I have progressed enough in my mediation practice to understand the question, but not far enough to have much to say in the way of answers. "Apophatic" theology in Catholic circles seems to be related: One approaches insight into the divine through a process of subtraction or negation, a bit like sculpture. Remove all that is not true, in order to begin to apprehend the dim outlines of the truth.
Similarly, one might approach one's own ego consciousness, with its many delusions, as a process of deconstruction. Teachers of contemplation such as Thomas Merton talk about the "true self" and the "false self". Personally, I find the longing for "true self" and the diminution of "false self" to be more helpful than a notion of complete self-annihilation. To use Catholic terminology, the path toward a fully actualized true self is classically referred to as the Beatific Vision or Divine Union. These notions are perhaps similar to Enlightenment or Satori.
The academic discipline of mathematical statistics also has some resonances here. One seeks to hone a rigorous freedom from one's own expectations, pre-conceived ideas, and agendas. The goal is to see the truth, delicate as it may be to tease out, and overcome any personal tendency, explicit or implicit, to distort the view based on what we hope to see.
> Remove all that is not true, in order to begin to apprehend the dim outlines of the truth
“ And that is why, in the fundamental approach to the Godhead, both the Hindu and the Buddhist (and, for that matter, the Taoist) take what is called the negative approach, which used to be known long ago in the Middle Ages as Apophatic theology. As Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “To proceed to the knowledge of God it is necessary to go by the way of remotion,” of saying what God is not—since God, by his immensity, exceeds every conception to which our intellect can attain.
So then, of the Godhead the Hindu says: all that can truly be said is neti neti, “not this, not this.””
As for the decreation of God, consider the first commandments:
1. Have no other gods before me, or make graven images
There's no requirement to obey or sacrifice to God, just not to have false gods.
2. Don't take the name of the lord in vain
Don't act pious or pretend you are God's representative.
3. Respect the Sabbath
Don't fill life completely with work; *everyone* should do *nothing* for a day. There's NO requirement for religious services.
In the historical context when gods and temples seemed to vie for adherents, sacrifices and superiority, it's interesting that the (writers of the Hebrew god?) disavowed all that. Considering god as a projection of humans, this seems to inoculate people against religion and taking themselves too seriously.
(Needless to say, most of religion overtly violates this interpretation.)
>Have no other gods before me, or make graven images
It's also a fundamental requirement for a consistent ethical system that there be a "single source of truth". If you have multiple gods that could say potentially contradictory things, then you have an inconsistent system (mathematically speaking, one that could prove anything), so you essentially have a logically invalid axiomatic system.
It seems as though the author is hinting at a spectrum of decreations from physical to mental. On one hand it suggests that, Weil equates the decreation of the self to be synonymous with physical decreation, while the author suggests that mental decreation to be an other valid interpretation.
For those who are practitioners of neti neti meditation, what are your thoughts on the subject?
Readit News
Similarly, one might approach one's own ego consciousness, with its many delusions, as a process of deconstruction. Teachers of contemplation such as Thomas Merton talk about the "true self" and the "false self". Personally, I find the longing for "true self" and the diminution of "false self" to be more helpful than a notion of complete self-annihilation. To use Catholic terminology, the path toward a fully actualized true self is classically referred to as the Beatific Vision or Divine Union. These notions are perhaps similar to Enlightenment or Satori.
The academic discipline of mathematical statistics also has some resonances here. One seeks to hone a rigorous freedom from one's own expectations, pre-conceived ideas, and agendas. The goal is to see the truth, delicate as it may be to tease out, and overcome any personal tendency, explicit or implicit, to distort the view based on what we hope to see.
“ And that is why, in the fundamental approach to the Godhead, both the Hindu and the Buddhist (and, for that matter, the Taoist) take what is called the negative approach, which used to be known long ago in the Middle Ages as Apophatic theology. As Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “To proceed to the knowledge of God it is necessary to go by the way of remotion,” of saying what God is not—since God, by his immensity, exceeds every conception to which our intellect can attain.
So then, of the Godhead the Hindu says: all that can truly be said is neti neti, “not this, not this.””
~ Alan Watts
Excerpt from talk transcript (right before 19:39) https://alanwatts.org/transcripts/relevance-of-oriental-phil...
1. Have no other gods before me, or make graven images
There's no requirement to obey or sacrifice to God, just not to have false gods.
2. Don't take the name of the lord in vain
Don't act pious or pretend you are God's representative.
3. Respect the Sabbath
Don't fill life completely with work; *everyone* should do *nothing* for a day. There's NO requirement for religious services.
In the historical context when gods and temples seemed to vie for adherents, sacrifices and superiority, it's interesting that the (writers of the Hebrew god?) disavowed all that. Considering god as a projection of humans, this seems to inoculate people against religion and taking themselves too seriously.
(Needless to say, most of religion overtly violates this interpretation.)
It's also a fundamental requirement for a consistent ethical system that there be a "single source of truth". If you have multiple gods that could say potentially contradictory things, then you have an inconsistent system (mathematically speaking, one that could prove anything), so you essentially have a logically invalid axiomatic system.
For those who are practitioners of neti neti meditation, what are your thoughts on the subject?
Dead Comment