[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?
>Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:16:22 -0600
>
>Glove said:
>I think we can safely say that the theistic person wishes to be other than
>they are in everyday life; they strive to make themselves better by
>approaching models of the devine revealed in myth. ...
>
>dmb says:
>Well, I'm talking about various metaphysical assertions, various concepts
>about God and such. I don't think anybody would deny that, historically, 
>the
>Church did a good job in asserting social level morals over the biological
>values. That's what civilization is all about; fertility and security. And
>today it can do wonders as a kind of self-improvement program, as a kind of
>12-step program. But even on this level of analysis, I don't think its safe
>to say "the theist" is necessarily trying "to make themselves better".

Really!?! If not, then why a belief in the devine?

>Like
>I said already, theism "really rears its ugly head on the conventional
>level. This is where the blood gets spilt over rival concepts of god. We 
>can
>see that even though Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all monotheistic,
>dualistic religions there are still plenty of believers who are willing to
>fight for one concept of god over the others. (snip current examples)
>...This is a ridiculous and extremely dangerous situation. So I'm saying
>that theism, even on a pragmatic level, is a pretty serious problem."

I think you're level shifting here but nonetheless if believers are willing 
to fight for one concept of god over another why are they so willing, unless 
they feel their own concept of god is better? I am not disagreeing with you 
that it's a dangerous situation, mind you, only that theists ARE attempting 
to better themselves through a belief in the devine.

>
>dmb said previously:
>...We looked at work of "The Jesus Seminar", a large group of scholars who
>set out to determine, through testual analysis, what the historical Jesus
>actually said.
>
>Dan replied:
>This is assuming there was a historical Jesus to actually say something, of
>course. I am sure you know there's not one single shred of evidence to 
>prove
>such a man ever lived. Everything we know about Jesus is hearsay. So tell
>me: can a person who never existed actually say something?
>
>dmb says:
>Good point. Personally, I don't think its very important whether or not
>there was an historical Jesus.

I should think a believer might disagree but as you say it is of little 
importance. It just struck me as odd that a large group of scholars would 
attempt to discover what Jesus actually said if there was no Jesus. Kind of 
like attempting to discover what Bart Simpson actually said. But I am no 
scholar so what do I know...

>And it seems there is a lot of confusion
>about the difference between history and myth in the traditional churches.
>Beliefs about the pending apocalypse stem from this confusion, for example.
>Anyway, the majority of Jesus Seminarians were of the opinion that there 
>was
>an historic Jesus, but there are certainly some dissenters on this point.
>But they all operate on the assumption that all texts, all books, were
>written by people.

Yes but the message is devine.

>
>Dan said:
>...I think it's interesting to note that even in professed atheists many
>scenarios of initiation still exist. They stagger under a whole pile of
>pseudo-religious paraphernalia that has degenerated into something hard to
>recognize for what it is, but it's there nonetheless.
>
>dmb says:
>Yea, people need ritual and myth and they get it where they can.

We are all steeped in myth and ritual. Whether we need it or not... that 
doesn't matter. We "get it" even if we don't want it.

>As I
>understand the present sad state of affairs, the rituals and symbols and
>myths of a culture have become obsolete and can no longer function.

Oh please stop; you're frightening the children. Myths and symbols and 
rituals don't function -- people function.

>Its not
>just that its hard to believe in a literal Heaven in the Space Age, 
>although
>that's certainly a huge part of it,

I should think it hard to believe in a literal Heaven at any time.

>there is also the issue of confused
>morality. See, the traditional religions were a positive and crucial moral
>force in taming the biological impulses and most of its moral values are
>aimed at that. The seven deadly sins, for example.

Old Testament bullshit.

>But, because the
>intellectual level has evolved and become its own distinct level of
>morality, history has put this moral force in an inferior position. And she
>doesn't like it one bit. She fights back now and blood is spilt. These
>traditional moral values, the ones that are rightly supposed to assert
>social values over biological ones, are now too oftern used to reisist and
>suppress intellectual values. The good guy keeps doing what he's doing, but
>history and evolution has moved on in such a way that the very same 
>activity
>is now evil instead of good.

That which doesn't change dies. So that good guy who just keeps on doing 
what he's been doing, well, he has no future. Why concern ourselves with a 
dead man?

>
>Dan told a story:
>Mu-on was a great teacher. It was the custom in those days for zen masters
>to have only one student. His student was a monk named Shu-on. One day 
>Mu-on
>called his student before him and bade him sit. I am growing old, he told
>Shu-on, and I feel that soon I will no longer walk this earth. Therefore it
>is time that I pass this on to you. And he handed Shu-on a journal.
>
>Shu-on objected. You have taught me all I need to know. Why are you giving
>me this book? I have no need of it. Please keep it, master. Mu-on explained
>that the journal was 7 generations old and that as he himself had done, 
>each
>of his predecessors too had added their own thoughts to the book over the
>centuries. Putting the journal in his hands, he told Shu-on: It is now 
>yours
>to do with what you wish. Shu-on got up and walking to the fire he thrust
>the journal into the midst of the hot coals. Startled and angry, Mu-on
>jumped to his feet and shouted: What are you doing? Shu-on shouted back:
>What are you saying?
>
>dmb says:
>Let me take a guess as to what Mu-on was saying when he jumped to his feet
>and asked Shu-on what he was doing. He was saying, "Shuon, buddy dude, the
>fact that you are willing to destroy my life's work and turn seven
>generations of wisdom into ash shows that you most certainly have not
>learned everything you need to know, you morally retarded vandal you."

But I didn't think he asked Shu-on anything. He was telling him exactly what 
you're saying. He was after all the master and he was upset. However, when 
knowledge becomes static and unchanging it starts to die. Dynamic 
understanding is infinitely flexible and allows one to adapt to any 
situation as it is always changing. The master needed reminding of this 
point. The student has turned into the master and the master has become the 
student. That is the way of things.

>
>Or have I missed the point?

That's (of course) for you to decide though I find that when I have to ask, 
I usually have.

>
>Gotta go. I'm meeting some friends and associates at the library this
>afternoon. Anybody happen to know what a person should wear to a book
>burning? I'm thinking a brown shirt would look pretty good with my
>jackboots, but the trousers have me stumped.

"From the static point of view the whole escape into Dynamic Quality seems 
like a death experience. It's a movement from something to nothing. How can 
"nothing" be any different from death? Since a Dynamic understanding doesn't 
make the static distinctions necessary to answer that question, the question 
goes unanswered. All the Buddha could say was, 'See for yourself.'"

One doesn't need a book to know the way. Trousers are always optional, of 
course, except for die Toten Hosen. (great one Arlo!)

Thank you for your comments,

Dan


Will any one of you, who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep, say to him 
when he has come in from the field, 'Come at once and sit down at table'? 
Will he not rather say to him, 'Prepare supper for me, and gird yourself and 
serve me, till I eat and drink; and afterward you shall eat and drink'? Does 
he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when 
you have done all that is commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we 
have only done what was our duty.' (Luke 17: 7-10)