The "Secret of Degeneration" vs "Progressive Revelation"

[Vessariò]

In my introduction thread, A Cup of Tea asks:

So you don't see it as ancient spiritual practices like shamanism that evolve into more elaborate rituals that eventually became organized religion?

I reply that in my opinion, there are two main schools of thought. I will briefly write on them here.

The first, which is a more "modern" view, is that of "progressive revelation". According to such a doctrine, the process of revelation, is an unceasing march of progress across time, with each iteration of the Divine Message being more profound than its predecessor. There is thus, in this worldview an evolutionary tendency, by which man might grow closer to a "perfected" state over vast spans of time.

The second is that of the "secret of degeneration". This was a view that was common in most of the ancient world. For instance, in the works of Hesiod, we see that he divides human history into four ages, each more degenerate than the next. In Genesis, this concept is also alluded to by relating the Fall of Man from his union with God (whether Adam walked with an incarnate God or not is immaterial at this point), to his state of sin.

Thus we find within the human state, the tendency towards the "exteriorisation" which applies to the body, soul, and spirit. An example of this exteriorisation includes a shift from direct apprehension of intelligible realities of the soul to a cerebralisation involving ever more ratiocination.

Through such aforementioned cycles, Guénon attempts to explain the present condition of humanity. Guénon defines the modern world as being a degeneration of what he calls "the traditional world". According to him, the real separation between the East and West comes from this degeneration is a problem of "time" rather than "space". Amidst the global period of intellectual confusion and disorder that characterizes modernity, very few institutions had maintained the original wisdom transmitted to humanity from time immemorial.

The slightly more controversial Italian writer, Julius Evola also dealt with this topic in an essay called the "Secret of Degeneration" (whose title I have used to name the thread)

All this said, it is entirely possible, as the Traditional worldview tends to be more cyclical, that there are patterns of degeneration and regeneration, and that both forces work simultaneously, at once interacting and complementing each other.

 

[Dream]

Personally I think that people themselves are the forces, and laziness affects the shaping of traditions. It would explain how would you could have periods of improvement and periods of degeneration. It would make sense that when people have it good they become lazy but when they don't they apply more effort. A simple example is a house with a roof. While the roof is watertight, people ignore it; but when it starts to leak they consider repairing it. They therefore create a cycle. Instead of constantly checking the roof and keeping it in a state of continual perfection they wait until something goes wrong.

 

[Vessariò]

Personally I think that people themselves are the forces, and laziness affects the shaping of traditions. It would explain how would you could have periods of improvement and periods of degeneration. It would make sense that when people have it good they become lazy but when they don't they apply more effort. A simple example is a house with a roof. While the roof is watertight, people ignore it; but when it starts to leak they consider repairing it. They therefore create a cycle. Instead of constantly checking the roof and keeping it in a state of continual perfection they wait until something goes wrong.

You raise some good points. At the risk of delving into metahistory in a thread that is strictly supposed to be about religion, I recommend the works of ibn Khaldun, Arnold J. Toynbee, and Oswald Spengler (civilization, after all, is linked to matters of the religious whether we find it tasteful or not). All of these suggested that civilizations reach a peak, but degeneration is almost inevitable, because after reaching the peak, there is no impetus to continue.

Of course, in reality, I admit that the question of degeneration vs. progressive revelation is far too broad for us to answer if we are to avoid dogma or jumping to conclusions.

 

[iBrian]

The issue with shamanism is that it was exclusive - the shaman was the gatekeeper to the world of the spirits. However, ancestor worship was a standard norm among European peoples.

You can see more of this in the Roman record:
Roman Religion : Interfaith

I tend to see the rise of Roman gods as effectively one man's ancestor worship becoming a tribal rather than personal issue, with the forms greatly shaped by external influences as they were assimilated (Etruscans, Latins, Greeks, etc).

So there's a pointer that animism was never simply about shamanism, but in itself held there to be different degrees of communion with those things considered divine. It's also worth noting how technology helped focus attention on certain natural forces - the common "agricultural god" figure who dies and is reborn every year again adds another layer.

Personal + tribal + universal in a way of categorising at least some of the pointers with animism.

(I may be going off-topic here. )

 

[Vessariò]

I believe it was al-Ghazali whose argument against polytheism or animism was that it constrained man to be bound by the forces of the "created" material world rather than the created world. Thus, it was those who had forgotten God, who had degenerated into worshipping the spirits, whilst those who had retained the remembrance of God remained in the "state of full submission" to God. It was therefore the latter, who were capable of Transcendence, whilst the latter were always tied to the forces of nature.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

To organize religion is to make religion something dead, life is dynamic, and so must religion be. Yet, in saying this, there is no progression to religion either.

What a particular enlightened being experiences is absolute truth, but nothing expressed can touch truth, for it only originates from it. This is why different enlightened beings seem to be saying different things, yet fundamentally what they point to is the same. All originate from a particular tradition, and so will voice things based on the terminology they know. As soon as this happens, it is no more true, for the listener will become prideful that this man or woman is confirming their belief. As soon as you bring out anothers pride in praise of your words, you have failed that one.

I do not think degredation of religion is a secret, either, though. I think it is plain to understand that the more unenlightened beings try to decipher the words of an enlightened being after the master has died, obviously it will venture more an more from the original intent. This is something so obvious we have created a childhood game of it - telephone. The only difference is that we believe this interpretation is correct because they quote correctly the same text we possess.

This is why it is so important to seek a genuine sage, they will understand correctly what was meant because they have experienced the same as what is written about.

 

[Thomas]

This is why it is so important to seek a genuine sage, they will understand correctly what was meant because they have experienced the same as what is written about.

And, notably, they have nothing ill to say of religion.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

And, notably, they have nothing ill to say of religion.

I have never spoken ill of religion, I speak negatively of belief.

If you believe, you have the answer, so you will not ask the question.

The believer is the ego though.

Religion means to re-bind, it is to overcome the sense of division, separation.

Ego is the cause of perceived separation.

In reality, all is ever one.

This oneness is religiousness, and is all I speak on.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

What the sage calls love, silence, peace, bliss...

All are a way to describe the state which is free of ego.

The focus in the east is on silencing the mind because it is where ego stems.

Your whole identification is nothing but a sequence of thoughts.
Your beliefs are just more thoughts.

In quieting the mind, in meditation usually, ego gradually ceases to assert itself.

When ego subsides, there is only what you would call God.

Although this is just a word, another thought.

What is found is beyond all words.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

In utterly surrendering, total humility, you finally understand:

I and my father are one.

The "I" without modification is the same essence as the father, and all life.

Yehweh - I am that I am... and that alone is.

 

[wil]

I am in the father and the father in me...

Not like a raisin in a bun, but a wave in the ocean - Eric Butterworth...

We are all the only begotten and continually begotten...

Yes with humility, yes without ego, yes with awareness....

now to work beyond understanding to actualizing....

 

[AdvaitaZen]

I am in the father and the father in me...

Not like a raisin in a bun, but a wave in the ocean - Eric Butterworth...

We are all the only begotten and continually begotten...

Yes with humility, yes without ego, yes with awareness....

now to work beyond understanding to actualizing....

It is false to speak of Realisation. What is there to realise? The real is as it is, ever. How to real-ise it? All that is required is this. We have real-ised the unreal, i.e., regarded as real what is unreal. We have to give up this attitude. That is all that is required for us to attain jnana. We are not creating anything new or achieving something which we did not have before.

~ Sri Ramana Maharshi

When we choose silence, we choose to give up the reasons not to love, which are the reasons for going to war, or continuing war, or separating, or being a victim, or being right. In a moment of silence, in a moment of no thought, no mind, we choose to give up the reasons not to love. Just choose silence. Don't even choose love. Choose silence, and love is apparent. If we choose love we already have an idea of what love is. But if you choose silence, that is the end of ideas. You are willing to have no idea, to see what is present when there is no idea, past, present, future. No idea of love, no idea of truth, no idea of you, no idea of me. Love is apparent.

~ Gangaji

You cannot become actualized, because it is ego will try and ego is the veil.

Simply sit in silence, be still, and allow existence to take you.

If you have problems with this, breathing exercises can help, but do not get stuck in them.

As the ego subsides naturally through not feeding it, a great energy comes, abundant life is there. It is just that it cannot be your doing, if it could be our doing we would not have words like grace. It happens more in our undoing, when we give ourselves totally, when we stop trying to attain because we see it is impossible.

That seeing of the impossibility of everything is the Dark Night of the Soul, let it burn, let it dissolve you, then there is only this. It is not that we have ever been non-actualized, such a thing is impossible.

The problem is it is so subtle, so simple, that we go on missing it. Often, religions will cause us to have magical imaginings about what will happen, and the mystical experiences are every bit of that, but whatsoever comes and goes is subject to time.

Find out what is eternal - not subject to time, which even time is observed by.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

The ocean and wave analogy is beautiful.

Each wave appears distinct, it rises as birth and falls as death.

If we approach the wave, we can find nowhere its end and the oceans beginning.

It is really only our minds which make them two things.

In reality, only water moving.