Destroying your myth; Finding your path?

[Typist]

1) It's interesting to see how often the people who are the most vocally opposed to a particular religious point of view (especially: Christianity, especially seen in a fundamentalist way) are those who have rejected that view.

My take is that some are ready to give up say, Christianity, but they're not ready to give up the fundamentalist mindset. And so they become a fundamentalist something else. Adamant, certain, evangelical etc for a new cause instead of the old one.

Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?

I'd vote clearly not necessary for all, given how many change views without going through an angry phase. But it does seem necessary for some.

2) Somewhat relatedly, For those who are drawn towards more "mystical" understandings of religion and spirituality, is it possible to do so while remaining within the "mythic" bounds of a traditional religion.

Great question, nice work! The best I can offer is that mysticism probably comes in degrees like so much else.

I tend to argue for what often sounds like a rather pure form of mysticism, but I usually do so with 17 billion words jammed full of all kinds of concepts and beliefs. I doubt many can really fully leave their philosophical influences behind, as any decision to pursue this or that is going to based on some values, assumptions etc.

An example, I was raised Catholic, and quietly wandered off 50 years ago. So I went through most of my life thinking I was done with Catholicism and it no longer had anything to do with me.

And then I spent a few months exploring the Catholic web, just for something to do. What I discovered is that while I no longer hold Catholic beliefs, I still think very much like a Catholic, about the kinds of things Catholics think about. I'm not an ideological Catholic, but to a significant degree might still be called a cultural Catholic.

That is, it was illusion to think I even had the ability to make a clean break from centuries of Catholic genetic heritage. I had a choice about some of it, but some of it is just who I am, and it was decided long before I was born.

Point being, even if I were to become the purest mystic on the planet, there are some things one simply doesn't have the ability to discard.

 

[George-ananda]

1) It's interesting to see how often the people who are the most vocally opposed to a particular religious point of view (especially: Christianity, especially seen in a fundamentalist way) are those who have rejected that view. There are undoubtedly many reasons for that, and the question doesn't mean to cast aspersions at it, as if those reasons were invalid. But it's also true that some eventually move beyond a stance that is mostly oriented around a negative attitude towards the previous belief system, adopting some new philosophy/spirituality/worldview. Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?


2) Somewhat relatedly, For those who are drawn towards more "mystical" understandings of religion and spirituality, is it possible to do so while remaining within the "mythic" bounds of a traditional religion. By "mythic" I don't mean "false" necessarily, rather something like the entire construct of symbols that make up a particular religious point of view. They are "myth" in the sense of being the assumed background of a particular religious practice. Or is this too constraining? Are there no tracks in the sky, as the Dhammapada says? Do you have to make your own path?

I think both paths happen. I think in our modern western society path #1 would be more common as typically we are introduced to our families traditional denomination and rebellious thoughts spring easily against dogma that we also hear criticized by many (this would typically happen in the teen/young adult years). Unfortunately (in my view) many of these types remain in agnosticism or atheism for life and miss the 'living' part of spiritual things.

Path #2 is probably less common and would happen in people who are not opposed to their tradition (or acknowledge the limitations of any formal tradition) but feel a spiritual drive to go deeper than the surface and dogmas; like Catholic mystics. These are more advanced souls and the mystical types from all the world's traditions seem to approach merger.

 

[Windwalker]

1) It's interesting to see how often the people who are the most vocally opposed to a particular religious point of view (especially: Christianity, especially seen in a fundamentalist way) are those who have rejected that view. There are undoubtedly many reasons for that, and the question doesn't mean to cast aspersions at it, as if those reasons were invalid. But it's also true that some eventually move beyond a stance that is mostly oriented around a negative attitude towards the previous belief system, adopting some new philosophy/spirituality/worldview. Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?

The question I was raising when I brought this up was that it seems to me that as people transition away from an earlier, less mature mode of thinking to a more mature mode of thought, it typically isn't accompanying by an excessive amount of vitriol, like saying I'm so pissed off I was doing the childish things I did when I was 10, now that I'm 12 and am more mature now. No, we simply just realize we're not little kids anymore and we let go of the less mature ways of thinking as we adopt more mature ways. We hang out with older kids and start acting like them to learn the new ways of being more mature.

But when it comes to outgrowing mythic modes of thought in regards to God and religion, there isn't really much a path paved for those who have outgrown those shoes, and so it is not easy to simply "hang out with the big kids", because there really aren't that many. There is no well-worn trail to follow, and few if any religious institutions that truly support a "post-mythic" approach to religion and spirituality, especially in the West. Where is the normalized rational Christian churches in the West? Let alone Postmodern and Integral churches? There are few here and there, but as a whole the religious body has hung onto a past from 300 years ago refusing to shake anything loose, and so the result is when some simply can't abide rejecting science and reason in order to have a spiritual belief, they have no well-worn path to follow, no footsteps, and no support to help transition away from immature thinking to more mature thought.

So the reaction is to just be pissed off! Either that, or because the pull of the spiritual is too strong to simply say "it's all just woo", or some such denialism, they remain in fundamentalist religion, sacrificing rationality when it comes to trying to be an integrated whole person spiritually. So the choice being presented is that in order to grow up and not live in denial rationally, you have to live in denial spiritually. Great choice!

In my view, all religious systems are are structural supports in order to help translate spiritual experience which exists beyond and before any and all religious systems. How do we talk about these things? How do we take them and translate them into lived experience? How do we teach others? What language do we use? And so forth. As we advance in our understanding of the world, we cannot divorce that from our spiritual and religious lives. We have to develop and mature them, not jettison them in favor of a monolithic system of Science as the One Ring to Rule them All. Religion shouldn't be that either! So what I see happening is because there is no well-worn path by those who have done the hard work of forging a path ahead, people take the path of least resistance, either falling back into mythic systems, or saying goodbye woo!, and dedicating themselves to the hope of peace through scientific thought.

Some honestly don't care, and that's fine. But they aren't the ones pissed off, exactly. Why be pissed if you don't care? This is talking about what happens to those who do care and have no options that appeal without the price of lobotomizing themselves. All the rest that follows, are rationalizations to justify hating religion and it always chooses the lowest common denominators as targets of their scorn.

2) Somewhat relatedly, For those who are drawn towards more "mystical" understandings of religion and spirituality, is it possible to do so while remaining within the "mythic" bounds of a traditional religion. By "mythic" I don't mean "false" necessarily, rather something like the entire construct of symbols that make up a particular religious point of view. They are "myth" in the sense of being the assumed background of a particular religious practice. Or is this too constraining? Are there no tracks in the sky, as the Dhammapada says? Do you have to make your own path?

As I was saying above, the trailblazers have to make the path. Once the groove is cut, the rest can follow in more easily, just like anything in life. Right now, the trails are only just being cut because the alternative of Scientism doesn't take someone any further spiritually. It's just dead-ends the path. That doesn't work either.

 

[lovemuffin]

So what I see happening is because there is no well-worn path by those who have done the hard work of forging a path ahead...

This suggests to me that you see it as at least potentially a temporary state of affairs. Paths may be forged? I have a tendency to see this in terms where the "old mythos" is failing, it's no longer believable (and rightly so, in many ways) to many, but there is not quite yet something to replace it, as you say. In a sense, I see the great challenge of religion at this moment to be coming to terms both with pluralism and the problem of other cultures, as well as the failing of traditional myths. But I have hope that this challenge can be met, in some way. Not necessarily by a "new religion" or an entirely new myth, but especially brought about by fruitful dialogue between differing points of view (as between Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Naturalism/Humanism seems especially interesting to me). The need for a reductio ad unum, to explain everything by a single principle, or a single religious symbology, seems also to be a mythic view that might be challenged.

In that sense I remain Christian because that symbology is deeply meaningful to me, but not as an absolute truth against which other understandings have no value, whether theistic or not.

 

[Windwalker]

This suggests to me that you see it as at least potentially a temporary state of affairs. Paths may be forged?

Oh most definitely. We have to realize the mythic path was new and more advanced than what preceded it, which were systems of magic. At one point that was the bleeding edge advancing culture into a larger, more encompassing framework. Once it reached a certain critical mass it pulled the majority into its center of gravity. And so the same thing with the rise of the rational systems in Modernity starting 300 years ago. The same holds true for those that are the leading edge beyond the rationalistic, reductionistic modes of thought today. The path is being cut and the center of gravity is shifting.

I have a tendency to see this in terms where the "old mythos" is failing, it's no longer believable (and rightly so, in many ways) to many, but there is not quite yet something to replace it, as you say.

I believe there is, and as they say advances happen one funeral at a time. What forms this will take is still being formed. All the noise right now is simply the reactions to growth pains, cries of childbirth if you will. They certainly aren't what is being born.

In a sense, I see the great challenge of religion at this moment to be coming to terms both with pluralism and the problem of other cultures, as well as the failing of traditional myths.

Coming to terms with these is just the beginning of what I see coming.

But I have hope that this challenge can be met, in some way. Not necessarily by a "new religion" or an entirely new myth, but especially brought about by fruitful dialogue between differing points of view (as between Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Naturalism/Humanism seems especially interesting to me).

I agree it's not a "new religion", but an awakening of what religion is and how it can be helpful, or unhelpful. I don't see interfaith dialog as being so much the key to this understanding, but I would say something rather along the lines of an interfaith "practice", that awakens one another to the heart of soul of individuals in a diversity of religion. Each needs to remain unique and not blended and mashed together into a soup, but rather learn to see each through the eye of a unitive consciousness. That's not something one reasons out through a comparative religion analysis of discussion, but through mutually drinking of that same Water, and seeing one another through that One Taste.

At a certain point of view, all points of view are returned to the sender. And we see religion for what it is. It's simply a structure on which we hang the ornaments of spirit. And what wonder those ornaments are when we see them on all the wide and wonderful diversity of trees! But we like to argue over whether the oak is the true tree or the cyprus, or the birch, or the willow. And as we do, the ornaments of spirit vanish from sight. We are left with a forest of barren trees.

The need for a reductio ad unum, to explain everything by a single principle, or a single religious symbology, seems also to be a mythic view that might be challenged.

I would agree. I take the Integral approach, that is the different forms and approaches to religion are both stage appropriate, and culturally appropriate. You can't manufacture something that evolution creates through necessity and try to overlay it on something as organic and dynamic as culture and religion and expect it to take. Evolution is a whole lot smarter than we are.

In that sense I remain Christian because that symbology is deeply meaningful to me, but not as an absolute truth against which other understandings have no value, whether theistic or not.

Sure, I get this very well. I use the Christian language a lot to talk about these things, because it's a native language to me, plus I am able to communicate with those of my own culture taking what has been applied in the more linear traditional modes, and liberate it into the freedom of spiritual aliveness. I see great value in it. But by no means does that mean I buy into those mythic-literal modes of thoughts. Goodness no. That's not a requirement by any means, and is exactly what needs to be given permission to grow beyond. God is not owned by ones theologies.

 

[thau]

1) Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?

Not if one is convinced they possess the truth. I do not see Christianity spending an inordinate amount of time discrediting the claims of all these other ancient widely practiced religion. We prefer to make a case for ours only. So if some agnostic stumbles upon something that makes great eternal sense to him, he is welcome to pursue that alone and not bother with us. But, such as on boards like these, some are restless until they address all the things Christianity stands for or claims. No problem.

Somewhat relatedly, For those who are drawn towards more "mystical" understandings of religion and spirituality, is it possible to do so while remaining within the "mythic" bounds of a traditional religion. By "mythic" I don't mean "false" necessarily, rather something like the entire construct of symbols that make up a particular religious point of view. They are "myth" in the sense of being the assumed background of a particular religious practice. Or is this too constraining? Are there no tracks in the sky, as the Dhammapada says? Do you have to make your own path?

Jesus said if you will not put faith in the words I give you, then put faith in the works that I perform. And the earliest of witnesses became total believers based on that alone. Culminated with the greatest of the Lord’s works, His resurrection. Jesus also established His Church to be the authority on earth, and given many “mythic bounds”as you would have it. Those mythic or various traditions, rubrics and sacramental acts of worship carry with them untold graces. They really are not expendable or simply man-made for ulterior reasons.

 

[Curious George]

This isn't going to be a really coherent OP, so lets just get that out of the way. In RF chat the other day, there was a short conversation, out of which came a couple questions (which I'm rephrasing, apologies to their originator) which might be interesting to talk about, or might require a lot more elaboration.

1) It's interesting to see how often the people who are the most vocally opposed to a particular religious point of view (especially: Christianity, especially seen in a fundamentalist way) are those who have rejected that view. There are undoubtedly many reasons for that, and the question doesn't mean to cast aspersions at it, as if those reasons were invalid. But it's also true that some eventually move beyond a stance that is mostly oriented around a negative attitude towards the previous belief system, adopting some new philosophy/spirituality/worldview. Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?

2) Somewhat relatedly, For those who are drawn towards more "mystical" understandings of religion and spirituality, is it possible to do so while remaining within the "mythic" bounds of a traditional religion. By "mythic" I don't mean "false" necessarily, rather something like the entire construct of symbols that make up a particular religious point of view. They are "myth" in the sense of being the assumed background of a particular religious practice. Or is this too constraining? Are there no tracks in the sky, as the Dhammapada says? Do you have to make your own path?

I do not believe I have ever felt hostile to any religion, but if there was one close it would be yec(stemming mainly from frustration of communication). I do find myself frustrated with specific people, and perhaps I have lashed out at their religion consequently. thoughI believe I have remained composed, it is possible that I more easily forget my lapses in composure.

 

[Typist]

So what I see happening is because there is no well-worn path by those who have done the hard work of forging a path ahead, people take the path of least resistance, either falling back into mythic systems, or saying goodbye woo!, and dedicating themselves to the hope of peace through scientific thought.

Wow Windwalker, great post, impressive. I think you've described the situation quite well.

I hear you saying that a middle way between traditional religion and modern rationalism is not yet sufficiently developed, at least in the west. Thus many find themselves having to make a painful polarizing choice between theism and atheism. Fair summary? Did I hear you correctly?

I believe both faith and reason can lead to the same place if taken far enough, and that an apparent conflict between the two arises when we travel either path only part of the way.

That said, pursuing either faith or reason all the way to the end can be a challenging business, and so the existence of a middle way would seem to be a very helpful option for many.

Perhaps an effective middle way would consist of a wise balance between mysticism and religion.

If one abandons all beliefs, all structures, all social support, and attempts to become a pure mystic, it's easy to lose one's way. Few people are really well suited to such an ambitious enterprise. While true mystics are interesting indeed, they are interesting because they are rare, and thus not a great model for mass participation.

On the other hand, at the moment we introduce beliefs we must then pay the price tag that always arises from the inherently divisive nature of thought. And at the moment we begin to create a social support system, the realm of politics, money, power and other distracting agendas begins to infect the spiritual inquiry.

And then there is the issue of authority. If we attempt to personalize each middle way path to the individual person, then there is no widely accepted peer reviewed model for others to place their trust in. But if we create an official Church Of The Middle Way and attempt to standardize the experience, we create authority at the price of being less inclusive, less personalized, and heading down the inevitable path of conflict with other formal traditions.

Perhaps middle ways have not developed sufficiently in the west because it's a tricky business indeed which we as a culture just aren't mature enough yet to master?

 

[Typist]

Jesus said if you will not put faith in the words I give you, then put faith in the works that I perform.

To me, these may be the wisest words Jesus has shared.

If Christians are to be truly serious about healing a troubled world via their God's love, they would put the words and beliefs away, and focus on the works. Works, works, works and more works.

Words and beliefs, from anybody about anything, are always polarizing because they are made of an inherently divisive information medium, thought. Words and beliefs push people apart and create conflict, as we can easily see on any net forum about any religion or anti-religion.

Works are credible. Works are persuasive. Works bring people together, because works are made of the unifying force of love.

Apologies for offering these inherently divisive words, but what those Christians who focus on words and beliefs are really saying without realizing it is that they don't really believe in the power of love. They think love is so small, that it needs their help. The more they argue for their religion, the more they are arguing against it's most fundamental genius, the power of love.

Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of social services to the needy in the United States, beat only by the federal government, which has the power to confiscate huge sums of money via police enforced taxation. Like that. Other Christian groups do impressive work too, I mention the Catholics only because I have that statistic handy.

If Christians should ever become truly serious about healing this world with love, they will sell off their trillions of dollars of fancy church property, and set as their goal serving the needy to such an extent that governments can get out of that business entirely.

And then Christians will be credible.

And then people will listen.

And then Christians will not have to sell their beliefs, because people will come to them and demand to know, how the heck did you do that??

 

[Windwalker]

Wow Windwalker, great post, impressive. I think you've described the situation quite well.

I hear you saying that a middle way between traditional religion and modern rationalism is not yet sufficiently developed, at least in the west. Thus many find themselves having to make a painful polarizing choice between theism and atheism. Fair summary? Did I hear you correctly?

Thank you. Yes, close, but I wouldn't consider it a middle way actually. Here's my thoughts. It doesn't coming by dialoging at the same level, arguing from one side to the other trying to find a middle ground between them, but rather by stepping above both and looking at them both as parts of something greater than each. You see my distinction? It's not a case of finding commonality between them, but understanding the role and function of both in an integrated whole. It's assuming a holistic view from above rather than arguing at the same level.

I believe both faith and reason can lead to the same place if taken far enough, and that an apparent conflict between the two arises when we travel either path only part of the way.

I agree to a point. I don't wish to make the mistake to say that science will eventually take us to Spirit. I don't believe you will find Emptiness through Quantum Mechanics. That said however, I think at a certain point you will see parallels. I would just be careful to think science will reveal what is revealed through the eye of spirit, anymore than the eye of spirit reveals scientific truths. I do think though that someone can be so smart they realize the limits of science to answer all questions and realize the mystical necessity. I think all the founders of modern physics agreed with that.

That said, pursuing either faith or reason all the way to the end can be a challenging business, and so the existence of a middle way would seem to be a very helpful option for many.

I think the end of faith is experience. If you have an Enlightenment experience, you're not relying on a felt sense anymore, an intuition. You now have direct experience. So in this sense, it's like science in that science relies on actual data rather than speculative metaphysics. In the religious sense, metaphysics are replaced by actual data, which is actual experience.

In other words, what is needed is for people to experience the divine! Enough with this belief versus that belief. I think the key is everyone engaging in the technologies of meditation to have an experience beyond cognitive and emotional realities into that certain liberated awareness. That, will afford a perspective to these things on the whole which helps to give a much fuller context in which to judge matters of truth and reality. I often laugh when the believer in Science as the Light of All Truth chides the mythic believer to wake up to reality though reason and rationality. It's equally as lopsided an approach, simply flipping the coin to the other side and calling that reality, unaware of the illusion of reality that system itself presents to the mind and soul.

Perhaps an effective middle way would consist of a wise balance between mysticism and religion.

I think religion needs to have a mystical element at its core, otherwise it fails as religion. And I don't just mean transcendent symbols, but tangible, mystical practices beginning with the contemplative.

If one abandons all beliefs, all structures, all social support, and attempts to become a pure mystic, it's easy to lose one's way. Few people are really well suited to such an ambitious enterprise. While true mystics are interesting indeed, they are interesting because they are rare, and thus not a great model for mass participation.

Well, I wouldn't call those who are the path of denying the world in the pursuit of enlightenment "true mystics". Not at all. I very much am a mystic, at heart and in practice, but I find a tantric approach to nondual realization to be the better way. It finds the Infinite in every unfolding of the manifest world of evolving forms, every expanding, every growing, from glory to glory as it were. It embraces the self-contraction as well as the True Self. To deny the world, is itself a duality. The path of ascension is definitely a traditional path beginning in the 1st axial age, but then you hit the nondual paths of ascension and descension with Plotinus in the West and Nagarjuna in the East. And then you have the tantric schools coming of this, where one feels their way into the nondual through the present world before us, touching Emptiness in form and form in Emptiness.

I believe all the way and all the way down, or in the unfolding of tantric practice, you need structures. I don't see simply having a state experience to qualify as enlightenment. That's the easy part. Integration is the hard part, and that takes growth, and growth takes structures, evolving and changes to fit the needs as you grown, like getting larger shoes as your feet grow. Make sense?

On the other hand, at the moment we introduce beliefs we must then pay the price tag that always arises from the inherently divisive nature of thought. And at the moment we begin to create a social support system, the realm of politics, money, power and other distracting agendas begins to infect the spiritual inquiry

I think what has to happen, and for me it has, is to realize that beliefs are simply structures on which to hang the ornaments of spirit. They are not truths in and of themselves. They are simply useful, or unuseful ways to talk about things, to look at the objects of our experiences of the Absolute and gain perspective on them in the relative domain. Once this is understood on a heart and mind level, one holds these beliefs with an open hand, not clinging to them to find truth and the illusion of peace in their ideas. And this is the fatal mistake most make, in equating what they think about the thing, with the thing itself. We are Spirit, and all we are doing is looking at ourselves in various mirrors. To cling to the mirror and say "this is the truth!", is to see nothing but the single reflection in it in, a limited single perception. And that is not Truth, but a single form of truth, a relative truth. Not knowing the Formless itself seen in all mirrors, in all beliefs.

And then there is the issue of authority. If we attempt to personalize each middle way path to the individual person, then there is no widely accepted peer reviewed model for others to place their trust in. But if we create an official Church Of The Middle Way and attempt to standardize the experience, we create authority at the price of being less inclusive, less personalized, and heading down the inevitable path of conflict with other formal traditions.

I think there is value in all the traditions, but it's going to take people to understand the relative nature of truth and Spirit beyond them. It's only when we hold truth lightly, that Truth comes to us. How can we allow what Is, to enter us while we are closed around our own beliefs?

Perhaps middle ways have not developed sufficiently in the west because it's a tricky business indeed which we as a culture just aren't mature enough yet to master?

Transcend and include, is really what I would consider a "middle way". Rather it's more just emergence into a new mind.

 

[`mud]

Has anyone ever seen a tossed coin land on it's edge ?
Some of the conversations in here are like the edge of those coins.
~
'mud

 

[Typist]

Here's my thoughts. It doesn't coming by dialoging at the same level, arguing from one side to the other trying to find a middle ground between them, but rather by stepping above both and looking at them both as parts of something greater than each. You see my distinction?

Yes, again very well said, same direction I am trying to go in my own way.

It's not a case of finding commonality between them, but understanding the role and function of both in an integrated whole. It's assuming a holistic view from above rather than arguing at the same level.

To me, seeing the commonality is taking a holistic view from above. It's like seeing that people of different races all share the same humanity, and the apparent differences are exaggerated properties on the surface.

I don't wish to make the mistake to say that science will eventually take us to Spirit.

I didn't mean science so much as reason more generally. If reason can see the limits of reason, reason can then be set aside for those things it is not useful for.

I do think though that someone can be so smart they realize the limits of science to answer all questions and realize the mystical necessity. I think all the founders of modern physics agreed with that.

Aha, you appear to be saying the same thing.

I think the end of faith is experience. If you have an Enlightenment experience, you're not relying on a felt sense anymore, an intuition. You now have direct experience. So in this sense, it's like science in that science relies on actual data rather than speculative metaphysics. In the religious sense, metaphysics are replaced by actual data, which is actual experience.

So my main question is, how much would it cost to hire you to take over all my sermon writing duties?

In other words, what is needed is for people to experience the divine!

Or, to experience, and then not label it? Dunno, I am suspect of all labeling, but recognize it's inevitability.

Enough with this belief versus that belief.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Except that of course, this belief vs. that belief conveniently happens to be a whole big bunch of fun.

I'm not sure it is the contest that is the problem so much, but our relationship with it. If the debates are engaged with a sense of humor, with the understanding that none of us really know what the #$% we're talking about, then perhaps the mental exercise is equivalent to physical exercise. Or, any other rationalization which allows me to keep typing is also acceptable.

I think the key is everyone engaging in the technologies of meditation to have an experience beyond cognitive and emotional realities into that certain liberated awareness.

I agree again, but personally tend to go easy on words like meditation. This is mostly a writing quibble though. As a writer, I hope to take a populist approach, and discuss these things in the simplest more widely accessible language. A goal, an obsession, not an accomplishment.

I think religion needs to have a mystical element at its core, otherwise it fails as religion.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. A hungry man is not interested in a book about apples, he wants the apple he can eat. To a significant degree religions are for folks who aren't hungry enough, and thus are content to read the book.

To deny the world, is itself a duality.

Yes, more agreement. I didn't mean so much deny the world, as deny our explanations about it, a very hard thing for most of us to do, thus, not a very realistic plan for most, including me.

I don't see simply having a state experience to qualify as enlightenment.

Perhaps we have FINALLY (it's about time! ) found a point of disagreement, as I'm not interested in enlightenment, just as I don't see eating a sandwich as a cure for hunger. In my view, experience is enough in and of itself, and given the necessity of thought in human life, will likely need to be renewed again and again.

Integration is the hard part, and that takes growth, and growth takes structures, evolving and changes to fit the needs as you grown, like getting larger shoes as your feet grow. Make sense?

I'm not that interested in growth either really, just as I don't expect that sandwich to change much beyond the next few hours. I'm a human being, I think way too much, and eat a silence sandwich every so often to cool off the motor. And then I get noisy again, requiring another sandwich. And then some day I die and the routine is over. That's enough for me.

This isn't enlightenment for me, just aging. At some point it dawns on us that we are who we are and not much can be done about it, so it's time to kick back, relax and enjoy what's left of the show. It's a kind of faith perhaps. I don't need to be enlightened, cause soon I'll be dead and that will resolve any unfinished business automagically.

I think what has to happen, and for me it has, is to realize that beliefs are simply structures on which to hang the ornaments of spirit. They are not truths in and of themselves. They are simply useful, or unuseful ways to talk about things, to look at the objects of our experiences of the Absolute and gain perspective on them in the relative domain. Once this is understood on a heart and mind level, one holds these beliefs with an open hand, not clinging to them to find truth and the illusion of peace in their ideas.

If you insist on continually sharing wise words such as these I'll have nothing to type on the forum, and then I'm going to start getting really ticked off!

And this is the fatal mistake most make, in equating what they think about the thing, with the thing itself.

Yes, yes, yes and yes, and well said as usual. That's it, the word is not the thing. Thought is clearly very useful, but it comes with a big price tag, significant distortion.

This is a big left turn, but I'm wondering if you are familiar with the drug DMT.

N,N-Dimethyltryptamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excellent documentary, also available on Netflix

I don't use it, and don't know much about it, but am raising the subject because it appears to provide a very powerful and immediate experience of a spirit realm which may lie behind this one. The documentary explains better than I can.

 

[Typist]

As silent as the shadows from a whoosh behind a butterfly's wing

It took me awhile, but finally discovered your quote Mud. Like it! Also enjoyed the bit about the too many bellied bishops.

 

[lovemuffin]

I think the end of faith is experience. If you have an Enlightenment experience, you're not relying on a felt sense anymore, an intuition. You now have direct experience. So in this sense, it's like science in that science relies on actual data rather than speculative metaphysics. In the religious sense, metaphysics are replaced by actual data, which is actual experience.

In other words, what is needed is for people to experience the divine! Enough with this belief versus that belief.

I agree with this and it's worth quoting just to highlight it.

In eastern Christianity, which tends in general to approach the religion in a more mystical and experiential way, there is an interesting understanding of belief and dogma which I think is instructive, although I also think in practice it is often still too dogmatic. But at root it contains the idea that the importance of belief is that it conditions what kind of experience we will be open to, and in some sense what it means to us and how we'll understand it. In other words, that belief is important, but as a means, and not as an end in itself. I think there's a valid point there, even though like you I also agree that there can be value in any tradition and that the symbolic forms are not absolutes.

But to me, this insight about how prior belief conditions what experience we will be open to is the challenge of a certain kind of rationalistic naturalism, for lack of a better term. The challenge is that such a metaphysics and methodology is reasonable, self-sustaining, self-justifying, and yet may preclude those who adopt it from ever really even considering the possible value of religious experience beyond "mere" belief. It is, in some sense, the challenge of the hiddenness of the Divine. It's that consideration which drives me towards this idea of a "new mythos", a new worldview that can be reasonable without making reason, or the historical/objective stance, the only criteria of "truth", or of value, or of meaning. In some sense, practically speaking, before there is experience there at least has to be some reasonable expectation that experience is both possible and could be meaningful, and that is in a sense the necessity of belief, or of faith.

 

[psychoslice]

For me personally I had to destroy my beliefs to find my true inner Being, my true Self, religion and in my case Christianity kept me away from this inner realization. I now see the so called bible as mythology, just like the myths of Egypt and Hinduism and even Buddhism, I see them as pointers pointing us to our true inner Being, we don't have to get caught up in the words or scriptures, for they only killith the spirit, the words point and bring us to what is beyond the words, that is the only true religion.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

One of the ways we do this is by defaming that which we did not choose: we worsen our opinion of it and become more harshly critical of it to convince ourselves that the other choice would have been the wrong one or a bad one. It is definitely not necessary to malign the unchosen option in order to pursue another one, but it is not common for us to do so.

True, true. You know, I was just having a little philosophical conversation with someone after putting forth the general question, "is it better to be open-minded/indecisive or to be someone who knows specifically what they like." Or something closely along those lines. Well, I think I made them think, when I pointed out that preferences are ultimately subjective, and by being open-minded and jumping to another option it may ultimately be merely another subjective dead-end. Hence, a useless burst of energy may have been exerted to get the person to that new preference when they decided to switch to something else based on their open-minded state.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Do you have to make your own path?

As far as I'm concerned you always did anyway. I mean, this is my one life, my one experience, my one perception. The key elements of it I share with no one else but myself, I propel this life forward down a path, which seems to toggle hitherto based on my own subjective choice. Or maybe not if you believe in fate. Anyway, free-will or no, I'm the only one feeling it, all of the 'it' that surrounds that nucleus that is the "I." The refraction of reality onto my brain for me to work my science upon is strictly mine, every emotion that streams through my body or pain or pleasure is only mindful by way of my one mind. Every conception of religion I have is likewise my own, unless your map of such is identical to mine. Every map of all reality, likewise is also my own unless it matches strictly to yours, this includes the definition of many phrases and words we'd disagree on, philosophies and methods of thinking and problem solving which we'd not have in common. Therefore even in that we'd follow different respective paths.

 

[Typist]

But at root it contains the idea that the importance of belief is that it conditions what kind of experience we will be open to, and in some sense what it means to us and how we'll understand it. In other words, that belief is important, but as a means, and not as an end in itself.

Well said well named, I like how clear you are here.

Here's another way to put it perhaps.

In science and much of daily life, observation is a means to the end of theories and conclusions, ie. beliefs.

In mysticism, theories and conclusions (ie. beliefs) can be the means to the end of observation. Such a process can be confusing to many, as it's a reversal of what we normally do.

Two problems come to mind in regards to beliefs.

1) While beliefs might bring one to pursue observation for itself, once we're there beliefs (or any thoughts) become an obstacle to observation instead of an asset.

2) Beliefs are easily hijacked by our egos, as we can see on any net forum. Once we create a self flattering personal identity from our beliefs, we can become addicted to our beliefs.​

Religion can be seen as a pathway to mysticism, or a corruption of mysticism.

Religion can be like having a great appreciation for a wild animal, so we catch it and put it in a cage, thereby killing the wildness which attracted us in the first place.

This is a disappointment, so maybe we catch more animals in the hopes of restoring the original experience. Pretty soon we have so many captured animals that some politician type comes along to organize and manage the zoo we have created. Then some salesmen show up to sell tickets to the zoo. And then we need a security force to defend the zoo from rhetorical invaders. If there are too many rhetorical invaders, then perhaps we need an army to go kill the infidels. And before long, it has nothing to do with animals anymore.

Some reasonable logical people come along and say, "Geez, what a bunch of crap!" And thus the idea of wild animals gets a bad name, associated as it is with so much nonsense.

 

[Typist]

In some sense, practically speaking, before there is experience there at least has to be some reasonable expectation that experience is both possible and could be meaningful, and that is in a sense the necessity of belief, or of faith.

I saw a documentary which took another route. It was in a hospital, where people were recovering from heart attacks.

The doctors knew that meditation could help some. But they also knew that if they included ideology with the mediation, any ideology they chose would become an obstacle to treatment for some of their patients. So the docs just left all ideology associated with mediation out of the picture, and presented mediation as being just a form of exercise. This is perhaps rather dissatisfying for we philosopher types, but I felt this approach contained a good bit of wisdom.

The most productive way to consider thought may be as being just another physical process of the body. This makes the whole issue much simpler. Bad news for we who relish sophisticated esoteric complications, but good news for enhancing accessibility.

As example, if we routinely eat too much food, or don't get enough food, we're probably gonna get sick. Simple.

Same thing with thought. Some thought is good, too much or too little is not. Simple.

Too much thought is not good because thought is inherently divisive in nature, so excessive thought inflates our sense of being divided from others, from reality etc, which causes fear, pain and stress, and leads to disease.

This way of looking at it shifts the focus away from the content of thought (this idea vs. that idea) and towards the nature of thought. The nature of thought is division. Any thought, good thoughts, bad thoughts, all divisive.

I think too much, thus my interest in these topics, and thus all the arguing I do. And I've observed the following. I'm always bumping the air conditioning up because my body runs hotter than most folks. I hardly ever get sick, and easily lose weight, because my metabolism runs fast keeping my immune system humming. I grow hair and toe nails at an impressive rate.

Point being, my entire body is running a tad on the fast side, and so my mind is too. Purely physical. Simple.

But because my body, and thus mind, runs hot I take a purely physical phenomena, and turn it in to a million concepts expressed in a billion words. But all of that, my entire philosophy, is perhaps just a symptom of a metabolism stuck on the fast setting.

This perspective might be one way of destroying our myths and finding our path. Our myths might be nothing more than the mechanical hum emitted by an overheated machine.

 

[Windwalker]

So my main question is, how much would it cost to hire you to take over all my sermon writing duties?

I'll put it this way, if you have a church congregation that what we are saying resonates with them, I'll pastor it with you.

Or, to experience, and then not label it? Dunno, I am suspect of all labeling, but recognize it's inevitability.

The thing is, there is actually nothing wrong in describing it, so long as it is understood as a description and not an attempt to quantify or define it. Zen master Dainin Katagiri who introduced Zen to the West first book was titled Returning to Silence, which means we should not try to qualify the unqualifiable in terms. But then, humously, his second book was titled, "You Have to Say Something". When people who experienced That, speak to each other about it in terms and languages, it's understood. We all nod our heads understanding each other. But to those without the experience, words can interfere with letting go of looking to our ideas and projects.

It's funny how some will say, "I can't experience God!", when it is obvious they are looking to an idea, since they have no experience. They have an expectation to look to, which at the end of the day, is a mental idea. So "not saying anything" is a practice to let go of seeking, and simply allowing what is to arise. But then, "you have to say something".

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Except that of course, this belief vs. that belief conveniently happens to be a whole big bunch of fun.

I used to think so, and I get what you mean. It actually can be helpful in helping shape thoughts and ideas for yourself in what works for you, what has greater milage, greater internal consistencies. In other words, creating structural models in order to talk about experience against. It's when it becomes a battle of "I'm right and you're wrong", that we fall into the trap of "believing in our beliefs", to put a new term to it.

I'm not sure it is the contest that is the problem so much, but our relationship with it. If the debates are engaged with a sense of humor, with the understanding that none of us really know what the #$% we're talking about, then perhaps the mental exercise is equivalent to physical exercise. Or, any other rationalization which allows me to keep typing is also acceptable.

Yes, this. We can hold to certain beliefs if they serve us productively, but we have to hold them with an open hand otherwise we shut ourselves off from further self-discovery.

I agree again, but personally tend to go easy on words like meditation. This is mostly a writing quibble though. As a writer, I hope to take a populist approach, and discuss these things in the simplest more widely accessible language. A goal, an obsession, not an accomplishment.

This is an interesting discussion I would enjoy having with you. I personally am of the mind to evolve the understanding of words by using them in larger contexts, such as the use of the word God, or spiritual. Call it 'reclaiming the language', but it's more than that I feel. I simply do not wish to give the power of the meaning of words to a lesser understanding. God, for instance means a whole lot more than the Old Guy in the Sky, whose keeping a tally sheet of all your rights and wrongs in order to make an accounting of your soul on some mythological judgment day, like Santa at Christmas time. I think meditation is more than entirely meaningful and significant, but not if we give away the power of its meaning to the fearful ignorant as some spooky, or whacky, New Age'y sort of 'woo". To heck with that ignorance and its proponents of ignorance. Educate.

Yes, more agreement. I didn't mean so much deny the world, as deny our explanations about it, a very hard thing for most of us to do, thus, not a very realistic plan for most, including me.

In meditation practice, and I mean specifically within those actual meditative states of conscious illumination and awareness, the "letting go" of seeking (which is actually looking to an idea of the mind of what you will or should find), that process is what opens your awareness of what is beyond your thoughts. But as I said before, I think the path of transformation and integration should go hand in hand. The whole flee samsara and seek nirvana approach is useful to a point, so long as it doesn't end there. I don't think it's necessary to approach it that way however.

Perhaps we have FINALLY (it's about time! ) found a point of disagreement, as I'm not interested in enlightenment, just as I don't see eating a sandwich as a cure for hunger. In my view, experience is enough in and of itself, and given the necessity of thought in human life, will likely need to be renewed again and again.

Prepare to fail miserably in your quibble with me! Seriously though, I think it would help if you explain what you consider enlightenment is. So many have this misunderstanding that when you hit that, that's the end of the road! It's a common misconception.

I do see that enlightenment is the cure for suffering, which in turn makes one more effective in everything we do. Enlightenment is not an escape form the world, but a fully liberated Freedom within it, including one's own pain, and compassion for the suffering of others. Everyone should seek Enlightenment as a means to help the suffering of others and help to free them from it. In other words, if you are not free, how can you know to help others to be free?This is the Bodhisattva vow.

I'm not that interested in growth either really, just as I don't expect that sandwich to change much beyond the next few hours. I'm a human being, I think way too much, and eat a silence sandwich every so often to cool off the motor. And then I get noisy again, requiring another sandwich. And then some day I die and the routine is over. That's enough for me.

Life is growth. If we are not growing, we are dead. I very much disagree that people should not seek to continue to grow. If not, we are not living but simply consuming until we're dead. To be static, is the beginning of decay.

This isn't enlightenment for me, just aging. At some point it dawns on us that we are who we are and not much can be done about it, so it's time to kick back, relax and enjoy what's left of the show. It's a kind of faith perhaps. I don't need to be enlightened, cause soon I'll be dead and that will resolve any unfinished business automagically.

Enlightenment to me is what allows us to truly become alive in an ever-unfolding reality. I hope to be continuing the exploration of that unfolding to my last breath, and beyond. I do agree we need to stop all our strivings and seekings, but it's for the reasons I said before. That certainly does not translate into "resignation". I translates into seeking not seek in order to find release into the Infinite, and from their Freedom to live in Fullness. That is quite different than saying "I'm done". There is no end to Freedom.

Yes, yes, yes and yes, and well said as usual. That's it, the word is not the thing. Thought is clearly very useful, but it comes with a big price tag, significant distortion.

So long as we recognize its relative nature, it add flavor and spice. A single light can be seen in a spectrum of colors, but to argue "No, it's blue! No, it's red!", is to not see that the Light is manifest in all colors.

This is a big left turn, but I'm wondering if you are familiar with the drug DMT.

Yes, I'm familiar with it and have seen this documentary. It's good. I have not taken the drug myself, but I have had experiences that this drug can induce. Meditation produces this naturally.