GENIUS FORUMS

Kunga wrote:Faith is not synonymous with violence.

That's right.

What was said, and what is true, is that faith invariably breeds violence.

Kunga wrote: Oh yea of little faith ?

Try, ye of no faith.

Faith is an intuitional knowing, not needing empirical proof. Spiritual insight.
Those that need empirical proof, have not the insight that comes from deep meditation.
Knowledge born of insight can only be known by the faithful.
A heart without faith, is like a brain without blood.

-Kungalini

I rarely read Krishnamurti...never had an interest in him for some strange reason....but I just found this quote, that sounds like Krishnamurti had FAITH !

This :

"If you leave the pool you have dug for yourself and go out into the river of life then life has an astonishing way of taking care of you, because then there is no taking care on your part."

Jiddu Krishnamurti

What Krishnamurti said about faith is,

Faith invariably breeds violence.

Straight, clear, unambiguous.

Cahoot wrote:What Krishnamurti said about faith is,

Faith invariably breeds violence.

Straight, clear, unambiguous.

But False.

Faith does not breed violence.
Violence breeds violence.

Of course, the ultimate irony in that essay is the story of how man fucked himself up by becoming God...

Men have to pretend, to themselves as well as to women, that they are not the servants and supplicants. Women, cunning minxes that they are, have to affect not to be the potentates. This is the unspoken compromise H. L. Mencken described as "the greatest single discovery ever made by man"; the realization "that babies have human fathers, and are not put into their mother's bodies by the gods."

Yes, you’d better have a sense of humour to believe it!

Kunga wrote:

Cahoot wrote:What Krishnamurti said about faith is,

Faith invariably breeds violence.

Straight, clear, unambiguous.

But False.

Faith does not breed violence.
Violence breeds violence.

Kunga Din, does your understanding of how an abusive husband can also love his wife extend no deeper than a conclusion that he is violent and does not really love her?

Cahoot wrote:does your understanding of how an abusive husband can also love his wife extend no deeper than a conclusion that he is violent and does not really love her?

There are many psychological factors that come in to play...but they have their origin with violence being the cause, not faith.
The abusive husband most likely was also abused as a child, growing up in an atmosphere of violence and abuse, so violence perpetuates itself through violence.

but what about the luv .......

part of the question.

How can someone know what love is, when they've never experienced it ? How can someone love another when all their life they've been abused ? How can someone claim they love a God [have faith in], when they know not what love is ? How can someone have faith in a God that promotes violence ? Because that is all they know [violence]. Their God is violent. They have faith in violence.

Then there are others that have faith in kindness and love. Faith in a God that loves his children. Faith in God as Love. Faith in unselfish love as medicine for the world. Faith in the teachings of wise men's words of wisdom, that they are truthful. And so their philosophy is promoted, and people develop compassion, and think more about their actions and try to eliminate those selfish actions that cause stress and suffering in the world.

So faith can be a destructive and violent energy or peaceful and compassionate energy.
To say faith invariably breeds violence is false.

Violence is conditional (perp or vic).
don't go there, get organised.
It may look interesting as a possibility.
turns out to be a waste of time.
numbskull project.

Kunga wrote:How can someone know what love is, when they've never experienced it ? How can someone love another when all their life they've been abused ? How can someone claim they love a God [have faith in], when they know not what love is ?

By awakening to freedom from the known.

Cahoot wrote:By awakening to freedom from the known.

Please give some examples. And tell us what you've experienced yourself of this freedom that you've awakened to.
I ask, because it makes no sense to me & I'd like to understand.

To me it sounds like I shouldn't have any preconcieved ideas...then I will be free from knowing...?

Isn't logic used when you try to figure something out ?

Hmm. To be free from the known does not mean to substitute one known for another known, or to forget what you know.

But since the phrase interests you, follow your interest. Read the book. Freedom From The Known. It’s free online.

I like the statement, "By awakening to freedom from the known."

But I would disagree with your premise/conclusion (take your pick) that faith breeds violence. That faith is a leap into the unknown is tautological. How could it be otherwise? How can any conclusion be made with regard to it?

I think you're using faith in the everyday sense of the word as an acceptance of received wisdom as opposed to an urgent striving for meaning. Witness, "Nihilism is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life." I suppose that works well in an Eastern frame of reference, but that is not own my personal world view. As if, that might matter.

A Leap of Faith is the courageous conclusion to a "Shipwreck of Reason," e.g. the moment of failure of rational thought to the "condition of man within Being," e.g. dasein.

Hey, Jaspers and Heidegger in one sentence!

I'd say a leap toward God, you would likely think an irrational jump toward anything that might conceivably relieve existential anxiety.

But I digress. I've always thought women can be funny, perhaps that is an outgrowth of my own philogyny.

By awakening to freedom from the known.

Is there anything in your whole life that isn't a predicate?
That isn't predicated on something?

No.

Everything in your whole life is derivative.
You act from something into survival options.

Can you act from nothing?

Certainly. The application of rational predicates to God presupposes an understanding of the nature of God. In other words, you might be wrong. To say that God is Love, seems correct, but unless one is a mystic, it is a problematic statement. Thus the end of reason that enforces a "leap of faith," is truly a leap into the unknown.

Another way of thinking about it is that if you could prove the existence of God, what would be the purpose of faith. Intangible as faith is, I think you must admit that it exists.

The notion of God as meaning 'held' looks like a survival option for 'beyond the grave'.
In order to get 'beyond the grave' a set of practices have to be entrained for the sake of that occurring.
A set of practices derived from an apparently reliable source.
Faith is another word for gambling.

God isn't really the subject for investigation.
The apparently reliable source is.

windhawk, your approach to the existence of God is essentially contradictory. You're asserting it exists, via your assumed proof means not relying on reason or any concepts. But your very approach relies on reason and conceptualisation.

If God is synonymous with nonduality, and therefore has no characteristics, or more accurately all characteristics, since it can't leave anything out or would fall a prey to the ilogical position of being dualistic, then this understanding has arisen without any failure or cessation of reasoning and conceptualisation. There has been no leap of faith at all. One is not proving God's existence, just correcting errors.

Kunga wrote:But misogyny is a hatred that is blind to the ideal of woman being anything but inferior.

You tend to assume, mistakenly, that judging women generally to be inferior to men, in the spiritual-logical-philosophical realm, must be driven by hatred. It's a shallow-minded position stemming from your own inferiority in said realm.

Can you accept that fact? Or are you going to continue with your anxiety-driven hypocrisy?

in the spiritual-logical-philosophical realm

these are only conventional designations that exist in language.
ultimately empty useless predicates.
derivatives in a long chain of dependent arising.
emptiness means absence of thought, absence of meaning,
the relinquishing of all views.

thus gone.

windhawk wrote:I like the statement, "By awakening to freedom from the known."

But I would disagree with your premise/conclusion (take your pick) that faith breeds violence. That faith is a leap into the unknown is tautological. How could it be otherwise? How can any conclusion be made with regard to it?

I think you're using faith in the everyday sense of the word as an acceptance of received wisdom as opposed to an urgent striving for meaning. Witness, "Nihilism is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life." I suppose that works well in an Eastern frame of reference, but that is not own my personal world view. As if, that might matter.

A Leap of Faith is the courageous conclusion to a "Shipwreck of Reason," e.g. the moment of failure of rational thought to the "condition of man within Being," e.g. dasein.

Hey, Jaspers and Heidegger in one sentence!

I'd say a leap toward God, you would likely think an irrational jump toward anything that might conceivably relieve existential anxiety.

But I digress. I've always thought women can be funny, perhaps that is an outgrowth of my own philogyny.

Faith invariably breeds violence.

Looking at it from the other end, was there ever a violent intent, thought, or act not invariably bred by faith?

(All this is connected to the thread title via Jerry Lewis).

Kelly:

If God is synonymous with nonduality, and therefore has no characteristics, or more accurately all characteristics, since it can't leave anything out or would fall a prey to the ilogical position of being dualistic, then this understanding has arisen without any failure or cessation of reasoning and conceptualisation. There has been no leap of faith at all. One is not proving God's existence, just correcting errors.

It is true that the reasoning characteristic of God corrects the errors of duality, but once God corrects the errors of duality using the characteristic of reasoning, for obvious reasons, reasoning is required no more.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Kunga wrote:But misogyny is a hatred that is blind to the ideal of woman being anything but inferior.

You tend to assume, mistakenly, that judging women generally to be inferior to men, in the spiritual-logical-philosophical realm, must be driven by hatred. It's a shallow-minded position stemming from your own inferiority in said realm.

Can you accept that fact? Or are you going to continue with your anxiety-driven hypocrisy?

Sorry Kelly, I don't consider myself inferior or shallow minded.

I only stated the truth about misogyny. The definition is someone that has hatred towards women, and thinks women are inferior to men. Women that have spent many years studying the spiritual/logical/philosophical , are just as competent as men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QGZp1DRUS0Y/T ... ranger.jpg

Cahoot wrote: Read the book. Freedom From The Known. It’s free online.

I'm on the 6th Chapter so far. So far so good.