Discussion in 'Hinduism' started by Senthil, Jun 6, 2015.
volume, or reception/gain?
oh...and second to UU is Taoist... then Liberal Quaker, then Buddhist...
Agreed. But the checks and balances do belong to the traditions, to themselves and to the dialogue with the world. Fundamentalism begins when one ignores the checks and balances, and ignores the dialogue.
And the fundamentalisms tend to be ideologically-founded. Everyone points to right-wing Christianity, and right-wing Christianity tends to reflect right wing values of its time and place. Fire-and-brimstone Christianity tends to be an American phenomena, Europe moved away from it a long time ago, but you guys post about it all the time.
I see left-wing liberal Christianity as no less ideologically-founded. Liberal Christianity in America reflects the contemporary ideological outlook. Bishop Spong has stated that Christianity must reinvent itself or die, but his critics point out that the Christianity he envisions says more about contemporary liberal American values than it does about the content of the New Testament. Matthew Fox's 'Creation Spirituality' is the same kind of phenomena. Its success depends not on the message, but on the charisma of the messenger.
Thomas Merton, David Steindl-Rast, Timothy Radcliffe and others have, I think, a more profound outlook, and a more profound spiritual sense, and have not 'fallen out' with orthodoxy, although they are no less aware, or forgiving, of its failings. Nor, indeed, are they any less charismatic. It does lead me to question those who seem to need to make grand gestures and headline-chasing statements.
OK. I can see that. It's like politics. No system is perfect, no institution is perfect, because people aren't perfect, so there will always be failures, but I don't think the failures invalidate the virtues. I happen to think some political systems are better than others, and by the same token some religious systems are better than others.
But following one's own path is more likely to be kidding oneself. Look how many crop up here declaring a 'new path', based on what? Their own imaginations, the voices in their heads ... where are the checks and balances?
I try and discern between the strengths and flaws of the system, and the strengths and flaws of people. People point out the flaws of my system. They rarely mention the strengths. When they do, they tend to speak of generic values, like the golden rule, 'do unto others', for example. I look at what is particular to a system, but those tend to get written off for various subjective reasons, so the discussion's flawed from the get-go.
Where's the signal coming from, that's the question.
Unfortunately, the fundamentalist would use your exact quote to justify their own preferences. That is the problem. The checks and balances are not set in stone. They are open to interpretation, and molded to justify whatever frame of reference one desires.
I was not mentioning the flaws in your system. I was comparing differing systems - all of which have flaws and strengths. Seems to me that is about an honest a statement as can be made. You believe your system is superior. A look down though history at all religions (not talking just christian here) and the record is rather checkered. Good yes. A lot of good. A lot of bad also.
So yes I agree self paths can be riddled with self deceptions. No doubt of it. Self deceptions can be just as dangerous in doctrinal religions as well, though. For me, the path is not as important as the person taking the path. It is the perception and honesty of the individual that is the most important part of the equation, not which path being taken.
Yes it is. It's the 'nature of the beast', as it were. In any sphere of activity, the problem is there.
Well it's 'superior' according to its own axioms. A Buddhist will find problems with the Christian paradigm, and vice versa. In the end it boils down to world view.
As we're talking paradigm differences, a stand-out question for me is how 'the person' is perceived. In the Abrahamics, the person is fundamental, everything flows from that. In the Asiatic traditions (generally), 'the person' as such is ephemeral, but really we're talking deep doctrine here. It's not the kind of fare for the average person of either tradition.
I have fundamental questions with Buddhist metaphysics. I'm sure they do with mine. I try to approach the question with the view that if my answer is 'well that's obviously wrong', then there's a good chance that I've misunderstood the doctrine. My issue with reincarnation, which I've aired here often, is the contemporary view prevalent in the west is shaped 'fundamentally' by liberal western ego-centrism. When I read commentaries on the doctrines then there seems to be a different message ... one I can agree with.
OK. But that applies to any system. National histories are checkered. Politics is checkered. Family histories are chequered. People are checkered ... Everything's checkered.
Depends what you're looking at. Taken individually, yes. But taken overall, the doctrinal religions are usually formulated on a more profound metaphysical paradigm, and they usually have a better worked-out methodology to avoid or deal with deceptions – in short, the ego – the root of all deception.
It's a bit like medicine I suppose. There's the traditional path – be it western or eastern – which have treatments worked out by trial and error over time. The 'self path' is a bit like 'self medicating'. Of the two, the latter is by far the more dubious and unreliable path ...
Suppose one decides 'meditation is the way to go'. You have two choices. Look to the traditions that come to mind when one says meditation and learn from them, or wing it, and work it out as you go along. I would say the latter path is almost certain to fail, and the reason why is well documented in the commentaries of the traditions.
Not for me. If I valued everything according to those who's names are attached to it, I doubt I'd believe in anything. There'd be stand-out goodies, but like you say, there'd be stand-out baddies, too.
(The Christian God, however, might well agree with you, but as you're not God p) ... )
To my mind, the individual is the most fallible element of the whole equation. But that's a wisdom from my tradition (the man who asked Jesus how to attain eternal life was perceptive and honest ... )
me too....except it isn't the individual on the path that's the problem...but often the individuals perceived to be lighting the path...
Agreed. So I ask, is what they're saying/doing in accord with the Tradition of that path? So I compare them to the traditional commentaries, it's the only yardstick we've got, really. How do they measure against the tradition's treasury of wisdom? Where do they sit/fit in the paradigm?
That and are you interested in the old paradigm....which has given us ...today or are you interested in a new paradigm...to provide us a different...tomorrow...
Nope. Christ is the paradigm for me. Christ yesterday, today and tomorrow (cf Hebrews 13:8).
I don't think that is true...but is that true? I believe your paradigm to be more specific. Is it the Theosophist view of the Christ? Is it the Rasta paradigm of the Christ? Muslim paradigm of Christ? Mormon? Protestant? Ethiopian?
Well specifically it's the original one.
lol....love opinions...everyone's got one!
Yup. It's the rationale that counts!
In a thread about paradigm differences, it is absolutely logical that I have no idea whatsoever what you two are talking about. The reason ... paradigm differences.
DA said "For me, the path is not as important as the person taking the path."
Thomas said "Not for me. If I valued everything according to those who's names are attached to it, I doubt I'd believe in anything. There'd be stand-out goodies, but like you say, there'd be stand-out baddies, too."
Not what I meant. It's not what 'names' are attached to a path. When I said the path is not as important as the person taking the path, I meant each individual taking the path. You are taking your path. I am taking mine. It is the strength of character of each of us that is more important than whatever path we have decided to take.
I still disagree, but that's probably semantic.
I would however want some evidence, other than my own, that the path I'm taking is actually going anywhere.
Thomas, just where would you want your path to be taking you?
DA, is there an implicit assumption in your 'taking the path' that they all lead to the same place?
To the peace the paradigm speaks of in its commentaries.
I don't understand. Oh well.
What evidence have you?
Separate names with a comma.