Re: Christianity
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:39 pm
It is possible to consider the general idea that Immanuel references here, while yet avoiding the specific commitment to the specific god-concept (Christianity as an expression of Judaism) to which Immanuel, dear soul that he is, has wedded himself.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 3:57 pm However, the sad fact is that most people are not willing, not ready even to do so much as try. They want to "win" the right not to search, rather than to be convinced. They prefer their lazy cynicism to the effort of having to ask God to reveal the truth to them. They don't want his claims on their life, and they don't want to be wrong about who they are and what they're doing. They don't want to trust; they want only to disprove.
And I guess there's no cure for that attitude: God Himself promises there will be none.
So one searches, or one does not. One is ready to let God speak, or is determined never to take anything revealed to them as evidence...which, of course, means that for them, there's no such thing as evidence.
So it's a choice. And there's nothing more important than the sincere willingness to find the answer.
So, I present this idea: when we think about *god* what we are really thinking about is *existence* and in a special sense: that things exist. That we -- whatever we are -- are here in this reality and that we have a capacity to examine our being here. Frankly, and referring to some eastern modes (meditation, concentration, pranayama, etc.) the thing that is worked with is that: awareness, the fact of being, the fact of seeing. But what *god* is is like trying to ask, and answer, what Existence is. You will never be able to answer the question. Yet everything hinges on what one does in relation to the question. Let's take one option: never giving it a moment's consideration. Not thinking about it ever. But on the opposite side of the scale there is the possibility of thinking about it a great deal. Now, here I will reference the so-called *ancient Rishis* of the Indian subcontinent. We may no longer have much use for their conclusions (or we might indeed) but they took the endeavor extremely seriously. And out of that came a series of interpretive models. But more than that really there was something else: a way and a means to explore the inner dimensions of being. The human being itself -- the body, the spirit or soul or awareness residing, apparently, in it -- became to subject of research. And many many generations of men dedicated themselves to this endeavor.
So now let's return to the admonition that Immanuel proposes (but which we yet reject because we are adverse to both the System he proposes getting involved in, as well as its too particular focus, among other things). What is the admonition? To probe being and awareness. To do that is, of course, to ask a Question (if I can put it like this), and it is really the primary question that could be asked. Who am I? Where am I? What is all this? Why does all this exist?
So, what Immanuel says *we* must do is get down on bended knees and *ask Jesus to reveal Himself*. Immanuel is certain, anyway, that Jesus and Hebraism are the sole and only routes that can be taken. When he says *test god* (or invoke god) what he really means is get involved with an already existing religious, cultural and metaphysical tradition and link oneself up to it.
But on another level he means something more specific but which is still mediated by cultural and social forces: He means to come under the direct discipleship of Jesus. To get metaphysically, spiritually, psychologically, emotionally involved with a 'living god' that offers direct (though invisible) discipleship.
Now this needs to be examined. There are numerous ways to do it. But they require a 'comparative model'. So one could stop using the term 'Jesus Christ' with all its connotations and refer to Self (higher self, Atman, inner soul, 'angel') and many other terms each coming out of a specific (and non-Christian) tradition. But each of these, too, involve a cultural matrix. There is hardly any way around the cultural matrix.
So take for example the Jungian Model which many in the Occident know about because Jung; love him or hate him, presented to men a way to 'engage with the self' (the unconscious he called it: the ground of Being in which specific beings live and have awareness)
But how do you do that?
If I were to answer that question I would have to refer to so many different traditions and the ways-and-means that they recommended it be done. But what is it? Engagement with the self (or the Self if you wish) in ways that are, perhaps I can say, uncommon.
But what if there is absolutely no will *to try*? That is, no interest in the topic of 'the self' or man's inner dimension? According to many traditions, if such an attitude is the case, you have 'unconscious man'. Thus they say that to be alive, to have awareness, is a responsibility. Or perhaps a 'burden' is the better word. They would say that you cannot not cultivate the self. And in one way or another this is true (and for everyone). No one gets anywhere without some level of inner and personal growth. But what does *growing* mean? What processes control or determine that a person *grows*? It is an involved question obviously.
So what I say, and indeed when I read the declarative statements that Brother Immanuel makes I am forced to recapitulate what he says into more expansive terms, what I say is that he refers to 'true things', but his ideological position acts like a chain or a small enclosure that envelops him is something both limiting ... but at the same time is a defined world of possible, and accepted, and generally supported, actions, activities and endeavors which are 'the Christian life-style' and also the Christian worship and ethics.
What Immanuel is less aware of -- though take heart because I have taken him as an unwilling and very difficult disciple and am whipping him into shape! -- is why it is that people reject the Christian form. He is incapable of discerning that, for many, this is a necessary and a good choice. He is nearly incapable of a critical attitude toward modern Christianity (except his favorite enemy Catholicism) and thus never engages in criticism, critique and critical thought. He cannot self'-critique on any level even though all his preaching efforts here result only in driving the people he says he (and Jesus) want to reach even farther away!
The whole set of *questions* he asks (the statements he made in the quoted paragraph) could be seen as representing what he needs to do, himself, to 'grow'. But he won't try. He won't give it a shot. He want to be in a winner's position (as he declares he is) and could not risk being either a loser or a beginner (or learner). He has nothing to learn. He therefore has only to teach (which Jesus back up, as Jesus must be backing him up here and now on this forum).
Immanuel shows how a tradition, and also specific metaphysical and cultural commitments, can become a trap.
This is why I developed my Ten Week Internet Awareness Cultivation Course! At only $9.99! Lives are being transformed people! Get on board! The slow train is ready to leave the station!
, one actually needs to go looking. And that takes a certain level of intention-to-find.