Conclusions

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Ucc., the common denominator in Religion is humankind. I may not be conforming to you or a lot of people, but I tend to try to understand religion from the human perspective. Ten years ago (how time flies) I came to ILP and was investigating the Mystics, following Merton to Sri Lanka and revising my religious practise. I attended to human beings in their last days, offering palliative care and nursing, praying with them, singing with them, talking to them. This has been my professional and personal journey and I have tried to understand.

I have on numerous occasions said that the religious traditions all have their cultural heritage, their differences and their similarities, and rightly understood, they can all tell us something about ourselves and the life we’re leading. However, as Sanjay has also said, we have to earn our understanding; we have to wear the moccasins and walk the distance, we have to cry the tears and feel the pain. The dogmatic approach is often without heart and without compassion, and very often based on words, rather than deeds or experience.

I know that we have always disagreed, but I have also admired your use of words at times, and I have also likened you to a modern G. K. Chesterton, whom you have also often quoted. The biggest problem we have is that the term “God” is still, for the largest part, ambiguous. We don’t really know what we are talking about, when we talk about God, and for my part, I have come to understand that even Zen has the hypothesis, albeit with a different name. God is the Ineffable, mostly described by saying what “he” is not, defying language or even logical thought. The Other or numerous other abstract descriptive names try to capture what God appears to be for a moment, only to find that the expression is unfeasible.

If the kind of religion that has presented us with such cruelty as the Spanish inquisition, or numerous other examples of ancient and modern malice, superstition and animosity, isn’t a cancer, well then my analogy doesn’t work for you. OK, that is your opinion of which you have every right. I still see religion as capable of bringing out the best and the worst in people – sometimes both in one – and believe that what doesn’t serve the well-being of humanity endangers it.

I am aware that there are numerous kinds of religion, which have some value for those who follow them, even if they are not considered valuable by others. I also understand that there are different types of scripture, methods and life-styles, which accompany these traditions. There are some neo-religions and some archaic. But there are also some which are dangerous, destructive and hateful. I’m not sure where you are taking us with your statement.

My task is not to choose which religions are good and bad for others, but to put forward a position about which we can talk. I haven’t used a hypothetical position, but my own experience and conclusion. There have been several replies up until now, each of them have been constructive and supportive, even if they criticise my position or give me another perspective. I think that we can all gain from such an exchange and I have no fixed opinion with which I intend to leave the room, but I do have an opinion with which I enter the room.

I agree that we all influence an open discussion by having a certain idea of what is good, but I fail to see that the people I have discussed with so far have an opposing opinion of what is bad for mankind. We seem to be all the opinion that seeing violence, oppression and malevolence as “evil” is less controversial than you seem to think.

22

The first thing that one should do in finding a peer is to be skeptical and having a disbelief in all, including himself. Prepare your mind to accept objective analysis, even if they are either agianst your previous perception or of the majority. Discern which peer and explanation seems close to your experience and follow that. But, never close the door for the anything new, and grasp it if seems better.

This may be a one time event or can happen many times. But, never hesitate repeating this process because that is the only way to eliminate unworthy alternatives.

Never fall for those who talk about mystism and use poetic language as an escape for simple and clear answer. They are either themselves confused or have nothing in them. The prime examples are Deepak Chopra, Jiddu Chrisnmurty and Osho. Deepak chopra is merely a good writer, who can use poetic language effectively but hollow from inside. Osho was simply an intellectual cheat. Jiddu was honest but confused as he was unable to cross that threshold, after which answers starts coming.

This is slightly complex.
Let me explain it through an old story from Hinduism.

There was a very learned and famous sage and people from all over used to come to him for religious guidance and teachings. The sage had a son, who is also very learned like his father. The son learned for years from is father and thought that now he knows all. So, he asked his father whether his learning, in both academic and spiritual sense, is completed or not. The sage told him that he (father) taught him all he knew but the last lesson is still uncomplete and he (son) would have to go to the king to kearn that.

The son became surprised because, as his father being considered the wisest, still he(father) is ashing him to learn from the King, who used to be engaged in materialistic life. Nevertheless, the son obeyed his father and went to the king. The king welcomed him and asked the purpose of the visit. The son explained, the king smiled and asked him to relax and have a good time in the palace.

Some days passed, the son asked many times about the last lesson but the king averted the issue all the time. At last, the son lost his patience and asked the king that he had enough and want to leave. The king again smiled and said" OK, you can leave by tomorrow".

The morning came and the son went to the King’s room to ask his permission to leave. Entering the room, he saw that the beautiful wifes of the king are offering him wine and fruits, sitting in his lap and around. The son cursed his father how he (father) forced him to come here to learn from such a sensualist person. Then, all of a sudden, he smelled something burning and saw that the a foot of the King was on the fire and it was litterlally burning. He became surprised and looked at the face of the king again. The king was still enjoying with his wifes.

The son stood there for a moment and suddenly realized why his father sent him to learn from the king. He fell at the feet of the king and asked forgiveness for his ill-perception.

So, the moral of the story is that, one has to be indifferent even in alien circumstances and follow his very way. It is easy for the monks to be pure, free from sin and engage themselves with spirituality because there is nothing to distract them from doing and being so in the woods. Their requirements are minimum because they do not have the responsibility of the family.

But, it is very difficult for a normal person to maintain the same standerds, living in the society and having family. Thus, the spiritual engagement done by a normal person worths far more than a monk. That is the only reason why Buddhist monks are supposed to live in the society for some time after the completion their spiritual course.

One should be noble and good by heart and indifferent in all circumstances, not just by lack of chances. That is termed as Detachment or just be there in Buddhism and Rajyog in Vedanta.

As i said in the last post, there is nothing wrong in simple worship and devotion, as it is also a meditation. But, the only condition is, all that should come straight from the heart, not merely mouth. So, when you worship, the whole of yourself should be involved in that. Otherwise, it would become a mere ritual, thus lose its purpose.

The key is again concentration here. If you are honest and concentrated, then a simple payer to your God of faith may earn you the same results that a sage may have in the Himalayas. The technicalities matter only in last stages. And, when one reaches there, destiny shows the path in one way or other.

But, the problem here is that the prayer does not come right from the heart, unless and untill, one does not have the deep faith. And again, the desired level of the faith cannot be manifested, unless and until, one does not have some personal evidence. Borrowed faith cannot convert payer into meditation.

That is why devotion fails.
And, that is why one has to follow the methodology of meditaion to gather some initial evidence, in order to manifest required level of faith.
Once that happes, the journey starts.

Namate to you also,
with love,
sanjay

23

Do you mean Jiddu Krishnamurti?

This guy?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

24

Yes, this very person.
I spelled him wrongly. My apologies for that.

with love,
sanjay

25

Um, the fact that you don’t yet know how to spell his name might be a clue that you’re not ready to review his work in public, come to conclusions etc. I’ve been reading his work for over 40 years, and have to report to readers your analysis of Krishnamurti is just plain goofy.

I can’t comment on the other fellows you mention, perhaps you are right about them, I really don’t know.

Don’t mean to hijack the thread, so I’ll leave it there.

26

Sounds about the way I would go ahead. My wife is like this and probably my best peer, since our 37 years together has been a magical mystery tour. She has always been the skeptic and I was the one who let things roll out, since you often just have to give people or situations time and/or space and you see the true nature quite quickly. But she was often right at the outset.

I have only read one book by Depak Chopra and the others I know only by name. The book didn’t particularly interest me. I found the Christian Mystics to be more profound and also that they had the depth in their words. A German theologian, unknown abroad, wrote several books on Mysticism and Prayer which really sold well, but which found a lot of criticism among orthodox Christians. I found his insights very helpful in my work with my residents, especially in the terminal phase.

Or, you can learn in any circumstances if you are open to the lesson, rather than being disturbed by the circumstances. This is a lesson which I learned early on and where I have often been ahead of my peers in recognising important aspects of issues or rising problems. My old boss said that I was a natural analyst …

But, it is very difficult for a normal person to maintain the same standerds, living in the society and having family. Thus, the spiritual engagement done by a normal person worths far more than a monk. That is the only reason why Buddhist monks are supposed to live in the society for some time after the completion their spiritual course.

Yes, many have been more concerned with technicalities than with content. I have known Christians who could tell me where any verse is in the Bible, but when you spoke to them about the connection between various verses, they were at a loss. It has been this almost bodily hearing, listening or feeling that has often singled me out in the groups I have been in. However, feeling rather than reading has been scorned. Of course it was also in my preaching – but that was OK apparently, and I was even called evangelist…

The “chamber experience” is how I refer to what Christ called prayer and to me it is a prayer from the heart to the heart – Atman to Brahman – it is the same nature as God. Learning to meditate and live mindfully had a big effect on my prayer, and it was less me sounding off, as me listening … and perceiving the whisper of the divine … at least that is what I have felt it was …

27

Jazz,

That is a childish argument.
Is my knowledge of the English language is the subject of discussion here?

And, let me tell you also that i can spell his name very well, actually better than the most members, because i can write and pronounce his name exactly as it is supposed to be done in Hindi.
And, by the way, you will be surprised to know that even Krishamurty is not exactly how it should be written. To be more precise, it is actually impossible to write his exact name in English, because Hindi has more vowels (10) and consonants (37) and these additional ketters have no counterparts in English.
So, my only mistake was that i did not go for the established version.

You have every right to say that but you must understand the context.

We are talking about religions and spirituality here. More particularly, Bob is interested in specifics, practicals and practices of spirituality. In this context, Krishnamurty has nothing to offer that can help or guide Bob. But remember, i am not saying that he is bad or stupid guy. I have deep praise for his honesty.

Krishnamurty was an honest intellectual, or philosopher, one can say, who encontered with some spiritual experiences in his initial life. But, he did not make any progress in that field. He did not even try to find out the explanation of his experiences throughout his life.

Perhaps, you may have read more of him than me. I can accept that. But, whatever moreor less i have read him, i do not see any ontological explanations ever coming from his side.

I do not get impressed by this grand notions of absolute calmness, spiritual union with eternity etc. To me, it is simple spiritual rethoric, which is used either by cons or those, who are unable to paetrate enough to find the explanations.

If you can show me anything worthy, i am still ready to change my opinion about him.

with love,
sanjay

28

No. It’s your knowledge of Jiddu Krishnamurti, which appears to be entirely uniformed. On other topics I’m sure you know your stuff, but not on that one.

29

Jazz,

If i am uninformed about him, it is your intellectual duty to update and correct my information. Because, it is you who refuted me.

And, believe me, i am ready to hear and do not have any problem in changing my perception, if i ever come across with valid reasons.

But, you have to be really good at that.

with love,
sanjay

30

Odds are in the favor of that.
As a thumb rule, females are wiser than men. They know what should be done or not.
But, at the same time, they (females) are less innovative and intelligent.

I cannot comment without going through.
But, personal experiences and explanations are always better than heard ones.

Yes.
That is the cornerstone of the most of Hindu schools (including Buddhism) and also of Sufism.
Do not induge more than is required, be a spectator, and let the events go through you.

The key here is to strike the right balance between involvement and detachment. Excess of either of those may cause trouble in one way or other.

In the past, the east focussed more on detachment than required, thus paid the price by being left behind in science, wealth and dominance.
Of late, west is focussing far more on involvement than required, thus paying the price on the front of mental harmony and peace.

I have heard of this “Chamber experience” but not aware of the finer details.

I do not know what have you done or felt, but I can offer something from my experience. This can be done by anyone, irrespective of one’s belief, faith and ideology, even the question of thiesm/atheism does not come in between, because it is merely a mental exercise.

Devote half an hour to yourself daily. When you go to the bed in the night, after finishing all your work, Just lay down calmly for some seconds there on the bed and close your eyes. Let some breaths go in and out smoothly then try to remember what you did in the whole day from waking up till the bed. Start from the event one, whether important or not. Then try to remember your state of mind while doing different actions, like whether you had a fight with your boss or employees, love or quarrel with you spouse, etc. Go in the details and try to see the motives behind your actions, examine your frame of mind doing a particular action, and, also try to judge whether your actions and intentions were right or not, and then sleep. No need to push hard at it. Keep is easy and simple.

Make it a routine and you will see the change in yourself even within 2-3 months. Your mindset would change and you would able to get such a insight about yourself which you never experienced before. If you would be able to do that for two years regularly, without any interruption, then your mind would start telling you about your actions even in the day.

This is to say that even prior to doing anything, as soon as you think about doing something, a pop up window would immediately open on the screen of your mind and would tell you what you are doing, why you are doing this, what would its implications and whether it is in virtue or not. You would start getting warning signals from your subconscious mind.

And, if you keep doing this 10 years and beyond, then you would able to see through the minds of other persons also to some extent. You would be successfully able to judge what the other person is thinking and how would he think or react in any particular situation.

Furthermore, it looks very simple, but it is not. It would be somewhat thrilling for some initial days, but, sooner or later, that moment would come when your mind would refuse to stick to it and tells you quietly that let us bunk it today. And, if you fall in the trap, it would argue more profoundly next day for avoiding it by telling you that you have some more important things to think about, so why engage in this useless exercise! And, if you make a gap of some days, then you have to start all over again.

Just remember two things. Never open your eyes doing so otherwise that system would not be activated and eat slightly less at dinner to avoid falling asleep immediately.

Up to here, all this has nothing to do with spirituality or any faith or religion. It is merely a warming up exercise, just like all sportspersons use to have some jogging and skipping to loosen and warm up their bodies before engaging fully with their respective sport.

with love,
sanjay

31

What I see here is the humanIST perspective. Those are very different things!

I know what I mean. We don’t know what we mean because we likely don’t mean the same thing. From a logical perspective negative propositions are no better than positive ones. If you can’t say what something is, you can’t say what it’s not either. But even where I’m sympathetic to what you’re saying, the Eastern Orthodox Church has an ineffable God grounded in a common understanding and tradition. Saying “The God who Resurrected Jesus from the dead is fundamentally unknowable” is one thing. Saying “the…thingy which I propose all religions are referring to when they talk about…whatever the most important thing in their religion is, is unknowable”. I can identify the Christian God through what He did and what the significance of His existence means for humans, and his unknowableness is primarily academic- keeps the theologians from getting ahead of themselves. You seem to be proposing an entity that you then go on to say we can’t know anything about. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, why say anything in that case?

So you don’t want to say which religions are good and bad for others. But you DO want to say which religions are dangerous, destructive, and hateful. Are you implying that dangerous, destructive and hateful things are necessarily bad, or are you talking out both sides of your mouth here?

If you think there’s some great consensus about what’s evil and what isn’t, why did you stick evil in scare quotes?

32

I think you wouldn’t find agreement with this in Europe or the USA. I think I would also have to have proof of that. Having said that, I do think that there is a tendency in behaviour that could have women focus more on pragmatic aspects and men tend to be always trying to “improve” things - even though they often achieve the opposite.

Yes, this has been something which I have paid more attention to since including buddhist traditions in my studies, and I have included it in my practise since 2011. I find that Christians and Moslems (or those influenced by Christianity and Islam) in my neighbourhood tend to have a great deal of trouble with the idea, and yet it is an area where we are very vulnerable. The balance is, as you say, the key.

I have probably taken the phrase from somewhere and applied it to the contemplation practise whereby verses of the “Lord’s Prayer” are spoken as mantras, though not chanted but in a reflective manner. Afterwards I meditate in silence. I have, however, used other texts and sources in the same manner. This is a breakaway from the way I had been taught to read scripture, but I found it helpful and it is the reason why I still regard myself to some degree as a practising Christian. It is just that I haven’t restricted myself to contemporary orthodoxy.

This reminds me of serveral methods taught as leading up to mindfulness meditation, there are also various Yoga exercises involved, the sum of which takes up a lot of time and which I tend to push into the evening.

It sounds an intersting practise, I’ll try it and tell you in 10 years what the effects were :wink:

Namaste

33

Um, no. It is your duty to educate yourself about things you wish to speak to.

34

There is the poster who says : you are wrong, educate yourself.

And there is the poster who says : you are mistaken, look at this…

35

And then there is the poster who already linked him to the Wikipedia page where his education on a particular topic might begin. :slight_smile:

36

Jazz,

I have been read not only wiki page about him, but a lot of other stuff, and that even long ago before i mentioned him in this thread. This is also true about two other persons also, whom i named along with him.
But still, i did not find anything such that would change my opinion.

Of course, i may be mistaken. No denying.
And, that is precisely why i am repeatedly asking you inform me how i am wrong.

with love,
sanjay

37

So Christians are not interested in or concerned for human welfare, values, and dignity? Strange, you’d think they would, considering that God is love! However, it is quite apparent that at the start, critical thinking and evidence-based enquiry had a hard time with established doctrine or faith, although both said that they represented the truth.

The case for God isn’t something that I deny, however, in the book of the same title by Karen Armstrong, she writes about apophatic theology and intellectualism versus practice. She claims that the fundamental reality, later called God, Brahman, nirvana or Tao, transcends human concepts and thoughts, and can only be known through devoted religious practice, which is really the crux of the matter. This is where I have had my biggest struggles.

The majority of those Christians who opposed my practise and didn’t want to allow me to talk about it, were “Book-Christians”. Their God was in effect a literary phenomenon and they are glued to the pages. They mistrust practise as an area where the devil could intervene and so they remain with the letter rather than with the spirit. The fact that my practise produced deeds, which were obviously altruistic, was incidental to them, although this does seem to have protected me against all too harsh a criticism.

I had visions and dreams that I didn’t understand, and Christians were wary of anything of the kind if it didn’t have me shouting hallelujah. My enquiry was shunned by many, and others tried to disqualify my visions against theirs, talking of tongues and the like. I didn’t consider my visions and dreams as anything that raised me in any way, but I felt that God was speaking, if not I words, then in pictures. I was getting some message or insight it seemed. Today I know that this isn’t uncommon for someone as deeply involved with religious practise as I was at the time.

Those who claimed to have had spiritual experiences through various types of practise I questioned as to the difference between their experience and anybody else’s experience using different practises. That is, why do they see their practise as better than a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Moslem for example? Fortunately there are groups of Christians who meditate, practise centring prayer and who are prepared to see their religious practise as one of many possibilities. What makes Christianity so exclusive?

I came out of this phase, after many conversations with people of various traditions, realising that it was a matter of fact that, as varying the traditions are culturally and aesthetically, whether they had one or many gods, whether there were saviours or prophets, there was a basic human trait at the bottom of it all. We all revered something that was as unfathomable and elusive as love and hope, some ineffable absolute which may be no thing and evades our understanding.

I used quotation marks (“scare quotes” is your term) because I find that the word evil carries excess baggage and I prefer to use the words, “violence, oppression and malevolence” to describe what others call evil.

I do not say “which” religions are dangerous, destructive, and hateful, but I do say that we should be wary of religions that are like that. But I think that is quite clear to the majority of people …

38

I guess you don’t know what humanism means, or what I meant when I said it. Ok.

 And as a result of you doing what you did, you don't call yourself a Christian anymore. 

 So how can you say they were wrong?  They were worried your practices were anti-Christian and worked counter to their faith. You proved they were right- you are a classic example of the exact reason why they opposed you- you ignored the book to chase your visions and intuitions, it led you in directions that are profoundly anti-Christian [i]just like they probably warned you, and the people around you[/i], and as a result you've become what they would call a New Age spiritualist.  It seems to me the only thing they were wrong about was in associating your actions with the demonic, and really, [i]how do you know?[/i]

So, anybody who sees their religion as exclusive is doing their religion wrong. Among the remaining people who’s experiences you are willing to consider, you find amazing consensus. Do you see what’s happening here? You are disregarding anybody who does something that doesn’t jive with your intuitions, looking at those who agree with your intuitions, then concluding that there are a bunch of people who agree with your intuitions. :confused:

Except for those people and traditions who claim the opposite, who are the vast majority of religious people and religious traditions, but they don't count because they are bad.

Your point was to say that there is consensus that these things are evil. But you yourself are uncomfortable calling anything evil, and want to distance yourself from those who do.

Got it.

Are you running for political office? You define what makes a religion bad, refuse to say which ones, but do it with a sly wink knowing the right people will know which religions you mean. Why behave in this way?

39

Bob can you please define spiritual?

40

I know that you have the tendency to disregard the majority of what I tell you in favour of following your own agenda, but isn’t it strange that “the only thing they were wrong about was in associating your actions with the demonic” is so unimportant? Being told about neighbours who allegedly literally “sour the milk”, by people who advised me not to listen when I was taught psychology, who told theology students to “close their ears” to aspects of their studies, who interpreted a whole range of incidents as “devilish”, whereas in fact anybody could see that very often it was a case of other people reacting to their own brand of superstition and anxiety – these are all things which I continue to find going on, and in the meanwhile there are numerous people from these groups who have become depressive, apathetic, been in psychiatric therapy, are completely unable to cope with their jobs and who circle around their own belly-button.

Others are outwardly humble but in their group they rule with an iron hand, shouting down people with questions, throwing the book at people who doubt, bully people with a weak self-esteem, and all the time, these people are rumbling examples of inner-conflict whose children flee from the household once they reach adulthood, if they can. I have, in my job as care manager, had such people come to me because they needed my services. They grovelled, although I tried to tell them it was not necessary, and that we would take in their relatives, they revealed the whole range of mental incapacity that they had hidden by their assertive behaviour in the past, and when they had what they wanted, they tried to treat the nursing staff in the way they treat members of their own parish.

When I discovered that one of these people had dementia, still early on in his illness, I attempted to be discrete and also show where help could be found. I was then subjected to animosity up until the person became so incapacitated, that it was no longer possible to doubt that I had been right. Of course the behaviour then changed to just simply avoiding me, since I was hard to ignore in a small town with few elderly homes. When the person died, it was deemed to be an example of martyrdom in the face of the devil, “but he retained the faith until the end!” The man didn’t know who he was, or who anybody was, but typically for the illness, was reduced to a dribbling wreck – but it was I who was misguided in the minds of these people.

Of course, you can call me names, but from the nursing aspect, I try to compensate where these people fall down, where they are lacking physical or mental competence, and I try to encourage them to lead the lives they want to lead. I even support people in their habits if I feel they are doing themselves a disservice. This is the aspect of equanimity that I learned from Buddhism, which has helped me help them, and often changed their minds. In my capacity as a nurse, I noticed that the relationship changed dramatically, that the criticism was thrown overboard and pious people actually told me that they had been wrong to think certain things of me (otherwise I might have never known those things).

At the same time, I was someone who worked very close with Pastors who specialised in elderly care, with whom I have had a very close relationship and who, because of our common experience in this area, tend to be unusually open for the spiritual possibilities that mankind has developed. I have worked on retreats for people in honorary positions and volunteers, spoken in situations when others have broken down to people suffering great loss. I have read or spoken the prayers of people of numerous traditions to the dying, according to their own disposition, including humanist texts to those of no spiritual tradition. I simply feel that I am “blessed” in my work, as some would say, and many people – including pious ones – have told me as much. This is such a contradiction to what those I have mentioned above have said, although I have no feeling of loss, or even resentment, but I do warn people of the dangers I see.

I don’t think this will change anything, but perhaps you can see that my experience in this field has me concerned for my fellow human beings, who go through such experiences without any chance of making a comparison and choosing a different path. I know that this makes me heretic

but there you go.