The 'problem' of universalism
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Thanks, Q. 
I'm crawling back from the worst workload I have ever had. It's nice to be in good company again!
I'm crawling back from the worst workload I have ever had. It's nice to be in good company again! 
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hmm, this analogy comparing universalism to a mountain with different paths comes uncomfortably close to the Tower of Babel, in my mind.
It's nice to meet another "ecclectic" Christian, Path_of_One. What do you think about this quote when applied to univeralism? {I'm not sure if this is the actual author.}path_of_one said:
I'm sure there is much debate over what constitutes what is essential and what is non-essential. {Isn't that what the different religions do?} However, the concept of charity would apply to areas where we can't all agree.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Yes... I would say in all things, love.
To me it is fairly simple- those who show the fruits of the Spirit- those who love others, are peacemakers, who are humble, self-controlled, patient, and gentle... they are clearly in connection with God/the Divine. They have awakened and are cultivating the light within them. And though they may not profess that Christ is Lord, I believe that they know Him nonetheless. Those who do not show the fruits of the Spirit- those who are angry, bitter, who hate and hurt others, who are prideful and vain, and feel they are owed something by the world... they are missing the boat. They are centered on themselves and not on the Divine. And even if they profess that Christ is Lord, they do not know Him.
Bold, I know.
But it is what the scriptures say- by their fruits, we will know them. And similarly, we can know if we ourselves are in accord with the Divine by how much we are like Christ. For me, I believe Christ is outside time/space. So in one sense He came at a certain point in history and this founded a religion. But in another sense He has ever been and always will be, and can be known by any, even if they never heard of Him. If we but seek, we will find... and all our differing conceptualizations of what we find falls flat before the obvious and universal RESULTS of this finding- love.
There is therefore no need for a universal religion, for it is already in place for those who truly seek. It is love. God is love. And when we are in God, we are in love. No need for the Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, and Wiccan to all make one uniform system to understand their transformation, but rather to recognize the same transformation in one another and to rejoice in it, to encourage all who choose to reach out to a higher way of being.
To me it is fairly simple- those who show the fruits of the Spirit- those who love others, are peacemakers, who are humble, self-controlled, patient, and gentle... they are clearly in connection with God/the Divine. They have awakened and are cultivating the light within them. And though they may not profess that Christ is Lord, I believe that they know Him nonetheless. Those who do not show the fruits of the Spirit- those who are angry, bitter, who hate and hurt others, who are prideful and vain, and feel they are owed something by the world... they are missing the boat. They are centered on themselves and not on the Divine. And even if they profess that Christ is Lord, they do not know Him.
Bold, I know.
But it is what the scriptures say- by their fruits, we will know them. And similarly, we can know if we ourselves are in accord with the Divine by how much we are like Christ. For me, I believe Christ is outside time/space. So in one sense He came at a certain point in history and this founded a religion. But in another sense He has ever been and always will be, and can be known by any, even if they never heard of Him. If we but seek, we will find... and all our differing conceptualizations of what we find falls flat before the obvious and universal RESULTS of this finding- love.
There is therefore no need for a universal religion, for it is already in place for those who truly seek. It is love. God is love. And when we are in God, we are in love. No need for the Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, and Wiccan to all make one uniform system to understand their transformation, but rather to recognize the same transformation in one another and to rejoice in it, to encourage all who choose to reach out to a higher way of being.
B
Bandit
Guest
path_of_one said:
this is true. Jesus said a lot of people would do that, profess him and make all these claims with the wrong agenda but not really love him. i think he made it pretty clear that this walk is more than just a profession when he said to those who did all these works in his name - "depart from me you workers of iniquity, i never knew you". & that you cant love him & the world, to love one master & love the other less... the title christian or a profession does not make us exempt.
the heart has to be centered on Jesus as well & he literally moves inside.
It seem to me that 'Universalism' is rejected in favour of a vague demitheism rather than on any sould philosophical foundation of reason - in fact it's not so much the rejection of universalism, but the rejection of all religion (including universalism) in favour of a romanticised humanism.
The roots of 'romaticised humanism' lie in a rejection of the materialism of the Enlightnement and the empiricism of the Age of Reason towards the end of the nineteenth century.
The Romance movement in poetry and art brought a renewed interest in antiquity, but these things were 'reinvented' and, inescapably, manufactured.
Thus art and the sumblime; the Gothic movement; spiritism, spiritualism, and a host of new religions, especially in the US; Wicca (invented by Gerald Gardiner); the New Age and the take up of elements of Hermeticism, Egyptology, Eastern and Oriental mysticism from the Theosophists, Crowley etc., to the Beatles and their gurus;
This trend continues unabated in its quest for novelty ... and forever seeeks to verify or authenticate itself by some claim on an ancient heritage, which simply is not there.
Huston Smith called religion 'the winnowed wisdom of the human race'. Sadly the New Age markets that wisdom as candy. An example is the interest in all things Celtic:
"We know tragically little about the actual religious expressions of the ancient Celts. We have a few myths and legends, but very little archeological evidence to support our theories. We have no written records of their actual forms of worship, and the accounts of their culture and beliefs written by their contemporaries are often highly biased and of questionable historical worth"
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_hist.htm).
Silver RavenWolf:
"Wicca, as you practice the religion today, is a new religion, barely fifty years old. The techniques you use at present are not entirely what your elders practiced even thirty years ago. Of course, threads of 'what was' weave through the tapestry of 'what is now.' ... in no way can we replicate to perfection the precise circumstances of environment, society, culture, religion and magick a hundred years ago, or a thousand. Why would we want to? The idea is to go forward with the knowledge of the past, tempered by the tools of our own age"
My emphasis - the point being there is little or no verified 'knowledge of the past' - so supposition, invention and the plundering of religious heritage fills the gaps according to one's own taste and sentiments.
+++
The Universal can only exist at the level of the Absolute. The Particular (in this case, religion) is the route to the Universal.
People today confuse the level, and assume that simply by existing they have a right of access as it were. They have an equal right to the fruits of the Buddhist Dharma, but are not obliged to embrace Buddhism; they are Christian, but retain the right to refute Christian doctrine. They are Sufi, but not Moslem ...
Because I exist God is obligated to me and therefore there is no need to follow any given or particular path, and faced with paths that ask of me what I am not prepared to give, I'll decide on my own.
Thomas
The roots of 'romaticised humanism' lie in a rejection of the materialism of the Enlightnement and the empiricism of the Age of Reason towards the end of the nineteenth century.
The Romance movement in poetry and art brought a renewed interest in antiquity, but these things were 'reinvented' and, inescapably, manufactured.
Thus art and the sumblime; the Gothic movement; spiritism, spiritualism, and a host of new religions, especially in the US; Wicca (invented by Gerald Gardiner); the New Age and the take up of elements of Hermeticism, Egyptology, Eastern and Oriental mysticism from the Theosophists, Crowley etc., to the Beatles and their gurus;
This trend continues unabated in its quest for novelty ... and forever seeeks to verify or authenticate itself by some claim on an ancient heritage, which simply is not there.
Huston Smith called religion 'the winnowed wisdom of the human race'. Sadly the New Age markets that wisdom as candy. An example is the interest in all things Celtic:
"We know tragically little about the actual religious expressions of the ancient Celts. We have a few myths and legends, but very little archeological evidence to support our theories. We have no written records of their actual forms of worship, and the accounts of their culture and beliefs written by their contemporaries are often highly biased and of questionable historical worth"
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_hist.htm).
Silver RavenWolf:
"Wicca, as you practice the religion today, is a new religion, barely fifty years old. The techniques you use at present are not entirely what your elders practiced even thirty years ago. Of course, threads of 'what was' weave through the tapestry of 'what is now.' ... in no way can we replicate to perfection the precise circumstances of environment, society, culture, religion and magick a hundred years ago, or a thousand. Why would we want to? The idea is to go forward with the knowledge of the past, tempered by the tools of our own age"
My emphasis - the point being there is little or no verified 'knowledge of the past' - so supposition, invention and the plundering of religious heritage fills the gaps according to one's own taste and sentiments.
+++
The Universal can only exist at the level of the Absolute. The Particular (in this case, religion) is the route to the Universal.
People today confuse the level, and assume that simply by existing they have a right of access as it were. They have an equal right to the fruits of the Buddhist Dharma, but are not obliged to embrace Buddhism; they are Christian, but retain the right to refute Christian doctrine. They are Sufi, but not Moslem ...
Because I exist God is obligated to me and therefore there is no need to follow any given or particular path, and faced with paths that ask of me what I am not prepared to give, I'll decide on my own.
Thomas
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Thomas, your post is offensive to me, and I posted a response that specifically told why, yet it was DELETED by Brucegdc. You may consider your own feelings and beliefs on this matter vindicated. It is now apparent to me that it really doesn't matter WHAT I think. Either I must fall in step with what you are preaching ... or I will not be heard at all.
YOU WIN. Hope you're satisfied ...
SOL INVICTUS
YOU WIN. Hope you're satisfied ...
SOL INVICTUS
bruceg
Well-Known Member
Tajaisi's post was deleted because it was a personal attack - attacking a person, not the ideas. That sort of post is forbidden on these boards, and will be removed when found. As I have posted on other threads, any time you find yourself writing "you are" or "you believe" take a moment to think about it - those usually are indicators of attacking people, not discussing.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
And I find this:brucegdc said:
... a subtle, or perhaps not-so-subtle ... attack. But hey, who cares, right? Just so we're not trashing Christianity, what does it matter, eh? Okay to attack another's religion, personal beliefs, and spiritual practices, just so we don't name names.Thomas said:
Gotcha, Bruce. Gotcha.
Indeed.
This entire thread is offensive.
-A
bruceg
Well-Known Member
Going back through the thread in response to Taijasi's complaint, checking for other personal attacks, I ran across the mountain & path discussion.
I had a request from a friend to help out her kid in a math problem that seems to fit that. The problem was determining how many paths there are between the lower left corner of a square grid and the upper right, given you can only go up or right at each intersection. Didn't come up with a formula for it, but I think it fits that mountain analogy.
Think of the mountain as a vertical grid - possibly wrapped into a cone. From what I saw earlier the idea of universalism is that there are many paths, and you have choices. Where I think Thomas's argument against the "pick what you want' fails is that I don't see a problem with it - as long as we go right &/or up, what difference does the path make? There are wrong choices (left, down) that don't get us to the goal, but if the goal is to better ourselves and the universe (whatever version of better that is), then the emphasis should be on correct choices at the nodes.
The Christian doctrine of "there is no way to the father except through me" maps to a point on the grid through which people must pass to be of that faith - which is a distinct path, but on the same mountain. I see it as including Christianity as a path, but that Christians may not wish to take other paths from there (a penultimate node, perhaps), as that is what they prefer, yet there are multiple paths to that node, and there may be other nodes that are not acceptable to those on that path yet may lead to the same destination.
Stretching the analogy further, the grid/mountain is in zero gravity & without external reference points, so we're not always sure if we're going up or down or left, although some of the way stations have beacons (scripture).
Seems consistent with the analogy and information so far.... and beats the heck out of my usual "deity as a disco ball" analogy.
I had a request from a friend to help out her kid in a math problem that seems to fit that. The problem was determining how many paths there are between the lower left corner of a square grid and the upper right, given you can only go up or right at each intersection. Didn't come up with a formula for it, but I think it fits that mountain analogy.
Think of the mountain as a vertical grid - possibly wrapped into a cone. From what I saw earlier the idea of universalism is that there are many paths, and you have choices. Where I think Thomas's argument against the "pick what you want' fails is that I don't see a problem with it - as long as we go right &/or up, what difference does the path make? There are wrong choices (left, down) that don't get us to the goal, but if the goal is to better ourselves and the universe (whatever version of better that is), then the emphasis should be on correct choices at the nodes.
The Christian doctrine of "there is no way to the father except through me" maps to a point on the grid through which people must pass to be of that faith - which is a distinct path, but on the same mountain. I see it as including Christianity as a path, but that Christians may not wish to take other paths from there (a penultimate node, perhaps), as that is what they prefer, yet there are multiple paths to that node, and there may be other nodes that are not acceptable to those on that path yet may lead to the same destination.
Stretching the analogy further, the grid/mountain is in zero gravity & without external reference points, so we're not always sure if we're going up or down or left, although some of the way stations have beacons (scripture).
Seems consistent with the analogy and information so far.... and beats the heck out of my usual "deity as a disco ball" analogy.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
I still like something that occurred to me just yesterday:
Something else I learned long ago ... is that the more we delight in, and cherish, each of the facets of Truth which we have discovered - even if but one (for that is all it takes) ... the closer we penetrate to the heart of this Diamond. And at its heart, there is but one Face, which looks out through the many thousands ... and also finds itself in every human heart. I do not need a holy book, a priest, or any external authority to tell me that. I know it.
Should I wish to live my life in conformity with the truth I have discovered - that is, in such a way as to eternally abide within this Diamond Heart, then I must adhere to a most rigorous and strict spiritual path, which path I know well enough - both from having successfully traveled it, for a time, and from not having done so, for long enough. Thus, s/he who tells me, "your path is not valid," or "your path is less valid than my path" ... I know these words to be mean-spirited, and empty. I choose - how & whether to respond, yet if the door is shut, it will always be a moot point. No amount of discussion will make any difference; it will only make matters worse.
I will agree wholeheartedly with anyone who reasons that some paths are - by their very nature - more efficient, more effective, more helpful, or more direct than others. 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. 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.
That we all make mistakes, and also have the opportunity to learn from them, is part of life. It is part of the growing that is offered to us, whether we see this is karma, as the gift of a loving Creator, or as pure happenstance. But each of these interpretations is a viable way to see things, since what is important, is that we learn.
Today's novelties, as it has been pointed out, are appealing to some, but just because I don't happen to attend [SIZE=-1]séances, or chant Hare Krishna, does not entitle me to decry these methods of approaching the Divine. 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?
andrew
[/SIZE]
"The Diamond of Truth has many thousands of facets. Ours is not to try and behold every single facet, but simply to recognize, and delight in, each new facet which we discover."
In my time, I have met many who were happy with the one face of truth which they were fortunate enough to have discovered. I have met plenty of folks who have managed to encounter several dozen, score, or even hundreds of the many faces of truth. And I know more people than I can count who know more facets than I do myself. I remain in awe of their widsom and their breadth of mind, even a bit envious, in a good-natured way, yet I am not jealous, as such ... because -
Something else I learned long ago ... is that the more we delight in, and cherish, each of the facets of Truth which we have discovered - even if but one (for that is all it takes) ... the closer we penetrate to the heart of this Diamond. And at its heart, there is but one Face, which looks out through the many thousands ... and also finds itself in every human heart. I do not need a holy book, a priest, or any external authority to tell me that. I know it.
Should I wish to live my life in conformity with the truth I have discovered - that is, in such a way as to eternally abide within this Diamond Heart, then I must adhere to a most rigorous and strict spiritual path, which path I know well enough - both from having successfully traveled it, for a time, and from not having done so, for long enough. Thus, s/he who tells me, "your path is not valid," or "your path is less valid than my path" ... I know these words to be mean-spirited, and empty. I choose - how & whether to respond, yet if the door is shut, it will always be a moot point. No amount of discussion will make any difference; it will only make matters worse.
I will agree wholeheartedly with anyone who reasons that some paths are - by their very nature - more efficient, more effective, more helpful, or more direct than others. 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. 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.
That we all make mistakes, and also have the opportunity to learn from them, is part of life. It is part of the growing that is offered to us, whether we see this is karma, as the gift of a loving Creator, or as pure happenstance. But each of these interpretations is a viable way to see things, since what is important, is that we learn.
Today's novelties, as it has been pointed out, are appealing to some, but just because I don't happen to attend [SIZE=-1]séances, or chant Hare Krishna, does not entitle me to decry these methods of approaching the Divine. 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?
andrew
[/SIZE]
Sorry - but I don't follow your reasoning:
Point 1:
I will agree wholeheartedly with anyone who reasons that some paths are - by their very nature - more efficient, more effective, more helpful, or more direct than others.
Agreed.
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?
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)
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.
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' - so the whole argument founders on not stipulating the criteria of a 'legitimate' path - and Point 4 suggests you are not able or choose not to - from my side this appears as often arguing both sides of the fence simultaneously - for example Point 4 contradicts Points 1, 2 and 3.
In short you have argued:
1 - That not all paths are equal.
2 - That not all paths suit everyone.
3 - That not all paths are valid.
4 - Points 1, 2 and 3 are invalid.
5 - That to express a view is uncharitable.
I argue that:
1 - That not all paths are equal.
2 - That not all paths suit everyone.
3 - That not all paths are valid.
4 - That any path can be tested against the criteria of 1, 2 and 3.
5 - That in open forum I have the right to express my view in the belief that it might help another along their way.
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).
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?
Thomas
Point 1:
I will agree wholeheartedly with anyone who reasons that some paths are - by their very nature - more efficient, more effective, more helpful, or more direct than others.
Agreed.
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?
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)
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.
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' - so the whole argument founders on not stipulating the criteria of a 'legitimate' path - and Point 4 suggests you are not able or choose not to - from my side this appears as often arguing both sides of the fence simultaneously - for example Point 4 contradicts Points 1, 2 and 3.
In short you have argued:
1 - That not all paths are equal.
2 - That not all paths suit everyone.
3 - That not all paths are valid.
4 - Points 1, 2 and 3 are invalid.
5 - That to express a view is uncharitable.
I argue that:
1 - That not all paths are equal.
2 - That not all paths suit everyone.
3 - That not all paths are valid.
4 - That any path can be tested against the criteria of 1, 2 and 3.
5 - That in open forum I have the right to express my view in the belief that it might help another along their way.
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).
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?
Thomas
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
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:
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:
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:
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!Thomas said:
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.
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.Thomas said:
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?
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:Thomas said:
"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
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Wow Thomas.. looks like you jumped in the fire with this one... I applaud your efforts in staying true to yourself and your beliefs despite the anomosity displayed.
After reading this whole thread this is what I saw.. I saw Thomas start a post asking a question of universalism asking it whether it was a sound belief system.
Then later on I see Thomas answer in his own opinion whether it was a sound belief system or not.... respectfully voicing his opinion.
Then I see the attacks.. that because someone does not believe its a sound belief system that he must be wrong and he must be judgemental because he believes differently which in my eyes is backhanded and flat out backwards since that person believes the others belief system is wrong and suggests so openly... go figure. Thats how I saw it.. /shrug
Interesting thread.. I dont normally visit this forum because its a bit more open to meaness and general disrespect for others and Its hurts me to read it. I enjoyed this one though.. it gave me food for thought.. I loved the mountain analogy and bruce's mathematical equation of such an analogy. My brain doesnt work that way so when someone presents it in different ways like this Im very impressed and usually learn to look at something differently. Well done
After reading this whole thread this is what I saw.. I saw Thomas start a post asking a question of universalism asking it whether it was a sound belief system.
Then later on I see Thomas answer in his own opinion whether it was a sound belief system or not.... respectfully voicing his opinion.
Then I see the attacks.. that because someone does not believe its a sound belief system that he must be wrong and he must be judgemental because he believes differently which in my eyes is backhanded and flat out backwards since that person believes the others belief system is wrong and suggests so openly... go figure. Thats how I saw it.. /shrug
Interesting thread.. I dont normally visit this forum because its a bit more open to meaness and general disrespect for others and Its hurts me to read it. I enjoyed this one though.. it gave me food for thought.. I loved the mountain analogy and bruce's mathematical equation of such an analogy. My brain doesnt work that way so when someone presents it in different ways like this Im very impressed and usually learn to look at something differently. Well done
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I just wanted to add something else since I think some may be confused on where to post certain topics. Thomas would not post this in the neopagan eastern or mysticism forums.. it would not be appropriate there because it would be seen as an attack on that belief system. He posted it in a place where all belief systems can converse on such topics intelligently and respectfully with differing opinions. Its ok to have and voice and dissect beliefs here . But on home territories its the par to be nice and behave respectfully. Hope this might have cleared up any confusion.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Well then, Faithful, Thomas, others ... I'm sure you will not mind one teeny bit if I start a thread, on this forum, entitled, The `problem' of christianity, and then proceed to show that my spiritual path is valid, and that christianity is not. Don't worry, I'll be sure to start off the thread with a warm, hearty quote from an authority on the topic ... and I'll keep my own opinions out of it ... for awhile.
regards,
Andrew
... Sol Invictus
regards,
Andrew
... Sol Invictus
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
I've found this post interesting, though a bit heated. I suppose I come from two different sides on the universalism debate.
First, as an anthropologist, I feel it is disrespectful to other religious and cultural traditions to pick and choose bits and pieces without careful study or understanding. I speak from a relatively unbiased perspective on this- apart from any spiritual benefit or lack thereof, I just find it troubling that many New Age religions pick whatever they find easiest or pleasant, without going through the hassle of study first. Key examples from my own experience: New Age retreats that use things like "vision quests" and sweat lodges, but no one spends the time to actually learn about a specific cultural group of indigenous Americans, understand how such practices were integrated into the larger religious and social context, or be trained for ecstatic or shamanistic experiences. People market these experiences like one would market a new roller coaster or extreme sport, without any respect for the indigenous religion and its practices. There is a sort of cultural consumption there that is offensive to many people that recurs over and over in the New Age movement, from the Kabballah Center with their red string bracelets and special water to "Earth Mystery" retreats in which various indigenous religions are plundered without study, understanding, or permission. This kind of willy-nilly universalism, randomly picking and choosing whatever seems to fit with one's lifestyle without regard for the study required in any of the traditions, seems disrespectful to the traditions and their adherents. Furthermore, if I may be so bold, it can have detrimental spiritual effects from what I have seen. Many people, if they are not adequately prepared for ecstatic and other mystical experiences, can feel very frightened and confused. Something in me rebels at the trend of some people to treat spirituality and religion as if it is nothing more than the latest fashion, trend, or sport. Kabballah is the "must do" thing now, next year it will be Druidry, and then after that Zen. I hate to see our culture of consumption consume the integrity of religions and reduce them to "must-have" experiences rather than paths to the Divine. And there is a big difference between the two. Just because you have an ecstatic trance doesn't mean you connect with God.
Yet, I rebel at the insinuation of Thomas that one cannot forge one's own path through careful study of multiple religions. I may have misunderstood him, and if so I am sure he will clarify. But I suppose as a person who has done this myself- why is it wrong for me to attempt to make sense of my spiritual experience from a variety of religious traditions, provided I attempt to study them carefully and to be clear about what I have redefined or altered, not claiming some historical parentage I do not possess? This part is more personal for me, for though Christianity is the closest "fit" (though there is a huge question of which kind of Christianity, since varieties are quite close to my own path, but often considered heretical), there are aspects of my spiritual experience that arose independent of a tradition, beginning when I was very young, that Christianity failed to address. I have found in my study of various traditions many useful concepts and techniques and scriptures that I would have missed had I limited my spirituality to one sect of Christianity. I feel that the careful study of other religions and adoption of certain concepts and techniques, such as forms of meditation, has only enhanced my connection to God and Christ.
Furthermore, and I choose Christianity as an example here only because it is the bulk of my own background (similar arguments could be made for many religions), how could new religions and revelations arise if everyone needed to pick a "legitimate" (i.e., established) faith? How could even new sects of Christianity arise? For there are many diverse varieties of Christianity, some quite different from others. What if the scriptures of Christianity works for me, and I have a personal relationship with Christ, but tradition and doctrine hinder me? Who decides what constitutes legitimacy and how long must a sect continue before it is a legitimate religion? Were the early Christians a legitimate religion, though they lacked doctrine and tradition (they were still working on forming it) and lacked a large populace? Were they not persecuted, in part, because they were viewed to be heretical and dangerous and strange? It is problematic to me to state that a religion must have a certain size population and/or a certain kind of uniformity to be valid or legitimate. What of indigenous religions that lack scripture, doctrine, and tradition, that lack known founders, and often all but spiritual experience, ritual, and worldview? What makes a religion viable/legitimate/etc.? I find that question to be a very problematic one as an anthropologist, dangerously resting on the "eye of the beholder" as it were.
Discussion from both sides welcome...
First, as an anthropologist, I feel it is disrespectful to other religious and cultural traditions to pick and choose bits and pieces without careful study or understanding. I speak from a relatively unbiased perspective on this- apart from any spiritual benefit or lack thereof, I just find it troubling that many New Age religions pick whatever they find easiest or pleasant, without going through the hassle of study first. Key examples from my own experience: New Age retreats that use things like "vision quests" and sweat lodges, but no one spends the time to actually learn about a specific cultural group of indigenous Americans, understand how such practices were integrated into the larger religious and social context, or be trained for ecstatic or shamanistic experiences. People market these experiences like one would market a new roller coaster or extreme sport, without any respect for the indigenous religion and its practices. There is a sort of cultural consumption there that is offensive to many people that recurs over and over in the New Age movement, from the Kabballah Center with their red string bracelets and special water to "Earth Mystery" retreats in which various indigenous religions are plundered without study, understanding, or permission. This kind of willy-nilly universalism, randomly picking and choosing whatever seems to fit with one's lifestyle without regard for the study required in any of the traditions, seems disrespectful to the traditions and their adherents. Furthermore, if I may be so bold, it can have detrimental spiritual effects from what I have seen. Many people, if they are not adequately prepared for ecstatic and other mystical experiences, can feel very frightened and confused. Something in me rebels at the trend of some people to treat spirituality and religion as if it is nothing more than the latest fashion, trend, or sport. Kabballah is the "must do" thing now, next year it will be Druidry, and then after that Zen. I hate to see our culture of consumption consume the integrity of religions and reduce them to "must-have" experiences rather than paths to the Divine. And there is a big difference between the two. Just because you have an ecstatic trance doesn't mean you connect with God.
Yet, I rebel at the insinuation of Thomas that one cannot forge one's own path through careful study of multiple religions. I may have misunderstood him, and if so I am sure he will clarify. But I suppose as a person who has done this myself- why is it wrong for me to attempt to make sense of my spiritual experience from a variety of religious traditions, provided I attempt to study them carefully and to be clear about what I have redefined or altered, not claiming some historical parentage I do not possess? This part is more personal for me, for though Christianity is the closest "fit" (though there is a huge question of which kind of Christianity, since varieties are quite close to my own path, but often considered heretical), there are aspects of my spiritual experience that arose independent of a tradition, beginning when I was very young, that Christianity failed to address. I have found in my study of various traditions many useful concepts and techniques and scriptures that I would have missed had I limited my spirituality to one sect of Christianity. I feel that the careful study of other religions and adoption of certain concepts and techniques, such as forms of meditation, has only enhanced my connection to God and Christ.
Furthermore, and I choose Christianity as an example here only because it is the bulk of my own background (similar arguments could be made for many religions), how could new religions and revelations arise if everyone needed to pick a "legitimate" (i.e., established) faith? How could even new sects of Christianity arise? For there are many diverse varieties of Christianity, some quite different from others. What if the scriptures of Christianity works for me, and I have a personal relationship with Christ, but tradition and doctrine hinder me? Who decides what constitutes legitimacy and how long must a sect continue before it is a legitimate religion? Were the early Christians a legitimate religion, though they lacked doctrine and tradition (they were still working on forming it) and lacked a large populace? Were they not persecuted, in part, because they were viewed to be heretical and dangerous and strange? It is problematic to me to state that a religion must have a certain size population and/or a certain kind of uniformity to be valid or legitimate. What of indigenous religions that lack scripture, doctrine, and tradition, that lack known founders, and often all but spiritual experience, ritual, and worldview? What makes a religion viable/legitimate/etc.? I find that question to be a very problematic one as an anthropologist, dangerously resting on the "eye of the beholder" as it were.
Discussion from both sides welcome...
Last edited:
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Path_of_One, your post, your contribution, and your leavening influence in general ... is most helpful, at least for me, and I agree with pretty much all of your points. I do not think that many who pick & choose from various indigenous, or mystical traditions - such as Native American shamanism, and the Kabbalah - do so with any intention of overlooking the rich history and culture(s) of these various peoples. But I do understand what you're saying about a consumer approach to religions, and I think you make a valid point.
And yet, I would almost go so far as to dispute your point - that "ecstatic trance doesn't mean you connect with God." Technically, I do agree, but the very foundation of my argument, the very basis for my perspective and worldview, is that we are all alike - in terms of our basic, spiritual constitution, and in terms of that which we are capable of achieving, attaining, or experiencing. I reject, out of hand as spurious and specious, the claims of anyone who asserts that only via Christianty - or Buddhism, or Kabbalah, or any one path, can Truth, Enlightenment, or Salvation be acquired, attained, merited, etc.
I will take issue with someone of the Muslim Faith, if such a claim is made. For all the world is not meant to be Muslim, imho ... nor Christian - or adherents of any one tradition/faith/religion - at this time. How anyone could possibly argue otherwise, is beyond me, yet I also just take it as a given that One World Religion is inherently desirable - for many important reasons. Yet I dare not step up and say, "Here it is," or This is what it will look like! Presentations have already been made, imo, and just look where we are at the moment. Obviously, this is not the day. Nor in our lifetimes! And yet, to fight the very Principle of Unity? That makes me want to cry.
But for me, this discussion is essentially over. To state succinctly, as has been done, 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)" - is to throw salt on a wound ... as well as to demonstrate for me unequivocally that frankly, someone uttering such a statement wouldn't know Jesus if he sat down beside him and shook his hand. Such can happen. It does, from time to time. And this Revelation that is so frivolously tossed away as "merely derivative," includes quite lucid communication from the very sources of some of Humanity's Greatest Religious Scriptures, traditions, and sacred practices. Ahhh, but what does it matter. We have sealed the book on what does not suit us.
And so it shall remain.
Sol Invictus!
andrew
And yet, I would almost go so far as to dispute your point - that "ecstatic trance doesn't mean you connect with God." Technically, I do agree, but the very foundation of my argument, the very basis for my perspective and worldview, is that we are all alike - in terms of our basic, spiritual constitution, and in terms of that which we are capable of achieving, attaining, or experiencing. I reject, out of hand as spurious and specious, the claims of anyone who asserts that only via Christianty - or Buddhism, or Kabbalah, or any one path, can Truth, Enlightenment, or Salvation be acquired, attained, merited, etc.
I will take issue with someone of the Muslim Faith, if such a claim is made. For all the world is not meant to be Muslim, imho ... nor Christian - or adherents of any one tradition/faith/religion - at this time. How anyone could possibly argue otherwise, is beyond me, yet I also just take it as a given that One World Religion is inherently desirable - for many important reasons. Yet I dare not step up and say, "Here it is," or This is what it will look like!
Presentations have already been made, imo, and just look where we are at the moment. Obviously, this is not the day. Nor in our lifetimes! And yet, to fight the very Principle of Unity? That makes me want to cry. But for me, this discussion is essentially over. To state succinctly, as has been done, 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)" - is to throw salt on a wound ... as well as to demonstrate for me unequivocally that frankly, someone uttering such a statement wouldn't know Jesus if he sat down beside him and shook his hand. Such can happen. It does, from time to time. And this Revelation that is so frivolously tossed away as "merely derivative," includes quite lucid communication from the very sources of some of Humanity's Greatest Religious Scriptures, traditions, and sacred practices. Ahhh, but what does it matter. We have sealed the book on what does not suit us.
And so it shall remain.
Sol Invictus!
andrew
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
taijasi said:
Have at it
Not meaning to be rude.. but you've already done so.. I would prefer of course that you do it here so I dont have to read it. Im not sure which part of Christianity threatens you to where you have to go on the attack..(btw anger usually results from fear). Its not needed. We are all intelligent and rational human beings with the right to make choices for ourselves..
Thanks and Good luck with your planned post..
B
Bandit
Guest
taijasi said:
that would not really be anything new you know
. we see that every week around here.