Canaan

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

where did i do that? whatever else you might accuse me of, triumphalism isn't included, at least i would have thought.

The bit you're referring to was from a different poster. I have enough trouble defending my own views!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'm neither outraged nor ballistic. this is not a new accusation, merely an old chestnut. you must admit that talking about "pimping", or assuming that something is a "needle in the heart", is hardly conducive to a calm discussion. it is quite simply not necessary to raise the issues you are raising in a matter which necessarily raises the temperature. or perhaps you think i ought to practise detachment from such things. either way it is quite simply rude.

I'm sorry for the offence you found in some of the story's details. They aren't there as deliberate outrage but only reflect my approach toward all scripture (not just biblical) in general, which you might call irreverent but to me is just reverence of another order. These texts are far more powerful than the little ironies of my story, against which they hardly need to be defended. I would remind you as well of one of the other points of the story: Abraham is indeed the father of many nations, as foretold, and no longer the intellectual property of any single nation. As one of the sons of Abraham - and not bound by a particular creed - I have a natural right to try to view this figure by my own lights. You have every right to be offended of course, but be careful of asserting proprietary rights bordering on the issuance of a Fatwah. (I know, I just threw a bomb, but the message is that your rhetorical excesses can leave that impression.)


Here is one point where I think we're at cross-purposes. I'm not attacking a faith tradition, as you appear to think, but really only pointing to a core idea in the culture we share, broadly speaking. This whole notion of absolutist metaphysical justification, of the great virtue of self-righteous fury, of having G!d on our side in the most un-G!d-like activities is almost like the air we breathe, and as difficult to get at. One of the difficulties in facing the concrete realities of what these ideas mean is the shroud of reverence thrown over all scripture, the fear of blasphemy still alive for many, or at least the fear of giving offence or being "rude". The last thing I want to do is give offence, but I can't let fear of giving offence get in the way of an honest discussion of the problem.


Oh, yes, an old chestnut? Sure it is. Old Bobby Dylan wrote a song "With God on Our Side" way back in the '60's, which makes the same point I'm making here - minus the verbal diarrhoea! But you know from your reading of the prophets that the fact that an idea is rejected - no matter how many times repeated - doesn't mean it may not be true.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

as a matter of fact, jewish history, even the establishment of the modern state can certainly be explained in these terms from kabbalistic sources and this has been done so by many eminent authorities.

I'm ignorant of the history of kabbalah, so I can't comment on what you mean here by "explained in terms of". I guess as an outsider I would naturally see political history in more exoteric terms, and again through key notions like the "chosen people".

Originally Posted by bananabrain

-albeit i will sadly concede that much of this has been hijacked since 1967 by the religious right and reduced to fundamentalist binary, although they are far from being the only custodians of interpretation.

Agreed. And according to folk singer Utah Phillips, agreement is sacred.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

-the notion of a chosen people, however, is not unique to us -.

The originality of the idea is not the point but it's success. There are many coffee shops, but only one Starbucks. Every obscure tribe in the history of the world has thought itself chosen in some fashion. None has developed the idea with such power and to such effect as the writers of Torah.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

and judaism's longevity cannot be attributed solely to this. in fact, there is no adequate rational explanation for the anomaly that is judaism within the discipline of history.

Agreed. Utah Phillips is happy.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i think you're misunderstanding what i mean by sacred history. sacred history is not concerned with "history" or what "really happened". as a matter of fact, i do not believe that humans can ever know "what really happened" - only "what might have happened". Torah cannot be demonstrated with the tools of athens, nor can it be disproved by "enlightenment". does that make it any clearer?

Well, no without more explanation I can't really know what "sacred history" means from your perspective. There are too many possibilities! That was my point: interpretation of biblical events has been worked over for thousands of years by far brighter people than you or I, and from numerous angles. When I say "what really happened" that only reflects my particular bias if you like that these texts were produced by human beings in particular human settings, so that there was something like history in the ordinary sense at the base. At the same time, I believe that the meanings of the texts themselves are far more complex and go well beyond whatever the underlying history might have been. So I agree that the tools of Athens only take us so far. Why, here's more agreement!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

but that's exactly what i'm saying - the KoG is not the core idea of judaism. obviously there are people who are trying to make it into the core idea, as you are aware, but this is hardly news.

As I pointed out in the beginning, I'm not attacking a tradition as the root of a particular idea; I'm looking at an idea as it has played out in history. So again, I don't think that fundamentally (pardon that term!) we're in disagreement on this.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

perhaps, but your notion of the KoG would actually be tendentious within those fora - nor are you actually proposing a solution, just "less of what's bad for you".

With all respect, if the hugely broad-stroked views I'm putting out here are "tendentious", then I don't know how one seriously discusses any issue across religious traditions. I think I can much more accurately be accused of being windy & abstract than of tending toward any sectarian view. Is comparative religion all hearts & flowers? Not judging from your postings!

Solution? That implies a simple identifiable problem - like too many minerals in the water supply - that admits of a simple solution. Here we're not talking about a particular event or thing, but a flavour of consciousness affecting billions of people. All simple solutions in that context are misguided and dangerous. Change only comes on incrementally, through numerous individual acts - your correct stand against fundamentalism in your own tradition, for example. Certainly, it's not up to a slow-brain like myself to unlock the key to all mysteries on some online forum!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

=see, this is where i have to disagree. it can be about our *perception* of fundamental truths, but to suggest that humans can actually attain this fundamental truth (other than particularly exceptional individuals - and then, even that's also controversial) is simply a construct of human ego. shame on you for a samsaric maya-denier!"

This is where I have to agree (again). That was sloppy talk on my part. I should have said "fundamental truths as articulated by everyday dopes". Thanks for the metaphysical slap.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

=yeah - it's the direct line between Divine Command and humans getting delusions of insight. humans have always claimed that they have an exclusive corner on Divine support - and they have always eventually fallen victim to hubris.

I'm nearly giddy with agreement.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

indeed, but if it cannot give us a guide by which we can make the "lower" choices, it is of no *practical* use. i suppose this is the fundamental difference between your outlook and mine - yours would presumably teach detachment because there is no ultimate reality, whereas mine would deny any ultimate reality other than the Divine Will - and theologically speaking i find these to be disturbingly similar, even if they lead to very different ways of living. and both can lead to smugness and superiority complexes. for you, there are certain things which can never be right, whereas for me, these things are not all the same. or vice-versa, if you prefer. we just differ on the rightness and wrongness of actions.

That's a thoughtful summary. It's always a danger though to guess at the metaphysical positions of others from slight evidence - especially evidence arising from some ghostly presence online.

I remember the subject of Buddhism coming up with a friend of mine who is Jewish. He said something to the effect of, Well, being calm and peaceful that’s all very nice, but then...and here he sighed. It was one of those moments that summed up whole traditions and their complementary values. I won't repeat too much of what I've already said several times, except to say that the legacy of social engagement initiated by the Hebrew tradition is precious. For me it's a not a matter of choosing yoga over the kingdom of G!d, but of recognizing the value and problematics of both. Here I'm talking about the pragmatic in-this-world effects of the various related traditions.

But you've also brought up the metaphysical distinction, and again I agree that on a certain level of abstraction it becomes a mug's game, of interest only to the guardians of creeds or the purity of tradition. I would like to make a few points, though.

-- when you cite "there is no ultimate reality" as a metaphysical position I think you should keep in mind that what the Buddhists call dharma and what we in the west call doctrine don't necessarily operate in the same way. I can't speak for the whole tradition, but it's my understanding that such statements are meant instrumentally as a means of removing conceptual obstructions and so clearing the way to direct experience of reality, ultimate or not. Some call this the apophatic method or negative theology. In any case, these questions are complicated and always controversial, my only point is that one has to patiently see these things from the inside to arrive at any just understanding of what's really being advanced.

-- I never said anything about detachment or ultimate reality, both endlessly mysterious concepts. My slamming of absolutism is the slamming of particular ways of thinking about ultimate reality and its relation to questions of human conduct. We shouldn't mistake ultimate reality for our articulations of it, no matter how finely tuned the articulations. G!d, !o! and God are all signs and not reality, though these signs have powerful effects, good and evil, on human life.

-- on Divine Will, I think your comparison is correct, only I would substitute "Nirvana" or "Enlightenment" for "no ultimate reality". Both Divine Will and Nirvana refer to ultimates that really have no reasonable proofs; they have to be realized through some spiritual discipline. So I can say that no, I don't believe in Divine Will in the way many appear to do, but in a way that's irrelevant to the question, since my belief is only based in reason.

-- does a particular metaphysic lead to particular ways of acting in the world? Sure, but I guess it's also the old chicken and egg thing; metaphysics are elaborated on the ground of concrete experience. Christianity took its final forms as much from the mentality of the barbaric European tribes that adopted it as it did from the original words of Jesus, to the extent those words can be determined. Zen reflects the Chinese mind as much it does Buddhism. But I agree, it's my contention all along that these things have effect, and that all traditions must be viewed critically and with caution. We may only differ on the hard line you appear to be drawing here between the traditions.

-- no, I never said that some acts were wrong under all conditions. As even Gandhi said, if a madman rushes into your village intent on murdering your children, violent means are necessary. In fact, I never claimed to be an absolute pacifist. I just set the bar for the justification of violence fairly high, and higher than is usual in this wacked-out world. As to whether we agree or disagree on the rightness and wrongness of actions, I don't have any concrete examples of your opinions really to know. We may be in complete agreement on all practical and political questions - or maybe not! But if you're referring to your Divine Will and some notion of inerrancy in the way one can make these judgements, than you're right, we're on different wavelengths.

In fact, I do believe in one moral absolute in human life, and that's the fundamental moral choice that's illustrated in scriptures all of over the world from the story of Adam & Eve to the Buddhist injunction to choose wholesome over unwholesome states of mind. And that's the stark choice between the limited, trivial, if instinctual needs of the isolated ego on the one hand, and interdependent reality on the other, with its numerous other beings with equal claims to happiness as our own, and a whole much greater than its parts - a whole which goes under many signs & names.

I'm confident we both aspire to be on the same side of that choice, and that's why we can't help but end in agreement, through all the haze of traditions.

Cheers. The Fool.



[edit by I, Brian - fixed quote tags and formating]

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Dear Vimalakirti,

But I get the feeling from your story, which was written in very nice prose by the way, that you conclude that all religion, particularly organized religion, and specifically all organized religion stemming from Abrahamic origins, are the source of suffering in the world. I disagree. Suffering in the world may very well be mostly due to the duality that characterizes our life in this plane, and any instrument that consists of more than one or perhaps a few individuals can be unfortunately highjacked to serve political (or egotistical) rather than altruistic goals. I think that, maybe in parallel to Buddhist thought (which I admit I know little aobut), humans may be eternally stuck with this fault and danger: maybe this is exactly what original sin is. However, it is not limited to the Abrahamic religions and it is not limited to religions at all (as you or someone also pointed out above). Any human enterprise can be corrupted, and tragically the good work of hundreds or thousands can be corrupted by just a few. It is to my amazement and humility that I realize that in spite of this tremendous good does occur in the world.

I had to google your screen name to find out what it meant. Interesting! Me, I am just a moth.



peace,
lunamoth

Thanks for your response. You have an interestng name too. Actually I've become embarassed about the name I chose. The Fool is better, and if I continue posting here I think I'll change my handle.

I appreciate your comments. When it comes down to it, I think you'll find that we are really basically in agreement. My intention in the story was to make a point about the powerful legacy of the Abrahamic tradition and to try to put it in a broader context. If you have the impression that I was laying the problem of all human suffering at the feet of religion, or that I was singling out Abrahamic religions as essentially evil, the fault may lie with my clumsy expression - but it wasn't my intention. If you have the patience you can check my other posts for my terribly long-winded explanations, but for me it's a matter of facing the reality of how the idea of the Kingdom of God has impacted history, for good and for harm. I recognize the great contributions of our traditions and believe in preserving them, but I also believe that their true health entails a hard look at basic concepts and their consequences. Again, I think perhaps we only differ in that I'm pointing to the inherent dangers of the words we use, the ideas and doctrines we have, i.e., that it isn't only a question of good things mis-used - although I agree that's perfectly accurate to say - but that we need to face the difficulties of the concepts themselves. All traditions, at their most sophisticated level, affirm that all our language is finally inadequate (and even a danger) to the truth. Buddhism puts much more emphasis on this idea than western religions, but didn't even St. Thomas Aquinas say something about all his writings being a pile of straw?

That said, some verbal formulations are much more safe and reliable than others. "Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself" is one that comes to mind.

Thanks again for your response.

[Vimalakirti]

[quote=lunamoth]I heard once that Gandhi couldn't find any inspiration in Christianity until he read Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. That book, TKoGIWY, describes, from Tolstoy's view anyway, that Christinaity is supposed to be very apolitical. Reading the Sermon the Mount I think one can come to the conclusion that the Gospels, at least, are very subversive. It is an irony that taking the good news to the people created/required organization, which in turn was politcized and corrupted, and still is to this day. So, the problem is not religion, but the human condition. No wonder that Christians find the promise of the Kingdom of God so compelling because what it means, at least from my understanding, is the end of duality and suffering that arise from this human nature.



We're so like minded on these points you're raising that I'm finding it difficult to locate where we disagree. Your Kingdom is my Kingdom. I'm not suggesting that we do away with the whole idea. I'm only tracing the idea back to the metaphysical absolutism of the Old Testament God and pointing out that the old dispensation has been alive and well, unfortunately, right down to the present. I think it's incumbent on we whose idea of the Kingdom rests with the Sermon on the Mount to face the mis-applications of the idea and the toll they've taken. I agree this all rests on human frailty, but that frailty includes ideas, doctrines, institutions and, yes, scriptures. That's the scale of the challenge Jesus poses in the gospels. To my mind - here I may lose you - the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is bigger than any the following theologies, institutions and Christianity itself.



Very smooth, but I think it is wrong, and a tad condescending.



Thanks for the smooth part! Forgive the condescension. Wrong? I'm still under the illusion I guess that if I were to escape the condescesion you speak off and perhaps phrase things differently, you might find yourself in less disagreement.











This seems to contradict what you said above.



The point I'm making here I've touched on in other posts. Abrahamic religions have entailed an ideology, but that ideology is only part of long and rich traditions that encompass multitudes. My feeling is that your objection to my line of thought comes out of your belief that I'm attacking tradition as opposed to ideology within a tradition. Please understand that when I talk absolutism I'm not referring to the whole tradition. My point again is that it's impossible to understand all the mis-use of the Kingdom, all the heresy-hunting in history and the fact that to this day many Christians still limit Jesus to Christianity, i.e., say that one is condemined to perdition without literal belief in some specifically church creed, without looking beyond human frailty in the literal sense to the equally serious frailty of a founding ideology.

[lunamoth]

Dear Vimalakirti,

After reading your follow-up posts above I think you are right in that we are probably quite close in understanding. Part of my reaction reflects my impression that there seem to be quite a few threads lately to the effect of spirituality good, religion (especially traditional religion) evil. To me that's kind of like saying "Wow, this airplane has nice cozy seats! Why do we need that loud engine and unaesthetic pair of wings?? And yeah, if we have wings and an engine someone might highjack this plane and use it to kill people. So, let's get rid of the evil wings and engine...." Plus I was in a crabby mood from the terrorist thead down in Politics... (mea culpa). [So much for my polished veneer of objective rationality ]

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

Again, I think perhaps we only differ in that I'm pointing to the inherent dangers of the words we use, the ideas and doctrines we have, i.e., that it isn't only a question of good things mis-used - although I agree that's perfectly accurate to say - but that we need to face the difficulties of the concepts themselves. All traditions, at their most sophisticated level, affirm that all our language is finally inadequate (and even a danger) to the truth. Buddhism puts much more emphasis on this idea than western religions, but didn't even St. Thomas Aquinas say something about all his writings being a pile of straw?

That said, some verbal formulations are much more safe and reliable than others. "Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself" is one that comes to mind.

Thanks again for your response.

I agree, but, aside from our words, ideas and doctrines, what have we got??? Sure, our actions, but without some kind of communication we are left with each individual or generation reinventing the wheel. Seems to me you are concerned with absolutism, doctrines of infallibility, and/or fundamentalism. Well, I would agree that those things are problematic and potentially dangerous. But you have picked on the Kingdom of God, a phrase I find particulary deep and meaningful.

So, are you a writer? By the way, I'm usually much more friendly. Hope I haven't made you feel unwelcome in any way.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

We're so like minded on these points you're raising that I'm finding it difficult to locate where we disagree. Your Kingdom is my Kingdom. I'm not suggesting that we do away with the whole idea. I'm only tracing the idea back to the metaphysical absolutism of the Old Testament God and pointing out that the old dispensation has been alive and well, unfortunately, right down to the present. I think it's incumbent on we whose idea of the Kingdom rests with the Sermon on the Mount to face the mis-applications of the idea and the toll they've taken. I agree this all rests on human frailty, but that frailty includes ideas, doctrines, institutions and, yes, scriptures. That's the scale of the challenge Jesus poses in the gospels. To my mind - here I may lose you - the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is bigger than any the following theologies, institutions and Christianity itself.

Careful now, I hope you are only referring to absolutism as believed by some Christian circles and/or the highjacking and corruption of the Kingdom of God concept as justification for war. But, if I'm reading you correctly you are quite in agreement with Tolstoy and I admire that. Tolstoy of course was excommunicated for his views, precisely because they were like you say in the last sentence above. I'm a Tolstoy wannabe, I guess. I can't claim that radical pacifism for myself because I do believe in self-defense and in coming to the aid of other nations, which requires a standing army and at times personal violence. I chalk it up to living in a fallen world. As you say, I try to set the bar quite high, higher than is often tolerated in our culture. And, you are right that you lose me with the last sentence. I think it was a mistake for Tolstoy to reject all tradition and mystical aspects of Christianity, and I believe in the Risen Christ. [You don't lose me fully--I love the Sermon on the Mount. It is the blueprint for building the Kingdom. But I think we need the grace and power of the Holy Spirit to carry it out.]

Thanks for the smooth part! Forgive the condescension. Wrong? I'm still under the illusion I guess that if I were to escape the condescesion you speak off and perhaps phrase things differently, you might find yourself in less disagreement.

See mea culpa above.

The point I'm making here I've touched on in other posts. Abrahamic religions have entailed an ideology, but that ideology is only part of long and rich traditions that encompass multitudes. My feeling is that your objection to my line of thought comes out of your belief that I'm attacking tradition as opposed to ideology within a tradition. Please understand that when I talk absolutism I'm not referring to the whole tradition. My point again is that it's impossible to understand all the mis-use of the Kingdom, all the heresy-hunting in history and the fact that to this day many Christians still limit Jesus to Christianity, i.e., say that one is condemined to perdition without literal belief in some specifically church creed, without looking beyond human frailty in the literal sense to the equally serious frailty of a founding ideology.[/size][/font][/color][/b]

Well, I certainly agree with the above about mis-use of the Kingdom. Perhaps I will re-read your story and see if it comes off differently a second time around.

peace,
lunamoth

[bananabrain]

They aren't there as deliberate outrage but only reflect my approach toward all scripture (not just biblical) in general, which you might call irreverent but to me is just reverence of another order.

look, i don't generally mind that sort of thing, but the "twinkle in your eye", as it were, didn't come across - plus this is a PoV i have heard espoused with perfect seriousness and no reverence at all on many occasions. it just seemed the wrong side of nasty.

your rhetorical excesses can leave that impression.)

heh. frankly, i'm generally a lot less rabid once i get to know you. it's just that it was your first post and, as such, i'd had little chance to catch your tone. now i have and it feels a lot less stiff.

One of the difficulties in facing the concrete realities of what these ideas mean is the shroud of reverence thrown over all scripture, the fear of blasphemy still alive for many, or at least the fear of giving offence or being "rude".

actually, i agree with you - but first, get to know your audience/interlocutors, then you'll be less likely to get off on the wrong foot.

None has developed the idea with such power and to such effect as the writers of Torah.

leaving aside the fact that i do not consider the Torah to have "writers", i agree - but i maintain that this idea is not responsible for the survival and influence of Torah's - although it may explain the physical survival and bloodymindedness of the jewish people.

At the same time, I believe that the meanings of the texts themselves are far more complex and go well beyond whatever the underlying history might have been.

indeed, the texts themselves, when you come to study them, are of a degree of complexity and sophistication that it is hard after a while to conceive of them as human - let alone edited together by primitive tribesmen over a thousand years.

if the hugely broad-stroked views I'm putting out here are "tendentious", then I don't know how one seriously discusses any issue across religious traditions.

OK, i understand your point is to provoke discussion. but pointing out that it is tendentious is also a way of discussing it!

Is comparative religion all hearts & flowers? Not judging from your postings!

good! CR *shouldn't* be all hearts and flowers. if all we are, ultimately, is a bunch of moderate, reasonable people congratulating each other on our openmindedness and avoiding controversy, how are we ever going to reach those who are different from us in our own communities? as my friend, the muslim liberation theologian farid esack is fond of saying: "is there life after tea?" my point is that we need to get to know each other well enough to engage with these difficult issues, not charge straight into the hard stuff.

Solution? That implies a simple identifiable problem - like too many minerals in the water supply - that admits of a simple solution.

not at all! a complicated solution is still a solution. what is bothering me is, as my teacher says, "it's difficult to be passionate about moderation - extremes are far more compelling."

All simple solutions in that context are misguided and dangerous.

simple solutions, like slogans, are elegant in their brutality and take advantage of the natural human penchant for heuristics, rationalism and rules of thumb. spirituality is nothing if not the study and practice of the exceptional aspects of humanity.

For me it's a not a matter of choosing yoga over the kingdom of G!d, but of recognizing the value and problematics of both. Here I'm talking about the pragmatic in-this-world effects of the various related traditions.

i couldn't agree more. welcome to the forum. have you read rodger kamenetz's "the jew in the lotus"? its about the encounter between the dalai lama and a group of rabbis (quite a few of whom i know) in the early 90s. very illuminating.

I can't speak for the whole tradition, but it's my understanding that such statements are meant instrumentally as a means of removing conceptual obstructions and so clearing the way to direct experience of reality, ultimate or not. Some call this the apophatic method or negative theology.

oh, absolutely - i am "giddy with agreement", as you put it. in this respect judaism and buddhism in particular have much in common.

We shouldn't mistake ultimate reality for our articulations of it, no matter how finely tuned the articulations. G!d, !o! and God are all signs and not reality, though these signs have powerful effects, good and evil, on human life.

i agree again. however, judaism and, i suspect, the eastern traditions, nonetheless agree that signs are levers for us to move ourselves and the universe.

So I can say that no, I don't believe in Divine Will in the way many appear to do, but in a way that's irrelevant to the question, since my belief is only based in reason.

umph. i think a rational belief in enlightenment or nirvana is a failure of nerve. attachment to logic and reason is nonetheless an attachment and, in this area, i believe it is a crutch as much as the need to believe that "the Big Beard In The Sky Agrees With Me Kicking This Heathen In The Nuts".

I just set the bar for the justification of violence fairly high, and higher than is usual in this wacked-out world.

as do i. so our difference is perhaps one of degree. to equate the Divine Will with *human* inerrancy is perhaps the most profound idolatry.

choose wholesome over unwholesome states of mind

but who is to define "wholesome", "unwholesome", "mind", or "choice"? this is perhaps what the most profound paradox of the abrahamic tradition illustrates - submission to the Divine Will as channelled from the Text through human interpretation gives us the most sublime freedom through our own uncompelled choice.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Vimalakirti]

[quote=lunamoth]Dear Vimalakirti,

After reading your follow-up posts above I think you are right in that we are probably quite close in understanding. Part of my reaction reflects my impression that there seem to be quite a few threads lately to the effect of spirituality good, religion (especially traditional religion) evil. To me that's kind of like saying "Wow, this airplane has nice cozy seats! Why do we need that loud engine and unaesthetic pair of wings?? And yeah, if we have wings and an engine someone might highjack this plane and use it to kill people. So, let's get rid of the evil wings and engine...." Plus I was in a crabby mood from the terrorist thead down in Politics... (mea culpa). [So much for my polished veneer of objective rationality ]

Good point. Insitutions are indispensable. It's easy for outsiders like me to take their pot shots from below, harder for sincere and dedicated people working from the inside. And certainly being "spiritual" responsability and consequence free can be fatuous. (And crabby schmabby! No apology required.)


I agree, but, aside from our words, ideas and doctrines, what have we got??? Sure, our actions, but without some kind of communication we are left with each individual or generation reinventing the wheel. Seems to me you are concerned with absolutism, doctrines of infallibility, and/or fundamentalism. Well, I would agree that those things are problematic and potentially dangerous. But you have picked on the Kingdom of God, a phrase I find particulary deep and meaningful.

You're right. I was a little carried away with my rhetoric. Hard questioning of core concepts doesn't mean we can do away with them. On the other hand, my feeling is the deeper the concepts the harder they should be questioned.

So, are you a writer? By the way, I'm usually much more friendly. Hope I haven't made you feel unwelcome in any way.

Well, not if being a writer means making a decent living! (And again, you've hardly been unfriendly. But I know what you mean. On a forum like this the aim should be to speak to the benefit and not the detriment of others - of course without being insincere and all hearts & flowers.)

[Vimalakirti]

[quote=lunamoth]Careful now, I hope you are only referring to absolutism as believed by some Christian circles and/or the highjacking and corruption of the Kingdom of God concept as justification for war. But, if I'm reading you correctly you are quite in agreement with Tolstoy and I admire that. Tolstoy of course was excommunicated for his views, precisely because they were like you say in the last sentence above. I'm a Tolstoy wannabe, I guess. I can't claim that radical pacifism for myself because I do believe in self-defense and in coming to the aid of other nations, which requires a standing army and at times personal violence. I chalk it up to living in a fallen world. As you say, I try to set the bar quite high, higher than is often tolerated in our culture. And, you are right that you lose me with the last sentence. I think it was a mistake for Tolstoy to reject all tradition and mystical aspects of Christianity, and I believe in the Risen Christ. [You don't lose me fully--I love the Sermon on the Mount. It is the blueprint for building the Kingdom. But I think we need the grace and power of the Holy Spirit to carry it out.]

Tolstoy is very interesting. I looked into him recently. As you probably know he wrote tons late in life on his take on Christianity including a long commentary on the bible. I haven't had an opportunity yet to read much of it yet but I think some of it is definitely worth looking into. But I'm not sure that you're completely correct about his lack of a mystical element.

Another interesting sidebar here is that Tolstoy is just one example of intellectuals trying to - you might say - rescue Jesus from Saint Paul. Have you ever heard of the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson cut and pasted what he thought was the pristine ethical core of the gospels into a harmonized account, leaving out the more elaborate miracles and the resurrection along with Paul. I think there are other examples of this. In fact, every thoughtful person interested in Jesus in or out of church probably has to do some kind of rescue operation, some more radical than others.

But I agree with you that one shouldn't leave too much behind. Recently there's been this "parallel sayings" ideas, lining up Jesus the Christ and Gautama the Buddha. Although this mostly works for me, having a foot in both camps, as it were, I think it's a mistake to create a Zen Jesus, or a Gnostic Jesus, or worst of all a Socrates Jesus and leave out the urgency of his Jewish, John the Baptist side, and more importantly the powerful mystery of his life, death and (for me, spiritual not necessarially physical) resurrection. So my personal take is sure let's set Jesus loose from the prison of the creeds, but in the end let Jesus be Jesus and Gautama be Gautama.

But bringing up St. Paul sends me on another tangent having to do with the whole difficulty of institutions (as we touched on earlier). There's what might be called the St. Paul double-bind. My reaction to St. Paul is a common one, I think. He comes across as a spiritual bully, the paradigm for all time of that pushy, in-your-face, creed-enforcing style of Christian that so many critics of the tradtion object to. And yet this very same St. Paul, this one tough monkey, is also an admirable character, one I think we have to assume of extraordinary strength and energy who - whatever we might think of his theology - grasped the historical moment and shaped the various Jesus sects into a Christianity that would succeed against all the odds. I think St. Paul has always confused people, that the same man who wrote of faith, hope and love - and I think sincerely - was also the man who help set an ideological tone of credal conformity and intolerance. Of course, this same St. Paul has inspired the revolts of protestants throughout the centuries! It's clearly beyond my capacity to sort out St. Paul. But blabbermouth that I am I'll make this one last comment. It seems to me that the difficulty of St. Paul points to a central difficulty in the tradition: the tendency of unconditional love to slip over into a love that's coercive. That tendency erupts for me fullblown with Paul, but I find it intruding elsewhere, especially in the Gospel of John which has Jesus speaking in the rounded sentences of a theologian, in contrast to the more open-ended Jesus I find in the synoptics. But that's only my take.

But the point on religious institutions: it's easy to say no St. Paul, no Christianity, no heresy-hunting, no (or fewer) oppressive creeds, etc.; but you also have to say no St. Paul, no St. Francis, no Meister Eckhart, no Thomas Merton, no mission of Mother Teresa, and most fundamentally of all, no Jesus, who perhaps disappears from history. So again your point on the importance of institutions, whatever their failings, is well taken.





Well, I certainly agree with the above about mis-use of the Kingdom. Perhaps I will re-read your story and see if it comes off differently a second time around.

In a way your first reaction is more important anyway in telling me how the story comes across to thoughtful people interested in the issue. It will take some time for me to absorb all the input I've received. But if I get around to doing a revision, all of this I'm sure will have an influence. On the other hand, a little parable like this can't help but push buttons and even be a little unfair if it's to have any impact at all and not be all pius platitudes.

Thanks for all your great responses.

Take care. Michael.

[lunamoth]

Dear Vimalakirti,

I'm sure you are going to find many like-minded souls if you stay around and continue to post here at CR (which I sincerely hope you will).

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

Tolstoy is very interesting. I looked into him recently. As you probably know he wrote tons late in life on his take on Christianity including a long commentary on the bible. I haven't had an opportunity yet to read much of it yet but I think some of it is definitely worth looking into. But I'm not sure that you're completely correct about his lack of a mystical element.

I have not read Tolstoy extensively, nor any biographies about him, so it is likely my knowledge about his theology is lacking. The subtitle of the translation I read of TKOGIWY is: Christianity not as a mystic religion but as a new theory of life.

Another interesting sidebar here is that Tolstoy is just one example of intellectuals trying to - you might say - rescue Jesus from Saint Paul. Have you ever heard of the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson cut and pasted what he thought was the pristine ethical core of the gospels into a harmonized account, leaving out the more elaborate miracles and the resurrection along with Paul. I think there are other examples of this. In fact, every thoughtful person interested in Jesus in or out of church probably has to do some kind of rescue operation, some more radical than others.

I havn't read the Jeffersonian Bible, but I have heard of it. Likewise Elizabeth Cady Stanton's feminist revision of the Bible. Yes, Paul causes just as many problems as he solves, doens't he . I find Paul's writings fascinating for these reasons. I'm not a Bible scholar but it does seem clear that not every epistle attributed to Paul was actually written by him, which may account for some of the seeming conflict. Taking away Paul eviscerates Christianity, as you say below.

But I agree with you that one shouldn't leave too much behind. Recently there's been this "parallel sayings" ideas, lining up Jesus the Christ and Gautama the Buddha. Although this mostly works for me, having a foot in both camps, as it were, I think it's a mistake to create a Zen Jesus, or a Gnostic Jesus, or worst of all a Socrates Jesus and leave out the urgency of his Jewish, John the Baptist side, and more importantly the powerful mystery of his life, death and (for me, spiritual not necessarially physical) resurrection. So my personal take is sure let's set Jesus loose from the prison of the creeds, but in the end let Jesus be Jesus and Gautama be Gautama.

I have heard it said that you will find the Jesus you are looking for, and it seems to me that this is often true. But once He has hooked you you might find He asks things of you you haven't bargained for . Path of one has a recent post in the Jesus and other saviors thread of monotheism ( http://www.comparative-religion.com/...1787#post31787 ) that I think nicely addresses the core similarities, and differences, we see between religions (kudos, path of one). What you describe above, about finding the parallel teachings, letting them work to bring us closer (to each other and to God), but also maintaining and respecting that the different religions and Manifestations of the More are, well, distinct, resonates with me also.

But bringing up St. Paul sends me on another tangent having to do with the whole difficulty of institutions (as we touched on earlier). There's what might be called the St. Paul double-bind. My reaction to St. Paul is a common one, I think. He comes across as a spiritual bully, the paradigm for all time of that pushy, in-your-face, creed-enforcing style of Christian that so many critics of the tradtion object to. And yet this very same St. Paul, this one tough monkey, is also an admirable character, one I think we have to assume of extraordinary strength and energy who - whatever we might think of his theology - grasped the historical moment and shaped the various Jesus sects into a Christianity that would succeed against all the odds. I think St. Paul has always confused people, that the same man who wrote of faith, hope and love - and I think sincerely - was also the man who help set an ideological tone of credal conformity and intolerance. Of course, this same St. Paul has inspired the revolts of protestants throughout the centuries! It's clearly beyond my capacity to sort out St. Paul.

Well, I'm not sure that Paul intended to set up an ideological tone of conformity and intolerance. As far as I know Paul expected the world to end before the end of his life. But, when the world did not literally end (and I really am not sure what the early Christ followers believed about this), as the Word spread there was need for organization, which you begin to see emerge in the NT epistles. I'd have to re-study them all to see if the proto-church really starts to be described in detail in the letters believed to be authentic to Paul. I admit, I know what you mean about the ideological tone we see emerging in some of the epistles of the NT. This is why I have come to see the NT writings as human products, albeit divinely inspired.

But blabbermouth that I am I'll make this one last comment. It seems to me that the difficulty of St. Paul points to a central difficulty in the tradition: the tendency of unconditional love to slip over into a love that's coercive. That tendency erupts for me fullblown with Paul, but I find it intruding elsewhere, especially in the Gospel of John which has Jesus speaking in the rounded sentences of a theologian, in contrast to the more open-ended Jesus I find in the synoptics. But that's only my take.

Well, I see this worrisome use of love as a bludgeon too. (Inflammatory remark edited out). But, I've never attributed this it Paul, or any of the writings in the NT in particular for that matter. Maybe a careful reading with an eye towards this would bring it out, but that would happen with any scripture or writing. Take your story for example. Now that I've heard more of your voice here I bet I would read it differently. That's why we have the emphasis of humility when reading scripture.

But the point on religious institutions: it's easy to say no St. Paul, no Christianity, no heresy-hunting, no (or fewer) oppressive creeds, etc.; but you also have to say no St. Paul, no St. Francis, no Meister Eckhart, no Thomas Merton, no mission of Mother Teresa, and most fundamentally of all, no Jesus, who perhaps disappears from history. So again your point on the importance of institutions, whatever their failings, is well taken.

Yup.

peace,
lunamoth

[Vimalakirti]

i couldn't agree more. welcome to the forum. have you read rodger kamenetz's "the jew in the lotus"? its about the encounter between the dalai lama and a group of rabbis (quite a few of whom i know) in the early 90s. very illuminating.

Thanks. I have noticed that book. I'll check it out.

umph. i think a rational belief in enlightenment or nirvana is a failure of nerve. attachment to logic and reason is nonetheless an attachment and, in this area, i believe it is a crutch as much as the need to believe that "the Big Beard In The Sky Agrees With Me Kicking This Heathen In The Nuts".

Of course you're right. I was only saying that as an outsider to the tradition of Divine Will, I don't have anything except my feeble reason to judge by, and so have nothing really useful to say on the subject.

but who is to define "wholesome", "unwholesome", "mind", or "choice"? this is perhaps what the most profound paradox of the abrahamic tradition illustrates - submission to the Divine Will as channelled from the Text through human interpretation gives us the most sublime freedom through our own uncompelled choice.

Thanks for your positive words and all your reponses in this post, most of which as you've noticed I wouldn't quibble with. You've encouraged me to better inform myself on the kabbalah. I've always had a vaguely positive view of it but very little knowledge of it in detail.

This whole exchange reminds me of the recent comment from the new pope about the curse of relativism and modern secular society. And I think he's right - modern corporate/consumer culture is a moral vacuume. The problem for me is that this correct diagnosis is coupled with the creaking machinery of a whole absolutist, dogmatic structure, in short, ideology, which on principle has to see other spiritual traditions as defective. Even with the various efforts at interfaith dialogue, the last pope for example, wrote a book called Threshold of Hope in which he once again asserted - if in milder terms than in the past, granted - the exclusive monopoly on truth divinely held by the Roman Catholic Church.

Of course, the Catholic Church is only one of the most emblematic examples of religious ideology - their like 900 page catechism regulating every aspect of human life and thought makes for a big target! I think too many religious leaders and institutions are missing the boat when it comes to the common enemy. They need to be making allies among as many traditions as they can manage, rather than struggling to promote their own brand against all others. Unfortunately, too many again are locked into credal traditions - which they don't even recognize as ideology - and are unable to distinguish the difference between pluralism and relativism. Relativism is the self-refuting notion that one truth is as good as another. Pluralism is the recognition that the truth is indeed one - since by definition we all inhabit the same universe - but the expressions or evocation of it owing to the realities of the human mind, emotions and language is bound to be plural. It entails tolerance but doesn't exclude fair judgements of value. Buddhist truth doesn't replace Christian truth; neither is it a defective version of what Christians or Jews or Muslims know better. It overlaps and supplements; it's not superior but brings its own strengths and weaknesses.

Yikes, I do go on. The upshot: as I think these postings have brought out, we have a choice between two kingdoms, the inner, experiential kingdom (promised land, covenant) represented by the best of all traditions - by kabbalah, for example, if I can judge by some of the views you've expressed here - which is capable of dialogue, leading away from suffering and toward truth; and the outer, political kingdom (creeds, will to power, Canaan), which is incapable of dialogue, leads toward suffering and away from truth. For religions to survive and to defeat the common enemy, the secular void, they need to build and strengthen their inner kingdoms and slowly transform the outer into a support rather than a barrier.

And let the drums roll! Where do I get off throwing out such grand pronouncements? I am a windbag of the first order. Such are the horrors of online fora for the morally feeble like myself who can resist everything except temptation.


Thanks again for your sharp & interesting input.

Take care. Michael.

[Vimalakirti]

Thanks again to everyone for their input. I must say goodby, at least for now. I find I have no self control for these things and I'm in danger of becoming that guy in a bathrobe polemicising if that's a word into the cool of cyberspace and into the wee hours indefinitely and to the point of nervous collapse. My wife would take exception. So cheers & blessings! Michael.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

Thanks again to everyone for their input. I must say goodby, at least for now. I find I have no self control for these things and I'm in danger of becoming that guy in a bathrobe polemicising if that's a word into the cool of cyberspace and into the wee hours indefinitely and to the point of nervous collapse. My wife would take exception. So cheers & blessings! Michael.

Good point, V! Save yourself before it's too late, and don't forget to light candles for the rest of us stuck here in cyber-purgatory.

peace,
lunamoth

[earl]

Vimilakirti, I saw your comment re having a foot in each camp-Christian & Buddhist-I take it. That tends to me my stomping grounds too. There are days I think the combo is a good complementarity & days when I think I'm simply at war with myself. But, I've never been able to let go of either pole: theism or non-theism, God or enlightenment, as I see them both expressing some deep, ultimate, complementary truths. Of course, my theism is of the apophatic variety-buddhism for me is a form of personal apophaticism as well. With apophatic theism, I question and release every partial confining notion of "God" & with Buddhism, do the same thing re my "self."

There is an adage that all mystics of differing religions feel closer to other mystics than they do members of their own religion who are not of a mystical bent; similar to the other old adage re all mystics speak the same language. There is certainly great truth in that as the more one confines oneself to the exoteric & doctrinal aspect of religions, the more differences seem to be there. the more one looks at and "feels" religions from the inside, esoteric, and/or mystical aspect, the more commonality. To me that represents the poles of multiplicty and unity, kataphatic and apophatic theology if you wish to use Christian terminolgy.

The irony seems to be we have to start somewhere on our religious/spiritual journey as regards beliefs-having them that is-while progress seems to be in part a function of how willing we are to be flexible with them.

I'm a fan of the modern Jungianwriter, Thomas Moore and particularly enjoyed his book, "The Soul's Religion," in which he says:

"As important as it is to believe, it is even more important not to believe. Pure belief is too thick. There is no room for movement and no motive for refelction. When belief is rigid, it is infinitely more dangerous than unbelief."

He speaks fruther of the importance of "spiritual emptiness:" "Spiritual emptiness is not only an open mind but also an open self. We have to get ourselves out of the way-our explanations, our goals, our habits, and our anxieties...If any religious or spiritual act is lacking sacred emptiness, it becomes full of itself and turns into its opposite, a defensive edifice against the cleansing power of mystery. Spiritual teachings are of two kinds: those that are heavy and opaque, consisting of spiritual facts and required teachings, and those that are light and transparent, always pointing beyond themselves and never fully graspable."

Whether of Buddhist-type inclinations or theistic ones, we are all as St. Francis of Assisi said "looking for what is looking." While our finger and gaze points toward the moon, the moon looks back & we wonder. Take care, Earl

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by earl

Vimilakirti, I saw your comment re having a foot in each camp-Christian & Buddhist-I take it. That tends to me my stomping grounds too. There are days I think the combo is a good complementarity & days when I think I'm simply at war with myself. But, I've never been able to let go of either pole: theism or non-theism, God or enlightenment, as I see them both expressing some deep, ultimate, complementary truths. Of course, my theism is of the apophatic variety-buddhism for me is a form of personal apophaticism as well. With apophatic theism, I question and release every partial confining notion of "God" & with Buddhism, do the same thing re my "self."

There is an adage that all mystics of differing religions feel closer to other mystics than they do members of their own religion who are not of a mystical bent; similar to the other old adage re all mystics speak the same language. There is certainly great truth in that as the more one confines oneself to the exoteric & doctrinal aspect of religions, the more differences seem to be there. the more one looks at and "feels" religions from the inside, esoteric, and/or mystical aspect, the more commonality. To me that represents the poles of multiplicty and unity, kataphatic and apophatic theology if you wish to use Christian terminolgy.

The irony seems to be we have to start somewhere on our religious/spiritual journey as regards beliefs-having them that is-while progress seems to be in part a function of how willing we are to be flexible with them.

I'm a fan of the modern Jungianwriter, Thomas Moore and particularly enjoyed his book, "The Soul's Religion," in which he says:

"As important as it is to believe, it is even more important not to believe. Pure belief is too thick. There is no room for movement and no motive for refelction. When belief is rigid, it is infinitely more dangerous than unbelief."

He speaks fruther of the importance of "spiritual emptiness:" "Spiritual emptiness is not only an open mind but also an open self. We have to get ourselves out of the way-our explanations, our goals, our habits, and our anxieties...If any religious or spiritual act is lacking sacred emptiness, it becomes full of itself and turns into its opposite, a defensive edifice against the cleansing power of mystery. Spiritual teachings are of two kinds: those that are heavy and opaque, consisting of spiritual facts and required teachings, and those that are light and transparent, always pointing beyond themselves and never fully graspable."

Whether of Buddhist-type inclinations or theistic ones, we are all as St. Francis of Assisi said "looking for what is looking." While our finger and gaze points toward the moon, the moon looks back & we wonder. Take care, Earl

Okay, you've brought me briefly out of retirement to acknowledge your long & thoughtful post. But this is it! I'll be outta here! I'm reminded of D.T. Suzuki who in his essays on Zen talked about Meister Eckhart and the idea of spiritual poverty as it applied to Zen. So I hear you, brother. Let's all go practice what we preach.