Tradition betrayed

[Josquin des Prez]

Actually the exact opposite is true: true religion has never been an elitist affair.

You are right. Esoteric religion is no religion at all. Its merely an internal probing into the eternal mysteries. True metaphysics become religion once the mysteries are reduced to mere dogma. Religion is materialistic.

[Josquin des Prez]

Just to cheer you up a little...I read somewhere that Mick Jagger owns 37 different recordings of the Eroica

Yeah but how many did he end up snorting up?

[Karl Henning]

The reason I got into classical music was because I thought it was the most profound and moving music I had heard in my life.  Now, a lot of my closest friends are rock musicians and very intelligent ones at that.  But you cannot imagine my sadness when I play the "Eroica" symphony and it rolls right on through them and they feel absolutely nothing (or worse, discomfort).

OTOH, maybe they're bowled over by the profundity of Le sacre du printemps, or of Ionisation.  If you make the Sinfonia eroica (or any one piece, no matter how worthy) such a "profundity touchstone," life will be full of sadness for you.

Coming from a man with no musical training whatsoever:  It is even worse to see a trained classical musician downplay the profundity of his own choice of music.  That's a whole can of worms and I'll just leave it at that for now.

Another error you may well be falling into, is that surprising wiggle-word: profundity.  That's a whole can of worms and I'll just leave it at that for now.

[Josquin des Prez]

while doctors of law and high priests (i.e., the very religious elite you speak of)

This is not the elite i'm speaking of. Such an elite is by its very nature hidden, and its influence can be felt only silently. This influence may extend all the way to the fisherman, but unless the fisherman has done some internal probing of his own, i doubt he has any chance at grasping the eternal mysteries merely by following dogma anymore then the heathen does. Case in point, i learned more of the mysteries from my father and my grandfather, who were mere working class laymen, then i ever did by going to church as a kid. This is because without a sense of the sacred, there is no real point to a set of exoteric doctrines. Religion is pointless without a sense of the sacred, and this sense of the sacred derives from the influence of an elite of sages and teachers. No esoteric religion, no point to exoteric religion.

Face it, we can't all be like Lao-Tsu. It would be ideal if that was a possibility for most people, but it isn't. But then, how would you recognize wisdom without ignorance?

[Josquin des Prez]

OTOH, maybe they're bowled over by the profundity of Le sacre du printemps, or of Ionisation.  If you make the Sinfonia eroica (or any one piece, no matter how worthy) such a "profundity touchstone," life will be full of sadness for you.

If you see profundity in one, then you ought to be able to see profundity in the other. Doubtlessly, most people aren't able to make heads and tails of the Eroica anymore then they can for the Le sacre. If you are a superficial person, profundity will escape you no matter what.

Another error you may well be falling into, is that surprising wiggle-word: profundity.  That's a whole can of worms and I'll just leave it at that for now.

Why, its so much fun. To wit: Lady Gaga, not profound. Eroica. Profound. Its so easy.

[Karl Henning]

Why, its so much fun. To wit: Lady Gaga, not profound. Eroica. Profound. Its so easy.

Yes, such cherry-picking is easy . . . a little disappointed in you for finding such banality so much fun.

You open yet another can of worms, to wit: whatever profundity is, why should it be the only worthy goal of music? Brahms's Hungarian Dances are not profound, but then: why need they be?

[Josquin des Prez]

What if I don't believe you?

What is that you believe exactly? That one can be one with God merely by following the gospel, without actual understanding of eternal principles?

Ok so, God said many fine things, and his life is supposed to be an example to all. Don't do unto others, what you wouldn't want done unto you . Wonderful advice. But that's all it is, isn't it? Just common sense. Do you see a mystery there? Do you see God at all? Is this the best God can do, to send his son to tell us some nice things, get crucified, and somehow turn his father from a vengeful tyrant into a being all loving, and all accepting in the process?

I mean, its nonsense. There's no mystery to such a tale, no profundity. This is what Christianity is today. Superficial and sentimental to a disgusting degree. I'm sorry, but I for one refuse to believe that this is all there is to the mystery of life. Be nice to people, don't be a jerk, and then go to paradise. Its utopian, that's what it is.

[Josquin des Prez]

why should it be the only worthy goal of music?

Why should music have a goal at all? Lets all spend our existence in mediocrity and frivolousness. Why bother with anything of value whatsoever? Life is short, have fun while you can!

This is the doctrine of spiritual death. Music should reflect the sacred. Anything else is a waste of time.

Brahms's Hungarian Dances are not profound, but then: why need they be?[/font]

Not sure. Don't listen to them, don't even own a recording of them, don't want it.

[Karl Henning]

I mean, its nonsense. There's no mystery to such a tale, no profundity. This is what Christianity is today. Superficial and sentimental to a disgusting degree. I'm sorry, but I for one refuse to believe that this is all there is to the mystery of life. Be nice to people, don't be a jerk, and then go to paradise. Its utopian, that's what it is.

And yet . . . guess who is the butt of Michael Palin's joke here:

http://www.youtube.com/v/qBArMmngVH4

[Josquin des Prez]

Yes, such cherry-picking is easy . . .

It is? Good jolly. Then it shouldn't be hard for you to prove that Lady Gaga is in fact not profound, right? If its so easy.

[Josquin des Prez]

And yet . . . guess who is the butt of Michael Palin's joke here:

http://www.youtube.com/v/qBArMmngVH4

I actually had the Meaning of Life in mind when i wrote that.

BTW, what do you think of John Cleese lamenting the fact London is no longer a British city? Not so smug now, is he.

[Karl Henning]

Why should music have a goal at all?

I'm guessing you meant that as something of a sarcasm; but in fact, that is part of the point.

[Florestan]

You are right. Esoteric religion is no religion at all. Its merely an internal probing into the eternal mysteries. True metaphysics become religion once the mysteries are reduced to mere dogma. Religion is materialistic.

It is this very dichotomy (exoteric / organized religion for the use of uneducated masses vs. esoteric religion reserved to a tiny elite) that as a Christian I strongly reject. Christ did not reserve His teachings for an elite, but liberally imparted them to anyone willing to listen and commanded His disciples to do the same. Actually, this was the biggest stumbling block for Jews and Gentiles alike: that the hidden, the mysterious, the inaccessible, the esoteric God chose to made Himself manifest, visible and reachable in a physical, sensorial way and - perhaps the greatest scandal - in the form of a humble carpenter, albeit with royal ascendency. In this sense I certainly agree that Christianity is materialistic; look in the Gospels: the parables are filled with the most down-to-earth elements: wine, bread, fish, sheep, money, weddings, feasts, birds, flowers etc. Nothing is more alien to the spirit of genuine Christianity than metaphysical abstractions and philosophical hair-splitting; everything is presented in plain sight and clear language, within the reach of anyone's mind and heart - on condition that both be opened.

[Sergeant Rock]

This is the doctrine of spiritual death. Music should reflect the sacred. Anything else is a waste of time.

Then stop wasting your time here. Get thee to a nunnery.


Sarge

[Josquin des Prez]

I'm guessing you meant that as something of a sarcasm; but in fact, that is part of the point.

I know that that is part of the point. What i don't understand is why somebody like you would profess a point of view which derives from godlessness.

See, the real question is: why should art be about the frivolous and nothing but the frivolous?

[Florestan]

Religion is pointless without a sense of the sacred, and this sense of the sacred derives from the influence of an elite of sages and teachers.

Not necessarily. It can also derive from the awe inspired by nature and communion with it, as seen from the historical fact that the inhabitants of highlands and mountainous regions, as well as the peasantry, displayed a high degree of genuine piety and strong religious sentiments - all this despite the absence in those regions of an elite of sages and teachers.

Face it, we can't all be like Lao-Tsu. It would be ideal if that was a possibility for most people, but it isn't. But then, how would you recognize wisdom without ignorance?

Why do you equate religion with wisdom? I know plenty of people with a vigorous religious sentiment who are not exactly sages.

[Florestan]

I mean, its nonsense. There's no mystery to such a tale, no profundity. This is what Christianity is today. Superficial and sentimental to a disgusting degree. I'm sorry, but I for one refuse to believe that this is all there is to the mystery of life.

That's because too much metaphysics and philosophy and too little real life corrupted your thinking in such high a degree that you cannot accept anything as true which does not present itself as a mystery inaccessible to anyone but a few elect "sages and teachers" of which you strive to be one. You always look for truth in obscure and hidden places, i.e. "many a quaint and curious volumes of forgotten lore" and are always dissatisfied with not finding it. Maybe its time to look elsewhere.

(By saying that I don't want to be rude; it's just what can be gathered from your posts here and elsewhere.)

Be nice to people, don't be a jerk, and then go to paradise. Its utopian, that's what it is.

How do you know if you never tried?

[Grazioso]

Good Heavens, back to arguing about so-called profundity in art--what a stupid way to ruin a good thread Convenient how some people are just so sure they know what profundity and depth are, and are so sure that most other people wallow in ignorance. What colossal arrogance, especially when some of the same people are singing the praises of mystical traditions, which almost universally emphasize humility and dying to self, not building up the ego by elevating your own tastes and mocking others.

It is this very dichotomy (exoteric / organized religion for the use of uneducated masses vs. esoteric religion reserved to a tiny elite) that as a Christian I strongly reject. Christ did not reserve His teachings for an elite, but liberally imparted them to anyone willing to listen and commanded His disciples to do the same. Actually, this was the biggest stumbling block for Jews and Gentiles alike: that the hidden, the mysterious, the inaccessible, the esoteric God chose to made Himself manifest, visible and reachable in a physical, sensorial way and - perhaps the greatest scandal - in the form of a humble carpenter, albeit with royal ascendency. In this sense I certainly agree that Christianity is materialistic; look in the Gospels: the parables are filled with the most down-to-earth elements: wine, bread, fish, sheep, money, weddings, feasts, birds, flowers etc. Nothing is more alien to the spirit of genuine Christianity than metaphysical abstractions and philosophical hair-splitting; everything is presented in plain sight and clear language, within the reach of anyone's mind and heart - on condition that both be opened.

There are strong parallels to this in Buddhism. While Gautama, the historical individual who founded Buddhist teachings, was of princely stock, he a) rejected it to seek wisdom as part of the Samana tradition (basically, independent wandering spiritual philosophers) and then b) preached his findings to all and sundry, both high and low (cf. the concurrent Brahmin tradition, with its privileged priestly caste), and he used simple, everyday parables and metaphors and explicitly rejected metaphysical navel-gazing and hair-splitting as unedifying and distracting.

Buddhism likewise has a strong tradition of the "Boddhisatva vow" of attaining enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings. There are also the Zen Ox-Herding pictures, where the saint returns back to society "with bliss-bestowing" hands. (That said, Buddhism is the religion that instituted organized monasticism as we know it.)

Buddhism from the start, despite the growth of enormously elaborate philosophical systems, has been rooted in firm, everyday practicality for all to try.

[Karl Henning]

Good Heavens, back to arguing about so-called profundity in art--what a stupid way to ruin a good thread

Aye, it's all so . . . samsara, n'est-ce pas?

[Karl Henning]

(That said, Buddhism is the religion that instituted organized monasticism as we know it.)

You cannot mean it? How can Buddhism have instituted Christian monasticism?  Or do you just mean, that you don't know Christian monasticism? ; )