Terminology And Jargon

[VacuumFlux]

This post was inspired by the Epic Buddhism thread, but is off topic enough I decided it should go in its own thread.

 

Its not at all like the pastor/congregation model...

 

I try to avoid these kind of comparisons. If I started making them, it would be like pinning a butterfly to a board - I would soon kill any beauty I would find. It would then be a complete waste.

 

I've been surprised lately to find all sorts of christianese phrases popping into my head when reading buddhist stuff. Not contradictory, but phrases that express the same idea. For example, I've read a few things that talk about not having blind faith but rather trying out the teachings to see if they are useful in your own life, and I suddenly think "taste and see...".

 

I have no idea whether this is some phase that I have to go through in order to clear out some christian baggage that I didn't realize was still so prevalent, or whether that's just my "native language" for thinking about spirituality and I'm stuck with it until I learn new jargon. I have learned a tiny bit of new jargon: I find myself thinking in terms of skillful/unskillful a lot, because there doesn't seem to be a similar idea in christianity (think in terms of good/evil makes it hard to focus on doing better next time because I get too upset about having done anything evil in the first place).

 

There's a liberal evangelical christian blog I read a lot. It advocates for all sorts of ideas that are completely opposite to what I grew up with. But it uses all the same jargon. It feels so... subversive. And it's hilarious and entertaining, particularly when he plays with the jargon to make a point. In fact, it's so entertaining that I often feel compelled to share with my friends. They don't get it though, because the language doesn't mean the same thing to them that it does to me, so the jokes don't work so well for 'em. So there is definitely still a lot of strong emotional associations for me with those words.

 

Has anyone else experienced something similar? Was it just a phase, or did it hang around? Does it get in the way of learning different ideas, or is it useful in that you can examine your biases and assumptions and see where they don't apply?

[Noggy]

It's a natural brain function. Your brain tries to understand the world around it by comparing stuff you encounter to stuff you've previously encountered. Once fully understood, you will use new words and symbols to make sense of future stuff.

[Deva]

I also think it is very natural to make comparisons, especially when you are new to whatever system it is. Buddhism compared to Christianity - its easy to see parallels, especially before you have learned the language.

 

Its also important to realize that there are some things in Buddhism that may look Christian, but are not.

[Antlerman]

I've been surprised lately to find all sorts of christianese phrases popping into my head when reading buddhist stuff. Not contradictory, but phrases that express the same idea. For example, I've read a few things that talk about not having blind faith but rather trying out the teachings to see if they are useful in your own life, and I suddenly think "taste and see...".

 

I have no idea whether this is some phase that I have to go through in order to clear out some christian baggage that I didn't realize was still so prevalent, or whether that's just my "native language" for thinking about spirituality and I'm stuck with it until I learn new jargon.

I know exactly what you are talking about. In fact I remark about it often to my partner how I find it quite amazing that Biblical teachings or sayings suddenly become clear in a way that blows away the normal "Christian" understanding of them. Here's where this discussion may become interesting.

 

I don't necessarily see the need to create a new jargon, per se. I recognize that Christianity is a historically codified system of religion, but I am also fully aware that in its creation it is an amalgam of various and sundry schools of thought, all mashed together into a conglomerate lump called "Christianity". Parts of it, the sayings and teachings traditions, come out of various Wisdom schools. As such, they in fact are Wisdom teachings. As such, they ring especially true when you are in fact pursuing personal path of inner Wisdom. You are correct they are your native language. But as such, they will in fact have far greater power to you personally than trying to adopt a language from another culture.

 

For me what I see is a sort of two-fold realization. First, that those on the religious side of the sayings, who in fact take the sayings as some external fact to themselves without a developed internal realization, hear and understand the words in that context. I recently came up with this analogy of children who found the clothes and diaries of some adults, and they put on these over-sized shoes and hats, a big feather boa, and baggy clothing and start play-acting adults. They argue with each other, "You're not doing it right! That's not what it says we do! You can't play with us. You're not a real adult!". An adult who might be able to spy on them in their pseudo-adult world would recognize that none of them have the developmental growth for them to even be able actually realize the meaning of the words in the diaries they're getting their "rules of being an adult" from. He knows those are not external rules, but expressions of thought coming from the experience of being an adult and seeing the world through those eyes. Such is the teachings of Wisdom in the hands of the religious.

 

Secondly, because they are our native tongue, and because we have matured enough to recognize they don't belong to the kids wearing adult clothes, they easily can be mastered in our minds and the language reclaimed from adolescents without it meaning you are 'playing adult', being a "Christian". I actually find it quite amazing how well some of the sayings apply, "Seek and you shall find" is in fact quite powerful. But its realization is not at all experienced in the context of the way a Christian would speak of it. It is far deeper than that, and impossible to understand without directly going into the inner places of realization. If I was to try to put how I see these things, I would say that whoever, or whatever collection of schools of thought attributed to the Jesus figure was that we inherited culturally, that I would see that figure as not some Lord, but as a fellow human on the path of inner Wisdom. To me, to see a figure like Jesus as a brother, an equal, is far more powerful a symbol as it elevates your inner truth into that place of transcended Wisdom. The same with the Buddha, or any other symbol.

 

I guess what I am saying is Wisdom is itself, and to allow children to define the discussion is to give them the power over the adult world. They are not the words of children to begin with. Being an adult walking about within their culture they share with us, sets the standard for them to grow up. "You are the light of the world", to them. To give them the power only reinforces their Lord of the Flies cults without the benefit of seeing how adults act.

[Deva]

Antler, this is one of your more difficult to understand posts. I have read it several times and I still can't make out what you are saying.

 

I do think it sheds some light on one of your earlier statements regarding Tibetan Buddhism, which was something like "I can't be one because it isn't my culture."

 

I submit that you have reinterpreted Jesus radically from the way the early Christian records depicted him. It sounds as if you have departed your culture and adopted an eastern, non-dulaistic view, which is not clearly shown in any interpretation of Christianity I know of except some things that came out of the Theosophical Society.

[par4dcourse]

It's a natural brain function. Your brain tries to understand the world around it by comparing stuff you encounter to stuff you've previously encountered. Once fully understood, you will use new words and symbols to make sense of future stuff.

 

Exactly! The brain is constantly comparing, looking for the familiar, and christian brainwashing is still familiar enough to bubble up. Time, and new experiences and words, will slowly replace those old ones.

[Antlerman]

Antler, this is one of your more difficult to understand posts. I have read it several times and I still can't make out what you are saying.

What don't you understand? I think the key is the analogy of children reading the diaries of an adult. They are the right words, but the way in which they are played out in the children are all external rules, the right and wrong way to be an adult, and if they get all the details right, then they congratulate themselves as being true believers. But they are in fact developmentally unable to truly grasp what being an adult is. Doing all those things does not make them an adult. Becoming an adult is what makes them an adult. Then, from the perspective of life as an adult, when they read those diaries, they hear another adult like them sharing their insights and wisdom, just as they themselves have gained.

 

Christianity was never one thing at its outset. It was many schools of thought, many perspectives and insights along with children, along with administrators and politicians and mystics, etc. The early Gnostics for instance were definitely part of the Wisdom schools. Just read the Gospel of Thomas for a stark contrast to the literalistic proto-orthodox groups. The debate came down to the dumbed-down "orthodoxy" in order to be accessible to the larger masses. There was a tension between those seeking Gnosis, or Enlightenment, and those who had the child's version of the same symbols. The same thing is even true within Buddhism in various schools. It's group dynamics.

 

So to say this is a radical 'reinterpretation' of Jesus from "the way the early Christian records depicted him", is not entirely true. It is not 'mainstream' to be sure, and that is my point in the baggy clothes analogy. I do however believe the early Christian records actually do depict this very diversity of view I'm expressing here. Human beings developmentally will see and hear and internalize the same words in radically different ways. A child of 5 experiences the same world as an adult of 50, but the meaning of those same experiences will be radically different.

 

I am suggesting, that there are in fact quite of legitimate "adult" Wisdom truths in the teachings of the religion itself that do in fact have depth of meaning to an adult that a child simply is unable to truly grasp because they are developmentally unable to yet perceive it that way. "What we are, that only can we see," says Emerson. The fact they can be realized as containing actual depth, shows that the source of them was not a child. But to the child, they appear as words of a god - which is what adults do appear to be from their perspective.

 

It sounds as if you have departed your culture and adopted an eastern, non-dulaistic view, which is not clearly shown in any interpretation of Christianity I know of except some things that came out of the Theosophical Society.

Actually, mystics within Christianity cross that line between East and West as well. The Christian monk Meister Ekhart, "God beyond God". That's nonduality. In mysticism, all religions ultimately becoming transcended. I do adopt Eastern, as well as Western. How I best identify myself is "I am all religions; I am none".

[Antlerman]

Time, and new experiences and words, will slowly replace those old ones.

Or change how you understand them.

[Deva]

I am suggesting, that there are in fact quite of legitimate "adult" Wisdom truths in the teachings of the religion itself that do in fact have depth of meaning to an adult that a child simply is unable to truly grasp because they are developmentally unable to yet perceive it that way. "What we are, that only can we see," says Emerson. The fact they can be realized as containing actual depth, shows that the source of them was not a child. But to the child, they appear as words of a god - which is what adults do appear to be from their perspective.

 

This is quite easy to understand. Your approach in trying to say this at first in a different and convoluted way was really confusing to me.

 

Actually, mystics within Christianity cross that line between East and West as well. The Christian monk Meister Ekhart, "God beyond God". That's nonduality. In mysticism, all religions ultimately becoming transcended. I do adopt Eastern, as well as Western. How I best identify myself is "I am all religions; I am none".

 

Yes there are a few mystics - very few. They are mostly found in Catholicism. In what way is your view western? Is it just referring to these few examples of mystics?

[Antlerman]

Yes there are a few mystics - very few. They are mostly found in Catholicism.

This is true, and why if I were to feel some need to adopt Christian symbolism full bore Catholicism would be more suited. Not only do they have a far richer array of deities to meditate upon, but more importantly they in their massive body have room for various orders for those to seek the deeper inner truths. They have various monastic orders, whereas the protestants are all pretty much same-thinking cults of personalities. Meister Ekhart for instance was of the Dominican order. You have the Franciscan's as well who focus on that inner transformation. But even though they may have a certain burning flame of inner knowledge in them, by comparison Buddhists are more like a full out solar flare. I would really have no need to use the Christian system as such for this.

 

In what way is your view western? Is it just referring to these few examples of mystics?

No. I am a product of the West. It's my culture. In this way, how I perceive the world is hugely influenced by that into modes of thought that become part of that stream of consensus consciousness that I have to navigate. And this ties into the whole discussion of use of language. Our language directly reflects and supports that mode of thought. You cannot simply adopt another cultures systems and expect it to have the same sorts of effect upon you as those who were raised within it. There is always translation between the two going on.

 

That's why I say I could never truly be a Buddhist because the embeddedness of the symbols only has true significance in those cultures where Buddhism was part of your entire development from childhood on. I asked a Tibetian Buddhist nun I know what the meaning of the various parts of a certain symbol was and she had to stop and think about it in order to try to answer me. Her comment to me was, "You might be better to ask the Rinpoche, he can explain all that better than me. I just see these things because that's what I've always known since I was young". That's the point about culture, it's invisible. You don't think about it. And that's my point about adopting other culture's symbols - you do have to think about it.

 

So by being West, I'm talking the philosophies that permeate our culture, unaware to all of us yet profoundly affecting every aspect of how we perceive and understand reality. By me opening to other philosophies and traditions from other cultures it allows an expansion of my own groundwork into a far richer substance for my awakening mind to further itself. I believe that the East is light years ahead of the West in the development of consciousness, and the West is light years ahead of the East in technologies and the natural sciences in understanding our material world. Bringing the two together, the Western Enlightenment and the Eastern Enlightenment, I believe makes us incredibly richer and more aware of ourselves and our world. One without the other in this modern world is incomplete. We are ill in the West without that development of the soul though a path of inner knowledge.

[Deva]

But even though they may have a certain burning flame of inner knowledge in them, by comparison Buddhists are more like a full out solar flare. I would really have no need to use the Christian system as such for this.

 

That's right. Most of what you write about here is not in Christianity as most of us know it. I don't see you using the "Christian system" most of the time.

 

I think we are a product of our culture, no doubt about it, but we are also more than our culture, too. I don't have the expectation that adopting another culture's symbols would have the same effect as one born into it, but if it has a tremendous appeal to me that I feel is something positive, it would be stupid of me not to learn as much as I can. Someone who does not feel the same pull toward it would not be able or willing to enter into the spirit of the thing. No question about it, there is difficulty, but I feel it is still worthwhile.

[Antlerman]

I don't have the expectation that adopting another culture's symbols would have the same effect as one born into it, but if it has a tremendous appeal to me that I feel is something positive, it would be stupid of me not to learn as much as I can.

Agreed, and ditto. This is why I do draw from the other traditions as well. This is a recent thought I've been having that I almost feel in the West, because of those factors I've mentioned, we really need to be more eclectic. What can open to us through other traditions can never really truly be like being raised in that tradition, but it can take what we know from our culture and add to it, reform it, etc. In that sense, back to the topic at hand, an insight into our own culture's Wisdom tradition (Christianity), has a certain new meta-layer of understanding. The sayings of Jesus actually predate Christianity. Jesus predates Christianity. That is something the Christian myth doesn't flesh out. That myth says Christianity is the teachings of Jesus, that Jesus started their religion. That's not how I see it at all.

 

There is a great deal of Eastern thought in the teachings attributed to Jesus, both in some of the Gospels, and notably in the Gnostic texts. So in this sense, the deeper I go into those interior spaces, the more those literally leap right out of the texts to me! They don't just 'sort of fit', but they actually express true insight gleaned from those spaces. But Christianity, as you say, isn't that in its present or historical form. They saw to that in the first few centuries to create God in the image they felt they could sell better.

 

But those parts are still there nonetheless, and as such, because we all knew the words from our exposure to them, in this new clearer light, they again, are our native cultures language. They do fit (not all of course, I'm not speaking all or nothing terms here). So I'm saying that as Noggy said, "It's a natural brain function. Your brain tries to understand the world around it by comparing stuff you encounter to stuff you've previously encountered. Once fully understood, you will use new words and symbols to make sense of future stuff," is kind of partly true. We will look for a way to articulate it, and those are from our native tongue, so to speak. And it is also true we will find a new way to understand future stuff as well. That's just simply building upon earlier understandings.

 

There is a new depth and understanding that occurs, and for me, that understanding goes beyond what the Christian religion in its traditional form can adequately support. As I've said before, I didn't leave Christianity because it was a pack of lies. I don't understand religious systems in some quasi-scientific true/false binary equation. I left it because it couldn't support my spiritual quest. I outgrew it. They are broken where they need to be whole, and the system is such that it can't grow easily to incorporate a rapidly evolving world. The rise of fundamentalism is a symptom of its implosion as it continues to falter and fail.

[Deva]

In that sense, back to the topic at hand, an insight into our own culture's Wisdom tradition (Christianity), has a certain new meta-layer of understanding. The sayings of Jesus actually predate Christianity. Jesus predates Christianity. That is something the Christian myth doesn't flesh out. That myth says Christianity is the teachings of Jesus, that Jesus started their religion. That's not how I see it at all.

 

I would say some of the things Jesus said could very well have been something the Buddha said, and have been said before. Not exactly sure what you mean though, when you say "Jesus predates Christianity". Do you just mean that after Jesus's death, a system was developed by others? Certainly I agree that is what happened.

 

 

But those parts are still there nonetheless, and as such, because we all knew the words from our exposure to them, in this new clearer light, they again, are our native cultures language. They do fit (not all of course, I'm not speaking all or nothing terms here). So I'm saying that as Noggy said, "It's a natural brain function. Your brain tries to understand the world around it by comparing stuff you encounter to stuff you've previously encountered. Once fully understood, you will use new words and symbols to make sense of future stuff," is kind of partly true. We will look for a way to articulate it, and those are from our native tongue, so to speak. And it is also true we will find a new way to understand future stuff as well. That's just simply building upon earlier understandings

 

If this is part of our native culture's language, it is quite new. The Gnostic Gospels were only discovered in the 20th century, right? Prior to this discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, these texts were unknown. I still think that to the population at large, the man on the street, they are still quite unknown.

.

There is a new depth and understanding that occurs, and for me, that understanding goes beyond what the Christian religion in its traditional form can adequately support. As I've said before, I didn't leave Christianity because it was a pack of lies. I don't understand religious systems in some quasi-scientific true/false binary equation. I left it because it couldn't support my spiritual quest. I outgrew it. They are broken where they need to be whole, and the system is such that it can't grow easily to incorporate a rapidly evolving world. The rise of fundamentalism is a symptom of its implosion as it continues to falter and fail.

 

You seem to still find it useful. You have discarded the literal, historical understanding and focused on the gnostic christianity. You have combined this with Ken Wilbur's teachings and the perennial philosophy with some Buddhism as far as I can tell. It seems rather complex.

[Antlerman]

I would say some of the things Jesus said could very well have been something the Buddha said, and have been said before.

Exactly, which says something. I've been trying to express that. These sayings by the way, are part of the inherited texts, regardless of the rediscovery recently of the Gnostic texts. It just so happens those take it up even higher and more clear. Gospel John has always had the Gnostic flavor to it and stands apart from the other Gospels. Its the "spiritual" Gospel above the rest.

 

Not exactly sure what you mean though, when you say "Jesus predates Christianity". Do you just mean that after Jesus's death, a system was developed by others? Certainly I agree that is what happened.

Correct. Which means that Jesus wasn't a Christian. He didn't learn from the system. And to me, in those parts that do in fact resonate of Wisdom, those bits you say sound like something Buddha would say, I see those as someone (whether that was the actual Jesus or someone else attributing these to "Jesus"), as having had some actual insight, in the way the Buddha did. Not a surprise really, as mystics the world over end up saying pretty much the same things. It's only the Christians who made him into the mythological god figure.

 

If this is part of our native culture's language, it is quite new. The Gnostic Gospels were only discovered in the 20th century, right? Prior to this discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, these texts were unknown. I still think that to the population at large, the man on the street, they are still quite unknown.

I addressed this above. You yourself weren't citing the Gnostic texts when you say he sounds like the Buddha.

 

You seem to still find it useful. You have discarded the literal, historical understanding and focused on the gnostic christianity.

Not really. What I originally referenced in this thread was, and has been about, what I know from the Bible I had mostly memorized. It's those verses from there that pop into mind which I was speaking about. I honestly don't know the Gnostic texts very well, though I did buy the Nag Hammadi translations. Haven't read it much yet.

 

You have combined this with Ken Wilbur's teachings and the perennial philosophy with some Buddhism as far as I can tell. It seems rather complex.

As far as Ken Wilber goes... no, I am not a "disciple of Ken Wilber" as you put it recently. I don't view him as a spiritual guide for me at all actually. I do however find his integral philosophy enormously helpful to the way my mind thinks about things in a modern and postmodern world. I have been chewing on these things for a long time before even hearing of Ken Wilber. When I picked it up, then all those things I had been gnawing on for a long time coalesced into a really great and useful framework of understanding for me. This said however, none of those models he details are absolute, and in fact have flaws as well. To put me into the camp of a "Wilberite", is really kind of offensive to me. I know those who worship the ground he walks on, and I find that to sort of miss the point.

 

Buddhism is definitely attractive to me, for the reasons I've said. Also Hinduism, Sri Aurobino, some of the mystic traditions with Christianity and Islam (the Sufis), etc. I do not view any of them as the truth in themselves, but they certainly have insights unique to them which add the whole.

 

Is it complex? Yes, and no. Yes, if I am trying to address the sorts of questions that come out of complex world of modernity and postmodernity. They are in fact extraordinarily complex questions and the world in its current growing knowledge is necessarily complex. But no, if we are talking about simple apprehension of spiritual depth. I always say this and will say it again, when I first when deep in meditation, my response was that all the complex theories and philosophies in this post-postmodern philosophy (which some call the Integral philosophy), absolutely pale by comparison! There is no way that that depth of reason and knowledge can even touch what is revealed through meditation! It's useful to be sure, but only to try to talk about it to a modern audience with these deeper questions. Simply meditating and experience the spiritual does not require an IQ of over 150. That is not complex at all. Talking about it on that level is. But spiritual experience is not talk.

[Deva]

As far as Ken Wilber goes... no, I am not a "disciple of Ken Wilber" as you put it recently. I don't view him as a spiritual guide for me at all actually. I do however find his integral philosophy enormously helpful to the way my mind thinks about things in a modern and postmodern world. I have been chewing on these things for a long time before even hearing of Ken Wilber. When I picked it up, then all those things I had been gnawing on for a long time coalesced into a really great and useful framework of understanding for me. This said however, none of those models he details are absolute, and in fact have flaws as well. To put me into the camp of a "Wilberite", is really kind of offensive to me. I know those who worship the ground he walks on, and I find that to sort of miss the point.

 

I apologize for the Wilber disciple remark.

 

My frustration at the time was that you seemed to be writing the same ideas that I have heard from Ken Wilber, and not crediting him. If you say you are not a Wilberite, I accept that.

[Deva]

Antler, let me just say that I have read some things about "esoteric Christianity", which I think is similar to what you are describing. I have also read the Gospel of Thomas and some of the other gnostic gospels.

 

It doesn't work for me because I have been basically so deeply brainwashed that the main message of Christ was the sacrifice, the bloody cross, the "he died for me" plan of salvation thing. So, to be able to re-image that to see Christ as a cosmic Christ or God inherently within every person is quite impossible on some deep level. So, I had to get a different symbol altogether.

 

In comparison to attempting to re-work the Christian symbol, Tibetan Buddhism is a breeze.

[Antlerman]

Antler, let me just say that I have read some things about "esoteric Christianity", which I think is similar to what you are describing. I have also read the Gospel of Thomas and some of the other gnostic gospels.

 

It doesn't work for me because I have been basically so deeply brainwashed that the main message of Christ was the sacrifice, the bloody cross, the "he died for me" plan of salvation thing. So, to be able to re-image that to see Christ as a cosmic Christ or God inherently within every person is quite impossible on some deep level. So, I had to get a different symbol altogether.

I do get that, believe me! Likewise for me the symbols of Tibetan Buddhism for me work much better. They are definitely 'safer' because they don't have that baggage of the Christianity for me. But as you know what happens for me in meditation is largely spontaneous. What is interesting is that those Christians symbols did present themselves to my mind in that state, as well as those of Hinduism, as well of those of Tibetan Buddhism, as well as those of not-entirely sure where. These things just emerge from the subconscious/superconscious mind. At first it seemed a little unnerving as its like "oh, not that!", but it's hard to explain but you learn to just trust what you present to yourself that way and 'go with it'. That's kind of how it works. What they turn out to be are representative of things from within yourself using those familiar cultural symbols, along with where you are at in your awakening mind process. I've seen "Jesus", as well as White Tara, as well as Krishna, and Shiva, and quite a number of manifestations of that emergent consciousness utilizing symbols we are familiar with (this is my postmodernist mind analyzing here).

 

As I've said elsewhere, these are vehicles to transcendence, not the end in themselves. Eventually these disappear and you become those - as I've quoted a few times now that Wilber quoted another regarding Vajarana Buddhism's deity visualization. For me, the Christ, as well as the Buddha, on those random occasions when they occur, become more a brother when you move into that state of 'clear mind', becoming that yourself. At which point 'heaven dissolves into you', and is no more. The gods disappear. There is no way anything within me finds value in the whole 'sacrifice for sin' business. On the contrary. The only death and sacrifice is that of our small self into that Infinite Light for it to become us, and us to become that which we truly are. That part of Christian is, and frankly always has been entirely foreign to my apprehension of that Realization. In fact, it's ironic that I've learned that the Gnostics themselves found that belief to be crude. It was all allegorical to them and literal belief in it was obscene. All I can say to that is an ironic, "Amen".

[Deva]

I've seen "Jesus", as well as White Tara, as well as Krishna, and Shiva, and quite a number of manifestations of that emergent consciousness utilizing symbols we are familiar with (this is my postmodernist mind analyzing here).

 

This is the difference - for me "Jesus" does not appear. At all, in any way shape or form.

 

As I've said elsewhere, these are vehicles to transcendence, not the end in themselves. Eventually these disappear and you become those - as I've quoted a few times now that Wilber quoted another regarding Vajarana Buddhism's deity visualization. For me, the Christ, as well as the Buddha, on those random occasions when they occur, become more a brother when you move into that state of 'clear mind', becoming that yourself. At which point 'heaven dissolves into you', and is no more. The gods disappear. There is no way anything within me finds value in the whole 'sacrifice for sin' business. On the contrary. The only death and sacrifice is that of our small self into that Infinite Light for it to become us, and us to become that which we truly are. That part of Christian is, and frankly always has been entirely foreign to my apprehension of that Realization. In fact, it's ironic that I've learned that the Gnostics themselves found that belief to be crude. It was all allegorical to them and literal belief in it was obscene. All I can say to that is an ironic, "Amen".

 

That is right. The deities dissolve into oneself. They call this the "completion stage" in Tibetan Buddhism. Due to the reason I have already explained, Christ is not a part of this. I am not sure that the word "sacrifice" is in any way appropriate to this process. Perhaps a "sacrifice" of the ego? The Buddha nature is your original nature, it is only a process of removal of the obscurations to that fact.

[Antlerman]

That is right. The deities dissolve into oneself. They call this the "completion stage" in Tibetan Buddhism.

Cool, there's a term for it!

 

Due to the reason I have already explained, Christ is not a part of this.

I guess maybe why sometimes it comes up for me is because I always had a hard time with that whole sacrifice business and saw Jesus more as a teacher or guide. In that way, it would be no surprise that image would come to mind occasionally, as that's sort of the role of these archetypal forms.

 

I am not sure that the word "sacrifice" is in any way appropriate to this process. Perhaps a "sacrifice" of the ego? The Buddha nature is your original nature, it is only a process of removal of the obscurations to that fact.

That's exactly how I do see it for myself. It is the death of ego, the transegoic to use that term. It really is a death, or a sacrifice that way. You so desire that unity that you empty yourself into it. That comes only at the end of what we hold onto that is centered around our egos. What you expose beyond that "veil of the flesh", to now use that language, is in fact your true identity, that Self.

[Deva]

I guess maybe why sometimes it comes up for me is because I always had a hard time with that whole sacrifice business and saw Jesus more as a teacher or guide. In that way, it would be no surprise that image would come to mind occasionally, as that's sort of the role of these archetypal forms.

 

I see that as the major difference. I never saw Jesus as a teacher or a guide. That view was never emphasized, but actively discouraged. I bought into the sacrificial lamb symbol hook, line, and sinker, I had no choice in the matter. Then it became absurd. Then there was nothing left.

 

I am not sure that the word "sacrifice" is in any way appropriate to this process. Perhaps a "sacrifice" of the ego? The Buddha nature is your original nature, it is only a process of removal of the obscurations to that fact.

That's exactly how I do see it for myself. It is the death of ego, the transegoic to use that term. It really is a death, or a sacrifice that way. You so desire that unity that you empty yourself into it. That comes only at the end of what we hold onto that is centered around our egos. What you expose beyond that "veil of the flesh", to now use that language, is in fact your true identity, that Self.

 

Yes, to the best of my understanding that is how it works. To this day, though, I don't like the word "sacrifice". I can see how it might apply in terms of the ego, though.

 

That true self is intrinsically pure.

[Ouroboros]

Time, and new experiences and words, will slowly replace those old ones.

Or change how you understand them.

But if you don't make sure everyone else you talking to are having the same understanding of those words, it will become very confusing.

[Antlerman]

I guess maybe why sometimes it comes up for me is because I always had a hard time with that whole sacrifice business and saw Jesus more as a teacher or guide. In that way, it would be no surprise that image would come to mind occasionally, as that's sort of the role of these archetypal forms.

 

I see that as the major difference. I never saw Jesus as a teacher or a guide. That view was never emphasized, but actively discouraged. I bought into the sacrificial lamb symbol hook, line, and sinker, I had no choice in the matter. Then it became absurd. Then there was nothing left.

Nicely put. I wonder why they never envisioned him as a teacher. It was after all a title applied to him. As an atheist/humanist I discovered the whole Pelagian Heresy, which I said to myself, "this makes sense!". Alas, Christianity instead went the whole Augustinian way. (I recommend reading that article in that link).

 

That true self is intrinsically pure.

Truly.

[Antlerman]

Time, and new experiences and words, will slowly replace those old ones.

Or change how you understand them.

But if you don't make sure everyone else you talking to are having the same understanding of those words, it will become very confusing.

Or challenge them to understand things differently. Provoke, rather than dumb down?

[Ouroboros]

Time, and new experiences and words, will slowly replace those old ones.

Or change how you understand them.

But if you don't make sure everyone else you talking to are having the same understanding of those words, it will become very confusing.

Or challenge them to understand things differently. Provoke, rather than dumb down?

I'm not sure that's how it works. Changing definitions of a word is not necessarily smartening up understanding. And if all the words used have different meanings, then the meaning will still be lost in the conversation.

[Antlerman]

Or challenge them to understand things differently. Provoke, rather than dumb down?

I'm not sure that's how it works. Changing definitions of a word is not necessarily smartening up understanding. And if all the words used have different meanings, then the meaning will still be lost in the conversation.

Were talking words here which by their very nature point to things beyond concrete definitions. When I say tree, that's a pretty limited understanding conveyed in its meaning. It's pointing to a physical object in nature. When I say beauty, or value, those are whole lot less concrete. When I say God that's way less concrete, in fact completely undefinable. You use words to talk 'about' God, but can never define it.

 

And that is the crux of this problem. The Christian mind needs God to be defined and related to as a concrete object. But as such of course, it ceases to be God. It becomes an idol of stone or wood, or mind. By speaking about God in ways that rightly breaks down hard definitions it becomes closer to the reality of its Nature. Ultimately God is not conceptual at all, and to break God free from concrete language in speaking about it rightly does what it supposed to do in language, challenge the mind to see beyond a merely concrete or mental conceptual reality.

 

Put it this way, would you ask the artist to quit painting expressionist paintings and please just paint pictures that represent reality that we normally see and touch? "Please just use paint the way they do in Realism so we all understand what those strokes mean"? Or is the point of such symbols to point to something beyond what is a common understanding? The point is to inspire what is inside to emerge to the conscious mind and break down the limited understandings imposed by language and culture. God as a word by its very strokes is transcendent. If it is defined as a 'common understanding', it's not God. It speaks to something in us not limited by words, or if not, it appears as pure rubbish.