"God," Language, and Evocative Meaning: An Integral Conundrum

Julian,

I really appreciate how you've laid out this analysis and made your case for an alternative language.  I will come back and respond to some of your points more specifically in a subsequent post.  For now, what I feel moved to discuss is a paradigm that tantric (and higher) paths offer to Western theistic traditions:  the yidam, the meditation deity and the mode of spiritual practice related to it.  The yidam has sometimes been compared to an archetype, but this isn't really accurate – in my opinion, this analogy doesn't get at the depth or subtlety of what the yidam both “stands for” and, more importantly, actually enacts.  Are you familiar with yidams – how they are conceived and related to?

The yidam or meditation deity, while held in the mind as a living, vital, sacred presence – a vibrant enactment of the sacred energies of being, rather than just a “representation” of them – is nevertheless recognized as ultimately inseparable from your own mind.  The relationship with the yidam is simultaneously a devotional, I-Thou encounter, as the yidam is visualized in meditation and prayer, and an I-I encounter, as it is dissolved at the end of meditation back into one's own heart and mind. 

This approach, in my view, fully honors the power of our ages-old habit of personifying the divine, but takes it well beyond literal mythical “belief.”

Best wishes,

B.

balder - while i'm not sure of the specific utility of the yidam, that kind of consciously conceptualised “device” is similar to therapeutic visualisation tools increasingly being used in integrative psychotherapy. how is the yidam presented ontologically to students of the traditions that use it in their teachings i wonder?

best

adam

julian

you got there before me with the god language post. damn you're quick. and comprehensive. great post…

Now, this experience and it's powerful implications are very often conflated with the belief that what is happening is an experience of “god.”

i don't see how the conceptual interpretation of these states of consciousness as god, ultimate ground or any other flavour of ontological truth claim layered onto the state can't “get in the way of” the raw experience.

just feel it… it's all yours.

Julian,

Laying down terminology was a good idea. Maybe we can all find our way to the same page now, or at lest the same shelf.

I am in agreement with you that nothing is supernatural. There is no infinite intelligence above or beyond the natural world. There is nothing outside our capacity to relate to. If it is real, we can experience it.

About God in 3rd person, those believers who practice a process theology would agree that this God is more like a verb than a noun. But when we say God is “in” life, we don't mean underneath the skin or between the skull. We mean the organizing principle responsible for the form of the body itself. Conceiving of the life force, or God, as other than the body, as immaterial and somehow above it, is to violently tear form from matter. I think this is a mistake, even though it may be useful for the formalization of terms, for the accuracy of definitions, etc. In reality (ie, in experience), form and matter are never found apart.

Blake's vision of energy as “eternal delight” shows me that he recognized the simultaneity of subject and object. I know, I need to explain that. Here's what I mean: “energy is eternal delight” is identifying a subjective quality with an objective quanta. At the most fundamental level of reality, the inside and the outside become one.

This is significant when we try to deal with the apparent problem of finalism. If God is involved in the process of evolution, then it seems there must be a final destination for the whole process planned in advance. But it ain't necessarily so. If we remember not to take literally the grammatical distinction made between subject and object (between God and evolution), we realize that the beginning and the end of evolution are not a straight line but an endless circle. God just likes to play, to delight in eternity, which Hindu theology is well aware of (Watts often seemed to suggest Hinduism was a more mature monotheism than Christianity, in that it recognized that good and evil were both aspects of God).

The mythic structure is happiest engaged in circular reasoning : ).

The mental structure is cringing, though…

The rational mind wants to say that evolution is most certainly NOT a circular (irrational) process. It is a developmental sequence with a clearly discernable beginning and (eventually) ending. We can (conceptually) stand outside the process and watch the whole thing happen (so while evolution is represented as a line, the rational perspective itself is actually triangular, as the rational mind is the point from which the other points, beginning and ending, are viewed). You'll notice that both materialists and creationists agree about the structure of nature and our perspective on it, even while their time frames are vastly different. The world has a beginning and an ending for each. The crucial difference between the two is that materialists talk about a “big bang” and entropy as the cause and effect, while creationists say it was a transcendent Law Giver who created and will destroy the world. Both amount to the same thing, that we know for sure where we came from and where it is all going. Creationists are more influenced by rationalty than it first appears.
 
How are we to integrate this geometrical disagreement between mythic and rational structures? Maybe we ought to begin to think spherically… The mythical circle is too superficial, too slippery. The rational triangle is too constricting, too serious. But a sphere gives us room for depth and the time to develop genuine meaning, to learn to play for keeps, to dance intentionally, to laugh with purpose, etc (I am playing on the sense in which mythos is playful while rationality is concentrated, and that integrating them requires a bit of ingenuity).  A sphere allows for circles and lines, but transcends each.

These shapes and their relation to structures of consciousness come from Gebser's Origin, btw. Maybe they will be useful scaffolds, maybe not. If not, I have just digressed–let's get back to finalism!

Evolution is both ordered and chaotic. In other words, it is creative. It doesn't know what it is going to do next, but you can bet the general trend will be toward greater depth and intensity of experience by way of increasingly complex intra-bodily organization and inter-body relationship. So the goal of evolution is, basically, “Go Deeper!” It isn't the sort of goal that is out there waiting. It is created as evolution unfolds. 

Enough of 3rd person God, let's go on to 1st person. Oh, before we do, I think that so long as we all keep in mind that “God in third person” is shorthand for all the stuff that was just discussed (here and in your text, Julian), we can avoid the somewhat “dulling and confusing” reaction to hearing it phrased that way. Now, among other company, maybe we might want to be more careful…

1st person God… yes mystical experience is what is being pointed to here. These experiences are certainly transformative. One can learn more in the span of a few minutes during one of these experiences than they might in entire lifetimes otherwise. Mystical experiences are certainly related to the brain and the genes within neurons. But even in mainstream neuroscience, nature and nuture are now recognized as fully integrated. We cannot determine that either organism or environment is ultimately responsible for any particular proclivity. This doesn't mean that, in the case of individual organisms, we cannot examine the genome and get a good idea what traits they are expected to exhibit. I am talking here on an evolutionary scale, not individual organisms. The real cause of our brain structure (and therfore the experience which is related to it) is not our brain, but brain, genes, and environment as they developed through time together. In other words, these mystical experiences are based on the whole of our brain's relationship to reality, not just on the brain here and now in this particular time slice. This is exactly what the experience itself feels like, no? The descriptions don't do justice to it, and may even distort it, but at least I am not using “God” : )

Now, this is what I am really interested in… God in 2nd person. I was going to make a video response to discuss where I stand on this, but I figured that would be disruptive of the general style here. But let me explain why I wanted to make a video… Text-based discussion seems to naturally dichotomize reality into subjective and objective categories. I have my opinions and perspective, but I use words we can all share in an attempt to to describe them. But because the words are very clearly external to me, up here on the screen, they are objectified. This is why we are able to logically dissect one another's attempts to lay down the law as we see it. We all make the tacit assumption that reality is out there, and that our job is to accurately reflect it with our words. This is hopeless, obviously. Can we ever agree about what words best stand for what we experience? If we could, language wouldn't be worth the tremendous amount of effort it takes to learn it! It'd be too static to mean anything useful, and would be at a loss to describe anything dynamic (which is most of reality).  If we really want to be on the same page, we'd need to dispense with words while sharing each other's embodied company (video would have come closer than text, if not all the way). The shared presence which results when such communion takes place doesn't come because we all surrender to a more intelligent being external to ourselves. Nor does it come when we see the divine in others. It comes because we allow ourselves to return to that primal ground before a word was uttered, where self and other are not yet two. Again, I managed not to use “God,” but I find it impossible to dispense with metaphysical language. This doesn't necessarily mean the I-Thou encounter/identification with the divine is supernatural. It just means I cannot begin to say anything about it without using such provocative language.

Blake's poem is wonderful. He expresses well what I was trying to hint at earlier about form and matter not being separate:

“All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors.

1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.”

God as “I” is the unity experience.

God as “It” is the creative force, as y'all have been saying. Almaas calls it the “Optimizing Force” or the “Evolutionary Force.”  Here is a quick definition (although he may not be differentiating between Wilberian states and stages when he says “self-realization,” by which most people mean the unity experience or the first face of God):

“It is this ontologically given, and spontaneously functioning, evolutionary dynamism of the self that we see driving human psychological evolution, which is experienced directly in self-realization, but lost sight of in the experience of the ego-self. The dynamism of Being drives the evolutionary thrust of the self at all stages of its development, but it is also the dynamic center and source of any activity and creativity in the state of self-realization.” (The Point of Existence, p. 485)

This isn't a pie-in-the-sky thing for Almaas—or for Wilber, Aurobindo, or the at times vastly underrated Andrew Cohen—it is in fact something one can get in touch with and live from (and does at the third-tier stages). Here is a discussion from Almaas about it from Spacecruiser Inquiry:

“The Desire for Guidance

Guidance is a way of referring to the discriminating intelligence of this optimizing force of our Being. So experiencing guidance does not mean that you are a child who is going to be taken by the hand from one place or experience to another. Guidance is the accurate discernment of the optimizing direction for experience, moment to moment.  It is needed when the soul is not living from her true nature-when she is in the familiar situation of obscuration and distraction.

If the soul is operating from her own inherent capacities-from true nature-she will not need guidance for her development. Then unfoldment will happen on its own because that is what an optimizing force means. It is a force within our soul that is intelligent, responsive, and aware. It will respond to things accurately, intelligently, and appropriately to develop the soul in the best way that she can develop. And that is what we want when we seek any kind of guidance-internal or external. Inner guidance means the directing of our unfoldment so that the unfoldment will optimize itself all the way to wholeness. Inner guidance guides the soul in her unfoldment so that she will unfold in the right direction, correctly, toward maximizing and optimizing her life and experience.

The more deeply we become involved in our unfoldment and the more we align with it, the more our external life situations become part of that unfolding. Issues such as which girlfriend or boyfriend to have, which business to be in, where and how to live, and so on, will become subsumed in the unfoldment. This is not necessarily true at the beginning of the journey, and it depends on the relevance of the particular situation to the overall unfoldment of the soul. For example, sometimes deciding which job to take is crucial for your unfoldment, but sometimes it isn't. Guidance will function to help you see which job to take if that choice is relevant for your overall unfoldment. All the practical choices we have to make in life can be within the range of inner guidance if we look at them from the perspective of what will optimize our overall development.

In other words, what determines whether guidance will function or not is not what you want the guidance for, but what your motivation is. If you want guidance about a job because you want to make more money, that is not relevant for the guidance. If you want guidance about jobs because you want to see which one is going to enhance your soul's development, you will probably get guidance. So the more aligned and attuned we are with our optimizing force-with the inherent evolutionary movement in our soul-the more guidance arises. That's why people who are externally oriented tend not to be guided in the way we are talking about here. They are being guided, but by external considerations.” [p.203-205]



However, while the discrimination necessary to realize this guidance is found beginning in Turquoise/Indigo, there remains in the person very relative, personal structures. There is still in the person an egocentric, an ethnocentric, a nationcentric. These selves have been put in the back seat and are increasingly drained of energy while identity is pulled more and more out of them, but they are still there, and this is one reason the second face of God idea still has validity even for the most evolved people. The Indigo force, the Violet force is not within the personal self—it is outside the personal self, though paradoxically it is the same force that has been driving the personal self and evolving the personal self.

It is nevertheless, in the beginning in particular and increasingly less over time, experienced as something that is outside the self, an impersonal energy and intelligence rather than a personal energy and intelligence—the response in the beginning is likely to be “this is Other.” The most personal part of ourselves then has to “surrender” to this energy and intelligence, which at the same time is not other than who we ultimately are and have always been. It is simply that the most relative part of ourselves thinks it is other, so the second face of God is a useful idea for integrating the two and aligning the personal self with the impersonal Indigo self, Violet self, etc.

Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen have a great discussion about this here. The reason why this is so rarely discussed is that it is a stage emergence that hasn't been around that long. I agree, however, that the idea of God can derail a person's discrimination of this “guidance,” among other things. That's tricky business. At the moment that starts to happen you have to switch to God in the third person a la Almaas (“experiencing guidance does not mean that you are a child who is going to be taken by the hand from one place or experience to another”). I believe it's a mistake to teach those third-tier stages simply as “surrender.” As one teacher I know has said, surrender is discrimination and discrimination is surrender.

At any rate, God as It is the grain of truth in the mythic religions.


David

First:

“God” is the third person reality of the inner human responding to its imperfection that humnas have evolved to over time.

The negative aspects of “God” have ironically come about because of human imperfection.

The cure has been infected by the disease!

I took it easy on you in the first part because I agree with half of your observations but have problems with you and Wilber's conclusions.

His post modern “God” is just as much a fantasy as the “mythic” God.

This is so because Wilber and the other postmodern “scientific mystics” don't accept the reality that humans are in a condition of MISDEVELOPEMENT. [Called “fallen man” in spiritual jargon] Therefore [humans] have a need to develop a “God” system or spiritual system [that doesn't have to have anything to do with “god” such as Buddhism] because of this condition.

Indeed the postmodernist are deluded that: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH US, WE ARE EVOLVING.

This fantasy is just as bad as the sky goders who think spirituality is an outward phenomenon; whereas the postmodern “scientific mystics”, like Julian, Wilber, Balder, and many others here have the delusion that WE ARE EVOLVING, AND THERE IS NOTHING OUT OF KILTER WITH THE HUMAN CONDITION.

That is a fatal delusion!

More later

Julian,

I appreciate your explorations here.  As a Catholic, and very happy one at that, I imagine that instills within your mind, and your spirit, a certain impression of who I am.  But if I were asked what my definition of God is… my answer would be… “all consciousness that is based in love”. 

And then some would say… “Well you better be careful calling yourself a Catholic, because that is not the definition they believe in.”

And I would say… “poppycock”.

The definitions of God that you shared at the beginning of this thread, like many definitions in dictionaries… are old, and do not necessarily reflect on the fact that religious thought does evolve, very much like an Integral model.

For example, In the past, the Catholic Church, as did all Christian Churches, taught that hell was a place of eternal damnation, fire and brimstone. 

Less than 6 years ago, Pope John Paul II, the then leader of what many view as the most dogmatic Church on the planet, shared that Hell is not a place, it does not exist outside of us… hell is inside of us… when one turns their back on God, on love, then thier spirit / consciousness is filled with anger and fear… and when we die, we take with us the anger and fear that we created for ourselves on earth.  God does not punish for not loving, love is always here to embrace, and those who chose not to love… choose an eternity without love… without God.

Last year, Pope Benedict wrote a book called God is Love.  In it, he shares many dimensions on the consciousness of Love.  He does not speak of God as a being, nor heaven as a place… but God and humans as a shared consciousness in the spirit of love.

I agree that there are many, like yourself, who when they hear the word God…. they cringe with images of the past… that are filled with fear, violence and dogma.  No one denies that all happened in the past.  Perhaps it happened because virtually every civilization on the planet were war mongerers, rapers and pillagers.  Their consciousness had not evolved to the point that it has today.

But that is not what people who have devoted their lives to their religion hear.  For the vast majority, they find love, community and beauty in their beliefs.

All I am trying to share is that evolutionary consciousness is not solely the domain of Integral and Wilber… it is part of almost every religion on earth… everyone feels change and is called to evolve… the 'religious' are not stuck in the past… unless they choose to be… and those choices are conscious ones out of free choice, not dogma.

Thanks

Dave

What a bunch of well-informed and sensitive expressions. I applaud the wisdom.

On the other hand, I cant help but play the devils advocate and point to the context. The conundrum is born from integral culture's relationship to mythic terminology. It's a recent development, but it may have seeds in the distant past. Jewish tradition has it that the very name of god is unpronouncable, hell, I can't even spell it. Perhaps there is some wisdom there. Perhaps these mental exercises distance us from the divine rather than bringing us closer. Perhaps these attempts create barriers to Truth rather than bridges.

These higher devices are imbedded in decending currents. Could they not subvert important processes of development in the later developments of the first tier providing more grasping attachments, justifications and rationalizations of that which should be transcended?

I hardly think that an authentic second or third tier has any need or use of such devices, not for it's own development. The confusion and difficulties are the result of attempting to market higher insights to lower levels and it might carry a slight stink of intellectual dishonesty, a compromise of values. Perhaps it is the result of some left-over green over-sensitivity that hasn't grown a big enough set of hang-em-downs to shoot straight from the hip and tell an ugly truth.

Truth aint always pretty. It can be a bitter pill to swallow.

Could it (the conundrum) be collective shadow crying for more light to be shed in…..?

Julian, I appreciate your analysis of the 1-2-3 of “God,” and I agree with most of what you write. I also do not believe in some supernatural, externalized diety. My experience has shown me that many people (though certainly not most) who identify as Christian also do not believe in such a “God.”

Where I still disagree with you largely revolves around statements like this:
Interestingly, as sophisticated and nuanced as one's definition of “god” gets, the underlying notion of a supernatural being/force that creates or controls our lives and is behind the curtain, animating  reality etc is one that I don't think is ever overcome or not-meant when we use the word.

You can likely see from my lead-in that I actually think that more sophisticated “definitions” of God explicitly get rid of the notion of a supernatural being/force. Certainly no definition is Truth, though. My thinking aligns quite well with the writing of Matt (buddhacious), and he does a much better job of elaborating his (and my) position, so I won't rehash what he so eloquently, yet rationally, presented.

Again, I do think I get where you are coming from, and I really do love and agree with your ideas about an embodied, mature spirituality that actively grapples with difficult realities and paradoxes. And I want to agree again with Balder and Joe that holding this with a mind towards both / and instead of either / or is the epitome of mature structures at this time / place. For clarity sake, I never meant to suggest that all integralized conversations should include the word God. Just that all integral conversations should not get rid of the word God when attempting to communicate the more nuanced, mature perspectives that you advocate. Especially when such conversations are between Wilber and people like Brother David, which seemed to instigate this series.

The reality is that people are - right now - using the word God in ways that preclude supernaturality and are very mature and nuanced. Religion is actually evolving to more mature stages of consciousness, and to deny this or overly focus on the immature versions is to miss a very important point. This recognition is what seems to be missing (or at least seriously downplayed) from your argument.

Julian,

Good question… it is the crux of the matter.. I agree.

Two comments:

First, on the Catholic Church and child abuse.. horrific.  I will say though that the Church is past covering things up now, and moving priests to greener pastures. 

When Benedict visited the US he publicly apologized for the actions of the priests.  He met victims and offered them his deepest apology.  Along with monies being paid out… he has now made it clear that any priest who is found to have acted immorally against children, will immediately be removed as priests and subject to the punishment of governing laws of the country in which he resides.  Things do change.. but slowly.

That leads to my second point…

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to attend Harvard Business School.  The last case study we did was on Corporate Culture, and how long it can take to make changes.  For instance, I was an employee back then of Canada's largest telco, with 30,000 employees.  The case study took us through an exercise that basically proved it would take 20 or more years to change the culture of my company … and that was only after it had to truthfully face its own weakenesses.  Otherwise, generations can go by and nothing substantial changes.

Religious organizations are no differerent… in fact worse… because they are trying to protect their history, which is thier legacy, more than preparing for the future.  I truly believe my Church is committed to massive change… including policies on priests marrying and stuff like that.  The problem is… any significant change can take decades, if not a century before it takes hold and the world sees things differently. 

So to answer your question… albeit extremely slowly, I believe many religions are changing, for the better, and adopting new methods of defining and communicating many of the spiritual consciousness principles we all share.  I also believe that Integral evolution… to succeed… must start (if it doesn't already) from the premise of honoring the past… for it has been an evolution to get here… and it will continue to be an evolution for eternity (whatever that means).

It must be a gradual process.. before my dad met my mom, he was a Jesuit brother.  He is now in his mid-80's.  Can you imagine telling him, a couple of years before he passes away, that there is no God as he knows it?  I would not wish that on anyone… because there is a very strong linkage between our consciousness and our beliefs.

mmm… how can I say it…

Hypothetical case…We know  you are passionate about Integral, and a disciple of Ken Wilber.  Let's say you lived your entire life.. every breath, every thought, every action you took was in honor of Integral, and it worked for you.  And then, with only a couple of years to live after a happy old life… Ken came to you and said… “Julian, I was wrong.  There is a god, and that God did create the universe.”

My point is.. my dad's faith works for him… in fact he believes prayer to God is what cured him of systemic bone cancer.  Given he didn't take any meds or have any treatments, something happened.  How can you tell him after so many years of loving God, his Church and his beliefs… that God is just a manifestation of consciousness in his head, and his prayers were nothing more than him healing himself, if that is what happened at all?

Does that help?

dave (and others)

regarding the need to meet people where they are in life (what else should one do?), i agree. that doesn't mean that all views, perspectives, beliefs, actions, values, communication, education, degrees of sanity etc are equally valid. these perspectives and beliefs are valid to the extent that they are consistent with sustainable human wellness, and all the psychological, social, and environmental factors that this necessitates.

and for those of us who have already gone through or are going through the process of moving beyond erroneous cultural beliefs, and done the work necessary to see through fallacious truth claims, there is no reason to pretend that we haven't, in thought, deed, or word(s). i would go further - since the stakes are rather high at the moment, i think anyone possessing intellectual clarity and emotional depth, relatively unhampered by cultural hypnosis whether traditional or consumerist, should promote their free thinking and feeling without apology, and without compromise, in whatever manner is appropriate and sensitive to the context they find themselves in.

furthermore, anyone who values human life and civilisation should strive to promote a reality-oriented philosophy as a matter of principle (and urgency). respecting people of different beliefs does not require indulging or defending delusion and illogical thinking, nor does denial of falsehood necessarily require hurting and insulting defenders of those falsehoods. it is the responsibility of all of us to accept that truth is primary over delusion, that facts are primary over feelings (and that the latter are no reliable way of ascertaining the former).

i submit that much of the argument around theology and religious belief is based on avoiding hurting feelings and especially internal dissonance. the primary function of imagined belief systems - whether in christian, buddhist, integral or any other doctrine - is ultimately, i believe, to subconsciously or consciously facilitate the avoidance of fear: fear of death and dying, fear of living, fear of thinking, fear of independence, fear of aloneness, fear of autonomy, fear of self-responsibility, fear of conflict, fear of disagreement, fear of unworthiness, fear of rejection, fear of being unloved or unlovable, fear of helplessness, fear of damnation, and so on.

the path of maturation requires that these fears be faced and transcended in due course. sustaining any belief without evidential and logical grounds for doing so is, in my experience, in direct conflict with this process, and i will not condone evasion, however well-intentioned it is.

you start from wherever you are - and begin being intellectually and emotionally honest. maybe in tiny 1% steps, or maybe surrendering to bigger realisations which one has been resisting for some time, but always as much as one can, growing in authenticity at one's own pace, hopefully with the support of others. i believe that this is the only “spiritual” path worthy of the cause of sustaining human love, and of human life, on this earth.

you are free to choose - what's more important, your beliefs about reality, or reality itself? or more fundamentally - your feelings, or the truth? to the extent that one's beliefs are accurate (coincide with reality) there is no necessary conflict. it is both our freedom and responsibility to update our beliefs and premises to be as accurate as possible on an ongoing basis.

as a species, we need to start getting real - right here, right now

Adam,

I understand.  I talk to my dad, my pastor, my family and friends about my truths about God as spiritual consciousness.  We have great discussions, and everyone respects what we find in common and what we do not.  I completely agree we must communicate authentically, whether what we know is understood or agreed to or not.  No problem there.

I admire the two recent Pope's for opening up their views on God as conciousness as well. 

But isn't it something different, even irresponsible, for a religion with 1.5 billion followers to just stand up one day and turn the faith on its ear?  If people are going to be shifted out of their reality…

It takes time and commitment to generate a new way of thinking and being.  The old and new must co-exist and evolve gradually… we are not talking about revolution, we are talking about evolution.

Finally.. your comment about getting real.. right here, right now…

I'll bet you countless generations before us have seen humanity at some kind of precipice and have said exactly the same thing before.

Dave

those last two posts really moved me…does that mean i should discount them both?  lol…

seriously, they were awesome…both of them honest…and real…

you two have inspired a song…somewhere in the middle of what you both are saying…is a wonder place…gonna go write…thanx for the inspiration…

dave

But isn't it something different, even irresponsible, for a religion with 1.5 billion followers to just stand up one day and turn the faith on its ear?  If people are going to be shifted out of their reality…

It takes time and commitment to generate a new way of thinking and being.  The old and new must co-exist and evolve gradually… we are not talking about revolution, we are talking about evolution.

did you actually read what i wrote? about baby steps, about starting from where each of us is, at their own pace?

but to answer your point - no, it would be extremely responsible for people of faith to abandon it in favour of their own immediate perception and cognition. it would actually be shifting them into their reality. which is the same as everyone's reality. there is only one reality, and there can only be one reality. we're all in it, and it's up to us to see it as clearly as our highly limited faculties permit.

I'll bet you countless generations before us have seen humanity at some kind of precipice and have said exactly the same thing before.

generally not until it's too late. and it's no less true now that it was then. except things are rather different now.

your point is?

Sorry Adam,

Either I offended you, or your style is getting a little condescending and snippy.  For the former I apologize.

Yes I did read what you said, every word.  Second, perhaps I am missing something.  I thought the context of the discussion was about both religious organizations and its members acknowledge that God is not what has been taught, and start moving in a new direction based on our own perception and cognition. 

It's one thing for every individual to embrace it, one step at a time, it is quite another for a religion to announce a 'new cognitive evolution dogma' and then leave its members to work it out as they see fit.

Secondly, by leaving one's evolution in the hands of individual perception and cognition, you may well find the opposite of what you hope occurring.  The Catholic Church is the fastest growing religion in the world.  There are now more Catholics in the United Kingdom than Anglicans.  Highly educated, cognitively perceptive Anglicans are converting the Catholicism at exponential rates.

The idea that anyone who belongs to a religion and holds faith is not true to their perception and cognition… well… it just isn't true.  While you may not cognitively understand faith… does not mean faith is not both perceiveable and understandable. 

My point is… humanity does go through stages of evolution, and face the quantum forces to move on or stay where we are.  We are at one of them… we will be facing them again.  The will to change and grow,and actually do so is not a new phenomenon… humanity has been doing it for centuries. 

Julian,  I know you would embrace the news with joy and energy.  So would I. 

However, I'll remind myself not to introduce you to my dad.  lol  There are many people who are very content with their belief systems, they are right for them, they are happy… it can be tough for some people, especially those who are aging… to energetically embrace revolutionary change to their belief systems.

We who would love every erg of new knowledge to flow through us, must have compassion for those who have lived a full life, are tired, and settled in thier own happiness.

That's all I was saying.

thanks for your response dave

no offence taken here, i appreciate the apology, though none is necessary.

best wishes

adam

Julian,

I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that I agree with the vast majority of what has been said here. The integral discourse would feel to me far less friendly and open without your vital contribution :) But to make things interesting, I still have to turn the tables a bit:

One point that is often made about integral from a Green perspective is this: Integral is hierarchical and even if, when correctly understood, it can't be used to oppress people, its language of hierarchy and value judgments encourages people to become oppressors.

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, I think that there is a very close parallel between the perspective I've just summarized, and what you are saying about Integral's use of the word “God”. You want ontologically-correct speech to Green's political correctness, and both perspectives share a common emphasis on the LL quadrant (meaning and language) in playing a causal role in an individuals level of development.

My immediate reaction to this is that there is too much emphasis on the LL in this line of reasoning. I'm open to the possibility of being wrong, but I feel like I have to either accept both or reject both.

Julian all your definitions only tell me that there is no ONE way to define divinity.

Divinity CANT be confined to one thing or one definition

The 12 century mystic Ibn Arabi had an idea of God called ”Wahdat-ul-Wujood” (Unity of Being) essentially states that in God lies everything and God lies in everything.

Wikipedia

I subscribe to this notion of God and move on to the fact of my own condition

My extrapolation on this is that there are two aspects of
“God”

God in development [Quintessential] through involution, and God in the unchanging reality of being. [existential]

There is no development in the existential aspect of God, but the developmental aspect

[involution] is all about the developement of humans to the level of the existential divinity.

A subtle nuance to this is:
The “God” of religion only exists because the inner nature of humans has been knocked off its course.

It wouldn't exist as a concept if this phenomenon [humans losing their nature] didn't happen.

 An aspect of the existential God has created the  impulse of “God” in order to  return humans to the track of their true nature. The impulse is driven by the condition of the lost nature, on one level, and also the impulse of God to know himself, on another level.

All I know is this:

The great codifier of Torah law and Jewish philosophy, Rabbi Mosheben Maimon (“Mamonides” also known as “The Rambam”), com piled what he refers to as the Shloshah Asar Ikkarim, the “Thirteen Fundamental Principles” of the Jewish faith, as derived from the Torah.Maimonides refers to these thirteen principles of faith as “the fundamental truths of our religion and its very foundations.” The Thirteen Principles of Jewish faith are as follows:

1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.

2. The belief in G-d's absolute and unparalleled unity.

3. The belief in G-d's non-corporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling.

4. The belief in G-d's eternity.

5. The imperative to worship G-d exclusively and no foreign false gods.

6. The belief that G-d communicates with man through prophecy.

7. The belief in the primacy of the prophecy of Moses our teacher.

8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.

9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah.

10. The belief in G-d's omniscience and providence.

11. The belief in divine reward and retribution.

12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.

13. The belief in the resurrection of the dead.

I know these to be absolutely true. If there are any righteous gentiles who want to help us Jews fulfill G-d's vision for creating the World, please go to this website:http://noahide.org/

If you are Jewish, please do more Mitzvot, especially wrapping Tefillin and learning about the 3rd Temple, may it be speedily rebuilt in our days. Rebbe Nachman says Truth is One, falsehood is many. 

1. BELIEF IN G-D
Do not worship Idols

2. RESPECT G-D AND PRAISE HIM
Do Not Blaspheme His Name

4. RESPECT THE FAMILY
Do Not Commit Immoral Sexual Acts

5. RESPECT FOR OTHERS’ RIGHTS AND PROPERTY
Do Not Steal

6. CREATION OF A JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Pursue Justice

7. RESPECT ALL CREATURES
Do not be cruel to animals.

Julian

  Here are three questions for you

Two direct questions, and the other, a more complex one with an observation included.

With the “Integral” philosophy  being the essence of  Wilberian thought, how can they then try to diminish ANY concept of “God” without diminishing itself?

Observation and question:

My concern with Wilberian logic regarding the God issue and spiritual development is with their implied [directly and indirectly] notion that humans are NOT in a state of mis-development [ that requires religion and metaphysics of some sort.] And all we are doing is evolving [based on traditional notions of evolution.] They have relegated the “Self struggle,” the crux of spiritual development to “Shadow work.” To me this marginalizes the importance of the struggle to become a “good” person within the spiritual developmental systems - an existential requirement of advancement. In short,  Wilberian philosophy deemphasizes the condition of mis-development that humans are trapped in, I believe.

Eiten,

your entire religion is based upon the so-called voice that Abram heard…

Abram was a lier…and a murderer…

Moses was too…

then there is the matter of the 'burning bush'…

that supposedly gave the ten commandments…

40 years the Israelites trained in the wilderness as warriors…

they broke every commandment of their so-called 'burning bush' God…

Joshua led his warriors to kill every man, woman, and child…and animal…to steal land…

this is just a summary of the horible deeds of your God…refer to the old testament for a
detailed version…

he is a God of division, and a God of war…we have only to look to the Middle East for
proof of that…

there have been military experts that have been studying the old testament, in view of just
that…that have given logical, military explanations for the so-called miracles that have
for centuries claimed supernatural properties…

also, there are UFO experts looking into all of the so-called visions and mysterious
occurances strewn through the old testament…they too, have given logical explanations
to the outdated 'spritual visions'…maybe, just maybe, men of ancient times were trying
to explain their witnessing of higher technologies…

if we do not begin to look at this stuff logically and scientifically…we will stay
trapped in that 'cave man' mindset…that has led mankind to where he is today…not a
very enlightened place…blowing up each other to build a stupid temple…

This is very challenging to understand, but I will try to give understanding.

This is a truncated explanation, there are nuances that are too complex to go into at this time, but this will suffice:

In ancient times ALL religion was mystical, or esoteric.

It became diluted because people slowly were exposed to the esoteric doctrine of the elite adepts. Then it began to descend into what became known as the Exoteric, or outward.

Originally anything that happened [good or bad] was “God” as existential reality.

Then when the Exoteric began to take over from the esoteric, then God began to separate [in peoples mind] into parts…

This was so because the lower mind had to have a “God” who was “Good” only, because life was becoming more challenging for the ordinary person.

“God” also became ethnocentric: “My God is bigger and better than your God, and I am of the chosen, and you are not”. This is all due to lower consciousness.

So developed the God of separate parts.

This is reflected in the allegorical scriptures that Starlight is critiquing.

In these scriptures is a mixture of both the original esoteric non dual God, and the eventual ethnocentric, dual God of Good and Evil.

“God” did not curse Adam and Eve, it was existential law that did that. It was God in the sense that it was based on the cosmic law. It wasn't an anthromorphic God-entity that did that.

So it is not “God” the good who commanded the people of the Bible to slaughter others, it was the existential “God” of the lower mind and soul of the people who were doing this self-centered ethno-centric activity and using the “God” concept to justify it.

In fact when “God” does “evil” is also is as much “God” as when “God” does “good”, because it all based on the immutable law of cause and effect.

When a disease occurs it is as much “God” as it is “God” when healing occurs, because both phenomenons are based on TRUTH or REALITY!

Truth in the sense - of the law of cause and effect. Or law of original orientation.

Now that might not be the “God” of good, but nonetheless it is God, in that it is based on reality.

The law of Karma [law of associations of energies] intersects with the immutable law of cause and effect.

That will produce a [Just] result [that will counterbalance “evil” based on the divine attribute of Justice] a remedy for the negative aspects of the “God” of existential reality that produces “evil”

All of this is mixed up in parts that we label: Good, evil, truth, God, the devil, falsehood, love, hate, etc.

But in reality is a unity that equals

DHARMA

The immutable law of the Kosmos

you have just limited what you call God…with more laws…

What I call God is what people call him, that's why I put it in quotes: “God”

Dharma is the law of the universe, not a “law”

Don't you see that “Laws” are what rule us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

That is why Buddha taught that we should learn to get along with Dharma, since it is reality, or how things work.

We can't get around that. It is not me who created that law.

Now temporary or religious law, such as: Don't eat pork, or how one prays, or don't jay walk are often based on cultural and social ideas, they are temporary practical laws that are not transcendent. They are subject to change, and are intercultural.

For example, polygamy use to be common, but now is rare because humans have evolved out of that cultural pattern, therefore most countries now have laws against polygamy.

buddhism,  is yet another religion…

when Buddha had his experience, he went beyond any law of any universe…beyond the laws of cause and effect…

within the buddhist faith, you will find more gods and demons and hells than are even contained within the christian faith…

the christian faith, is just a more compact version of the buddhist faith…it is doubtful to me, that either buddha or christ wanted their followers to build religions in their name…they wanted to liberate mankind's true nature…

I've been following this discussion from a distance : ) , but I wanted to ask Eitan a question. I am half Jewish, if there is such a thing, and have been to Israel on Birthright through Taglit. It was a wonderful experience and I am glad I got to connect with my cultural roots. But I must know how you think the 3rd temple is going to be rebuilt with the Dome of the Rock sitting on the site? Does this involve forcefully expelling Islamic people from a land that is just as much theirs as the Jewish people's? I don't mean to assume anything really, I'm just curious how you think it will all play out, and what role, if any, you or other Jews will have in seeing the temple rebuilt…

Thanks much,
Matt

Starlight, that's quite a handful of completely wrong information. I will respond to you in due time, G-d willing. 
Theres no such thing as a half Jew. If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish. You are G-d's firstborn, His chosen. He creates Jews to fulfill His Will on this lowly physical world. This is the reason for Mitzvot. Throughout our history and exile, Jews have been doing mitzvot and making a dwelling place for G-d, blessed be His Name, on this physical world.Our sages say that the Third Temple will come from the sky, the Arabs, who are not entitled to Israel because G-d gave Israel to the Jews, not to Ishmael, Avraham Avinu's of blessed memory, son that he had with an Egyptian maidservant. G-d did not give His Torah to Ishmael (or to any other people) but to the Jews. When the Third Temple takes physical form, Israel's enemies will realize the Glory and Kingship of the One Sovereign G-d and either repent or be destroyed. All Jews and righteous gentiles take part in building the Third Temple through good deeds, especially Charity (to worthy causes). Gentiles take part by following the 7 laws G-d gave to all of mankind. Jews hasten the redemption with more mitzvot. (Tefillin, Torah Study, etc. go to (http://www.chabad.org/library/howto/wizard_cdo/aid/142434/jewish/Introduction.htm for more details) If your mother is Jewish and you want to get closer to G-d, I HIGHLY RECCOMEND OUTPOURING OF THE SOUL BY REBBE NACHMAN OF BRESLOV. GO TO BRESLOV.ORGOur sages say that Moshiach will conquer the world without firing a single shot. At that time, all the nations will beat their swords into plowshares, as His Prophet Yechezkel says. On that He will be One and His Name Will be One.   May it happen immediately. 

It is not the law in itself that is the problem; the problem is that humans are not in harmony with certain laws of the inner and outer cosmos

Religion will always become distorted from the original founder's teachings, as long as humans are out of tune with their inner nature, the very reason for the existence of religion.

The sad irony is that religion and metaphysics, the tools created to return humans to their true nature, has been distorted by the very beings that these systems where designed to heal.

The cure then becomes worst than the disease!

The solotion is that sincere people seek the original ideas of the sages, through seeking and insight, then establish the practice of that, to gain what the masters gained. This is very challenging to do in todays times.

Dogmatic assertions by this or that religion is obvipously not the cure. All that does is produce one group claiming that ” we are the people of God”
Then another group says” No we are the people of God”
Then another group says ” No we are the people of God”

They can never convince anyone but themselves of the truth of their assertions.

On and on in a frenzy, of people convinced that they and they alone are the answer, has become a  sad, sad situation.

is not this:

The solotion is that sincere people seek the original ideas of the sages, through seeking and insight, then establish the practice of that, to gain what the masters gained. This is very challenging to do in todays times.

just another example of this:

On and on in a frenzy, of people convinced that they and they alone are the answer, has become a  sad, sad situation.

may i suggest that within each of us…is that very true nature we are seeking…

once we recognize it…or experience it, should we not then have faith in that very awareness…and carry that into our life's experiencing?

is that not the true path of awakening?

Of course it is all in us:

Jesus said:

The kingdom of God is within you

Muhammad said:

He who knows himself, knows their Lord

Buddha said;

I am awake

But for most people it is buried underneath the veils that this world has created in them that hides the inner lost nature.

Genuine metaphysical practices, with sincere intent of the seeker can find the hidden treasure inside. But be aware the path is challenging.

which path is most challenging…to spend countless hours following someone elses path of awakening…or…waking up to what is needed now, like solving world hunger?

which would reflect the true nature of the true God?

the hidden treasure is love…love=action now…faith without works is dead…metaphysical or not…all our seeking is a distraction…

Hi Julian,

Please help me with the following issue I cannot seem to get over:

You say

for me its less about hierarchy and LL and more about finding contemporary language with which to express the aspects of spiritual experience that are rational and transrational and continuing to clearly differentiate those from the prerational stuff that has owned the interpretive aspect of those experiences for so long.

I do not understand how Integral can be based on the concept of spiritual evolution… and yet Integralists… including Wilber… accuse religion and faith before us as unevolved, archaic and 'evil'.?  Why doesn't Integral evolution honor the past, instead of demonizing it?

Second, how could anyone, other than those who are ill informed about Christianity, Judaiasm and Buddhism among others… not be fully aware of the rational beauty that exists within the teachings of these faiths?

I probably would have a much more open mind towards Integral.. respectfully, if the model did not fully discount everything that has come before it as pre-rational, archaic and in your own words…. folly.

I would appreciate your perspective on this.

dave

Based on the teachings of The Lubavitcher Rebbe:

Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, the famed author of Nodah B'Yhudah, served as the rabbi of Prague from 1754 to 1793. Once a group of scholars who wished to contest his rabbinic qualifications presented him with a series of questions in Torah law. These fictitious “cases” were carefully constructed to be as complex and as misleading as possible, so as to ensnare the rabbi in their logical traps and embarrass him with an incorrect ruling.

Rabbi Yechezkel succeeded in resolving all the questions correctly – all, that is, but one. Immediately his detractors pounced on him, showing how his verdict contradicts a certain principle of Torah law.

Said Rabbi Yechezkel: “I am certain that this case is not actually relevant, and that you have invented it in order to embarrass me!”

“How do I know?” the rabbi continued. “Because I know that G-d's Torah is true. You see, whenever a human being is called upon to decide a matter of Torah law, we are faced with a paradox: how can the human mind possibly determine what is G-d's will? The laws of Torah are the wisdom and will of G-d and the most basic laws of reality, preceding and superceding even the laws of nature. How is it that the finite and error-prone intellect is authorized to decide such Divine absolutes?

“But the Torah itself instructs that 'the Torah is not in heaven' but has been given to man to study and comprehend; and that whenever a question or issue of Torah law is raised, it is the human being, employing his finite knowledge and judgment, who must render a ruling. In other words, when a person puts aside all considerations of self and totally surrenders his mind to serve the Torah, G-d guarantees that the result would be utterly consistent with His will.

“However,” concluded Rabbi Yechezkel, “this 'guarantee' only applies to actual events, when a rabbi is called upon to determine what it is that G-d desires to be done under a given set of circumstances; but not if his personal honor is the only issue at hand. Had you presented me with a relevant question, I know that I would not have erred, since I approached the matter with no interest or motive other than to serve to will of G-d. But since your case was merely a hypothetical question designed to mislead me, my mind was just like every other mind, great and small alike – imperfect and manipulatable.”

eitan, here is a link for you from one of your own…http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm
if even mr. finklestein says it's myth then hey, maybe about time you considered his scholarly research……ah, but perhaps you wish for the annihilation of the whole earth over this childish squabble…makes perfect rational sense to kill everything and everyone to me in this battle for who's daddy he is……..
dave, i've read every book wilber has written and no where have i read where wilber called religious traditions evil. where are you getting this from? please provide the link. also, julian has made it quite clear that he has no personal desire to rid anyone of their religious traditions. this blog is about a new vision of spirituality as far as i can see and i think it's becoming counter productive of you to continually misdirect the topic. no one is asking you to give up catholicism, so it seems only fair to me to allow integral the same respect. if you were to go to wilbers personal blog you would find an excellent post on integral christianity. what more assurance do you want?

 i just thought people at orange and higher interested in integral theory  had maybe surrendered that piece of mythic literalism……..
i don't think this is a clear-cut and simple as you would like it to be julian. we have many people who live in 'orange' cultures that retain personal/family/cultural ties to religion and god. wilber talks about the dreadful choice that some people have to make,( i believe he calls it the steel ceiling), between orange rationalism and amber literalism, and given only those two options, i agree, it's a brutal choice. i think the better option is integral……i hope we integrally minded folks learn to wield the sword wisely………………

Will do Andrew.. I am outta here…

Julian

The great SUFI and poet Rumi whom you aptly quote, was a genuine Integral metaphysician

But he also was a Muslim Cleric!

As I said;

Amongst rabbits be a rabbit

The point in this is that a true wise man learns to merge with the societies norms as best they can in order to maintain peace enough to teach people within the framework of their own understanding

Because the word, God, means so many different things to so many people, I believe more clear language is necessary.  Even the word described in…first, second, third…person makes me want to shout, Occam's Razor (within the context of definition).

Few random thoughts…

- We are not the center of the universe.  The universe is not all about us.  God in traditional religions seems to be about order, comfort and ego - hmm, even “compassionately.” 

-  God to others is the universe, the Creator, the strings in string theory, Love, Truth, etc.  Which do we select for the sake of a specific discussion?  Can we move beyond the word, God, in order to discuss relative topics?  I feel we get tangled within multiple defintions.

- There's a reason for the phrase…”Kill the Buddah!” 

- Richard Dawkins.  (The Ancestor's Tale and Unweaving the Rainbow…excellent!)

What I've read about Ghandi saying God is Truth is as close to God as I can get being used as a word to describe my perception others' definition of the word, God.  But then, isn't Truth as fragmented by definition and various comprehension as God (and Love)?  How can one define one word meaning 100s of things to 1000s of people with another multi-faceted word?  Or, do wise persons purposely phrase their words carefully in this way…

Last…  Supernatural (to me…is) = at this time, beyond our comphrension.  After all, the sun moving through the sky was supernatural to ancient cultures - magically set in motion by their respective varieties of gods and goddesses, offspring immortal and immortal.

Lots of great replies to a much-needed post. 

I believe new language would enable less emotionally-charged or confusing discussions.

Love these discussions…

J, i have a question…well, maybe a couple…

why is it necessary to change anything but our own perceptions concerning how we view or define God?

while your intention might be to promote a healthier understanding of what we call God…minus all the bullshit…is not the outcome the same?  you are going to have those that resent the 'idea' …and they will obviously believe, as proof i offer this very thread, that you are just holding your ideas superior to theirs…your consciousness more intelligent than theirs…that seems to defeat the purpose…(although, i have been accused of that very thing amidst all my writings, and would not mind some feedback concerning this.)

why do we feel a need to have others go along with what we believe?

if we are secure in our beliefs, or our understanding, why is it we need yet another movement to reinforce this?

having said that, there are levels of conditioning that need to be addressed, but how we address them, is that not too from our own conditioned perspective?

i openly admit my allergy to religion, or any organized movement that claims superiority over what everyone has access too within their own being…

Thanks Julian, a very useful clarification.  Much appreciated.  I was tracking with you until your last paragraph:

lastly i do maintain that to hold prerational beliefs in a contemporary western society is de facto evidence of some kind of developmental arrest, lack of integration and/or regressive response to trauma or existential withdrawl fom reality in an unhealthy way…. how ever - as you point out in previous times these sorts of beliefs made more sense given people's developmental stage.

Note to Andrew:  I am not pontificating Christianity here.. I just offer certain facts in evidence today that appear to contradict Julian's posit that prerational beliefs are unhealthy in today's world..

I know it may sound somewhat juvenile, but how does one define the reality of contemporary western society?  I ask because there has not been a faster Christianity and the Moslem faith than the past 10 years.  The Catholic faith alone is the fastest growing 'religion' in the world right now. 

While religious growth is certainly occuring in less developed nations, growth in Canada, the United States, the European Community, Australia is much higher than anticipated.  

It is also true, that 85%+ of the world's population believes in the prerational existence of a mystical creator of the universe, our planet and humanity.

So.. if these facts are not part of the characterization of contemporary western society, I would really appreciate your help in understanding this further.  Are you suggesting that the vast majority of the modern world is suffering an unhealthy traumatic view of reality?  Then… that is the reality… isn't it?

Thanks Julian..

D

Julian, Julian, Julian

Three points:

I suppose since the great Sufi saint Ibn Arabi as a child went to graveyards and spoke to the dead, that would be classified as “pre-rational” just because your great modern scientist cant do it even as grownups'.

It is like saying to someone:

“You are not stupid just because I called you an idiot”

       And all that does is produce another tribe, or increase one that already exists.

In essence: What is the point, save an interesting exercise in debate?

 Or what?

Proverb:

All is Vanity:

      Solomon

Oh by the way Starlight

Don't waste your time addressing questions to Julian, He like ALL post modern scientific mystics [followers of Wilber] only address [seriously] their own tribe.

They essentially ignore others

The reason they do this is somewhat complex, if you want to know the answer to this, email me, and I will be glad to provide it.

I will only say this: they like most doctrinaire [dogmatic] people don't really like debate, particularly when if they ever get the courage to debate ME

THEY KNOW THEY WOULD LOOSE!

Proverb:

Speak to people according to their level of understanding

Also

If you throw the bear out of the front door

beware of the wolf comming in the back

ROTFLMAO…yeah, i am use to being ignored…and that is a ok today…but i do thank you for our little back and forth…and your acknowledgement of my perspectives…i am not scared of true debate either…as it is my intent to know the truth…for it is in that knowing…one is freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…..

always, star…i'm outta here!

Thanks Julian,

I guess a few decades, or centuries from now… one of three philosophies will prevail…

1) That Wilber, his disciples, visionaries, and the vast minority of ftoday's followers within contemporary western culture, who see a brand new world of spirtuality that is unencumbered by past limitations of prerational dogma…. these are the Ford's of the future in the land of the horse drawn carriages and buggy whips.

2) That like other new spiritual belief systems, (at one time Buddhism, Zorastrianism, Christianity, Islam were all new spiritual belief systems… Judaism seems to have been around forever) Integral will find its own spiritual niche and co-exist along with other organized 'religions'.

3) That Integral will be recognized as little more than a failed post modern attempt to characterize religion as an oppressive force, that denies self actualization and individual evolution.

Let's touch base in 30 years.  I predict 2, with 3 as a possible.  I do not see 1 as possible, not because there is not merit to the Integral model, but instead that the automobile / buggy whip model may well universally apply to the conveniences of life, but it does not apply to the eternity of the human spirit.

I do enjoy this discussion.

Dave

Julian,

Thank you for your post.  For quite a while you and I have been stuck in what has appeared to be two passionate ideologies that are grounded in diametrically opposed contexts of rational reality.

While I may not be optimistic that we will discover a union of ideals, I really appreciate this discussion, and your openess (as well as mine) to further exploring where commonality may be found between our beliefs.

I hope that you will accept the following as something we can further explore together, with the hope that we may discover areas of rational unity, rather than rationalized distinction.

it is widely accepted within the world of Christian academia, that Catholicism is steeped in a rationalistic appreciation of therational,  metaphysical and irrational.  Pope Benedict is regarded worldwide, as one of the great rational scholars of spirituality, and I do not find it at all coincidental that he is the leader of the Church at a time where rationalism has become the foe of religion.

You are correct, I am a rationalist, who has sought throughout my lifetime, to bridge rationalism with Catholicism…. and after many years of exploration, denial and outright challenge… has come to find the balance between reason and faith that the Church stands within, both today, and for many centuries

You are quite correct that the term 'god' carries with it a definition of a superior being that omnisciently judges our actions in terms of its rules.  This is an old testament context of god… whereas the new testament is focused on spirituality… and less on dogma and rules.  Even Benedict acknowledges this today.   While the actions of the Church have not always honored this context, I honestly believe the church is making every effort to express the foundations of Christ in modern, raionalist, transrationalist terms.

The Church is by no means stuck in the past of prerationalism.

Honestly, there is only one thing that has fundamentally disturbed me about Integral… and that is a sense (perhaps faulty on my part) that all religion is stuck in prerational mysticism… which quite simply is not where the all religion stands within.  I have no desire for you to see what I see… but I do offer that there are religions that do evolve.. and today are based in the transrational, rational and yes.. prerational ideals… all of which honor our past, our present, and our future.

Take care,

D

hi dave, i am happy you stuck around if even for a moment. but gee whiz, why is everyone so reactive these day? um, i know that your not in denial about past atrocities of the catholic church, but where do you stand on today's issues in regard to judaism, christianity and islam?surely you are aware of what would happen if the jews try to resurrect the temple. this is going to trigger www 3. and even if this was god willing that to happen (i don't believe god is) how do you justify the throngs of religious cheerleaders that are actively pursuing the coming of the apocalypse? how do you reconcile that with god not despising a broken heart, or god saying that he will destroy those that destroy the earth in the revelation. these days it seems like bush and company are dead set on destroying the earth. do you see islam conceding the dome of the rock to their jewish brothers? surely this isn't benign religious belief? to me this type of religious ideology is toxic and lethal, and i hope god feels the same way about this lunacy…………by the way, i shared my analysis of the conversation that yaffe, you and zak were having on the other blog with nicole yesterday.i wasn't going to say anything, but what the hell, if we are all doomed anyway. …..i saw that exchange as a microcosm of the analog religious world. now very generally speaking, yaffe presented the orthodox jewish perspective (we are the chosen ones), and then zak representing a more islamic perspective (i know your a mystic zak), went whoa, slow down nellie, he's not jus t your daddy, at which point the christian voice (dave) came riding to the defense of israel of course ( since when do christians have any sympathy for islam). and of course the islamic reaction was to feel picked on and lash out……….well, now that i've just about pissed everybody off……on to julian………..
thx. for clarifying your perspective on integral julian. i must admit that when i first started reading your blog, i had to go to chapters to see if there was another author/philosopher named ken wilber!lol she assured me that there was only one and i said thank god because i just spent 7 years reading this guy and i hope their wasn't another one somewhere. like i said in one of my other posts here, ken is a guy who loves to talk about god, if even in a corrective manner. i do take it that you feel that he is somewhat off base in asserting the idea of soul/subtle and spiriit/ causual? and that as long as he insists upon these 2 dimensions in his philosophy that he will never be taken seriously by academia, especially regarding any kind of professional peer review? now where dave SEEMS to be a little bit in denial of religious pathology, you seem to be in some kind of denial about the positive and benign aspects of religious tradition. is there no happy medium?
opps, now it's me derailing the blog topic! long live the non god of integral who we both know is krishna anyway…………………………..

I actually agree with most of Julian's critique of religion, just not the terminology of pre-rational/ rational, translational, which to me is trite and doesn't reflect the true situation.

You are also dealing with mysticism, as well as exoteric literalist religion [pre-rational or irrational beliefs]. In the mystical, though; there are many things in it that are not “rational” as understood ordinarily.

.

Also, the literalist, false and distorted  and dangerous beliefs of the exoteric believers have nothing to do with rationality or pre-rationality, it has to do with ignorance versus knowledge, or sanity, versus insanity, or just evil versus good, as well.

Or the methodology of ignorance versus the methodology of knowledge.

Since Wilber and others [post-modern scientific mystics] in this milieu who created this doctrine [pre-rational/rational] are not TRULY mystics, when they cast aspersions on “pre-rational” beliefs they cast a net too far.

They will see the problem with this if and when they ever become TRUE mystics and experience things way outside of “rationality,” then they will see the error of their ways.

As for the “God” terminology. To me the problem is not the word, but how people understand the word.

Simply because, in fact there is a God, but not in the simplistic form of an anthropomorphic super-entity being with hands and feet sitting on a throne being a virtual Wizard of Oz, and Santa Clause type figure.

For Humans the “God” in a form is the total spirit of all the enlightened beings, and God outside of the quintessence [ out of form] is everything else

Rereading earlier posts through the most recent, I'd say they contain more than enough confirmation new language is critically needed.

Andrew,

First, your depiction of the mid eastern conflict only confirms your hatred for religion, rather than depicting a rational argument, you see the conflict the way you want to see it.

Yes, there are fundamentalists and zealots in all religions, and philosophies.   They use their interpretation of scripture, history and other 'facts' as a justification for control, murder, hatred, and power.  It is not the religion that teaches this, it is taking the name of god, and using it for power… in the Mid East, that power is the fight for territory…. and the beast who is inciting it is the great US of A among others.

In my opinion, (if there is a god), then those who take sides in this insanely evil power struggle, will be very disappointed come judgment time.  True religion teaches love, not death and power.

That comes to my final point… even if you hate religion as much as you do, you are as much a part of the problem as the other zealots…. HOW DARE YOU choose to interpret a dialogue between yaffie, zak and I as a jewish, muslim, christian issue!!!  I will not speak for yaffie, for I am well aware of her rantish style ( like yours), but zak and I have had a one on one dialogue about that discussion, and have found alignment and peace by sticking with each other.

You said… “Since when do christians have any sympathy for Islam???”  Are you aware how stupid that is?  Do you know that any rational argument you may posit goes out there door when you say things like this?  You are such a fanatic generalist about anti-religion you actually have no idea what you are talking about.

The fact that you chose to apply yaffie's. zak's and my discussion to your rational argument that all religion, and therefore all religious are controlling, blind and irrational…. is just proof that you are no different than anyone else.  You go around seeking out content, to fill in your view of the world… and refuse to look at what is good and pure about that which you hate. 

When Pope Benedict went to Turkey, knelt on the floor of the mosque, kissed the ground and vocally said a prayer to Allah… what was that in your book?

While I acknowledge and agree with Julian's reminder that Integral is not a religion, but a philosophy,  philosophical fundamentalism is just as dangerous as religious zealotry. 

What concerns me a bit about Integral philosphy, is that it can unwittingly result in individual's developing their own 'religion' backed by selective fact finding to justify their unique view of the world. 

Selective rationalism without love and understanding can be just as evil as prerationalism when used as a fuse for hatred.

prerational, rational or transrational…. it will be proven that none of these conscious states will ever eliminate the evils of selfishness… unless embraced with the overall conscious state of love.

I will choose Mother Teresa as my model of humanity…. long before attacking her because she is a prerational mystical Christian.

Crouching Tiger,

I'm not sure a new language is needed, as much as an open mind and love are essential..

First, Dave is correct; we were not into a sectarian dispute at all.

I have the utmost respect and love for Mystic Christianity, and Kabbalah, in which I believe, as an Integral Mystic, are a great part of my “faith”

Julian

Wow, Julian, Why do you presume I am not as familiar with Integral Theory as you are. In fact I am

I understand Wilber's theories very well

I wouldn't have written 3 or 4 major essays on IW if I wasn't.

Just because I am new to it, comparatively, doesn't mean I don't understand it

In fact I have written much on Wilber's [ IN MY VIEW ERROR RIDEN[ ideas on enlightenment being based on his notion of it to paraphrase: ” being one with all states and stages at any given time” and also his [ again in my view mistaken] notion that enlightenment is relative to ” evolution.”

Also as I have said maybe 50 or 60 percent of his ideas in my view are valid.

And finally in fact, I have developed a variation of AQAL, that I call AWWALLLID

[Though I have very little time to perfect it] but one day I may.

AWWALLID stands for:

ALL WORLDS, WHOLE, LINES, LEVELS, AND INTELLEGENT DIMENSIONS

Thanks Julian, clarifications understood.

I accept your position on the oxymoron of faith and reason.  I just don't happen to agree with it… :-)

I see faith and reason as a paradox to be explored rationally and with both an open heart and open mind.  John Paul II wrote an incredible encyclical called “Faith and Reason”, a treatise on the essence of the human condition, and the fundamental importance for the co-existence of the paradox.

There is much that we do not understand about the universe from its creation, to how this complexity all seems to work.  To me, spirituality is connecting with the unknown, and trusting the insights that come from that connection… this is a contextual process of the heart.  At the same time, we have a responsibility to apply our cognitive gifts, to filter through the factual content and stand in as objective a truth of reality as we possibly can.

I believe you Julian, find great joy in the latter.. and you are a master at it.  I find great joy not in the former alone, but in living inside the paradox of both… for it is an incredibly joyful place (for me) to experience reality and its unfoldings.

While I have chosen to live in ” your oxymoron”… I have done so not out of ignorance or blind faith, but as a purely rational choice… one that shines great beauty of both the factual and the unknown.

Hi Dave, I wonder…if our individual interpretations of the word, God, are so different, how then can we best openly, intelligently - and joyfully even - most engage in dicussing God-related topics?  Tell me about your God, another's God, another's non-God…fascinating stuff!  But if we want to delve into deeper levels within each perspective…then…

I agree that an open mind and love are helpful (and necessary).  Yet, I read posts above and see that an open mind and love do not assure that we will have a non-judgmental, non-emotionally-charged, non-defensive discussion about topics related to a word of many-faceted meanings.  Not in whole, only in general…yet…we are still human :)

In a perfect world, I agree with you.  But we have this world :)  I think of old Hebrew (I am not a scholar, merely making a general reference) or even, Inuit…  For example, the multiple translations (and mistranslations) from Hebrew, there being say, a variety of words for our one word, Love.  Or Inuit, and their multiple meanings for the word, snow.

Not to suggest a more complicated language…just a more defined, clear one, so we can better move to the topics we love to discuss and hear (though not necessarily agree with) each other's unique, interesting and therefore (in my eyes), beautiful thoughts and inspiring comments.  Of course, I'm known in my circle of friends as an idealist.  But…I'm also the only one of my friends who has lived most of my dreams, too :)

Let's all take a step back from the circle(s) on which we stand…move away or move to another position for a little while, and gain a new perspective?  It's so much more lovely to look at a multi-faceted, multi-colored, multi-interpreted picture rather than squash each other down or homogenize.  Even I change my mind or point of view sometimes, heh ;)

Maybe we could look at a few words - without going off track or on tangents - and at least come to agreement that there are some words that evoke many different meanings?  God…Love…Truth…Spirit…Energy…Universe…  And taking that step back, really look at them from each others' perspective.  See each in a new light.  Seeing is not adopting :)

Then we can run a few miles or dance or meditate or whatever works…  I so enjoy these discussions but sometimes I think maybe I need to duck for cover within a few of them! 

Julian (and most of you) is much more brave than I - or at least more patient?! - in openly sharing what he does on this blog. I'm still too new to strongly assert as each of you do here.  But…I learn a lot about more than just the topics within his blog here…I learn a lot about communication, too.  New language, new words, clarity…offers less chance of misinterpreting the fundamental topic…so we can play and talk and learn research further.  Good stuff, fun stuff, integral (?) stuff :)

With a smile, Erin

Good article.  I've done some reading about similar views of her…  Triggered by reading that she went through many years of 'the dark night of the soul' and some confessions…

I need to rent the movie about Gandhi's life again… so I remember correctly…  What  I remember vaguely is a scene where his wife is furious with him and there's something about him apologizing, saying something to the effect that regardless all the great work…he is a still a [hu]man.

Julian, your blog is one of the few that has looked at our shadows rather than avoid them or consider them to mean we aren't evolving 'properly.'  Thank you.

Crouching Tiger,

I agree that common language is useful, but more important is an investmen in common understanding.

Worldwide, all of the major religions and many smaller ones participate in full time ecumenical works where they research and formaly discuss what is common, and what is different between faiths.  They did not need to develop a new language, but instead focused on obtaining a deep, respectful understanding of each other's faith, so that they can investigate how to respect each other and work together for causes that are important to humanity.

There are many, many highly rational members of the Ecumenical Councils with degrees in science, philosophy, medicine, and theology.  Methinks a bunch of Ph.d's from Cambridge, Harvard, and other presitgious schools are getting great value in spending time together on real world issues.  They are not a bunch of prerationalists who are getting together to do mystical ceremonies or discuss miracles.

Also, the Catholic Church is celebrating the 400th Anniversary of the Pontifical Academy of Science , which is actually the oldest fully organized scientific institution in the world.  Stephen Hawkings and many other non Christians / atheists have been invited members of the Academy for centuries.  The Academy is not trying to control truth, it is looking to rationalize the empircal world with faith based belief systems.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index.htm


The idea of a new language, or discussions between religion and science is nothing new, and those who participate in these discussions today are far more dedicated to understanding truth through dialogue than many of us here at Gaia. 

My own recommendation is that Integralists get themselves involved in existing forums for multifaith/scientific dialogue than to believe there is a void in such commitments.

Dave

Thanks Julian;

Like you, I am passionate about understanding truth, and I trust all forms of stimulus that fill my body, mind and heart.  They are all data points… and there is great joy in exploring the paradoxes (or apparent oxymoronic sensations) that come from each.

I would urge you to read more about the teachings of Benedict and JPII (probably more of Benedict's works).  In my opinion, they are extremely transrational beings, albeit they do stand in certain Catholic traditions that they love dearly.  If you can acknowledge that paradox, I believe you will find their writings to be incredibly modern, visionary, and rational.

Heck, it can't hurt!

Dave

Thanks, Dave. 

Some background on me…  For about a decade, I often had dinner with a priest who was often invited to the Vatican.  We had many conversations about such topics - from a Catholic perspective.  Wonderful (and I don't use the word loosely!) conversations and a deeper look into Catholic mysticism, theology…such a privilege to have talked with him.

There is much that is beautiful about such conversations and I cherish them still.  I agree that investment in understanding is important…but if language could sometimes create a challenge would  an investment in clearer language then also be as important?  Or at least, a natural desire to explore further?  (Not rhetorical here.)

An example would be the Lakota.  At least, a personal example for me to share.  Surely, intelligently and compassionately we sought to understand and share with each other.  However, there were some words in their language that simply could not be translated.  I chose to learn some of that language so I could better understand.  And am soooo glad I did.

Perhaps important and necessary are not the same thing.  Maybe I've worded my posts unclearly, or at least, not expressed well what I meant to convey.  While many may easily discuss as you thoughtfully explained above, I'm not sure new language is not a higher need than some of us might first consider.  Not necessary perhaps, but very helpful :)

That said, sure would be nice to sit around the fire and talk about such things.  So many ways to communicate, beyond words, true…  Would new or more clear language though perhaps enable those less educated, those less eloquent, to become more engaged within discussions such as these?  I know I am sometimes at a loss for the right words :) 

Thanks for taking the time to explain a bit more to me, Dave. - I do appreciate it.  For sure, I need to learn more about integral theory so I can intelligently discuss it within this space.

What's pretty cool…we are all searching for the same things, after all :)

~ Erin

Thanks Erin,  for your beautiful post.

I agree with you, and Julian, that a new language would be great to overcome historical bias. 

I tend to believe that the more people of different belief systems communicate, a need for and creation of a new language will emerge naturally. 

Perhaps we could engage together in a respectful integrated dialogue, that instead of discounting each other, we seek to understand and respect our very different contexts of consciousness.

Instead of debate, why don't we create a forum for integration?

I am up for it… anyone else?

Dave

thank-you for the feedback dave. i truly understand how annoying i can be at times and get that not everyone shares my irreverent sense of humour….coincidentally, on the radio going to work today there was a news story about another american president going to israel and of course, the islamic reaction to this visit was for another suicide bomber to blow up more people….i guess i am not interpreting that situation correctly, and although i can understand why you would be annoyed with me personally, and that any hopes of a psycho-analytic career are off the table for me, i would hope that this great love that you always talk about extends to those that don't share your perspective. wilber thinks religious tradition is evil, i hate religion? where are you getting your info.?i've spent quite a bit of my time here on zaadz defending healthy religious tradition. and please, for all my insolence, show me the coroners reports of all the murders for god that my philosophies have caused, and perhaps you can link to the coroner reports of integral casualties while you are at it. now, all i am suggesting here is a little bit of context, again, i truly understand your response to me, but it's just a blog! no one is dying here ,although i think it's right and proper to discuss here why people are dying in the name of god on this earth. and i would even hazard a guess that that is a part of why julian is posing these questions, because it's so sad and tragic to keep watching egocentric and ethnocentric violence in the name of god…………….
and yes, i am always down for a good healthy forum on integration……..

There ya go again Andrew… one nut job in a front end loader who goes berserk in the name of Islam… pales in comparison to the visits that Obama had with Islamic leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. 

Once Integral is around for 2000 years, I'll be happy to do a coroner's comparison.  It's not the religion… it's the nut jobs… and when Integral flourishes as a philosophy, the nut jobs will surface too… religion does not teach killing in the name of God, nor does Integral… it's only nut jobs who use the name of God to justify murder…

I don't dispute there is merit in investigating new approaches… but all  I keep hearing from some folks is their use of history to defend their positions, but not one solid recommendation on how we come together to make a change.

Any suggestions?

Julian,

I understand where you are coming from – and I have spilled a lot of cyber-ink on Christian forums raising questions about all the dark stuff in the Bible that people gloss over and avoid discussing – but I still feel a need to repeat, once again, that I think you've got too limited a view of religion.  You are indicting parts of it that need indicting, but if we assume that these things represent the whole of, or the essential truths of, any particular religion – the lived worldspace for many, many people – I think that's way off.  In particular, I think your argument is one that works better in abstraction than reality:  it's easy to see, and to say, that a particular mythic structure, taken at face value, cannot be reconciled with a rational, scientific one.  But this misses the lived spaces, the many multi-layered views and perspectives, the transformations within image and metaphor and storyline (not in spite of or outside of them), that can make up the tiered worldspaces of religious folks.

Sure, you see good reasons to ditch a particular story line, and I understand why.  I also left Christianity, for instance. But I lived within it in a non-literalist way for a number of years in my young adulthood, and I have intelligent, heartful friends who continue to do so, and I just can't help but feel that your critiques miss this – they come across as flat and caricatured, honestly, because I think you are having a hard time imagining your way into what such a view would be like.  If you could imagine your way in, you could see that it is possible to continue to live the Christian or Jewish storyline, for instance, in a way that resonates with and continues to draw nourishment from, the archetypal riches of the tradition – without taking many of the stories literally anymore, but nevertheless not rejecting them as “untrue” either.  Just finding the truth in them on a different level, in a different (often more interior) way.

Also, as I've mentioned before, I think your critique fails to appreciate the many different thinkers and teachers in these traditions who have moved well beyond the mythic, ethnocentric forms you are critiquing.  One tactic, of course, is to ignore them, to dismiss them because they are in the minority, and ask people to abandon their traditions altogether and adopt something new.  For some people, that will work; they will be attracted to that option and will move with you.  But others may instead see untapped promise within their traditions, in these few but powerful voices that show the way towards a unique flowering and spiritual maturation within these traditions.

I am not saying this should be the preferred option, or that your desire to create a new path is misguided.  As I've said before, I continue to practice and study deeply in two newly emerged visions myself (TSK and Diamond Approach).  But I think this other option needs to be honored as well – and I don't hear that in your writings.

Best wishes,

Balder

here is the wiki link for rational-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
and here the link for the ontological argument-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
i don't know that this issue is as clear-cut as you think it is……..
sam harris is dead-on in this regard - the fanatics are not distorting scripture - they are following it to closely! 

thank-you for posting this julian and i agree and have asked dave a few questions along this line of thinking, too…..you've seen his response: religions teach peace? my own perspective is that foundational tenets of the big 3 are lethal and toxic and to deny this is a disservice to peace. but i completely agree with dave that there are 3 billion christians,jews, and muslims that need to be taught by their leaders that  basic assumptions and historic doctrines are in error and need revising. in my thinking this is where integral spirituality would be most helpful, but by no means the only way.
and dave, in law there is the idea of innocence prior to quilt and i see very little in integral that makes me think that it will stand guilty in the future. but i do agree that it's possible that what you said about this could come to pass and we have discussed this issue on other blogs.i know that johnny bardo shares this concern. in law there is also the idea of precedence and the precedence for the big 3 is not so good………………………….i hope the ecumenical councils are putting in over-time……


  

“once we let go of the sentimental attachment to supposed “holy” books and evaluate them with clear eyes we can see old world religion for the outdated and limited texts they are - hardly the last word in morals, spirituality or personal relations. they are reflective of their times - nothing more, and certainly not deserving of the superstitious enshrining we have given them 2000 years and several thousand miles away…”

Know what?  THIS was something the priest I mentioned above conveyed to ME :)  You can imagine why the Vatican often invited him for discussions.  What a rebel, he was.

I didn't meet with him because I was a Catholic - I wasn't.  I met with him because he shared ideas, considered challenging questions - was basically a very cool guy.  Yeah.

Hi, Julian,

You probably already understood this, but just to make sure:  when I said your critique was “flat,” I was referring to your representation of religious traditions, not the view you yourself are championing, which I do believe is nuanced and rich. 

We've agreed that creating a modern, secular, non-theistic spiritual path is a worthwhile endeavor.  (You should look into hooking up with Integral Institute's Integral Training branch, since they have a “spiritual but not religious” module for presenting just the sort of vision you are trying to articulate.) 

My point is that it is possible to speak of God and Jesus in multiple ways, on multiple levels – and that if you were more familiar with theological literature, for example, you would know that there is already a long history of this.  The formula you recited has been interpreted in a number of ways, for instance – again, not all of them in the mythic-literal way you are criticizing.  Yes, these views have always been in the minority; but on the other hand, they have also been prevalent enough throughout the ages, with adherents throughout Christian history, that I think it is fair to say that they represent legitimate expressions of lived Christian understanding and spiritual transformative praxis.

You have compared Jesus and God to things like Santa Claus and fairies on a number of occasions, but in doing so, I think a number of things are missed.  I think you have perhaps a rather hostile relationship to these particular figures – they do not speak to you, and perhaps you have not really read about or reflected in depth on them as rich archetypal presences, for instance; or considered the power of the term, God, to serve as a “non-ordinary trope,” as Hokai pointed out on his blog (I've shown you Panikkar's list of ways not to talk about God, which gets at just this).  But there actually is a great deal of richness and meaning in these things, as becomes apparent when you study or talk with those who have explored them in depth, given their lives to them.  Would you be willing to allow, at the least, that the Christian story provides one viable archetypal language that has transformative potential?  If so, then reducing “God” and “Jesus” to the status of fairies and gnomes must be seen as unnecessarily dismissive – a move which fails to acknowledge or respect the transrational fullness of meaning that is already present within these terms and stories for many people.

You wrote:  you are right i find it oxymoronic to talk of rational christians or transrational religion - but you know this already.

Yes, I know.  :-)  Would you agree that if you used my definition of religion, as the sociocultural expression – the LR structures and the LL interpretations – of any given spiritual path or way, then it would not be oxymoronic to speak of transrational religion?  Further, would you also agree that if it is possible to relate meaningfully to Christian stories and images from multiple perspectives, including as archetypal symbols of rational psychological and transrational spiritual truths, then it is also not oxymoronic to talk of “rational Christians”?  (Not to mention the fact that very many Christians are actually quite capable of thinking rationally!)

You wrote:  i think it is somewhat sentimental to try and sculpt any monotheistic amber faith into something that is no longer otherworldly, supernaturalistic and rooted in prerational outpicturings of the psychological angst of a particular (long gone) period of our evolution.

This assumes that there haven't been people throughout history who have not understood or attempted to live these teachings on a transrational level – on any level other than amber mythic belief.  And that simply isn't true.  Therefore, it isn't merely sentimental – not if there has been a living historical current of such practices.

You wrote:  again though,  i will repeat that this blog post is NOT about trying to talk religious people out of their faith - it is about asking non-religious people if it makes sense to use the terminology of religion to talk about something related but quite different in essence.

I understand.  Here's how I approach this:

I do not use the word, God, in my ordinary spiritual discourse – not in relation to my own path.  But I do not wish to toss out the term, either.  I can and do use it when I speak to those for whom it is the preferred term for transcendent truth – for the mystery of being, the depth-dimension of being, towards which you also point.

There are a number of powerful non-theistic spiritual vocabularies available, and it doesn't hurt at all to attempt to craft an effective Integral one.  But I think it is important to recognize that there are sophisticated theistic, or panentheistic, vocabularies which are also available, and these can be used as well – without sentimentality or condescension. 

It just depends on the context.

I agree that it can be potentially confusing if we use terms which have a lot of historical mythic associations, particularly if we use them ambiguously.  But I think that for any theist who listens carefully to a panentheist, for instance, it will become apparent that there is a different vision underlying the use of this language.  There are familiar resonances, to be sure, but they open onto different horizons.

Best wishes,

Balder

Hey Daniel,  very good post.. thank you.  I enjoy your book by the way.

I like this one…

“Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him, the the king (Darius) thought to set him over the whole realm.”

“Then the president's and princes sought to find against Daniel concerning the kingdom, but they could none occassion or fault: forasmuch as he was faithful, there was neither any error or fault found in him. 

Then said these men, we shall not find any occassion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.”  Daniel 6:3-5.

Well then, these men decided to create a law that disallowed Daniel's god, and threw Daniel in the den of lions.  Of course the lions did not touch Daniel, and when the king discovered what was going on:

“Then the king was exceedingly glad for him, and commanded they should take Daniel up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God. 

And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions.”  Daniel 6: 23-24.

The following verses talk about how the accusers and their families died in the den, and the king decreed Daniel's god as the right and just god.  The king also told his people to fear this god…. something many people attack as an unloving god.

It is critically important to understand in those days, that the Mid East was filled with tribes who were constantly attacking each other, in the names of their own gods, and that life was not about love and peace back then, it was about survival.  Fear was the way of life… and freedom to be happy came from conquering the enemy.  God didn't create the fear… society did.

Anyway.. Daniel, I really appreciated your post, and in my experience here, is that Julian and others are extremely intelligent caring people, who have made a conscious choice to see religion as outdated, and a principle source of conflict in the world. 

You could descend on a cloud with a shepherd's crook and a lamb in your arms, and neither you, nor I can change that.

I accepted Julian's statement yesterday that this blog is for the non-religious to discuss possibilties for a new language without reference to god or religious dogma. 

That was pretty clear… respect it… and will not make further attempts to bring God and my faith into this dialogue.

I understand, Julian.  Your perspective on this is very rigid and you are not really open to arguments to the contrary.  You didn't even try on or respond directly to my questions which would have called for a shift in perspective.  But take it from someone who has studied religion in more depth than you have:  you are missing some important things in your analysis, and I believe this is the result of your lack of exposure to the literature in this field.  If you are not interested in actually reading these things – I understand from previous conversations that you are not – then you may never know what you are missing, but I hope you will at least take on board the possibility that there may be a gap in your understanding of the full scope of these various visions.

One place we keep getting stuck is as follows:  I will assert that there are sophisticated, non-literalist forms of Christianity or whatever, and that therefore it doesn't make sense to dismiss the whole of it as pre-rational; then you will say that Christianity is pre-rational and you stand behind your developmental assessment that mythic-literal interpretations of God as an old, bearded man in the sky is on par with the “tooth fairy” – when that is not at all what is being argued.  I have never argued against your rejection of the old man in the sky model.  I have simply been saying that there are far more sophisticated understandings of God that have been held by Christians throughout the ages, even if those Christians have been in the minority during much of that history. 

There is a lot more I could say, but we keep going in circles on this issue, so I'm going to drop the discussion for now.

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S.  One possible avenue forward, I perhaps naively expect, might be to actually articulate various ways that the Christ story can - and does - help foster engagement with existential issues and open the way towards transrational transformation - to give you a concrete example of how this vision can inform one's spirituality in ways that you might actually appreciate.  This would probably be done best by a Christian, but I could try to put on that hat and do it as well.

P.P.S.  Regarding Campbell's quote, “religion…is misunderstood mythology,” have you read Wilber's critique of that?  He thinks Campbell himself misunderstands mythology.

finally some meat with those taters…lol

Julian,

I am certainly not offended by your words.  I do find it difficult, and a little frustrating at times, as Balder said, that you have chosen to be selectively one-side in your reading and in-depth knowledge. 

I used to run a data analytics company, and we used various artificial intelligence algorithms that perform data characterization, association, and a host of others types of classifications.  All of the systems had one thing in common… create a hypothesis, remove the data that contradicts the hypothesis, and apply the algorithm that has the greatest statistical likelihood of validating the hypothesis.    Truth is, even pharmaceuticals tailor the analytics of clinical trial data to streamline the approval process.  The FDA even approves these analytics in advance, full knowing there may be invaluable evidence that is not going to show up in the trials.

In the rational age we live in, there is little interest in any form of empirical truth.  The pursuit of truth has been replaced with filtered analysis to validate not truth, but an individual belief.   

For the Integral philosophy, I see four factors that triangulate to create an “iron clad” rational model that is quite sound.

1) An acknowledgement that a “new” spiritual awareness is developing within our consciousness both individually and collectively.  (no argument here)

2) To an extent,  this awareness can be rationally modelled against certain scientific knowledge we hold today (quantum mechanics, particle theory, string theory, Implicate Order, etc.)  (No argument here… I have a theoretical physics degree and have spent my adult life experiencing a unified view of science and mystic faith)

3) Alignment of thought with leading post-modern philosophers and spiritualists (No argument here)

4) Backed by historical facts and opinions associated with the suppression of freedoms and fear based dogma attached to organized religion.  (No argument here).

(Pls cut me some slack if you disagree with these 4 factors… that is ok for purposes of this post).

The fact that I take no issue with these Integral factors…is mute to me.

If I were so inclinded, I could also create an iron-clad argument that

1) this new spiritual awareness is not new at all, and it has been around since early religions were formed.

2) that this spirituality can be modeled against modern scientific knowledge

3) there are leading philosphers, rationalists and transrationalists who align with these factors

4) that there is evidence throughout history that religion is not only about dogma and suppression, it has always pursued spiritual awareness and attainment.

The real issue here is not an issue of rationalism versus prerationalism, the world is stuck in a fundamental argument about postmodern moral relativism (what is good for the individual), versus modernist moral collectivism (what is good for the community). 

The answer is not in building rational brick walls and moats, and firing Integral arguments from one castle while the religious castles fire back.  Instead,  the pursuit of spiritual truth should be about a true desire by both postmodernists and modernists to explore a unified understanding of spirituality both from the individual and collective view.  Sure the pendulum has swung full to the 'individually-centric' world view for now, and it is extremely popular to attack the collective end of the religious spectrum. 

A FUNDAMENTAL premise of Christianity is that we truly cannot love others, until we come to know and love our true selves.  IMO… Christ and Buddha were the ones who introduced spiritual self awareness to the world, and at the same time, made it clear that self actualization is impossible without community, love and giving of oneself to others. 

Christianity and Buddhism, again IMHO, are the faiths that have transitioned humanity from fear to love, and from obedience to service… although when one is prepared to stand in their teachings at a deep deep level, it is easy to see that these same characteristics are also present in Judaism, Islam, Hindu, and many other worldwide religions.

hi bruce (especially but not only, for this comment)

i've seen you refer on several occasions to the benefits and meaning available to followers of religion, whether they take their gospel as gospel or as metaphor.

i wonder what those benefits actually are as you see them?

my understanding of human psychology is that everything we do, think, feel, and believe has at some level both a positive intent, and positive benefit(s) for the individual.

consequently, all adherents to a religion will derive positive benefits from their belief and practise -  even if the premises of the religion are largely misguided, and even if the beliefs and practises result in negative consequences elsewhere.

i can certainly imagine such benefits as a strong sense of community, companionship, shared values, a sense of deeper meaning to life etc. i am also painfully aware, through my work, of apparent benefits  of religious belief which actually conceal less joyous sides of human psychology, and cost that individual dearly.

“positive benefits” abound in life…

- self-harming can afford the individual a temporary feeling of control and alleviation of anxiety
- an affair may help an individual temporarily forget their negative self-image
pretending that all is well in a relationship may help to avoid the pain of confronting one's own emotions and behaviours.
- conceptualising an overarching force or pervasive being may provide a sense of comfort and apparent meaning to life
- pretending that one has a relationship with a conceptualised other may afford a sense of unity with what is

coming into closer contact with reality - such as occurs when faith-based propositions are abandoned in favour of beliefs based on evidence and logic - is a healthy progression of consciousness (by any rational definition of health). where healthier vehicles than religion are available which will provide the benefits you allude to, it would seem sensible to promote those alternatives, and to clearly differentiate those vehicles from the previous ones, with clear use of terminology and concepts.

my interest is in developing a rational framework within which human consciousness can develop without alienating any aspect of the human bodymind. i am aware of no religious canon which provides for this. nor am i aware of any religious movement which has at its core a built-in mechanism for updating and discarding irrational and damaging beliefs, premises, principles and rules within its canon. the fact that benefits - even profoundly important benefits - may be derived from following a religion is not adequate justification for defending it as a system. religion really does involve binding, whether enforced or voluntary, external or internalised - in none of them is intellectual freedom actually free. i agree with you completely that any benefits - insofar as they really are benefits - should certainly be encouraged, on their own merits, but that means should be sought for attaining those benefits without the negative aspects. (i include postmodern pick'n'mix adherence to religion in this - the psychological principles operate regardless of which elements of a doctrine are followed as doctrine, whether prosaic secular or magical metaphysical.)

my main concern with religion - as with other forms of human irrationality - is not the metaphysical propositions, which are clearly psychological fabrications rather than philosophical positions, nor is it the torture and bloodshed which is very much thriving today. rather, it is the incontestable psychological damage caused to billions through the disintegrative premises that they are taught as truth from an early age, without the thinking skills and language which will equip them to transcend effectively the fallacies of their predecessors.

no system is all bad or damaging. just as nazism had the aesthetic benefit of amazing graphic design, caused significant technological and medical advances, and afforded comradeship against a common enemy, under any religious umbrella may be found cathection, romance, profound soul-searching, deep sincerity, honour, self-discipline, maturation, psychological development, gentleness, benevolence, contribution, joy, fun, a soaring celebration of life and so on.

if however those benefits are not easily attainable within a system without incurring significant and unsustainable disadvantages, that system is not ideally suited as a healthy vehicle for deepening consciousness, and should be named as such, with clarity and without apology. i see much sympathetic downplaying here (or lack of awareness, or denial) of the downsides of religion - yes, even “nuanced” religion - as if they are merely some historical aberration, and not in fact operative today. i think this is disingenuous, if not inconsistent.

i think it important that more integrative vehicles be promoted which encourage integration primarily through feeling deeply and honestly, thinking clearly and honestly, and experiencing and interpreting consciousness rationally (and therefore honestly). i think these need to be clearly distinguished by all means possible.

(i appreciate that you are not personally defending religion in its entirety at all, and note that you cite tsk and the diamond approach as possible viable alternatives, although these too are not without their doctrinal and philosophical challenges).

i hope it is clear that i'm not advocating total eradication of the content of religions! i am advocating that - in the area of education especially - we do not suffer the little children to come unto anyone who does not help them to feel deeply - for themselves - and think clearly - for themselves, or endorse, however indirectly, systems which are not supportive of this principle.

to rephrase my original question slightly: what unique benefits do religions provide (any of them) which cannot be enjoyed less detrimentally by clearly differentiated secular means?

cordially

adam

Great to hear from you, Adam.  To aid me in my response to you, can you tell me what purely secular means or vehicles you have in mind?  Is there any secular system out there that you believe is especially suited to achieve the aims of religion, only better, and without the collateral damage, so to speak?  Or is it more of a pick'n'choose situation?

Regarding TSK and Diamond Approach, I think the former is stronger than the latter, at least in terms of having built-in self-checking and self-challenging mechanisms.

Adam,

Do you know what gets me about the way you and other atheists think about religion as irrational?

You are saying that 90% of the people in the world… including every leader of the western world that has ever existed, every innovator who has invented the car, the airplane, the computer, lasers, and xrays, taken people to the moon, and built satellites that travel 50 million miles from the planet… are irrational.  Even Einstein who started off as an atheist, came to believe that it was rationally impossible to believe that there is not a superior creator.

Who the heck are you 10% of the world who are superior masters of rationalism that have concluded that every rational mind that has come before you, and used rationalism to change the world… are now irrational beings for believing in God?

Can you help me with this one?  Cuz as rational as I am, the idea that God loving people are irrational goes against everything that the western world is founded on…. including the US Constitution.

Who are you guys?  What planet are you from…

I gotta admit, this is becoming comical now…

d

hi dave

i'm happy to continue in the mold you have squeezed me into for as long as you are happy to misinterpret and misrepresent my views as i've expressed them…

am i right in thinking that you are trying to defend your theism, and that you are trying to persuade me of the merits of that particular belief system?

i welcome serious discussion on important matters.

in any case, i can't help but notice that you haven't lost your touch for tailoring the analysis of data to streamline the approval process ; )

p.s. albert einstein was human. so is god - as far as we know. is the einstein you're referring to the same one who, a year before his death, wrote the following:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

more of einstein's theism here

not that i could care less what einstein thought as it applies to any of my own arguments. i agree with him when i think he's right, but i do not endorse taking authority on its word.

best

adam

Adam,

First, no need to get into a debate about Einstein..

Here are some of his other quotes..

“I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.”

Julian,

I've responded to Adam just now… referencing Einstein's own words regarding God and religion.  He must be the source of his own misinformation. 

So give me a break.

A few more Einstein quotes….

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.

——————————-

Can we stop the debate and explore what is common, rather than what is different?

now there are some nuances that might make interesting arguments and distinctions viz prerational or transrational variations… bruce would agree i am sure, adam would not. i stand in the middle and say that spirituality is possible viz a relationship to interior depth and an awe at the natural world…

J…i don't see the difference in yours and adams view on this…could you elaborate?  maybe i am saying that incorrectly…i think i understand adams view…yours is not as clear…

hi bruce

to answer in brief: there is no name for the system of vehicles that i endorse (at least not one which is trademarked yet although i'm working on it ; ) but the vehicles themselves are known to us all to some degree, as they are innate to the human bodymind. the specific ones which i endorse are those which integrate all the human faculties - somatic, cognitive, limbic, self-reflexive awareness, and critical. as you'll be aware, i'm a fan of self-esteem and the practises which increase it. i'd refer you to my babysteps essay in the symposium last year for a general list. specifically included are practises which deepen experientially access to the furthest reaches of consciousness, and look beyond emotion reason and belief without requiring alienation, contradiction, or repudiation of any of them.

(it just occurred to me to clarify: i wonder if your held definition of the word secular is possibly less charitable/inclusive than your definition of the word religion? within the umbrella of the word secular i include everything that exists in the universe - material and energetic, including all consciousness that is aware of these things - but excludes ontological claims, and claims proceeding from them, of religion and mysticism which are not confirmable by sensory evidence and logic)

the challenge in existing systems that i have thus far come across - and i include integral institute here - is that they appear to seek at once to encourage interior experience and supply interpretation for this experience, with a methodology which presupposes the truth of the interpretations which the institution endorses, the content of which is rarely intellectually supportable.

in my view the point is not what to include in any new “system” - it is keeping out beliefs which inhibit or distort the integrated development of the individual in the first place - this is why i'm rather more keen to delineate the new territory than some, and be very discriminating about the dress code for entry into the future. again, this does not exclude any of the healthy experiential aspects, feelings, or meanings of the benefits of religions which you're about to supply…

i'm well aware of the challenges that humans face when raised in irrational environments - i work with people facing them on a daily basis, and do not judge them for holding their beliefs (although . my passion lies in true education - the raising of a free mind in a free body in a free society - and there are many practises we know of already which encourage this, and many which discourage it. we're all aware of examples of practises which promote wellness. one of the most fundamental practises - and the single most undervalued one in my opinion - is critical thinking. i see it as every bit as “spiritual” as the most profound meditation, and every bit as rigorous and demanding.

what i promote are primarily methodologies - processes - based on enquiry (aka asking questions of self and others) and identification in the seamless experience of embodied consciousness - somatic cognition. if that's too waffly, well, i'll get back to you after i've had some sleep! it's hard keeping up with you guys. not only am i ahead of my time, i'm ahead of your time hehe (that's a joke).

currently i am extremely excited about the benefits of the integrative psychotherapy which i am learning and applying with others, both as a powerful re-integrating trauma recovery tool, and as a driver for personal growth and freedom. i shall expound further in due course, but it's a profound experiential process which boosts self-awareness, self-acceptance, and self-responsibility enormously, and includes a big fat “satori” as a key component.

i know you are sympathetic to many different schools of thought (while far from undiscriminating), and i share what i see as your deep empathy towards human beings who hold differing philosophical beliefs, even where i may not endorse any particular belief system. i'm a supporter of human beings period, just not everything they believe or do. i encourage as much as possible that people pursue a policy - even when their comfort or security or survival seems threatened - of letting go of, or suspending attachment to, any belief or interpretation which requires contradictory integration of their experience, in other words, which defies reason. this is enacted through - to flirt with a popular  buzzword and an unpopular shock word and juxtapose two seemingly incompatible concepts - aperspectival meritocracy !!! (also known as critical thinking, but don't tell anyone)

i think the systems of being as humans which are relevant to the joyful survival demands of the present are being explored, pioneered, discovered and rediscovered as we write, partly through discourse with such a diverse range of human beings as can be found on forums such as this. we are all part of self-reflexive awareness directing its own evolution. even the behaviorists… and especially the determinists! hehe.

and, by the way, i would feel extremely proud and honoured if you and i could work on this grand project in some more formal way in future. j has a standing invitation… i do feel very excited about the possibilities of multi-perspective collaboration producing a truly appealing way of living the good life. the word god may not be necessary in the next os upgrade, but i sincerely hope that a deep, joyful, and rational appreciation of what it means to be a human animal on earth will be…

cordially

adam

starlight

without wishing to appear arrogant or condescending (that's an injoke folks)…

you haven't been doing your homework have you !?!

now there are some nuances that might make interesting arguments and distinctions viz prerational or transrational variations… bruce would agree i am sure, adam would not

what did i tell you about generalised presumptions ??? there ya go again ; )

as a critical thinking exercise, i left one in my comment to bruce above for you to spot. good luck!

although you're right - i wouldn't know what a nuance was if it sidled up to me on a dancefloor…

i hate you…rotflmao

bruce - sorry, had a crash during editing. i meant to add that critical thinking is high on the list of topics for my war on error blog which i'm starting soon.

it'd be great to have your invaluable input when i get round to it. first report will be coming from jerusalem next week. let's see how i manage at integrating those perspectives hehe.

best

adam

Julian,

You rest your case, and I rest mine… this blog is nothing more than arrow slinging… without any commitment to genuine exploration of truth….

My Einstein quotes are real… as are yours…

Did you know that Einstein was a philandering bastard who paraded whores past his wife, and while she sat downstairs alone, he screwed the hell out of women upstairs then sent them away so he could dine with his spouse?    So much for value based rational judgements.

Further evidence of the futility of this debate:

One must distingush the public face from the private reality.  His comments on god said in public are quite different from his personal writings. 

One such example: 

“From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist…. I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.

I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.”

Albert Einstein

Oh, how all of the believers and believers so desire Einstein to be on thier side.

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this…” Albert Einstein in a letter to Eric Gutkind

Einstein was no Theist.

Dave, what i take this to mean, is that Einstein, as brilliant as he may of been, struggled with the 'idea' of how to express what he believed to be God…

what is obvious, at least to me is that he did not believe in a personal deity…and that he thought of God as being the infinite Reality that he was consciously and intelligently able to experience, in an infinitly evolving rational way …but he realized that mankind is limited in their own understanding of Reality…and so his own proofs of what he knew to be true through rational evaluation, were limited, and this brought to him a deep sense of humility for the awe of all that is, yet cannot be explained…as of yet…

what is also becoming obvious, is that anytime we use the word God to explain what we understand of reality, even if we mean it in a nonreligious way…it is misinterpreted by those that are still attached, regardless of the degree, to an entity or idea of God…

hi dave

i would encourage you to focus on your own authority, your own experience, and your own interpretation.

at some stages of consciousness, people can gravitate towards received wisdom and authority, in submission/deference hierarchies. at others, one's own authority and evaluation becomes more real, more valued. at others, the sense of these fades into the background in favour of spontaneous deeply  connected being and doing, drawing on a high level of intuition or trusted “knowing” arising out of high level integration of somatic and cognitive experience. or so i imagine ; )

it's taken me a lot of hard work to become as insufferable as i am now. the invitation to get on with the dirty work of growth is always there. you just have to ask…

to emphasise my point…

i don't know what the dalai lama is like. i don't think i'd particularly want to debate rationality with him. i think i might enjoy a nice cup of tea with him, maybe swapping irish prostitute jokes. he seems like a knowledgeable and friendly guy, if one isn't chinese. as for the pope, i wouldn't dream of wasting my audience with him in debate. it must be a fascinating gig, and i'd be full of questions. as far as what i've read of his is concerned, there are some substantive points of merit, some contradictory fluff, some rank hypocrisy, and some outright nonsense. same goes (to a lesser extent) for the dalai lama, and (to a lesser extent still) for me. in my humble opinion, both tenzin and ratzi are highly overrated, and overly revered.

Can we stop the debate and explore what is common, rather than what is different?

- in what ways are you increasing the differences?

- what language use and terminology is likely to emphasise our commonalities or differences?

- what beliefs are you willing to let go of in order to bring us closer?

- if you did let go of these, what would you have to feel?

- what is really more important to you - exploring commonality, or holding onto your beliefs?

we have plenty in common dave. especially, we all have belief systems in which we have invested emotionally in a subconscious attempt to avoid feeling the feelings that are an inevitable part of being alive. and the really cool and irritating thing about the subconscious is that we're not aware of it normally…

god does not divide us. god is, or isn't. religion doesn't divide us. nor does einstein's opinion divide us. it's our emotional investment in our cultural and personal beliefs.

it's our own responsibility - not the dalai lama's, not the pope's or future pope's, responsibility - to make sure that our beliefs are grounded in reality, and that they are not being used as neurotic defence mechanisms against fear of our own repressed thoughts, emotions, and experiences. this is what determines health at the stages of consciousness. our willingness to be open to reason - to be open to what is, inside, outside, everywhere - to be real. same the world over - we all share one world, one reality, one existence. the only thing between us is our willingness to believe bullshit, yours and mine alike.

i'm trying every day to cut the crap by being willing to feel underneath it. looking around, as far as i can see, that isn't particularly common. so how about exploring what is uncommon?

best

adam

Adam,

I appreciate your thoughts.  May I ask you what makes you believe that I don't honor my own perspective of God and spirituality?  May I also ask what makes you believe that most Christians don't honor their own perspective of God and spirituality?

When I was 4 years old, I told my father (a former Jesuit priest), that there have to be as many religions in the world as their are people, because everyone has to find their own path to truth.

Does that resonate with you, or sound like some kind of mystic, irrational Christian perspective?

There is a huge modern element of the Catholic faith, including Pope John Paul II who regard God not as a personal being, but the entirety of universal consciousness.

I've shared this numerous times here at Gaia, and am completely astounded that non-believers prefer to deny this, rather than to investigate the possibility of its truth.

dave

i was hoping to point you to somewhere beyond the whole god thing…

I appreciate your thoughts.  May I ask you what makes you believe that I don't honor my own perspective of God and spirituality?

i don't believe that, nor have i said i do. your frequent appeals to authority to back up your points don't make your claim (or any claims) particularly credible though.

May I also ask what makes you believe that most Christians don't honor their own perspective of God and spirituality?

i know for a fact they do, since god, with no specific identity, cannot be accurately - and consequently identically - identified by anyone at all. no identity = no grounds for supposing existence.

When I was 4 years old, I told my father (a former Jesuit priest), that there have to be as many religions in the world as their are people, because everyone has to find their own path to truth.

an astute comment. why did you stop there ; )

Does that resonate with you, or sound like some kind of mystic, irrational Christian perspective?

nope. a bit wooly and not strictly accurate, but great for a young 'un

There is a huge modern element of the Catholic faith, including Pope John Paul II who regard God not as a personal being, but the entirety of universal consciousness.

i don't doubt it. like i've said before, that doesn't actually make any difference. this is no more “nuanced” or “sophisticated” than god being a white haired guy up there somewhere. it's still an arbitrary projected conceptualisation, identical epistemologically to bog standard theism and magical thinking. give 'em another few centuries and they'll get round to officially stating that god actually exists, but only in the imagination. it's not the fastest moving organisation you're in…

I've shared this numerous times here at Gaia, and am completely astounded that non-believers prefer to deny this, rather than to investigate the possibility of its truth.

firstly, i wouldn't be astounded by the level of denial on this site - ever.

secondly, you could save them some time and present them with compelling reasons why your own personal formulation of god is the truly true one.

like i said, we're all believers… until we're not

best

adam

i thought ken wilber was god…

so does that mean we're fucked then? i can't go 40 hours without food, let alone 40 days. not even the odd banana? or protein shake? that's serious…

ROTF…

all in all this is a pretty amazing discussion. if you don't mind i'd like to explore a tangent with the theists on this blog but first i offer a crude analogy for religion. i am going to compare religious belief with alcohol consumption. there are many that enjoy a glass or two of wine with their sunday dinner and that consumption never goes past that weekly ritual, this is healthy use of alcohol and religious believers that harm no one and practice virtue and honesty and love of god and neighbour can be likened to this group. then there are those that are functional alchies who manage to get thru life without doing any serious damage to anyone other than themselves, i've met many religious people like this, their beliefs are unhealthy but they really do no harm to anyone but themselves. then there are the full blown abusers who wreck havoc on themselves and others and cause untold damage to everything they touch. religious fanaticism of all types can be likened to this group. and of course there are those that abstain from booze of any kind and have no need of religion whatsoever. now when a dysfunctional alcoholic kiils someone because of their abuse, it behooves all the other groups to speak out loudly against that pathology. if we don't do this we become enablers and are in some way aiding in that dysfunction. this is my perspective on this site when it comes to religious belief. is this making any sense?
before i get to my main point i feel the need to share one spiritual experience out of many weird wonderful and yes, even wacky experiences. once in and around '85 i was in a church preying and i experienced the whole top of my head blow open and i saw billions of light beings (no wings) singing the most amazing song unto god (who i didn't see and never have). it was a truly amazing thing to witness! now i had the presence of mind to ask some of the other people there if they saw what i saw and of course the answer was no. the point being that this was a complete ul quad exp. and 99.9 % of my experience with spiritual things have either happened in the u.l. or l.l. quads (yes, there have been group exp.). the point being again, that i have not had one, not one, right quad. exp with spiritual things( .1% i won't talk about)…. here i need to bring up the bible (or any other religious book) and say that these books are if anything treatises on the supernatural! whether it's moses and the red sea, jesus walking on water, 2 people being slain supernaturally in the book of acts, etc. etc. this is all overt supernaturalism! so where is this in todays world? and what is it that we are arguing and killing each other over? surly if god is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow jim and tammy faye should have been stricken down ages ago. so here is my challenge to all theists everywhere (especially on this blog) . where are the verifiable observable supernatural happenings? and please none of this we can't tempt god rubbish! please share your verifiable right quad. supernaturalism with the world. walk thru our walls, levitate on cnn, anything,please anything will do! so what is it that we are arguing and killing each other over in the analog religious world? interior left quadrant experiences, that's what! and this is not worth killing anyone over! now to be fair to the supernaturalists, matraiya (the world christ) is apparently going to put on a show soon, so maybe we will get some proof after-all, but i for one am not holding my breath. so what am i saying here? why even talk about abraham when there is not one single way to know whether he was jewish,muslim or hindu? this is rubbish and i for one refuse to be an enabler on this issue of the big 3. but yes, i can understand how professor collins might have had a upper lefy quad. exp. and because he's westernized interpreted that exp. thru christianity. but that is that extent of that exp. in my opinion. oh yes, let's not forget about healing, why not find someone who has no legs and arms and bring them to the white house (they talk to god) and heal them in front of every camera there. that might just do it! 
so in light of these facts, why don't we put the supernatural god intervenes in our life to rest? there are better explanations for the mystery of consciousness than stories in books that are thousands of years old………..but i am open to observable, verifiable evidence to the contrary………………….

Adam,

i was hoping to point you to somewhere beyond the whole god thing…

I have spent half of my life investigating beyond the god thing… only to return to it.

I appreciate your thoughts.  May I ask you what makes you believe that I don't honor my own perspective of God and spirituality?

i don't believe that, nor have i said i do. your frequent appeals to authority to back up your points don't make your claim (or any claims) particularly credible though.

First, they are not appeals, they are convictions.

You said…i would encourage you to focus on your own authority, your own experience, and your own interpretation.

I asked you what makes you believe I do not?  You responded you would never assume that… so please explain what the above encouragement means.



May I also ask what makes you believe that most Christians don't honor their own perspective of God and spirituality?

i know for a fact they do, since god, with no specific identity, cannot be accurately - and consequently identically - identified by anyone at all. no identity = no grounds for supposing existence.

When I was 4 years old, I told my father (a former Jesuit priest), that there have to be as many religions in the world as their are people, because everyone has to find their own path to truth.

an astute comment. why did you stop there ; )

I have spent every minute of my life passionately living this comment… scientifically, spiritually, religiously, politically… and have found a wonderful synergy of reason and faith in those words.

I stopped there… because in these blogs, if there is any inclusion of religion or faith in such “astute comments”.. they are immediately dismissed, and unresponded to.  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Does that resonate with you, or sound like some kind of mystic, irrational Christian perspective?

nope. a bit wooly and not strictly accurate, but great for a young 'un

perhaps you should be my new god because you are so damn sure of your own wisdom… get an ego.. you are too meek.

There is a huge modern element of the Catholic faith, including Pope John Paul II who regard God not as a personal being, but the entirety of universal consciousness.

i don't doubt it. like i've said before, that doesn't actually make any difference. this is no more “nuanced” or “sophisticated” than god being a white haired guy up there somewhere. it's still an arbitrary projected conceptualisation, identical epistemologically to bog standard theism and magical thinking. give 'em another few centuries and they'll get round to officially stating that god actually exists, but only in the imagination. it's not the fastest moving organisation you're in…

I've shared this numerous times here at Gaia, and am completely astounded that non-believers prefer to deny this, rather than to investigate the possibility of its truth.

firstly, i wouldn't be astounded by the level of denial on this site - ever.

secondly, you could save them some time and present them with compelling reasons why your own personal formulation of god is the truly true one.

“At Julian's urging, several months ago… I did present my reasons… and he did not even have the decency to respond… in his own words…it was a waste of his time.

So.. you wanna change the world… open your hearts instead of judging people based on your limited rationalistic myopia.

like i said, we're all believers… until we're not

Have you ever thought of the idea of communicating based on inclusiveness, or do you get a woody excluding everyone you don't believe shares your views?  I have no interest in making believers out of people whose purpose in life is to eschew  others who do not agree with their own rational perspective.

best

adam

enlightenment is experiencing your true nature, without conditioning…and having faith in your intellect, making healthy decisions not based on imaginary things…and experiencing life to its fullest…each moment of every day as awake as you possibly can be…

enlightenment is being filled with inner joy at the awesomeness of life and all it offers…

enlightenment is reaching your potential as a human being…living free in this moment…

enlightenment is dancing in your living room by yourself, rocking out to a Train CD…and being filled with your own true nature…

there is too damn much testerone on this thread…LOL

Dave, i am pissed at you…you ignored me completely…lol

everyone was posting at the same time…Andrew…that was halarious…

Dave…gotta have some rules here for the dumb blonde…

when you quote someone…their words are in italics, and yours are not…i still can't figure out your last post intelligently…

Daniel, have you ever studied Dzogchen?

daniel, i have absolutely zero problem with anyone that selflessly serves god in healthy ways as they understand it……….
but if you take any sides when it comes to who  abraham was, sorry my friend, you are being an enabler to murderers…………………..best to declare neutrality on that issue, in my opinion….

Daniel,

Now I understand the motive behind your questions in your message to me.  You are a sly devil you are.

The Trinity ain't that big a mystery… God is the totality of all that ever was, and ever will be.  Jesus was the material, atomic manifestation of God, and the Holy Spirit is the totality of energy and spiritual awareness.  Christianity doesn't go around pontificating the paradox much anymore.

Jesus also acknowledged the Old Testament as the entire Word of God, so He honors the past, the present and the future.

Daniel:

How exoteric religion [clerics] have distorted the original message

The 5 pillars of Islam are based on these two versus which are interpreted from the Arabic to the English

Neither use the term God [Allah in Arabic]

Pickthal Interpretation:

First verse

.
This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).

 Second Verse

 Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what we have
provided for them;

This second verse is what the first pillar of Islam [belief in God] is based on; notice the word God is not there.

The word in Arabic is Gayb, which means the Unseen, or hidden.

Beliefe in the UNSEEN is the first pillar of Islam

MY POINT: is that ALL religions began as mystical systems, and have been taken over by ignorant [sometimes well meaning, though often times not] clerics.

Balder

I must confess it is I [not Julian] who uses [pejoratively] the term Santa Clause, and also Wizard of Oz, [ also somtimes sky-God] to describe how most ‘believers' view God in exoteric systems.

And you are right, I don't like Santa Clause, because he never came to the Ghetto, in fact we didn't even have chimneys!

Balder and Julian:

I must admit that I agree with both of you on many of your points

Zakariyya = Positive/Negative -  Negative\Positive

The story of the Elephant in the Dark.applies.

Julian

Don't worry it may take 1000 years to be completely understood, then again it may not

Dave, very nice synopsis, if I do say so….

Thanks star,

When are the doubting Thomasina's of the world going to listen to the fact that many Christian faiths no longer view God as a personal deity, but as the totality of all consciousness, matter and energy?

For example, the Catholic Church now recognizes that heaven and hell are not a place, but a conscious relationship (or not in the case of hell) with the total spiritual consciousness of God (or the total absence of that conscious totality which is eternal loneliness).

I am soooooooooo tired of this position that religion is rooted in 2000 year old culture and hasn't evolved one iota…. and all of a sudden there is this new Wilberian wisdom that is enlightening the world from the dark ages.

Does anyone know what the Renaissance and Enlightenment Period were all about?

Cripes… !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Dave, I just made some comments on these things minutes ago on Bjorns blog, Authority on the God Pod…
you might be interested..This are all sophisticated arguments…lol.,..means taking what is pure and admixing truth so that it becomes adulterated…it is specious and deceptive reasoning, PLAUSIBLE but fallacious argumentation, this is the psuedo intellectualism of the sophists….go read the blog..

Daniel,

Even the Buddha believed in God, he called Him the House-Builder.
…
”THOU shalt not build a house for me again. All Thy rafters are broken. THY ridge-pole is shattered. My mind has entered the unconditioned and reached the end of craving.”


It seems then that Buddha's goal was to shatter God's rafters and ridge-pole and destroy the house that he built. Apparently, the House-builder is the cause of all the suffering in the world, and that sure doesn't sound like any God I've ever heard of.

where was the housebuilder standing when he built the house?

Dave, i feel you, honestly, but do not understand your frustration…

i do not want to look through the eyes of religion…any religion, even if it doesn't call itself that…all that can be gotten is a distorted view…imo…

now that does not mean that there are not valad truths throughout all scripture…depending on how you understand them and what you read into them…but to me it is like trying to build a house on top of another house that you just supposedly leveled…and today, i find more truth in nature than in any book i have ever read…and i have read a bunch of them…

another analogy would be that now that i have gotten free from one cage, i start building another,  just to be encaged…again…no thnx.

for some time now, i have trusted in my own awareness…don't need a guru, or a saviour, or anything of the kind…i do like this idea of critical thinking…so, gonna hang for that…

All phenomena [ including religion ] is a bridge to the real

As Buddha said:

“Over the river discard the boat”

The 'boat' is religion or any path or method
Some have become idolators of the 'boat' forgetting it is only a traveling mechanism
But the boat is only a vehicle to a destination.

The destination is God, truth, or reality, Nirvana, Insani-Kamil, Adam Kadmon, Christ Consciousness,  Satori Etc…

Very simple, not complicated

The complication is in trying to transform the self, because it resists change.

Thanks Brother Daniel,

You just might be the one who has shown me how much religious intolerance there is in the world.

Peace be with you

Dave

so we should all convert and i should run and go buy me a head dress and be prepared to serve man and be at his beckon call?  oh where do i sign up?

i realize you are ignoring me Daniel…and that is really ok…i forgive you for your sins…LOL

To Daniel

Point 1. As one Sage said:

The Quran is an eyebrow of a mistress.

It has 7 levels of interpretation.

Point 2. Islamic scholars and clerics believe this is what supports the pillars.

My point was that the exoteric interpretation is not the only interpretation.

What is your point?

I gave it no meaning, therefore how do you say I am twisting something. I think you are a bit presumptuous.

Perhaps you should next time read my posts closely, and reflect before you respond

hey, once when i was stupid, i prayed for a hotdog cause i was hungry…it materialized before my very eyes…does that count?

will the real Mystic please stand up and stop the war and end hunger and suffering…NOW!!!!!!!

exert your free will…use the power of GOD wisely…

Adam,

I wrote this in between phone calls this morning, so it's sort of written on the fly, but I hope it at least will serve to take this conversation forward …

On a very general level, religions offer people a series of inspiring, orienting, and sometimes transformative practices and stories rooted in a unitary vision of a meaningful cosmos, a centuries-old lineage of human inquiry, struggle, and learning, with archetypal narratives which help individuals make moral and cognitive sense of their lives, and often with historical narratives as well which provide people with a sense of continuity, guidance, and inspiration.  To my knowledge, no purely secular vehicle of transformation and communal vision offers these things – a unique archetypal language rooted in an ancient historical current, with transformative practices, stories, rituals, songs, institutions, schools, holy days, pilgrimage sites, and so on.  In other words, a system which offers not only a series of practices, but an entire culture, with all that entails.  When people join a religion, or belong to a religion, there is a transpersonal dimension to that that is hard to find in the various, usually disparate secular practices or schools or whatever – the sense of being part of something much greater than the individual, not only in mystical or spiritual terms, but just in terms of human history and vision and culture.

I am not saying that various non-religious practices or systems or whatever don't also have histories behind them, but coherently and consciously preserved and communicated historical narratives (with accompanying and supportive practices, arts, rituals, etc) tend to be more readily available in religious contexts.  And I do believe many people seek these things out – perhaps unconsciously, to some extent, but nevertheless quite consistently.  People want to root their lives within grand narratives, within the meaningful sweep of history, within a coherent and meaningful cosmos.

From within the context of the religions themselves – taking the point of view of believers rather than skeptical outsiders – the religions most importantly provide access to an aspect or dimension of reality which is absolute, which is beyond the transitory and fallible human world.  From a skeptical outsider's perspective, this absolute is just part of the overall “story” that religions sell, but many human beings do crave grounding in an absolute or higher reality of some sort (even if it's just human rationality).  From an existential perspective (or the perspective of Buddhist emptiness), we might argue that an important part of human development involves surrendering or cutting through our investment in our ideas of the absolute (which, at some point, reveal themselves as constructs).  But it takes time, maturationally, to reach the point where such surrender even makes sense or becomes possible.  Prior to that point, people appear to thrive – to find energy and inspiration and hope – in the context of a vision which is anchored in some concept of an orienting absolute, a higher guiding meaning.

(As an aside:  Raimon Panikkar, a Catholic theologian who is also a practicing Buddhist and Hindu!, who argues that atheism is an important post-mythic/theistic step in spiritual development, and who further argues for the sacredness and transformative potential of the secular vision, has suggested that what humans need at this point in our postmodern history is a cosmotheandric vision: a vision in which cosmos, God, and man are understood as an inseparable continuum.  In his vision, theos does not refer to an external divine entity of some sort, but to the depth-dimension of reality, of human being.  He is trying to realize this, in part, through ongoing dialogue and collaboration among religionists and postmodern secular humanists.)

On the level of actual techniques or transformative disciplines, rather than the “complete package” aspect I've been emphasizing above, I think the obvious place to look is the various contemplative disciplines.  Some of these disciplines have consciousness transforming practices and cartographies of human consciousness that are quite sophisticated, and I am not aware of any secular discipline which equals or exceeds what these traditions, over centuries of practice and experimentation, have achieved.  From my own studies in transpersonal and integral psychology, I am aware of a number of modern methods and practices that are quite effective and powerful, some of which address aspects of human consciousness more effectively than these older disciplines (if those disciplines addressed them at all).  But there are nevertheless a number of traditional practices which I believe are more refined and sophisticated than anything we've created yet within a secular/scientific context, whether or not we agree with some of the metaphysical assumptions that underlie them.

There is nothing stopping someone with a non-religious, secular orientation from studying these practices and adopting them for use in modified form within a secular context.  So, I'm not saying that relgions offer anything inherently superior to anything a secular system could potentially offer.  But currently, I think religious systems do offer a number of things which are either not easily available within any current secular discipline, or in a few cases, which secular systems have not yet even realized.

Best wishes,

Balder

W o W


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJpyskHMwRs

No mistakes Daniel, the only truly rational faith on the planet is Catholicism, not to say it doesn't have its mysticism too.

I don't respond to your points because you are not engaging in a dialogue, you are merely standing on your mountain of wisdom pontificating what is wonderful about your universe, and what is wrong with everyone elses. 

I need to go pray now.

:Dan

I often say:

“Speak to people according to their level of understanding”

Of course there are different levels, and stages of growth.

.I said the Quran has 7 levels of interpretation. Implicit in that is the fact of stage levels.

**Nothing you have written implies that religion started out as mystical.

My point is that ‘religion' without the esoteric content is problematic to say the least.

And that most ‘religions' have abandoned the esoteric - the inner meaning of religion.

You said the use of the word al ghaib denotes this which I pointed out doesn't follow. God Himself is unseen, have you seen God?

Now the idea of the very mystical Quranic verse using Gaybee [unseen] rather than God is a beautiful way to maintain lucidity of mind, and to eschew dogma that exoteric religion has fell into. I commend the [Angelic] intelligence Jibril for this verse

I am the manifest and the hidden

The verse you gave mentioned prayer, this is religious as well.

Prayer can be a part of mysticism

.

It is highly unlikely that religion started out as mysticism.

[ It is not unlikely, it is a fact.

If one studies history whether it is the ancient Egyptians or the early mystical tradition of Abraham, the words of Jesus, the life of Buddha or the life of Muhammad one will without a doubt see that the early teachings emphasized the inner meaning of religion, which is mystical. Granted these systems produces a bastarize3d low level version for those so-inclined to that level - exoteric religion.

Imagine creating man and the first thing you will teach him is meditation techniques.

Meditation is just another technique utilized for spiritual growth.  

Mysticism isn't the most important aspect of Dharma. It would be illogical for God to give people the non-essentials before what is most needed.**

Mysticism Dan, is merely the aspect of the path that emphasizes the inner meaning of religion that attempts to affect the core elements of being - heart, mind, soul ,spirit on a subtle refined way through metaphysical processess.

Dharma is universal cosmic law, in which humans have fallen [ internally away from]

The practice of the path [ a right combination of the esoteric, and exoteric] is an attempt to retune humans with the Dharma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

Of course there are many different ways people interpret the word mystical.

“god” is so loaded with baggage we should give him an extra big tip when he finally delivers it to the penthouse hotel room in the sky for us…


LOL…

Ah Julian,

twasn't one thing in particular but the accumulation of many.

I respect the universality of beliefs, atheist, monotheist, pantheist, for in many ways we are all pursuing the same truth.

And then, there are those who independent of their spiritual beliefs, demonstrate that amongst a modern universe of homo sapiens, neandrathals still exist…

lol…it'll be alright…

Thought it time to add a little humour…

The elderly priest, speaking to the younger priest,
said, 'You had a good idea to replace the first four
pews with plush bucket theater seats. It worked like
a charm. The front of the church always fills first
now.'

The young priest nodded, and the old priest
continued, 'And you told me adding a little more
beat to the music would bring young people back
to church, so I supported you when you brought in
that rock 'n roll gospel choir. Now our services
are consistently packed to the balcony.'


'Thank you, Father,' answered the young priest. 'I
am pleased that you are open to the new ideas of
youth.'

'All of these ideas have been well and good,' said
the elderly priest, 'But I'm afraid you've gone too
far with the drive-thru confessional.'

'But Father,' protested the young priest, 'my
confessions and the donations have nearly doubled
since I began that!'

'Yes,' replied the elderly priest, 'and I appreciate
that…. But the flashing neon sign, 'Toot 'n Tell or
Go to Hell' cannot stay on the church roof.'

talking of humour, confessions, and donations… this one's a scream:

only two things in life are certain: death and taxes. kudos to the catholic church - the only rational religious system - for combining them! (scroll down a bit for the juicy price list).

our lord certainly moves in mysterious ways…

now i'm off to jerusalem to do a little digging around. back in 10 days, doubtless with some compelling biblical evidence for y'all. not that you sophisticated folks need anything as prosaic as evidence for believing things ; )

I hope you have a good, profitable trip, Adam.  But personally, I'm disappointed!  Every time I write to you, you disappear!  Responses, when they eventually come, are usually weeks later…

Thank you for teaching me patience (I guess!).

Best wishes,

B.

no laptops in Jerusalem?  now that is serious!  lol…have a safe trip…

thnx guys for the funny stuff…

i know bruce… i do apologise for my erratic output. i'll see what i can get done tonight - and i do want you to know that your comments are central to my cogitation in these areas, which goes on regardless of my word count. i'm trying to find a way of writing more little and often. i tend to be a rather slow writer and an even slower editor, and am often amazed at how prolific julian and yourself and others are… let's see if i can keep the conversations alive more - i'd certainly like to do just that.

gratefully,

a

No problem, Adam.  I spend more time on this site than I probably should.  If I used this time to write something for publication, I probably would have been published by now!

Have a great trip, and I look forward to your thoughts when you return.

Best wishes,

B.

As we have on this thread somewhat fallen into subjective dispute [nothing wrong with it as long as we argue in the best manner] I wish to offer an objective suggestion forthwith:

Julian wants new language. In my book “The Ellipse: The Fall and Rise of the Human Soul, Secrets of the Cosmos, due out in August, I provide a new name for ‘God” I call EVOLUTIONARY INTELLEGENCE.

Evolutionary Intelligence (EI) Term for God in history, who

knows the needs of the evolving human, and consequently through

revelation guides man through varying epochs.

I think this meets the criteria of modern language for the modern human

Here is the prayer

OH LORD, GOD, OR WHATEVER, PLEASE MAKE GAIA SPEED UP THIS SITE, SOON

AMEN!

OH LORD, GOD, OR WHATEVER, PLEASE MAKE GAIA SPEED UP THIS SITE, SOON

as long as you are aware that what you are actually praying too, are the ones running the site…emails might work faster, and imo, would be a more intelligent form of communication…

LOL

Zak,

I like EI… it is definitely moving in the right direction.  Does EI suggest that EI (God) makes new levels of consciousness available to humanity gradually, or that all levels are there, and available to anyone who wishes to transcend all EI..?

I ask cuz my immediate response to EI, was instead  ET… Evolutionary Transcendence.

Very interesting, Dave

I ask cuz my immediate response to EI, was instead  ET… Evolutionary Transcendence.

I like that. Though it might cause a problem if and when it is abbreviated to

ET!

Really it is excellent, Evolutionary transcendence… though

My spiritual cosmology [The Ellipse theory] is based on the idea originated in the Torah, Gospel, and Quran regarding the ‘Fall of Man'. This ties in with Buddha's idea that humans have lost their true nature. The book ‘The Ellipse' explains the science of the corruption of the structure of the soul  [ the Essence] that caused our descent into a world that we live in.

The concept of ‘Evolutionary Intelligence' is based on the idea that the divine has turned to humans through mercy, and has through the ages offered guidance to return to the condition before the great fall of man, in primordial times, to what I term - technically speaking - perfection or felicity, the station we had as indicates in the allegory of the Garden of Eden. This being the case the Evolutionary Intelligence for a time only relates to the return to inner perfection that humans lost in primordial times, thence what takes over is the transcendent evolution to the supreme and FINAL station of COMPLETION:

Indeed, your term [very fitting to this theory, btw] Evolutionary Transcendence can have something to do with the greater station that comes after the return to the original condition we had before the fall. That station is what the Sufis call Insanul-Kamil- which indicates completion.

To sum up, the theory is simply that one has to first return to the lost nature - perfection, that deals with  Evolutionary Intelligence - which includes the paths of spiritual guidance, then onto the Evolutionary Transcendence.

Evolutionary Enlightenment

Christ Consciousness

Nirvana

Insanul-Kamil

Satori and other symbols that ALL the spiritual schools of thought have for the final station - the very intent of the Divine!

All this is in my book, literally.

One more thing:

ET of course can also mean

Extra Terrestrial

            But lets keep that on the QT

Zak,

While some may scratch their head, coming from a Catholic boy like me…

But the context of your book is brilliant!  It resonates very strongly with my mind and heart.

A number of years ago… I had an inspirational Davism…

“While it may take thousands of years for humanity to fully evolve in spirit, a single soul can complete their evolution in a single lifetime.”

I see EI as the gradual evolution of humanity, and ET as the transcendental evolution of an individual if we are so committed.  All that Jesus life means to me… is that Jesus achieved ET… within a single lifetime, and as a result was spurned by the human masses because they could not handle his authenticity.

Bravo Zac… I am very impressed.

Thanks for hanging in there together, there was clearly a reason why.

Dave

WOW…

Someone told me 1 child dies every 5 seconds because they don't have enough food or water.

Changing that together is consciousness supreme. We get way ahead of ourselves with words and terms. Giving a child the opportunity to drink clean water and have food is what I believe “God”  would ask us to do. Or at least what we should try to accomplish as a human race together. Food, water, and love are basic needs.

I don't think it particulary matters what we call love, unity, God…or if we debate it or not.

 We need to act, timely.

Until we provide children with clean water to drink on this planet….  And until we make it a priority…no one should call themselves enlightened, evolved, integrally wise, generous, or conscious.

http://2senseworth.gaia.com/   

That's my two sense…


Peace On Earth,

Janie

I thought this might clarify some misunderstandings and some misnomers..
Making G-d's Will Ours

“Behold you have sinned against G-d. And you your sin will find you.” ~~ Numbers 32:23

THE PROCESS OF 'I'-DENTIFYING

If G-d were the sun each of us would be a ray of His divine light. The goal of the spiritual disciplines of daily Torah (Bible) life - study, prayer, meditation, and the performance of mitzvas (religious duties; plural for mitzvah), is to serve G-d and, thereby, become one with our true essence. Through these practices we experience our self an aspect and individualized expression of the Timeless Universal Self - G-d.

The 20th century Kabbalist Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan explains in his book Inner Space that in order to feel this powerful truth, we must learn to disengage our inner self from its outer trappings. In other words, we have to get in touch with our soul as distinct from our persona, thoughts and feelings.

The goal of disengaging the self from the outer trappings is to realize that you are not your thoughts, your emotions, your body, your money, your career or your property. These things are part of your outer persona, but they are not the inner you. You would still be you if you lost any of these things. Many people fear, however, that if they were stripped of these externals, then they would end up feeling like nothing.

There is a powerful scene in Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning where the author describes how the Nazis would line up the Jews to select who would go to the gas chambers and who would go to the work camps. A Nazi commander would stand at the front of the line, holding up his hand by the elbow, and with one finger, he would simply point left, right, left, right. One man's little finger determined whether a person would live or die.

Frankl was sent into a room with others, where they were ordered, “strip, take everything off and throw it into a pile in the center of the room within two minutes!” The Jewish prisoners frantically undressed and threw their clothes in the central pile, fearful of running out of time and being killed. At the end, all they were left with was their naked existence.

Frankl, however, stood still holding his manuscripts, which contained a lifetime of research. That little cache held everything that he had ever accomplished in his psychological research. Holding his life's work, he approached the German officer and tried to explain that his possession was worth nothing to the Nazis. At first, the officer seemed to listen compassionately, but then yelled, “Throw it into the pile!” Frankl frantically persisted, “You don't understand. This is my life's work! It's just meaningless paper to you.” But the Nazi just repeated, “Throw it into the pile!” Frankl obeyed the order. He, too, was left with only his naked existence. All he was is that he was.

Imagine the tragedy of his loss. But also imagine the potential spiritual growth that was available to those who went through such a challenge. Sometimes, very painful experiences offer us tremendous spiritual elevation. Frankl addresses this concept in his book, relating how many people in the concentration camps became remarkably spiritual. Those who were more religious and spiritually oriented, Frankl explains, lasted longer than those who had big physiques but lacked inner strength.

Frankl writes that after everyone had stripped the Nazis gave out concentration camp uniforms, which were previously worn by someone who had just died in a gas chamber. As Frankl put on the torn, dirty prison uniform, he reached into the pocket and found a tiny piece of paper. He took it out and saw that it was “the Shema,” the Jews' daily declaration that G-d is the absolutely one and only reality. This little piece of a prayer book that another Jew had managed to keep was Frankl's exchange for his collection of manuscripts. Frankl realized that when he gave up his life's work, he got the Shema.

To me this means that when Frankl was stripped of his persona and left to confront his naked soul he was empowered to discover his true identity - identification with the source of all self worth - the one and only everlasting G-d. And that connection no one can take away from you.

LIBERATING THE “I” FROM EXILE

Who are we, after all? Are we our work, or are we eternal souls? If we fear that we become nothing if we let go of our persona, then we are in a state of spiritual exile. If we have always defined ourselves in terms of our career, property, social status and what others think of us, then we are not our own person. Our soul is then in exile. We are trapped in our thoughts, our feelings, our body, our money, our social status, and everything else that makes up our transient character. The soul is lost in the ego and we will feel estranged to our true selves eternally connected to G-d.

The goal of Judaism - whether it be Torah learning, meditation, prayer, or living the mitzvas - is to release the soul from its exile -to empower us to free ourselves from the chains that bind us to transience and mortality. We need to reclaim our self -our individual “I” and redirect it to its source, the “Ultimate I.” When we do this, we experience the mystical meaning of the first commandment heard at Mt. Sinai 3,500 years ago: “I am” is G-d your Lord, who took you out of Egypt.” This is the true path to personal empowerment, spiritual liberation, inner peace and fulfillment.

ANCHORED AND CENTERED IN G-D

Judaism refers to G-d as the “Rock of our Lives.” In other words, we are truly strong and stable only when we anchor and ground ourselves within G-d - who is the bedrock of all consciousness. Judaism also teaches us that we are each created in the image of the divine and that our goal is service. In other words, that each and every one of us is an individualized expression of G-d and serve as unique channels for His presence into this world. This is our purpose and our ultimate joy.

We naturally want to experience the truth of who we. We seek a connection to a greater whole because we are connected to a greater whole. The spiritual disciplines of a commandment-driven life enable us to consciously center and anchor our self in G-d and live in service. They empower us to disengage from the outer trappings of our persona and feel at one with G-d through the joy of service.

COMMANDMENTS - THE ETERNAL AND INTERNAL REWARD

When the Jewish people received the commandments from G-d at Mt. Sinai they understood the difference between freedom from oppression and freedom to expression. When they left Egypt the Jewish people were only freed from Egyptian slavery but only when they accepted the commandments were free to be themselves - individualized manifestations of G-d; serving as channels for the flow of divine presence into the world. A Torah life is all about freedom and self-actualization. It is not about changing who you are but being who you.

Even when you are freed from your disorders or addictions you are still not yet free to be the total you. To be all that you can be you need to know who you really are, who is your eternal root, what is your divine purpose and service on earth.

Living the mitzvas empowers you to connect with G-d and be your true godly self. At first you may feel that obedience to G-d and the disciplinary life of mitzvas is submissive and restrictive. Ironically, however, submission and obedience to G-d becomes a source of empowerment and freedom. Through the mitzvas you can experience G-d as the essential power within you; seeking to become expressed through you. At this point, you no longer experience the commandments as acts of obedience, but rather as the free expression of your true inner divine self as an aspect of G-d.

In other words, after we make G-d's will our will and obey, we ultimately realize that His will is actually what we, in our deepest of depths, truly wanted all along, because our will is an expression and ray of His will. We, in essence, are individualized manifestations of the Soul of all souls.

The Kabbalah teaches that when we do not live the mitzvas we are as if cutting the ground from beneath our feet, cutting our self out of the bigger picture. Our life becomes one big rip off when we rip ourselves away from G-d. We suffer a self imposed spiritual exile. However, living a life of service is a homecoming and reunion with G-d. We feel plugged into the Source of all life and energized in everyway.

Unfortunately, many people think “serving G-d” is submitting to an egomaniacal deity who dwells in heaven and demands, “You must serve me! Obey my commandments and do them with a smile! Or else I will punish you.” In actuality, to serve G-d means to experience complete connection to the source of all life and channel divine presence into the world. Serving G-d is like the dance serving the dancer, the song serving the singer, the speech serving the speaker.

Fulfilling the commandments - mitzvas - is not about collecting merit points to be cashed in after we die, an understanding like that may have worked for