By the way, are you familiar with the terms Shruti and Smriti in Hinduism? Smriti means "that which is told", so it's human-composed text based on information that came from a (possibly ineffable) mystical experience of talking to the gods. For instance, the gods didn't compose the Ramayana, but they showed Sage Valmiki the life of Rama, and based on that mystical experience he composed the Ramayana.
But we also believe in Shruti, or "that which is heard". That is when the gods just tell a sage (who's been meditating for several years) a sequence of Sanskrit sounds. That's how we believe the core of the Vedas (known as the Samhitas) came into being: they're a compilation of Sanskrit verses that sages directly heard from the gods. (And they were compiled by a guy named Vyasa who only included verses which a lot of people had independently heard.)
"But then... I thought I wrote that already!" I thought you were trying to say something about a term people should already know, just like you said something about scripture even if that's not the definition of the term scripture. So what's the definition of the term living word?
Anyway, could you actually answer my question about Shruti? Do you not believe in the possibility that the gods have ever communicated to Man using actual language?
Well, in the case of the Vedas, Vyasa took great pains to make sure these weren't hallucinations. For instance, he wouldn't include a verse unless a lot of sages had independently heard it (and he took great pains to make sure it really was independent). And he would only examine verses from sages who were masters of certain meditative techniques that suppress the output of the mind from one's conscious awareness, so that one would only be consciously aware of something if it came from something external.
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
A dead husk is a little harsh. I have to believe the gospels contain at least dried seeds.
ReplyDeleteWhat else is culture, other than detritus?
ReplyDeleteWhat does the "living word" mean?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, are you familiar with the terms Shruti and Smriti in Hinduism? Smriti means "that which is told", so it's human-composed text based on information that came from a (possibly ineffable) mystical experience of talking to the gods. For instance, the gods didn't compose the Ramayana, but they showed Sage Valmiki the life of Rama, and based on that mystical experience he composed the Ramayana.
But we also believe in Shruti, or "that which is heard". That is when the gods just tell a sage (who's been meditating for several years) a sequence of Sanskrit sounds. That's how we believe the core of the Vedas (known as the Samhitas) came into being: they're a compilation of Sanskrit verses that sages directly heard from the gods. (And they were compiled by a guy named Vyasa who only included verses which a lot of people had independently heard.)
Do you not believe in the possibility of Shruti?
'What does the "living word" mean?'
Delete"The living word is the experience of the prophet's encounter with God."
But then... I thought I wrote that already!
"Do you not believe in the possibility of Shruti?"
I work just down the hall from Shruti, so of course I believe she is possible!
"But then... I thought I wrote that already!" I thought you were trying to say something about a term people should already know, just like you said something about scripture even if that's not the definition of the term scripture. So what's the definition of the term living word?
DeleteAnyway, could you actually answer my question about Shruti? Do you not believe in the possibility that the gods have ever communicated to Man using actual language?
"The living word is the experience of the prophet's encounter with God."
DeleteOf course there may be words involved!
Do you think it's possible for such an experience to consist solely of words in some cases?
DeleteIf it were just words, what would make anyone think there was anything divine involved, rather than it being a mere auditory hallucination?
DeleteWell, in the case of the Vedas, Vyasa took great pains to make sure these weren't hallucinations. For instance, he wouldn't include a verse unless a lot of sages had independently heard it (and he took great pains to make sure it really was independent). And he would only examine verses from sages who were masters of certain meditative techniques that suppress the output of the mind from one's conscious awareness, so that one would only be consciously aware of something if it came from something external.
Delete