For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
Rodney McNeely – “The sooner religion dies, the sooner our species can go about the business of building a sane, decent world unfettered by myth and superstition.”
It’s not religion that is causing the insanity. It’s the insanity of bad religion, stupid worldviews, addiction to novelty, materialism, death of culture, ecological collapse.
Biggest monkey gets to run the show.
“Unfettered by myth”? Just what do you think is going to save us? The Hadron Collider?
lymis – “There’s nothing inherently wrong with imagining God to be male, old, Caucasian, and, frankly, grumpy, as long as we realize that it’s a story we tell ourselves because we cannot directly fully experience God. Otherwise we run the risk of assuming that the stained glass window is the sun, and that all the other stained glass windows are false suns, rather than understanding that the light of the same sun (Son?) shines through them all in unique ways, and that we couldn’t stand in the actual presence of the sun without being overwhelmed (and in the case of the literal sun, vaporized.)”
This is just beautifully said. I can’t figure out how anybody can go back to urgently promoting a proprietary god after reading it. But then the reptilian brain is a tenacious little bugger.
“I actually find the karma thing more valuable than the traditional sin phrasing. But that’s just my personal window.”
Do you mean the immediate intimacy of justice? The perfectly harmonious companion to our free will? The very soul of the Here and Now?
John Shore – “The Very Big Problem, of course, is that an absolute and permanent love must come from an absolute and permanent source.”
In recognizing absolute and permanent love, what remains of us? Having cleared the path of ego, who is loved and who loves?
Do we remain objects of love? Or, is love mutual and absolute? A single, unified field. The All.
Without the taint of “ego blindness”, karma loses it’s grip. What sustains the great multiplicity of relative self and it’s experience?
John Shore – “No one loses their ego in any sustained or permanent way, brmckay. (And just for the record or whatever, I studied and practiced Zen for over 20 years, and was deeply enamored of Hinduism and eastern spirituality for an additional ten or so years, so it’s not like I don’t know anything about this particular subject.) The idea that some people rid themselves of `the taint of ego blindness` is a lovely and certainly attractive idea, but it definitely has no more relationship to reality than do unicorns and fairies.”
If there is a body, there is an ego. “ego blindness” is another story.
Why was the fig leaf suddenly of so much importance?
How was Jesus different?
“No one gets to be unaware of themselves as individuals distinct and separate from everyone and everything else; no one gets to not crave being loved; no one–no one–doesn’t care what other people think of them.”
Can’t agree with that. All the testimony about Samaadhi and all.
Y. A. Warren responding to lymis – “I find the whole karma thing to be another way to blame the victims of trauma.”
Karma is the mother of “cause and effect”, not something somebody invented.
Especially out of malice.
The sanskrit translates to “work” or “action”.
If you have trouble granting purpose and meaning to the universe, this won’t make much sense.
Josh Magda – “brmckay – `Do you mean the immediate intimacy of justice? The perfectly harmonious companion to our free will? The very soul of the Here and Now?`
You’ve hit upon a radical difference between Eastern and Western spirituality. In the East, justice is automatic thanks to karma. In the West, Creation is unfinished by design, and justice must be “carved out,” in the words of Rabbi Heschel. In the West, there is a place for `letting go`… but there is even more of a place for `let my people go!`”
Thanks, I am reminded that whatever the Truth is, it remains unaffected by our visualizations.
The difference that you describe doesn’t seem like such a game changer though.
If one seeks God, God will be found. But a whole hearted effort with impeccable discernment seems essential.
Karma is the field of play. The “carving out.” For individual or collective.
Y. A. Warren – “I believe it is only the fear of not understanding the non-physical realm that prompts people to believe that individual egos remain intact in different physical manifestations throughout eternity.”
I see it differently. The ego, being unique to the body, what persists, is the inertia of action, thought and intention. This continuum, in balance with all other inertial states.
The butterfly flaps it’s wings. etc.
But if we grant purpose to the universe, what would that purpose be?
What does, ” I attempt to keep the energy I manifest in the positive realm”, mean in relation to evolution?
In terms of the absolute, can it be said that we own any part of this process?
(Responding to Josh Magda)
I had to look up “transcendence” and “immanence”.
Wikipedia – “Immanence refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence in which the divine is seen to be manifested in or encompassing the material world. It is often contrasted with theories of transcendence, in which the divine is seen to be outside the material world. Immanence is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, pandeistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the mundane.”
If this is what you are referring to, I would mostly come down on the side of “immanence” . The only thing that needs transcending is the ignorance of our actual non-separateness from God.
God cannot be brought down to creation. As you say, “we have never left it.”
I am also, all for the “hallowing of the life condition“, and “Beloved Community“. This is what results from the previously described transcendence of the illusion of separateness.
No, the body is not the problem. It is the vessel by which God experiences the Many. But there is a process of enlightenment to serve. I have been using the word Love for this in these discussions.
Josh Magda – “The Kabbalah, while itself an inheritor of the Neoplatonic tradition (which can be called a Western Vedanta), synthesizes Biblical spirituality by nevertheless affirming that the Infinite is `enriched` by Her/His/Its time as Creation. Theologically and politically progressive Neo-Hasidic Judaism (think Michael Lerner and Rabbi Schacter-Shalomi), deeply informed by Kabbalah, is the closest contemporary religion to the spirituality of Jesus, IMO. I’ll relay to you what I wrote on another blog recently. Blessings to you, friend:
Myself, I experience two things about God/Spirit/The Sacred simultaneously: the overwhelming and certain reality of a Divine Heart above/around/behind/below Creation, and the overwhelming and certain presence of this SAME Heart within Creation, working, playing, and longing to be more fully born here. I don’t know what to make of this conjoined experience of the Sacred (which only appears conjoined rather than unified under the analysis of ordinary consciousness, like we’re doing here) except to affirm simultaneously the reality of Heaven (the Transcendent) and Earth (Creation, the Immanent). Which means, Creation really matters … the whole point of being on the tight rope in the first place is to bring enjoyment to others, while developing our own capacities as an acrobat; but critically, there IS a safety net, and that safety net is Heaven.
My tiny mind cannot understand an Enriched Infinite, whatever it can possibly mean for the Infinite to grow, especially by entering into relationship with creatures such as ourselves… but that is the Judeo-Christian mystery I experience, and my money is on it having something to do with Love being Ultimate.”
I’m content to assume that we’ve said the same thing. Any textural difference is just personality.
Josh Magda – “If we can figure God out, God is no longer God. “
You inspired me to visit an old friend.
Tao Te Ching
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
Translation quoted with permission: from http://www.Taoism.net and Tao Te Ching: Annotated & Explained, published by SkyLight Paths in 2006
We sing an ancient song.
(Responding to Herro)
Turning towards The Whole invokes the Understanding of it.
Who is it that turns?