Eh? — Noble Dust
But of course what we think it means would be even more important, since if we get it wrong, we might go to hell...? — Noble Dust
But I don't think denial of God in this life leads to hell, because I don't understand the importance of this life vs. eternity, if eternity does in fact exist. — Noble Dust
Eh? — Thorongil
This very much depends on the sort of God you have in mind. The Christian God, whom Buxte has spoken of, is thought to be most fully revealed in the person of Christ, — Thorongil
A fuzzy, shifting melange of Vedanta, Buddhism and pan-psychism. I try to meditate but am hopeless at it. I am better at chanting, which I find quite helpful. I also sing in more than one choir, which I find spiritual in a way that is probably only comprehensible to people that have experienced singing in an enthusiastic choir.What does a spiritual disposition entail for you?
I didn't mean Eros. Erotic love is absolutely rife with conditions. I think the most common manifestation of something approaching unconditional love is that of a parent for a child (not all parents though). And yes, it can be brutal, especially when the child chooses a path that is self-destructive, or becomes hostile to the parent.Love without condition, "love, no matter what", in theory, is very romantic.
....
How this severity of the cost of Unconditional Love can obtain without a spiritual context is completely lost on me.
I try to meditate but am hopeless at it. I am better at chanting, which I find quite helpful. I also sing in more than one choir, which I find spiritual in a way that is probably only comprehensive to people that have sung in an enthusiastic choir. — andrewk
I didn't mean Eros. — andrewk
I think the most common manifestation of something approaching unconditional love is that of a parent for a child (not all parents though). And yes, it can be brutal, especially when the child chooses a path that is self-destructive, or becomes hostile to the parent. — andrewk
I haven't had much success with meditation — Noble Dust
There is a modern Zen koan that I always liked, I can’t find it again now, but it went something like this: new Zen student has first experience of Satori, and with great enthusiasm has Dokusan (interview) with teacher, asking in effect ‘now what?’ To which the answer was something like: ‘apply with broad, even strokes, allowing time to dry between coats.’ (gong sound.) — Wayfarer
If man is intrinsically good, then salvation makes no sense.
— Mariner
But doesn't Abrahamic anthropology affirm that man is intrinsically good? He is corrupted, fallen, but still good, inasmuch as he exists at all, since being and goodness are convertible terms in traditional Christian thought. — Thorongil
right now, reading Underhill's "Mysticism" is providing a good base, if nothing else. — Noble Dust
I think the dimension of ‘praxis’ is rather missing from the modern conversation on religion. — Wayfarer
I do often wonder if Buddhism and Christianity are two instances of the same thing, and I have doubts about that. — Wayfarer
But the emphasis on ‘right belief’ v ‘heresy’ and on ‘saved’ vs ‘damned’ has forced Western culture into this deep dichotomy - with or against. I really think that came to a head with Calvin. — Wayfarer
The Enlightenment was born out of ‘anything but that’ - you see it here every day. — Wayfarer
American Protestantism, on the other side, was born out of wiping the slate clean and practicing anew as Christ would have taught (albeit having abandoned the Western mystical tradition to their detriment, in my view). — Wayfarer
Right, but this idea that salvation does, to some extent, depend on something external can be found in non-Abrahamic traditions too. For example, in Buddhism, one must encounter the Dhamma, at least in one of their past lives, for the possibility of salvation to exist in this life. — Agustino
Could you expand on this? — Buxtebuddha
In the oldest sects of Theravada, it is absolutely required to have met a buddha in at least some past life for enlightenment to be possible - or otherwise to encounter the Dhamma externally by yourself, a direct revelation. Buddha-mind/nature, Nirvana and the Dhamma are eternal and not subject to change, much like the Christian Trinity. But when in a state of deep ignorance, you can only encounter the Buddha-mind, and therefore the Dhamma externally. That's why some sects of Buddhism venerate the statue of Buddha.The difference is that in one case (Christian grace) it is a gift from an agent (God) to the subject; in the other case, it is a precondition that is not offered by an agent. In Buddhism (as far as I know) there is no mind guiding or attracting people towards 'salvation' -- it is a result of personal effort + necessary preconditions. Therefore, it is quite unlike Christian grace in that it does not require external conscious help by an agent. — Mariner
In the oldest sects of Theravada, it is absolutely required to have met a buddha in at least some past life for enlightenment to be possible - or otherwise to encounter the Dhamma externally by yourself, a direct revelation. — Agustino
Granted that Buddha-nature is personal, I think it's very much an attracting agent.And is this scenario more akin to "attracting agent" or to "necessary precondition"? That's the core of the difference. — Mariner
Well, I obviously agree that there is a difference in emphasis between the two of them, but that isn't to say that they're different substantially on this point.Compare the gospel sentence -- "When I have been lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people toward me" -- with the Buddhist mindset and the difference is clear. The agent in Christ's sentence is Christ. — Mariner
His strength and his brilliance came from his weakness, slavery to God set him free. — Cavacava
Keep in mind that in Indian religion, it is precisely the karmic treadmill, known as samsara, that one endeavors to liberate oneself from. — Thorongil
I don't think we have that kind of power. — Thorongil
Do you mean to say the Christian God believes that humans will be saved? I think it's rather that he desires this. — Thorongil
What matters, of course, is what God thinks it means. — Thorongil
You might, but I should think you would want to explore all the baskets instead of just arbitrarily halting at the position you currently occupy. You can't advance the likelihood by standing still where you are now, but it may be that you can get closer by putting your eggs in one basket, after having determined to a reasonable degree that you ought to put them there. — Thorongil
I'm a noob, I'm just getting into the mystics, but I'm feeling right at home reading Evelyn Underhill's "Mysticism". I've read a little Julian of Norwhich, a little Boehme, and a little Eckhart. Oh and some William Blake. Eckhart was the hardest for me to get into, but I have a long way to go. But I was first introduced to them through reading Nikolai Berdyaev. I was introduced to him through Madeline L'Engle, of all people. Actually, my exploration of mysticism has been pretty mystical, in the sense that it's random and not at all academic, and mainly driven by my own intuition. — Noble Dust
Right, I was just stating that for clarity. Of course, Paul's issue with good works was that "no man should boast"; basically the danger of legalism. But, how do good works obtain within a short 70 year life span, if a world of eternity exists afterwards? What's so important about this incomprehensible life with regards to the supposed after life? That concept, to me, seems like an unessisary antrhopomorphisation. — Noble Dust
Because it's a suicide attempt, or what? — Noble Dust
Yeah, I do think there's something there. But I don't think denial of God in this life leads to hell, because I don't understand the importance of this life vs. eternity, if eternity does in fact exist. So if someone denies God in this life, what makes anyone so certain that the transition to the next life would not a) change that person's attitude towards eternity, or b) signify some sort of arbitrary cutting off point? The idea that it does signify that cutting off point just reeks of humanity's horror and fear towards the unknown of death. There's no actual surety when dealing with the problem of death. Remaining unsure (and thus hopeful) here seems wisest. — Noble Dust
there's an Unconditional Love which is without predicate, and is the Reality which all life is bathed in. — Noble Dust
The suggestion here is always, implicitly, that appealing to the more "vulgar" passions would be permissible, because those decisions don't matter within the scope of eternity. My question is: why do they matter within the scope of eternity? Or if eternity doesn't exist, why do they matter within the scope of one's given life span? — Noble Dust
I’ll let the OP make her own judgement. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.