Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Thou Art That


Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

I really enjoyed this book and use "tat tvam asi" (You are that) as my God belief description. Upon further examination you'll see why I do that: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/05/thou-art-that-by-joseph-campbell-review-marlena-rich/

 

Tat tvam asi, or “thou art that,” or “you yourself are it” is the meditative focus that can bring about in the individual an experience of one’s own identity with that mystery that is the mystery of all being. Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, inspire this experience, as opposed to the Judeo-Christian traditions that require going through the institutional structures to worship the divine, keeping it separate and the experience controlled and limited.

One of the most interesting things about the Bible is that every one of the major Old Testament mythological themes has been found by our modern scholars in the earlier Sumero-Babylonian complex. Yet in the Christian tradition, Campbell explains:

“The historical character, Jesus, is regarded as the one and only incarnation on earth of the Godhead, the one true-God-and-true Man. This avatar we are taught to regard as a miracle. In the Orient, on the other hand, everyone is to realize this truth in himself, and such an incarnation as Krsna, Rama, or the Buddha is to be thought of simply as a model through which to realize the mystery of the incarnation in oneself.”

Thou art that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is what showed me how the idea of a supernatural fact is completely errant even in a spiritual setting. And as a non-believer in literal Gods I began to understand how a naturalistic pantheism is more in line with my view than a hard atheism: 

 

http://www.pantheism.net/

 

I was recently speaking with a member about my natural spirituality in private, and I felt that I ought to post something about my spiritual extimony here in this sub forum for all viewers. Aside from going atheist as a teen, I gained a spiritual understanding in my mid 20's that developed into Natural Pantheism by around 30. It was the works of Campbell and Watts that led me to pantheistic attitudes. Beyond that I've gotten into some Peter Russell as well: 

 

 

"You are consciousness, period." 

 

I find the primacy of consciousness interesting. His attitude towards meditation is secular and essentially spiritual in a natural sense. If his lecture has any validity, then I see it as going in a natural direction as opposed to supernatural. More the case of understanding the natural cosmos and our relation to it, perhaps more in depth. 

 

The more I learn about what spirituality is considered to be in very scholarly and educated circles and practices, the more I tend to think that supernatural spirituality is a type of stumbling block, something that perhaps keeps people thinking that they're experiencing something spiritual when in fact they really aren't. Take for instance church groups, with things like singing and praise viewed as spiritual. When it's directed towards the idea of a God who lives out there somewhere apart from the universe, and is not the universe and our world itself, I struggle to see the spiritual element involved after having been exposed to secular meditation and pantheistic philosophy. I tend to think that ex-christians who have not developed a spiritual independence through mystical self-realization and / or scholarship, are at risk of perceiving the churches as spiritual when they really aren't very spiritual from a deeper perspective, and then by default getting sucked back in to the churches due to their natural sense of wanting a spiritual aspect in their lives.

 

Along with atheism comes spiritual atheism. Many of us fit the description. And this spiritual extimony can be used as a template for getting from point A literalistic and supernatural spirituality, to point B metaphorical natural spirituality.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your post, Josh. I very much agree with what you say. I have panentheistic views myself, where "god" is defined as the unknowable life force of the universe. Good stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Thanks Orbit. I found some more quotes from Thou Art That that I had posted years ago: 

 

"THOU ART THAT: transforming religious metaphor"

Joseph Campbell

Chapter III

Our Notions of God

"When you think about what you have experienced in the apprehension of forms in time and space, you employ the grammar of thought, the ultimate categories of which are: being and nonbeing. Is there a God? If the word "God" means anything, it must mean nothing. God is not a fact. A fact is an object in the field of time and space, and image in the dream field. God is no dream, God is no fact - "God" is a word referring us past anything that can be thought of or named. Yet people think of their God as having sentiments as we do, liking these people better than those, and having certain rules for their lives. Moses received a great deal of information from what we might call this nonfact. As understood particularly in the Judeo-christian tradition, God is a final term.

In almost all other systems, the gods are agents, manifestations, or imagined functionaries of an energy that transcends all conceptualization. They are not the source of the energy but are rather agents of it. Put it this way: Is the god the source, or is the god a human manner of conceiving of the force and energy that supports the world? In our tradition God is a male. This male and female differentiation is made, however, with in the field of time and space, the field of duality. If God is beyond duality, you can not say God is a "He". You can not say God is a "She". You cannot say God is an "It."

Let us examine some familiar religious imagery. One of the great themes in both Judaism and Christianity is the End of the World. What is the meaning of the End of the World? The denotation is that there is going to be a terrific cosmic calamity and the physical world is going to end. That, as we know, is the denotation. What is the connotation of the End of the World? In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 13, Jesus tells about the End of the World. He describes it as a terrible, terrible time with fire and brimstone devouring the earth. He says, "Better not to be alive at that time." He also says, "This generation will not pass away, but these things will have come to pass." These things did not, however, come to pass. And the Church, which interprets everything concretely, taking the denotation instead of the connotation as the term of the message, said that, no, this did not come to pass but it is going to come to pass, because what Jesus meant by generation is the generation of Man.

Now in the gospel of Thomas, part of the great midcentury discovery of ancient texts, Jesus says, "The Kingdom will not come by expectation. The Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it." Not seeing it, we live in the world as though it were not the Kingdom. Seeing the Kingdom - that is "the End of the World." The connotation is transcendent of the denotation. You are not to interpret the phrase, "the End of the World" concretely. Jesus used the same kind of vocabulary that Eastern gurus use. In their full-fledged teaching mode they speak as though they were themselves what they are speaking about; that is to say, they have in their minds identified themselves with a mode of consciousness that then speaks through them.

So when Jesus says, "I am the all," he means: "I have identified myself with the all." That is what he means when he says, in the Gospel of Thomas, "Split the stick, you will find me there." This does not refer to the one who is talking to you, not to that physical body; it refers instead to that which he indeed, and you indeed, in fact, are. Thou Art That. 

In any of the orthodox biblical traditions, one cannot identify oneself with God. Jesus identified himself with God in this sense. But God is a metaphor, as he also is a metaphor for that which we all are. And he says in this Thomas Gospel, "He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he." Not the "I" standing here, talking to his disciples, physically present before them. It is the "I" of the dimension out of which he is speaking. "Split the stick, you will find me there; lift the stone, there am I." And of course, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you. Is it above? If so, the birds will be there before you. Is it below? The fish will be there before you. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." Who and what is in Heaven? God is in Heaven. Where is God? WITHIN YOU.

This idea is the sense of Zen Buddhism. You must find it in yourself. You are it: "Thou Art That. Tat Tvam Asi." That message from India electrifies us, but, sadly, the churches are not preaching it."

 

From my perspective this all makes sense. The mystery of existence is fused into the whole of existence. Split the stick, lift the rock, there am I. This runs right through mythology, especially in Egypt. "I am all that ever was, is, or shall ever be. No mortal man hath unveiled me...." The Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth but men do not see it. When seeing God as the totality all of this mythology makes sense. The totality is everywhere present, all powerful, all knowing, all, all, all, all.......

 

And Campbell was right, sadly the churches are not preaching this. And whether or not the Jesus myths were founded by one historical man or created based on several mystic types as a completely mythological avatar, it seems clear enough that the intention is for Jesus to serve as a metaphor for that which we all are. At least in the mystical Gospels. 

 

Thou Art That

"We all are born as animals and live the life that animals live: We sleep, eat, reproduce, and fight. There is, however, another order of living, which the animals do not know, that of awe before the mystery of being, the mysterium tremendum et fascinans, that can be the root and branch of the spiritual sense of one's days. That is the birth - the virgin birth - in the heart of a properly human, spiritual life.

Just think of it! We have come forth from this Earth of ours. And the Earth itself came of a galaxy, which, in turn, was a condensation of atoms gathered in from space. The Earth may be regarded as a precipitation of space. Is it any wonder, then, that the laws of that space are ingrained in our minds? The philosopher Alan Watts once said, "The Earth is peopling, as apple trees 'apple.' People are produced from the earth as apples from apple trees." We are the sensing organs of the Earth. We are the sensing properties of the universe. We have it all right here within us. The deities that we once thought were out there, we now know, were projected out of ourselves. They are the products of our human imagination seeking to interpret, one way or another, the mysteries of the universe, which we surely see today as a very different universe from what it was in the days when Yahweh threw down stones from heaven on the army of the Amorites and caused the sun to stand still in the sky until his chosen nation took vengeance on its enemies (Joshua 10:13).

In this modern world of ours, in which all things, all institutions, seem to be going rapidly to pieces, there is no meaning in the group, where all meaning was once found. The group today is but a matrix for the production of individuals. All meaning is found in the individual, and in each one this meaning is considered unique. And yet, let us think, in conclusion about this: when you have lived your individual life in your own adventurous way and then look back upon its course, you will find that you have lived a model human life, after all."

 

It is passages like this that awakened my naturalist spirituality. I experienced a metaphorical virgin birth. I had been sleeping, eating, mating females and fighting males over dominance, but the spiritual dimension was missing in my atheism from about age 15 to really around 30.

 

Honestly, when I came to these very Zen understandings I made it a point to apologize to everyone that I felt I had wronged or publicly humiliated during alpha male fights down at the beaches over who the dominant tough guy will be. A lot of BS went down over the years and I had enemies. And I felt compelled to apologize to ex-girlfriends who I felt were left off in a bad place. I didn't want enemies, male or female. I didn't want any one hurting or suffering on account of my words or actions. I was understanding that everything is interconnected, there's no real us verses them in reality, it's very illusory. By wronging others I had been wronging myself, not the "I" sitting here typing away, but "I" the ground of being which is everywhere present and eternally existing. I had been a godless atheist for around 15 years who knew that there's no one watching from above in the Biblical sense, the Bible being greatly errant and not at all literally true.  

 

However, I was not thinking about that which resides "within." 

 

I was reconsidering Christian themes like do unto others as you would have done unto you, and 'whatever you've done to the least of these, my brethren, you have also done unto me.' That only makes sense from the mystical reading. The "you" and "me" that is simply the fabric of existence which 'is' everything. Those verses don't have nearly the impact when viewing them through a non-mystical, literalistic and denotative orthodox reading. Needless to say, the mystical realization or experience necessarily results in a much broader world view over all. Oppressing gays, hating science and secular government, all total and complete nonsense from a spiritual outlook. Hell, complete non-sense from many views but the mystical and spiritual really drives it home. My mind was quickly at work processing how the mystical experience relates to just about everything in life. 

 

If I get too caught up in some drama, I'll drift into a frame of mind that let's it roll off. I can't manage to get depressed about anything. Nor can I hold a very good grudge any more. It all just falls off. Organized religion could never get me there. And now I know why. 

 

It's based on suppressing a mystical experience more than promoting it...... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

Thanks for posting that joshpantera. You used the phrase spiritual atheism. I am blown away by that simple description. Thank you for giving me something to meditate on. -peace

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I basically agree with what you have here, but for one philosophical quibble. Campbell states, and I believe, that "God" is a metaphor for the unknowable, un-name-able, un-conceivable reality. But you say, via pantheism, that "god" is the universe. That is defining, naming, and conceiving. It seems like monism, dualism, --in contrast, where I see "god" as the non-dual, similar to the way it is seen in Vedanta. This also explains my panentheism; "god" is unknowable, un-name-able, un-conceiveable, and while manifest in the universe, also transcends the universe. My conception includes void as well as form, nothingness as well as beingness, the manifest as well as the unmanifest. It doesn't posit the supernatural, but includes the unknown/un-knowable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I'm sorry for rushing through that so fast, Orbit. The mystery, is just the existence of everything.

 

The unnameable, transcendent in a strict sense isn't located just beyond the edge of the universe, or just beyond some boundary line. That's the way many people at JCF (Joseph Campbell Foundation) were talking and a conversation arose that sort of settled it. Everything that exists, exists in pure mystery. Because we can know how things work, but not why they exist in the first place, as Einstein mentioned: 

 

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

 

We can figure out that the Big Bang was not the beginning. We can figure out that our universe is but one of many.

 

What we can not know is why a universe or infinite universes even exist in the first place. What exists simply exists without any fixed reason or meaning for taking place at all. That's the deepest of mysteries. The same is true of existence. It can not have a fixed beginning. We pick up from the point of something already existing and go from there in terms of explanation, words, thoughts, concepts. 

 

What can not be spoken of, thought about, conceptualized, etc., is the mystery of existence itself. 

 

It's not a thing, or a fact, as Campbell pointed out. It's not anything that can be mentioned. That's why mythology is metaphor, it can't be anything else. It's a metaphor for the mystery of existence. The non-dual transcendent is a metaphor for that. Even the category of beyond, is a concept. The mystery at the bottom is none of it. Not a concept, not non-dual, not anything. It's very abstract in that sense. 

 

Here's where it breaks down. The mystery of existence is simply the existence of the cosmos and our world. The mystery of everything is inseparable from everything that exists, including human beings. Thou Art that.  

 

A ) God is a metaphor for the mystery of existence. 

 

B ) Mystery of existence = All of existence. 

 

It's both everything and the mystery ingrained into everything. That's essentially how the transcendent is also immanent. 

 

Pantheism meaning "All is God" covers this understanding. Existence, it's deep mystery, all of it. 

 

Panentheism is traditionally associated with belief that a supernatural God exists beyond the universe and is also present within the universe. So I've stuck with Pantheism because it's the naturalist side of the coin. Although I've argued for a Natural Panentheism, representing something like the multiverse where the natural cosmos is both immanent and transcendent, infinite and eternal. But the WPM told me that in the case of proving the multiverse they'll just adjust Natural Pantheism to say multiverse instead of universe. It just depends on how extensive existence is proven to be and they'll adjust to it, proven because it's scientific oriented spiritual outlook. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually panentheism can be conceptualized many different ways. The way I conceptualize it does not involve a supernatural god. I'll respond in more detail to the rest of your post later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Orbit wrote: "That is defining, naming, and conceiving. It seems like monism, dualism, --in contrast, where I see "god" as the non-dual, similar to the way it is seen in Vedanta. This also explains my panentheism; "god" is unknowable, un-name-able, un-conceiveable, and while manifest in the universe, also transcends the universe. My conception includes void as well as form, nothingness as well as beingness, the manifest as well as the unmanifest. It doesn't posit the supernatural, but includes the unknown/un-knowable."

 

Hopefully my explanation shows how I'm also speaking of non-dual, transcendent, and yet the universe at the same time. What I'm describing, via Campbell, is compatible with Advaita Vedanta. He was the president of the New York Vedanta society. 

 

“How, in the contemporary period, can we evoke the imagery that communicates the most profound and most richly developed sense of experiencing life? These images must point past themselves to that ultimate truth which must be told: that life does not have one absolutely fixed meaning. These images must point past all meanings given, beyond all definitions and relationships, to that really ineffable mystery that is just the existence, the being of ourselves and of our world. If we give that mystery an exact meaning we diminish the experience of its real depth. But when a poet carries the mind into a context of meanings and then pitches it past those, one knows that marvelous rapture that comes from going past all categories of definition. Here we sense the function of metaphor that allows us to make a journey we could not otherwise make ...” 

― Joseph CampbellThou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor

 

He reveals this in The Hero's Journey too, I believe, where he comes out and says that the mystery is just the existence of everything.  

 

In his earlier quote, with this in mind, it makes a lot more sense: 

 

"In almost all other systems, the gods are agents, manifestations, or imagined functionaries of an energy that transcends all conceptualization. They are not the source of the energy but are rather agents of it. Put it this way: Is the god the source, or is the god a human manner of conceiving of the force and energy that supports the world?"

 

I understand that you're trying to use Panentheism in the way the Antlerman and some others around here use it, in a natural sense and not supernaturally. But the term comes with baggage because it was created by supernaturalists originally and carries that general stereotype among Pantheists who remain distinct from Panentheists. But I see a gradual trend towards people wanting to use it in order to express a natural meaning despite it's supernatural roots. Due to my interaction with the WPM I've decided not to use Panentheism, although what I'm describing is basically what you're describing too. We're just using different Pan terms to express it. 

 

I think it was in his book "Flight of the Wild Gander," where he discusses an old Vedanta practice where while traveling men would draw a circle in the sand, while stopped resting, and put an object in the middle of the circle. I think it was in "Primitive man as metaphysian." They would sit around and contemplate the mystery of the existence of the object in the circle. I remember being wrapped up in all of this while originally reading about it, and then performing the mystery school practice myself down the beach as an experiment with eastern mysticism.

 

I had a river stone that was recovered from an old Spanish ship wreck offshore. A friend gave it to me one day after a treasure expedition dive. I created a Talisman with this river stone, as part of a mystical experimentation. And I decorated that ballast stone with mythological inscriptions that represent the mysterium tremendum. I would put that ballast stone in the center of a circle drawn in the sand and contemplate the mystery of it's existence.

 

It's resting at the bottom of the Atlantic for several centuries. It's placement in a Spanish Galleon. It's time in a European river bed or beach where it was gathered for ballast. It's forming and geological process here on earth. It's history as cosmic dust before the earth formed. The history of the atoms that compose it. The origin of the universe itself which the atoms trace back to. And finally the mystery as to the very existence of the sub-atomic particles, atoms, first generation of stars, cosmic debris that formed the solar system, the formation of the earth, the formation of the river stone, it's journey to the New World, it's sinking and recovery from the bottom of the sea floor, and to the circle in the sand on the beach where I was contemplating it's mystery...... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like you are actually still using scientific pantheism, expanding it with the idea of a multiverse, and calling that transcendence. What I'm getting from what you're writing is that your main concern is the universe. You say that God is a mystery, but pantheism holds that God is not a mystery: God is the universe. Do you see what I mean? Panentheism doesn't say God IS the universe, it says that God is immanent IN the universe, AND also transcends the universe. This points to the unknown, where pantheism doesn't point to the unknown. Pantheism points to the universe, which is knowable. Panentheism points to that which infuses and transcends the universe, which is unknowable. Pantheism points towards science. Panentheism points towards mysticism. I am not concerned with outer space; I am concerned with inner space, with consciousness, with mystic experience of the self which is a manifestation of "God" defined panentheistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It looks like you are actually still using scientific pantheism, expanding it with the idea of a multiverse, and calling that transcendence. What I'm getting from what you're writing is that your main concern is the universe. You say that God is a mystery, but pantheism holds that God is not a mystery: God is the universe. Do you see what I mean? Panentheism doesn't say God IS the universe, it says that God is immanent IN the universe, AND also transcends the universe. This points to the unknown, where pantheism doesn't point to the unknown. Pantheism points to the universe, which is knowable. Panentheism points to that which infuses and transcends the universe, which is unknowable. Pantheism points towards science. Panentheism points towards mysticism. I am not concerned with outer space; I am concerned with inner space, with consciousness, with mystic experience of the self which is a manifestation of "God" defined panentheistically.

Panentheism, as explained on this thread, is very close to the understanding I had of who/what "Christ" was. That is, the sense of a "Consciousness" that was both "Cosmic Christ" and "Quantum Christ," both the transcendent and immanent. And this is one reason why it has been difficult for me to attempt sharing my "extimony" on ExC. My doing so would necessarily involve describing the evolution of my spiritual understanding and experience. And it might read too much as if I were presenting my experience as something positive. My problem, and what I deconverted from was [/i]Christianity,[/i] the religion, theology, and accompanying socio-cultural lifestyle. I did not deconvert from Christ. I evolved beyond my previous understanding of Christ that had been tethered to the Christian religion. I have evolved to and developed a very Humanistic and Jungian view of Christ and my experience. Not many people seem able to differentiate between the two: Christ and Christianity. (And beyond that, there are different versions of Jesus Christ.) Sometimes people belittle, insult, or entirely dismiss the significance of these distinctions, or that there could be any positive or beneficial elements in such an experience that is in any way associated with a concept of Christ -- even if it is an evolution beyond Christ. (I feel terribly frustrated about wanting to express my views and describe my experience.)

 

I like this thread.

 

This sounds like a mystical reading of Christianity that goes beyond the mythic/literal Bible, seeing Christ as an archetype, a symbol of the human psyche. There's no reason you can't talk about that. The challenge is to make clear that you aren't referring to the literal Christ of the Bible, but to "Christ" as a symbol and concept. I've done the same with the word "God", in essence rescuing God from Christianity.

 

It reminds me of a quote from the 15th century Christian mystic Meister Eckhart :

"I pray God make me free of God that I may know God in [His] unconditional being,"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

It looks like you are actually still using scientific pantheism, expanding it with the idea of a multiverse, and calling that transcendence. What I'm getting from what you're writing is that your main concern is the universe. You say that God is a mystery, but pantheism holds that God is not a mystery: God is the universe. Do you see what I mean? Panentheism doesn't say God IS the universe, it says that God is immanent IN the universe, AND also transcends the universe. This points to the unknown, where pantheism doesn't point to the unknown. Pantheism points to the universe, which is knowable. Panentheism points to that which infuses and transcends the universe, which is unknowable. Pantheism points towards science. Panentheism points towards mysticism. I am not concerned with outer space; I am concerned with inner space, with consciousness, with mystic experience of the self which is a manifestation of "God" defined panentheistically.

I'm not sure what you mean about Pantheism holds that God is not a mystery? From my link to www.pantheism.net

 

Do you find it hard to believe in supernatural gods, and difficult to conceive of anything worthier of the deepest respect than the beauty, power and mystery of the Universe?

 

Again, anything worthier of the deepest respect than the....mystery of the universe. Pantheism's God is All, and the mystery of the all is viewed as worthy of respect.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'll just post the exact conversation about 'transcendent energy consciousness' from the Joseph Campbell foundation where this was all broken down very clearly, well, once you get it it becomes clear:

 

Here's Ruiz's position: 

 

"According to the essay (Martin Weyers, Site Administration) your description regarding 'consciousness' is not the 'metaphysical insight' but it's 'vehicle'. The metaphysical insight is the one I state above regarding the One and the Multiple. 

 

Let me explain: 

 

Here is the formula used by Joseph Campbell for interpreting Mythic images and philosophies that are alluding to a metaphysical insight. 

 

Formula: 

 

the relationship of (a) to ( b )perfectly resembles that of © to (x), where (x) represents a quantity that is not only unknown but absolutely unknowable - which is to say, transcendent. 

 

Example: 

 

As many (a) proceed from one ( b ) so does the universe ( c ) from God (x) 

 

Joseph Campbell: 

 

"But the term (x), it must be insisted, remains absolutely unknown and unknowable. Oneness can no more be a quality of this (x) than can Love or Reason. Hence, as Kant declared, it is only by 'analogy' that we speak of Love or Reason, Unity, or even Being, as of 'God'. 

 

More examples: 

 

as Earth Maker (one) is related to the things drawn from his body (many) 

 

as All-Father (one) is related to the creatures that he has begotten (many) 

 

as Brahma (one) is related to the visions of his meditation (many) 

 

as occludded light (one) to it's refractions (many) 

 

as a spider (one) to its web (many) 

 

so is God (the mystery of existence) (x) related to creation (the one and the many) 

 

We are basically using analogy poetically in reference to the mystery of being knowing full well it's only an analogical suggestion "not a fact". 

 

Your use of the term "consciousness" was a red flag suggesting you didn't go far enough. 

 

If you had said that you were speaking metaphorically or more correctly using analogy knowing full well that the empirical world and it's cause is a complete mystery then I couldn't have said anything. 

 

Martin if you reread the essay " Primitive Man as Metaphysician" I would greatly love to get your reaction to it. It mentions the Indian metaphysical system of the Vedanta, which purports to be a translation of the metaphorical imagery of Brahminical myths into abstract philosophical terms. One of those philosophical terms is "consciousness" from which I believe you got your notion. 

 

Bodhi_Bliss, if you read this I would greatly appreciate your take on Joseph Campbell's essay. 

 

I think this essay may throw light on the issue we are having regarding Richard Dawkins and his claim that many spiritual minded people are deluded. 

 

As Joseph Campbell students shouldn't we relax and admit that ultimately the empirical world and it's cause is a big mystery. No amount of analogy however profound is going to change that 'fact'.

 

Consciousness may be eternal. Consciousness may be all. Consciousness may be the one that appears to be many. But the mystery of the existence of an all encompassing Consciousness is above and beyond that all encompassing Consciousness.

 

The mystery of the existence of anything, consciousness included, is the God above the God so to speak, since you guys mentioned it. 

 

It's about absolute ultimate. You can conceive of Consciousness, however you can not conceive of the mystery behind the existence of Consciousness. Ruiz whipped the administration at JCF with this post. And the two of us went round forums online advertising this argument. No one that I've ever seen has understood it aside from the two of us. Take a close look at it and see what you guys think. 

 

What happens is that you go beyond this, beyond that, beyond another. At the end of the day you have to ask, now what? 

 

And what it boils down to is that the world of experience is the means through which you view and interact with the mystery. You find it within, you find it without. It's continuous, unbroken, unbound. It's not way out there or way in here. It's omnipresent. And you can use either science or mysticism to identify and experience it. You can meditate. You can contemplate. You can do any number of things all of which can put you in touch with the mystery of your own consciousness and existence, which is the mystery of the existence of the universe we live in. 

 

My point is that supernaturalism is a metaphor for the actual mystery in question, as are philosophical terms like Consciousness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

As to Panentheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

 

Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân ("all"), ἐν en ("in") and Θεός Theós ("God")) is a belief systemwhich posits that the divine – whether as a single Godnumber of gods, or other form of "cosmic animating force"[1] – interpenetratesevery part of the universe and extends, timelessly (and, presumably, spacelessly) beyond it. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2] panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.[3]

 

As you scroll down the page you find a long list of theistic religions which will entertain some degree of Panentheism, because, of course, Pantheism is far too atheistic for those religions. They need to maintain the idea that I dealt with above, the idea that God is some supernatural fact which they conceive of as surrounding the physical universe. All is IN God, or the universe (all that exists) is in God. 

 

So it's All is God or All is in God in the above scenario. 

 

Here's were I've gone with it:

 

If God is All, then All is in God. 

 

If God is the Totality, then all is in the Totality. 

 

Transcendent does not refer to some physical location beyond the universe. It's just the mystery of everything which is unknown, and as unknown it's therefore beyond thought, conception, words, thoughts, etc. Not physically beyond space and matter. But rather the unknown factor concerning the existence of space and matter which is likely spread out forever and ever with never ending universe's like our own going on forever to the point where you can not literally get away from or beyond space or matter. 

 

So put this way: Mystery is all, all is in mystery. 

 

Or how about these: 

 

- Existence is all, all is in existence. 

 

- Consciousness is all, all is in Consciousness.

 

- Love is all, all is in Love. 

 

- Energy is all, all is in Energy. 

 

You can go down the line with God concepts and see how they fit together to the point where the distinction between all or in all looses the distinction people have been giving it. 

 

I regard the above as deeply spiritual....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the definition you posted of pantheism, it says that the divine=the universe. Since the universe is knowable by science, it is therefore not a mystery. The minute you say "God is the universe", you have defined God.

To me the mystery comes into play with panentheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

In the definition you posted of pantheism, it says that the divine=the universe. Since the universe is knowable by science, it is therefore not a mystery. The minute you say "God is the universe", you have defined God.

To me the mystery comes into play with panentheism.

What Pantheists are saying is that what people regard as a creator God is really just the natural universe. It's what we are and where we came from. To take the supernatural imagery of mythology literally is an error. I'm sure you agree with that if you yourself are a mystical naturalist. Pantheism doesn't really get into the mystery of mysticism aside from standing in awe and wonder at the mystery and beauty of what we observe of the universe.

 

But I can use "All is God" in any which way I choose, regardless of the WPM. I've had that discussion with the leadership. I see God as a metaphor for all of existence, micro and macrocosm, and it's deep underlying mystery which 'transcends' human conception. Like I said, continuous, unbroken, interconnected, and deeply mysterious. I see mysticism as squarely addressed to the mystery of existence. 

 

Now I've been over this issue with Antlerman before, but I'm curious as to why you prefer Panentheism if you don't believe that the universe exists 'within' a surrounding supernatural realm? Because that's really the only thing keeping Panentheism distinct from Pantheism. That's the difference between simply All or All is in. "All is in" is a very straight forward supernatural assertion used by theistic thinkers. 

 

I'd like to consider your argument for a non-supernatural Panentheism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In the definition you posted of pantheism, it says that the divine=the universe. Since the universe is knowable by science, it is therefore not a mystery. The minute you say "God is the universe", you have defined God.

To me the mystery comes into play with panentheism.

What Pantheists are saying is that what people regard as a creator God is really just the natural universe. It's what we are and where we came from. To take the supernatural imagery of mythology literally is an error. I'm sure you agree with that if you yourself are a mystical naturalist. Pantheism doesn't really get into the mystery of mysticism aside from standing in awe and wonder at the mystery and beauty of what we observe of the universe.

 

But I can use "All is God" in any which way I choose, regardless of the WPM. I've had that discussion with the leadership. I see God as a metaphor for all of existence, micro and macrocosm, and it's deep underlying mystery which 'transcends' human conception. Like I said, continuous, unbroken, interconnected, and deeply mysterious. I see mysticism as squarely addressed to the mystery of existence. 

 

Now I've been over this issue with Antlerman before, but I'm curious as to why you prefer Panentheism if you don't believe that the universe exists 'within' a surrounding supernatural realm? Because that's really the only thing keeping Panentheism distinct from Pantheism. That's the difference between simply All or All is in. "All is in" is a very straight forward supernatural assertion used by theistic thinkers. 

 

I'd like to consider your argument for a non-supernatural Panentheism. 

 

 

The unknown is not necessarily the same as the supernatural. To me, the immanent and trasncendent "God" is the unknowable life force that is manifest in our consciousness (quite literally) and in the universe. There is nothing supernatural about it, it is simply unknown and unknowable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Orbit wrote: The unknown is not necessarily the same as the supernatural. To me, the immanent and trasncendent "God" is the unknowable life force that is manifest in our consciousness (quite literally) and in the universe. There is nothing supernatural about it, it is simply unknown and unknowable.

 

Yes, I agree that the unknown is not the same as the supernatural. It's just the unknown, it isn't anything known through conceptual thought. The supernatural is a concept. And that's Campbell's whole premise. All of the analogies that I posted establish this simple, but subtle understanding. What happened is that some of the administration at the Joseph Campbell Foundation were talking about the transcendent as if it were literally a transcendent consciousness. That whole post by Ruiz was aimed at correcting the error in interpreting Joseph Campbell's scholarship on comparative mythology and religion. 

 

You've been suggesting that Pantheism calling the universe God does not go far enough, because the universe is a concept and within the range of knowable. And you're right to make that observation. But what you've suggested above is the same thing. The notion of a transcendent life force as the source of everything is the same thing as thinking that a transcendent energy consciousness exists beyond our knowledge. Life and force are conceptual terms limited to the realm of thought. For you to suggest that an unknowable life force is in some way literal, prohibits it from being the final reference. As a concept built out of human concepts like life and force combined you are suggesting that the metaphor is the thing in itself. So you've presented an alternative that isn't an alternative to God as the universe, God as something conceptual.  

 

And this is likely why you think Pantheism is unsuitable for the transcendent and Panentheism is, because Panentheism deals with the transcendent while Pantheism doesn't really go there. But, the transcendent that Panentheism deals with is the very notion that Campbell is taking issue with. It's based on trying to conceptualize the unknown which is a complete misunderstanding. It's about trying to fill a gap in the mind. This is where the conversation is leading into the topic of theistic thinking as innate. The mind seeks to fill in gaps and with many people the great unknown is a gap that they want filled with some type of 'concept.' By thinking about the unknown as if it's an unknown energy, consciousness, life force, or any other human concept, falls short of the spiritual insight described in this thread. 

 

What I'm getting at is that you have to back all the way out until you surrender concepts entirely. Not a life force, not the universe, not undifferentiated consciousness or any abstract philosophical term. You surrender trying to think about what is absolutely unknowable. 

 

Now, what is absolutely unknowable? 

 

We can know consciousness, life, forces, cosmology, theoretic physics and logical deductions about where the universe came from. We can imagine a universe that arose from within a larger cosmos full of universes like our own that is necessarily eternal. We can conceptualize an eternity with science and thought. We can conceptualize the existence of an eternity. So what's left? What absolutely can not be conceptualized by any means? 

 

The mystery underlying the existence of a consciousness, a life force, the universe, or an eternal multiverse, etc. 

 

The mystery is not separate from consciousness, life force, or the universe. It's just the element of mystery ingrained into the very existence of these conceptual "things." 

 

When that is understood, the mystery of the metaphor which is the God above the God of life force, consciousness, energy, you realize that the God above the God is simply the mysterious existence of everything. At that point you're no longer thinking that it's some illusive consciounsess, or life force, or energy just out of range of our thinking. It's all around us and it is us. We are the universe incarnate and we are the mystery. Thou art that! 

 

It's omnipresent, because the mystery addresses everything that exists. 

 

The mystery is everything, hence All is God. 

 

The universe IS divine in the sense that divinity is a metaphor for the mystery underlying "all" of existence. Whatever may exist beyond the universe is also divine, and natural, because divinity is a metaphor for the mystery of existence. We are divinities in this sense. Tat Tvam Asi. 

 

This is the general metaphysical insight that I'm trying to relay and regarding the universe as God is actually the height of this realization, after you've taken a Hero's journey to the divine and back. Not all Pantheists understand Pantheism in the way I've decribed it, but that doesn't negate that the insight is natural and Pantheistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Yes, Campbell delves into psychology a lot in his lectures on mythology and references Freud and Jung, especially Jung. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

Along with atheism comes spiritual atheism. Many of us fit the description. And this spiritual extimony can be used as a template for getting from point A literalistic and supernatural spirituality, to point B metaphorical natural spirituality.

Joshpantera,

 

Thanks for starting this thread. And thanks to you and Orbit for the thought-provoking dialogue. The discussion on this thread has motivated me to begin (trying) to write my extimony. I don't know when I'll post it. However, I did post a blog entry referring to this thread and how helpful it's been to me. Here is the link:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/blog/225/entry-1142-writing-my-extimony-motivated-by-a-forum-thread/#.VMS5zE03NnI

 

Peace,

Human

 

Very good blog. Since the forum changes, needless to say, the spirituality sections has gone very dead in comparison to the rest of the site. Most ex-christians don't convert to another form of theism because in deconverting we generally toss out theism as a valid option. Spirituality often goes out with the bath water. And by applying rigid rules to the spirituality section most of the people that once posted here just stopped. I think it was more active when atheists were in here challenging people. But apparently that was deemed unacceptable. This is a safe haven instead of a hot seat, which I understand the motivation behind and agree with the changes. 

 

But it's dead. 

 

And these changes have revealed something about ex-christian spirituality. Theistic thinking just doesn't really survive on any large scale. 

 

Being a mystical pantheist of sorts, I decided to voice up about atheistic spirituality because while not leaving Christianity for another form of theism, many of us have left Christianity for pantheism and what several people here call naturalistic panentheism. These are spiritual outlets while not exactly theistic. And it provoked some action. Not a lot, but at least some action so far. Those of us who are spiritual atheists have a place in this sub-forum, while not theists.

 

And after getting down to the hair splitting point that I'm at right now, concerning God as a metaphor for the mystery of all existence, the main idea is that hard nose atheists and spiritual atheists can get along. There's enough common ground and fact based understanding to stop a lot of the nonsense that led to the strict rules required for creating a safe haven for ex-christian spirituality. In fact, those who are so offended by atheists ought not to be. This thread hopefully opens that insight and methodology for becoming immune to attack. Deep spirituality surrenders the idea of a concrete factual based God, bottom line. Any deep research into where spirituality ultimately leads will end in that realization.

 

In fact, atheism has a lot to offer spirituality in that regard. It establishes the most important part about spirituality, which is that the Gods are not to be taken literally in the first place. That was misunderstanding of mythology. Supernaturalism is founded on misunderstanding religious metaphor. The Gods aren't the final reference. And most importantly, the final reference ends in silence so there's really nothing to get up in arms and fight the atheists about any ways! There's really nothing to "prove" to them because there's nothing to claim concretely, when you understand this great insight.

 

Ex-christian's who are poking around the spirituality section looking for a safe haven from the atheists ought to consider what I've posted here. I'm arming you all with a powerful outlook that is not so easily shaken and dismantled. Not only am I safe no matter where I go, but I've been invited to private forums devoted to atheism and how to promote atheistic books and learning. My reaction was, "ok, but you do know that I'm pantheist, right?" Doesn't matter. My lack of belief in mythological Gods puts me on par with anyone even to the extent of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris of the New Atheism. And yet I lack belief in Gods for spiritual reasons as well as intellectual scholarly reasons. That's the point that needs to be made. 

 

I may be part of a greater trend that I see going on right now that is essentially the growing wave of the future as more and more religionists around the world deconvert, and converse about it. I can see the world narrowing down, eventually, to two sorts of atheists - those who fancy a natural spiritual outlook and those who don't fancy any spiritual outlook. In the end, I see only atheists who fancy a natural spiritual outlook as the future of the planet because it satisfies the full range of human experience. 

 

Call me Nostra-dumbass, but the prophecy has been made. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am grateful not to have to stop the conversation to explain/debate/defend spirituality from atheists. I think this forum and its protected status are a very important part of the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

 

 

Along with atheism comes spiritual atheism. Many of us fit the description. And this spiritual extimony can be used as a template for getting from point A literalistic and supernatural spirituality, to point B metaphorical natural spirituality.

Joshpantera,

 

Thanks for starting this thread. And thanks to you and Orbit for the thought-provoking dialogue. The discussion on this thread has motivated me to begin (trying) to write my extimony. I don't know when I'll post it. However, I did post a blog entry referring to this thread and how helpful it's been to me. Here is the link:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/blog/225/entry-1142-writing-my-extimony-motivated-by-a-forum-thread/#.VMS5zE03NnI

 

Peace,

Human

 

 needless to say, the spirituality sections has gone very dead in comparison to the rest of the site. 

 

Strange isn't it? The sex forum is dead too. You would think that spirituality and at least a "sex" forum would be alive and well. Although as i read peoples responses and posts in this spiritual forum, i am becoming less spiritual. I see that my truths are my truths (if they even are truths to begin with) and no one else's and vice versa. Yet i see what i held as my own truth is now slowly eroding to extinction. Also, reading other posts about spirituality in quick comments from other's on this site in other forums has me questioning my spirituality as well. I am starting to see myself as nothing more than flesh made up of biological organisms and that whatever spiritual experiences i have had and whatever spirituality i believe in might just all be me making it up in my head (imagination). I look forward to more of your guy's posts, and hope to learn something from them. Who knows, maybe i can salvage my spirituality after all. -peace

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Here's what I've experienced from hard atheists about Pantheism and God as a metaphor for the mystery of everything. First off, why not just say the unknown instead of God? Well, because both concepts need to be voiced because we're dealing with some people who beleive in God and that terminology is necessary for trying to understand what God can represent in terms of non-literal. When I broke down the metaphor to where we are now, to where it's not a literal mind, force, or consciousness but rather the unknown mystery factor involved in the existence of everything, the response from Richard Dawkins forum was why bother then? And why feel spiritual about the unknown, it's just mundane and abstract?

For me it boils down to interconnection and self awareness. That's spirituality for me now at this point in life from an educated perspective. As a fundie youth God was a fact. My love of nature was filtered through a spirituality that believed in supernatural involvement in the world. I'm from a small Island. The beauty of the clouds and sea, at the time, spoke of a creator God who watched the world from afar. That spirituality I now see as a very adolescent variety. It wasn't informed at all. I was thinking about the mystery of existence as if it's a personality that thinks like I do. 

I had lost belief in God freshman year of high school. But when I got into comparative mythology later on and got into what I've posted here from Campbell, I didn't know how to interpret it at first. I thought that the mystery of the metaphor meant that some type of God does exist, but that it's just beyond our thinking. I actually prayed for the first time years, to the God above YHWH, the mystery itself. And what I prayed for was knowledge. I cried out loud that I want to know the truth.

And by golly information began pouring in. Happenstance receiving of books from people and just really random events that put me close to knowledge that was very relevant to my truth seeking quest, in increments according to what I needed to be exposed to at that point of the quest. When that unfolding path led me into consciousness studies, I finally began to realize what had happened. I can't prove it, but I feel very strongly that when we pray we tap into the potential power of the human mind and it's interconnected relation to the greater surrounding environment. In this interconnection, collective unconsciousness, mind to mind or mind to matter exchange, or any number of concepts, it seems like we can really draw in people and circumstances through this network of information and energy exchange. 

I'm remain agnostic about this however, until firmly proven. I could be misunderstanding the whole thing and coincidence could be just that and I'm reading too much into it. But on another note I have witnessed so much correspondence that its hard to deny the validly of the system. A spiritual journey into the mysteries of God showed me, quite clearly, that God is not a literal fact. This is something of a divinely inspired statement, if you will. I've been tuning into nature. It's been revealing truths about our relationship as one in the same thing. And this has taken place in large through my mind recognizing itself as nature, as the cosmos, star stuff and all of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I typed that last post on my iPhone this morning just before heading out to surf. Apologies for the typos. But I think you understood what I meant to convey.

The law of attraction thing is really corny the way it's presenting in "the secret" and dealt with on Oprah and with some New Age commentators. But I think there is some truth to our thoughts and emotions feeding into our subconscious mind and them from there some how relaying to what we might call the consciousness of nature. Not human consciousness, but a type of awareness that goes all the way down into the sub atomic - as Peter Russel described in the video I posted at the top of the thread. 

One random event that happened was staying at a friends house and seeing The Secret of the Ages, by Robert Collier on the book shelf. This was after I had been watching The Secret documentary movie. I realized that this is the book that The Secret was based on. They told me that I could have it. So I read the original work by Collier and determined that I would try the exercises and take it as seriously as possible and see what happens. What happened is that my life very quickly started shifting around. He spoke about our conscious thoughts and feelings feeding into our subconscious minds at night while sleeping. From there, Collier averred, the subconscious relays this to what he called super consciousness. And if we think and feel like shit, then shit happens. If we straighten up our outlook, everything begins to run much smoother in general. Things aren't constantly going wrong or spiraling out of control when you're focused on being positive. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than just letting your emotions run wild and basically cursing your own self through feeding your subconscious mind negativity.

I kicked depression, cold turkey. My mother is an artist who has battles clinical depression all her life. It passed down to me. I was depressed as a kid with no good reason. I'd make up reasons just so that I'd have a reason. All of that vanished. I stopped taking medication. What in the world is there really to be depressed about any ways? My whole world view shifted due to eastern mysticism and awareness of consciousness and speculation about an interconnected web of communication between human minds and the environment. Just the change of identifying with the cosmos and earth was very uplifting, as opposed to thinking I'm the result of a fallen and corrupt nature per Genesis. Christianity tells us that we're a piece of shit, the scum of the earth. So it's actually very depressing being a Christian. You're always trying to get up out of an imaginary shit pile that only exists in our minds. 

As far as my intentions, I wanted to settle down. I felt that every night before going to bed for a while. In a delayed reaction a series of happenstance situations placed me back in a town I hadn't been back to in over 13 years. When I got there I found myself face to face in a breezeway with the one that got away. The one I always regretted loosing. There she was, absolutely beautiful. Going through a divorce. We reconnected and then eventually got married. She had been thinking about me. The way we'd been thinking of each other sort of drew us towards one another, in strange way. Now people from church would say that's God's will playing out, how beautiful. But what is God? God represents the mystery which founds the existence of all consciousness and therefore is a part of consciousness. I see it as nature itself. If there's a greater consciousness then I see it as the mind of old Mother Nature, if you will.

I applied this focus towards advancement at work and I've advanced every since. Getting married, advancing at work to provide for a family, it's such a common scenario. When the reason and motivation is there everything starts falling into place. But at the same time consciousness and subconscious underlying this very common thing so many men encounter. I'm in sales, so I focus on a flow of customers. I envision abundance. I envision providing for my family, and basically all of the things that people usually pray off to a God they perceive as out there and other. I see the God as existence itself, all present, and more importantly my own ground of being. The ground of my consciousness being. The universe, nature, all of it. The mystery is continuous throughout existence. 

I notice Debby Downers coming into a situation preconceiving that everything will go wrong, because everything always goes wrong for them. And sure enough, it will continue until a conscious effort is made to change it. I've had customers take this attitude and some stupid thing will happen that shouldn't have happened with shipping or installation. And I know what the problem is. There will be no peace with this person. I've turned down work over reading some one as an accident prone personality and knowing that no good will come from working with them or for them. Sounds really superstitious but it's just knowledge and experience. Negative outlooks attract negative people and circumstances so consistently that I don't doubt the truth of that statement. 

To bring this back to Campbell, he had this follow your bliss saying. Those you follow their passion, that deep drive from within, tend to see circumstances unfold and doors open for them were there would not have been doors, and we're there wouldn't be doors for any one else. This consciousness thing I'm talking about may be why things tend to play out like that. I think that ancient thinkers simply noticed that there's a correspondence between what you think and feel and the way life tends to unfold. And basic observation of how nature seems to work began the ideas that led to what Collier wrote about in The Secret of the Ages.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm agnostic about a higher power in general; so my panenthiesm may well be theistic--I don't know.

But I want to have the option of discussing things using theistic vocabulary without being jumped on, which is why I like the protected status of this forum. I see God as a metaphor, but I don't want to have to explain that every five minutes.

 

I also agree that we are God, in the sense that the only thing we have is our consciousness, it's the only perception we have. I'd also rather not have to explain that every post either. So hurrah for this forum and the way it is.

 

CelingCat, if you think there is a high power, a soul, or reincarnation then there are people here who will listen to your ideas. Please don't stop posting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

 

So, please CCat, feel free to discuss your spirituality. Doing so might be a vital aspect of your deconversion or recovery from Christianity.

 

I am trying. Although i said wouldn't start any new topics in here, i finally put myself out there and started a topic that ended up badly, as a sensitive person it scared me out of ever starting another topic in here. Other wise i have a bunch of topics i could start in here and really try to get the conversations going again. I'll just stick to replies. Thanks for the encouragement though Human. I am not big on jungian thought though. Maybe you could start a topic on that, i would love to converse with you about it you think it will be beneficial to both of us and to others as well. I wish you well friend. -me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, please CCat, feel free to discuss your spirituality. Doing so might be a vital aspect of your deconversion or recovery from Christianity.

I am trying. Although i said wouldn't start any new topics in here, i finally put myself out there and started a topic that ended up badly, as a sensitive person it scared me out of ever starting another topic in here. Other wise i have a bunch of topics i could start in here and really try to get the conversations going again. I'll just stick to replies. Thanks for the encouragement though Human. I am not big on jungian thought though. Maybe you could start a topic on that, i would love to converse with you about it you think it will be beneficial to both of us and to others as well. I wish you well friend. -me

 

Heya CC-

Your thread wasn't bad at all--I'm not sure why you say that. Please do keep posting threads :-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.