Spiritual fascism

[earl]

Namaste all,

from what i've come to understand, the word "sin" means "missing the mark". i've had it explained to me that this means to indicate that we are not aligning our will with Gods will.

needless to say, this entire concept is build upon a theological model that many people do not subscribe to which is why i don't understand phrases like "everyone sins". i just don't grasp the significance of this statement when it could be referring to someone that does not have a belief in the Deity to which this is allegedly affronting.

if someone could explain this to me, i'd be greatful.

As I understand it, in the Greek editions of the early Bible, the Greek term for "sin" meant to miss the mark. Admittedly, my interpretations of Christianity are actually heavily flavored by my study of Buddhism as i tend to look for the commonalities to both, (that's just my thing ) But this definition of "sin" seems to me to be rather similar to a definition i had heard for "dukkha," which, not having clear-cut English word equivalents was explained as essentially like the metahpor of a wheel not revolving well around its axle. Take care, Earl

 

[earl]

As I understand it, in the Greek editions of the early Bible, the Greek term for "sin" meant to miss the mark. Admittedly, my interpretations of Christianity are actually heavily flavored by my study of Buddhism as i tend to look for the commonalities to both, (that's just my thing ) But this definition of "sin" seems to me to be rather similar to a definition i had heard for "dukkha," which, not having clear-cut English word equivalents was explained as essentially like the metahpor of a wheel not revolving well around its axle. Take care, Earl

Oops, meant to include that Greek term: "hamartia. Earl

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

interesting. is this due to your own personal searching or due to the adoption of a different religious paradigm?

I reached that realization in my personal searching before I adopted a different religious paradigm. I guess you could say that a different religious paradigm adopted me.

ah.. interesting. isn't that what got Adam and Eve in all that trouble... eating the fruit of knowledge and now being able to discern good and evil?

Sorta. Believing they could understand good and evil is really the crux of the matter.

generally speaking, good and evil are concepts which we don't really use in Buddhism

And I don't use them in Christianity in the sense of them actually being anything. As with "God" and "sin", they are linguistic placeholders for a concept. Here the concept is a difficult to express notion that our minds can organize the totality of things and discern what things should be as distinguished from what things are.

are you familiar with Vedanta? what you have explained above has some commonality. the Buddhist tradition does not teach monism, however we do have the concept of illusion (maya) and the way in which our perceptions are conditioned into a dualistic mode of operation.

I am somewhat familiar with Vedanta, though I do not profess to be anything other than a very casual scholar of Buddhist tradition. Indeed, I should pause to give you a quick "thank you" for your many enlightening and informative posts on the topic.

I would roughly equate my experience of "God" with Brahman. I was introduced to the similarity through the works of Joseph Campbell and see it in Taoism as well. Although I use the term "Oneness" I don't necessarily consider myself a monist either. I perceive Monism's "oneness", "Tao", "Brahman" and "God" as essentially related expressions of the inexpressible experience of being.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Namaste Scarlet Pimpernel,

great nick name, by the by

Thanks.

In general I agree with what Abogado del Diablo (also a great nickname) has said, but I'd like to respond to your questions personally. Let me first stress that my answers are in the context of the Christian tradition I was raised in and how I understood their teachings at the time. These days I dont follow any Christian tradition.

Christian theology is not my strong suite, please pardon my misconceptions upfront...

Not at all a problem, Buddhist theology is definitely not my strong suit either.

it is usually held within the Christian tradition that "sin" is a mark against you that will need to be atoned for so that one can partake of the afterlife which Jesus secured for you with his sacrifice on the cross. thus, sin is something that one must atone for and, if not, they will be punished for.

Well, yeah, usually. Granted, I was raised in a pretty liberal tradition (Lutheranism, for the curious out there), but what we learned is that one is not so much externally punished for sin in the sense of getting a detention at school, but that we punish ourselves through our behaviour.

within the context of Buddhism, there is no idea of a being that rewards or punishes a being for its' unskillful actions. the unskillful action, itself, produces the fruit that the being will harvest.

Like I said...

is this due to your traditions belief that God cannot stand the presence of sin or for some other reason?[?QUOTE]
Hmm, interesting question. I think it's not so much that God can't stand it as that it can't exist in His presence - like a campfire can't exist underwater. Also, the Confession and Forgiveness of Sin was not a necessary part of every service - God could accept our worship and we could get close to God just as well without it. So I think the purpose was more that if there was something we felt guilty about it wouldn't be weighing on our chest and distracting us from worship. It was something we needed more than something God needed from us.

so, in your tradition, sin is simply the lack of love for ones neighbor and lack of love for God?

That, and the resulting separation from God.

correct... no creator deity in Buddhism... though, some individual buddhists may have particular beings with which they resonate more strongly.

I personally agree with what Abogado del Diablo said about "God" being a linguistic placeholder for the idea of the Absolute, but I think that is an idea I came to after moving away from Christianity, rather than an idea intrinsic to the Christianity I was taught.

your idea of sin is still, however, tied to the notion of a being that will sit in judgement of our actions at some point during the afterlife. this is simply a foreign concept to Buddhism and as such, finds no analog in our tradition.

Well, no. Technically God doesn't judge us in the afterlife, but we are judged for our sins the moment we commit them. But we bring about our own punishment. Hell is defined as "the state of separation from God," and that can certainly exist in this lifetime. But that separation is not because God pushes us away because we are dirty. Like I said, it isn't the "getting detention" idea but more the "fire-can't-exist-underwater" idea (and please, any marine geologists out there, don't point out underwater volcanoes - you know what I'm trying to get at ). The emphasis is laid on God's mercy and not on His judgement - He doesn't want our separation and would do anything to remove it.

Again, I am only speaking from the perspective of the Christian tradition in which I was raised. I'm not even speaking from the perspective of my current beliefs. Based on my (limited) understanding of other Christian traditions, I think there are some whose idea of sin is closer to what you have posited.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Well, no. Technically God doesn't judge us in the afterlife, but we are judged for our sins the moment we commit them. But we bring about our own punishment. Hell is defined as "the state of separation from God," and that can certainly exist in this lifetime. But that separation is not because God pushes us away because we are dirty.

Well said. This is similar to how I view it. When this idea of "sin" is combined with the notion that this self-imposed judgment and punishment separates us from our own selves, then you can begin to see the connections between Tao and Christianity. This excerpt from the Tao te Ching has always been one of my favorite expressions of the elementary idea. It provides a beautiful expression of the paradoxical relationship between the perception of the exisitence of duty and reason we perceive a need for the existence of duty. It also ties into what I was saying earlier about the relationship between knowledge, morality and the Way and the path leading inwards toward rediscovery of one's Self:

When the Way is forgotten
Duty and justice appear;
Then knowledge and wisdom are born
Along with hypocrisy.

When harmonious relationships dissolve
Then respect and devotion arise;
When a nation falls to chaos
Then loyalty and patriotism are born.

If we could abolish knowledge and wisdom
Then people would profit a hundredfold;
If we could abolish duty and justice
Then harmonious relationships would form;
If we could abolish artifice and profit
Then waste and theft would disappear.

Yet such remedies treat only symptoms
And so they are inadequate.

People need personal remedies:
Reveal your naked self and embrace your original nature;
Bind your self-interest and control your ambition;
Forget your habits and simplify your affairs.

 

[lunamoth]

Well said. This is similar to how I view it. When this idea of "sin" is combined with the notion that this self-imposed judgment and punishment separates us from our own selves, then you can begin to see the connections between Tao and Christianity. This excerpt from the Tao te Ching has always been one of my favorite expressions of the elementary idea. It provides a beautiful expression of the paradoxical relationship between the perception of the exisitence of duty and reason we perceive a need for the existence of duty. It also ties into what I was saying earlier about the relationship between knowledge, morality and the Way and the path leading inwards toward rediscovery of one's Self:

When the Way is forgotten
Duty and justice appear;
Then knowledge and wisdom are born
Along with hypocrisy.

When harmonious relationships dissolve
Then respect and devotion arise;
When a nation falls to chaos
Then loyalty and patriotism are born.

If we could abolish knowledge and wisdom
Then people would profit a hundredfold;
If we could abolish duty and justice
Then harmonious relationships would form;
If we could abolish artifice and profit
Then waste and theft would disappear.

Yet such remedies treat only symptoms
And so they are inadequate.

People need personal remedies:
Reveal your naked self and embrace your original nature;
Bind your self-interest and control your ambition;
Forget your habits and simplify your affairs.

Brilliant!

Regards, Scarlet Pimpernel--I agree with your take on judgement, heaven, and hell too.

 

[Vajradhara]

thanks for your replies, folks... some interesting views, to be sure

 

[Wong Fei Hung]

I don't think anyone on this site knows what fascism is.

 

[bgruagach]

I don't think anyone on this site knows what fascism is.

It would help with the discussion more if you'd share with us how you define it.

 

[iBrian]

I don't think anyone on this site knows what fascism is.

Certainly when removed directly from its core political definitions, then "spiritual fascism" is a disloyal application of the term - however, as a metaphor (or which spiritual issues often have to relate), then there is perhaps an argument to be made for the use of phrase.

And welcome to CR, Wong Fei Hung.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Namaste all,
Deepak Chopra has a great book called Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism that deals exactly with this and talks about how to prevent it from happening.

In case, you haven't noticed the slip just yet, the author you refer to is actually Chogyam Trungpa.

 

[dattaswami]

DIVINE DISCOURSE BY DATTA SWAMI

Q) In the Bible Jesus told “ First will be last and last will be first”. Please explain this?

A) The people who are treated as great devotees and scholars by their sacrifice of words and feelings and by their dramatic dress of devotion, in the eyes of world stand in the first position but such people are pushed to the last position by the Lord. The people who do not express their love in words and mind and do not expose themselves with dramatic dress of devotion and those who sacrifice practically stand in the last position in the eyes of the world. But the Lord will push such people to the first position. A gravel stone covered by a glittering paper and a diamond covered by the dust are given first and last positions by the world. But the Lord reverses these positions.

ANIL ANTONY

 

[Sarutobi]

Hello, new member here. All I can say about this forum subject is WOW... because a lot of you have touched on the very thing that turned me away from Christianity in the first place. With all due respect to Christian people out there, there IS a definite superiority complex within the Christian community. In fact, it is so strong and rampant that it exists even between the different sects of Christianity! I can only speak from my experience here in America, of course, and when I have more time, I hope to read through this forum in its entirety and really get a feel for what everyone is saying. Anyway, my point is that yes, spiritual fanaticism exists and it is very prevalent in Christianity. Is it as prevalent in other religions as well?

 

[supercontext]

It's just an extension of imperialism in general, and it's no coincidence that those within any given religious community who claim religious superiority are also interested in imposing their culture on other cultures, usually through violent coercion. 'God' doesn't choose people, people choose 'God'.

 

[Nitai]

Hare Krishna

I would like to mention here the vision of the Vedic wisdom about this topic. But first of all because we see that spiritual fascism exists that doesn't mean that spiritual life is not good when practiced with proper mentality
* Practicing spiritual life is the unique opportunity only of human life.

But anyway, in all religions those who practice spiritual life go through three different stages.

** KANISHTHA - this is a neophyte devotee with insufficient spiritual understanding
* he is quite materialistic or has material desires
* he don't know how to properly behave toward other devotees nor how to properly behave to other people in general
* he easily becomes angry on others, he is envious and think himself to be very great devotee, the most important one of all
* when little bit advanced he is very fanatical in his preaching
* this we could say is the spiritual fascism

** MADHYAMA - is a devotee on intermediate stage of spiritual advancement
* he has quite good understanding of the scriptures
* he makes friendship with other devotees; is merciful to the innocent people who don't understand spiritual life
* He also avoids those who are aggressive, angry and antagonistic to God and spiritual life
* he is a devotee in good standing; nothing can shake him to deviate from the spiritual path
* when he is preaching about God and spirituality He is not forcing others to accept religious practice but rather he is trying to inspire other to take up spiritual life
* he is a person who appreciate others religious practice because he sees that they also cultivate God-consciousness endeavoring to attain love of God
* therefor his behavior has nothing to do with spiritual fascism


** UTTAMA - is a devotee who has attained pure love of God
* He has full understanding of the essence of all scriptures
* He has full faith in God
* His vision of others is that everybody is perfect
NOTE: this vision is difficult to understand but that's sure that the seed of spiritual perfection is there in everybody; it have to be just awakened till it is fully blossomed.
* anyway, the qualities of UTTAMA are many but just as the MADHYAM has nothing to do with spiritual fascism the same is obvious for UTTAMA devotee.

In this way we can see that although some people are behaving not so nice still spiritual practice is good and can ultimately bear the fruit of perfection.

 

[j.elvira]

Throught mankind from the beginning we as humans have allways tryed to be the number one being on the planet we've come up from the dinosaures and plants and such that now today we are going against eachother in superiority even though in every spiritual teachings it says we are allways created equal. We've come so far working together to be superior above everything else living that now we are trying to be superior over each other. Though in life their are such things that we can never come above i.e. religion, spirituality, and human kind. So why is it that we try so hard, why is it that we strive to be so much better than one another, when everything that has been taught to us has said that we are created equal in most if not all aspects of life?

 

[Steveintn]

I have had an ongoing battle with Spiritual Fascism within my own family. Too bad family dynamics weren't governed by the US Constitution (freedom of religion)! I think a major part of the problem with spiritual fascism (and in turn, fanaticism) is that religious individuals often are compelled to share their beliefs with others - always expecting the other person to have an open mind. It is rare, however, for the religious fanatic (at least for fundamentalist Christians) to be open-minded to other worldviews. I choose the word "worldview" purposely, because that is exactly what every religion is - and for each one, there are others which are comparable and equally valid. For any deeply spiritual individual, he/she should rationalize their own choice of worldview in terms of what it brings to them personally, not in terms of why other worldview are "wrong." It's also difficult for me to comprehend how any practicioner of a Judeo-Christian religion could consider themselves "enlightened" when the basis of their beliefs comes from a text which is several thousands of years old - the word "enlightened" suggests "new ideas".

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste,

thank you for the post... please, pardon my tardy reply! i lost track of the thread

Well, yeah, usually. Granted, I was raised in a pretty liberal tradition (Lutheranism, for the curious out there), but what we learned is that one is not so much externally punished for sin in the sense of getting a detention at school, but that we punish ourselves through our behaviour.

i would suspect that for the purposes of our conversation we should necessairly be general or "usual" with our responses. whilst perhaps not so much in your tradition, within the paradigm of Buddhism, one can find a wide variety of views which do not lend to a productive conversation with non-Buddhists.

so.. having said that, you would agree that, generally, this is how the term is understood, however, your tradition explained it a bit differently. yes?

Like I said...

is this due to your traditions belief that God cannot stand the presence of sin or for some other reason?[?QUOTE]
Hmm, interesting question. I think it's not so much that God can't stand it as that it can't exist in His presence - like a campfire can't exist underwater. Also, the Confession and Forgiveness of Sin was not a necessary part of every service - God could accept our worship and we could get close to God just as well without it. So I think the purpose was more that if there was something we felt guilty about it wouldn't be weighing on our chest and distracting us from worship. It was something we needed more than something God needed from us.


That, and the resulting separation from God.

ok.. so it is based on your traditions belief that you hold this view good to know.

I personally agree with what Abogado del Diablo said about "God" being a linguistic placeholder for the idea of the Absolute, but I think that is an idea I came to after moving away from Christianity, rather than an idea intrinsic to the Christianity I was taught.

whilst i have no particular argument with regards to this view, my concern is, generally, how these things are actually implemented in a mindstream. human minds are sort of particular and even when we say that "such and such is unimagineable or unthinkable" our minds still try to imagine and think of what it cannot.

as such, the term "God" has come to have some particular attributes associated with it. effectively, rendering the term nearly meaningless to me. it is clear enough that many theistic beings not only have an "idea" about God, but some of them even claim to "know" God and, moreover, feel that God needs their help to accomplish some task. whilst i am not a theist, this has always struck me as odd.. heck, even in the Gods in Buddhism require little human interaction to implement their desires.. yet, if one can believe some of the Semetic tradition adherents, that is most certainly the case.

saying that God is the Ground of Being, like Protestant theological Paul Tillich, is not much different than saying that God is Brahma.

of course, from the Buddhist view, there is nothing which can rightly be regarded as the root sequence from which all things arose. as such, even with an undefined "Ground of Being" Buddhism could still not assent to such a proposition.

Well, no. Technically God doesn't judge us in the afterlife, but we are judged for our sins the moment we commit them.

by whom or what is one judged?

more to the point, what of the passage in John where he speaks of the White Throne Judgement?

But we bring about our own punishment.

of course, i heartily agree with this... and it's collorary... we also bring about our own reward.

Hell is defined as "the state of separation from God," and that can certainly exist in this lifetime.

fair enough.

But that separation is not because God pushes us away because we are dirty. Like I said, it isn't the "getting detention" idea but more the "fire-can't-exist-underwater" idea (and please, any marine geologists out there, don't point out underwater volcanoes - you know what I'm trying to get at ). The emphasis is laid on God's mercy and not on His judgement - He doesn't want our separation and would do anything to remove it.

yet, you also say that God cannot be in the presence of sin. either this is a rhetorical device meant for something else, or it is a statement of a particular condition.

moreover... review the words that you are choosing to write here... "he wants..." "he doesn't want...." those are all human wants and desires... well concieved in the human mind.

Again, I am only speaking from the perspective of the Christian tradition in which I was raised. I'm not even speaking from the perspective of my current beliefs. Based on my (limited) understanding of other Christian traditions, I think there are some whose idea of sin is closer to what you have posited.

interesting indeed.

hopefully, some of them may join the forum and find this thread, read it, post in it and i'll remember it! Whew!



metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

In case, you haven't noticed the slip just yet, the author you refer to is actually Chogyam Trungpa.

DUH!!!



metta,

~v

 

[earl]

Namaste,

thank you for the post... please, pardon my tardy reply! i lost track of the thread


i would suspect that for the purposes of our conversation we should necessairly be general or "usual" with our responses. whilst perhaps not so much in your tradition, within the paradigm of Buddhism, one can find a wide variety of views which do not lend to a productive conversation with non-Buddhists.

so.. having said that, you would agree that, generally, this is how the term is understood, however, your tradition explained it a bit differently. yes?

Like I said...


ok.. so it is based on your traditions belief that you hold this view good to know.


whilst i have no particular argument with regards to this view, my concern is, generally, how these things are actually implemented in a mindstream. human minds are sort of particular and even when we say that "such and such is unimagineable or unthinkable" our minds still try to imagine and think of what it cannot.

as such, the term "God" has come to have some particular attributes associated with it. effectively, rendering the term nearly meaningless to me. it is clear enough that many theistic beings not only have an "idea" about God, but some of them even claim to "know" God and, moreover, feel that God needs their help to accomplish some task. whilst i am not a theist, this has always struck me as odd.. heck, even in the Gods in Buddhism require little human interaction to implement their desires.. yet, if one can believe some of the Semetic tradition adherents, that is most certainly the case.

saying that God is the Ground of Being, like Protestant theological Paul Tillich, is not much different than saying that God is Brahma.

of course, from the Buddhist view, there is nothing which can rightly be regarded as the root sequence from which all things arose. as such, even with an undefined "Ground of Being" Buddhism could still not assent to such a proposition.


by whom or what is one judged?

more to the point, what of the passage in John where he speaks of the White Throne Judgement?


of course, i heartily agree with this... and it's collorary... we also bring about our own reward.


fair enough.


yet, you also say that God cannot be in the presence of sin. either this is a rhetorical device meant for something else, or it is a statement of a particular condition.

moreover... review the words that you are choosing to write here... "he wants..." "he doesn't want...." those are all human wants and desires... well concieved in the human mind.


interesting indeed.

hopefully, some of them may join the forum and find this thread, read it, post in it and i'll remember it! Whew!



metta,

~v

Hi Vajradhara. As you are much more versed it seems in formal study of Buddhism, in particular vajrayana, than me, I'm interested in your take on this. Your points regarding Buddhist notions of "God" are quite apt and to the traditional point of Buddhist teachings-in fact I'd probably agree with 99.999% of what you just said . To a large degree my own use of the term "God" is my short-hand stemming from my upbringing & I'd agree that there are so many notions of what that term implies, (you're so right that one perhaps needs to be mindful of how one is using it and the effect on the mindstream accordingly). I do love speculating regarding metaphysics but fundamentally I also subscribe to the "zen" notion that concepts/notions can also be subtle but significant traps, stopping one's progress on the path. To paraphrase the old Zen "Song of Mind" from Chan China: as long as we hold to a self and to an Other, heaven and earth will be far apart. However, you did pique my curiosity with your statement about Buddhists not equating "Buddha Nature" and "Ground of Being."

I've long loved vajrayana writings because they seem so lyrical, they seem so inclined to metaphors of personification that they almost seem to overlap with mystical theistic writings. I've not actually encountered this purported vajrayana tantra before, the "All Creating King Tantra, that speaks of the universal Mind of Awakening personified as Samantabhadra. Don't know if this purported snippet from it is even genuine, but caught my eye with that sort of lyricism wherein Samantabhadra declares of himself:

"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. i am the root of existence. I am the 'core' because I contain all phenomena. I am the 'seed' because I give birth to everything. I am the 'cause' because all comes from me. I am the 'trunk' because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am the 'foundation' because all abides in me. I am called the 'root' because I am everything."

Interesting I think in reference to phrases such as "ground of being," though, as we know, notions such as "self," "Other," & "personhood," take on many different meanings (to ultimately largely evaporate), as our meditative paths lead us on. In that ultimate sense, don't know how much straining over the concepts will mean in the long run-but fun for now. Take care, Earl