Knowledge Instead Of Faith, Direct Experience Instead Of Dogma

[PsychedelicDragon]

"The Kingdom of God lies within you."

That simple quote of pure wisdom came from the main figure of the most popularly adhered religion (christianity) in the world: Jesus Christ. From another tradition, it is said that there is no salvation through merely believing. Having faith in the fact that your ego is an illusion will not get you to enlightenment. Such sayings were attributed to the wisdom of the Buddah, who learned this from years and years of spiritual discipline and practice. Of course, one does not need years and years of spiritual discipline to see this very obvious fact.

I think and feel that many religions of today have lost their original meaning. I could call myself a christian under some definitions. But probably most of the people who call themselves christian, I would want nothing to do with their beliefs. Mainly because that is what they are. Beliefs. Not direct experience of the divine. Or knowledge of the "creation" itself. Faith in dogma is what drives many of the world's christians. Faith to my mind is a hopeful belief. The word belief itself comes from the latin root "to wish". So as a result, so many people just blindly follow a bunch of dogmatic outdated religious commandments from religious books that they believe to be the infallible word of god (eg the "Bible"). And if that isn't enough, there is a strong cultural component to the many delusions of the masses, such as adherents blindly believing what their clergy tells them, or believing the right wing bigots (like the ones on fox news, for instance) who claim to be followers of Christ.

This of course is true of all organized major world religions. I can be called a muslim as well, but the overwhelming vast majority of muslims I would want nothing to do with. And there is even a bigger current of fundamentalism in the islamic world. So many of which believe many of the same absurd notions that under-developed christians do.

What are some of these delusions? Well for one, that God is like a man. Among christians god is popularly imagined as a bearded old man in the sky who tallies whether you have been good or bad and gives you heaven and hell as punishments. That god is something personal, like a real human but with superpowers.....you know like a cosmic grandfather. It is obvious such metaphors are meant to be taken allegorically, just like the creation story in the bible. Of course the world wasn't made in 6 days 6,000 years ago, all scientific evidence shows otherwise anyways.

Well that does lead us into the meat of the problem. Many christians believe by forsaking rational thought, science, and reason that they are becoming closer to God. When in fact, all this does is further isolate them from the divine.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying that rational thought and science are the basis to find the ultimate spiritual truth. Indeed, many spiritual practices, such as zazen for instance, involve silencing the chatter in the skull (thoughts), so our mind perceives the world independent of words and symbols. But to forsake rationality and science in the realm of words and reasons is quite foolish.

Instead of having blind faith in some teachings, clergy, culture, or ritual, wouldn't it make more sense to know the spiritual reality through direct experience? Wouldn't knowledge based off of direct experience be the hands down best way to approach this subject? After all, when you know something to be true, you have no doubt in your heart that it is true.

We all know with 100% certainty gravity is what keeps our feet firmly planted on the Earth. Now if we were to say we had faith that gravity kept us on the Earth, wouldn't that suggest that maybe we are not sure? There is no reason to have faith if you know something. I don't know any people who will say they "know" god is a personal deity with a beard in the sky that takes tallies on everyone. They will call it faith. And that is exactly what it is. Faith. No one will say they know all those images as literally true, especially since they know they have no direct experience of what they believe.

The metaphor for god as a male deity is just as allegorical as the metaphor for earth being a female deity. We can of course personify mother Earth as a goddess, and claim that Earth is literally a goddess with the appearance of a woman. But I'm sure all of us agree that it is just an allegorical image or metaphor. Isn't the same true for the spiritual father, the one we call "God"? The ultimate is beyond gender, for one. How can the cosmic spirit be a male human with male reproductive organs if he is made of full spirit and omnipresent?

Shamanism was the first religion ever. All spiritual and religious traditions can trace back to the original shamanism that our hunter-gatherers and our early settled ancestors. Shamanism certainly did not die out when the neolithic revolution hit. It continued on, in the spiritual practices of the various ascetics and gurus. Shamanism has often emphasized personal experience of the spirit world, and this is achieved by the use of trance-inducing techniques....eg entheogens, meditation, hypnosis, fasting, ect.

However over time, as power centers grew, religion was hijacked in many cultures to serve the interests of those in power, until among many religions, all that was left was the rituals that have lost their original meaning. And this is the dilemma we face today, as we try to get out of the dark ages of discontents of old civilization. And yet it continues, more people are just following the religion that their parents or culture follow, and do it mindlessly and ritualistically. Instead of having trust in themselves, their perception, and their ability to find the divine for themselves based with direct experience. If the kingdom of god lies within you, then trying to find him separate from you, as if he was it was a separate entity, would not make much sense.

These are just my opinions, I by no means want to downplay the religious beliefs of others here. I just wish to challenge the commonly accepted notions of organized religions, in hopes of perhaps improving your spirituality, as well as my own. I don't think science is the only area where we should be asking skeptical questions. Spirituality also requires skeptical questions.....and it is only through direct experience do we really come to know the divine.

What do you think? Do you approach spirituality with knowledge or pure faith? Should direct experience be the basis of of spirituality, or should it be based on how well one obeys the dogma of religious rules and texts? Vote in the poll and discuss.

 

[Paladin]

Interesting poll. Wouldn't it be weird if there were more than those two possibilities?

 

[PsychedelicDragon]

Interesting poll. Wouldn't it be weird if there were more than those two possibilities?

Well certainly there are other possibilities out there. But I think I intended the poll and thread to address something more specific. And that is faith vs knowing. That is, believing in something just for the sake of believing, or knowing something because you discovered it yourself.

And of course, the subject of scripturalists vs experientialists. Here's give a good example of what I mean.

There is the subject of fundamentalist christianity. Now to many outsiders, fundamentalist christians seems all the same. But if you examine them more closely, there is quite a polarizing difference between them. There are the scripturalists, who base their fundamentalism words in the bible only. Then there are experientialists....you know the speaking in tongues or the holy rollers crowd. These two sides of fundamentalism are deeply polarized, and the scripturalists often look at the speaking in tongues and hypnosis type techniques that they use as if it were some form demonic possession.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the fundamentalist experientialists have it all right....they are far from it. Many of them have the same problems that the scripturalists have, like irrational beliefs and denial of science. But at least it doesn't look like a big waste of time compared to the fundamentalists that just go to church ritually, hear what some pastor or priest has to say, and adopt the beliefs they are taught without question. Of course the experientialists do this too, but there is at least some form of genuine spirituality there. The spirit is nit ot just some immaterial concept, and if people want to treat as such they might as well abandon it. Where as if spirit actually means something more specific, like spirit having to do with your feelings, or religious awe, and the unnameable spiritual reality that cannot be described in words, then you are finally getting into something more specific. And more relevent.

We live in an age where religion and spirituality is increasingly seen to be as irrelevant. And I think this is because organized religious institutions don't seem to be providing a spirituality that is relevant in this modern age. In this age of science, spirituality seems so irrelevant. And yet having a good spirit is very important, otherwise you lead yourself into a sort of alienating dogmatic materialism that lacks empathy for all of life. I really do want humanity to save the spirit, but if they do not even try, it can never be saved.

So if priests started to focus on the real meat of spirituality, and helping others really experience Jesus....not the way they have been told to but the way they have experienced him, perhaps religion would start to re-gain its magic again so to speak.

Same thing among muslims, hindus, and buddhists. Yes even the eastern religions have their absurd deviations from the original meaning too, even though they tend to talk about spirituality and mysticism more. For instance, millions of buddhists believe that the Dalai Lama is a living god. Even though he denies it himself, just as the original Buddah denied it.

 

[shawn]

What do you think? Do you approach spirituality with knowledge or pure faith? Should direct experience be the basis of of spirituality, or should it be based on how well one obeys the dogma of religious rules and texts?

Boils down to leader or follower by those terms.
Either one prefers the easy path of pre-made and seeks to learn the discipline....maybe they need it....maybe it is just the easiest choice, or, one is discontent with the offerings on the menu and desires to forage for themselves in the mystic mountains. Who knows.

 

[shawn]

So if priests started to focus on the real meat of spirituality, and helping others really experience Jesus....not the way they have been told to but the way they have experienced him, perhaps religion would start to re-gain its magic again so to speak.

Great idea...if the agenda of these groups was to connect people with their power ...rather than disconnect them.
That is the dilemma.
Same with the money and the political system and power generation, etc.
The systems in place would work very nicely to advance humanity if their agenda was to do so.....but sadly their agenda is to retard.
Plain to see.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Faith, belief, dogma... these things aren't confined to religion. We often feel that we must carry an opinion, or choose a side of an issue on which we have nothing but hearsay to base our thoughts on. I often find myself spouting information which I have no personal way of verifying. I heard it on the news, or I feel boxed into toeing a certain line because I've self identified with a set of political identity markers. For example, for liberals there is pressure to toe the pro-choice line, or for conservatives the anti-science line. It's expected in order to fit into a group. It's very difficult to confine one's self to knowledge based on personal experience. It leaves you unable to say much of anything.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here's a quote that goes directly to what I'm trying to describe. I've inserted a paragraph break to make it a little more readable.

We have stressed that the state can no longer govern without the masses, which nowadays are closely involved in politics. But these masses are composed of individuals. From their point of view, the problem is slightly different: they are interested in politics and consider themselves concerned with politics; even if they are not forced to participate actively because they live in a democracy, they embrace politics as soon as somebody wants to take the democratic regime away from them. But this presents them with problems that are way over their heads. They are faced with choices and decisions which demand maturity, knowledge, and a range of information which they do not and cannot have. Elections are limited to the selection of individuals, which reduces the problem of participation to its simplest form. But the individual wishes to participate in other ways than just elections. He wants to be conversant with economic questions. In fact, his government asks him to be. He wants to form an opinion on foreign-policy. But in reality he can’t. He is caught between his desire and his inability, which he refuses to accept. For no citizen will believe that he is unable to have opinions. Public opinion surveys always reveal that people have opinions even on the most complicated questions, except for a small minority (usually the most informed and those who have reflected most). The majority prefers expressing stupidities to not expressing any opinion: this gives them the feeling of participation. For this they need simple plots, elementary explanations, a “key” that will permit them to take a position, and even ready-made opinions.

As most people have a desire, and at the same time the incapacity to participate, they are ready to accept a propaganda that will permit them to participate, and which hides their incapacity beneath explanations, judgments, and news, enabling them to satisfy their desire without eliminating their incompetence. The more complex, general, and accelerated political and economic phenomena become, the more do individuals feel concerned, the more do they want to be involved. In a certain sense this is democracy's gain, but it also leads to more propaganda. And the individual does not want information, but only value judgments and preconceived positions. Here one must also take into account the individual's laziness, which plays a decisive role in the entire propaganda phenomena, and the impossibility of transmitting all information fast enough to keep up with developments in the modern world. Besides, the developments are not merely beyond man's intellectual scope; they are also beyond him in volume and intensity; he simply cannot grasp the world's economic and political problems. Faced with such matters, he feels his weakness, his inconsistency, his lack of effectiveness. He realizes that he depends on decisions over which he has no control, and that realization drives into despair. Man cannot stay in this situation too long, he needs an ideological veil to cover the harsh reality, some consolation, a raison d'être, a sense of values. And only propaganda offers him a remedy for a basically intolerable situation.

Jacques Ellul, Propaganda, The Formation of Men’s Attitudes

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

So, in the above quote you can replace "propaganda" with "religious dogma", but the point is that both are part of the same process: the one whereby simplistic, blanket solutions are offered in lieu of explanations which actually encompass the complexity of real issues, so that people may feel informed and competent in their opinion forming processes without any real command of the information required for an actual grasp of complex issues.

It's just so very hard to say "I don't know."

Chris

 

[Paladin]

My dear Dragon, please don't read my response as being flipant, but I cannot contain myself to the constraints provided. As I see it, there really isn't much difference between the two poles described. Sure it would seem so, blind childish magical thinking as opposed to direct experience, but look a little more deeply and you see those who contact actuality and then filter and frame it within another belief system. History is replete with this, and all the great sages have done so.
Reality, Actuality, the great "isness", "aliveness", God, Allah, Chenresig, all just names and filters between us and reality.
Ironically there never has been a division, but there it is, the idea of us and them, subject and object; all just more fluff to add the idea of separation.
Which is better? Belief? Experience?
Is a tree better than a rock? Absurd question yet both the tree and rock and river are the same and exist within a specific sphere as do belief and Knowledge.

 

[Thomas]

Hi PsychedelicDragon —

Well, you've steamed into this one, lambasting all and sundry to either side, so do forgive me if I respond in like fashion.

If your one of those types who insults everyone who doesn't think like you, and then cries 'offence!' when they answer back, please do not read on from here. Take it from me, I disagree with the notion that 'direct experience' can be attained, and even when it is, relied on absolutely without reference.



==========================================================

"The Kingdom of God lies within you."
hat simple quote of pure wisdom came from the main figure of the most popularly adhered religion (christianity) in the world: Jesus Christ. From another tradition, it is said that there is no salvation through merely believing.

Then again ... "But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name" John 1:12 is from the same tradition.

So the point is, pick your tradition and go with it ... but don't try to mix n'n match, or pick 'n' mix, you'll only end up utterly confused, or with a syncretic hodge=podge that says a lot, with no substance whatsoever.

From another tradition, it is said that there is no salvation through merely believing.

Says the same in Christianity, too.

Of course, one does not need years and years of spiritual discipline to see this very obvious fact.

But one might need years and years of spiritual discipline to appreciate the spiritual depths of these truths, beyond their superficial appearances.

I think and feel that many religions of today have lost their original meaning. I could call myself a christian under some definitions. But probably most of the people who call themselves christian, I would want nothing to do with their beliefs. Mainly because that is what they are. Beliefs. Not direct experience of the divine.

One is assuming here that everyone receives direct experience of the divine. That is not given in any tradition.

Faith in dogma is what drives many of the world's christians. Faith to my mind is a hopeful belief. The word belief itself comes from the latin root "to wish".

Actually:
O.E. belyfan "to believe," earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love" (cf. O.S. gilobian, Du. geloven, O.H.G. gilouben, Ger. glauben), from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. but now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.
So say the common etymologies.

So as a result, so many people just blindly follow a bunch of dogmatic outdated religious commandments from religious books that they believe to be the infallible word of god (eg the "Bible").

That's a rather huge generalisation, an astounding assumption, and highly offensive to those, of all traditions, who express a belief.

Then again, many people don't believe in anything, stumble into this life, stumble around, and stumble out again ...

It's also a flawed argument.

And if that isn't enough, there is a strong cultural component to the many delusions of the masses, such as adherents blindly believing what their clergy tells them, or believing the right wing bigots (like the ones on fox news, for instance) who claim to be followers of Christ.

Or who believe themselves to be infallible.

This of course is true of all organized major world religions.

Another outrageous assumption and, frankly, ignorant to the extreme. You are suggesting that everyone who professes a faith are mindless drones who can't think for themselves. I, for one, can see more holes in your propositions so far than in a colander.

I can be called a muslim as well, but the overwhelming vast majority of muslims I would want nothing to do with. And there is even a bigger current of fundamentalism in the islamic world. So many of which believe many of the same absurd notions that under-developed christians do.

You do seem to have a rather high opinion of yourself, and a low opinion of everyone else. Whilst I can accept a dislike of fundamentalism (such as you display in excess), but to condemn 'the overwhelming vast majority' is frankly ... beyond words.

What are some of these delusions? Well for one, that God is like a man. Among christians god is popularly imagined as a bearded old man in the sky who tallies whether you have been good or bad and gives you heaven and hell as punishments.

Well, if you think that, I can see you've researched the matter no further than your own ignorant and ill-informed presumptions.

I could offer a definition of the Deity from the Christian tradition, but I doubt you'd understand a single word I was saying.

That god is something personal, like a real human but with superpowers.....you know like a cosmic grandfather.

Then you don't understand the philosophical idea of 'person' either, let alone the theological one. Let me offer you one: a person is 'an individual being of a rational nature' and is not limited to humans ...

It is obvious such metaphors are meant to be taken allegorically,

Then maybe you should spend more time contemplating their allegorical significance.

Well that does lead us into the meat of the problem. Many christians believe by forsaking rational thought, science, and reason that they are becoming closer to God. When in fact, all this does is further isolate them from the divine.

Depends what denomination of Christianity you're referring to. Not mine, for a start, so please don't lump Catholicism with whoever you have in mind ... have you ever heard of 'theology'? A working definition is 'faith seeking understanding' by the process of rational thought.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying that rational thought and science are the basis to find the ultimate spiritual truth.

Good, you're right on that point at least.

Indeed, many spiritual practices, such as zazen for instance, involve silencing the chatter in the skull (thoughts), so our mind perceives the world independent of words and symbols.

Like to see it do that. There are quite a few philosophical hypotheses that suggest that's not possible, but I'll leave the zazen practitioners to pick up that one.

But to forsake rationality and science in the realm of words and reasons is quite foolish.

Well, you've displayed a quite remarkable degree lack of rationality so far.

Instead of having blind faith in some teachings, clergy, culture, or ritual, wouldn't it make more sense to know the spiritual reality through direct experience?

Again, on what basis are you assuming such is even possible. Just because the spiritual exists (and your terminology gives no real clue to what you're talking about, precisely), the general consensus of most traditions is that it is not attained by some empirical method. A lifetime of zazen does not guarantee spiritual insight, for example.

Wouldn't knowledge based off of direct experience be the hands down best way to approach this subject?

You mean that the human is absolutely infallible in understanding the absolute nature of experience?

As everything you've said so far assumes not, I suggest you think about it. My answer is 'no', if there's one thing that's certain, it's the human capacity for self-delusion.

After all, when you know something to be true, you have no doubt in your heart that it is true.

Well you're assuming you know it to be true in the first place.

We all know with 100% certainty gravity is what keeps our feet firmly planted on the Earth. Now if we were to say we had faith that gravity kept us on the Earth, wouldn't that suggest that maybe we are not sure? There is no reason to have faith if you know something.

Good point. There is a difference between faith and knowledge in this sense.

I don't know any people who will say they "know" god is a personal deity with a beard in the sky that takes tallies on everyone.

Maybe because they don't believe that. I think it's your delusion about what they believe, not theirs about what they believe.

They will call it faith. And that is exactly what it is. Faith. No one will say they know all those images as literally true, especially since they know they have no direct experience of what they believe.

But what about those who have faith, and direct experience of that which points to their faith being true?

The metaphor for god as a male deity is just as allegorical as the metaphor for earth being a female deity. We can of course personify mother Earth as a goddess, and claim that Earth is literally a goddess with the appearance of a woman. But I'm sure all of us agree that it is just an allegorical image or metaphor. Isn't the same true for the spiritual father, the one we call "God"? The ultimate is beyond gender, for one. How can the cosmic spirit be a male human with male reproductive organs if he is made of full spirit and omnipresent?

Er ... maybe because the allegory and the metaphor signifies something else, I mean, that's the definition of what allegory and metaphor does ...

It seems to me you're saying because something is an allegory/metaphor, it's not true (itself an assumption, but I'll let it pass), therefore we don't have to believe the a/m, which entirely misses the point of what the a/m is saying ...

Shamanism was the first religion ever. All spiritual and religious traditions can trace back to the original shamanism that our hunter-gatherers and our early settled ancestors.

Er ... no they don't necessarily ...

Shamanism has often emphasized personal experience of the spirit world, and this is achieved by the use of trance-inducing techniques....eg entheogens, meditation, hypnosis, fasting, ect.

But the shamans were, in effect, a priesthood to which people paid reverence. Not everyone was a shaman ... so you seem to shoot your experientai largument in the foot here.

However over time, as power centers grew, religion was hijacked in many cultures to serve the interests of those in power, until among many religions, all that was left was the rituals that have lost their original meaning.

Oh, good greif, not this old saw again.

And this is the dilemma we face today, as we try to get out of the dark ages of discontents of old civilization. And yet it continues, more people are just following the religion that their parents or culture follow, and do it mindlessly and ritualistically.

This may well be true, but it does not invalidate the religion, does it.

Instead of having trust in themselves, their perception, and their ability to find the divine for themselves based with direct experience.

Which I suggest is a fantasy.

If the kingdom of god lies within you, then trying to find him separate from you, as if he was it was a separate entity, would not make much sense.

Not half as silly as thinking a kingdom can fit inside me ... there's just about enough room for me, there's not much left over for anyone else.

These are just my opinions, I by no means want to downplay the religious beliefs of others here.

Well you've made a good fist of doing just that.

I just wish to challenge the commonly accepted notions of organized religions, in hopes of perhaps improving your spirituality, as well as my own.

OK. Let me challenge yours. How would you known the difference between an authentic spiritual experience, and a delusion of your own subconscious?

I don't think science is the only area where we should be asking skeptical questions. Spirituality also requires skeptical questions.....and it is only through direct experience do we really come to know the divine.

I might express some degree of skepticism with regard to your ability to know the divine, on any terms.

What do you think? Do you approach spirituality with knowledge or pure faith? Should direct experience be the basis of of spirituality, or should it be based on how well one obeys the dogma of religious rules and texts? Vote in the poll and discuss.

I think that if you convince yourself that direct experience is the key, then your subconscious mind is looking forward to a field day, at your expense.

Thomas

 

[PsychedelicDragon]

My dear Dragon, please don't read my response as being flipant, but I cannot contain myself to the constraints provided. As I see it, there really isn't much difference between the two poles described. Sure it would seem so, blind childish magical thinking as opposed to direct experience, but look a little more deeply and you see those who contact actuality and then filter and frame it within another belief system. History is replete with this, and all the great sages have done so.
Reality, Actuality, the great "isness", "aliveness", God, Allah, Chenresig, all just names and filters between us and reality.
Ironically there never has been a division, but there it is, the idea of us and them, subject and object; all just more fluff to add the idea of separation.
Which is better? Belief? Experience?
Is a tree better than a rock? Absurd question yet both the tree and rock and river are the same and exist within a specific sphere as do belief and Knowledge.

Yup this is true. Certainly the experimentalists are still filtering and framing it as you put it into their own beliefs systems. So I do think they have some ways to go before they can be truly considered objective, but I do admire the fact they are at least trying.

And yup, that's what I've been trying to get get at.....all these separate ideas, subject and object, us and them, ect. are just filters of reality. They are symbols, or metaphors, or as the hindus might put it, lilas or mayas (plays or illusions).

And yes, to a degree the difference between knowledge and belief can at first glance seem like the difference between a tree and rock. That's why I'm trying to be more specific about these definitions, defining belief as something hopeful or wishful, but not certain. While knowledge represents certainty.

But of course, knowledge and belief go together. You would not know what knowledge is without belief, as to know what we mean by words we need to know their contrasts. Well I suppose these ideas don't contrast each other so much, and are more representations of degrees of a scale so to speak. But yeah you get the idea.

 

[PsychedelicDragon]

Faith, belief, dogma... these things aren't confined to religion. We often feel that we must carry an opinion, or choose a side of an issue on which we have nothing but hearsay to base our thoughts on. I often find myself spouting information which I have no personal way of verifying. I heard it on the news, or I feel boxed into toeing a certain line because I've self identified with a set of political identity markers. For example, for liberals there is pressure to toe the pro-choice line, or for conservatives the anti-science line. It's expected in order to fit into a group. It's very difficult to confine one's self to knowledge based on personal experience. It leaves you unable to say much of anything.

Chris

Hi Chris, I did make a response to you, but somehow it got placed in the moderator's approval section. I'm not sure why, maybe it was a bit long. Hopefully it will appear soon.

 

[PsychedelicDragon]

Boils down to leader or follower by those terms.
Either one prefers the easy path of pre-made and seeks to learn the discipline....maybe they need it....maybe it is just the easiest choice, or, one is discontent with the offerings on the menu and desires to forage for themselves in the mystic mountains. Who knows.

Great idea...if the agenda of these groups was to connect people with their power ...rather than disconnect them.
That is the dilemma.
Same with the money and the political system and power generation, etc.
The systems in place would work very nicely to advance humanity if their agenda was to do so.....but sadly their agenda is to retard.
Plain to see.

Hi Shawn. Yup. If humanity can make good informed decisions about all aspects of human affairs, such as money, politics, and power systems, perhaps we would be living in a better world.

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Dragon, I love what you have written. Notwithstanding Thomas's gripes about making generalisations, I am with you all the way in the main thrust of your argument. In fact, I was only saying the same thing today. To say you believe in something you have not experienced and do not know is nonsense. Even if you accept traditional beliefs, these are not your beliefs, they are someone else's.

But let's put it another way. If you were to write down all the things that made life worth living, all the brilliant things you had seen and done, all the wonderful people you had met or places you had been, that would be step one. Then if you thought about those rare transcendant moments when you felt within touching distance of heaven, that would be step two. Then if you can feel the sense of the love that surrounds you, and the essential beauty of being alive, and the connectedness of all creation, that would be the third step. Then you would need to give all this a name, and you could call it God, or Allah or Spirit or the Universe if you like. That is no tentative belief, that is naming what you know and the reason for living.

Like you, I think it's sad that so many people don't even know where the starting block is. So many people in the infancy of their faith. In the Church of England, the clergy are trained to understand that the virgin birth was symbolic not factual, there were no three wise men, the miracles didn't happen like that etc, but do they tell this to their congregations? Of course not! People would need to be nursed up from their primitive belief structure bit by bit. But in practice they don't bother, and all we see in the news is some nit-wit decrying Harry Potter, and people think that's Christianity.

In the mean time kids are being educated that human life is all some bizarre cosmic accident and we shall all be wiped out by a meteor strike soon anyway, and that only things you can measure really exist. It is high time a true sense of spirituality was reintroduced to our society before we all turn into consumerist robots.

 

[PsychedelicDragon]

Hi PsychedelicDragon —

Well, you've steamed into this one, lambasting all and sundry to either side, so do forgive me if I respond in like fashion.

If your one of those types who insults everyone who doesn't think like you, and then cries 'offence!' when they answer back, please do not read on from here. Take it from me, I disagree with the notion that 'direct experience' can be attained, and even when it is, relied on absolutely without reference.



==========================================================




Then again ... "But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name" John 1:12 is from the same tradition.

So the point is, pick your tradition and go with it ... but don't try to mix n'n match, or pick 'n' mix, you'll only end up utterly confused, or with a syncretic hodge=podge that says a lot, with no substance whatsoever.


Says the same in Christianity, too.


But one might need years and years of spiritual discipline to appreciate the spiritual depths of these truths, beyond their superficial appearances.


One is assuming here that everyone receives direct experience of the divine. That is not given in any tradition.


Actually:
O.E. belyfan "to believe," earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love" (cf. O.S. gilobian, Du. geloven, O.H.G. gilouben, Ger. glauben), from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. but now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.
So say the common etymologies.


That's a rather huge generalisation, an astounding assumption, and highly offensive to those, of all traditions, who express a belief.

Then again, many people don't believe in anything, stumble into this life, stumble around, and stumble out again ...

It's also a flawed argument.


Or who believe themselves to be infallible.


Another outrageous assumption and, frankly, ignorant to the extreme. You are suggesting that everyone who professes a faith are mindless drones who can't think for themselves. I, for one, can see more holes in your propositions so far than in a colander.


You do seem to have a rather high opinion of yourself, and a low opinion of everyone else. Whilst I can accept a dislike of fundamentalism (such as you display in excess), but to condemn 'the overwhelming vast majority' is frankly ... beyond words.


Well, if you think that, I can see you've researched the matter no further than your own ignorant and ill-informed presumptions.

I could offer a definition of the Deity from the Christian tradition, but I doubt you'd understand a single word I was saying.


Then you don't understand the philosophical idea of 'person' either, let alone the theological one. Let me offer you one: a person is 'an individual being of a rational nature' and is not limited to humans ...


Then maybe you should spend more time contemplating their allegorical significance.


Depends what denomination of Christianity you're referring to. Not mine, for a start, so please don't lump Catholicism with whoever you have in mind ... have you ever heard of 'theology'? A working definition is 'faith seeking understanding' by the process of rational thought.


Good, you're right on that point at least.


Like to see it do that. There are quite a few philosophical hypotheses that suggest that's not possible, but I'll leave the zazen practitioners to pick up that one.


Well, you've displayed a quite remarkable degree lack of rationality so far.


Again, on what basis are you assuming such is even possible. Just because the spiritual exists (and your terminology gives no real clue to what you're talking about, precisely), the general consensus of most traditions is that it is not attained by some empirical method. A lifetime of zazen does not guarantee spiritual insight, for example.


You mean that the human is absolutely infallible in understanding the absolute nature of experience?

As everything you've said so far assumes not, I suggest you think about it. My answer is 'no', if there's one thing that's certain, it's the human capacity for self-delusion.


Well you're assuming you know it to be true in the first place.


Good point. There is a difference between faith and knowledge in this sense.


Maybe because they don't believe that. I think it's your delusion about what they believe, not theirs about what they believe.


But what about those who have faith, and direct experience of that which points to their faith being true?


Er ... maybe because the allegory and the metaphor signifies something else, I mean, that's the definition of what allegory and metaphor does ...

It seems to me you're saying because something is an allegory/metaphor, it's not true (itself an assumption, but I'll let it pass), therefore we don't have to believe the a/m, which entirely misses the point of what the a/m is saying ...


Er ... no they don't necessarily ...


But the shamans were, in effect, a priesthood to which people paid reverence. Not everyone was a shaman ... so you seem to shoot your experientai largument in the foot here.


Oh, good greif, not this old saw again.


This may well be true, but it does not invalidate the religion, does it.


Which I suggest is a fantasy.


Not half as silly as thinking a kingdom can fit inside me ... there's just about enough room for me, there's not much left over for anyone else.


Well you've made a good fist of doing just that.


OK. Let me challenge yours. How would you known the difference between an authentic spiritual experience, and a delusion of your own subconscious?


I might express some degree of skepticism with regard to your ability to know the divine, on any terms.


I think that if you convince yourself that direct experience is the key, then your subconscious mind is looking forward to a field day, at your expense.

Thomas

Hello Thomas, that's quite an interesting name you got there. Well of course Thomas is a popular name, but I do have a particular interest in the disciple Thomas, he is one of my favorites of Jesus's disciples. In particular, my favorite book in all of christianity would probably be the Gospel of Thomas. I do feel that this gospel catches the message of Jesus quite well, much more than other gospels. It's a shame it was left out of the official canon that the majority of christians consider as the word of god. I suppose this has something to do with the fact that Constantine, the so called "Saint" who convened the council of nicaea, didn't like what was being said in how the gospel empowered individuals, not the church, in their quest for union with the divine. It's no wonder this same tyrant murdered millions of christians to promote his new church as the only valid one.

Anyways, there would be no reason for me to take offense to those who disagree with me, nor would it make any sense for me to insult those who do not like me. All I am offering here is my humble opinion, and if you don't agree with me that direct experience is the way to god, then you are entitled to believe whatever you want.

Do not take what I have said offensively as it seems you have. No I did not say someone who professes a faith is automatically "ignorant", especially when that word "faith" has many different meanings. Obviously you are using the word faith in a different way that I am using it, so obviously I'm not referring to your specific type of "faith". Nor am I saying the adherents of organized religion are all deluded and not practicing genuine spirituality. I was just pointing out that the vast majority of religious people I come across with, portrayed in the media, ect. do use that original sort of faith as meaning a uninformed hopeful possibility.

Nor am I saying all priesthoods are corrupted either. Many of them are. All I'm really saying is think independently from your priests, don't let them think for you. But hey, if that is what you want to do you are more than free to do so. If it helps you then I don't have any problem with it.

 

[PsychedelicDragon]

Dragon, I love what you have written. Notwithstanding Thomas's gripes about making generalisations, I am with you all the way in the main thrust of your argument. In fact, I was only saying the same thing today. To say you believe in something you have not experienced and do not know is nonsense. Even if you accept traditional beliefs, these are not your beliefs, they are someone else's.

But let's put it another way. If you were to write down all the things that made life worth living, all the brilliant things you had seen and done, all the wonderful people you had met or places you had been, that would be step one. Then if you thought about those rare transcendant moments when you felt within touching distance of heaven, that would be step two. Then if you can feel the sense of the love that surrounds you, and the essential beauty of being alive, and the connectedness of all creation, that would be the third step. Then you would need to give all this a name, and you could call it God, or Allah or Spirit or the Universe if you like. That is no tentative belief, that is naming what you know and the reason for living.

Like you, I think it's sad that so many people don't even know where the starting block is. So many people in the infancy of their faith. In the Church of England, the clergy are trained to understand that the virgin birth was symbolic not factual, there were no three wise men, the miracles didn't happen like that etc, but do they tell this to their congregations? Of course not! People would need to be nursed up from their primitive belief structure bit by bit. But in practice they don't bother, and all we see in the news is some nit-wit decrying Harry Potter, and people think that's Christianity.

In the mean time kids are being educated that human life is all some bizarre cosmic accident and we shall all be wiped out by a meteor strike soon anyway, and that only things you can measure really exist. It is high time a true sense of spirituality was reintroduced to our society before we all turn into consumerist robots.

Yup. I don't see why clergy has to hide their theological insights and teachings from the people, as you have pointed out in your example of the Church of England. It only makes those who are unsure about religion move closer to no trust in spirituality. It certainly does breed primitive notions like harry potter and other works of fantasy are somehow against the ultimate spiritual truth. When in fact these are all separate spheres of human affairs. As a result, superstition is rampant among many people who call themselves religious.

And then on the other hand, you have the opposition to dogmatic faith, which is orthodox materialistic science. Now don't get me wrong, I do think we should take what science has to say as a pragmatic ground for material affairs. But to assume that we are nothing but tiny specs in an insignificant solar system, in an insignificant galaxy, somewhere on the edge of the universe, really disempowers the individuals as well. But I suppose science shouldn't try to delve too much into what it can't measure. Even so, it is sad that many people who are sick of the superstition in the organized religion they were followed have to go to the complete opposite, and loose their sense of awe and wonder that inspires spirituality.

The spirit truly does exists, and while it can't be measured using sophisticated scientific tools, it can be seen on the degree of feeling energy within ourselves. When we coalesce around community ideas, when we share our existence using all the energy we have within us, spirit is generated. A simple way to put it is the spirit is linked to the felt presence of immediate experience.

But if people are led to believe that materialism is the only ideal, then it is easy to slip into the type of consumerism you are talking about. Isolated with their things, they may gain all the wealth they desire and yet gain no self in the process.

Certainly one factor that has been downplayed on both sides is our very own perception. For instance color does not exist objectively, color is a symbolism of the human mind. Our mind creates reality in the same way reality creates our mind. An objective universe may lie outside of us, but the fact still remains that the way we perceive this objective reality is based on subjective faculties in the mind. And those faculties are as important as the physical reality we are trying to perceive.

 

[OAT]

Those who have direct experiences numbered much less than those who do not. And among those who have direct experiences, those whose experience is truly an experience of direct access to the true reality numbered much less than those who have a direct experience of something but ascribed the label of "Truth" to their experience.

In brief, the reality is that very very very few people have direct experience of the true reality. So what do these people do? They have only the words of those who claimed to have direct experience of the true reality to work on. Some take those words with faith either because they were told to do so, or because they were emotionally inclined to do so. Others use reasoning to work out if the claims have a high probability of truth or not and then decide to believe or not to believe accordingly. I belong to the latter.

I don't have direct experience of the true reality, but I have experience with someone who appears to me to have direct experience of the true reality. I use reasoning to decide whether to believe or not. For example, based on reasoning, I find that a belief in an almighty creator God just don't make sense and that the existence of an almighty creator God is just not in accord with the mess that the world is in. So straightaway, this ruled out for me any form of belief that involves an almighty creator God.

In brief, my approach to my beliefs is to base them on reasoning and not purely on faith. Hopefully, one day, I myself will have direct experience of the true reality and then I can dispense with both faith and reasoning.

As for the poll, I did not vote as neither options work for me

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Somewhere in the archives of the Philosophy section there's an interesting discussion on the nature of belief that some of us who are still here were involved in. I think that I expressed my own personal opinion that belief is an integral part of one's decision making process when a full data set is unavailable. When you think about it, a full data set is almost never available, so we are constantly utilizing the tool of belief whether we know it or not. How do I go about deciding what car, or television to buy? I can do all sorts of research and talk to people who own, or have owned the product, but in the end there's still going to be an element of going on a feeling, or hunch, that this or that one is the "right" one. That "feeling" of rightness may be based on all sorts of rationally recommending factors, like the longevity, or seeming "mainstream-ness" and long-term respectability of the manufacturer, or the fact that Dad and Grandpa always liked Chevy's, but there's still that rational gap that must be filled in with belief: belief that what my gut is telling me is right.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Chris, I did make a response to you, but somehow it got placed in the moderator's approval section. I'm not sure why, maybe it was a bit long. Hopefully it will appear soon.

I'll look forward to reading that.

Chris

 

[path_of_one]

I voted direct experience/knowledge. However, there's a catch.

In my religion (Pagan), there really isn't dogma. We just don't have it, at least not in the tradition and order I'm in.

Yet, I wouldn't say that just because my religion is grounded in personal experience, there is no faith. I must have faith in myself and that my personal experience matters in order to ground my religious beliefs in that experience. That is, I could take the position that my experience is inherently flawed, faulty, or unhelpful, and that would make my religion impossible to follow. So, there is still a grounding in faith, despite the emphasis on personal gnosis.

That said, I have heard many Pagans, including spiritual teachers I respect and from whom I've learned a great deal, explain that a fundamental difference between Paganism and many other religions (particularly the Western/Abrahamic religions) is that we have a fundamentally experiential religion. There is more of an experimental design to the Pagan traditions, and individualism in belief is widely not only accepted but encouraged. We figure- why have faith in another person's experience and belief, when you can generate your own through dedicated study, practice, and contemplation? The community is designed around communal practice and support than agreement in ideology.