You're quite right, I don't think any mystical experience or mode of divine relation can be expressed in a literal sense. Any attempt to do so is an attempt to sterilize, cogitate and otherwise impose the method and rigor of ego /onto/ the experience. That is not to say that one cannot derive realization and understanding from a spiritual experience simply because these are mental activities, it means that the depth is something that can only be self-relative.
When Christ speaks (or is quoted as speaking), allegorically, literally or otherwise about the nature of his connection to 'his father' he is trying to verbalize an experience and condition which is neccesarily beyond the scope of words (language isn't setup to convey meanings of these sorts). Certainly what he says is provacative, but its only through actual personal experience with that level of being that true understanding of any of the implied meaning can be derived. And what I believe many people percieve is that the frame-work of religion isn't setup to propogate that sort of /experience/, which is perhaps exactly what they want and need.
You see priests advocating that people be 'more like Jesus' and handing out little bracelets with keen slogons on them, but if you ask a priest the method by which you could experience what Jesus was trying to convey through words, you would probably get a blank stare and an answer like 'Read your scripture' or perhaps 'Join a monastary/nunnery'. This is because the edifice of /religion/ isn't setup for the mystic who is actually trying to increase his or her depth of experience or level of spiritual maturity. It is setup for exactly the sorts of people who have been deemed literalist here. Let me put that another way just so I am clear. Standard religion (the kind you get at your local church, mosk or temple) is not about dissemination of religious /experience/, its about the dissemination of religious /doctrine/. It's about spreading beliefs and not about spreading experience. I am not arguing that it is impossible to derive any sort of personal meaning, reflection over even a full-blown spiritual experience from the bible, I am certain that you can! Many monks, nuns and mystics (William Blake would fall into this latter category) do and continue to do so to this day. But the 99.9% of the world that are not monks, nuns or mystics are still practicing /religion/ and getting only doctrine and a vauge sense of fellowship from it.
The point that is being argued is the reason behind why people revile religion, and that seems to me to be because when people go to church they're yearning for some sort of personal connection to the divine (that 'religious experience' where it all makes sense and everything becomes clear), one that isn't manifested because the priests arn't taught to /try/ to produce such a state of ecstasy. Their goal isn't religious imancipation through divine connection (such a thing would automatically put them out of a job), it is conversion and always has been. They are not evil for trying to convert people and place them safely under the sway of doctrine, they believe they are serving the utmost good! But it is exactly that method and gravitation towards assimilation that makes people so damned wary of the whole scope of 'religion'. Again, just so I am clear, I am not striking at the validity of any singular religious entity or doctrine of beliefs. I am trying to point out that when we talk about religion, this is what most people seem to percieve - someone (or a group of someones) who feels it is their moral obligation to do everything in their power to 'save' every 'soul'. I'm not trying to say this is 'good' or 'bad', I'm just saying that this is what /is/.
Ish
|