Roots of Religion

[Kirran]

In a discussion with @Windwalker, we stumbled on to the topic of the origins of religion.

This discussion would probably be best placed here, as my view heavily relates to mysticism. Indeed, is entirely centred upon it.

Where does religion come from? Where do these organised systems of belief, these dogmas and rituals and rules, come from?

My thoughts are as follows.

All religion ultimately derives from our experience of That. Be it that sense of the immanence of existence, be it Union with and Realisation of the Absolute, or anything in between.

In an attempt to describe that, explain that, people use metaphors, analogies, stories. One must, because it can't be described exactly. Sometimes explanations are really meant literally, but for the most part they're meant metaphorically. A language is developed within a group, or a culture, or a society, to be able to discuss these things. Explanations are posited, comparisons made. Guidelines for enhanced ability to experience That are put together, derived from a combination of intuition and trial and error. But these become rules, and metaphorical descriptions become literal truths, as the followers miss the point over time.

Then, when further experiences are had by different people, expanding their worldview, these are seen through the lens of this established system of philosophy and imagery and rules. Sometimes these are seen for what they are, sometimes not. So one's explaining things to oneself in terms of your established worldview, and then to other people, or one is explaining things to people in the 'language' they are already aware of. But the people listening don't think it's just a language.

So you get Guru Nanak saying 'There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim', resulting eventually in a new religion called Sikhism. You get Jesus of Nazareth saying 'I and my Father are One' and people say he as an individual is God the Father (a personal figure) incarnate. You get Sathya Sai Baba and the Buddha venerated as deities!

All these practices, all these philosophies, all these ideas, are wonderful. Really, they fascinate me, and they do a great deal of good for a great many people. The latter is more important, of course. I myself go to temple, venerate deities, generally talk in the language used within the Vedantic tradition, and follow a great many guidelines and regulations emerging from Vedanta and Raja Yoga. I am within a denomination of a religion.

But I do think that it is more helpful for our spiritual development, and for our well-being as a global society, to try to acknowledge that all these traditions are just formalised attempts to explain that which is unexplainable, the ineffable, the indescribable, and that traditions naturally change and intermingle and diverge over time, as an organic process. The philosophy they've built up, the amazingly useful practices and rituals and thought processes, the glorious traditions, are all something to be held onto. But not to the exclusion of all others. They exist as one way of describing things. But any other system is doing the same, whether or not many of its adherents think this is the case, or have adopted literalist and/or exclusivist takes on their tradition. It's just a matter of trying to celebrate that commonality between faiths, while also cherishing their differences as distinctly valid paths to greater understanding.

This was a little rambling, but I hope it was clear.

Any thoughts?

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, but I suspect the possibility that some religions were purposely created to control the masses.

Obviously if you make yourself the chosen of God with some powers of punishment and reward in an afterlife and get folks to buy it, you can have a lot of control over people. I think there may have been people smart enough to realize that religion can be used as a tool of control.

So mainly as you say, but perhaps not true of all religions.

 

[Kirran]

Yes, but I suspect the possibility that some religions were purposely created to control the masses.

Obviously if you make yourself the chosen of God with some powers of punishment and reward in an afterlife and get folks to buy it, you can have a lot of control over people. I think there may have been people smart enough to realize that religion can be used as a tool of control.

So mainly as you say, but perhaps not true of all religions.

Hmm. I'll admit to scepticism of this idea, but I'm open to the possibility that this enters the mix.

Which do you think of as examples, if any?

 

[sun rise]

Yes, but I suspect the possibility that some religions were purposely created to control the masses.

Obviously if you make yourself the chosen of God with some powers of punishment and reward in an afterlife and get folks to buy it, you can have a lot of control over people. I think there may have been people smart enough to realize that religion can be used as a tool of control.

So mainly as you say, but perhaps not true of all religions.

I would almost agree with you. I would state it as religions are hijacked for those who use the power of belief for their own purposes.

 

[Awoon]

Religion was originally about balance between mind and body but became a money maker for institutional corporate outfits and nations.

Modern religion for balance is the Psychologist and Psychiatrist who write out controlled substance prescriptions.

 

[sun rise]

Hmm. I'll admit to scepticism of this idea, but I'm open to the possibility that this enters the mix.

Which do you think of as examples, if any?

Islam is based on having no ministers and with every believer responsible for understanding and following what is in scripture. But if I look around, I find many de facto preachers who tell people what to think and how to believe.

 

[Nakosis]

Hmm. I'll admit to scepticism of this idea, but I'm open to the possibility that this enters the mix.

Which do you think of as examples, if any?

Roman Catholicism, I can't say that as a fact but I suspect the leadership or emperor created a religion with the purpose of controlling the people of Rome. I think it could be done, so I presume it might have been done. Obviously only the person who presumed authority would know the truth of this.

Perhaps Muhammad as well, needed a religion to unite the tribes. Moses had to create a God to unite the Israelites. In fact Muhammad purposefully use pagan ideals of the black stone and Mecca to gain acceptance of his religion.

 

[Nakosis]

I would almost agree with you. I would state it as religions are hijacked for those who use the power of belief for their own purposes.

I'm not claiming it as truth. Just I believe there have been people smart enough to create a religion for their advantage. And as you say maybe they borrowed from other legitimate beliefs.

 

[Ingledsva]

In a discussion with @Windwalker, we stumbled on to the topic of the origins of religion.

This discussion would probably be best placed here, as my view heavily relates to mysticism. Indeed, is entirely centred upon it.

Where does religion come from? Where do these organised systems of belief, these dogmas and rituals and rules, come from?

My thoughts are as follows.

All religion ultimately derives from our experience of That. Be it that sense of the immanence of existence, be it Union with and Realisation of the Absolute, or anything in between.

In an attempt to describe that, explain that, people use metaphors, analogies, stories. One must, because it can't be described exactly. Sometimes explanations are really meant literally, but for the most part they're meant metaphorically. A language is developed within a group, or a culture, or a society, to be able to discuss these things. Explanations are posited, comparisons made. Guidelines for enhanced ability to experience That are put together, derived from a combination of intuition and trial and error. But these become rules, and metaphorical descriptions become literal truths, as the followers miss the point over time.

Then, when further experiences are had by different people, expanding their worldview, these are seen through the lens of this established system of philosophy and imagery and rules. Sometimes these are seen for what they are, sometimes not. So one's explaining things to oneself in terms of your established worldview, and then to other people, or one is explaining things to people in the 'language' they are already aware of. But the people listening don't think it's just a language.

So you get Guru Nanak saying 'There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim', resulting eventually in a new religion called Sikhism. You get Jesus of Nazareth saying 'I and my Father are One' and people say he as an individual is God the Father (a personal figure) incarnate. You get Sathya Sai Baba and the Buddha venerated as deities!

All these practices, all these philosophies, all these ideas, are wonderful. Really, they fascinate me, and they do a great deal of good for a great many people. The latter is more important, of course. I myself go to temple, venerate deities, generally talk in the language used within the Vedantic tradition, and follow a great many guidelines and regulations emerging from Vedanta and Raja Yoga. I am within a denomination of a religion.

But I do think that it is more helpful for our spiritual development, and for our well-being as a global society, to try to acknowledge that all these traditions are just formalised attempts to explain that which is unexplainable, the ineffable, the indescribable, and that traditions naturally change and intermingle and diverge over time, as an organic process. The philosophy they've built up, the amazingly useful practices and rituals and thought processes, the glorious traditions, are all something to be held onto. But not to the exclusion of all others. They exist as one way of describing things. But any other system is doing the same, whether or not many of its adherents think this is the case, or have adopted literalist and/or exclusivist takes on their tradition. It's just a matter of trying to celebrate that commonality between faiths, while also cherishing their differences as distinctly valid paths to greater understanding.

This was a little rambling, but I hope it was clear.

Any thoughts?

Drug use.

Seriously, - these ancient cultures used drugs, and had transcendent experiences from them.

Also - people with medical problems would have had experiences, - diseases such as epilepsy, also brain damage, etc. These people hear voices, and have dissociative experiences.

*


*

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In a discussion with @Windwalker, we stumbled on to the topic of the origins of religion.

This discussion would probably be best placed here, as my view heavily relates to mysticism. Indeed, is entirely centred upon it.

Where does religion come from? Where do these organised systems of belief, these dogmas and rituals and rules, come from?

My thoughts are as follows.

All religion ultimately derives from our experience of That. Be it that sense of the immanence of existence, be it Union with and Realisation of the Absolute, or anything in between.

In an attempt to describe that, explain that, people use metaphors, analogies, stories. One must, because it can't be described exactly. Sometimes explanations are really meant literally, but for the most part they're meant metaphorically. A language is developed within a group, or a culture, or a society, to be able to discuss these things. Explanations are posited, comparisons made. Guidelines for enhanced ability to experience That are put together, derived from a combination of intuition and trial and error. But these become rules, and metaphorical descriptions become literal truths, as the followers miss the point over time.

Then, when further experiences are had by different people, expanding their worldview, these are seen through the lens of this established system of philosophy and imagery and rules. Sometimes these are seen for what they are, sometimes not. So one's explaining things to oneself in terms of your established worldview, and then to other people, or one is explaining things to people in the 'language' they are already aware of. But the people listening don't think it's just a language.

So you get Guru Nanak saying 'There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim', resulting eventually in a new religion called Sikhism. You get Jesus of Nazareth saying 'I and my Father are One' and people say he as an individual is God the Father (a personal figure) incarnate. You get Sathya Sai Baba and the Buddha venerated as deities!

All these practices, all these philosophies, all these ideas, are wonderful. Really, they fascinate me, and they do a great deal of good for a great many people. The latter is more important, of course. I myself go to temple, venerate deities, generally talk in the language used within the Vedantic tradition, and follow a great many guidelines and regulations emerging from Vedanta and Raja Yoga. I am within a denomination of a religion.

But I do think that it is more helpful for our spiritual development, and for our well-being as a global society, to try to acknowledge that all these traditions are just formalised attempts to explain that which is unexplainable, the ineffable, the indescribable, and that traditions naturally change and intermingle and diverge over time, as an organic process. The philosophy they've built up, the amazingly useful practices and rituals and thought processes, the glorious traditions, are all something to be held onto. But not to the exclusion of all others. They exist as one way of describing things. But any other system is doing the same, whether or not many of its adherents think this is the case, or have adopted literalist and/or exclusivist takes on their tradition. It's just a matter of trying to celebrate that commonality between faiths, while also cherishing their differences as distinctly valid paths to greater understanding.

This was a little rambling, but I hope it was clear.

Any thoughts?

I would argue that it is fairly widely regarded as true that the original form of "religion" was similar to or identical to the animism practiced in modern indigenous cultures--at least, that's what was argued by Tylor, James and other early scholars of anthropology, sociology, etc., and as far as I can tell, it continues to be widely believed to be the case. Such religions were held by fairly small groups of related people who lived in usually limited particular geographical areas, and consisted of at most no more than a few tens of thousands of individuals, often spread at a density of about one person per square mile of land, although that varied by how productive the land was. Mostly, small groups of closely related family members, who occasionally got together with other groups to trade, socialize, feast and carry out rituals, and so on.

Such "religions" were rooted in the relationships that the human cultures had with their environment. Modern scholarship on animism recognizes that--if we Westerners stop trying to impose our theories and terms on indigenous cultures--the humans of a place carry on social relationships with other-than-human-persons in the environment, including the plants, animals, geographical features, weather, their ancestors, and perhaps other "spirits." Most of these other persons were seen as kin, as relatives, of some sort, and the relationships were necessary to maintain a balance between the humans and the relatives, most of whom they depend on for food, shelter, water, and other materials important to living.

Practices that we call magic, ceremony, ritual, and so on (including song, dance, storytelling, art and decoration, etc.) were practiced in order to establish and maintain the proper relationships between the humans and those kin on whom they depended for survival. Part of this package of experiences were trances and other altered states, during which humans could meet with the non-human others in the otherlands. this was always important, but was not the center of the religion as practiced. These were very pragmatic beliefs and practices, oriented toward staying alive and having success (good luck in hunting and gathering, a long and healthy life, many children who would survive to adulthood, and similar practical matters).

When humans began to settle down and herd animals and grow crops, religion began to change, along with the rest of culture. Specialization of social roles led to specialization of religious beliefs and practices. Even during pagan Rome, the "civilized" commentators complained about the country bumpkins (that is, the peasants) who didn't care that much about the main public cult gods, and instead favored their own local spirits.

At least, this is a brief version of the story as I tend to construct it. Others will have other versions.

 

[Windwalker]

All religion ultimately derives from our experience of That. Be it that sense of the immanence of existence, be it Union with and Realisation of the Absolute, or anything in between.

I'll be a little hesitant to say that all religions begin with the mystical insight, as some are created as political or military tools, consumerist games, pure ego-driven cults of personality centered around charismatic leaders, etc. But in a sense you could argue that these are imitation, made-up religions assuming the form of religion because they recognize the power of them to organize, motivate, and control masses of people around a central idea and create a group-identification and cohesion. They become a tool of a society for national identity, military advance, and population control, as one example. This is where you having people killing others in the name of a religion, justifying all manner of oppression and destruction in the name of a god.

To stick specifically with those religions whose foundation was that of mystical realization, I like to describe it somewhat like a gigantic snowball which begins with a small center of pure snow, and as it grows by rolling over the ground it begins to pick up leaves and sticks and dirt and grass and all manner of other material in its path until it becomes a big mass of snow and other regional matter embedded into it. It becomes a snowball reflective of the yard in which it was formed by those of the household rolling it together over everything to make it larger. I'll expand on this with specifics in a minute.

In an attempt to describe that, explain that, people use metaphors, analogies, stories. One must, because it can't be described exactly. Sometimes explanations are really meant literally, but for the most part they're meant metaphorically. A language is developed within a group, or a culture, or a society, to be able to discuss these things. Explanations are posited, comparisons made. Guidelines for enhanced ability to experience That are put together, derived from a combination of intuition and trial and error. But these become rules, and metaphorical descriptions become literal truths, as the followers miss the point over time.

A good way to look at this is this. Spirituality is what is experienced. Religion is what is taught. If I have an experience, that is spirituality. But the minute I want to try to teach someone the ways and means to realize the spiritual for themselves, it becomes a religious teaching. A body of religious teachings then becomes a path, which of course those who follow that methodology will then themselves contribute to that school of teachings, which then becomes a tradition, which then becomes one's lineage as you are brought up in it and it is handed down to others through you. The spiritual transcends the religion itself, but it also, like that snowball full of cultural artifacts may become a way to experience the spiritual through the religion itself.

Snow is still snow, and often times has to have it held together by the other material in order for others to access it. So the religious experience itself is a way to touch the spiritual, through symbols, through forms, through rituals, through beliefs. The error occurs, or rather it is simply reflective of a lack of truly moving beyond the symbols, when the snow and the material, the spiritual and the symbolic are seen as one and the same, conflated together as the actuality of the snow itself. Religion becomes the thing in itself, rather than the means to the end.

Then, when further experiences are had by different people, expanding their worldview, these are seen through the lens of this established system of philosophy and imagery and rules. Sometimes these are seen for what they are, sometimes not. So one's explaining things to oneself in terms of your established worldview, and then to other people, or one is explaining things to people in the 'language' they are already aware of. But the people listening don't think it's just a language.

So you get Guru Nanak saying 'There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim', resulting eventually in a new religion called Sikhism. You get Jesus of Nazareth saying 'I and my Father are One' and people say he as an individual is God the Father (a personal figure) incarnate. You get Sathya Sai Baba and the Buddha venerated as deities!

The way I have come to see this is understanding how people relate to these things following a developmental model. Taking things very literally is part of a stage of development. When it comes to the spiritual line of development, they will approach things initially as a set of truths existing outside themselves they need to learn about. People are taught initially to learn the forms, to conform themselves to the rule, to follow the practices, etc, even though they are not coming from a place of self-knowledge. These are the "ways", like the way you teach a child the rules of a society, even though they don't truly understand the why of it.

This "way" becomes ingrained into their psyche, programmed through both verbal instruction, kinesthetic reinforcement (ritual practices; prostrations, offerings, sacrifice, prayers, etc), reading related material, etc. In time all this "training" should, in the best of worlds, move from the external truths they learn about, to internal realization through integration. They move from seeing these things as "facts" outside themselves, to "truths" inside themselves. No longer are these "ways" seen as the highest truth they must realize, but that they themselves are that Truth. The Truth is not a static reality one must "believe in", or follow, or force themselves to conform to, but rather is realized as living and dynamic and can be understood in many "ways". They themselves become Truth.

But to those at earlier stages of development, the reality of these things must be strictly followed. Commitment to the path is measured by the degree of adherence to the rules one practices. And in this, one creates idols out of others as symbols of this commitment. They become gods, great masters to aspire to be like, etc, and the whole is mistaking following adherence and commitment to the path as the goal itself. The entire thing is still at the stage of external reality. It does not see nor recognize the stage beyond itself at this point. Leaders become symbols of this mode of thought, not pointing to what comes next. This is where the distinction between following a religious path and seeking spiritual release is made.

It brings to mind a quote that is attributed to the Buddha. "To insist on a spiritual practice that served you in the past is to carry the raft on your back after you have crossed the river.” It speaks to those who have not yet realized the nature of religion as a means to an end, and not the end in itself. It speaks to those who have not yet let go off all things that "serve themselves".

All these practices, all these philosophies, all these ideas, are wonderful. Really, they fascinate me, and they do a great deal of good for a great many people. The latter is more important, of course. I myself go to temple, venerate deities, generally talk in the language used within the Vedantic tradition, and follow a great many guidelines and regulations emerging from Vedanta and Raja Yoga. I am within a denomination of a religion.

But I do think that it is more helpful for our spiritual development, and for our well-being as a global society, to try to acknowledge that all these traditions are just formalised attempts to explain that which is unexplainable, the ineffable, the indescribable, and that traditions naturally change and intermingle and diverge over time, as an organic process. The philosophy they've built up, the amazingly useful practices and rituals and thought processes, the glorious traditions, are all something to be held onto. But not to the exclusion of all others. They exist as one way of describing things. But any other system is doing the same, whether or not many of its adherents think this is the case, or have adopted literalist and/or exclusivist takes on their tradition. It's just a matter of trying to celebrate that commonality between faiths, while also cherishing their differences as distinctly valid paths to greater understanding.

This is of course reflective of a more developed perspective, one which sees things more holistically, as a whole, rather than simply looking at the differences between the constituent parts and seeing only division. When we look only at the differences, at that altitude, we do not see how they can be reconciled together. Such attempts by some to "blend them" is met with defensiveness, as well in some regards it should be. They are distinctive and unique for a reason. They evolved regionally, like that giant snowball using the material of ones' particular own backyard. They "translate" the spiritual experience regionally using the artifacts of that culture. You cannot export the religion of one culture into the religion of another. A tradition or a lineage is relevant at its best in its own cultural context.

However, it does not stop there! I used to be on this "Holy Grail" quest to reconcile faith and reason, science and religion, etc. I found that that cannot be done by using the set of eyes being used from either side of this. They have to both be looked at with a different set of eyes "above" them. They are "reconciled" by transcending both into a new whole, which honors and respects each as different aspects of the whole. You don't try to blend them together into some sort of pseudoscience and quasi-religion. You don't really try to establish unity between religions between finding commonalities between them, trying to blend them together in interfaith syncretic systems. Unity is found by transcending them into states of unitive-consciousness. If anything, you speak from a point of awareness above them, not by trying to reconcile differences through mere dialog, trying to find common ground. If you first shift the conscious mind through spiritual practice, you then see others of other traditions in a light that transcends all religions.

You will notice in my profile where it asks what religion you are, I put "the same religion as God". What that means is to say that from God's perspective, which religion is God? That's the one we should hope to be ourselves, one which sees religion as reflections of God, but not "God's religion". I have a way I like to say this, "I am all religions, I am none". It reconciles through transcending, at which point your self-identity sees itself in within all points of view while not exclusively identify as one. Which is not to say we no longer have our roots, no longer have what we brought with us that we identify with, but that we transcend those trappings at the peak. As it says in my signature line, "Many paths lead from the foot of the mountain, but at the peak we all gaze at the single bright moon." At the peak, we first see ourselves, then others standing there each under the light of the same, single bright moon. We have transcended the paths we ascending upon and now see each other within the light of unitive consciousness. We are more than our simple identification with our heritages. We are Spirit, and we know one another as our Self. "Love God, love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[morphesium]

In a discussion with @Windwalker, we stumbled on to the topic of the origins of religion.

This discussion would probably be best placed here, as my view heavily relates to mysticism. Indeed, is entirely centred upon it.

Where does religion come from? Where do these organised systems of belief, these dogmas and rituals and rules, come from?

I agree with your post. Every religion have some story behind their origins - the true stories we may never know.

In the past, as humanity progressed into tribal societies and beyond, power always had to be vested with a few for proper administration. And it was easy for them to realize that they could guarantee their strong hold the most if they could take advantage of the fact that

1. The fear of the unknown is always much greater than fear of the known.
2. There is always the uncertainty of the future.
3. People had to suffer extreme hard ships for their survival and this demanded something strong to pacify them.

and nothing fits better than the God factor and hence the formation of a religion. This is something very easy to sell and makes the least oppression which they can easily suppress with some magical trickery and stories. Additionally, it has a very addictive nature and can propel itself for generations. Rituals and other holy practices were incorporated into it which not only strengthened the religious bondage, but also helped the religious heads to keep an eye on those who are stepping away from such practices. followers are easily made to believe that they get some form of divine protection.

so as different tribes formed, so were different stories and different gods. As societies merged or progressed or destroyed through war etc, so was religion.

The following could be another possibility for the formation of religion . Things might overlap here and there and so are the order of events.

In every society, there will be people of high morale and rationalistic thinking sooner or later. They take people or society from dark ages and enlighten them. Unfortunately just like ordinary people these great ones also die. A trust like body is formed in his name so as to honor and propagate his thoughts/teachings. So, the rules/ laws etc that were made are kept as such. Not (never) to be changed at all. Often a “God part or holiness” is amended to it over time for a much greater voice. Then existing scientific proofs are added to give it more credibility. Money, power and politics take their share on it. Rituals and practices make it imprinted on those who practice it. This is how a typical religion is formed.

There could be other possibilities.

My thoughts are as follows.

All religion ultimately derives from our experience of That. Be it that sense of the immanence of existence, be it Union with and Realisation of the Absolute, or anything in between.

In an attempt to describe that, explain that, people use metaphors, analogies, stories. One must, because it can't be described exactly. Sometimes explanations are really meant literally, but for the most part they're meant metaphorically. A language is developed within a group, or a culture, or a society, to be able to discuss these things. Explanations are posited, comparisons made. Guidelines for enhanced ability to experience That are put together, derived from a combination of intuition and trial and error. But these become rules, and metaphorical descriptions become literal truths, as the followers miss the point over time.

Then, when further experiences are had by different people, expanding their worldview, these are seen through the lens of this established system of philosophy and imagery and rules. Sometimes these are seen for what they are, sometimes not. So one's explaining things to oneself in terms of your established worldview, and then to other people, or one is explaining things to people in the 'language' they are already aware of. But the people listening don't think it's just a language.

I believe these things are better understood in terms of psychology, re-programming the subconscious mind for the betterment of lives (Through this, one can change their habits, modify their behaviors, control or re-route their desires etc, suppress or rectify their ailments, increasing will power, even change their way of thinking etc...), practicing yoga and meditation. These are all within the scope of modern psychology/medicine.

"immanence of existence......................in between"

Here every religion has come up with its own different theories or stories etc. So i don't see any uniqueness in it and hence i doubt its validity.

"metaphors, analogies, stories.............. these become rules.....................point over time".

There were/are religions in which the religious heads would use some kind of elixir or some narcotic drugs in order to go through this feeling/sense of this "immanence of existence......................in between". Additionally, human beings are psychological creatures and our thought process could alter our state of mind or its quality. The "gap" between whats sane and insane is too narrow. So if this thought process happens to be in the wrong direction, where one will end up is just unpredictable. I hope you can sense the weirdness.

In an attempt to describe that, explain that, people use metaphors, analogies, stories. One must, because it can't be described exactly.

Science and mathematics are things that can be described exactly. But even there, as one teach these to other students, the students may not grasp the concepts with the true meaning or the way it is intended. The meanings or properties they think of could be very different from what it is actually. But when they are given problems to solve or has to preform some experiments, they will have to correct this in order to proceed and other concepts are built on this. If this is the case with something that can be described exactly, what about something that cannot be described exactly? something that cant be proved and experimented with?
What I believe is this- if there is something out there, this "immanence of existence......................in between" or some kind of knowledge, science will nail it one day & we will come to know about it and it will be possible only through science.

So you get Guru Nanak saying 'There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim', resulting eventually in a new religion called Sikhism. You get Jesus of Nazareth saying 'I and my Father are One' and people say he as an individual is God the Father (a personal figure) incarnate. You get Sathya Sai Baba and the Buddha venerated as deities!

All these practices, all these philosophies, all these ideas, are wonderful. Really, they fascinate me, and they do a great deal of good for a great many people. The latter is more important, of course. I myself go to temple, venerate deities, generally talk in the language used within the Vedantic tradition, and follow a great many guidelines and regulations emerging from Vedanta and Raja Yoga. I am within a denomination of a religion.

But I do think that it is more helpful for our spiritual development, and for our well-being as a global society, to try to acknowledge that all these traditions are just formalised attempts to explain that which is unexplainable, the ineffable, the indescribable, and that traditions naturally change and intermingle and diverge over time, as an organic process. The philosophy they've built up, the amazingly useful practices and rituals and thought processes, the glorious traditions, are all something to be held onto. But not to the exclusion of all others. They exist as one way of describing things. But any other system is doing the same, whether or not many of its adherents think this is the case, or have adopted literalist and/or exclusivist takes on their tradition. It's just a matter of trying to celebrate that commonality between faiths, while also cherishing their differences as distinctly valid paths to greater understanding.

This was a little rambling, but I hope it was clear.

Any thoughts?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Windwalker]

Drug use.

Seriously, - these ancient cultures used drugs, and had transcendent experiences from them.

You have to be careful how you qualify this. To simply say "drug use" could suggest they were simply "gettin' high" for recreational purposes, such as you might find in some cultures as a form of escapism. But if you mean to say the use of psychoactive drugs used as part of shamanic rituals, that's a little clearer and to the point. That is quite different than simply smoking or ingesting some drug to get high, having an experience, then starting some religion. People had to be prepared spiritually first before taking these things as part of ritual, otherwise it can take them over the edge into a world they are not prepared for.

Also - people with medical problems would have had experiences, - diseases such as epilepsy, also brain damage, etc. These people hear voices, and have dissociative experiences.

The key here is "dissociative". There are of course not simply these two options for mystical experience; drug use or medical/psychiatric diseases. People of healthy minds and bodies have peak experiences all the time. Those with schizophrenia having these experiences typical leads to dysfunction in their lives, leading them into believing they are unique and all others. It is a dissociation, as you say. Though the experience may be similar the mystic is made whole, they become more healthy and whole in body and mind and in social relations.

There is a story of Ram Das who went to visit a patient in a psychiatric hospital when he asked him, "Do you think you're the Christ? the Christ in pure consciousness?" He responds, "yes". Ram Das then replies, "Well, I think I am too." The patient looks at him and says, "No, you don't understand". Ram Das answered, "That's why they lock you up, you see".

People can have mystical experience without the use of drugs or having a seizure or some form of mental illness. Meditation practices specifically put someone in the path of having experiences like these, and the benefits of meditation are very well recognized these days by the scientific community. But even with these, like the spiritual communities who use drugs to have spiritual states of consciousness, people who practice meditation should have some form of community as 'spotters' to help validate and guide understanding of these experiences so the person doesn't potentially go off the deep end. In other words, they too need to be "prepared".

What is happening in these states is the conscious mind is opening to the subconscious and the unconscious mind, as well as they emergent subconscious mind, not simply going into the primal self but into the emergent potentials of one's own being. How the mind interprets these things is a matter of having a very stable psyche. I always say people who are psychologically unstable should not practice meditation, at least without direct supervision of some sort, those who know what to watch out for. The schizophrenic, though he is opening to these, the mind is not able to healthfully integrate them. It manifests to the conscious mind in unhealthy ways.

So natural and normal mystical states can either be spontaneous or deliberately cultivated through state training with meditation practices. Take the Christian religion for example. You have Jesus go into the desert for a long period of time, and come back with a higher realization of Oneness with God. Same thing with Buddhism, at the end of a long period of ritual starvation the Buddha breaks the fast, and stays in meditation and receives enlightenment. These both are ritually produced states of mystical insight.

And now to just take those as examples of a moment to tie into the OP, what happens is as these individuals speak about their experiences, teach others the way to find Enlightenment, the path of "salvation" and so forth (same thing), people without the experience take the teachings in many ways. Some, it inspires what is within them already to come to light for themselves and they follow this, intuitively. They take on practices, and themselves too have experiences of the divine. Then as the "way" grows and spreads to others as a mystical path, it becomes more and more "accessible" to the masses, keeping it simple and easily accessible for the less advanced. Then adminstration kicks in and those of the deeper realization become removed from the masses because the path is too hard for the average person, and so forth. In other words it gets dumbed down.

I have more to say to this later.

 

[Kirran]

Wonderful responses guys, I'm basically just gonna read a little, reflect and then respond some more.

I'm thinking of writing an opinion piece or essay or something about this subject. Sending it off to some people. Y'all could be credited.

While of course everybody's thoughts here are interesting, I reckon I'd happily read a thread which was just Windwalker sitting by the computer typing whatever he's thinking about for days on end

 

[Windwalker]

Thanks. If you have access to a library that has this book, or are so inclined as to order one if you're intrigued by early Christianity, Elaine Pagels who is a professor of religion at Princeton wrote a book some time ago called The Gnostic Gospels. What is particularly revealing in this work of hers which broke the ground of this to the public mind, is how in the early Christian movement it was not some single idea that got spread out from a single source as a whole cohesive body of teachings, which then later "heresies" crept in and corrupted. Not at all. That is a created myth, termed by one scholar whose name escapes me at the moment as the "Great Story". The "Great Story" goes that Jesus descended from heaven with his message fully intact, taught his disciples, who then became the sources of authority for the message, who then trained the bishops of Rome, who then held the teaching as pure and true and fought against errors that crept in.

That scholar, if I recall his name later I'll share it, saw simply by reading the historical documents of the time in early Christian writings, that the reality of the day was many competing schools of thought, and that what became "Orthodoxy", was actually only one of these competing schools of thought. You can refer to them as the "proto-orthodox" group. Then, a mere few years after he was able to piece this map of the early church out, a discovery of many of the early Gospels from the other competing groups was discovered in a cave in the desert. So now you had not just the winning faction who talked about them as a hostile witness, whose texts were ordered burned out of existence by the winning proto-orthodox group of Christianity, but these were the other groups writings themselves! And the picture they painted was very different than what the Great Story myth of "apostolic succession" handed down through tradition attempts to convey.

What it reveals is what scholars rightly refer to was that there was no "Early Christianity". It was in fact "Early Christianities", plural. The one that won the day, was the one that as I put it above "dumbed down" things to those who were at the easy, externalized, rule/role mythic-literal view of religious experience. The mystics of the group were vilified because they would teach that simply saying you believe is not enough. That you need to have mystical awakening, that you need to have what they called a "second baptism", not one of simply being initiated with water sprinkled on you and called Christian, but that you needed to experience the Holy Spirit in you, to have an awakened consciousness, in other words.

But the administrators of course didn't like that message, as it is frankly not the easy, quick path to becoming Christian. Cults of martyrs for instance arose, where the converts believed if they were killed through persecution of their faith they would go straight to heaven! Call it as shortcut path to getting off the Wheel of Samsara, if you will to use other tradition's language for the same thing. The mystics were appalled by this mentality and saw sacrificing one's life for a free ticket to heaven a grave wrong. But this is appealing to many, even today who wholly externalize religion as some legal contract between you and God. "Just believe, and you will be saved!". "I know I'm going to heaven when I die because I believe!". The mystics said, this is not salvation, this is not awakening, this is not Enlightenment.

But it's hard to sell the mystic path. And as Pagels concludes in her book above, there is a certain understandable reason why it got packaged the way it did by Orthodoxy, because it is easier to administrate on a large scale. But by throwing out the baby of the mystical in favor of the more easily accessible literal and concrete, they did so to the diminishment of themselves! Very true. Now this is not to overlook the later accommodations to those so mystically inclined by putting them up in monasteries to lead of life of devotion and mystical practice, but it was carefully controlled away from the masses, and those whose mystical awakenings opened to them things that made the "authorities" of the church uneasy could find themselves tied to a stake and burned for heresy. Meister Eckhart, for one escaped the flame because he was quite popular, but they instead condemned his teaching to hell instead.

Now I can go on looking back at the "kernel" that started these "early Christianities" that arouse, but suffice to say it was not simply some body of teachings that was handed down to the apostles who then taught others as authorities on the matter. Many of these scriptures that speak in terms like this are found to be much later additions to the texts. The reality is, as I see it, there was in fact a mystical core, but how it was taught, how it was spoken about, the stories woven around them into the "Narrative Gospels", were products of social evolution, accommodating the message to the area the various schools were in. I love how the scholar Burton Mack summarizes this "social movement" theory speaking of the many face of Jesus we see woven into the stories about him!

A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.

~ Burton Mack, The Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36​

The same thing is true of Buddhism. It's true of any founding figure myths. There are way too many things attributed to Buddha to all be Buddha. They, like Christianity and the teachings of Jesus, in all the writings about what he said, are "attributions", a common and legitimate practice of students, where a schooled student exhibits a certain mastery of the teachings by being able to add to them speaking as the Master himself. So in the above description of "Too many Jesuses", you see the art of mythmaking each reflecting the various schools of thoughts addition of "Jesus' teachings" to suit their own areas they lived in and taught to.

Does this mean it's all "fake", bunch of lies? No. Not at all. It is valid and in the sense it carries the "essence" of the message forward. Look at Mahayana Buddhism. That too is the Buddha's teaching, even though the Buddha never taught these things. Later Masters started schools of thought that were then attributed to the teachings of the Buddha. Is this invalid? Not at all. It reflects the dynamic nature of spiritual Truth, evolving and adapting. If done in the name of the founding figure, as is legitimately part of that lineage. It is the "Christian lineage" that should allow for this dynamic understanding, evolving rather than fixed and static. The canonization of scripture makes Spirit a fixed set of beliefs instead. The same is true of Buddhism where trying to find the "pure" teachings of the Buddha as in Theravada practice limits to one school of thought on the matter.

The pity come in when people are stuck seeking "authority" outside themselves, never really moving to become the Master in themselves, and speak from that place as the Master they embrace. You literally become Christ. You literally become Buddha. Jesus did not just "fix" his religion, but he opened it to the ever-changing, evolving world through a mystical awareness that transcended the religion, and in truth fulfilled it though this transcendence. But this of course, to some is heresy. The thing I think that distinguishes the mystical over the religious, is the dynamic and evolving nature of the former, as opposed to the static and fixed set of beliefs and practices of the latter.

 

[mystic64]

In a discussion with @Windwalker, we stumbled on to the topic of the origins of religion.

This discussion would probably be best placed here, as my view heavily relates to mysticism. Indeed, is entirely centred upon it.

Where does religion come from? Where do these organised systems of belief, these dogmas and rituals and rules, come from?

My thoughts are as follows.

All religion ultimately derives from our experience of That. Be it that sense of the immanence of existence, be it Union with and Realisation of the Absolute, or anything in between.

In an attempt to describe that, explain that, people use metaphors, analogies, stories. One must, because it can't be described exactly. Sometimes explanations are really meant literally, but for the most part they're meant metaphorically. A language is developed within a group, or a culture, or a society, to be able to discuss these things. Explanations are posited, comparisons made. Guidelines for enhanced ability to experience That are put together, derived from a combination of intuition and trial and error. But these become rules, and metaphorical descriptions become literal truths, as the followers miss the point over time.

Then, when further experiences are had by different people, expanding their worldview, these are seen through the lens of this established system of philosophy and imagery and rules. Sometimes these are seen for what they are, sometimes not. So one's explaining things to oneself in terms of your established worldview, and then to other people, or one is explaining things to people in the 'language' they are already aware of. But the people listening don't think it's just a language.

So you get Guru Nanak saying 'There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim', resulting eventually in a new religion called Sikhism. You get Jesus of Nazareth saying 'I and my Father are One' and people say he as an individual is God the Father (a personal figure) incarnate. You get Sathya Sai Baba and the Buddha venerated as deities!

All these practices, all these philosophies, all these ideas, are wonderful. Really, they fascinate me, and they do a great deal of good for a great many people. The latter is more important, of course. I myself go to temple, venerate deities, generally talk in the language used within the Vedantic tradition, and follow a great many guidelines and regulations emerging from Vedanta and Raja Yoga. I am within a denomination of a religion.

But I do think that it is more helpful for our spiritual development, and for our well-being as a global society, to try to acknowledge that all these traditions are just formalised attempts to explain that which is unexplainable, the ineffable, the indescribable, and that traditions naturally change and intermingle and diverge over time, as an organic process. The philosophy they've built up, the amazingly useful practices and rituals and thought processes, the glorious traditions, are all something to be held onto. But not to the exclusion of all others. They exist as one way of describing things. But any other system is doing the same, whether or not many of its adherents think this is the case, or have adopted literalist and/or exclusivist takes on their tradition. It's just a matter of trying to celebrate that commonality between faiths, while also cherishing their differences as distinctly valid paths to greater understanding.

This was a little rambling, but I hope it was clear.

Any thoughts?

Humm ? Kirran, personally I think that you are right on with the conclusion of your OP. From there things become the/a personal twisty by everyone that participates. Which is the foundation cause of a good topic ! So what would be my personal twisty (thoughts) on the rest of or some part of your OP? Well to start, everybody that has posted so far is right. And the mystic experience may or may not be the primary cause but mostly it is. But, there are other causes because human beings are involved. "It's just a matter of trying to celebrate that commonality between faiths, while also cherishing their differences as distinctly valid paths to greater understanding." Kirran what you are proposing is just not possible in my opinion. This is becuse there is not any commonality between most major religions. They are all radically different from each other. And also because each religion considers itself an absolute, for whatever reason. In my opinion the best that you can hope for is to find a way where they quit fighting with each other. Which is actually the direction that things seem to be drifting, over time, in this world for various reasons.

So my question to you Kirran is, if this is ok, "What do you see as the commonality between all of the major world religions that could be celebrated?" There is no right or wrong answer, I am just curious.

 

[Kirran]

Not all religions. Mine doesn't

In answer: that they all originate in the quest to understand the divine.

When I said 'all' in the OP, that was an exaggeration. Official retraction.

 

[mystic64]

Not all religions. Mine doesn't

In answer: that they all originate in the quest to understand the divine.

When I said 'all' in the OP, that was an exaggeration. Official retraction.

I can not find "understanding the Divine" as the cause for the origin of Christianity, Islam, or the Jewish faith. God said "hello" and "obey my rules or else". The attempt to understand the Divine was a creation of individual mystics of those faiths and generally these mystic were and are persecuted in some way by the othodox majority of these religions.

My version of Christianity doesn't either . But then most Christians do not consider me a Christian.

 

[Kirran]

I can not find "understanding the Divine" as the cause for the origin of Christianity, Islam, or the Jewish faith. God said "hello" and "obey my rules or else". The attempt to understand the Divine was a creation of individual mystics of those faiths and generally these mystic were and are persecuted in some way by the othodox majority of these religions.

My version of Christianity doesn't either . But then most Christians do not consider me a Christian.

On the contrary. I think Jesus was a mystic. But also, while many Christians don't have any mystical leanings, they'd still say they were looking to improve their understanding of God.

 

[Windwalker]

This is becuse there is not any commonality between most major religions. They are all radically different from each other.

In what ways. Give some examples of the areas of focus you see, and as an exercise we can look at where they are the same.

And also because each religion considers itself an absolute, for whatever reason.

Well, this is simply not true. Buddhism doesn't think like this. Hinduism doesn't think like this. Liberal Christianity doesn't think like this.

In my opinion the best that you can hope for is to find a way where they quit fighting with each other. Which is actually the direction that things seem to be drifting, over time, in this world for various reasons.

I'm actually a little surprised that someone who identifies as a mystic does not see the key to this. I can't recall who the person who said this was, though it is attributed to Meister Eckhart (the person was referencing Eckhart). He said, and rightly so, "Theologians may quarrel, but mystics the world over speak the same language." Do you not see that the key is the experience of unitive consciousness?