Thomas said:
Point 2:
However, I can show you millions of people in this world for whom a given path (be it the Christian religion, the practice of Wicca, or the ways of Santeria) - is not helpful.
Faulty logic. You're assuming the fault lies with the path, but this is not proven, the problem could be with the people. Also your choice of examples is disputable - what is your criteria?
No,
I'm not assuming anything. That is
you, putting words in
my mouth, or
presuming to know my mind. You have assumed wrongly. I
did not say that the fault lies with the
path. I simply said that the for these people, each of the paths
I provided as example ... is wrong. The problem is in
the match, not with the person,
and not with the path. If you want to talk about paths, let's. Or people? Sure, as long as this remains civil.
Better yet, why not investigate whether my point is valid at all -
that is, some paths are
better suited for some
types of people. This, too, requires us to tread carefully, and I'd rather just stick to paths.
Thomas said:
Point 3:
And I would be the last to argue that - simply by virtue of my believing X, X is valid, or ... anything I wish to practice as a spiritual path is valid, simply because I am practicing it as such. That is poor reasoning, and can be shown to be dangerous.
Agreed. (I feel I can fairly say that whenever I have voiced such an opinion you have accused me of all manner of narrow-mindedness and bigotry)
No, I only say,
as in point 5 below, that to
judge others simply because they walk a different path,
of which you do not approve ... is narrow-minded, and short-sighted.
My point here, in #3, is that we are on the same page -
inasmuch as one cannot play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with a faith, or spiritual practice, and hope to reap the same benefit (or claim the same
legitimacy/validity, which is apparently quite important for you) ... as someone who is more selective and thoughtful in his or her approach. I find this almost intuitively obvious, and I'm not sure I've ever
questioned it. See below ...
Thomas said:
Point 4:
Today's novelties, as it has been pointed out, are appealing to some, but just because I don't happen to attend séances, or chant Hare Krishna, does not entitle me to decry these methods of approaching the Divine.
In which case you've just negated your Points 1, 2 and 3.
Not at all. I give these as examples of paths I do not follow. I pass no judgement here (#1), I do not deny in the least that these approaches are appropo for
some (as in #2,
yet you would, would you not? dismissing them
by sheer virtue of what you say below, about what constitutes
"legitimacy") ... and as for
#3, we would have to look at a given
Vaishnava, or Spiritualist
, in order to decide if s/he is following the best path
for him or her - but
I have not said that these approaches are
invalid, or illegitimate. You on the other hand, have.
Thomas said:
Point 5:
That shows a fundamental lack of respect for the followers of other legitimate spiritual paths ... and I think it is rather mean-spirited and frankly, un-Christian, to do so. Now isn't it?
Faulty logic here - apart from Point 4 undoing your argument, you've lumped in 'today's novelties' with 'legitimate spiritual paths' ...
No,
I'm not the one who started this
`witch hunt.' I don't like to go around saying,
your path is legitimate, yours isn't. And I
don't like to tell other people that their spiritual practices and
approach to the Divine ... are "
novel," and totally
unfounded in any historical tradition or context. If the
entire world were suddenly (
miraculously) transformed into these
"romanticized humanists" you so despise, I, personally, couldn't care one hill of beans. Except, that's not quite true.
I think, that we'd be a
whole heckuva lot better off!
![Wink ;) ;)]()
That you may disagree, seems perfectly okay.
I'm not sure that a world full of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - followers ... would be
ideal, but I feel
totally comfortable saying that, because it is perfectly in line with
Point 2, and I certainly do not suggest that
no one might have anything to gain ... from heeding the life and example of
Sexy Sadie.
To wit - the Beatles themselves would never have written this song, or learned better the lesson of
spiritual discernment, viveka. IF you'd like to press this discussion, and perhaps move it onto
more solid ground (since for me, it currently floats hopelessly
within a miasmic morass) - then
why not take up the discussion of
just exactly what the right exercise of
viveka looks like? We may even do this on Christian terms, if need be, so long as the
existence of this faculty, or ability, is not disputed. But so long as the
decision as to what is
legitimate and what is illegitimate remains
arbitrary ... the fog will remain, as we stand, sinking.
Thomas said:
My criteria for a 'legitimate path' is one that comprises a Divine Source and a viable metaphysic - by which I mean Scripture, Tradition and Doctrine, or Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, for example. My metaphysic in this debate is Catholic and is cross-referred to Advaita Vedanta, Sufism and Neoplatonism.
By Divine Source I mean any of the world's Great Religions as commonly understood - with perhaps the caveat that I draw the line at Islam as being the last Revelation (I would argue that subsequent 'religions' are derivative, rather than original in their own right).
I can argue for you,
on solid ground and with good, sound logic, that some of the very paths you dismiss
offhand as not fitting your own criteria,
actually qualify better as
legitimate, than any you have yet suggested. You might
arbitrarily draw a line
after Islam - for that is the
only manner in which such a line exists - as delineating
legimate from non-legitimate Revelations. But that changes
not one whit that Revelations
have continued to come. I will accept, at best, the
caveat, that such Revealed Truth has not been intended to reach,
in its original (written, revealed) form, the same
mass public as the prior Revelations
which you recognize.
Further, I would add that
if you hold the opinion - that the
only Divine Revelations are those which
do maintain a large adherence, or following, with these developed elements of Scripture, Tradition, and Doctrine (? - I think
Community might be a better translation of
Sangha) ...
if you so regard the nature of Revelation, and spiritual
legitimacy, then I would remind you that,
in simplest terms,
might does not make right. Simply because ... there are a
mere 800,000 Unitarian Universalists, relative to mainstream Christianity's
2.1 billion ... does not mean the Unitarian Universalists follow a
non-legitimate path. They will
as gladly read from the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita in their services as from the Old or New Testaments, and numerous among them may hold to non-conventional views regarding the nature & role of Jesus of Nazareth ... but where will you draw the line? Are they
too few? Are they
too diverse in their beliefs and practices? Do they not
qualify for legitimacy in your worldview?
Thomas said:
Re Point 4 and 5 - Might I suggest that Jesus and Buddha did precisely that? Are you suggesting they might have done better to remain silent?
When you, and I, no longer find ourselves blessed with
great planks in our own eyes,
then we may judge others, and their choice of a manner & method by which to approach the Divine. Not before. I dare say that Christ, Buddha, and others, were not hindered in their spiritual sight
by even a speck of dust ... and thus their constructive criticism was well founded. Christ Himself told us that:
"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. ... And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:14,16)
It seems you know better
than the Shepherd Himself ... just who fits into this fold, and who doesn't. I am not so certain, and so I would rather give a person the benefit of the doubt,
especially if s/he ardently and arduously treads a path which s/he earnestly believes to be the right one (
assuming that the Wiccan Rede is honored:
An it harm none ... ). Do tell me, how does one come by the gift of
perfect discernment, of which you are possessed
? I was under the impression ... that this
viveka was but possessed in full, of the
arhats, and by the
Saints.
Namaskar,
andrew