"I love you with all my heart." --by the many, the millions who have said and felt so. And J. Hillman, author of the Force of Character
Reading the book, The Force of Character by James Hillman carefully, one stumbles upon many great and grand insights. It may take a few reads to grasp its themes. "Character used to be spoken of in terms of 'the of heart courage,' or the 'heart of generosity and loyalty.' " It is this heart which Hillman wants to address. He says this is also the heart that consoles the weary, that cooks a meal and shares its comforts with others, and delights in laughter. But there is a second heart, he says, that is even more familiar. It is the romantic heart of flowers and sweets; we 'give our heart away,' 'we are broken-hearted.'
And Hillman writes of still another, a third heart. This heart is the one observed and practiced by early "great Christian writers, especially Saint Augustine." This third heart is the one of inmost feeling, of true character. It is the me-mine, the closet of intimacy, an inward dwelling place." Because this heart is so deep and so private, "Augustine often refers to it as an abyss." Writers over time have elaborated upon this heart, calling it also 'the sacred heart.' Many practice devotions to realize and awaken this deepest heart. "The Sacred Heart is the heart of compassionate mysticism; it sets out a discipline of love parallel with the path" of Bhakti yoga, a part of Hindu tradition; it sets its path likewise with Jewish mystic tradition, the Kabbalah, Binah a mothering, discriminating intelligence-heart, leading one into an expanding character with regard to charity, compassion and mercy.
The "oldest heart of all, is the Egyptian Ptah, who created the world from the imagination of his heart! While the more recent Christian bible dares to state that the world was created by the Logos, the word which was with God, Ptah states "the same idea, except that for ancient Egypt, the words start out from the heart and express its imaginative power. The world was first imagined, then declared." Imagination, the 'ability to see things as images, is an ability of the heart, according to Arabic philosopher, Ibn Arabi." The images that we carry about in our reverie, in our dreams, in our deepest waking hearts become vividly real to the aware, awake heart. "Otherwise we assume them to be inventions, projections, and fantasies," Hillman writes.
This "imagining heart converts such indefinables as soul, depth, dignity, love and beauty-- as well as character and the idea of 'heart' itself into felt actualities, the very essence of life." Without it we only have a bio-mechanical pump to keep us going. And many of us do, when the occasion warrants, write to another, "I love you with all my heart."
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Friends with God
" Unchained from Judaism, the parent of Christianity, one easily comes to the idea that God doesn't care what you do, or what your will be..." -- a Simple Mind
Writing with a very different understanding of the cosmos, author, Neale Donald Walsch in his book, Friendship With God, writes: "God does not care what we do because of why we are here." Some will easily argue that his conception of the universe and the cosmos is incomplete, therefore flawed by the standards of current scholarship. For example, while in Walsch's view, God acknowledges himself as the creator of life, but then he (Walsch) adds that he created us in his image so that we could be creators as well. At first this sounds possible. We are conceived and people do conceive further... However, he continues, writing: "God has no special will for us: ". . . your will for you is God's will for you . . . I have no preference in the matter . . . I do not care what you do . . ."
Whoa. Here we hit the skids. The Decalogue is shot. In many references, the Torah tells of an attentive and caring Lord. It writes of covenants, agreements made between God and the people, Israel. Not so in Walsch: God continues on, saying that we are not here to learn lessons, but only "to remember, and re-create, who you are." This came about because God, who originally was all that existed, longed "to know what it felt like to be so magnificent" and was not satisfied unless there was a reference point through which God could know his magnificence..."
Has anyone picked up a book on philosopher and mathematician Gotfried Leibnitz's idea of the Monad lately? It's all in there. Here it is in ungarbled form: Monism most simply argues for the idea that there is unity, only unity and not dualism. Many, if not most all of the world religions address this issue. Now review the writing of Walsch once more after reading Leibnitz's ideas. It is less clear to this Simple Mind what Walsch's point really is.
For more views on this topic, one writer's thoughts Marcia Montnegro's, and the thoughts of University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point philosophy professor, Joseph Waligore:
christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_BookreviewWalsch.html
spiritualcritiques.com/author-criticisms/neale-donald-walsch/
Writing with a very different understanding of the cosmos, author, Neale Donald Walsch in his book, Friendship With God, writes: "God does not care what we do because of why we are here." Some will easily argue that his conception of the universe and the cosmos is incomplete, therefore flawed by the standards of current scholarship. For example, while in Walsch's view, God acknowledges himself as the creator of life, but then he (Walsch) adds that he created us in his image so that we could be creators as well. At first this sounds possible. We are conceived and people do conceive further... However, he continues, writing: "God has no special will for us: ". . . your will for you is God's will for you . . . I have no preference in the matter . . . I do not care what you do . . ."
Whoa. Here we hit the skids. The Decalogue is shot. In many references, the Torah tells of an attentive and caring Lord. It writes of covenants, agreements made between God and the people, Israel. Not so in Walsch: God continues on, saying that we are not here to learn lessons, but only "to remember, and re-create, who you are." This came about because God, who originally was all that existed, longed "to know what it felt like to be so magnificent" and was not satisfied unless there was a reference point through which God could know his magnificence..."
Has anyone picked up a book on philosopher and mathematician Gotfried Leibnitz's idea of the Monad lately? It's all in there. Here it is in ungarbled form: Monism most simply argues for the idea that there is unity, only unity and not dualism. Many, if not most all of the world religions address this issue. Now review the writing of Walsch once more after reading Leibnitz's ideas. It is less clear to this Simple Mind what Walsch's point really is.
For more views on this topic, one writer's thoughts Marcia Montnegro's, and the thoughts of University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point philosophy professor, Joseph Waligore:
christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_BookreviewWalsch.html
spiritualcritiques.com/author-criticisms/neale-donald-walsch/
Some thoughts:
cosmology,
decalogue,
dualism,
judaism,
leibnitz,
love and unity,
monadism,
Neale Donald Walsch,
oneness,
religion education blog,
simple mind,
torah,
world religions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)