14 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerBy way of an edit to my first response—
I'm not even sure what an individual ego-somebody-self is in the context you're using it in.
But, to return to the main points:
1. I know you don't consciously view Christianity as a religion of "sound bites" but when you start stripping out core doctrines, that's effectively what you turn it into.
(Re: resurrection of the soma - AFAIC satori -- I think they're about as close as the two sides of the Force.)
lucifershammer— (Re: resurrection of the soma - AFAICS it was precisely meant to be taken literally - c.f. Apostle's Creed. Unless, of course, you were a Gnostic.)
I found this statement by Willis Barnstone in his book The Other Bible: “In short, Gnosticism is a personal religion or philosophy whose eschatological goal is the discovery of divinity within the self.”
If nothing else is added (e.g., dualism, creation as basically evil, or other things sometimes found within gnostic systems), and depending on how one defines the word “divinity,” then I may well be, at least in part, a gnostic...
Where do you think the basileia tou theou resides?
Luke 17:20 Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is inside (entos: within, inside) you."
entos only occurs twice in the NT: here and in Matthew 23:26; in the Septuagint it occurs only in the Song of Solomon 3:10. Although it is sometimes translated as “among” in Luke, that definition is not in my Greek-English dictionary, nor in Liddel-Scott-Jones.
14 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI alway interpreted this to mean that once you recieve Christ he lives inside you, not that you were already a god. Another verse that comes to mind comes from Paul in which he says, "Greater is He that is within you than he that is within the world", meaning that God who lives inside the believer is greater than Lucifer who is the god of this world system. The kingdom of God, therefore, lives in the believer who signed up to live for that kingdom. You might say that we have become representatives.
By way of an edit to my first response—
[b]lucifershammer— (Re: resurrection of the soma - AFAICS it was precisely meant to be taken literally - c.f. Apostle's Creed. Unless, of course, you were a Gnostic.)
I found this statement by Willis Barnstone in his book The Other Bible: “In short, Gnosticism is a personal religion or philosophy who that definition is not in my Greek-English dictionary, nor in Liddel-Scott-Jones.[/b]
BTW What is your take on Lucifer? I assume he has no room for existence after having become better acquanted with your religious beliefs.
14 Mar 07
Originally posted by whodeyWell, as I said, I’m still working on this—but as it stands now, I would say that the Christ is your true self “behind all the makings of your mind.” A priest and Trappist Monk once said that when you let go of what he called “the false-self system”—which is what I think St. Paul meant by ego in Galatians 2:20—you find your true (original) self, which is the Christ. I once did an 8-day intensive meditation retreat (mostly in silence, based on this monk’s Centering Prayer practice—his name is Father Thomas Keating; he has some books out, but there is also an introductory book called Centering Prayer by Basil Pennington).
I alway interpreted this to mean that once you recieve Christ he lives inside you, not that you were already a god. Another verse that comes to mind comes from Paul in which he says, "Greater is He that is within you than he that is within the world", meaning that God who lives inside the believer is greater than Lucifer who is the god of this world system. ...[text shortened]... he has no room for existence after having become better acquanted with your religious beliefs.
You say “receive;” I would tend to say “realize.” But in order to realize or receive, one must be open. To be open, one must let go of some of those ego-boundaries. It can be risky. You might, if you want, undertake a serious meditation on those first words of Galatians 2:20—zo de ouketi ego, ze de in emoi [ho] Christos—“[I] live but no longer ‘I’; but lives in me [the] Christ.”* Take your time: this is not about exegesis, but meditation. You might also read a book called The Way of the Pilgrim, which presents, in narrative form, a meditation-prayer practice prominent in the Eastern Orthodox churches.
I do not think that there is any spiritual practice that is not risky to the ego-self (which is a necessary and good thing in itself, without which we would have a difficult time navigating in society); thinking about it, “theologizing” as we do here, that’s easy.
With regard to Lucifer—well, you’re your right. I take Lucifer as a valid metaphor or symbol or mythical representation.
* The “ho/the” in brackets does not appear here in the text; however, the definite article in Greek is often implied, and Christ is a designation and not a personal name.
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by vistesdConsider what this world would be like if the ego-self were eliminated from all individuals. I'm thinking this would be 'heaven on earth'.
I do not think that there is any spiritual practice that is not risky to the ego-self (which is a necessary and good thing in itself, without which we would have a difficult time navigating in society); .
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI’m not sure exactly how you mean that. I should say that people use the word “ego” in different ways—Freud different from the Zennists, etc.
Consider what this world would be like if the ego-self were eliminated from all individuals. I'm thinking this would be 'heaven on earth'.
People who are unable to develop strong ego-boundaries may be exploited and abused. Sometimes, if people say someone has a “strong ego,” they simply mean she is secure in herself, not threatened by comparison with others.
I sometimes refer to the “constructed somebody-self,” instead of “ego”—the “somebody-self” we learn to be as we go through “somebodiness training” beginning at an early age.
Basically, for me, I see this “somebody-self” as valuable—but the illusion comes in when we begin to think that is an entity separable from the world in which we live, and of which we are. It would be like the wave thinking it is separable from the ocean. If the “somebody-self” is a (mental) construct, what lies behind the construct?
So, I tend not to speak in terms of “elimination,” but of realization.
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerI have a Fourth Edition (1977) from the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center of New Tork. The intro was written in 1948 by Swami Nikhilananda.
What edition?
Of course, the rishis of the Upanishads came up with the idea of eternal reincarnation according to karma instead - so if you're born into a lowly caste and doomed to a life of servitude and inequality, that's your own fault from a previous life.
Funny you claim that the rishis "came up with the idea of eternal reincarnation" - I doubt they would agree with that formulation. One life is hardly important in this idea anyway and it does have the advantage of being a just system. Since the world is an illusion and the soul eventually returns to Brahma, temporary inconveniences of the flesh don't matter much unlike Christianity where you get one life and then might get condemned to eternal torment if you make some bad choices. That is disproportionate and unjust.
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauder"Advantage of being a just system"? How is any system that actually justifies practical slavery "just"?
I have a Fourth Edition (1977) from the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center of New Tork. The intro was written in 1948 by Swami Nikhilananda.
Funny you claim that the rishis "came up with the idea of eternal reincarnation" - I doubt they would agree with that formulation. One life is hardly important in this idea anyway and it does have the advant ...[text shortened]... ndemned to eternal torment if you make some bad choices. That is disproportionate and unjust.
"... might get condemned to eternal torment if you make some bad choices"? This is a false account of Christian (certainly Catholic) doctrine and you know it.
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerI wonder whether the system explicitly condones slavery or whether slavery, the caste system, etc draw on the system to justify themselves, in the same way that some Christians have drawn on the Bible to justify their undesirable cultural practices. Certainly I don't recall reading anything in the Upanishads about slavery in particular, although that was some time ago, and I haven't read them all.
"Advantage of being a just system"? How is any system that actually justifies practical slavery "just"?
The origins of slavery are as obscure as those of religion.
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not saying the Upanishads explicitly condone slavery or the varna (caste) system - AFAIK, they don't mention varnas at all (that probably came with the Manusmriti). However, it is exceedingly difficult (to say the least) to use a philosophy that teaches a "ladder-based" system of reincarnation to condemn social structures that arise from that ladder. If a person is born into a lower caste by virtue of misdeeds in a previous life, then it is quite difficult to argue against that person's being treated like a criminal.
I wonder whether the system explicitly condones slavery or whether slavery, the caste system, etc draw on the system to justify themselves, in the same way that some Christians have drawn on the Bible to justify their undesirable cultural practices. Certainly I don't recall reading anything in the Upanishads about slavery in particular, although that w ...[text shortened]... , and I haven't read them all.
The origins of slavery are as obscure as those of religion.
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerI agree that, from a believer's stance, one cannot argue against the existence of a stratification in such a society, but one can always argue about what exactly should be the differences between castes.
I'm not saying the Upanishads explicitly condone slavery or the varna (caste) system - AFAIK, they don't mention varnas at all (that probably came with the Manusmriti). However, it is exceedingly difficult (to say the least) to use a philosophy that teaches a "ladder-based" system of reincarnation to condemn social structures that ...[text shortened]... e, then it is quite difficult to argue against that person's being treated like a criminal.
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe thing is that a person is not reborn--it is the impersonal self, atman, while the "subtle body" is the carrier of karmic debts. You are lumped with the karmic residue of previous lives that are not precisely your own, but constitute an opportunity for spiritual progress.
If a person is born into a lower caste by virtue of misdeeds in a previous life, then it is quite difficult to argue against that person's being treated like a criminal.
Anyway, that's besides the point. Reincarnation allows for spiritual progress; the caste system is a rigid structure that allows for no movement up or down the ladder. They don't really seem compatible. If anything, you could argue that the caste system impedes spiritual progress, since by forcing someone to stay in the same social position, you limit that person's opportunities for spiritual growth.
Anyhow, if you were an aspiring Upanishadic reformer, you'd find a way to make the texts fit your intentions, wouldn't you?
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI disagree. If there was no difference at birth, and therefore equality of opportunities, there could be no reward/punishment in rebirth. The idea that we are punished through reincarnation MUST imply a stratification system.
Anyway, that's besides the point. Reincarnation allows for spiritual progress; the caste system is a rigid structure that allows for no movement up or down the ladder. They don't really seem compatible. If anything, you could argue that the caste system impedes spiritual progress, since by forcing someone to stay in the same social position, you limit that person's opportunities for spiritual growth.
This doesn't mean that there can be no possibility of social movement, but it justifies the necessity for social rigidities.
Also, does moving up the social ladder increase the opportunities for spiritual growth? It doesn't seem that obvious to me and it also depends how spiritual growth is measured (absolutely or relative to circumstances).
15 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI wonder how the word "punishment" crept in...The karmic vehicle, so to speak, is indifferent--you merely reap what you have sown--although it wasn't "you".
I disagree. If there was no difference at birth, and therefore equality of opportunities, there could be no reward/punishment in rebirth. The idea that we are punished through reincarnation MUST imply a stratification system.
"Karma is a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. The results or "fruits" of actions are called karma-phala. Karma is not about retribution, vengeance, punishment or reward, karma simply deals with what is. The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to others. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well. It is cumulative." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma
Perhaps karma has everyone fooled--who says that being born as Paris Hilton is a special reward for good behaviour? Also, if karma is a fact (I don't know), then it operates in lands where there is no caste system. So, who's to say an untouchable from India who is karmically clean shouldn't transfer the contents of his karmic vehicle to a zygote in Australia, to be born as the future Surfer Buddha?
To me, the question is why this karmic transfer should take place at all. Hard to test, isn't it?
15 Mar 07
1 edit
"Many European scholars from the colonial era regarded the Manusmriti as the "law book" of the Hindus and thus concluded that the caste system is a part of Hinduism, an assertion that is rejected by many religious scholars of Hinduism, who contend that it is an anachronistic social practice, not a religious one[6][7]. Although many Hindu scriptures contain passages that can be interpreted to sanction the caste system, they also contain indications that the caste system is not an essential part of the Hindu religion. The Vedas place very little importance on the caste system, mentioning caste only rarely and in a cursory manner. In the Vedic period, there also seems to be no discrimination against the Shudras (which later became an ensemble of the so-called low-castes)[8]. Later scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita and Manusmriti state that the four varnas are created by God." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_caste_system
"Passages from scriptures such as Manusmriti suggest that the caste system was originally non-hereditary:
As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a Vaishya or a Kshatriya
ManuSmriti X:65"
15 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageReincarnation allows for spiritual progress; the caste system is a rigid structure that allows for no movement up or down the ladder.
The thing is that a person is not reborn--it is the impersonal self, atman, while the "subtle body" is the carrier of karmic debts. You are lumped with the karmic residue of previous lives that are not precisely your own, but constitute an opportunity for spiritual progress.
Anyway, that's besides the point. Reincarnation allows for spiritual progr anishadic reformer, you'd find a way to make the texts fit your intentions, wouldn't you?
On the contrary, spiritual progress (or regress) precisely consists in one's movement up (or down) the hierarchy across multiple lives. In each life, one moves to the next "level" by observing one's dharma (loosely, "duty" ) at that level. The dharma of a person born into a caste of sweepers consists in his/her performing assiduously the duties proper to that station.
This is just classical Hindu doctrine. I'm not saying it is explicitly endorsed by the Upanishads -- but, as you can see, it's not incompatible.
Anyhow, if you were an aspiring Upanishadic reformer, you'd find a way to make the texts fit your intentions, wouldn't you?
I could try. Certainly some Indian social organisations (like Roy's Brahmo Samaj) used some of the Upanishads to justify social reform (particularly the Isha Upanishad - a monotheistic text!) in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Prior to this, it was the Sikhs (who drew elements from both Hinduism and Islam) and way before them, the Buddhists (who, by definition, reject a karmic works-based system in favour of an enlightenment paradigm), who were known for social reform.