Hi....

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you. Welcome.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In my studies I have come to understand the Brahman to be same as many Buddhist philosophies.

Buddha never clarified it. He said such discussion is not useful, so concentrate on what is useful. Hindus said 'we agree to what you say, but will still continue discussing it to get at the base of the problem'. You see, that is the sole difference between Buddhism and Hinduism. Yeah, we appreciate your interest.

I'm not clear. Are you more Aupvaita or Advaita? I am thinking you are more Aupvaita from what you said. Just curious.

First, let NoGuru decide if this interests him? If it does, then give him time to consider things. Don't rush things.

 

[NoGuru]

Well another difference we may have is that (after investigation and consideration) I like Gurus in all fields be it chemistry, physics or eastern spirituality. I would never have come up with my understandings in any of these fields by just doing my own thinking.

I don't see any difference there

I've not necessarily come up with these by myself. Much of my understanding has come from spiritual leaders around the globe and throughout time. You examine Christ's, Muhammad''s, Buddha's... (the list goes on) message and you try to find the similarities. Imagine if you will a painting. You've never seen the painting but many claim to. So you hear what they have to say and try to put all the pieces together. One person says it's black, the other says it's red. Hmm no help there. A third says it's grey... still need more information. Another says it's part red, and there's some darker parts too. You see where I'm going with this. The more information you take in, the more you can start to build your own understanding of what this might look like. There are those who say it's green. Maybe they're lying? Maybe they've just seen a different part of it. Who's to know?

The only thing we can really do is rely on those who have come before us and claim some knowledge, but it would be extremely prudent to take everything with a grain of salt.

Peace be on you. Welcome.

And also upon you. Thanks!

Buddha never clarified it. He said such discussion is not useful, so concentrate on what is useful. Hindus said 'we agree to what you say, but will still continue discussing it to get at the base of the problem'. You see, that is the sole difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.

Well... I would tend to agree with his statement to a point. I'm not sure there's harm in it, although it is wise to concentrate on the useful. A man can lose himself in the dealings of fantasy and hypothetical, but this is not to say they have no purpose. Isn't this how some of man's greatest accomplishments have come to be? Of course it is. "Just as iron sharpens iron..."

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but this is not to say they have no purpose. Isn't this how some of man's greatest accomplishments have come to be?

That is exactly what Hindus thought. But yes, we do need to be careful about where we are going and not get lost in the forest, a mystic forest. There is no way out of that.

 

[NoGuru]

we do need to be careful about where we are going and not get lost in the forest, a mystic forest. There is no way out of that.

Perhaps. Perhaps everyone needs to get lost to truly find themselves? I believe it was Edgar Allen Poe who wrote "I spent too much time in my head and ended up losing my mind" so I agree too that spending too much time to oneself could be dangerous, but then again I've never lost my mind (that I know of :/ ). Perhaps there is value there too!

From my understanding, the Buddhist way (and much eastern philosophy) deals with now. Being fully aware now and train the mind to avoid the past and future.

What's interesting is there are many religions and sects that teach the road to controlling one's mind, living fully now that do not deal with such absolutes as avoiding the past or future. This isn't to say any road is faster than another... no need to engage in spiritual "one-up-man-ship". Whatever leads a man into an awakening should be left alone and accepted. If someone decides to take the scenic route but still arrives at the destination, how can another complain?

I get that's not what you are doing... just kind of ranting at this point and thinking aloud.

 

[columbus]

Greetings NoGuru!
Welcome to RF.
Tom

 

[NoGuru]

Greetings NoGuru!
Welcome to RF.
Tom

Greetings Tom. Thanks!

 

[George-ananda]

I don't see any difference there

I've not necessarily come up with these by myself. Much of my understanding has come from spiritual leaders around the globe and throughout time. You examine Christ's, Muhammad''s, Buddha's... (the list goes on) message and you try to find the similarities. Imagine if you will a painting. You've never seen the painting but many claim to. So you hear what they have to say and try to put all the pieces together. One person says it's black, the other says it's red. Hmm no help there. A third says it's grey... still need more information. Another says it's part red, and there's some darker parts too. You see where I'm going with this. The more information you take in, the more you can start to build your own understanding of what this might look like. There are those who say it's green. Maybe they're lying? Maybe they've just seen a different part of it. Who's to know?

I think I misunderstood something. I thought your name 'No Guru' meant you didn't believe in gurus. I think it's a 'my bad' there.

The only thing we can really do is rely on those who have come before us and claim some knowledge, but it would be extremely prudent to take everything with a grain of salt.

I take the teachings of the spiritual adepts and traditions I respect quite seriously.

 

[NoGuru]

I think I misunderstood something. I thought your name 'No Guru' meant you didn't believe in gurus. I think it's a 'my bad' there.

No worries NoGuru simply means I am no Guru, rather a life long student

I take the teachings of the spiritual adepts and traditions I respect quite seriously.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. This is not to say that you should take the teachings of any prophet with a grain of salt (although I'm sure the followers of Jim Jones would have appreciated that advice), not at all. What I mean to say is that the accounts of their doings... I tend to take the books themselves with a grain of salt. I posted this in another thread already, but we all know that religion has been a tool of control since man has existed. I imagine that sinister plot has made it's way into our holy books as well.

For example, I can't imagine a God who has unconditional love condoning the beating, or even owning, of a slave. Yet it's in the bible? (Exodus, 2 Peter, others). There are a few points where the bible can seem contradictory and this man or that will try their hardest to explain it away. I choose to accept that a book that has been rewritten or translated on several occasions has fallen prey to man's own sinister nature. "Well... I like having slaves so let's put a verse in there where God says it's okay". Hmm... again I can't be greater than God, and if I don't feel it morally right I can't imagine that I have more moral uprightness than God himself (this of course is driven more towards a theist viewpoint). So how do these two reconcile? I'm not greater than our creator, yet my compassion for others is? Either God is a sham, or perhaps people do stupid things to justify their own wrongful actions. I've experienced and done the latter first hand, so that's what I choose to accept.

Now, does that mean everything you read is bulls***? Well no. This simply means that we need to really think about what the core of the message is. If Christ walked around and healed the hookers and "low life's" as some even today would consider them, that doesn't seem to match some of the other parts dealing with slavery, rape and other grotesque actions. Perhaps his story was surrounded in garbage to make the garbage more valid.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I get that's not what you are doing... just kind of ranting at this point and thinking aloud.

I do not want people to get lost in the mystic forest. We have been there too long.

Perhaps his story was surrounded in garbage to make the garbage more valid.

His story, Paul's story. Stories are stories.

 

[George-ananda]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. This is not to say that you should take the teachings of any prophet with a grain of salt (although I'm sure the followers of Jim Jones would have appreciated that advice), not at all. What I mean to say is that the accounts of their doings... I tend to take the books themselves with a grain of salt. I posted this in another thread already, but we all know that religion has been a tool of control since man has existed. I imagine that sinister plot has made it's way into our holy books as well.

For example, I can't imagine a God who has unconditional love condoning the beating, or even owning, of a slave. Yet it's in the bible? (Exodus, 2 Peter, others). There are a few points where the bible can seem contradictory and this man or that will try their hardest to explain it away. I choose to accept that a book that has been rewritten or translated on several occasions has fallen prey to man's own sinister nature. "Well... I like having slaves so let's put a verse in there where God says it's okay". Hmm... again I can't be greater than God, and if I don't feel it morally right I can't imagine that I have more moral uprightness than God himself (this of course is driven more towards a theist viewpoint). So how do these two reconcile? I'm not greater than our creator, yet my compassion for others is? Either God is a sham, or perhaps people do stupid things to justify their own wrongful actions. I've experienced and done the latter first hand, so that's what I choose to accept.

Now, does that mean everything you read is bulls***? Well no. This simply means that we need to really think about what the core of the message is. If Christ walked around and healed the hookers and "low life's" as some even today would consider them, that doesn't seem to match some of the other parts dealing with slavery, rape and other grotesque actions. Perhaps his story was surrounded in garbage to make the garbage more valid.

I think we might have somewhat misunderstood each other again. I was referring to modern times gurus of the eastern/Hindu tradition for myself. I think the Christians religions have had their day and are in decline for some of the reasons you mention.

 

[NoGuru]

I do not want people to get lost in the mystic forest. We have been there too long.

I guess that could be valid, depending on the definition of course. Perhaps not get lost, but I believe each (wo)man should at least experience it. Again, this is of course depending on the definition. I believe a lot of our problems today stem from that forest being forgotten about. We get wrapped up in our jobs and social lives and believe that's the extent of life... to super inflation of the ego.

His story, Paul's story. Stories are stories.

True. But remember too that applies to all spiritual and historical figures. Even in the story of Hansel and Grettle, you can find wisdom.

I think we might have somewhat misunderstood each other again. I was referring to modern times gurus of the eastern/Hindu tradition for myself.

Touché

I think the Christians religions have had their day and are in decline for some of the reasons you mention.

Interesting observation. I would tend to believe that depends on where you look. Here in the U.S. christianity is still the majority religion, even though most have never picked up a bible, they'll tell you everything God said. *rolls eyes*

In my opinion, spirituality is a whole is in a decline. As we look at the world in a scientific manner, people are starting to believe it can explain everything, and the non-existence of any kind of God. What's amazing though is that quantum physics and mechanics are really showing us how everything is related. The flower of life for example, can be seen at the quantum level.

 

[Komatose]

NoGuru, do you have a specific belief on the beginning? The very first moment that the very first "something" came into existence?

 

[NoGuru]

NoGuru, do you have a specific belief on the beginning? The very first moment that the very first "something" came into existence?

So that's an interesting question. The Big Bang vs. Creation... how are they different? If you apply the principles of both, they share expansion of light and energy.

I can't possibly claim to know, but I would imagine both ideologies have validity in some measure.

Here's something interesting I just thought of; so we know that super massive black holes move around the universe and eventually join. Maybe "our" beginning was just the last time all the previous universe became a point of singularity and then expanded once more? Ha! Wouldn't that be a kick in the head.

 

[Komatose]

I've heard this theory before and it's quite interesting. But my curiosity lies more with the "true" beginning. Implying that there once was nothing, and then there was something.

I've heard theories trying to explain it through cyclic routines but for that wouldn't there need to be a first cycle? How did that cycle come into existence? Through a creator? If so then when/how did this creator come into existence. Even this repetitive expansion theory had to have a beginning and a means of coming into existence.

Basically the chicken or the egg dilemma except on a existential scale. Unless one believes in the concept of infinity without a birth, the only explanation I can come up with is that once there was nothing, then suddenly there was something. With no reason or explanation.

But I asked if you had any personal opinion on the matter because you have a lot more knowledge with this stuff than I.

 

[NoGuru]

That's interesting, because while I've read about and explored the moments after, I can't say I've put a ton of thought into before that.

It would stand to reason that no thing can come out of nothing. First you must have materials to build a house. Where do those come from? Before the 2x4's they were trees, before that they were seeds, before that they grew on other trees... but to go all the way back?

This I don't know, nor can something like this really be speculated about. Another hypothesis is that of our universe being created from another "completed" universe that became a God, that God created this universe which will eventually grow into another God... even that explanation doesn't explain where it all started.

Perhaps that's something we can't possibly know or even speculate. There most certainly had to be an energy source to start, but where that came from? Seems rather impossible to know from a human standpoint. I'll have to give this more time to ponder over though, because it's very interesting.

 

[George-ananda]

NoGuru, do you have a specific belief on the beginning? The very first moment that the very first "something" came into existence?

So that's an interesting question. The Big Bang vs. Creation... how are they different? If you apply the principles of both, they share expansion of light and energy.

But I don't see how the Big Bang could be the beginning because there was something that went bang.

Here's my theory for which I'll throw in the two-cents fee. Brahman/God/Consciousness is all that is ultimately real. The universe is just a play/drama of that Consciousness in which it separates itself from itself in Act I and returns itself to itself in Act II. (we each have a spark of God as our core and so we have a drive to return to Oneness). The universe is really just the props for this play. Why does God/Brahman/Consciousness do it?? Why do humans create plays/dramas as art? he answer is 'to experience'. The universe is a thought-form of God/Brahman.

 

[Komatose]

Thanks NoGuru I was just more curious of your opinion than an actual explanation, I know it's not really a comprehensible concept to think about.

And I've not heard that before George, it's quite a poetic belief.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Welcome aboard

Edit:
Yeah, it is me

 

[NoGuru]

Welcome aboard

Edit:
Yeah, it is me

I recognized the picture

How are you?