Our primary sense is sight. We neither smell objects nor hear echoes from them but see them. Therefore, we associate (Biblical) "revelation" - and, still more explicitly, (Buddhist) "enlightenment" - with light.
"In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." (John, 1: 4-5)
"The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world." (John 1: 9)
(In one tradition, the light becomes a man. In the other, a man becomes enlightened.)
Although we are not intelligent sea-dwellers, like the Keiki Moana, they too might associate either revelation or enlightenment with sunlight becoming visible above them as they return from the depths. So what "revelation" might they find in the opposite direction in the cold, dark and pressure at the limit of survivability? Poul Anderson describes this "religious revelation" with two words and one phrase:
"...awe and mystery and the implacability of the universe." (p. 130)
- or, to summarize more briefly, awe, mystery and implacability. Yes, these words are appropriate. Personally, when I swam down so far that I suddenly experienced cold, darkness and pain in both ears, that was not a religious experience but I am not an intelligent seal!
We remember Anderson's The Merman's Children and "Homo Aquaticus," the latter an instalment of his Kith future history series - and also the Starkadian sea-dwellers in his Technic History.
17 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I don't think this Buddhist "enlightenment" to be all that different, as far as simple ethics is concerned, from what either the prophets of Israel or the sages of China (such as Confucius or Mencius) taught.
The Israelite prophets went further than what either Buddha or the Chinese sages had done, pointing to YHWH as the source and origin of all things, that morality alone was insufficient. Albeit Confucius believed in "Heaven" as a sole God.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"This Buddhist 'enlightenment'"!
I did not intend to initiate a debate on religious one-up-man-ship but, since the debate is on the table, let me say that I disagree with what is said here.
Paul.
Enlightenment is an experience, liberation, transcendence, not an ethical system.
Kaor, Paul!
As I recall, Buddhist "enlightenment" doesn't seem to be much more than nom-attachment to whatever it is that troubles a person. Orthodox Buddhism seems to offer nothing better than being absorbed into Nirvana after a seemingly endless cycle of reincarnations. I can see why Tibetan Buddhists became dissatisfied and added gods, demons, avatars, boddhisattvas, etc., to the dry philosophy of Buddha.
No, compared to that, Judaism/Christianity are far more intellectually and aesthetically satisfactory, as well as me believing them divinely revealed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Doesn't seem to be much more than? Nothing better than?
No. Scourging, impalement and Hell are neither intellectually nor aesthetically satisfactory! As well as me believing them not to be divinely revealed.
I mentioned "revelation" and "enlightenment" in relation to Anderson's account of the Keiki Moana revelation in the cold and dark of the deep ocean, not in order to initiate this kind of put-down of one tradition as against the other.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, as regards Buddhism, dry and rather dreary in its most orthodox form.
Disagree, as regards Christianity. God cared enough about mankind to become incarnate as Man. So much so He proved His love for a fallen race by His Passion and Resurrection.
I've said before no one goes to Hell unless he obstinately rejects God. And Christ warned us Hell is real. This is standard Catholic teaching.
I am aware there are those who deny the supernatural is real. Their choice, and error.
But it was not the Keiki Moana's revelation that interested me, because that was only a fiction.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Not accepting the supernatural is not a choice. It is a world-view differing from yours and is not an error as far as many of us are concerned. Of course we can all accuse each other of "error"...
Of course you have said that about Hell. I have read CS Lewis. It remains a horrible and unnecessary idea. An omnipotent creator is responsible for every motivation of all his creatures. Finite beings can be free or unfree in relation to each other but not free in that sense in relation to an omnipotent being who has created every part of them from nothing.
A Passion was not necessary to prove divine love but that is how the disciples rationalized the execution of their Messianic claimant.
Dry and dreary! I ought to be able to refer to the major religions without unleashing this kind of partisan argumentation. I remember some Catholic apologetics from school but have gone out and learned for myself since then.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, God chose to become Man and die on the Cross precisely because it was so horrible--proving how much He cared. And that was a real Passion/Resurrection, not a totally unconvincing mass self-delusion.
Of course, there's going to be contending views about different faiths and philosophies. It's What Human Beings Do.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. You can't just state that theological proposition as if it was a historical fact!
I find the following account completely plausible, not "totally unconvincing":
the man on the road to Emmaus was not Jesus;
he consoled and inspired two disciples by arguing from scripture that suffering was the way to Messiahship;
this reminded them of things that Jesus had said when he was interpreting his Messianic role as that of the Suffering Servant, not of the Davidic monarch;
the stranger slipped away when he realized that they were latching onto what he was saying and that he had nothing more to offer them;
his swift departure while they were looking the other way convinced them that he had physically disappeared and had been Jesus in another form;
meanwhile, Peter, traumatized by guilt, bereavement and disappointment, had had an all too psychologically possible vision of the deceased as still alive;
the supposed revelation on the road to Emmaus and Peter's traumatic experience reinforced each other, drawing in the other disciples;
they met to reinterpret scripture and convinced themselves that the risen Christ was spiritually present, confirming their new interpretation;
later, Luke, writing in the wake of a newly introduced story of a tomb burial and an empty tomb, wrote as if the risen Jesus had been not just spiritually but also visibly and tangibly present when the disciples reinterpreted scripture.
This is not "totally unconvincing." It fits every detail of Luke's account, including that the risen Jesus did not just appear (surely that would have been enough?) but appeared and EXPOUNDED SCRIPTURE.
If, as you rightly say, there are bound to be contending views about different faiths, then how do you know which view is right? There is no way to know, which is why Constantine convened a Church Council to formulate doctrines in order to stop the squabbling about the Trinity and the natures of Christ.
I am certain that many theologians would say that this has been completely the wrong way to discuss these matters. Because both Buddhism and Christianity were mentioned, Buddhism has been dismissed as dry and dreary etc and we have been told that Christianity is intellectually and aesthetically satisfying. I have no difficulty in replying to that last proposition and serious theologians would acknowledged that I have a point that needs to be discussed, not dismissed.
Paul.
(I anticipate a particular counterargument here but I will wait to see what transpires.)
Kaor, Paul!
And I take what the Gospels and the Church says about Christ. All these strained, desperate, anti-supernatural arguments boil down to, at best, mass self-delusion. Rejected, too complicated, as well as insulting to the faith of the Apostles and their successors. It's also unconvincing because I don't believe all of the Apostles would have gone along with such a lie or that Christianity would be still so prominent now if founded on nothing but delusion. The chaotic and violent zig zags of the past 2000 years would have destroyed any faith making such defiantly bold claims if based on nothing but lies and self-delusion.
We start from irreconcilable first premises: those who believe the supernatural is real and those who deny that. Meaning no mutually agreed on conclusion is possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What I have suggested is neither strained nor desperate! It is perfectly plausible.
More later.
Paul.
You misunderstand. It was not a lie. They sincerely believed that Christ was risen. You and I are not communicating.
I need to be persuaded that the supernatural is real. Your merely assuming it is unjustified.
Other faiths that you believe are based on delusion have lasted for centuries.
We do not begin by denying the supernatural. We asked to be shown evidence for it. You never state the disagreement fairly.
There is a difference between, on the one hand, not being convinced by alleged evidence for the supernatural and, on the other hand, starting from a premise of denying the supernatural. You clearly want to put all skeptics into the latter category. On the other hand, to start from a PREMISE of accepting the supernatural is unwarranted.
Post a Comment