The Flesh

[Mustardseed]

Dear Tisha
I may not be able to tell you where like Beth, but I do believe I know why. It seems that since the church (the established political Church system) needed to control the people, they had to invent some mechanisms by which they became the controllers of very basic functions of the HUMAN BEING. The flesh, meaning the body became the object and point of control so to speak. Sex was a gift of God to man, along with eating and enjoying the occasional ruse of intoxication and so this became the primary target. It  was and still is the greatest point of contention between puritans and their counterperts in the Christian Church and New Age religion as well. Even Sportsmen figure they better not have sex before a important game so they wont "spill any energy". Its all in power and control.  God loves Sex he loves eating drinking and having a grand old time, and remember the old adage "remember to be moderate about all things even moderation"
Regards Mustardseed

[Tab]

The spirit:matter duality was present way back in the vedantic times. Flesh=bad is as old as the idea that our 'reality' is Maya and we must realize and transcend Samsara to become truly enlightened beings.

[Jeff_Mash]

Hi Tisha...

I know that a big part of the Flesh = Bad viewpoint is from Christian/Catholic influences.  Basically, the flesh represents carnality, and carnality represents sin.  The Bible is littered with these influences:

1 Corinthians 1:29: "That no flesh shall glory in his presence."

Romans 7:5 - For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Romans 8:5 - "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. (6) For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.  (7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.  ( So they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Those are just three that I picked up using a simple concordance.  Back when I was a practicing born again Christian, "living in the flesh" was frowned upon, becaue to do so meant to give into your fleshly desires: lust, greed, sin, etc.

On the contrary, through steady reading of the Word of God (along with fasting, prayer, etc), this would suppress the fleshly man and enhance the spiritual side of man, allowing you to walk in the path that God has ordained for you.

While I no longer practice my faith as a born again Christian, I think the experience was invaluable to me, because if anything, it did teach me to be more spiritually minded and less rooted in the things of this world.

[Beth]

Tisha,

All of the above answers are describing good reasons why there has been and still is a controversy over the duality of matter and spirit.

Most of the earliest Christians were Gnostics, and Gnostics had various "levels" of belief regarding the flesh.  Earlier than this, the same ideas were held by various levels of belief within Greek Stoicism.

For the "extremists"-- they believed that the flesh was "evil" and that it was the "flesh" that ultimately separated us from God. These extremists lived in total poverty and deprivation of physical pleasures--in extreme asceticism. The flesh was ONE BIG TEMPTATION that ALWAYS led to severe separation from God.  So, it was their highest hope to "die" as soon as possible, shed this earthly body, in order to reunite with the Godhead. (Interestingly enough, suicide was NOT an option.  They had to just "wait it out.")

This position also had a great influence on the whole idea of "original sin."

As for the Moderates--they also held that the flesh ultimately separated us from the godhead, BUT, there were ways in which we could "overcome the flesh."  As to "fleshly desires" that take our "minds away from contemplating God" these could be overcome by living basically ascetic lives, but early Christians of this ilk also had spouses and children.  They lived their lives in a very reverent manner, never going to "the extreme" with material pleasures, but never to the "extreme" in hatred of their flesh either.  Either extreme was bad news. Basically, they accepted that the flesh was a current state of being, like it or not, so they used the flesh for what it could provide, but at the same time, it was still the "lesser body" of importance when compared to the Soul." Most readers of scripture interpret Jesus saying of "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" as solely speaking of "paying monetary taxes."  I think it had multiple meanings, in that to "give unto Caesar" was also to "give unto the flesh."  Then "Give unto God--what is God's" was referring to our morality, our devotion and our "spirit."  As to "overcoming the flesh" in a more literal way of speaking, there were the ideas of "resurrection" and "transcendence."

IN MY OPINION....from all that I have studied in the scriptures, Jewish and Christian mysticism, the Gnostic Gospels and pertinent Apocrypha, I THINK that "resurrection" is what we have all experienced to some extent with OBE.  "Transfiguration" is when we "experience ourselves AS LIGHT" and "transcendence" is perhaps what we would call "transition" rather than "death."  The Body dies, but not "our soul" or our astral body(ies).  There are a lot of comparisons to the things that we experience and ancient mystical ideas of reality (which I hold to be the ideas of the earliest Christians.)  I do not know of a book that has been written that covers this area with any depth.  (I guess I will have to put this on "my to-write" book list, unless someone writes it before I can get the one I am currently working on written!!!)  

Anyway, As for the Liberals in this topic, they would be considered Hedonists or Epicurians in the Greek culture.  These people are what we would consider today as "Hard Materialists."  Living only for the pleasures of the body, and the accumulation of physical things.  These people were in many cases also held to be atheists, or at the very least agnostics.    

There is so much more that I could say on this, but I hope this helps!!

Peace,
Beth

[Gandalf]

they would be considered Hedonists or Epicurians in the Greek culture...
Beth_


Hey Beth, thanks for your post!

I sometimes feel that Epicurians get a bit of a hard time, not just by later writers but also by their contemporary rivals like stoics and so on.
The common critisism was that epicurians were hedonists in the modern sense but from what I can remember they meant hedonism to mean 'freedom from pain' rather than all out physical pleasure, a small but important distinction.
You are right that many were mostly athiests and believed in addition that bodily death was final, therfore the time to live was now.. but this does not translate into recklesness however.

As a matter of interest, the epirucians are also famous as they proposed the theory of 'atomism' that all matter is fundamentaly composed of the same tiny units called 'atoms' and different objects/textures etc are simply atoms in differing arangements....
in other words, modern atomic theory.... not bad eh?

Douglas

[Mustardseed]

Dear Trish
On another note different denominations have different doctrines on how to "win" over the flesh so to speak. Some adhere to the doctrine of suppression that the good self sits on top of the bad self and holds it down, some adhere to the doctrine of elimination meaning that once you get saved you cut out the bad self and throw it out leaving only the glorified good self, and then some believe in the doctrine of Cohabitation, that there is no good self even to start with, but that all self is bad (result of sin in the garden) and Christ comes in and lives together with you in you and helps you. It is also called "Christ in me, the hope of glory".
Regards MS

[Gandalf]

oops!
Sorry Epicurus but you didnt *propose* the theory of atomism, you only furthered it.
It was originally proposed by Thracian philosopher Democritus (c.460BCE), after learning it from his master Leucippus. Epicurus and his followers later supported this theory and took it on board!

This is according to my great source; that great tome of lore known as the Oxford Classical Dictionary!!!

Douglas

[Tisha]

So, the CW (conventional wisdom) is that the spirit/flesh split came about via the thoughts of the Greeks and the Gnostics?  Are we sure it wasn't earlier?  Or even over "there" in other cultures (asian), even if concurrently? Not that I disagree or anything; I'm just checking.  Was it the pre-Jesus Greeks or the post-Jesus ones?

I suppose that, on the surface, I would be accused of being an Epicurian or a Hedonist, although I really am not.  There are so many people around the world - mostly tribal, preliterate folk, and many neo-pagans - who believe that the flesh and spirit are not separate. There is no good/evil flesh/spirit split, since it all comes from the Divine All.  Spirit/Flesh are made up of the same basic "stuff."  They don't fight for dominance; rather, they dance, because they are in partnership with one another.  And, most importantly, spirit expresses itself through the flesh.  Therefore, the flesh is sacred.  The Divine is immanent in the world, not transcendant.  

Very different ideas, yes?  This is my opinion:  Our different ideas about the nature of flesh and spirit are what TRULY separate the major religions from us so-called "heathens."  Not Jesus, not Mohammed, not Buddha, not any one so-called ascended master or savior.

How do you like my theory . . . is it fuzzy and half-assed, or could we make something of it here?

[Beth]

Tisha,

quote:How do you like my theory . . . is it fuzzy and half-assed, or could we make something of it here?

 LOL...every theory we have today--and in the ancient world--could fit this bill!![]

First, I do not think that any of us today fall "totally" into any of these "ancient categories."  I do not even know that the ancients could totally be categorized as such during ancient times. Today, we are "looking back" thousands of years, and "creating categories of thought" that probably did not really exist in a concretized/fundamentally set way. What we have are "different opinions" that arose through the centuries as ancient thinkers tried to "solve the mysteries" of the universe and our human existence. In essence, these categories ar representative of the different aspects of all that must be considered.  

The whole "spirit/matter" being "SPLIT" and "differentiated" was a response to the Heraclitian (500's b.c.e. and pre-Jesus) ideas of the LOGOS (translated as "THE WORD" in the Gospel of John chapter 1.) As the LOGOS, "spirit and matter were ONE" and just "manifested in many different ways."  Thus there was only an "appearance of duality."  

"Hard duality" (two totally separate things) in my opinion, came from not being able "to wrap one's head around the idea that "PLURAL could still be SINGULAR."  It was much easier for people "to think" of "reality" as either "one" OR "many"--but reality could NOT be both.  Since there was "plenty of evidence of the MANY" e.g., you/me, this/that, here/there, the "idea of the MANY" was a much easier reality to understand.

But according to LOGOS theory--"transcendence" and "immanence" were NOT opposites--but rather two aspects of the same thing. "God" was both "here" and "not-here." "We" too are both "here and not-here."  Does this make any sense?

Gandalf is correct that Epicurians were atomists, and yes Democritus was actually the first (according to the "categorical" presentation of the ancient material) to propose that "atoms" were the building blocks of physical matter.  This theory fit very well with "Epicurean" thought, which was just a matter of primarily focusing one's life on the physical rather than bother trying to figure out the spiritual.  Physical pleasure was a lot more "immediate" than spiritual promises of "future pleasure."  In essence--"Physical MATTER was all that really MATTERED."[8D]

A response to this "hard materialism" position, was the "hard dualist" position, in that if "matter was just created from other matter" then it must be evil, for "Spirit or God" was not a part of the equation.  This then became a "strict dualism" in that there MUST be "two parts" of reality: One that is "here" and one that is "not here."  The one that was "here" was intrinsically evil, and the one that was "not-here" was Divine.

But once again, this kind of strict dualism is NOT what Heraclitus and the LOGOS theorists (the later Stoics) were getting at either.  I guess these thinkers could "think in terms of the ONE and the MANY" being the same thing, where others could not.  

The earliest Christians were LOGOS theorists, who tried to teach that "I am in God, and God is in me, and I am in you."  We may currently be "IN this world" but that does not mean that "we are OF THIS world." In short, they attempted to "marry" the transcendent and immanent realms (the physical and spiritual), and "propagate the physical" world "through this sacred marriage." It was their postition that "spirit gave birth to matter" NOT the other way around.  Matter cannot create spirit--spirit is the "creator" of matter.  "Spirit" in this sense can easily be translated as "MIND."  

As for your being a hedonist [] I don't think ANY of us can deny hedonistic tendencies in todays world.[8D]  I know I really appreciate many things that the physical can provide for us[:I], but at the same time, in looking for "my true nature" I cannot accept that this physical world is all that there is.  So therefore, I do not live "totally" as a "scientific materialist."  I am holding out the hope that one day we will come to a conclusion that is more in line with the LOGOS theory, in that "matter" is the "affect" of a much "higher" "cause."  That is why I like what is being discussed in the Quantum Mechanics/Physics theories.  The quantum world may very well be taking us that much closer to the world of "spirit."  

By the way, practitioners of magic would have a hard time being categorized as "hard materialists" even though much of their magic seeks "change within the physical world" (even if for "hedonistic pleasures".)  If "magic" is not solely a "solid moving a solid," but rather the "non-physical" moving the "physical" then this would NOT fall into the camp of a "strict physical materialist."  AND--this does NOT have to be "strict dualism" either.  It can be "oneism" in the "Logos" way of thinking.  

In summary, we have here THREE different positions--not just two.  We have the postion that "matter is all that there is", we have the position that "there are two totally different realities" one being matter and one being spirit, and then we have the position that there is another "reality that is actually both of these in ONE."

In my opinion, ALL is ONE--so I prescribe for us to ALL "love one another, and seek to understand one another, as we ourselves want to be loved and understood" because otherwise...we are only living in ignorance of "ourselves."

Peace,
Beth

p.s. Would you please pass the Caberbet Sauvignon and that luscious looking Chicken Cordon Bleu...oh yes, and one of those lovely honey brioches for an after dinner treat...??[8D]

[Gandalf]

Hi Beth_
i'm wondering where Platonic thought comes into this, as Plato theorizes in his 'Symposium: (9 or 10 I think) about the true 'art of love'. Plato says that the physical body is a reflection of the higher mind which is in itself a reflection of the divine. So when you fall in love with someone it is fine to appreciate their bodily virtues but you should remember that this feast of lovliness is a reflection of their great mind, which in itself is a reflection of the divine 'all'.

Was Plato a dualist then? He seems to subscribe to the idea that our bodies are reflections of a more ideal state but at the same time he is NOT saying that the body is 'evil' or 'sinful' in any way.
From this idea we get the common expression called 'platonic love' but the modern meaning is not actually correct as Plato doesnt rule out sexual relationships, he just says that you should try to perceive the visible part as part of the greater whole as it were.

I read that the platonic school later went on to further develop this theory to include the whole physical world, that is the whole world and everything in it, including virtues were reflections of a higher divine world.
Is there not a famous analogy that Plato uses of the cave?

Anyway, I'm just trying to figure out what his position is in all this!

Regards,
Douglas

PS Those Greek philosophers though... you've got to hand it to them... awsome stuff!

[Beth]

Gandalf,

Yes...I LOVE Greek philosophy too!![]  Ancient Greek thinkers were "all over" the BIG questions, and interestingly enough, we are not only "just now catching up with them" in many areas, but unfortunately, we have "lost touch with a great deal of their genius."

As I can summarize it here, my reading of Plato is fundamentally a body of work that "hashes out" the whole discussion that Tisha has started here.  

Through his character mentor, Socrates, Plato creates amazing dialogues that when read with your head to one side, you get one picture, and when you lean your head to the other side you get another.  Many people hold that Plato WAS definately a dualist, BUT, I don't personally think so.  Just because he talks about "two aspects" of existence doesn't mean that he was a dualist.  AND...I am sure you have noticed, Platonic dialogues are written such that you think one minute that "Socrates" is taking one position very firmly, but by the end of the dialogue, you are not as sure anymore!![:O]  Plato certainly had a way with WORDS--AND--had a way of writing that forces people TO THINK!![]  

Since Plato's theory of "forms" (from his Allegory of the Cave) is so very important to his overall philosophical stand, I say that he was more of a "pre-Stoic" thinker.  They might not have agreed on everything, but fundamentally, I think Plato is easily read as such.  Those of Plato's school that went with the LOGOS train of thought would probably land in the Stoicism camp, but those that went with a different reading of his work, probably landed in the Aristotlean camp.  Most people also read Aristotle in one way, but I just happen to see something in it that many people do not! (Does that surprise you???  tee-hee....[])

So, in answer to your question, I guess it all depends upon "how you read" and "interpret" his work overall.  I think when he speaks of "platonic love" he is writing primarily in allegory that resonates with the physical world, and yes, gives certain permission to live this way in the physical, but what he is really getting at is that the LOVER is ALWAYS Sophia Wisdom, and the "young lads" were/are yes...we humans!!

Finally, Platonism was very important to the early development of Christianity, but I also think that early on they were reading Plato with a "Stoic eye" and later during the medieval period, with a "hard dualist" eye.

I am sure that many philosophers/theologians would really like to have a "go at me" on this, but, that is my take on it, and I am sticking to it!!![8D]  

Peace,
Beth

[shaman]

Hi Tisha,

if we go way back before Jesus, all the way to one of the first written documents, we find the Epic of Gilgamesh, written in cuneiform I think... It is the story of a King in Summer. In there we find a description of the flood similar to the one in the old testement. Anyhow, in the epic of guilgamesh there are some description of sexual acts with many details... This seems to indicate that is was not viewed as a sin at all. Similarly in the Indian culture one finds very old temples with sculptures depicting sexual activity (a little bit like the famous Kama Sutra). Now, even in the Old testement flesh is not banned. However, it seems that the original dead sea scrolls (found in the qumram caves in the holy land) which are an exact copy of the Old testement, had a scene that was removed. That scene is one depiciting the beauty of the wife of Abraham, who was well known for her beauty. This is a first sign of some kind of "backward" reaction in the old scripture. HOwever, in the Jewish religion, which is based mainly on the Old Testement, flesh is not a sinn at all. On the contrary, on Sabbath (saturday) it is the duty of the couple to have sex,.. you know what.It is known as Mizvat Shabat (one of the duties to be carried out on Saturday...). It is also written that one has to be happy and enjoy life. In many celebrations, wine is a must. You don't have to be drunk, but to drink a little, and be happy!!

I hope this helps you to see where flesh=good, and therfore find out where flesh=bad came from.

[Tisha]

Beth,  I need to know where the theory "flesh = bad" came from.  Once upon a time, the Divine was imminent in the flesh; there was no conflict between spirit and matter, no effort to separate them, to exalt one and corrupt the other.  How did this change in ideas effect the development of Christianity?  

In my opinion, the person (or people) who developed this idea had a huge impact on the way the Western world experiences reality, and our ability to experience the Divine is greatly diminished because of it.  Are there any attempts within the Christian communities to re-integrate spirit and matter?

So what happened?  Thanks in advance.