18 July 2005
The Heart?
I came across a Christian passage this morning, about man having a wicked and deceitful heart. My initial response was disgust, but after reading the Daily Zen article (below), I decided that they probably mean 'ego' rather than heart. The heart is our own pure nature. When it is open, we are at one with Tao and the world. When it is closed, we are trapped within our own bodies/thoughts and feel utterly alone. The ego will try to justify this feeling of loneliness. "Of course! We're all physical beings so it's impossible to know anything outside of our own head!" It's a lie. When our heart is open, we can know everything. Now, there are probably some things we aren't ready to know, and our own true nature will shield us from those. There is nothing wicked or deceitful about the heart, however. It is our vehicle of truth. It is the ego that will try to deceive us. Perhaps Christian theology simply lacks the appropriate terminology. *shrugs*
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
No, when we say "heart" we mean heart. Sin is not a surface problem, it is a core problem.
Sorry, I don't follow that. It is the ego that keeps us separate from that-which-is...and until we learn to overcome that, we think that the ego IS our core. But that is illusion. The heart—the true center—is pure.
Whether or not you agree with it, Christians are not suffering from a lack of terminology to say what they really mean in this regard. We believe that since the human race fell into sin, we are all born into total depravity, and have to be spiritually regenerated to correct this problem.
Okay... How is this regeneration different from letting go of the ego and allowing the Divine into our beings? Rather, allowing the Divine nature to show through, since the Divine is already within?
Because the unregenerate person is spiritually dead. There's nothing there to show through.
Then if there is something to show through, the person is by definition regenerated?
Yes, if we're talking about the same thing. A regenerate person has a new nature; sin is still present, but it's not the defining characteristic anymore, and it can be cleared away, revealing what the person is really like.
Okay... From my perspective, what you're describing is simply a different interpretation of cleansing the ego. The ego thinks it is separate from that-which-is. So long as the ego remains in control, we cannot experience the Divine within. I realize that you probably disagree... The difference (I think) is that I look for the universal similarities, and you look for the particular differences. *shrugs*
The reason I believe the particular differences to be important, is because I believe that these things are real. As real as calculus or particle physics. The details matter.
This "cleansing of the ego" that you describe has a lot of similarity to the Christian concept of sanctification. But sanctification cannot take place in a person who is not regenerate. There is no new creature to reveal, because the sin goes all the way to the core. "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven."
Interesting... Moreso in light of the Taoist idea of the 'immortal embryo.' Certain Taoist practices are geared to producing a "spiritual embryo", capable of lasting all eternity because it has returned to the original, true nature.
I look for similarities because I feel it is foolish to assume my path is the only one. I see Truth as a mountain. Some people approach the summit via a valley, some are climbing a steep cliff, others may have found an underground tunnel. The particular details I see as landscaping. "Ah, you found the rock that looks like a turtle. Did you go towards the stream or the rocks from there?" (It's certainly possible, btw, that some people are on the wrong mountain entirely. ;-)
Post a Comment