Who is “Osho”? I’d like to read more of this. 
But Osho alleges that rational constructs are a hindrance to know God.
Bob,
Thank you for those quotes from Sölle of whom I’ve never heard of until now. They have intruiged me quite a bit and I will be looking into her work a bit more.
W.C.
Hi Sam,
Quite true. Our godliness, through which God becomes apparent to us, is beyond any rational - ie - linguistic or conceptual construct. But we must remember that even conceptually, the term “God” must contain all - rationality must be included.
The issue lies in attempting to force ‘God’ into a rational construct, which must fail. To put words in Osho’s mouth, God, and our own godliness is inhibited to the extent that we demand complete rationality, or knowing.
Please re-read the last quotation. I believe it explains the issue far better than my poor explanation.
JT
Hi Bob,
If I were to try to find the single defining difference between that which is spiritual and that which is merely religious, it would have to be in the diametrically opposed viewpoints. Those of spiritual capacity look inwardly to their own awareness and heart understanding. The merely religious look outwardly trying to find their God in books, and other idols. Those who are capable of spirituality understand that they are a part of God while the religious see themselves as seperate from, outside looking in, constantly looking for the door to heaven.
God as love… Yes. How could any begin to be sensitive to their godliness and not become an expression of love? And in that expression of love, God is revealed - to all who can see.
JT
It’s the whole field of philosophy of religion (as conceived by several philosophers, from Michael Martin to Richard Swinburne) that you cast doubt on. It was my favorite field, but now, since reason is faith, debates are less interesting. Philosophy is less interesting. It was the meaning itself of my life which was shaken by your terrible news. We can no longer show something to be true or false, likely or unlikely. Reason is no longer an authority to distinguish truth from falsehood. Your theory of the godliness and inner truth can easily be doubted by other cyberphilosophers. Everything can be doubted. Reason is destructive of itself. Reason cannot bear rational enquiry into itself. What is obvious for me is just a construct of my mind, and it may be not obvious for another one. It was Dunamis’ dangerous idea. 
Sam,
The truth is inside. Not outside. There is nothing terrible about this, except perhaps the disappointment of discovering that what you seek isn’t contained in someone’s wise words, this book or that book. Ignore me. Ignore Dunamis. Ignore all the ‘knowing’ you’ve collected. Go inside and explore yourself and the world around you… It is a process of discovery, that is truth. And it is your truth, not a second-hand version of the truth.
JT
Hi JT,
I believe that you are on to a very important point here. It is fascinating that a source of inspiration can become an idol, a representation or symbol of the deity which is used as an object of worship. I have been going back to look at Dorothee Sölle and a thoughtful talk she had with Martin Buber. With his first question, following the initial period of silence, Martin Buber looked at the Theologian Sölle and said, “Theo-logia, how do you do that? There is no Logos from God!†There is so much talk about God that suggests that people don’t listen to God. There is so much talk as though one has facts to discuss, instead of narratives, poetry and attempts to approach the Mystery.
Sharing in the nature of God means we have to discover what God is attempting to do within us - where is the “Wind†blowing? Where are we being guided to? What does the inspiration of the scriptures do to our souls? What awareness has the Spirit of love roused? Those who mistrust this voice, who would rather spend their time deep down in a book, miss the opportunity to live the vision. I heard once that we have to differentiate between living our dreams and dreaming our life away.
Amen
Shalom
“Dominus Vo-bisque 'em Et come spear a tu-tu, Oh!”
- St. Alfonzo at the Pancake Breakfast (Frank Zappa ‘Apostrophe’ 1974)
No, everything that I could find can be doubted, especially by cyberphilosophers who doubt everything. There are those who attempt to explain away whatever I could experience by biology or who say that it COULD be explained by biology and there are those who say that no one knows for sure.
I think you don’t fully realize the tragedy of the death of reason, unless you are made out of another stuff than me. If you know the truth, you are a being superior to me. As for me, I have no more points of reference. All can be said, all can be thought, and all can be denied without shame.
Hi Sam,
Forget all that superior stuff. We’re all sojourners here, no one more special than another.
One more time. Reason is not dead. No one functions without reason. Many have argued that reason is all we have to make sense of ourselves and the world. Science takes the position that there is only the known and yet to be understood unknown - but we’re working on that. Rely on reason. It serves us well.
That said, there are at least two paradoxes all of us face. The first is language. We dilegently try to fit the universe into linguistic forms and say we ‘know’, but reality just is, and isn’t the words and concepts. Reality is beyond language. A metaphor: You understand what water is, but there is no way you could explain all that water is to someone who has never tasted water. Water is an experience, not a word. To take the metaphor further, language is like trying to drink water with a toothpick. We dip the toothpick and receive a drop, dip and another drop, and on and on… reality comes a drop at a time - for all of us.
The second paradox, and the most difficult to explain, is that the ‘truth’ of reality cannot be explained from one to another. If I tell you what reality is, I shall have deceived you. If you accept what I have said, you will have deceived yourself and accepted second-hand clothes. And so, I have nothing to say about your truth. That is why I said to ignore me.
Hopefully, you’ll see this. Our truth resides within us, and yes, there is a commonality of awareness of truth, but it is only in each of our experiences.
JT
…Thus letting me (and others) believe anything, since you can no longer counter me on behalf of reason, our common master.
Sam,
Your missing the point. I’m not letting you do anything. You let yourself. THAT"S the point.
JT
Hi JT,
Ok ok, I will state the problem otherwise: what would prevent me from believing that Earth is 6000 years old or that I have 50 souls if reason has nothing to do with certainty or likelihood?
S
Hi Tentative,
I think what Sâmkhya meant was: is there some external constraints that actually affect what we could reasonably believe besides just doing self-evaluation or whatever you happen to find within you that says it’s the truth. Reason, as Sâmkhya conceives it (and I’m sure as many of us conceive it) relies on some external evidence/proof/justification besides our postulating something is the case. Of course, our mind is involved, but we draw something from different sources to arrive at the truth, if truth is indeed attainable.
P.S. the “what would prevent me from believing…” portion of his post above is, among other things, what I meant from constraints. What would prevent me from making up stuff.
Exactly: the danger is that beliefs no longer rest upon the strength of logic and sense data, that is, on an external authority that we obey, but only on whim.
Many people can be conditioned to find anything as an “inner truth”. It’s a psychological process.
Sam and arendt,
Perhaps it would be useful to make a distinction between the objective and subjective world. I believe that the sun will come up in the morning. This is based on the best scientific information available, plus my observations over a few years that it is a continuous pattern, and therefore, the statement is ‘reasonable’ and reasoned.
Far different to ask for the same sort of ‘reason’ to explain that which is God, or that which is simply awareness that will not yield to language. To attempt to use logic to explain experience beyond language is futile. One does not stand ‘outside’ experience. One IS experience. Truth is not outside but inside our experience. So how do you ‘know’? The moment you stop seeking from without and be in the experience. You are the experience. If you appreciate your aliveness as a whim, I have nothing further to say. A few see more than just whimsy.
JT
Hi JT,
Very well. I understand what you mean: faith. I believe Sâm would agree with this assessment of faith as well.
That the statement is reasonable means nothing regarding its likelihood. Reason has nothing to do with certainty or likelihood. Reason is faith, and faith is a poor guide to truth. It was Dunamis’ terrible message. Naive people go on believing that reason will lead to certainty or likelihood, but they are mistaken. Reason is faith: that’s the terrible news.
Whether it be the sun or God, reason is equally powerless.