The difference between "judgment" and "discrimination"
Each religion was "created" to confuse, while to clarify it is necessary to distinguish, renouncing pre-established positions of thought: "Solve et coagula" - "To orient yourself in infinity, you must distinguish and then unite" (Goethe).
But be careful one thing is judgment and another discrimination ...
I do not reject the existence of an absolute and all-pervading "God" who, being the only real presence, includes in himself every aspect of the manifesto and the unmanifest.
The god, better defined "archon", of monolatric religions is simple assumption and mental projection, as indeed is every personal description of the One. Since the One cannot assert the One, since no one else is there...
"Religion" in itself would not be guilty but all the priests, popes, rabbis and mullahs who have used the natural motion of the "return" to the Self (or God) are guilty! They have made the greatest deception and cheating, towards themselves and their neighbor, they have actually performed the deceptive function of "the envious evil", separating what is inseparable and then claiming to want to "re-unite" through the pursuit of a religious dictate and a "salvation" reserved to the "believers" of the religion itself.
In truth, there is no obligation to get bogged down in a "creed" (the moment we understand its consequences and implications). Only the one who insists on wanting to believe is a participant and dominant of that belief.
Yet, isn't belief a mere thought, an opinion? So why stick around something that is mere illusion, a dual symbol of separation?
And is it not even said in the Gospel, "blessed are the poor in spirit because of them is the kingdom of heaven"? And in this case, isn't it the "spirit" of stubbornness and the illusion of believing oneself separate that prevents access to that kingdom?
Personally, I do not go into the substance of the discussion on the truthfulness of religions. From the point of view of secularism , belief is a free personal choice, therefore: "de gustibus non est disputandum!"
But I would like to open a discriminatory crack. Belief is static, experimenting is dynamic. Belief is the result of memory and blind acceptance, experimenting is the result of selective action and discrimination.
The only incontrovertible truth is that corroborated by one's own experience ... but unless you have a direct inner realization, claiming to believe in a religion is a mental exercise of will and is devoid of any substantiality. Different thing in the case of direct experience or "lighting". But since "realization" takes place in the Self, we can safely say that this "intrinsic truth" is the only real truth, all the rest being simple mental projection.
Let us abandon vanity and separative arrogance and fearlessly make the "return home", in recognizing ourselves in what it is...
Paolo D’Arpini
But be careful one thing is judgment and another discrimination ...
I do not reject the existence of an absolute and all-pervading "God" who, being the only real presence, includes in himself every aspect of the manifesto and the unmanifest.
The god, better defined "archon", of monolatric religions is simple assumption and mental projection, as indeed is every personal description of the One. Since the One cannot assert the One, since no one else is there...
"Religion" in itself would not be guilty but all the priests, popes, rabbis and mullahs who have used the natural motion of the "return" to the Self (or God) are guilty! They have made the greatest deception and cheating, towards themselves and their neighbor, they have actually performed the deceptive function of "the envious evil", separating what is inseparable and then claiming to want to "re-unite" through the pursuit of a religious dictate and a "salvation" reserved to the "believers" of the religion itself.
In truth, there is no obligation to get bogged down in a "creed" (the moment we understand its consequences and implications). Only the one who insists on wanting to believe is a participant and dominant of that belief.
Yet, isn't belief a mere thought, an opinion? So why stick around something that is mere illusion, a dual symbol of separation?
And is it not even said in the Gospel, "blessed are the poor in spirit because of them is the kingdom of heaven"? And in this case, isn't it the "spirit" of stubbornness and the illusion of believing oneself separate that prevents access to that kingdom?
Personally, I do not go into the substance of the discussion on the truthfulness of religions. From the point of view of secularism , belief is a free personal choice, therefore: "de gustibus non est disputandum!"
But I would like to open a discriminatory crack. Belief is static, experimenting is dynamic. Belief is the result of memory and blind acceptance, experimenting is the result of selective action and discrimination.
The only incontrovertible truth is that corroborated by one's own experience ... but unless you have a direct inner realization, claiming to believe in a religion is a mental exercise of will and is devoid of any substantiality. Different thing in the case of direct experience or "lighting". But since "realization" takes place in the Self, we can safely say that this "intrinsic truth" is the only real truth, all the rest being simple mental projection.
Let us abandon vanity and separative arrogance and fearlessly make the "return home", in recognizing ourselves in what it is...
Paolo D’Arpini