Tradition betrayed

[Grazioso]

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.

The part I bolded shows a fundamental misunderstanding of mysticism and spiritual practice--or perhaps better, a hindering approach to it. The "truths" one finds in these traditions are not things you obtain by striving, things you have to work at or be specially qualified for. For they are not "things," not knowledge or facts that can be learned and transmitted, but--and one can only be metaphorical or poetic here--"experiences." This all entails rectifying a fundamental, pernicious misperception of self/other and sacred/mundane, akin to when you look at this



and have only ever seen a vase your whole life and then suddenly see it's simultaneously two faces.

Btw, have you ever read the Huxley book I recommended earlier, The Perennial Philosophy? You might find it interesting vis-a-vis this discussion. But if you are serious about all this, no books can directly give you what you seek, only act as potential guideposts or triggers. Discrete words and symbols and thoughts cannot express the inexpressible, the ineffable.

[Florestan]

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.

Thinking about life is one thing, living quite another. Too much of the former can ruin the latter.

I hate that word. Really, really hate it. I don't want to commune with anybody.

On the contrary, deep inside you long for communion, otherwise why would you bother to have this debate with me and others?

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.

Actually and honestly I think you need a wife.

[Karl Henning]

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

Whoa, for a second there I thought I heard Steve Jobs talking . . . .

[Grazioso]

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.

"Yes, I'd like an order of french fries, but hold the potatoes." And as long as you keep adamantly defining yourself and focusing on what "you" need, you're just going to be confused and upset.

Of which, if I can offer some friendly advice: you need to drop your hate. It's a millstone dragging you down into some very murky waters.

[kishnevi]

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

Historically plausible, although Grazioso is correct to be restrained about the connection.  Buddhist monasticism began essentially at the very start, in the lifetime of Gautama Buddha or very soon afterwards; it would have been encountered by the armies of Alexander and his immediate successors as they trooped around what is now Pakistan and northwest India; and the basic idea of a monastic community would have percolated westwards during the following few centuries.  The idea of monastic communities was familiar by the first century CE--Philo wrote of one, and the only debate is whether it actually existed (and if so, if it had any relation to the Qumran community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls), or whether he was just producing an ideal in the form of a fantasy. 

[kishnevi]

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.

Go off to work (yes, even we mystical types like to have a steady income ) and find the thread has grown by three pages in twenty four hours....

Real quickly:  The exact term for my position is panentheism, which is not pantheism.

The Bible does not actually teach that profound difference between the Creator and the created.
There are scattered references in Scripture, the most pertinent being Deuteronomy 4:39.  (But herewith the peril of reading in translation:  most translations take the last phrase of that verse as meaning "there are no other gods (except God)".  The exact Hebrew phrase is ain oid which means "there is nothing else"--that nothing else other than God exists. 
For further reading (at least from a Jewish perspective), try "The Gate of Unity and Faith" which forms the second part of the Tanya (the major work of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe)
http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/45259/jewish/Introduction.htm and then follow the links to the succeeding sections, although the style may take a little getting used to.

And as a purely logical statement, the view that only God exists is a direct implication of monotheism--since if anything could exist independently of God, it would be another God itself.

And even the stairs are divine.  When I said everything, I meant everything. 
For the other points you raise, I refer you to the answer Grazioso posted immediately after yours, in which he's much clearer than than I am.  And when he points to the idea of the Divine "forgetting" Itself--there is an equivalent in Kabbalah, tzimtzum ("Withdrawal")--that God withdrew into Itself to allow creation to exist.

[jowcol]

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.

The point is, if you feel something is not adding up, you need to look at what you are adding.   if you a "Debugging" a logical structure, you must validate your inferences.  But, maybe more important, where do you want to go with such a quest?  If you are looking for meaning in a secular age, is it that a hidden elite may hold the answer?  Or could it be inside you?

Pardon the classic rock quote, but, in the words of Traffic:  "Don't look around to find the sound that lies beneath your feet"

[jowcol]

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.

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.

As far as what is life to teach-- a bit of revulsion is good to keep around.  The Buddha's fire sermon was all about that.  You dont' want to build something on a foundation of sand.


The last paragraph is-- interesting, to say the least.  If who wish to be a totally independent being, that doesn't leave much room for God, does it?  One notion of sorrow (borrowing form the Tao), is that misfortune  comes from having a separate identify.   Now, in terms of communion-- I must admit I'm  not eager to join in singing Kumbaya with a bunch of strangers.

There is another notion, and that of a private communion with God-- Check out St John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul.   It may be more up your allow, but the bake sales aren't as good.

[Grazioso]

Historically plausible, although Grazioso is correct to be restrained about the connection.  Buddhist monasticism began essentially at the very start, in the lifetime of Gautama Buddha or very soon afterwards; it would have been encountered by the armies of Alexander and his immediate successors as they trooped around what is now Pakistan and northwest India; and the basic idea of a monastic community would have percolated westwards during the following few centuries.  The idea of monastic communities was familiar by the first century CE--Philo wrote of one, and the only debate is whether it actually existed (and if so, if it had any relation to the Qumran community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls), or whether he was just producing an ideal in the form of a fantasy.

On the interactions between Buddhism and Greece, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Buddhist_council#Emissaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_monasticism

[Karl Henning]

Most interesting, thanks.

[Florestan]

Real quickly:  The exact term for my position is panentheism, which is not pantheism.

The Bible does not actually teach that profound difference between the Creator and the created.
There are scattered references in Scripture, the most pertinent being Deuteronomy 4:39.  (But herewith the peril of reading in translation:  most translations take the last phrase of that verse as meaning "there are no other gods (except God)".  The exact Hebrew phrase is ain oid which means "there is nothing else"--that nothing else other than God exists. 
For further reading (at least from a Jewish perspective), try "The Gate of Unity and Faith" which forms the second part of the Tanya (the major work of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe)
http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/45259/jewish/Introduction.htm and then follow the links to the succeeding sections, although the style may take a little getting used to.

And as a purely logical statement, the view that only God exists is a direct implication of monotheism--since if anything could exist independently of God, it would be another God itself.

And even the stairs are divine.  When I said everything, I meant everything. 
For the other points you raise, I refer you to the answer Grazioso posted immediately after yours, in which he's much clearer than than I am.  And when he points to the idea of the Divine "forgetting" Itself--there is an equivalent in Kabbalah, tzimtzum ("Withdrawal")--that God withdrew into Itself to allow creation to exist.

I'll check the link, thank you.

Slightly off topic (or maybe not) question: how do you reconcile your panentheism (which boils down to there are no distinct individuals) with your libertarianism (which boils down to there is nothing but distinct individuals)?

[Florestan]

@ Josquin

Of which, if I can offer some friendly advice: you need to drop your hate. It's a millstone dragging you down into some very murky waters.

Hate and that permanent lamentation and negative feelings about the spiritual and cultural state of our age. You might dismiss it as "liberal sentimentality" but I firmly believe that "as a man thinks in his heart so shall he be" and "you find what you look for". If your soul is filled only with hate, contempt and despair your life will be correspondingly miserable - and if you look only for signs of decay and degeneration you'll certainly find them anywhere. You really need to cheer up - may I suggest that instead of browsing the net for yet another proof that the Western world is doomed you take a walk in the woods?

Besides, decay and degeneration have been lamented since the beginning of the recorded history. Pick any century you want, before or after Christ and I oblige to find at least one prominent voice lamenting that the world is going straight to hell...

[kishnevi]

I'll check the link, thank you.

Slightly off topic (or maybe not) question: how do you reconcile your panentheism (which boils down to there are no distinct individuals) with your libertarianism (which boils down to there is nothing but distinct individuals)?

There's no need to reconcile; in fact for me libertarianism, at least in its general form, is a direct result.

Remember that panentheism recognizes that distinctions, and therefore individuals, do exist on the day to day level.  Ultimately both you and I are God and therefore one, but in this level of awareness, we are distinct beings.  But since we are all identical in nature, we are all equal in nature; I have no rights over you and you have none over me except what we freely grant each other.  And since we are equals, we can respect each other as equals: God in me relates to God in you.

And of course there's the Golden Rule version of the idea--whatever I do to you I am really doing to myself, and therefore I ought to treat you as if you are myself.

Hope that's clear.

[Herman]

@ Josquin

If your soul is filled only with hate, contempt and despair your life will be correspondingly miserable - and if you look only for signs of decay and degeneration you'll certainly find them anywhere.

And of course: if you only look for ways to be superior to other people, particularly, black people, women, &c ad infin...

this whole thread is a gigantic exercise in self-deception

[Florestan]

There's no need to reconcile; in fact for me libertarianism, at least in its general form, is a direct result.

Remember that panentheism recognizes that distinctions, and therefore individuals, do exist on the day to day level.  Ultimately both you and I are God and therefore one, but in this level of awareness, we are distinct beings.  But since we are all identical in nature, we are all equal in nature; I have no rights over you and you have none over me except what we freely grant each other.  And since we are equals, we can respect each other as equals: God in me relates to God in you.

And of course there's the Golden Rule version of the idea--whatever I do to you I am really doing to myself, and therefore I ought to treat you as if you are myself.

Hope that's clear.

Okay, but how about the libertarian doctrinaire insistence on property rights?

If everything exists in and because of God, and you meant everything as in material things as well, then everything is God's property; "our" property rights are (1) at best those of a caretaker who has been entrusted with managing someone else's property and, which is more, has been given explicit instructions on how to do it, and these emphasize cooperation over competition, solidarity over division, generosity over profit-seeking and the social duties of the rich (to this fact attest each and every religion on Earth)  and (2) at worst those of an usurper who has appropriated for his exclusive personal use what belongs to God, thus depriving of it his equals in God and refusing them their legitimate share in it (to this fact attest that no man can claim that his property has been directly and explicitly bestowed on him by God). The latter applies especially in regard with the libertarian dogma of privatizing natural assets; as to the former, I'll leave it to you to explain how capitalism and libertarianism fit the instructions.

Unrelated question: how does the God-inspired genocides and ethnic cleansings mentioned in the OT (e.g. Amalekites, Book of Ezra) fit in panentheism?

[Florestan]

this whole thread is a gigantic exercise in self-deception

Speaking about only looking for ways to be superior to other people...

[jowcol]

Speaking about only looking for ways to be superior to other people...

Zen Parable- -And I am the 4th Pupil


Learning to Be Silent

The pupils of the Tendai school used to study meditation before Zen entered Japan. Four of them who were intimate friends promised one another to observe seven days of silence.

On the first day all were silent. Their meditation had begun auspiciously, but when night came and the oil lamps were growing dim one of the pupils could not help exclaiming to a servant: "Fix those lamps."

The second pupils was surprised to hear the first one talk. "We are not supposed to say a word," he remarked.

"You two are stupid. Why did you talk?" asked the third.

"I am the only one who has not talked," concluded the fourth pupil.

[Florestan]

I know that great one - I just couldn't resist...

[Josquin des Prez]

And of course: if you only look for ways to be superior to other people, particularly, black people, women

Don't forget Jews. 

[Karl Henning]

Vegetarian Thanksgivings are certainly a betrayal of tradition.