Why does the comments section so easily detach itself from the article to be commented upon and begin a life of its own? It seems that there is a lot of hobby horsing going on and little serious theological discussion.

Keiran
Your constant talk of teddy’s is very annoying and also arrogant because the rest of us have no idea what you are referring to.

So, if you want to post, please read the article carefully and come up with something useful to say.

I completely agree with Sells. Firstly, save the irrelevant stuff for some more appropriate context. Secondly, make an effort to actually read and attempt to digest the article concerned -- a basic pre-requisite some posters obviously ignore before having their say. Lastly, in writing the contribution, discipline yourself to relate it to the article. Simple courtesy and common sense.

And Keiran, like Sells I'm tired of your private joke about teddies. Please make an effort to communicate rather than merely irritate.

Sonofeire, wasn't too sure where that sentence came from in my notes etc, but on checking it is a quote from ....
http://www.wie.org/j18/transcend.asp?ifr=ra

Thank you for drawing this to my attention. You are correct and we can drop this "incarnated" idea to start with because it is actually the opposite to my understanding. Just shows how easily it is to catch a bit of this teddy mind virus.

We evolved and will continue to evolve but enlightenment will not come until we come to terms with an infinite material universe as an environment. We cannot understand environments or ecology without adopting a few assumptions like .......... causality, uncertainty, inseparability, conservation, complementarity, irreversibility, infinity, materialism, relativism and interconnection.

Pretty well all animals sleep and when we sleep we transcend. Our dreams flush out unwanted and confusing noise. We certainly come equipped in our waking day to transcend all manner of unwanted and confusing noise as well. Where would I be if I couldn't listen to Renata Scotto or be able to focus on a slippery one metre putt on a sloping green.

However when we look beyond ourselves to our natural environment we find some real enlightenment. Find is the word not seek......... so it is find and ye shall seek. This is how we find true self.

e.g.
Richard Dawkins says "Every time you drink a glass of water, you are probably imbibing at least one atom that passed through the bladder of Aristotle."

An Australian researcher, Dr Sinn says "Squid have personalities that appear to be passed down from parent to offspring, but those traits can be modified by the environment," and "understanding the ecology and evolution of personality provides a key to understanding what drives animal populations."

Peter Nichols researcher at the CSIRO, says the omega-3 oils found in fish originate from the marine algae at the start of the food chain.

Then there is a team from the Victorian Department of Primary Industries who have discovered a compound in wallaby milk that is 100 times more effective than penicillin in the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Keiran,

I have no bone to pick with your exposition and celebration of ecological truths. Any reasonable and sensitive person would value and feel a connection to those same wonders. However, I see no reason why attunement to the natural material world, with all its symbiotic complexity and delicacy, should be considered the ultimate manifestation of spiritual enlightenment or "true self". Given the nature of my own spiritual practice, which is derived from and influenced by the meditation teachings of the Sikhs, perhaps we just have a different conception of what "true self" is or can be.
If I am unwittingly missing the essence of your point, then please enlighten me.

Peter in his article says ...... "In this we must make a distinction between the contribution to the self made by philosophical ideas and that made by one whose significance cannot be explained in terms of philosophical ideas or in codes of morality, and certainly not as a founder of a great religion, but in his very being as the one true human being."

i.e. Jesus in "his very being as the one true human being."

Now Keiran here is just a "nobody", and because "nobody" is perfect, he in fact can regard himself as perfect.

My question then is, if Jesus is perfect too, then was he created perfect or did he make himself perfect? Surely some theologian or devotee (e.g. Crabbie) may have the answer. (Also, just what was Jesus up to in his formative and wilderness years? From what we are to believe it seems he just appeared as if by magic for about three years which doesn't seem fair at all.)

Keiran,
The New Testament give us one clue; He was made perfect [Hebrews 5: 9] through his suffering and the completion of his life. So his perfection did not come by birth or his own will but by the very living out of his life.

One cannot be considered as perfect in character until one expresses that character in living. Perfection is identified with completion of an act or life. Perfection is purity in thought, wisdom and behaviour James 2: 22; Matthew 5: 48. Perfection is imputed to sinners who repent Col 1: 28; 4: 12. Perfection is more than a static status it is demonstrated in who we really are. The nature and maturity of our spirit.

In the understanding of the divine revelation no indication is made to his formative years, but his life was not perfected till it had completed its ultimate mission.

Quote, "My question then is, if Jesus is perfect too, then was he created perfect or did he make himself perfect? Surely some theologian or devotee (e.g. Crabbie) may have the answer. (Also, just what was Jesus up to in his formative and wilderness years? From what we are to believe it seems he just appeared as if by magic for about three years which doesn't seem fair at all.)