Inside the Middle East’s vanishing ancient religions

The following was posted by Somnath Guha Roy on the sister-group on FaceBook: Theosophical network.

(Boston Globe)

Inside the Middle East’s vanishing ancient religions

Views: 206

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Religions are perspectives, some shared by many, some by few. When the language (word meaning) of any religion is sufficiently different than the language of common communication it begins to die. In response religions get "updated" to be able to communicate the religious perspective in the common language, this perverts the religious perspective. The perverted religious perspective, being more closely aligned to the common perspective, is more widely accepted and pushes the original religious perspective to the background and eventually gone from "living memory".

The common language keeps changing, so the perversions keep mounting.

At what point do we accept that we no longer know where we stand. To blindly push forward folly. We need to go back to where we've been, and bring some of those old perspectives back.

Before they pass from living memory.

My opinion of course.

P.S. You can find this "pattern" everywhere you look.

I agree the pattern is everywhere.

Hopefully, the interpreter knows the inner meanings and is skilled enough to migrate that into the new translation. If not, we may as well throw out all spiritual books older than yesterday <G>.

The interpreter knows nothing. The interpreter is experience, the translation is us. Our perspectives, our lives, our cultures, our science, even our religion, manifestations (or expressions) of our (collectively and possessively) translations.

In the sentence that describes our universe, we are not the noun, we are the verb.

Usually the interpreters (yes often plural) come from highly skilled and often enlightened people, involving both those who speak the language and those who speak the translated language (and are highly in-tune with spirituality). So, all in all, they are usually very good translations/interpretations. Sometimes a bad one gets through (notably - the Koran is an example) but that soon inspires new translations to correct this.

the "sentence" you speak of is also written by people - not the Universe.  I guess I humbly disagree...

We all "interpret" for ourselves, thats what our lives are, our translation. People don't write the "sentence" , they repeat it. That is what makes any one perspective (translation)  of equal importance. Each translation is only a part of the whole. All translations exist within the whole. Every "new" translation increases our collective understanding of the whole.

At any given moment this translation or that one may appear more important than another, but that is because of our limited ability to translate as an individual. So as each moment passes, the (apparent) importance of any translation also passes.

So in a "perfect" environment, translations appropriate to the moment emerge from our collective experience to interpret the moment in the hopes of better understanding the next one.

Without this uninhibited flow of translators, our collective understanding becomes corrupted. We begin to abandon our own translation in favor of another's (equally limited) perspective, and cease to be a contributing member of society. If I "buy" into another's translation, I let everyone down by not doing my part.

in the grand scheme of things, it is not important I understand my part, only that I do it (as openly and honestly as I can).

It's pretty clear that our "ability" to understand is closely linked to our imagination, so it is entirely possible this "ability" may be a delusion.

An interesting description of the "devil" a delusion masquerading as an ability..

Yes, it appears we disagree, people can not write the "sentence" (at least not accurately) because they are the sentence, only limited by their perspectives.

The use of translation is over-simplified. One must also include Intuition.

i.e. two people can exchange ideas - outwardly as sentences - and those sentences couple with both persons intuition to form the exact same thought/idea/meaning. Translation in the gross sense does not spell out the whole picture!

Your mechanism makes communication seem impossible even between people within the same culture :)

just trying to argue correctly here... i.e.  translate (communicate) <G>. 

(Active Imagination would precipitate (activate?) the Intuition to match the other person's idea as well - that also happens when Intuition is not perfect in itself/alone)

"Your mechanism makes communication seem impossible even between people within the same culture :)"

Correct, thats the idea. except. It not impossible, it is hard work, much more so than most realize (which makes communication even harder).

"two people can exchange ideas"

This is a misconception, I can't take an idea out of my head and put it in yours. I can describe it, I can draw it, I can do any number of things in an effort to inspire you to see it, but ultimately without enough "common" information your not going to get it.

This is important though

if your perception is so foreign to mine that we are unable to communicate effectively, then any idea (that you could not see for yourself) I did put there would have no support and therefore no meaning. This leads to improper understanding and use (corruption)

The same thing happens when we "follow" another without understanding. So I can't take an idea from you either.

All we can do is represent ourselves as accurately as we can. Then everyone can depend on what they see.

Then we could be on about the business of evolving (living), instead of the (not so slow anymore) slow death we're experiencing.

intuition and superstition share the same pattern. (just saying)

and that sucks, I've always considered myself very intuitive.

I guess that this is a bit like my concept that different cultures have different theosophies. It would be a Lemma in your interpretation.

I think it just follows that religions and cultures are different - not everyone being hindered expressing ideas of spiritual nature correctly/completely (some have the needed intuition). Hence, different religious sects have a different enlightenment.

Also, in Buddhism, there is a concept that "right teaching" can be transmitted between two Buddhists (a final test for perfection as well). That implies that transmission has been taking place, experimentally, for a couple millennia+.

I like Buddhism, very peaceful, very soothing. If I were going to "buy into" a single organized religion, Buddhism would be a strong contender.

I had not heard of "right teaching" before, but the pattern is familiar. Lrts srr what I can come up with.

At first glance it seems to fit the pattern of replication (as in DNA), but I think that is more a familial kind of relationship.

I found a good one

If truth exist, and we are products of this truth. Then the same truth exist within each of us (it does not matter how we decorate that truth for ourselves). If 2 of us were to communicate in the language of tthis truth. Given that this truth would be a singular perspective, then exactly the same kind of "miscommunication" we've been discussing would be avoided.

A very similar concept exist within the Bible. The Bible speaks of seeds and things growing within, I get the impression that this would be the video version to "right teachings" snapshot.

so essentially the same thing

oh, did I mention I agree with the concept of "right teaching", I do however favor the growing application of it (as I find it better represented in everything else).

I think the Bible refers to this when it speaks of the inability of mortal man to look upon the face of god and continue to exist.

If the whole truth were delivered to me at once, I would cease to exist.

All of this ties into the "language of truth" I referred to earlier. A language, or perception, or even a religion of obviously extreme ancient origin thats in danger of being lost, if not gone already.

I can feel it.

I think the Bible refers to it in the story of the tower of babble, and again when it speaks of moving mountains by command.

If there is one thing i can say that I've learned that would be most important (if there is such a thing) in my search for this truth. Along with every religion I've looked at, you can't find the truth by looking out there (so science is flawed), you have to find it within first. Only then will you have the perspective that will allow you to even begin to recognize it out there.

When we make this connection, we are reborn into a new world. When we finally discover that this physical universe is as malleable as playdo, enlightenment, and the whole game changes.

hi David! I think we are agreeing. The ancient religions only need 1 person of the "right understanding" to propagate it (like Buddha, Christ etc. did).  I hope they get saved. They can be added to the basket of various Truths out there. (I think there are many).

Ultimately we all agree, we're all looking at the same thing from different perspectives. It's not about which is right or wrong. It is all about discovering how all those perspectives can exist within the whole. The connections, how it all fits together defines what each perspective really is.

yes, I can basically agree with that!

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2017   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service