Saturday, May 12, 2018

Jimmy Dore - Jesse Ventura Talks Running For President In 2020 - w/Jess Ventura pt. 3

Jesse Ventura disturbed me once when he said he was now a libertarian, then he added he was a socialist libertarian which calmed me down a bit but he seemed to be talking to libertarians quite a lot. Anyway, everything is okay now because he says he will run for president in 2020 as a Green Party candidate. Sounds great. By the way, Ray McGovern voted for the Green party too, what a great guy!

Jesse Ventura says Trump lied and then filled his party with even more creatures from the swamp. He says if he gets elected he will start to de-fund the Military-Industrial-Complex and will even put a tax on it.

Jesse is a nice guy and has seen action so I'm sure he understands what he's up against, but does he realise that hardened criminal, as well as members of the Mafia, are tied in with the Military-Industrial-Complex, and this  is what Jeremy Corbyn is up against too. These people are so evil it is difficult for nice guys to fully comprehend what they are truly capable of, but it would be great to finally see these people locked up behind bars. The trouble is they have so much money and power that behind the scenes they can rig anything.


52 comments:

Tom Hickey said...

"socialist libertarian" = left libertarian.

Left libertarians prioritize human rights, as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result they seek a balance of social, political and economic liberalism.

Left libertarians (LLs) view society as a really existent social system, the units (elements) of which are individuals, while foundational subsystem is the family. The micro level is the individuals that make up the society, the meso level is the subsystems that create overlapping networks, and the macro level is the society, e.g., a modern nation state. These levels and the relations they involve are interactive and of mutual influence within a system as an organic whole with its own changing and adaptive dynamic based on culture and institutional arrangements.

LLs tend to be democrats that favor consensual governance under the principle of subsidiarily, where decisions are made at the lowest level that is feasible. They tend to favor democracy as governance of, for and by the people.

Somewhat conversely, right libertarians (RLs) prioritize property rights. Consequently, they generally prioritize economic liberalism over social and political liberalism. Right libertarians prioritize property rights. Consequently, they generally prioritize economic liberalism over social and political liberalism. They tend to see democracy as "the tyranny of the majority."

RLs exalt the individual over society, which some deny the real existence of, holding it it only a concept. From their POV, the micro level determines the macro level, or should. They tend to be anarchists that advocate no government (state) with relation being determined based on economic liberalism coupled with the non-aggression principle.

While this abstracts from the nuance, I think it captures the essence. A lot more is said here about LLs than RLs largely because in my perception, RLs aim to keep the basics simple, while LLs tend more toward nuance. This means that RLs are more likely to be on the same page more or less, while LLs are varied and find it difficult to present a united front.

I am not sure how Jesse Ventura fits into this, and I don't know whether he has figured it out himself. He seems to me to be kind of shoot from the hi guy that deals with situations as they arise.

Andrew Anderson said...

These people are so evil it is difficult for nice guys to comprehend what they are truly capable of, Kaivey

Doesn't matter since:

Proverbs 16:7:
When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.

Bob Roddis said...

A socialist libertarian is like a 213 degree ice cube. Your person and your property are either inviolate or they are not. People go to such extremes to muck up those simple concepts. They must be afraid of something.

Andrew Anderson said...

Your person and your property are either inviolate or they are not.

Face it Bob. You guys want to legally steal (via a government enforced Gold Standard and deflation) and then have government protect your stolen property. You're hypocrites.

Now quit worshiping a shiny metal and following hate-filled ("Hate is my muse" Murray Rothbard) and read the Bible. You're not getting any younger, you know.

Tom Hickey said...

Your person and your property are either inviolate or they are not.

Those are some human rights but not all.

An it should be evident that a natural person has great "sanctity" than property, for example, and also a fictitious person, for that matter. But this is apparently not obvious to all.

Rights can be viewed either as a pyramid or a constellation. The pyramid approach tends toward a fixed ranking. A constellation approach is more contextual and situational.

Legal rights are established in law, and it is up to courts to decide how they apply in specific cases. However, this differs by jurisdiction and there is no uniformity on the matter.

So in most cases there are legal rights and putative rights. Putative rights are, e.g., the rights appearing in the Universal Declaration that are not established in law in a jurisdiction.

Andrew Anderson said...

For the record, I'm not a socialist either but, if I have to choose, I prefer their soft minds to the hard hearts of gold worshipers.

Tom Hickey said...

Socialism is based on the golden rule.

It's economic expression is, "From each according to ability and to each according to need."

Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common within the socialist movement.Wikipedia

Here is the golden rule in many traditions.

Here is another apt quotation:

“Do not grieve or complain that you were born in a time when you can no longer see God in the flesh. He did not in fact take this privilege from you. As he says: ‘Whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, you did to me.’” —St. Augustine of Hippo

Andrew Anderson said...

You'd do well, Tom, if you read the Bible YOURSELF since we know where following human tradition leads to and it isn't good.

A quote from the Bible any Christian is bound to respect - not so with a quote from Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Pope Francis, etc.

Tom Hickey said...

Yes, but there are many ways to interpret the scriptures. And who can know which is correct?

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 58:8-9

Bob Roddis said...

You guys want to legally steal

Please explain how stealing is even possible when violence and the threat of violence is strictly and rigorously prohibited. I submit that you are just destroying the meaning of ordinary words because you have no argument whatsoever.

Bob Roddis said...

Socialism is based on the golden rule.

That's complete nonsense. Socialism is based upon a vicious form of envy and the theft of property from others. Only when violence and the threat of violence has been removed can there be a true consensus.

Tom Hickey said...

Socialism is based upon a vicious form of envy and the theft of property from others

The counter is that anarcho-captialism is a vicious from of greed along with naive market fundamentalism that equates liberalism with economic liberalism.

Neither advance the debate.

The actual issue with regard to anarch-capitalism, syndicalism, communitarianism, etc. is how to get from here to there given existing culture and institutional arrangements.

What happens after neoliberal globalization crests and that wave starts to collapse on itself?

Kaivey said...

No one is more envious of the rich than the rich themselves, they just hate it if someone is richer than them.

Calgacus said...

Bob Roddis: Your person and your property are either inviolate or they are not. etc

But what is property? As a concept? What things can have property rights attached to them?

Kaivey said...

Capitalism is based on an unequal power structure so that people can be forced - which is violence - to work subserviently for the better off.

Libertarians give the bosses all the power they need to suppress everyone else, which is their liberty, but it is also violence, and the lack of freedom and liberty for the many.

If we equate freedom with the maximum amount of freedom people in society can have, we wouldn't support libertarianism, which says that the minority, the one percent, can have absolute control over everyone else. This isn't freedom, this is tyranny.

Bob Roddis said...

Capitalism is based on an unequal power structure so that people can be forced - which is violence -

When violence is prohibited, there is no power structure. And when there is no violence... there is no violence. Your attempts at the total destruction of well-known common terms and words is amazing.

Tom Hickey said...

No one is more envious of the rich than the rich themselves, they just hate it if someone is richer than them.

This is one factor in the current explosion in inequality. The less rich rich envy the richer and the richest never have enough because someone might catch up. So it is a rat race at and near the top as a result of which the income and wealth gap widens continuously.

Tom Hickey said...

The bottom line issue under the present institutional arrangements is economic rent, e.g, land rent, monopoly/monopsony rent, financial rent, negative externality, and unearned gains from abusive power, collusion, corruption, crime, and generating artificial scarcity.

The first step is precluding economic rent by changing institutional arrangements that support rent extraction, and discouraging rent-seeking by taxing away gains accruing from economic rents.

The principle regulating tax policy should be to use taxes to discourage negative behaviors, i.e. that which is socially unnecessary or socially damaging, and unproductive and counterproductive, by creating disincentives to gains resulting from such behavior, while incentivizing that which is socially necessary and productive.

Andrew Anderson said...

Yes, but there are many ways to interpret the scriptures. And who can know which is correct? Tom Hickey

That's a cop-out.

Sure it's not easy, especially to a modern mind; it took me 8 years to get to a reasonably consistent understanding and I don't claim that I'm finished yet.

Still, otoh, knowing the Bible allows me to advocate what might seem a radical agenda with confidence.

Tom Hickey said...

Sure it's not easy, especially to a modern mind; it took me 8 years to get to a reasonably consistent understanding and I don't claim that I'm finished yet.

Still, otoh, knowing the Bible allows me to advocate what might seem a radical agenda with confidence.


In the first place, your view is one interpretation among many.

Secondly, it is an amateur interpretation if you are not a qualified as biblical scholar and are not basing your view on scholarship.

There are a lot of disagreements among scholars and among those considered "saints," too.

But a least such people are in a somewhat special position to know.

Sure, an ordinary person might hit on the interpretation that the Lord intends, but how to know oneself and how to prove it to others.

What is the criterion or criteria?

Andrew Anderson said...

but how to know oneself and how to prove it to others. Tom Hickey

I never attempt to prove my interpretation to others; I'm maybe no better than Thomas Aquinas but neither is he or any other mere human even equal to Scripture with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Besides, I have no and need no interpretation of Scripture since I have Scripture itself to read.

The rest of your comment betrays you have not done your homework, i.e. you've spent a lot more time reading ABOUT the Bible than reading it yourself, it seems.

I'll tell you from experience you'll never get anywhere without reading it yourself. Moreover, you'll never have confidence of knowing anything if you don't read it yourself because, like you said, there are many interpretations that SOME PROPAGATE - AS IF THEIR OWN WRITINGS WERE CLEARER THAN THOSE OF MEN INSPIRED BY GOD.

Andrew Anderson said...

Moreover, we have a very long history now of how men stray from the truth when they neglect the Bible, e.g. Calvin and interest.

Tom Hickey said...

You are making assumptions. A lot of my work involved studying the scripture of the world's religions, both reading them and reading what the commentators had to say, as well as consulting the scholars and familiarizing myself with the historical context in which they emerged. I was also a clergy person.

All this other stuff here at MNE is a sideline for me.

Andrew Anderson said...

Sure, an ordinary person might hit on the interpretation that the Lord intends .. Tom Hickey

That's actually the normal, expected outcome - if one will persist in reading it.

Tom Hickey said...

That's actually the normal, expected outcome - if one will persist in reading it.

So why is it that so many disagree? Putative saints, theologians, clergy, lay people, etc. There are thousands of sects in Christianity alone. Who has the Holy Spirit favored and how to know. What is the criterion or criteria?

Then there is the issue of not knowing the original language and the meaning of key terms in the context of the time when that context no longer exists and has to be inferred. In addition, translations differ markedly and are based on the translators understanding, which are not the same, as well as their biases.

Matt Franko said...

That’s why I just read Apostle Paul...

Andrew Anderson said...

So why is it that so many disagree? Tom Hickey

How many have even read the entire Bible? Relying instead of so-called experts - despite the fact that Scripture is meant for ordinary people?

Then there is the issue of not knowing the original language and the meaning of key terms in the context of the time when that context no longer exists and has to be inferred. In addition, translations differ markedly and are based on the translators understanding, which are not the same, as well as their biases. Tom Hickey

If the translation is competently done and is consistent, then the Holy Spirit should be able to bridge the gap to understanding. For example, "damned" to me means sent to Hell forever but is used in the KJV where we might today use the word "censored" or "at fault." I don't read the KJV but if I did, I would quickly not assume that "damned" necessarily meant sent to Hell forever.

Andrew Anderson said...

Here's some examples of relying on "experts" rather than the Bible.

We all know God knows everything, right?

Well, He does't, not according to Scripture. Otherwise, He would not have to "search hearts and test minds" (Jeremiah 17:10)

We all know that God has always existed, right?

Well, that's not in the Bible either. Instead we find,

"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. Isaiah 43:10

I could go on, but the point is, READ THE BIBLE YOURSELF.

Matt Franko said...

Tom,

Paul here: " And what things you hear from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who shall be competent to teach others also."

so when you say here: " if you are not a qualified as biblical scholar and are not basing your view on scholarship."

I think you are correct but what makes a person 'competent' or 'qualified' ???

I dont think a Theology Degree from the academe cuts it... imo you need a broader and balanced liberal education... including plenty of math and sciences...

A theology degree from the academe might help one know which wife Abraham knocked up first or regurgitate stuff like AA is always doing, but unless you have much math and science training as well as linguistics, logic, philosophy,etc.. ... I dont think you are truly qualified "to teach others.." you cant understand the Scriptures...

What makes a person 'qualified to teach others' or 'competent to teach others' ???? that is a key question...

Matt Franko said...

AA,

You should consider Christendom might be completely wrong about all of this “end times!” stuff... they could easily be wrong on all of that imo...

And you are overly focused on applying the OT laws if you are nominally a Christian imo...

Tom Hickey said...

@ AA

OK. You are a subjectivist. Many are. That's a choice.

Choice doesn't have to be based on criteria in that case. preference or "conviction" become the criterion. The it becomes purely a matter of belief, which is subjective.

Even if one's views are based on personal "mystical" experience, that is also subjective.

This is a big reason that there are so many different views on matter for which there is no evidence, and why there is also philosophy as knowledge based on reasoning, and science which is knowledge based on reasoning and evidence.

Scholars views are objectively based in that they argue based on evidence (texts, artifacts, historical records, etc.). But they disagree over the evidence and its interpretation.

First there comes textual analysis (in the course of which a reliable text is established), then exegesis (meaning) and then hermeneutics (interpretation). Doctrine and theology are built on this. Difference in these usually characterize different sects and schools.

In the Jewish tradition there are four levels of scripture, distinguished by the acronym PARDES, which means "orchard" or "garden" in Hebrew.

"Pardes" refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism or to interpretation of text in Torah study. The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the same initials of the following four approaches:

Peshat (פְּשָׁט‬) — "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning.[1]
Remez (רֶמֶז‬) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ‬) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
Sod (סוֹד‬) (pronounced with a long O as in 'soda') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
Wikipedia/Pardes)

In the Catholic tradition there are also four senses of scripture:

Traditionally, the Church has identified four levels of meaning or 'senses' of Scripture: the literal sense and three spiritual senses - the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical senses. Aquinas explains these in his Summa Theologiae, in Article 10 of Question 1 in the Prima Pars
Aquinas on the Four Senses of Scripture

continued

Tom Hickey said...

continuation

There three levels in the Vedic tradition.

Karma khanda deal with action.
Upasana khanda deal with worship.
Jnana khanda deals with knowledge as gnosis.

There are different approaches to meaning in Islamic theology, e.g, the inner and outer meanings.

In Buddhism there are the apparent or conventional meaning and the deep or ultimate level.

The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit), meaning truth or "really existing" in the discourse of the Buddha: the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.[1]

The exact meaning varies between the various Buddhist schools and traditions. The best known interpretation is from the Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism, whose founder was Nagarjuna,[1] For Nagarjuna, the two truths are epistemological truths. The phenomenal world is accorded a provisional existence. The character of the phenomenal world is declared to be neither real nor unreal, but logically indeterminable. Ultimately, phenomena are empty (sunyata) of an inherent self or essence, but exist depending on other phenomena (Pratītyasamutpāda

Wikipedia, Two Truths Doctrine

So there are different approaches to scripture. Everyone is free to choose the one they favor. But if one is to convince others of one's POV, then reasoning and evidence will probably be needed unless others happen to agree with one's POV.

end

Tom Hickey said...

I could go on, but the point is, READ THE BIBLE YOURSELF.

First, those are your interpretations. You are welcome to them.

Secondly, the scripture is notorious for containing apparent contradictions and a lot of ink has been spilled over this on both sides.

Andrew Anderson said...

Secondly, the scripture is notorious for containing apparent contradictions ... Tom Hickey

That's why I suggest you learn to trust it while you still can - it took me 8 years.

Did you know, for example, that PI does equal 3 - to one significant number?

Did you know, for example, that the Sun does orbit the Earth if one's reference frame is Earth centered?

But don't take my word, this guy has a PHD in Astrophysics and has, like you, read all the scriptures of the world's major religions.

Matt Franko said...

AA,

“The rest of your comment betrays you have not done your homework, i.e. you've spent a lot more time reading ABOUT the Bible than reading it yourself, it seems.“

LOL hello! Tom is not a Christian not everybody is ..... give it a rest...

Tom’s consciousness is at least 1,000 years ahead of this era...

Paul: “I am entreating you not to be conformed to this era” Romans 12:2

Tom is certainly NOT conformed to this era LOL!.... . he is probably 1,000 years ahead of things... there are many like this...

Tom Hickey said...

What makes a person 'qualified to teach others' or 'competent to teach others' ???? that is a key question...

This is one of the enduring questions.

There are two categories here.

The first is the spiritual teachers. They have studied to the point that they are qualified to accept students. They teach mediately, using reasoning and evidence, as well as personal experience, which is limited. Some may have developed intuition or spiritual power, though. What is the qualification? There is none established. Which leads to issues. Lots of half-baked and bogus teachers.

The second are spiritual masters. They alone are qualified to make disciples and to transmit knowledge directly and immediately (without mediation). This is called "transmission" or "spontaneous awakening." This is true of genuine saints and the perfected. But a such person can only transmit knowledge directly up to his or her level and not beyond. How to recognize a genuine spiritual master or saint for that matter? There are also issues here. Plenty of charlatans along with the well-meaning but self-deluded.

No big problem according to perennial wisdom: "When the disciple is ready, the master appears." The task is prepare. Moreover, also according to PW, the master, being omnipresent, is within the hearts of all. No need even to go anywhere in search. "Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you." — Matthew 7:7 (NSRV).

Most Christian sects recognize only Jesus as master, although many would also include direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There seems to me to be to be evidence in the mystical literature for both. Given what most Christians accept, it's moot.

The Holy Spirit also an aspect of Jewish spirituality, ruach hakodesh (also ruaḥ ha-qodesh) means "the holy spirit," which is identified with Shekhinah, or the immanent presence of HaShem in the world, which is identified with Wisdom (chokmah or hokmah). See Holy Spirit in Judaism at Wikipedia. In Islam this is Ruh al-Qudus.

In Judaism, there is a distinction between a being a rabbi and being a tzadik, despite the fact that "rabbi" can be translated "my master."

Similarly in Islam there is a distinction between being an imam and being a sheikh, pir or qutub.

In the Vedic tradition there is a difference between being an acharya and being a sadguru or avatara. (Guru can mean either teacher or master, as can acharya. Depends on context.)

Same with Buddhism, but there are different terms for teacher and master in different schools and different languages. There is a huge difference in being an acharya (teacher) and being a Bodhisattva or Buddha.

Tom Hickey said...

I don't have an issue with contradictions since they are usually pretty simple to interpret as paradoxes. Generally they appear as a result of mixing up levels of meaning. All scripture and teaching is paradoxical. Especially in Zen, where paradox is a tool.

Tom Hickey said...

Tom is not a Christian not everybody is

When I was a serving as a clergy person, I used to say as a disclaimer, "I am not a Christian; I am a follower of Jesus, but not only Jesus as Jesus."

I am a proponent of perennial wisdom. Truth is one. And its manifestations are many and they may appear on the surface to be different and even mutually exclusive.

Andrew Anderson said...

Truth is one. And its manifestations are many and they may appear on the surface to be different and even mutually exclusive. Tom Hickey

Certainly some truth is to be found nearly anywhere but the Bible claims, with very substantial evidence, to be the PURE TRUTH, e.g. "Father, sanctify them with the truth, thy Word is truth" John 17:17, e.g. Your word is very pure,
Therefore Your servant loves it.
Psalm 119:140.

Tom Hickey said...

@AA

Who is that Father? Only the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob?

That is a rhetorical question. I can assume your answer.

Andrew Anderson said...

Who is that Father? Only the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob? Tom Hickey

Physically, He is the Father of all humans in that He created Adam and Eve.

Spiritually, He is the Father of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and all of like faith.

Abraham was a man's man. He was also kind, merciful in that he tried to save Sodom and Gomorrah, and he believed God to the point he would have killed his own son, reasoning that God would resurrect Issac in order to keep his promise to Abraham.

For those reasons, and because it's none of my business anyway, I have no quarrel with God favoring Abraham and his descendants.

That is a rhetorical question. I can assume your answer. Tom Hickey

So, did I answer as predicted or am I not so easily pigeon-holed?

Not that I claim anything about myself but that my God is beyond prediction.

Tom Hickey said...

Pretty much as I assumed.

It's a subjective belief that you are welcome to, but which others may not view as compelling them to accept.

My view differs, for my own reasons, some subjective and others objective.

Andrew Anderson said...

It's a subjective belief that you are welcome to, but which others may not view as compelling them to accept. Tom Hickey

You forget who humans are, Tom. God is not on trial here, WE ARE, i.e. God could easily make His existence so undeniable that even someone like [insert the worse person you can think of] would be compelled to believe.

And my belief is not so much subjective as LITERAL, as would be the case of almost anyone reading the Bible without prior preconceptions.

Andrew Anderson said...

Adding that when God said nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord., He was referring to His ability to forgive and forget - which is certainly beyond human ability.

jrbarch said...

A story is just a story - what you carry to it, extract from it is what what matters.

This story fits right in here, although I may massage the hell out of it: -

Three little owls lived in a very deep, very dark forest. The elders among the owls had many books and stories on whether or not a ‘Sun’ existed. Some argued for it and some argued against. All were believers of course, because none of them really knew – but that didn’t stop them at all, in expounding their theories. Just a few of the more honest and humble opined, ‘I do not know. I have never experienced anything like that.’. The bookkeepers preached from their tomes to their following and enjoyed many a long hour, arguing about finer details.

Hearing of this Sun, the three little owls vowed to stay up one morning and see for themselves. But the forest was too deep, too dark, too tall over their heads.

Suddenly a soft sweet voice asked them" - 'Would you like a ride out and above the forest, and to see the Sun'? There was a beautiful swan, with a strong broad back – so the three owls hopped on board immediately. The swan soared out of the forest and up above the canopy, and there was the Sun, bright and beautiful. The three little owls could say nothing about the Sun, other than they loved it, and realised how it brought Life to everything. It didn’t really need a book.

The swan returned them to their forest and they soon fell asleep, not being used to being up all day. But not before they agreed among one another to say nothing to the other owls, for very obvious reasons, until they grew up and were able to hold their own.

Matt Franko said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt Franko said...

" he believed God to the point he would have killed his own son,"

He only was going to do that as he was being rewarded with increase in his flocks and grazing lands as long as he obeyed God... there was something in it for him (Abraham) from a material standpoint so he (Abraham) would do anything to remain is this form of favor..

God was selecting for a line of people that contained the ability to literally kill their own Son of David if they thought there was material advantage in doing so... so you see the corrupt Israelites getting together with Rome centuries later to kill Jesus (Son of David) in public and humiliating fashion as Jesus represented a threat to Judea's (corrupt Israel's) material well being...

any self-respecting Cainite would have told God to take the knife and shove it up His ass (if He had an ass...)

Matt Franko said...

This type of materialist teaching continues even today within some sects in Christendom:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/identities/2017/9/1/15951874/prosperity-gospel-explained-why-joel-osteen-believes-prayer-can-make-you-rich-trump

Osteen the current prime example...

Tom Hickey said...

Nice story, JR.

The moral: All are agnostics until becoming gnostics. According to perennial wisdom this is a gradual process with sudden moments along the way.

This is the way I take the saying of the prophet Isaiah (prophet means "one that speaks for") about God's thoughts and ways. It is a caution to be humble while one is an agnostic and don't put on the robes of a prophet until one is actually a gnostic.

While ultimately truth is one, there are may ways to find it. As my Chinese internal arts teacher told me, I can show you now to find it but I can't find it for you. You have to find it for yourself.

There is no general rule or method applicable to all who aspire to realize God. Every man must work out his own salvation, and must choose his own method, although his choice is mostly determined by the total effect of the mind impressions (sanskaras) acquired in previous lives. He should be guided by the creed of his conscience, and follow the method that best suits his spiritual tendency, his physical aptitude and his external circumstances. Truth is One, but the approach to it is essentially individual. The Sufis say, There are as many ways to God as there are souls of men.
— Meher Baba, God Speaks: The Theme of Creation and Its Purpose. Walnut Creek, CA: Sufism Reoriented, 1973, 2nd Edition, 3rd printing, Supl. 2, p. 193-194

This might lead one to conclude that Meher Baba was a Sufi. Rather, his approach was non-sectarian and universal. Similarly, Jesus was not a Christian, a term that appeared long after Jesus. Jesus appeared in the Jewish tradition of Hebrew prophets. He gave a specific teaching for Jews. A separate teaching for Gentiles already existed in Judaism. Jews were under all the laws (mizvoth) of the Abrahamic covenant. Gentiles — the rest of humanity — were to follow the seven laws of Noah aka Noahide laws. Gentile Christianity developed largely out of Paul and the Church Fathers. Subsequently, Christianity split into a great many sects as different ways of following Jesus’ teaching, with different rationales and justifications.

AA’s way is one. Matt's is another. Mine is another. The advantage of mine to me is that it is also fundamental to the other wisdom traditions of the world and is a key fundamental of perennial wisdom. I am a student of perennial wisdom. It enable me to see that all are on the same journey while taking different routes. In the Bhagavad Gita 3:35, Krishna says in effect that it is better to fail in following one’s own dharma than undertake the dharma of another.

continued

Tom Hickey said...

continuation

My way is based on Matthew 22: 36-40 (NRSV) — “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” I take this to be a specific way of following Jesus.

Here Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:5. The preceding passage 6:4 is, Yisroel YHVH elohenu YHVH echad. It is a most important passage with respect to observance, which pious Jews are enjoined to repeat twice daily. YHVH is the name of God revealed to Moses in the story of the burning bush (Exodus 3:1-17). The pious do not speak it aloud and substitute Adonai, meaning the Lord, in place of it. The literal meaning is YHVH [is] our God; YHVH [is] one. The root from of YHVH is related to “existence.”

This can be taken in four senses according to PARDES (see my comment above). The literal meaning implies monotheism or henotheism — there is only one god. The secret meaning, which corresponds to the anagogical meaning in Christianity is that being is one, that is YHVH alone is real.

This is called emanation — all is the manifestation of the one existence — in contrast to creation of beings that are actually separate in existence. Paul alludes to this in saying in Acts 17:28, quoting a now unknown Athenian poet, "In Him we live and move and have our being." That is to say, the one is both immanent and also transcendent. This is called panentheism.

This "secret" is revealed in experientially in gnosis, when it becomes knowledge rather than belief. It is recounted by mystics of all traditions and no tradition, including in Christianity. Most Christians sects regard this as heretical however, as does much of Judaism and Islam. This is not the case in Eastern traditions.

This experience grows gradually, and it is evinced in growing appreciation for universality. Jesus expressed this in adding Leviticus 19:17 to Deuteronomy 6:5 — "Love your neighbor as yourself."

"Love is the reflection of God's unity in the world of [apparent] duality. It constitutes the entire significance of creation."
— Meher Baba, Discourses, Sheriar Foundation, 7th ed. 1987, p. 116

In this view, love is the great commandment (mitzvah) and in fulfilling it, all other injunctions are met implicitly.

"Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good."
Augustine of Hippo, Homily 7 on the First Epistle of John

Love is the great unifier. In love, all paths converge.

end

jrbarch said...

Augustine’s homily would certainly make America great again.

I think Tom is right – we are all students here on MNE.

For me (in the story above) the real purpose of all those tomes the elder owls had, is to warm the heart, make it expand and glow. And when the heart is ready the Swan will appear. Mind is a witness. The heart is real, the Swan is real, the Sun is reality.

So, there is your ‘qualified’ teacher: - alive and willing to show you, face to face.

Not that you really deserved it. But that your heart was ready.

Tom Hickey said...

But that your heart was ready.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit [those whose hearts are without egocentric desires], for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Mt 5:3

“Blessed are the pure in heart [no egocentric desires], for they shall see God." Mt. 5:8