IC please clarify for us

[Immanuel Can]

The best examples of cultures and civilizations that have intensified that awareness and realization are those of the ancient East.

But they contradict one another on basic points. Which of these "cultures and civilizations" is actually achieving what you say, since they don't agree? Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Islamism? Zoroastrianism? Judaism? Paganism? Their disagreements are so profound that there's no way you can suppose they all do.

Well, all that I could say in response is to propose, again, that Christian metaphysics, in my view of course, are better explained when expressed through the far more developed metaphysical system of Vedanta.

This is exactly what I'm pointing out. Every ideology believes the others are wrong.

You say "Vedanta" is "more developed." Well, an Islamist is going to say it's not. And a Jew will say it's not. And a Taoist, and a Zoroastrian...and even the most ardent inclusivist, who insists on nominally "including" all other religions in his thinking is going to say, at the same time, that exclusivists are not as good as inclusivists: they're wrong about being exclusive.

So you can see that every ideology is tacitly exclusivist. If you didn't believe in Vedanta, you would be something else, wouldn't you? You'd choose something "more developed." But your belief must be, as you say above, that Christianity would be "better explained when expressed through the far more developed metaphysical system of Vedanta." That's very exclusivist: Christianity, you think, must be "less developed," and Hinduism "more developed." Of course, I think that's a gratuitous claim.

That means this business of pretending all "cultures and civilizations," even just those of the "East," can be included in anything is a kind of mental error. Even the most inclusivist position denies that.

In the Bhagavad Gita these tendencies are defined as either Divine or Demonic.

I wouldn't say so. In fact, the Gita presents "god" as "Fate," a devouring maw that chews up everybody. Not a cheerful picture, actually, and quite "demonic" in a Western sense. Yet this is "the god" that is revealed to Arjuna. So the Gita melds the demonic with the divine, I would say.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But these patterns only exist when they have a physical manifestation.

Well, that is likely why, overall, I tend to views that are theistic. And that of course places me on a similar side of these discussions as the one beloved IC stands on. It is a question of intuitional orientation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is exactly what I'm pointing out. Every ideology believes the others are wrong.

I do not believe others are wrong, I generally tend to critique those that are incomplete. I am sure at this point that Vedanta (that is a generalizing term) is better at explaining metaphysics.

So you can see that every ideology is tacitly exclusivist. If you didn't believe in Vedanta, you would be something else, wouldn't you?

I would not put it that way. Because I do not “believe in” anything particularly. Though I do say that I “believe in” principles and perhaps in outlines that have been presented. Like the eternal nature of the soul.

The fact is, and this is likely true for many, I am a product of the postmodern age. You know, the collapse of the Grand Narratives, etc. The recovery of metaphysical principles is part of a process of recovery in general. I don’t “believe in” pictures because all pictures are of concretized ideas or concepts (or perhaps potencies). Thus, I am involved with what is ultimately invisible, non-material. Wind on the water, that sort of thing.

I refer to Vedanta as a system that does a very good jobbof clarifying metaphysics.

But if you really wanted to know I tend to believe that our own traditions, and certainly Christianity, and in certain aspects Judaism, are developed in some ways superior to anything I understand to be a creation of (say) India and the Indian subcontinent.

I wouldn't say so. In fact, the Gita presents "god" as "Fate," a devouring maw that chews up everybody. Not a cheerful picture, actually, and quite "demonic" in a Western sense.

Yes, I remember you referred to that image (part of Story) months ago. But you are misunderstanding what, I think, is intimated in the imagery. The essence of this metaphysical question? That we are in an “external” aspect of God’s energy, and we have an inclination to seek God’s “internal” aspect. And for this reason, obviously, the Sixteenth Chapter lays out a diagram of “our situation”. It is thoroughly compatible with a higher-order Christian metaphysics in my view.

It really resolves to what a person is choosing on the internal level.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Fine! I'll leave you to communicate with the main person who's far more intellectually capable than me. Oh yes, and far less boring.

Maybe you have an unrecognized Daddy Complex(?)

Was your father a religious man, possibly a zealot? That would maybe fit with your overbearing, Teutonic attitude. A tense Lutheranism(?) I can hook you up with an ayahuasca shaman down here in the Southern Jungles if you are interested! Just image getting to the other side of all that!

If you actually developed your thought, Dubious, you would become more interesting for sure!

[Immanuel Can]

This is exactly what I'm pointing out. Every ideology believes the others are wrong.

I do not believe others are wrong, I generally tend to critique those that are incomplete. I am sure at this point that Vedanta (that is a generalizing term) is better at explaining metaphysics.

You can use any wording you want..."wrong," "less," "misguided," "incomplete," "only partially right," and you get exactly the same outcome: a hierarchy of "rightness," with something at the top -- in your case, Vedanta.

It's still this: Vedanta is the most or exclusively right, and everything else is somewhere down the line, or even outright wrong. If you didn't think that, you would not be opting for Vedanta. So there's no escaping that pattern.

So you can see that every ideology is tacitly exclusivist. If you didn't believe in Vedanta, you would be something else, wouldn't you?

I would not put it that way.

And yet, to be honest with yourself, you should. That's the reality.

The fact is, and this is likely true for many, I am a product of the postmodern age. You know, the collapse of the Grand Narratives, etc.

Here's the immediate problem with that. Postmodernism IS itself a "metanarrative." It's the Grand Story of how all (other) narratives are perfidious, and the only thing one can trust is cynicism.

Postmodernism should be called, "Incredulity toward all-but-one metanarrative." (Lyotard)

But if you really wanted to know I tend to believe that our own traditions, and certainly Christianity, and in certain aspects Judaism, are developed in some ways superior to anything I understand to be a creation of (say) India and the Indian subcontinent.

I'd be interested in knowing that. But first, I'd like to ask what metanarrative you're using in order to discern any particular metanarrative as "in some ways superior" to another. Without such a metanarrative, there'd be no way to rank them. But you do. So you must have such a metanarrative in mind, even if you've never made it conscious for yourself.

For example, you might think that the "traditions" that are pacifistic are "superior to" those that are warlike. Okay, I might agree. But I'd like to know what belief system you trusted when you made the assumption that pacifism is "superior to" warlike alternatives. (I can say it as a Christian, and admit my own metanarrative; what's yours? It's certainly not Vedanta, which, as you see in the Gita, doesn't deplore war at all.)

I wouldn't say so. In fact, the Gita presents "god" as "Fate," a devouring maw that chews up everybody. Not a cheerful picture, actually, and quite "demonic" in a Western sense.

Yes, I remember you referred to that image (part of Story) months ago. But you are misunderstanding what, I think, is intimated in the imagery.

I wouldn't say I am. It's pretty specific, and pretty graphic. Even Arjuna is himself horrified by it...he's just told to "get over it," so to speak.

[phyllo]

But these patterns only exist when they have a physical manifestation.

Well, that is likely why, overall, I tend to views that are theistic. And that of course places me on a similar side of these discussions as the one beloved IC stands on. It is a question of intuitional orientation.

If "metaphysical principles" exist without living beings, then do variations on those principles also exist? Or is it that only some absolute specific principles exist?

They exist in the mind of a god? In the structure of the universe?\

And you know this by intuition? Because you wouldn't be able to interact with it using physical actions and senses.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You can use any wording you want..."wrong," "less," "misguided," "incomplete," "only partially right," and you get exactly the same outcome: a hierarchy of "rightness," with something at the top -- in your case, Vedanta.

No sir, and you are better off listening precisely to what I say, or anyone says, rather than applying your interpretation.

The wording I choose when examining, say, a basic Evangelical Christianity, is that it is a partial picture of what (in my view) can only be represented, and understood, as a metaphysical portrayal. And I say that “Vedanta” (a late amalgamation of Indian thought) explains metaphysical principles far better. In my view incomparably better. I am making no statements about religious practices or god-concepts (favored images of “gods” and deities).

That is as far as I have gone, so far, in the present conversation. One has to establish a base first, and then it (might) be possible to talk about related important things.

The reason I find metaphysical clarification beneficial is simply because it offers the mind a tool, a conceptual tool, in order to make sense of all the immensely confusing religious conceptual jargon.

As an example — and I am here thinking of The Grouch Dubious — it might become possible to actually talk about the notion, or the fact, of salvation. It means very different things if a comparison is drawn between Vedanta (or other Eastern modes) and Christianity. I find the Christian concept — as you might guess — incomplete.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If "metaphysical principles" exist without living beings, then do variations on those principles also exist? Or is it that only some absolute specific principles exist?

A principle by definition is not susceptible of variation. That would be the logical answer, don’t you think?

Application of ‘principles’, it seems, is where variability enters in. But Phyllo, you are better off trying to locate a “principle” that we can talk about in tangible ways.

They exist in the mind of a god? In the structure of the universe?

It is simpler to say as “part-and-parcel” of the manifest universe. I am uncertain what the “mind of god” you refer to is.

And you know this by intuition? Because you wouldn't be able to interact with it using physical actions and senses.

Possibly that is how I “know” it. But I would say that what a person knows or understands to be so, is a mixture of many currents.

And so much of what we do is independent of physical things and the senses. But we definitely are housed in a biological and material self.

[Immanuel Can]

You can use any wording you want..."wrong," "less," "misguided," "incomplete," "only partially right," and you get exactly the same outcome: a hierarchy of "rightness," with something at the top -- in your case, Vedanta.

No sir, and you are better off listening precisely to what I say, or anyone says, rather than applying your interpretation.

There's no need for "interpretation." I quoted exactly the characterizations you yourself chose to use. What was missing from that was logic, and that, I added in, so you could see the consequences of your own view.

You clearly must believe that Vedanta is superior to every other system of thought. If you didn't, you'd be crazy to believe in it. But you also say it, explicitly: you say others are "incomplete." That means you think Vedanta is "complete" in ways you think they're not. It also means you suppose Vedanta to be better, at least in those respects.

In my view incomparably better.

There it is, again, only stronger. Now it's "incomparably" so. But "incomparably" means, "beyond any possibility of comparing the two." So that means you don't even think of other systems as being in the same class as, or comparable to Hinduism.

Of course I believe otherwise. But you're not in some kind of specially tolerant or inclusive position relative to others' beliefs, no matter what you suppose. In fact, you may think of yourself as inclusive. But you're clearly not. You're as hierarchical in your thinking as anybody -- and everybody -- else. The evidence is your own claims.

Not that I blame you. We're all like that. It's called, "Thinking one has something worth believing." Everybody who has such a thing is intrinsically exclusivist about the relative "completeness" of his own view.

[phyllo]

A principle by definition is not susceptible of variation. That would be the logical answer, don’t you think?

Application of ‘principles’, it seems, is where variability enters in. But Phyllo, you are better off trying to locate a “principle” that we can talk about in tangible ways.

You can have principle P. Somebody says it includes A, somebody says it includes B but not A. Etc.

Who is to say which is the correct version of the principle?

There is no way to test it without implementing a version in the physical world, setting some criteria for success and measuring the results.

One can live by a principle. Then one is implementing it through one's actions.

A recipe for a pudding is not a pudding.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, the perspective provided by Vedanta vis-a-vis metaphysics and perhaps a general lingo seem better. I.e. generally superior. Check!

I am not familiar with ‘every system of thought’ but I can say that of those I am familiar with, and in the domain of metaphysical conceptions, Vedanta has an advantage. Check again!

To say a given religious picture (say Evangelical Christianity as expressed in a pamphlet or book) is ‘incomplete’ is a comparative statement. Thus, the metaphysical-philosophical explanations offered by Vedanta are more complete in my view. Check!

So that means you don't even think of other systems as being in the same class as, or comparable to Hinduism.

Hinduism is not Vedanta (I mentioned that “Vedanta” was a general term of a newer intellectual movement).

You're as hierarchical in your thinking as anybody

I definitely recognize hierarchies, so no issue there. But I apply hierarchical categories in a more careful analysis of both Vedanta and Christianity. I place Christianity on a higher level in certain areas. And as I clearly say I regard the metaphysics in Vedanta to be highly clarifying and revealing. Double and triple check!

Not that I blame you. We're all like that. It's called, "Thinking one has something worth believing." Everybody who has such a thing is intrinsically exclusivist about the relative "completeness" of his own view.

Generally, I’ll go along with this. Though I would apply more nuance.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, the perspective provided by Vedanta vis-a-vis metaphysics and perhaps a general lingo seem better. I.e. generally superior. Check!

I am not familiar with ‘every system of thought’ but I can say that of those I am familiar with, and in the domain of metaphysical conceptions, Vedanta has an advantage. Check again!

Well, that's exactly my point. If you didn't believe that, you would choose another system of belief. Anybody would. We all go with what we think is the best metaphysical system of thought.

Now, "best" in what way? Or, to put it another way, using your own preferred terms, in what way do you believe Vedanta is "generally superior" to other systems? In what way does it have an "advantage"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Phyllo, I do not see much sense in responding to your last post.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, "best" in what way? Or, to put it another way, using your own preferred terms, in what way do you believe Vedanta is "generally superior" to other systems? In what way does it have an "advantage"?

I explained very specifically what precisely I admire in Vedanta’s metaphysics. Explanatory strength. To engage in this area I think you’d have to have studied it. I do not think you have.

I am not interested in the “interrogation” mode that you are stepping into. You might choose to write out your own thoughts on, say, your sense of Vedanta’s comparative inferiority; or describe why it is that you can only consider Christian theological concepts as being superior.

What I admire in late Indian thought is its intellectual and clarifying power.

[Dubious]

Fine! I'll leave you to communicate with the main person who's far more intellectually capable than me. Oh yes, and far less boring.

Maybe you have an unrecognized Daddy Complex(?)

Was your father a religious man, possibly a zealot? That would maybe fit with your overbearing, Teutonic attitude. A tense Lutheranism(?) I can hook you up with an ayahuasca shaman down here in the Southern Jungles if you are interested! Just image getting to the other side of all that!

If you actually developed your thought, Dubious, you would become more interesting for sure!

I never knew him. I was around 5 month old when he died. Your disgusting sense of superiority is truly beyond nauseating. I also have no idea how "Teutonic attitude" refers to anything I said here or in the past. What specifically is a "Teutonic attitude"? How does it reveal itself?

What, pray, have you offered as insight so far except a refurbished Christian cosmos ensconced in old mysticisms upgraded to function as a new prevailing paradigm and hope; a disfigured kind of synthesis between eastern and western worldviews. This forced fusion creates more distortion and incompleteness than if each simply stood on its own rooted in its origins. The world now needs a new paradigm which acknowledges nature and science more than the cross-fertilization of old scriptures and mysticisms. Most religions contain features which overlap regarding the divine. That much is understood by most regardless of denomination. To appreciate each according to its own narratives is far more mentally lucrative than artificially trying to combine them into some sort of metaphysical monstrosity which has no real relevance to any group.

...but by all means continue with that endeavor.