Are you a heretic?

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Alvis Rofhessa

reason/logic..............................instinct/intuition/faith

I agreed with everything else on the list except this one. I see intuition as another form of reasoning, as opposed to logic. It's a kind of reasoning that doesn't have to quantify and specify everything before the reasoning process begins. It makes assumptions along the way, assuming certain things may be right. It makes "educated guesses." You're saying reasoning is the opposite of intuition!!!

It's not exactly a question of whether it's right or wrong, though, but that it suggests that people who use intuition aren't using reasoning!!!

I kind of think of "intuition" as "divergent thinking" where you don't take the conventional or traditional approach to thinking about a problem or issue. You explore in a completely new direction. Turn your head upside-down.

People who are orthodox and "traditional," then, don't use intuition. They're trying to conform to some system of logic. They're trying to make their way of thinking systematic. Heretics, I guess, are those who disagree with the technicalities that arise from this way of seeing things. They may either create their own, systematic and structured approach to a religion, creed, ideology or philosophy, are go completely against any systematic approach to religion and spirituality.

Some heretics are free-thinkers that don't conform to anything. They're down-to-earth. They're the ultimate rebels to orthodoxy. Some of them, I believe, actually talk like orthodox people but deep down they're not orthodox. They pretend to be traditional and orthodox. They've shed their systematic/structured/technicalised way of seeing things and gone completely free-style -- reminds me of Bruce Lee. They're hard to detect because they know their religion too well to give people the wrong impression.

I believe people like that are still true to their religion, but they're simply thinking of it on a higher level. Some may call them heretics because deep down they don't conform, but deep down they're still true to their faith. They've just found another way to express and explain it to themselves.

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Negative? I do not think heretic is a negative word... I think it could be used to describe someone with their eyes open... No just having sight but also having feeling.... *nods*

I think it depends on the writer's motive/intention/agenda. Are they writing in opposition to a specific class of people?

It's like the word "cult." The word "cult" is usually used to describe a group of people under the influence of "mind control," indoctrinated by some ideology. So it's usually used in a negative context. On the other hand, "cult" merely means "devotion."

[Thomas]

Heresy is from the Greek verb 'to choose' and in this context it means to choose other than the authentic teaching of the Apostlolic Tradition, on which Christianity is based.

Before you can have heresy, you must have orthodoxy – it is orthodoxy that determines the 'right teaching'.

Snoopy asked:
If one defines heresy as going against an authoritative system of dogma (designated as orthodox), does that make you a heretic?
Yes – if you mean that one chooses to interpret the teaching as something other than what has been 'handed down'.

I suppose I’m thinking of a more mystical approach being your guide in the “spritual quest” of your life (sorry if that’s not an appropriate term for you).
This assumes the orthodox approach is 'less mystical' which is an erroneous assumption. I don't suppose I need to point out that the greatest Christian mystics were entirely orthodox?

This seems to me to be an interesting area since, as it is found within disparate religious traditions (eg Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Sufism, Zen), behind the differing words and practices there may be a great commonality from which we all could benefit. An open question then…
I would say there is a certain superficial commonalities that are universal to the different traditions, but within the context of a given tradition, there are radical differences.

The assumption that in the 'esoteric' aspect all traditions are saying the same thing it, again, another error. This has been promulgated by those who wish to reduce everything to one thing. Usually this involves highlighting the bits one personally likes, and disregarding those elements which one finds laborious.

The great exponent of Comparative Religion - Prof. Huston Smith – refers to this as 'pick-n-mix' or 'coffee-table spirituality'.

Intrepidlover offered:
I am DEFINITELY a heretic, and thank God for that. Authoritative systems of dogma invariably become shallow substitutes for a genuine spiritual experience.
So is St John of the Cross shallow? St Theresa? Meister Eckhart? Thomas Merton? Where are your mystics who have so outstripped the orthodox, then?
(I always find this statement perplexing, as all the evidence would seem to suggest the precise opposite.)

What would the people here say if I suggested that I find the 'heterodox' or 'heresiarch' as shallow and self-serving?

Thomas

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Heresy is from the Greek verb 'to choose' and in this context it means to choose other than the authentic teaching of the Apostolic Tradition, on which Christianity is based.

Before you can have heresy, you must have orthodoxy – it is orthodoxy that determines the 'right teaching'.

Snoopy asked:
If one defines heresy as going against an authoritative system of dogma (designated as orthodox), does that make you a heretic?
Yes – if you mean that one chooses to interpret the teaching as something other than what has been 'handed down'.

I suppose I’m thinking of a more mystical approach being your guide in the “spritual quest” of your life (sorry if that’s not an appropriate term for you).
This assumes the orthodox approach is 'less mystical' which is an erroneous assumption. I don't suppose I need to point out that the greatest Christian mystics were entirely orthodox?

This seems to me to be an interesting area since, as it is found within disparate religious traditions (eg Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Sufism, Zen), behind the differing words and practices there may be a great commonality from which we all could benefit. An open question then…
I would say there is a certain superficial commonalities that are universal to the different traditions, but within the context of a given tradition, there are radical differences.

The assumption that in the 'esoteric' aspect all traditions are saying the same thing it, again, another error. This has been promulgated by those who wish to reduce everything to one thing. Usually this involves highlighting the bits one personally likes, and disregarding those elements which one finds laborious.

The great exponent of Comparative Religion - Prof. Huston Smith – refers to this as 'pick-n-mix' or 'coffee-table spirituality'.

Intrepidlover offered:
I am DEFINITELY a heretic, and thank God for that. Authoritative systems of dogma invariably become shallow substitutes for a genuine spiritual experience.
So is St John of the Cross shallow? St Theresa? Meister Eckhart? Thomas Merton? Where are your mystics who have so outstripped the orthodox, then?
(I always find this statement perplexing, as all the evidence would seem to suggest the precise opposite.)

What would the people here say if I suggested that I find the 'heterodox' or 'heresiarch' as shallow and self-serving?

Thomas

Well, I for one would say that for some reason you find these ideas shallow and self-serving. It really isn't my business why that is so.
I think I remember that Prof. Smith in addition to regular church attendance also practices Yoga and Zen meditation, neither of which is considered less than laborious.
Thomas Merton once called Thich Nhat Hanh "...more of a brother to me than many in my own order"
Meister Eckhart was excommunicated posthumously and many good catholics were forbidden to read his works.
Even the Jesuit Anthony De Mello was shunned by his order though he wrote to his readers to respect the Church because it was there we are nurtured and have our spiritual foundations.
It isn't for us to eschew orthodoxy for a mystical path, though many persons do choose an eclectic spirituality, the rigorousness of which is determined by the fervor and devotion each individual is capable of.

peace

Mark

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Snoop:

At the risk of violating my telepathic pledge...YOU ARE THE BOMB !!!


flow....

Hi, er, flow,

At the risk of violating my stupidity...WHAT DO YOU MEAN???!!!

the snoop.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by neosnoia

Hi, my name is Kay, and I'm a heretic.

Hi Kay,

Excellent, enough of this fence-sitting stuff!

Snoopy.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

but this part:


went right over my head.

Hi juan,

Keep up! It's very simple. All I was saying is practice and realisation are identical. Because one's present practice is practice in realisation, one's initial negotiation of the Way in itself is the whole of original realisation. Thus, even while one is directed to practice, he or she is told not to anticipate realisation apart from practice, because practice points directly to original realisation. "My" Buddhanature is not something hidden that awaits polishing, nor a potential which will manifest itself sometime in the future.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Before you can have heresy, you must have orthodoxy – it is orthodoxy that determines the 'right teaching'.

Snoopy asked:
If one defines heresy as going against an authoritative system of dogma (designated as orthodox), does that make you a heretic?
Yes – if you mean that one chooses to interpret the teaching as something other than what has been 'handed down'.

I suppose I’m thinking of a more mystical approach being your guide in the “spritual quest” of your life (sorry if that’s not an appropriate term for you).
This assumes the orthodox approach is 'less mystical' which is an erroneous assumption. I don't suppose I need to point out that the greatest Christian mystics were entirely orthodox?

This seems to me to be an interesting area since, as it is found within disparate religious traditions (eg Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Sufism, Zen), behind the differing words and practices there may be a great commonality from which we all could benefit. An open question then…
I would say there is a certain superficial commonalities that are universal to the different traditions, but within the context of a given tradition, there are radical differences.

The assumption that in the 'esoteric' aspect all traditions are saying the same thing it, again, another error. This has been promulgated by those who wish to reduce everything to one thing. Usually this involves highlighting the bits one personally likes, and disregarding those elements which one finds laborious.

Where are your mystics who have so outstripped the orthodox, then?
(I always find this statement perplexing, as all the evidence would seem to suggest the precise opposite.)

What would the people here say if I suggested that I find the 'heterodox' or 'heresiarch' as shallow and self-serving?

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I wasn’t trying to set orthodoxy and heterodoxy in conflict with each other, or to undermine, or to see which was superior. I’m just interested to see how people with beliefs from differing religious backgrounds may have commonality through more personal, individual experiences rather than those experiences more mediated through the organised orthodoxy of their particular “religion”. I had no particular religion in mind, although I am aware the term heresy does seem mostly associated with Christianity (I think). Personally, I would not call any commonalities across belief systems superficial; I would think it indicative of the profound truth in them.

s.

[Alvis Rofhessa]

Thanks Saltmeister (# 31):

I didn't mean reason/logic/Apollonian/head is opposite to instinct/intuition/faith/Dionysian/heart, I agree that we must have both in right proportions/balance. I myself recently argued on a group list that christians/creationists don't just have blind faith without evidence/reason.
But it still seems to me that the establishment/majority are always advocating "reason/logic/science" against "intuition/instinct/faith" as various scholars point out (eg Andre Nataf) and as I have found myself in arguements about things like dinosaurs being contemp with humans.

[Thomas]

I wasn’t trying to set orthodoxy and heterodoxy in conflict with each other, or to undermine, or to see which was superior.
But you did imply the mysticism of the heterodox was superior to the mysticism of the orthodox – which I think is an assumption, and an erroneous one.

I’m just interested to see how people with beliefs from differing religious backgrounds may have commonality through more personal, individual experiences rather than those experiences more mediated through the organised orthodoxy of their particular “religion”.
Part of that mediation process is affirming the veracity of the experience. I would be interested to see on what basis a person who has an experience can validate that experience as 'real' without recourse to tradition ... it is here that the self-declared heretic is on very uncertain ground ... how do you know your personal experience is not a fantasy or an illusion?

Personally, I would not call any commonalities across belief systems superficial; I would think it indicative of the profound truth in them.

That, I still believe, is the common conception of those who view the 'doctrine' of any given tradition as negotiable, or determinable according to their own opinion.

Both Christians and Buddhists practice meditation, and hold many 'rules' and 'guidances' in common, but the object of the practice is entirely different.

There is nothing more contradictory, as both Christian and Zen masters insist, than the idea of 'Zen Christianity'.

When one picks a particular commonality, it is taken out of its hermeneutic and epistemological context, it is detached from the fabric to which it belongs, and becomes a rag or shard of a great and holistic teaching, and this is what renders it superficial, even trivial – as invariably the new and syncretic interpretation to which it is attached is metaphysically wanting.

Thus, for example, a humanist, with no belief in God whatsover, can lay claim to the idea of 'love thy neighbour' as being not particular to Christianity, and at a superficial level that is true, but in the sense that a Christian should understand it, there is a world of difference...

Most often what happens is the elements of all religions are tossed into a pot, then the elements that appear common are regarded as true over and above each individual expression, and the elements that are unique – the very thing that makes that tradition singular and not a generality – are discarded as being peripheral.

Thus the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is discarded because it's not in Buddhism, or re-interpreted according to the apparent trinitarian aspects of Hindu or Egyptian polytheism.

The French metaphysician, Rene Guenon, a Sufi sheik and acknowledged by Vedic scholars as perhaps the foremost spokesman of his time on the subject of Vedic philosophy, went to great lengths to explain, philosophically, esoterically and metaphysically, that the Christian Trinity is unique and like no other, and he was critically dismissive of the lack of metaphysical insight of anyone who might suggest otherwise

Again, such determinations are often made by those who stand outside religion, those who are onlookers. No other religion, for example, has the Sacraments as a Catholic/Orthodox (and to some degree Lutheran) would understand them. So they assume that the Mithraic feast, or any meal, is the same as the Sacrament. No. It is not.

And anyone who calls him or herself a Christian mystic whilst denying the Church that Christ founded is kidding themselves – or rather, their 'mysticism' is something far different from what Orthodox Christianity understands by the term. It's a supreme example of 'I'll have the good bits, but not the burden...'

Sorry, but someone mentioned getting off the fence, so I got off...

Thomas

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Sorry, but someone mentioned getting off the fence, so I got off...

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

Hey, no, this forum's a two way street; I'm here to learn. Thanks for your post.

s.

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi, er, flow,

At the risk of violating my stupidity...WHAT DO YOU MEAN???!!!

the snoop.

The term that I used with reference to your posts is one in common usage among young hipsters in the US these days. It implies that what you do and how you do it is tantamount to "blowing away" anything that might be comparable to it. It was meant as a compliment in the context of the material on this thread... which I have personally found to be very entertaining. Just keep on keepin' on, as my old hippie self might say.

flow....

[Snoopy]

Hi,

Ah, old hippie stuff, that's more like it!

s. (old fart in the UK)

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Well, I for one would say that for some reason you find these ideas shallow and self-serving. It really isn't my business why that is so.
I think I remember that Prof. Smith in addition to regular church attendance also practices Yoga and Zen meditation, neither of which is considered less than laborious.
Thomas Merton once called Thich Nhat Hanh "...more of a brother to me than many in my own order"
Meister Eckhart was excommunicated posthumously and many good catholics were forbidden to read his works.
Even the Jesuit Anthony De Mello was shunned by his order though he wrote to his readers to respect the Church because it was there we are nurtured and have our spiritual foundations.
It isn't for us to eschew orthodoxy for a mystical path, though many persons do choose an eclectic spirituality, the rigorousness of which is determined by the fervor and devotion each individual is capable of.

peace

Mark

Hi Mark:

I would also add to the group of Christian Mystics who were singled-out for peer abuse by reason of their beliefs, the priest, missionary and writer Pierre Tielhard DeChardin. But I guess that one should also take into account that he was a Frenchman who did the work that he was called to do in China.

flow....

[Ciel]

Snoops,

I want to thank you for this thread. Your empty spaces helped me through a real difficult weekend. You know there was absolutely nothing I could read into them..... except empty space......... my it's nice to lighten up.

love - c -

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Snoops,

I want to thank you for this thread. Your empty spaces helped me through a real difficult weekend. You know there was absolutely nothing I could read into them..... except empty space......... my it's nice to lighten up.

love - c -

Hi feline felicity and thanks.

Are you acknowledging that when we truly attempt to become one with ( - ) then this is, of course, ineffable. Or are you just saying I need to shut up a bit more?

Anyway, yes, post #16 has a practical purpose. If you scroll down a little you are provided with a blank field of view on which one can focus as you engage in contemplation / prayer / meditation.

Il Snoopini IV.