I agree, with the proviso that in this particular instance the author has been neither precise nor (I suggest) genuine, with his offering. One can draw parallels, but they are parallels, they are not the same thing, and in this instance, the author's parallels are in fact not quite parallel!
Maybe so or maybe not. But, either way, maybe considering possibilities such as these is still useful.
That's all I'm saying. If you're going to do this, you need to be accurate, otherwise you're diseminating disinformation and actually obscusing the truth.
Well, we're all feeling around in the dark in our search for 'Truth'.
As a Catholic I would argue that the archetypes are founded in the Logos of God. There is a tendency to insist that archetypes are either human in origin, or just somehow cosmically exist. In both I find the ontology wanting.
I probably agree with what you mean in that the archetypes are founded in the Logos of God. However, I don't agree that God is limited to Christianity. God is omni-present meaning he even exists within other religions.
Likewise, I would argue that there are correlatives between Christ and cosmology because Christ created the Kosmos, not because He is subject to it, but rather utilises it according to His will.
Until God incarnated, he wasn't the Christ except as potential. 'Christ' is just a title for a messiah from the Hellenistic period. If I remember correctly, other people of that period were also referred as Christs because it was a general label.
You believe that Christ is identical with God. Other religions make this exact same claim. For instance, some Hindus believe Krishna(their savior god-man) is Brahman(their all-encompassing Godhead). Acharya S argues that the word 'Christ' originated from the word 'Krishna'. If you're interested, I could probably find a quote of her discussing this.
One can loosely say there are two basic answers to the problem of suffering, one externalises and overcomes it — Buddhism — the other internalises and ovecomes it — Christianity — and I did say 'loose', I doubt a Buddhist would be satisfied with that, nor a Christian, but The Hero's Journey is subsequent to, or shaped by, these and other determinations.
That is an interesting view, but the opposite argument could also be made. Buddhists believe Dukkha comes from our states of mind(desires, fears, etc). Whereas, Christians project their suffering as having originated with Adam and Eve.
Its probably that both aknowledge internal and external factors.
I'd like to hear more about how "The Hero's Journey is subsequent to, or shaped by, these and other determinations." Jung and Campbell would probably say that our understandings of archetypes are shaped, but the archetypes are not. Related to this, symbols aren't the archetypes because symbols only indirectly refer to the archetypes. Likewise, religion isn't God because God cannot be contained... not by the temples and idols built in worship of him, not in the human words ascribed to him.
Traditions spoke of the Way, or Covenant and so on, before clever people came up with Hero Journeys ... I suggest they're trying to put the cart before the horse?
To interpret this according my own understanding, I don't think that Campbell was putting the symbols before the archetypes. Campbell did seem to be a spiritual person and he seemed to have had deep respect for the Catholicism that he was raised in.
Take the religious traditions of the Mesopotamian region, for example. The Hero's Journey of the Epic of Gilgamesh is radically different from that of Noah. In this context man's religious awareness shapes the journey, not the other way round.
I don't know which interpretation is correct, but I prefer to think that man's mind may give form to the journey which isn't the same as to say man shapes the journey. So, rather the journey shapes man and man's mind only shapes man's understanding of the journey as he experiences it. Maybe I'm just quibbling.
(What's so clever about 'The Hero Journey' anyway? Had they never read Pilgrim's Progress, or The Divine Comedy? It's nothing new ... )
I don't think its clever. Instead, I think its insightful. And any genuine insight isn't new. Man needs the truth to be stated many times over.
Also, most people reading ancient texts or books such as you mention probably wouldn't notice this archetypal pattern. The Hero's Journey simply points out what seems obvious only after you already know about it. It is true that someone who is smart enough, insightful enough, and dedicated enough could potentially discover all of this on their own by studying their preferred text, but this represents a small minority of people. Campbell was a popularizer. He was attempting to make wisdom accessible to the average person.
Again, as a Catholic I view the Logos as establishing those and every pattern, as I am sure you are aware among the many meanings of the term Logos is order, pattern, ratio, dialogue, etc.
I agree, but I don't see it as primarily Christian. Afterall, Logos originated as a pagan belief.
I tend to find that such attempts at 'explaining' religious phenomena ignore or are unaware of the aspects that render their particular founder 'unique'. Put another way, I believe that those who say that Christianity and Buddhism (or indeed any tradition) say essentially the same thing understand neither in any real depth.
I feel that studying the similarites and differences are equally important.
I am truly interested and curious. I just outgrew these types of theory because I went deep into one rather than superficially across many. They have their place, and they reflect the truth, but not to any profound or meaningful level ... their truths are cosmological rather than metacosmic.
Its helpful to study one tradition deeply, but its also to not forget the larger cultural context out of which all religions arose. Its essential to remember that not every cultural idiosyncrasy in a particular religion represents a truly unique truth.
I'd say the cosmological vs cosmic distinction applies less between religions and moreso applies within religions. Every religion contains elements of both.
Saying that all Revelation is the same, or all Enlightenment is the same, is neither a revelation nor an enlightenment (in fact its a huge assumption without foundation), and I becoming increasingly amused by those who presume to offer authoritative commentary when they themselves would admit they have not undergone a process of revelation or enlightenment.
Well, I'm amused by life in general.
I have had my own experiences that I deem spiritual, but likely they're different than yours. I agree that there are many types of experiences, but this is a complex matter as it deals with subjectivity. Study of a religion can be used to an extent to understand one's own and other's experience, but comparative religion brings even more clarity. I've always been of the opinion that mystics of varying traditions are more similar to eachother than mystics are to the average person in their own traditions. The framework I use to try to understand all of this is integral theory and integral practice.
I haven't read Harpur ... but I see no reason to suppose a study of another tradition allows one to understand one's own more deeply. The implication is that one's own tradition is in some way inadequate or wanting.
Traditions aren't inadequate or wanting per se. The people who originate and develop traditions are what is inadequate and wanting.
Why should a Christian need anyone else to tell him that Christianity is universal?
Potentially, nobody needs anyone else(whether from within or without their tradition) to tell them their sense of truth is universal. Even religion itself isn't necessary. Consider the story of Abraham. According to the story, God spoke to him directly. He trusted his experience without reference to other people or even to any established religion. Every founder of a new religion is a heretic of the previous religions.
Again, no offence to Harpur (I don't know his context) but I suggest something else. I suggest that in looking for comparisons one is seeking to overcome one's doubt by exterior affirmation: "If Buddhism says it too, then it might be true." That's pretty weak faith, in my book. I don't think it's deepening at all, quite the reverse, in fact.
Faith is only one aspect. Knowledge is another. They both inform eachother, but neither is dependent on the other.
Anyways, would you call a scientist weak in faith because they continuously seek knowledge? I'm a seeker and simultaneously my faith is strong. I seek from the sense of my faith because I refuse to limit my faith. And I refuse to limit my faith because my faith is in that which is beyond the limits of all religions. Also, I have a curious nature and I don't consider curiosity a weakness even if it did kill the cat. I happen to like cats.
I would suggest if anyone wants to understand a tradition deeply, then go deep, don't go wide ...
As I said earlier, I agree with this in part. I have studied certain subjects in great depth, but I've also studied many subjects in breadth. You don't have to choose depth over breadth, or vice versa. You can have both.
I do agree that study of another tradition allows one to better defend one's own in the face of such.
Truth doesn't need to be defended. Truth only needs to be discovered and experienced. And maybe once genuinely understood Truth can be shared with compasion.
Patti describes my view perfectly.
Hi, Patti-
I think it is probably the case that we are using "veil" to mean two different things. As a mystic, I've experienced God and Christ and other spiritual beings directly through visions and dreams. I believe these are real experiences that have strengthened a person connection with God.
However, the problem comes when I try to translate these experiences into expression to other people and/or to form religious concepts from them. It is one thing to experience it spiritually (without veil) and quite another thing to express it conceptually (with words). As soon as I take the experience and try to formulate into something I can express, it is filtered through my brain, senses, and available vocabulary. This limits the experience and no matter what I try, it is impossible to contain experiences of God inside my limited brain and language. Music and art come closer, but are still limited. So, upon making the spiritual experience (personal) into religion (communal), the veil of my bodily limitations is felt.
This is why I am very careful to delineate in my own spiritual path what is the heart (experience and connecting to God, which is everlasting) from the rest of it (beliefs, doctrines, sharing/expressing my faith, which may change as I gain better ways to interpret my experiences and better ways to express them).
I don't believe that people make mistakes in their actual experience of God. I believe all who seek God, find Him. I just believe that no matter who we are, in this life we are limited, and God is not. This incongruity means that no one will have THE answers, because even those who have drawn closest to God will inevitably find limitations in expressing and interpreting their experience of it. This is why I believe there is no one church that everyone should belong to. There are people who are connected to God and experiencing Christ in them everywhere, and their interpretations of that will differ, even though the underlying truth they are experiencing will not. I keep an open mind about most religions and beliefs, because of this. I don't see them as mistakes, but I see all human expression of experience with God as woefully inadequate. Often beautiful, but almost certainly inept. The more one tries to define and grasp and hold the Infinite in finite concepts and words, the more one recrafts the veil.
