SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Non-SRF Teachings and Ideals
        > For Yellowbeard because I know he likes this stuff
New Topic    Add Reply

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
Registered User
(1/14/04 3:48 pm)
For Yellowbeard because I know he likes this stuff
:rollin :rollin ">uarelove1.tripod.com/AWA_...lin:rollin

Registered User
(1/14/04 3:51 pm)
Re: For Yellowbeard because I know he likes this stuff
grrrrrrrrrrr try this :rollin :rollin :rollin


Registered User
(1/14/04 8:50 pm)
Pointing out Non-dual Awareness
SsSsSnake, here's a variation on the this nondual theme from Ken Wilber. It's the one thing yb and me agree about. ;)

"So Who Are You?"

The witnessing of awareness can persist through waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The Witness is fully available in any state, including your own present state of awareness right now. So I'm going to talk you into this state, or try to, using what are known in Buddhism as "pointing out instructions." I am not going to try to get you into a different state of consciousness, or an altered state of consciousness, or a non-ordinary state. I am going to simply point out something that is already occurring in your own present, ordinary, natural state.

So let's start by just being aware of the world around us. Look out there at the sky, and just relax your mind; let your mind and the sky mingle. Notice the clouds floating by. Notice that this takes no effort on your part. Your present awareness, in which these clouds are floating, is very simple, very easy, effortless, spontaneous. You simply notice that there is an effortless awareness of the clouds. The same is true of those trees, and those birds, and those rocks. You simply and effortlessly witness them.

Look now at the sensations in your own body. You can be aware of whatever bodily feelings are present-perhaps pressure where you are sitting, perhaps warmth in your tummy, maybe tightness in your neck. But even if these feelings are tight and tense, you can easily be aware of them. These feelings arise in your present awareness, and that awareness is very simple, easy, effortless, spontaneous. You simply and effortlessly witness them.

Look at the thoughts arising in your mind. You might notice various images, symbols, concepts, desires, hopes and fears, all spontaneously arising in your awareness. They arise, stay a bit, and pass. These thoughts and feelings arise in your present awareness, and that awareness is very simple, effortless, spontaneous. You simply and effortlessly witness them.

So notice: you can see the clouds float by because you are not those clouds-you are the witness of those clouds. You can feel bodily feelings because you are not those feelings-you are the witness of those feelings. You can see thoughts float by because you are not those thoughts-you are the witness of those thoughts. Spontaneously and naturally, these things all arise, on their own, in your present, effortless awareness.

So who are you? You are not objects out there, you are not feelings, you are not thoughts-you are effortlessly aware of all those, so you are not those. Who or what are you?

Say it this way to yourself: I have feelings, but I am not those feelings. Who am I? I have thoughts, but I am not those thoughts. Who am I? I have desires, but I am not those desires. Who am I?

So you push back into the source of your own awareness. You push back into the Witness, and you rest in the Witness. I am not objects, not feelings, not desires, not thoughts.

But then people usually make a big mistake. They think that if they rest in the Witness, they are going to see something or feel something-something really neat and special. But you won't see anything. If you see something, that is just another object-another feeling, another thought, another sensation, another image. But those are all objects; those are what you are not.

No, as you rest in the Witness-realizing, I am not objects, I am not feelings, I am not thoughts-all you will notice is a sense of freedom, a sense of liberation, a sense of release-release from the terrible constriction of identifying with these puny little finite objects, your little body and little mind and little ego, all of which are objects that can be seen, and thus are not the true Seer, the real Self, the pure Witness, which is what you really are.

So you won't see anything in particular. Whatever is arising is fine. Clouds float by in the sky, feelings float by in the body, thoughts float by in the mind-and you can effortlessly witness all of them. They all spontaneously arise in your own present, easy, effortless awareness. And this witnessing awareness is not itself anything specific you can see. It is just a vast, background sense of freedom-or pure emptiness-and in that pure emptiness, which you are, the entire manifest world arises. You are that freedom, openness, emptiness-and not any itty bitty thing that arises in it.

Resting in that empty, free, easy, effortless witnessing, notice that the clouds are arising in the vast space of your awareness. The clouds are arising within you-so much so, you can taste the clouds, you are one with the clouds. It is as if they are on this side of your skin, they are so close. The sky and your awareness have become one, and all things in the sky are floating effortlessly through your own awareness. You can kiss the sun, swallow the mountain, they are that close. Zen says "Swallow the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp," and that's the easiest thing in the world, when inside and outside are no longer two, when subject and object are nondual, when the looker and looked at are One Taste. You see?

© 1999 Ken Wilber

Registered User
(1/14/04 11:54 pm)
Re: Pointing out Non-dual Awareness
precisely:rollin :rollin :rollin

Registered User
(1/15/04 7:04 am)
Re: For Yellowbeard because I know he likes this stuff
naw...Here's the True Way:


Registered User
(1/15/04 7:12 am)
Re: For Yellowbeard because I know he likes this stuff
Here's something we all need to worry about and find ways to help ourselves. These people do it for us!


Slow Down
(1/19/04 8:57 pm)
When the Looker and Looked At are One Taste
> Ken Wilber excerpt posted by OneTaste: "Zen says 'Swallow the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp,' and that's the easiest thing in the world, when inside and outside are no longer two, when subject and object are nondual, when the looker and looked at are One Taste. You see?"

Always liked the name 'OneTaste'. Is this where you originally got it from, if you don't mind me asking?

Great article by the way. One of the many beauties of this is that we don't think of Ken Wilber when reading it. In other words, our attention isn't focused on him as our 'salvation'. He makes it clear that salvation is within ourself -- something that can't be given or taken away by another. There's no one's stifling ego that we have to live under the shadow of. A beauty of this experience, this One Taste, is that this Freedom is not dependent on any 'cult of personality'. This may appear as a horror to many readers, but it's a blessing.

> Ken Wilber: "You are that freedom, openness, emptiness-and not any itty bitty thing that arises in it."

YB likes to have the audacity to mention that the authority of the guru and the submissiveness of the disciple are both 'itty bitty things' that may arise before one's awareness, and that we need to find "release from the terrible constriction of identifying with these puny little finite" things as well. We find comfort in this clingy relationship, but for the mind to truly 'turn inside out', so to speak, into this infinite awareness, all attachments have to go.


Thanks for the link SsSsSnake. :)

From the site:

“Not all spiritual paths lead to the Harmonious Oneness. Indeed, most are detours and distractions, nothing more.” -- by Lao Tzu from the Hua Hu Ching


Pretty funny stuff from the site Etz mentioned. Here's an excerpt from what YB feels is one of the choice bits:

I've pointed out to some of these liberal Gore lovers that God has historically hated sinners and frequently condemned them to painful deaths. For instance, as a lesson to those who have the audacity to show physical love for the same gender, God incinerated the genitals, mouths and every other orifice involved in such sexual practices in the towns of Sodom and Gomorra (Genesis 19:24-25). As a lesson to those who are fat and sloppy, God struck a town of gluttons with a vicious plague which made that last drumstick taste none-too-good and wiped out every living person (Numbers 11:33-34). As a lesson to youngsters who fail to be seen and not heard, God sent a bear to maul to death a couple dozen children who had teased a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24). And during one particularly bad mood, God threw the lessons out the window and killed every man, woman, child and infant on the planet (except Noah's family) with a Great Flood (Genesis 7:23). It's a good thing these John 3:16 liberals weren't living then.

God didn't do all the slaughtering and mangling on his own. His chosen people, the Israelites, served as his assassins on more than one occasion. God told the Israelites to kill all the men and rape the women and children in the towns they invaded (Deuteronomy 20:13-16). God told the Israelites to take any child who dared to disobey his parents to the town square and hurl stones at his body and head until the tot's corpse was lifeless (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). God took no prisoners.

When I cite these Biblical passages, do you know what these modern day immoral pseudo-Christians have the audacity to say? "Jesus took all that away." That is utter blasphemy, my friends! The very idea that the words of the Son somehow trump the words of his Father is nonsensical on its face. Do you think a Father who had spent so much time talking about killing disobedient children would allow His own upstart Son to tell folks to ignore everything His Daddy had ever said? I don't think so. If Jesus had even tried to do this, God would have yanked Him back to Heaven and given Him a good whupping with a rod. Jesus, Himself, admitted that he is subordinate to the Father who rules over Him (1 Corinthians 11:3). Jesus told the apostles that He had not come to destroy the law of the prophets of old, rather, He had come to fulfill that law (Matthew 5:17). Jesus approved of his Father's command that children who curse their parents are to be put to death (Matthew 15:3-4). Jesus chastised the Pharisees for failing to kill those children who defied their parents' commands (Mark 7:9-13). Jesus told us we are to live our lives in fear of God for God has the power not only to kill us, but to torture us forever in Hell (Luke 12:5). Jesus never contradicted his Father's word, and anyone who suggests otherwise is going straight to Hell.

The smell of blood and roasted corpses was not just pleasing to God, who especially enjoyed the aroma after the Great Flood (Genesis 8:21), it was enjoyed by Jesus as well. Jesus certainly wasn't averse to malicious, virulent punishments to those who didn't accept His every word as Gospel. To name but a few, Jesus told the disciples to bring before Him any man who didn't believe in Him, and to violently slaughter the non-believer while Jesus watched (Luke 19:27). Jesus killed one man by having his body eaten by a swarm of worms because the man failed to give Jesus His due (Acts 12:23). Jesus struck a Jew blind for thwarting His teachings (Acts 13:8-11). He struck a man dumb for failing to listen well (Luke 1:20). He took the lives of a husband and wife by scaring them to death for not forking over all the money they made on a real estate transaction (Acts 5:1-10). During one particularly temperamental time when Jesus was hungry, He even killed a fig tree for failing to bear figs, even though Jesus knew figs weren't in season (Mark 11:12-14). Jesus means business!


For readers that find that bit amusing, follow the link and check out the full article.

And you might wanna check out the Baptist Sin Posse:


Registered User
(1/20/04 4:33 am)
Re: When the Looker and Looked At are One Taste

That was an interesting find on the internet from the Babtist church. Great sermon. Puts things in perspective. But then again, after reading "The Five Gospels", by the Jesus seminar, it seems that Christ didn't say but about 15 percent of what is written in the gospels. So who knows who added the remaining 85 percent?

Registered User
(1/20/04 7:12 am)
Re: When the Looker and Looked At are One Taste
"So who knows who added the remaining 85 percent?"

It was the editers...

YB, did you choose the stuff about the Israelites to stick it to me since I chose the OT over the NT? Just wondering. I really don't need another Guru, thank you very much. Please STOP!!!!!!

If you want gore, you should read about the Sumerians and the Assyrians. The Torah is actually a set of laws meant to soften some of the brutality of the time period, but most people are anachronistic and have no clue. The problem is people get stuck on the literal meaning of it, something the later Rabbis attempted to overcome. The Talmud rules out most of it, oddly enough, like Jesus tried to do. Then people got stuck on the literal meaning of that, again, and once again became anachronistic, not understanding the unfoldment of Consciusness in humanities evolution.

People that get stuck in literal meanings and don't understand the deeply rooted symbolism of any given path get caught in their own conceptualism and fundamentalism, blah, blah, blah... but why am I bothering with giving you all this clutter....? Understanding things... blah... clutter... blah...

The Baptist site is a parody, by the way. Baptists have some truly Fundamentalist stances, but this is a parody.

Registered User
(1/20/04 7:50 am)
Re: When the Looker and Looked At are One Taste
I have to admit all the back biting stuff really makes me laugh a lot.

I respect peoples opinions and if someone wants to have a pop at me be my guest,so I dont feel left out:rollin :rollin :rollin

Slow Down
(1/21/04 3:30 am)
Re: When the Looker and Looked At are One Taste
> Etzchaim wrote: "YB, did you choose the stuff about the Israelites to stick it to me since I chose the OT over the NT?"

I honestly didn't know that you preferred the OT over the NT. But now that you mention it, I do feel that the OT is probably the worlds most vicious religious text, out of the major ones. I'm not a terrible fan of the NT either, but it seems to be a little more sane. And in this modern age where we have access to so many healthy spiritual approaches, I don't see why we'd want to try to sift through these texts trying to find a little light buried within so much darkness, hate and violence. I'm just being straightforward and putting my views on the table for the record on this issue since it's been brought up. What I'm saying here isn't meant to be an attack or to start an argument. We have plenty to argue over and we surely don't need this one stacked atop of the whole mess.

But back to the issue you've raised. *You* are the one that left the link to this site. I thought the site was pretty funny, and I appreciate that you've shared it. A little humor within all this serious spiritual talk is a good thing. It's like you've left a box of chocolates. I ate several out of the box and found one that I particularly liked and said, "hey, have you guys tried this one, it's pretty good". If I knew that it was going to cause offense, I wouldn't have posted the quote. Since you brought up the site, I figured you were basically cool with everything on it.

> SsSsSnake wrote: "I respect peoples opinions and if someone wants to have a pop at me be my guest,so I dont feel left out"


Registered User
(1/21/04 4:44 am)
Re: When the Looker and Looked At are One Taste

Interesting that you feel that that Babtist site is a parody, so I went back and looked at other articles, and it is meant to be a parody, but it is exactly how Christians view Christ. I sent the entire article to my fundalmentalist Christian friend, and she liked it. Having read the Bible in my younger days, it is exactly how I would have seen things back then myself or even now after reading it as it pointed out enough instances where Christ was not the sissy that SRF makes him out to be.

Yellowbeard, I can understand your comments about scearching for good scriptures in the Bible, but all religions have some light. Like you, I really don't care for the Bible and consider it a work of man. I do believe that Christ had some truths, and I believe he got them from Buddhist and/or Hindu teachings, along with any other teachings that may have been floating around at the time. Sometimes, when I am reading the Upanishads I come across something that is almost the same as what is written in the Bible.

Edited by: chela2020 at: 1/21/04 4:53 am
Registered User
(1/21/04 9:31 am)
When one does not understand
YB thinks the myths of the Jews are violent. Here's an interesting take on the Mahabharata and Gita:

"The goals of the Mahabharata are in many ways different from those of the Vedas. Violence and unrest are rife in the atmosphere. With Jarasandha dominating the political scenario of India, the pockets of
democracy are not functioning smoothly. It is not only his own subjects, but those of other kingdoms also, that are being tyrannized by the chief of Magadha, who has little respect for the ideals of
democracy. He has held captive as many as eighty-six heads of states. The whole of India is traumatized by the power of this super-dictator, who is ultimately killed by Bhima, on the advice of Sri Krishna.
This leaves a vacuum, in its sequel, in the political setting of India. In Krishna's own state, Kamsa, the chief, has to be assassinated for all his excesses. Things, however, have drifted so much from the norms
of democracy in the land of the Vrishnis, that even this ultimate measure of assassination of the despot does not put things back to order, for the social psyche of the whole people has taken an irrevocably
downward slide. With the sustained erosion in the inner strength of democracy, the support system for this viable institution, the good old days of effective democracy seem to have disappeared forever. By
the same token, there is an absence of a monarch in the picture at the moment who is mighty enough to be able to strike a balance in the uneven scenario of the country toward establishing the good of
mankind. The goals of the Mahabharata are to bring about a holistic well-being for all, anchored, in the final analysis, to the spiritual level, being a product of a sound political and social structure conducive to
the end. Sri Krishna cherished the ideal to his heart and strove toward its realization his whole life with the help of the five Pandava brothers."

Etzchaim thinks that a projection of dualism onto the world is running rampant. Myths of every culture are symbolic representations of Life, personal biases not-withstanding. Whereas Etzchaim sees the Torah as a reestablishment of democracy in a world of chaos and violence in a very similar way that Sri Krishna argues in the Gita, YB sees only the violence. Odd, hunh? Eztchaim thinks personal biases are very interesting.

...and, isn't it funny that people don't seem to think that what they see as good in Jesus could possibly come from the Jews? Etzchaim has been pondering this for some time now... She respects that people have their opinions, but it does strike her as odd.

Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/21/04 9:42 am
Registered User
(1/21/04 10:18 am)
Evolution of Consciousness through history
"Sometimes, when I am reading the Upanishads I
come across something that is almost the same as what is written in the Bible."

There is actually a new Academic field that compares the Vedas to the Torah (not the NT, mind you) and draws direct parallels between the Vedic teachings and the Torah (the so called "Old Testament"). In Jewish 'lore' there is a belief that the gifts that Abraham sent to the East towards the end of his life were actually the teachings of the Vedas. Personally, I think both systems developed simultaneously because both carry the 'truth' that was unfolding in that time period. The Upanishads are later than the Vedas and represent a further unfoldment, as all traditions are unfolding.

It's important to understand that all of humanity is growing in the unfoldment of consciousness and that cultural differences are just cultural differences that we may relate to or not.

I found some traditional Rabbinic sources on non-violence that I thought was interesting, to help people understand the process of evolution that was happening during the first few centuries of the Current Era (AD, in Christain speak). These are very traditional (i.e. Ancient to Medieval) and therefore reflect a less progressive view than I personally, and most of todays more progressive Jews, currently hold (as in the use of the idea of "Holy War", for instance, which is a much abused concept today on the part of many misguided Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, what have you...):


A) Blood is sacred. Blood is the life of the body and belongs to God alone. The shedding of human blood is the first sin of the primeval history(4) and the most fundamental denial of human dignity. The
only grounds for shedding blood are that that person has first killed someone.(5) Even the blood of an animal must not be shed except in a ritual context.(6)

Those points in the Hebrew scriptures where exceptions are authorized to the wrongness of the shedding of blood are in the context of the "Mosaic" provisions for civil administration, which at the most
would apply to a pre-Exile Israelite state, and in the narratives of "holy war(7)," which could apply only when there was a particular divine command.(8)

Even if (a purely hypothetical construct to test the logic) the Jewish state had not gone into exile, those laws would not apply rigorously, since Judaism assumes an evolutive process leading toward greater
humaneness and grace. The further development of rabbinic thought concerning the death penalty so intensified the rules of evidence as to make a clear murder conviction practically impossible.

A Sanhedrin that executes once in seven years is branded a "destructive tribunal." R. Eliezer b. Azariah says: "once in seventy years.? R. Tarvon and R. Akiba say: "Were we members of a Sanhedrin no
person would ever be put to death." Mishna Makot 1,10

"Be merciful, O God, unto your people Israel whom you have released." For that is the reason that the Holy One, Blessed be He, has redeemed them from Egypt, so that among them and their descendants
there should be no shedders of blood. Torah Temimah on Deut. 21:8

B) The Messiah has not yet come. If anyone could have a right or a duty to restore the patterns of civil retribution, which alone could justify the shedding of blood, it would be the Messiah. Yet we know
that one of the marks of the messianic ages is that it is a time of peace. For this reason, the most traditional Jews even challenge the justification of the very existence of the modern State of Israel.

But the primary connection of the messianic hope to this topic is not the negative one just stated. Since we know that the age of Messiah will be an age of peace, we participate proleptically in the
Messiah's coming, when and to the extent to which we already now live at peace. For some Jews, in fact, living at peace is a part of contributing to Messiah's coming.(9)

C) The Jewish leaders and thinkers who led the community, especially after the collapse in 66-70 of both the conservative Sanhedrin structure and the revolutionary Zealot effort, have built into the Jewish
view of the world the lessons of the failure of the Zealot adventure. The final effort of the same type, that of Bar Kochba (132-135), taught the same lesson again. After those failures, one could see that the
still earlier Maccabean effort(10) had been of the same kind. Well-intentioned efforts to use righteous violence in the interest of God's and Israel's honor were not blessed by God, as the theology of the
actors themselves assumed it must be. All but Bar Kochba (who did not even get that far) failed at least in part because, when they began to succeed militarily, the "Zealots"(11) were not able after all to
bring about the righteous, peaceful, united community they had promised.

It is constitutive of rabbinic Judaism, in the sense in which historians are coming to speak of it as beginning after 70, or after 135, or as becoming definitive and dominant with the Mishnah, to be
concerned to be very sure of having learned the lesson of the wrongness of the Zealot path. In not helping the righteous Zealot uprisings to succeed, God was telling us something which he has had to tell
us more than once.(12)

D) The wisdom in which God as cosmic sovereign presides over the affairs of the goyim (gentiles) is not known to us in any simple way. We do know that God does rule over the whole universe, and
therefore over all the nations. But the way in which God rules over the nations is not the same as the way He rules over us through the revealed torah (law, guidance). Therefore it is not for us to draw
immediate conclusions about which things going on in that wider world are of his doing and which of them constitute rebellion against His rule. Since He has given us no clue as to His judgments in
these matters,(13) it would be the height of presumptuousness for us to seek to be the instruments of divine wrath against evil people, or to do ahead of Messiah's coming the things we think he must want

E) Suffering has a place in the divine economy. The suffering of the faithful is a mystery. On the one hand

(a) there is a correlation between disobedience and punishment, and between obedience and resulting prosperity. If we suffer, we must have been been disobedient, and we are suffering "for our sins."
That is one reason for not defending ourselves. To ward off the suffering we "have coming" would be to interfere with God's chastisement.

But on the other hand

(b) this linkage is not automatic. Sometimes the evil prosper, and the suffering of God's people is beyond explanation. Only those who have not studied the more distant past think that the drama of
Auschwitz has brought this fact to the surface for the first time. It has been part of Jewish awareness at least since Jeremiah. At the very least, some of the suffering undergone at the hands of the goyim
should be accepted as "sanctifying the name" of God.(14)


(c) Less tragic than (b) above, more active than (a), suffering may be thought of as training, or as refining the spirit, rather than as punishment.

Whichever be the dominant mode, suffering is under the control of a sovereign God who owes us and gives us no accounting. Since God lets these things happen it is not for us to prevent them. Thereby
limits are set to what would otherwise count either as "legitimate self-defense" or as "responsible intervention" in the course of events.

F) Mercy, not rejoicing in the suffering of the guilty, is a divine quality which humans should imitate.

Does the Holy One, blessed be He, rejoice over the downfall of the wicked? Is it not written [that singers should praise] as they went before the army, singing: "Give thanks to the Lord for his mercy
endures forever" (I Chron. 20:21)? Concerning which R. Jonathan asked: "Why are the words "He is God" omitted from this expression of thanks? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not
rejoice in the downfall of the wicked. For R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan's name: "what is meant by 'and one approached not the other all night (Ex. 14:20)'? In that hour the ministering angels
wished to utter the song [of praise] before the Holy One, blessed be He, but He rebuked them, saying: 'The work of my hands [i.e. the Egyptians] are drowning in the sea and you would be uttering song
before me?!'" Bab. Talmud, Sanhedrin 39b, cf. Megila 10b.

Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles. Proverbs 24:17.

Registered User
(1/21/04 10:53 am)
Re: Evolution of Consciousness through history
The previous quotes were from the Exoteric side of Ancient/Medieval Judaism, now this is from the Esoteric side of Ancient/Medieval Judaism:


"Rabbi Simeon said: '...when my mind is concentrated on the highest, there is higher still that which can never be known or grasped, the starting-point that is absolutely concealed, that produced what it produced while remaining unknowable, and irradiated what it irradiated while remaining undisclosed. It is the desire of the upward-striving consciousness to pursue after this and be illumined by it. In the process, a certain fragment is detached, and from that fragment, through the pursuit of the upward-striving consciousness, which reaches and yet does not reach it, there is a certain illumination. The upward-striving consciousness is thus illumined by a light undisclosed and unknowable even to that consciousness. That unknowable light of Consciousness impinges on the light of the detached fragment which radiates from the unknowable and undisclosed, so that they are fused into one Light...'"

Earlier in this text, it's explained that the Unknowable Light is Elohim, which fills the Creation, or the "Palace" as it is called, having created the Palace out of it's own Light, being the Light of the Unknowable, which is YHVH.

Paradox? It's the only way to explain the unexplainable.

The entire set of 5 books that compose the Zohar are a mystical commentary on the words of the Torah, starting with "Bereshith bara Elohim" - "In the beginning God created". This is what many Jews consider the real value of the Torah. It is a parable, both through the letters that compose it, and the stories within it. None of the Kabbalistic texts take it literally. The enslavement in Egypt, for instance, is interpreted as the enslavement of humanity in their own limitations. The offering of the sacrifices is symbolic of the offering of our lower selves to God (and we are taught not to "kill" the ego, btw, but to offer it to God to do God's will). The very letters are parables that are used in almost the exact same way that Sanskrit is used in the esoteric traditions of India.

The entire Torah has been taken to be a symbol and a collection of symbols and parables, by a living tradition that continues today and began before the Zohar, and turned into a very useful tool for internal/external work and progress. It may not be your cup of tea, but it IS a highly developed system of thought with it's own methodology for enlightenment, Jewish, not Hindu, but it's the same thing - human consciousness unfolding in God's Consciousness, which is ultimately the same thing, in Time and Space.

When one doesn't understand something, misunderstandings can occur, it's quite natural.

Rabbi Simeon's (Shimon bar Yochai's) story, by the way, is that he found himself in trouble with the Romans, being a radical mystical teacher. The Romans found anyone who might unite or stir up the Jews, to be a threat, and persecution was rampant. He and his son hid in a cave for about 13 years, meditating and studying the Torah. When they came out, they gathered a few people together who were their students... He is one of the Rabbis in the Talmud, and it was his teaching that became the core of the Zohar. The Rabbis quoted by the Talmud, like Rabbi's Hillel and Shimon, were older contemporaries of Jesus. The oldest parts of the Zohar come out of the early Rabbis of the Mishnah (contemporaries of Jesus) and the Apocalyptic literature (between 200 b.c.e. and 200 c.e. - the same period as the Dead Sea Scrolls)

I would say that his story is about as accurate as Jesus story...and we know about as much about him as we do Jesus...

hmmmmmmm...now what does Etzchaim mean by saying that?

In reality, the Zohar, like the NT, was probably written by several people...

One thing, though, it's definately Jewish...

OK, I'm waiting...

Someone will now say: "Aaahhh...the Zohar must be Jesus secret teachings, which he got from India and his middle name was Simeon!!!"


Etzchaim has a headache.

Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/21/04 5:00 pm
Registered User
(1/21/04 12:54 pm)
Re: When the Looker and Looked At are One Taste
"it pointed out enough instances where Christ was not
the sissy that SRF makes him out to be."

Chela, that's really funny! No one is really what SRF makes them out to be, apparently!

Also, please don't take my previous posts as directed 'at' you (or anyone, really). I'm struggling with a good amount of issues relating to history and peoples perspectives, and the whole 'Jesus must have gone to India to learn mysticism' really lights my fire...

Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/21/04 12:59 pm
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Non-SRF Teachings and Ideals -

Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.