No 278 of Living Life Series1
There are many who seems to be well off and having the good life despite not being believers of God and saints. Often, it is said that this shows the grace of God and that we should not doubt the ways of God and saints. By the ways of man, such people do not deserved to be blessed and why must God bless them? The echoing answer is that they are blessed by the grace of God.
Good begets good and bad begets bad. This seems to be the way that must be and ever will be. But why at times, this does not seem to be the case?
This will not be an enigma if we adopt the eastern perspectives. In the eastern world, where there is not just one life but many rebirths for the same person, God's grace will ensure that men reap rewards of the good in their past lives even if in their present life they may not be good. Thus it is not God's grace to reward men with goodness when they are not good in their current life.
Good begets good and bad begets bad. This seems to be the way that must be and ever will be. But why at times, this does not seem to be the case?
This will not be an enigma if we adopt the eastern perspectives. In the eastern world, where there is not just one life but many rebirths for the same person, God's grace will ensure that men reap rewards of the good in their past lives even if in their present life they may not be good. Thus it is not God's grace to reward men with goodness when they are not good in their current life.
More troubling and difficult to accept in the western perspective is that there are some who are good and virtuous and yet suffer ill fate and misfortune? This is not the grace of God. But is this the way God test man? Surely, this cannot be. God is no sadist. The eastern perspective rationalises that this is attributable to misdeeds in past life or rebirth. But is rebirth an established fact? Is the concept just human rationalisation and fancy?
To understand further, let us know what is rationalisation and what is logical reasoning. Many can rationalise and make the seemingly unpalatable palatable, the seemingly illogical appear logical. But there is still the lack of evidence to support the rationalisation. In proper logical reasoning, there is the evidence. In rationalisation, there may not be evidence but this does not mean that rationalisation is not true for that the evidence is found as yet there does not mean that it is not there.
Even those who are hallucinated due to illness will think that their hallucinations as real and will rationalise and spin a story to explain what they experience.
Where there is evidence, there is no need for rationalisation and evidence based conclusion is the way to go.
Take for example the love of fellow beings.
We should love ourselves and radiate this love to all beings. To say we can love others without loving ourselves is both irrational and not logical or evidence based. If there be no love in self, how can there be love for others.
Whilst mission before self appears lofty, it can be ridiculous if there be "die to self" in order to save and "live the self" in others. This is not only contradictory and empty in that if one has no love for self, how can he love others as in the proverb "love others as thyself"?
But if we do ever love ourselves and don't seem to have enough of this, then we will never want to love others. If we can hardly love ourselves enough, then we must endeavour to love ourselves adequately before we even consider to love others. This does not mean that that person must hurt some others for one's own love and gain. For that will be harmful for oneself in the long run and certainly not love for oneself.
There must be that balance and perspectives in life as exemplified by the divine pose of Lord Bo Tien in his seated image with feet astride the polarities or extreme approaches and views
Posat Ji Kong drinks but is not carried away by his drinks. Few could do that but many who do not drink are often intoxicated not by wine but by various issues in life. That is why He reiterates that it is what passes through the heart that is important and not what passes through the gut.
His image below illustrates the point. One of his lower limbs rests atop the wine barrel and the message seems to be that we must not be intoxicated by issues in life. His left leg on the solid ground reminds us to be solidly poised to handle life even amidst the issues that may intoxicate us. We cannot run away from life more so the issues that can intoxicate us but we must be footed firmly in life. We take charge and be balanced in life. We must not be under and be intoxicated by issues at one extreme and not run away from life and its issues at the other extreme. We must be on top of life and be at peace.
We must emplace our leg solidly on ground of life and be master of issues and not let any of the many issues be master of our life and intoxicate our life.
All issues can be like the wine bottle. For many, the bottle takes over the life, but for the wise, not only are they not slaves and victims of potentially intoxicating issues or vicissitudes of life, but they are also atop of the wine bottle as well. This refreshing way of approach to the middle or balance way championed by Posat Ji Kong (Ji Gong) is worth eschewing and will win the hearts and minds of many especially in the West and beyond.
But that be no excuse or rationalisation to take to the bottle (or any other potentially intoxicating issues in life) and be intoxicated by them. But we cannot run away from them and must live with them as their master and not their victims or slaves.
Let us go back to the issue of rationalisation or evidence based logic. Where there is evidence, there is no need for rationalisation and evidence based conclusion is the way to go. We need to be in touch with evidence but at same time be aware that this may not be always possible.
The realms of philosophy often dwell with rationalisation but where enlightenment is concerned, we must progress to more evidence and reality perception. Unfortunately, for many far from enlightenment, rationalisation helps and plays major part to make life issues more acceptable.
The approach taught by Ji Kong sort of turn the table the other way round and we see life in a very fresh perspective. To the writer, this is more based on evidence of seeing the true nature of life than based on rationalisation.
In simple language, we may say thus. Seeing is believing. When we see, we do not need to imagine and wonder what it is like and how it is like. We need to be enlightened on the reality, that is, to see the true nature of life and till then we need to rationalise. Don't you agree with this?
Rationalisation or reality, both have their place in the dispensation of beings and man is but one of the many beings. Do not say that rationalisation is always wrong and do not say we need to have evidence or reality confirmation all the time. This is often not possible even for the here and now, let alone for the life hereafter.
.
Where there is evidence, there is no need for rationalisation and evidence based conclusion is the way to go.
Take for example the love of fellow beings.
We should love ourselves and radiate this love to all beings. To say we can love others without loving ourselves is both irrational and not logical or evidence based. If there be no love in self, how can there be love for others.
Whilst mission before self appears lofty, it can be ridiculous if there be "die to self" in order to save and "live the self" in others. This is not only contradictory and empty in that if one has no love for self, how can he love others as in the proverb "love others as thyself"?
But if we do ever love ourselves and don't seem to have enough of this, then we will never want to love others. If we can hardly love ourselves enough, then we must endeavour to love ourselves adequately before we even consider to love others. This does not mean that that person must hurt some others for one's own love and gain. For that will be harmful for oneself in the long run and certainly not love for oneself.
There must be that balance and perspectives in life as exemplified by the divine pose of Lord Bo Tien in his seated image with feet astride the polarities or extreme approaches and views
 |
| Lord Bo Tien |
Posat Ji Kong drinks but is not carried away by his drinks. Few could do that but many who do not drink are often intoxicated not by wine but by various issues in life. That is why He reiterates that it is what passes through the heart that is important and not what passes through the gut.
His image below illustrates the point. One of his lower limbs rests atop the wine barrel and the message seems to be that we must not be intoxicated by issues in life. His left leg on the solid ground reminds us to be solidly poised to handle life even amidst the issues that may intoxicate us. We cannot run away from life more so the issues that can intoxicate us but we must be footed firmly in life. We take charge and be balanced in life. We must not be under and be intoxicated by issues at one extreme and not run away from life and its issues at the other extreme. We must be on top of life and be at peace.
 |
| Ji Kong Posat |
We must emplace our leg solidly on ground of life and be master of issues and not let any of the many issues be master of our life and intoxicate our life.
All issues can be like the wine bottle. For many, the bottle takes over the life, but for the wise, not only are they not slaves and victims of potentially intoxicating issues or vicissitudes of life, but they are also atop of the wine bottle as well. This refreshing way of approach to the middle or balance way championed by Posat Ji Kong (Ji Gong) is worth eschewing and will win the hearts and minds of many especially in the West and beyond.
But that be no excuse or rationalisation to take to the bottle (or any other potentially intoxicating issues in life) and be intoxicated by them. But we cannot run away from them and must live with them as their master and not their victims or slaves.
Let us go back to the issue of rationalisation or evidence based logic. Where there is evidence, there is no need for rationalisation and evidence based conclusion is the way to go. We need to be in touch with evidence but at same time be aware that this may not be always possible.
The realms of philosophy often dwell with rationalisation but where enlightenment is concerned, we must progress to more evidence and reality perception. Unfortunately, for many far from enlightenment, rationalisation helps and plays major part to make life issues more acceptable.
The approach taught by Ji Kong sort of turn the table the other way round and we see life in a very fresh perspective. To the writer, this is more based on evidence of seeing the true nature of life than based on rationalisation.
Rationalisation is to make life more understandable without seeing more of the true nature. When we go on the spiritual path and in whatever religion or sect, we depend initially more on rationalisation as we have yet to see the full picture of life. That is why there always will be many religions and many sects and many schools within a sect to cater for the diverse scope and levels of rationalisation.
With time, rationalisation plays a lesser and lesser role. Members of all sects and religions will meet at the end point of reality of God and Divinity after going the way of rationalisation in their spiritual journey in life. This reality is termed as, inner peace, divine peace eternal bliss or nirvana - enlightenment. This dear readers is the essence of the Inner Truth message of God as extolled by lord messenger Lord Bo Tien
In simple language, we may say thus. Seeing is believing. When we see, we do not need to imagine and wonder what it is like and how it is like. We need to be enlightened on the reality, that is, to see the true nature of life and till then we need to rationalise. Don't you agree with this?
Rationalisation or reality, both have their place in the dispensation of beings and man is but one of the many beings. Do not say that rationalisation is always wrong and do not say we need to have evidence or reality confirmation all the time. This is often not possible even for the here and now, let alone for the life hereafter.
.
