Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:40 pm
This world is totally either made by God or made by Nature, or God and Nature are the same. Moral evil as committed by fallen man can be explained by man's fall, although, not being a Christian, I'd personally not explain it that way. There is also , and this you consistently ignore, the fact of suffering that is not manmade; suffering such as cancers, birth defects, predation, acute infectious fevers, plagues of locusts. Surely you have read the Book of Job.
Unfortunately for us, looking to ourselves for the remedy is what we are burdened with, for better for worse.
It might interest you to become aware -- strictly for a comparison point -- of other religio-cosmic pictures. In the Vaishnava religion (of India) as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita and Bhagavatam they conceive of our existence in this world (which they refer to as a 'loka' which means essentially the same but which is conceived of as one among many different such lokas or 'spheres') as being in a
relational position to 'the creator'. They conceive of god as the ultimate and indeed the sole source of everything. However they define our life, the place where we are, our incarnate existence, as occurring in what they refer to as "god's
external energy" as opposed to "god's
internal energy".
They conceive of our existence, this existence, as being in a marginal zone and outside of -- to use Christian terms -- god's grace. In this conception they refer to this plane of existence as 'a material entanglement'. This involves an array of application of definitions about what *this world* is. On one hand, they say, the human birth is rare indeed. According to their conception it is not easy to get a human birth. The implication is that a human birth must be appreciated and taken advantage of -- for spiritual purposes essentially.
To assert this of course means the assertions rests on certain assumptions and definitions: one is that this world is a place of real danger for the incarnated being. One slip-up, one false step, and one can become mired in cycles of karmis reaction which bind one even more to 'the material entanglement'. Like stepping into quicksand or getting involved in an existential drama which pulls one deeper and deeper into entanglement in an existential plot. In this conception the deeper one gets mired in 'materialism', which results in entanglement in "god's external energy" (nature,
prakriti, the unfolding *world of becoming*) the more one is bound into that *world*. As everyone knows they conceive of many different lifetimes lived and, therefore, either an ascent or a descent in a
relational position in respect to 'god' as the supreme origin -- the beginning and end of all things, the source of all. One either moves toward the supreme being or one moves away from it. Standing still is also an option I suppose but a dangerous one. Again because one error can involve one in cycles of 'karma' that have to be worked out, one way or another.
So I would say and indeed I have said that the Christian concept of The Fall is
better expressed in Vedantic philosophy. But the concept is similar. The Fall corresponds to an involuntary (or unconscious) descent, into incarnation which means of course entering into a flesh & blood body and one susceptible to accidents of all sorts. The soul finds itself in a *world* in which achieving satisfaction is rather impossible due to the nature of the place and the
vehicle one is in. One is bound, in a sense, to make the best of a bad situation by trying to condition the world to one's needs but this is described as if "a fish tries to ride a bicycle". The soul can conceive of, and indeed senses a relationship with the eternal and the permanent (god's internal energy) and so is baffled or stymied by the nature of the world itself (the world of becoming) which is impermanent, always in movement, never stable, and of course *dangerous* for the reasons I mentioned. But like a fish riding a bicycle the vehicle one is trying to ride and dominate is inadequate. And one of the greatest traps is the enticements of pleasure and sensuality -- to which all beings a re naturally inclined.
Comparatively of course, Christians define 'sin' as that which binds one to the world or rather to a 'hellish fate'. This corresponds in concept to 'the material entanglement'. By getting involved with, by trying to depend on, the the world of material entanglement (the world of becoming), I must incur 'karmic reaction' which, in the simplistic Christian concept, is 'sin'. By definition we are all in a world that in so many ways involves 'sin'. But this sin and its effects are only intelligible if understood within a contextual relationship. The Christian sacrifices 'sin' for a life dedicated to higher ideals. But the conception itself implies a 'higher world' which is essentially a non-material world or an 'angelical world' that is (again in comparative lingo) within "god's internal energy' understood by Christians to be Grace (forgiveness, ultimate protection, etc.).
So it is recognized that there is a 'reason' for the World of Possible Horrors, and Probable Horrors, in which we find ourselves. The world is that way, at least for an aware soul or even one with an occulted and obscured awareness, to remind us that this world is not and cannot be our ultimate home. But of course this is based on the concept of other possible worlds, other possible levels or realms of existential experience. The Christian reduces this to two possible poles: either heaven or hell. But in Vedanta they is nearly an infinite array of possibilities. One could descend even more into worlds of material entanglement which correspond to 'hell realms'; but too one could ascend to 'upper worlds' or more pleasant and less obviously mortal worlds and there carry on life. But all these worlds are still impermanent, even the hell-realms. Eventually, one escapes when one grows tired of the interminable cycle of suffering. Here a very important concept or reality is defined: the agent who enters a world of material entanglement with a message, or a teaching, or a sign, or best said with knowledge about the nature of existence in
any world. Prophets, seers, bringers of omens, spiritual doctors, avatars, 'holy men' -- these have and express (and perhaps teach) the 'truths' about
the real nature of this world and of the soul captured in these.
Unfortunately for us, looking to ourselves for the remedy is what we are burdened with, for better for worse.
Within Vaishnava philosophy this statement would have to be modified and expanded. If 'looking to ourselves for a remedy' means getting involved in self-defined routes which lead one inevitable farther & farther into *material entanglement*, then no, that statement would not be accepted.
But if looking inwardly into the Self in the sense that the Self is a particle of Ultimate Being and, as a result of this, seeing and understanding certain specific things about the nature of this reality and this world -- and then choosing specific lines of action (or non-action as the case may be), that would conform to the Vaishnava/Vedanta concept.
So when Immanuel Can says that no many can achieve his own salvation (as he would say *independently of god's grace* and as a result of a particular form of surrender) his notion
corresponds to that of Vedanta. He of course is deeply wedded to Hebrew Idea-Imperialism which predicates a 'worldly kingdom' and the conquering of all rebellious peoples (and is thus bound up in misconceptions of numerous sorts). But in the idea-realm the idea he works as the theological pervert he really is -- the idea can be examined with other lenses.
So the question (in Vaishnava terms) resolves down to proper and appropriate action and activity within 'the material entanglement'. Again, one either
ascends or one
descends within this conception. What uplifts? What drags down? These are the essential questions.
So I often say that when Christianity is undermined, what is undermined is a 'conceptual order' that allows one to see life through a lens involving 'layers' or 'levels'. In the absence of a conceptual structure of the sort that I just described (I only relayed a 'picture') one is left or perhaps I could say *stranded* within the World of Becoming: a mutable world, a shifting world, an *untrustworthy world* if you accept the concepts. Life then becomes "horizontal" but loses the "vertical" dimension.
This is why I say that Christianity has to be
re-conceived.
