what I do find such are those who don't want to put in the necessary effort of practice, yet assume they have access to all its charisms.
Why do you assume that all heretics are such out of laziness, some also stay within orthodoxy out of laziness and fear.
And what makes you think the heretic really wants to have access to all those charisms, perhaps he/she wants something else, something different. Statements like these are too sweeping.
Indeed, and I would be foolish to condemn everyone outright – but I do hold the reserve that eclecticism is often ordered according to our own tastes and, it has to be acknowledged, our own weaknesses, and our own egos.
True, and true again for the orthodox, and there is nothing wrong with any of it, lets not confuse lack of character with personal authenticity. We are what we are, and we do the best we can with what we have. Or would you deny that your choice of tradition has nothing to do with personal taste, ego and weakness?
A rule common to every spiritual tradition is the role of the Spiritual Director/Guru/Staretz/Geront/Sheik ... in fact in their eyes it is a non-negotiable requirement ... I don't see this covered off with anything like the necessary attention, it's usually just discreetly ignored...
Rule for maintaining a human tradition running yes, nothing more. Your guru doesn't have to be an institutional one or from your own institution, we learn from everything and everybody, you stated how you learned from your buddhist friend.
Who was the teacher of the very first enlightened man? Was it God, ordinary people, nature, experience?
can we know either, for sure, enough to gamble our existence, without recourse to others? And this is the whole point. The heretic chooses to believe in something other than the whole, and if he is to be 'right' he must prove his point.
Different wavelength here, I'm not that bothered about who is right or what is whole, I am more concerned with choice and responsibility.
Well, that's a question of faith. How do you know yours? People are the product of culture, for all their claim to be 'independent' and 'free thinking' – there was a famous art lecture which quoted a Japanese and a European artist, both of whom claimed a new art form that was utterly unique and original. The audience was then asked to guess which was the Japanese and which the European. It was blindingly obvious to everyone. We're nowhere near as unique or special as we think.
I am not advocating the uniqueness or originality of the heretic at all Thomas. My point is that the reality of an orthodox faith is as weak and uncertain as that of the heretic really, so there are no moral grounds for calling anybody a heretic in a demeaning way.
Who was the heretic, Jesus or the Pharisees? The answer depends on who do you ask.
Technically, no. Heresy only applies within a particular doctrine. Thus you can be a Christian heretic, a Buddhist heretic, etc.
Would infidel do? This is where I'm confused, it's alright if I'm a Hindu orthodox even if in the eyes of the church I am lost?
But more importantly – and I think you raise a most important point – Any measure depends, in the end, on 'collective subjectivity'. Without it, we have no certainty in anything. Science is rooted in it. Philosophy depends on it. So does theology. 'No man is an island' says it all.
Have you ever tried dwelling in uncertainty? it can be scary, but is it a bad thing necessarily?
Really? I think the easiest person to fool is ourselves. As a motorcyclist my life (and others) has been endangered more than once by people who believe they can drive and talk on a mobile phone. The 'proof' suggests they can't. And obesity is rampant in both the US and the UK – so people don't know what's good for them – or they do, but ignore it. People think they know what's best for themselves, but they rarely do.
As the saying goes ... the last to see it is you.
Too sweeping again, just because some people don't know what is best does not mean that there are some that do. It works both ways.
But more importantly – how does a mystic test the fruits, but against the 'collective subjectivity'? It's a very difficult point. Think of the mother who smiles and says "look, they're all marching out of step, except my son!"? But it is a very real point. They may well be, but then we would have to examine the evidence, and her reasoning.
Well, all observers may disagree with the mother, she might be 'wrong' but her own experience is very real. The problem is that your example uses the right/wrong dualism again.
Monolithic belief is great if it suits you. The average believer of any faith will see and understand things differently, addressing their own individuality, their own reality. Heterodoxy begins when orthodoxy starts to fail you.This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Orthodoxy has never failed anyone – people fail orthodoxy and make excuses. You might as well say the message of Jesus or Buddha is in itself not sufficient for the job ...
A severely dyslexic child drops out of school and makes excuses. Or was it a modern society that is so dependent on written communication that failed this child?
If it is helpful and useful for that particular humanist who are we to object, just because it doesn't have the church's authenticity seal?
Then does not he or she hold to the beliefs of humanism as a doctrine – and seeks a different seal of approval? No-one lives a life entirely different from his or her neighbour, although there may be significant diversity. People are the product of culture (again).
Then if you are fair to your thinking you should stop borrowing revelation from the OT and reinterpreting it in a way that is not consistent with mainstream Jewish orthodoxy.
Following your reasoning, the first apostles and believers were also kidding themselves, it wasn't until the church and it's doctrines were firmly established that their faith was legitimised, by then they were already dead.
No, that's wrong. The Church is established in what they believed, taught and lived. That's the measure. They set the standard. They define orthodoxy. We got everything we are from them.
According to which gospel, and to which of the original christian sects. Didn't the Jewish establishment consider them heretics? That's the trap of assuming that the right/wrong dualism stands.
But they - the advantages and disadvantages - are not necessarily equal in that regard. I would say there's more real freedom in the church than outside it.
Orthodoxy is stabilizing but restrictive.
would argue that the history of theological development demonstrates otherwise. What orthodoxy does is challenge our assumptions.
Challenging and restrictive yes, stabilizing and restrictive once you conform.
heterodoxy is unstable, uncertain and free.
Again that's an oipinion – so is falling off a cliff – but I do not men to belittle – rather to highlight the greater risk. Heresy even greater. Technically it's denying a datum (of Revelation) as it is held.
Agreed, greater risk (and higher gain if successful).
It's the equivalent of denying a law of physics.
Lol, you truly cannot say that! Now, that's heretic
Heresy allows one to insist they know what's best in the face of the evidence to the contrary.
I am not claiming that. Your discourse seems to be focused on who is right and who knows best, I am claiming that only you know what is best for yourself, not for others. What you call 'evidence' is very questionable anyway.
And who knows, maybe Mr. Caimanson one day will found a new religion that many will revere strict orthodoxy.
In any case, it takes courage to leave your temple and start wandering round the forests looking for your own path.
Indeed it does. Or pride... Or foolishness. Why look for a path when you're at the destination?
A valid and possible scenario. But would you call Jesus or Paul foolish and proud, or where the Pharisees that stayed in the temple the foolish and proud ones, or perhaps they where all foolish and wise in their own way?
That is the whole point, nobody can be the judge except yourself, taking responsibility for your actions and your beliefs is all you can do.