Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Harmonious-Dichotomies
Seph
Veteran
(This is a topic I've posted on another discussion site. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts and opinions from this site... and even it this is appropriate).
We modern day Westerners tend to see everything through some kind of dichotomy. You're either <i>this</i> or you're </i>that</i>; you're either <i>guilty</i> or you're <i>innocent</i>; you're either <i>in</i> or you're <i>out</i>; it's either black or it's white.
Many of us - as we get older - become more mature and attain enough wisdom to come to understand that there exists many shades of gray, eventually realizing the <i>possibility</i> that either extreme is more of a hypothetical and that the world might very well be all various shades of gray. However, this is still functioning within the <i>Western-paradigm of Dichotomies</i>.
I believe there exists Harmonious-Dichotomies; polar opposites that not only co-exist, but <i><u>co-exist in harmony</i></u> with one another interdependent one another.
I think, to a certain degree, this is what we're seeing in Fundamental and even Conservative Christianity by focusing <i><b>nearly exclusively</i></b> on only one aspect; that <i>“Jesus died for our sins"</i> - while ignoring Jesus as an exemplar; <i>"Jesus lived for our lives. He died because we all must die, and he rose because we all have hope"</i>. It is attempting to make the situation fit into the <i>Western-paradigm of Dichotomies</i>.
[What's interesting is that the "Christianity" that Yeshua spoke of and taught (if I may call it "Christianity" at all) was <i><b>not</i></b> a Western religion at all. I seriously question whether it should be viewed through our cultural-lense or through our <i>Western-paradigm of Dichotomies</i> at all.]
The Japanese have a concept called <i>Mu</i>.
<i>Mu</i>; unask the question. It isn't that we need to choose or find the correct answer, but rather, we need to find the correct <i>question</i>.
I think this situation makes for a perfect example.
Modern day Christianity is trying to manipulate (intentionally or not) this into a choice of, either you believe Jesus is your Lord and Saviour, or you do not. Either Jesus died or your sins, or he did not. A very Western way of looking at things.
Yeshua's "Christianity" was <i><b>not</i></b> "Western" and neither was Yeshua.
I think the problem we're facing here is that we're asking the wrong questions (or allowing the wrong questions to be asked).
Yeshua himself had never taught that he would die for our sins or the sins for the world.
I am beginning to see this <i>Harmonious-dichotomy</i> more and more often.
With an extremely simple example, I first saw it manifested concretely in Taekwon-do.
Either you are striking (let's say punching) or you are blocking.
Either you are striking or defending, right?
The correct way to throw a punch (either technically or practically, as in sparring) involves <i><u>both</i></u>. (Let's say I'm throwing a left jab punch). My left fist rotates, reaches, and strikes forward. However, my <i><u>right</i></u> fist moves up and beside my head, creating a block, protecting my head/face.
The Western-dichotic-paradigm might say you cannot be offensive and defensive. You must be either one or the other. The truth of the matter is it is only functional (it is only <i><u>true</i></u>) when <i><b>both</i></b> are in harmony.
Another perspective is either you are a 'victim' (let's say you are starving) or you are a 'rescuer' (the one who donates the life saving food to the starving victim). Either you are the 'victim' or you are the 'rescuer'.
Really, these two polarities have everything to do with either "service to self" (I am the victim) or "service to others" (I am the rescuer). This fundamental division makes assumptions (deliberate or not).
If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.
This is the victim-rescuer paradigm.
If you teach him how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.
You have broken the victim-rescuer paradigm. You have not 'saved' him from starvation, but allowed him to rescue himself from starvation. Ultimately, promoted him to your (erroneous) position of 'rescuer'. He is also no longer the victim.
This becomes a Harmonious-dichotomy.
Yeshua had said, <i>"<font color=red>He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.</font>"</i> (Luke 11:23). (I know. Sounds pretty black-and-white).
However, Yeshua had also said to the rich young man to give all his riches to the poor (Matt. 19:20-22). That's interesting. Then 'the poor' would become rich and the rich would become the poor. What then? Are they then to reverse their rolls? I would think, yes! When this continues on long enough, there would exist no more poor. (It's nearly a socialist system). However, this works <i><u><b>only</i></u></b> if <i><b>everyone</i></b> follows it. And if only one refuses, the entire system collapses.
<center><i>...He who is not with me is against me...</i></center>
Suddenly, it isn't so black-and-white, is it?
Granted, I'm projecting and presuming a lot here on Yeshua's part, but it's only an example. A different perspective, a different point of view, and the entire 'feel' and gist changes. And like I said earlier, Yeshua - and Yeshua's <i>Kingdom of God</i>, were <i><b>not</i></b> a modern day Western religion.
Service to others should be a voluntary gifting rather than a compulsion driven by the belief that one must serve others to be a 'good person'.
We see this play out through the concept of <i>Christian Charity</i> all the time. We are taught that in order to be a <i>'good person'</i>; in order to be a <i>'good Christian'</i>, we must be generous and charitable. Therefore, ultimately, we <i><b>must</i></b> have the resources to be charitable; we must sit in a position of power. We <i><b>must</i></b> be – in one form or another – wealthy.
That forces the need to begin in a position power and/or authority; we need to fulfill the role of <i>'rescuer'</i> in the <i>rescuer-victim</i> paradigm, which necessitates superiority in one way or another.
… so what happens if you're <i>not</i> wealthy, or in a position of power, or don't have the necessary resources? I'll tell you what happens. You struggle with your conscious and guilt (potentially becoming a slave to your religion or you 'morality', making you anything but free). Because, from this <i>Western-Christian-Charity</i> point of view, you're not <i>really</i> a good person, and you're not <i>really</i> a good Christian.
… I don't believe Yeshua <i><b>ever</i></b> taught or implied this. We're not to serve others <i><b>so that</i></b> we're a 'good person'. We're to serve others for no other reason than simply voluntary gifting. Anything else is self-serving. Call it spiritual hedonism.
I believe what Yeshua desired was the <i>breaking</i> of this <i>rescuer-victim</i> relationship. I think his role as 'saviour' was to empower us to cease being victims, to cease our longing for and searching for a divine rescue (or rescuer) to break the addiction and bonds of religiosity.
<blockquote><i>“<font color=red>The truth is, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and <b>even greater works</b>, because I am going to be with the Father.</font>”</i> John 14:12, NLT</blockquote>
We're being told – <i>incredibility</i> – that we will do even greater deeds than he had! I have found that this is most often glossed over by churches. How can we do greater?
In Matthew 15:32-38, when Yeshua feeds 4,000, makes for a great example of seeing something in a very different light.
If we read these verses - exactly how they are written - and do not presume or assume, or add in our own beliefs, there it precious little to make us believe that he 'magically' created enough fish and bread to feed all these people. (And let's count this group as somewhere in the area of 12,000 +/- people, considering women and children).
Verse 36 tells us that he simple sat down, gave thanks, and broke the bread and fish, and shared them. I think it's safe to presume it was a mixed group of people, both rich and poor. What's to say his words, acts of charity and kindness didn't touch the hearts of the people gathered? Touched their hearts enough for them to share their food, their bread, and their fish with those less fortunate? That what made this act a miracle wasn't that he magically created this food, but that he magically <i>touched <b>and changed</i></b> the hearts of <i><b>thousands!</i></b>
...breaking the dependency of the <i>rescuer-victim</i> paradigm. How else could we possible do <i>”even greater works”</i> than he?
We modern day Westerners tend to see everything through some kind of dichotomy. You're either <i>this</i> or you're </i>that</i>; you're either <i>guilty</i> or you're <i>innocent</i>; you're either <i>in</i> or you're <i>out</i>; it's either black or it's white.
Many of us - as we get older - become more mature and attain enough wisdom to come to understand that there exists many shades of gray, eventually realizing the <i>possibility</i> that either extreme is more of a hypothetical and that the world might very well be all various shades of gray. However, this is still functioning within the <i>Western-paradigm of Dichotomies</i>.
I believe there exists Harmonious-Dichotomies; polar opposites that not only co-exist, but <i><u>co-exist in harmony</i></u> with one another interdependent one another.
I think, to a certain degree, this is what we're seeing in Fundamental and even Conservative Christianity by focusing <i><b>nearly exclusively</i></b> on only one aspect; that <i>“Jesus died for our sins"</i> - while ignoring Jesus as an exemplar; <i>"Jesus lived for our lives. He died because we all must die, and he rose because we all have hope"</i>. It is attempting to make the situation fit into the <i>Western-paradigm of Dichotomies</i>.
[What's interesting is that the "Christianity" that Yeshua spoke of and taught (if I may call it "Christianity" at all) was <i><b>not</i></b> a Western religion at all. I seriously question whether it should be viewed through our cultural-lense or through our <i>Western-paradigm of Dichotomies</i> at all.]
The Japanese have a concept called <i>Mu</i>.
<i>Mu</i>; unask the question. It isn't that we need to choose or find the correct answer, but rather, we need to find the correct <i>question</i>.
I think this situation makes for a perfect example.
Modern day Christianity is trying to manipulate (intentionally or not) this into a choice of, either you believe Jesus is your Lord and Saviour, or you do not. Either Jesus died or your sins, or he did not. A very Western way of looking at things.
Yeshua's "Christianity" was <i><b>not</i></b> "Western" and neither was Yeshua.
I think the problem we're facing here is that we're asking the wrong questions (or allowing the wrong questions to be asked).
Yeshua himself had never taught that he would die for our sins or the sins for the world.
I am beginning to see this <i>Harmonious-dichotomy</i> more and more often.
With an extremely simple example, I first saw it manifested concretely in Taekwon-do.
Either you are striking (let's say punching) or you are blocking.
Either you are striking or defending, right?
The correct way to throw a punch (either technically or practically, as in sparring) involves <i><u>both</i></u>. (Let's say I'm throwing a left jab punch). My left fist rotates, reaches, and strikes forward. However, my <i><u>right</i></u> fist moves up and beside my head, creating a block, protecting my head/face.
The Western-dichotic-paradigm might say you cannot be offensive and defensive. You must be either one or the other. The truth of the matter is it is only functional (it is only <i><u>true</i></u>) when <i><b>both</i></b> are in harmony.
Another perspective is either you are a 'victim' (let's say you are starving) or you are a 'rescuer' (the one who donates the life saving food to the starving victim). Either you are the 'victim' or you are the 'rescuer'.
Really, these two polarities have everything to do with either "service to self" (I am the victim) or "service to others" (I am the rescuer). This fundamental division makes assumptions (deliberate or not).
If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.
This is the victim-rescuer paradigm.
If you teach him how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.
You have broken the victim-rescuer paradigm. You have not 'saved' him from starvation, but allowed him to rescue himself from starvation. Ultimately, promoted him to your (erroneous) position of 'rescuer'. He is also no longer the victim.
This becomes a Harmonious-dichotomy.
Yeshua had said, <i>"<font color=red>He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.</font>"</i> (Luke 11:23). (I know. Sounds pretty black-and-white).
However, Yeshua had also said to the rich young man to give all his riches to the poor (Matt. 19:20-22). That's interesting. Then 'the poor' would become rich and the rich would become the poor. What then? Are they then to reverse their rolls? I would think, yes! When this continues on long enough, there would exist no more poor. (It's nearly a socialist system). However, this works <i><u><b>only</i></u></b> if <i><b>everyone</i></b> follows it. And if only one refuses, the entire system collapses.
<center><i>...He who is not with me is against me...</i></center>
Suddenly, it isn't so black-and-white, is it?
Granted, I'm projecting and presuming a lot here on Yeshua's part, but it's only an example. A different perspective, a different point of view, and the entire 'feel' and gist changes. And like I said earlier, Yeshua - and Yeshua's <i>Kingdom of God</i>, were <i><b>not</i></b> a modern day Western religion.
Service to others should be a voluntary gifting rather than a compulsion driven by the belief that one must serve others to be a 'good person'.
We see this play out through the concept of <i>Christian Charity</i> all the time. We are taught that in order to be a <i>'good person'</i>; in order to be a <i>'good Christian'</i>, we must be generous and charitable. Therefore, ultimately, we <i><b>must</i></b> have the resources to be charitable; we must sit in a position of power. We <i><b>must</i></b> be – in one form or another – wealthy.
That forces the need to begin in a position power and/or authority; we need to fulfill the role of <i>'rescuer'</i> in the <i>rescuer-victim</i> paradigm, which necessitates superiority in one way or another.
… so what happens if you're <i>not</i> wealthy, or in a position of power, or don't have the necessary resources? I'll tell you what happens. You struggle with your conscious and guilt (potentially becoming a slave to your religion or you 'morality', making you anything but free). Because, from this <i>Western-Christian-Charity</i> point of view, you're not <i>really</i> a good person, and you're not <i>really</i> a good Christian.
… I don't believe Yeshua <i><b>ever</i></b> taught or implied this. We're not to serve others <i><b>so that</i></b> we're a 'good person'. We're to serve others for no other reason than simply voluntary gifting. Anything else is self-serving. Call it spiritual hedonism.
I believe what Yeshua desired was the <i>breaking</i> of this <i>rescuer-victim</i> relationship. I think his role as 'saviour' was to empower us to cease being victims, to cease our longing for and searching for a divine rescue (or rescuer) to break the addiction and bonds of religiosity.
<blockquote><i>“<font color=red>The truth is, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and <b>even greater works</b>, because I am going to be with the Father.</font>”</i> John 14:12, NLT</blockquote>
We're being told – <i>incredibility</i> – that we will do even greater deeds than he had! I have found that this is most often glossed over by churches. How can we do greater?
In Matthew 15:32-38, when Yeshua feeds 4,000, makes for a great example of seeing something in a very different light.
If we read these verses - exactly how they are written - and do not presume or assume, or add in our own beliefs, there it precious little to make us believe that he 'magically' created enough fish and bread to feed all these people. (And let's count this group as somewhere in the area of 12,000 +/- people, considering women and children).
Verse 36 tells us that he simple sat down, gave thanks, and broke the bread and fish, and shared them. I think it's safe to presume it was a mixed group of people, both rich and poor. What's to say his words, acts of charity and kindness didn't touch the hearts of the people gathered? Touched their hearts enough for them to share their food, their bread, and their fish with those less fortunate? That what made this act a miracle wasn't that he magically created this food, but that he magically <i>touched <b>and changed</i></b> the hearts of <i><b>thousands!</i></b>
...breaking the dependency of the <i>rescuer-victim</i> paradigm. How else could we possible do <i>”even greater works”</i> than he?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Most of us have happily and willingly moved away from Theistic religion, so really, there's little point in your above contribution.
This is a Buddhist forum.
if you're here to learn more about Buddhism, ask questions about Buddhism because you wish to understand Buddhism more, and are curious to investigate Buddhism and how it may be incorporated as a practice, with Christianity - fine.
if all you're here for is to proselytise and demonstrate how wonderful God is (we're so glad you've found what you seek - as we have) and engage with us to convince us of your beliefs - then I'm afraid you won't get too far.
Please let me know which it is. Then we can either forge ahead, or actually, just stop right here.
Feel free to PM me.