What would you say is the mark of authentic Christian esoterism?
How much syncretism is there in Christianity, that's considered authentic enough?
Understanding esoterism
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
How much syncretism is there in Christianity, that's considered authentic enough?
Any teaching that can evidence its roots in the Tradition.
The Fathers' disputes with the 'Gnostics' is a case in point, and I'm probably more open to Gnostic speculation now than I was, but still regard much of its as interpreting the Christian Tradition is view of pre-existing assumptions – that it was not Jesus who was crucified but another, possibly Judas, or that Jesus was an angelic being who only appeared human, and hence could not suffer, etc.
The idea of two separate and distinct streams of Christianity – the visible exoteric Petrine stream, essentially 'dead in the water', and the invisible and esoteric Johannine stream – the latter, of course, being the province of the 'esoteric schools' ...
It's a fine line ... I observe a distinction between 'esoteric Christianity' (a pseudo-esoterism) and 'Christian esoterism' (which isn't) – in the same way as speaking of Platonic Christianity, as opposed to Christian Platonism – the distinction being who takes the superior place in the discussion – Christian principles according to a Platonic perspective will arrive at a different place than Platonic principles according to a Christian perspective.
An example of the latter is St Maximus' correction of the errors of 'Origenism' (and not necessarily Origen).
More pointedly, Maximus revised the Platonic model of rest-movement-becoming (stasis-kenesis-genesis) (the eternal state of souls, stasis, satiated by the Divine Gaze, move, turn or fall away, kenesis, and the world is created, genesis, to catch the spark of the soul in its descent, simply by turning it on its head, as given in Scripture, so its genesis (from non-being to being) and the movement towards rest (stasis) in God.
Again, much like the Perennialists, I try and discern between complementary truths that manifest themselves in particular forms in the various traditions, as opposed to a rather blanket assertion that 'all religions say the same thing' (they clearly don't) and that any particular element of any religion can be shaped to conform to any and every other.
Therefore I see pagan rituals, those based on the natural rhythms of season and zodiac, etc., as being 'absorbed' into Christianity without offence to either – much like symbols that carry universal and particular meanings ...
Whereas perhaps the Christian habit of clothing itself in the trappings of Roman Empires can be understood, but with as much sadness with regard to what was surrendered, as charity towards what was assumed.
Fascinating. But aren't both of these dynamics present in standard, exoteric Christianity? The parable of the Prodigal Son?
What about the more fundamental incompatibilities between Biblical and Classical world-views, such as the resurrection of the body vs. spiritual afterlife?
The bodily resurrection "won", but there are passages in the Christian Bible which can be read as traces of a troubled attempt at syncretization: Paul may have been "camp spirit", also the powerful imagery of Doubting Thomas touching the resurrected body of Jesus. To this day, my average Christian neighbours seem to lean towards the pagan Classical view, even if they repeat the creed during Sunday service.
And of course, a major part of esoteric Christian / Christian esoteric thought rests on the distinction between body and spirit, to the extent that the body is often viewed as a second class part of the human being, again, straight out of Paul's writings.
Is this a case of Christianity assuming Classical trappings, or a more legitimate syncretic esoterism based in the Fathers?
I don't think exoteric Christianity quite accepts the idea of the soul's fall before the creation of the world, which is the Platonic model.
Not sure how you see the parable in this instance?
Well traditional Christianity embraces both?
Not sure where you see the syncretisation here? The classical world view was against physical resurrection in the Christian sense, whereas for Paul it's absolute fundamental, and Thomas' epiphany again shows how the idea of Jesus' resurrection was not on the cards at the time of his crucifixion?
Inasmuch as I'd say that body-soul dichotomy is straight of out Hellenism, and probably not what Paul was getting at, at all – but I do accept that the view generally prevailed in Christendom.
The former, I'd say ...
From the individual's "inside" perspective, "original sin" and "fall before the creation of the world" are indistinguishable, I think.
How would one tell the difference?
Aren't they incompatible, though?
And by embracing paradox, isn't that getting rather close to esoteric ideas?
James Davies
Established Member
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 8
Thank you for your reply, I will feel into your beautiful words. I am not the most learned person, so iam I'm unfamiliar with Dogen and love to hear bit more about it.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
How can there be a 'fall before the creation of the world'? The sequence in Christianity is creation of the world, sin, and then the fall.
I too hate esoterism and mystycism. As @CircleoftheWay quoted, "nothing throughout the entire universe is concealed” (henkai-fuzōzō). Nevertheless, the mystery of emptiness and thusness had to go beyond this: intimacy had to be ever penetrated (tōkamitsu)."
James Davies
Established Member
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 8
I don't see it as a paradox, let take time as a example. Let start with no time, which is just a eternal now. You are in this no time just being Awareness you had no body no mind your not happy or sad you have no needs or wants. There isn’t even space and if their was you wouldn't even know what it was. You are just awareness simply being aware. Then one day (not really there is no time, but its hard to tell a story without it) you asked a question and said who I'm I. In other word you became aware of your self. In that eternal moment of realization, you dreamed or Imagined every potential and every possibility that could happened. It was effortless And instantaneous. Your birth and your death of this life happened right then and there, and all the possibility of what was inbetween that birth and death. You can say you became all knowing and in this knowingness You realized that there was something more then just knowing. There was experience, so you created a story out of all the potentials that you had created. And you dived into your creation and begin to experience your potentials. You are just experience how you became realized. It already happed and all roads lead to that outcome because it is the only destination that exists. But it's all happening in the same moment. The outcome and the beginning all started at the same time. Because no time is true and time is not true , so there is no paradox. The past , the future and the present are all existing in the same space. I don't know if it'll will make sense to you. It can be a little hard to wrap your brain around it. The best device I can give you is don't think about it feeling to it.You always find more truth when you feel into things. The mind just gets confused.
James Davies
Established Member
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 8
You will have to expand what on you mean. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. How do you mean they are incapable and what do mean by esoteric ideas. I believe it's just the physics Of consciousness and energy, but when you talk about consciousness the unknowable. You can only talk about it in Story, Parable, or myth. Mathematics and Geometry, would be more true then any words I could say. But even they Are incomplete to the truth that is consciousness. The only way to truly know what I talking about. Isto feeling into story that I'm tell, and have your own direct experience of consciousness. I don't believe in philosophy, I only talk about what i have had direct experience of. I do not ask anyone to believe me, or to take my word for it. Suspicion and being critical,. Are a good trait in somebody, that is seeking truth.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Agree with that.
The trouble is myths and parables open to various interpretations, but I'd say the 'standard' Judaic-Christian model never really supports the more overtly dualistic classical model that casts the material cteation in a negative light.
Well the received opinion is that the classical worldview is derived from human inspiration, whereas Biblical 'revelation' transcends the unaided human intellect.
Paul believed in the resurrection?
I'd say that's a particular nterpretation of Paul, a Jewish (holistic) Paul seen through Hellenic (dualistic) eyes? Paul certainly countered body v spirit, but never as spirit inherently good vs a body inherently bad. The Hebrew Scriptures do much the same, but that's because the human stands in the unique position of having a foot in both camps, as it were ...
again, it's too simplistic to propose the Biblical view is right and the classical (world) view is wrong. Rather, the Fathers saw the classical worldview as lacking the data of revelation which, had they had access to such, would have 'corrected' their views.
Well we need to tread carefully here, and discern between the nature of things, and the human tendency to category and elitism.
Not all possess the inclination nor the insight – the trouble begins when one assumes such inclinations or insights render one superior to those without ...
Does this not speak of a finite and contingent awareness, a limited awareness ... ?
+++
From a 'traditional' metaphysical perspective – one in which both Hindu and Christian theisms correspond – the nature of time is determined by the object in view. For the world, time is the rhythm of the spheres, of seasons and tides, expansion and contraction, growth snd decay, movement and rest (if anything ever truly rests) ... the measure of change and duration.
Then we have mental time, emotional time, spiritual time ... and the sense of the eternal, the infinite, the changeless which encompasses all change and all possibility.
+++
What Anaximander called Apeiron – the Boundless – the unlimited, indeterminate, and indefinite ground and origin of everything, the primal principle of all, itself without principle (arche anarchos – 'principle without principle'), the uncreated, the unbegotten.
In the sense that authentic esoteric insight resolves paradoxes, yes ...