Originally posted by Nemesioyour first point is a total misreading of what I said.
Originally posted by frogstomp
[b] How much wisdom or truth do you expect to glean for a book the very core of which is meant to intimidate the populace into acting according to the leader's whims?
I do not believe that Jesus meant for the establishment of any organization that
encouraged (or forced) the faithful into 'acting acc ...[text shortened]... e together [/b]
So, I'll ask again: is there no Wisdom in Grimm's Fairy Tales?
Nemesio
[/b]
your second is saying Jesus' teachings were in agreement with
the things done in gods name in the OT
your third point draws a conclusion completely at odd with Jesus' own words on the matter.
and your 4th point is not germane unless you can find a religion based political system based on grimms fairy tales.
Where do you think the distortions of jesus' message come from, if not from reading the "wisdom" and " truths" of the OT?
You have only to read the book of Joshua to see what passed for the nature of god in the OT.
Originally posted by frogstomp
your first point is a total misreading of what I said.
Why don't you clear it up, then?
your second is saying Jesus' teachings were in agreement with
the things done in gods name in the OT
No. I said Jesus's teachings 'are largely in harmony with essential Jewish
teachings;' that is, His teachings are concordant with Jewish notions of morality
and law. Jesus never affirmed or denied that which was 'done in God's name;'
this was not His concern, and neither should it be. His concern was how we can
bring the 'Kingdom of God' to the here and now, how we can attend to the needs
of those less fortunate.
your third point draws a conclusion completely at odd with Jesus' own words on the matter.
When you say 'Jesus's own words,' what precisely do you mean? Do you mean,
'The words written in the Bible?'
First of all, the passage, 'Father forgive them...' is spurious to begin with. It is
missing in the oldest papyrus of the Lukan account of the Crucifixion and is absent
in several other ancient sources as well.
Second, it isn't clear who 'them' is in the passage. Does them mean 'all Jews,'
'these people (some of whom are Jewish, some Gentile),' 'the Jews of the
Sanhedrin,' 'Pilate and the Romans?' It sounds a general forgiveness to me,
consistent with Jesus's teachings on forgiveness.
and your 4th point is not germane unless you can find a religion based political system based on grimms fairy tales.
Let's review. You asserted:
Seeking Truth is very much akin to seeking Wisdom is it not?
Sometime the Truth hurts but Wisdom without truth isn't wisdom at all.
I find this assertion to be utter bunk. First of all, there is 'Truth' (where
I take the term to mean an axiomatic statement applicable to all people
in all places [e.g., willfully causing suffering is wrong]) and there is 'truth'
(where I take this to mean something historically happened).
If you mean 'Wisdom without truth isn't Wisdom at all,' then such
a claim is utterly bogus (e.g., Grimm Fairy Tales). Wisdom lives entirely
independent of truth.
If you mean 'Wisdom with Truth isn't Wisdom at all,' then the statement
is tautologically problematic to begin with and makes no sense. Wisdom necessarily
relies on or reveals Truth (and, at the same time, needs not be historically true).
Where do you think the distortions of jesus' message come from, if not from reading the "wisdom" and " truths" of the OT? You have only to read the book of Joshua to see what passed for the nature of god in the OT.
I am intimately familiar with Joshua and, yes, it has many horrible moments. If
you want to have an exegetical discussion of Joshua, I'd be happy to oblige, but
in another thread.
Suffice it to say that the ideals in Joshua were not essential to 1st-century Jewish
life. Indeed, Joshua is the OT equivalent to the NT Revelation. No, the Pentateuch
was the foundation. Joshua is not a 'teaching' book, but a history, in any event.
Compared with other books, Joshua provides little information about how people
ought to live; that is, it is not rife with Wisdom.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiopardon me for reading " an eye for an eye" as something Christ didnt agree with then .. or was he trying to say that wasn't god's law and might have been taken form the code of hamurabi?
Originally posted by frogstomp
[b]your first point is a total misreading of what I said.
Why don't you clear it up, then?
your second is saying Jesus' teachings were in agreement with
the things done in gods name in the OT
No. I said Jesus's teachings 'are largely in harmony with essential Jewish
te ...[text shortened]... e information about how people
ought to live; that is, it is not rife with Wisdom.
Nemesio
[/b]
what I said about wisdom and truth ,,stands as is: as does what I said about the OT (through Joshua because I havent read the rest in detail)
Originally posted by frogstomp
pardon me for reading " an eye for an eye" as something Christ didnt agree with then .. or was he trying to say that wasn't god's law and might have been taken form the code of hamurabi?
I am the first to acknowledge that there are many elements of Hebraic Law which
were overridden by 'Christian Law.' However, while many Jews might maintain a
barbaric practice of 'an eye for an eye,' many Jewish theologians find such action
incongruous with righteous living; that is, such a philosophy of retaliation is, at its
essence, non-Jewish as it is unGodly. I believe that this was Jesus's point.
And, would you deny the Wisdom of this saying attributed to Jesus if we found out
that He, in fact, never said it, but that it is an interpolation by St Matthew?
I don't think you would.
what I said about wisdom and truth ,,stands as is: as does what I said about the OT (through Joshua because I havent read the rest in detail)
Well, since you won't define your terms and you won't defend it, I see
no reason to accept your opinion as having any meaning. And I am
certainly not going to try to continue to guess what you mean.
Sorry.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioTherefore, be ye lamps unto yourselves, be a refuge to yourselves. Hold fast to Truth as a lamp; hold fast to the truth as a refuge. Look not for a refuge in anyone beside yourselves. And those, who shall be a lamp unto themselves, shall betake themselves to no external refuge, but holding fast to the Truth as their lamp, and holding fast to the Truth as their refuge, they shall reach the topmost height.
Originally posted by frogstomp
[b]pardon me for reading " an eye for an eye" as something Christ didnt agree with then .. or was he trying to say that wasn't god's law and might have been taken form the code of hamurabi?
I am the first to acknowledge that there are many elements of Hebraic Law which
were overridden ...[text shortened]... And I am
certainly not going to try to continue to guess what you mean.
Sorry.
Nemesio[/b]
Buddha
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
The Buddha
Is that clearer?
It's so interesting how almost every single discussion in this forum trails off into debates about the Christian tradition. Love it or hate it, it certainly speaks volumes for the power Christianity has to magnetize debate. I personally am not too interested in it, having found the Oriental traditions to be more compelling and satisfying.
As far as numbers go, these, to my knowledge, are the rough figures for each faith and claimed number of adherents...
Christianity -- 2 billion
Islam -- 1.2 billion (and the fastest growing)
nonreligious (including atheists) -- 1 billion
Hinduism 800 million
Chinese folk religions (including Taoism) -- 400 million
Buddhism -- 350 million
Sikhism -- 22 million
Judaism -- 15 million (a staggeringly small number, considering the global impact this tradition has had)
[statistics taken from TIME almanac, 2001 edition]
Christianity has come a long way from the ragged bands of isolated Jesus-communities that existed in the first 300 years after Christ's death. You can mostly thank Emperor Constantine and the Roman Empire for the eventual flourishing of this tradition.
Islam was born on the point of a sword -- Mohammad was part mystic, and part soldier, and he founded Islam amongst tribal warfare and conflict.
Buddhism, being an utterly non-aggressive tradition and with no interest in missionary-ism or colonialism, has been slower to accrue followers despite its age and the richness of its metaphysics and moral codes.
Hinduism is very old, but has never really penetrated anywhere outside of India, except for Indonesia to some extent.
The ages of these traditions, roughly as follows...
Hinduism -- 3,500 years old
Judaism -- 3,000 y.o.
Taoism -- 2,500 y.o.
Buddhism -- 2,500 y.o.
Christianity -- 2,000 y.o.
Islam -- 1,400 y.o.
Sikhism -- 500 y.o.
Of all major religious texts, my personal favourite is the "Tao Te Ching", the source book of Taoism, allegedly written by Lao Tzu around 500 BC. It gets translated in many different ways but contains remarkable wisdom expressed in remarkably few words.
Originally posted by MetamorphosisThere is of course far fewer believers in the gods of the Sumerians, a people that had an enormous influence on mankind.
It's so interesting how almost every single discussion in this forum trails off into debates about the Christian tradition. Love it or hate it, it certainly speaks volumes for the power Christianity has to magnetize debate. I ...[text shortened]... but contains remarkable wisdom expressed in remarkably few words.
L.W. King reasoned the Nibir was Jupiter as it apparently was how they set the ecliptic.
Our 7 day week comes from the Enuma Elish , ( has something to do with the phases of the moon,) probably in the usual round about way i.e. through the filter of Genesis.
"Nibiru" may well have been Jupiter, indeed. And the Sumerian's greatness is not as well preseved as that of the ancient Egyptians probably because they lacked the huge monuments as a means of ensuring survival of their legacy...
My personal list ranking the greatest spiritual masters in history.
1. Buddha (Hindu rebel who broke with Hindu tradition)
2. Lao Tzu (founder of Taoism)
3. Socrates (Plato's teacher)
4. Hakuin Ekaku (17th century Japanese Zen master)
5. Bodhidharma (transmitter of Zen from India to China, 6th century AD)
6. Jesus (radical Jew possibly trained by the Essenes)
7. Ramana Maharshi (20th century sage of south India)
8. Nargarjuna (3rd century AD Indian Buddhist philosopher)
9. Baal Shem Tov (16th century Polish mystic of Jewish Hassidism)
10. Chuang Tzu (3rd century BC Chinese sage, Lao Tzu's successor)
Originally posted by MetamorphosisNo Sankara (founder of Advaita Vedanta) or Guru Nanak (first patriarch of Sikhism), or Kabir Sahib (perhaps the best mystical poet of all time)?
"Nibiru" may well have been Jupiter, indeed. And the Sumerian's greatness is not as well preseved as that of the ancient Egyptians probably because they lacked the huge monuments as a means of ensuring survival of their legacy...
My personal list ranking the greatest spiritual masters in history.
1. Buddha (Hindu rebel who broke with Hindu tr ...[text shortened]... mystic of Jewish Hassidism)
10. Chuang Tzu (3rd century BC Chinese sage, Lao Tzu's successor)
Originally posted by bbarrWow bbarr, I never would have guessed you were a fan of those guys. (Me too, but don't let it get around. Might hurt my image as a wacko Christian fundie 😉 ).
No Sankara (founder of Advaita Vedanta) or Guru Nanak (first patriarch of Sikhism), or Kabir Sahib (perhaps the best mystical poet of all time)?
Originally posted by OmnislashWell, when it comes to spiritual matters I play my cards pretty close to my chest. Of course, it doesn't help matters that it is impossible to speak meaningfully about these issues. How on Earth do you engage in debate on the nature of the Divine when the Divine is non-dual, transcendent and immanent, beyond our ability to conceptualize, and when even saying these things about the Divine is to contradict oneself? I guess what you do is cite poetry:
Wow bbarr, I never would have guessed you were a fan of those guys. (Me too, but don't let it get around. Might hurt my image as a wacko Christian fundie 😉 ).
Here's a great one from Kabir Sahib:
Are you looking for me? I am in the next seat.
My shoulder is against yours.
You will not find me in the stupas, not in Indian shrine rooms, nor synagogues, nor in cathedrals:
not in masses, nor kirtans, not in legs winding around your own neck, nor in eating nothing but vegetables,
When you really look for me, you will see me instantly —
you will find me in the tiniest house of time.
Kabir says: Student, tell me, what is God?
He is the breath inside the breath.
I said to the wanting-creature inside me:
What is this river you want to cross?
There are no travellers on the river-road, and no road.
Do you see anyone moving about on that bank, or nesting?
There is no river at all, and no boat, and no boatman.
There is no tow rope either, and no one to pull it.
There is no ground, no sky, no time, no bank, no ford!
And there is no body, and no mind!
Do you believe there is some place that will make the soul less thirsty?
In that great absence you will find nothing,
Be strong then, and enter into your own body;
there you have a solid place for your feet.
Think about it carefully!
Don’t go off somewhere else!
Kabir says this: just throw away all thoughts of imaginary things,
and stand firm in that which you are.
Originally posted by bbarrYes, is true that Ultimate Reality can't be conceptualized as such, but that does not mean that concepts cannot be used in the enlightenment process. We could say, rather, that concepts are used to clear away delusions, something like cleaning dust from the surface of a mirror. The mirror itself was always there, perfectly functional, reflecting without flaw. So too, our thoughts do not "create" our enlightened condition, anymore than a duster "creates" the mirror. But the duster can be useful for dusting, enabling us to see the mirror's reflection more clearly.
Well, when it comes to spiritual matters I play my cards pretty close to my chest. Of course, it doesn't help matters that it is impossible to speak meaningfully about these issues. How on Earth do you engage in debate on the nature of the Divine when the Divine is non-dual, transcendent and immanent, beyond our ability to conceptualize, and when even sayin ...[text shortened]... these things about the Divine is to contradict oneself? I guess what you do is cite poetry:
No doubt you've heard of the Zen parable of the finger pointing toward the Moon. The "finger" in this case represents the correct usage of the intellect in the service of *satori* (sudden awakening). But of course the finger itself is not the Moon. Likewise, the correct usage of thought can point us toward self-realization -- but, thinking itself cannot make the "quantum leap" from the finger to the Moon. That is a radical shift, something like water boiling as it hits 100 centigrade, changing form.
The shift from identification with thought to pure consciousness in the present moment is the same thing as the shift from time to timelessnes. Time is a function of thinking. As such, thought cannot liberate us from the limitations of time (and space). But thought does play a role in the recognition of nonduality, as do concepts. This is why Lao Tzu (for example) bothered to use thought and concepts to write the Tao Te Ching, even though paradoxically what he wrote is pointing toward the infinite and that which cannot be entered into via thought.
And yes, agreed about Shankara and Kabir...
Originally posted by MetamorphosisWhile you are right that thinking is necessary on the path, I take the role of thinking to be primarily negative. That is, I take the role of thinking to be in the pointing out of contradiction and error, rather than in the constructing of representations of the divine. To engage in the constructive project (e.g., to claim that the divine is a person that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) is to create an idol; it is to mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. So, I guess my claim is that thought plays no role in the recognition of the non-dual nature of the divine other than by the removal of obstacles, the clearing away of that which precludes us from having the experience of of identification with the divine (as this is the only sort of recognition one may have of the non-dual nature of the divine). The first chapter of the Tao Te Ching is a great example of using language against itself, koan like, to bootstrap the reader into an experience. The first passage itself contains a contradiction, yet points towards the real. This why Kabir (and, to a lesser extent by my lights, Rumi) is so wonderful when he talks about the divine.
Yes, is true that Ultimate Reality can't be conceptualized as such, but that does not mean that concepts cannot be used in the enlightenment process. We could say, rather, that concepts are used to clear away delusions, something like cleaning dust from the surface of a mirror. The mirror itself was always there, perfectly functional, reflecting witho ...[text shortened]... nd that which cannot be entered into via thought.
And yes, agreed about Shankara and Kabir...
Originally posted by bbarrThis reminds me of a quote by Raymond Smullyan (from his incomparable "The Tao is Silent"😉.
While you are right that thinking is necessary on the path, I take the role of thinking to be primarily negative. That is, I take the role of thinking to be in the pointing out of contradiction and error, rather than in the constructing of representations of the divine. To engage in the constructive project (e.g., to claim that the divine is a person that is ...[text shortened]... r (and, to a lesser extent by my lights, Rumi) is so wonderful when he talks about the divine.
"Mysticism is the study of statements are that simultaneously true and false. The Western view is that the set of all such statements is empty. The Eastern view is that the set of all such statements is empty if and only if it isn't."
Originally posted by bbarrYour views are certainly in accordance with most Eastern traditions, where the emphasis is in recognizing the false in order to know the true. This is certainly the case in Buddhism, which is of course why the Buddha refused to "name" the divine, much like Lao Tzu refuses to "name" the "true Name".
While you are right that thinking is necessary on the path, I take the role of thinking to be primarily negative. That is, I take the role of thinking to be in the pointing out of contradiction and error, rather than in the constructing of representations of the divine. To engage in the constructive project (e.g., to claim that the divine is a person that is ...[text shortened]... r (and, to a lesser extent by my lights, Rumi) is so wonderful when he talks about the divine.
And yes, most Western traditions are about the exhalting of a concept, be that concept "Allah", "Christ", or "God". The problem there is that this concept almost always remains a projection that the mind stays caught up in; a beautiful dream (potentially), but a dream nonetheless.
The Sanskrit term "Maya" (illusion) meaning both "measure" and "illusion" speaks to the connection between thinking (*measuring*, literally, from where derives the sense of space, and thus time) and its final inability to grasp ultimate reality.