Curious Christian

5 responses to “Holy Beauty”

1. 

   John

   2006-09-19

   What Could be more ugly than a broken tortured body nailed to a cross? And then proclaimed as good news! Sado-masochism and the embrace of suffering as a “cultural” meme!
   This quote from my favourite “philosopher” is particualarly relevant.
   “Tat Sundaram! All of This Consciousness (Itself) Is Sacred! All that arises and passes In and AS Consciousness Is Beautiful!
   Therefore, all of THIS (arising and passing of conditions, forms, and beings) Is SACRED!
   Tat Sundaram! All of THIS Is Beautiful! All of THIS (arising and passing) Is Self-Existing (AS Consciousnes Itself) and Self-Radiant (AS Primal Energy Itself, or Light Itself – Which IS Happiness Itself)! Therefore, LET all of this BE SO!
   Tat Sundaram!
   ALL OF This Is SACRED!
   ALL Of This Is BEAUTIFUL!
   And SO BE You!
   This communication is all implied in this essay 1. http://www.dabase.net/christmc2.htm
   Also Art Is Love: Only That which Is Loved Is Beautiful
   http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/art_is_love/index.html

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Matt Stone

   2006-09-20

   John
   There is a basic distinction I would like to make here and that is the difference between (1) the embrace of suffering as an end in itself and (2) the embrace of suffering as a means to an end – such that something beautiful paradoxically arises out of something awful.
   It is one thing to submit to mutilation to satisfy some sort of perverse aesthetic. I agree that sounds completely sado-masochistic. But correctly understood that is not what Jesus was on about. His path was more akin to submitting to mutilation so that many might be spared it.
   I remember a story of a soldier who dived on a hand grenade in a WWII trench to save his mates. The grenade came over the trench and he was the only one who saw it. He could have dived out of the way to save himself but he would only have saved himself. Instead he chose a more selfless path. That is not what I would call sado-masochism. That is what I would call tragic beauty. In this crisis a love without limits, a love of transcending beauty, is expressed.
   Jesus did not want to suffer – he agonised about it when he saw it coming. He does not want us to suffer either. It’s just that in some circumstances the alternatives are far worse. In such circumstances it is better to embrace suffering for the greater good. It is that commitment to that which is good which is beautiful.
   How less beautiful is a love that is not willing to give everything, that holds back out of a sense of self preservation?

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   John

   2006-09-20

   Matt, I beg to differ.
   How do you know that “jesus” submitted to mutilation?
   Were you “there”? Did you witness this happening?
   And the rest of your response is entirely and only conjecture. It has no basis in either fact or truth, or Truth with a capital T.
   Whatever may or may not have happened to the legendary character called Jesus is entirely besides the point. The details of which were entirely invented by the official “church” for its own inherently political purposes. See
   1. http://www.dabase.net/proofch6.htm#idol.htm
   The truth remains that the Christian church as a whole teaches/emphasises the embrace of suffering in and as itself as a “lifestyle” so so speak. This is a unique feature of Christianity.
   As an example the hapless native Americans in Mexico and what is now the south west of the USA were made to Suffer with a capital S under the Spanish catholic fascism of the time.
   The conquest of the central and south America being one long sorry chapter in applied catholic christian suffering for the “good” of the souls of the millions of hapless victims!
   And what about the catholic priests blessing the “souls” of the African slaves as they were being loaded on to the slave ships!
   All of which was done in the name of bringing “jesus” and “god” to the “godless” “heathens”.
   And what about the smacking of the flesh that is an integral part of Opus Dei ascetical practices.
   And an integral part of Christian child -rearing pedagogy.
   Love is radiance of the whole bodily being which is impossible when a child is being beaten to “teach” it the “godly” way.
   Suffering and pain are an inevitable part of the human condition no doubt.
   But there is no virtue whatsoever in suffering in and of itself. Except for realised saints, suffering is a profound contraction of the entire bodily being and as such entirely cripples most humans.It quite literally becomes structured into the fascia of the human flesh body. Held in place by a nameless un-namable unconscious fear/dread/terror.
   Are you familiar with the psycho-history school of Lloyd De Mause and also the work of Alice Miller? They posit that ALL of the horrors of history are the acting out of individual and collective rage at the repressed brutalities of conventional “religious” inspired toxic pedagogies.
   Alice Miller’s book For Your Own Good features a chilling examination of the pain and suffering inflicting toxic childhood pedagogies of Christian Germany. She posits that the collective repressed rage thus created enabled Hitler to do what he did.
   A similar book titled Spare the Child by Philip Greven paints a disturbing picture of the traumatised bodily structures of the usual dreadfully sane Christian every person in the USA.
   Once thus traumatised children and adults are almost incapable of engaging the spiritual practice recommended in this essay titled Remember the Mystery In Which You Live
   2. http://www.dabase.net/rememyst.htm
   What mystery??
   All of the above examples and countless others are part of an inter-related continuum of a toxic cultural meme.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Matt Stone

   2006-09-21

   You said, ”Were you “there”? Did you witness this happening?”
   I have answered this previously but you haven’t responded to it. Do you seriously believe it is impossible to establish any degree of certainty about any event in history without having physically been there? What a criterion for historical research! How can you be sure that what I am saying about Jesus is wrong since you weren’t there either? How can you be sure of anything for that matter? How do you know that anything you’ve read about the early history of Adi Da is true? Were you there for everything? How can you be sure he just didn’t concoct the whole thing? How do you know the moon landings weren’t faked? Or that Caesar ever crossed the Rubicon? Or that Patanjali ever existed? If you want me to take Adi Da’s teaching seriously … well why should I if anything I haven’t seen myself can’t be believed?
   “The truth remains that the Christian church as a whole teaches/emphasises the embrace of suffering in and as itself as a “lifestyle” so so speak. This is a unique feature of Christianity.”
   Nice assertion. Lots of accusations. Now are you going to back it up with evidence? Oh, I forgot, you weren’t there so you can’t!
   “But there is no virtue whatsoever in suffering in and of itself.”
   I agree. Now quote me do these Christian leaders who says it is: Calvin? Luther? Billy Graham? Brian McLaren?
   On pedagogies. I committed my life to Christ as an adult of 24 years of ago. Fail to see the personal relevance of your point.
   Seriously, I am trying to understand you but I am at a loss to see how you can claim anything is true.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Paul Fromont

   2006-09-23

   Thanks Matt. I shall look forward to reading it. Have a good weekend.

   LikeLike

   Reply