Was Mohammed A Zen Devil?

[carlos flores]

I just watched Leo's video about "becoming  a Zen devil-the dangers of half-assing enlightenment" and I started to think about all the people throughout history that were able to gather masses of people. some who were enlightened and some who weren't. One of these people I keep thinking about is Muhammed, the founder of Islam. Of course the history goes that he was in a cave and an angel gave him a revelation. Of course I think the whole angel part is bs, but could it be that he had an awakening experience, without becoming enlightened, which cause him to do what he would later do? I'm interested in hearing what you guys think. 

[Prabhaker]

46 minutes ago, carlos flores said:

I'm interested in hearing what you guys think. 

I am for Muhammed and not for Quran, because it's a dead book written by others, and Muhammad was a lively master, the real master, as simple as that. Quran can't be from Muhammed. 

Mohammed was a rebellious man — his whole life he was haunted by enemies. Many times he was just on the brink of being killed. He had to fight his whole life — a mystic had to become a warrior, a mystic had to waste his whole life in being a warrior. He had to carry a sword. And you can see the contradiction, the paradox — on his sword he had written the words: peace, love. Love had to carry a sword because of mad people. Peace had to carry a sword because of neurosis.

Mohammed had to wage war continuously; he was fighting and fighting. His whole life was wasted in fight. He could have brought more flowers from the unknown, but there was no opportunity.

[Leo Gura]

20 hours ago, carlos flores said:

Of course I think the whole angel part is bs

Don't be so sure about that. Maybe he did see an angel

Time to research what angels are.

[Aware]

On 31 december 2016 at 6:27 AM, carlos flores said:

Of course I think the whole angel part is bs

Daring is that remark of yours!

 

Surely you've direct knowledge about the many layers of existence and came to the final conclusion that there is no such thing as an angel.
 

You have understood of course the causes of suffering? How the law of everything works, how different births come to be, and came to the conclusion: There is no such a thing as an angel.

Of course you have attained the knowledge of your own causes of births in relationship with the law of everything? And came to the conclusion: There is no such a thing as an angel.

Of course you are free from the grip of Death (illusion) and can therefor hear and see beyond the veils that is illusion? And came to the conclusion: There is not such a thing as an angel.

Of course you are free from the grip of Death (illusion) and can therefor interact with beyond the veil that is illusion? And came to the conclusion: There is no such a thing as an angel.

Of course you are free from the grip of death (illusion) and can there for make order out of these worlds related to the law of everything and interact accordingly? and came to the conclusion: there is no such a thing as an angel.

Of course you are free from the grip of death (illusion) and made a great order based on the law of everything? Sorted all realms out with all of its beings and causes of how they came to be and based everything on this law and came to the conclusion: There is no such thing as an angel.

 

Quote

Was Mohammed A Zen Devil?

Of course Carlos Flores if not understanding anything of the above Carlos Flores, have therefor but little to non understanding how the laws of nature really work (mark of the Zen Devil), refrain from unwholesome speech instead, that exactly is the utterly empty chatter that keeps one from understanding such laws that if understood well, can be used to truly investigate everything that is, including the existence of angels and other beings.

 

Of course, that is what I think Carlos.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Aware

[Prabhaker]

On 12/31/2016 at 10:57 AM, carlos flores said:

I think the whole angel part is bs

There are bodiless souls in the universe who are very compassionate and loving to us and who try to help us even from their ethereal existence. And they do send messages if they come across some suitable medium. 

Many people like Madame Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Colonel Olcott and Leadbeater have worked as mediums for such bodiless souls in the past. And by contacting such souls who have attained higher states of spiritual growth many things can be known and communicated. The Theosophists carried out a great experiment of this kind in relation to J. Krishnamurti.

Many efforts were made to put Krishnamurti in contact with souls in search of right mediums. Krishnamurti's earliest books, AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER and LIFE OF ALCYONE belong to the period when he was in contact with Tibetan Masters. That is why Krishnamurti disowns their authorship. He did not write them in his conscious state; they were really communicated to him by Tibetan Masters. AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER is an extraordinary book, but it is not written by Krishnamurti he was only a medium who received it in the form of messages.

Mohammed was illiterate, but he was a great mystic, so he became a suitable medium for Gabriel.

[Augustus]

On ٣١‏/١٢‏/٢٠١٦ at 7:27 AM, carlos flores said:

I just watched Leo's video about "becoming  a Zen devil-the dangers of half-assing enlightenment" and I started to think about all the people throughout history that were able to gather masses of people. some who were enlightened and some who weren't. One of these people I keep thinking about is Muhammed, the founder of Islam. Of course the history goes that he was in a cave and an angel gave him a revelation. Of course I think the whole angel part is bs, but could it be that he had an awakening experience, without becoming enlightened, which cause him to do what he would later do? I'm interested in hearing what you guys think. 

Don't compare 7th century people to our modern times societies, what Mohammed did was normal back in his days but it's immoral now.

About enlightenment, well I am not sure if Mohammad was enlightened or not but probably not at least not fully The Quran (Mohammad's diary) speak clearly about god (Allah) as if god is a giant man in heaven similar to Father in Christianity but enlightened people think of god as absolute consciousness (reality it self).

Concept of enlightenment came to exist much later in Sufi Islam. 

  

[carlos flores]

On December 31, 2016 at 0:49 AM, Prabhaker said:

@Prabhaker interesting, so Muhammed was a mystic trying to spread love and peace, but with a sword since he had so many enemies who wanted him death? so could this mean that he was enlightened too? one final question, why would someone like jesus (who also had some enemies) not spread his messages through sword like Muhammed and let himself get killed?

 

[carlos flores]

@Prabhaker wait so are you saying they are bodiless souls in this universe trying to send messages through people and Muhammed just happen to be one of them? 

[carlos flores]

@Leo Gura well when I heard the story, one explanation I came up with was that he had an awakening during the cave or possibly full enlightened  , but at the same time I found it hard to believe that he was enlightened and wage war at the same time, especially since people like jesus and buddha tried to spread their message but without violence. If you could give me a deeper explanation that would really help me understand this better.

[Prabhaker]

1 minute ago, carlos flores said:

wait so are you saying they are bodiless souls in this universe trying to send messages through people and Muhammed just happen to be one of them? 

Many souls of higher consciousness do not find a suitable womb for hundreds of years are not born in a human body, but they can communicate through a suitable medium, Mohammed was a medium.

[Prabhaker]

3 minutes ago, carlos flores said:

I found it hard to believe that he was enlightened and wage war at the same time, especially since people like jesus and buddha tried to spread their message but without violence.

JESUS SAID: MEN POSSIBLY THINK THAT I HAVE COME TO THROW PEACE UPON THE
WORLD, AND THEY DO NOT KNOW THAT I HAVE COME TO THROW DIVISIONS UPON THE
EARTH - FIRE, SWORD, WAR.

Peace is possible if everybody is almost dead. There will be no war, no conflict, but there will be no life either. That would be the silence of the graveyard. But that is not worth anything; then even war is better because in war you are alive and vital.

Another type of peace - a totally different dimension of peace - exists when you are vital, alive, but centered in your being: when self-knowledge has happened, when you have become enlightened, when the flame is lit and you are not in darkness. Then there will be more life, more silence, but the silence will belong to life, not to death. It will not be the silence of the graveyard.

This is the paradox to be understood: war is bad, hate is bad; they are the evils on the earth and they must go. Disease is bad, health is good; disease must go, but you must remember that a dead man never falls ill; a dead body can deteriorate but cannot be ill. So if you don't understand, all your efforts may create a dead world. There will be no disease, no war, no hatred - but no life either.

Jesus would not like that type of peace. That type of peace is useless; then this world, with war, would be better. But many have been endeavoring, and their attitude is just negative. They think, "If war stops, everything will be okay." It is not so easy. And this is not only the ordinary man's conception - even very great philosophers like Bertrand Russell think that if war is finished everything will be okay. This is negative - because war is not the problem, the problem is man.

[Prabhaker]

19 minutes ago, carlos flores said:

why would someone like jesus (who also had some enemies) not spread his messages through sword like Muhammed and let himself get killed?

Message not only depends on Jesus, Buddha or Mohammed, it also depends on the people for whom the message is given. Message of Jesus was not suitable for the people who only understand the language of sword.

[carlos flores]

4 minutes ago, Prabhaker said:

Message not only depends on Jesus, Buddha or Mohammed, it also depends on the people for whom the message is given. Message of Jesus was not suitable for the people who only understand the language of sword.

I kinda thought about that too. they were living in different place with different culture. Basically, Jesus message could best spread best because of the culture and people he was living with, while Muhammed could be spread best the way he did (in this case, war) because of the people and culture he was living with right?

All the things you been saying are very interesting, I feel like I'm beginning to understand this much better. Thanks!

[AxelK]

Funny how Mohammed is being compared to people like Buddha and Jesus just because he has a big following. While the latter two most likely were enlightened Mohammed was the complete opposite. Most of his "teachings" are just plagiarised from other religious book with a huge dose of his gigantic ego. The man was a child-rapist, warmonger and hugely sectarian. Mohammed and "Allah" have nothing to do with enlightenment at all. Its sad that so many people are still brainwashed by him. 

 

I will probably get some flak for this and thats fine, but  using Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed in the same context is just intellectually lazy and dishonest, and people should think twice before doing it.

[Leo Gura]

@AxelK You're the one placing all these moral expectations on enlightened beings. Applying today's cultural norms to someone from 2000 years ago is silly.

The culture of Arabs 2000 years ago was insanely vicious and brutal. Mohammad was a saint compared to tribal rape, pillage, and lawlessness that was common-day occurrence at the time. The Arab culture is extremely tribalistic. That's true today, but it was 1000x more true 2000 years ago. Islam was a huge pacifying influence at the time of its inception. Understanding the historical and cultural context of Islam is hugely important.

What you call "child-rapist" was standard practice just 100 years ago all over the world. Girls have historically been married off and started giving birth in their early teens. Many of the wives Mohammad kept where orphaned or homeless or abandoned women, who keep took under his care. In that culture, a woman without a husband or brother is basically a homeless starving untouchable.

The reason Mohammad had to wage war was because all the tribes wanted to slaughter him for his higher spiritual teachings. In that environment, he could only fight back or get slaughtered.

Enlightenment does automatically mean peace, rainbows, and butterflies. We live in the real-world, where shit happens. If you live in a warzone, you're not automatically gonna have peace.

The Buddha could be peaceful because India had a very tolerant culture. Jesus was slaughtered within a couple of years. Arab culture presented a unique challenge to the spread of spirituality.

[Hunter Arrington]

Claims claims claims. Every one has their own two sense. Aren't we after truth? 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Hunter Arrington

[philosogi]

On 1/3/2017 at 4:40 AM, John Flores said:

May no one in the world ever go through schitzophrenia, not even temporarily before reaching enlightenment, but there is a high probable chance that Mohammed suffered from some kind of disorder as such, as he foamed by the mouth during his prophecy/ies, usually connected to some kind of epileptic disorder. It's a cruel fate and I hope many people are healed who have this and  we no longer see such a phenomenon if it's painful/scary for the individual.

What if schizophrenia is not a "disorder" ?

[Loreena]

Who knows