Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Incarnating the Christ

[Soul_of_Shu]

I wonder if religious preaching should be disallowed on this forum, but of course it is up to moderators to decide.

There is an important difference between proselytization and apologetics. While both encourage their audience to adopt a particular religious view, it is the latter that employs philosophical and empirical reasons for doing so. And that means a philosophically inclined member of the audience can engage rationally with the apologist.

Ashvin's essays are apologetics. Yet your response to them has been to treat them as proselytizations, and so the philosophical/empirical reasons are being ignored rather than addressed.

A key point in the essays is to show how it is that the Cartesian and Kantian divides arose. This is vital information if we wish to overcome those divisions, as any idealist should hope to do. Anthroposophy is a means to carry out that overcoming. Is it the best way? Are there other ways? Well, that is something each individual must decide. But since it is Anthroposophy that provides the clearest understanding that I know of of how the divides arose and what to do about it, I think it deserves a better look than just dismissing it as Christian proselytization.

This moderator views Scott's response as being suffice.

[Eugene I]

There is an important difference between proselytization and apologetics. While both encourage their audience to adopt a particular religious view, it is the latter that employs philosophical and empirical reasons for doing so. And that means a philosophically inclined member of the audience can engage rationally with the apologist.

I would think that abundant quotes from religious scriptures is a clear sign of proselytism.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Ashvin ... Btw, having read through part 2 for the 3rd time, as there is so very much to take in, ponder, and savour regarding 'who' must be the 'saviour', I can only yet again offer deep gratitude for the sharing of the time, effort, insight and deep caring that has gone into it. Looking forward to part 3.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I would think that abundant quotes from religious scriptures is a clear sign of proselytism.

C'mon Eugene, have you not shared quotes from 'original' Sutras purported to be conceived by the Buddha, as opposed to say the later Heart Sutra, as the unadulterated offering on how to best dispel the spell of duality? I suggest that you can also write an eloquent essay with more of such quotes, or be more secular if so inclined, with a view toward giving an alternative perspective on this inquiry, so as to allow other forum participants to go with whichever resonates best with their own sensibilities. Being eclectically inclined, I for one find value, meaning and efficacy in both/and, or indeed with quite a few other approaches, e.g. Sufi, Shaivism, Shambhala shamanhood, Spira-esque Advaita, etc, without worrying that those who are inclined to lean one way or the other are not also valid. I suppose this is your claim, that Ashvin is also claiming that other approaches must be relegated to being somehow inferior, or less efficacious, as opposed to the possibility of them all integrally supplementing and subsuming each other. However, I trust that Ashvin, in appreciating Gebser's model ~ with Gebser himself taking a highly eclectic approach, and why I feel deep affinity with his ideas ~ would understand the folly in this. If not, I'd surely be interested in hearing from him as to why such trust is unwarranted.

[Eugene I]

C'mon Eugene, have you not shared quotes from 'original' Sutras purported to be conceived by the Buddha, as opposed to say the later Heart Sutra, as the unadulterated offering on how to best dispel the spell of duality? I suggest that you can also write an eloquent essay with more of such quotes, or be more secular if so inclined, with a view toward giving an alternative perspective on this inquiry, so as to allow other forum participants to go with whichever resonates best with their own sensibilities. Being eclectically inclined, I for one find value, meaning and efficacy in both/and, or indeed with quite a few other approaches, e.g. Sufi, Shaivism, Shambhala shamanhood, Spira-esque Avaita, etc, without worrying that those who are inclined to lean one way or the other are not also valid. I suppose this is your claim, that Ashvin is claiming that other approaches must be relegated to being somehow inferior, or less efficacious, as opposed to the possibility of them all integrally supplementing and subsuming each other. However, I trust that Ashvin, in appreciating Gebser's model ~ with Gebser himself taking a highly eclectic approach, and why I feel deep affinity with his ideas ~ would understand the folly in this. If not, I'd surely be interested in hearing from him as to why such trust is unwarranted.

OK, fair enough Regarding me writing an essay, I already did and there is not much I can add to it.

To be honest, I also tend to be eclectic and open to a variety of approaches. Yet, I have a deep psychological trauma from living under a dictatorship, and any views promoting any dictatorship, be it political, social, philosophical or spiritual one, immediately raise a rejection response in me. But I admit that this is my personality issue and personal opinion/bias. I saw many people living in the same dictatorships with me who were very happy with it, and who am I to tell them not to be happy.

IMO there is no perfect solution. Free, libertarian and pluralistic social system is chaotic, uncontrollable, lacking common direction and common shared values. Freedom is a burden. Many people feel uncomfortable with it. Dictatorship solves (or claims to solve) those problems, but has problems of its own, and from the experiential point of living there, I can say that it feels very suffocating, even when the dictator is a good guy. Oops, I'm drifting into politics, but I'm also talking about spiritual dictatorships here.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin ... Btw, having read through part 2 for the 3rd time, as there is so very much to take in, ponder, and savour regarding 'who' must be the 'saviour', I can only yet again offer deep gratitude for the sharing of the time, effort, insight and deep caring that has gone into it. Looking forward to part 3.

Thanks, Dana! I really enjoy organizing my thoughts with them.

C'mon Eugene, have you not shared quotes from 'original' Sutras purported to be conceived by the Buddha, as opposed to say the later Heart Sutra, as the unadulterated offering on how to best dispel the spell of duality? I suggest that you can also write an eloquent essay with more of such quotes, or be more secular if so inclined, with a view toward giving an alternative perspective on this inquiry, so as to allow other forum participants to go with whichever resonates best with their own sensibilities. Being eclectically inclined, I for one find value, meaning and efficacy in both/and, or indeed with quite a few other approaches, e.g. Sufi, Shaivism, Shambhala shamanhood, Spira-esque Advaita, etc, without worrying that those who are inclined to lean one way or the other are not also valid. I suppose this is your claim, that Ashvin is also claiming that other approaches must be relegated to being somehow inferior, or less efficacious, as opposed to the possibility of them all integrally supplementing and subsuming each other. However, I trust that Ashvin, in appreciating Gebser's model ~ with Gebser himself taking a highly eclectic approach, and why I feel deep affinity with his ideas ~ would understand the folly in this. If not, I'd surely be interested in hearing from him as to why such trust is unwarranted.

Exactly. Under the monist evolutionary view, I do not see how it could be any other way. The long-lasting spiritual traditions are all nested within each other. Anthroposophy is very clear on that as well. They are not parallel streams of thought which remain apart from each other, and the same goes for philosophy-science. We will find in the coming decades and centuries that only those views which embrace primacy of Spirit (psyche) will remain standing, whether we choose to or not.

[Eugene I]

I would not think that democratic societies and dictatorships are part of the same stream and are nested with each other. They are clearly incompatible and mutually exclusive social systems, whether they exist in human or in spiritual realms. There is definitely some overlap, democratic systems always have some elements of freedom restriction and hierarchy of power, and dictatorships have some degree of freedom, and so the demarcation line is often fuzzy. Yet, this does not mean that they are "nested".

[AshvinP]

C'mon Eugene, have you not shared quotes from 'original' Sutras purported to be conceived by the Buddha, as opposed to say the later Heart Sutra, as the unadulterated offering on how to best dispel the spell of duality? I suggest that you can also write an eloquent essay with more of such quotes, or be more secular if so inclined, with a view toward giving an alternative perspective on this inquiry, so as to allow other forum participants to go with whichever resonates best with their own sensibilities. Being eclectically inclined, I for one find value, meaning and efficacy in both/and, or indeed with quite a few other approaches, e.g. Sufi, Shaivism, Shambhala shamanhood, Spira-esque Avaita, etc, without worrying that those who are inclined to lean one way or the other are not also valid. I suppose this is your claim, that Ashvin is claiming that other approaches must be relegated to being somehow inferior, or less efficacious, as opposed to the possibility of them all integrally supplementing and subsuming each other. However, I trust that Ashvin, in appreciating Gebser's model ~ with Gebser himself taking a highly eclectic approach, and why I feel deep affinity with his ideas ~ would understand the folly in this. If not, I'd surely be interested in hearing from him as to why such trust is unwarranted.

OK, fair enough Regarding me writing an essay, I already did and there is not much I can add to it.

To be honest, I also tend to be eclectic and open to a variety of approaches. Yet, I have a deep psychological trauma from living under a dictatorship, and any views promoting any dictatorship, be it political, social, philosophical or spiritual one, immediately raise a rejection response in me. But I admit that this is my personality issue and personal opinion/bias. I saw many people living in the same dictatorships with me who were very happy with it, and who am I to tell them not to be happy.

IMO there is no perfect solution. Free, libertarian and pluralistic social system is chaotic, uncontrollable, lacking common direction and common shared values. Freedom is a burden. Many people feel uncomfortable with it. Dictatorship solves (or claims to solve) those problems, but has problems of its own, and from the experiential point of living there, I can say that it feels very suffocating, even when the dictator is a good guy. Oops, I'm drifting into politics, but I'm also talking about spiritual dictatorships here.

I appreciate this disclosure, Eugene. And I do not for a second think I am immune from the same sorts of temperamental and experiential biases. That is why I believe it so important to approach these things from many different angles of thinking, i.e. psychology, philosophy, science, theology, etc., and see for ourselves what remains after being tested. Perfection should not be the enemy of the Good, but eventually some things must be settled within ourselves to move forward productively. Spiritual freedom is also paramount - not the ability to do whatever we want, but to want what we actually do.

I would not think that democratic societies and dictatorships are part of the same stream and are nested with each other. They are clearly incompatible and mutually exclusive social systems, whether they exist in human or in spiritual realms. There is definitely some overlap, democratic systems always have some elements of freedom restriction, and dictatorships have some degree of freedom, and so the demarcation line is often fuzzy. Yet, this does not mean that they are "nested".

There are no spiritual "dictatorships" being referenced here. That is simply your opinion, which you of course are entitled to. Western spirituality is entirely based on the notion of the sovereign individual who must be guaranteed certain basic freedoms by virtue of being made in the image of God. That is not always reflected well by religious sects and political parties, but nevertheless it is a fact which is clear from Biblical scripture.

[Soul_of_Shu]

To be honest, I also tend to be eclectic and open to a variety of approaches. Yet, I have a deep psychological trauma from living under a dictatorship, and any views promoting any dictatorship, be it political, social, philosophical or spiritual one, immediately raise a rejection response in me. But I admit that this is my personality issue and personal opinion/bias. I saw many people living in the same dictatorships with me who were very happy with it, and who am I to tell them not to be happy.

Understood ... We all have our predispositions through which we filter these views, and in this text-bound forum, absent all the other more nuanced communicative cues (emojis don't really make up for that), then that can tend to be more pronounced. And sorry, I didn't mean to overlook your own essay, which I also very much appreciated. In any case, I'm not seeing anyone here proclaiming "All hail the Great Ashvin", but rather just him pointing out the adulterated imitation that Christianity has become in contrast to its original gnosis, and thus his endeavouring to get back to the essence of it, and what it could yet become in the integral stage ~ much as you are endeavouring with Buddhism. And I don't feel that either of you are demanding submissive acquiescence in the process, but rather just offering some valuable insights worth considering.

[Eugene I]

There are no spiritual "dictatorships" being referenced here. That is simply your opinion, which you of course are entitled to. Western spirituality is entirely based on the notion of the sovereign individual who must be guaranteed certain basic freedoms by virtue of being made in the image of God. That is not always reflected well by religious sects and political parties, but nevertheless it is a fact which is clear from Biblical scripture.

Don't see much sovereignty in Biblical scriptures (see below), but rather I see a spiritual dictate and lack of personal freedom. In a typical dictatorship everyone of course have freedom of choice, but the choices are limited to either complying with the dictator or being punished for not to be compliant. That is the most common theme in the Old Testament, but also present in the New one. Universal societal "telos" defined by a single authority is another hallmark of a dictatorship. Noone is allowed to follow any other larger-scale telos of a personal choice.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"
"Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me"
"But the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."