Transcendent vs Secular Interfaith

[Nick_A]

Yes, and it is ever so. Feel good spirituality is in all faiths, all religions. But here's the thing, it is what people want.

It may be what people want but the ancients say it is because we are unawakened. Have you noticed that no one has mentioned the necessary quality for wisdom on the wisdom thread which is the necessity to "Know Thyself."

Secular Interfaith is content to "Imagine oneself" in the context of societal norms while those seeking the reality of Transcendent Interfaith are compelled to "Know thyself" at the expense of our self justifications. This is very difficult..

If interested, read this article by Jacob Needleman on inner empiricism. It would be necessary for anyone attracted to awakening necessary for a transcendent path. Society concerns itself with the quality of scientific method that produces outer empiricism but what of the quality of our inner world? Society encourages us to adopt the approved memes but wisdom by definition requires opening to reality. IMO this is the psychology of the future and was the psychology of the ancient past. It is forgotten in these times since :"Know Thyself" is the study of our "being" and how many even know what human "being" is anymore.

Needleman, Inner Empiricism

 

[Paladin]

An interesting article Nick. A nice bridge to eastern thought from western ideas, but a bit dated. Nonetheless a very important step as progress is made on ones spiritual path. There are very few people I encounter who can daily take an honest look at their own thoughts and behavior without some kind of justification. The worst I'm afraid are those steeped in the beginnings of religion. The mindset here is that if you have not an inner call or outer dogma your plight is terrible.
Once freed from that level of thinking, the seeker becomes the mystic, and believe it or not there is another step to take, but it is a terrifying yet beautiful one. One of complete freedom.

 

[Nick_A]

An interesting article Nick. A nice bridge to eastern thought from western ideas, but a bit dated. Nonetheless a very important step as progress is made on ones spiritual path. There are very few people I encounter who can daily take an honest look at their own thoughts and behavior without some kind of justification. The worst I'm afraid are those steeped in the beginnings of religion. The mindset here is that if you have not an inner call or outer dogma your plight is terrible.
Once freed from that level of thinking, the seeker becomes the mystic, and believe it or not there is another step to take, but it is a terrifying yet beautiful one. One of complete freedom.

Are you willing to admit that you are the "wretched man" as Paul did in Romans 7? Are you willing to admit as did Socrates that "I know nothing and Lao as well?

To know how little one knows is to have genuine knowledge.
Not to know how little one knows is to be deluded.
Only he who knows when he is deluded can free himself from such delusion.
The intelligent man is not deluded, because he knows and accepts his ignorance as ignorance, and thereby has genuine knowledge. - Lao Tsu; Tao Te Ching

Secular Interfaith has exchanges about what we believe we know. Transcendent Interfaith has come to the realization that these three men did. Instead of deciding on PC speech designed to avoid the question, Transcendent Interfaith is open to a cooperative effort to understand human nature, why it is as it is, and how to experience the transcendent truths which are really the same for all.

 

[Paladin]

Are you willing to admit that you are the "wretched man" as Paul did in Romans 7? Are you willing to admit as did Socrates that "I know nothing and Lao as well?

Perhaps someday I can take the time to relate to you why this is so, for now I will just nod my head in agreement.

Secular Interfaith has exchanges about what we believe we know. Transcendent Interfaith has come to the realization that these three men did. Instead of deciding on PC speech designed to avoid the question, Transcendent Interfaith is open to a cooperative effort to understand human nature, why it is as it is, and how to experience the transcendent truths which are really the same for all.

Absolutely Nick. I have been watching the human race for nigh on 49 years now, and have had a love-hate relationship with it. Only lately have I begun to understand even a little of why they do what they do. Of their evil, I am non-different, of their goodness I am swept along, and I suspect that there really is no you and me, just consciousness happening like blades of grass, only apparently different when viewed above ground.

 

[Nick_A]

Perhaps someday I can take the time to relate to you why this is so, for now I will just nod my head in agreement.



Absolutely Nick. I have been watching the human race for nigh on 49 years now, and have had a love-hate relationship with it. Only lately have I begun to understand even a little of why they do what they do. Of their evil, I am non-different, of their goodness I am swept along, and I suspect that there really is no you and me, just consciousness happening like blades of grass, only apparently different when viewed above ground.

I think I know what you mean. I remember when I had my inner ass kicked. If it would have been the usual regular life ego experience I would have grumbled. But in this case, though I experienced my nothingness, there was no insult but only gratitude that there was sense to all this.

 

[Nick_A]

Secular Interfaith asserts that we are all right and we just create our own reality. People don't want to accept this so argue about who is right and who is wrong. Nothing more annoying than equality.

Transcendent Interfaith realizes that we are all in delusion on the exoteric so all equally wrong. This is very insulting. Imagine a convention of feel good representatives of various paths patting each other on the back being told by some kid delivering pizza that they were all wrong. They would look concdescendingly at this apparent naive youth but the kid would be closer to the truth.

 

[bananabrain]

Fool's gold is the imagination and self justifications of secular Interfaith

or opaque, overblown rhetoric masquerading as philosophy.

while transcendent Interfaith refers to the actualization of human potential, real gold, hidden within all the great religious traditions initiating from a conscious source.

sounds to me like the oft-noted agreeing of mystics.

Transcendent interfaith principles say that religion is great. Secular interfaith says that my religion is better than your religion. We have seen some recent, horrible name-calling on this Forum, where some people think that other people who disagre with them are stupid. We can only hope that such people can make the transition to transcendent interfaith principles.

because *some* religion is great it doesn't necessarily follow that *all* religion is great. i also find it quite nonsensical, not to mention unpleasant, when people presume to make insulting blanket remarks and accusations about religions that they clearly don't know anything about, or when the facts and evidence are in contradiction. take, for example, falsely accusing modern catholics of wanting to burn people who disagree with them.

Transcendent Interfaith is aware of the necessity of the help of grace from above.

whilst presumably not ignoring the necessity of "arousal from below" to assist in the "arousal from above". and, of course, not drawing facile comparisons between christian concepts of "grace" and the idea that G!D is in some way helping the function of the universe.

The higher on the esoteric level, the less the division between the paths.

perhaps on the level at which some kind of mystical union is taking place. however, the varieties of mystical experience cannot be accessed by negating the value of the individual path. everyone i'm aware of who has progressed to a high level of esoteric awareness has done so by hard work. the dalai lama didn't get to be who he is by "transcendent interfaith", or by saying that esoteric buddhism was the same as esoteric christianity. he did it by having an exclusively tibetan buddhist upbringing and a lifelong commitment to that way of life and the study of its sacred texts.

I'm just trying to make the difference between the transcendent and secular perspectives.

except the more you try to define it, the more it seems to look like "secular" is becoming a catch-all for "stuff i dislike" and "transcendent" is becoming a similar catch-all for "stuff i like which i believe simone weil has said something about". a welter of congealed pseudo-mystical fluffery doesn't get one very far as a precise, practical technique.

she is one of the few voices that truly understood the union of science and religion and are able to communicate it in a special way since for her it is experiential rather than theoretical.

what, you mean she actually did controlled experiments under laboratory conditions? because if she didn't, i don't think her vaunted scientific credentials are up to much. i am of course open to evidence to the contrary.

Have you noticed that no one has mentioned the necessary quality for wisdom on the wisdom thread which is the necessity to "Know Thyself."

see, now you've gone and cracked me up.

Imagine a convention of feel good representatives of various paths patting each other on the back being told by some kid delivering pizza that they were all wrong. They would look concdescendingly at this apparent naive youth but the kid would be closer to the truth.

only if he was, in *fact*, closer to the truth. the mere fact of his naiveté and pizza-delivery credentials might not qualify him 100%.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Paladin]

You mean all those pizzas I've eaten haven't gotten me nearer to enlightenment? Oh well, at least I have put a few delivery guys through college

 

[seattlegal]

You mean all those pizzas I've eaten haven't gotten me nearer to enlightenment? Oh well, at least I have put a few delivery guys through college

Make me one with everything?

 

[Nick_A]

BB

whilst presumably not ignoring the necessity of "arousal from below" to assist in the "arousal from above". and, of course, not drawing facile comparisons between christian concepts of "grace" and the idea that G!D is in some way helping the function of the universe.

Not at all. The quality of metaxu within any society is of great importance for developing individuality. But who knows what it means anymore?

perhaps on the level at which some kind of mystical union is taking place. however, the varieties of mystical experience cannot be accessed by negating the value of the individual path. everyone i'm aware of who has progressed to a high level of esoteric awareness has done so by hard work. the dalai lama didn't get to be who he is by "transcendent interfaith", or by saying that esoteric buddhism was the same as esoteric christianity. he did it by having an exclusively tibetan buddhist upbringing and a lifelong commitment to that way of life and the study of its sacred texts

.


Hard work yes but many people work hard and end up in an institution. How to work requires an understanding of human being which all paths will have as they progress along the esoteric vertical direction.

Secular simply means the conditioned life as opposed to the transcendent vertical dimension that can lead to conscious individuality.

only if he was, in *fact*, closer to the truth. the mere fact of his naiveté and pizza-delivery credentials might not qualify him 100%

You underestimate people of service. What are the proper credentials for a human being to recognize the "Great beast?"

 

[Nick_A]

You mean all those pizzas I've eaten haven't gotten me nearer to enlightenment? Oh well, at least I have put a few delivery guys through college

You don't think it is possible to further the course of enlightenment by eating pizza? Before inviting the usual one liners, I might as well let Buddhism explain what I mean. Could we profit from eating pizza mindfully?

Mindful Eating: Thich Nhat Hanh Discusses Mindful Eating

 

[DrFree]

Maybe someone else did also but i invented it from necessity. After becoming familiar with the transcendent unity of religions, it became obvious that it was impossible on the exoteric or secular level and human nature being what it is would just result in more harm than good. I use the term secular Interfaith and its concepts of unity to distinguish from The Transcendent Unity of Religions

An interesting distinction, Nick, but it seems to have led, both in this thread and others, to a polarizing interpretation, as though people interested in interfaith activity have to gravitate towards one pole or the other.

I myself find both poles uncomfortable. The idea of a Transcendent Unity of Religions, i.e., that religions are at heart the same, implying that religious disputes are over trivial issues, seems to demean all of the fervent religious study that has led to those differences. On the other hand, your "secular interfaith" seems to dismiss efforts by people engaged in interfaith work as essential non-religious.

It seems to me that we have to begin with the recognition that there are important differences between religions on core issues. Trying to smooth those differences over by some formula as "we all believe in God" (and that is just an example), even if it were true, overlooks the radical differences in the way that common God is described in the various religions.

But the fact that you and I might disagree firmly about certain religion ideas, need not render our interfaith work purely secular.

It seems to me that the spirit of interfaith presumes a decision to accept what we might call the Universalist Hypothesis.

As you may know, before their merger with Unitarians to form UU, Universalists were a separate branch of Christianity. Their key doctrine was that everyone is saved, no one goes to hell. Starr King, who was ordained as both a unitarian and a universalist minister, quipped that Universalists believe that God is too good to damn anyone to hell, while Unitarians believe that they are too good to be damned.

Although I consider myself a universalist, I'm not inclined to go along with the interpretation of this principle that says we are all going to heaven. What I do believe is that the seeds of salvation are available within every religion, that no one needs to give up his or her religion and adopt another in order to be saved. One of those seeds is the Golden Rule, which I discussed in more depth in Interfaith as a Faith.

But for our purposes here, I suggest that non-secular interfaith activity requires only a limited version of the Universalist Hypothesis: the fact that you and I disagree passionately about some article of faith, does not, by itself, may either of us a bad person.

In Universalist language, this is assertion that God is too good to damn someone merely because that person is mistaken in what he believes about God or in his religious practice.

In practical terms what this hypothesis means is that I can associate and work with them, without being contaminated or corrupted or sinful.

I can work or go to school with them (a purely secular activity).

I can engage in community support activities, such as helping the needy (a somewhat secular activity commonly done by all religions).

I can engage in religious dialog with them, thereby

• learning more about the history and sociology of religion,
• learning that I have been mistaken about the nature of their religion, and allaying my fear and distrust of them,
• learning that there are many aspects of our respective religions on which we both agree,
• learning more about my own religion, refining and improving my own faith.

The Universalist Hypothesis is that I can do all these things and still be true to my faith. I don't stop believing in my faith; I don't stop disagreeing with you on key articles of our respective faiths. (You're still mistaken, but I like you anyway!)

So I suggest that interfaith activity can split the horns of your dilemma between pure secularism and transcendent unity.

Namaste

 

[Nick_A]

An interesting distinction, Nick, but it seems to have led, both in this thread and others, to a polarizing interpretation, as though people interested in interfaith activity have to gravitate towards one pole or the other.

I myself find both poles uncomfortable. The idea of a Transcendent Unity of Religions, i.e., that religions are at heart the same, implying that religious disputes are over trivial issues, seems to demean all of the fervent religious study that has led to those differences. On the other hand, your "secular interfaith" seems to dismiss efforts by people engaged in interfaith work as essential non-religious.

It seems to me that we have to begin with the recognition that there are important differences between religions on core issues. Trying to smooth those differences over by some formula as "we all believe in God" (and that is just an example), even if it were true, overlooks the radical differences in the way that common God is described in the various religions.

But the fact that you and I might disagree firmly about certain religion ideas, need not render our interfaith work purely secular.

It seems to me that the spirit of interfaith presumes a decision to accept what we might call the Universalist Hypothesis.

As you may know, before their merger with Unitarians to form UU, Universalists were a separate branch of Christianity. Their key doctrine was that everyone is saved, no one goes to hell. Starr King, who was ordained as both a unitarian and a universalist minister, quipped that Universalists believe that God is too good to damn anyone to hell, while Unitarians believe that they are too good to be damned.

Although I consider myself a universalist, I'm not inclined to go along with the interpretation of this principle that says we are all going to heaven. What I do believe is that the seeds of salvation are available within every religion, that no one needs to give up his or her religion and adopt another in order to be saved. One of those seeds is the Golden Rule, which I discussed in more depth in Interfaith as a Faith.

But for our purposes here, I suggest that non-secular interfaith activity requires only a limited version of the Universalist Hypothesis: the fact that you and I disagree passionately about some article of faith, does not, by itself, may either of us a bad person.

In Universalist language, this is assertion that God is too good to damn someone merely because that person is mistaken in what he believes about God or in his religious practice.

In practical terms what this hypothesis means is that I can associate and work with them, without being contaminated or corrupted or sinful.

I can work or go to school with them (a purely secular activity).

I can engage in community support activities, such as helping the needy (a somewhat secular activity commonly done by all religions).

I can engage in religious dialog with them, thereby

• learning more about the history and sociology of religion,
• learning that I have been mistaken about the nature of their religion, and allaying my fear and distrust of them,
• learning that there are many aspects of our respective religions on which we both agree,
• learning more about my own religion, refining and improving my own faith.

The Universalist Hypothesis is that I can do all these things and still be true to my faith. I don't stop believing in my faith; I don't stop disagreeing with you on key articles of our respective faiths. (You're still mistaken, but I like you anyway!)

So I suggest that interfaith activity can split the horns of your dilemma between pure secularism and transcendent unity.

Namaste

Hello DrFree

A free doctor. Mine sends me bills. There should be more like you.

I know it is a polarizing issue but if it weren't the foolish battles that have killed so many wouldn't have happened. I really don't know the solution but the best I can conclude is that we need more individuals capable of not being part of the crowd or as Plato and Simone Weil would say, part of the Great Beast.

I myself find both poles uncomfortable. The idea of a Transcendent Unity of Religions, i.e., that religions are at heart the same, implying that religious disputes are over trivial issues, seems to demean all of the fervent religious study that has led to those differences. On the other hand, your "secular interfaith" seems to dismiss efforts by people engaged in interfaith work as essential non-religious.

I agree that this is extremely insulting but what if it is true? Suppose the Buddhist parable of the Burning House is correct and we are fools fighting in a burning house? Do we just ignore it because it is not politically correct to express or are some able to retain the humility necessary to see that we are fools. We see it in others but to admit it in ourselves is not so easy. Socrates said he knew nothing and look what happened to him.

I have nothing against the secular and in fact I agree with Simone's explanation as to the value of "metaxu" which Plato referred to and I understood better through Simone.

Luke 20

20Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
23He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24"Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"
25"Caesar's," they replied.
He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." 26They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

This IMO is the proper relationship between the secular and transcendent. We mix it up. This tendency I believe is one of the most important reasons religions are used to justify wars.
Giving to Caesar includes secular Humanism and various Interfaith beliefs. It strives to make Caesar's domain a better place. There is no reason to be against this in theory. In practice we know that we are guided primarily by the need for prestige rather than following platitudes and if we feel our prestige denied, then there is hell to pay.

It seems to me that we have to begin with the recognition that there are important differences between religions on core issues. Trying to smooth those differences over by some formula as "we all believe in God" (and that is just an example), even if it were true, overlooks the radical differences in the way that common God is described in the various religions.

From the secular perspective this is true and if the secular perspective destroys itself, what value has the transcendent? Who is left to transcend? I agree then that people appreciating the acquired customs of others is a good thing. However, as is natural, during crisis, either real or imagined, people will defend their heritage and as usual all troubles will be the other guys fault.

Author Tony de Mello tells about a farmer who put an eagle's egg in a barnyard nest. The eaglet hatched and grew up thinking he was a chicken. He scratched for worms, clucked, and only flew a few feet into the air.
Years passed. The eagle grew old. One day he saw a magnificent bird circling above him. Awestruck, he asked, “Who is that?”
A chicken said, "That’s an eagle—the king of birds. He belongs to the sky. You and I belong to the earth."
The eagle believed the chicken, and he died a chicken.

This is the direction of the transcendent. The domain of the eagle is not the barnyard. There is nothing wrong with a healthy barnyard but if it is not quality of being that the transcendent leads Man to, attachment to it just keeps Man tied to the earth.

A transcendent truth is a conscious objective truth and by definition cannot have a subjective origin normal for secularized religion. Though Jesus explained that we have to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, in practice, without awakening to the transcendent vertical inner direction, it is impossible since we interpret everything from the barnyard perspective and the golden rule is though excellent for the barnyard is not always appreciated.

Suppose it is the eagles that are capable of either heaven or hell and the chickens just follow that natural cycle of dust to dust? It is a blow to our egos to consider ourselves unimportant as compared to the potential of human being so salvation for us is concerned with good seed, potential not worth destruction. We are the same but doesn't have the same meaning.

It is great that you are involved with the community and better Caesar's domain. The point of the thread is that there also is a transcendent direction of conscious human evolution that creates a quality of perspective beyond our conception that Man is drawn to as the source of human meaning and purpose.

You are right though that these ideas promote negative reactions in a great many. It cannot be helped if anyone is concerned for the minority opening to profit by them. so regardless of the growls, they must remain alive within Caesar's domain for those that begin to appreciate what Jesus meant and are concerned with how to do it.

 

[DrFree]

Nick,

I've read and reread your reply, and am still uncertain what you are trying to say. The only paragraph that seems to make a somewhat definite statement are

A transcendent truth is a conscious objective truth and by definition cannot have a subjective origin normal for secularized religion. Though Jesus explained that we have to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, in practice, without awakening to the transcendent vertical inner direction, it is impossible since we interpret everything from the barnyard perspective and the golden rule is though excellent for the barnyard is not always appreciated.

Are you saying that religion is essentially in the "transcendent", and what we do here on earth is essentially secular? Well, you are free to define your terms as you will, but I find such a thesis uninteresting.

Spirituality for me is expressed through love for one neighbors (and one's enemies) here and now on this earth. If you don't find it here and now, you won't find it later.

The more serious problem of transcendent religions is that so-called transcendent truths resist all attempts at logic or evidence or compromise. There is good empirical and theoretical evidence that natural systems, including human societies, are morally self-correcting: societies slowly (much too slowly) evolve away from destructive behavior. The exceptions are behaviors justified by reference to so-called transcendent truths that only terrorists seem to believe in.

No, thank you. I'll keep my natural religion, warts and all, and keep a wary eye on you who think you have some revealed source of transcendent truth.

Namaste

 

[Nick_A]

Nick,

I've read and reread your reply, and am still uncertain what you are trying to say. The only paragraph that seems to make a somewhat definite statement are

Are you saying that religion is essentially in the "transcendent", and what we do here on earth is essentially secular? Well, you are free to define your terms as you will, but I find such a thesis uninteresting.

Spirituality for me is expressed through love for one neighbors (and one's enemies) here and now on this earth. If you don't find it here and now, you won't find it later.

The more serious problem of transcendent religions is that so-called transcendent truths resist all attempts at logic or evidence or compromise. There is good empirical and theoretical evidence that natural systems, including human societies, are morally self-correcting: societies slowly (much too slowly) evolve away from destructive behavior. The exceptions are behaviors justified by reference to so-called transcendent truths that only terrorists seem to believe in.

No, thank you. I'll keep my natural religion, warts and all, and keep a wary eye on you who think you have some revealed source of transcendent truth.

Namaste

We think that since people are roughly the same on the outside that they are the same on the inside. We cannot appreciate the difference between conscious humanity and normal reactive humanity. A religion like Christianity that has a conscious origin exists at levels of understanding that match the different levels of being of humanity. The Christianity related to consciousness is different then the Christianity that exists as Christendom in the for us, normal secular world.

Spirituality for me is expressed through love for one neighbors (and one's enemies) here and now on this earth. If you don't find it here and now, you won't find it later.

And then we find that we cannot love our friends much less our enemies. For us, one minute we love and the next minute we don't. Love is not generated by us but rather is pulled through us by an external source. I remember participating in an experiment and it was fascinating for us to experience how this happens.

The more serious problem of transcendent religions is that so-called transcendent truths resist all attempts at logic or evidence or compromise.

The science of becoming able to "Know thyself" is very logical and has the same precision science defends. Do you compromise a scientific truth? Why then should a person becoming able to "Know thyself" compromise because it feels better. One has to decide if they want to "Know thyself" or "Imagine oneself." If you want to compromise with the truth it is better to avoid inner exploration since these compromises can lead to disastrous results.

No, thank you. I'll keep my natural religion, warts and all, and keep a wary eye on you who think you have some revealed source of transcendent truth.

It is safe to do so. I have a very suspicious heredity which has helped in this urge to discover human meaning and purpose outside the dictates of the "Great Beast."

 

[path_of_one]

We think that since people are roughly the same on the outside that they are the same on the inside. We cannot appreciate the difference between conscious humanity and normal reactive humanity. A religion like Christianity that has a conscious origin exists at levels of understanding that match the different levels of being of humanity.

I think what "we" must be careful to do is to define "we." Some people appreciate awakening in humanity and some do not; my own experience is that it is more a spectrum than two polar opposites. Further, while reactivity is common in humans, I would not call it normal, indicating a usual or "baseline" of human consciousness. We are taught to act in a reactive way, and moreso in some cultures than in others; it is not so much our foundation of consciousness as a forgetting of our consciousness. The more I've worked with young children, the more I feel this to be so.

Naturally, nearly any religion will have varied levels of understanding among practitioners, and what seems unfair but is evidently the case is that these varied levels of understanding stem not only from varied experience and upbringing, as well as access to teachers, but also from inherent personality and cognitive differences. All that said, I think it has nothing much to do with salvation, as I believe there is recognition on the part of the Divine of our inherent individual limitations. I believe in an essential equality that arises from the truth of our "selves," which is, I believe, that we are not "selves" at all. However, we are temporarily housed in bodies and minds that are diverse in capacity and experience, and so we most certainly appear to be unequal in our level of understanding and (quite naturally, given our brain's need to have an identity) most assume that their own understanding is superior to those of most others (or that their favored teachers' understandings are superior to the teachers of others). This is most unfortunate, because we can learn from anyone if we are open to it. Truth resides everywhere, and everywhere there is the opportunity to open up to loving-kindness.

And then we find that we cannot love our friends much less our enemies. For us, one minute we love and the next minute we don't. Love is not generated by us but rather is pulled through us by an external source. I remember participating in an experiment and it was fascinating for us to experience how this happens.

But who are "we"? I would propose that our brain's capacity for love is rather limited and fickle, but in our essence "we" are not our brains (or our minds). Who we are in spirit, in my experience, is united with the Divine One, whether we consciously recognize and cultivate this in our mind and body or not. The eternal moment, which exists in a pure state of beingness, exists regardless of our awareness of it in our current finite form. I would agree that to improve our constancy of love (as well as to make "love" into something truly meaningful, rather than just feel-good hormones), we must recognize and cultivate ourselves as non-selves... that is, to be vessels for that which truly IS (the Divine, the I AM), as opposed to insisting on our individual emotions, which would fail to develop constancy. This may feel like emptying the "self" to be filled by an external Divine source, but my own spiritual journey has led me to believe, through experiencing something quite different, that this is only one way to think of this process. The other way is that we are, as part of the Divine, becoming aware of it and then throwing off the shackles, the illusion, that we are limited in our capacity to love. Then, it is still the Divine in us, but it is not external, but rather was in us... indeed, WAS us, all along. This is not to say, "I am God," but rather to recognize that "I am nothing. I am merely a temporary illusion created by God, and only God is real within me." For me, it is an acceptance of the limitations of my brain and body, while recognizing that if I cultivate, moment by moment, the awareness that I am not me, but rather only God truly exists, then I can transcend these limitations, becoming ever more a vessel for that which truly exists without bogging it down by my insistence on the illusion of myself.

One has to decide if they want to "Know thyself" or "Imagine oneself." If you want to compromise with the truth it is better to avoid inner exploration since these compromises can lead to disastrous results.

The problem is, of course, that what will be knowledge of myself to me will be utter nonsense to another, and vice versa. Inner exploration is great, but it is still possible to pretend to explore one's interior without the openness or readiness to actually do so. No person can define for another, with any logic or evidence, the truthfulness of another's inner exploration. I find all of the effort to do so without relevance. Each person is on a spiritual journey, and all I can do is be on my own and be willing to be a vessel for love, willing to give when others need and willing to listen to the Divine. That is enough of a difficult endeavor, requiring (so far) more vigilance than I have, but I persist out of both hope and faith, and out of the logical observations of growth in my own life. That others may see me as devolving or grossly wrong is irrelevant to me, as I must follow what I experience in the Spirit. In recognizing this, I also recognize that I cannot know another (as I can barely know myself!) so it is pointless for me to judge another in this way, which is confirmed by Christ's teachings.

In a "secular" way (though I always see my life as an integrated whole- there is no secular- all life is sacred), this deep interest in how people think and behave comes out in scientific study, and an interest indentity construction, senses of belonging and community, and so forth. I've always been deeply aware of suffering, since I was a little girl, and so this scientific work is bent toward how to better society and sustainability, as it is less likely for people to use higher cognitive skills when they feel threatened. It's a complicated matter and I'll not go in it here. But suffice it to say, "knowing oneself" is an interest in my work, but was informed first by my own spiritual experiences from as far back as I can remember. That spiritual experience informs my work, but I also recognize that in order to do such scientific work, I must work as a scientist in those contexts. Personally, while I think it hampers some things, I also recognize the need, because while "all mystics speak the same language," to ignore the differences in their religions and what these mean to everyone else (who doesn't speak the mystical language and perhaps are not yet ready to do so), would be to ignore most people and most immediately useful action for society and the earth, which to me does not follow through on compassion. So while I recognize the deeper spiritual journey of knowing, I also recognize the value of applying compassion in some useful and practical way. Two different endeavors, but they go hand in hand, and these too are informed by Christ's teachings (the interior journey and how this should give birth to exterior action).

Peace,
Kim/Path

 

[Nick_A]

Hello Path

I use "we" in the collective sense that when taken together comprises society or the "Great Beast." Naturally people differ within it but societies are living organisms that are born, live, and die. A forest has needs of its own that differ from the needs of specific trees which also are living organisms. Gaia is based on this idea and asserts the earth itself as a living organism.

Man is a plurality and only parts of this plurality are concerned with consciousness or higher meaning. The majority of a human being is concerned with its relationship to the earth. Your stomach couldn't care less about God but rather asserts its own needs and often its needs become dominant. It isn't as much that we forget but rather there is not enough in us to remember between natural drives that have no need for consciousness and acquired negative emotions the lives of which depend on the absence of consciousness.

Of course we can learn from anything but how do we develop the ability to understand what we've learned? How do we acquire perspective? How many even have ever thought about the difference between knowing and understanding?

I can appreciate your belief in that we are spirit and it is the basis of a lot of modern religion such as the Course in Miracles. However it doesn't make sense to me since my interest is in the meaning and purpose of life itself including human life and my life. Meaning and purpose must make sense or it is meaningless and without anything other then societal purpose. In this way it cannot contradict science.

From this perspective it makes more sense to take the Christian approach that we contain the seed of a soul that either can begin to evolve as is possible or continue to disperse and involve into lower levels of creation.

Like all seeds, only a few can become their potential. Only a few acorns become oaks and the majority just serve as food for the earth. Only a few seeds of a soul can become a soul. There are a lot of dangers as Jesus referred to:

Matthew 13

18"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

Needless to say the odds aren't good. However the seed that develops its potential has access to the Kingdom and good seed though not developing, has not corrupted itself itself so is preserved and referred to as part of "salvation." What concerns me about a lot of modern religion is that people taking it too seriously corrupt themselves on the inside without having the slightest idea they are doing so. That is why the good householder not involved with such practices but is just a good person as described in Ecclesiastes is a solid alternative since it preserves good seed as part of salvation. Christianity is just an accelerated way to human evolution but can easily turn into its opposite when it is used as self justification for our personality.

We don't know how to know ourselves nor do we have the impartiality to do so. It takes years to become able. Could you learn to play piano in a year even though you may want to? We can desire to Know Thyself, but we learn that the self doesn't want to be known but rather remain dominant so the knower is very limited at the beginning.

Jesus could know the disciples since he knew himself but the disciples didn't know themselves so couldn't know Jesus.

You say all life is sacred but is there anything sacred about life in the jungle or in the ocean? I don't believe so. Organic life on earth including fallen man is a living machine performing a function that continually transforms substances. There is nothing sacred about this anymore then a radio is sacred. There is nothing sacred about the "Great Beast." It is a distortion.

"The third and fourth needs that explain the phenomenon of prestige concern the queer human passion for manufacturing deities. According to Weil, the supreme idol is the Social Beast described in the Republic of Plato and in the Book of Revelation by St. John. The Social Beast fills the need for God when God appears absent. In Weil's language, idols result from willing the truth rather than attending to the truth:

Idolatry comes from the fact that, while thirsting for absolute good, we do not possess the power of supernatural attention and we have not the patience to allow it to develop. (28)
​

The will to meaning creates false gods."

There is nothing sacred about the devolution of the sacred.

I'm not being critical of your concern for society but just have come to believe that society is just an expression of collective level of human being and so will always remain as is with only a change in form but the cycles will remain. So my concern is now for the future of human "being" both individually and collectively. It is only through the growth in human "being" that what you are concerned about can change more then temporarily. But how many in modern times and especially in education have ever even wondered what human "being" is? It will only be individuals that are less a conditioned slave to the beast that can have a beneficial effect even though they will be scorned for their efforts since everyone hates real alarm clocks that disturb ones sleep.

 

[path_of_one]

I use "we" in the collective sense that when taken together comprises society or the "Great Beast." Naturally people differ within it but societies are living organisms that are born, live, and die. A forest has needs of its own that differ from the needs of specific trees which also are living organisms. Gaia is based on this idea and asserts the earth itself as a living organism.

Thank you for the clarification. I would say that it is the case that societies are, in a way, like this, with emergent properties and histories. However, it is necessary to never lose track of the individual as an agent, with his/her own motivations, manipulations of the social system, and so forth. This is why theory about culture is complex. People are not simple automatons, and so how they use culture and contribute to it is creative. Yet culture still has emergent phenomena- or, perhaps more accurately, culture is an emergent phenomenon of humans living in groups.

Man is a plurality and only parts of this plurality are concerned with consciousness or higher meaning. The majority of a human being is concerned with its relationship to the earth.

Do you mean that humanity is plural, or that each of us, individually, is plural? And what are our parts? Is being human an emergent phenomenon itself of these parts or is it a consequence of one or more of the parts? I see myself as plural, but the question of what that means is an interesting one.

I would agree that for many, only parts of the human person are concerned with consciousness. However, I would not say this is true for all human beings or that it we are unable to extend this goal state to encompass all parts of being human.

That we are concerned with our relationship to the earth is not in opposition to higher meaning. Some religions believe it to be so, but I would heartily disagree. I would humbly offer from my own experience that, if one believes consciousness and meaning to be in opposition to the earth/Gaia, then one has not understood one's relationship to her very well. Indeed, the other beings of the earth and Gaia herself can be encouragement on the inner journey toward awareness and a meaningful life.

I would offer that the predominant Western viewpoint of the earth's creatures as "lower" than ourselves and as having nothing to offer us spiritually is not spiritually accurate, but rather arises from our own limitations borne from our consumerist based cultures, and one that is not universal.

Your stomach couldn't care less about God but rather asserts its own needs and often its needs become dominant.

There are lessons to be learned in incarnation- lessons of balance and life. There are reasons we incarnate. We can be masters of our stomachs, and this isn't very difficult to do, nor is doing so a necessary indication of enlightenment or awareness. But balancing the needs of ourselves as organisms and who we really are spiritually can be instructive toward understanding a relationship between physical life and form and the spirit. At least, that's what I'm finding on my journey.

It isn't as much that we forget but rather there is not enough in us to remember between natural drives that have no need for consciousness and acquired negative emotions the lives of which depend on the absence of consciousness.

I disagree. Some people, from a very young age, can recognize the difference between the two, as well as differentiating between the drives of the physical body, the energetic body, the mind, the social being, the soul, and the spirit. Of course, I may be quite inaccurate and it's very hard to communicate it, but early on I could recognize the diversity of such within myself- a physical animal body, an energetic body, a mind (personality, cognitive and learning style, etc.), a social being (which I can only partially define as its identity is constructed in social relationship), a soul (with its unique history), and a spirit (the essence that is in God). Like an onion, except the layers impact one another. At least, this is how I see it at this point based on observation.

It seems that when I talk to many people, they feel rather unified within themselves and do not recognize these distinctions. But then, they also have difficulty defining themselves as separate from socially-bound identities. Somehow, the norm for me is to see myself as multiple beings at once, or, more aptly, as a spirit with a history (soul), that is housed temporarily in a bunch of other stuff.

Of course we can learn from anything but how do we develop the ability to understand what we've learned? How do we acquire perspective? How many even have ever thought about the difference between knowing and understanding?

I would put forth that knowing, understanding, and perspective are different things and I hesitate to discuss them without any operational definitions. Furthermore, I would say there are things we can experience but not know, experience but not understand, that still shift our perspective in meaningful ways. So we can learn, and some of my own most foundational moments of learning, have been from these shifts in perspective... which typically come about through questioning, not answering. It is not in knowing or understanding something that I learn, but in questioning something. But then, all that depends on what you mean about understanding and knowing. Empathy, for example, can be a great learning tool that includes a sense of understanding. But it would be different from understanding how a television works. The former kind of understanding can come with shift in perspective, a broadening of our awareness. The latter is just comprehending information. I hesitate to say that it works the same for everyone.

I can appreciate your belief in that we are spirit and it is the basis of a lot of modern religion such as the Course in Miracles. However it doesn't make sense to me since my interest is in the meaning and purpose of life itself including human life and my life.

My own spiritual path is deeply rooted in both spirit and the physical earth/life. The two go together for me. If you have interest in my perspective, I'd have to think a bit before trying to articulate the meaning of life. That our essence is spirit does not make life meaningless. Life, the incarnation of spirit and the consequence of the creativity of God, is far from meaningless. And indeed, the more I have recognized the spirit, the more I have seen the inherent sanctity and beauty of life.

From this perspective it makes more sense to take the Christian approach that we contain the seed of a soul that either can begin to evolve as is possible or continue to disperse and involve into lower levels of creation.

I do not believe there are levels. I'm too animistic for that. I think beings are on individual paths toward awareness of the Divine, and so we can separate ourselves (or not) from It. However, I don't think we have the capacity to know what or how other beings experience life, so to ascribe other beings to a "lower" level is a bit irrelevant and disrespectful of other life-forms. Furthermore, my own spiritual experience has taught me much from what people often take to be "lower" forms with no spiritual life whatsoever, and I would propose that any being that is thought of as "lower" and incapable of sentience, communication, or wisdom is likely to be unable and/or unwilling to assist one in the spiritual journey... just as humans have been with one another. When we are open to learning from other beings, they are generally willing to share their journey as well, which has the capacity to accelerate our own.

I'm not sure what to make of the idea of a "seed" of a soul. Evolve into what? Devolve into what? Disperse how? I'm not trying to be difficult, but just trying to nail down what your operational definitions are. What is a soul compared to the seed? Are both the soul and the seed spiritual entities, and, if not, how does the transformation work?

Like all seeds, only a few can become their potential. Only a few acorns become oaks and the majority just serve as food for the earth.

Well, yes, but then those that serve as food are reaching their own potential, right? And in a sense, it is a very great potential... they are sacrificing their future for the future of other beings. In nature, these cycles are what keeps everything going. Now, I'm not arguing that the soul works the same way. I'm simply saying that typically, attempts to make nature-based analogies fall flat. Nature has its own wisdom and, generally speaking, the problems of humanity are due (in part) to our forgetting how to live in a respectful way in Nature. We may argue that selfishness and greed are "natural" but that is only half the truth, as altruism is also natural.

I'll not get too far into it here, but if one considers reincarnation, then the question of awakening is not "if" but "when."

 

[path_of_one]

What concerns me about a lot of modern religion is that people taking it too seriously corrupt themselves on the inside without having the slightest idea they are doing so.

What is modern religion? How are people taking it too seriously- do you mean people willing to kill/die for religion and so forth? And what is corruption on the inside to you?

What of people who are not of any religion, but are very serious about spiritual experience? Or that are on an individual spiritual path, but partake in religion as a meditative/contemplative practice?

According to you, what is the right way to practice religion and/or spirituality?

Christianity is just an accelerated way to human evolution but can easily turn into its opposite when it is used as self justification for our personality.

I would say that most religions are ways that can lead toward transcendence, but can easily be made into the opposite, justifying not only horrible individual tendencies, but also group atrocities.

We don't know how to know ourselves nor do we have the impartiality to do so. It takes years to become able. Could you learn to play piano in a year even though you may want to?

I disagree. I think, because of grace, we do have the capacity to know ourselves. For some, it may take years (and in my belief, lifetimes), and for others it comes in a moment. Some children seem born with the capacity, while others appear to sleep through all of life. Likewise, some kids are Mozart and others plunk away for years in piano lessons without ever developing musical genius. There is a reason why many societies chose their future shamans when they were yet children, but developed their spiritual skills for years in apprenticeship. Development can be important, but some people are just good at certain things. In a "secular" manner of speaking, this could be attributed to the strength of Gardner's intrapersonal intelligence in individuals.

We can desire to Know Thyself, but we learn that the self doesn't want to be known but rather remain dominant so the knower is very limited at the beginning.

Of course. Tolle says the same thing, as do many others. This is why dedication to a path leading to liberation from self (however one finds it, but most find it in one or more religions) is necessary to make the moments of knowing into something that lasts. I'm still working on this. It's easy to forget, because the brain wants to believe that "I" am my mind and body and social identities-- it's uncomfortable with knowing none of that matters and all of it is temporary.

Jesus could know the disciples since he knew himself but the disciples didn't know themselves so couldn't know Jesus.

But others knew Him.

You say all life is sacred but is there anything sacred about life in the jungle or in the ocean?

Oh yes. There is a ton of sacredness in non-human life. And wisdom. Not to mention there are humans living in the jungle who have their own religions and spiritual paths. If you do not experience the sacredness and wisdom of life on earth, I can't help you with that. Perhaps if you were someone I knew in person, and could spend some time with, and take you to some of the sacred places where it is easier to discern. But it is something that is everywhere and must be cultivated to consistently "hear." I'm grateful that my experience is of the sacredness and spiritual helpfulness of Gaia and her creatures. In many cases, they are far more understanding and honest than humans are, and they are excellent company.

I'm not being critical of your concern for society but just have come to believe that society is just an expression of collective level of human being and so will always remain as is with only a change in form but the cycles will remain. So my concern is now for the future of human "being" both individually and collectively. It is only through the growth in human "being" that what you are concerned about can change more then temporarily.

I entirely agree. My concern is for how humans can become aware- can become "aware beingness" rather than constructs of mere social identities, fears, and so forth. Yet, I do not think that society is independent from the capacity of human beings (in larger numbers) to do so. And while I think, to transcend suffering permanently and usher in the Kingdom of Heaven, will require surgery, so to speak... in the meantime, I do not scoff at the emergency room doctors who temporarily patch someone up until they can get to that point.

But how many in modern times and especially in education have ever even wondered what human "being" is? It will only be individuals that are less a conditioned slave to the beast that can have a beneficial effect even though they will be scorned for their efforts since everyone hates real alarm clocks that disturb ones sleep.

Are you proposing that everyone who is well-educated is a slave to society? I would find that singularly prejudiced and ill-informed. Like anything else, we're a diverse lot.

My experience has been that it is not any individual social identity (level of education, religious affiliation, race/ethnicity, gender, etc.) that causes people to be conditioned or not. Upbringing can have something to do with it (i.e., I was raised by a rather rebellious mystical mother whose tagline was "Question all authority") but some are inherently more resistant than others to conditioning. We find similar diversity in other social mammals such as dogs and horses. When we don't like these dogs/horses/people, we say they are disruptive or stubborn.

 

[Ciel]

Path,
These are very fine posts......... when I read you I am aware of one who sees humanity in all it's myriad forms carried through a grace able to smooth to appreciation in a possible way forward.

And this a very good reason to be, it opens life and welcomes........

Light love and peace - c -