Is "purity of heart" a universal religious ideal?

[lovemuffin]

In Christianity, it was said by Jesus to be a precondition of having any vision of God, in the beatitudes, and in Christian practice it is brought about by prayer and contemplation, fasting, acts of mercy, humility, self-emptying and dispassion. "If your eye is single (clear; unfolded) then your whole body will be filled with light".

In Buddhism, I see parallels in the noble eightfold path and the middle way as the antidote to the suffering caused by desire, as well as with the idea of self-emptying (anatta) and sunyata generally. The "pure prayer" of the christian fathers could be compared to the realization of sunyata, although of course they are not perfectly equivalent

In Hinduism, there seems to be similar parallels in bhakti yoga, and even in the other paths, there seem to be some parallels with the need to purify one's inner state in order to achieve liberation. It is not just a question of an intellectual assent but a dharmic path.

Obviously I'm far more familiar with Christian ideas than other religions, but I'm curious what you think? Is a religious practice of some kind intended to cultivate an inner purity essential to your religion?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In Christianity, it was said by Jesus to be a precondition of having any vision of God, in the beatitudes, and in Christian practice it is brought about by prayer and contemplation, fasting, acts of mercy, humility, self-emptying and dispassion. "If your eye is single (clear; unfolded) then your whole body will be filled with light".

In Buddhism, I see parallels in the noble eightfold path and the middle way as the antidote to the suffering caused by desire, as well as with the idea of self-emptying (anatta) and sunyata generally. The "pure prayer" of the christian fathers could be compared to the realization of sunyata, although of course they are not perfectly equivalent

In Hinduism, there seems to be similar parallels in bhakti yoga, and even in the other paths, there seem to be some parallels with the need to purify one's inner state in order to achieve liberation. It is not just a question of an intellectual assent but a dharmic path.

Obviously I'm far more familiar with Christian ideas than other religions, but I'm curious what you think? Is a religious practice of some kind intended to cultivate an inner purity essential to your religion?

Hi, speaking as an animist (but certainly not for all animists), there is no need for such advanced effort at "purity:" One simply has to act in a respectful and honorable way toward to other-than-human persons with whom we interact. It is possible that one might wish to become (or be selected by the others as) a shaman, hunter, dancer, healer, etc., in which case one might be called upon to engage in some acts of purification such as you list above, to put your mind and body in the correct state for engaging in the role. Many who seek guidance from the other-than-human persons do so as an indication of their dedication and seriousness. As for an individualized, higher purpose (e.g., communicating with the ancestors or the higher deities), I would suppose many people do engage in such efforts...but that tends to be an individual thing.

Hope this helps.

 

[Nietzsche]

There exists here a problem. 'Purity of heart' changes depending on ones' culture. What one people sees as an action worth of the highest exaltation and the greatest praise, requiring a pure heart..the other would see as monstrous or barbaric.

 

[lovemuffin]

Nietzsche: yes, that could be a problem. At least with the comparison between certain Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu practices though, the ideas are similar even in specificity. I suppose it should be clarified that it is a definition of "purity" alluded to broadly by those traditions that I am asking about. I would imagine the "purity of heart" of a Laveyan satanist, if such a term even makes sense in that context, might be dissimilar, to make up an example.

 

[Windwalker]

There exists here a problem. 'Purity of heart' changes depending on ones' culture. What one people sees as an action worth of the highest exaltation and the greatest praise, requiring a pure heart..the other would see as monstrous or barbaric.

I'm not sure pure in heart would be meant to be pure in culturally acceptable beliefs and practices, in other words, "straighten up and fly right" sort of injunction. I think purification would be meant in the spiritual context to transcend culture itself and mean to empty yourself of any and all self-seeking. That practice of "taking off one's clothes", so to speak is to lay yourself naked with nothing in your hands, wanting nothing, with open hands. It places one in a place of receptivity. I think pure in heart is equatable with self-emptying. Like in the Sutra,

"Wanting nothing,
with all your heart,
stop the stream.
When the world dissolves,
everything becomes clear."

Go beyond this way or that way,
to the father shore,
where the world dissolves,
and everything becomes clear.

Beyond this way, or that way,
beyond the beyond,
where there is no beginning and no end,
without fear, go."

That to me is what is meant by purity of the heart. Stop the stream of all desires, dissolve all you cling to, all you self-identify with, and when you are pure, you will see God.

 

[Nietzsche]

Nietzsche: yes, that could be a problem. At least with the comparison between certain Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu practices though, the ideas are similar even in specificity. I suppose it should be clarified that it is a definition of "purity" alluded to broadly by those traditions that I am asking about. I would imagine the "purity of heart" of a Laveyan satanist, if such a term even makes sense in that context, might be dissimilar, to make up an example.

I'll bring up the example I know best; Norse culture. They saw no problem with pride or lust. They thought them perfectly good things. They saw no problem with questioning their Gods. To them, someone 'pure of heart' was a man or woman who lived as they deigned.

Pagan traditions were not, after all, about being subservient to ones' Gods. They saw nothing holy or good in bowing their head to their Gods. They did not want a Shepherd, or a God that looked down on them. Very different from Judaism, Christianity & Islam, where God is seen as not only inherently good & perfect, but as right by default & unquestionable. Not so in the pagan beliefs.

I'm not sure pure in heart would be meant to be pure in culturally acceptable beliefs and practices, in other words, "straighten up and fly right" sort of injunction. I think purification would be meant in the spiritual context to transcend culture itself and mean to empty yourself of any and all self-seeking. That practice of "taking off one's clothes", so to speak is to lay yourself naked with nothing in your hands, wanting nothing, with open hands. It places one in a place of receptivity. I think pure in heart is equatable with self-emptying. Like in the Sutra,

"Wanting nothing,
with all your heart,
stop the stream.
When the world dissolves,
everything becomes clear."

Go beyond this way or that way,
to the father shore,
where the world dissolves,
and everything becomes clear.

Beyond this way, or that way,
beyond the beyond,
where there is no beginning and no end,
without fear, go."

That to me is what is meant by purity of the heart. Stop the stream of all desires, dissolve all you cling to, all you self-identify with, and when you are pure, you will see God.

Which is where cultural differences come in. The Norse, like many other pagan societies, valued 'things'. That is, they saw no problem with desire for objects. They thought it perfectly spiritual to desire wealth. They were so important that they were buried or burned with you, so you might have them should you have a life after this one.

 

[lovemuffin]

So strictly speaking, taking Norse culture as a counter-example, the answer to my question is no.

It would be interesting to know if there are any parallels between elements of any pagan religions and these ideas.

 

[Nietzsche]

So strictly speaking, taking Norse culture as a counter-example, the answer to my question is no.

It would be interesting to know if there are any parallels between elements of any pagan religions and these ideas.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the notion of 'Purity of Heart' as you described it is not universal. Purity of heart obviously exists within the Norse culture and in Asatru today. We just don't hold the same things as being pure/worthy.

 

[lovemuffin]

Yes, sorry, that's fair enough. I'm not trying to impugn norse culture.

 

[Deidre]

The problem I have with Christianity, is it seems to suggest that its followers should have 'purity of heart,' meanwhile it teaches to believe that homosexuality is sinful, and we can see how homosexuals have been treated as a result, in the U.S., in particular. Tide is turning, but not with any help from the 'pure of heart' religious folks.

So, Christianity should stop preaching about 'purity of heart,' because many Christians don't exhibit that towards others, or at least the groups that they're taught to chastise.

 

[Whiterain]

Why does one have to question such an idea, purity of heart?

Ethics, morals and sensibility of right and wrong should be ingrained in most people by now and it seems to be, judging from most of my experience abroad.

Desire that is not corrupt in any way, selfless without cheating yourself, but sacrament and penance are different matters.

Sacrament has cheated me and many out of what may be rightfully theirs, time, mammon or pain.

Norse culture had a sense or morality and laws. The Vikings was an era that darkened their high and noble reputation with the help of the English.

I hate the English with compassion, therefore I am impure of heart.

 

[lovemuffin]

The problem I have with Christianity, is it seems to suggest that its followers should have 'purity of heart,' meanwhile it teaches to believe that homosexuality is sinful, and we can see how homosexuals have been treated as a result, in the U.S., in particular. Tide is turning, but not with any help from the 'pure of heart' religious folks.

So, Christianity should stop preaching about 'purity of heart,' because many Christians don't exhibit that towards others, or at least the groups that they're taught to chastise.

The problem you have with Christianity is a problem I share. I didn't create this thread to preach to anyone, in any case, but if I were going to I would preach to the Christians first. One of my complaints about "western Christianity" (I added quotes because I'm sure my characterization is not without issues as a generalization) is that for the most part, in my opinion, it has forgotten the ascetic element of Christianity, which is what "purity of heart" is all about, traditionally. It is central to the perspective on morality espoused by Jesus in the sermon on the mount that it must always be focused on one's own faults and one's own purification, not with the supposed sins of others.

Of course, when you say "not with the help of the 'pure in heart' religious folks", it also certainly goes to emphasize that Nietzsche's note that what counts as purity is not universal, not even without one tradition. But at least for me, when Christians are hateful towards gay people, both in attitude and in their actions both politically and socially, they are not acting with purity of heart according to the Christian tradition as I (and many other traditional sources) understand it.

 

[lovemuffin]

Ethics, morals and sensibility of right and wrong should be ingrained in most people by now and it seems to be, judging from most of my experience abroad.

To me at least, the phrase "purity of heart" symbolizes something that also goes beyond ethics. In the sense that when we talk about ethics we tend to talk strictly about actions, but I have in mind something more like an internal transformation. It is the difference between "the law" and the transfiguration, to use Christian terms, or between a certain rote carrying out of ethical duties and realization or liberation, to use more dharmic categories. But one of the ideas in these traditions is that it is through living in a certain ethical way with dedication that one is led towards that transformation. So for me the term symbolizes both the path and its goal.

 

[George-ananda]

Is "purity of heart" a universal religious ideal?

I think all the major religions today subscribe to this and this may be at the heart of the One Truth behind all the religions and the perennial philosophy.

 

[arthra]

Purity of heart is definitely an ideal in the Baha'i Faith:

If thou seekest to be intoxicated with the cup of the Most Mighty Gift, cut thyself from the world and be quit of self and desire. Exert thyself night and day until spiritual powers may penetrate thy heart and soul. Abandon the body and the material, until the merciful powers may become manifest; because not until the soil is become pure will it develop through the heavenly bounty; not until the heart is purified, will the radiance of the Sun of Truth shine therein. I beg of God that thou wilt day by day increase the purity of thy heart, the cheerfulness of thy soul, the light of thy insight and the search for Truth.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 362

 

[Quintessence]

Is a religious practice of some kind intended to cultivate an inner purity essential to your religion?

In a word, no.

But I'm also having a hard time understanding what it is that you're trying to get at with this idea. However, I would characterize contemporary Paganisms in general as being far more about accepting ourselves for who we are rather than thinking of ourselves as fallen, corrupt, imperfect beings in need of fixing or purification.

 

[Deidre]

The problem you have with Christianity is a problem I share. I didn't create this thread to preach to anyone, in any case, but if I were going to I would preach to the Christians first. One of my complaints about "western Christianity" (I added quotes because I'm sure my characterization is not without issues as a generalization) is that for the most part, in my opinion, it has forgotten the ascetic element of Christianity, which is what "purity of heart" is all about, traditionally. It is central to the perspective on morality espoused by Jesus in the sermon on the mount that it must always be focused on one's own faults and one's own purification, not with the supposed sins of others.

Of course, when you say "not with the help of the 'pure in heart' religious folks", it also certainly goes to emphasize that Nietzsche's note that what counts as purity is not universal, not even without one tradition. But at least for me, when Christians are hateful towards gay people, both in attitude and in their actions both politically and socially, they are not acting with purity of heart according to the Christian tradition as I (and many other traditional sources) understand it.

That's true, everything you say here. The thing is though, when we look at the Bible. It's hard to read passages whereby God is depicted as ''vomiting sinners out of his mouth,'' and then as a human being...you are to look at that 'sinner' with love and kindness. What?! When the very God you worship, supposedly despise sinners. That's straight from the Bible...it states such things like that. So, to me, it's a very mixed message that is perceived. Should I despise what God despises too? If not, does that make me more compassionate than the god I worship?

So this purity of heart business, means nothing coming from the Bible. One minute Jesus is saying that to follow him you must hate your mother, father...etc...and in the next breath, if a man hates his brother, then he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. lol Either there were lousy reporters back then, OR...Jesus is nothing like what we have been taught to believe about him.

I'd say it probably boils down to...treating people as we would wish to be treated. I believe in God, but I don't believe that the Bible has an accurate depiction of him. Unless God is actually a petulant child who throws a fit when he doesn't get his own way?

 

[lovemuffin]

What is it called if you derail your own thread? Asking for a friend

That's true, everything you say here. The thing is though, when we look at the Bible. It's hard to read passages whereby God is depicted as ''vomiting sinners out of his mouth,'' and then as a human being...you are to look at that 'sinner' with love and kindness.

Assuming you're talking about Revelation 3:16, it's not about "sinners" really. It seems like you are applying a gloss to the verse that's not really warranted given its context. On the other hand, I'm not really that fond of the book of Revelation and it's the only canonical book of the New Testament not included in the eastern orthodox liturgical scripture readings. I'm not prepared to give an apology for it.

I think I've said this to you before maybe, but I think part of your issue with the bible stems from holding onto an approach to biblical interpretation that is too fundamentalist. Even having rejected Christianity, you still view the Bible through that lens. Especially when you express incredulity that anyone can emphasize some parts over others, which I've seen in other threads. But there are other ways of understanding the Bible, and it's possible for Christians to recognize its limitations as a human-authored collection of texts spanning centuries, while also recognizing in it an inspiration filtered through those imperfect human authors.

One minute Jesus is saying that to follow him you must hate your mother, father...etc...and in the next breath, if a man hates his brother, then he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. lol Either there were lousy reporters back then, OR...Jesus is nothing like what we have been taught to believe about him.

"Whoever is not against you is for you" (Luke 9:50)
"Whoever is not with me is against me" (Luke 11:23)

Rather than immediately tossing the book aside for being so obviously and uselessly self-contradictory, I take this sort of thing as a warning against the danger of shallow exegesis and careless proof-texting. It speaks to the need of a more mature method of interpretation and understanding.

 

[Deidre]

I deleted my comment, well named. I may have left Christianity, for my own reasons...but it's not my place to tell you to.

 

[lovemuffin]

That wasn't necessary but it's alright I apologize again if I offended you with my comments.