Tradition betrayed

[jowcol]

It cannot be proven let's say, in a Law and Order style.  But in the field of literature, you can open any of the perennial classics and compare it with any modern bestseller (or even worst-seller).  Obviously our culture is hollow in comparison, not just in the beauty of the language but in the sophistication of the ideas.  I say this to people and occasionally they tell me that there actually IS good literature, but I'm not exposed to it, that I need to check out this one guy's book . . . I flip through it and it's just as hollow as the other books, except this guy is trying to be clever.

I've made this point on a few other threads, but a lot of "literature" was not written to be profound, but to entertain and commerical use.  Dickens (whom I adore) was a hack, and wrote serials. Shakespeare needed new productions, and would rush things (like the dreaded 'exit, pursued by bear' to kill off a character in the Winter's Tale.  A lot of scholarly writings seem to elevate these two artists to be something they were not.  Much of what define's "literature" is its staying power.  Hopefully ,the better works were preserved and better distributed, and the crap became neglected over time.  For contemporary works, it's harder to evaluate, since we don't have the distance, nor can we use the staying power as a measure.  I would say that a lot of the lasting literature works since it honestly addresses the human condition-- while the posers get weeded out over time.

I've also wasted time reading works by authors that were so busy trying to be profound, they forgot some of the main needs of fiction.  I consider them just as insincere and derivative as a Harlequin Romance, although hopefully a bit more interesting.

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

Mind and heart? Not so much. Sentiment? Absolutely.

There's a few problems here. One, this romantic view of humbleness and lowliness, which is, in a way, a bit condescending. Your previous image of the lowly fisherman does not actually have a correspondent in reality. Its a caricature, some that is devoid of a genuine, human element. As one who was bred into a working class environment, i can attest that fishermen can be as profound as the greatest of sages. They just can't attain to the same degree of knowledge. My father always professed that he knew Jesus. But he never once read the gospel, never went to a church. Why? Frivolousness. He hated it, despised it to a degree that even for me is startling. And he despised it precisely because his life was anything but. What does Christianity, as it is preached today, has to offer to a person like that? You go to church, listen to all those wonderful things, but the reality is that you are on your own. When you go home, you are on your own. There's nothing more frightening then a being who has reached any degree of profundity then the realization of being utterly, and completely alone. Godlessness is the greatest of curses precisely for this reason. And the way Christianity is taught today is essentially Godless.

[Karl Henning]

No, not all art is profound: thank God.

[Josquin des Prez]

Actually, today, no art is profound. None whatsoever. You can thank many things for the present situation, but i'd leave God out of it. 

[jowcol]

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?

I agree with some of the main points here.  I fully agree that the experiential component is most important (to quote the Rubiyat, "a vision in a tavern is better than one lost in a temple outright".  I have a healthy distrust for any organized institution that tries to tell me what the answer is.  (I feel the same about political parties...)   To paraphrase the Grand Inquisitor in  the Brothers Karamazov, most people want simple answers and bread.  The last thing they want is the terrible burden of freedom.


THe causality between an elite/esoteric group and a sense of the sacred appears to me as an postulate-- something taken on faith to bulid a logical analysis on.  We all need to make some of these-- but in most logical systems, it's necessary to minimize their use, and often instructive to consider what happens in their absence.  (Such as Non-Eucildian Geometry) If you have assumed that as an unshakeable truth, it will limit where you can go. 

We all need to make such choices.   It's up to you.

[Josquin des Prez]

too little real life

Too little that was any good perhaps.

Maybe its time to look elsewhere.

And where should i look, exactly?

[jowcol]

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

It may be more accurate to say it had organized it first in the major traditions- it had a headstart of 5 centuries.   

Speaking of a bridge between Christian and Buddhist monasticism-- at some point it may be interesting to look at Thomas Merton.

[Grazioso]

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

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant--just not clearly I didn't say Buddhism started Christian monasticism, but monasticism, by which I meant organized monasticism. Afaik, Buddhism was the first major world religion to institute elaborate organizations of numerous monks, groups of renunciant seekers, living together abstemiously outside of normal social structures in specialized complexes according to monastic rules. In that sense, very much akin to later Christian monasticism as we usually think of it. Remember that Buddhism started about 500 years before Christ.

[Karl Henning]

Actually, today, no art is profound. None whatsoever.

Thank you for a perfectly ridiculous statement, which gauges your part in the discussion.

[jowcol]

Mind and heart? Not so much. Sentiment? Absolutely.

There's a few problems here. One, this romantic view of humbleness and lowliness, which is, in a way, a bit condescending. Your previous image of the lowly fisherman does not actually have a correspondent in reality. Its a caricature, some that is devoid of a genuine, human element. As one who was bred into a working class environment, i can attest that fishermen can be as profound as the greatest of sages. They just can't attain to the same degree of knowledge. My father always professed that he knew Jesus. But he never once read the gospel, never went to a church. Why? Frivolousness. He hated it, despised it to a degree that even for me is startling. And he despised it precisely because his life was anything but. What does Christianity, as it is preached today, has to offer to a person like that? You go to church, listen to all those wonderful things, but the reality is that you are on your own. When you go home, you are on your own. There's nothing more frightening then a being who has reached any degree of profundity then the realization of being utterly, and completely alone. Godlessness is the greatest of curses precisely for this reason. And the way Christianity is taught today is essentially Godless.

I'd be careful not to confuse wisdom and knowledge-- as they say, wisdom cannot be taught.  And wisdom, it would strike me as the primary goal.  It was also strike me that too much "book learning" can be an impediment in absorbing and using real life experience-- a theme that is in Ecclesiastes.

[Karl Henning]

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant--just not clearly I didn't say Buddhism started Christian monasticism, but monasticism, by which I meant organized monasticism. Afaik, Buddhism was the first major world religion to institute elaborate organizations of numerous monks, groups of renunciant seekers, living together abstemiously outside of normal social structures in specialized complexes according to monastic rules. In that sense, very much akin to later Christian monasticism as we usually think of it. Remember that Buddhism started about 500 years before Christ.

Yes, I know it was much earlier. Since the two institutions are unrelated, I wondered how Buddhism could have instituted Christian monasticism.  But I think now, that isn't what you were saying . . . .

[Karl Henning]

I'd be careful not to confuse wisdom and knowledge-- as they say, wisdom cannot be taught.

Not sure if it be frivolous or if it be wise . . . but I can hardly help remembering:

Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best.

[Josquin des Prez]

THe causality between an elite/esoteric group and a sense of the sacred appears to me as an postulate-- something taken on faith to bulid a logical analysis on.

Maybe, but then, there has to be a correct order of things. We live in a Godless age. That can't be right, can it? But if it takes great metaphysical understanding to grasp God, if even from a distance, and if most people aren't equipped with neither the ability, nor the time, seeing as we are all more or less busy not dying (least of all of starvation), for the most part, it behooves that this task can only be taken by a selected few (or may or may not even be willing). And if we postulate that those people do manage to reach a degree of understanding in the perennial truths of the cosmos, how can they go about passing on this knowledge? If there is one thing that i agree with Florestan, is that it seems to me a bit absurd that God is to remain hidden from most of humanity, except for a few individuals, whom from their part cannot impart their knowledge to anybody except then to people like themselves. Something doesn't square up here. So then, if traditional societies had such elites who dealt with transcendent matters, and if their influence was felt through out their entire culture, if even indirectly, then perhaps that's the way it has to be done. I'm not really sure at this point.

[Florestan]

Your previous image of the lowly fisherman does not actually have a correspondent in reality. Its a caricature, some that is devoid of a genuine, human element. As one who was bred into a working class environment, i can attest that fishermen can be as profound as the greatest of sages.They just can't attain to the same degree of knowledge.

Either you misunderstood me or I was not expressing myself clearly. Of course they can. But then again you are equating knowledge with wisdom. Reading all the books in the world might perhaps give someone knowledge but will not make him a sage. Wisdom comes not from books (though they certainly help) but from life.

You go to church, listen to all those wonderful things, but the reality is that you are on your own. When you go home, you are on your own. There's nothing more frightening then a being who has reached any degree of profundity then the realization of being utterly, and completely alone.

If someone is sincerely a Christian he'll never be alone. Christianity is communion which is the very opposite of loneliness; the surest sign that somebody is not really a Christian is exactly this feeling of loneliness and despair.

the way Christianity is taught today is essentially Godless.

Care to elaborate?

[Grazioso]

Yes, I know it was much earlier. Since the two institutions are unrelated, I wondered how Buddhism could have instituted Christian monasticism.  But I think now, that isn't what you were saying . . . .

Right. I just meant Buddhism was the first to implement organized group monasticism as a unique form of large-scale religious/social institution (hundreds or thousands living together outside the social mainstream). Prior to that, "monks" were individual ascetics, philosophers, etc., or small groups of wandering mendicants and the like, belonging to numerous competing sects. Organized Buddhist monks and monasteries share some superficial similarities with the later Christian monastic orders; I did not mean to imply they influenced one another.

[Josquin des Prez]

Thank you for a perfectly ridiculous statement

How's the weather in that ivory tower of yours?

[Florestan]

Too little that was any good perhaps.

It's never too late to make good of it. (Yes, I know, sentimentality - but you could try.)

And where should i look, exactly?

In your heart.

[Karl Henning]

How's the weather in that ivory tower of yours?

Good Ridiculous Average: You're batting two for two ; )

[Josquin des Prez]

Wisdom comes not from books (though they certainly help) but from life.

Wisdom comes from within. The Kingdom of heaven is in us all. Books can only point you towards the right direction. True knowledge is something we are all born with. Plato says pretty much the same in the Theaetetus (which has been misinterpreted by modern scholars as having been left unanswered).

Life, i'm not sure what life is meant to teach. For some, it is this great, wonderful journey. For others it is such a dreadful experience that they decide to opt out in some gruesome fashion. I don't like thinking about life a whole lot, its a scary thing.

Christianity is communion

I hate that word. Really, really hate it. I don't want to commune with anybody. I don't want to be part of a crowd, a shared consciousness. I am my own being, absolute, fully defined, and i am alone. I need God, not communion.

[chasmaniac]

I am my own being, absolute, fully defined, and i am alone. I need God, not communion.

You need a girlfriend.