Guest guest Posted December 3, 1999 Report Share Posted December 3, 1999 >>Max: >>At any rate, Jesus, Judaism and Christianity see God as separate from the creation, and the creation as real. They see the soul as a real being which doesn't dissolve into God but can be in communion with God. Dan: Max, you're speaking in a rather final manner about "what Jesus saw". How can you be sure that your description is what Jesus sees? I view your statement as your description of your idea of what Jesus sees. The books in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles say many things in many contexts. They are interpreted in very different ways by different scholars. To say that there is one definable way that Judaism and Christianity see God is not to deal with Jewish and Christian "mysticism" (i.e., experiential revelation) and to deny the differences in interpretation and experience that are evident in Christianity and Judaism (as they indeed are in Hinduism and Buddhism). Jesus made clear that his was a living, experiential truth, and that his words couldn't fully convey the reality. He said, "as you do to the least of these, you do to Me". This was not a dualistic perspective, from my view. It's a matter of vision and experience - Paul said: the letter kills, but the Spirit gives light. As your vision may differ from mine, we can only discuss perspectives. Once we have perspectives we have "mine" and "yours", so nondual Truth will always be beyond what our discussions can contain (at least, that's my perspective). My view of the Truth Jesus expressed is that It is beyond our cognitive divisons, such as East and West, and beyond perspectives that place the dual view vs. the nondual view, etc. -- Peace -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 1999 Report Share Posted December 3, 1999 Namaste, Dan. >> Max, you're speaking in a rather final manner about "what Jesus saw". > How can you be sure that your description is what Jesus sees? I can't, of course, and I didn't mean to sound like that. I think in my post I referred several times to different views about how reliable the NT record is and to what Jesus might really have said. I've spent a considerable amount of time in this area in the past and, yes, there are many scholarly opinions across a wide spectrum. > . . . I view your >statement as your description of your idea of what Jesus sees. Well, of course! That's the way it always is, with everybody! Every member of this list can only tell us what they think Shankara meant, and hope they're reasonally right. But there is inescapable uncertainty due to passage of time and, in the case of Jesus, a seemingly unreliable historical record. > . . . The books >in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles say many things in many contexts. They >are interpreted in very different ways by different scholars. Very true, and there is also a richness of ideas in the Vedas and the Upanishads, and in the commentaries upon them. > . . . To say that >there is one definable way that Judaism and Christianity see God is not to >deal with Jewish and Christian "mysticism" (i.e., experiential revelation) and >to deny the differences in interpretation and experience that are evident >in Christianity and Judaism (as they indeed are in Hinduism and Buddhism). Yes, but I didn't mean to imply that. I should have used more qualifiers, but after awhile they get a bit cumbersome. But how can you be sure of the following?: >Jesus made clear that his was a living, experiential truth, and that his >words couldn't fully convey the reality. He said, "as you do to the least of >these, you do to Me". Maybe he said this, and maybe he didn't; and if he did, maybe he meant it as you understand it, and maybe it was a variation on a common rabbinic teaching about treating others as you would like to be treated. There are many possibilities, and scholars have discussed them, and continue to. It is very interesting. > This was not a dualistic perspective, from my view. Well, the whole dualistic/nondualistic issue was probably not pressing in Galilee at that time, and doesn't seem to have been an issue for that cultural milieu. It seems to be the case that Jewish theology envisioned 'communion with God' as the cherished goal. I think a lot can be said for this, and it can be appreciated in a nondualistic philosophy where the person in communion with God is seen as an individualized spark of God, but I don't know if we should read Vedanta into Second Temple era Judaism. >It's a matter of vision and experience - Paul said: the letter kills, but >the Spirit gives light. As your vision may differ from mine, we can only >discuss perspectives. Once we have perspectives we have "mine" and >"yours", so >nondual Truth will always be beyond what our discussions can contain (at >least, that's my perspective). My view of the Truth Jesus expressed is >that It is beyond our cognitive divisons, such as East and West, and beyond >perspectives that place the dual view vs. the nondual view, etc. I suppose the Truth that any Truth-sayer says is beyond dualism, even if the expressions of the Truth must partake of duality to be spoken. If the ultimate Truth is nondualistic, then anyone who points to it is giving expression to that which is nondual. It is in this sense that all sincere conceptual avenues into God/Truth/Braman may lead there. But the expressions occur in specific cultural-historical settings, and I think to be honest with history and with the likely historical understandings of the speakers, we should be sensitive to what they likely meant in the context of their real history, and with the constraints and customs of their milieu. But, you know, I suppose we need a balance between seeking historical accuracy, on the one hand, and being open to universal significances present in particular expressions, on the other hand. Any great message usually contains more meaning than the speaker intended, which is why the message grows and deepens with time. So what you sense in Jesus' message may very well 'be there' even if historical-critical scholars tend to say he didn't mean that. There was a greater-than-Jesus present in Jesus, as there was a greater-than-Shankara present in Shankara. This greater-than- the-person present in all sages is perhaps what the Upanishads point to in the 'Thou Art That' message. Namaste, -- Max --------------------------- DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.