Hey everyone. Christianity is a beautiful religion with deep spiritual insights on how to set the soul free from earthly life to one united with the godhead or christ consciousness. I have been reading the perennial philosophy by aldous huxley and it is simply amazing! What can I say? It is perhaps the best written book of the 20th century is my personal claim. Anyway a saint much mentioned in this book is called "William law" an Anglican saint. He thought very far outside the circle of most of his christian contemporaries. He saw the bible for the symbolism it stood for and wasn't proccupied with events in time as most religious followers do. Because of this much of his energy could be focused on the real issues of the soul and it's relation to god, what true hell is, free will etc. So I thought I should write afew of his works up here in this forum for all to read because it is so worth reading and changed my outlook completely on christianity. This guy william law is the equivalent to a hindu guru or zen master. If only I could be as articulate as aldous huxley! Anyway here are some of this amazing saint's writings:

Your own self is your own Cain that murders your own Abel. For every action and motion of self has the spirit of Anti-Christ and murders the divine life within you. ---William Law

The difference between a good and a bad man does not lie in this, that the one wills that which is good and the other does not, but soley in this, that the one concurs with the living inspiring spirit of God within him, and the other resists it, and can be chargeable with evil only because he resists it.-------William Law


Though GOD is everywhere present, yet He is only present to thee in the deepest and most central part of the soul. The natural senses cannot possess God or unite thee to Him; nay, thy inward faculties of understanding, will and memory can only reach after God, but cannot be the place of his habitation in thee. But there is a root or depth of thee from whence all these faculties come forth, as lines from a centre, or as branches from the body of a tree. This depth is the unity, the eternity--I had almost said the infinity of thy soul; for it is so infinite that nothing can satisfy it or give it rest but the infinity of God.-----William Law

What could begin to deny self, if there were not something in man different from self?----William Law

The separate creaturely life, as opposed to life in union with God, is only a life of various appetites, hungers and wants, and cannot possibly be anything else. God Himself cannot make a creature to be in itself, or in its own nature, anything else but a state of emptiness. The highest life that is natural and creaturely can go no higher than this; it can only be a bare capacity for goodness and cannot possibly be a good and happy life but by the life of God dwelling in and in union with it. And this is the twofold life that, of all necessity, must be united in every good and perfect and happy creature.-----William Law

Love is infallible; it had no errors, for all errors are the want of love. ----William Law

For as love has no by-ends, wills nothing but its own increase, so everything is as oil to its flame; it must have that which it wills and cannot be disappointed, because everything(including unkindess on the part of those loved)naturally helps it to live in its own way and to bring forth its own work. ---William Law

By love I do not mean any natural tenderness, which is more or less in people according to their constitution; but I mean a larger principle of the soul, founded in reason and piety, which makes us tender, kind and gentle to all our fellow creatures as creatures of God, and for his sake.------William Law

To find or know God in reality by any outward proofs, or by anything but by God Himself made manifest and self-evident in you, will never be your case either here or hereafter. For neither God, nor heaven, nor hell, nor the devil, nor the flesh, can be any otherwise knowable in you or by you but by their own existence and manifestation in you. And all pretended knowledge of any of these things, beyond and without this self-evident sensibility of their birth within you, is only such knowledge of them as the blind man hath of the light that hath never entered into him.-----William Law

Away, then, with the fictions and workings of discursive reason, either for or against Christianity! They are only the wanton spirit of the mind, whilst ignorant of God and insensible of its own nature and condition. Death and life are the only things in question; life is God living and working in the soul; death is the soul living and working according to the sense and reason of bestial flesh and blood. Both this life and this death are of their own growth, growing from their own seed within us, not as busy reason talks and directs, but as the heart turns either to the one or to the other.----------William Law

Take note of this fundamental truth. Everything that works in nature and creature, except sin, is the working of God in nature and creature. The creature has nothing else in its power but the free use of its will, and its free will hath no other power but that of concurring with, or resisting, the working of God in nature. The creature with its free will can bring nothing into being, nor make any alteration in the working of nature; it can only change its own state or place in the working of nature, and so feel or find something in its state that it did not feel or find before.----William Law

The will is that which has all power; it makes heaven and it makes hell; for there is no hell but where the will of the creature is turned from God, nor any heaven but where the will of the creature worketh with God.----William Law

O man, consider thyself! Here thou standeth in the earnest perpetual strife of good and evil; all nature is continually at work to bring forth the great redemption; the whole creation is travailing in pain and laborious working to be delivered from the vanity of time; and wilt thou be alseep?Everything thou hearest or seest says nothing, shows nothing to thee but what either eternal light or eternal darkness has brought forth; for as day and night divide the whole of our time, so heaven and hell divide all thoughts, words and actions. Stir which way thou wilt, do or design what thou wilt, thou must be an agent with the one or the other. Thou canst not stand still, because thou livest in the pertual workings of temporal and eternal nature; if thou workest not with the good, the evil that is in nature carries thee along with it. Thou hast the height and depth of eternity in thee and therefore, be doing what thou wilt, either in the closet, the field, the shop or the church, thou art sowing that which grows and must be reaped in eternity.-----William Law

In all the possibility of things there is and can be but one happiness and one misery. The one misery is nature and creature left to itself, the one happiness is the life, the light, the Spirit of God, manifested in nature and creature. This is the true meaning of the words of Our Lord: There is but one that is good, and that is God.----William Law

Brillaint aye??? There is more but I won't write them in. This is just a taste or William Law I must stress. As you can see, he gives a rather universal view of God and the means of which to reach him. You could squeeze the christianity out of William Law , yet that would not take God out of William Law nor William Law out of god. Christianity was simply a tool to finding God who was already within Him, Christianity was only helpful insofar as it helped him achieve this, Christianity isn't the only tool however, buddhism, hinduism, lslam etc are all means to which one can use to find proximate means to realizing the eternal within and without. Anyway I hoped you learned something new. PEACE OUT!!!

bump. i wish i saw discussion. this is good stuff.

Utter BS. Sounds like the thinking of a five year old, it isnt your will but your acceptance of God? I give him an F, he should stick to finger painting.

Say I reject "the living spirit of God within" me, I immediately let evil in? So a devout Christian that feels doubt, and perhaps questions God for a second lets evil in for that second? Sounds like Christianity to me.... DOUBT = DEATH

Not only is it the thinking of an immature mind but also implies that anyone who doesnt believe in God is evil, correct? Strange because it isnt hard to find examples of evil being done in the name of God by believers of God, but then that must be the actions of the good for only those who dont resist God are good



Comeon now, love is infallible!?! Do you know how many mistakes people make because of love? I'm not saying love is a mistake but it can impair your judgement, no?

Here's one that I found....

"If you have not chosen the Kingdom of God first, it will in the end make no difference what you have chosen instead." - William Law

I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this particular quote?

There are two ways to look at this, one obviously making more sense than the other.

I know you're thinking of it as him trying to put down every non-Christian and scare people into the religion. Honestly, it does seem like this.

However, theres a slight chance that the quote was extracted from a much larger section of dialogue and is therefore out of context.

Writer's very rarely just write a single quote, can you find the entire section of text or dialogue that the quote was derived from? This may help our discussion greatly,

What william law simply means is this: If one does not choose the kingdom of god(as in devote oneself to the finding of one's spritual identity) it matters not what you do because you will still be ego attached. It is from a very mystic point of view that William law writes this. If you read the other writings of his I had put in you would know that he wasn't trying to "scare" anyone into his religion. He understood better than any of us(because he was a mystic and saint first, advocate of christianity second) that all people are different and need their own appropriate instructions according to their personal nature and spiritual development.
He is one hundred percent correct in saying that "if you have chosen the kingdom of god first it will make no difference what you have choosen instead" because unless we dive within and seek out our true nature(kingdom of god is within jesus said remember) then we will always be suffering to some extent because seperate life via the ego equals suffering(this is the true meaning of hell). This fully goes in accord with hindu and buddhist philosophy they would say something along the lines of: until you realize enligthenment on a conscious level(which is our true nature) suffering will never cease. Different terminology but they are just different gateways into the same truth. Im not consciously enlightened however I do understand enough from studying mysticism(on a theoretic level) that the last thing William Law would have meant by that quote was anything but to inspire fear, He was just simply stating the way things are.
Eleleth my advice to you is to read the words from a universal point of view.

How so? How does it not matter? Why does he and you assume he is right? What if someone looking within to find their true nature realised God isnt important to them, are they wrong? What if they decided they dont need to find themselves? Are they wrong? Does their life not matter anymore? Isnt everyone different, seeking different things in life? How does it not matter? Hes turning it into a 'one or the other' argument when the world isnt so black and white. Why is the ego a bad thing? Cause some dude says so? Why cant you embrace your Ego and the Divine, cant you multitask lol.



In regards to Buddhism, didnt the Buddha go through three stages? Indulgence, Abstinence and Balance? Do you pretend he let go of his ego while indulging in life? I believe one must dive head first into life, the pleasures of life, full of ego, to understand ego. Then if one chooses to reject ego, they understand what they are rejecting. By denying ego, one tries to reject something they dont understand, they could even be denying something other than their ego because they dont understand, so they go on full of ego not knowing it. This being the reason I believe the majority of followers preach one thing but live the other, dont hate you neighbor, love your enemies but they think homosexuality is a sin and gay people are "abominations". I say you dont know until you have become one, even temporarily. Me, thats not my bag baby, so I go on believing they are just as "good" as anyone else, bottom line they are people like everyone else, that I do understand. I wouldnt reject it because I dont truly know, understand it.

It seems everyone is running around seeking enlightenment by simply saying no to a part of who they are and looking up, I say yes to everything I am and look everywhere.

Do you believe God is everywhere and everything? If so, isnt God also a part of you? Isnt your Ego a part of you? Isnt rejecting your Ego essentially rejecting God? Didnt God make you, make your Ego?



How so? What if your concept of Hell differs from anothers concept? Are they wrong because some dude says so?

Just for the sake of discussion let say someones definition of Hell is living an Ego-less life? What if without the pleasures of flesh and indulgence they would be in Hell? Are they wrong?

hahahaha you've missed the point completely!!! can't be bothered explaining. All i'll say is that an opinion no matter how theoretically correct can ever be the truth for the very fact that it is ian opinion. None of us are enlightened in here and we are all just discussing theories and opinions.
Also if you think Buddha has nothing to do with losing one's ego why does he prech this: "As long as one feels that he is the doer, he cannot escape from the wheel of births."
Also I 've never held a grudge against homosexuals, and the ego in itself isn't a bad thing, it is our attachment to it that causes the misery. Also I understand that one must know the ego before one can reject it........all the mystics knew that. Rejection of ego is an antidote to suffering if you are happy with your ego than thumbs up!!!!! Also the whole point of rejecting the ego is so that YOU'RE godhood can come through. God is a state of mind not some guy with a white beard sitting on a throne in the heavens, as Saint Bernard pointed out: In those respects in which the soul is unlike God, it is also unlike itself.

If I missed the point completely, which I am willing to assume, it shouldnt be hard to put me back on track should it? If the point is so eassssy to get but I missed it "hahahahaha", then you should be able to explain your point quite easily, right?



So 'all you'll say' is that there are opinions and there is truth, and we are only discussing theories and opinons, so lets discuss opinions.

No civilization can exist without Social Capitol.
That much we do know. If there is no baseline moral and ethical code that provides a framework of trust and unity to work from, then there is no civilization is created or one that already exists which loses its social capitol will descend into anarchy, chaos, and destruction.

It can be nice to imagine that each person can be a total law unto themselves, but the reality is that no law then exists at all and without law there is no future.

yeah i edited my last reply

Yeah I agree, however some people do end up a law unto themselves, the mystics. They end up usually as either hermits or they live within the confines of the society and practice always a passive non-coercive power because they are a channel of grace.
Gandhi said this about society which I thought was pretty cool: The essence of civilization consists not in the mulitplication of wants but in their deliberate and voluntary renunciation.

No I dont believe Buddha had nothing to do with losing ones' ego, I merely mentioned his three stages of enlightenment, Indulgence, Abstinence and Balance. He indulged in life with full ego to undertsnad his ego, he then chose to reject his ego via abstinence but seeing that wasnt the way he found balance between the two, as I said multitask lol.

So perhaps instead of simply understanding and rejecting the ego to achieve enlightenment, it is necessary to indulge - understand, abstain - reject, balance - accept all of your being as a whole, not letting one get the best of you but accepting yourself as a whole.

My point being that saying reject your ego is easy to say but in my opinion the wrong thing to say. Enlightenment isnt about rejection but acceptance, understanding being the key to acceptance, understanding also being the product of indulgence.

So someone looking for sin to reject it is not understanding it but simply rejecting it. Christianity has a lot to say about sin does it not and the rejection of sin? Following the Buddha's three stages that attitude will probably cause problems from the beginning, due to the lack of understadning of what is to be rejected, also the rejection part is also not the final stage, which is balance or acceptance. It seems like the three Abrahamic religions shoot for step 2 of the Buddha's stages, rejecting step 1 and 3. Mind you some people do find religion helpful after a few too many years of indulgence but then again they go from step 1 to step 2 and live a life of rejection without balance and acceptance, in my opinion anyways.

Sort of
Indulgence: Gotama's life as a noble (before he set out on his search)
Abstinence: Gotama's time with the ascetics (early in his search, a result of disgust and guilt from witnessing the suffering of the poor while he lived lavishly.)
Balance: After achieving Satori



The Buddha did not teach to be rid of ego. Ego is what tells us that strolling across a busy highway will get us killed, that fire will burn us, and that it's not a good idea to stuff a steak in your underwear and jump into a tiger cage.

The Buddha did teach us to be rid of our selfish desires, to accept life as it is and to let go of our concepts of "could be" and "should be". To let go of ideas such as "this way is better," or "I am superior." To act with virtue, not in expectation of heaven or some other reward, or out of fear of damnation or reincarnation as a "lower being," but simply because it eases suffering of others. To realize that there is a world and other sentient beings past our own noses. That life is impermanent and the only way to understand it is not to take anyone's word for it but to do it.

That's it about as stripped down as I can make it with the time afforded to me. Your mileage may vary.

Peace.

Hey thanks for your thoughts on the topic.



Experiential Knowledge.

I see the common religious teaching to reject what someone hasnt begun to understand for themselves and to reject aspects of the Self, as a ploy to create drones, nothing to do with heaven but obedience.

Staring heavenward and saying "No" to life isnt a path to understanding, I see understanding as the path, acceptance of what and how things are as the goal, not rejection of what someone doesnt understand and parts of their self.

Acceptance and Release.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on 'Suffering arises from attachment to desires. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases.'

Do you believe it to be possible to remove suffering by ceasing the attachment without rejecting the desire? Do you see it as possible to desire without the attachment? A care-free desire, not of wanting and wishing but seizing every opportunity in life that you desire as they come without wasting your life on the wanting? Living life for the moment kind of outlook, not wishing you had in the past or wishing you can in the future but doing it now as the opportunities come? Thats the outlook I try and keep, not telling you that so you know what I want to hear and what I dont want to hear, I'm sure you will say what you believe and know that we're all on our own path but I just want to know what your thoughts are on that topic.

Your liking for Law puts you in the company of some very illustrious men.

Dr. Samuel Johnson said: "I became a sort of lax talker against religion, for I did not think much against it; and this lasted until I went to Oxford, where it would not be suffered. When at Oxford, I took up Law's Serious Call, expecting to find it a dull book (as such books generally are), and perhaps to laugh at it. But I found Law quite an overmatch for me; and this was the first occasion of my thinking in earnest of religion after I became capable of rational inquiry."

Gibbon (as mentioned above) said: "If Mr. Law finds a spark of piety in a reader's mind, he will soon kindle it into a flame."

John Wesley calls it one of three books which accounted for his first "explicit resolve to be all devoted to God." Later, when denying, in response to a question, that Methodism was founded on Law's writings, he added that "Methodists carefully read these books and were greatly profitted by them." In 1744 he published extracts from the Serious Call, thereby introducing it to a wider audience than it already had. About eighteen months before his death, he called it "a treatise which will hardly be excelled, if it be equalled, either for beauty of expression or for depth of thought."

Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, Henry Venn, William Wilberforce, and Thomas Scott each described reading the book as a major turning-point in his life. All in all, there were few leaders of the English Evangelical movement on whom it did not have a profound influence.

The above biographical sketch was written by James E. Kiefer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sidney Spencer said, "William Law holds an outstanding position among Protestant, and among English, mystics. He was influenced by many other mystics — He was familiar with the work of most noteworthy Christian mystics from the pseudo-Dionysius in the fifth century to Mme. Guyon in the seventeenth." His encounter with the works of Jacob Boehme opened in him new heights of inspiration. "In his literary career there is a blank of nine years — between An Appeal to all that Doubt the Truths of the Gospel (1740) and the first part of the Spirit of Prayer (1749). It seems to have been during this period that Law undertook the systematic study of Boehme. Law's mysticism is essentially related to his understanding of religion as an inward principle, grounded in the deeper nature of the soul. The inmost centre of our being is for him the 'spark of the soul' which is divine and which moves us therefore to seek after union with God."

Thankyou man, someone else here who is on the same wavelength. It's cool to read such articulate remarks opf praise about a man who delved so deep into the true meaning of God and our relationship to it.

The Buddha did teach us to be rid of our selfish desires, to accept life as it is and to let go of our concepts of "could be" and "should be". To let go of ideas such as "this way is better," or "I am superior." To act with virtue, not in expectation of heaven or some other reward, or out of fear of damnation or reincarnation as a "lower being," but simply because it eases suffering of others. To realize that there is a world and other sentient beings past our own noses. That life is impermanent and the only way to understand it is not to take anyone's word for it but to do it.


SELFFISH DESIRES= EGO

Also I never said "reject" ego as if it isn't there. I said detach from ego and implied that understaning of it is necessary . Also William Law and Buddha both understood the ego for what it was. Eleth you didn't read William Laws statements. In them he actually in very good prose describes the difference in idenitfying with the "I" or creaturely self to that of God consciousness. You really took me out of contex on things. And if you took a deep breath and realised that in different parts of the world people use different terminology to describe things, espeically with religion, that William Law, Buddha, Krishna, Islam Sufis and many other Mystics or mystical practices are indeedthe same teaching. All talk about ridding oneself of the narrow awareness of being a separate individual to that of realizing the true Self which isn't seprate with anything but is everything and beyond everything.
Tell me one (Genuine) Mystic or (Genuine) Guru that doesn't say "We are all One"????

I'd like to take credit for this work, but i've only copied and pasted it, thanks anyway.

I knew that man, im glad you posted it up for me.

"Also I understand that one must know the ego before one can reject it........all the mystics knew that. Rejection of ego is an antidote to suffering..." you did, you didnt, lets leave it at a case of different terminology.

Regardless, discussion is better than no discussion isnt it? I checked out this thread and saw the only reply was someone saying they wished to see some discussion on this topic. Knock, knock, knock *thats me at the door*.

Arent you happy to take this topic from I read it and believe it, to I believe it and will defend that position and perhaps learn something new about it?

I still dont agree with most of what he said, could be the terminology, "Kingdom of God TM", could also be that a lot of people just assume there is one path to spiritual understanding, enlightenment and it involves Love, finding God and everything else "matters not" supposedly. I disagree, and have no problems disagreeing you, him or even the most illustrious men. Its not that I so much disagree with what he says about spiritual enlightenment but to say nothing else matters is really just his opinion. Even if the biggest guru told me that I should just focus on the spiritual and everything else matters not, I'd tell him hes ignoring a part of life just like those who focus on the material and ignore the spiritual are ignoring part of life. Make the mundane in life divine and you will always be working for spiritual growth, no need to ignore it, just change it.



How about this, what if I tell you of a non-genuine guru or mystic that says the very same thing? Does that make it false? Still true but from the mouth of a liar? Anyone can say it, just like if I said flying an airplane is easy, every pilot will tell you that, does it make it so for everyone? We are all different, seeking different things in life, seeking enlightenment on different paths or not seeking it, tell me there is only one way I say thats untrue, just as the universe is infinite, so are the ways to acceptance. My opinion anyway.

ego[ee-goh, eg-oh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural egos. 1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
2. Psychoanalysis. the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
3. egotism; conceit; self-importance: Her ego becomes more unbearable each day.
4. self-esteem or self-image; feelings: Your criticism wounded his ego.
5. (often initial capital letter) Philosophy. a. the enduring and conscious element that knows experience.
b. Scholasticism. the complete person comprising both body and soul.

see what I did there mate?

eleleth: I'd be more than happy to go into your further questions privately, unless BNW has no objections to a further hijack of his True Christianity thread to discuss the finer points of Buddhist thought.

it's all 'bout respect

Dude I used to the word "rejection" after you used it and so used it in my own post afterwards because I thought you'd understand better if I used the word. It wasn't in my original statements. And even if a non genuine guru told you the same thing, it wouldn'[t be false it would be true but only from a theoretical point of view from that guru because he wouldn't have undergone the required conditions to apprehend it directly like the genuine ones. And again you have taken William Law way out of context. You should reread the posts I put up of his. What he wrote was for those who truly wanted to deicate themselves to the spiritual path and he never judged others for whatever path they followed (well at least in his later career life when he was alot more spiriutal)infact he was quite famous for not judging others because to judge others goes against mysticism, only when one has truly reached enlightenment can one judge because then there judgement is always constructive and always to the help of the people being judged. It is paradoxical.

Also I dont care if you go off topic because whether buddha or william law is discussed the essence of what they both taught is the SAMERev R but I still say that the ego is selfish desire. Better put the ego is thought the I thought. The "I" Thought however is usually filled with selfish desire and desires it's own self perpetuation hence why i equate selfish desire with the ego. All other thoughts come in after the I thought. Eradicate this I thought or stop identifing with it and nirvana is then known to be one with samsara.

OK I am taking him way out of context supposedly so lets make this easier shall we? This is fun right? I'm having a good time, and I'm not trying to make you admit that I am right and he is wrong or anything but explaining why I dont agree with some of what he said. Let's go back to the first quote I took...



As I said I think its BS. You can tell me why you dont think it is but in my opinion it is too cut and dry.

the one concurs with the living inspiring spirit of God within him = good

the one that doesnt concur with the living inspiring spirit of God within him = bad

What if I concurred with the living inspiring spirit of god within me and it told me to kill someone? That means its good?

Please clarify...

In the last judgement yes it would be good(even if it is highly unlikely)

Good enough man, I'll tackle this and Eleleth's questions after work. That way I'll have time to formulate a clear response.

Eleleth I'll write up afew writings from different mystics or mystical scriptures and see if you can tell me if there is a fundamental difference between them(I am having fun dude):

William Law: In what does sallvation consist? Not in any historic faith or knowledge of anything absent or distant, not in any variet of restraints, rules and methods of practising virtue, not in any formality of opinion about faith and works, repentance, forgiveness of sins, or justification and sanctification, not in any truth or righteousness that you can have yourself, from the best of men and books, but solely and wholly from the life of God, or Christ of God, quickened and born again in you, in other words in restoration and perfect union of the first twofold life in humaity.

Maitryana Upanishad:Having realized his own self as the Self, a man becomes selfless; and in virtue of selfessness he is to be concieved as unconditioned. This is the highest mystery, betokening emancipation; though selflessness he has no part in pleasure or pain, but attains absoluteness.

Shankara: Talk as much philosophy as you please, worship as many gods as you like, observe all ceremonies, sing devoted praises to any number of divine beings--liberation never comes, even at the end of a hundred aeons, without the realization of Oneness of Self.

Lankavatara:Nirvana is where there is no birth, no extinction; it is seeing into the state of Suchness(God or Christ of God quickened and born again in you), absolutely transcending all categories constructed by mind; for it is the Tathagata's inner consciousness.

Kath Upanishad: This Self is not realizable by study nor even by intelligence and learning. The Self reveals its essence only to him who applies himself to the Self. He who has not given up the ways of vice, who cannot control himself, who is not at peace within, who mind is distracted, can never realize the Self, though full of learning in the world.

Sorry it took so long.



Yep, it is the attachment not the desire itself that causes suffering. Desire depends on concept. For example, look at the idea of wealth. If we have a desire to be wealthy, we have a specific definition in mind as to what wealth is. Wealth is the desire, the definition is the attachment. Once one lets go of the attachment (the definition), wealth becomes very easy to find because you begin to see it in regards to other definitions. Once you find wealth, the desire ceases. It's really quite simple and it applies to all our ideas, happiness, peace, and even enlightenment.

You know the old saying "the grass is always greener on the other side?" Don't we always make statements like this when we see someone or something else that we think is better than what we already have? We have these thoughts due to the attachment that something is somehow superior. For example, I am a musician (more or less). I release songs independently along with thousands of others like me. Everytime I read an article or open a message board I see other artists recieving accolades from fans or respected members of the community. I think to myself, "Hey why is that not me?" or "That guy is crap, they should be checking my tunes." (hey I am human after all ) This is suffering that I am bringing on myself because I have an attachment to a definition of success. On the occasions that I am able to let go of that definition of success all of that frustration vanishes. My desire is to create music, my attachment is to a concept of success. Do you see?

Living in the moment is the essence of Zen. In each moment everything is as it needs to be. Does this mean that it is within Buddhist principle to sit by while people do horrible things to each other under the assumption that this is how it's supposed to be? Hells no! That is selfishness. To use a saying, "Do not work for your own idea of peace and justice, work to foster an environment where the ideas of peace and justice can thrive."




Oh the arguements we could have over a few pints BNW. You said it yourself, "Buddha and William Law taught the same thing." The same holds true for my statements and yours. I just used a different definition of ego to drive the point home. It's pointless to argue semantics when the message is the same. You are very verbose and well read, I not so much so. Doesn't really matter.

A fundamental difference, no, but was that what this was about? A difference in a handful of mystics outlooks?

How familiar are you with the LHP? Have you ever sought out the "Demonic", "Satanic" and that living "Fear" that gets the best of many people? Not sought out as in, read some anti-sites to know your enemy, or read a few Lovecraft books but really sought it out for its knowledge, submerged yourself in its waters not trying to stay afloat or swim back to shore but to let go and sink?

Enlightenment doesnt follow the same path, the same formula. You can aim for the bright shiny stuff and feel like you found the Divine but maybe it too is an illusion that through its apparent beauty and divinity leaves the seeker content in their discovery, looking no further. But I assure you a light can also be found in the darkness, in the depths of the Self that many do not wish to tread, the light of Self-Godhood. Unlike the path of removing temptation and sin for it makes victims of us, this path is one of we make victims of ourselves, there is no external victimizer, just us victimizing ourSelves. And if you dont enjoy being a victim, some do, then stop now, grab yourSelf and Life by the throat, look it in the eye, let out a menacing muahahaha for good measure, and dictate your terms.

As I said, this topic, being a good one, needed some discussion. So I came in not in agreement but in opposition, because agreement leaves little discussion but pats on the back, which doesnt last long. But opposition tends to bring more discussion, more research, more knowledge.

A thought that just came to mind, there are those Teachers that teach the path to "Unity-Consciousness", "Oneness" is through a life of dedication, what you own owns you, a simple life perhaps without a spouse or a family, because these lead to attachment. Even then this path can take a lifetime or more to grasp this Oneness, but to many it is well worth it, the pinnacle of their quest. Have you ever smoked Salvia(legal entheogen in like 99% of the world, sorry Aussies, Finns...4 US states and Norway or Sweden or both I think lol)? For a few dollars and 15-30 minutes in a day, you can blast yourself off to a world without Time and Self, you can become nothing but singular Conciousness. Then you are back, having experienced this Oneness without forfeiting your life to the quest to attain that glimpse of something Divine. Back to your family, and everything that you own that makes you happy and life comfortable. Of course this route can cause fear if not outright terror in some people, being so fast, never to touch the stuff again and never quite accepting what they felt. First conquer Fear and then dive in, not for a swim but a drowning.



Patience is a Virtue. Thanks for your thoughts.



Love it. In this example, wealth is but opinion. You dont have to try to change the definition just your opinion of what wealthy is to be wealthy. In my opinion, dont try and change the world, change your perspective on the world.

*SNICKER* Everything I say is just an opinion. Anytime one tries to explain anything, it can only be done in terms of concepts, opinions and definitions.

In the sutras even Sakyamuni admits that he cannot speak of the true nature of reality directly, but instead has to rely on concepts and "figures of speech." He even went as far as to caution Ananda not to take anything spoken by him literally.

One of my favorite sayings is: "Don't believe anything anyone tells you, including me, unless it fits with your own knowledge and experience." -Buddha

That alone spoke volumes to me when I was searching for a path that felt right.

but that's just me

Indeed I just tend to spell it out in case someone reading it takes it for anything other than my opinion.



Thats one of my favs too, knowledge and experience being the key. Reminds me of the Gnostics and their concept of experential knowledge. You can read about 1000 things but until you have experienced them you know none of them.

Ya, I appreciate where you are coming from. Seeking "demonic", "satanic" or "fear" is just the same a delving into one's (psycho analysist terminology)unconscious mind and finding out one's true intentions and conquering one's fears before your fears conquer you or continue to control you. We all have to accept that we have an animal instinctual side and that no matter how much we try to deny it, it will always be part of us. The way to controlling the raw primal side of one's being is to integrate it into the personality and not reject it. . I have never denied the fact that the light is in darkness, infact this is essential to finding one's way to enlightenment.
I own a copy of "The Satanic Bible" by "Anton Szandor LaVey" and found it well written but with too much faith in freudism and no faith in altruism. It made the outrageous claim that consciousness is produced by the brain(very unspiritual and with even no scientific backing). It believes that one's ego is the highest expression of reality and that one should only be humble if it suited oneself which completely contradicts humility. It's more a bible for egocentric materialists than for people searching for inner peace.
Enlightenment is beyond both light and darkness, it is all thought and transcends thought. Yet also I comprehend the fact that one needs to understand the ego before one can find the motive and will to want to annihlate it.

I, the Lord, destroy with darkness. But with darkness do I also create. The wise discern this. Fools, deluded by outward appearance, create a demon out of the web of their folly.----Book of Tokens

Thus saith He who formulateth in darkness: I am Lord, not of light alone, But of darkness also, For I the One am all-pervading.----Book of Tokens

Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness. It is far better to take things as they come with patience and equanimity.---Carl Jung

Most people who seek a spiritual path seek it because they are either conscious or subconsciously aware that their ego and separate selfhood isn't giving them happiness and so seek a solution. I don't care what you say but in the last anaylsis ,everyone wants peace of mind. Peace of mind with the ego is only ever at best temporary, so people search for the eternal(which is within them).
You say the mystics go for the shiny light stuff??? Nothing is more further from the truth!

The fly that touches honey cannot use its wings; so the soul that clings to spiritual sweetness ruins its freedom and hinders contemplation.--St. John of the Cross

Also I should let you know that, what you call the "bright shiny stuff" , the mystics call idolatry and never encourage it no matter how noble the idolatry(even christian mystics discouraged the idolization of the image of jesus) may be.
Life is suffering because we get upset when we get what we don't want, don't get what we want and get what we want because when we do get what we want it exists in time and all things in time pass.
Original ignorance is the same as original sin, and if one wants to know the truth one must wipe away ignorance. The journey of a spiritual seeker isn't about becoming something new but realizing what he/she already is. We already are eternal and infinite we just havn't to realize it. If Godhood was something new to be attained it would end, because all beginnings have an end. What is eternal must always and at all times exist.
As a zen patriach once said :[b]Do not strive to seek the True, only cease to cherish opinions.[b]

Anyway yeah, so I agree with you on many things, you are a definite advocate for freedom of thought and an advocate of questioning authority whatever it may be, which shows you have an open mind. But I have a strong conviction ,that unless one has an abundance of humility, one will never in this life or the next know the absolute truth in it's naked, timeless purity.
And one thing I one hundred percent agree with ,is that you will never be happy trying to or changing the world. True happiness(as opposed to temporary pleasure) lies in changing oneself, and therefore one's perspective. Anyone who thinks otherwise are delusioned or lacks understanding.

Good post dude, I like what you have to say and see where you are coming from, not that I really disagreed with your outlook, just wanted to bring some discussion to this thread. Though I still dont like the wording used by Law Im sure if you're diggin it, hes got something to say. You spoke as though you had a grasp on this wisdom stuff, I just wanted to see it in action, you stood your ground well which I like and come equipped with a good quoting feature lol



I'm liking these quotes, Jung is an important source of knowledge for me as is Paul Foster Case, thought to be one of the anonymous authors of the Kybalion which puts him up there in my books as well. He was a genuine Occultist.



Hey thanks and ya humility has its benefits, I save that for my home life where I always put others first, here its all fair game lol.



Lol I could say however that changing one's Self to be happy and accept the world as it is, is the best step to take before setting out to manipulate the great putty called Life. I say first shoot for true happiness then spend the rest of your days experiencing the beauty and pleasures of life, for that temporary pleasure is o'so sweet because of its temporary nature.

Thanks for the discussion, sorry for initially coming out cursing and insulting, I just wanted to get things heated up for some good discussion, get some passion involved, to really see how you felt about it all. The way I see it, say someone wants to talk about inner peace and how they have achieved it, well I will give them the opportunity to show their worth. If If they succeed good on them, if not and I can crack their inner peace with some words than that is a valuable realization that I believe to be more beneficial to that person than allowing them to fool themselves.

Well I believe I have played my cards, time to get a new hand.

I think I am a long long way from inner peace

excellent post esepcially the last paragraph is excellent....although the whole thing speaks to me....

Not so in my opinion, those who are seeking are closer than those who are not, and those who have a realistic view of how far they have gone and how far they have to go are even closer than those who just assume from how much they have read and how much they want it they are already there. Me, some days I'm closer than others, some days it feels too far but I remind myself that it is the struggle that I enjoy. For every stumble or faceplant is the individual experiencing this knowledge, which in my opinion is the way it is achieved. Consider every setback that comes, that can be learned from and doesnt cause you to turn back a battle won and a step forward.



Hey thanks Sympa Sheri, I think it safe to say we are both learning new things about ourSelves here and the point of view of others. brave new world brought a lot to the table.

You are going to kick yourself when you find it BNW.

So anyway, I figured since we are on the subject, you guys might get a kick outta this.

A Bodhisattva's Vow
However innumerable sentient beings are, I vow to save them.
However inexhaustible the defilements are, I vow to extinguish them.
However immeasurable the dharmas are, I vow to master them.
However incomparable enlightenment is, I vow to attain it.

Rip it apart...


Before I forget, BNW your essay skills are needed on Irish's ego thread.

That is very beautiful!!

William rocks the spiritual arena!@!@!