Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00375)

Dear John,

It's interesting to note that some New Age groups have incorporated certain Heidegger memes. I've seen it with EST (or Landmark Forum), some American Zen groups, some Western Advaita teachers, Ken Wilber, and now, according to you, Scientology too. 

I think Theosophy can learn a lot from him, especially some basics, like his thoughts on the textual-hermeneutic nature of reality and the way it overcomes the Cartesian body-mind problem. But for this to happen we need a body of phenomenology-minded Theosophists, who can enter into a sustained dialogue about this. 

Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Augoeides-222@comcast.net 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:53 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Who was the real Jesus?


  Govert, 
  Thanks for your posts, replys and PDF. I have Favorited, saved and printed. It was fun to read and I will go over it more as a non-scholar. I had various fling-ups from my mind as I read views of Paul and also ideas from the Pistis Sophia modes of "with-in the with-out" and "with-out the with-in" that Jesus references as the 12 and 24 Mysteries which he will reveal in a future time. I can appreciate that he was talking of the Dasein's predictament. I think the Transformation from Saul to Paul as consequence of "Beholding the Great Light" and the allegation that Saul had previosly been initiated before he was converted helped him to present his metaphysic in his dialogs. I also wonder what Blavatsky and the Mahatma's may have responded to Heidegger with as commentary. The Monadism that transport the aggregetes in the samsaric journey as units of awareness in but not of the projection as extension intermediate means in the Lila. In other responces as I read there were also simple remembrances such as the "Be-Do-Have" Triangle viz Beingness-Doingness- Havingness as modes of the Dasein of Heidegger characterized by Scientological Aphorism. But I am not going to go too wordy now. I want to read again and munch some lunch. I also am tempted to see if i can easily locate som revenent Slokas fron the non-dual schools. 
  Thank you again, i much appreciate your helps. 
  Regards, 
  John 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Govert Schuller" <schuller@alpheus.org> 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:48:43 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Who was the real Jesus? 

  The text on the mystical interpretation of the preposition 'in' didn't come through clear enough, so find it attached or as page 2 of the paper at: 

  http://alpheus.org/tsclass/Being-in-as%20such.pdf 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:17 AM 
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Who was the real Jesus? 

  Dear John, 

  I'm aware that at a 'higher' level of spiritual experiences spatial prepositions become limited and might lead to misunderstandings. And so it is the case with the term "inner principle" or "inner Christ." Such usage is I think not necessarilly the outcome of a conditioned mind, but has to do with the limitations of language. "Immanent" is indeed a better term. 

  It's interesting you mention Heidegger as he is very important to me on understanding prepositions as he tried to give a mystical interpretation to the preposition 'in' as used in his term Being-in-the-world. While studying with a Heidegger expert in the US I had to do research on the development of Heidegger's thinking on the issue of "being-in as such." What I found was that Heidegger did read some profound German theologians for whom there was an issue about correctly understanding Paul's phrase "Christ in me, I in Christ." One of these had some influence on Heidegger as he thought that Paul interpreted 'Christ' more as spirit than as a person and therefore the experience was more mystical and immanent. This goes interestingly parallel with your and possibly HPB's understanding. What might further our discussion might be to explore the difference between unio-mysticism and communio-mysticism as the latter might give a deeper understanding of Tulku and being overshadowed. I think this is all pretty good grist for the mill of comparative research on some very deep issues. 

  For more I lifted the section on this from the paper. (see below) 

  The importance for Heidegger was that he saw a congruency between the structure of the subject in communio-mysticism and the structure of immediate experience. Heidegger then used his understanding of mysticism to deepen his phenomenology of the essential structures of pre-theoretical experience in general. And because of this there is a necessary mystical element that has to come into play if one wants to go really in-to Heidegger's work. 

  Govert 

  Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History by Adolf Deissmann 
  In Paul the author contemplates the problematic of the interpretation of the experience of 'Christ 

  in me, I in Christ.' Heidegger read this study during WWI and it was one of the preliminary sources for 

  the problematic of the meaning of 'to be in.' 

  Deissmann makes the point that the correct understanding of Paul is when he is seen as a mystic, 

  who experienced the immanence of Christ (139) much more than his transcendence (137). Paul was 

  predisposed towards such an understanding and experience because of a Hellenistic-mystical tendency 

  within his background (138). Paul's Christianity was a Christ-mysticism (147) and Deissmann understands 

  mysticism to be that "religious tendency that discovers the way to God direct through inner experience 

  without the mediation of reasoning." (149) 

  In Paul's experience Christ was more of the nature of Spirit than a historical person. Spirit for 

  Paul is something akin to a non-earthly pneuma, to which Paul applied the predicates of "divine, heavenly, 

  eternal, holy, living, and live-giving." (143) As air is in us and we in air, we can be in the Christ-Spirit and 

  the Christ-Spirit in us. The formula 'in Christ' can also be expressed as 'of Christ' in which the genitive is 

  neither subjective nor objective, but mystical. Deissmann makes clear that this mystical experience is one 

  of communio and not of unio, i.e. our personhood does not dissolve in union with Christ, but we come to 

  an intimate communion or fellowship with Him, and through Him with God. (151-152) Deissmann 

  assumes that this Christ-intimacy (Christ-Innigkeit [135]) of Paul would have its differing degrees of 

  elevation (142). (This would be quite impossible in unio-mysticism where there are no gradations, where it 

  is the case of an all-or-nothing.) 

  The relevance of Deissmann's contemplation on Paul's Christ-Innigkeit (135) for an 

  understanding of Heidegger's formally indicated Inheit lies in certain structural congruencies. These 

  congruencies would be between "the structure of the subject in mysticism" (GBT 82, quoting Heidegger) 

  and "the phenomenological structure of immediate experience" (GBT 81), with the former helping 

  Heidegger radicalizing the latter. As Christ can only be experienced through a non-theoretical, 

  unmediated, inner experience of communio (151), Dasein's basic state of Being-in-the-world can also 

  only be understood through a similar non-theoretical, unmediated, inner experience of communio of Dasein 

  with its own Being. In such experience Dasein understands its own Being as both in-the-world and having 

  itself as such. Dasein does not lose its 'own-ness' in unio in the 'there' of its world, as would happen in uniomysticism 

  ("I am he and He is I") or certain enthusiastic or chaotic states of mind, but retains its own sense 

  of self in the 'there' of its Dasein. Dasein can have/be this experience in differing degrees of clarity and 

  structuration, and as it is an understanding experience, Dasein can interpret it and bring it to expression in 

  differing degrees of adequacy. This element of communio-mysticism in understanding Heidegger is a 

  necessary ingredient in the pre-theoretical philosophical experiences of Dasein's self-understanding, 

  including Being-in as such. These experiences are of Dasein's own meaningful contextual structures, 

  suggested in the most subtle and under-determined way by Heidegger's formal indications. 

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]