On 31 May 2012 00:21, Martin Law <martin.rainbowmaker@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Bon appetit !
Fear not imaginings of "adversaries
arguing over semantics."
As opposed to "the hope that this
is a conversation between two friends sitting together at a meal."
I am well familiar with theological
discussions. Such that i don't engage in them by preference. Especially
over a meal. It would spoil my meal. Not so you. I understand that.
The reason is simple. If, in a
discussion, one party is coming from a conclusion, no real discussion takes
place. A conclusion, is, by definition, an end of shared enquiry. A
conclusion belongs at the end, not at the beginning. In that sense, we are not
engaged in a shared enquiry. I avoid argument as being futile and counter
productive. As well as indigestion-causing.
Your paragraph 2/
I simply address your statements.
So assume good humour. The remedy for solemnity. I notice you
follow with, "I don't share the fixed assumption we are speaking of
something higher than everything, making everything lower." You then
quote a four line scripture the foundation of which depends entirely on the
word, "God", used twice. Self evidently, you do speak from a
fixed assumption.
Para.3/
By a not so subtle shift, you have now
moved to: The man called Jesus is the "One" you refer to. But
you ignored the "One" the whole story depends on in your basic
premise. Adding eleven further attributed titles to establish the point.
What was that about semantics?
Para.4/
A seven line verbatim quote about the
doings of this "One". (The second "One", that is.)
All very noble-sounding, if your choice is to base "enquiry" on
noble-sounding words and titles, uttered by other men and women expressing
their conclusion.
Makes no difference if they are echoed
"with love". I love echoes too. But i wouldn't echo
anybody's assumptions. Especially when based on a denied premise.
There's no enquiry inside the parameters of a box. Especially when
it's not acknowledged as a philosophical box.
Para.5/
Unquote.
Thank you. Nobody does. You
can't give a name to that which transcends and includes all names of
classifications. Simply because, by definition it is beyond all
categories and therefore comparable with nothing else.
But you do. It's your indispensable
thesis: "God".
You then return again to focus on the
"One" you do value having a name for. (And a neat little shift,
from the word, "something", to the word, "someone".)
I saw that.
And then: "It is arrogant
to proclaim the name of someone we never experience."
That wasn't what i said. I said,
"some-thing". That's your premise. Remember?
And then: "But that's not
our experience." (Who said it was?)
Next: "It is arrogant to
presume that your experience,(or lack thereof) defines all other people's
experience."
Oh precisely. We agree at last.
Well worth re-stating. "It
IS arrogant to presume that your experience, (or lack thereof) defines ALL
other people's experience."
Then you round off with a return to
the rhetoric you love so much.
Semantic key words;
"mission", "sacrament", "fellowship",
"worship", and of course, "The one", (twice).
(Did you ever study Advaita -
"Non-duality"?) I don't mean "read about it."
Anybody can do that.
Don't misunderstand. I don't
have a point. You do.
And that this man,(excuse the
word),became what he was by humbly becoming empty.
Have you ever practiced zazen
meditation? Or even got to grips with D.T.Suzuki's profound metaphysics?
"The Zen Doctrine of No Mind" for example. By way of
saying, do you think that only one man ever became totally empty? I
thought it was intended as an example for all. Not to be
"worshipped" as an anomaly.
I don't have to ask for an answer.
Don't therefore assume i am a "Zennist",or
that i put eggs in any one basket. Have you ever been so empty , you're
not aware of being present? Keeps happening to me. Forty years of meditation.
What's the trip about following?
Speaking somebody else's words.
Be yourself. Be authentic.
Or if you prefer: "The way that can be spoken of is not the true
way."~ Lao-Tzu.
Obvious. "Beautiful words
are not true, true words are not beautiful."~ Tao-Te- Jing.
Neither am i a Taoist. In as
much as anything is. Where can you draw a line?
And what about "The
Gnostics?" Everything you may read on the web, as well as most commonly
known books (but for one scholar: John Lamb Lash) is incomplete, totally
misleading. Being written mostly by the church fathers. Consequently, the
widespread misperception that they were an early offshoot of Christianity. Or
were a bizarre sect who considered life to be evil. Disinformation on
both counts. Even the much referred to work by Elaine Pagels, "The
Gnostic Gospels" is equally incomplete and misrepresentative.
"Gospels" is her attempt to equate Gnosticism with Christianity
which can't be done. They weren't even called "Gnostic", or
"Gnosticism", (from "Gnosis"- Knowing), but were called
"Telestai" (singular "Telestes". One who is aimed).
Were in fact the Eleusinian Mystery
Schools, of antiquity, which were open to everyone, and were not a secret sect.
The great library of Alexandria which was destroyed, intentionally. Which is
part of why the disinformation has persisted so long....until recently.
In fact, the Christians (so called) killed them. As with the
medicine women of Europa. And the indigenous of "the americas". All
these were the full flowering of the matrilineal cultures who revered
"nature" for itself. If you are serious about not believing lies
about "the Gnostics", then read John Lash: "Not in His
Image". I know you won't. Scepticism and lack of interest will prevent
you. Lack of curiosity can never proclaim truth.
But that's another story. I'm
not a Gnostic.
To recapitulate humour; all names have
been reversed.For example: As a country dweller (Paiganos=Pagan),and , as one
who freely chooses outside of doctrine, (Heresai=Heretic) i , by definition
qualify as a Pagan Heretic. Which the unaware would think was something
bad. Freedom of perception and one-with nature...Bad? What's in a
name? Any name. No point making a fetish out of names.
You also live on a continent stolen by
mass, and unprovoked genocide of a people wiser than the invaders. Still
continuing right in your city. Rev. Kevin Annett: The 50,000 indian kids killed
in the boarding schools. Don't misunderstand. I'm hardly blaming you personally
for that. That would be absurd.
But i wouldn't be too proud, or talk
too loud, calling it humility.
Study their wisdom. It's not
patriarchal.
Glad i'm not in the business of being
convincing. Why convince or persuade? Only the gullible are
convinced. Only the ignorant are persuaded.
Do you perceive ireland ( Eire/ Inis
Fodhla) as a catholic country?
It's equally Druidic. The Romans
didn't get far. Any more than Columbus
"discovered"..."america".
Endless surrounding research i could
set you. But if you prefer to stop at a conclusion, fine. I just wouldn't
expose innocent minds to it before they've had a chance to explore themselves.
You know of course, what you call
Christianity, was virtually invented as a political power move by Emperor
Constantine in 553 A.D. (so called), ("Domini"!!) You may say
"dominion", but that's inseparable from "dominate", the verb.
To assimilate, and thereby control, the diverse and contradictory beliefs
of the time. No more to establish peace than it is right now. Hence
the "Europan Dissociation", a virus later shipped to
"america".
Read "The Donation of
Constantine" while thinking of the indians, millions of innocent women and
children. And forget "Manifest Destiny" of any kind.
Nicea (Nice), not so nice. Was the
occasion when it was planned and decreed, as expedient, and carried (not
unanimously), that Jesus/ Yeshua/ Emanuel, would be held to be considered the
son of "God". Nicholas of Myra got a punch in the nose for
objecting. Later to be called, "saint" Nicholas, thence
"Pelznichol", "the Yuletide Elf", "satan Claus"(the
antagonist in Shakespearean theatre), Santa Claus, and Chris Cringle.
Same way they get rid of anybody who disagrees.
Talking of "fellow-ship",
and unity -in-diversity, hence mutual aid, i have alerted you to the radiation,
which doesn't go away. As well as what you can do for everyone's wellbeing.
As well as alerting you to the danger of vaccines. I know what's in them.
Do you want the list? That was certainly more than a year ago. Your
response was to ridicule the whole thing. Thereby disrespecting my informed
concern. You didn't believe then and you don't believe now.
After all, what IS belief, but
choosing to assume.
As i said, "the art of scepticism
is in knowing where to apply it."
To be candid, in the event that i were
to be critiquing the expression of your stand-point as a piece of work, i'd
fail it on all accounts. Mainly since you have not a clue who you are writing
to.
Since your words are not your own.
Ever hear of dialogue?
Along with misplaced scepticism,
presumptuous, solely doctrinal,
condescending, incurious, obsessive,
even sneaky.
But that's only an honest appraisal of
what you express, and not an argument. After all, not everybody wears the
same size shoes. And "one rule for the lion and the lamb is tyranny".
Or, as you said yourself,
"It is arrogant to presume that your experience, (or lack thereof)
defines all other people's experience."
A sense of humour is a great thing.
I wish you enjoyment of my piano CD
when it arrives. I much prefer to express sensorially than intellectualy.
The heart knows better than the head.
I prefer not to talk over a meal but
eat in silence.
And peace to you too. (agus ta
siochan agat go leis)
Martin.
pictures : rainbowmaker
hieroglyphics 1 martin law, November 2005
hieroglyphics
4 martin law
hieroglyphics
13, martin law, November 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hello, Here is your letter box! Post away. . .