|
Docta Ignorantia III Philosophy of Religion Peirce (Charles Sanders, 1839-1914) is a Transcendentalist, line of Thoreau/Longfellow/Emerson, etc. He's not a 'Pragmatist' as that term is generally used. He is far ahead of James and Dewey, who probably don't deserve association with him. He was rejected not by Orthodox Christians but by Unitarians at Harvard (Unitarians deny the central dogma of Christian and Hindu Orthodoxy, namely, Threeness -- The Trinity). Although Harvard was founded by Orthodox Christians (Anglican Puritans, Calvinists), by 1800 it was in the hands of Unitarians (one of the transmutations Puritans underwent; another was Transcendentalism, and yet another was Christian Science). By 1900, Harvard was the property of aggressive 'atheists' -- aggressive in sense that they belittle all religion, however denominated. I'm sure Orthodox Christians would have been little more sympathetic than Unitarians were but in this case the culprits were the Harvard Unitarians. Peirce would not have been in "abject poverty' living on a farm -- certainly not with a woman who stayed with him. Academicians tend to regard anything except an academic position as "abject poverty.' The words themselves are a cliché. Reminds me of clergy asking parishioners to "give to those less fortunate than ourselves.' How do they know? What a smug attitude! What an egotistical thing to say, "less fortunate than ourselves'...! If Peirce stayed on the farm, it was because he was happy being eremitical. All great work is done in solitude. Probably, James's was conscience money. Peirce is on to Trinitarian formulation, which is primal. The Harvard folk were Unitarian. There are grades of spiritual discipline just as there are grades of school and experience. Ultimately, we are all enrolled in the University of Life, until we quit the body. It is natural for a person to progress from one grade to another, forwardly. But frequently, one or both of two things happens: (1) because of laziness, a person stops traveling forwardly and wants to stay in some grade already achieved; (2) some person or persons attempt to force a person to stay in a grade achieved. For example, most modern 'clergy' would not so much oppose Peirce outright, claiming his theses are incorrect, as they would try to keep people from assimilating his work. Their intent would be to frustrate progress beyond the grade where someone already is and from which they are supporting the clergy. Most modern 'clergy' like to keep people in the pre-and primary-schools of spiritual life because there they are manipulable and dependent. Furthermore, most modern 'clergy' are in these very grades themselves, and ... "You can't teach what you don't know.' Doctors, lawyers and academicians have their own versions of this deception. Doctors and lawyers profit from it the most because they can induce sickness and litigation by administering drugs and writing laws. Academicians foster an enormous dependency clientele -- the "professional student.' So, I believe it is useful to understand why 'clergy' and academicians denigrate the work of people like Peirce. They do so not because the work is wrong or even unusual. They do so because they feel that if the work is admired, their supply line will disappear. The utter dependency of 'clergy' and academicians on their clienteles is not appreciated by those clienteles. This is one factor which makes the clienteles easy to fleece: they are not aware that they are being hustled. In our time, 'clergy' and academicians conspire to keep people in the lowest grades of spiritual discipline. There is not one theologian in any ecclesiastical structure anywhere on earth. The age is against it. A theologian is an adept at spiritual discipline. Theologians are eremites. They live in monasteries. Today, anyone who pursues spiritual discipline beyond that available in the pre-and primary-grades will live eremitically because eremiticism is the only life-style that runs forwardly and upwardly. So it is not fair to say that 'the church' doesn't like this or that philosophy. Modern 'clergy' do not like philosophy or theology -- in fact, they do not believe in God -- because philosophy and theology are the realm of adults, not of infants. 'Clergy' do not like adults because adults are not pliable. Adults think. They examine. They make up their own mind after rumination and they place their conclusions into practice, thus testing the quality of their workmanship to flourish in the exigencies of life. The 'clergy,' not the 'church,' objects to learning. Unless they are staying there through indolence or desire -- in which case they are bad company -- people in the church are spiritual infants. Nor should they be evaluated for not being what they are not: adepts. It is good to be born in the church but not to die in it. One must travel beyond all boundaries of reason and the mind and emerge in the Universal Absolute. There is an old saying from the world of art forgery: the truth can withstand any amount of inquiry. Most modern 'clergy' have lost faith. They worry that someone will turn the lights on them and find out that they are unbelievers. Many are poltroons and not a few are apostates. Most do not believe even in themselves but have contempt for their 'sheep' because they know these to be so gullible, so easily misled. Genuine theologians and clergy are afraid of nothing. Because they trust themselves, they know how to live. They appreciate everything, even "evil.' Among the great ones, there are two kinds: those who initiate an era and those who consummate one. The former live in "abject poverty.' The latter fare well or reasonably well by worldly standards. The difference is in the mission, the reason for taking birth. Initiators are Saivites, devotees of Siva, Christ, the Aspect of Destruction. Consummators are Vaishnavites, devotees of Vishnu, the Holy Spirit, the Aspect of Preservation. Beethoven is an Initiator and Bach is a Consummator. Of course, God is One in Three Aspects, Creation, Consummation, Preservation, but there are these emphases that are relative to time and circumstance. Christianity is a Saivite religion. Its Vaishnavite counterpart is Islam. Some Christians assert that Christianity is a Vaishnavite religion. Roman Catholics, Calvinists and Protestant Monastics (Mennonites, Hutterites, Friends, Shakers) tend to grasp the Saivite nature of Christianity. Members of syncretistic denominations, such as Episcopalians, Christian Scientists and Fundamentalists, tend not to grasp this truth very well. Christianity is a Saivite religion, austere, monastic, poor, insouciant. Moslems are Christians' Vaishnavite brothers. Ultimately, there is only one religion, the religion of Love. All of the distinctions are ephemeral, and so, not real.
Adwaitha Hermitage
|
