Can the merging of God with the climax devotee be considered as a miracle?
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
For anyone interested, from the Theravada texts, regarding wise and unwise attention, what is declared and what is undeclared...
[i]This is how he attends unwisely: "Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future? Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: "Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?"
When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arise in him. The view "self exists for me" arises in him as true and established; or the view "no self exists for me" arises in him as true and established; or the view "I perceive self with self" arises in him as true and established; or the view "I perceive not-self with self" arises in him as true and established; or the view "I perceive self with not-self" arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: "It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity." This speculative view is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from.......suffering, I say.
He attends wisely: "This is suffering"; he attends wisely "This is the origin of suffering"; he attends wisely "This is the cessation of suffering"; he attends wisely "This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering."
Again, remember what I have left undeclared as undeclared and remember what I have declared as declared. And what have I left undeclared? "The world is eternal"- I have left undeclared. "The world is not eternal" - I have left undeclared. "The world is finite" - I have left undeclared. "The world is infinite" - I have left undeclared. "The soul is the same as the body" - I have left undeclared. "The soul is one thing and the body is another" - I have left undeclared. "After death an enlightened one exists" - I have left undeclared. "After death an enlightened one does not exist" - I have left undeclared. "After death an enlightened one both exists and does not exist" - I have left undeclared. "After death an enlightened one neither exists not does not exist" - I have left undeclared.
Why have I left this undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana. That is why I have left it undeclared. And what have I declared? "This is suffering", "This is the origin of suffering", "This is the cessation of suffering", "his is the way leading to the cessation of suffering".[/i]
[i]This is how he attends unwisely: "Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future? Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: "Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?"
When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arise in him. The view "self exists for me" arises in him as true and established; or the view "no self exists for me" arises in him as true and established; or the view "I perceive self with self" arises in him as true and established; or the view "I perceive not-self with self" arises in him as true and established; or the view "I perceive self with not-self" arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: "It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity." This speculative view is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from.......suffering, I say.
He attends wisely: "This is suffering"; he attends wisely "This is the origin of suffering"; he attends wisely "This is the cessation of suffering"; he attends wisely "This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering."
Again, remember what I have left undeclared as undeclared and remember what I have declared as declared. And what have I left undeclared? "The world is eternal"- I have left undeclared. "The world is not eternal" - I have left undeclared. "The world is finite" - I have left undeclared. "The world is infinite" - I have left undeclared. "The soul is the same as the body" - I have left undeclared. "The soul is one thing and the body is another" - I have left undeclared. "After death an enlightened one exists" - I have left undeclared. "After death an enlightened one does not exist" - I have left undeclared. "After death an enlightened one both exists and does not exist" - I have left undeclared. "After death an enlightened one neither exists not does not exist" - I have left undeclared.
Why have I left this undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana. That is why I have left it undeclared. And what have I declared? "This is suffering", "This is the origin of suffering", "This is the cessation of suffering", "his is the way leading to the cessation of suffering".[/i]
View 3 more replies »
@ArcAngel You are unable to recognise, in the context of the fundamental points of our "discussion" (I use the term loosely......😀) , just how pointless your questions are.
I'll leave you to it.
All the best
I'll leave you to it.
All the best
ArcAngel · 61-69, M
@Dharmabump
COPOUT!!!
COPOUT!!!
dattaswami · 51-55, M
His Holiness Shri Datta Swami is a complete incarnation of the Lord (Pari Purna Avatara). He has come to this world to preach Divine Knowledge to mankind. In the past incarnations of the Lord, this wonderful Divine Knowledge was not revealed to its fullest extent. Today, more than ever, there is a real need for this wonderful Divine Knowledge. The situation is rather peculiar. People are not ignorant about the true knowledge. They are highly intelligent. Their minds have been sharpened by the advancement in science and technology. They know the truth but they do not like it. They want to reach the true goal by the false and convenient path. For this purpose they have twisted the meaning of the scriptures. Humanity stands divided by a number of religions and religious sects. Therefore there is a direct need at present, for Lord Datta Himself to come down and reveal the true knowledge to the wonderful people. He has come in the form of His Holiness Shri Datta Swami to give this Divine and special knowledge to us.
ArcAngel · 61-69, M
Lots of words that say practically nothing.
I want you to read just this one verse very carefully and ask yourself, does the Swami or any
other author you know of make a claim like this?
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Have they created anything like the heavens or the earth or the spirit that is within us?
I want you to read just this one verse very carefully and ask yourself, does the Swami or any
other author you know of make a claim like this?
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Have they created anything like the heavens or the earth or the spirit that is within us?
@ArcAngel It was only "simplistic" for anyone who thinks that a claim made in their own chosen scripture is somehow definitive, as some sort of "answer".
The Buddhist Scriptures are more "definitive" for me. Wherein the Buddha remains silent on such questions as seem to preoccupy your own mind. Silent, simply because believing in any answer at all is antithetical to the living of the "Holy Life", the path to the end of suffering.
The Buddhist Scriptures are more "definitive" for me. Wherein the Buddha remains silent on such questions as seem to preoccupy your own mind. Silent, simply because believing in any answer at all is antithetical to the living of the "Holy Life", the path to the end of suffering.
ArcAngel · 61-69, M
@Dharmabump
Just try to find ANY other text that makes that claim; it is obvious:
Deuteronomy 10:17
For theLordyour God is Godofgods, andLordoflords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
Isaiah 45:5
I am theLord, and there isnoneelse, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isaiah 45:6
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there isnonebeside me. I am theLord, and there isnoneelse.
Just try to find ANY other text that makes that claim; it is obvious:
Deuteronomy 10:17
For theLordyour God is Godofgods, andLordoflords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
Isaiah 45:5
I am theLord, and there isnoneelse, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isaiah 45:6
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there isnonebeside me. I am theLord, and there isnoneelse.
@ArcAngel Sadly, you are missing the point.
Really, I just don't understand a word of this. What on earth is a "climax devotee"? Has it something to with sex? (Serious question)
Eckhart:-
[i]When we go out of ourselves through obedience and strip ourselves of what is ours, then God must enter into us; for when someone wills nothing for themselves, then God must will on their behalf just as he does for himself.[/i]
Eckhart:-
[i]When we go out of ourselves through obedience and strip ourselves of what is ours, then God must enter into us; for when someone wills nothing for themselves, then God must will on their behalf just as he does for himself.[/i]
thewindupbirdchronicles · 41-45, M
If you are this devoted, yes... as it's written in the scriptures of the climax you look for.. some of us define it differently without innuendo and with. It's good to hold meaning in the world, but is it healthy to ascribe meaning?
Come back Swami, all is forgiven!
😀
😀
ArcAngel · 61-69, M
@Dharmabump
Yea, I have to admit, I'm a lousy speller.
Yea, I have to admit, I'm a lousy speller.
@ArcAngel I have to admit that I often look up the bigger words as spelling is not my strong point.
ArcAngel · 61-69, M
@Dharmabump
Yea, I do that too.
Yea, I do that too.
Who is Swami?
22,991 people following
Spirituality Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post Associated Forums Topic Members
Spirituality Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
