23 Dec 08
Edit:
"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."
It seems to me that epi is absolutely sure of his personal interpretation of the "scripture", which he uses it as a "map", and that at the same time he understands that he has to use it as a stepping stone too in order to expand his understanding.
This sounds logical, and this is the reason why you, vistesd my friend, you said "I am not sure I can argue against it".
However, in such a case epi's organon is solely the "scripture" and not "this mind", and I am sure that you are aware that "solely this mind is Buddha"
Nothing Holy😵
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetleLet me be more specific.
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😵
Jesus once told His disciples, shortly before He was to be crucified, that where He was going they could not follow - at least not yet. (The disciples could not discern yet that Jesus was speaking about His impending death; they still hoped that God's plan was for Jesus to begin ruling the world soon as Messiah.) Jesus continued to explain that once He got to where He was going, where they could not follow, He would begin preparing a place for them. Here's the quote: "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you" (John 14:2).
This is what I mean by a revealed truth. Can anyone arrive at the truth, either experientially or rationally, that in God's house there are many mansions? Jesus is not speaking here metaphorically nor allegorically, for He says, "if it were not so, I would have told you." He is saying to these men, His disciples, plainly, in imagery they can relate to, that in heaven there are lavish places of abode which He will personally prepare for their eventual arrival.
A non-formalist might step in and say, "Jesus is talking about the many lavish stations a soul must pass through on its way to enlightenment," or something like that. A formalist, like myself, might say in response, "We have no reason to think Jesus meant anything of the sort, especially considering what the rest of scripture has to say about salvation, resurrection, heaven, etc." Really, the only honest approach would be to take Jesus at His word; to trust that there are many mansions in heaven and if there weren't then Jesus would say so.
Though I can only imagine what these mansions might look like, I can take it for granted that one of them is waiting for me. The existence of these mansions is not perceptible to me, nor could I have guessed in a million years that a truth about the world would turn out to be as peculiar as a mansion prepared for me by God's Son, but nevertheless, through faith, the existence of these mansions are as palpable as my own earthly abode.
What you cannot bring is an experience of a heavenly mansion to this text, because only those who die and go to heaven will ever know what that mansion is exactly. We can use our imagination to picture what they might look like, but outside of that we have nothing. In this instance the non-formalist would have to bring to bear preformed ideological content and assume that Christ was talking about something spiritual that we'd be able to discover for ourselves. Am I the only one who thinks that approach would be ridiculously self-serving?
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasWell epi my friend,
Let me be more specific.
Jesus once told His disciples, shortly before He was to be crucified, that where He was going they could not follow - at least not yet. (The disciples could not discern yet that Jesus was speaking about His impending death; they still hoped that God's plan was for Jesus to begin ruling the world soon as Messiah.) Jesus conti ...[text shortened]... . Am I the only one who thinks that approach would be ridiculously self-serving?
Jesus was an advanced Jew teacher, therefore it must be taken for granted that he was aware of Eheye/ Metatron/ Caioth Ha Qadesh, of Jehova/ Ratzihel/ Offanhim, of Jehova Elohim/ Jafkihel/ Aralim, of El/ Jadkehil/ Hasmahlim etc; therefore the “mansions” is not a “new” concept, outside of one’s understanding either he is a Christian or not
A teacher is a teacher simply because he can “teach”, but he is able to teach solely when the student is eager to learn; thus, “believe or believe not, you anyway have to search”. And you have to do it using your own mind.
It is my knowledge that the Teachers are using a complex of symbols in order to help their student to achieve Awareness; everything else follows this prerequisite
Finally you said that “we can use our imagination to picture what they might look like, but outside of that we have nothing”.
Nope; “Ben Azzai gazed and died”
and vistesd can assure you that Ben Azzai was not prepared
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasmmm i have an interesting observation, well, to me anyway. are we to understand from your reasoning that these are physical or spiritual mansions? if they are physical then the word of God has been contradicted, for flesh and blood cannot inherit Gods Kingdom, why not?, for it is a spiritual realm! if they are spiritual abodes then how does one occupy and enjoy something lavish in the form of a spiritual being, for the enjoyment of such pertains to the physical senses, does it not? what you think? hopefully i have understood your meaning.
Let me be more specific.
Jesus once told His disciples, shortly before He was to be crucified, that where He was going they could not follow - at least not yet. (The disciples could not discern yet that Jesus was speaking about His impending death; they still hoped that God's plan was for Jesus to begin ruling the world soon as Messiah.) Jesus conti ...[text shortened]... . Am I the only one who thinks that approach would be ridiculously self-serving?
24 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasCan anyone arrive at the truth, either experientially or rationally, that in God's house there are many mansions?
Let me be more specific.
Jesus once told His disciples, shortly before He was to be crucified, that where He was going they could not follow - at least not yet. (The disciples could not discern yet that Jesus was speaking about His impending death; they still hoped that God's plan was for Jesus to begin ruling the world soon as Messiah.) Jesus conti . Am I the only one who thinks that approach would be ridiculously self-serving?
Of course.
Jesus is not speaking here metaphorically nor allegorically, for He says, "if it were not so, I would have told you."
(1) That does not follow at all; and
(2) strictly would commit you to the notion that God’s house is some kind of physical structure, like an actual building! With actual rooms (“mansions” )!
So, you must really mean to restrict the level of metaphor/allegory, not deny it altogether. But (1) still holds.
What you cannot bring is an experience of a heavenly mansion to this text, because only those who die and go to heaven will ever know what that mansion is exactly.
On the one hand, this is an example of coming to an interpretive conclusion about what Jesus means, and then insisting on your own “mapping” of the map. Now, perhaps your reading here is correct—since I am not committed to the proposition that Jesus (or the writers of scripture) had to be right about everything [I problem which I will try to address], I don’t have to take some all-or-none view. But—
You have stated or implied several conclusions about the meaning of this text. One is that “heaven” (“God’s house” ) is of the nature of a place (some actual existential dimension(s)), rather than a state of being. This commits you to the proposition that the kingdom is not inside us, but exists exogenously. And it is not only exogenous to us as individuals, it is exogenous to this life, since only those who die can experience it.
So, you study the texts (and perhaps commentaries on the texts), and arrive at a conclusion as to their meaning. Then you take the position (or so it seems) that no line of reasoning or interpretation, and no experience (spiritual, mystical,* or other) can confirm or disconfirm this conclusion—indeed, cannot be permitted to confirm or disconfirm. [Please correct me if I am misreading you!] This impermission itself is (I assume) based on some theory of inspiration/inerrancy of the scriptural revelation that closes the circle, so that it cannot be either confirmed or disconfirmed from any exogenous source.
[A variation: Some would claim that their reading is confirmed by the Holy Spirit; others, however, claim that any putative experience of the Holy Spirit can only be confirmed by its conformity to scripture. The first case, of course, raises the question of how one confirms that the experience was actually of the Holy Spirit… The second case raises the question of how one confirms that the scriptural revelation is inerrant…]
In the end, the formalist is committed to one of two propositions:
(1) Her/his own mapping (with or without consideration of the conclusions of other map-makers: e.g., theologians) of the map is exclusively correct; or
(2) Her/his own mapping of the territory is exclusively correct.
There is no way at all—absent self-deception—that the formalist can escape that “his/her own”. There is no source of confirmation that can absolve the individual of responsibility for her/his own interpretive decisions—in the face of either text or (existential) territory.
That aside, you seem to be arguing that the one’s (admittedly perspectival) experience of the territory cannot properly be used to judge the accuracy of the map, that the map must be sacrosanct. Further, you seem to arguing that this is so because the map itself says so! That is no more reasonable than my saying: “I know I’m right because I said I’m right; I just told myself so this morning…”
On the one hand, such strict (de jure) religious formalism strikes me as an illusionary attempt to escape from the weight of that “my own”—correctly perceiving that, as you pointed out, a strict religious exclusivism based on that would be an idolizing of one’s own mental faculties. On the other, I do not see how it can escape idolizing the map.
In this instance the non-formalist would have to bring to bear preformed ideological content and assume that Christ was talking about something spiritual that we'd be able to discover for ourselves.
I don’t think that how one thinks a text (or statement) is most plausibly interpreted—or the range of possible interpretations—has anything to do with formalism or non-formalism.
What “preformed ideological content” do you bring to bear to conclude that Christ cannot be talking about something spiritual that we’d be able to discover for ourselves? (Or, more appropriately perhaps, discover with the help of other teachers, with other maps, that might help us to dispel our acquired illusions?) Why that should be taken to apply only to non-formalists is beyond me.
I don’t think that you necessarily bring any preformed ideological content to the interpretive venture. You certainly bring some hermeneutical assumptions to bear when reading the texts; if you consider those assumptions to be somehow sacrosanct—well, then on what basis? As a strict formalist, you might be imposing your conclusions as “post-formed ideological content” in order to foreclose all other possibilities—but that would just be, again, treating your mapping of the map as somehow sacrosanct.
Am I the only one who thinks that approach would be ridiculously self-serving?
“Am I the only one who thinks that the attempt to escape into the false security of strict religious formalism (or formalistic exclusivism?) is ridiculously self-serving?”
Hmmm…
_____________________________________
* I use “mystical” in a technical sense that does not imply the occult, the supernatural or visions and the like. Merton’s descriptions of Zen, for example, would be included.
24 Dec 08
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE…
Let’s see if I can simplify— Your claims seem to reduce to:
(1) I cannot learn the truth for myself.
(2) Therefore I must be told the truth by some authority.
(3) Since I cannot learn the truth for myself, I cannot by myself learn whether or not any putative authority is telling the truth. [By (1)]
(4) Therefore I must be told by some authority whether or not any putative authority is telling the truth. [By (1) and (3)]
(5) Since…
…and round and round and round, ad infinitum.
Now, one can close the loop by simply fiat: one simply decides—on their own recognizance!—that this authority will be accepted as final. If one does that, however, one admits that one cannot know if the authority they’ve chosen to follow is itself telling the truth.
If one assumes A as a premise, then one can perhaps proceed to construct valid and consistent arguments based on “If A, then T”, etc. But none of that can prove A as a fact. In terms of our discussion, the map cannot prove itself.
.
And we could, with only minor alteration, insert words like “certainty” and “exclusivity” into the inference that I started with, and round and round it goes again… As I have shown, it can also be done whether one asserts that it is the Holy Spirit that confirms scripture, or scripture that confirms their experience of the Holy Spirit… [“How do you know it was the Holy Spirit?” “well, because…”]
Now, there are likely people on here who cannot bear to accept their epistemic, moral and—indeed—existential (including spiritual) responsibilities, and therefore seek to fob them off on some exogenous authority. And then, they cannot bear to accept their responsibility for submitting to that authority—and so they wind themselves around and around with untenable circular arguments, so thickly layered that they have difficulty finding their way out, which only reinforces the false sense of security that they have escaped from those responsibilities into some area of given certainty.
But I certainly have never considered you to be such a person; nor do I now. Nor do I claim to be immune from such errors (self-serving or not).
But there is really no way out. There really just isn’t. At some point, you decide, on your own recognizance and responsibility—and neither reliance on revealed scripture, nor inspiration of the Holy Spirit, nor anything else can provide a way out. Now, if you are correct in your theological dualism—i.e., that what we call God is A (personal) being of some sort, and the unerring creator of the natural universe—then I would suggest that it is precisely your accepting of that responsibility (and any entailed risks) that such a God wants from those creatures endowed with a consciousness such as ours. [And arguments from the “fall” do not provide any escape hatch either: we are in the existential state we are in, with the consciousness we have, however one interprets that story.]
There really is no way out. And what I have called strict, exclusivist, de jure religious formalism just seems to me to seal the winding-sheets.
At bottom, one can decide to be such a religious formalist; but one cannot justifiably assign any special negative motivations, or character insufficiency, or even lack of spiritual maturity to those who decide otherwise. Any such charges can just as well be leveled at the strict religious exclusivist—with just as much, or as little (I’ll let you decide), justification.
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesd🙂
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE…
Let’s see if I can simplify— Your claims seem to reduce to:
(1) I cannot learn the truth for myself.
(2) Therefore I must be told the truth by some authority.
(3) Since I cannot learn the truth for myself, I cannot by myself learn whether or not any putative authority is telling the truth. [By (1)]
(4) Therefo ...[text shortened]... ict religious exclusivist—with just as much, or as little (I’ll let you decide), justification.
29 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdAll I'm saying is, Jesus is speaking authoritatively about these mansions; he knows they exist. I must trust that Christ knows what He's talking about, if I am to (indirectly) experience their reality, via hope. Further, He speaks about these mansions in reference to life after death ("I go to prepare a place for you" ), meaning they cannot be known experientially, at least not this side of the grave, a fact Christ establishes by saying, "Where I am going you cannot follow..."
[b]Can anyone arrive at the truth, either experientially or rationally, that in God's house there are many mansions?
Of course.
Jesus is not speaking here metaphorically nor allegorically, for He says, "if it were not so, I would have told you."
(1) That does not follow at all; and
(2) strictly would commit you to the notion that ural or visions and the like. Merton’s descriptions of Zen, for example, would be included.[/b]
Context is essential in establishing this reading. If this commits me to the proposition that the Kingdom of the Heavens is not inside us, that's probably because it isn't (at least not exclusively). If this means God's house is a place rather than a state of being, that may be because it is (though perhaps not exclusively). As near as I can tell, the context yields nothing more than this, esp. to someone not intending to interpret the scripture through the lens of some ideology.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that I have no "map"; rather, I merely take Christ at His word. The Vedantist who uses the sermon on the mount as a sounding board for his beliefs is the one employing a map! If I had a map, I could tell you exactly what the mansions represent. Instead, all I can tell you is that Jesus is referring to something specific when he mentions mansions; I dare not go beyond what the context allows, and I need not. Others do.
29 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdNow, one can close the loop by simply fiat: one simply decides—on their own recognizance!—that this authority will be accepted as final.
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE…
Let’s see if I can simplify— Your claims seem to reduce to:
(1) I cannot learn the truth for myself.
(2) Therefore I must be told the truth by some authority.
(3) Since I cannot learn the truth for myself, I cannot by myself learn whether or not any putative authority is telling the truth. [By (1)]
(4) Therefo ...[text shortened]... ict religious exclusivist—with just as much, or as little (I’ll let you decide), justification.
TRUST.
29 Dec 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasJesus was speaking as a teacher, trying to pass a message directly from mind to mind; in addition, other teachers before him they knew quite well that these mansions exist too, as it is obvious for the individual once he gets in touch with other systems.
All I'm saying is, Jesus is speaking authoritatively about these mansions; he knows they exist. I must trust that Christ knows what He's talking about, if I am to (indirectly) experience their reality, via hope. Further, He speaks about these mansions in reference to life after death ("I go to prepare a place for you" ), meaning they cannot be k ...[text shortened]... mansions; I dare not go beyond what the context allows, and I need not. Others do.
30 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasLook, I am not going to get into a lengthy NT exegesis with you. But, as an example, if you are going to insist that “place” needs to be taken literally, by what hermeneutical standard do you decide that “rooms” (mansions) is not to be taken literally—e.g., with doors and walls. What kind of boundaries? And if you say that it’s all some kind of “place” that we can’t understand, then how can you take “place” literally—since in that case “place” doesn’t really mean “place” but something else?!
All I'm saying is, Jesus is speaking authoritatively about these mansions; he knows they exist. I must trust that Christ knows what He's talking about, if I am to (indirectly) experience their reality, via hope. Further, He speaks about these mansions in reference to life after death ("I go to prepare a place for you" ), meaning they cannot be k mansions; I dare not go beyond what the context allows, and I need not. Others do.
By what hermeneutical standard(s) do you decide when the texts are speaking literally and when metaphorically, or allegorically? Do you have any such standard(s)? From whence do they derive?
In your next post, in reply to my statement that one can close the loop by fiat, on their own recognizance, you simply said: TRUST
I’ll buy that. You have to choose a standard of truth for your belief system. Any belief system has to have some standard(s) of truth (axioms) that cannot be established or proved by the system itself, because the standard is what’s being applied to the belief system, not the other way around. One can’t use the measurements taken by a measuring stick to prove that that is the right measuring stick!
But that does not mean that the chosen truth standards might not be challengeable on other grounds: one could perhaps show that they are patently false; one might show that they lead to an inconsistencies or incoherencies within the belief system itself.
Without any truth standards, one can keep making up whatever they need to make things say what they think they ought to say—and, even there: by what standard? Does one simply end up believing their own beliefs about things? It seems possible that that is where some people end up, without realizing it.
I apply different truth standards than you do; so does the vedantist. If one wants to call the need for truth standards “an ideology”, so be it.
And, of course you have a map(s)! The NT is one of your maps; the text is not the territory!
01 Jan 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnenot familiar with this book but I think Joel Goldsmith refers to the Sermon on the Mount in a nondualistic context.
Anyone familiar with this book? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.
Here's a review from an Amazon customer that I found interesting. Most of the other reviews seemed to be along the same lines:
[b]I found this book in a chapel library, and it had a note inside which read "in the belief that a little 'heresy' never did anyone too much ha ...[text shortened]... ic. Noone has ever made Christ's immortal discourse easier to understand and live by.[/b]
06 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdAnd, of course you have a map(s)! The NT is one of your maps; the text is not the territory!
Look, I am not going to get into a lengthy NT exegesis with you. But, as an example, if you are going to insist that “place” needs to be taken literally, by what hermeneutical standard do you decide that “rooms” (mansions) is not to be taken literally—e.g., with doors and walls. What kind of boundaries? And if you say that it’s all some kind of “place” th ...[text shortened]...
And, of course you have a map(s)! The NT is one of your maps; the text is not the territory!
But the map is the territory, if the territory is not traversable. In the case of life after death, the only way we could talk about the territory is by having faith that the map is an accurate representation; i.e., to trust the mapmaker. A spiritual/psychological experience encased in koans or otherwise described metaphorically/allegorically is not comparable, since the territory, in that case, is at least in theory attainable by all people possessing consciousness. The context of Christ's remarks about mansions very clearly shows, however, that He refers to mansions inaccessible to the living, making it futile to ascribe to them a particular Zennist or Vedantist spiritual/psychological significance.
By what hermeneutical standard(s) do you decide when the texts are speaking literally and when metaphorically, or allegorically? Do you have any such standard(s)? From whence do they derive?
Context.
I admit, the mansions may be spoken of metaphorically, as you've pointed out, but certainly not as something we can experience this side of the grave. There is a limit to what meaning we can ascribe to them since the referent (or territory) is inaccessible. The map is therefore, in such instances, indispensable; faith in the mapmaker equally so.
But that does not mean that the chosen truth standards might not be challengeable on other grounds: one could perhaps show that they are patently false; one might show that they lead to an inconsistencies or incoherencies within the belief system itself.
Again, context is all important in this regard.
Does one simply end up believing their own beliefs about things? It seems possible that that is where some people end up, without realizing it.
This is exactly the kind of irresponsibility the Vedantists are guilty of. Here you've made my point for me. 🙂
I reject the notion that the orthodoxy of scripture cannot be established, given a thorough examination of context. There is the context immediately preceding and proceeding any given line of text, and there is the context of the larger body of scripture which sheds its light as well. The NT writers, for instance, constantly quote from the OT and place the significance of events within its context. There is the language itself, the richness and precision of Greek and Hebrew, full of intricate subtlety of meaning, allowing us an opportunity to understand authorial intent. Not to mention the context of history, tradition and the culture of the times the books were written. All of which upon extensive investigation I believe establish a convincing orthodox Christianity (which the Vedantist foolishly glosses over to his or her detriment).