to find something purer, deeper, within, that will bring utter satisfaction, contentment. in order to find it, purity is needed.

 

[Xorkoth]

I think that the experience of suffering is implicit with life itself - all life must sometimes suffer. True, one can attain a state of mind in which suffering is not felt emotionally, but what about before such a state is reached? What about physical suffering, which is certainly still a form of suffering? I think that suffering is a part of life. It's instructional, though certainly one should seek to minimize the negative emotional effects of suffering. But, some things I just accept are going to cause me to suffer. I wouldn't want to turn myself into something that didn't feel emotional pain at the death of a loved one, or the destruction of a loving relationship, even though such pain is, well, painful. Pain is a reaction to certain events, which sometimes is the appropriate reaction, IMO. Suffering is the stage by which the opposite types of emotions are able to be appreciated fully.

 

[swilow]

hum, not very constructive to make such generalisation.
at least, buddhism doesnt claim what you just said.

Christianity has a focus on original sin. That is an allegorical description of humanity's inherent aptitude for sufferring and imperfection. Judaism uplifts the trials and tribultaions of the tribes of Israel. Islam focuses on surrener to god to overcome the weakness of being human. Buddhism has the Noble Truth of Sufferring.

That's four major religions which emphasise sufferring as at least part of its cosmology. Rather then getting concerned because you've perceived that I've insulted buddhism specifically, look at what I was saying that wasn't directly focused on your beliefs, which was the vast majority of it.

now, if you want to think its our nature to suffer and that we cannot do anything about it because its our nature, fine. but I do believe that most of our suffering/stress comes indeed because of our cravings to be, craving for sensual desire, ect. that actually we create our suffering because of all our desire, need, cravings, ect.

I'm just not so sure I actually think its the human lot to eternally suffer with no way out EXCEPT. I recall a story of some supplicant speaking to a swami of the 70's, asking for help to quit smoking. The swami delightedly giggled and answered "try my brand". No-one has a monopoly on the human condition, not even Buddhism.

Isn't there great potential for focus on suffering to inaccurately dominate? What if it is self-fulfilling?

as long as we try to find satisfaction with the senses and with the world, I really do think we will always be unsatisfied because as soon as a desire is fullfilled, theres another one right after. it never ends.
hence the need to find something purer, deeper, within, that will bring utter satisfaction, contentment. in order to find it, purity is needed.

But can you not desire something without suffering greatly through its unfulfillment? There are things I want, people I want to fuck, things I want to hold and own, who's lack is really not so bad. Its important to put suffering in context; not all unrequited longing makes life a living hell. IMO.

Can you clarify what is meant by purity?

 

[Ninae]

I feel I can say for sure by now we have two natures, one higher and one lower.

The lower consists of the ego/selfish/animal self and instincts and the higher is simply a form of love/bliss nature that is more moral and at one with others and also open to a form of spiritual world.

Although people find it very hard to understand each other when they don't see things through the same side of self. It's also hard to shift focus over from the lower self to the higher self, or there seems like a lot of resistance, and there are only a few overwhelmingly positive experiences, like falling in love or having a child, that seem able to (temporarily) induce it.

I also think it's what happens when you take drugs that make you feel more blissful/loving, etc. So it's what we are all looking for, even if we don't know it.

The main reason people seem to object to this idea is if they feel it constrains their lower nature in a way they don't want or don't have any understanding of what their higher nature is yet.

 

[murphythecat]

I think that the experience of suffering is implicit with life itself - all life must sometimes suffer. True, one can attain a state of mind in which suffering is not felt emotionally, but what about before such a state is reached? What about physical suffering, which is certainly still a form of suffering? I think that suffering is a part of life. It's instructional, though certainly one should seek to minimize the negative emotional effects of suffering. But, some things I just accept are going to cause me to suffer. I wouldn't want to turn myself into something that didn't feel emotional pain at the death of a loved one, or the destruction of a loving relationship, even though such pain is, well, painful. Pain is a reaction to certain events, which sometimes is the appropriate reaction, IMO. Suffering is the stage by which the opposite types of emotions are able to be appreciated fully.

there is two way/type/categories of suffering: mental and physical.
the buddhist teaching is focused on the mental pain and how to stop that type of suffering.

the buddha himself had terrible body pain at the end of his life and talked about it. he said the only way he was able to not suffer from body discomfort is with concentration and meditation.

the physical body is bound to the laws we have no control over and we have little control over the physical pain.

the buddhist teaching is all about stopping the self inflicted pain that is mental. we can have total control over the mental formation that creates suffering in the mind.

we cannot really control the physical suffering that our body is bound to have. actually, if you focus on the body right now, you could find non stop discomfort in the body.
the body sufferes and you canot stop that, but you can stop the suffering in the mind.

 

[murphythecat]

Christianity has a focus on original sin. That is an allegorical description of humanity's inherent aptitude for sufferring and imperfection. Judaism uplifts the trials and tribultaions of the tribes of Israel. Islam focuses on surrener to god to overcome the weakness of being human. Buddhism has the Noble Truth of Sufferring.

That's four major religions which emphasise sufferring as at least part of its cosmology. Rather then getting concerned because you've perceived that I've insulted buddhism specifically, look at what I was saying that wasn't directly focused on your beliefs, which was the vast majority of it.



I'm just not so sure I actually think its the human lot to eternally suffer with no way out EXCEPT. I recall a story of some supplicant speaking to a swami of the 70's, asking for help to quit smoking. The swami delightedly giggled and answered "try my brand". No-one has a monopoly on the human condition, not even Buddhism.

Isn't there great potential for focus on suffering to inaccurately dominate? What if it is self-fulfilling?



But can you not desire something without suffering greatly through its unfulfillment? There are things I want, people I want to fuck, things I want to hold and own, who's lack is really not so bad. Its important to put suffering in context; not all unrequited longing makes life a living hell. IMO.

Can you clarify what is meant by purity?

purity is very long to explain as it is very central and basically everything a monk do is in order to purify...

only a buddha or a arahant can be said to have no stain and totally pure at all time.

The fourth noble truth, the noble eightfold path, is the path to purification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path
right speech is pure speech, right action is pure action, right intention is pure intention, ect.

when you meditate, you need right mindfulness, right action, right effort, ect. so it really purifies the mind.

the 5 hindrances are sensual desire, ill will, doubt, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_hindrances
If you look deep inside of you, you will find that one of the 5 hindrances is constantly in you and you are driven by them. If you mind is not aware and is acting out because of a hindrance, at this moment, the mind is impure.
for example, when you hate, you are definitely not pure. not impure because of a ideal, but impure because at this very moment, you suffer. everytime you hate, you crave, you ressent, you suffer/stress.

the precepts are the basis of morality and the basis for a pure mind and life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts

Mindfulness is the most important practice for the purification of beings: heres the buddha quote:
'' "This is the only way, monks, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the disappearance of pain and grief, for reaching the Noble Path, for the realization of Nibbaana, namely, the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.''
as you can see, the only practice the buddha recommends in order to realize nibbanna is mindfulness. Monks are constantly developping and sharpening their mindfulness.

when you are mindful, no hindrance can affect the mind. the mind will see the hindrance for what it is, know that a hindrance entered the mind and know what to do to not be affected by it.

heres a quote by ayya khema, my favorite teacher:
''Attention to detail is the core of mindfulness. Most people lack the practice and also the instructions to be truly mindful. It's one thing to read about it, but an entirely different matter to do it. Mindfulness is the essence of understanding, because without it there is no seeing into the heart of any phenomena.

Watching the breath means "knowing exactly". Mindfulness is not judgmental, nor discriminating, nor telling stories. Mindfulness knows when there is concentration and when there isn't when the mind wanders off and when the mind becomes peaceful. Perfect mindfulness knows every moment that is occurring.

When we pay attention to our feelings and do not react to them but only observe, then we're using the second foundation of mindfulness, vedananupassana (mindfulness of feeling). When we know we're thinking, it's cittanupassana (mindfulness of thought) and when we know what the content of the thought is, it's dhammanupassana (mindfulness of mind objects). If we're not paying attention, we're not really awake. We need to practice clear attention to any one of these at all times.''


If you are interested, heres my favorite nun, ayya khema, that I find much more interesting then me. id say that she is the one who really made it possible for me to fully understand and gave me total faith in the buddha teaching and the possibility of enlightenment. http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/khema/hereandnow/awake_and_aware.php

 

[HypGnosis]

Lol, ninae, the very idea of a "christian" "master", is an oxymoron...

 

[HypGnosis]

Ok, there may be some christian masters, butpeter denouv is not. Ibummed him inmy monkey suit with akashic sperm so hemay learn