I believe that certain topics such as the meaning of the Cross in Christianity must be discussed in the right attitude which is often not the attitude one finds on a debate board. This can be seen as overly sensitive, elitist , or whatever, but it really isn't. My objection is because the nature of the topic is so profound that unless the "intent" is to understand rather than argue or ridicule normal for modern debate, no real good can come from such arguments and they can actually be psychologically harmful..

Rather than be considered to "old fashioned" I'd rather post an article here on Right Speech in Buddhism. Perhaps when reading it including the following my hesitancy may become more understandable. Take from it what you will.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism...ightspeech.htm

It is quite remarkable that you have a reaction specifically to a discussion of the Cross. You have said that it's not appropriate for discussion on a forum. Could you please state in what context the value of the Cross should be communicated? Sometimes I have found that one-on-one discussions are more productive than group discussions. It would be a shame, however, for others to miss the advantage. In a sense, a book is like a discussion with only one person, and those who read the book take that advantage.

Perhaps LK knows a way that a thread could be confined to just two contributors, if that's what you have in mind.

__________________
I, folks. I'm just visiting. The prayer stick is coming along, but like everything, it is far more complicated than when I started. I'll be supporting 5 different languages, 6 different religions, in addition to several audio routines.

Hi John

It is very difficult to discuss a religious symbol of the depth of the Cross. it is so broad and deep that it requires serious intent to stay on track. The intersection to the horizontal and vertical directions and its placement in relation to Jesus' head provide a clear definition of "understanding" in the pure sense.

It pertains to the role of affliction and suffering as it relates to man's potential spiritual progression in the context of what Simone called "gravity and grace" and I've learned as the laws of involution and evolution.. Where western Buddhism is known to seek the elimination of suffering, Christianity makes use of it as Simone so eloquently affirms:


The ramifications of this are immense and the Cross is the essential symbol for it all. That is why I cannot see myself seriously exploring the depth of the Cross on a debate board where its worth is defined by its marketing value. It can only be done on a discussion board that respects the depth of the topic.

I don't understand where you're coming from, Nick, this is a forum on which some very deep esoteric subjects are discussed openly. To be fair, humour does sometimes enter the fray, but it's not usually long-lasting, and tends to temporarily lighten the mood, is all.

You said: It seems to me that you want to hold the discussion with the intent that the other person understands your beliefs, rather than to discuss the different aspects of each person's beliefs in an equal manner.
Almost as though you want to teach - rather than to discuss - subjects.
If i'm misunderstanding your position on this, then i apologise, and perhaps you would explain what your position is.

If you're seeking a deeper discussion of your own beliefs, have you considered posting in the "Any Volunteers" topic of the "Interview Zone"....? http://www.interfaithforums.com/showthread.php?t=3862


You also said: I feel that - in general - the members do give due respect to topics which are spiritually deep, you only have to look back over some of the threads to see this.
Maybe you could ask Lightkeeper to set up a "Religious Discussion" rather than "Religious Debate" board.... although it seems to me that such a board could be open to evangelism and proselytism....

I truly don't understand the "marketing value" comment, there are one or two genteel adverts at the top of the page, yes, but i really don't see this as a commercial site at all - at least, no pop-ups get past Firefox, and neither has it asked me if i want to allow any (other than the Private Message window).


It doesn't seem to me that on a forum such as this it's possible - nor even desirable - to have a strictly-controlled discussion between two members, it is after all a forum, they are intended for debate between the members.


Maybe for a one-to-one conversation you could use the Private Message facility instead, or even emails....


Peace, Love, & Light

__________________

The Peaceful Place: http://www.agedhippy.plus.com/

"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

Hi Aged hippy

Thanks for your concern but you've misunderstood me which is OK


I'm referring to the importance of intent over content. The idea is that the quality of content beyond a certain point is dependent on the quality of intent. A Buddhist sangha is run on the principles of vinaya which effect and verify a person's intent and valuation of the higher aims of the teaching for purposes of content.

Now I'm not suggesting the rules of vinaya here but just stressing the value of intent as pertaining to the topic explained in the article on right speech. This is completely different from the intent on being a teacher.



I see you've misunderstood this so let me take it slowly.

As I said, the Cross and its deeper meanings are about as deep as one can get. Part of it is because it is the psychological point where our essential reality either evolves or involutes or "goes up or down" along the scale of being. One of the big factors here is the role of affliction in our lives. The greatest infliction of affliction was of course the Cross. It represents the victory over the powers that keep man in attachment by the conscious witness of them. It is the victory over suffering or dukkha on the level of organic life on earth.

My path accentuates the value of re-acquiring the normal balance of science and religion or knowlege and faith. Part of this is the attempt to better understand the ways of knowledge and love. Recently I've been pondering the ideas nicely put in the following article:

http://www.integralscience.org/loveknowledge.html


This is rough stuff and surely beyond me. Yet intellectually I can see the good sense of it and this is the deeper meaning of the Cross. It invites us to take up the struggle at this essential point. Jesus on the cross did what is described.

To begin discussing the depth of theses ideas they first must be respected. Now remember that I've been pondering these things and am about to add something to the thread when I read from cardero:


The implication is that the cross is just a better way to market the Jesus myth. Where my intent is to deepen the topic, this post trivializes it. The happy medium is meaningless for me since it is not one thing or another. Sometimes a man needs either a hot bath or a cold shower, but what good is a luke warm bath? I found it psychologically impossible to follow that post. So rather than mix intents I thought better to wait until the topic appears on a different board that doesn't stress the delights of knocking down ideas as much as mutually trying to understand them by first valuing them.

No harm, no foul

I misunderstood, i apologise.

The cross has many meanings, i'm no longer sure which one is most significant to me, at one time i had considered it to represent the meeting of the Masculine and Feminine aspects of ourselves and our soul, but i not sure that i still feel this to be the case....


I'm thinking that maybe all symbolism should be ignored, if one is lost in the labyrinth of symbolism and it's implications and meanings, one is probably getting bogged down with things which it isn't necessary to fully understand.

It's only necessary in life to do the right thing, in my opinion, but it's not necessary to fully understand the reason why.

In other words - it's not necessary to be an accomplished chef in order to eat a slice of cake....

Peace, Love, & Light

__________________

The Peaceful Place: http://www.agedhippy.plus.com/

"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

Nick_A:
I respect your choice of mandala and I certainly wish you the best on your quest. In my quest, I would like to take the rest of the Christian world with me, and I find it hard, but not impossible, to consider others' points of view to be, on a forum, as considerable as my own. To consider other points of view can be an act of love, and I too have been enriched by this. My observation is that most of the Christians in the world consider the Cross to be a symbol of their freedom from suffering, of Jesus having done all the suffering for them.

__________________
I, folks. I'm just visiting. The prayer stick is coming along, but like everything, it is far more complicated than when I started. I'll be supporting 5 different languages, 6 different religions, in addition to several audio routines.

John

We have essential differences worthwhile discussing but the point is that the cross is valued from the onset. I found it hard to discuss the depth of such concepts when someone is saying it is meaningless to begin with.

Hoefully we and others can have such a discussion as to whether Christianity offers freedom from suffering or as Simone says: a supernatural use of it. Now that is a topic.

I maintain that ideas in Christianity when consided only by our dual associative thought must lose their meaning. My guess is that Aged hippy has experienced this which is why he is now hesitant on the value of symbols. Right A h?

But symbols have to be contemplated, not analysed. Where a fable teaches our emotions, symbols touch our consciouness or as you would say, subconscious. It is there where they begin to be understood and help in our awakening. So rather than ignore symbols, I believe we must know how to digest them and not get in our own way with our superficial analysis.

If i understand you correctly, Nick, yes probably, something along those lines.

Archetypes are represented by symbols because, in my opinion, it is easier for us to understand the complex meanings behind them when they are thus presented to our consciousness. It would take several pages of writing or a long discussion (with ourselves) to describe and tease out the underlying meanings of - for example - the cross, but if it is represented by a symbol, what it means to us, personally, can be presented in that one apparently simple image.

It's what it means to ourselves personally that is important, in my opinion, not what it may originally have meant, nor what it means to someone else.

I think that the problem i'm having with symbols and symbolism is that there are so many layers of cultural accretion atop each symbol that it take forever to sort the wheat from the chaff.


Peace, Love, & Light

__________________

The Peaceful Place: http://www.agedhippy.plus.com/

"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

To me, the most important thing in Christianity is baptism. It is the mechanism by which salvation is delivered. It makes me nuts that the Catholics consider it to be a "symbolic" act.

__________________
I, folks. I'm just visiting. The prayer stick is coming along, but like everything, it is far more complicated than when I started. I'll be supporting 5 different languages, 6 different religions, in addition to several audio routines.