Say Tiny

[runamokmonk]

Also, I am not sure if this is going off topic but in my last post I thought of this article I read a year or so ago. I was reminded of it because after I wrote my post I thought of how Christ's seeming defeat became His Victory without conquering anyone to dust under His feet.

"Jesus' actions have been ultimately effective because they were ultimately soft/weak/yielding, like water. Any something-doing action is ineffective, it creates both what it intends and what it does not intend. Its effect on the world is only transitory, only illusion. Jesus does not work this way, the way of the ten thousand things. In Jesus, there is no self-defeating action. He perfectly manifests wu-wei and so his actions are perfectly effective. Only action like this could definitively achieve the ultimate victory, life over death.

The surprising part of this study is that a deeper meaning of a foundational Christian text can be found through application of a religious principle taken from a non-Christian religion. Was John the Evangelist somehow influenced by the thought of Lao Tzu, or does the connection spring from the unity of truth in all religious traditions, or perhaps from the work of the Spirit both in and outside the Christian community, or from a mere coincidence of human insights?"
'Wu-Wei and the Paschal Mystery'
http://www.op.org/steinkerchner/wu-wei.html

[Metacrock]

Also, I am not sure if this is going off topic but in my last post I thought of this article I read a year or so ago. I was reminded of it because after I wrote my post I thought of how Christ's seeming defeat became His Victory without conquering anyone to dust under His feet.

"Jesus' actions have been ultimately effective because they were ultimately soft/weak/yielding, like water. Any something-doing action is ineffective, it creates both what it intends and what it does not intend. Its effect on the world is only transitory, only illusion. Jesus does not work this way, the way of the ten thousand things. In Jesus, there is no self-defeating action. He perfectly manifests wu-wei and so his actions are perfectly effective. Only action like this could definitively achieve the ultimate victory, life over death.

The surprising part of this study is that a deeper meaning of a foundational Christian text can be found through application of a religious principle taken from a non-Christian religion. Was John the Evangelist somehow influenced by the thought of Lao Tzu, or does the connection spring from the unity of truth in all religious traditions, or perhaps from the work of the Spirit both in and outside the Christian community, or from a mere coincidence of human insights?"
'Wu-Wei and the Paschal Mystery'
http://www.op.org/steinkerchner/wu-wei.html

Nothing about Christianity that rules out knowledge of the Tao. Taoists could all be Christians and vice versa, except for the latter period where they tried to adopt a pantheion of characters like Buddhists had done. The philosophy is compatible.

In we know now that the nestorian heresy was much more wide spread all over Asia, they had a million members in mideval China.

[tinythinker]

But this is sort of what I meant about taking sides, I guess. He is clearly denouncing the system and it appears to me that Jesus was showing a different way of liberation rather than the old "oppressing the oppressors" schtick.

Which is the point I think we have all been making in reply to Metacrock from the original post- if Jesus wanted to take sides against a particular group, he could have done so, yet he did not. That is, you can oppose a system that you feel is immoral or corrupt without being "against" the individuals who benefit from that system. Jesus was as willing to talk and dine with the rich as well as the poor, but the rich tended not to be very receptive to him. He was willing to be open to Romans, etc as well as to Jews, but again, there wasn't always a lot of enthusiasm on the part of the Romans.

they tried to adopt a pantheion of characters like Buddhists had done. The philosophy is compatible.

Uh-huuuuh. Which is why Christians have a pantheon of saints that function in a fashion extremely similar to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of Buddhism. That is, they represent some sacred quality or example for us to follow, they are represented by little statues or pictures kept in the home or in shrines, they are called on when we try to emulate their virtuous qualities, and they have in some circles been associated with supersition/magical thinking and associated rituals to invoke their powers to alter something in our world (such as selling a home, finding a spouse, etc).

[Metacrock]

Uh-huuuuh. Which is why Christians have a pantheon of saints that function in a fashion extremely similar to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of Buddhism. That is, they represent some sacred quality or example for us to follow, they are represented by little statues or pictures kept in the home or in shrines, they are called on when we try to emulate their virtuous qualities, and they have in some circles been associated with supersition/magical thinking and associated rituals to invoke their powers to alter something in our world (such as selling a home, finding a spouse, etc).

I agree. that was not meant as a criticism. I think the Catholic saints, the idea of them, was influenced by the pagan pantheon. They do kind of take the place of many gods.

[tinythinker]

I wasn't seeing it as a critcism, but it doesn't look like the idea of having different representations of certain Enlightened or Divine qualities is really that foreign to contemporary Christianity.

[Metacrock]

I wasn't seeing it as a critcism, but it doesn't look like the idea of having different representations of certain Enlightened or Divine qualities is really that foreign to contemporary Christianity.

agreed