21 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetleI agree, the sermon on the mount is "conceivable" by the general public, as most sermons are (or should be). The real problem is whether or not we've properly understood the author's intent. The sermon on the mount did not appear in a vacuum but exists within a larger context, and the only responsible way to interpret the author's intent is within that context, i.e., The Bible. Swami So-and-so believes that Christ is secretly teaching the Vedanta through the sermon on the mount, yet this same Swami no doubt disregards the other sermons where Christ unequivocally declares that nobody gets into heaven except by believing in Him, the only-begotten Son of God. In order to do this what the Swami must appeal to is subjectivism, which has no use for context, or objective truth for that matter. What the Swami is really insinuating by disregarding context, intentional or not, is that the sermon on the mount has no authorial intent, i.e., no discoverable meaning rooted in biblical scholarship.
Have you actually read Prabhavananda's book? I haven't.
But I am aware of the Sermon of the Mount, and it seems to me that the individual is not oblidged to be a Christian (regardless his denominations) in order to be able to expand his understanding after reading the text; I am an atheist, still I conceive the message of the Sermon and I think that ...[text shortened]...
Or you think that solely a Christian can grasp the meaning of the Sermon of the Mount?
😵
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasBut, epi my friend,
I agree, the sermon on the mount is "conceivable" by the general public, as most sermons are (or should be). The real problem is whether or not we've properly understood the author's intent. The sermon on the mount did not appear in a vacuum but exists within a larger context, and the only responsible way to interpret the author's intent is within that ...[text shortened]... ount has no authorial intent, i.e., no discoverable meaning rooted in biblical scholarship.
this is the reason why I insist at the method (evaluation of the mind instead of preaching), for there are differend levels of understanding, thus an individual will get the message which is permitted to him due to his personal level of exelixis. Absolute "Truth" is merely a delusion arising from dualistic theological thoughts and sophisms, and it does not work for me although I understand that it may work for you. So, for example, I see Jesus on the Mount as a teacher free at last to go direction Tipharet like every person who dared to bring the Fire to the Human, whilst you see him solely as the Son of your God as your religion preaches etc.
Have you read the book? Are you sure that the Indian thinks what you think he thinks? I haven't read it, and I have the feeling that he is just promoting his personal views using his own pathwork instead of a Christian pathworking, because this is the general method of a Vendist: they use to analyse whatever they are aware of via the evaluation of the mind. And this is fine with me.
But maybe I am wrong, for I have not read it.
So what?
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetleSo you are placing your interpretation of reality on to Ephin's and mine , no doubt seeking to absorb our truth into your truth - I seem to recall you calling that "discrimination" when it was practiced in reverse.
But, epi my friend,
this is the reason why I insist at the method (evaluation of the mind instead of preaching), for there are differend levels of understanding, thus an individual will get the message which is permitted to him due to his personal level of exelixis. Absolute "Truth" is merely a delusion arising from dualistic theological thoughts and ...[text shortened]... mind. And this is fine with me.
But maybe I am wrong, for I have not read it.
So what?
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt is not my "interpretation of reality", it is only my opinion, and as usually I will change it at the very moment that I will understand that it is false. I wish I knew the "absolute reality" but I am not this advanced.
So you are placing your interpretation of reality on to Ephin's and mine , no doubt seeking to absorb our truth into your truth - I seem to recall you calling that "discrimination" when it was practiced in reverse.
So, in your opinion, what is the "absolute reality" over here?
😵
BTW, have you read the book?
22 Dec 08
The real divide here seems to be between strict religious formalism and non-formalism. Strict formalists tend to think that their expression of the truth is the truth; non-formalists tend to search for the truth, and then see how different expressions/conceptualizations fit. The non-formalist may choose to follow a certain expression, but only as “effective means”.
[Note: I am using “truth” here, not in the more proper sense of a correspondence theory of truth, but really synonymous with reality—e.g., sat/satya.]
The non-formalist sees the truth as being prior to any and all expressions, even conceptualizations, of it.
To put it, admittedly crassly, the strict formalist tends to think that (a) his map is the territory, for which (b) there can be no other valid maps, and of which (c) her/his reading of that map is the only true one. The non-formalist may well say, “You know, I think this part of your map captures the territory very well.” But the formalist will protest even such an affirmation.
Vedantists seem to be generally in the non-formalist camp.
But there is another divide: dualism versus non-dualism. And that does go to the territory itself. Dualistic/relational language can be effective means (black beetle and I talked about “covenant” in this regard). We see figures in relation to other figures, and in relation to some ground against which to see them. To deny that is illusion. But to deny the non-separability of figure-and-ground, the gestaltic wholeness, is also illusion.
Dualists commit the second error; some monists commit the first (which is why I now eschew the label “monism” for “non-dualism”—following, I believe, Seng Tsan).
Now we get onto difficult ground. If Chrsitianity says what Epi says it says, then I have to say that that is not only wrong but (spiritually!) wrong-headed. If that is really what Jesus said (and I will no longer argue about what I think Jesus might’ve said and meant), then he is both wrong and wrong-headed. I find that religious dualism continually leads to absurdities and what SwissGambit has called “bizarro-speech”, and I find that strict religious formalism confuses the map with the territory—and more often than not leads to conceptual idolatry. Sometimes, to stick to the metaphor, this idolatry asserts that I cannot really know anything about the territory, since I do not accept another’s map as its “graven image”. And this, regardless of whether or not I am willing to question own mapping of the territory. Thus, such strict religious formalism seems to become almost always idolatrous—or at least to flirt seriously with idolatry. (Even Jesus can be made into an idol; even the Torah can be made into an idol. Idolatry is an attitude of mind.)
A parable: The Israelites are captive in mitzraim (literally, “narrow places”; the Hebrew term for “Egypt” in Exodus). Moshe leads them to freedom in the wilderness. They make a covenant with YHVH, who leads them to the promised land. [Moshe, like myself, dare not enter. Moshe, as I often am, is saddened by that.] And what do the people do? They proceed to turn the promised land into a new mitzraim! (“We want a king like everybody else!” And so it begins&hellip😉
That’s often what happens to people who find their way to the territory—not realizing that the wilderness is also the territory: instead of keeping the lessons they learned in the wilderness, they create a new mitzraim of secure boundaries, and “sanctified”, idolized maps. That is what strict religious formalism does. It captivates people in a religious mitzraim.
Once again, to quote Rav Kook:
“Every definition of God leads to heresy; definition is spiritual idolatry. Even attributing mind and will to God, even attributing divinity itself, and the name ‘God’—these, too, are definitions. Were it not for the subtle awareness that all these are just sparkling flashes of that which transcends definition—these, too, would engender heresy. ...
“The greatest impediment to the human spirit results from the fact that the conception of God is fixed in a particular form, due to childish habit and imagination. This is a spark of the defect of idolatry, of which we must always be aware. ...
“The infinite transcends every particular content of faith.”
—Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (former Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine), quoted in Daniel Matt The Essential Kabbalah.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdOh!
The real divide here seems to be between strict religious formalism and non-formalism. Strict formalists tend to think that their expression of the truth is the truth; non-formalists tend to search for the truth, and then see how different expressions/conceptualizations fit. The non-formalist may choose to follow a certain expression, but only as “ ...[text shortened]... ormer Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine), quoted in Daniel Matt The Essential Kabbalah.
😵
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetleLong-windedly stating the obvious, am I? 😉
Oh!
😵
BTW, I started on your question about deeper readings concerning ha-etz ha-da’at tov v’ra, but when I started to go deeper—I started to go deeper… Am deep into PARDeS.
Just some preliminary musings—
From a kabbalistic view, da’at tov v’ra cannot be just about discriminating awareness (“seeing the “trees” ): that is binah. The path of emanation is one thing, but—and I’m not sure that classical QBLH addresses this—there, from the point of view of “ascent” (not my favorite term), there can be no movement from binah to hokhmah, and return, without da’at. Da’at is the integrating consciousness that keeps the figure/ground/figure, etc., iteration from shattering into chaos, and also guards against the error of illusion on either side (only figure is “real”, or only ground is “real” ). Ein Sof is the “gestaltic” whole that includes ground-figures.
Figure/form/manifestations are transient. But—one might say that the “face” of the ground is also transient, as it manifests new manifestations. Ein Sof is the metaphysical gestalt, and the (dynamic) “totality that has no edge”. And, except for playful speculation, or allusive metaphors, there is nothing more to say about it.
It was a real error on my part, in the past, to think of “the Holy One of Being” as simply “the ground of being”.
Da’at is not “just” a s’firah. It is central; it is the bridge between the worlds of atzilut and b’riah; in the world of b'riah, it forms (or informs) the s’firah tiferet; in the world of yetzirah, it forms (or informs) the s’firah yesod. It also has to be the integration of binah-hochmah.
Da’at may also be, from the point of view of reflective consciousness, “the light that shines on everything but itself”.
Anyway, that’s where both my study and my contemplation (meditation) are at. At some point, I might be ready to “d’rash” the relevant Genesis texts…
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdThe obvious, yes🙂
Long-windedly stating the obvious, am I? 😉
BTW, I started on your question about deeper readings concerning ha-etz ha-da’at tov v’ra, but when I started to go deeper—I started to go deeper… Am deep into PARDeS.
Just some preliminary musings—
From a kabbalistic view, da’at tov v’ra cannot be just about discriminating awareness (“s ...[text shortened]... n (meditation) are at. At some point, I might be ready to “d’rash” the relevant Genesis texts…
Da'at seems to me Enlightement for it connects much more than the worlds; once in da'at you can be in conjuction with aziluthian qeter without being oblidged to never return direction assiya, for this exact queter becomes the malkut of ain soph aur
Right now you may see the glance of the tree all the way to the cliffothic levels -this is as real as the tree itself, but you are not eager to go there for you are aware that your energy flows from Elswhere; you belong not at the glance.
Da'at enables you to understand, and this understanding is nothing at all compared with the Enlightement, the purest power, Taia's sword
😵
22 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI see this divide (if it is a divide) a bit differently. Imagine that. 😉
The real divide here seems to be between strict religious formalism and non-formalism. Strict formalists tend to think that their expression of the truth is the truth; non-formalists tend to search for the truth, and then see how different expressions/conceptualizations fit. The non-formalist may choose to follow a certain expression, but only as “ ...[text shortened]... ormer Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine), quoted in Daniel Matt The Essential Kabbalah.
The "non-formalist", as you put it, in bringing his or her subjective experience to bear upon the expression of a non-subjective truth, is engaged in an approach to truth which absolutely guarantees error (by "non-subjective" I mean truth which is impossible to arrive at either experientially or rationally; i.e., a revealed truth). The danger lies in mistaking some inner experience or logic for the actual referent, in which case the mind itself is idolized, to one's detriment. To call truth "prior to any and all expressions or conceptualizations" is a good way to illumine the limitations of what we can ultimately know, but in the peculiar case of non-subjective, revealed truth the adoption of the map as the territory is similarly advantageous (in that it precludes a form of idolatry; i.e., of the mind).
When I worship the Lord I do so by relying upon what the Bible reveals about Him, but I also allow myself to go beyond His revealed attributes and engage Him as He is, beyond any conceptualization or expression. As a strict formalist I guard against the misinterpretation of scripture, and rely upon scripture to get my ideas about God straight, but this does not necessarily mean that I idolize scripture and thereby lose contact with or an appreciation for the ineffable.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis is interesting.
I see this divide (if it is a divide) a bit differently. Imagine that. 😉
The "non-formalist", as you put it, in bringing his or her subjective experience to bear upon the expression of a non-subjective truth, is engaged in an approach to truth which absolutely guarantees error (by "non-subjective" I mean truth which is impossible to arrive at ...[text shortened]... t I idolize scripture and thereby lose contact with or an appreciation for the ineffable.
A revealed truth -revealed to who? And which way?
A "revealed truth" has to be revealed directly from mind to mind for it is beyond our "understanding", otherwise is neither revealed nor truth. And the organon that the individual has to use is neither "faith" nor "preaching/ following the preacher", ie formalism, but the evaluation of the mind. Otherwise the individual is lost, for s/he cannot know what s/he knows and what s/he ignores; this is why when I sit I sit and when I walk I walk
And once the individual is really aware of the "revealed truth" (which BTW it is not an invention of his mind), he moves on thanks to his "faith", which arises naturally as a flow that urges her/ him to follow a take a specific direction without being sure that s/he proceeds the "right" way - the individual acts "as if"!
It seems to me that this is the essence of the pathworking -you have to put a leg before the other in order no to fall. Your leg, that is😵
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetlebeetle if i have followed your logic correctly, then in essence what you are saying is that once an individual makes an evaluation of a non subjective truth, with his mind, which he uses to determine its acceptability or otherwise( he may after all reject it on some basis, incoherency with previously accepted truths, lack of evidence or some other irregularity or other), he then assimilates it into his thinking and tries to determine how it relates to the whole in its immediate context and perhaps to different constituent parts, thus making sense of it and ultimately understanding it, and because he 'wants', to accept it, or has an 'inclination', to accept it, he acts as if it is true! is this not the case or have i misunderstood? the natural consequence of this is that he exercises his 'faith', that it is true and so it becomes a reality to the recipient of the truth, is it not?
This is interesting.
A revealed truth -revealed to who? And which way?
A "revealed truth" has to be revealed directly from mind to mind for it is beyond our "understanding", otherwise is neither revealed nor truth. And the organon that the individual has to use is neither "faith" nor "preaching/ following the preacher", ie formalism, but the evalu ...[text shortened]... -you have to put a leg before the other in order no to fall. Your leg, that is😵
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetleThanks. That's very helpful.
The obvious, yes🙂
Da'at seems to me Enlightement for it connects much more than the worlds; once in da'at you can be in conjuction with aziluthian qeter without being oblidged to never return direction assiya, for this exact queter becomes the malkut of ain soph aur
Right now you may see the glance of the tree all the way to the cliffothic leve ...[text shortened]... tanding is nothing at all compared with the Enlightement, the purest power, Taia's sword
😵
22 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasArticulate response, as usual! 🙂
I see this divide (if it is a divide) a bit differently. Imagine that. 😉
The "non-formalist", as you put it, in bringing his or her subjective experience to bear upon the expression of a non-subjective truth, is engaged in an approach to truth which absolutely guarantees error (by "non-subjective" I mean truth which is impossible to arrive at t I idolize scripture and thereby lose contact with or an appreciation for the ineffable.
I dislike the terms “subjective” and “non-subjective” here. I do not consider my realization of non-dualism, for example, to be at all subjective. Since I do not have a “view from nowhere”, however—and since I realize that my very viewing is itself a process within the whole—whatever thoughts I have about that, however I am able to express them, is inescapably perspectival at any moment. [The realization of figure/ground perspectivism, and the non-separability of the figures and ground—the gulfstream from the ocean, my smile from my face, myself from the whole—does not constitute a “view from nowhere”.]
Similarly, if the reality (the “territory” ) is not prior to any revelation, then what is being revealed?* And how can any revelation not be subject to that perspectivism?
I absolutely concur that “the mind itself can be idolized”—if, by the mind’s activities you mean the various (quite natural) endeavors at conceptualization, which I metaphorically call “map-making”. In fact, I have often used the phrase “images graven on the mind”.
I simply cannot assert that my map (realized, received or revealed) is the only “true” and non-perspectival map. That is precisely what makes me a non-formalist, who draws upon various map-forms. There are others who work within a single map-form, but do not insist upon it for everyone. (I might call them de facto, but not de jure, formalists; perhaps “de jure” is a better term than “strict”.)
I also want to keep myself from making new mitzraim.
[I try to be pretty careful about by language on idolatry—I try to use words like “tends toward”, “flirts with”, “can become”, etc. I am perhaps not always as careful as I would like to be. But idolatry, as a spiritual danger, has always loomed large for me.]
When I worship the Lord I do so by relying upon what the Bible reveals about Him, but I also allow myself to go beyond His revealed attributes and engage Him as He is, beyond any conceptualization or expression. As a strict formalist I guard against the misinterpretation of scripture, and rely upon scripture to get my ideas about God straight, but this does not necessarily mean that I idolize scripture and thereby lose contact with or an appreciation for the ineffable.
I’m not sure I can argue against that, as it is worded. But—consider for a moment: guarding against the misinterpretation of the map (scripture) is not the same as saying that it is the only valid map.
There also seems to be a hint of circularity in that second sentence: it is the territory (the ineffable) that the map may or may not misinterpret—one cannot use the map to interpret the map, and then insist that the territory conform. Nor can I reject your map simply based on my map; I have to test both against the territory (as I experience it), and allow some room for perspective. The map can never be guarantor of itself—without the danger of idolatry (even a subtle form, as Rav Kook says) raising its head.
And any claims from the map that it is guarantor of itself are ultimately circular.
Vis-à-vis what—until someone saves me with a better term—I’ll call de facto religious formalism, I have no quarrel. Vis-à-vis –until someone saves me with a better term—I’ll call de jure religious formalism, I do have quarrel. At the moment, I am not sure where you’re at.
______________________________________________
* If one argues that the revelation is itself also part of what’s being manifest from, in and of the whole, I would have little to say—except to raise the point that then all such revelations have that same status.
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes robbie my friend, this is what I mean. However the individual does not "want" or "want not" (there is not inclination at all due to the fact that the person is not bowing to a specific formalism); for the inclination is deriving directly from the person, whilst the level of existence/ understanding/ concept we are talking about it exists at a level beyond the existence of the individual. The organon is the tool that helps the individual to understand the nature of everything.
beetle if i have followed your logic correctly, then in essence what you are saying is that once an individual makes an evaluation of a non subjective truth, with his mind, which he uses to determine its acceptability or otherwise( he may after all reject it on some basis, incoherency with previously accepted truths, lack of evidence or some other ir ...[text shortened]... th', that it is true and so it becomes a reality to the recipient of the truth, is it not?
Otherwise, the whole "existence/ understanding/ complex" is an invention of the mind; and in such a case we are not talking of "faith" at all