SPIRIT: The Added Dimension

Dondi said:
Actually, Jesus was telling them to obey whatever the scribes and the Pharisee tell them to do, and not rebel, for their authority is ordained by God. Paul touches upon this in Romans 13:1-2:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

(Which is why we should support the leaders of our country even if we don't agree with them. A nation divided against itself cannot stand. Why also we should support the troops, though we don't agree with the war.)

I thoroughly recommend "The Powers That Be" by Walter Wink for an exploration of this subject. Wink says that we should not resist the concept of authority, the rule of law, but that we were obliged to challenge or peacefully resist an authority that was corrupt. In any case, in a democracy, we are the final authority for what is done in our name. We can't duck out of our responsibility. Perhaps this could be debated in another thread?
 
Virtual_Cliff said:
I thoroughly recommend "The Powers That Be" by Walter Wink for an exploration of this subject. Wink says that we should not resist the concept of authority, the rule of law, but that we were obliged to challenge or peacefully resist an authority that was corrupt. In any case, in a democracy, we are the final authority for what is done in our name. We can't duck out of our responsibility. Perhaps this could be debated in another thread?

That is true, but 1st century Isarel was not living in a democracy. They had little choice but to abide by the laws in place. Nevertheless, you see this kind of resistence with the disciples in Acts5:

"And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,

Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." - Acts 5:27-29

Eventually, this is what caused all the apostles, save one, to die a martyrs death.
 
Dondi said:
That is true, but 1st century Isarel was not living in a democracy. They had little choice but to abide by the laws in place. Nevertheless, you see this kind of resistence with the disciples in Acts5:

"And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,

Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." - Acts 5:27-29

Eventually, this is what caused all the apostles, save one, to die a martyrs death.

It's interesting that it's the Pharisee Gamaliel who defends them after this incident in Acts 5.
 
Jeannot said:
It's interesting that it's the Pharisee Gamaliel who defends them after this incident in Acts 5.

Yes, but evidently Gamaliel had already seen this sort of thing before:

"Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." - Acts 5:36-39

Apparently, he assummed that this group of followers of this one Jesus of Nazareth was going to pan out like the followers of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. There were other rebellious factions that rose up during that time. Some that wanted to overthrow the Roman government, as in the case of Barabbas. Still others followed Messianic figures who were prominent in that day in expectation of the Messiahs appearance. Gamaliel had no reason to believe that the disciples of Jesus would really succeed, but history paints him as pacifistic, so his motives may be to prevent violence.

Here's a Wiki.
 
When St Thomas Aquinas finished writing the long, dogmatic, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, he is reported to have said "Burn it. It is straw." Supposedly he said this under the influence of a more direct apprehension of God.

Not quite. The words are "Everything I have written is like straw before the wind." He did not say burn it. When Christ spoke to St Thomas he asked "What will you have of me?" to which the saint replied, "You, Lord, only you." The Summa is an inspired document -

My thesis, baldly stated, is that dogma divides; mysticism unites. Or to put it less baldly, dogma is the scaffolding of religion, to be removed once the building is complete. Or perhaps, to switch the analogy and its import, the scales that musicians learn, only to be forgotten, absorbed, or transcended when a certain level of mastery is achieved.

But the musician always practices his scales. 'The first thing you learn is the last thing you understand' is almost axiomatic. You will never find a master of anything who says he no longer needs to practice. Rather, the masters I have met, in many fields, practice continually.

There is another huge problem with your statement, and that is many of the world's greatest mystics never abandoned dogma, and would without doubt disagree with you. St Theresa, Meister Eckhart, St Benedict, St Bernard, St Catherine, St Francis, St Dominic ... were all reformers, and all brought the practice of faith back to the dogmatic constitution of the Church, in the face of varioius disorders ... nor will you find one of them who speaks out against the Church, against doctrine, or against dogma. It is through the Church that they have become who they have become, and their loyalty to the Church is their loyalty to Christ - it is His church in their eyes.

The mystic, of course, sees the dogmas as shackles in his/her pursuit of the divine. They seem totally inadequate to the subject. The Kabbalist Rabbi Eliezar ben Judah, of Worms (d. 1230), wrote:
"Everything is in Thee, and Thou art in everything. Thou fillest everything and dost encompass it, when everything was created. Thou was in everything, before everything was created. Thou was everything."


But was this man not still a rabbi? Where are your mystics outside of their respective religious traditions, surely this is the point?

I rather think, from everything that i have read, that the mystic sees dogma as the wings upon which the spirit flies...

The paradox is that one must overcome, or transcend, Ego, and yet at the same time, seek to be in touch with one's deepest self. Augustine saw self-knowledge as indispensable to the knowledge of God. The Sufis had an axiom: "He who knows himself, knows his Lord."

This is what Doctrine, or Dogma, offers - a means of overcoming or transcending the ego - because it is the ego that says 'reject all dogmas!' - because when the wisae man knows himself utterly, he knows he is utterly dependent upon God for his being. Then, the Church is a gift...

Thomas
 
Just to qualify my last post ... when I say 'church as gift' I do not mean the Catholic or Christian Church exclusively, but religion generally.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
When St Thomas Aquinas finished writing the long, dogmatic, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, he is reported to have said "Burn it. It is straw." Supposedly he said this under the influence of a more direct apprehension of God.

Not quite. The words are "Everything I have written is like straw before the wind." He did not say burn it. When Christ spoke to St Thomas he asked "What will you have of me?" to which the saint replied, "You, Lord, only you." The Summa is an inspired document -

My thesis, baldly stated, is that dogma divides; mysticism unites. Or to put it less baldly, dogma is the scaffolding of religion, to be removed once the building is complete. Or perhaps, to switch the analogy and its import, the scales that musicians learn, only to be forgotten, absorbed, or transcended when a certain level of mastery is achieved.

But the musician always practices his scales. 'The first thing you learn is the last thing you understand' is almost axiomatic. You will never find a master of anything who says he no longer needs to practice. Rather, the masters I have met, in many fields, practice continually.

There is another huge problem with your statement, and that is many of the world's greatest mystics never abandoned dogma, and would without doubt disagree with you. St Theresa, Meister Eckhart, St Benedict, St Bernard, St Catherine, St Francis, St Dominic ... were all reformers, and all brought the practice of faith back to the dogmatic constitution of the Church, in the face of varioius disorders ... nor will you find one of them who speaks out against the Church, against doctrine, or against dogma. It is through the Church that they have become who they have become, and their loyalty to the Church is their loyalty to Christ - it is His church in their eyes.

The mystic, of course, sees the dogmas as shackles in his/her pursuit of the divine. They seem totally inadequate to the subject. The Kabbalist Rabbi Eliezar ben Judah, of Worms (d. 1230), wrote:
"Everything is in Thee, and Thou art in everything. Thou fillest everything and dost encompass it, when everything was created. Thou was in everything, before everything was created. Thou was everything."


But was this man not still a rabbi? Where are your mystics outside of their respective religious traditions, surely this is the point?

I rather think, from everything that i have read, that the mystic sees dogma as the wings upon which the spirit flies...

The paradox is that one must overcome, or transcend, Ego, and yet at the same time, seek to be in touch with one's deepest self. Augustine saw self-knowledge as indispensable to the knowledge of God. The Sufis had an axiom: "He who knows himself, knows his Lord."

This is what Doctrine, or Dogma, offers - a means of overcoming or transcending the ego - because it is the ego that says 'reject all dogmas!' - because when the wisae man knows himself utterly, he knows he is utterly dependent upon God for his being. Then, the Church is a gift...

Thomas
I did not mean that the mystic OPPOSES dogma, let alone attacks it. I mean that he/she transcends it. In doing so, I believe that the mystic sees (or feels) the limitations of dogma. That is, dogma may be a starting point, but its severe limitations are seen in that it has to be expressed in words or definitons. To define is to delimit (by definition!). But neither God nor Spirit--nor really the ways to them--are capable of such limitation.

Then of course you have the problem that mystics can take off from a variety of dogmas--Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism--so that the TRUTH of a particular set of dogmas doesnt' seem to relevant, or requisite, for the mystic.

I again quote Chardin: "Everything that rises must converge" and Kierkegaard: "Purity of heart is to will one thing."

When you enter the Trappist monastery at Gethsemani, KY (at least many years ago), the fist thing you saw on the opposite wall in large letters was GOD ALONE.
 
I did not mean that the mystic OPPOSES dogma, let alone attacks it. I mean that he/she transcends it.

Does this not suppose that dogma is limited - that after reaching a certain point, one believes something else, the Sufi ceases to be a Sufi when s/he becomes a mystic, the Christian ceases to be a Christian? How are you defining the 'limitations' of dogma? Are you sure you understand them utterly, to make such a definition?

I would rather say that the mystic embodies dogma - they live according to the rule they follow.

Admittedly, there are many Christians, for example, who call themselves Christians but do not follow the rule of charity, or who wish to see it limited in a certain exclusive way, there are Buddhists who do not follow the rule of compassion ... but then the individual is wanting, not the dogma.

In doing so, I believe that the mystic sees (or feels) the limitations of dogma.

No, I think it's a failure to see the connection. The reality of the mystic is a freedom within the dogma, not a freedom from it.

That is, dogma may be a starting point, but its severe limitations are seen in that it has to be expressed in words or definitons. To define is to delimit (by definition!). But neither God nor Spirit--nor really the ways to them--are capable of such limitation.

"He who has seen me has seen the Father" -

It's not a case of limitation - because your gaze stops at the horizon, are your eyes 'limited'? No, it's in the nature of things.

Man was made to know God, a Christian would say, you will not fina a mystic who says "I believe in God, bbut I haven't the faintest idea what it's like."

Then of course you have the problem that mystics can take off from a variety of dogmas -- Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism -- so that the TRUTH of a particular set of dogmas doesnt' seem to relevant, or requisite, for the mystic.

Again, I have no evidence of this.

I'm sorry to argue this point, but the question is this:

Are you saying the dogma is uneccessary? In which case, the evidence of the mystics themselves would seem to refute that line. They did not suddenly appear, they arose within their respective traditions ... I would further argue they embody everything thast tradition holds to be true, dogmatically.

The view of the mordern world is it wants the reward without the effort - that's what technology is all about - we want life to be easy.

There is a saying - practice makes perfect - I will argue that the mystic never ceases to practice what made him or her a mystic, but rather they practice in the fullness of the doctrine they follow, they live the creed they profess belief.

That's the problem with mystics - they make it look easy (and it is not). So people say, "look at what they're like, that's the way to be," missing the point.

In short, this is all very easy to talk about 'limitation' - but what's the alternative? How do you get to be a mystic without making the effort?

Thomas
 
I would prefer the bicylce analogy to the musician analogy. When you are comfortable riding a bike you forget all the rules you attended to while you were still learning.

In my own life I can say that when I was young I was a dogmatist and I knew nothing. I now know a little more and I recognise the limitations in dogma. Nonetheless I am still a Christian, but I recognise that that is not all there is.

Interesting that Jesus says "I am the way" not "The law - or my teaching - is the way". The way to God is by a relationship with the divine.
 
It is interesting that so many of us associate dogma with law. As VC pointed out Jesus did not say follow my law, but 'follow me.' I think He pointed to the law they already had and said here it is, how to live together in peace, respect and love, but don't bludgeon each other with it. However, it is my impression that throughout history dogma, doctrine and scripture have been used (added in edit) at some times to control people, rather than set them free, just as I see many Christians today who wish to do the same thing. Having said all of that, my little bit of reading about Christian mystics does indicate that they have considered themselves well within the bosom of the Church and very much adhered to Her dogma and doctrines. The idea that the dogma and doctrine are a ladder, or wings, does not make them any less needed.

lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
It is interesting that so many of us associate dogma with law.
Well dogma could be described as mandatory belief, so I suppose that makes it a kind of law. When St Paul described the Law as a nursemaid (but still necessary) he could equally have been referring to dogma.

I think we need to be rooted somewhere in the earth, even if our upper branches are in the clouds. :)
 
Lunamoth's post makes me mindful of St Bonaventure's The Journey of the Mind into God, and St John Climacus' The Ladder of Divine Ascent.

Virtual_Cliff reminds me of the Zen text:
Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
Lunamoth's post makes me mindful of St Bonaventure's The Journey of the Mind into God, and St John Climacus' The Ladder of Divine Ascent.

Virtual_Cliff reminds me of the Zen text:
Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.

Thomas
That seems a pleasing blend of West and East. :)

Having experienced a religion in which law was central, I can say that the dogma of Christianity is a yoke which is easy and a burden which is light.

luna

PS to Thomas, hey, there is a chance I might get to go to Ireland this September! This is a big deal to me as I have not had the chance to travel much in my life.
 
Virtual_Cliff said:
Actually Thomas I do quite a lot of chopping wood and carrying water, but I never realised before that it was the path to enlightenment! ;)

I do too. They may not be the path to enlightenment, but enlightenment may occur while you're doing these things, and focussing on doing them well.

St Benedict, who laid the foundations of Christian monasticism, made the fundamental principle ORA ET LABORA, Pray and Work. This is carried out par excellence by the Trappists (Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance).

I think St John Climacus would tell you that there's nothing easy about the mystical ascent. Francis might say the same thing.

Dogma may be necessary, but I would ask again, Is a particular dogma necessary? Since we have Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist mystics, I wouldn't think so.
 
Jeannot said:
SPIRIT: The Added Dimension
We're told that we're composed of a body and a soul. Then we wonder if the soul is immortal. In personal terms, this becomes, "Will I live forever?"
I think it would be of interest for the members if I quote here some relevant verses from Quran.
Chapter 23 Al-
Mu'min-un[23:13] Verily, We created man from an extract of clay; [23:14] Then We placed him as a drop of sperm in a safe depository; [23:15] Then We fashioned the sperm into a clot; then We fashioned the clot into a shapeless lump; then We fashioned bones out of this shapeless lump; Then We clothed the bones with flesh; Then We developed it into another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators. [23:16] Then after that you, surely, must die. [23:17] Then on the Day of Resurrection you shall, surely, be raised up.” unquote
I think that the stage “Then We developed it into another creation.” as mentioned above is when soul is created in unborn fetus and some sort of consciousness begins to dwell out of sheer unconsciousness.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad explaining and commenting on the above verses have described that the soul does not come from the outside into the fetus but it gets generated at a certain point from within the fetus by God’s order and the child starts breathing and moving, life is generated. When a person dies, the present body dies and starts decomposing, and the present soul becomes body (not physically but symbolically) to yet another soul then generated. If the members show interest then I will quote his exact words for better understanding.
The soul is immortal from the dimension of the human beings, but in relation to God, it cannot exist without and subjugated to Him.
Thanks
 
Just going on my own observations here: I have life. I have a personality which is multi-dimensional: I'm a slightly different person ever day. I don't know what a soul is. As far as spirit is concerned, it seems to me that I have several zones of consciousness that are above and below my every day, normal, think about things, feed myself, go to the bathroom, try not to get hurt consciousness. Really, "above and below" are meaningless labels, but on the imaginary "below" side I have instincts, emotional responses, stuff like that. But "above" there is some kind of interface with the "big plan" that I'm somewhat aware of, but unable to manipulate in any organized fashion. Still, a part of me is "up there" setting things up for me to have opportunities to learn things, meet people and find the right books to help me on my quest, and sorta look out for me. But this upper part of me thing, maybe spirit I don't know, can only communicate in subtle little symbolic occurrences and hope I'm paying attention...kinda. I'm trying to make friends with it and pay attention, but I find that I have a lot of programming, circular logic, and emotional garbage that gums up the signal.

Anyway, that's how it feels.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Just going on my own observations here: I have life. I have a personality which is multi-dimensional: I'm a slightly different person ever day. I don't know what a soul is. As far as spirit is concerned, it seems to me that I have several zones of consciousness that are above and below my every day, normal, think about things, feed myself, go to the bathroom, try not to get hurt consciousness. Really, "above and below" are meaningless labels, but on the imaginary "below" side I have instincts, emotional responses, stuff like that. But "above" there is some kind of interface with the "big plan" that I'm somewhat aware of, but unable to manipulate in any organized fashion. Still, a part of me is "up there" setting things up for me to have opportunities to learn things, meet people and find the right books to help me on my quest, and sorta look out for me. But this upper part of me thing, maybe spirit I don't know, can only communicate in subtle little symbolic occurrences and hope I'm paying attention...kinda. I'm trying to make friends with it and pay attention, but I find that I have a lot of programming, circular logic, and emotional garbage that gums up the signal.

Anyway, that's how it feels.

Chris
I think many people feel more or less the same way. I would add that as far as "upper" and "lower" go, maybe better terms would be "inner" and "outer."
 
Dearest fellow explorers,

I would love to introduce information of the soul as it has enabled me to quench my thirst for this knowledge: The question of who am I really arises and the quest begins. I would look in the mirror and know that what I saw was not who I really was. SO my earnest, long and painful quest finally lead me to the Brahma Kumaris, where this knowledge of these valid and universal questions are anwered in a very clear, understandable and surprisingly easy, essenceful yet complete way. My search through science (DNA) and through religion all came together and made sense! With my pure wishes, do have explore their website and look into the course. Again, my experience and appreciation of myself, life, God, and the world has transformed from that of resentment to unlimited respect, love and honor. bkwsu.org is the reference I mentioned.
 
SON OF SPIRIT (aka SPIRIT II)

Christians object to the view that Jesus was just a great teacher and nothing more. I think they are right in this objection.

Jesus was one of those who was in touch with Spirit. He may have been consumed by it, in fact. He had an intimate sense of his own connection with the divine, which he called 'Abba (Father)." He was full of God – heart, mind, and soul.

Spirit is the "something more" that is present to certain humans at times. It is not the same thing as genius or extraordinary intellectual ability. It is rather an intuition (inner teaching) of the supernatural, not necessarily as something above nature, but as something within nature itself.

"The world is charged with the grandeur of God...." (Gerard Manley Hopkins)

Emily Dickinson thought that "the supernatural is but the natural revealed."

And, judging by his parables, Jesus loved the world around him.

Spirit is something like the blind men's elephant in the parable; each one "sees" it differently. For Siddhartha (the Buddha), for example, it came as a process of Enlightenment, and was perceived under the rubric of "Nirvana." That is, Siddhartha saw it as the extinction of earthly attachment, which he felt as the source of suffering. Nevertheless, once he was enlightened, the Buddha graciously returned to the society of his fellow men, in order to show them that they might share in the same experience. Jesus may have had a similar experience.

Both Jesus and Siddhartha walked away from their biological families in favor of a larger family. The idea of the larger family is beautifully expressed in John Steinbeck's GRAPES OF WRATH. As the biological extended family of twelve disintegrates on the way to California, a larger idea of family is born. This larger idea is dramatized in the last scene of the novel.

As an actual or potential participant in Spirit, each person is be respected and loved (not necessarily liked). To do this, it is not necessary to agree with one another.

"Opposition is true friendship." (Wm Blake)

"He who degrades another, degrades Me. Whatever is said or done returns at last to Me." (Walt Whitman)

The idea of a larger love can be seen in the Middle Eastern tradition of hospitality. The homeless stranger is to be taken in and cared for, no questions asked. This belief is illustrated in the Bible in the story of Lot, who offers his daughters to the mob at the door rather than let them violate his guests. And elsewhere in the TaNaKh. The story of Abraham 18 tells us that a stranger may be God. The movie about Dorothy Day, ENTERTAINING ANGELS, presents the same idea.

If we wait for other people to be perfect before we love them, we will never love. We have to love them as we find them.

"You shall love your crooked neighbor with your crooked heart." (WH Auden)

As with the names of God in Jewish Scriptures, there are many names for Spirit: Father, Nirvana, Holy Spirit, Allah, Christ, the Kingdom of God, the Manitou, etc. The concept cannot be put into words, which may be why Jesus, Socrates, and Siddhartha never wrote anything.

"The Spirit blows where it lists, and no man knows the movements thereof."

Most of us, alas, do not walk in the Spirit most of the time. But we have examples of men who seem to have been in touch with it at some point. In addition to Jesus and Siddhartha, we might cite Moses, Socrates, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, St Paul, St Francis – and closer to our own day, William Blake, John Brown, Crazy Horse, Martin Luther King, etc.

Francis gave us the key to unconditional love: "O Lord, grant that I may not much seek to be loved, as to love; to be understood as to understand – for it is in giving that we receive, in dying that we are born to Eternal Life."

The intensely subjective nature of the experience of Spirit is indicated by Daniel. After his vision of the Son of Man "coming with the clouds of heaven," he says, "As for me, Daniel, my soul was troubled within me, and the visions of my head terrified me." (Daniel 7:15)

Or as William Blake wrote: "The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dined with me, and I asked them how they dared assert so roundly that God spake to them, and whether they did not think at the time that they would be misunderstood and be the cause of imposition.

"Isaiah answered, I saw no God, nor heard any, in a finite organical perception, but my senses discovered the infinite in everything, and as I was then persuaded and remain confirmed, that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote."

In Shaw's SAINT JOAN, they tell Joan that the voices she hears are only in her imagination. She replies, "Of course. That's how the messages of God come to us."

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is: infinite."

"All deities reside in the human breast."

"The cherub with his flaming sword is hereby commanded to leave his guard at the tree of life, and when he does, the whole creation will be consumed and appear infinite and holy, whereas it now appears finite and corrupt."

----------------

Why did Siddhartha and Jesus never write a book? Because, I suspect they knew, as Paul says, that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. How can a book capture Presence (the Shekinah)? "Ya had to be there," we say. Yeah. A book can never capture the tone of voice, the intonations, the facial expressions – all those things that give meaning to our words. So with the Teacher gone, we have to become our own teachers.

The Spirit is always present, but we stay locked up in ourselves, shutting it out. Our knowledge and wisdom are themselves preventives, because when we know one little thing, we think we know it all. Ego is the enemy of Spirit.

"Send forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shall renew the face of the Earth."

--------------

It's as if we were in a lifeboat – which, in a sense, we are – and everyone is looking for the best seats, or the biggest supply of rations. Meanwhile, no one is paying any attention to the navigation of the boat to a safe harbor.

Or the old one about worrying about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
 
Back
Top