Simone Weil has an eastern spirituality, which is to say a vaginal view of encountering divinity, where it is all about ceasing volition to let divinity flow into you. Christianity and Abrahamism on the other hand offers a more phallic view, it is about actively aligning your volition with a divine will. It's no wonder that she opposes the Time-picture brought on by Christianity, since it with it brings about a wholly different view of spiritual praxis in contrast to her own. She want's to chill in the present and dissolve herself into things. But Christianity is about deliberation, which is the opposite way to God, one that unlike Buddhism strengthens the subject instead of dissolving it. Which isn't to say that there never can be time to enjoy the present in Christianity, but that going into the present has to be an act of willing gratitude, and that going into the present is always receiving a look into a kingdom always yet to come.
Interesting. But can't you say that aligning yourself with divine will is the same thing as removing your subjectivity? Even if they're acting in the world the Abrahamists are still submerging themselves into God, deliberating on an independent truth. Even if they look forward to the present, that looking forward is a result of their submission.
@@VersoFolioBooks I wouldn't say it's removing your subjectivity. You are urged to "pick up your cross", this is very different from an Ideal like Wu Wei or realizing Anatta/No-Self. Because the first is based in volition(Christianity is about free will, a concept foreign to Buddhism) itself choosing to affirm the Higher, so your subject is polished more than anything. The second on the other hand is about negating identification or effort, which keeps you from achieving the respective goal, it's not about identifying with what is right but rather about stopping to identify alltogether and just being(spontaneously). That is mirrored in the respective mythologies and views about what subject is here for. For Christians and Muslims you must become eternal and thus a distinct agent for God, whereas in Buddhism and Vedanta aswell as Neoplatonism you are to bleed back into the backdrop of reality and annihilate distinction. If we put it in unflattering freudian terms for jest, one is about following your Dad and being as good as him as you can, the other about returning to your Mother and receiving her nurture. That's why it's not suffering but Sin("missing your mark" in greek and hebrew) in Abrahamism, which is seen as the problem of Life.
@@VersoFolioBooks Well I just watched alot Johnathan Pageau videos that's all, and before that I was into Buddhism and watched Frank Yang. I'm only now dealing with the primary text: the bible.
Simone Weil has an eastern spirituality, which is to say a vaginal view of encountering divinity, where it is all about ceasing volition to let divinity flow into you. Christianity and Abrahamism on the other hand offers a more phallic view, it is about actively aligning your volition with a divine will. It's no wonder that she opposes the Time-picture brought on by Christianity, since it with it brings about a wholly different view of spiritual praxis in contrast to her own. She want's to chill in the present and dissolve herself into things. But Christianity is about deliberation, which is the opposite way to God, one that unlike Buddhism strengthens the subject instead of dissolving it. Which isn't to say that there never can be time to enjoy the present in Christianity, but that going into the present has to be an act of willing gratitude, and that going into the present is always receiving a look into a kingdom always yet to come.
Interesting. But can't you say that aligning yourself with divine will is the same thing as removing your subjectivity? Even if they're acting in the world the Abrahamists are still submerging themselves into God, deliberating on an independent truth. Even if they look forward to the present, that looking forward is a result of their submission.
@@VersoFolioBooks I wouldn't say it's removing your subjectivity. You are urged to "pick up your cross", this is very different from an Ideal like Wu Wei or realizing Anatta/No-Self. Because the first is based in volition(Christianity is about free will, a concept foreign to Buddhism) itself choosing to affirm the Higher, so your subject is polished more than anything. The second on the other hand is about negating identification or effort, which keeps you from achieving the respective goal, it's not about identifying with what is right but rather about stopping to identify alltogether and just being(spontaneously). That is mirrored in the respective mythologies and views about what subject is here for. For Christians and Muslims you must become eternal and thus a distinct agent for God, whereas in Buddhism and Vedanta aswell as Neoplatonism you are to bleed back into the backdrop of reality and annihilate distinction.
If we put it in unflattering freudian terms for jest, one is about following your Dad and being as good as him as you can, the other about returning to your Mother and receiving her nurture. That's why it's not suffering but Sin("missing your mark" in greek and hebrew) in Abrahamism, which is seen as the problem of Life.
@@rubeng9092 I see. Thanks, m8, you really know what you're talking about. I still need to read up on a fair bit of this stuff, it seems.
@@VersoFolioBooks Well I just watched alot Johnathan Pageau videos that's all, and before that I was into Buddhism and watched Frank Yang. I'm only now dealing with the primary text: the bible.