The "scandal Of Particularity"

[tariki]

Nothing in particular to say at the moment. But as I did begin this thread, just wanted to say that I do read each contribution with interest.

 

Thank you everyone for your interest.

 

Derek

[DavidD]

If God became Jesus in order to suffer, then it makes sense that it only happened once.

 

If God became Jesus in order to teach people, then it wasn't a very good situation for that. The ministry of Jesus was short. He got Himself killed with His recklessness. Few Jews learned anything. Was what the Gentiles learned eventually that much better than the alternatives?

 

If God has become many people in many places, then why bother with Christianity at all?

 

If God never becomes anyone, well that's something completely different, isn't it?

 

I'm sure there are other possibilities, including mixtures of the above, but in thinking about them what I see is that one does have to choose about which way to live based on one's choice of beliefs. If there is indeed one best way to live, anybody going another way is bound to complain about the unfairness of that should they ever see a different outcome. Maybe God will agree that it's unfair, unfair that some wrongly thought Christianity was about following the Bible instead of God, unfair that some way people like has nothing to do with God, unfair that most of us are stuck believing what everyone around us believes.

 

Does unfairness mean it can't be? Is God so absolutely good that nothing He does can be unfair? Some think so. I don't. My basic belief is that God is whoever and whatever He is, not what any human says He is. If He's unfair, then He's unfair, and there is a scandal of particularity for those who chose a lesser way. Maybe the saving grace is that no one needs to find out what God thinks is the best way. I just need to decide on the best way for me. That's the best way for me. But what a scandal if others say I must say that all ways are just as good, or they will hurt me in some way, if only with insults.

[tariki]

From my own perspective, the true “scandal” of particularity arises when others insist that it is only via knowledge – and “acceptance” – of the historical Jesus that a human being can be “saved”. The usual text cited is “I am the way, the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father but by me”. Those who cite this passage associate all their own particular understandings and assertions with this “me”, this “way”, and thereby exclude those ways alien to their own beliefs, temperament, experience and knowledge. Yet who is this “me”, this “way”? The carpenter from Nazareth, or the eternal Logos spoken of in the prelude to St John’s gospel…………………the “light that lights everyone who comes into the world”?

 

I believe we all have to travel our own road through/within our own particularity to universality. To stop at any point and begin to identify with any particular expression of ego, to rest in its “views”, beliefs, attainments………….is spiritual death. As the Dhammapada has it, when speaking of the liberated human being, “Like swans that fly from the lake, they leave home after home behind”. (And the “Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head”!)

 

Perhaps to rest with the “particular” Jesus is to be left with expressions of moral teachings and often with our attempt to justify ourselves by living up to them. Yet as William Blake said, “if moral virtue was Christianity, then Socrates was the Savior”. Pure Land Buddhism speaks of the “easy way”………………”yet few their be who take it” - just as the easy yoke seems to weigh heavy at times! Why should this be so? Within true Grace, all justifications are left behind, yet in a trillion ways I experience myself seeking to “earn” it.

 

I have just finished reading Thomas Merton’s Journal “The Other Side of the Mountain”. I read the following passage just after discovering that this particular thread had been added to while I had been away. It does seem to have something to say regarding the “particularity” of Jesus, and of the limits to such. Of how Jesus is “universalised”…..

 

The three doors……………

 

The door of emptiness. Of no-where. Of no place for a self, which cannot be entered by a self. And therefore is of no use to someone who is going somewhere. Is it a door at all? The door of no-door.

 

The door without sign, without indicator, without information. Not particularised. Hence no one can say of it ‘This is it. This is the door.”

 

The door without wish. The undesired. The unplanned door, The door never expected…………..”

 

Merton then goes on……….”Christ said, ‘I am the door.” The nailed door. The cross, they nail the door shut with death. The resurrection: “You see, I am not a door”

 

These same words of Merton are quoted in James Finley’s book “Merton’s Palace of Nowhere”, subtitled “A Search for God Through Awareness of the True Self”. Finley writes……………”This one door is the door of the Palace of Nowhere. It is the door of God. It is our very self, our true self called by God to perfect union with himself. And it is through this door we secretly enter in responding to the saving call to: “Come with me to the Palace of Nowhere where all the many things are one”

 

Anyway, I hope no one minds me sharing my thoughts here. At the moment, as well as my Pure Land readings/thoughts, I am very much into Thomas Merton (again!!). A true "universal man", a human being of true "catholic" spirit. Presently I am reading "Silent Lamp" (The Thomas Merton Story") By William Shannon.

 

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread.

[flowperson]

And thank you Derek for your insights.

 

Flow....

[DavidD]

... Yet who is this “me”, this “way”? The carpenter from Nazareth, or the eternal Logos spoken of in the prelude to St John’s gospel…………………the “light that lights everyone who comes into the world”?

 

Is there a difference? There may be. It's been interesting to me how well the label "carpenter" has stuck to Jesus when that's not the word the gospels use for His trade. Yet it's become tradition to say "carpenter". Is that too particular? Or is "carpenter" the better word somehow? I don't care enough to research it now, because I don't think it matters, only as an illustration of particularity. I rely on my memory of when I ran across this before, without remembering the particulars well, but knowing there are many more particulars in how Jesus became my way than I ever can know, whether or not He even existed at all. My experience is that Jesus led me to God, whether or not He even existed at all, either one for that matter. I know my particulars for that, but the greater picture, either historically or spiritually is beyond me.

 

No one else who lived in ancient Nazareth matters to me. None of the false Messiahs you can read about in books about the historical Jesus matter to me except to understand more about who the real Jesus might have been behind the gospel stories and how He could have been quite something, but not impress many people of the time, as they'd seen it all before in men who proved to be frauds.

 

Does the Logos matter to me? I'm not sure. How real is it? How much is it metaphor, a particular way of seeing God that has much to it that is misleading?

 

Every word we use is particular. It means nothing if people don't agree on it's meaning. It's even harder with metaphors. We all speak of spiritual journeys and paths, maybe even how hard we've worked at ours while someone over there has taken an easy way or a broad way. Or maybe it's not how hard we've worked, but some magic concept that gets us what we want. We want something greater than us, for its power, knowledge, love, and/or goodness. Will evolutionary psychology eventually provide the reason for that or is that truly something spiritual? Time will tell. In the meantime I try to keep an open mind intelectually, but in the way of life I follow I choose spirituality, a spirituality with particulars that would rub lots of people the wrong way, my fellow liberals, conservatives, or atheists.

 

Is there any way that's non-particular? Even those who say God is in everyone, everything, are picking out a particular possibility for God and rejecting all others. Maybe that's OK. If all religions are true, I suppose it is. But what if all religions are false but one? What if all religions are false, including atheism? I think the scandal of particularity pales in comparison to the implications if that last one is true, if most of what is said about all religion is false, including those who are sure there is no God. It's all words, and therefore all particular.

 

So where does one start to get around that? With one's next breath or next step? With one's next thought, knowing just how symbolic and unlike God our thoughts might be? With a prayer, "God help me!" People will do what they have always done. They will pay attention to what makes sense to them, whether it objectively makes sense or not and from whatever perspective one judges that. We are as stuck with being particular as we are stuck with breathing.

 

I'm glad I've had Jesus of Nazareth as a handle for all that. I don't think much of those who never got beyond the Bible and their church in looking at Jesus. Such an attitude hasn't ended poverty. It hasn't ended strife. It may be responsible for more strife, I'm not sure. So I am a liberal Christian, and I use my freedom in that, but not to jettison Jesus as irrelevant. He's helped me.

 

I'm not sure which matters more, Jesus of Nazareth or Logos or both or neither. God matters. I define Him that way. The particulars in that are inescapable. To say that their only purpose is to see past them to universality is just a particular belief. There may not be universality. But there definitely are particulars and some are better than others. Just look around.

[tariki]

DavidD

 

Thank you. There is nothing in what you say from your own experience that I would argue with. The whole question of the relationship between the "universal" and the "particular" intrigues me, yet as you say it is as the "particular" that experience is mediated to us/through us.

 

In Pure Land Buddhist symbolism, the undifferentiated nature of enlightenment is represented by the colour gold, the unique individuality of each by the lotus flower. The Pure Land is often depicted as being a realm of infinite golden lotus flowers. Again, the well worn phrase from the "Light of Asia", the "dewdrop slips into the shining sea".......................perhaps more the "shining sea slips into the dewdrop"!

 

Once again, time to reflect. We each have our path.

 

I mentioned Thomas Merton before, and I just happen to be reading his third volume of journals at the moment, which cover the period 1952-1960 - "A Search for Solitude". There is an entry dated Sept 11, 1957 that relates to this in certain ways. I share it with you.

 

Merton first speaks of a "satanic" theology which "hides Christ from us"............"He was a man like us. Oh yes!' But he was God, He was not like you. He suffered; well, he seemed to suffer. But he knew he was God. He knew he was not like you. All his life long he was looking around at those he had come to save knowing that he was not like them, death could not hold him, and he did not reallyy have to pray. He just prayed for show."

 

Merton then writes - as an alternative - of his own understanding and faith/trust........."If Christ was not my brother, with all my sorrows and all my sufferings and all my miseries and with all my human limitations, then there has been no redemption....."

 

Anyway we seem to agree here on this forum that the extreme conservative understanding of "I am the way, the truth and the life, no-one comes to the father but by me", which often seems to exclude the possiblity of salvation to the half the world (!) and which creates such ludicrous questions as "what about those who lived before Jesus was born?", is no real option. (I suppose one could say it creates missionaries....................)

 

Thanks again

Derek

[rivanna]

tariki,

 

I've never heard of the false theology Merton describes--a side of him I was not acquainted with before. Still it sounds unworthy of him even to suggest that Jesus "just prayed for show." According to the gospels, Jesus had to retreat to the desert many times to pray for guidance and strength.

 

The true understanding Merton affirms, echoes Bonhoeffer's saying that "only the suffering God can help"--also the many assertions throughout the New Testament, that God shows no partiality. We're all on the same level spiritually.

[irreverance]

tariki,

 

I've never heard of the false theology Merton describes--a side of him I was not acquainted with before. Still it sounds unworthy of him even to suggest that Jesus "just prayed for show." According to the gospels, Jesus had to retreat to the desert many times to pray for guidance and strength.

 

rivanna,

 

I think that tariki was saying that the theology descibed was something Merton was denouncing as "satanic."

 

When I read that description, I think of conversations that I've been in with fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals who so strongly emphasize the divinity of Christ that they find themselves only giving lipservice to his humanity. As a result, Jesus becomes kind of like Superman, looking like us and living with us, but really a different kind of creature from a different place. I'm not sure whether this is what the Merton quote refers to, but it is what it reminds me of.

[tariki]

tariki,

 

I've never heard of the false theology Merton describes--a side of him I was not acquainted with before. Still it sounds unworthy of him even to suggest that Jesus "just prayed for show." According to the gospels, Jesus had to retreat to the desert many times to pray for guidance and strength.

 

rivanna,

 

as XianAnarchist has said, there is no doubt that in the context of Merton's words he himself was denouncing any such "theology". It seems to be a "gnostic" type atttitude and understanding and not truly Christian in any sense, yet I do think that the attitude described does infiltrate many peoples stance towards the Incarnation.

 

Adding a few words that I left out from my previous quote, Merton wrote of such a "theology".......that it "hides Christ from us or makes him vanish or makes him too beautiful, too remote" and that "Satan has made Incarnation into a monumental hypocrisy" and that such a "Divine Master" would have been sent only to "save one or two and drive the rest deeper into despair"

[tariki]

When I read that description, I think of conversations that I've been in with fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals who so strongly emphasize the divinity of Christ that they find themselves only giving lipservice to his humanity. As a result, Jesus becomes kind of like Superman, looking like us and living with us, but really a different kind of creature from a different place. I'm not sure whether this is what the Merton quote refers to, but it is what it reminds me of.

 

XianAnarchist,

 

Exactly. I don't think Merton was actually referring to any theology he had read that explicitly stated any such teaching, but was seeking to articulate what the implicit understanding of many in fact was.

[MOW]

rivanna,

 

I think that tariki was saying that the theology descibed was something Merton was denouncing as "satanic."

 

When I read that description, I think of conversations that I've been in with fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals who so strongly emphasize the divinity of Christ that they find themselves only giving lipservice to his humanity. As a result, Jesus becomes kind of like Superman, looking like us and living with us, but really a different kind of creature from a different place. I'm not sure whether this is what the Merton quote refers to, but it is what it reminds me of.

 

Hi Xian

 

When people acknowledge only Jesus' divinity, and not his humanity; isn't that called "docetism" ?

 

I played keyboard in a conservative church for three years. They never read anything from the synoptic gospels, except the birth, and passion narratives.

 

 

MOW

[flowperson]

Hi guys:

 

I view the dichotomy here as viewing Jesus as some sort of concocted cartoon character as opposed to a real human such as we seem to be. The stories are magical indeed... but perhaps a little too much so and thus Jesus is transformed into some sort of Hollywood role IMHO. More believable for some, but not so for those who have questions.

 

flow....

[rivanna]

tariki,

 

If you could add one more bit of insight here--to return to your original post--would you say that besides Jesus, Buddha (or Amitahba?) was just as much, or more of, a revelation of God? I know so little about Hinduism--was Krishna a fellow sufferer with humanity? was he a healer? Are there other historic figures you consider equal incarnations? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[irreverance]

When people acknowledge only Jesus' divinity, and not his humanity; isn't that called "docetism" ?

To my knowledge, technically yes it is. Also potentially of interest is the tie that I've heard between "right belief" fundamentalism and "right knowledge" gnosticism.

 

I played keyboard in a conservative church for three years. They never read anything from the synoptic gospels, except the birth, and passion narratives.

Really!? Wow.

[tariki]

tariki,

 

If you could add one more bit of insight here--to return to your original post--would you say that besides Jesus, Buddha (or Amitahba?) was just as much, or more of, a revelation of God? I know so little about Hinduism--was Krishna a fellow sufferer with humanity? was he a healer? Are there other historic figures you consider equal incarnations? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

rivanna,

 

More questions and quotes than "insight"!! Your question gets to the heart of the difficulties when comparing Faiths. Christianity recognises a Creator God, distinct and transendent to creation. "Incarnation" in such a context is therefore speaking of a God who breaks into history to reveal Himself. (or Herself!) Buddhism recognises no such God, and speaks more of "beginningless time" than of any act of creation. (The closest it seems to get to any form of "transcendence" is the passage in the Theravada Pali Canon of scripture, Udana 8.3, which states....."There is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned" ) Obviously, in a very real sense, there is nothing to "incarnate"! And all of history can be seen as "revelation". Amida (known under various spellings depending upon language/geographical area) is understood as the expression/personification of Reality-as-is, the ultimate symbol of reality and its essential compassionate nature. Pure Land Buddhism offers various "myths" concerning Amida which seek to express in perceptible and conceivable form the ultimate reality which is beyond our perception and comprehension (Perhaps best to say Reality can be "lived", but not "thought") Devotees are left to decide for themselves how "tangible" the "myths" are, which is one of the beauties of Pure Land, that it can speak to all, without excessive dogmatism to understand in any set way.......(though always a bit of peer pressure, we could say!!)

 

Hopefully this answers your question.

 

Krishna I know very little about, just a wonderful story of him dancing with the milkmaids. Each milkmaid danced with their "own" Krishna , yet when each milkmaid thought to themselves that they alone danced with him, their Krishna disappeared.

 

Just to finish, as I love quotes, and as certain verses or words seem to pop into my head at odd moments, the lines of the English poet and mystic William Blake have just "popped into my head", perhaps in relation to this entire thread.......

 

From "Auguries of Innocence"

 

We are led to believe a lie

When we see not thro' the eye.....

God appears and God is Light

To those poor souls who dwell in night,

But does a human form display

To those who dwell in realms of day

 

and from "On Another's Sorrow"

 

He doth give his joy to all;

He becomes an infant small;

He becomes a man of woe;

He doth feel the sorrow too.

 

Think not thou canst sigh a sigh

And thy maker is not by;

Think not thou canst weep a tear

And thy maker is not near.

 

O! he gives to us his joy

That our grief he may destroy;

Till our grief is fled and gone

He doth sit by us and moan

[tariki]

Just to add a little bit more, hopefully in clarification, concerning your original question - where it was slanted towards asking who might be considered "more" of a revelation of God. In effect I did answer in the line all of history can be seen as revelation. This is true - or considered true - in a very real sense within the Pure Land tradition. All reality is understood as the expression of infinite compassion and therefore any experience can hold within itself the potential to mediate Grace. Compassion falls on all and each will respond and recognise and appropriate it in their own individual way - or not (though, according to Pure Land teaching, all will eventually be enlightened) Therefore for me it would never be a question of "who" or "what" expresses "more" of a revelation. If Mickey Mouse unfolded the true meaning of grace/mercy/compassion to a particular human being and unfolded it within their heart, then for them Mickey Mouse had "more"! (Whether or not this comes under the Biblical verse of the "wind blowing where it will" I have no idea)

 

Your question concerning "suffering with us" obviously takes on a different perspective in a "non-dual" (Buddhist) context. This for me is a profound question. All I can say is that in as much as we are full participants within "reality" and not essentially distinct from it, then Reality-as-is suffers in and through us at all times and in all places. Again, this is just one of those questions that demands far more understanding than I have with respect to comparing Faiths. (Personally I always find that any reflection upon "suffering" leaves me with the feeling expressed in Walt Whitman's lines.............."My heart turns livid inside of me as I lean on a cane and observe" Looking around the world or just reading any national newspaper would seem to test any faith, yet there is a very real sense that in keeping faith we do "share" in suffering ourselves, if only that our hope/trust calls forth and demands some sort of actual participation)

[rivanna]

tariki,

 

Thanks, that was helpful. It seems that instead of arguing for other possible avatars, you were saying that "there is nothing to incarnate." To me there is no contradiction between Jesus as one's "gateway to the divine," and the idea that "every experience holds the potential to mediate grace" (nice thought). Also the eventual enlightenment of everyone, sounds like Christianity as well as Buddhism. It's not a distinction between a "once only" or "many times" revelation, but a person as truth rather than a more abstract concept. That's my impression anyway.

 

One thing that resonates from your writing is that seeking the kingdom, or grace, is better than focusing on the life of Christ, which can lead to martyrdom rather than mercy.

 

[if I overspoke on this thread, it's only that somewhere in the back of my brain there's this vague hope that maybe the wisdom of the Far East can provide a clue to resolving the disastrous conflicts of the Middle East.]

[tariki]

tariki,

 

Thanks, that was helpful. It seems that instead of arguing for other possible avatars, you were saying that "there is nothing to incarnate." To me there is no contradiction between Jesus as one's "gateway to the divine," and the idea that "every experience holds the potential to mediate grace" (nice thought). Also the eventual enlightenment of everyone, sounds like Christianity as well as Buddhism. It's not a distinction between a "once only" or "many times" revelation, but a person as truth rather than a more abstract concept. That's my impression anyway.

 

One thing that resonates from your writing is that seeking the kingdom, or grace, is better than focusing on the life of Christ, which can lead to martyrdom rather than mercy.

 

[if I overspoke on this thread, it's only that somewhere in the back of my brain there's this vague hope that maybe the wisdom of the Far East can provide a clue to resolving the disastrous conflicts of the Middle East.]

 

rivanna,

 

Just a couple of points.

 

Re "there is nothing to incarnate"..................hopefully there was no connotation of nihilism being conveyed by my use of these words. I intended them in the sense I hope was made clear by my entire post.

 

And as far as "abstract notions" rather than a person, I agree with DavidD that "abstract notions" will always be conveyed by and within the "particular", which more often than not will be by the speech and acts - the total life - of a human being. Hopefully my words did not imply anything else.

 

Thanks

Derek