Skip to content
Loading…

End of path of knowledge.

UnknownMind
Thought

Thought

commuterstudent

The bit about still repeating the oneness knowledge after 10 or 20 years sounds aimed at someone specific. Reads like a teacher tired of being asked for one more secret.

The bit about still repeating the oneness knowledge after 10 or 20 years sounds aimed at someone specific. Reads like a teacher tired of being asked for one more secret.

Post content

See whether I continue my teachings or not you should know this much for certain that path of knowledge ends with three levels or layers of knowledge.

After the three levels or three layers of knowledge the path there is nothing. No meditation, no awareness pratice. Nothing.

Then what about all the pratice which I told you? I never tell any pratice. All I said to repeat knowledge of oneness so remove your doubt. I clearly said that if you are still doing that pratice of repeatition of knowledge of oneness after 10-20 years ago you are doing wrong you should consult teacher in that case. And every new method of anything new is not new at all. It was just a different approach to same thing.

Pay attention this is most important guide from me to you -

All i need to say in very simple terms of you got three levels of knowledge. Then get evidence of each levels in your own experience. After doing this you are free to do anything. You complete this path of knowledge and it's teachings. There is no need to you guys to lesson to me anymore.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

I may be continue or not but if I will continue its for sake of spreading knowledge nothing more. If you assure about three levels of knowledge. Your spirituality ends. You don't need anything.

I keep giving others types of knowledge of like mind, time, intelligence. Because of sake of spreading knowledge. Spreading this kind of knowledge was never goal. The goal was to get you to the three levels of knowledge.

Again there is no bad thing if you guys like to learn from my knowledge of experiences. It is also welcome there is no bad in it. But if you are thinking that after the three levels of knowledge you will still able to get something magical from me, in such type of thinking you are very wrong.

Again Three levels of knowledge and path of knowledge ends with it. Yes you guys can definitely ask me about three levels of knowledge. You are having problems with three levels of knowledge you can ask me questions. Regarding that knowledge only.

Thoughts

  • commuterstudent

    The bit about still repeating the oneness knowledge after 10 or 20 years sounds aimed at someone specific. Reads like a teacher tired of being asked for one more secret.

    Permalink
  • async_await_me

    A teaching that ends by saying there is nothing after it is rarer than it should be. Most systems keep inventing a next level, because the next level is what keeps people coming back.

    Permalink

Related posts

  • Is therapy just confession with the theology stripped out?

    One of the funniest things about secular modern culture is watching people reinvent Christianity piece by piece while acting intellectually superior the entire time. People abandoned confession and now pay someone $240 plus taxes an hour to listen to them describe their guilt in a softly lit room. They abandoned sin and replaced it with "unprocessed trauma." They abandoned repentance and replaced it with "doing the work." They abandoned examination of conscience and replaced it with journaling…

  • Do conservatives actually own the Church?

    I am tired of conservatives acting like they own the Church. They do not. The Church is older than the political right, older than trad nostalgia, older than the American culture war, and older than the faction that keeps trying to turn its own instincts into orthodoxy. If you look at Christian history instead of clinging to one preferred snapshot of it, the record points the other way.

  • Is Christ's message eternal, but never meant to be read literally?

    Christians rightly say that the truth revealed in Christ is not temporary, but rather eternal. That is true, but it does not mean literalism and it does not mean that we are to drop interpretation. The mistake comes when some believers quietly turn that into a different claim: because the truth is eternal, every biblical utterance should be treated as though it arrived outside history and therefore needs no interpretation any longer, but rather has to be taken literally in the same way...

  • Does atheism make you more rational, or just leave a void you fill badly?

    One of the common atheist temptations is to confuse unbelief with clarity, to assume that religion is the irrational part, so removing religion must leave behind a cleaner and more rational human being. But human beings do not work that way, human beings operate through beliefs, emotions... We do not stop wanting ritual, purity, moral tribe, sense of sacredness or transcendent meaning just because we stop using religious language for those desires.

  • Should we stop gatekeeping who counts as a real Christian?

    Something occurred to me today. For centuries, especially in the English-speaking world, Catholics were often portrayed as superstitious, anti-intellectual, hostile to freedom, and blindly obedient to authority. Some of that came from real conflicts. Some of it came from centuries of Protestant polemics and what historians call the Black Legend. Either way, the image became deeply embedded in Western culture.

  • Does literalism flatten the Bible into a mere manual?

    One of the strangest assumptions in modern literalist readings of Scripture is the idea that the Bible should be treated as if it were a single kind of document with a single interpretive key. As if it were a legal contract where every clause must be enforced uniformly, or a scientific paper where every sentence is meant as a precise empirical claim, or a recipe book where the point is simply to follow instructions exactly as written.

  • Can Buddhist detachment really be the root of a good moral system?

    One thing I have never been able to shake about Buddhism is that its moral vision seems to rest on a foundation that I regard as fundamentally mistaken. I am not talking about all the virtues it encourages. Non-violence is good, Self-control is good, patience is good. A refusal to be consumed by greed or anger is obviously good. Christians should be able to acknowledge virtues wherever they find them. My concern is with the principle underneath those virtues.

  • Should we judge Christianity against what came before it, not against what it built?

    One of the stranger habits of modern discussion is that Christianity is often judged exclusively against twenty-first-century moral standards while its alternatives are judged against the Christianity that helped shape those standards in the first place. This does not mean Christianity is innocent of wrongdoing. Religious wars happened. Churches accumulated power. Christians persecuted one another. Any honest reading of history has to acknowledge that. The question is whether Christianity made…

Public 4 conversations 6 thoughts 20 upvotes 0 downvotes 0 series

See whether I continue my teachings or not you should know this much for certain that path of knowledge ends with three levels or layers of knowledge.

In groups