Religious groups.

Symbolising the two "levels" of thinking.

Symbolising the two “levels” of thinking.

Religious groups around the world are creating violence but if they were following the teachings of their religion this behaviour would no occur. Too often they are misled by clergy, or pseudo clergy, who are ignorant or have a selfish agenda.

☺

Advertisements

About Ian Gardner

Ian Gardner was born on the 20th February 1934 in Sri Lanka, then Ceylon, and christened Basil Ian Gunewardene. He was born two months prematurely and nearly died five times in his first two months. He moved to Australia in September 1969 where he changed his surname to Gardner. From childhood he had an enquiring mind and an innate interest in the supernatural. Since 1986, nineteen years of meditation, "searching within", reading and revelations have culminated in this free book which has been nine years in the making. Further writings followed and all his writings are available to all on the Internet free of charge. There is more information in the preface of the book.
This entry was posted in philosophy and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Religious groups.

  1. bert0001 says:

    I differ on this, since any religeous group always by its own laws creates a separation between itself and the others. This is the seed of disagreements and war.

  2. Ian Gardner says:

    Bert, if I read you correctly, I see no difference between what I wrote and what you write. Therefore, please elaborate if necessary.

  3. bert0001 says:

    I think the teachings themselves already contain the seed of separation

    • bert0001 says:

      What I call the law, is just part of the teachings

    • bert0001 says:

      Identifying with the teachings leads to wanting to protect them …

      • Ian Gardner says:

        “Identifying”, to me, would mean something like fulfilling a “need” and, if that is what you mean, the need also arises to protect. However, true awareness comes not from identifying with something but recognising something – and this recognition needs nothing: it simply exists – it simply is. I have quite a few times made the statement, “The truth exists.” . . . . nothing more is necessary!
        πŸ™‚

      • Ian Gardner says:

        I must add to what I wrote yesterday because it later dawned on me that “interpret” and “recognise” could have the same meaning. I checked this in the Oxford English Dictionary and I was correct. So, if “fulfilling a need” is what we are talking about, not identification with or recognising, my previous comment applies.

    • Ian Gardner says:

      That is only true where man – literally and metaphorically – has interfered with the essential/original teachings or statements, or where translation has been incorrect for numerous possible reasons.

      • bert0001 says:

        Interpretation and defending: I think that just interpreting the teachings is enough to spoil the original idea.

        Regardless, looking purely at the teachings, and considering our 4 major religions, I only see a possibility of no separation in some (but certainly not all) buddhist teachings. And saying this, I already create separation.

        If we do indeed listen to what the buddha said and investigate and question his teachings, and find out whatever Truth for ourselves, and if we do indeed remove all past attachments, superstitions or beliefs, while doing so, only then is there a small chance …

        But I only wanted to go one step further than you, initially, and claim that even the pure teachings might not lead to anything good per se, and most often to the opposite.

        Only when the reader applies the right silence while reading, and leaving behind interpretation by self, past self, thoughts, opinions, and the duality of the conceptual word – in that case, and only in that case Truth might be found.
        The written word unfortunately is quite ‘dead’, so we have to let it percolate as something spoken needing no answers, no thoughts and no opinions, just like a seed.

        Somehow I feel as if we talk about something different, but I cannot really put my finger on it.

      • Ian Gardner says:

        I have a rough idea of what you are saying but not enough to comment πŸ™‚

  4. Ian Gardner says:

    Bert, if you could reply to the main post via the Reply “button” immediately below it and reply to my (or anybody else’s) replies via the Reply “button” immediately below THAT reply/comment all may be easier to follow. I hope I have not now complicated matters further! πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s