Spiritualism - Lesson #14
Hegel has had a great influence both on philosophy and on German nationalism literally changing the world through his most famous disciple, Karl Marx. So, we still see Hegel's influences at work in the world around us today. But to understand where Hegel was coming from we need to know something about the age in which he lived. When Hegel was born it was an exciting time – the world was changing and becoming modern. Napoleon was promising to change the world and Hegel actually saw Napoleon after his great victory. Hegel summarised the trauma and euphoria of the time by announcing the birth of a new world which was manifesting itself in philosophy and politics. This is the background to Hegel's early thinking - everything was progressing towards a climax that went beyond previous conflicts and uncertainties in philosophy bringing everything together. This is the atmosphere of "weltgeist" i.e. (Spirit/Mind). It should also be born in mind that in the closing years of the eighteenth century there was a bitter battle taking place in philosophy about who would be Kant's successor completing what many considered to be his unfinished system. In 1807, therefore, Hegel published a book with the stated object of reaching the absolute truth - an all-encompassing vision taking in many philosophical theories about the nature of knowledge, religion, and ethics etc. Central to this was the idea of "Spirit/Mind" i.e. the cosmic soul that encompasses every person as well as nature. It boils down to God being in all and all being in God. Christians would reject this as "pantheism" i.e. God merged within nature. While Christians accept that the world is sacred (created by God) they do not accept that God is merged with nature but separate from nature. However, Christians accept the possibility of becoming one with God through Jesus Christ his Son who said: I and the Father are one. The underlying thesis of Hegel's thesis movement towards the "Absolute" not so must that every question has an answer, or every problem is solvable, more that "we're all in it together" with an all embracing consciousness. It was a genius idea, of course, one that influenced many who came after him. Knowledge, said Hegel, like consciousness, develops (things are changing, progressing and moving forward) developing new concepts and new categories. This is where the philosophy of "dialectic" comes in explaining that everything grows through confrontation and conflict rather than by understanding and observation. Hegel maintained that all phenomena from consciousness to political institutions are aspects of "Spirit/Mind" of which every individual is a part. As history progresses "Spirit/Mind" recognises these phenomena as aspects of itself and reintegrates them. It is a recurring process of "dialectic" reflecting Hegel's belief that reality is not material but "Spirit/Mind." Put simply human-beings inherit things from the past modify them and then pass them on to future generations e.g. language, science, banks, churches, social institutions and so on. However, consciousness does not appear to change unlike the context of society which does change. Hegel also disagreed with Kant's "a priory" understanding of knowledge, and its uncritical assumptions, replacing it with a more immediate understanding e.g. what is conscious to us exists as something we sense – and to me this makes good sense. And so here we see Hegel going beyond Kant's philosophy which denied we can know "things in themselves" which Kant believed was beyond human knowledge. And I agree with Hegel here. What, for example, do we need to know about a chair other than it is to be sat on? If that chair was designed by Chippendale it might tell us something about Chippendale's thinking and design skills but no more. It's like admiring a picture (or a landscape) which provokes from us an emotional response. But all we need to know is that emotional response making irrelevant any relationship we might be missing with the paint (or the canvass) upon which the paint was laid. Again, we might see a beautiful tree standing in a woodland and admire its height and foliage. But it's useless wondering what the tree is thinking as we will never know. Similarly, when Darwin burst on the world with his theory of evolution others took it forward making all manner of claims based on effects leading to causes. Hume would be horrified at this; rekindling memories of the "virtuous horse" i.e. human beings taking one idea and then allowing their vivid imaginations to conclude all manner of conclusion from it. Some might protest that we Christians do this with our doctrines of God. Hume, cautions that it is improper to go from a minimum attribute of God (Hume had no belief in God) i.e. that God created the world; to deduce that God is love, merciful, forgiving, omnipotent etc. But Hume was wrong in this case. Jesus, God's Son, came into the world (as God incarnate) to teach us about God's attributes and so make us one with him. And even Hegel argues that at certain times in history "Spirit/Mind" may manifest itself as a person (whether or not that person is aware of that role) to overcome oppression and tyranny. Unfortunately, fascism, communism and socialism (legacies of Hegel of which he had no knowledge) are now totally discredited. The idea was the levelling of society which would hold everything in common. The reality was the silencing of the creative spirit in art, writing and so on. Anyone stepping out of line was silenced as being manipulated by powers (possibly unknown) even to them. Hegel gave the example of ancient Greece which seemed to be a fairly settled society. Why? Because, according to him, "reason" had not yet manifested itself; but it was just a question of time before it did. And the goal of this progression through history? "Absolute Spirit" (freedom) i.e. a future state of consciousness which no longer belongs to individuals but to reality as a whole. At that point "Spirit/Mind" is aware of itself as the reality to which history has been working. Hegel has given us much to think about. The thesis, antithesis and synthesis sound a plausible philosophy of growth and development as history unfolds. Unfortunately, and the Bible makes this very clear, human nature is not so accommodating. In every generation the "dialectic" has failed to deliver the goods. Take for example the Reformation in Europe, the Peasants Revolt, Industrial Revolution in Europe (still underway), The French wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; the American War of Independence, the First World War, Second World War, Falklands War etc, etc. None of these conflicts, and many others besides have delivered (or got us anywhere near) "Absolute Spirit." And neither will they so long as humankind is in rebellion against God. I am not God and God is not gradually becoming conscious of himself as the years go by. God is eternal, creative Spirit who holds all things together.
Rog
29th March, 2016
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Spiritualism - Lesson #13
Spiritualism - Lesson #13
I agree that to some extent human beings do create their own morality the product of culture, upbringing and prejudice etc. For example while one person might see a particular situation as upright and wholesome another might view it as denigrating or even wicked. People are different and living in a changing, opinionated world. We don't all agree on everything. But God, or whatever we choose to call him, is changeless and not subject to these peculiarities of nature. God is never childish (or spiteful) developing as a child might eventually growing up into a reformed character. The moral outlook discussed in this lesson is one of relativism i.e. whatever society decides at any given moment is the accepted morality of the time. But it can never be right to kill. I (me) have no right whatsoever to decide who lives and who dies as if all that's at stake is the rearranging of energy. Conscience tells me that is wrong and I submit that most cultures, if not all, would agree that killing for the sake of it cannot be right. Morality is eternal as God is eternal. This is the conclusion Kant came to. Kant rejected metaphysical knowledge as far as the world or our inner being are concerned. Reason alone serves this purpose so releasing us from the useless bondage to speculation which only leads to conflict of opinion.
Reason, being independent of experience a priory, gives us solid moral guidance which I understand to mean "conscience" (the divine voice within). From this it follows that morality is independent of us and not subservient to sensory pleasures or gratification. This means we are not free to do as we like as if all we're doing is rearranging the furniture in a house that doesn't exist. Pantheism and monism are the offshoots of this way of thinking. For Kant an action has a moral value if it issues from a good will motivated purely out of respect for duty and the moral law. According to him the independence of morality gives us choice i.e. free will.
People often point to the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the violence contained there. I would make several observations about this. First it is never good idea for a modern society to look back on an ancient one judging it according to modern standards. If we were to get into a spaceship and travel back five thousand years to the Fertile Crescent the society we would happen upon would be alien to our own so that we would not feel at home there. Nations fought on-another in hand to hand combat. It was a vicious world in which it was either kill or be killed. A powerful empire might swoop down on a smaller nation exiling its population to foreign climes as a way of keeping control e.g. the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Empires. This was the environment into which the fledgling nation of Israel began its life. God was not barbaric far from it he was loving and protective. For example when in Egypt God saw the plight of His people, heard their cries and came down to deliver them from the Egyptians who were oppressing them. He then led them across a vast desert, through hostile lands delivering them to a land he had set aside for them – a land surrounded by warring nations. It was important, therefore, that Israel remained unified and untarnished by outside influences if it was to preserve its faith and status ad God's chosen people. The problem was that, as a new nation in a new land, Israel was subject to many outside influences which threatened to overwhelm it. This is why the covenant was established between them and God. It served as a kind of manifesto under which Israel lived out its unique relationship to God – as a light to other nations. The problem was that Israel couldn't keep its side of the bargain and frequently fell into apostasy. This is when the trouble really started but even then God did not abandon his people but raised up "deliverers" to get them out the mess.
In the context of a violent and hostile world the God of the Israelites was an enlightened God who made sure widows and resident aliens were provided for; a God who established cities of refuge for criminals to escape to (to save themselves); God who did not advocate a scorched earth policy in war as surrounding nations did; and who commanded an "eye for an eye" ensuring revenge was proportional rather than unbounded (i.e. only one eye and no more) which was unheard of in those days. And when God did exact judgement upon his people restoration always followed – the book of Hosea is a case in point here. God was a grown up God dealing with an immature and fickle people.
The book of Job comes from the Wisdom section of the Hebrew scriptures which encompasses: Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Psalms and the Wisdom of Solomon. These books were used for teaching the next generation of leaders in society. Pupils might sit at a master's feet and be taught there. There is little religious content in these books and Job, for example, addresses a particular problem: "why do bad things happen to good people?" Proverbs taught the opposite to this but the reality is quite different e.g. thieves get away with their spoils while good people may lose homes and incomes. If people create their own morality this shouldn't happen; of course it shouldn't. We're told that Job was an upright man so the world he had been "consciously creating" should have reflected this but it didn't. And neither could it. Yet Job's protagonists couldn't see this. They were locked into the accepted way of thinking that if things go wrong for you it must be your fault – or the fault of someone close to you. But we know this didn't apply to Job which is why he protested his innocence. So, did God cause his suffering? No! There are at least two reasons why a loving, generous and creative God would not do this. First, Job was not just a righteous man he was a controlling man. For not only did he perform his own sacrifices he got up early to offer sacrifices on behalf of his family in case they had forgotten to do it themselves. Now, no-one can have that many plates in the air at the same time without eventually collapsing with a nervous breakdown. And this is what happened to Job. And the symptoms of a nervous breakdown are all there: despondency, collapse; skin eruption, tears, loss of interest and so on. Job became a sick man who could see no way out of his misery. So, this is very much a human story. Second, Kant abstracted from Job's experience according to his philosophical model i.e. by taking some object and stripping away the sensory qualities to arrive at a non-sensory core knowable a priory. In Job we have a person richly filled with sensory pleasures and worldly satisfactions who is stripped down to nothing leaving a moral core that remains intact. Yet even though Job ends up in a heap on the floor with nothing he still has his moral consciousness and retains his faith in God. Why? If moral awareness requires us to postulate God's existence then a purified moral awareness stripped down of worldly happiness would produce a correspondingly intense belief in God. And this is what one often finds in people who are caught up in suffering. Their calmness, acceptance and dignity can be so inspirational it produces a reaction of admiration within others who are taken "elsewhere in their thinking" beyond their immediate situation of ceaseless struggle to strive and "own." Well, once he sees the Almighty face to face he realises how little he really knew. Job thought he knew everything and was prepared to give God a piece of his mind, but in God's presence all that melted away. God was/is moral and Job saw that clearly. From that he found enlightenment and from that restoration.
Rog
20th March 2016
I agree that to some extent human beings do create their own morality the product of culture, upbringing and prejudice etc. For example while one person might see a particular situation as upright and wholesome another might view it as denigrating or even wicked. People are different and living in a changing, opinionated world. We don't all agree on everything. But God, or whatever we choose to call him, is changeless and not subject to these peculiarities of nature. God is never childish (or spiteful) developing as a child might eventually growing up into a reformed character. The moral outlook discussed in this lesson is one of relativism i.e. whatever society decides at any given moment is the accepted morality of the time. But it can never be right to kill. I (me) have no right whatsoever to decide who lives and who dies as if all that's at stake is the rearranging of energy. Conscience tells me that is wrong and I submit that most cultures, if not all, would agree that killing for the sake of it cannot be right. Morality is eternal as God is eternal. This is the conclusion Kant came to. Kant rejected metaphysical knowledge as far as the world or our inner being are concerned. Reason alone serves this purpose so releasing us from the useless bondage to speculation which only leads to conflict of opinion.
Reason, being independent of experience a priory, gives us solid moral guidance which I understand to mean "conscience" (the divine voice within). From this it follows that morality is independent of us and not subservient to sensory pleasures or gratification. This means we are not free to do as we like as if all we're doing is rearranging the furniture in a house that doesn't exist. Pantheism and monism are the offshoots of this way of thinking. For Kant an action has a moral value if it issues from a good will motivated purely out of respect for duty and the moral law. According to him the independence of morality gives us choice i.e. free will.
People often point to the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the violence contained there. I would make several observations about this. First it is never good idea for a modern society to look back on an ancient one judging it according to modern standards. If we were to get into a spaceship and travel back five thousand years to the Fertile Crescent the society we would happen upon would be alien to our own so that we would not feel at home there. Nations fought on-another in hand to hand combat. It was a vicious world in which it was either kill or be killed. A powerful empire might swoop down on a smaller nation exiling its population to foreign climes as a way of keeping control e.g. the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Empires. This was the environment into which the fledgling nation of Israel began its life. God was not barbaric far from it he was loving and protective. For example when in Egypt God saw the plight of His people, heard their cries and came down to deliver them from the Egyptians who were oppressing them. He then led them across a vast desert, through hostile lands delivering them to a land he had set aside for them – a land surrounded by warring nations. It was important, therefore, that Israel remained unified and untarnished by outside influences if it was to preserve its faith and status ad God's chosen people. The problem was that, as a new nation in a new land, Israel was subject to many outside influences which threatened to overwhelm it. This is why the covenant was established between them and God. It served as a kind of manifesto under which Israel lived out its unique relationship to God – as a light to other nations. The problem was that Israel couldn't keep its side of the bargain and frequently fell into apostasy. This is when the trouble really started but even then God did not abandon his people but raised up "deliverers" to get them out the mess.
In the context of a violent and hostile world the God of the Israelites was an enlightened God who made sure widows and resident aliens were provided for; a God who established cities of refuge for criminals to escape to (to save themselves); God who did not advocate a scorched earth policy in war as surrounding nations did; and who commanded an "eye for an eye" ensuring revenge was proportional rather than unbounded (i.e. only one eye and no more) which was unheard of in those days. And when God did exact judgement upon his people restoration always followed – the book of Hosea is a case in point here. God was a grown up God dealing with an immature and fickle people.
The book of Job comes from the Wisdom section of the Hebrew scriptures which encompasses: Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Psalms and the Wisdom of Solomon. These books were used for teaching the next generation of leaders in society. Pupils might sit at a master's feet and be taught there. There is little religious content in these books and Job, for example, addresses a particular problem: "why do bad things happen to good people?" Proverbs taught the opposite to this but the reality is quite different e.g. thieves get away with their spoils while good people may lose homes and incomes. If people create their own morality this shouldn't happen; of course it shouldn't. We're told that Job was an upright man so the world he had been "consciously creating" should have reflected this but it didn't. And neither could it. Yet Job's protagonists couldn't see this. They were locked into the accepted way of thinking that if things go wrong for you it must be your fault – or the fault of someone close to you. But we know this didn't apply to Job which is why he protested his innocence. So, did God cause his suffering? No! There are at least two reasons why a loving, generous and creative God would not do this. First, Job was not just a righteous man he was a controlling man. For not only did he perform his own sacrifices he got up early to offer sacrifices on behalf of his family in case they had forgotten to do it themselves. Now, no-one can have that many plates in the air at the same time without eventually collapsing with a nervous breakdown. And this is what happened to Job. And the symptoms of a nervous breakdown are all there: despondency, collapse; skin eruption, tears, loss of interest and so on. Job became a sick man who could see no way out of his misery. So, this is very much a human story. Second, Kant abstracted from Job's experience according to his philosophical model i.e. by taking some object and stripping away the sensory qualities to arrive at a non-sensory core knowable a priory. In Job we have a person richly filled with sensory pleasures and worldly satisfactions who is stripped down to nothing leaving a moral core that remains intact. Yet even though Job ends up in a heap on the floor with nothing he still has his moral consciousness and retains his faith in God. Why? If moral awareness requires us to postulate God's existence then a purified moral awareness stripped down of worldly happiness would produce a correspondingly intense belief in God. And this is what one often finds in people who are caught up in suffering. Their calmness, acceptance and dignity can be so inspirational it produces a reaction of admiration within others who are taken "elsewhere in their thinking" beyond their immediate situation of ceaseless struggle to strive and "own." Well, once he sees the Almighty face to face he realises how little he really knew. Job thought he knew everything and was prepared to give God a piece of his mind, but in God's presence all that melted away. God was/is moral and Job saw that clearly. From that he found enlightenment and from that restoration.
Rog
20th March 2016
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #12
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #12
This was a sobering read yet true within the context of modern life. Western society is a built on consumerism and constantly creates new products for the consumer to strive after. And most of us do it yet we're seldom content and always want more – the latest: phone, tablet, car and so on. Yet when we get these things the "thrill" of the purchase is quickly lost as we strive after the next "thing." The pain, anxiety and stress of striving is an ever present reality in modern society. No wonder marriages disintegrate, and people resort to all kinds of therapies. For many people life really is an uphill struggle – and one reason I believe why many young men in Britain, today are taking their own lives. If life appears hopeless what hope is there? But what exactly did Schopenhauer believe?
Building on Kant's philosophy of the sensory (phenomena) and objective (noumena) worlds, Schopenhauer maintained that each person takes the limits of his/her own field of vision as the limits of the world. And this certainly the case as people experience the world in different ways according to background, culture, upbringing and so on. Schopenhauer, however rejected Kant's two worlds saying there was only one world which was experienced differently. For example just as we experience our bodies as "objects" (beyond us) so also we experience (within us) the "will." From this he deduced that the will of man and the will of the universe are one. But Schopenhauer was pessimistic of this universal will which man, he believed, was at its mercy. According to Schopenhauer life is a meaningless existence from which the only escape is non-existence. But he held out one ray of hope from this gloomy outlook i.e. music (and uncharacteristic appeal to the arts) which transcends the phenomena world. As human separateness from the universal will is an illusion Schopenhauer thought it possible to live a moral life by showing empathy and compassion to others.
I agree with the course writer that annihilation following death seems a daunting prospect but not everyone feels that way. Socrates considered various afterlife possibilities following his death. If there was an afterlife great! But if there wasn't well death would be like entering a long sleep. Either way he didn't think it mattered too much.
Although Buddha rejected the existence of God the enlightenment he eventually attained (nirvana) was a "deathless" state i.e. permanent and the highest joy compared with the sorrow and dissatisfaction of empirical existence. That sounds like heaven to me! Apparently Buddha had obtained the heavenly eye which enabled him to see clearly into condition of human life and went about preaching this as both an intellectual as well as a mystical state of consciousness. He was able to reach this conclusion having drawn on the wide teachings of his contemporaries e.g. karma, reincarnation, rebirth. This is what gave it such a wide appeal. Much of this is summed up in the Dhamma (teaching) of the Four Noble Truths: (a) life is permeated with suffering; (b) that the origins of suffering lie in craving (burning thirst for the things of this world); (c) that the answer to suffering is to remove craving and (d) that the way to cessation is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha saw himself as a kind of spiritual doctor here to cure people of their spiritual and physical troubles. For what we see around us as permanent: trees, tables, cars etc. only have a limited state; only nirvana is real (nirvana means "cooling off"). And although Buddha rejected "self" as a concept; for rebirth to occur does suggest something of "self" surviving death. It is difficult to see how humankind as a whole could cease striving and spend the day in contemplation; society would stagnate and eventually come to an end. In the Old Testament of the Bible God tells human kind to subdue the earth and rule over it (not to ravage, pollute and destroy it) but to improve life through technology and human ingenuity. The problem is that human nature has a downside (an ugly side). And so Cain kills Able because he is jealous of him and wants rid of him – selfish striving had begun. And so Schopenhauer was correct in his assessment of human nature too. But we already know this.
However, science is unable to tell us anything about the "purpose" of life; yet purpose in life is what people need if life is to be worth living. Some find that purpose in striving after things which, once they've obtained them, fail to satisfy. And it is true that when failures come along they weigh more heavily on us than success does. Why is this? Maybe we fear being judged by others which hurts us more than we care to admit. I have conducted literally hundreds of funerals over the years and a recurring theme pops up i.e. the deceased: "wouldn't hurt a fly; would do anything for anyone and would give you his/her last penny." But we know that generally speaking people are not like that. Most complain, criticise, swear, mock, lie deceive and so on (to a greater or lesser degree) balanced of course by acts of compassion, friendliness and kindness. The Bible is full of such people – this is nothing new either. We are products of western culture; and western culture, by enlarge, is demanding, uncaring, hypocritical and cold. Laws are passed by an elite to control the weak and powerless. Spirituality is ignored and people are taught to stand on their own two feet. The philosophies of Schopenhauer, Kant, Hume and others merely verbalise (in an abstract way), what many people know only too well from daily experience. Many, I'm sure, do not stop to think about it just accepting things as they are. But sometimes, maybe through natural-revelation (e.g. sea, sky, a sunset or an act of kindness etc.) God is momentarily glimpsed and thoughts turn to deeper matters. Philosophy for the most part rejects the idea of "God" as a proposition which can't be proved. But not everything can be analysed in a test tube. Take music. Where in the organ is the music that we hear? We cannot see, touch or feel it so where is it? Is it in the keys, the pipes or the organist? Of course not - but it touches us in the soul just the same. And what is beauty? And what is happiness? We may be unable to define "happiness" yet we know what it feels like when we obtain it. So, feelings are important too.
We may "feel" the presence of God when in a certain place; or when listening to a particular piece of music. We are people with emotions and emotions have a language of their own – the language of love: and love never ends. And as God is "love" – God never ends. Disasters may befall us causing the meaning to drop out of our lives. Depression may be the result putting us in a dark place from which we have to rescue ourselves. We should not underestimate this. But depression has a positive value too for bringing one face to face with a way of life that does not work. For once in that dark place of depression gadgets, possessions and the opinions of others count for nothing. It's as if the darkness of depression brings to an end a way of life that doesn't work. Then "self" seems to annihilate the old "self" opening up the possibility of a more fulfilling and creative way of life to spring forth from it. Maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said that people preferred darkness rather than light. Change is painful; and putting oneself second to God and others can be very painful yet necessary if we're to overcome the constant struggle to "accumulate."
The error of philosophy is that it tends to restrict talk of reality to what can be seen, proved or reasoned; and even that is not the whole of it. But the human brain isn't big enough to absorb everything. Besides, human beings are part of the created order and not outside of it so we will never know everything even though we have an inbuilt desire to investigate and research. Let go and let God is a good starting point whatever faith or science we subscribe to.
Rog
12th March 2016
This was a sobering read yet true within the context of modern life. Western society is a built on consumerism and constantly creates new products for the consumer to strive after. And most of us do it yet we're seldom content and always want more – the latest: phone, tablet, car and so on. Yet when we get these things the "thrill" of the purchase is quickly lost as we strive after the next "thing." The pain, anxiety and stress of striving is an ever present reality in modern society. No wonder marriages disintegrate, and people resort to all kinds of therapies. For many people life really is an uphill struggle – and one reason I believe why many young men in Britain, today are taking their own lives. If life appears hopeless what hope is there? But what exactly did Schopenhauer believe?
Building on Kant's philosophy of the sensory (phenomena) and objective (noumena) worlds, Schopenhauer maintained that each person takes the limits of his/her own field of vision as the limits of the world. And this certainly the case as people experience the world in different ways according to background, culture, upbringing and so on. Schopenhauer, however rejected Kant's two worlds saying there was only one world which was experienced differently. For example just as we experience our bodies as "objects" (beyond us) so also we experience (within us) the "will." From this he deduced that the will of man and the will of the universe are one. But Schopenhauer was pessimistic of this universal will which man, he believed, was at its mercy. According to Schopenhauer life is a meaningless existence from which the only escape is non-existence. But he held out one ray of hope from this gloomy outlook i.e. music (and uncharacteristic appeal to the arts) which transcends the phenomena world. As human separateness from the universal will is an illusion Schopenhauer thought it possible to live a moral life by showing empathy and compassion to others.
I agree with the course writer that annihilation following death seems a daunting prospect but not everyone feels that way. Socrates considered various afterlife possibilities following his death. If there was an afterlife great! But if there wasn't well death would be like entering a long sleep. Either way he didn't think it mattered too much.
Although Buddha rejected the existence of God the enlightenment he eventually attained (nirvana) was a "deathless" state i.e. permanent and the highest joy compared with the sorrow and dissatisfaction of empirical existence. That sounds like heaven to me! Apparently Buddha had obtained the heavenly eye which enabled him to see clearly into condition of human life and went about preaching this as both an intellectual as well as a mystical state of consciousness. He was able to reach this conclusion having drawn on the wide teachings of his contemporaries e.g. karma, reincarnation, rebirth. This is what gave it such a wide appeal. Much of this is summed up in the Dhamma (teaching) of the Four Noble Truths: (a) life is permeated with suffering; (b) that the origins of suffering lie in craving (burning thirst for the things of this world); (c) that the answer to suffering is to remove craving and (d) that the way to cessation is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha saw himself as a kind of spiritual doctor here to cure people of their spiritual and physical troubles. For what we see around us as permanent: trees, tables, cars etc. only have a limited state; only nirvana is real (nirvana means "cooling off"). And although Buddha rejected "self" as a concept; for rebirth to occur does suggest something of "self" surviving death. It is difficult to see how humankind as a whole could cease striving and spend the day in contemplation; society would stagnate and eventually come to an end. In the Old Testament of the Bible God tells human kind to subdue the earth and rule over it (not to ravage, pollute and destroy it) but to improve life through technology and human ingenuity. The problem is that human nature has a downside (an ugly side). And so Cain kills Able because he is jealous of him and wants rid of him – selfish striving had begun. And so Schopenhauer was correct in his assessment of human nature too. But we already know this.
However, science is unable to tell us anything about the "purpose" of life; yet purpose in life is what people need if life is to be worth living. Some find that purpose in striving after things which, once they've obtained them, fail to satisfy. And it is true that when failures come along they weigh more heavily on us than success does. Why is this? Maybe we fear being judged by others which hurts us more than we care to admit. I have conducted literally hundreds of funerals over the years and a recurring theme pops up i.e. the deceased: "wouldn't hurt a fly; would do anything for anyone and would give you his/her last penny." But we know that generally speaking people are not like that. Most complain, criticise, swear, mock, lie deceive and so on (to a greater or lesser degree) balanced of course by acts of compassion, friendliness and kindness. The Bible is full of such people – this is nothing new either. We are products of western culture; and western culture, by enlarge, is demanding, uncaring, hypocritical and cold. Laws are passed by an elite to control the weak and powerless. Spirituality is ignored and people are taught to stand on their own two feet. The philosophies of Schopenhauer, Kant, Hume and others merely verbalise (in an abstract way), what many people know only too well from daily experience. Many, I'm sure, do not stop to think about it just accepting things as they are. But sometimes, maybe through natural-revelation (e.g. sea, sky, a sunset or an act of kindness etc.) God is momentarily glimpsed and thoughts turn to deeper matters. Philosophy for the most part rejects the idea of "God" as a proposition which can't be proved. But not everything can be analysed in a test tube. Take music. Where in the organ is the music that we hear? We cannot see, touch or feel it so where is it? Is it in the keys, the pipes or the organist? Of course not - but it touches us in the soul just the same. And what is beauty? And what is happiness? We may be unable to define "happiness" yet we know what it feels like when we obtain it. So, feelings are important too.
We may "feel" the presence of God when in a certain place; or when listening to a particular piece of music. We are people with emotions and emotions have a language of their own – the language of love: and love never ends. And as God is "love" – God never ends. Disasters may befall us causing the meaning to drop out of our lives. Depression may be the result putting us in a dark place from which we have to rescue ourselves. We should not underestimate this. But depression has a positive value too for bringing one face to face with a way of life that does not work. For once in that dark place of depression gadgets, possessions and the opinions of others count for nothing. It's as if the darkness of depression brings to an end a way of life that doesn't work. Then "self" seems to annihilate the old "self" opening up the possibility of a more fulfilling and creative way of life to spring forth from it. Maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said that people preferred darkness rather than light. Change is painful; and putting oneself second to God and others can be very painful yet necessary if we're to overcome the constant struggle to "accumulate."
The error of philosophy is that it tends to restrict talk of reality to what can be seen, proved or reasoned; and even that is not the whole of it. But the human brain isn't big enough to absorb everything. Besides, human beings are part of the created order and not outside of it so we will never know everything even though we have an inbuilt desire to investigate and research. Let go and let God is a good starting point whatever faith or science we subscribe to.
Rog
12th March 2016
Monday, March 7, 2016
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #11
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #11
Hume, Kant and others were concerned with "knowledge" i.e. how do we know what we know? Is what we know trustworthy and so on? And this lesson gives a reasonable overview of this topic and makes a fitting response to it. Hume, for example denied "miracles" for the same reason he denied the human ability to know anything other than what comes through the senses. But there is a problem here. Hume, apparently denies "knowledge" particularly second-hand knowledge (reported actions) as that set down in the New Testament by the Apostles. Hume's reasoning seems to be that human testimony is at best shaky (improved if events are affirmed by many witnesses) but unreliable written in the Bible by (what he calls) a "barbarous i.e. uneducated people. The trouble here is that what is maintained is contradictory for on the one hand he denies the possibility of having "knowledge" while on the other he claims to possess what he denies i.e. "knowledge" of the type he says it is impossible to have. Surely, if we lack "knowledge" of things beyond our perceptions it follows that we wouldn't "know" that we lacked that which we cannot know! And as for declaring the testimony of an ancient people to be unreliable that is wrong for the society in which they were writing would have been as modern, to them, as our society is to us. When the Apostle Paul was approached by people who doubted the resurrection of Jesus he told them that Jesus had been seen alive by many hundreds of people at the same time – the implication being "go and ask them for yourselves." Hume's philosophy is interesting but not unanswerable. He lived during the Enlightenment but looking back from the twenty-first century some may want to describe his society as a "barbarous" age compared with today.
After reading Hume, Kant said he awoke from his slumbers combining Hume's empiricism with reason - still denying we're able to know external objects (or the world around us) yet possessing a priory knowledge to help us identify (and make sense of) what our perceptions tell us. It's a bit like living life wearing tinted glasses through which to view the world; while space and time (being eternal) remain beyond any ability to experience directly. The only way we experience time according to Kant is by watching the hands move on a clock or seeing leaves change colour on a tree. These are pessimistic views. If we follow this reasoning I can "know" nothing of hunger nor that fire burns etc. Yet when I get hungry I eat and if I put my hand into the fire I get burnt. What more do I need to know or experience?
Both Hume and Kant deny the possibility of knowing God even though many millions claim they do. And why would people do "good" if there is no moral necessity to do so? And what is love, truth, justice, honesty and so on if there is no accepted notion (or understanding) of these concepts among people? A secular society might seek to determine its own moral standards according to changing whims – yet murder, for example, would still be wrong (according to most people's conscience) – but who or what informs conscience?
Love, intuition the arts, music etc speak a language of the soul. It is these things and others that not only appeal to the heart but connect us to one-another through its silent, whispers of the heart. In the eighteenth century John Wesley, while visiting Aldersgate Street in London, felt his heart strangely warmed. What did he mean by that? The hand of God was upon him not in an empirical sense but in intuitively. It was certainly an experience that changed his life and also the course of his life. The problem with empiricism is that it boxes one into a narrow set of perceptions from which all other claims to reality are dismissed. This is a very narrow-minded position. Yet many people speak of a yearning for God; a hunch of God; a premonition of God and so on. These things are real to those who experience them and are therefore valid testimonies. It is a sad society that denies anything other than what can be touched, seen, heard and so on.
"Spirituality" is engagement with one's innermost-self (the "self" that Hume denies); to the eternal (i.e. God), to one another and to the world of sense experience. Acts of kindness, giving to others, being available to others and supporting those in need is an excellent way to fan this into life – by appealing to the inner-need we have to a part of something bigger than ourselves. Two weeks ago I conducted a funeral for a man of 95 who, as a war veteran, got pleasure from giving his money away to others, and was never happier than when he had nothing. It was something that amazed not only this man's family – it amazed me too (and humbled me). So, while I enjoy studying philosophy immensely, grappling with the teachings of great thinkers, it is vital to engage with their teachings and answer them.
When someone dies we see them no-more. They are in one place while we are in another. From that point on we are unaware of their world just as they are unaware of our world. But this experience o opens up the possibility of other worlds existing of which we no nothing. It doesn't follow there are such worlds just the possibility, from experience, that there might be. Jesus referred to this in his teaching and he should know. It is foolish to deny what intuition informs the soul. Intuition opens up the possibility of encounter; and encounter opens up the possibility of faith – i.e. spiritual knowledge and from faith; assurance as well as certainty.
Rog
7th March 2016
Hume, Kant and others were concerned with "knowledge" i.e. how do we know what we know? Is what we know trustworthy and so on? And this lesson gives a reasonable overview of this topic and makes a fitting response to it. Hume, for example denied "miracles" for the same reason he denied the human ability to know anything other than what comes through the senses. But there is a problem here. Hume, apparently denies "knowledge" particularly second-hand knowledge (reported actions) as that set down in the New Testament by the Apostles. Hume's reasoning seems to be that human testimony is at best shaky (improved if events are affirmed by many witnesses) but unreliable written in the Bible by (what he calls) a "barbarous i.e. uneducated people. The trouble here is that what is maintained is contradictory for on the one hand he denies the possibility of having "knowledge" while on the other he claims to possess what he denies i.e. "knowledge" of the type he says it is impossible to have. Surely, if we lack "knowledge" of things beyond our perceptions it follows that we wouldn't "know" that we lacked that which we cannot know! And as for declaring the testimony of an ancient people to be unreliable that is wrong for the society in which they were writing would have been as modern, to them, as our society is to us. When the Apostle Paul was approached by people who doubted the resurrection of Jesus he told them that Jesus had been seen alive by many hundreds of people at the same time – the implication being "go and ask them for yourselves." Hume's philosophy is interesting but not unanswerable. He lived during the Enlightenment but looking back from the twenty-first century some may want to describe his society as a "barbarous" age compared with today.
After reading Hume, Kant said he awoke from his slumbers combining Hume's empiricism with reason - still denying we're able to know external objects (or the world around us) yet possessing a priory knowledge to help us identify (and make sense of) what our perceptions tell us. It's a bit like living life wearing tinted glasses through which to view the world; while space and time (being eternal) remain beyond any ability to experience directly. The only way we experience time according to Kant is by watching the hands move on a clock or seeing leaves change colour on a tree. These are pessimistic views. If we follow this reasoning I can "know" nothing of hunger nor that fire burns etc. Yet when I get hungry I eat and if I put my hand into the fire I get burnt. What more do I need to know or experience?
Both Hume and Kant deny the possibility of knowing God even though many millions claim they do. And why would people do "good" if there is no moral necessity to do so? And what is love, truth, justice, honesty and so on if there is no accepted notion (or understanding) of these concepts among people? A secular society might seek to determine its own moral standards according to changing whims – yet murder, for example, would still be wrong (according to most people's conscience) – but who or what informs conscience?
Love, intuition the arts, music etc speak a language of the soul. It is these things and others that not only appeal to the heart but connect us to one-another through its silent, whispers of the heart. In the eighteenth century John Wesley, while visiting Aldersgate Street in London, felt his heart strangely warmed. What did he mean by that? The hand of God was upon him not in an empirical sense but in intuitively. It was certainly an experience that changed his life and also the course of his life. The problem with empiricism is that it boxes one into a narrow set of perceptions from which all other claims to reality are dismissed. This is a very narrow-minded position. Yet many people speak of a yearning for God; a hunch of God; a premonition of God and so on. These things are real to those who experience them and are therefore valid testimonies. It is a sad society that denies anything other than what can be touched, seen, heard and so on.
"Spirituality" is engagement with one's innermost-self (the "self" that Hume denies); to the eternal (i.e. God), to one another and to the world of sense experience. Acts of kindness, giving to others, being available to others and supporting those in need is an excellent way to fan this into life – by appealing to the inner-need we have to a part of something bigger than ourselves. Two weeks ago I conducted a funeral for a man of 95 who, as a war veteran, got pleasure from giving his money away to others, and was never happier than when he had nothing. It was something that amazed not only this man's family – it amazed me too (and humbled me). So, while I enjoy studying philosophy immensely, grappling with the teachings of great thinkers, it is vital to engage with their teachings and answer them.
When someone dies we see them no-more. They are in one place while we are in another. From that point on we are unaware of their world just as they are unaware of our world. But this experience o opens up the possibility of other worlds existing of which we no nothing. It doesn't follow there are such worlds just the possibility, from experience, that there might be. Jesus referred to this in his teaching and he should know. It is foolish to deny what intuition informs the soul. Intuition opens up the possibility of encounter; and encounter opens up the possibility of faith – i.e. spiritual knowledge and from faith; assurance as well as certainty.
Rog
7th March 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)