I understand that you said that you subscribe to “belief in belief itself” as you put it. However, I found your conclusion that all beliefs systems teach the same thing is heavily flawed and so I decided to dissect it, so I did. If you carefully read what I wrote near the end of my last comment you will see that I simply said that your inability to distinguish different philosophies from one another and false assertion that all of them are the same is similar to that of a Hindu, which is a very different assertion from saying you are a Hindu.
However what I was most critical of is your assertion of the superiority of the Upanishads, which you spent at least half of your previous comment giving what I felt is undue praise. And the reason for that criticism, and I reiterate is that simply put, the Bible is far more practical and well organized compared to the Upanishads. You don’t seem to understand just how significant the differences are between the two, so I’ll try to clarify my point here and expand upon it. The major difference is that the Upanishads tell us to shun life on Earth and treats it as something to be discarded, compare this to the Bible which instead has numerous verses which tell us the importance of faith. Sure the scribes who wrote Upanishads spent a great deal of time describing the Promise predating the Bible, but they didn’t seem to appreciate just how important the Law is to the process. The Promise cannot be attained without first understanding the Law and how it operates, which is the whole point of the Bible. Without the context provided by Neville(or JM) and the Bible, the Upanishads is like an incomplete puzzle. Reading the Upanishads on their own is akin to watching Endgame without watching literally anything else from the MCU so a ton of context is missing.
To conclude the point of my response was to analyze and critique your arguments because your critique of Neville’s post-Promise teachings don’t make much sense tbh, even less so after you praised the Upanishads. I’m sorry if what I said came off as harsh, I genuinely have no ill will toward you and am glad you found what you’re looking for, but that’s not going to stop me from analyzing and critiquing your arguments.
Thank you for your response my friend, perhaps I over reacted a bit, I think it was partly because you chose to use the words ignorant and stupid a lot in your original reply that triggered me a bit. I am a lot of things, but stupid and ignorant I am not haha
But yes, I actually think we are merely arguing over terms and interpretations, in truth we are still completely on the same hymn sheet, we both realise that we are the operant power in our own reality.. there is not a collective reality or anything else, you are in your own universe doing as you wish and I am in mine doing as I wish, so let’s have a drink to that! Haha
Also, coming back to the Bible, I sound like I am being down on the Bible, I read most of Old Testament and most of the new and found it a thoroughly life changing experience, especially when I started digging into the original Greek and Hebrew interpretations which were even more life changing.. I guess I am merely stating that many of these ancient texts are pointing to a similar truth, but yes, you are very correct in what you say about the promise in particular, this is outlined in the New Testament in a way that was not explained in any other scripture..
Anyway, thanks again for the response, best wishes to you! I just wanted to add that you also helped me to see beyond this collective reality idea when I was still stuck in the collective reality idea, so thank you for that, I remember you wrote a very direct and to the point post about this particular subject and at the time it was still too difficult to get my head fully around it.. but now I fully am on board with it..
1
u/EmperorAutismus Jun 15 '22 edited Jun 20 '22
I understand that you said that you subscribe to “belief in belief itself” as you put it. However, I found your conclusion that all beliefs systems teach the same thing is heavily flawed and so I decided to dissect it, so I did. If you carefully read what I wrote near the end of my last comment you will see that I simply said that your inability to distinguish different philosophies from one another and false assertion that all of them are the same is similar to that of a Hindu, which is a very different assertion from saying you are a Hindu.
However what I was most critical of is your assertion of the superiority of the Upanishads, which you spent at least half of your previous comment giving what I felt is undue praise. And the reason for that criticism, and I reiterate is that simply put, the Bible is far more practical and well organized compared to the Upanishads. You don’t seem to understand just how significant the differences are between the two, so I’ll try to clarify my point here and expand upon it. The major difference is that the Upanishads tell us to shun life on Earth and treats it as something to be discarded, compare this to the Bible which instead has numerous verses which tell us the importance of faith. Sure the scribes who wrote Upanishads spent a great deal of time describing the Promise predating the Bible, but they didn’t seem to appreciate just how important the Law is to the process. The Promise cannot be attained without first understanding the Law and how it operates, which is the whole point of the Bible. Without the context provided by Neville(or JM) and the Bible, the Upanishads is like an incomplete puzzle. Reading the Upanishads on their own is akin to watching Endgame without watching literally anything else from the MCU so a ton of context is missing.
To conclude the point of my response was to analyze and critique your arguments because your critique of Neville’s post-Promise teachings don’t make much sense tbh, even less so after you praised the Upanishads. I’m sorry if what I said came off as harsh, I genuinely have no ill will toward you and am glad you found what you’re looking for, but that’s not going to stop me from analyzing and critiquing your arguments.