Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

[Walker]

To assume that the purpose is to make sense is an error, e.g., Zen koan.

How presumptuous for a no-nothing, know nothing, to be handing out koans like candy.

Real koan dispensers have extensive knowledge.

Besides, how appropriate is a koan to an intellectual realm such as this one?
A: Quite appropriate, if conditions are conducive.

[Dontaskme]

Most of the time, when a person just "begs off" to "mystery," they're hiding that they've run out of answers that make any sense.

But 'Life' is a mystery, even the idea there is a ''someone'' having a life is a mystery.

'Ideas' are a mystery, I mean where is the exact location of an 'idea' to be found ? ... isn't that a mystery?

Can knowing know itself? can perceiving perceive itself?

Reality is unknowable, it's a total mystery. Knowledge can only point to it's own mystery, it's own emptiness.

There is no Knower of the totality of reality that can be known...because all known things are known to be temporal, the temporal is simply an appearance of the totality, not the totality. All known things are appearances of the totality that cannot be known. In other words, how can the infinite know itself ?

This apparent ''you'' had no awareness of yourself prior to you're birth. This apparent ''you'' will have no awareness of yourself when you are dead.

So who or what is aware of itself during the brief intervening time between the period you were ''not yet born'' and the period after you died? How does ''knowing'' just suddenly pop aware between two unknown mysteries? ...explain that to me?


If you are seeking some answers that you may understand IC ... Then all I'm saying to you, is that I do not have any answers, and that doesn't mean I am not making sense, because according to me, what I am saying makes sense.

So how about you teach me something about finding answers, if you really believe there are answers... since everything I am saying to you is not being comprehended in you there, even though what I am saying to you there, is perfectly understood by me here. so teach me here, how to find answers that I here, know cannot be found.

I'll await your explanation.

Remember, I am only ever talking about the ''KNOWER'' of knowledge...I'm not talking about what is apparently known.

If there were answers to be found IC... then why are we still asking questions, notice questions never stop being asked, so ask yourself why that is. ?

.

[Walker]

Too easy a question.
You’re wasting IC’s knowledge.

Non-duality ...

Lungs breathe, not you.
Heart beats, not you.
Stomach digests, not you.
Brain manages the systems, not you.
Mind thinks, not you.

Folks mistakenly identify as the controller of this complex operation, but folks have less control than the asshole, ‘cause the asshole can shut everything down pretty quick, although not as quickly as the heart or lungs.

[Walker]

There might be a reason they're not...

If someone can’t play the geetar, their noodling is just noise.

If someone knows nothing, their mouth sounds are just noise.

Yeah.

Something doesn't get to be "profound" merely by way of being self-contradictory or utterly impossible to understand. Most of the time, when a person just "begs off" to "mystery," they're hiding that they've run out of answers that make any sense.

Two people perfectly purified of corruption will clearly see, RE AL I TY, and report similar if not identical findings, due to clear minds being synchronized to the same frequency vibrating from the circumstances of whatever situation that is happening. This isn’t as new-agey as it may sound when put into the perspective of hero cops running towards gunfire. They are tuned to the same frequency of reality.

This can be somewhat simulated and experienced as a group in spite of individual differences of personality … as was brought out in cult movements that gained fame in the 60’s and 70’s (although cult-joiners likely have similar proclivities that cause them to join a cult), and has since been adapted by corporations in team-building exercises.

Two people with pure perception scrubbed of samskaras and conditioning will apprehend similarly if not identically, for it’s the impressions upon consciousness that flavor perception into different facets of the elephant, according to the individual’s inherent and acquired proclivities.

Keyword: Turiya

[Dontaskme]

Something doesn't get to be "profound" merely by way of being self-contradictory or utterly impossible to understand. Most of the time, when a person just "begs off" to "mystery," they're hiding that they've run out of answers that make any sense.

Mannie. . if you want me to stop talking to you, I will without any hesitation or think any less of you. Just say you've had enough, and I will leave you alone. Just say it outright, either do that, or we can continue talking. It's your call.

I'm just trying to understand why when I suggested you look at the nondual video I posted for your perusal, the one narrated by Tony Parson's - you then replied to me saying you had watched the said video, but you did not believe the message.

The thing is, I personally believe the nondual message, mannie. Even though you have told me, you do not, and so that is the only difference between us as far as I can see.

So I guess you must have some other idea about reality that is not nondual. Personally I am not able to get past my belief that reality is nondual.

So I guess we don't really have any more to discuss, would that be a right assessment?

My job on this forum is to probe very deeply into the purpose of sentient life, a sentience that endures pain and suffering, sometimes in the most horrific of circumstances, and for what and why.. just for it all to be for nothing. It just seems so absolutely pointless and senseless to me that's all. I respect the fact that other people believe life is amazing and wonderful and magical and awesome and that they think it's all a miracle that we should all be grateful for and such....I do not have a problem with those thoughts, if that's what some people want to think. But for me, I think it's all meaningless and futile. And the fact that it's also a nondual reality as well, makes it even more meaningless.


.

[Immanuel Can]

Most of the time, when a person just "begs off" to "mystery," they're hiding that they've run out of answers that make any sense.

But 'Life' is a mystery...

Cliche.

I'm not unduly impressed with that observation, I must confess.

[Immanuel Can]

Something doesn't get to be "profound" merely by way of being self-contradictory or utterly impossible to understand. Most of the time, when a person just "begs off" to "mystery," they're hiding that they've run out of answers that make any sense.

Mannie. . if you want me to stop talking to you,...

Not at all. I want you to start. I want you to start using reason and evidence to make your claims plausible...and if you can't, you can scarcely blame me for remaining highly skeptical. The "mystery" dodge just does not work. I wish, instead of punting to that, you would start providing something that warrants belief.

Are you going to? Or are you going to punt to mystery every time your worldview runs into an intellectual road block?

So I guess we don't really have any more to discuss, would that be a right assessment?

It depends. If you want me to start believing something self-contradictory, and without evidence or reasons, then I suppose that's a vain hope, and you'll want to move on. But if you want to flesh out that belief you have, make sense of it, sort evidence for it, and make it non-contradictory, then I have no problem going forward.

"I don't believe what you do," does not mean either "I don't like you," nor "I don't want to talk anymore." But we do have to have some common grounds in reasons, evidence and logic if we're going to make any progress.

My job on this forum is to probe very deeply into the purpose of sentient life, a sentience that endures pain and suffering, sometimes in the most horrific of circumstances, and for what and why..

I don't think it is. Because for one thing, nobody gave you such a " job." But more importantly, you deny the existence of the very reality that you say is characterized by those qualities, so just how perspicuous can your understanding of them be, so long as you continue to deny they're real?

It just seems so absolutely pointless and senseless to me that's all.

Now, that point makes sense.

I understand if you say you see reality that way. What I don't understand if if you say, "I see pointlessness and senselessness in the reality I don't believe is real."

Well, you can't ask anybody to make sense out of that.

I respect the fact that other people believe life is amazing and wonderful and magical and awesome...

I don't. I think they're on drugs, or so naive that nothing can be done with them. I can respect somebody who says, "Life is hard": but I can't even understand somebody who thinks it's Disneyland, or somebody who thinks reality doesn't exist at all. Both seem so far removed, to me, from reality, that I don't even know how to begin to take them seriously.

[gaffo]

Dontaskme wrote: But why would any sane rational intelligent person choose to want that imposed upon the self?

Immanuel Can Wrote: Nobody would choose it for himself.

"For one will hardly die for a righteous person; though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:7-8)

Nobody would choose it for themself, implies nobody would harm themself - including killing themself .... ?

We can see the freedom to choose violence to the self whether it be to themself or another is obviously available, but now you are saying nobody would choose it for themself, when they simply do.

My point is Immanuel, if we already know what the effects of pain and suffering is on ourself or another, then why would anybody choose to reincarnate into a reality where there is the freedom to choose to inflict pain and suffering either upon ourself or another ? why would they want to experience a reality like that?

Why would anyone want to reincarnate into a life of sin?

This is what I am trying to understand.

can you provide a "part 1"? intersting thread and will rad follow ups.

[gaffo]

Even I understand it is because God so loved the world that He incarnated into it in order to rescue us.

The rescue failed.
Do you understand WHY?

Whether or not the rescue failed depends on how you interpret what it is we need rescued from.

Here are some things people think we need rescued from:

Sin

Unbelief

Greed

Various sorts of 'immorality'

Ignorance

Unkindness and cruelty

Racism

Sexual license

Fear of death

Superstition

Everything The Bible attributes to Jesus is not what Jesus actually said. As far as I know (not a lot!) the parables , and the Sermon on the Mount are original Jesus.

Here is what one group of scholars ( Westar Institute) say is about the historical Jesus:

Other cheek (Q) Matt 5:39, Luke 6:29a
Coat & shirt (Q) Matt 5:40, Luke 6:29b
Congratulations, poor! (Q, Thomas) Luke 6:20, Thomas 54
Matt 5:3
Second mile (Q) Matt 5:41
Love of enemies (Q) Luke 6:27b, Matt 5:44b, Luke 6:32, 35a
Leaven (Q, Thomas) Luke 13:20-21, Matt 13:33, Thom 96:1-2
Emperor & God (Thomas, Mark) Thom 100:2b, Mark 12:17b, Luke 20:25b, Matt 22:21c
Give to beggars (Q) Matt 5:42a, Luke 6:30a
The Samaritan (L) Luke 10:30-35
Congratulations, hungry! (Q, Thomas) Luke 6:21a, Matt 5:6, Thom 69:2
Jesus Seminar Fellows also came to consensus on the following:

Jesus of Nazareth did not refer to himself as the Messiah, nor did he claim to be a divine being who descended to earth from heaven in order to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. These are claims that some people in the early church made about Jesus, not claims he made about himself.
At the heart of Jesus’ teaching and actions was a vision of a life under the reign of God (or, in the empire of God) in which God’s generosity and goodness is regarded as the model and measure of human life; everyone is accepted as a child of God and thus liberated both from the ethnocentric confines of traditional Judaism and from the secularizing servitude and meagerness of their lives under the rule of the empire of Rome.

true

Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic view of the reign (or kingdom) of God—that by direct intervention God was about to bring history to an end and bring a new, perfect order of life into being. Rather, in Jesus’ teaching the reign of God is a vision of what life in this world could be, not a vision of life in a future world that would soon be brought into being by a miraculous act of god.

not true. Jesus was an apocalyptic and aways though of the endtimes as an Esene. when the lion will lie down witht he lamb and east straaw - kingdom of god on earth.

[gaffo]

Oh, hey...I get my own "part II." I feel privileged.

My point is Immanuel,

IC will do. "Immanuel" is Christ. I'm don't propose to be that good.

if we already know what the effects of pain and suffering is on ourself or another, then why would anybody choose to reincarnate into a reality where there is the freedom to choose to inflict pain and suffering either upon ourself or another ? why would they want to experience a reality like that?

"RE-incarnate"? Or "Incarnate"?

If you mean "reincarnate," I really can't speak for that. I don't believe it.

I can tell you, though, that the whole rationale for believing in reincarnation, as per Hinduism and Buddhism is to try to explain samsara, suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism both come out of countries where suffering and inequality are very common features of life. And belief in reincarnation is a way of explaining how so many people appear to suffer unjustly or die without a reasonable chance to complete their dharma, their duty, in this life, or to receive good karma, payback, in this life.

The argument is that the justice that is not apparent in any one life will become apparent when we take into consideration the many, many cycles of life that the suffering beings have. Karma will equalize over multiple lifetimes, it is said.

But this belief also has multiple bad outcomes, such as caste, quietism, fatalism, resignation, contemptus mundi, despair, the inhibition of labour innovation, and institutionalized injustice.

So I think you must mean 'incarnate," no? Because nobody "chooses" re-incarnation, according to Hinduism or Buddhism. Reincarnation is said to be forced upon the individual by universal necessity of some kind.

thanks for the schooling on Eastern religions - did not know of the above.

just posting to inform you that jews of Jesus time had a sort of re-incarnation mindset - thus the "is jesus Esiah reborn" - you know the one the jews leave an empty chiar for his return.

so ya re-incarnation was a jewish (for at least important persons) theology at the time of chirst.- its since died off, no jews today would affirm reincarnation - but that is not relivent, in jesus time many would.

[gaffo]

Oh, hey...I get my own "part II." I feel privileged.

IC will do. "Immanuel" is Christ. I'm don't propose to be that good.

"RE-incarnate"? Or "Incarnate"?

Oh yes, I mean incarnate, sorry about that.

If you mean "reincarnate," I really can't speak for that. I don't believe it.

Nither do I, so sorry again for the confusion, yes you are right, I meant incarnate, in the embodied sense of the concept.


So now we come back to God knowing he would be tortured while in the flesh, so my point is why would the spirit embodied person want a life of suffering when it doesn't have to. It could just stop incarnating surely?

you do know thre were 3 jesuss in the 4 gospels right?

1. mark where jesus is a man and knows nothing about nore wishes to die for his god.
2. matt/luke in the middle - but still mor man than god - john is the outlyier.
3 jonhn's jesus where jesus is more robot than man and willing to die knowin ghe is God.

[gaffo]

The Incarnation (with a capital "i") is that singular world event in which God became man in the person of Jesus Christ.

and when was that?

per John - frombefore time -" in the beginning was the Word (Gospels/christ) and the word was God (Jesus was/is god). from the beginning.

per Mark? Jesus was a man until his bapism on the jordan and then God adopted him at age 30 as his adopted Son (not God incarnate - but literally his son). imparting divinity to him as God's son.

per Matt.luike? from jesus birth having his father as YHWH - but not exsting pior to his born in 4 bc. aslo as Gods Son - not God incarnate. only not adopted buy god's son from birth. as daddy is go (unlike Mark - where daddy is just a guy)

per Paul? where jesus is nothing and only become Christ upon his death and resuurection on the crons. - a new being and devine one not related to the mortal man that was killed proir on the cross.

------so which jebus you talking about willis?

you are tlaking about he Johanian one, which is not the ones mentioned on the other books i rferences above.

[gaffo]

become a parent and you will

This means nothing to me, sorry.

a parent worth his salt will sacrifice himself to preserve his child

man choose poorly...god said suffer the consequence...god sacrificed himself, as a man, to bear that consequence

the father took a bullet for the child, a bullet the child well-earned by way of his own poor choice

get it?

I get it, so YHWH chose to kill his son rather than himself to make some point about something..........hope you are a better father than God was.

[gaffo]

Now, with that all in view, can we frame your question? Perhaps. Do you mean, "Why would God undertake the Incarnation, since He knew His incarnate Son would be crucified?" Is that your question?

Yes that is correct, that's the question. Why Incarnate at all, already knowing what would happen?

Oh. Thanks for the clarification. I'll give the Biblical answer, if I may:

"By this the love of God was revealed in us, that God has sent His only Son into the world so that we may live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)

i.e a scapgoat (so Jebus is with Azazel i guess)- so Jebus was born to be a sacrifical lamb - not born to live and die a long life with love/etc.........

why deify scapgoatism, when that is what cowards do - why not earn your way via work - doing good works to please your god - why not do that instead of sitting on a soft couch and fking every chick that shows up thinking "i'm ok i accept God scapgoad son who died for me to be a lazy fucker" - its all good.

[gaffo]

Now, with that all in view, can we frame your question? Perhaps. Do you mean, "Why would God undertake the Incarnation, since He knew His incarnate Son would be crucified?" Is that your question?

Yes that is correct, that's the question. Why Incarnate at all, already knowing what would happen?

Oh. Thanks for the clarification. I'll give the Biblical answer, if I may:

"By this the love of God was revealed in us, that God has sent His only Son into the world so that we may live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)

BTW i fking way Mark's Jesus would b fine with that - his death for the rest of us.