@Hirohide Yamada. Hiro, this is in response to your request for more explanation. I had trouble posting it within the previous section so I post this as a new comment. Religious institutions, especially the three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but others also) believe in inspired scriptures, infallible written texts saying these are the revelations of God. There are variations on this theme but basically these kinds of religions like to objectify truth and the authority of absolute truth in written doctrines, dogmas, creeds, histories, myths, parables and anecdotes. I am saying that notions of the perfect revelation of truth in objective texts simply shifts sovereignty over human thought, intelligence and obedience into the hands of those who become institutionally ordained (recognised) as competent interpreters of the texts and obedience to the text is really obedience to the experts. By this means millions become enslaved via the brain. The experts interpret a certain way, basically and maybe sincerely with a view to establishing authority over the thoughts (the current psychological and primary physiological control mechanisms of human behaviour), thus harnessing mass human resources for all kinds of causes. I refer to eternity because the three Middle Eastern monotheistic religions use this concept in frightening ways to scare the literal hell out of those who will listen to them. Believe this way (the way the experts interpret the texts) or you will burn in hell for endless time. So youd better obey our interpretations and then you can go to heaven for eternity instead. Regardless of whether such teachings are true or not, this kind of authority in communication does not convince the listener, it does not produce faith; i.e., it cannot make the listener know for himself and this is all that matters. Inspiration located outside the self is not revelation or assurance to the self. The listener believes the expert, not the revelation, otherwise the listener to all practical intents and purposes will feel outside the believing community. Thus social condition and acceptance plays a big part in the spread of religion... and this is not faith. The so-called believe does not really know for him/herself. I am of course also saying that honesty about not knowing is something we can all be comfortable with, if only the experts would let us live with our healthy doubts and our unknowing because we could then trust in the character of the all rather than the conditioned mind of religious dogma which is the mind of religious bondage. This is why I wrote to you about the character of the all rather than the concepts or propositions of so-called truth about the all. Good scientists will backdown and change their minds. Theologians cannot afford to do this because they think they especially know the mind of the all (of God) as objectified propositions. But even the sacred texts that they use speak against them, at least the Christian texts do. These texts themselves note that the letter (otherwise referred to as the written code the dead letter which is contrasted with the living Logos (the revealing of the character if the divine in a living person)) is incapable of truly liberating humanity because the letter (i.e. mere words, sentences, concepts and thoughts) can only deliver closed, finite, limited metaphors of the all of the eternal of the unknowable. Revelation has to be known in me not known for me. And, I contend, that because revelation is mediated through false academic or ecclesiastical authority and people sincerely want to avoid hell, or they even want to do the right thing, or to love sincerely, they generally feel that it is wise to follow the experts, the authorities, the establish traditions, those trained in the linguistics, grammar, nuances, semantics etc of the original texts. What hope do the rest of us have but to depend on these experts. But this is slavery. In your culture you would say that this is no different to looking at the finger that points to the moon rather than looking at the moon that the finger is pointing to. Jesus noted this mistake as the mistake of Judaism, a mistake that the churches exactly repeat to this day in their support of the history and structures of judaism. Most churches for example, are looking forward to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple which means also the reviving of sacrifices. I real Christian terms this would be a flat out denial of the significance of the sacrifice of jesus which actually signifies the end of such nonsense. Abraham, the so-ca;ed father of the big three believed God and this liberated him, but the Jews (Judaeao-Christians and Muslims) believe in their lineage from Abraham (that is that the fleshly connection is most significant). Jesus said, If Abraham were really your father you would do as he did, i.e., not believe in the Abrahamic tradition (a finger pointing at the moon) but believe in the One in who he believed (God, i.e., in Zen, the moon rather than the finger). In this way, religious traditions (authorities and experts) stand in positions of control through the minds i.e., the thoughts of likely sincere people who have an instinct for truth but cannot get beyond the prison of human thought. Thought is by definition incapable of comprehending transcendence and transcendence which is God is in that sense unknowable i.e., in the sense of definable by thought. If it were otherwise this God in concepts would not be worthy of open ended awe and wonder. This is why all three of the big three at some point or other warn against idols and images of God. But all three practice the idolatry of thought images and they enslave millions to these thought images (dogmas) .This does not deny our instinct for the divine, on the contrary, it encourages and allows us to be completely humble about every thought we hold about the divine, always counting our thoughts and opinions about him to be subject to a certain kind of constantly overwhelmed development. At the same time we can personally and effortlessly bear in our hearts certain assurances about the character (contrast mere statements) of the divine and the primary characteristic that I cannot shake is not a doctrine, not a dogma, but that the divine is characterised by love. The mind of thought is a central control mechanism for the development of materialism but in terms of holistic human development (spiritual development) when the mind of thought is made central as in religious institutions and religious empires it is debilitating, confining, disenfranchising, the instrument of real slavery. And that is precisely why it is beloved, fed and promoted as the center of human consciousness in this world of overt materialism and misery. It is proud, it thinks it can define and confine and exploit God and all thing in heaven and or earth, and in reality the religions play the same game as mere humanists who think reason or the scientific method produces absolutes. Thus I refer to (propositional) unknowing as our natural, best and most comfortable environment. This unknowing, this capacity to think this way and that is the only way we can remain honest with each other, humble before transcendence and free from the dreadful violence we have practiced over the centuries. But more importantly, this admission of our unknowing is the reason we can be involved in creative exploration of the wonders and variegations that we observe and experience not just with our thought minds but with our whole beings, if only the experts would not scare us into mere academics, linguistic controls and fears of the horrors of eternity. Please note that Judaeo-Christianity is not the same as the message of Jesus Christ. Judaeo-Christianity is a portal for enslaving materialism... Jesus, by contrast, reveals - in a specific culture and thus in specific metaphors - a loving Father and he specifically liberates from religious experts who practice that specific culture and from brutal ecclesiastical authorities who carry on with clones of that culture. Jesus reveals that God is love, God is light and, when this is revealed to me he kills of the religious bondage that I have described above and says that we know, beyond the knowing of thought, that we can reliably depend on this revelation of the divine as unconditional love and graciousness, even though we cannot define it in words comprehensively enough as religions pretend to do. Thus we may confidently live on the foundation and freedom of love rather than the violence and bondage of thought. The suspicion that God is love is not so far from any of us but religion is very hard to be comfortable with and very difficult to escape once your thoughts become the centre of your awareness. Such is the prison of all systems that deny the immense instinct of actual human consciousness be they religious or humanistic systems. We are not so small. That is why we explore. It should be fun and this exploring of the transcendent within what seems to be the merely material is our worship. The good news is that we seem to be naturally drawn rather than driven on and on towards knowing but we need to enjoy the eternally growing or developing and adaptable relativity of our awareness rather than feeling so insecure that we want to draw a line, finally define the truth and thus end this adventure which is the great privilege given to us as conscious beings. When a married couple think they have completely understood each other, their relationship stales very quickly. It become joyless. All the more so with our marriage to life and existence. I simply suggest being open to the infinite potentials of life which can only be consciously enjoyed by the mind that knows that it does not really know absolutely and especially by the mind that does not give itself in to the hands of others who pretend to know more certainly than you do. If I were to make a practical suggestion to those seeking some kind of religious practice I would be inclined to recommend practices that do not focus on dogmas and doctrines but those practices that carefully appeal to the whole person to be aware of the glory of the divine in all things. These practices would include healthy mysticism which to me means I stand in awe of the incomprehensible and wonder with gratitude at this privilege I am granted to glimpse transcendent glory and love in all things. Mysticism of this kind leaves me open to the eternal or infinite more. After all, this eternal more is the reason we discover in science and religion and to finalise the journey by pretended knowing is to end the marriage... i.e., to die. Dogmatics closes me off from joy and wonder. It is misery itself. If you respond to this paragraph with the words by saying, I do not really understand, then I would say, Wonderful! Be at peace with that and keep observing and exploring from wherever you are truly at. Dont lie to yourself about any of this. Know what you think you know and change when you know or are assured of more. This is your lot, this is your adventure, this is your worship.
Posted on: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:49:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015