Hi Yogani,
quote:
Yogani wrote:
Scriptures can be useful when taken on blind faith over the short term, aiding in promoting bhakti and direct spiritual experience, and thus helping dissolve blind faith. But, if taken as absolute truth on blind faith indefinitely, without ongoing spiritual growth via effective practices, scriptures can become the foundation (or excuse) for grossly aberrant conduct in human beings. Any knowledge reduced to the level of an "ideology" and taken on blind faith on an ongoing basis will lead to conflict with other ideologies also taken on blind faith. When a scripture has been reduced to an ideology, beware!
Thanks for the reminder Yogani. I agree with you totally that blind faith in scripture can be useful. I never thought I would hear myself say that, especially as I am a rationalist and a sceptical hard-nosed scientist[
]. As I see it, the scriptures are guides on a journey. If we have developed some faith in a particular scripture, due to it having been relevant on our path up to the point we are at now, then we can (reasonably) assume that we can have faith in the rest of the teachings, even though we have not yet developed our own understanding of those teachings through direct experience. So rationally, blind faith makes a lot of sense. ALthough, as you say, within limits.
Of course, if we are going to use scriptures as tools on the path back to the Divine, then we have to understand them. So I assume your warning here is about not getting attached to the truth of scriptures, to the point where we start arguing about which one is really "True" and leads to God, rather than a warning against trying to understand the scriptures themselves.
Hi Doc
quote:
Doc wrote:
Gnosticism, in each of its many cleverly fabricated versions, has consistently been rejected by the Orthodox Christian Faith as a heresy from the time of gnosticism's initial appearance nearly 1,800 years ago. And in turn, it has also been rejected by most other Christian church denominations since then, finding both the gnostic doctrine and the methods based upon it to be erroneous and objectionable.
I should clear up a misunderstanding here. When I used the word “Gnostic” in reference to traditions from which certain schools of religious practice developed, such as the Essene tradition, I was not referring to the very limited use of the word as it is used by some historians and Christians when they talk about Gnosticism. When we study the teachings of the Essenes, we can see that the Essenes were a highly advanced spiritual group, with teachings that referred to both a Heavenly Father and an Earth Mother. Much of what later came to be known as Christianity was already fully developed and being practiced by the Essenes before the birth of Christ. In fact I would say that most of the teachings of Christ were probably Essene teachings. The Essenes were obviously not Jewish in their outlook, beliefs or practices. There were other spiritual traditions around the Middle East at the same time, with similar, non-Jewish beliefs, and it seems obvious (to me at least) that these traditions developed from a Gnostic (in the purest sense of the word) tradition that probably goes way back in time. I was using the word Gnostic in the sense of a spiritual tradition that is based on direct spiritual experience both in its development and in its practice. In other words, a tradition where it is as important to develop knowledge through mystical experience, as it is to believe any particular doctrine or teaching. I believe this is what the Essenes were doing, what Christ, as an Essene was doing and, incidentally, what we are doing[8D]. Sorry about any confusion caused through my loose use of language.
Hi Philip
quote:
Philip wrote:Actually, that link was for a DVD that you can order.
Sorry… I just saw the word “video”, and thought, “Oh no, another of these online videos that I can’t watch because of my limited connection. I didn’t actually click on it. Thanks for the other (non-dvd) links though.
I find your descriptions of Genesis fascinating. You obviously have a very great undrestanding of the Kabala, and of mysticism. One thing I have always wondered, what are the Elohem? I always thought they were angels, but you mention them in one of your posts above as being aspects of the human soul. Is it true that the first line of the Christian bible is not about God at all, but rather about the Elohem (In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the Elohem, and the word was the Elohem....)?
I heard this once, but as I don't speak ancient hebrew, I had no way of validating it).
Christi
