Self or Not-Self

Originally posted by Taoman
Our approaches to the sacred writings of the Christian church are different, from the beginning. My understanding is that the first gospel was written between 40 and 60 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth and historical verity is suspect and difficult to prove either way. There is also much presupposed belief and opinion already, making it far less tha herein the Judeo-Christian riches are still celebrated and sought to be lived out.

Our approaches to the sacred writings of the Christian church are different, from the beginning. My understanding is that the first gospel was written between 40 and 60 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth and historical verity is suspect and difficult to prove either way.

The oldest writing, the earliest writing, in the New Testament are not the gospels. They are the epistles of the Apostle Paul.

By examining what Paul was handed by an already established tradition, we can see what his predecessors were already teaching before Paul began to teach.

So we put aside Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John for the moment and examine the earliest NT documents. Even skeptical scholars agree that Paul's letter to the Corinthians, the First, is earlier and authentically Paul's writing.

Note what he tells the church in Corinth. And note that this is PRIOR to the writing of the Gospels.

" ... brothers, the gospel which I announced to you, which also you received, in which also you stand ... For I delivered to you, FIRST of all, THAT WHICH ALSO I RECEIVED, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day accoding to the Scriptures;

And He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, OF WHOM the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; And last of all He appeared to me also ... I am least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I perseecuted the church of God." (my emphasis from - 1 Cor. 15:1-9)

The phraseology " ... I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received ..." some scholars believe was a customary formulaic expression used by rabbinical pupils testifing their adherence to the teachings passed on TO THEM by a superior instructor.

Anyway, this earliest creedal confession of Paul shows us that BEFORE the writing of the Gospels, this teaching of the redemptive death and resurrection from the dead of this Jesus Christ was already being taught. Paul RECEIVED the same. Paul faithfully passed on the the Corinthian church that which he received.

Included in this confession is the fact that Christ appeared, resurrected, to witnesses including the original 12 disciples (minus Judas who was replaced by another eye-witness). He also appeared to over 500 disciples, the majority of which were still alive to confirm or deny Paul's teaching.

Before we even get to who wrote which Gospel and how early, we can see what orthodox apostolic teaching was. At the very least we have to see that Paul and the 12 apostles believed what they were teaching about Christ's redemptive death and resurrection, from this early NT document.

Any comment on this ?

Originally posted by Taoman
Our approaches to the sacred writings of the Christian church are different, from the beginning. My understanding is that the first gospel was written between 40 and 60 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth and historical verity is suspect and difficult to prove either way. There is also much presupposed belief and opinion already, making it far less tha herein the Judeo-Christian riches are still celebrated and sought to be lived out.

While the gospels are the only source of information, they also differ greatly from each other. The Jesus of Johns gospel is described from a highly gnostic influenced background many decades later than Marks gospel.
The final figure of the triumphant Christ (Messiah) and the sacrificial literality of Jesus as the only "Son of God" are quite mythological in nature to me. Please do not read myth as lies, they are a common part of all religious traditions and should be read in a post-mythic world, (although Hollywood is still full of them), more in a beautiful poetic manner, as they express great human and spiritual truths.

As I pointed out, and many skeptical NT scholars agree, Paul's First Corinthians letter predates the Gospels. And it is definitely a source of information as to what this itenerant gospel preacher was teaching.

I view the four Gospels as four "snap-shots" of the same profound and wonderful Person, from something like four different angles. Christ is so profound that He needs to be seen from an panoramic view - ie. from four angles. I do not mean there is no overlap. But basically we have in -

Matthew the angle of Christ as God's KING descended from Abraham, descended from David - a Divine King to reign for the kingdom whose source and origin is not the earth but of the heavens.

Mark paradoxically portrays mainly Christ as the SLAVE of God, the SERVANT of God. The SLAVE is in contrast to the KING. He moves about seeking not to be served but to serve, a real SLAVE of God to serve man.

Luke has its emphasis on Christ as the most normal human MAN that ever lived. That is a normal MAN living the highest level of human morality ever to exist on the earth. He is the Man Savior in contrast to Mark's Slave Savior and Matthew's King Savior.

John lastly protrays Christ as GOD Himself become a man. Christ is God.

Matthew includes a geneology because a proper KING should include His geneological ancestry.

Mark includse no geneology because a geneology of a SLAVE is not necessary. He is a SLAVE. He is a SERVANT. No royal geneology is required for one who is a SLAVE.

Luke includes a geneology of Christ because it is important to Luke to demonstrate that Christ was a man going back to the first man Adam. He is definitely one of us as human beings. Yet He is the highest moral human being who has ever lived. So Luke, like Matthew, includes a geneology. Yet it is not to establish Him as the Kingly Messiah as much as the most NORMAL human MAN among ALL human beings.

John, of course does not include a geneology because God is eternal, without beginning, without end. A geneology for the eternal God is a joke. Christ is the WORD who was with God and was God from eternity past.

So we have in the four Gospels four snapshots from four angles -
The King Savior - Matthew,
The Slave Savior - Mark,
The Man Savior - Luke,
The God incarnate Savior - John.

Lastly, I would only briefly say that John's Gospel is an apologetic AGAINST Gnostic teaching rather than an Gospel enfluenced by it. In offering an apologetic AGAINST Gnostic enfluences it was necessary for John to adopt some of their own vocabulary to rescue the Gospel back to its authenticness.

Originally posted by Taoman
Our approaches to the sacred writings of the Christian church are different, from the beginning. My understanding is that the first gospel was written between 40 and 60 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth and historical verity is suspect and difficult to prove either way. There is also much presupposed belief and opinion already, making it far less tha ...[text shortened]... herein the Judeo-Christian riches are still celebrated and sought to be lived out.

Also, this S.of G.is much different from the "Son of God" references in the Old Testament writings, in which he is the pre-eminent amongst all the children of God,(not a literal, physical and only one) and that we are all children or "sons" of God.

This is why I have to use quotes. The concept of Christ the Son of God being the preeminent Son among many sons of God is a solidly New Testament revelation. It is not, as you suggest, a primarily Old Testament concept of a son among many other sons.

We have Jesus calling His disciples His brothers after His resurrection from the dead in John:

"Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have no yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God." (John 20:17,18)

Before this time in John the most intimate term Jesus used for the disciples were that they were His "friends". He rises from the dead to give them divine life to make them more than friends but sons of God - His brothers.

"As many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name, Who were BEGOTTEN not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12,13)

Receiving Christ brings the believer into the family of God as children through a BIRTH - a BEGETTING.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies it abides alone; but if it dies it bears much fruit." (John 12:24)

Jesus is teaching that it is not His plan that He be ALONE as the one vessel of the divine life of the Father. But as the life is concealed in the shell of His humanity, He will die and break open the concealing shell. The result is to produce [b'" much fruit "[/b]. That is others like Himself as the many grains reproduced from the one grain. Christ would not "abide alone". He would reproduce sons of God through His shell shattering death to release the Divine Life of the Father into many others.

Then of course we have the apostles echoing the teaching of many sons of God as brothers to the Son of God:

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus ..." (Galatians 3:26) That is the New Testament.

"And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba Father!" (Gal. 4:6)

That is the New Testament sons crying out Daddy, Daddy to Abba Father - God Himself.

" For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." (Romans 8:14). Here again is the New Testament speaking.

New Testament again in the end of the Bible - "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (Rev. 21:7)

Sons of God like Christ the Son of God - New Testament central teaching.

Then we have sons AND DAUGHTERS so the sisters don't feel left out. Paul quotes the Old Testament to underscore New Testament revelation:

"And I will be a Father to you, and your will be sons AND DAUGHTERS to Me, says the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor. 6:18) The Aposle Paul is here quoting in a combined way Hosea 1:10 and Isaiah 43:6.

Actually, SONS in the NT means the same life rather than male sex.

The New Testament book of Hebrews shows the Son of God leading many sons into the glorious expression of the Divine Being:

"For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons into glory ..." (Heb 2:10)

Christ is the Captian of salvation, the Author of it, leading MANY SONS into the the glorious expression of the Divine Father's life. And the many saved have thier destiny to be conformed to the image of the FIRSTBORN Son of God -

"Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29)

I stop here.

1.
And 0.

QED

Originally posted by Soothfast
1.
And 0.

QED

0/1
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
further:
'...'comment on this' (pardon my fivolity).. all the comments of thousands of years, including all those we never heard or read...not one got it right ever, really. Here we are suspended between silence and words, and often laughter only is left. Our almost comical, so serious quest... and any questing pushes 'it' further along...only by giving up q ...[text shortened]... but to get the idea , it can help to have done some questing! The paradoxes of the Absence.

No paradox🙂

Two Truths (Absolute and Relative) are ultimately non-dual. The mindstream of the Absolute is pure consciousness; and the mindstream of the Relative is thought and ideation. When Mu, we remain with the subtlest state of consciousness (Self/NoSelf/Nor Both/Nor Neither, hence"0/1 -superposition).
Why so? Because in this state the two mindstreams are equal to two waves that travel towards each other and pass right through each other without any Distortion on the other side
😵

Originally posted by jaywill
So many thoughtful points that I would like to comment on. I probably will not be able to develop too thoroughly my comments.

But before I do, I would only ask you to consider this. You say you don't want to get trapped into chapter and verse quoting. Okay. But realize that if you make the charge about [b]"myth-built" lines or sayings as you did, i ...[text shortened]... ese corruptions in New Testament. I should just accept it on something like faith.[/b]

Well, below aresome of the obvious ones, including the one I have already referred to.
They all connect to how Jesus is portrayed in the New testament writings and how we approach them. Are his words just wise words of a powerful teacher, or are they the very words of God?
Here's the connections:
-the nominating of sacred scriptures as the only infallible word of God, no less. This is an authoritarian means of maintaining control, used by a number of religions. it doesn't work, as man will ever seek the inner freedom to understand the deep things of life nevertheless, hence the sects and branches of all authoritarian religions.
- the virgin birth (a common theme in the religions of the day, a particularly gnostic ones).
- the many mythic elements of the announcement, three kings, angels appearing to shepherds etc...
- the resurrection of two dead men, (Jesus and Lazarus).
- miracle stories of walking on water, changing water into wine etc. I avoid the healing ones, as such do happen in my opinion in numerous religions, particularly surrounding men and women who have a powerful psychological effect on others. . Of course there are frauds too.

I accept all these stories as a common way of pre-scientific periods and in other religions to express the profound effect and honoring of the person and message. The same has happened to Buddha and others.

This is a little away from the theme of the thread. I will try to link them. All such ideas themselves have no final indisputable form, having arisen and changed often from many influences. Buddhist and Taoist thinking sees everything in this way - we are ultimately unable to finally separate a thing, person or concept from all that composes and influences it. That all is more a holistic flow rather than hard edged and finally established. Buddha and the 'second' Buddha, Nagarjuna sought to point to this with strong logic, accompanied by deep meditative intuition and it is a central Buddhist view, very difficult to finally express or convey, but nevertheless very powerful for those that see more clearly what they were on about.
Thank you for your thoughts.

Originally posted by black beetle
No paradox🙂

Two Truths (Absolute and Relative) are ultimately non-dual. The mindstream of the Absolute is pure consciousness; and the mindstream of the Relative is thought and ideation. When Mu, we remain with the subtlest state of consciousness (Self/NoSelf/Nor Both/Nor Neither, hence"0/1 -superposition).
Why so? Because in this state the two mind ...[text shortened]... wards each other and pass right through each other without any Distortion on the other side
😵

Well said. But is not a 'superposition' a paradox from the relative pov.?
The quantum analogy (or rather the living expression of it all) is excellent.

I am into French at present, so I will say "Je s'incline". 🙂

Originally posted by Taoman
Well said. But is not a 'superposition' a paradox from the relative pov.?
The quantum analogy (or rather the living expression of it all) is excellent.

I am into French at present, so I will say "Je s'incline". 🙂

The superposition is the mathematical expression for the phrase "I don't know", so to me it is not a paradox😵

Originally posted by Taoman
David Loy is an esteemed Buddhist writer, able to put more clearly into words that which many stumble to express.
A small offering for the Buddhist or non-dualist 'sympathisers' that may 'happen' around this neck of the woods ...

Excerpt from "Mu and Its Implications"
by David Loy

"An interesting problem arises when someone who has had
this nondual ...[text shortened]... e same: neither
description is more or less correct than the other."

Regards to all.

From:

http://events.linkedin.com/science-nonduality-conference-2011-718262

Quote:

Japanese: a nondualistic language? Descartes’ original cogito (Je pense donc je suis) concludes that a thinking entity, presupposed as the first-person “je” (self) in the statement, must exist in order for thinking to occur. Descartes explains further that this conclusion is based not on deductive or inductive reasoning but on a self-evident proposition, the true basis for scientific understanding. Critics, such as Nietzche, have pointed out that the presupposition of a referent “I” in the statement “I think therefore I am” is unjustified and proposed other linguistic possibilities such as “it thinks” or even “thinking occurs.” Such expressions are in fact a common feature of other languages that depend less on a bond between subject and predicate. Indeed, Descartes himself, in translating his original statement from French to Latin (cogito ergo sum), omits the subject (ego). Similarly, in the Japanese language, considered by linguists to be a topic-comment language rather than a subject-predicate language, speakers commonly omit the first-person pronoun (watashi) from their utterances, feeling them to be an unnecessary reference. In addition to this, there are other, more subtle, Japanese linguistic constructs that seem to de-emphasize self and thus the sense of detachment of self from one’s surroundings. This paper will present these linguistic constructs as evidence of a quality of mind, coined the Interactional Mode of Cognition (I-Mode) by the author, which is a feature of all languages but which is more prevalent in Japanese than in English, a language that uses predominately a Displaced Mode of Cognition (D-Mode). This paper will go on to speculate philosophically on the I-Mode of Cognition as a non-dualistic aspect of the Japanese mind and the D-Mode as a feature, or perhaps a consequence, of the emphasis within Western philosophy to separate mind and body - a dualism that Descartes and others helped to affect.

see also http://fora.tv/2010/11/30/Japanese_A_Nondualistic_Language but it's slow

or search "nondualistic language"

Originally posted by Taoman
Well, below aresome of the obvious ones, including the one I have already referred to.
They all connect to how Jesus is portrayed in the New testament writings and how we approach them. Are his words just wise words of a powerful teacher, or are they the very words of God?
Here's the connections:
-the nominating of sacred scriptures as the only infallible erful for those that see more clearly what they were on about.
Thank you for your thoughts.

Well, below aresome of the obvious ones, including the one I have already referred to.
They all connect to how Jesus is portrayed in the New testament writings and how we approach them. Are his words just wise words of a powerful teacher, or are they the very words of God?

It should be textural criticism which makes "added latter" sayings "obvious" (or at least questionable) myth-built sayings. When textural critics can prove that some copyist added a line not found in most earlier manuscripts then we have some ground to suspect - "Now this line seems to be a latter addition. Perhaps we should examine its meaning to see if it appears to be a myth-building amendation to the New Testament."

I don't think I would startt by supposing hard to believe sayings of the supernatural are [bi]"obviously"[/i] myth-builders. Let's look at your samples.

Here's the connections:
-the nominating of sacred scriptures as the only infallible word of God, no less. This is an authoritarian means of maintaining control, used by a number of religions.

When Jesus had His earthly ministry, "the word of God" was the canon of the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament had not been written by then.

Now it is evident that religious power structures were in place and abused their authority. Such abuse caused real tension, opposition, and eventual execution of Christ. However, Christ's response to the problem was not to deny the infallibility of God's word (the Hebrew Bible).

Christ upheld the Hebrew canon - "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35) . "For truly I say to you, Until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one serif shall by no means pass away from the law until all come to pass." (Matt. 5:18)

Jesus Christ upheld the divine authority of the Hebrew Bible. It did not stop Him from giving scathing denounciation of the religionists, ie. Matthew 23.

Jesus also made His OWN words on equal level (and sometimes higher) than the word of the Old Testament. Compare:

"Until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one serif shall by no means pass away ..." (Matt.5:18a)

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away." (Matt. 24:35)

Very much could be said about this. Suffice it now to say that Jesus upheld that Old Testament as the infallible word of God. And He added His own words as of equal or greater significance.

"You have heard of the ancients that it was said ... but I say unto you ..."

While abuse of the Bible by ambitious religionists was a problem then as well as today, denying that God has spoken in His word has never been posed by seekers of God as the solution. Saturation with the Holy Spirit and a living, "organic" and intimate fellowship with Christ and God is the only remedy.

it doesn't work, as man will ever seek the inner freedom to understand the deep things of life nevertheless, hence the sects and branches of all authoritarian religions.

The word of God and the living Spirit of God bring this freedom. We do not turn against the word of God thinking that that is a solution. Christ did not. He provided the Spirit that gives divine life. So we need the word and the living Spirit of Christ.

- the virgin birth (a common theme in the religions of the day, a particularly gnostic ones).

Though the New Testament does not speak as much about the virgin birth as it does about the resurrection, it does mention it. And it is not a myth-building addition.

It is rather the fulfillment of more ancient prophesy (Isaiah 7:14). If Christ's physical father had indeed been Joseph He would have been immediately disqualified from being the Messianic descendent of David.

This is because Joseph the carpentar of Nazareth, was a descendent of David but through the line that came through David's son Solomon. And God through the prophet Jeremiah terminated the possibility of any descendent of David through that line could be king of Israel (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

"According to the prophecy in Jer. 22:28-30, none of Jeconiah's descendants would inherit the throne of David. If Christ had been a direct descendent of Jeconiah, He would not have been entitled to the throne of David. Although Jer. 22:28-30 says that all the descendants of Jeconiah are excluded from the thone of David, Jer. 23:5 says that God would raise up a Shoot to David, a King who would reign and prosper. This Shoot is Christ. This prophecy confirms that Christ would be the descendant of David, although not a direct descendant of Jeconiah, and would inherit the throne." [Footnote 11(2) of Matt. 1:11, Recovery Version Bible ]

Not to discuss this at length, Jesus was a descendant of David through Mary but not through her husband Joseph. The VIRGIN BIRTH of Jesus is the ONLY way that Christ could fulfill the prophecy to be the Shoot of David yet also not be of the line of the discontinued descedents from Jeconiah, a descendent of Solomon. Yet through David's other son Nathan He COULD be the Messianic inheriter of David's throne through Mary.

The virgin birth is a miraculous and marvelous way in which God kept His promise of a Messianic King of Israel.

- the many mythic elements of the announcement, three kings, angels appearing to shepherds etc...

I hope we are talking about what is written in the Bible and not religious art work, religious fiction, Hollywood, or Christmas chorals which may not accurately refect what is written in the Bible.

The New Testament never mentions three kings. It mentions a plural group of royal dignataries (kings perhaps) as the magi. We are only told they were plural in number. We are told that they brought three GIFTS. Of course two kings can bring three gifts. And five kings or eight kings or twelve kings can also bring three gifts (gold, frankincense, and myrrh) (Matt. 2:11)

Three GIFTS brought by plural kings is what is written. You say "three kings" based on some traditional artwork or perhaps song.

I believe that the plural (magi) of wise men came from the east just as it says. And the "star" which they refered to they could have thought was related to the Gentile prophet's prophecy in the Old Testament about the star of Numbers 24:17 a prediction given by the prophet Balaam.

- the resurrection of two dead men, (Jesus and Lazarus).

Of course the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is so CENTRAL to the New Testament that I will hardly embark on a debate about it in this post.

Minus the resurrection of Christ there is no Christian Gospel and the Christians faith is totally in vain.

That the resurrection is a latter myth-building addendum to the NT documents is ludicrous, absurd, and frankly ignorant. I think I already proved to you that the earliest NT documents written BEFORE the four Gospels portray the traditional preaching of the Gospel to INCLUDE this central tenet - Christ rose from the dead.

Why should it surprise you that a person like Jesus would even be able to overcome death ? It is consistant with the power of His personality and words.

- miracle stories of walking on water, changing water into wine etc. I avoid the healing ones, as such do happen in my opinion in numerous religions, particularly surrounding men and women who have a powerful psychological effect on others. . Of course there are frauds too.

I accept all these stories as a common way of pre-scientific periods and in other religions to express the profound effect and honoring of the person and message. The same has happened to Buddha and others.

That is all the time I have this morning. But I see generally, that you have a anti-supernatural bias and cannot believe these miracles.

While we don't have a miracle at every turn in the NT we do have some significant ones. And God performed them. Remember God "created the heavens and the earth" in the beginning. God has the power and the authority to do a sign or miracle if it establishes something He wants to accomplish.

But to believe that God raised Christ from the dead is a crucial part of being saved.

"The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the word of the faith which we proclaim, That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; For with the heart there is believing unto righteousness, and with the mouth there is confession unto salvation." (Rom. 10:8-10)

So if you want to be saved from eternal perdition, from eternal judgment for your sins, you must confess Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead.

This is the word Jesus Himself spoke:

"And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled. Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures; And He said to them,

Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things." (Luke 24:42-48)

God will judge the world by the Man Whom He has raised from the dead, His Son Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by jaywill

Well, below aresome of the obvious ones, including the one I have already referred to.
They all connect to how Jesus is portrayed in the New testament writings and how we approach them. Are his words just wise words of a powerful teacher, or are they the very words of God?

It should be textural criticism which makes "added latter" ...[text shortened]... e has raised from the dead, His Son Jesus Christ.

You can be free of all this word and belief struggle in one moment, you know. We have no 'self' to be saved. I know this is a scary thought but I assure you, when you realise it, things will be much better. Just be, it is very freeing, friend. But if you don't see it, its ok too. The Way will just be a different form. Jesus was a fine man and worthy of hearing. He was also a man of his time and culture, as you and I are.
It really is all good ultimately. One of the helpful (but not literal) Buddha personifications is called Samantabhadra, the All Good. Good in the sense of complete, i.e. good and evil and all polar opposites of existence are all resolved, made complete and whole.

Strange, its very much like we hold things together in the mind, creating stories out of nothing actually, but which we use to make sense of the scary undefineable.

It helps us feel more secure, as we protect the ego we have built up. But burrow down and you will find it is all a construction without a core or a soul. It does not stand by itself and there is nothing there to be damned or to be saved. Wonderful!
Samantabhadra's bodily image is more the blue space of the sky. I quite like that image. It's Tibetan in origin. But I expect we both will stay in our respective corners for now, well sort of anyway, because really we are all That ZERO-ONE, just like that boundless space of the sky.
Cheers jaywill.

To further pursue understanding the Buddhist understanding on the Self - Not Self this link may be helpful:

http://www.integralscience.org/sacredscience/SS_sunyata.html

Here is a quote from it...

"Motivated by compassion, the wise teach sunyata as a remedy for suffering. According to Madhyamika, the root of all suffering lies in the ignorance of clinging, the error of mistaking the relative for the absolute, the conditioned for the unconditioned. We take imagined separation as real, supposed division as given. By virtue of self- consciousness, we have an awareness of the unconditioned reflected in our conditioned nature, a sense of the real. But under ignorance we do not discriminate between the unconditioned and conditioned, causing us to confuse them and take the relative as absolute. "The error of misplaced absoluteness, the seizing of the determinate as itself ultimate, is the root-error." Sunyata is the antithesis to this error, the antidote for suffering.

The most important instance of this error of misplaced absoluteness is with regard to our own selves: "The intellect, owing to the operation of ignorance, wrongly transfers its sense of unconditionedness which is its ultimate nature to itself in its mundane nature." Thus, inherent existence is wrongly applied to the mind-body complex; we take our determinate, conditioned existence as unconditioned and self-existent. In this way there arises the false sense of "I" and the belief in an eternal soul as a particular entity. This error "makes the individual unrelated to the organic, dynamic course of personal life and deprives the latter of all significance." For with the positing of an absolute "I" there is the necessary "not-I" to oppose it. The individual is then forever divided from and in conflict with the world. Since this separation is taken as absolute, their relation is inconceivable and there is no hope for reconciliation: we are bound to a life of continual conflict and frustration."

Originally posted by Taoman
You can be free of all this word and belief struggle in one moment, you know. We have no 'self' to be saved. I know this is a scary thought but I assure you, when you realise it, things will be much better. Just be, it is very freeing, friend. But if you don't see it, its ok too. The Way will just be a different form. Jesus was a fine man and worthy of hearin eally we are all That ZERO-ONE, just like that boundless space of the sky.
Cheers jaywill.

You can be free of all this word and belief struggle in one moment, you know. We have no 'self' to be saved.

"All this word and belief struggle" so-called by you, is quite a paradise of deep joy and freedom to me. You know the Lord said "You shall know the truth. And the truth shall make you free."

But thankyou for your heartfelt concern.

I know this is a scary thought but I assure you, when you realise it, things will be much better. Just be, it is very freeing, friend.

What "scary thought" friend ?

I already practiced Zen Buddhism in years gone by. You should not think I have no experience with other beliefs.

But nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus - neither height nor depth nor things present nor things to come nor angles nor principalities nor any other creature. Nothing shall be able to separate the Christian from the union of love with the eternal Father.

So, I am sorry if this disappoints you. But there is no "scary feeling" here.

Once again. Thanks for your heartfelt concern.

But if you don't see it, its ok too. The Way will just be a different form. Jesus was a fine man and worthy of hearing. He was also a man of his time and culture, as you and I are.

These are the things I might have believed before I received Christ. You are not asking me to make a step forwards. You are asking me to make a step backwards.

I too once entertained a thought that I REALLY understood what these Christians believed. I recall that self confidence very clearly. I thought Christians themselves did not understand their own faith but I REALLY understood its essence.

A young woman quite offended me when she said "You are a lost sheep." I was never so offended. I was no "lost sheep" I thought.

You know what ? The night came when I found out that I was indeed a lost sheep ! That is the night I called on the name of the Lord Jesus. And the Good Shepherd put the lost sheep around His strong neck and carried me to safety and to the flock of His love.

I understand. You think that you have the inside story. You're confident in that.

It really is all good ultimately. One of the helpful (but not literal) Buddha personifications is called Samantabhadra, the All Good. Good in the sense of complete, i.e. good and evil and all polar opposites of existence are all resolved, made complete and whole.

As I said, I once was very interested at least in Zen Buddhism. I meditated on koans. I studied writings of one Allen Watts. He was an American Zen Buddhist teacher of great depth and popularity. Perhaps he was not as good as some other teacher. But his books captivated me for a season.

Then I met the Lord Jesus.

Strange, its very much like we hold things together in the mind, creating stories out of nothing actually, but which we use to make sense of the scary undefineable.

I don't think you have anything to offer us as valuable, as precious, and as much of eternal worth as the Son of God. This is not meant to be an insult.

In value, what could be of more preciousness than God in Christ ? his riches are unsearchable.

You know, Paul preached "the unsearchable riches of Christ as the gospel" . Christ is like an exhaustless gold mine.

And this salvation is for the ENTIRE being, not just the soul. But His full salvation extends to the body and the soul and the spirit and the environment and even the entire universe. What a great salvation. And what a practical salvation.

It helps us feel more secure, as we protect the ego we have built up. But burrow down and you will find it is all a construction without a core or a soul. It does not stand by itself and there is nothing there to be damned or to be saved. Wonderful!

Whenever I have problems with the ego, I just stand by faith on the truth - "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I that live but it is Christ who lives in me."

You know all the riches of the New Testament experience are appropriated by faith. By faith, the living and available Christ makes His home in our hearts.

This is not sentimental. This is actual because in resurrection Christ became a life giving Spirit:

"... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

That means today, here and now, Jesus Christ the Lord is living and available to come into our being as "a life giving Spirit".

To give divine life is to give God. So "life giving Spirit" actually means a Christ giving Spirit - a God giving Spirit. He gives God to man as eternal life.

Samantabhadra's bodily image is more the blue space of the sky. I quite like that image. It's Tibetan in origin. But I expect we both will stay in our respective corners for now, well sort of anyway, because really we are all That ZERO-ONE, just like that boundless space of the sky.
Cheers jaywill.

Thanks for sharing. "But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to us from God: both righteousness and sanctification and redemption, That as it is written, 'He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord' ". (1 Cor. 1:30-31)

It is of God that men and women can be put into the sphere and realm of Jesus Christ.