Tolle, or Meister? — andrewk

Meister

Eh? — Noble Dust

Eh?

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

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, and he doesn't strike me as someone who would damn a person for innocently believing the wrong thing. The Catholic Church, for example, claims that one goes to hell by committing a mortal sin. But to commit a mortal sin, one must possess complete and perfect knowledge of what one is doing. That being the case, one might believe the wrong thing by being deceived, and so be without perfect knowledge that one has sinned, in which case one wouldn't be damned.

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

What do you make of Wittgenstein's remark: "if what we do now is to make no difference in the end, then all the seriousness of life is done away with."

Eh? — Thorongil

Oh, don't be so pedantic. :P

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

That was the God you seemed to have in mind, so that was the sort of God I was referring to. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Did he mean eternity when he said "the end", or nothingness? It's an important distinction.

If eternity, then no, all seriousness (assuming that means profound philosophical notions, the gravity of the human condition, etc?) would not be done away with; they would be subsumed and brought to fruition through the outbreak of the finite into the infinite, into eternity, regardless of the actions of individuals. Maybe?

Or, if nothingness, then...well, nothingness.

And what about silliness, by the way?

What does a spiritual disposition entail for you?

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.

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 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.

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 haven't had much success with meditation either, but I want to keep trying. I've had some small successes, actually. Singing in an enthusiastic choir is amazing! I haven't done that in years. I still write and record my own songs that include vocals, and sometimes include layers of harmony. Not the same, and not as meditative as singing with others, but still "spiritual", in my book. Singing in general, I think, is deeply spiritual.

I didn't mean Eros. — andrewk

Neither did I. I meant romantic in the classical sense; not the erotic sense.

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

Yes, but that's also not what I meant by brutal; I don't mean the brutality of being a parent who watches their child spiral into a terrible life; I mean the brutality of actual self-sacrifice. Which, again, is nearly non-existent in this world. Which again underlines my point.

I haven't had much success with meditation — Noble Dust

The Sōtō Zen attitude is, giving up ideas of succeeding, but continue to practice.

I could see that working, but could also see it as turning into one cyclical mind game. Has it worked for you?

Btw, who of the mystics do you admire?

The way Sōtō teaches is very direct, it does put a lot of emphasis on adopting the posture and sitting in the Zen manner with a minimalist ritual. Then you simply stick with it - you set a time, and a timer, and, as Nike says, ‘just do it’, but with no expectation of anything occurring. If you do stick to it, you learn this ‘no expectation’ aspect is key.

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.)

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

I assume a teacher is required, or no? I could probably find one in NYC, but I'm not sure I'm committed enough. I'm also horribly undisciplined and philosophically all over the place at this point. But I've been wanting to develop some sort of spiritual practice; right now, reading Underhill's "Mysticism" is providing a good base, if nothing else.

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

This is an important question that everyone has to decide how to answer:

Are we collectively good, individually good, or collectively and individually corrupted, fallen, damned, rubbish, etc.?

Even if there is a some evidence to the contrary, there are advantages to thinking that we are good, and worthy of Christ's salvation
To be our Great Healer from death, hell, and sin
Which Adam's transgressions involvéd us in"
as Billings phrased it.

That we are good, can be good, and will do good things is a more salubrious self-fulfilling prophecy than that we are scum, filth and dirt and cannot, will not do good things.

It is easier to understand and work in concert with others if there is a basic assumption of goodness and redemptive capacity than if the basic assumption is that people will screw you over every chance they get.

We are mercifully not in charge of other people's salvation. For one thing, we don't have access to the database of the damned, saved, and could-go-either-way. Starting with the positive assumption that other people are as good as ourselves (if such a thing is even possible) frees us from a lot of judgmental thinking, which is tiresome to the thinker, and certainly exhausting to everybody else.

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. That’s the whole point of the Karen Armstrong OP I linked to. Reading IS practice, to some extent, so well and good. But the point about contemplative practices is that they open you to another aspect which simply can’t be understood through the purely verbal or discursive level.

The reason I left the Christian fold - not that I’m hostile to it, I should add - was because it seemed too ‘pie in the sky’. Like, believe and go to Church, and then receive your ‘heavenly reward’ in the ‘next life’. That was just assumed. When I set out, full of 1960’s enthusiasm, to find Capital T Truth, it wasn’t about ‘pie in the sky’ but in the efficacy of spiritual experience, something you could find out for yourself. IN the time since, it has proven a good deal more elusive than I might have thought at the time, but I’m still basically of the same view.

I think the dimension of ‘praxis’ is rather missing from the modern conversation on religion. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure if it's missing; "read your bible and pray every day", "practice yoga"...however many times a week millennial women in the West practice yoga. I think the issue is applying oneself to the practice for a specifically mystical purpose (I refrain from saying spiritual because of the connotation of that word now adays). The difference seems to be between a practice in which one is attempting to gain something out of the practice for the sake of one's place in the world (to be a better Christian, a better member of the Church here and now; to be more in tune with one's body and to maintain a healthy body), vs. a spiritual practice that moves only outward; that moves towards the divine, and the divine only. That's what I'm getting from Underhill so far, and it resonates deeply (uncomfortably so), but I have no idea how to apply it yet.

I never got that kind of instruction from my religious education. Actually when I was a teen and young adult, I didn’t equate the interest I had with the idea of enlightenment as anything to do with ‘religion’ at all. I thought it was a completely different matter. I have changed my views a bit since, but I do often wonder if Buddhism and Christianity are two instances of the same thing, and I have doubts about that.

Have a read of this http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion . It’s not a scholarly article, it’s Hindu polemic but more than a grain of truth.

Interesting. Growing up in the 90's in the Midwest of the US, in the church, I was taught to "read my bible and pray every day". And I did, actually. As a child growing into adulthood, though, those practices became toxic, not helpful. And not because of the nature of those practices themselves, but because of how I interfaced with them. It's hard to go back now, given the backstory.

I do often wonder if Buddhism and Christianity are two instances of the same thing, and I have doubts about that. — Wayfarer

I wonder that about religions in general as well.

One idea I have come to is about the malign consequences of Western religious orthodoxy. It’s not that the principles they’re based on are bad - I am still Christian in some fundamental ways. 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.

So, my view is that there is a shadow cast by the vehemence of religious conflict in European history. The religious wars and the Inquisition. The Enlightenment was born out of ‘anything but that’ - you see it here every day. 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).

But in any case, the reaction against religion - ‘theism’, as it is disparagingly called on the Internet - walls off certain ideas, certain ways-of-being, often without consciously understanding why it has done it. That underwrites a lot of the discussion about religion in my view.

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

Absolutely; I agree, and I'm pretty sure I've argued that here more than once.

The Enlightenment was born out of ‘anything but that’ - you see it here every day. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I guess so. But I don't know if that's unique; I wonder if anywhere else in history, a similar attitude was assumed, and an important historical movement was then made.

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

Well, yes, they thought they were doing that, American protestants. But, from the start, revivalism was coached in the language of "sinners in the hands of an angry god", was it not? But ironically, now in 2017, American protestantism is anything but hell and brimstone; (or, only in it's most extreme fundamental states). American protestantism in the US is largely pretty lukewarm.

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

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.

Could you expand on this? — Buxtebuddha

The Hindu worldview (and others, e.g. Taoism) is predicated on the thesis that moral judgments are not ontologically relevant. Damnation/Salvation involves the application of moral categories upon ontology; in the Christian milieu, the worldview is represented by the notion that Lucifer's fall and Adam's error tainted the entirety of created being (as St. Paul said, the entirety of creation is aching for salvation).

All of this is related to the notion that God is good and that his creation was very good (before the fall, and therefore it is still potentially very good even now), and that this goodness of creation is true precisely because it was created by the God who is good. God is the source of all goodness, and he bequeaths his goodness upon his creation. This worldview is very different from the Hindu worldview, which involves an eternal nature (which is not properly called "creation" in the Christian sense), cycles of being, etc.

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. 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.

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

And is this scenario more akin to "attracting agent" or to "necessary precondition"? That's the core of the difference.

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.

And is this scenario more akin to "attracting agent" or to "necessary precondition"? That's the core of the difference. — Mariner

Granted that Buddha-nature is personal, I think it's very much an attracting agent.

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

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.

The same emphasis found in Christianity, isn't found in Judaism for example, but that's not to say that Judaism lacks them completely.

His strength and his brilliance came from his weakness, slavery to God set him free. — Cavacava

You appear to be suggesting that slavery is good if one is a slave to the right person or thing. Strange, as I remember you being on the "tear down any 'Confederate' statue" boat because they represented slavery, presumably.

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'd liken this treadmill to Christian purgatory. My point being that one does not presumably go directly from living a life to being saved or attaining enlightenment. Even the "faith alone" Protestant Christians don't know for certain that they will be saved. No Christian does. This is why I brought up the distinction between believing in the possibility of salvation and believing in salvation explicitly. Either way, salvation isn't guaranteed, even when a religious tells you that you have to belief. One must first believe in order to unlock the possibility of salvation, which is, to me, a dreadfully backwards notion.

I don't think we have that kind of power. — Thorongil

I agree.

Do you mean to say the Christian God believes that humans will be saved? I think it's rather that he desires this. — Thorongil

I think if he didn't have confidence that we'd believe in him he'd have never sent Jesus Christ.

What matters, of course, is what God thinks it means. — Thorongil

Too bad we can't know that.

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

This means that you think belief is required for salvation, and that one must choose one sort of salvation over another, ya?

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

I've tended to stick with Eckhart, Tauler, and Suso. That little circle of mystics got it right, in my opinion.

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

I think the logic goes that doing good is to grow closer to God, as God is Goodness. I just wonder when we actually arrive to be in God, as it were, and we cease getting closer and closer and closer. Was it Xeno who discussed this paradox where you can't actually get to ten if you start with 1 and then half every number afterward? If salvation or heaven or whatever is "ten", then we can't ever get there.

Because it's a suicide attempt, or what? — Noble Dust

What do you mean?

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

I'm not sure if every Christian thinker posits that hell is actually eternal for each soul, only that hell itself is an eternal state, or lack thereof, for those to arrive in.

there's an Unconditional Love which is without predicate, and is the Reality which all life is bathed in. — Noble Dust

I think unconditional love without predicate would be God himself. But how that relates to us is the question, whether the love in us is conditional or predicated - I think it is, sin being the crux.

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

Again, it seems that doing good on earth is intended to get us closer to God, or salvation, but my wrestling now has to do with whether we can ever shed this seemingly futile clambering toward God and just arrive. In other words, get back to being in God. To attach ourselves once again to God's love without our sin dragging us away. If you've read Eckhart, you'll be familiar then with most translations describing this attachment to God as being a kind of sinking into him. That is, we're sinking back into the primordial waters that is God's creative love.

I’ll let the OP make her own judgement. — Wayfarer

Ah, good that you caught onto this. I was just musing with a friend of mine last night that I've decided to become a woman. Thank you for the pronoun respect, Wayflower, :P (Y)

:-* Sorry, I hope that I wasn’t wrong, and that you’re not being ironic. In either case, apologies if any are called for.