Tradition betrayed

[Josquin des Prez]

The opposite idea--that the differences really matter--is even more problematic, since that's the root of racism, sexism, etc.

The principle does not mean that one should deny the differences;  it means you should treat them as the surface things they are.  Do not treat a black man as a black who is a man; treat him as a man who happens to be black.  Deal with the individual always, as someone who is fundamentally your equal.

But differences do exist. It seems to me like you are using Taosim as a justification for some modern, sentimental notion of "equality". Even the borrowing of Freudian jargon (racism, sexism) doesn't seem very traditional to me.

[Karl Henning]

The principle does not mean that one should deny the differences;  it means you should treat them as the surface things they are.  Do not treat a black man as a black who is a man; treat him as a man who happens to be black.  Deal with the individual always, as someone who is fundamentally your equal.

Think of Osama bin Laden not as a twisted, calculating murderous thug, but as a man who happened to dedicate all his energies to twisted, calculating, murderous thuggery, you mean?

[Josquin des Prez]

Hitler was a kshatriya who operated without absolute principles (except for gross materialism). A fine product of modernism. If you have lost all sense of the absolute, then you have lost God as well. In that respect Hitler is course no that much farther away from godlessness then the average atheist moralizer, who fancies himself to be the complete antithesis of good old Adolf.

[Florestan]

But how can you kill God? 

Since, as you clearly stated

you, me, db71, Richard Dawkins, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother--everyone--is equally God

then it follows logically than anyone killing Richard Dawkins, or Hitler, or any other human being is in fact killing God; we might even say that actually it is God who is killing both another God and himself.

Better to say that Hitler's assassin would release Hitler from the trap of his own ego and ego based delusions, and keep Hitler from killing the God to be found in others.

Poor Hitler, trapped victim as he was...

Again--the idea I'm stating does not deny that men do evil things, or that differences among people do not exist. But even the most evil of humans can have no existence outside of God, for the simple reason that nothing can exist outside of God.

Doing evil - or good - is a moral choice and this is the most fundamental difference between people, which far surpasses the importance of them having their ultimate source of existence in God. Those choosing evil (especially evil on such a grand scale) freely depart from, and willingly severe their ties with, their divinity. 

And keeping in mind the divine nature of each and every one of us will keep you from doing things such as Hitler et al. did.

Only humans ar divine, or animals and plants as well? After all, they too have their ultimate source of existence in God. What is so special about humans?

[kishnevi]

I find that perspective troubling. Long isn't the same as short. Unity exists only in duality. So to argue that everything is the same is to miss the point as well. A duality means that one side is the opposite of the other. If masculine is vertical, by extension the feminine has to be horizontal. This has nothing to do with concepts of inferiority or superiority, which seem to be sentimental (moralistic) in nature. The masculine isn't superior to the feminine, this entire line of thinking is just childish. The fact there has never been and never will be any female sage or genius is a problem which the perennial traditional school has to deal with at one point, if they truly want to have a chance in saving traditional principles in the midst of the onslaught of modernist disintegration.

There is a Unity that transcends union, that can not be resolved into dualities.
Never have been a female sage--well, that's more cultural reflection of the way women have been limited by societies in the past, and there have been women who could justifiably be called Sages.  But never will be a female sage--sorry, I don't think anyone can say that, and whatever part of the tradition leads to that conclusion can be safely jettisoned as cultural imposition on the real message.

I'm not sure, really. When i say intellect of course, i'm not talking about reason. I haven't reasoned God out, or anything for that matter. Maybe you could call it intuition, but is intuition experience? All i know is that certitude seems to be a part of it, and certitude is the result of an intellectual process. Its like what Karl Jung said. I don't believe in God, i don't experience God, i don't feel God (well, i added the last two). I simply know.

Okay, I agree with most of that, and certainly don't object to any of that statement.

Well, i don't know about Judaism, but in most modern Christian circles, claiming to "feel" God points to nothing more then wallow sentimentality, so you always need to be careful when you talk about certain subjects, in order to avoid misunderstanding.

Judaism doesn't quite reject sentimentality, but it does reject it, and tries to keep emotions linked to intellectual understanding.   Emotional outbursts exist in Judaism, but they are usually kept on the side, and sometimes robustly thrown out of the room.

BTW, do you have any particular recommendation for a good commentary on the old testament (Tanakh, whatever you want to call it)? All i have right now is the translation by Everett Fox (which i hope he is going to complete within my lifetime, blasted hell), which only offers a few secular pointers.

For a commentary, I have no suggestions, for the simple reason that I don't know of any that would serve your purpose.  For an understanding of exoteric Jewish religion, Rashi and the other rabbinical commentators are the obvious place to start.  But for what you need, I know of none.  There are scattered writings which might help, but they are far from systematic, and most of them are either full of recondite Kabbalistic references that would require a commentary themselves, or are in Hebrew and not available in translation, or (usually) both. 
For a Jewish perspective, you might find the writings of Rav Kook useful: http://ravkook.net/
The Wikipedia article has a good bio and some useful links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav_Kook

As far as translations go, I think the obvious choice is that produced by the Jewish Publication Society in the 1960s through 1980s

[kishnevi]

Think of Osama bin Laden not as a twisted, calculating murderous thug, but as a man who happened to dedicate all his energies to twisted, calculating, murderous thuggery, you mean?

That's a rather good way of putting it.

[kishnevi]

Doing evil - or good - is a moral choice and this is the most fundamental difference between people, which far surpasses the importance of them having their ultimate source of existence in God. Those choosing evil (especially evil on such a grand scale) freely depart from, and willingly severe their ties with, their divinity. 

You can never sever your ties with the Divine.  If you could actually do so, you would cease to exist. Or rather, you would never have existed, so total would your lack of existence become.

You can, of course, act in ways that so totally obscure your ties to the Divine that it's very easy to not see them.  But even then, the choice between good and evil, as important and fundamental as it is, is less important and less fundamental than one's identity rooted in the divine.

Only humans ar divine, or animals and plants as well? After all, they too have their ultimate source of existence in God. What is so special about humans?

Everything is divine.  Show me the thing that does not have its source of existence in God, and I will show you the thing that does not exist.
The special thing about humans is that, uniquely, we can be aware of God and our source in God.

[Florestan]

Everything is divine.  Show me the thing that does not have its source of existence in God, and I will show you the thing that does not exist.

You conflate two different things: (1) having its ultimate source of existence in God and (2) being divine. I wonder how you reconcile this pantheism with the Old Testament about which you said

I find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence.

and which posits a radical difference between the Creator and its creatures.

Anyway, if everything is divine then what right do we have to kill turkeys in order to eat them at Christmas (or any other animal in order to eat it at any time) or to kill annoying flies and mosquitoes?

And BTW I think you mean that everything alive is divine, otherwise the very act of climbing a stair violates the divinity of the steps.

[Grazioso]

You conflate two different things: (1) having its ultimate source of existence in God and (2) being divine. I wonder how you reconcile this pantheism with the Old Testament about which you said

and which posits a radical difference between the Creator and its creatures.

Anyway, if everything is divine then what right do we have to kill turkeys in order to eat them at Christmas (or any other animal in order to eat it at any time) or to kill annoying flies and mosquitoes?

And BTW I think you mean that everything alive is divine, otherwise the very act of climbing a stair violates the divinity of the steps.

Jumping in late here, but perhaps it would help to consider this sort of problem as viewing the same thing through two different perspectives simultaneously. The mystical realization of unity-divinity does not negate the everyday experience of the diversity of existent things and the everyday needs that arise from that diversity, like having to eat and sleep and stop mad dictators. For those uncomfortable with mysticism, we can still adopt that sort of dual-level approach on a scientific level: Hitler was composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons like the rest of us, but on the macro level, he was a mass murderer.

then it follows logically than anyone killing Richard Dawkins, or Hitler, or any other human being is in fact killing God; we might even say that actually it is God who is killing both another God and himself.

Do you know the Hindu concept of Lila? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_%28Hinduism%29 The idea of God "forgetting Himself" as his unity takes on the countless roles of all individual beings and things, playing a sort of cosmic game of hide-and-seek with Himself.

Doing evil - or good - is a moral choice and this is the most fundamental difference between people, which far surpasses the importance of them having their ultimate source of existence in God. Those choosing evil (especially evil on such a grand scale) freely depart from, and willingly severe their ties with, their divinity. 

If I may, I think you guys might be talking at cross purposes: divinity in the sense I think Jeffrey is using it is a mystical one that is not something that admits of difference or severing--or literal definition. It's not a "thing" or a quality that one has or can distance oneself from.

[Thomas Crystalstick]

I've studied religion for many years now and the only poster I'm seeing who demonstrates authentic understanding of transcendental ideas, the methodology of compassion, etc. is Mr. Smith (and maybe a couple others).

To clarify:  I don't mean to suggest that I am an expert.  But I have *a little* knowledge, and the vast majority of posts I see here are indicative of many ideas people have about religion that are floating around in public space:  They demonstrate lack of intense research in spiritual matters, so much so that it is almost pointless to initiate ANY discussion of religion in public, for any reason.  "Debate is pointless when everyone has a different idea of what is being talked about."

Bluntly put:  Transcendental mysticism is actual religion, everything else is pre-school level.  The majority of the public occupy this pre-school understanding of religion, and never leave it. 

[Grazioso]

Anyway, if everything is divine then what right do we have to kill turkeys in order to eat them at Christmas (or any other animal in order to eat it at any time) or to kill annoying flies and mosquitoes?

See the above post about simultaneous perspectives. Your question arguably mixes conventional ethics with mystical awareness. It also perhaps assumes there are "things" called turkeys in the first place. On a conventional everyday level, obviously there are: I've seen them in the woods, and they make fine eating But take a single turkey: what is its "essence" or "true being" or whatever one might want to call it? The turkey is not stable over time: it starts as a couple cells gettin' it on and ends as putrefying flesh in the forest or as someone's dinner--or both if you're a vulture It's exchanging and incorporating air molecules with you and me and the trees. Even its physical solidity is illusory from some perspectives: you can shoot an X-ray through one.

From that particular perspective alone (and compare Buddhist Anatta, or "not-self" and Sunyata, "emptiness"), killing a turkey doesn't take anything away from/out of it since it has no impermanent, independently originated characteristics; the act merely hastens the physical change of molecules that once were combined into what we conventionally call a "turkey." Simultaneously, it is the end of a living thing that can suffer pain, and of a unique and irreplaceable consciousness and therefore the object of a serious ethical question.

Bluntly put:  Transcendental mysticism is actual religion, everything else is pre-school level.  The majority of the public occupy this pre-school understanding of religion, and never leave it. 

You will find plenty of mystics who would dispute that and continue to practice and teach their "everyday" faiths. Conventional, exoteric religion and its trappings are not necessarily false or juvenile or wrong; nor are they the main point.

[bwv 1080]

  Transcendental mysticism is actual religion, everything else is pre-school level. 

why not immanent mysticism?

[Josquin des Prez]

Bluntly put:  Transcendental mysticism is actual religion, everything else is pre-school level.  The majority of the public occupy this pre-school understanding of religion, and never leave it.

The majority of the public has no business dealing with anything but exoteric religion, for the sole reason they do not posses the capacity to grasp transcendence. True religion has always been an elitist affair. This is actually something that bothers me a little, if you look at it from the point of view of the material world having any particular cosmic purpose. If the "mysteries" can only be understood by a few, necessitating an external set of rules and rituals that keep the masses in line with traditional principles without them having any particular knowledge to the nature of the latter, then it seems that for most this world is all there's meant to be in their lives.

Its also no wonder that the west became anti-traditional so quickly, seeing that any esoteric element to the Christian doctrine was almost completely lost even before Constantine made Christianity the official exoteric doctrine of the western world, and that Christianity does not posses a sacred language that maintains the sacred texts alive. So now the western world has sunk into complete spiritual annihilation (and if all true reality is the other reality, this universe being nothing but illusion, it seems that judgement day is already here), reaching the highest level of the Kali Yuga, against which the material advantages of the modern world are a small consolation. Its like God condemned an entire people to be Godless, just to achieve the fulfillment of some sort of cosmic cycle.

[Josquin des Prez]

Simultaneously, it is the end of a living thing that can suffer pain, and of a unique and irreplaceable consciousness and therefore the object of a serious ethical question.

I think that the fact a Turkey can feel pain doesn't implicitly means it has a consciousness. That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

[Thomas Crystalstick]

You will find plenty of mystics who would dispute that and continue to practice and teach their "everyday" faiths. Conventional, exoteric religion and its trappings are not necessarily false or juvenile or wrong; nor are they the main point.

A pre-school is a pre-school.  The problem is not the exoteric religion, the problem is that people in the world are not serious about anything anymore.  People will pass the time with anything, except if it has profundity.  This extends beyond the notions of just religion; this attitude is in music, art, philosophy, etc. 

When these attitudes are called into question, mankind has a tendency to defend the superficial attitudes, the mediocre valuations of things.  People grow disillusioned waiting for the next Beethoven or da Vinci when our own culture actively prevents such types from emerging (or at least becoming known). 

"It's cool man, I mean it's a whatever."

[Josquin des Prez]

A pre-school is a pre-school.  The problem is not the exoteric religion, the problem is that people in the world are not serious about anything anymore.  People will pass the time with anything, except if it has profundity.  This extends beyond the notions of just religion; this attitude is in music, art, philosophy, etc. 

When these attitudes are called into question, mankind has a tendency to defend the superficial attitudes, the mediocre valuations of things.  People grow disillusioned waiting for the next Beethoven or da Vinci when our own culture actively prevents such types from emerging (or at least becoming known). 

"It's cool man, I mean it's a whatever."

I've spent years battling this attitude in this very forum, without much success. I wish you better luck, if you plan on sticking around.

[bwv 1080]

I've spent years battling this attitude in this very forum, without much success. I wish you better luck, if you plan on sticking around.

yes, people round here are annoyingly resistant to unsubstantiated ex cathedra pronouncements

[Josquin des Prez]

You deny that most people here sheer away from profundity the moment the word is uttered? (Followed by some ubiquitous statement about how such "serious" attitudes is the reason most people don't like classical music).

I remember once saying that modern culture is incapable of producing a Beethoven myself (for the same exact reasons expressed by Thomas), a statement which was instantly met with ridicule. I mean, after all, its all a question of subjective perspectives, who am I to call modern society frivolous?

[Karl Henning]

You deny that most people here sheer away from profundity the moment the word is uttered?

Maybe they just shy away from the arrogance.

[Josquin des Prez]

Arrogance? I spent my entire existence jumping from one thing to the next, looking for substance, and being told i had no right to complain when i didn't find any along the way, for if others enjoyed frivolous things, who was i to criticize? Everything is subjective!

Until i realized that such arguments were pure, utter nonsense. It is not arrogance. Its lack of patience for a mindset that had me bounce around to and fro in a realm of sheer mediocrity through out the best years of my life.