I’ve been reading a lot of FB posts on faith vs. science, and it inspired me to take a look at Christianity with fresh eyes. Today, I started reading Eckhart Tolle’s A New Earth. The book is about achieving enlightenment or, if you prefer, moving to a higher level of consciousness. Here is an excerpt:
“If we look more deeply into humanity’s ancient religions and spiritual traditions, we will find that underneath the many surface differences there are two core insights that most of them agree on. […] The first part of this truth is the realization that the ‘normal’ state of mind of most human beings contains a strong element of what we might call dysfunction or even madness. Certain teachings at the heart of Hinduism perhaps come closest to seeing the dysfunction as a form of collective mental illness. They call it maya, the veil of delusion. Raman Maharshi, one of the greatest Indian sages, bluntly states, ‘The mind is maya.’
Buddhism uses different terms. According to the Buddha, the human mind in its normal state generates dukkha, which can be translated as suffering, unsatisfactoriness [SIC], or just plain misery. He sees it as a characteristic of the human condition. […]
According to Christian teachings, the normal collective state of humanity is one of ‘original sin’. Sin is a word that has been greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted. Literally translated from the ancient Greek in which the New Testament was written, to sin means to miss the mark, as an archer who misses the target, so to sin means to miss the point of human existence. It means to live unskillfully, blindly, and thus to suffer and cause suffering. Again, the term, stripped of its baggage and cultural misinterpretations, points to the dysfunction in the human condition.”
In the past, I've always assumed that Christianity and the Bible were absolute truth or rubbish, but now I'm starting to wonder if a middle ground is possible. To move forward with this belief, I will need to deny several basic premises of contemporary Christianity while recognizing that some aspects of my belief cannot be quantified or easily observed.
Let's assume that “God” is a character and not a supreme being, the New Testament is not timeless (but certainly revolutionary for its time), and Jesus was simply attempting to inspire others to achieve enlightenment. With those three assumptions, Christianity and the Bible make a lot of sense to me, and I have to admit that Jesus was really on to something. I may still not agree with every message in there, but it seems like he was certainly more enlightened than I am today. This will require some thought.
Part 2 will be coming to a FB/blog post near you, but for now: dinner time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think anyone's starting point for spirituality should be any organized religion. Start with your own ideas and observations, without relating them to others. First, this is a good example of how I view religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
ReplyDeleteI've also been giving a lot of thought to a higher state of consciousness lately. Though, I think this has a major connection to the imagination portion of the brain. As a sort of science experiment, I've been on a quest to have an out-of-body experience. I can already meditate to the point of seeing images which is supposedly on the right track, but at the moment my belief system is at a standstill until I can conclude something. Being skeptical is healthy I think. I'll keep you updated!
I don't think organized religion is a bad starting point for spirituality. Something's got to get you started asking questions. I've spent a lot of time agonizing over the truth just out of my reach, and I really make an effort to never be too comfortable with the things I hold as truth.
ReplyDeleteYour video is pretty awesome! I have seen similar ones, but that one did a great job of laying all the correlations out.
My mom claims to have had an out of body experience, but I don't know what to think about that.
This is a comment from my FB readers:
ReplyDeleteThere is trouble with your three premises. The second one in particular states that the NT is "not timeless." I'm not sure what is meant by this. Even so, you must decide if the NT is true or not, particularly the gospels and book of Acts, which purport to be literal historical documents. If they are, then your other two premises ... See Moreare on shaky ground. Jesus claims to be the Jewish messiah several times. As to claims about God from the NT, if true, you will be forced to at least grant that he is creator of the universe. There are many other character attributes about God that can be gleaned from Jesus' teaching.
Now, if the NT is not true as a historical document, either only partially true or a complete fabrication, you would have freedom to redefine terms and interpret things as you wish.
Your comment about your own ideas being the starting point is, frankly, a very vain comment. Granted, all we truly have as a starting point is our own experiences, but hopefully we can see that we do not have the omnipresence to have claimed to see or know all that there is. Everyone ultimately believes in a god. To make this god oneself is a very scary thing for me to comprehend.
I look forward to part 2. I'll also check out the video.
I was just lying down for bed and I remembered one of my favorite explanations of religion:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w&feature=fvst