Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

Buddhism is like Kindergarten compared to Hermeticism, and Hermetics came first. It utilizes and understands the mind much more potently than Buddhism.

With your definition of Enlightenment, it's no different than saying that "everything is Science", or "everything is God" or "everything is Consciousness", which I have been pointed out on saying before. If everything is exactly the same before and after Enlightenment, then according to this definition, what is it exactly?

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you're saying. In your quote you welcome me to the real world: a world of uncertainty. How can we live in a world of uncertainty and yet have things that are more certain than others? It isn't truly a world of uncertainty, then, is it? There is much to be certain of in it as well.

What you seem to be declaring is that the world is completely uncertain, and that we have to figure everything out for ourselves, and that it's okay to sometimes make affirmative judgments about life-changing things before there is scientific proof that our judgments are factual.

You seem to be saying that it would be absurd to wait for scientific proof in all aspects of life, and therefore it isn't unreasonable to forego scientific proof in the case of things like "Did Jesus the Christ actually exist?" i think there's a big difference between waiting for scientific proof that the world hasn't become fire and brimstone before I step outside and accepting that the New Testament is (somehow) based on real events. (Loosely interpreted: there was some guy who was sort of peaceful [?] around 30 AD.)

 

The best we can go on is probability, and that goes for quantum mechanics, as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_probability
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0601158v3.pdf
And for that we still have to make assumptions about physical reality: that our senses and instruments aren't deceiving us when we gather the data. In the case of Jesus' existence, it's a matter of reasonable inference. But if it's really important for you not to believe it, be my guest. Just be aware that my view is supported by the overwhelming majority of scholars who have studied the subject: Bart Ehrman (2012), R.L.Houlden (2003), R.E. Van Voors (2000), M.A. Powell (1998), J.D.Crossan (1992) and R.W. Funk, R.W. Hoover the Jesus Seminar (1993), etc., etc. If I'm wrong, I'm in good company.

 

I'll ask again, if you say that "Buddhism works", in what way does it work? If it's not about Enlightenment, then it's not really authentic Buddhism. If you integrate it into your life and it helps you, that DOES make you a Buddhist, but not a Buddha.

If people integrate the teachings of Jesus into their life and it helps, it's literally no different than what you are doing. So, Christianity works as well.

 

Christianity works for me. The Christianity that I follow is a somewhat scaled-down version free of miracles, supernatural claims, and contradictions occasionally found among the gospels. My Jesus is the sage, whose teachings and example emphasized universal love for everyone, especially the underprivileged and society's outcasts. I'm not alone in these beliefs. Many progressive Chriistians in mainline Protestant churches are on the same wavelength, including Oklahoma pastor Robin Meyers (Saving Jesus from the Church), Marcus Borg (Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time), Bishop Spong,(Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World), Carleton Pearson, (The Gospel of Inclusion), etc. These ideas are guided by the agape principle underlying the New Testament, especially Luke's gospel, and passages from the other gospels: e.g.,1 Corinthians 13; Matthew 25:36; 1 John 4:8. I think it's self-evidently true. And it doesn't matter to me either who actually came up with it. So consider us both pragmatists.

 

I won't ask you how you acquired your apparently extensive knowledge of the mental health system, but I'm sure you're aware of what the professionals would say about your claim to be the superior authority on the subject. No, I don't think you're crazy, but perhaps a bit arrogant in your judgments. You're still pathologizing religious behavior that might be normal and functional, and overgeneralizing about a multitude of different Christian denominations and sects. There are certainly categories of Christians who seem nuttier than fruitcakes to me (snake handlers come to mind). I share your belief that the nearly universal prevalence of religion reflects evolutionary advantages that might not be related to truth. You mention pattern seeking, which I think is an important one. Karen Armstrong argues that logos and mythos have historically been important and complementary ways in which humans have attempted to understand reality, and both perform important functions. Logos (reason) is our indispensible ability to discover regularities in our physical environment. It "helps us to function practically and effectively in the world, and it must therefore be closely in tune and reflect accurately the realities of the world around us". Mythos (myth) enables us to deal with difficult aspects of reality for which reason offers no easy answers: mortality, sickness, uncertainty, etc. It is intuitive and integrates the findings of logos into the coherent patterns we call meaning. "Myth", in this sense, is not falsehood but metaphor. Joseph Cambell defined God as "a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought". The metaphorical-historical approach to religion is the basis of progressive Christianity. According to Armstrong, "religion is about helping us to deal with the sorrow that we see in life, helping us to find meaning in life, and helping us to live in relation to that transcendence that I was speaking about earlier. Religious people are ambitious. They want to feel enhanced. They want to feel at peace within themselves. They want to live generous lives. They want to live beyond selfishness, beyond ego." Advancements in science since the 16th century and reactions against them led to conflict between mythos and logos as approaches, with fundamentalism asserting the primacy of religion in areas traditionally left to logos and scientism asserting the primacy of science as the only valid path to human knowledge. Viktor Frankl, concentration camp survivor and psychologist, considers the quest of meaning to be the most basic human psychological need. I don't think science can ever give us meaning, and any effort to denigrate mythos in favor of logos can be a source of harmful fanaticism, in my opinion.

 

If you are an atheistic 'purist' you'd presumably have to eradicate all such non-scientific terminology from your communications. I was just pointing out the inconsistency.

 

All is Mind: Definitely Hermetic, and even in line with Hinduism, but are you sure that's Buddhist? If so, cool, but not very in line with Writer's Atheistic Buddhism

And the rest are directly Hermetic principles.

As far as Zen, I would agree with you, but you might be sounding too airy fairy with such statements as "you can only discover Zen for yourself" on this forum, where there's heavy insistence on objective reality that's heavily weighed on by certain members. Not saying you per se. "But you can only discover Zen for yourself" is no different than what I would say about how "you can only discover your True Will" for yourself, and been "called out" on.

It's all the same thing. But different forms and manifestations. The East tends to be more about Transcendence and deals with an Awakening of Consciousness. The West tends to demand more concrete manifestations as a Spiritual movement, such as Magick, or even the story of Jesus is much more embodying the world than the Buddha realizing something transcendent and that's basically it. Zen and Hinduism may think that all is Mind, but it stops there with that realization. The Western Mystery schools attempt to bring that realization into the world.

Every religion is a facet of The Jewel, but none can fully embody the entire Jewel. But it's infinite, so we should celebrate the differences. I still have certain preferences as does anybody, but the deep seated hatred and separation of religions needs to change and end as we move forth into the future, including the separation of Science, Religion, and the Esoteric studies and practices.

The Occult: The Method of Science; The Aim of Religion

The Great Work

 

Mr. Writer - I don't blame you for using the phrase you used. Many phrases in common usage, as well as many modern English words first appear in the King James Bible (a re-write of the slightly earlier Wycliffe version). As speakers of English we're pretty much stuck with this, unless of course we have a big revision of the language.
The text of the Bible was an important factor in the development of modern English, and many phrases taken from it are used daily by people in a totally unconscious way.

 

MeAgain, are you sure you're not just posting Hermetic principles? Never seen that list in regards to Buddhism.

Seven Hermetic Principles:
1. The Principle of Mentalism.
2. The Principle of Correspondence.
3. The Principle of Vibration.
4. The Principle of Polarity.
5. The Principle of Rhythm.
6. The Principle of Cause and Effect.
7. The Principle of Gender.

 

Ok so this is fragments here and there of different forms of Buddhism arranged together by you, while Hermeticism came first and already has it perfectly arranged together.

 

Just for the record, the origin of Hermeticism is a bit of a mystery. There is a split consensus on where the texts date from. Some people feel that they date from the Hellenistic period in the same era as the rise of Christianity, while others feel that the texts are from Antiquity, and are based from a figure older than Moses: Hermes Trismigestus. I feel that it stems from Ancient Egypt and Antiquity. But either way, Hermeticism is more in touch with the mind than Buddhism i must say.

 

Try to look at it in this perspective....The priests at Nicaea were the ones trying to make people "fear" God, well not really God, but the church. They were out to control the masses, and in fact did for over a thousand years. What God is, and what many make God out to be are two different things.

There is only two energies...positive and negative....people are like prisms...whatever energy they absorb they reflect. Positive and negative are not interchangeable. Positive can't be negative, and negative can't be positive. Positive creates, negative destroys. Positive created negative, but negative can't destroy positive....nothing from nothing is nothing....but negative will eventually destroy itself...that's it's nature.

Just my imperfect reasoning. Positive energy is my God.

 

Also, I would agree with all that you posted about Buddhism here, but certainly this can't be the same "Sophisticated Buddhism" that Writer is interested in, as there is no way that he's ever willing to admit that there is a direct correspondence between the internal Microcosm and the external Macrocosm, as this is the crux of what Magick is all about.

 

I agree with this philosophy, and another term that's basically the same meaning is the Prisca Theologia...something that both early Christians and Hermetists agreed upon. A Singularity in all religious doctrines. The only New Age post-2012 concept that I would add to it is that perhaps this knowledge was given by Extraterrestrials, and that they are the Gods or God that was spoken about in Antiquity.

 

I'm pleased but puzzled that you posted this. I'm a perennialist myself, of the Huston Smith-Karen Armstrong variety. How does it fit into the dialogue?

 

The wide-open door is a strong and spiritual concept . Your door-keeper filters all nonsense according to your exacting will .
Thy slave is busy opening and closing and opening ... and this is why your door is squeaky .