Random Dharma

... but then it fixed itself:


Final Result:
Montanism
You are Montanism!

Named after its founder, the second-century preacher Montanus, Montanism was a Christian movement which based its teachings upon special prophetic revelations granted to Montanus himself, along with his companions Prisca and Maximilla. Although the exact tenets taught by the three erstwhile prophets are unclear, Montanists were known for their strict disciplinary standards, which forbade remarriage after the death of a spouse and required strict fasting. Although Montanus's prophecies initially seemed to be compatible with mainstream Christian doctrine, Montanists eventually formed a separate sect which granted doctrinal authority to the writings of the three prophets. The most famous Montanist was Tertullian, a prominent African theologian, who became convinced in later life that the prophecies of Montanus were genuine; Montanists are therefore sometimes referred to in later writings as "Tertullianists."

I got Arianism. Probably because I didn't know any obscure Scandinavian symphonic composers. Sigh.

I WANT THAT SCHISMS T-SHIRT!!!!!

Oh I was Montanism! I figured it was my leftover ascetic tendencies I don't even know if those composers exist, I chose by first name preference (Kurt, if you were wondering )

Marginally more seriously, at one point I was quite interested in Rastafarianism (which is basically Christian with lots of creolized elements, sadly pretty misogynistic and homophobic a lot of the time but with some amazing imagery and metaphors, particularly from the Old Testament, and beautiful music) and one of their sayings is 'isms and schisms' are things to be avoided:

Rastafari say that they reject -isms. They see a wide range of -isms and schisms in modern society, for example communism and capitalism, and want no part in them. For example, Haile Selassie himself was an anti-communist during the cold war, and was deposed by a Marxist coup. Rastafarians would reject Marxism as part of the Babylonian system or, at the very least, just another version of western Humanism. They especially reject the word "Rastafarianism", because they see themselves as "having transcended -isms and schisms".

(I don't particularly agree with this viewpoint b/c I think it avoids seeing that everything is an ism, and strives for an unattainable purity of view, but I find it interesting and an 'isms and schisms' line from a Tricky song, Hell is Round The Corner , popped into my head in the schism discussion)

There's a bunch of Hindu influence in there, too (at the least probably the ganja and dreadlocks and possibly some amount of the hermit-like/living in nature type lifestyle some Rastas have), perhaps from East Indians being present in British colonies? There are other islands that have jumbles of Hindu/Christian/African practices, too. Recalling an article somewhere with some really interesting religious images. I'll have to look for it.

I couldn't tell you if any of the obscure Scandinavian composers even exist-- I just chose the one whose name seemed most Pythonesque!

I'm a Montanist, it seems, apropos of nothing. I am vaguely uncomfortable, however, belonging to a heresy that includes the arch-misogynist Tertullian.

www.wired.com/2014/07/mountain-game/

I saw this and I wondered what you guys think, judging from a perspective of really clear perception.

www.popsci.com/article/science/ask-anyth...an-humans-smell-fear

Ona, i remember from a temporally distant sociology class some principle or other stating when the ratio of very young people (like, 22 or younger say) or perhaps it's young men that age gets to a certain point, revolutions of one kind or another become very likely statistically. Two cases in point mentioned by my professor were the baby boomers with their counter-culture movements in the 60's and the high proportion of young men in Iran at the time of the revolution. So you may be onto something.

Also, I hope I can test out as several early christian heresies, I have so many favorites!!

I sometimes wonder if the heresies appeal largely because they are heresies. If they were the common norm, and your boring neighbors and disliked politicians were representatives of them, then they wouldn't be as appealing? Not sure it's an American thing, or just an individual thing, to be attracted to "the underdog" or "rebel" roles? Only came to attention being here a while and noticing how much less interest there is in Brazilian culture in being counter-cultural. Nor was this a nation heavily settled by groups of heretics fleeing the oppression of the dominant culture in their homelands, while the US has a stronger element of that historically, which perhaps has supported that being a more valued part of the culture?

could be; I've always appreciated diversity of points of view. I think it's probably one reason I am so attracted to Buddhism, because under that abstract umbrella there is more diversity than in all the Abrahamic traditions together (IMO). Such different paradigms operating within that broad Buddhist framework. So When I look at Abrahamic traditions I'm naturally interested in all the different side-avenues of thought and practice and social organization. But personally (within the abrahamics) i seem to resonate most with Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Pretty cool stuff.

A friend today was articulating two spins on mysticism in classical Christianity, one "essence" oriented (with an emphasis on framing things around the "infinite" aspects of Divine Union), the other "nuptial" (sp) oriented, which tends to emphasize the "intimacy" aspects. Neither is incomplete, but they are different flavors or personalities, in a sense. So St. Teresa of Avila is more on the Nuptial side, Meister Eckhart more on the Essence side. Both point to the same "place" as it were, but in terms that may resonate more or less with different people. I thought it was an interesting way of expressing it (eta: which I may have mangled in the retelling, btw.)

That is interesting! Also could pertain to a single practitioner at different stages, or different time of day eh?

I'm not big on the whole fall/redemption approach to religion, but I do confess that it resonates with some aspects of my experience, whether expressed in Buddhist or Christian forms. I mean, I don't know about you, but the all-is-already-complete-and-done-from-before-the-beginning View is compelling to me, and glimpsed here and there, and these glimpses can be profoundly transformative... and more importantly, they keep me humble about the 'milestones' (haha!) along the path of awakening, because in a sense they all fall short of that View. So it's a beautiful View but it's not where I actually live, most of the time. Or else, maybe it's more like, even the Path of moving through transformations that restore or actualize original nature progressively more completely is also allowed to be what-it-is and unfold naturally within that timeless view? Anyhow--

What I find resonant about Eastern Christianity is that they see the Spirit as emanating from the Father analagously to the Son, rather than seeing the Spirit as a function of the Son. So the Son affects the restoration or redemption, the reconnection of the human being to essence, to the uncreated grace from before-the-beginning. That's the function of the Son in this mythology as I understand it. It's the first step.

Then the father sends the Spirit to initiate the practitioner, who has been restored in Christ (i.e., who has been returned to a connection with primal grace), into a process of deification, or 'becoming divine'. The Myth here is that in the first Creation, there was a plan, for humans to be divine humans. Then we went off course into seperation and sin-- the compulsive emotional-behavioral instantiations of seperation. Christ restores us to the proper starting point, then the Spirit comes and guides the practitioner/devotee along the process that Humans were originally intended for-- which as articulated in the Eastern tradition is an actual physical transformation of our bodily being from dense created matter into uncreated luminous matter/energy, or Grace. A physical body of luminous Grace-matter. Pretty baddass. Reminds me of the whole Central Asian Dzogchen thing...

I find this a really beautiful and for me much more vivid Myth than I see in Protestantism. So that's my aesthetic prefference of Christianities

Mein Gott. I was expecting some other reason, and it's the filioque. Amazing. Yes, there does seem to be a good parallel between some Tibetan teachings and the deification process. I don't find that absent in Catholicism, though I think the Orthodox have had a certain centrality to their mystical/monastic tradition that makes it more prominent. It's certainly available within Catholicism (not heretical, by any means), though less talked about. I'm convinced that having a thriving and consistent monastic/eremetic core to a tradition is like the life blood of it. The stronger that is as the source of the outflow of ideas, doctrine, teaching, etc, the more the "awakening" components of the teachings will be prominent. You can hear it in the homilies, if a priest is also a monk, for instance, even more so if he is also speaking to a monastic audience. For which reason I prefer Mass at convents.

As to the lack of Abrahamic diversity, I'm not sure. I mean Quakers and Catholics seem as far apart to me as Zen and Tibetan Buddhism. The Amish and the Pentecostals, ditto. And that's tip of the iceberg. A Sufi has how much in common with a Lutheran?

Ona Kiser wrote: Mein Gott. I was expecting some other reason, and it's the filioque. Amazing.

lol

As to your question, I just think the overarching monotheism of the Abrahamics is more similar than anything I can think of in particular in Buddhist teachings. Not that there aren't consistencies but it seems like there is more ontological consitency in the Abrahamics-- that is, more consistency in the basic understanding of 'what is' and 'how it is', i.e., creator/creation. I'm not sure there is such an ontological similarity across Buddhist traditions. Also there is the other aspect of diversity. When the Mahayana began to differentiate itself from the pre-Mahayana schools, which was a hugely dramatic shift in many ways, my impression is there was more openness to diversity in those monastics (as there were monasteries which had members of both sects). So that internal tolerance for diversity is notable. Imagine a church that does both Lutheran services and Orthodox? Or imagine a single popular Abrahamic teacher who transmits Lutheranism, Sufism and Quakerism as distinct fully fleshed out traditions? Cuz that's probably a good analogy for many more liberal Rime Tibetan teachers for instance. But this is of course just my impressions and naturally, having studied the BUddhist stuff more, i will see more diversity in it lol! So you may be very right!

Don't know!

you're in good company then haha

There's been something trying to articulate itself all day in response (tangentially?) to this recent meander, but I'm not sure what. It might be to do with an interplay between relating to traditions as tools with which to acquire something and relating to traditions for their own sake, and on their own terms. That's as much as seems able to sort itself out at the moment. Does it inspire any further pondering?

It feels like you're pointing to something significant, and I have been vaguely pondering along similar lines all day... can't quite articulate it yet either-- at least, not in the grounded experiential way it deserves to be articulated. So I'm gonna keep gently tugging the thread and see what comes up...

For what it's worth, from the sidelines I've been thinking about how traditions, regardless of outer structure, can be a soil to grow within, but sometimes from the outside looking in people focus on looking at the pot and not the soil. Sorts the same feeling as the saying "the priests argue but the monks agree".

I think about how relationships to people change as our practice develops. Maybe at a point before we were in relationship because we wanted certain things out of it that were expressions of our own neuroses; or we liked or disliked people because they shone a light on our triggers or fluffed our egos; or because they gave us access to tools or social networks or money that we wanted. Etc. But we discover we can be with people who used to annoy us; we discover we must leave people who we were entangled with for the wrong reasons, or with whom authenticity cannot flourish; we find a love for people we used to overlook; we find we can allow people to be full of quirks and defects and weaknesses and still love them, etc. And for me, at least, I feel like relationship to spiritual tradition(s) have similar organic qualities.

Maybe this should split off of "random dharma" if it goes on...

Andrew WK party tip:

www.facebook.com/andrewwk/photos/a.40251...5329/?type=1&theater

Remember the person in the mirror is not you.