Conclusions

Bob · February 1, 2014, 9:59am

Having made a comparative study of religions over the past years, aided by books from people like Karen Armstrong, Joseph Campbell, and a whole array of Christian literature and many books, lectures and essays on Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, it seems to me to be the case that humanity cultivated various worldviews from its observations and became aware of the dual nature of existence, the interaction of human thoughts and behaviour, the interdependence of a peaceful society, the need to harmonise with nature, and to escape our internal struggles and furthermore obtain a meta-view of existence.

The idea of God or gods is intended provide such a perspective, albeit often a projection of our ground view. However, the divine perspective is intended to widen our horizons, rather than restrict us. Having said that, the assumption of a real existing being reflects the influence of superstition and folklore over the cultivation of analogies and myths, which describe better the hidden influences which effect mankind, and altogether have a somewhat magical effect on us. A literal interpretation reveals a lack of cultivation of such a perspective.

Inasmuch as religion supports the development of such a meta-view, it is helpful for the development of humankind. If it hinders such cultivation, it becomes a cancer, which, as several have suggested, needs to be removed. However, the removal process is often contradictory to the moral foundation of such a spiritual movement, and contravene its intentions, as so often has been experienced. Indeed, such processes have often been the main concern of some churches or temples on different continents and at various times in history and done much to erode the positive influence on the majority.

This has led to spiritual movements going underground or collecting in ivory towers, which is just as contra-productive, and the ideas which they put forth were often misconstrued and even perverted into their opposite meaning. Non-enlightened persons sometimes intended good but managed to achieve the opposite, and sometimes it was an intentional mistranslation of the ideas, that led to opposition, which in turn made such movements even more occult. Even those who lived their ideas out amongst the masses in sympathy for their suffering, often found themselves regarded as subversive forces and oppressed.

It would seem then, that the true spiritual movements of the world are indeed struggling with the dark forces of unawareness and lack of cultivation, and subject to uncouth and uncivilized repression from the very people they try to enlighten, who are ruled by people with barefaced egocentricity as their motivation.

The question seems to be whether such attempts are futile, despite the numerous exemplary human beings throughout history, who have always been a source of inspiration for a minority?

turtle · February 1, 2014, 12:23pm

Bob:

Having made a comparative study of religions over the past years, aided by books from people like Karen Armstrong, Joseph Campbell, and a whole array of Christian literature and many books, lectures and essays on Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, it seems to me to be the case that humanity cultivated various worldviews from its observations and became aware of the dual nature of existence, the interaction of human thoughts and behaviour, the interdependence of a peaceful society, the need to harmonise with nature, and to escape our internal struggles and furthermore obtain a meta-view of existence.

The idea of God or gods is intended provide such a perspective, albeit often a projection of our ground view. However, the divine perspective is intended to widen our horizons, rather than restrict us. Having said that, the assumption of a real existing being reflects the influence of superstition and folklore over the cultivation of analogies and myths, which describe better the hidden influences which effect mankind, and altogether have a somewhat magical effect on us. A literal interpretation reveals a lack of cultivation of such a perspective.

Inasmuch as religion supports the development of such a meta-view, it is helpful for the development of humankind. If it hinders such cultivation, it becomes a cancer, which, as several have suggested, needs to be removed. However, the removal process is often contradictory to the moral foundation of such a spiritual movement, and contravene its intentions, as so often has been experienced. Indeed, such processes have often been the main concern of some churches or temples on different continents and at various times in history and done much to erode the positive influence on the majority.

This has led to spiritual movements going underground or collecting in ivory towers, which is just as contra-productive, and the ideas which they put forth were often misconstrued and even perverted into their opposite meaning. Non-enlightened persons sometimes intended good but managed to achieve the opposite, and sometimes it was an intentional mistranslation of the ideas, that led to opposition, which in turn made such movements even more occult. Even those who lived their ideas out amongst the masses in sympathy for their suffering, often found themselves regarded as subversive forces and oppressed.

It would seem then, that the true spiritual movements of the world are indeed struggling with the dark forces of unawareness and lack of cultivation, and subject to uncouth and uncivilized repression from the very people they try to enlighten, who are ruled by people with barefaced egocentricity as their motivation.

The question seems to be whether such attempts are futile, despite the numerous exemplary human beings throughout history, who have always been a source of inspiration for a minority?

bob—very interesting…conclusions…jesus had a good idea like love not hate…but most people seem like sheep and follow some guy who hates…its easier

James_S_Saint · February 1, 2014, 1:09pm

Bob:

Having made a comparative study of religions over the past years, aided by books from people like Karen Armstrong, Joseph Campbell, and a whole array of Christian literature and many books, lectures and essays on Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, it seems to me to be the case that humanity cultivated various worldviews from its observations and became aware of the dual nature of existence, the interaction of human thoughts and behaviour, the interdependence of a peaceful society, the need to harmonise with nature, and to escape our internal struggles and furthermore obtain a meta-view of existence.

The idea of God or gods is intended provide such a perspective, albeit often a projection of our ground view. However, the divine perspective is intended to widen our horizons, rather than restrict us. Having said that, the assumption of a real existing being reflects the influence of superstition and folklore over the cultivation of analogies and myths, which describe better the hidden influences which effect mankind, and altogether have a somewhat magical effect on us. A literal interpretation reveals a lack of cultivation of such a perspective.

Inasmuch as religion supports the development of such a meta-view, it is helpful for the development of humankind. If it hinders such cultivation, it becomes a cancer, which, as several have suggested, needs to be removed. However, the removal process is often contradictory to the moral foundation of such a spiritual movement, and contravene its intentions, as so often has been experienced. Indeed, such processes have often been the main concern of some churches or temples on different continents and at various times in history and done much to erode the positive influence on the majority.

This has led to spiritual movements going underground or collecting in ivory towers, which is just as contra-productive, and the ideas which they put forth were often misconstrued and even perverted into their opposite meaning. Non-enlightened persons sometimes intended good but managed to achieve the opposite, and sometimes it was an intentional mistranslation of the ideas, that led to opposition, which in turn made such movements even more occult. Even those who lived their ideas out amongst the masses in sympathy for their suffering, often found themselves regarded as subversive forces and oppressed.

It would seem then, that the true spiritual movements of the world are indeed struggling with the dark forces of unawareness and lack of cultivation, and subject to uncouth and uncivilized repression from the very people they try to enlighten, who are ruled by people with barefaced egocentricity as their motivation.

Excellent synopsis.

“Futile” in the effort to accomplish what? Those efforts allowed (albeit crudely) for homosapian to rise above the jungle of life. But then again, being almost right yet not right, is far more dangerous than being totally wrong.

So if anyone finally manages to be totally right (and they haven’t been all that far from it), everything quite suddenly comes together into the long sought anentropic harmony. So was it worth the journey, struggle, and suffering? Not for those who didn’t want the end product, for whatever reason. Will homosapian survive before that eureka moment? Doesn’t look likely. He got too close without actually getting there.

Ierrellus · February 1, 2014, 1:46pm

James,
Please define “anentropic” for us ignorami.My dictionary does not include that word. Thanks.

James_S_Saint · February 1, 2014, 1:57pm

“Anti-entropy”. And/or “the effort to sustain” rather than “the effort to disseminate” (entropy). In Science, “entropy” really refers to the state of being dispersed rather than the culmination of forces that cause dispersing, but it is useful to use it in both ways.

An anentropic harmony is immutably stable, such as a sub-atomic particle or “the perfect religion/government/economy”. The trick with Life is getting the “harmony” part right (the joy).

Ierrellus · February 1, 2014, 2:41pm

Harmony—Can we get there from here?

Bob · February 1, 2014, 5:08pm

Thanks …

Ineffective in helping people overcome their tendency to choose to suffer rather than at least attempt to overcome suffering. I read Jesus and Buddha in this light, as people who offer humankind a new perspective on their lives, a new way ahead and out of the vicious circle, but the fact that Jesus is portrayed as going all the way to the cross indicates that we need to be shocked out of our complacency and indifference, before we find ourselves submerged in the trials of poverty, illness or old-age, and not able to cope. At the same time there is a composure about them, a placidness that helps face the ailments of those who come to them for help.

I agree that these efforts have taken us out of a primitive state, enabling a civilization of a kind, providing utopias and visions to aim for, but I find that equanimity is a worthwhile goal, although it tends to be mistaken for a blasé attitude. Christianity tends to have us melting in the sight of suffering, rather than tending and palliative. Amongst Christians I have found that eqanimity in the sight of extreme suffering is regarded as “hard-heartedness”, rather than a necessary strength to keep the focus on the person suffering, rather than my own commiseration. For that reason, appeals for “neighbourly love” are often shunned because people are afraid they can’t cope.

I don’t think it is a question of being right, if you understand what I mean. It is more having an appropriate answer to wht we are confronted with. Entropy isn’t something we can stop, we can just slow it down and build embankments to enable us to take a breath before we enter into the affray once again. But, from what you have said, I think you do see the futility that sometimes tempts us to stop trying and hide in our little hole somewhere.

zinnat · February 1, 2014, 5:19pm

James S Saint:

Bob:

Having made a comparative study of religions over the past years, aided by books from people like Karen Armstrong, Joseph Campbell, and a whole array of Christian literature and many books, lectures and essays on Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, it seems to me to be the case that humanity cultivated various worldviews from its observations and became aware of the dual nature of existence, the interaction of human thoughts and behaviour, the interdependence of a peaceful society, the need to harmonise with nature, and to escape our internal struggles and furthermore obtain a meta-view of existence.

The idea of God or gods is intended provide such a perspective, albeit often a projection of our ground view. However, the divine perspective is intended to widen our horizons, rather than restrict us. Having said that, the assumption of a real existing being reflects the influence of superstition and folklore over the cultivation of analogies and myths, which describe better the hidden influences which effect mankind, and altogether have a somewhat magical effect on us. A literal interpretation reveals a lack of cultivation of such a perspective.

Inasmuch as religion supports the development of such a meta-view, it is helpful for the development of humankind. If it hinders such cultivation, it becomes a cancer, which, as several have suggested, needs to be removed. However, the removal process is often contradictory to the moral foundation of such a spiritual movement, and contravene its intentions, as so often has been experienced. Indeed, such processes have often been the main concern of some churches or temples on different continents and at various times in history and done much to erode the positive influence on the majority.

This has led to spiritual movements going underground or collecting in ivory towers, which is just as contra-productive, and the ideas which they put forth were often misconstrued and even perverted into their opposite meaning. Non-enlightened persons sometimes intended good but managed to achieve the opposite, and sometimes it was an intentional mistranslation of the ideas, that led to opposition, which in turn made such movements even more occult. Even those who lived their ideas out amongst the masses in sympathy for their suffering, often found themselves regarded as subversive forces and oppressed.

It would seem then, that the true spiritual movements of the world are indeed struggling with the dark forces of unawareness and lack of cultivation, and subject to uncouth and uncivilized repression from the very people they try to enlighten, who are ruled by people with barefaced egocentricity as their motivation.

Excellent synopsis.

Bob:

The question seems to be whether such attempts are futile, despite the numerous exemplary human beings throughout history, who have always been a source of inspiration for a minority?

“Futile” in the effort to accomplish what? Those efforts allowed (albeit crudely) for homosapian to rise above the jungle of life. But then again, being almost right yet not right, is far more dangerous than being totally wrong.

So if anyone finally manages to be totally right (and they haven’t been all that far from it), everything quite suddenly comes together into the long sought anentropic harmony. So was it worth the journey, struggle, and suffering? Not for those who didn’t want the end product, for whatever reason. Will homosapian survive before that eureka moment? Doesn’t look likely. He got too close without actually getting there.

I disagree with both of James and Bob on this issue. Development or the betterment of the mankind was not the true purpose of the religions at all. It was/is not their ultimate goal, but merely a byproduct of the journey towards that.

In strict sense, religions are not meant for social welfare, but still that happens due to those, almost by default, because religions enrich their true practitioners with enormous knowledge and wisdom, which help the surrounding society to evolve for better.

Not challenging the good intentions of the Bob, i have to say that this is not the right methodology to approach religions, as it does not give the complete and true perpose of the religions. That is why most of us fail to undestand the true goal of the religions.

The study of the religions cannot be done merely by reading books. That entails some particular efforts in person. When one engaes with that seriously enough, the true knowledge of the reality tends to start unfolding. That is the true essence of the religions. But, there is no way that one can ever get that by litrature.

And, it is not an exaggreation. That knowlegde is there for everyone, who is sincere and committed. We all have that potential.

with love,
sanjay

Bob · February 1, 2014, 9:03pm

Thanks for your comment Sanjay! Although I did mention that there was more to religion than social welfare, it is seeing humanity in such a state that questions the bodhisattva whether he is going to take the fourfold vow, to save them all, to break anxiety and hate, to teach the Dharma, and accomplish the Buddha Way. In a similar way it is said to be the will of Christ to be the instrument of salvation for humanity through his death.

I see the intention to be the enlightenment (and thereby salvation) of humanity. Of course, I am not knowledgable about Hinduism, so perhaps I can learn something here.

zinnat13:

Bob:

Having made a comparative study of religions over the past years, aided by books from people like Karen Armstrong, Joseph Campbell, and a whole array of Christian literature and many books, lectures and essays on Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, it seems to me

Not challenging the good intentions of the Bob, i have to say that this is not the right methodology to approach religions, as it does not give the complete and true perpose of the religions. That is why most of us fail to undestand the true goal of the religions.

The study of the religions cannot be done merely by reading books. That entails some particular efforts in person. When one engaes with that seriously enough, the true knowledge of the reality tends to start unfolding. That is the true essence of the religions. But, there is no way that one can ever get that by litrature.

I have to say to my own defence that I have been a practising Christian and have actively engaged in meditation, sorting out my own spiritual path, which in my understanding also encompasses my vocation as a male nurse. I agree with you that it cannot be by books alone …

Thank you for your compassion.

Namaste

Moreno · February 2, 2014, 3:41am

I Think this Point should be made in many theist/non-theist discussions and end many of them. If the non-theist has an actual interest, then investigating even the truth value of certain religious assertions is only effective via actually engaging in the processes the religion espouses. They have methodologies and many religions are clear that time and practices are mandatory to even understand the meaning of the religious statements that may or may not be true. Often the theist will be asked to demonstrate the existence of God - via deduction or other means - while the religions themselves tend to suggest long term practices, with stages and steps and problems and solutions and available guidance to having such a demonstration take Place. If the non-theist has no interest in using those methods, then the discussion will likely have no value for the non-theist - except to reinforce his or her own judgments of theists.

The non-theist may try to evaluate and dismiss those experiences in advance of having them by contrasting them epistemologically with science or reason as they define it, and that of course is their right perogative, but it begs the questions of what they themselves would Believe after having said experiences and engaging in the practices.

Some things - actually most things - have to be experienced and Changes may take a long time. Understanding coming in bits and pieces, sudden advances and seeming losses.

The mind overestimates its ability to understand things it has not experienced.

Just to be what seems provocative — I KNOW 100% THIS IS THE CASE. I know it.

The mind overestimates its ability to understand things it has not experienced.

It also radically overestimates the use of Words.

So many habits, so Little time…

Now I actually Think Bob knows much of what I am saying here - or Believes, sorry, I don’t want to put Bob in the position of knowing something since knowing things seems to be a sin these Days at ILP. I can bear that cross but should not foist it on others.

I Think this is a rather brilliant statement of Bob’s

I Think it is both true and not true. I Think I get the kind of mystical insight that would prompt someone to say this. My take is that it is a partial truth, but a profound one.

Bob · February 2, 2014, 9:14am

Moreno:

zinnat13:

The study of the religions cannot be done merely by reading books. That entails some particular efforts in person. When one engaes with that seriously enough, the true knowledge of the reality tends to start unfolding. That is the true essence of the religions. But, there is no way that one can ever get that by litrature.

I Think this Point should be made in many theist/non-theist discussions and end many of them. If the non-theist has an actual interest, then investigating even the truth value of certain religious assertions is only effective via actually engaging in the processes the religion espouses. They have methodologies and many religions are clear that time and practices are mandatory to even understand the meaning of the religious statements that may or may not be true. Often the theist will be asked to demonstrate the existence of God - via deduction or other means - while the religions themselves tend to suggest long term practices, with stages and steps and problems and solutions and available guidance to having such a demonstration take Place. If the non-theist has no interest in using those methods, then the discussion will likely have no value for the non-theist - except to reinforce his or her own judgments of theists.

I agree fully with both Sanjay and yourself. This has been the problem in many discussions. Having said that, there is a justifiable criticism by atheists of, for example, Christians, for not being informed about what they themselves proclaim. My experience of various religious groups gives cause to be reserved about the sincerity of the faith of my fellow church-members, but avoid being judgemental. After all, I know from my own experience, that we all go through phases in life when we suddenly start questioning “certainties”.

Exactly, although I would always welcome the opinion of a trusted peer when evaluating experience, it still remains my experience. My peer could perhaps help me translate but if he hasn’t had the experience and is dependent upon my command of language to even try to describe it, he doesn’t really know what I’m talking about.

I found this to be the case when I was starting off with meditation. First of all I had to put aside the many ideas I had about meditation, then I found I couldn’t speak to anybody who doesn’t meditate about what I was doing. And even then, I discovered that people who meditate have varying thoughts on what they are doing. That is why I can identify with the following:

Oh yes, very true and the transformation of our understanding takes so exasperatingly long, so that for long periods it is as though the wisdom I later come to appreciate is written in a foreign language. I just can’t get it …. No wonder people cry out when the breakthrough comes.

I appreciate that, let it suffice to say I can follow you …

It just came to me after a long silence that very often the divine perspective is used as the hammer that closes the discussion, whereas it should open up our understanding by giving us another perspective to look at a subject. It takes us into the heavens and has us look down, seeing more clearly our own position as much as we see our opposite. It has very often been this view of a situation that has brought a tear to my eye and ask myself how to put things right again.

Or I have suddenly seen a situation that could arise out of a decision I have made, and felt my chest heave. Rarely I have also receive confirmation of my view, but I seem to be more in need of criticism

Ierrellus · February 2, 2014, 2:45pm

Being happy in the Way that you follow is a sermon in itself for other seekers of spiritual truths. We question our experience of the divine at its peril.

zinnat · February 2, 2014, 5:13pm

Bob,
Religions are like coins and have two faces, though both sides are not oppposite like coins but complementary. The reason is that, because of the difficuties and hardships encountered during the journery, their founders were aware of the fact that everyone in the society would neither have enough courage nor patience to go through.

So, they offered two versions. One part of the religions is for society, the general public, which is in the form of social guidelines. And, the second one, the true essence is meant for scholars only. The problem in perception arises when we mix both.

In Hinduism, the guidelines are very clearly defined for both parties. The same is in the Islam too as Sufism is the version meant for scholars. But, the true essence of the Islam was ruined as fundamentalists treated societal version for the scholarly one.

Christianity had problem in dealing this issue from the very begnning, because there were not much spiritual backup from his followers after Christ himself. So, Christians assumed merely having faith in Christ as an only eligibility to be a Christian. Though, it is much a generalized statement and there maybe exceptions, but there are not many, at least in my knowledge.

To me, there a lot of difference in having faith and belief in someone and following his very footsteps. Furthermore, one cannot even have faith in real terms if he does not have some sort of personal experience. I am sorry to say what we use to consider faith is merely fan following or just some sort of societal heritage in the name of religion. And, this is not applicable to the west but the east also. And, that is precisely what the definition of the religion suggests; rely + legion. But, it is still not a bad thing by any means.

Yes, that is true. But, that is a different subject altogether and has nothing to do with social guidelines.

Bob,
There is not much different between the core premises of Buddhism, Vedanta and Yoga. The difference comes only at last stage as their definition of ultimate goal is slightly different. Everything else is the same. And, this applies even to Sufiism too. Though, ther are some also subsets of Hinduism which believe in Monothiesm and very much like Christianity and conventional Islam in their approach.

I like the phrase practising Christian. Keep it up. That is how it should be but not only in ritualistic sense.

Namaste to you also.
By the way, from where did you learn that?

with love,
sanjay

zinnat · February 2, 2014, 5:55pm

Yes, it certainly does so.

Moreno:

If the non-theist has an actual interest, then investigating even the truth value of certain religious assertions is only effective via actually engaging in the processes the religion espouses. They have methodologies and many religions are clear that time and practices are mandatory to even understand the meaning of the religious statements that may or may not be true. Often the theist will be asked to demonstrate the existence of God - via deduction or other means - while the religions themselves tend to suggest long term practices, with stages and steps and problems and solutions and available guidance to having such a demonstration take Place. If the non-theist has no interest in using those methods, then the discussion will likely have no value for the non-theist - except to reinforce his or her own judgments of theists.

The non-theist may try to evaluate and dismiss those experiences in advance of having them by contrasting them epistemologically with science or reason as they define it, and that of course is their right perogative, but it begs the questions of what they themselves would Believe after having said experiences and engaging in the practices.

I mostly agree with that.

Things can be confirmed but that takes time and effort. There is no instant way yet, though i am sure that would be done one day.

But, the problem is that the most of intellectual and scientific populace do not even want to take a shot. They have become so biased (religious) that they just dismiss any possibility without any investigation. That is unscientific.

Had the science spent even 1/10 of that amount, which they did on collider at CERN, they would have been found the proof of the soul and consciousness.

Having said that, it is not that difficult to find some initial evidences at personal level. It is just a matter of some months, or even less, if one is serious enough. But, in that case, one has to be aware of the precise methodology. Trial and error routine generally takes far more time than established ones.

with love,
sanjay

Bob · February 2, 2014, 6:15pm

zinnat13:

Bob,
Religions are like coins and have two faces, though both sides are not oppposite like coins but complementary. The reason is that, because of the difficuties and hardships encountered during the journery, their founders were aware of the fact that everyone in the society would neither have enough courage nor patience to go through.

So, they offered two versions. One part of the religions is for society, the general public, which is in the form of social guidelines. And, the second one, the true essence is meant for scholars only. The problem in perception arises when we mix both.

In Hinduism, the guidelines are very clearly defined for both parties. The same is in the Islam too as Sufism is the version meant for scholars. But, the true essence of the Islam was ruined as fundamentalists treated societal version for the scholarly one.

Yes, that has been something that came to the surface during my comparative study. I’d rather use the expression “the astute” rather than “scholar”, since the latter suggests more an academic interest.

I have come across astute practitioners, but they were very few and far between, and I found a great deal of agreement between us. I think we have to make a comparison between traditions and also practise some kind of meditation or contemplation to become astute in this way, so I was lucky to have been guided that way. Thomas Merton was one of the people who very early on had me fascinated, but I have only come to realise how steeped he was in the far east in the last ten years. I was fascinated with his experience at Polonnaruwa in Sri Lanka and went there myself in 2002 and although I had no “mystical experience” there, the whole trip was groundbreaking (and where I learned the greeting Namaste).

It was at this time however, that my being a “practising Christian” changed considerably, and I broke away from the habits I had followed and started contemplation and lectio-divina, discovering the mystics and the monastic traditions and learning from them – without actually being a monk. It was also the time when I started taking flak for my lack of orthodoxy (being a protestant). At sometime between then and 2009 I asked what was Jesus really teaching, since we have the indication that the 12 were “insiders” and the others were not – and given parables to think about. Around 2009, after taking up mindfulness meditation, it became clear to me that the Christian monastic tradition was similar to Buddhist traditions in some ways and probably inherited something from visiting monks around about 200 AD.

zinnat13:

Christianity had problem in dealing this issue from the very begnning, because there were not much spiritual backup from his followers after Christ himself. So, Christians assumed merely having faith in Christ as an only eligibility to be a Christian. Though, it is much a generalized statement and there maybe exceptions, but there are not many, at least in my knowledge.

To me, there a lot of difference in having faith and belief in someone and following his very footsteps. Furthermore, one cannot even have faith in real terms if he does not have some sort of personal experience. I am sorry to say what we use to consider faith is merely fan following or just some sort of societal heritage in the name of religion. And, this is not applicable to the west but the east also. And, that is precisely what the definition of the religion suggests; rely + legion. But, it is still not a bad thing by any means.

Yes, this was an area in which I was also accused of wanting exactness and having some kind of perfection in mind, but to me it was simply a question of authenticity – and still is. Are we what we profess to be, and is the measure to decide that, contemporary orthodoxy? Some would say yes, but I say that it is the quest for the heart of Christianity, and I have doubts that that which we generally see on the surface is that “heart”.

Another thing that I feel has to be an intricate part of this quest is the confrontation with human suffering, and being able to encounter it in an appropriate manner. This has been the role of my nursing in the elderly care environment and has been a unique revelation for me. Fortunately I have progressed to management and am able to experiment more with myself, and discovering what actually does soothe suffering – which is a revelation in itself.

Agreed, but I am looking deeper …

zinnat13:

Bob:

Of course, I am not knowledgable about Hinduism, so perhaps I can learn something here.

There is not much different between the core premises of Buddhism, Vedanta and Yoga. The difference comes only at last stage as their definition of ultimate goal is slightly different. Everything else is the same. And, this applies even to Sufiism too. Though, ther are some also subsets of Hinduism which believe in Monothiesm and very much like Christianity and conventional Islam in their approach.

Bob:

I have to say to my own defence that I have been a practising Christian and have actively engaged in meditation, sorting out my own spiritual path, which in my understanding also encompasses my vocation as a male nurse. I agree with you that it cannot be by books alone …

I like the phrase practising Christian. Keep it up. That is how it should be but not only in ritualistic sense.

It sounds to me as if you have been doing some comparative studies yourself, but my “practising” is, as I have said above – not orthodox. In fact, I have stumbled over the expectancy of my Christian brethren and became debilitated through it. Since then I no longer work for the church and have returned to old strength.

It has been good exchanging with you, Sanjay. Thank you!

Namaste

zinnat · February 2, 2014, 6:22pm

That is true and one need not to be philosopher to realize that.
One can discern within a moment whether the peer has actual experience or just playing with words.

In science, one can rely on borrowed knowledge, but the whole of learned knowledge fail when it comes to spirituality. One has to earn here, not learn.
So, contrary to general perception, the norms in spirituality are stricter or more scientific than science itself.

That is true because there are enumnerable ways in the initial stage. But, as you climb the ladder, they tend to be the same.

The cornerstone of the meditation is nothing but concentration and this is applicable to all spritual practices. The difference is in how to get it and on what. And, that is the area where you need an experienced person, otherwise you may take far more time than it usually takes.

with love,
sanjay

Moreno · February 3, 2014, 3:40am

IN context I don’t find this to be a special case. Secular and religious alike sell ideas about what will change our experience of reality. Some of each base this on something empirical beyond their own experiences or what they would like to think their own experiences are.

Yes.

Exactly, although I would always welcome the opinion of a trusted peer when evaluating experience, it still remains my experience. My peer could perhaps help me translate but if he hasn’t had the experience and is dependent upon my command of language to even try to describe it, he doesn’t really know what I’m talking about.

I found this to be the case when I was starting off with meditation. First of all I had to put aside the many ideas I had about meditation, then I found I couldn’t speak to anybody who doesn’t meditate about what I was doing. And even then, I discovered that people who meditate have varying thoughts on what they are doing. That is why I can identify with the following:

Oh yes, very true and the transformation of our understanding takes so exasperatingly long, so that for long periods it is as though the wisdom I later come to appreciate is written in a foreign language. I just can’t get it …. No wonder people cry out when the breakthrough comes.

And we could be having a discussion of golf swing training. That’s the funny thing. I mean I do understand given human history and the way religions especially the large organized ones, and especially the monotheisms have played a role in history that non-theists get all worked up about epistemological issues. But many very everyday things like kissing someone for the first time or how to have sex or how to improve one’s golf swing or carpentry or how to speak a foreign language can all be speculated about

Oh, that class would not teach me anything, one cannot improve a golf swing.
There is no such thing as falling in love.
That pedagogical method will not work for learning how to build a bureau.

Are just silly conclusions without going through the processes.

In the mystical side of religion one is entering what one does not know, yet, and perhaps has never experienced. Nevertheless religions are seen as unjustified knowing. From the outside. I find, that most non-theists and most theists do not enter not knowing very much and are pretty sure they know most of the answers that matter to them. Unjustified knowing or claim to knowing is homo sapianish. And most are phobic of it. Those few I would say more religious or more spiritual actually enter the unknown to them at least and deal with the emotions that come with such exploration much more than secular people.

But generally religious people are summed up as having beliefs to soothe their fears. Man, walk a mile in my shoes, is all I can say.

zinnat · February 3, 2014, 7:04pm

I do not care much for the words as far as they serve the purpose of communicating my true intention to the listener. Besides that, my vocabulary is also not that rich.

Yes, the understanding changes. That is why it is necessary to have some initial experience at least, before interpreting ancient scriptures and verdicts. Otherwise, one can derive a snake from a simple rope.

Bob, it is not necessary to be a monk to be a religious person. Being monk and go to the woods is far easier than living a life of a normal person. That is Rajyog; the king of all yogs.

I do not know whether monks influenced Christianity or not. But, that is not important.

The similarities are bound to be there. Because, as i said in the last post, the center premise of all spirituality is concentration and it does not matter how it comes. Even devotion, if it is deep enough, is also a type of meditation. And perhaps, the most simplistic one.

Bob:

Yes, this was an area in which I was also accused of wanting exactness and having some kind of perfection in mind, but to me it was simply a question of authenticity – and still is. Are we what we profess to be, and is the measure to decide that, contemporary orthodoxy? Some would say yes, but I say that it is the quest for the heart of Christianity, and I have doubts that that which we generally see on the surface is that “heart”.

Another thing that I feel has to be an intricate part of this quest is the confrontation with human suffering, and being able to encounter it in an appropriate manner. This has been the role of my nursing in the elderly care environment and has been a unique revelation for me. Fortunately I have progressed to management and am able to experiment more with myself, and discovering what actually does soothe suffering – which is a revelation in itself.

Bob, the issue of the heart of the Christianity is very interesting and complex too. But, it not understood properly. The meaning of the term Salvation here is somewhat different from Buddhism and other eastern schools. But, I am not going into that because that is not the issue of the thread here.

The second question you raised is about authinticity. I replied that in my earlier post.
If you are engaged with the subject, no matter how more or less, you will to able to discern cons easily.

If a lean and thin man will claim that he is a WWF champion, those who know what WWF stands for, will dismiss his claims without giving a second thought. But, one must at least know that a physically weak man cannot become WWF champion ever.

Yes. I do not know how successful i am but at least i tried sincerely.

Though, i learned these things in the opposite way. Due to some circumstances, i firstly went through experiences unknowingly, then tried to find the explanation of those experiences. That lead to the investigation of the religions. Otherwise, in my young age, i was of the firm opinion that all this religious stuff is nothing but myth, created just for maintaining order by fear in the society and there is absolutely no need to look beyond the science and morality.

But, i was proved dead wrong.

Well, in that case, you may ask for specific and practical issues. Perhaps, you may find a thing or two helpful in me.
Who knows?

with love,
sanjay

Uccisore · February 4, 2014, 12:21am

Hmm. Religions, and the idea God or gods, developed in a bunch of different places, contexts, with apparently different aims, and certainly with different results. Pretty obviously different intentions. What I’m getting from this thread is that Bob likes Buddhism now, and a religion is beneficial or a cancer(!) depending on how much it makes people think and behave like Buddhists. Well and good, the orthodox of all stripes think like that, but I’m not sure how useful it is. It also presumes atheism, and I’m not sure that’s very useful either.
So for example, an Aztec cult of Tezcatlipoca. If you ask them what the purpose of their cult is, I’m suppose they would say it’s to commune with Tezcatlipoca, to gain a greater understanding of him, and maybe earn some blessing that he bestows from the mirror in his foot. What is the function of saying, “No, there is no Tezcatlipoca, so therefore the purpose of your cult can’t be what you say it is, it has to be something secular to do with promoting a lack of suffering, and since you don’t seem very well focused on this goal that I just told you you had, your religion is therefore a cancer”.
I also reject the assumption that the real ‘purpose’ of God-talk is to instill some spiritual sense, or lesson, or whatever, and that actually believing the gods discussed are real are a corruption or a superstition. Return to my Tezcatlipoca example. Does it make any sense, any sense at all to tell the cult of Tezcatlipoca that the members that actually believe Tezcatlipoca is real are doing their own religion wrong? This seems like a view completely informed by secular, western sociology- religion has to be FOR something, it furthermore has to be FOR something that us non-believers value, so therefore we get to pass judgment on the right and wrong way to believe in/participate in faith traditions that we ourselves don’t believe or follow anyway. In other words, the value of a religion has to be something materialistic, because what WE value is the materialistic, and we are the ones doing the valuing (of somebody else’s religion). It just makes no sense to me to say “I have no interest in participation in your cult of Tezcatlipoca, and no belief in it’s central tenets, but nevertheless let me tell you what the right way to practice your faith is.”

 MY comparative study on religion suggests to me that the idea of God exists for as many different reasons as their are religions that talk about God- ranging from a pseudo-naturalistic attempt to describe rationally why the world exists the way it does, or a grounding of a moral code, to precisely the reasons Bob talks about, depending on the faith and it's implementation through history.  I think a religion success or fails, or is good or bad, depending on how well it meets it's OWN stated goals, not somebody else's.  A religion that was never intended to be an answer to the problem of suffering isn't bad or cancerous because it fails to answer it.  A religion that claims to be describing, with its myths, the actual nature of the universe and the beings that exist within it, is not 'best' practiced by assuming those beings aren't real, and it's success is best measured by whether or not it is succeeding in describing reality. 

So in other words, you could have a good religion that is good because it describes the way the world actually is, even though it doesn't do a thing for human suffering. You could have another good religion that is good because it promotes practices that alleviate human suffering, by telling a bunch of fanciful stories that aren't true- and the truth of which is neither here nor there as far as they are concerned. Or both, or neither, or some combination of other factors I didn't bring up. 


 Any claims to judge things according to how it 'supports the development of mankind' is code for 'supports the development of what I, the author, think is good for mankind".  I don't think anybody could have failed to notice that what people think is good for the development of mankind is a matter of...some controversy.

Bob · February 4, 2014, 6:13am

Yes, this was something I learned many years ago when I joined a German Christian group. I was still young then and had a connection to literature and also to artistic performance, which I applied when I was utilised to put some energy in the youth group at that time. The problem I found, after it was too late I might say, was that they effectively put the cat amongst the pigeons, because I was well-meaning, but definitely not on the same course as the group was, which followed a movement around Billy Graham.

This is where authenticity became an issue – because I was then not what people thought I was, and it took some time to come around to the fact that I should be open about that. It actually came about when I started in nursing, learning with the Caritas, the Roman Catholic aid organization and being told by the head teacher, that my idealism would not carry weight. That was a challenge that had me immediately revise my being Christian and reform my ways.

This is something I found to be true when discovering Thomas Merton, who took me into questions I hadn’t even imagined before, and it was the experienced person that I was lacking at that stage – and it took a long time …

Whilst I appreciate that, I think in Europe the term has a different edge. That is the only reason I mentioned it.

Yes, and I have very often made such mistakes.

Amusing, but there have been times when I would have liked to retreat more, and I suffered the consequences of not having done that back in 2011.

zinnat13:

Bob:

It was also the time when I started taking flak for my lack of orthodoxy (being a protestant). At sometime between then and 2009 I asked what was Jesus really teaching, since we have the indication that the 12 were “insiders” and the others were not – and given parables to think about. Around 2009, after taking up mindfulness meditation, it became clear to me that the Christian monastic tradition was similar to Buddhist traditions in some ways and probably inherited something from visiting monks around about 200 AD.

I do not know whether monks influenced Christianity or not. But, that is not important.

The similarities are bound to be there. Because, as i said in the last post, the center premise of all spirituality is concentration and it does not matter how it comes. Even devotion, if it is deep enough, is also a type of meditation. And perhaps, the most simplistic one. .

That is true, it probably is bound to happen, but the Christians I know do have a devotional practise, which I found was not addressing the issues I was encountering, and made me look abroad for answers. Many of the interactive movements I associate with remain distinctly Christian, but are open to learn from others, which is easy for Christians since the Buddhists (and Hindus) I have conversed with are not trying to win me over.

zinnat13:

Bob:

It sounds to me as if you have been doing some comparative studies yourself

Yes. I do not know how successful i am but at least i tried sincerely.

Though, i learned these things in the opposite way. Due to some circumstances, i firstly went through experiences unknowingly, then tried to find the explanation of those experiences. That lead to the investigation of the religions. Otherwise, in my young age, i was of the firm opinion that all this religious stuff is nothing but myth, created just for maintaining order by fear in the society and there is absolutely no need to look beyond the science and morality.

But, i was proved dead wrong.

Bob:

but I am looking deeper

Well, in that case, you may ask for specific and practical issues. Perhaps, you may find a thing or two helpful in me.
Who knows?

I have had a similar experience (by all differences), so perhaps we are designated to learn from one another.

Namaste