Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Leaving Jesus is not Leaving God!


Guest Epistalotus

Recommended Posts

Twice in my life I experienced that overwhelming "sense" of Oneness with absoluteness - prior to my Christian experience, prior to any discipline, or philosophical belief. No words can possibly convey its reaches. My pursuit of Christianity was in the hope of finding answers to the knowledge I encountered, the sense of absolute meaning and joy. I was born that day. All the wonders of life I experience, the compassion, the peace, the passions, the expressions of life through music and art, are pieces of the whole - the whole of which I experienced but a sliver, which in itself was fathomless.

 

Hello Antlerman... I was wondering if you had experienced some mystical states :grin: This is wonderful, for you.

 

This is why I am asking you these questions informally. I am not looking for a system of answers. Just your personal insights in this area. I read your posts and you have a mind which I can respect. You are genuinely well reasoned, balanced, and insightful. This is an informal discussion for me, and in time I can crack some books and become more versed and articulate on the topic, just not now.

 

If this discussion is limited to personal insights - for the moment - and you understand that I am NOT qualified to analyze your experiences the way a trained spiritual director in either the east or the west would be trained, then I'm on more comfortable footing. One other thing Antlerman - after your negative experiences with Christianity the title "spiritual director" may be setting off some knee jerk reactions. This is understandable - but please keep in mind that - on the whole - individuals involved in a contemplative discipline - whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or whatever - encourage questioning and are open to other traditions. Every spiritual director I know - I only know three - is very open minded and very schooled in world traditions (although they are most schooled in the Christian contemplative tradition).

 

Now that the disclaimer is met ;)

 

On a personal level, I feel that it is entirely possible for someone with no training in meditative practices to have mystical experiences. I also believe children are more open to these experiences than adults are.

 

As I've said all along, this way of "knowing" should be natural. Over the years I've come to see the contemplative personality the way one would look at any other personality type. Some of it is natural and given by nature and some of it is learned.

 

Let's go back to your interest in music. I assume that you are musical by nature - I am not. This has always been a bit of a sore spot to me - as the rest of my family is. I cannot sing, I cannot play an insturment, and I cannot even "hear" music the way others do :grin: Seriously, Mom and Dad, will have some music playing and my siblings will be picking it apart, different sounds and blends of sounds, that type of thing. I'm sure you are very comfortable in these conversations, I am not, because I can't "hear" what they do.

 

Anyway, I tried learning the piano as a child. I could play the keys - but I wasn't "playing" music. A few of my siblings, on the other hand, came to music quite naturally. Since they could "hear" the music they could also play. Some were so naturally inclined in this area that they did not need a sheet of music in front of them, they could "play by ear". One person I know is quite accomplished with a guitar, but he cannot read music. He "learned" to play by ear.

 

This is the way I see the contemplative personality, and the artistic personality, and the athletic personality, and the craftsman personality, and you name other types of "gifts". We are all born with certain strengths and certain weaknesses, some things come more naturally to one and others have to work very hard in the same area. But the skill itself is natural, it is not SUPERNatural.

 

With contemplation... I've come to believe that it is natural, maybe more natural to some, but pretty much available to everyone who is willing to put in the time and effort to learn a medititative practice. Again, it needs to be emphasized that one should NOT take up meditation to induce these types of experiences, they will be sorely disapointed. In the group I belong to the people involved find the rewards of a meditative discipline come in the day-to-day living of life. They are more "open", more "intuitive" and trust their intuition more.

 

As far as the experiences you describe, I'd be interested in hearing more.

 

1. Were these experiences in the context of a natural setting?

2. How long did they last?

3. What were the concrete results of the experiences in your larger life?

4. What was happening in your overall life when you had these experiences?

 

:close:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 324
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Open_Minded

    85

  • Antlerman

    68

  • NotBlinded

    50

  • Amethyst

    26

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

This is why I am asking you these questions informally. I am not looking for a system of answers. Just your personal insights in this area. I read your posts and you have a mind which I can respect. You are genuinely well reasoned, balanced, and insightful. This is an informal discussion for me, and in time I can crack some books and become more versed and articulate on the topic, just not now.

 

If this discussion is limited to personal insights - for the moment - and you understand that I am NOT qualified to analyze your experiences the way a trained spiritual director in either the east or the west would be trained, then I'm on more comfortable footing. One other thing Antlerman - after your negative experiences with Christianity the title "spiritual director" may be setting off some knee jerk reactions. This is understandable - but please keep in mind that - on the whole - individuals involved in a contemplative discipline - whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or whatever - encourage questioning and are open to other traditions. Every spiritual director I know - I only know three - is very open minded and very schooled in world traditions (although they are most schooled in the Christian contemplative tradition).

That is so funny! Yes, as I read the words "spiritual director", my leg shot straight out and kicked over a chair :lmao: It's interesting for me to wonder if when I was younger and so actively seeking out answers to my questions, had I encountered someone with this sort of knowledge, what paths I would have gone down with my life? Instead the religious people I spoke to either looked at me like I was some alien, or took it and turned it into something they could fit into their brand of Christianity they so desperately wanted to sell, like some vacuum cleaner salesman (I use that analogy because one of them actually was one!).

 

I think it was that profound awakening of a "transcendent" nature in my life that ultimately caused such an irreconcilable relationship with them. Because I am also very rational, using arguments that are ill reasoned and emotionally irrational does anything but speak to this part of who I am. Then to add all the legalistic focus on "righteousness" and all it's resultant hypocrisies, self-righteousness, and condemnation of all who are not "enlightened" to the "truth" ( :lmao: ), caused even what hopes of finding spiritual understanding from them to be vaporize into meaningless. What I saw was not spirituality, it was religion.

 

As I've said all along, this way of "knowing" should be natural. Over the years I've come to see the contemplative personality the way one would look at any other personality type. Some of it is natural and given by nature and some of it is learned.

When you describe the "contemplative personality", could you clarify what you mean? Are you speaking of those who are able to sit and void all thoughts, or focus on a single thought for extended periods of time, or would that apply to someone who can simply sit in quite reflection, putting all other concerns and considerations away and merely being in the moment, as opposed to those who constantly needed to be distracted by some game, or activity, or conversation, or other means to not be alone with oneself?

Let's go back to your interest in music. I assume that you are musical by nature - I am not. This has always been a bit of a sore spot to me - as the rest of my family is. I cannot sing, I cannot play an insturment, and I cannot even "hear" music the way others do :grin: Seriously, Mom and Dad, will have some music playing and my siblings will be picking it apart, different sounds and blends of sounds, that type of thing. I'm sure you are very comfortable in these conversations, I am not, because I can't "hear" what they do.

Ahh, now here's where I can be a "spiritual instructor"! :grin: It's great to be able to learn a vocabulary to describe and converse about music with others, such as the members in your family, but it is not necessary to experience it. With a greater understanding of what is behind a particular composition, or style of music, its history, the genius of the individual performing it or writing it, all that can add to its appreciation. But lacking those things should never be allowed to interfere with just experiencing music for what it is: an expression of life through human art.

 

I'm sitting here as I type listening to some Thelonious Monk on a piece of Vinyl (the only way to listen to recorded music!). I can either enjoy its genius from a technical point of view, or I can sit back and let it come over me as blanket of melody, rhythms, and moods. When I listen to Charlie Parker this way, it's like putting a pad of creamy butter into your mouth and just reveling in its qualities. It's all about being open to what is there, without being concerned about "getting it". (some music just sucks though - that which is written explicitly to sell albums. This is why most, but not all, pop music is a real turn off. It's not love, it's going to the red-light district for cheap, meaningless pleasure). I'm sure I can come up with some analogy to religion here, but I'll leave something for later.

 

Actually, my own musical abilities are self-taught for the most part. It was something I discovered after going through the most painful time in my life that became a way for me to express what was inside me that words were incapable of. It would be like being stuck with a 500 word vocabulary to try to communicate to yourself and others extremely complicated thoughts and deep emotions. Then all of a sudden you discovered a language with over 500 trillion words! Now the difficulty of course, is mastering that vocabulary. Yet even it's simplest phrases, it speaks volumes beyond the grunts and hand gestures of your tribal language: "Errrrr, want, good, like, now, give!"

 

This is the way I see the contemplative personality, and the artistic personality, and the athletic personality, and the craftsman personality, and you name other types of "gifts". We are all born with certain strengths and certain weaknesses, some things come more naturally to one and others have to work very hard in the same area. But the skill itself is natural, it is not SUPERNatural.

In these terms this makes sense to me. When I revile against the "supernatural" is when all of the above occurs at the expense of mind. When irrationality competes with rationality, rather than just taking over in a "leap" in the experiential as I'm thinking at the moment to call it. Music can be rational, but you can't use rationality to experience it! Life can be rational, but how does one experience it? Is this making sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is so funny! Yes, as I read the words "spiritual director", my leg shot straight out and kicked over a chair :lmao:

 

You're teasing me, did you really kick over a chair :lmao:

 

It's interesting for me to wonder if when I was younger and so actively seeking out answers to my questions, had I encountered someone with this sort of knowledge, what paths I would have gone down with my life? Instead the religious people I spoke to either looked at me like I was some alien, or took it and turned it into something they could fit into their brand of Christianity they so desperately wanted to sell, like some vacuum cleaner salesman (I use that analogy because one of them actually was one!).

 

I hear you there, Antlerman. Don't even get me started.... I could easily go into a real rant. Suffice it to say that - the literalists have sucked spirituality out of religion :vent:

 

When you describe the "contemplative personality", could you clarify what you mean?

 

For me - again if there were others involved in this discussion there might be other perspectives - but when I use that language I use it in a natural sense. For instance a child who has an open personality, or who is quite creative, or maybe parents and teachers notice the child is in "their own world" or has an "overactive" imagination. These are things that point to a naturally contemplative personality. But - I also strongly believe that every human has the capacity for the kind of "knowing" we've been talking about.

 

This is the way I see the contemplative personality, and the artistic personality, and the athletic personality, and the craftsman personality, and you name other types of "gifts". We are all born with certain strengths and certain weaknesses, some things come more naturally to one and others have to work very hard in the same area. But the skill itself is natural, it is not SUPERNatural.

In these terms this makes sense to me. When I revile against the "supernatural" is when all of the above occurs at the expense of mind. When irrationality competes with rationality, rather than just taking over in a "leap" in the experiential as I'm thinking at the moment to call it. Music can be rational, but you can't use rationality to experience it! Life can be rational, but how does one experience it? Is this making sense?

 

Yes .... it makes perfect sense. I struggled with these issues as well. And your description of how one can appreciate music even if one is not musically inclined drives at what I'm trying to say about the contemplative personality.

 

One other thing, Antlerman, in the area of this "knowing" being a natural experience, most leaders in the mystic/contemplative movement that I've read recognize a special place for nature mystism. It seems that nature is a special revealer of the sacred across cultures and time periods, and that needs to be part of the larger discussion as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is so funny! Yes, as I read the words "spiritual director", my leg shot straight out and kicked over a chair :lmao:

 

You're teasing me, did you really kick over a chair :lmao:

Yes, I was joking. But I did have a knee-jerk reaction, just not one of such severity... but almost.

 

One other thing, Antlerman, in the area of this "knowing" being a natural experience, most leaders in the mystic/contemplative movement that I've read recognize a special place for nature mysticism. It seems that nature is a special revealer of the sacred across cultures and time periods, and that needs to be part of the larger discussion as well.

A couple questions here. Yes, I am full of them, aren't I? Leaders, movement? I not up on current trends too much. Is there some recent resurgence in this approach within Christendom and there are noted leaders? How long ago did you say you became involved with it?

 

Nature: Ahhh nature! Yes this I understand extremely well. Most of the music I write is instrumental, largely solo piano, but I produced an album of orchestrated pieces, all of which are portraits of nature. My very earliest solo piano works were about the spirit and power of my impressions of being in the mountains in Montana. The third piece I ever wrote was entitled "Approaching Light" and is one I still play to this day. It captures the sense of the sunrise coming up with gentle power and beauty behind the 12,000 foot peaks surrounding Lake MacDonald in Glacier National Park. The majority of my other works are about similar themes, including the limitless expanses of the cosmos, etc.

 

The point of this it that when I contemplate (or "consider" if that term is more appropriate) nature, I ponder it's magnitude, it's meaning in relation to my existence, it's meaning in relation to "meaning", etc. BTW, I was always scolded in school as a day-dreamer. :grin: Is this kind of what they are referring to in contemplation of nature, or is it something different?

 

Now to the next phase of the questions in my mind: Symbols/Religious Mythologies. As I look at the many incredible and beautiful faces of nature, be it the majesty of the mountains; the complexity and elegance of the simplest life forms; the vast and fathomless expenses of the Universe; the properties of the atom, the chemical soup that comes together into biological organisms that can contemplate and question it's own existence!!; or if I were to consider the emotional interactions with fellow humans, my relationships with them and with myself; the greater questions of ethics, etc... What role and what importance do you place on the incorporation of religious symbols and mythologies in the human experience of pursuing "knowledge" into these areas of understanding of life beyond our limited selves?

 

I know that was a mouthful. Let's see if that made sense and we'll go from there. BTW, I really appreciate you dialoging with me on this questions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple questions here. Yes, I am full of them, aren't I? Leaders, movement? I not up on current trends too much. Is there some recent resurgence in this approach within Christendom and there are noted leaders? How long ago did you say you became involved with it?

 

Well... let's see "movement". I use the term quite loosely as the "movement" which does exist is pretty loose. There is no central website that I can point you to... sorry :grin:

 

But there is a trend happening in which leaders from various religions come together to learn from each other and study commonalities. Also, some leaders are actually beginning to learn and practice the contemplative paths from traditions other than their own. One book that I would strongly recommend is The Mystic Heart by Wayne Teasdale. Wayne is a catholic brother by culture, but he is an interreligious monk who is also well versed in the Hindu mystic tradition. He has experience in both traditions and can speak with authority in both traditions. Among other thingsThe Mystic Heart focuses on interspiritual communities in which people from different spiritual traditions intentionally come together to learn from each other. Following is one of my favorite quotes from this book.

 

The real religion of humankind can be said to be spirituality itself, because mystical spirituality is the origin of all the world religions. If this is so, and I believe it is, we might also say that
interspirituality
- the sharing of ultimate experiences across traditions - is the religion of the third millennium.

 

On a side note - this is one reason I believe that the literalists are in such an uproar across the globe. In essence our world is becoming smaller, we no longer have the luxery of going off in our own little corner of the world and pretending that we have the one true faith, all the answers. In their hearts the literalists know this - and their fear comes out in aggressive fundamentalism. Just my own personal opinion. The only good thing in all of this is that on my good days I take it as a sign of impending death to literalism :shrug:

 

But Wayne Teasdale and others like him - for instance the Dalai Lama (who wrote the foreward for Wayne's book) are leading the way to an interspiritual approach. Father Thomas Keating is another leader - in western sphere of this movement. Thomas Keating brought meditation out of the western monastaries and is introducing it at community levels. He is also a leader in inter-faith dialog and interspiritual practices. At his monastary, he and others, have been involved in inter-faith dialog with monks from the east for years. These monks have also been involved in learning each others spiritual practices. There are others Antlerman, but since my own comfort level is in the west, I'm most familiar with western figures.

 

You asked about my own participation in this branch of Christianity, the only thing I can say is years. In an organized way - as in actively seeking to build peace between the different religious perspectives - about 5 years.

 

 

The point of this it that when I contemplate (or "consider" if that term is more appropriate) nature, I ponder it's magnitude, it's meaning in relation to my existence, it's meaning in relation to "meaning", etc. BTW, I was always scolded in school as a day-dreamer. :grin: Is this kind of what they are referring to in contemplation of nature, or is it something different?

 

Yes, I would say that this is part of it. Also, I was also a day-dreamer and in "my own world" as a child. I still have those tendancies :grin: As an adult, I've learned to moderate them, but I have sympathy towards young people with these tendancies and feel very agravated when adults try to limit them, or even worse tell these young people that their natural inclinations are "of the devil". And, right now there is one young person in my life struggling with this. It is very agravating to watch. But, oh well that is another thread... :scratch:

 

Now to the next phase of the questions in my mind: Symbols/Religious Mythologies. ....What role and what importance do you place on the incorporation of religious symbols and mythologies in the human experience of pursuing "knowledge" into these areas of understanding of life beyond our limited selves?

 

Symbols... hmmm... there is a role Antlerman, but I'm probably not the best person to ask. On a personal level I've avoided symbols all my life. I've just a few symbols that are important to me... the rest don't really connect.

 

I have taken great comfort in the literature of the Bible though... for years I studied this area and this was the way I searched for an understanding of the sacred. It played its role in my overall journey. But, eventually I moved beyond that, now my spiritual seekings are very simple. I use meditation daily, I participate in a meditative group and inter-religious dialog. And I try to study a broad range of spiritual approaches. Right now our group is studying how the words of Jesus can take on new meaning if they are seen through the Aramaic language and culture. It is a very interesting study that gives new depth to the gospels.

 

BTW, I really appreciate you dialoging with me on this questions!

 

Yes, this is a good conversation - I am also enjoying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following is one of my favorite quotes from this book.

 

The real religion of humankind can be said to be spirituality itself, because mystical spirituality is the origin of all the world religions. If this is so, and I believe it is, we might also say that
interspirituality
- the sharing of ultimate experiences across traditions - is the religion of the third millennium.

 

On a side note - this is one reason I believe that the literalists are in such an uproar across the globe. In essence our world is becoming smaller, we no longer have the luxery of going off in our own little corner of the world and pretending that we have the one true faith, all the answers. In their hearts the literalists know this - and their fear comes out in aggressive fundamentalism. Just my own personal opinion. The only good thing in all of this is that on my good days I take it as a sign of impending death to literalism :shrug:

I think I'll pick that book up and read more. I agree with the observation that fundamentalism is a reactionary movement to the blending of religious perspectives from around the whole world. It is also a reaction to foreign cultural practices. It is the same as you see within the United States whenever there is an influx of immigrant populations. The "purists" attack all the foreign cultures and call for things like racial purity, single language movements (which sadly seems to be popular again here now), the push to anglicize immigrants, etc. Its popularity is owed to people being unable to keep up with the rate of change.

 

Slow blending has always taken place throughout history, and whenever there were rapid changes, there was always some backlash. It usually takes about one generation for people to catch up. Just speak with people in their 70's about women in the work place, and you still see those backwards attitudes coming through from their generation's perspectives. What really infuriates me is the leadership who takes advantage of this sort of reaction and exploits it to their own ends, be it religious fundamentalism or social fundamentalism. It's all politics. (The worst of all is the radio talk show hosts who exploit it and foster it in order to gain larger audiences)!

 

Now to the next phase of the questions in my mind: Symbols/Religious Mythologies. ....What role and what importance do you place on the incorporation of religious symbols and mythologies in the human experience of pursuing "knowledge" into these areas of understanding of life beyond our limited selves?

 

Symbols... hmmm... there is a role Antlerman, but I'm probably not the best person to ask. On a personal level I've avoided symbols all my life. I've just a few symbols that are important to me... the rest don't really connect.

I'm not sure if there’s a miscommunication? When I've been speaking of symbols I'm not so much speaking of physical icons such as a cross, or Star of David, or a statue of some sort, but rather the symbolism of a figure or concept. Juliet at the garden window is a symbol of young love. The single image conveys tons of information without lengthy verbose explanations. Characters and places in Biblical myth stories function as symbols of religious ideals. Jesus on the cross is a symbol of many concepts to people.

 

This is why I disagree so adamantly with the fundamentalists and some of the mystic branches of religion who use numerology, and other hidden mystery keys to unlock the *real* meaning of a passage. The power of mythology lies in its ability to speak to many different people about many different things, in many different cultures, and in many different ages. To make it say one thing would halt any progress of humanity, which is impossible to do. Evolution is a fact of life, both bilogically and memetically. Fundamentalism is at odds with life by virtue of insisting all things remain static. It is impossible to do that. It is a force of nature that cannot be contained.

 

For mythology to work, it cannot be approached through science of any flavor. I said this in another thread (and forgive me if I'm repeating myself - I need more coffee :coffee: )

 

Now the trick to the power of these living symbols, as I think I'll start calling them, is that for them to work as such in peoples lives, they need to operate on a different plane of existence then temporal creatures, so they have to be placed where they can escape the rules of human existence being applied to them. If people turn on the same criteria for evaluating these "beings", as they do everything else in interacting with their earthly existence, they will fail to work as powerful symbols anymore. If they don't transcend our worldly experiences, then they become a different creature like us. They become like evaluating whether ETs or Bigfoot exist, and using scientific, or logic, or any other sort of rational approach to them will show them to be "questionable" beings who probably don't really exist. But if the rules don't apply to them, then people can accept them as trascendent beings, so they can continue to fulfill the role of symbols for them.

 

So I guess my question I'll try to get back to in the next few posts is, what role does the concepts, or ideas, or symbols of the Christian teachings play in your practice of contemplation, or is does it play some role outside of meditation? I know you addressed this a little above, but I'd still like to discuss it further. I have to go right now, but I have much more I feel I couldn't flesh out this run. Thanks for your patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have taken great comfort in the literature of the Bible though... for years I studied this area and this was the way I searched for an understanding of the sacred. It played its role in my overall journey. But, eventually I moved beyond that, now my spiritual seekings are very simple. I use meditation daily, I participate in a meditative group and inter-religious dialog. And I try to study a broad range of spiritual approaches. Right now our group is studying how the words of Jesus can take on new meaning if they are seen through the Aramaic language and culture. It is a very interesting study that gives new depth to the gospels.

Picking up where I left off: I see more clearly in the above what role it plays. From what I can see it was/is a way to look at the world though the eyes of certain values and ideals, such as love, self-sacrifice, humility, community, etc. This would then affect personal attitudes, emotions, and sprit. Through the practice of meditation, you are able to still the mind, to be able to more deeply and meaningfully incorporate these values and ideal into your being. Is this sounding about right?

 

One last question to the above: Do you pray? I hope you don't take that as too personal of a question, but I'd like to know if you do, in what way you would. So many times Christians take prayer as petition to a deity for intercession, etc., but I get the feeling it wouldn't look like this to you. What role would that play and how is it practiced if someone doesn't view the religious symbols as rationally tangible entities with powers to answer (unless I'm mistaken in that perception)?

 

BTW, in looking back at my questions of my views and experience of nature and music, though you answered that this is part of meditation, I realize there is more to it than these things. Is it correct to say these are more considered relaxation techniques, and that those are a beginning point for meditative practice? Of course I always feel revived from those experiences in my life, such as a weekend of solitude on a lake, but I have to acknowledge this is nothing that requires a discipline as such.

 

P.S. In case you didn't catch it this is the 2nd part of a response from me (there's one above this one)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what role does the concepts, or ideas, or symbols of the Christian teachings play in your practice of contemplation, or is does it play some role outside of meditation?

 

Oh... where to begin :scratch:

 

It's the middle of the work day and so I'll have to keep this short and we can discuss it in more depth as we are able.

 

You really hit the mother load here, Antlerman :grin: And I'm not so sure it's a good thing. Well.... let me start by saying that literalism really got in the way for me, for a very long time. But, as I studied other world religions in conjunction with the Christian scriptures I began to see commonalities. For instance... the literalists interpretation of the cross and resurrection. I hate the way it this is all so concrete in the church, still in 2005. But, it is and I could never reconcile a God of Love needing a blood sacrifice to compensate for all the "sins" in the world.

 

But as I studied other world religions I began to see that every tradition recognizes human suffering in one way or another. Buddhism, for example, has the ‘Four Noble Truths’ – (1) There is pain and suffering in the world. (2) Attachment causes suffering. (3) The suffering will cease when a person can rid him/her self of all desires. (4) The extinguishing of all desires.

 

And as I began to read writings from the liberal end of Christianity, as well as writings from Christian contemplatives I began to see that there was another way to view the cross and the resurrection. The cross can be looked at as a dying to one's "false self" and the resurrection as new life within as the "true self" rises up from within. Over time Easter has become a very important time of year for me, lent is a time of spiritual/meditative disciplines. I think, in general, humans have ritualized and moved to religions and dogma because of some inate need to have patterns in their life and world. The religious holidays, if released from literal interpretation, can take on great significance to a contemplative. They are times of renewal and refreshing of common disciplines.

 

See... when one really embarks on a meditative journey, there are other disciplines as well as daily meditation. The belief that pain comes from physical attachments, the idea of a "false self" can be found in all meditative traditions. In earlier centuries these beliefs led to excesses in releasing oneself from physical attachments and ridding oneself of the "false self". But, overall the human meditative traditions have matured enough to recognize the legitimacy of "attachment" without going to the extremes seen in earlier centuries.

 

Anyway the lenten season and Easter are times of returning to and analyzing ones efforts throughout the year to be less attached, less involved with the emotional swings that come with viewing reality through the "false self".

 

One other thing here, for me it is very important to read sacred literature in context. The current study we are doing on the Aramaic approach to Jesus is very interesting. Words in Aramaic take on whole depths of meanings not found in Greek and the western languages.

 

Also, as you said, symbols can take on different meanings at different times to the very same person. As I matured and really began to comprehend the Oneness of everything the suffering of Jesus took on another meaning. It's very difficult to explain, but I'm going to give it a shot. If we are all truly interconnected, and I believe we are, then on some level we can experience each other's pains and joys. On some level we can also carry each other's pains and joys. Some individuals are in tune with this better than others. Looking at Jesus as the Word made Flesh - the Wisdom of God infleshed then vicarious suffering can take on a whole depth of meaning. Does... this make any sense????

 

I'm not sure I picked the right symbolism to start with Antlerman, I could have gone with something easier, like Christmas and the birth of Light. But, truly, the literalism that stood in my way the most was literalism around the cross, hell and salvation. It truly drags humanity down to literalize those concepts. It was not until I began to read things in a metaphysical way that I began to see other layers. And as maturing happened and I found myself more and more aware of the interconnectedness of the whole, then new meanings entirely began to surface.

 

I hope this helps.... I really do have to go run some errands on my lunch break but look forward to further discussion as you have many more wonderful questions about prayer and the difference between natural mystism and disciplined practices of meditation. :close:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, as you said, symbols can take on different meanings at different times to the very same person. As I matured and really began to comprehend the Oneness of everything the suffering of Jesus took on another meaning. It's very difficult to explain, but I'm going to give it a shot. If we are all truly interconnected, and I believe we are, then on some level we can experience each other's pains and joys. On some level we can also carry each other's pains and joys. Some individuals are in tune with this better than others. Looking at Jesus as the Word made Flesh - the Wisdom of God infleshed then vicarious suffering can take on a whole depth of meaning. Does... this make any sense????

 

I'm not sure I picked the right symbolism to start with Antlerman, I could have gone with something easier, like Christmas and the birth of Light. But, truly, the literalism that stood in my way the most was literalism around the cross, hell and salvation. It truly drags humanity down to literalize those concepts. It was not until I began to read things in a metaphysical way that I began to see other layers. And as maturing happened and I found myself more and more aware of the interconnectedness of the whole, then new meanings entirely began to surface.

I wanted to give some response here, but hoping not to play leap frog too much over your finishing responding my previous post. I'm trying to keep my thoughts relatively organized but it can get difficult when the subjects get more involved... that and age. :Old:

 

No this is not too difficult to follow, plus I could tell it was probably the most important one to you. I can understand seeing the crucifixion in the terms of epitomizing the act of selfless love. Bible verses such as, "Greater love has no man than this than he lay down his life for another" is a powerful concept that the "death" of Jesus for others is a symbolic image portraying what we would idealize as the ultimate expression of love. I agree that taking it into contexts of historical blood sacrifice would distract this "higher" meaning to us.

 

The reason I see for that is because blood sacrifices are not part of our culture. In fact we find them primitive. Again, and I'll keep coming back to this again and again - not for your benefit, but because I feel it merits repetition, that myth symbols must be allowed to evolve for this very reason. Myth symbols must be able to change with cultural sensibilities in order to maintain relevance in any society. Blood sacrifices for a god in the 21st century?? Please! Fundamentalism indeed will be the death of religion.

 

For myself, the way I see is that the study of sacred texts are probably most effective is when they are read in an open fashion to speak to issues of the person and the culture of the currently living, not dogmatically as inflexible rules to inhibit growth and change. It is probably like preparing for meditation in a sense I suppose, where you open your thoughts to higher concepts and ideals through the use of sacred texts and symbols - note: I would take this to mean we use it to access those ideals that are already part of our personalities and value systems by assuming a sacred mindset through the use of symbols and meditation as tools. Does this sound reasonable? I think I'll stop here.

 

P.S. I really don't mean to kill the experience of the practice for anyone by clinically "disecting" the possible workings of it. It's just my desire to appreciate something through a clearer understanding of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to keep my thoughts relatively organized but it can get difficult when the subjects get more involved... that and age. :Old:

 

That goes for both of us :grin:

 

Our conversation is taking on many layers, I'll try to follow through on my end with some of the layering ;)

 

I agree with the observation that fundamentalism is a reactionary movement to the blending of religious perspectives from around the whole world.

 

Antlerman your observations about fundamentalism as a response to cultural integration as well as an increasing interest in learning lessons across religious boundries is right on target. The only thing I'd want to point out here - and it goes to our larger discussion - is that those involved in this trend of interspirituality (as Wayne Teasdale calls it) would have huge "knee jerk reactions" to the wording "blending of religious perspectives". I know you are probably aware of this in the larger cultural context - but a black friend of mine (I am white) told me once that she doesn't view America as a "melting pot" as much as she views America as a "salad bowl". That's sort of the way individuals involved in interspiritual pursuits look at the different religions. On a subtle level, I'm sure you are well aware of this, but I wanted to point it out for the larger discussion.

 

One last question to the above: Do you pray? I hope you don't take that as too personal of a question, but I'd like to know if you do, in what way you would.

 

No, feel free to ask. Your questioning is forcing me to articulate things that I have never really sat down and written about before. It is a wonderful exercise.

 

Well my primary prayer is Centering Prayer - a Christian form of meditation taught by Father Thomas Keating. Here is a link to the Contemplative Outreach website and its description of Centering Prayer: http://www.centeringprayer.com/cntrgpryr.htm

 

Following is a quote from that page:

 

Christian Contemplative Prayer is the opening of mind and heart - our whole being - to God, the Ultimate Mystery, beyond thoughts, words and emotions, whom we know by faith is within us, closer than breathing, thinking, feeling and choosing; even closer than consciousness itself. The root of all prayer is interior silence. Though we think of prayer as thoughts or feelings expressed in words, this is only one expression. Contemplative Prayer is a prayer of silence, an experience of God’s presence as the ground in which our being is rooted, the Source from whom our life emerges at every moment.

 

About prayers of petition... I'm not very traditional in this regard. Since I don't believe in a man with a white beard sitting on a throne in the far reaches of the universe called heaven waiting to grant some their wishes, and ignoring others... prayers of petition in the traditional way of thinking just don't make sense.

 

But... recently I have felt more and more that the interconnectedness between everything and everyone in creation means something. Not only do we draw from the source but we also participate in the source. It can be said in the same breath that God (the source, the Ultimate Mystery) is in us and we are in God (the source, the Ultimate Mystery). I do believe that whatever it is that we are part of not only connects us and makes us whole, but that we participate in a very real way.

 

Very simply, we humans use phrases like "the air was so thick you could cut it with a knife" or "love is in the air". Back to our original topic of conversation, do humans have another way of "knowing"? I firmly believe we do. And believing this I also think our ability to "know" on a subtle level also includes the ability to "participate" on a subtle level. So, when specific situations arise that are in need of love and compassion I do think loving and compassionate thoughts, intentionally I do this. And to me this is a sort of a prayer. I don't know if it has any affect on the problem at hand.... but I don't know that it doesn't either. And in the end something inside of me tells me that it does, what I've come to know of interconnectedness tells me that loving and compassionate thoughts do help. And there have been instances in my life in which I feel this dynamic has had positive impact.

 

BTW, in looking back at my questions of my views and experience of nature and music, though you answered that this is part of meditation, I realize there is more to it than these things. Is it correct to say these are more considered relaxation techniques, and that those are a beginning point for meditative practice? Of course I always feel revived from those experiences in my life, such as a weekend of solitude on a lake, but I have to acknowledge this is nothing that requires a discipline as such.

 

Nature mystism is very real and can have much depth to it. I wouldn't limit it to "relaxation techniques". But what I would say is that Nature is the window to God's soul. All of the natural world. A scientist who delves into the depths of quantum physics is still peering through this window as much as a mountain climber on the highest peaks.

 

Music too, has it's place, but I'd put it closer to a meditative discipline. A musician who intentionally disciplines him/herself to practice everyday, and emerses him/herself in music may be reaping similar benefits as one who sits down and meditates by focussing on a sacred word. The mind is centered in both instances, is it not? :scratch:

 

This is strictly my opinion Antlerman. I've seen many writings about nature mysticism (The Mystic Heart has space devoted to this). But I don't recall any writings about centering during music disciplines as compared to centering during meditation. They may involve completely different areas of the brain. Either way they both have benefits to the soul :grin: And even though I'm not musically inclined, I've seen the impact of real music discipline on other people and am convinced in my own mind that it is a spiritual discipline as well ;)

 

P.S. I really don't mean to kill the experience of the practice for anyone by clinically "disecting" the possible workings of it. It's just my desire to appreciate something through a clearer understanding of it.

 

No... No... don't worry. Scientists have started wiring up monks when they meditate to see what is happening in the brain. They've wired up beginners and advanced meditators to see if there is a difference in the experience. A lot of people involved in religion (the traditionalists) have a hard time with this. But I don't, since I believe this way of "knowing" is natural, why shouldn't we study as much of it as we can? We'll never figure it all out... infinite is infinite.... but ahh... the wonder of it all. Yes, I welcome the study, it doesn't take the wonder out of any of my own experiences at all, because in the end I agree with you, one has to let go and leap :grin: or be carried away :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman your observations about fundamentalism as a response to cultural integration as well as an increasing interest in learning lessons across religious boundries is right on target. The only thing I'd want to point out here - and it goes to our larger discussion - is that those involved in this trend of interspirituality (as Wayne Teasdale calls it) would have huge "knee jerk reactions" to the wording "blending of religious perspectives". I know you are probably aware of this in the larger cultural context - but a black friend of mine (I am white) told me once that she doesn't view America as a "melting pot" as much as she views America as a "salad bowl". That's sort of the way individuals involved in interspiritual pursuits look at the different religions. On a subtle level, I'm sure you are well aware of this, but I wanted to point it out for the larger discussion.

 

 

Yes this is a fine point to make, but a significant one. Cultures can become integrated without needing to loose their unique identities. I agree melting pot is not a good term to use as it might signal to someone that they may loose connection with their cultural heritage and traditions. The same holds true with religious integration. People need to learn to recognize and communicate through our similarities with each other, and respect, learn from, and even celebrate our differences. A melting pot would blur any distinctions to the point I suppose, where someone could image something as foreign as seeing Jesus portrayed in a lotus position or Buddha on a cross! Obviously traditions are important to people, and it’s the fear of loss of this identity that people can be learyof, which fear fundamentalists will prey upon and exploit to swell their ranks.

 

 

Very simply, we humans use phrases like "the air was so thick you could cut it with a knife" or "love is in the air". Back to our original topic of conversation, do humans have another way of "knowing"? I firmly believe we do. And believing this I also think our ability to "know" on a subtle level also includes the ability to "participate" on a subtle level. So, when specific situations arise that are in need of love and compassion I do think loving and compassionate thoughts, intentionally I do this. And to me this is a sort of a prayer. I don't know if it has any affect on the problem at hand.... but I don't know that it doesn't either. And in the end something inside of me tells me that it does, what I've come to know of interconnectedness tells me that loving and compassionate thoughts do help. And there have been instances in my life in which I feel this dynamic has had positive impact.

 

Myself also, in certain situations I redirect my sensibilities or thoughts to access those “senses” within myself, or put slightly less, those attitudes of higher ideals. This in a sense moves me beyond myself, the selfish, and the distracted, to an attitude of empathy and compassion. Now does this have any effect on the problem at hand? I certainly believe it does. Perhaps on the level you speak of a universal connectiveness, but I think it does on a human level. We all pick up on subtle signs, understanding emotionally or spiritually when someone genuinely cares. Believing someone loves you most definitely has a positive effect.

 

Love is a powerful force. Most human beings, and even animals for that matter, respond positively to being loved. Believe you are unloved, and say hello to depression and despondency, loneliness, isolation, poor self image, anger, resentment, and a host of damaging attitudes. Believe you are loved, and vitality and inspiration is restored. So yes, your “prayer” does have an effect by affecting you.

 

Again my barriers most certainly does not appear to be with any of what you are tapping into, in fact I feel we are very much on the same path, but for myself, mainly struggling with definitions. In principle I agree greatly with you, and am appreciating very much the additional insights. Where I see my biggest if not insurmountable barrier is with the particular signs and symbols, though not all – but definitely some. I visited the site about the prayer of centeredness and contemplation, and I found being able to read the words God, and Christ in a context that makes sense as symbols representing the concepts of those higher aspirations and ideal that those words convey, but as I went to the home page and saw a photo of the priest sitting peacefully in front of a large cross, I got that knee-jerk again. It seems the symbol of the cross has come to mean a religious authoritarian empire to me. I tried to see it as something positive, but at that moment I could not.

 

It seems a shame in a way. In the sprit of interspiritual brotherhood, to use that terminology, I would wish for myself to find some peace with Christianity, to get beyond unproductive resentments and be able to share without judgment from them or from me, our shared sensibilities of what being spiritual means. I am finding this with you and it is – inspiring. It is sharing of insights with eyes wide open, and not masked behind political rhetoric, or claims of exclusive knowledge, truth, or authority.

 

Thanks for this opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love is a powerful force. Most human beings, and even animals for that matter, respond positively to being loved. Believe you are unloved, and say hello to depression and despondency, loneliness, isolation, poor self image, anger, resentment, and a host of damaging attitudes. Believe you are loved, and vitality and inspiration is restored. So yes, your “prayer” does have an effect by affecting you.

 

Antlerman - I couldn't agree with you more. I am very conservative in the verses I read literally from the Bible. But the following verses I take very literally.

 

God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.

 

As you know - I view the ulitimate truth as a foundational energy of the universe which pervades all, makes all whole, and is infinitely in the process of creating. To me this energy is LOVE. As you said, "Love is a powerful force". We humans connect love with the way we experience it. It is very relative to our lives our personal experiences. But, LOVE in the grandest sense is not limited to human experience, it is a "powerful force" within which we participate. It makes us whole. It makes all of creation whole.

 

Where I see my biggest if not insurmountable barrier is with the particular signs and symbols, though not all – but definitely some. I visited the site about the prayer of centeredness and contemplation, and I found being able to read the words God, and Christ in a context that makes sense as symbols representing the concepts of those higher aspirations and ideal that those words convey, but as I went to the home page and saw a photo of the priest sitting peacefully in front of a large cross, I got that knee-jerk again. It seems the symbol of the cross has come to mean a religious authoritarian empire to me. I tried to see it as something positive, but at that moment I could not.

 

You and me both :lmao: No kidding now.... Easter is my hardest time of year. I have real problems with the cross as a symbol of Christianity. To add a personal dimension to this.... I grew up going to Catholic schools and even though my parents left the church when I was a young teen, I still continued on in the school system. I don't know if you've ever been exposed to the "stations of the cross"? Every year - at Easter we were required to walk the "stations of the cross". That ritual gave me nightmares for years. I was a very imaginitive child - teachers would have said "over active imagination". So the stations of the cross really internalized for me.... as a child I would wake up from horrible nightmares about the crucifixion.

 

To make a long story short... as an adult.... when I found myself connecting with Christianity again the hardest part for me was the cross. It still is, and in many ways I don't know if I will ever come to complete terms with it. But, I can tell you what my own path has been like.

 

Very early I had to make a decision for myself whether Jesus really did live, really did die on the cross, etc... Since I had studied - in depth - the archealogical history of the New Testament I've known for years that an objective person could look at the New Testament stories and go many ways. They could be written off as an oral tradition of stories, not fact. They could be accepted as literal - and one could write off the archealogy. Or they could be viewed as an oral tradition around a concrete figure in history named Jesus.

 

I chose the third option. In my mind Jesus did live and he did die on the cross. That made it almost harder Antlerman, because then I couldn't write off the cross as a myth - I had to deal with it up front. In the end - I landed back where I had as a teenager. If people in the 1st century after Christ chose to interpret the cross as a blood sacrifice - that is their choice. In this century it does not have to be my choice. Again context is so very important - Jesus died on a cross at a time in history where people regularly made blood sacrifices to their gods. It would only make sense that his followers would see his death as the ultimate blood sacrifice.

 

Over time the cross has taken on more depth to me. As I said earlier - I really do believe there is an interconnectedness at the core of creation. And I have come to believe that we are all interconnected; that we participate in each others Isness, or Being. This means we can be aware, on very subtle levels, of the joy in creation as well as the suffering in creation. We don't get to choose the joy in creation and leave the suffering. They are two sides to the experience of interconnectedness. In the end I've come to see the cross experience as a vicarious suffering experience. And my study of other world traditions and inter-faith dialogs have taught me that Christianity is not the only religion to acknowledge vicarious suffering.

 

From the Buddhist tradition there is the Bodhisattva Ideal. The following excerpt is from the About.com website. http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa091802a.htm

 

 

The Bodhisattva Ideal

 

In the Jataka tales, we read stories of the Buddha in his previous lives as a Bodhisattva, an individual destined for enlightenment and Buddhahood. ('Bodhi' means 'enlightenment' or 'wisdom' and 'sattva' means 'being' or 'essence'). As Mahayana Buddhism developed, the idea of the Bodhisattva became imbued with increasing significance. Whereas Theravada Buddhism appeared to focus on sainthood and the individual's solo quest for enlightenment,
Mahayana Buddhism emphasized the role of the Bodhisattva as a supremely compassionate individual who is motivated to win enlightenment not for himself but for the benefit of all sentient beings
.

 

Also from The Sacred Texts.com website: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/heal_tib.htm

 

Lama Zopa Rinpoche, a highly realised Tibetan Lama, says that the most

powerful healing methods of all are those based on compassion, the wish to free other beings from their suffering. The compassionate mind - calm, peaceful, joyful and stress-free - is the ideal mental

environment for healing. A mind of compassion stops our being totally wrapped up in our own suffering situations. By reaching out to others we become aware of not just my pain but the pain (that is, the pain of all beings).

 

Antlerman, this is where interfaith dialog is very important. I am not familiar enough with other traditions to adequately represent them. I know from discussions with people from other traditions that there are parallels. But I have to leave it at that ... and bring back to the forefront that this discussion would be grounded if there were other perspectives.

 

One example of vicarious suffering in our own age is the suffering of Ghandi. One only has to study his life and his suffering on behalf of peace to really see the power of such intentional suffering. He participated in interspirituality on a level that most people could not go. Here is a man who was as well versed in Christianity as Hinduism. He was born into and chose Hinduism as his path, but studied and admired Christianity. He used the Sermon on the Mount as the ground for much of his thinking on non-violent resistance.

 

Beyond that - for my own needs I have determined that the salvation of Christ is not in the shedding of blood but in the shedding of truth. And that is where I stand. Others in my own congregation feel differently and we could have long indepth discussions about it. But in the end we respect each other - because we know each other on a deep enough level to not let something like this get in the way of our journey in Christ together. And this is a treasure to me - because I've been run out of at least one church for my beliefs :grin:

 

It seems a shame in a way. In the sprit of interspiritual brotherhood, to use that terminology, I would wish for myself to find some peace with Christianity, to get beyond unproductive resentments and be able to share without judgment from them or from me, our shared sensibilities of what being spiritual means.

 

I do understand this - healing takes time. As for me, I still have plenty of "knee jerk" reactions from my days in Catholic schools. But have come to realize, part of healing is knowing ourselves well enough to know when were are responding out of emotional triggers. You seem to do this Antlerman, so don't be too hard on yourself :grin:

 

I enjoy these conversations as well - it is refreshing to be able to articulate my thinking in writing. It clarifies things more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys rock! :58:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys rock! :58:

Hey thanks! This is an incredible discussion that I am learning so much from on a personal level. Glad to see you. Now to try to get to my reply...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys rock! :58:

 

:wave:

 

Hey NotBlinded...

 

I was wondering if you were orbiting around, jump in anytime you feel like it :grin:

 

The water's not too deep ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys rock! :58:

 

:wave:

 

Hey NotBlinded...

 

I was wondering if you were orbiting around, jump in anytime you feel like it :grin:

 

The water's not too deep ;)

Right now, I am enjoying reading this and learning tremendously. I just don't have anything to say of any value because you guys are saying it all (some guys!). Just kidding! I'm not too shy, I will probably just butt on it when you're not expecting it. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, I am enjoying reading this and learning tremendously. I just don't have anything to say of any value because you guys are saying it all (some guys!). Just kidding! I'm not too shy, I will probably just butt on it when you're not expecting it. :HaHa:

 

Butt on in any time you like, Notblinded....

 

You know I like the way you think ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people in the 1st century after Christ chose to interpret the cross as a blood sacrifice - that is their choice. In this century it does not have to be my choice. Again context is so very important - Jesus died on a cross at a time in history where people regularly made blood sacrifices to their gods. It would only make sense that his followers would see his death as the ultimate blood sacrifice.

 

Open_Minded,

 

can I ask you how you think Jesus may have viewed his death - do you think with a first century mindset he thought he was making some kind of blood sacrifice?

 

Hope you don't mind the interuption - like NBBTL I'm really enjoying this thread as well.

 

Thanks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman - I couldn't agree with you more. I am very conservative in the verses I read literally from the Bible. But the following verses I take very literally.

 

God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.

 

As you know - I view the ultimate truth as a foundational energy of the universe which pervades all, makes all whole, and is infinitely in the process of creating. To me this energy is LOVE. As you said, "Love is a powerful force". We humans connect love with the way we experience it. It is very relative to our lives our personal experiences. But, LOVE in the grandest sense is not limited to human experience, it is a "powerful force" within which we participate. It makes us whole. It makes all of creation whole.

 

As an aside: I’m a bit cautious about using the word “literal” when talking anything in the Bible (knee-jerk again), I think I would use terms like truism, reasonable, acceptable, or spiritual principle, axiom, etc, in regard to verses like the above. I accept there are a lot of very meaningful and profound “truths” in the Bible, but again back to my issue: separating the baby from the bath water, separating the spiritual truths from the connotation of word signs and symbols.

 

But to address the real point of your quote above:

 

You know I can’t help but think of what I heard on some science programs awhile back, that “life” on this planet may not be an anomaly, some isolated fluke, but it seems that everything in the universe is geared towards life, that life is an inevitability. Personally, this makes sense to me. Why would this planet hold the only life in the universe? The soup that is spread everywhere in the universe is not unique here. If we were the only life, then everything in the universe would be starkly different than what’s here, which it’s not. Ifs we accept that life is natural to the universe, then what you say above I would say has merit. But now we get into some interesting territory.

 

When I speak of “Life”, most of time that word to me is charged with the spiritual overtones of “Energy”, and on a foundational level as you say “Love”. But, isn’t this a subjective understanding of that nature of life? (Back to subjective again!). Like some wise soul from Italy posted in another thread here recently, regarding the tossing of dice and seeing the numbers 111111111111 as more special than 1243765245187264, even though the odds of that sequence are identical, that the “special-ness” or “miracle” of this is only a value we assign to it.

 

Now, does that kill the joy of hitting all 1’s? Does it have to? In the same sense, is seeing “Love” as the essence of Life, subjective? Yes, but isn’t spirituality all about finding meaning to life? Is that wrong? I don’t think inherently it is, but it can have the nasty side effect of rationality not knowing how to incorporate that “leap” (and back to that term again!). Most people, it seems, make them at odds with each other, and unnecessary wars are born.

 

I want to be spiritual, but I don’t want to be deluded either. I am emotional, and rational. Not one or the other. The poet in me sees Life and sees what could be called “God” or Love, or Wisdom as the binding essence. But culture significance of these terms carries meanings that have become hard for me to overcome. (Now I know I’m repeating myself)

 

 

Antlerman, this is where interfaith dialog is very important. I am not familiar enough with other traditions to adequately represent them. I know from discussions with people from other traditions that there are parallels. But I have to leave it at that ... and bring back to the forefront that this discussion would be grounded if there were other perspectives.

You mentioned before this the comparisons of Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. It raised a thought I wanted to mention. Theravada Buddhism is essentially atheistic. They do not believe in ghosts, and gods, etc that Mahayana Buddhism incorporates – if my understanding of these things is correct. It made me think to try to put into words for myself what I am. I consider myself spiritual, but that is irrelevant to being atheist. I could see myself relating more to Theravada Buddhism, in the sense that if I was to take my sense of spirituality and apply a religious discipline of teachings, practices, and ritual to it for the purpose of nurturing and expanding it, that would be comparable to Theravada Buddhism. Religion is not about gods. It’s about teachings, practices, rituals, symbols, culture, etc. Religion is a spiritually based system than may or may not believe in gods. I think I might be a “System-Free Pious Atheist”. Don’t know, just trying out some label for grins. :grin: (I doubt it will stick)

 

 

Beyond that - for my own needs I have determined that the salvation of Christ is not in the shedding of blood but in the shedding of truth. And that is where I stand. Others in my own congregation feel differently and we could have long indepth discussions about it. But in the end we respect each other - because we know each other on a deep enough level to not let something like this get in the way of our journey in Christ together. And this is a treasure to me - because I've been run out of at least one church for my beliefs :grin:

Run out of church? No wonder I like you!! Seriously though, I think there is that odd mix of promoting spirituality and control of a body of people that goes on in a church. How do you promote spiritual exploration without a body breaking up into disparate pieces? It’s seems that there is as much of a dichotomy there as there is in rationality and spirituality. What keeps it together?

 

Which leads to a question I’ve wanted to bring up? Ok, I have gained a greater understanding and respect about how you incorporate sacred texts, symbols, rituals, etc in your nurturing of your spirituality, but you are a shining star, an exception! What about the masses? How does the church teach this to your average devotee? The topics we have been uncovering and evaluating are not the sort of thing you hear down at the local bar, or laundry, or church social, or even most church services. That you have seem to have a small community of people you speak with on this level.... first of all I'm envious!, but it also seems a rare exception.

 

I actually hope I’m wrong and that there is a greater trend to this that people’s insights are universally moving to this level, but there’s that cynic in me again! If this is true, then I feel inspired hope for all of us. I may or may not choose to put religious symbols or practices into my life; I may or may not choose to incorporate “God” in my life; but I can be spiritual and both give and receive respect, learn and share, that essence that I embrace as life, or love, without some artificial constraints to conform to something that does not work for me. And isn't that an essential component of true human sprituality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open_Minded,

 

can I ask you how you think Jesus may have viewed his death - do you think with a first century mindset he thought he was making some kind of blood sacrifice?

 

Hope you don't mind the interuption - like NBBTL I'm really enjoying this thread as well.

 

 

Hello Hesitent....

 

No I don't mind at all... as I've mentioned before, these discussions are more rounded when there are multiple perspectives.

 

Your question is excellent, I had honestly never given it any thought until you mentioned it.

 

As you eluded, common sense says that Jesus would have had a 1st Century mindset....

 

I don't believe Jesus grew up knowing he was going to die on a cross, I don't believe he had foreknowledge - at least not more than anyone else would in his situation. By the time of the last supper, it would seem he knew his days were numbered. I don't say this because of any text in the Bible, just common sense. Whatever the facts surrounding his crucifixion, one does not end up on a cross without some forewarning.

 

So.... when it began to dawn on him that he was going to die, given that he was a true man with the worldview of his contemporaries.... yes... I suppose he could have viewed his situation as a blood sacrifice. It would make sense.

 

His followers seemed to have felt that he viewed himself as a sacrificial lamb. This is what they attributed to him in his words at the last supper, at any rate.

 

Does this answer your question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the same sense, is seeing “Love” as the essence of Life, subjective? Yes, but isn’t spirituality all about finding meaning to life? Is that wrong? I don’t think inherently it is, but it can have the nasty side effect of rationality not knowing how to incorporate that “leap” (and back to that term again!). Most people, it seems, make them at odds with each other, and unnecessary wars are born.

 

Yes, in a very real way, seeing "love" as the essence of Life is subjective. It is the meaning that an individual finds in existence and no, it is not wrong. As you said... we are circling back round to where we started.... how subjective is our experience of life?

 

But, as you also said, at some point one must take a "leap" or (as I mentioned) be "carried away". See to me, Antlerman, humanity does have another way of "knowing" or "perceiving". We are "carried away" in that "knowing". Sometimes when a mystic is "carried away" they experience Love in all, through all and beyond all. Following is a poem by a 13th Century Sufi Mystic named Fakhruddin Iraqi.

 

There is no god but Love

 

Every word of every tongue is Love telling a story to her own ears.

Every thought in every mind, She whispers a secret to her own Self.

Every vision in every eye, She shows her beauty to her own sight.

Every smile on every face, She reveals her own joy for herself to enjoy.

Love courses through everything,

Nay, Love is everything.

How can you say, there is no love, when nothing but Love exists?

All that you see has appeared because of Love.

All shines from Love,

All pulses with Love,

All flows from Love -

Nay, once again, all is Love!

 

Now are these experiences subjective... most certainly they are. But they come out of an inner "knowing" or inner "perceiving". And these experiences are cross cultural and cross world view - in the sense that they span the ages.

 

What we are left with are the writings and the choices that come with them. For instance... on a personal level.... what do we do with these cross cultural and cross world view experiences of "all is Love and Love is all"?

 

I want to be spiritual, but I don’t want to be deluded either. I am emotional, and rational. Not one or the other. The poet in me sees Life and sees what could be called “God” or Love, or Wisdom as the binding essence. But culture significance of these terms carries meanings that have become hard for me to overcome. (Now I know I’m repeating myself)

 

Yes, this is a problem. As earlier in the conversation when NotBlinded suggested that someone should change the definition of God. :grin:

 

I use Christian language because it is the only language I have to define and interpret my own experiences. It has been a source of irritation to me that when I use the word "God" (for instance) people think of Sunday School god. There are times when I use different language, and it is healthy to do so, because it makes me think about what I am saying. But, on the other hand, it makes other people think when I use Christian language in a way they are not accustomed to. And that can be healthy too. On the whole - across cultures - I think humanity is trying to redefine the Sacred (shouldn't we always be trying to redefine the Sacred)? After all, we are talking about the infinite here.

 

To me part of the problem has been that society has allowed the literalists to define the Sacred. And part of the solution is not to participate in that anymore, so sometimes I use Christian language not only because it is my native spiritual tongue, but also because the use of Christian language to communicate a broader concept of the Sacred forces people to think.

 

I think I might be a “System-Free Pious Atheist”. Don’t know, just trying out some label for grins. :grin: (I doubt it will stick)

 

Ahh.... labels .... the first step towards conflict ;)

 

Sometimes I think I call myself a Christian, just to make the literalists go AAARGGG :grin: Really though, it's been a considerable amount of spiritual struggling to reclaim the Christian label. I find the Christian contemplative path a place of comfort - but dealing with all the emotional triggers has been work. Probably healthy work, but work non-the-less :grin:

 

Run out of church?

 

Yes, some 12-13 year-old Sunday School Students wanted to learn about the faiths of some of their public school classmates. I was the Sunday School teacher and, with the support of the Pastor, I developed lessons around some other religious traditions in our community. The long and short of it is that the Pastor and his family are now serving at another congregation. My family left along with about 12-15 other families :Wendywhatever:

 

How do you promote spiritual exploration without a body breaking up into disparate pieces? It’s seems that there is as much of a dichotomy there as there is in rationality and spirituality. What keeps it together?

 

Honestly, mutual respect and --- yes--- love. The church I'm at now took in 6 of the families that left with me. They knew we were "rabble rousers" when they accepted us. Don't get me wrong Antlerman, nothing is perfect. I've been there 10 years now. There are traditionalists - even literalists - there are people who are more mainstream and then there is our group. And yet, I can go into church on any given Sunday and be treated with respect. I can sit down next to an elderly person who worships at our traditional service and share conversation. We have three services, traditional, contemporary and meditative. At the meditative service we read sacred texts around one common principal (this month we are focussing on the Divine Nature) from multiple religions. Occassionally we will host an interfaith discussion after the service.

 

The elderly and conservative population of our congregation knows this and supports the service. When we started this service - 1 1/2 years ago - there were a few bumps. But in the end the chuch council voted unanimously to go ahead - and our synod offices also support the service. Our minister was trained at a standard Evangelical Lutheran Church in America seminary and is well versed in world religions. He carries on very intelligent and thoughtful conversations with guests from other traditions. He is familiar with their literature and is very supportive of what we are doing.

 

 

But you are a shining star, an exception!

 

I honestly wish I weren't :(

 

What about the masses? How does the church teach this to your average devotee? The topics we have been uncovering and evaluating are not the sort of thing you hear down at the local bar, or laundry, or church social, or even most church services. That you have seem to have a small community of people you speak with on this level.... first of all I'm envious!, but it also seems a rare exception.

 

It is a rare exception, and sadly we may not make it. Our group is very small and trying to get this service off the ground is often frustrating. I can't say it's for lack of support in our community, but the people this type of service would attract are not accustomed to regular participation in a spiritual community. So, I really don't know if we'll get the commitment level needed to get this off the ground. But, the good news is that we are doing it, we are getting the support of a mainstream church council and regional synod offices. If we can get it off the ground, maybe other mainstream churches will pick up on the idea. Back when I was growing up, the big change for most mainstream churches was interdenominational relations, and now the trend is movement towards inter-religious dialog and relations. I'd say - on the whole - we are making progress.

 

I may or may not choose to put religious symbols or practices into my life; I may or may not choose to incorporate “God” in my life; but I can be spiritual and both give and receive respect, learn and share, that essence that I embrace as life, or love, without some artificial constraints to conform to something that does not work for me. And isn't that an essential component of true human sprituality?

 

Amen to that, Antlerman. The only thing I would say to anyone, is to give as much attention to growing spiritually as you would to growing in other areas of your life. But, I'm sure you are already aware of this :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, as you also said, at some point one must take a "leap" or (as I mentioned) be "carried away". See to me, Antlerman, humanity does have another way of "knowing" or "perceiving". We are "carried away" in that "knowing". Sometimes when a mystic is "carried away" they experience Love in all, through all and beyond all. Following is a poem by a 13th Century Sufi Mystic named Fakhruddin Iraqi.

 

There is no god but Love

 

Every word of every tongue is Love telling a story to her own ears.

Every thought in every mind, She whispers a secret to her own Self.

Every vision in every eye, She shows her beauty to her own sight.

Every smile on every face, She reveals her own joy for herself to enjoy.

Love courses through everything,

Nay, Love is everything.

How can you say, there is no love, when nothing but Love exists?

All that you see has appeared because of Love.

All shines from Love,

All pulses with Love,

All flows from Love -

Nay, once again, all is Love!

 

Now are these experiences subjective... most certainly they are. But they come out of an inner "knowing" or inner "perceiving". And these experiences are cross cultural and cross world view - in the sense that they span the ages.

 

What we are left with are the writings and the choices that come with them. For instance... on a personal level.... what do we do with these cross cultural and cross world view experiences of "all is Love and Love is all"?

I think I would like to add a verse to the Book of Ecclesiastes, “There is a time to analyze, and there is a time to live.” This is the leap. When we move beyond understanding that “love” may have roots in our biology, to just responding with it to the world and accept it as it’s own thing, as a universal principle that has emotional meaning to all living things, for whatever ever reason it does, or despite the reasons for it. We respond to it, we accept it as universally present in our shared perceptions and embrace it, celebrate it, nurture it, foster it, promote it, share it, live it, experience it, and give it life.

 

I am coming to understand that battle of man is that of the mind. There are different ways of knowing. They are not mutually exclusive. But it seems the trick is to respect and accept the merits of each approach, both in how others do, and in our own selves. I think we look at one and see it as diametrically opposed to the other – or even “wrong”, and those that embrace the opposite way of knowing would see things the same way. Yet one without the other it seems would be incomplete. I am finally seeing that there is a fine balancing act that can bring these approaches together.

 

I use Christian language because it is the only language I have to define and interpret my own experiences. It has been a source of irritation to me that when I use the word "God" (for instance) people think of Sunday School god. There are times when I use different language, and it is healthy to do so, because it makes me think about what I am saying. But, on the other hand, it makes other people think when I use Christian language in a way they are not accustomed to. And that can be healthy too. On the whole - across cultures - I think humanity is trying to redefine the Sacred (shouldn't we always be trying to redefine the Sacred)? After all, we are talking about the infinite here.

 

To me part of the problem has been that society has allowed the literalists to define the Sacred. And part of the solution is not to participate in that anymore, so sometimes I use Christian language not only because it is my native spiritual tongue, but also because the use of Christian language to communicate a broader concept of the Sacred forces people to think.

Reclaiming the language is what you are speaking of. This is a noble effort and often takes place very gradually. I too have thought in my pursuit of broadening my spirituality it would be great to be able to use the language and symbols of Christianity since I am so well versed in them. I admire that you have been able to do that for yourself.

 

It is a rare exception, and sadly we may not make it. Our group is very small and trying to get this service off the ground is often frustrating. I can't say it's for lack of support in our community, but the people this type of service would attract are not accustomed to regular participation in a spiritual community. So, I really don't know if we'll get the commitment level needed to get this off the ground. But, the good news is that we are doing it, we are getting the support of a mainstream church council and regional synod offices. If we can get it off the ground, maybe other mainstream churches will pick up on the idea. Back when I was growing up, the big change for most mainstream churches was interdenominational relations, and now the trend is movement towards inter-religious dialog and relations. I'd say - on the whole - we are making progress.

I greatly admire everything you and your group are doing. If you were here in the Twin Cities, I would even wish to come to one of your services with you to observe and question, not to mention going out for coffee to discuss all these things for countless hours.

 

Here are some thoughts to discuss: The rise of fundamentalism in this country is a symptom of Christianity’s long drawn out implosion as it is being forced to evolve into something else that has been going here for a long time. Your group also is a sign of this. Christianity was brought into this country through Northern European immigrants, and seems to have not been allowed to evolve as it has in Europe, yet our society is experiencing massive changes. Christianity has been failing to adapt to the changes here and people are looking for something else that meets where they live in the real world.

 

Fundamentalism is reactive at its heart, being based on defining itself through negatives – that they are right and not wrong, they are not the unsaved, they are not liberal compromisers of God’s holy truth, etc. Intelligent Design Theory is the same type of approach, basing its identity around pointing out the shortcomings of evolution – but it offers nothing of its own that is ultimately useful. Fundamentalism has great appeal to people because it claims to offer clear cut, strong answers to everything that mainstream Christianity is failing to meet for them, pointing out their shortcomings as a means to bolster their claims to having the answers. The problem is, their teachings are non-evolving and can’t endure the long run. It’s a quick fix for a long term problem. They are pushing off change.

 

They have become popular through offerings like Mega-Church communities with schools and day care for families, again exploiting for gain parents fears of sending their kids into the staunchly secular world where they won’t learn values and ethics in a purely scientific world, or to send you child to Catholic school where they might be molested by sexual deviants, etc. Not all families who go to these fundamentalist organizations really accept all the dogma, but the alternatives are less appealing to them.

 

Now to my point: It does not address matters of spiritual growth. Fundamentalism, like Intelligent Design Theory only offer quick and easy feel good answers to complex issues. In the long run they don’t give people what they are looking for either.

 

Your group is a sign of this evolution of Christianity into something other than the traditional, out-dated Northern European version of Christianity brought by our immigrant forbearers. As you said, there are those in your church who are open to the change, and those who want their flavor of traditional Christianity. What I see as a major difference in what you have to offer though is that it is forward thinking; it is about growth and becoming more. It addresses the true pursuit of something bigger than what has preceded it.

 

I believe that this or something like this is what inevitably will be what most people in the main will find addresses their spiritual, emotional, and social needs far more than those pounding their pulpits and crying “truth”. The majority of people just quietly do not respond to that and will eventually walk away – likely toward something of reason and moderation in spiritual beliefs. This is why I think your Synod is in favor of your efforts. They see this and are testing the water with this approach to the problem, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open_Minded,

 

Does this answer your question?

 

 

It begins to answer it ... I had never really thought along these lines until this thread sparked the question for me. Do you mean you think that Jesus may have regarded himself as a blood sacrifice in the sense of a sacrifical act - perhaps to appease others in the circumstances he found himself - as in to accept the course of action he believed to be the most peaceful - or a blood sacrifice in terms of appeasing God for the sins of all mankind?

 

thanks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It begins to answer it ... I had never really thought along these lines until this thread sparked the question for me. Do you mean you think that Jesus may have regarded himself as a blood sacrifice in the sense of a sacrifical act - perhaps to appease others in the circumstances he found himself - as in to accept the course of action he believed to be the most peaceful - or a blood sacrifice in terms of appeasing God for the sins of all mankind?

 

Hesitent:

 

You ask some very good questions.

 

1st

 

No one can truly know what Jesus was thinking during those last days and hours. I recognize this. I recognize that there are those who question whether Jesus lived, let alone died on a cross. And I recognize the legitimacy of their position - at this point in history there is no factual evidence one way or the other.

 

2nd

 

So, as to my beliefs. They are not that straight-forward. My user name - Open_Minded - describes my approach to these issues. Since - objectively speaking - it is impossible to know 1. whether Jesus lived, 2. if Jesus did die on a cross, and 3. what his thoughts were - one NEEDS to keep an open mind.

 

Because of these objective facts the best one can do is look at context.

 

Jesus was a man of his time and place - seeing himself as a "blood sacrifice" would have been in line with cultural thinking. But "blood sacrifice" for all of humanity's sins? I can't see any merit to that position. 1st of all the Aramaic word for "sin" is "khata" (The only reason I know this is because of the study our group is currently doing on the Aramaic words of Jesus). Anyway "khata" does not carry the same negative connotations as "sin" in western culture. I did a quick look up on "khata" and found the following (http://www.iloveulove.com/history/enlightenment.htm):

 

Two Aramaic words, “khata” and “bisha”, are rendered as sin and evil respectively. However, the concepts cued by these words in the language of Jesus is not normal to western thought. Each is an archery term – sin or khata representing “missing the target”, and bisha or evil representing “off target” where the arrow went when it missed. Thus in Aramaic these words appear as “not right” as opposed to their normal meaning of positive wrongs.

 

This is basically the same thing Neil Douglas-Klotz says on the CD study we are studying.

 

Anyway - going with this contextual information, and also looking at normal human responses to a situation such as Jesus found himself in - it seems reasonable that Jesus may have viewed his sacrifice for the human suffering he lived his life trying to ease.

 

When I said in an earlier post that I saw his death as a vicarious suffering, I meant that his life was lived is such a way as to help ease the suffering of his fellow Jews. Not only in concrete ways, by healing and such, but in ways such as teaching them how to live under the rule of the Roman government. His commands such as loving ones enemies, or the sermon on the mount, or to turn the other cheek. If "sin" was looked at more as "missing the mark" in his culture, then it would be my opinion that he viewed the cultural situation as one of missing the mark, much in the same way that America "missed the mark" during the Civil Rights Era when Martin Luther King gave his life for that "sin".

 

Jesus consistently taught his followers to live peacefully under Roman occupation. But he was also put to death in a way that Rome would put a resistence fighter to death. So, and I'm only asking, could Jesus have been a non-violent resister? We'll never know.... Easily I could be reading 21st century mindset into the situation. Obviously Martin Luther King and Ghandi are two men that I admire a great deal, and the Sermon on the Mount influenced them both.

 

So... getting back to your question. No I do not believe Jesus would have viewed his death as a blood sacrifice for all of humanity's sinful nature. I don't think his culture viewed "sin" the way we do, post-Augustine.

 

His followers certainly took up Jesus' sacrifice as one for all of humanity. But even that is different from the western/Augustine approach. His disciples were first out of a Hebrew/Aramaic mindset. They saw "sin" as missing the mark - not linked to a fallen "evil" nature at it is so often seen in the west.

 

Does this answer your question?

 

Antlerman. I really do want to respond to your early post, but need more time to frame my thoughts.

 

Both of you, thank you. This discussion is really helping me to articulate some things that had been moving about in my head, but I had never really written about. Writing and answering your questions helps me to put things in a fresher perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman. I really do want to respond to your early post, but need more time to frame my thoughts.

 

Both of you, thank you. This discussion is really helping me to articulate some things that had been moving about in my head, but I had never really written about. Writing and answering your questions helps me to put things in a fresher perspective.

Very much so the same from my perspective. Our conversations have spilled over into very long, involved conversations with several people in my life, who have found the topic intriguing and inspiring. An existentialist friend of mine has been inspired to crack open his books and consider these matters again, as some ground seems to have been lost over the last few years of just living out one's life, plus he has a 2 year old he needs to consider these questions for in sending him off for an education. I only hope that something from my perspectives may be of some value to you also along the way.

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.