Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Lost Religion of Jesus Re: Taking a Vacation from Governemnt for God

Expand Messages
  • David Leon Henise
    Well, Marion.. My relatively long reply. Glad you were feeling really good. Let s see in what order I will respond to everything. Um, yes, I drink coffee, if
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 18 11:50 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, Marion..
       
      My relatively long reply.
       
      Glad you were feeling really good. Let's see in what order I will respond to everything. Um, yes, I drink coffee, if only occasionally. I smoke a cigar or cigarillo or cigarette occasionally, as well. I also drink beer occasionally, and wine mostly along the same lines. Everything is on occasion and I've never been much for addictions. Ever since I was quite young, I can remember naturally timing things in my life, in this sense, because even if I binge on one substance or experience for a short time, I know I'll take a break sooner or later. But, I'm not sure why all that reminiscent came to me just now, and why I actually let it get onto the page.
       
      The leadership of the holy spirit, eh? Well, it's interesting feeling like I'm not speaking as a christian any longer. Um..or only 25 percent christian because of the traditions built into me, if anything. However, what do I think about the holy spirit? Well, I think that that leadership is usually an amalgamation of influences or factors in the individual's life. Effectively, I dont believe in a holy spirit. Yet, my response is patently unlike the other-end-of-the-spectrum "scientific rationalist," or whatever you want to call that European and past Enlightenment thinker. I think that that kind of supposedly purely rational enlightenment is a sort of false, more accurately a "partial," enlightenment. Meaning that breaking away from christianity may be inherently a good thing. However, falling off the left side of the road rather than the right side still does not keep you on the road very well.
       
      Moving on... (though still talking about the Holy Spirit). I think that we need a comfort more than a guide in our lives, when we are living "normally" (and unenlightened, as it were). And, any function of this "holy spirit" which places guidance BEFORE comforting would be putting the cart before the horse (which is only good for backing up :-) ). Therefore the first thought to keep in mind, whether "christian" or not, is that this holy spirit was a concept meant to function primarily as a comfort, not as a "leader." That way, you at least got your thoughts in the right order and then can proceed to learn the details.
       
      Now, what people may describe as the leadership of this holy spirit, in light of his/its function as a comforter/comfort, is ultimately that they may feel led down the road of peace. The seeming fact that that's where Jesus was headed himself, or that that is what he was speaking of in his own way at least - a road of or toward peace - puts the whole concept not just of leadership, but of the function and identity of this holy spirit, in perspective in the first place. That is, the "comfort" is the very idea itself that peace is either 1) possible somehow or 2) to be sought as primary whether possible or not. A person needs a sense of "comfort" to believe that he/she must seek this sense of "peace" in life, which could also then be described as a sense of being natural and comfortable BEING natural. (Yes, I am interweaving Buddhism, or generic human spirituality, into my fabric here - "too bad," or "deal with it." :-) )
       
      So, the leadership is only leadership because it has an end or a purpose, right? It leads you to, or through, or into something. In general, the leadership of the holy spirit, speaking either in this context that I've begun to set up, and/or just speaking from general human experience, must primarily 1) lead a person through some difficulty (built into him/her or his/her life, so to speak, by circumstance or "the past") so that he/she can "see the light" of some higher experience ("truth"), or 2) be talked about in the sense of leading a person TO that higher experience, truth, or clarity which then causes sooner or later a conscious, perceivable "peace" by being more in touch with "nature" (i.e. the nature of that person, but also the theoretically intertwined nature of "all"). [This would be like a footnote at the bottom of the page in a book:  I think that "intertwined nature," by the way, is the same thing we delve into in "physics," at least as it is to be continually explored or thought about, and not in the old, relatively static sense back when some Greco-European scientists, or whoever, thought that maybe things were composed of relatively stable, solid balls or chunks of "matter" which were the smallest building blocks of the universe and weren't to be broken down any further. ]
       
      Well...I think that's about enough about that right now.
       
      Wow, now about that Israeli, Arab matter...
      yes, what a lovely topic to discuss - touching on another of my now-unwanted areas of some, small expertise. War and militarism. I dont mind having some knowledge about them, however I wish I didn't have to be associated with them still. If I haven't mentioned it to you, and you haven't read it, I have this whole other story going on in my life right now, as I'm still waiting.. and waiting.. for the Army to let me out. Yes, I'm an enlightenment-loving, peace-loving, intellect-loving, modern version of a "buddhist" ..who happens to be overseas in the middle-of-the-wilderness/desert in Kuwait, playing my part in the War on Terrorism.... All I can think to do is laugh when I'm done saying that. I'm a sergeant in the US Army, though my co-workers generally know that I dont care much anymore, and that "I'm really just Dave" who happens to be trapped here, putting on this uniform everyday.. for not particular reason, really. It was actually in more-interesting Baghdad, not down here in Kuwait, that I became a "conscientious objector" and decided to officially apply to be discharged. So, I guess by the way, I can meet you in Kuwait City, at Starbucks, if you want to have that coffee. But anyway....

      Well, so what do I think about Israel and Lebanon, Iran and Syria? Well, I'm sure I dont know as much as I suddenly feel I should know about Israel's history. Or, if I've read about it, it was too brief and untimely for me to be able to recall. However, on the little I can get out of it all, I think some of the "Zionism" of original Israeli thinking was indeed imbalanced and too well supported to seem "fair" on a general, political level. The whole idea that they are a nation right now is a bit questionable. And yet, the assertion that it is virtually impossible to accept them as a nation is equally heavy handed because there is no way that such a biased opinion could be gotten by any means OTHER than the false religion that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam find themselves all camped up in in the first place.

      Wow..I have to catch my breath after that statement.. give me a few seconds. Now, with whatever I might have implied there, I am not attacking individual spirituality, or the reality that some people can sift some of the religious influence out and find relatively genuine experiences among the collective insanity. However, though I will leave this topic wide open and leave it at that, the whole back and forth of the pendulum of karma can be WELL illustrated by the actions and reactions of religiosity in Judeo-christian-islamic-bahai-whatever-else traditions with their pretenses and falsely-moral support for anti-syncretism and deceptive equivocations. Man, I'm using too many big words, ain't I? Sorry, dont mean to alienate anyone. haha.. I'm just kinda.. writing as if I'm speaking, and not to make it look pretty or literary. I suppose it's partly because you invited me to chat over coffee, you know?

      Now, what do I think about the dooms-day aspect? Well, I'm not convinced that we're going to destroy ourselves, or do so very nearly, though that possibility has been implied by everyone from some modern buddhists to christianity with its use of apocalyptic literature which sometimes followed on the tradition of predicting the results of current trends and drawing from that the idea that humans must almost always crash before they can recuperate.

      Well.. let me say it this way. I dont think that to a truly enlightened person, or near enlightened as the case may be, a doomsday attitude is going to be really valid. And the reason I think that is because, well, to use my own current implication of the word anyway, a true buddha would not suggest that we must literally "be punished" or "crash" or "destroy ourselves" or "experience pain" in order to learn a good lesson in life. That is, though it might APPEAR to many eyes that some events that take place are indeed "pain" or "suffering" or "punishment" or whatnot. But therefore, it may be a temptation to think that we must crash in order to heal. And that concept might be valid to someone to whom that speaks some level of truth. And, there is nothing "wrong" with that. However, "crashing" is not really the focus, and so to suggest that the world, or the humans, must go through negative times in order to be positive...well, that might seem a valid suggestion, but only until enlightenment is attained. At the period in a life when englightenment is being attained, I dont think that the enlightened one is able to focus on "destruction" anymore. It's more like this person understands that events that SEEM negative are really simply more karmic, or in the case of the path toward enlightenment perhaps "anti-karmic" or "reverse-karmic", reactions to illusions that we are fed in our thinking.

      Well...I've spoken entirely too casually here. So, hopefully anyone reading can accept my writing as that. If I've rambled on a bit, you have to imagine some fairly-animated philosophical young man speaking in person, not really writing a book. I have to apologize that I've placed those demands on "the reader's" imagination, though, eh? Sorry to those with weak imaginations, ha. :-) I can only offer the consolation that I could have made it even WORSE. ..I'm joking really. I mean, I'm serious, but only indirectly. Sort of like lying, except you're supposed to KNOW that I'm not being direct, therefore I'm not trying to deceive you.

      Alright, I should stop. This concludes our one-way conversation over coffee, Marion. Too bad I had to imagine the coffee part just as much as the table we were sitting at, and the civilian clothes I would have been wearing, and your face that I haven't a clue about.

      blessings,
      Dave
       
       


      Marion Doerflinger <mdd1957@...> wrote:

      Hey-Yuh, Buuudy!

      I am feeling really good tonight. I hadn't checked in for a day or
      two so you had two postings before I knew what was going on and I
      wanted to respond but just have time to respond to one (Darn our
      human limitations! ) and this is the one I chose so here goes - I
      wish you and I lived just down the street from each other so we
      could have coffee at my favorite shop (Do you drink coffee? I can't
      give it up - tried!) once a day and when you say things like "Well I
      dont think that "god" works without us. So I dont think that
      any "miracles" are going to happen, if that's anything like what you
      mean, but what do I know?" I could ask you, "What are your views
      on the leadership of the Holy Spirit?" and you could tell me and we
      could go on and on and I wouldn't have to wait to tell you MY take
      on the Holy Spirit and we would talk all day and our wives would be
      mad at us.

      But, anyway, I don't feel right telling you about my thoughts on the
      Spirit until I hear yours so I'll have to wait until you can get
      back to me on that one.

      On another vein of thought, do you think it's all over in the
      Israli/Arab confrontation that is presently grabbing the headlines?
      Is it nuke time out there? One of my sons, the one who is an earth-
      friendly Buddahst if anything, but he won't committ, and I had a big
      talk about this and he thinks that humanity is headed for a near-
      extinction and that that will give the earth a chance to heal from
      our out of control techno culture. I said it'll take the earth a
      long time to heal from a nuke war. At the end of the conversation I
      was kinda sad because my religion had the chance to save mankind but
      it got highjacked and now maybe it's too late and he was basically
      opptomistic because at least there is still hope. Everybody in my
      family is a philosopher but nobody ain't rich.

      Write me on the spirit thing if you have time. Is the "Spirit-
      filled life" the refuge of the schizo-effective personality disorder
      or what? we'll have a good talk.

      Shalom and Sho-Kuran (SP?)

      Marion
      .



      How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

    • Marion Doerflinger
      oh man, Dave, I didn t know you were a soldier. i should have read all the back pages when I joined the group but I m just too darn lazy. i ll be praying
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 18 8:47 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        oh man, Dave, I didn't know you were a soldier. i should have read
        all the back pages when I joined the group but I'm just too darn
        lazy. i'll be praying that you get out soon and delve into
        something that brings you peace.

        you just blew me away with your insights on the Holy Spirit so I'm
        not going to embarrass myself by putting my two cents in at this
        time - maybe someday when I'm feeling really brave.

        anyway, it's time to ask the nice waitress for a refill. I take a
        sip, sit back and ask you another question... "Dave, old friend, do
        you believe this to be a true statement; "The search for truth
        always ends in truth."? (Bad, bad punctuation!)

        so, having demanded of you another momentous and philosophical
        response I will ask you if you would like to lighten things up
        (After you produce your best response of course) and allow me to
        post a sorta true story I wrote about growing up in the Ozarks.
        It's lighthearted and happy and not at all concerned with eternal
        destinations. it might not fit with the really serious nature of
        this site and all so if you think it would be inapropo. but would
        still like to see it I will email it to you personally. i am
        putting together a little book (Self pub. distributed freely.
        they'll never publish me, I know!), of mixed stuff and this story
        will be in it. is it any good? my mom liked it.

        "We'll meet on edges soon, said I" (Dylan.)

        your friend

        Marion



        -- In Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com, David Leon Henise
        <crankspl@...> wrote:
        >
        > Well, Marion..
        >
        > My relatively long reply.
        >
        > Glad you were feeling really good. Let's see in what order I
        will respond to everything. Um, yes, I drink coffee, if only
        occasionally. I smoke a cigar or cigarillo or cigarette
        occasionally, as well. I also drink beer occasionally, and wine
        mostly along the same lines. Everything is on occasion and I've
        never been much for addictions. Ever since I was quite young, I can
        remember naturally timing things in my life, in this sense, because
        even if I binge on one substance or experience for a short time, I
        know I'll take a break sooner or later. But, I'm not sure why all
        that reminiscent came to me just now, and why I actually let it get
        onto the page.
        >
        > The leadership of the holy spirit, eh? Well, it's interesting
        feeling like I'm not speaking as a christian any longer. Um..or only
        25 percent christian because of the traditions built into me, if
        anything. However, what do I think about the holy spirit? Well, I
        think that that leadership is usually an amalgamation of influences
        or factors in the individual's life. Effectively, I dont believe in
        a holy spirit. Yet, my response is patently unlike the other-end-of-
        the-spectrum "scientific rationalist," or whatever you want to call
        that European and past Enlightenment thinker. I think that that kind
        of supposedly purely rational enlightenment is a sort of false, more
        accurately a "partial," enlightenment. Meaning that breaking away
        from christianity may be inherently a good thing. However, falling
        off the left side of the road rather than the right side still does
        not keep you on the road very well.
        >
        > Moving on... (though still talking about the Holy Spirit). I
        think that we need a comfort more than a guide in our lives, when we
        are living "normally" (and unenlightened, as it were). And, any
        function of this "holy spirit" which places guidance BEFORE
        comforting would be putting the cart before the horse (which is only
        good for backing up :-) ). Therefore the first thought to keep in
        mind, whether "christian" or not, is that this holy spirit was a
        concept meant to function primarily as a comfort, not as a "leader."
        That way, you at least got your thoughts in the right order and then
        can proceed to learn the details.
        >
        > Now, what people may describe as the leadership of this holy
        spirit, in light of his/its function as a comforter/comfort, is
        ultimately that they may feel led down the road of peace. The
        seeming fact that that's where Jesus was headed himself, or that
        that is what he was speaking of in his own way at least - a road of
        or toward peace - puts the whole concept not just of leadership, but
        of the function and identity of this holy spirit, in perspective in
        the first place. That is, the "comfort" is the very idea itself that
        peace is either 1) possible somehow or 2) to be sought as primary
        whether possible or not. A person needs a sense of "comfort" to
        believe that he/she must seek this sense of "peace" in life, which
        could also then be described as a sense of being natural and
        comfortable BEING natural. (Yes, I am interweaving Buddhism, or
        generic human spirituality, into my fabric here - "too bad,"
        or "deal with it." :-) )
        >
        > So, the leadership is only leadership because it has an end or a
        purpose, right? It leads you to, or through, or into something. In
        general, the leadership of the holy spirit, speaking either in this
        context that I've begun to set up, and/or just speaking from general
        human experience, must primarily 1) lead a person through some
        difficulty (built into him/her or his/her life, so to speak, by
        circumstance or "the past") so that he/she can "see the light" of
        some higher experience ("truth"), or 2) be talked about in the sense
        of leading a person TO that higher experience, truth, or clarity
        which then causes sooner or later a conscious, perceivable "peace"
        by being more in touch with "nature" (i.e. the nature of that
        person, but also the theoretically intertwined nature of "all").
        [This would be like a footnote at the bottom of the page in a book:
        I think that "intertwined nature," by the way, is the same thing we
        delve into in "physics," at least as it is to be
        > continually explored or thought about, and not in the old,
        relatively static sense back when some Greco-European scientists, or
        whoever, thought that maybe things were composed of relatively
        stable, solid balls or chunks of "matter" which were the smallest
        building blocks of the universe and weren't to be broken down any
        further. ]
        >
        > Well...I think that's about enough about that right now.
        >
        > Wow, now about that Israeli, Arab matter...
        > yes, what a lovely topic to discuss - touching on another of my
        now-unwanted areas of some, small expertise. War and militarism. I
        dont mind having some knowledge about them, however I wish I didn't
        have to be associated with them still. If I haven't mentioned it to
        you, and you haven't read it, I have this whole other story going on
        in my life right now, as I'm still waiting.. and waiting.. for the
        Army to let me out. Yes, I'm an enlightenment-loving, peace-loving,
        intellect-loving, modern version of a "buddhist" ..who happens to be
        overseas in the middle-of-the-wilderness/desert in Kuwait, playing
        my part in the War on Terrorism.... All I can think to do is laugh
        when I'm done saying that. I'm a sergeant in the US Army, though my
        co-workers generally know that I dont care much anymore, and
        that "I'm really just Dave" who happens to be trapped here, putting
        on this uniform everyday.. for not particular reason, really. It was
        actually in more-interesting Baghdad, not down
        > here in Kuwait, that I became a "conscientious objector" and
        decided to officially apply to be discharged. So, I guess by the
        way, I can meet you in Kuwait City, at Starbucks, if you want to
        have that coffee. But anyway....
        >
        > Well, so what do I think about Israel and Lebanon, Iran and Syria?
        Well, I'm sure I dont know as much as I suddenly feel I should know
        about Israel's history. Or, if I've read about it, it was too brief
        and untimely for me to be able to recall. However, on the little I
        can get out of it all, I think some of the "Zionism" of original
        Israeli thinking was indeed imbalanced and too well supported to
        seem "fair" on a general, political level. The whole idea that they
        are a nation right now is a bit questionable. And yet, the assertion
        that it is virtually impossible to accept them as a nation is
        equally heavy handed because there is no way that such a biased
        opinion could be gotten by any means OTHER than the false religion
        that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam find themselves all camped up
        in in the first place.
        >
        > Wow..I have to catch my breath after that statement.. give me a
        few seconds. Now, with whatever I might have implied there, I am not
        attacking individual spirituality, or the reality that some people
        can sift some of the religious influence out and find relatively
        genuine experiences among the collective insanity. However, though I
        will leave this topic wide open and leave it at that, the whole back
        and forth of the pendulum of karma can be WELL illustrated by the
        actions and reactions of religiosity in Judeo-christian-islamic-
        bahai-whatever-else traditions with their pretenses and falsely-
        moral support for anti-syncretism and deceptive equivocations. Man,
        I'm using too many big words, ain't I? Sorry, dont mean to alienate
        anyone. haha.. I'm just kinda.. writing as if I'm speaking, and not
        to make it look pretty or literary. I suppose it's partly because
        you invited me to chat over coffee, you know?
        >
        > Now, what do I think about the dooms-day aspect? Well, I'm not
        convinced that we're going to destroy ourselves, or do so very
        nearly, though that possibility has been implied by everyone from
        some modern buddhists to christianity with its use of apocalyptic
        literature which sometimes followed on the tradition of predicting
        the results of current trends and drawing from that the idea that
        humans must almost always crash before they can recuperate.
        >
        > Well.. let me say it this way. I dont think that to a truly
        enlightened person, or near enlightened as the case may be, a
        doomsday attitude is going to be really valid. And the reason I
        think that is because, well, to use my own current implication of
        the word anyway, a true buddha would not suggest that we must
        literally "be punished" or "crash" or "destroy ourselves"
        or "experience pain" in order to learn a good lesson in life. That
        is, though it might APPEAR to many eyes that some events that take
        place are indeed "pain" or "suffering" or "punishment" or whatnot.
        But therefore, it may be a temptation to think that we must crash in
        order to heal. And that concept might be valid to someone to whom
        that speaks some level of truth. And, there is nothing "wrong" with
        that. However, "crashing" is not really the focus, and so to suggest
        that the world, or the humans, must go through negative times in
        order to be positive...well, that might seem a valid suggestion, but
        only
        > until enlightenment is attained. At the period in a life when
        englightenment is being attained, I dont think that the enlightened
        one is able to focus on "destruction" anymore. It's more like this
        person understands that events that SEEM negative are really simply
        more karmic, or in the case of the path toward enlightenment
        perhaps "anti-karmic" or "reverse-karmic", reactions to illusions
        that we are fed in our thinking.
        >
        > Well...I've spoken entirely too casually here. So, hopefully
        anyone reading can accept my writing as that. If I've rambled on a
        bit, you have to imagine some fairly-animated philosophical young
        man speaking in person, not really writing a book. I have to
        apologize that I've placed those demands on "the reader's"
        imagination, though, eh? Sorry to those with weak imaginations,
        ha. :-) I can only offer the consolation that I could have made it
        even WORSE. ..I'm joking really. I mean, I'm serious, but only
        indirectly. Sort of like lying, except you're supposed to KNOW that
        I'm not being direct, therefore I'm not trying to deceive you.
        >
        > Alright, I should stop. This concludes our one-way conversation
        over coffee, Marion. Too bad I had to imagine the coffee part just
        as much as the table we were sitting at, and the civilian clothes I
        would have been wearing, and your face that I haven't a clue about.
        >
        > blessings,
        > Dave
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Marion Doerflinger <mdd1957@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hey-Yuh, Buuudy!
        >
        > I am feeling really good tonight. I hadn't checked in for a day or
        > two so you had two postings before I knew what was going on and I
        > wanted to respond but just have time to respond to one (Darn our
        > human limitations!) and this is the one I chose so here goes - I
        > wish you and I lived just down the street from each other so we
        > could have coffee at my favorite shop (Do you drink coffee? I
        can't
        > give it up - tried!) once a day and when you say things like "Well
        I
        > dont think that "god" works without us. So I dont think that
        > any "miracles" are going to happen, if that's anything like what
        you
        > mean, but what do I know?" I could ask you, "What are your views
        > on the leadership of the Holy Spirit?" and you could tell me and
        we
        > could go on and on and I wouldn't have to wait to tell you MY take
        > on the Holy Spirit and we would talk all day and our wives would
        be
        > mad at us.
        >
        > But, anyway, I don't feel right telling you about my thoughts on
        the
        > Spirit until I hear yours so I'll have to wait until you can get
        > back to me on that one.
        >
        > On another vein of thought, do you think it's all over in the
        > Israli/Arab confrontation that is presently grabbing the
        headlines?
        > Is it nuke time out there? One of my sons, the one who is an earth-
        > friendly Buddahst if anything, but he won't committ, and I had a
        big
        > talk about this and he thinks that humanity is headed for a near-
        > extinction and that that will give the earth a chance to heal from
        > our out of control techno culture. I said it'll take the earth a
        > long time to heal from a nuke war. At the end of the conversation
        I
        > was kinda sad because my religion had the chance to save mankind
        but
        > it got highjacked and now maybe it's too late and he was basically
        > opptomistic because at least there is still hope. Everybody in my
        > family is a philosopher but nobody ain't rich.
        >
        > Write me on the spirit thing if you have time. Is the "Spirit-
        > filled life" the refuge of the schizo-effective personality
        disorder
        > or what? we'll have a good talk.
        >
        > Shalom and Sho-Kuran (SP?)
        >
        > Marion
        >
        >
        >
        > New Message Search
        > Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out
        the improved message search.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
        >
        >
        > Visit Your Group
        >
        > .
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone
        call rates.
        >
      • David Leon Henise
        Marion, Ok, shorter this time. Or at least, I intend to make it so. Continuing the ego-feeding picking of my brain... 1. I dont think I said much of anything
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 19 11:18 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Marion,
           
          Ok, shorter this time. Or at least, I intend to make it so. Continuing the ego-feeding picking of my brain...
           
          1. I dont think I said much of anything engaging about the Israeli conflict in and of itself, besides a more abstract and less engaging, or less up-to-date, outline of the whole religious picture. Just thought I'd share my own second opinion on what I said.
           
          2. I confess I haven't been much for reading old posts when I join a group, either. I haven't joined any new groups lately, though. Maybe I can reform. :-)
           
          3. I actually received an update just today, concerning my application to get out of the Army. Things are reportedly proceeding, and that's positive in and of itself at this point.
           
          4. I dont know why I "blew you away" about the Holy Spirit. Thank you, if thanks are in order.
           
          5. I feel like maybe I should have waited and given myself time to reply to you at a later time. I'm writing rather disconnected from myself, given all that has happened in the last 2 hours of my life. Let's see if I can disengage my clutch and put myself in gear.

          6. You can send me the story, sure. And if you dont think it's relevant to the "Lost Religion of Jesus," then send it to me individually, sure..
           
          7. Now, to get down to it, yes, the search for truth always leads to truth, however, the END of the search for truth depends on how a given truth is defined, or what it is. Therefore, a specific search for truth could be said NOT to have ended in truth. So, yes, if I may add the phrase "leads to truth." No, not "always ends in truth."
           
          I will not mince words, or even leave it up to allusion at this point - speaking of myself. "Straight up," I personally feel I have been basking in Truth lately. The way I define that particular truth is something like "the summary or the return to general human spirituality." You can call it buddhism...or a sort of universal buddhism. Or, to use time-dependent language, you can call it a "modern" or even a "liberal" buddhism, since I dont believe in necessarily following older, understood rules about "not commiting adultery" simply as a rule and "not taking intoxicating substances" at all. Those are time/culture-dependent rules, really. Though touted as commonly Buddhist rules, they are not necessary in order to get something out of the importance, or primacy really, of "enlightenment" in life.
           
          Buddhism, or moving toward enlightenment or freedom, or generic human spirituality. You can use those descriptions. To be more accurate, I feel comfortable using those descriptions myself, and using them relatively interchangeably, just in different contexts as the case may be. So, in the case of what I have been learning lately in my own life, I know that more intimately than I can speak of someone else's learning processes. And even in my own experience, and my current or recent experience, I think that I have found a sort of enlightenment in my own way, and am now reveling in it, or exploring its application in my life...theoretically in human life in general.
           
          And, given the way I have come to define that enlightenment, it is a sort of "end." And therefore, in my case, I feel I have found an "end" to my 7-year search for some semblance of truth. So, there is a case in which I see, in my own life, "the search for truth ends in truth." And yet, I do not say it is required to do so, in the sense that if "what you are looking for" (even if you're not sure what it is, of course, yourself) is not found, then you haven't really found yet. That is, even if you have discovered some interesting nuggets of truth along your path, what you "are really looking for" may not have been discovered. Now, if I apply my same sense of "enlightenment" to other people, in theory, then maybe I can postulate that "if they seek that same thing I sought, and they live long enough, their path will end in Truth." But even though what my current Truth means to me today seems to me to be the most fundamental truth needed in a human life, there are other truths along the way which can be in some sense sought and found. But, finding those other truths along the way does not mean that this Truth that I speak of NOW will be found.
           
          So, if you were to ask me and my little human self, I would tell you that in full enlightenment terms, it's rather like enlightenment is the discovery, the arrival at a vision of, a "fundamental truth." Not so much an "ultimate truth" in the way that I know a lot of more "Western" minds would think of it. It's not like...seeing as a god, in other words. It's more like the deconstruction of illusions that keep you from a fundamental truth about yourself (not in the sense of a separate 'personality' so much as just an amalgamation of 'experience' or 'experiencING'). And therefore, those illusions keep you from a fundamental truth about how you can see "the world" if you are able, or if you get to a point where you can let yourself.
           
          If you seek for THAT, theoretically there is no reason why you will not find it, assuming that the perceivable or supposed amalgamate which you casually say is "you" is still "here" long enough to find, or experience and "see" that enlightenment (or, to use another term, 'freedom').
           
          So, to use that example as a principle, yes, it seems that what you "seek" you will find, if you're here long enough to find. Therefore, something inevitably (apparently anyway) like Jesus'  "Seek and any of you will find, knock and the door with be opened for you, ask and any of you will receive."  I have no indication, if you ask me, that Jesus knew the end of what HE was probably seeking himself at that point. Yet, according to report anyway, he must have believed it enough to say it already.
           
          And logically speaking, the idea of seek-and-find can be illusrated almost negatively. I mean, briefly at least, you can take the learned concept or inspiring idea, or whatever else you may want to call it, that "finding is 'understanding'." And if you have somehow learned or seen THAT concept, then you can build on it with the correlation that "to not seek (meaning, in one sense, to not know that you are looking for) is not going to lead to finding." And then, "to seek, therefore, (to try to find out what you are looking for), is necessarily to lead oneself toward finding." Because, again, "to find" was realized to be "to understand." And if that is the case, then when you simply meditate/ponder/follow it out, you can draw the correlation that it doesn't work like the simplicity of walking along and simply looking "with your eyes." It's in recognizing some sense of meaning that something has to YOU that you are seeing with your understanding (to bring it up to date and speak neurologically, this means "with the cognition in your brain").
           
          In summary, though not in DIRECT response to your query, I want to add that this whole enlightenment way of thinking, to me, is friendly toward sciences, toward ideas PERIOD.. is a sort of way to become friendly toward one's own SELF, as it were. The alternative seems to be the popular way of regarding our illusions as more prominent than our natural questions and ways of exploring sensually, cognitively, philosophically, etc. With the, in that sense, unhealthy practices built in to much of our conduct, we can see (not necessarily DO see, only CAN if we get there) different ways in which our collective, cultivated society, our governmental way of thinking, our, basically, fear of our own selves, works not just on some relatively innocent, individual level, but on the level of something akin to a collective psychosis, really. And as good psychiatry CAN be, or has been sometimes and to some people in the past, in its own way and if done carefully, this sort of collective psychiatry in response to 'collective psychosis' can be surprisingly relevant to our everyday experience.
           
          As a sort of addage, a postscript, I will simply say that it's funny, too, that people can sometimes argue with others or debate with themselves about "truth" while they simultaneously reject the whole meaning of "truth" as it would be actually relevant to their experience. So, what are we debating with ourselves, so many times? "Absolute" versus "relative" truth, or whatever other arguments we come up with? What is that, like the Earth waking up one day (so to speak, and to personify the Earth), and deciding to start arguing which river is better to replenish its surface, because it doesnt recognize, though right in front of its face, that its own nature, in a great sense, includes the skies, and that water comes through a cycle of precipitation from those skies? 
           
          blessings,
          Dave
           
           

          Marion Doerflinger <mdd1957@...> wrote:

          oh man, Dave, I didn't know you were a soldier. i should have read
          all the back pages when I joined the group but I'm just too darn
          lazy. i'll be praying that you get out soon and delve into
          something that brings you peace.

          you just blew me away with your insights on the Holy Spirit so I'm
          not going to embarrass myself by putting my two cents in at this
          time - maybe someday when I'm feeling really brave.

          anyway, it's time to ask the nice waitress for a refill. I take a
          sip, sit back and ask you another question... "Dave, old friend, do
          you believe this to be a true statement; "The search for truth
          always ends in truth."? (Bad, bad punctuation! )

          so, having demanded of you another momentous and philosophical
          response I will ask you if you would like to lighten things up
          (After you produce your best response of course) and allow me to
          post a sorta true story I wrote about growing up in the Ozarks.
          It's lighthearted and happy and not at all concerned with eternal
          destinations. it might not fit with the really serious nature of
          this site and all so if you think it would be inapropo. but would
          still like to see it I will email it to you personally. i am
          putting together a little book (Self pub. distributed freely.
          they'll never publish me, I know!), of mixed stuff and this story
          will be in it. is it any good? my mom liked it.

          "We'll meet on edges soon, said I" (Dylan.)

          your friend

          Marion

          -- In Lost_Religion_ of_Jesus@ yahoogroups. com, David Leon Henise
          <crankspl@.. .> wrote:
          >
          > Well, Marion..
          >
          > My relatively long reply.
          >
          > Glad you were feeling really good. Let's see in what order I
          will respond to everything. Um, yes, I drink coffee, if only
          occasionally. I smoke a cigar or cigarillo or cigarette
          occasionally, as well. I also drink beer occasionally, and wine
          mostly along the same lines. Everything is on occasion and I've
          never been much for addictions. Ever since I was quite young, I can
          remember naturally timing things in my life, in this sense, because
          even if I binge on one substance or experience for a short time, I
          know I'll take a break sooner or later. But, I'm not sure why all
          that reminiscent came to me just now, and why I actually let it get
          onto the page.
          >
          > The leadership of the holy spirit, eh? Well, it's interesting
          feeling like I'm not speaking as a christian any longer. Um..or only
          25 percent christian because of the traditions built into me, if
          anything. However, what do I think about the holy spirit? Well, I
          think that that leadership is usually an amalgamation of influences
          or factors in the individual's life. Effectively, I dont believe in
          a holy spirit. Yet, my response is patently unlike the other-end-of-
          the-spectrum "scientific rationalist, " or whatever you want to call
          that European and past Enlightenment thinker. I think that that kind
          of supposedly purely rational enlightenment is a sort of false, more
          accurately a "partial," enlightenment. Meaning that breaking away
          from christianity may be inherently a good thing. However, falling
          off the left side of the road rather than the right side still does
          not keep you on the road very well.
          >
          > Moving on... (though still talking about the Holy Spirit). I
          think that we need a comfort more than a guide in our lives, when we
          are living "normally" (and unenlightened, as it were). And, any
          function of this "holy spirit" which places guidance BEFORE
          comforting would be putting the cart before the horse (which is only
          good for backing up :-) ). Therefore the first thought to keep in
          mind, whether "christian" or not, is that this holy spirit was a
          concept meant to function primarily as a comfort, not as a "leader."
          That way, you at least got your thoughts in the right order and then
          can proceed to learn the details.
          >
          > Now, what people may describe as the leadership of this holy
          spirit, in light of his/its function as a comforter/comfort, is
          ultimately that they may feel led down the road of peace. The
          seeming fact that that's where Jesus was headed himself, or that
          that is what he was speaking of in his own way at least - a road of
          or toward peace - puts the whole concept not just of leadership, but
          of the function and identity of this holy spirit, in perspective in
          the first place. That is, the "comfort" is the very idea itself that
          peace is either 1) possible somehow or 2) to be sought as primary
          whether possible or not. A person needs a sense of "comfort" to
          believe that he/she must seek this sense of "peace" in life, which
          could also then be described as a sense of being natural and
          comfortable BEING natural. (Yes, I am interweaving Buddhism, or
          generic human spirituality, into my fabric here - "too bad,"
          or "deal with it." :-) )
          >
          > So, the leadership is only leadership because it has an end or a
          purpose, right? It leads you to, or through, or into something. In
          general, the leadership of the holy spirit, speaking either in this
          context that I've begun to set up, and/or just speaking from general
          human experience, must primarily 1) lead a person through some
          difficulty (built into him/her or his/her life, so to speak, by
          circumstance or "the past") so that he/she can "see the light" of
          some higher experience ("truth"), or 2) be talked about in the sense
          of leading a person TO that higher experience, truth, or clarity
          which then causes sooner or later a conscious, perceivable "peace"
          by being more in touch with "nature" (i.e. the nature of that
          person, but also the theoretically intertwined nature of "all").
          [This would be like a footnote at the bottom of the page in a book:
          I think that "intertwined nature," by the way, is the same thing we
          delve into in "physics," at least as it is to be
          > continually explored or thought about, and not in the old,
          relatively static sense back when some Greco-European scientists, or
          whoever, thought that maybe things were composed of relatively
          stable, solid balls or chunks of "matter" which were the smallest
          building blocks of the universe and weren't to be broken down any
          further. ]
          >
          > Well...I think that's about enough about that right now.
          >
          > Wow, now about that Israeli, Arab matter...
          > yes, what a lovely topic to discuss - touching on another of my
          now-unwanted areas of some, small expertise. War and militarism. I
          dont mind having some knowledge about them, however I wish I didn't
          have to be associated with them still. If I haven't mentioned it to
          you, and you haven't read it, I have this whole other story going on
          in my life right now, as I'm still waiting.. and waiting.. for the
          Army to let me out. Yes, I'm an enlightenment- loving, peace-loving,
          intellect-loving, modern version of a "buddhist" ..who happens to be
          overseas in the middle-of-the- wilderness/ desert in Kuwait, playing
          my part in the War on Terrorism... . All I can think to do is laugh
          when I'm done saying that. I'm a sergeant in the US Army, though my
          co-workers generally know that I dont care much anymore, and
          that "I'm really just Dave" who happens to be trapped here, putting
          on this uniform everyday.. for not particular reason, really. It was
          actually in more-interesting Baghdad, not down
          > here in Kuwait, that I became a "conscientious objector" and
          decided to officially apply to be discharged. So, I guess by the
          way, I can meet you in Kuwait City, at Starbucks, if you want to
          have that coffee. But anyway....
          >
          > Well, so what do I think about Israel and Lebanon, Iran and Syria?
          Well, I'm sure I dont know as much as I suddenly feel I should know
          about Israel's history. Or, if I've read about it, it was too brief
          and untimely for me to be able to recall. However, on the little I
          can get out of it all, I think some of the "Zionism" of original
          Israeli thinking was indeed imbalanced and too well supported to
          seem "fair" on a general, political level. The whole idea that they
          are a nation right now is a bit questionable. And yet, the assertion
          that it is virtually impossible to accept them as a nation is
          equally heavy handed because there is no way that such a biased
          opinion could be gotten by any means OTHER than the false religion
          that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam find themselves all camped up
          in in the first place.
          >
          > Wow..I have to catch my breath after that statement.. give me a
          few seconds. Now, with whatever I might have implied there, I am not
          attacking individual spirituality, or the reality that some people
          can sift some of the religious influence out and find relatively
          genuine experiences among the collective insanity. However, though I
          will leave this topic wide open and leave it at that, the whole back
          and forth of the pendulum of karma can be WELL illustrated by the
          actions and reactions of religiosity in Judeo-christian- islamic-
          bahai-whatever- else traditions with their pretenses and falsely-
          moral support for anti-syncretism and deceptive equivocations. Man,
          I'm using too many big words, ain't I? Sorry, dont mean to alienate
          anyone. haha.. I'm just kinda.. writing as if I'm speaking, and not
          to make it look pretty or literary. I suppose it's partly because
          you invited me to chat over coffee, you know?
          >
          > Now, what do I think about the dooms-day aspect? Well, I'm not
          convinced that we're going to destroy ourselves, or do so very
          nearly, though that possibility has been implied by everyone from
          some modern buddhists to christianity with its use of apocalyptic
          literature which sometimes followed on the tradition of predicting
          the results of current trends and drawing from that the idea that
          humans must almost always crash before they can recuperate.
          >
          > Well.. let me say it this way. I dont think that to a truly
          enlightened person, or near enlightened as the case may be, a
          doomsday attitude is going to be really valid. And the reason I
          think that is because, well, to use my own current implication of
          the word anyway, a true buddha would not suggest that we must
          literally "be punished" or "crash" or "destroy ourselves"
          or "experience pain" in order to learn a good lesson in life. That
          is, though it might APPEAR to many eyes that some events that take
          place are indeed "pain" or "suffering" or "punishment" or whatnot.
          But therefore, it may be a temptation to think that we must crash in
          order to heal. And that concept might be valid to someone to whom
          that speaks some level of truth. And, there is nothing "wrong" with
          that. However, "crashing" is not really the focus, and so to suggest
          that the world, or the humans, must go through negative times in
          order to be positive...well, that might seem a valid suggestion, but
          only
          > until enlightenment is attained. At the period in a life when
          englightenment is being attained, I dont think that the enlightened
          one is able to focus on "destruction" anymore. It's more like this
          person understands that events that SEEM negative are really simply
          more karmic, or in the case of the path toward enlightenment
          perhaps "anti-karmic" or "reverse-karmic" , reactions to illusions
          that we are fed in our thinking.
          >
          > Well...I've spoken entirely too casually here. So, hopefully
          anyone reading can accept my writing as that. If I've rambled on a
          bit, you have to imagine some fairly-animated philosophical young
          man speaking in person, not really writing a book. I have to
          apologize that I've placed those demands on "the reader's"
          imagination, though, eh? Sorry to those with weak imaginations,
          ha. :-) I can only offer the consolation that I could have made it
          even WORSE. ..I'm joking really. I mean, I'm serious, but only
          indirectly. Sort of like lying, except you're supposed to KNOW that
          I'm not being direct, therefore I'm not trying to deceive you.
          >
          > Alright, I should stop. This concludes our one-way conversation
          over coffee, Marion. Too bad I had to imagine the coffee part just
          as much as the table we were sitting at, and the civilian clothes I
          would have been wearing, and your face that I haven't a clue about.
          >
          > blessings,
          > Dave
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Marion Doerflinger <mdd1957@... > wrote:
          >
          > Hey-Yuh, Buuudy!
          >
          > I am feeling really good tonight. I hadn't checked in for a day or
          > two so you had two postings before I knew what was going on and I
          > wanted to respond but just have time to respond to one (Darn our
          > human limitations! ) and this is the one I chose so here goes - I
          > wish you and I lived just down the street from each other so we
          > could have coffee at my favorite shop (Do you drink coffee? I
          can't
          > give it up - tried!) once a day and when you say things like "Well
          I
          > dont think that "god" works without us. So I dont think that
          > any "miracles" are going to happen, if that's anything like what
          you
          > mean, but what do I know?" I could ask you, "What are your views
          > on the leadership of the Holy Spirit?" and you could tell me and
          we
          > could go on and on and I wouldn't have to wait to tell you MY take
          > on the Holy Spirit and we would talk all day and our wives would
          be
          > mad at us.
          >
          > But, anyway, I don't feel right telling you about my thoughts on
          the
          > Spirit until I hear yours so I'll have to wait until you can get
          > back to me on that one.
          >
          > On another vein of thought, do you think it's all over in the
          > Israli/Arab confrontation that is presently grabbing the
          headlines?
          > Is it nuke time out there? One of my sons, the one who is an earth-
          > friendly Buddahst if anything, but he won't committ, and I had a
          big
          > talk about this and he thinks that humanity is headed for a near-
          > extinction and that that will give the earth a chance to heal from
          > our out of control techno culture. I said it'll take the earth a
          > long time to heal from a nuke war. At the end of the conversation
          I
          > was kinda sad because my religion had the chance to save mankind
          but
          > it got highjacked and now maybe it's too late and he was basically
          > opptomistic because at least there is still hope. Everybody in my
          > family is a philosopher but nobody ain't rich.
          >
          > Write me on the spirit thing if you have time. Is the "Spirit-
          > filled life" the refuge of the schizo-effective personality
          disorder
          > or what? we'll have a good talk.
          >
          > Shalom and Sho-Kuran (SP?)
          >
          > Marion
          >
          >
          >
          > New Message Search
          > Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out
          the improved message search.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
          >
          >
          > Visit Your Group
          >
          > .
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------ --------- --------- ---
          > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone
          call rates.
          >



          Do you Yahoo!?
          Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.