|
Amaros -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/3/2009 1:56:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DemonKia
FR, after continuing read thru
It's my understanding that all the world's major religions has some form of the 'golden rule', ahimsa, et al. . . . . Despite their much vaunted differences . . . . .
As to this polarization thing. I think of it as an innate human tendency to dichotomize, & I theorize that it is an artifact of our bilateral observational instrument (ie, our bicameral brains & etc) more than it is some fundament of the 'true nature of reality' (whatever that might be) . . . . . . .
& as such, this desire to centrifuge things one way or the other manifests all over the place. Given a coupla other of our propensities, to abstract (with virtually no limit) & to assign meaning, we have had a lot of edification construction about the 'deeper meaning' of this or that polarity, but, respectfully, I mostly scoff.
We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are.
- Talmud -
Well, there is the fundamental inescapable fact of duality - which is where it all starts - all modern philosophies are essentially dualist, even science - mind/body, matter/energy, flesh/spirit, being/nonbeing, etc. And by modern, I mean as opposed to animistic religion, which is Tantric by nature, i.e., identification with the natural world, which forms an earthier, less intellectual parallel strain, reflected in both the Great Chain of Being, and Pagan nature/fertility religions.
The differences largely lie in how this duality is conceptualized, which I divide into Tantric: thesis, antithesis and synthesis, symbiotic reconciliation, or Zoroastrian struggle - polarization, never the twain shall meet, Black and White.
Of course there are all shades in between, which tends to reinforce the Tantric approach: in classical gnosticism, flesh and spirit are indeed separate, but rather than Flesh being confined to the physical realm and spirit somewhere else as in Christian theology, Spirit animates the flesh, the divine spark - flesh is just a vehicle for this spark, and it's up to the individual to nurture this spark, thus Ahimsa.
In Catholicism, the priest mediates between flesh and spirit, Catholic priests are essentially shamans, ombudsmen for God - in Gnosticism, you are responsible for nurturing your own spark, for creating a direct connection between flesh and spirit, Protestant theology has more elements of classical Gnosticism, but still very hung up on the oppositional aspect of the thing.
The Tantric approach was mostly preserved in mystery cults and underground sects, and there are hints of of it in the synoptic gospels, when Jesus says for instance: "don not hide you light under a tub" - this is reference to the divine spark, a recurring theme in dualistic religions.
Fire was the symbol of the Zoroastrian godhead, Ahura Mazda - conceived of as pure energy, "time itself", thus signified by fire, which though you can feel and perceive it, is elusive, it can't be bottled or captured. Moses receives his revelation through a burning bush, the holy spirit signified as "tongues of flame" - Christianity borrowed heavily from Mithrism (Mithra is essentially linguistic analog for Ahura Mazda), who were associated with fire worship, although agian, fire is only symbolic of the godhead composed of pure energy.
Difficult to resist anthropomorphism however, Agni is the corresponding Vedic avatar, which among the Romans was associated with Hestia (female, hearth), and Hephaestus/Vulcan (male, forge), more practical deities, and ultimately in Christianity, the holy spirit, symbolically the go between between god, the father, and Christ, the son of man, so again, the thesis/antithesis/synthesis.
In Gilgamesh, Enkidu is animal and man, Gilgamesh, man and god, and together they create a synthesis in which man is between animal (flesh) and god (spirit), which is closer to the classical gnostic conception, as in Nietzsche:
"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman - a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under..."
We're getting into anthropology here, and back to animism: essentially that the animal represents a state of primal grace, god represents pure thought, abstraction, consciousness, which leads to moral ambiguity.
Animals do not suffer from conscience, Adam and Eve were not cast out of the garden for being naked, they were cast out for being aware of their nakedness, and ashamed of it - for doubt.
God fears that having gained self awareness, they will also discover eternal life and become his equals, and casts them out.
In Zoroastrianism, Ahriman, the precursor of Satan, springs from the brow of Ahura Mazda in a moment of doubt - he represents physical reality which is inherently flawed from a purely conscious perspective: physical reality means death and decay, and you find in many religions, this urge to return to the primal state of innocence, a state in which doubt, and moral ambiguity, inherent in self awareness, is absent - thus ego submersion is a recurring aspect in practically all spiritual traditions, expressed in myriad ways.
However, the fate of man, is that having eaten from the fruit of the Tree of Life, there's no going back to the animal, while god remains tantalizingly out of reach.
|
|
|
|
