In a comment on his blog a while ago Bruce Charlton quoted Rudolph Steiner as saying that "to deny God is a sickness."* I think this is perfectly true. Atheists are sick but it is a sickness of the soul caused by a stunted imagination and a rebellious will. So it is a moral sickness, or that is certainly a large component of it.
I suppose one must distinguish between active atheists and passive ones, the latter being the majority of the Western population almost by default these days. But even the passive have every opportunity to consider the question of whether or not God exists. After all, it is the most important question anyone can ever ask themselves, and to put it to one side is only acceptable if you are either a fool or else very immature. I don't say young because for many children, especially pre-adolescents, the question of God is extremely important. It's only when they begin to be corrupted by the world that it becomes less so.
I suppose one must distinguish between active atheists and passive ones, the latter being the majority of the Western population almost by default these days. But even the passive have every opportunity to consider the question of whether or not God exists. After all, it is the most important question anyone can ever ask themselves, and to put it to one side is only acceptable if you are either a fool or else very immature. I don't say young because for many children, especially pre-adolescents, the question of God is extremely important. It's only when they begin to be corrupted by the world that it becomes less so.
Then there is the denial of Christ. Some of this must come from the poor performance of the Churches and of Christians themselves. People reject them because of their shortcomings, not seeing that, in dismissing Christ along with them, they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But any real reflection on Christ or unbiased reading of the Gospels must make a sincere person see the truth. Once again, it is a sick soul that rejects Christ because he is the pattern of truth and this exists within us. If we are faithful to the truth within ourselves, we will recognise Christ. If we are not faithful to the truth of our own internal being then we will also dismiss the truth of Christ. People don't like hearing this but there it is. To deny Christ is to deny real truth, goodness and beauty for he is the embodiment of all of these.
But the other problem is that most people don't even think about God now. They have had little or no spiritual education and they are so preoccupied with material things that they don't worry about the spiritual at all. At least, not until they have to confront their own mortality and then it is often too late because the habits of a lifetime are so ingrained that they cannot be thrown off. But we cannot escape our spiritual responsibilities. We all have come across religious teachings. We are not deprived of access to the truth. It is our own decision as to whether we accept or reject the reality of God. The fact that our culture pulls us away from God is disastrous but it is not compulsory that we follow mainstream tendencies. We are perfectly capable of seeing beyond the cultural influences if we make the effort. Unfortunately, far too many of us don't want to make the effort and that is because we don't want to make the sacrifices. We are too comfortable in our material world to relinquish that. Or else we are too attached to our intellectual prejudices to want to give them up. Even those who do accept God often do so on their terms rather than his, and this is not that much different to not accepting him at all.
You might think I am being too harsh or dogmatic here but this is so important in a world that has abandoned its religious traditions and embraced a self-satisfied intellectual self-sufficiency. There is no point in treading lightly to avoid upset. Not now at this late stage. If we actively deny God we are either sick or full of pride and complacency. However much the atheist may hide his soul behind a pleasant outer facade, once you scratch beneath the surface you find a shrivelled, stunted being that is fighting against life and true goodness, and is doing so because of a lack of love. Of course, believers may lack love too but an atheist necessarily does because to deny God is to deny the reality of love which you can only do if you do not have it or feel it. I am not talking about affection or empathy or anything of that kind here but proper love, the difference being that spiritual love is not centred on the one that loves but reaches up to something higher and beyond. If you have this kind of love in you then you are aware, to some degree at least, of God. Love points to its source. So, if we reject God, we reject love even though we may cover that rejection up with worldly imitations of love.
The world is becoming more chaotic as it drifts further from any spiritual rootedness. We are surrounded by lies and that is corroding us inside as we adjust to it as normality. It is not normality. It is spiritual corruption which may leave us healthy looking on the outside but rots us from within. If we don't start to reach out to our Creator, we will sever our connection to him and that means that our inner being will start to wither and fade. How could it not? God is the source of life and light. If you deny him then you must fall into darkness. This is the plain truth which we ignore at our peril.
* Here's the link to that post. http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-difference-between-being-atheist.html
You might think I am being too harsh or dogmatic here but this is so important in a world that has abandoned its religious traditions and embraced a self-satisfied intellectual self-sufficiency. There is no point in treading lightly to avoid upset. Not now at this late stage. If we actively deny God we are either sick or full of pride and complacency. However much the atheist may hide his soul behind a pleasant outer facade, once you scratch beneath the surface you find a shrivelled, stunted being that is fighting against life and true goodness, and is doing so because of a lack of love. Of course, believers may lack love too but an atheist necessarily does because to deny God is to deny the reality of love which you can only do if you do not have it or feel it. I am not talking about affection or empathy or anything of that kind here but proper love, the difference being that spiritual love is not centred on the one that loves but reaches up to something higher and beyond. If you have this kind of love in you then you are aware, to some degree at least, of God. Love points to its source. So, if we reject God, we reject love even though we may cover that rejection up with worldly imitations of love.
The world is becoming more chaotic as it drifts further from any spiritual rootedness. We are surrounded by lies and that is corroding us inside as we adjust to it as normality. It is not normality. It is spiritual corruption which may leave us healthy looking on the outside but rots us from within. If we don't start to reach out to our Creator, we will sever our connection to him and that means that our inner being will start to wither and fade. How could it not? God is the source of life and light. If you deny him then you must fall into darkness. This is the plain truth which we ignore at our peril.
* Here's the link to that post. http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-difference-between-being-atheist.html
38 comments:
@William - Thanks for this. The reason that I was struck by the remark that atheism is a kind of insanity is that I spent much of my life as an atheist. Or, at least, I would not acknowledge and believe my underling theistic beliefs, so they tended to have little effect.
What I see happening nowadays is perhaps most obvious across a lifetime. People don't get wiser or better as they get older - quite the reverse. I know many people who were decent as youths and became more and more corrupted - sometimes even during their retirement years.
Without a core of theism, people cannot resist the relentless and growing pressure of evil in our society - and sooner or later they will yield. They can't resist evil because they have no fundamental or root *reason* to resist it - they have nothing except their feelings, and their feelings can be (and are) manipulated.
Dishonesty is a clear example - people typically become more and more dishonest as they get older; because dishonesty is expedient selfishly and in the short term - and such people can never really be sure about the long term or other people; they only *know* about themselves here and now, everything else is a guess... So they become worse and worse.
This is ultimately due to the false system of metaphysics/ fundamental assuptions, which our society teaches and assumes (no God, no creator, subjective values, death as extinction, no soul etc). Such ideas have been around for a long time, and it took several generations before these really became internalised and universal in the public sphere, but that has now happened.
I agree with all you say there, Bruce. You might think that people might become more sympathetic to theism as they grow older but in our current culture we are so set in our ways that most just double down on their lack of belief and cynicism. We have almost used up the capital from our Christian inheritance and the signs of that are increasingly clear.
Test
Hello Chris
I'm not sure if you're just trying out the comment facilities or saying the present is a time of testing! If the latter, you're surely correct.
Forsooth.
Hi William. I’ve been lurking enjoying your output . Keep it up!
I’ve been reflecting on what you wrote here and on other posts , particularly those on Advaita and Buddhism . Those systems are atheistic , or perhaps we should say “ non- theistic “ in which case the substance of this post wouldn’t apply to those who hold such views ? Perhaps?
The nondual traditions have often been characterized as pantheistic or monistic to the extent that they claim the “all -inclusiveness” of the Absolute and the Supreme Identity as man’s final end. Religious objections to this doctrine say this amounts to the annihilating of any significant relationship between man and God. But does it? If so , one could argue that it cannot be sustained without destroying the meaningful relation between the Father and the Son in the doctrine of the Trinity . If the Supreme Identity destroys the meaning of reality , so does, perhaps , any idea of God.
My view now is that the non-dualistic philosophies which think they have gone beyond the personal God have not actually reached him. They are describing oneness with the root of their being but we are created and put on this Earth not to return to spiritual ground zero but to make something new which involves the perfection of the self in a union with God. Not its simple, and basically prosaic, abnegation in universal consciousness.
It's the marriage of spirit and matter, the consummation of duality rather than its destruction in pure oneness, that life is all about. This requires bringing creation to its highest expression not rejecting the created world for the uncreated which is essentially what non-duality does. Hence love which has no place in non-duality or Buddhism despite efforts to claim otherwise which probably came about in response to Christianity as seems clear if you look at the history. Buddhist compassion is not Christian agape, and anyway love is illogical in the context of a strict non-duality. No self means no love.
I think that you are quite right right , except it seems that your criticism is aimed at a different target , that of monism or pantheism . These views exclude the reality and significance of finite things . But metaphysical infinity includes the possibility of selves and the finite world in principle and by definition . It is not the One as opposed to the Many, but includes both unity and multiplicity in a “non-duality” which does not obliterate distinctions . This is why , for example , many of Shankara’s writings were devotional .
The individual self is not allowed any true reality or integrity in advaita or Buddhism. It's a fiction of maya. So, in practice, the distinction between monism and non-duality is mostly just theoretical. The devotional writings may or may not have been by Sankara (there were quite a few people whose work was attributed to him and even the Vivekachudamini is not seen as authentically his nowadays), but anyway they would be regarded as provisional only, to be discarded on a higher level of reality.
Advaita specifically says that the created world is maya, not fully real or neither real nor unreal as its frankly have your cake and eat it too way of speaking puts it. But a true Christian theism regards creation as fully and wholly real even if utterly dependent on God. For advaita there could be no point to creation which is why Sankara specifically says he can't explain it. However for Christianity it is the fulfilment of love. They are two very different things and I believe Christianity describes the nature of of reality better, more accurately. Advaita is a profound human philosophy but it lacks the revelationary quality of Christianity.
William ,
I hope you don’t mind me pushing back a little on this subject . To my lights , when it is said that maya is “illusory” or unreal , that is meant in comparison to God, the supremely Real . But to the theist , affirming both the distinction and the identity of the world and God is trying to have one’s cake and eating it too? Right ? But , if that is true , why wouldn’t the doctrine of the Trinity fall by the same logic ?
If monism and dualism are not reconcilable , then , perhaps , neither is the Trinitarian concept of the Godhead .
Push away! I don't mind. It's always good to have to explain yourself and you learn in the process.
However on this occasion I must say that, in practice, advaita does obliterate all distinction. It does fundamentally deny the reality of the individual self, reducing everything ultimately to universal consciousness. But consider this. How can the universal be known except through the individual? The Trinity certainly is a mystery but if everything really could be boiled down to pure undivided oneness then nothing could ever arise. You need something more than oneness for things to be in any form or of any kind. To put it in a slightly facetious way, absolute oneness could not be distinguished from absolute noneness.
You say that advaita admits the relative world and it does up to a point. But because it sees Brahman as inactive, the world can never be more than the product of ignorance and is dispelled in realisation. Also, advaita puts the personal God in the realm of maya, considering that reality is ultimately impersonal. I consider this a monumental error. If reality is impersonal then it is nothing.
There's no room for free will or love in non-duality. It's no good saying these exist on a lower level of ignorance. Either they really exist or they don't. I think they do and that's why I reject advaita or, at least, see it as reductionist. It fails to acknowledge that the relative is a real part of reality and not simply an unreal add on. At the end of the day, it is an intellectual philosophy, curiously enough emanating from the very mind it dismisses. Sankara was a logician who couldn't deal with paradox and so had to reduce life to either/or when, in fact, it is both/and.
Sorry if that sounds a little terse. I was just jotting down thoughts as they came to me.
Yes, the problem of the manifestation of the finite from the infinite is a puzzle . If the ultimate Reality is formless , how can it give birth to forms ? If it is spaceless and timeless , how can it engender space and time ? If it is imageless , how can it possibly imagine ?
Perhaps , in actuality , no contradiction exists here if it is remembered that the word formless as applied to the infinite does not signify the opposite of forms . The true opposite of form is void - or as you rightly pointed out , nothing . The word formless in this connection means “transcending all possible forms “. For example , the color red is in itself formless , but red may be used in drawing all possible forms . Red, though formless, is not the opposite of form . Similarly , the formal distinction of the spokes of a wheel is transcended at the hub ; but there is no conflict between the formless unity of the hub and formal diversity of spokes at the rim.
Thus when certain metaphysical doctrines describe the infinite as No-thing , they certainly do not mean that it is nothing . They simply mean that the infinite is not in the same class of finite objects ; that it is other than all known and knowable things . Nothing is the opposite and negation of something ; but the infinite No-thing , so far from being the opposite of things , is their essential ground .
Yes, all that is undoubtedly so but don't you think it's slightly smacks of face-saving for non-duality? It's surely much simpler and more truthful just to say that God is the personal I AM and impersonal concepts of No-thing do not adequately describe him in his real being.
Chris -
There are different paths to the same goal. Buddhism itself acknowledges there are many different paths appropriate for different temperaments and people of different levels of spiritual attainment.
William and Bruce are taking a different path that is appropriate to them, and perhaps others in the modern world, especially the West - we should respect that.
Non-duality in its pure form is incomprehensible to many, and is not appropriate for many - but I would suggest in his own way, by striving for union with the divine and for love, William is striving for non-duality, even though he insists duality is necessary for love (a basic misinterpretation, in my view, but perhaps one that is necessary for him to achieve any level of non-duality at all)
These are not arguments that can or should be settled by logic - if someone rejects your particular spiritual path after you've explained, but is still recognizably striving for Unity however "wrongly", then their approach may be valid for them.
I understand non-duality, Aaron, as in advaita Vedanta. I just think it's reductionist and in certain respects actually nihilistic!
If you think its reductionist and nihilistic you do not understand it :)
In any event "understanding" isn't important - in fact, one might say if one "understands" non-duality than one has missed the point.
I don't think it's a big deal either way.
There are many paths. As long as one arrives for some kind of Unity - love, unity with the Divine - one is on the right path.
Aaron ,
I used to adhere to the pluralistic view that you referred to, but I have come to question if there are, indeed , “many paths that lead to the same summit” . On this point , I have no doubt that William would reject such a claim and as I alluded to, I , myself , have become rather skeptical of it. I can’t agree with you that this matter is no big deal. On the contrary , it seems to me to be of supreme importance .
I do understand that - some paths and approaches insist on their being the only right path. This has been very typical of Western approaches.
This is necessary for some people on certain spiritual levels, and is not necessarily a bad thing.
That being said, of course the number of valid paths are not infinite - it's not a case of anything goes. Certain key features must exist in all valid paths.
In any event, I will leave you to duke it out with William if you so wish. Good luck.
Aaron ,
To affirm the validity of contradictory theologies requires what amounts to a “double truth” which is a fundamental feature of several Eastern nondual traditions . Now , I realize that this is a key tenet of the Perennialist point of view , but is it really true that Christianity (for example ) has an esoteric dimension that transcends its central theological doctrines ? I have found this claim increasingly difficult to sustain . That is one of the reasons that I am here “ duking it out” with William.
I think there probably are valid outer paths, at least to begin with, but the inner path must be the same. But then I also believe that the revelation of Christianity contains more truth than any other spiritual approach which only hint at reality while Christ reveals it in himself. So there is no higher esoteric truth in which Christianity is absorbed together with all other religions. That would have to be advaita or something like it but advaita can only be accepted if one rejects vast areas of life experience. I look at it as the mirror opposite of materialistic science. Science sees only matter while advaita sees only spirit which it really does, when all is said and done, despite its attempt to include the world as provisionally true. Of course the world is a creation but that does not make it in any way unreal. It is just not self-sufficient. But my fundamental objection to advaita is that it denies the personal nature of God. If God is not personal in his highest aspect then life is devoid of meaning. It has no heart. That's what I mean when I say advaita tends to nihilism. it could even be said to be misogynistic in that it reduces the feminine aspect of being (maya/matter/mater) to basically nothing!
All that said, I don't think official Christianity contains all that there is of Christian truth and sometimes it only scratches the surface of it.
William ,
I appreciate your perspective that you sketched out . I’m inclined to say that the Christian Revelation is unique because of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation . Here’s the rub though , those theological positions pre-suppose some form theistic dualism, but that is precisely the foundational point in question.
The Advaitan/Perennialist/Theosophist claims that nondualism begins with “metaphysical realization “ which is beyond the realm of discursivity. But, surely , that can’t be quite right either - the reports of mystics tend to also reflect their pre-supposed theological commitments .
In the final analysis , I think Aaron may have a point in his claim that individual spiritual temperament comes into play . However , it’s amusing how nondualists talk about the Truth of many paths , all the while subordinating the theistic traditions to a lower level of Truth . But then again , that tendency seems to go both ways , no ?
Regarding temperament, I used to incline much more to something like the advaita position though I never denied the reality of the self which is really just a kind of death wish or ideological pose. But I believed in some kind of absolute oneness. In a way I still do since there is/can be nothing outside of God. But he has given us some of his reality and that gift remains even in spiritual realisation. God created men and women as individuals. That is not just a temporary thing but a gift that can keep on giving if responded to correctly. Those who deny the self are in some kind of self- denial if that makes sense. So, I would say it’s not about temperament really. Truth is truth. There aren’t different truths.
The metaphysical realization you speak of doesn’t actually prove anything since it needs to be interpreted as you point out when you say that “the reports of mystics tend to also reflect their pre-supposed theological commitments”. Anyone can have an experience of oneness. That is the basic mystical experience but, in itself, it proves nothing.
And yes, for non-dualists there are many paths but they are all preparatory for non-duality so there is really only one. The uniqueness of Christianity is different to this in that it is based on the uniqueness of Christ. So it is not a deeper truth that reconciles all paths when the mind is sufficiently open to it. It is a supernatural truth that has been revealed and could not be known except through revelation.
The thing about advaita is that it very clearly came from Sankara's attempt to save Vedic religion from the onslaught of Buddhism so it is an historical reaction. Non-dualists don't seem to appreciate this. it puts a different perspective on the purity of his insight.
I wouldn’t be surprised if I brought this up
before ...... if the rock bottom reality of individual selfhood is an essential feature of any acceptable ontology, what is your take on Ramanuja’s pov - someone who clearly had similar objections to Shankara’s Advaita that you do ? Your comments suggest that you might open to a qualified nondualism .
With regards to the uniqueness of Christ , there are many nondualists (both of a traditionalist and progressivist slant ) who would argue that Christ was an avatar who experienced the Supreme Identity. But then these teachings were either misinterpreted by the people of the Mediteranean or were willfully changed / commandeered by the bishops of the proto- Catholic Church for political reasons . I don’t think the extant evidence supports that , but I do think it is plausible .
The fact that Advaita was a historical reaction to Buddhism doesn’t seem important one way or anothet . How an idea comes into existence has no bearing on to whether or not it is true - the genetic fallacy .
With regards to mysticism , despite what I said , I struggle with the claim that there are no unmediated experiences .
1.) I think Ramanuja makes a lot more sense than Sankara. I've mentioned that a few times on this blog.
https://meetingthemasters.blogspot.com/search?q=ramanuja
2.) That view isn't consistent with anything Christ said or taught as it has come down to us in the Gospels. It can only be believed by reducing him from fact to symbol and then interpreting his teaching through the non-dualistic belief system, using that as the default.
3.) It is important to the extent that Sankara's motive may not have been as objectively disinterested as one might like to think. There may have been a bit of religious competitiveness going on. I agree it may still be true but there are too many inconsistencies in advaita for that to be the case. I can't go into them all here but the posts I've written about non-duality go over the question. The chief stumbling blocks the fact the consciousness must have an individual component for any individual actually to be aware of it. The Buddha only attained Nirvana as an individual. He can only acknowledge it as an individual. And then do you really think that the consciousness of a realised non-dualist (assuming there actually is such a thing) is the same as that of the Creator of the universe? If you don't then you are admitting individuality. If you do, go ahead and create a universe!
4.) Surely there are unmediated experiences but all experiences still have to be interpreted and that depends on the mind of the e experiencer and the degree to which he has developed his intuition.
Shall we leave it there for the time being?
Sure,
I’ve been reading through many of your prior posts - sorry to make you re- hash a whole lot of material the you’ve dealt with before .
Kind Regards
If there was one comment I’d like to make , Im concerned that qualified nondualism comprises Divine transcendence .
What do you mean, Chris? I don't understand.
As I understand it , qualified nondualism amounts to the idea that creation is the “body” of God - differences can be affirmed while still maintaining Divine all inclusiveness . But, in both classical theism and Advaita , God is understood as radically transcendent - totally “ other” from the realm of temporality .
Oh, I see. Well, I wouldn't go along with Ramanuja completely. I just think he's right in his criticisms of Sankara. I wouldn't call creation the body of God. It's just creation. I think that God is immanent in creation but in his essence he certainly transcends it. But you can't really pin this down verbally.
Creation is God expressing himself, possibly that he may become more, not in the absolute sense but in the sense of self-knowledge, self-expression etc. Through creation he expresses his nature of love and in it both difference and oneness coexist and complete each other.
I realise now that the dreaded spellcheck has turned compromises into comprises. No, God definitely transcends creation but there is something in us that belongs to uncreated reality too which is what advaita is concerned with. But our task is not to reject creation for transcendence but to consciously integrate the created and uncreated levels of our being. Rejecting nothing but putting it all in its proper place.
Hi William ,
I hope your cool with one last post that deals with a point regarding the Trinity that I don’t think was really addressed . This quote speaks to it directly :
“ ....if the fact that the Persons are really three and yet really one does not render the God meaningless , then it must neccesarily follow that the fact that the selves are really many and yet really identical does not render the universe meaningless . One cannot have it both ways , stating that whereas unity in Trinity makes God meaningful , unity in multiplicity makes the universe meaningless. If the One in Three God can be meaningful , then the One in Many (i.e. non-dual ) infinite can be meaningful - and just as remote from monism .......
The main ground of the objection of the religious mind to the doctrine of the Supreme Identity and the infinite is that love , the highest form of meaningful relationship, is impossible between man and God unless (a) the self of man is definitely and absolutely other than God , and (b) capable of also of not loving him . But if this is true , it will also be meaningless and impossible for God the Son to love the Father , since both are God . Moreover , few theologians would be ready to admit that the Son could possibly not love the Father . If God is love essentially , then the Son , as God, will be live essentially .”
- Alan Watts
Too much thinking, Chris - non-duality and such other abstract notions are merely clumsy attempts to explain experiences gained through meditation in solitude in the forest. We shouldn't insist on them too much.
Love is an attempt to meld with the other and become one - it is the recognition that you are really me, and vice versa.
Abstract theorizing is pointless - if one loves, one seeks unity - however one describes it in abstract language.
I agree with Aaron. I see that passage as more intellectual game playing than displaying any particular spiritual insight. I don't even think the conclusions he draws are true in the context of his own speculations. Who says that unity in multiplicity makes the world meaningless? It surely makes sense of the universe.
I don't pretend to understand the Trinity even though i think it probably describes the nature of God as well as we can in our limited state. It's the basis of how there can be anything because if God or life were perfect undifferentiated unity then nothing could ever come about.
But anyway, as Aaron says, all attempts to formulate reality are really just clumsy attempts to articulate direct insights, some better than others of course. The best thing to do is not worry too much about metaphysical niceties but just seek to love God as the source of all goodness, beauty and truth and try to align oneself with his reality.
And this time, I can heartily agree with you, William.
Hi Guys ,
Thanks for the feedback . I apologize if I’m coming off as combative . I am genuinely interested in gaining insight into these weighty matters.
Aaron ,
“experiences gained through meditation “
As I mentioned earlier , the problem here is that those experiences tend to be filtered through different “ abstract “ metaphysical frameworks . The experiences may or may not be the same , but the interpretations are certainly diffferent. And I can’t but help to think that that matters.
“It is the recognition that you are really me and vice versa .”
That statement could have varied meanings and those differences could have important spiritual significance .
“If one loves , one seeks unity “
A secular humanist can love , but I don’t think such a one is seeking unity , at least in the way I think you meant .
William ,
I agree that all formulations are merely stumbling attempts at describing the ultimate reality . But surely , you believe that some articulations, those “ metaphysical niceties “ are more accurate than others . And again , that has to matter .
Chris - I think one must focus on a certain way of life and experience.
Theology will come in time, not as a result of logical thinking but inspiration and intuition. It will seize you effortlessly and joyfully, rather than you painfully extracting it through a process of analysis and argument. It will seem obvious and inevitable.
We try too much to force our wills onto the world and make it yield. That is modern. Relax. There are other forces than your own will at work in the world, and if we relax a bit and align with them, we will receive guidance.
As long as you have the basic metaphysical framework - materialism is false, spirit is real, love is essential - the details will come.
This is not an area for precise scientific ideas - and in fact, scientific laws are symbols for what we cannot know, and precision in science is merely expedient.
None of us can know exactly what God is - if we could, he'd be trivial. The symbols that let each of us connect with God most will come by a process of inspiration if we are open. For some its Christ, for some its Tao. But it is a mystery.
The idea of a rigid Truth that can only have one formulation is holding you back.
I think the way to approach sacred texts that most appeal to you, Chris, is to live with them and dwell with them, let them seep into you and transform you, be open to their suggestiveness, not try and extract a precisely defined rigid, logical, theological truth. Steep yourself in them and be changed by them.
Many sacred texts are gnomic, suggestive, and seem designed to stump our logical minds - they are often deliberately illogical and contradictory, mocking our attempts to imprison the spirit in logic, asking us to go beyond and not take the world of our logical distinctions as ultimate truth.
The Gospels are not readily comprehensible with worldly logic, nor are the Sutras.
Don't worry about questions, Chris. That's half the point of this blog and I'll always answer to the best of my ability.
I think Aaron's two comments above are to the point. Spirituality is primarily about motive and sincere love of God or what seems to an individual to be higher reality. My objection to advaita is mainly that it downgrades the personal aspect of God which it admits only to dismiss. So I see it as almost a materialistic version of spirituality, counter-intuitive as that may seem. The Masters told me that meditation was important but so was prayer and in this they emphasised both personal and impersonal approaches. Focus solely on the impersonal can consolidate spiritual pride and I see this as especially true for Western non-dualists who don't have the religious background that Hindus generally do.
A good metaphysics is certainly important but the niceties of it, by which I mean the peripheral bits, not so much. Aaron's three criteria of materialism is false, spirit is real, love is essential are a pretty good base to start from and the rest can grow as one deepens one's awareness.
But I would insist on the personal nature of reality and the fact that our individuality is a real God-given thing which in no way is meant to be abandoned. Unique identification with it is transcended but it remains as that through which and with which we can know our oneness in God.
Post a Comment