Guest Author: Elena Margo Gould
"There are as many ways to God as there are created souls." (Sufi saying).
We are all standing in a different spot on the planet, seeing the world with our individual eyes, relating to God from our own hearts. We look to creation for connection, scan the horizon for a sign, comb the sand for broken pieces of the truth.
You turn inward, enter into the depths of your soul and (e)merge with the words God whispered to you in the dark still quiet.
You can share with others the wisdom you have gained; you can write it carefully in a Book. But no matter how much they study, they will only see the shadow of your experience.
I must speak to God myself.
My unfolding will not match yours. I will not be the same color, the same size, I will not have the same number of petals. Your Book can keep me company, but it cannot tell me how to unfurl into the flower that I am.
We can walk together, hand in hand, but we cannot enter the water in the exact same spot. We cannot hear the exact same Word.
Your path is only one path. Your Book is only one book.
Your hell is only one fantasy. Your God is only one face of the Divine.
Don’t let your Book trap you within its pages. Don’t limit God to ink on paper. Don’t mistake the map for the Way.
Live the Word that breathes and pulses and moves you to joyful Union.
"A donkey with a load of holy books is still a donkey." (Sufi saying).
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 354
It remains to be seen whether this is an unmitigated benefit since it's like eating the fruit the serpent gave Eve. If you believe ignorance is bliss, I hope it works for you. I prefer to have eaten of the fruit though to be holistically perceiving life--warts, hard knocks and all--is something I value.
Why? It seems truth seems to set us free, doesn't it? I envy those simple and pious enough to be content to see life in that way. I prefer an "NPR" approach and feel I have more choices in my existence, if that's a plus. It's not absolutely clear, is it? Not for me--sigh!
There will be those who are seriously asking and finding answers about life and existence and then those who spend their time and lives finding ways to distract themselves and prevent them from self-understanding.
The upside is that all the time spent online is a manifestation of human interconnectivity. The downside is a way to touch antennae to discuss superficial things and not really learning that much.
And parents of students. How much easier and faster is Google as opposed to fumbling through the "card catelog" or "Readers Guide to Periodical Literature". Do they even make that anymore?
Spending most of my waking hours painting in the peace and comfort of home, I've taken to being a conduit for all the fantastically exciting ideas and solutions offered on media--TV, radio (mainly NPR and BBC, and whereever
--routing them on to LYR and the other blogs I'm posting on.
There are so many smart people thinking up solutions and ideas to the challenges we're faced with that deserve more attn and currency. I feel useful in re-broadcasting them on the internet and hope some of them live to grow wings and fly with the help of internet connectivity.
What are useful tools for me are the radio and TV, a ready pen and notebook to jot down the keywords and link to the ideas, and the computer. Away we go! I feel useful, hope I'm not wasting my time.
I wrote briefly about the wide applicability of game theory and evolution (a type of game theory) here. It turns out that game theory governs more things (for instance, economics and sometimes psychology) than Darwin could have guessed.
"However, if evolution favors certain morals, regardless of the species in which they evolve, doesn't this mean that humans didn’t invent morals so much as discover them?"
If morals are discovered rather than invented, this puts them in the same realm as mathematical truths. Instead of being artifacts of our brain wiring, ethics may be part of the extrinsic reality of the universe."
(I find it absolutely side-splitting that folks who are convinced Darwin was wrong, wrong, wrong! are also complete believers in the wisdom of the market...)
Climate change is a harder problem, since it would require people to change their everyday behavior. (But you're right -- people can be denialists on one level, and still act as if they accept the basic premise on some other level...)
(Ask him if he likes that.) :)
Regarding theorems, my feeling is that even if the hypothesis is invented, the proof is discovered, but it could be that nothing separates "invented" and "discovered" here except such feelings.
Me. too. We don't have much choice-- it's coming whether we want it or not. (Although I've seen that Obama is pretty good at doing things that help to secure American interests).
Companies (large enough to move abroad) don't create jobs "where they are needed". They create them where they can pay the workers less, provide fewer benefits, pay less in taxes, and have fewer environmental and worker protection regulations to comply with. (Plus a few more things--the cost of energy, security, etc.)
Are you sure about this? I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you exclaim "Your God" Is there somewhere where I can read a description of His attributes?
-Mark
There you go again! You keep using this term God, yet it is completely without any objective meaning for me. Can you describe Who or what you are talking about or point to some description of His or its attributes? Thank you Elena!
-Mark
I have a sneaky suspicion that my description will not be satisfactory, but I've done the best I can for now! I apologize in advance!
Would you allow others to entertain personal concepts of God and accept that that's OK, we're allowed freedom of worship in whatever way we find works for us and doesn't harm others? To quarrel may be interesting but I believe any insistence of only as limited view of (God, It, even He/She/IT) is just that--limited. If you don't allow that right to worship, then I believe that exclusivity is maybe necessary for those who want ultimate answers and though it would be comforting re: belief and religion, I don't believe that's possible or even right.
I prefer to think of God (certainly not antthropomorphic) as a force, a property of Creation and esxistence, like say gravity, electricity, etc.
I even go so far as to say Creation is like a developing organism in a big Petrie dish, developing merrily given continued appropriate conditions. The omega point of this evolution is indeterminate but it seems we develop modifications that further our further survival in an enhanced way.
When we castigate God for allowing bad things to happen, I see it that the hands that created us, if that was what indeed the case, those hands and that God backed off to allow us to duke it out or figure out how to co-exist without self-destructing, It's how I counter "God works in mysterious ways, his wonder to behold" when we have to accept all the bad evil things humans can do when nature doesn't also takes away beleagured people.
"I prefer to think of God (certainly not antthropomorphic) as a force, a property of Creation and esxistence, like say gravity, electricity, etc."
Interesting. Would you say that God preceded existence?
I do not envision God as any anthropomorphic being but simply a force, like gravity or light.
Just as there are more than one "definitions" of God (GOD and god(s)) ... there just must be different definitions of the universe going around ...
I maintain that many, if not most, people view the universe as those things sensed by their 5 objective senses ... the "material" universe ...
In order to adequately address what GOD amounts to, one must see the UNIverse as ALL INclusive ... that which covers all prospects that make IT up ... including the yet unknown POTENTIALS ... ALL and NOthing ... (+) and (-) which includes the opposites of the OBJECTIVE, the SUBJECTIVE ... which, under WHATEVER classification would include the Black Matter, Black Energy and whatever else may be related ... especially the as yet little known QUANTUM realm... IMnsHO.
(He, She, It) was party to it, and the stuff, the stardust was also. The fortuitous convening of the two (simultaneously) resulted in Creation. Without "God", no Creation. Without stardust matter, no "God", Creator.
Plausible or not?
Cyclical universes is an interesting idea, and for all we know, it could be true. (I don't know if we would ever be able to prove it, though, since all our science is defined by and operates within this universe). But ultimately, it just adds another turtle to the pile... Each additional turtle is further away from us, but it's still a turtle, and not an answer. :)
People have strong, persistent and almost unbudgeable intuitions about how things are. Some people feel absolutely convinced that the universe has a beginning and an end. Some people are absolutely convinced that if the universe inflates, it MUST later deflate.
This kind of certainty baffles and fascinates me. As far as I can tell, cosmologists have the same sort of intuitions, and thus fall into various camps... Where do these intuitions come from? If we all had the same intuition (as, for instance, we all share the concept of "cause and effect", despite its shortcomings), I could posit that this intuition was adaptive. With several, competing (but strongly held!) intuitions, I begin to think of game theory...
Can you accept this? As I say, I'm going along figuring it out as I go.
??
1. They seem to have no bones, so they pile exceedingly well.
2. Since we are not sure about the ultimate creation, we could put Schrodinger's cat on the bottom. He exists in an indefinite state and will remain there until observed.
I like the idea of Schrödinger's cat at the bottom, except for the problem of there not being a bottom. But then maybe that can be swept under uncertainty as well.
Frank, I don't understand what you mean by "Creation" if matter (stuff/stardust) already exists--that was what I was saying. When people speak about the origins of the universe, they usually mean how the stuff/stardust got here.
Would the idea of an earthworm farm underneath the cages to recycle all the waste be a help or not? Can earthworms do that? Then the earthworm waste could be recycled as fertilizer?
What do you or anyone say?
The problem isn't in the natural environment of the hens, so earthworms wouldn't help. (Hens and salmonella reached a modus vivendi long ago.) The problem is that the hens are kept in unnatural concentrations and dosed with antibiotics. Just as pre-sanitation cities and modern-day refugee camps breed epidemics among humans, so do industrial egg operations among hens. And to make matters worse, each gigantic operation has a substantial market share, so a single outbreak can hit thousands of people.
There's also those hog and cattle concentrations where the runoff into rivers and bodies of water is also a big threat of disease spread.
But capitalism being what it is, can we turn the clock back. It seems we need to but money and politics will often (usually) trump doing the right thing, humane treatment of the animals we farm and eat.
As I hear, the hen farmer is saying hen feed is maybe the culprit.
??
Aloha, Frank
Aloha, Frank
I love this post, and I think I am falling in love with you. (Dont be alarmed. I fall in love with practically everybody. Im harmless).
I hope that everyone sees and understands the important message behind your words. They apply to so many issues and situations. Of course they do fly in the face of the concept of an objective reality, which all must agree is true, and that allows for no subjective interpretation or nuance. But I think the more we learn, the more we find that in many cases (not all to be sure) what we think of as objective reality.... really isnt.
Thanks and congratulations. Lovely job.
For example, I had no idea that Losing Your Religion was a group. I merely thought it was an ongoing posting subject of Ann's. But now I'm a member and think I may have some writing that would fit.
I keep learning from the unfolding lotus that is Gather.
This part really caught my eye! Elena this is a lovely writing with great visuals!
Ann, thanks for the invite!
Just this morning, while listening to commentary regarding a political issue, I detected an underlying theme of spirituality. I could not help but to wonder..."why not?"
Why not allow yourself to see a situation with a fresh perspective? How often do we, mostly out of conditioning and habit, allow our perspectives to be dictated by society?
There is so much available for us on our journey, an abundance of discoveries, all waiting for us once we allow the shift to a new perception.
An endless supply to the Divine connection, the Great Spirit, where anything is possible...
Yakoki!
Thanks for joining the conversation!
Yes, we all have our own unique thoughts of God, but still we are interconnected just as the feet are interconnected with our ankles, our hands or thoughts of walking. I believe God is Everything and within Everything, but that we have freedom of thought that is easily influenced by our culture. There are basic precepts in every religious scripture I've read from B'Hai to Hindu to Christian. The basic precept is to take care of other people both friend and foreigner. If we don't follow such precepts, why do we seek God's blessing? God is life and I believe respects those who love both their own and other life. The Holy scriptures are a guide for helping life and not for condemning life that way too many so called Christians in the USA either do not understand, do not believe or have their mind controlled by some cult leader.
The other point that really jumped out at me: "The Holy scriptures are a guide for helping life and not for condemning life." YES!!! I have every respect for what someone wants to share, I am ready to receive the wisdom contained therein, but por favor do not beat me over the head with a weighty tome! :D
As a seminary student, I really wondered about the hypocrisy of my church leaders. I wondered so much that I finally quit the church in disgust. I look at the Lord's Prayer and one part I think is often overlooked. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.' For those wanting forgiveness, but filled with unforgiving hatred, I do not see any blessing deserved.
Yes, true but strokes are always welcome and feel awful good and one from God--what can we say? Compliments, especially sincere or even blarney if not meant to deceive (get out your BS meter).
I love to compliment people esp. if they're cute or they can reciprocate (oops, I mean with appreciation, not anything mercenary...!)
Amazingly, after a couple of decades as a lapsed Catholic and about 10 years as a Buddhist, I still need to hear those words. Childhood programming is potent.
And yes, I believe that coercing people to believe or think something is wrong. (Coercion of action may be acceptable to prevent harm.) Hell is simply a coercive fable, imo. (And yes, Buddhism has it, too, so I'm not just hitting on Christianity here.)
As far as science has been able to show, the mind is part of the body. Which brings up another question that's been bothering me.
I frequently hear (particularly from psychologists) that "We are not our bodies." It seems to me that this statement assumes the existence of a soul or an afterlife, which are not normally subjects for psychology. What do you make of this?
Ann has also accurately described what psychologists say in response to this:
"We are not our bodies."
My husband is a psychologist and we never, ever agree on what I consider to be obvious:
we are bodies; our mind, our soul, our emotions, which have a proven physiological place in the brain.,.,.
but my husband insists that our mind is not our brain.
I did read in a book on Children''s Near Death Experiences that the father of Neurology, Wilder Penfield, of McGill, believed in his old age that he had in fact found a physical location for the soul, that it exists in the temple area.
I crossed over in '96 duriing a very ill time.
my husband has always believed in some possibility of an afterlife, despite what he said most science does not,
i thihk that physical scientists, like my parents, in neuropharmacology at mcgil, that hard science is evolving, like all other fields,
this laptop keyboard is so difficult still even after two months, because i bang the heck of out it, from years of practice on the piano and typewriters and desktops,
So you experienced an afterlife, possibly your soul traveled there? That would tend to support what your husband says.
PS: "Butting in" is welcome here!
my soul traveled there, most definitely and it came back.
i was pushed through a fast rollercoaster speed tunnel- i never go on coasters - and the light blinded me and i tried to hide my eyes but had no hands with which to hide my eyes.
i got dumped in blackness, i looked around i looked down, no body, no hands no arms, no body. i was in blackness, it was warm, no stars, and i was very very very happy, i knew then i was in the afterlife., my father who died 20 years earlier spoke to me, he was a filmy face and bust and said
this is not your time Kathryn, ( my father actually said kathy, my family name) you have much work to do with Stephen and Kristina. you have to go back.
i tried to tell him i wanted to stay but i had no mouth with which to speak. i wanted to reach out to him to hug him but i had no arms.
then i was put back in the speeding bullet coaster light tunnel.
i was in my bed and thought
that was not a dream.
i had been putting notes under my pillow for my kids who were then 6 and 8 8in case they found me dead.
i had had a bad brain injury 3 years earlier and still exper9encing a lot of swelling,. i had ice packs on my head and was in 55 degree room in the summer.
i knew i had crossed over,
i didn't tell people for a few years, but so many have experienced similar exp,. and not always in a hospital environment.
my baby sister in California had a cardiac arrest in July in the hosp, and saw herself above her body as they put the paddles on her,
i said, absolutely. people see this and people go through what i went through.
there is also a reason people have seen ghosts for centuries. some pe9ple see them,. i have not but i know pe9ople on gather and in real life who haeve seenb ghosts and who have crossed over,
i have no fear of death or the after life now, it is very sad for those left on earth but it is a happy peaceful place full of bliss for those who are no longer on earth, it also makes grief much easier to deal with,
@ Jerry - that is an interesting metaphor - it makes sense to equate the mind with an ephemeral signal that can't be pinned down, but can only be received and broadcast through the instrument. Perhaps when we die our signal can be rebroadcast!
As for "We are not our bodies"... Jeez, this gets tricky fast. I'd absolutely say that our bodies are a condition necessary for our existence. (I don't believe in disembodied spirits.) I don't know, however, that a mind couldn't be run on some other type of hardware. Remember the meat story?
"I don't know, however, that a mind couldn't be run on some other type of hardware."
Sure. That hardware is currently called a computer. Are you postulating that our mind might simply move over to different hardware after we die?
The only problem I see with this is that their senses don't seem to go with them when they leave their body. A number of ER physicians have placed messages and bumper stickers on the tops of ER cabinets, so they can be read only from above. No one having a near-death experience has yet been able to read those stickers.
I should hasten to add that I don't think this fact in any way diminishes the spiritual importance of such experiences.
hi if you see this can you tell us?
that eventually people will probably report back that they saw some strange message on top of the cabinets.
Nope. I see no evidence of that. And I am against making up brand new complexity to supposedly explain existing complexity, lol.
But I gotta say, it isn't impossible, at least perhaps in the future.
It's ironic that the center of the computer industry is called Silicon Valley because silicon is important in high-tech devices, which of course include the computers being used to develop artificial intelligence.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0337
Ann Marcaida Sep 20, 2010, 6:47pm EDT
That would be quite a breakthrough in the world of metaphysics.
...not sure if we are communicating here,.
I simply mentioned that IF doctors and ER personnel routinely POST messages on top of cabinets, that people who DO crossover and are in a hospital room and are out of their body, so to speak, and looking down, that - eventually they would likely SEE those messages - since patients see and hear during their out of body experiences. My sister saw people work on her and heard them talking. She did not see any messages.
So I am not sure what you meant by
Ann Marcaida Sep 20, 2010, 6:47pm EDT
That would be quite a breakthrough in the world of metaphysics.
You'd said that people who crossed over do not seem to have brought their s\nses with them because they have not reported seeing or reading the signs posted on top of ER cabinets. I know from my experience and my sister knows from her experience that we do have our senses - I saw my father and grandmother and heard my father speak; my sister saw the doctors and nurses and heard them speak; -- that my sister did not see any signs or messages posted on top of the ER cabinets speaks only to two or three possible explanations - that there WERE no messages, that there WERE messages but she didn't see them, that there WERE messages but didn't remember them.
People indeed do bring their senses with them when they have out of body - near death - clinical death - cardiac arrest - experiences; they see and hear everything going on in the ER room.
That has been observed as you know, many times and has been explained by various researchers as exactly what it seems - that people seem to leave their body on their cardiac-arrested body on the ER table while they are overhead in their soul, observing the goings on.
Hundreds of cases like this exist, as I know you are aware, since your own MIL crossed over during an asthma attack.
I just do not understand how 'metaphysics' or the phenomena not explicable by science enters in here. My parents were scientists, and they found it a perfectly reasonable explanation, as do many physicians, such as my physician. Physicians have been party to this phenomena for quite some time.
So I think we are approaching the point from different angles.
You and I agree that it is a very interesting phenomena, but it is, in fact, easily explained these days by science - not by a scientific fact - because it does not lend itself easily to empiricism - but by observation by practitioners.
Here in Boston, many doctors believe this happens because they see it.
My point about patients not reporting back about messages posted on the ER cabinets was to explain the following: either not ENOUGH ER rooms posted messages or posted them inconsistently or patients might not have PAID attention to them, or some other explanation.,
My own most "intense" spiritual experiences mostly happened with me alone in bed ... and during those, I periodically checked the time on my digital clock on the nightstand ... that being my way of confirming the reality (not "just" a dream) of it all ...
May I submit that Word is half of it for those who go by thought expressed in word but I believe, pragmatist that I am that talking (writing and reading included) is half and walking the walk is the other half.
By that I mean that info in word is knowledge and the wiser the better but that it needs to be translated into action and the more expressing agape the better, though loving action of any sort is fine by me.
Best regards to all. Hoping the day is a beautiful one with time to rest and reflect.
Aloha,
That's pretty much my Buddhist practice in a nutshell.
I'm not sure in what context this was said but I submit that we humans are bodies and souls. I've heard and believe that the body is the house of the soul.
Maybe souls can flitz around without bodies and bodies can walk around with little acknowledgement of and even deny their soul/spiritual component.
Yes, as adults, if we are brave, we must un-learn what we have learned as children...
Oh Ann! Leave me a ray of hope! :D Can I strive in that direction knowing I'll never get all the way there?
Well yes, but don't chuck everything. The title of the book: Evrything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten"--sort of true but as mature adults we need to discriminate between what is useful and what's not so and then divest what you see you don't need any more.
I also submit there's positive learnng which is clear and given with kindness and then there may be negative learning that isn't pleasant and requires overcoming the hurt to either shape up and learn or else wind up "showing them!" Both pos and neg works well but I'd choose the kinder gentler anyday.
In presenting these ideas about belief and religion I think it's really wise to go about it in a Socratic dialogue, not to tell but to ask and listen to ascertain what the child understands and to inform them there are other ways to understand faith and that when they get more ideas, they are free and may change their mind. They shouldn't feel they have to form ideas that shut the door on finding out other ideas and as we get on in life, our ideas can change. I think we need to tell kids it's not a fighting matter, that even ideas about religion can be discussed, thought about, changed and maybe find something that really makes good sense to them. There's no hurry, truth awaits.
There should be no Catch-22 involved since there would ideallly be no dualism involve but a discussion of appropriate information of all sides.
Paranoid speaks of both "poles", the good and bad, as being "delusional" :-)
(FYI, Terminally ill patients often live longer (and have unexpected remissions) if they opt for hospice rather than hospital care).
He's discussed on (Being with Krista Tippett) on today's show I believe.
Elena -- I'll have to look into that book, thanks.
Sufism and the Ultimate Difficult Task
by Joe Good
If you search for "religious affiliation = Sufi", you get 3 people, one of whom is Richard Lynn Livesay and the other two of whom are defunct.
I consider my Sufi experience a hight point among high points in NYC. It may seem counterintuitive thinking of spirituality as finding a haven in NYC but in the 60s there were oodles of opps to sit a learn at the feet of great spiritual teachers of all stripes.
After whirling and chanting at St. Paul's Chapel on the subway headed home, still grooving with the vibes, I envisioned myself hurtling toward nirvana. Zowie!
You see, great minds twirl in same circles!
libramoon C. Sep 19, 2010, 7:11pm EDT
http://www.mythicimagination.org/Mine/Sufism.html
Sufism and the Ultimate Difficult Task
by Joe Good
Why is entering the water such a common symbol for spiritual development?
(I never knew that!)
There's fire but that would be uncomfy, to say the least! Low grade radiation work for anyone?
(- ;
Yep. Food.
Basho's Footprints
This is a wonderful contribution, (personally, quite timely) and as always, a fine conversation that follows. Thank you!
No, it's not strictly rationed internet time, (though Gathering seems to be excruciatingly slow per page), just far more time being spent in farmstead-family pursuits. The season is slowing down now though so I hope to be more of a participant. Great to see things are still rolling, and richly so, here at LYR.
Thank you, Elena, for the beautiful posting.
I really think it was studying Taoism (mid-20's) that turned it around. The very first line of the Tao Te Ching can be translated as "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." YES! Another person cannot tell me who or what God is! God is unspeakable! And though this idea was occasionally presented in my early catechism, in the next breath I would be told something very specific about that dude named "God," and I was not allowed to question that detail because it had been rubberstamped by the Pope or some such.
Phooey. (That is my rational adult conclusion on the matter. :D )
Once I allowed myself to pursue my own connection with divinity, which involved taking responsibility for my own trip, I recognized that God/Tao/Oneness had been there all along, even though it was hidden behind someone else's representation of it.
The Tao is a literary masterpiece in that it talks about "God" and one's spiritual path in the only way one can speak of the unspeakable. It spends a lot of time telling us what these things are not.
Your reasoning of 'All That Is and Isn't', rings so accurately with what my experience has been and which has become not only a source of freedom, strength, and a honing of humility for me but allows for a fine appreciation of the world of humanity, (and the lack there of).
Bravo!
Why the Western Mystery Tradition Is Important: A Hermetic/Wiccan Apologia
Posted by Lykathea, Queen of Squirrels on September 12, 2010 at 10:00pm
While surfing the net, I came upon this article http://www.jewcy.com/faithhacker/wicca_and_other_fake_religions on a Jewish pop-culture site. Right below it, a commenter stated:
"From a personal perspective...yeah, Wicca's not my cup of tea either. It's not just because I believe in one God, rather than a
god-and-goddess. It's that Wicca lacks the same quality that I wrote
about in last weekend's comment about Jewish Renewal: a solid
intellectual basis. Unlike Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and
Hindus, Wiccans don't have a tradition of sacred texts to study, debate,
or extend by writing commentaries and other works."
Expand the term Wiccan to where it comes from: Western Pagan, and there you have an intellectual tradition as old as Hinduism and Judaism. Kabbalah? Pythagoras enumerates to 864, suggesting his affiliation with the magical square of Mercury. He was addressed not by his name, but as 'The Master' - which is 864 in Hebrew (Hulse, 46). A tradition of sacred texts? How about the Book of Coming Forth by Day, Works and Days, Theogony, and the Poetic Edda. Commentaries? How about all the commentaries on the works of Greek philosophers and, for a more modern example, books like Initiation in the Aeon of the Child, Magical and Mystical System of the A:. A:., and many, many other commentaries on Aleister Crowley's channeled writings.
Wicca and mainstream neo-Paganism is the latest popular sect in the Western Hermetic Tradition. Wicca, Thelema, Golden Dawn, Rosicrucianism and older traditions like Gnosticism, the cult of Isis, and Neoplatonism are different sects of this tradition just like Reform, Orthodox and Conservative are all types of Judaism, or Theravada, Pure Land and Zen are all types of Buddhism. Moreover, neo-Paganism, unlike the Judeo-Christian tradition, actively welcomes change and innovation. Pagan faiths are also accepting of other traditions: Pagans accept Pagan-Jews and Pagan-Christians more readily than either Judaism or Christianity accepts them.
Neo-Paganism / Hermeticism is important in the world of religion because it posits the immanence of deity - the idea that Nature is Divine - rather than a transcendent ideal that sees earthly existence as inferior to Heaven or Nirvana, and offers theological openness much like Buddhism does: one could be monotheist, polytheist, pantheist or atheist. This is why I am not a Theravada Buddhist: I do not see myself as needing salvation. I understand that many traditions of Judaism and Hinduism also posit immanence, but Hinduism is arguably an Eastern Pagan faith, and most Judaism is strictly monotheistic. Neo-Paganism is arguably the most accessible major, multicultural religion in the West that posits both immanence and theological openness.
Another special feature of Neo-Paganism is its acceptance of magic and mysticism. Other religions, in particular Christianity and Judaism, seek to restrict magic and mysticism, either completely or only to one part of the population (such as men over age 40). I argue that the acceptance of inquiry into magic and mysticism gives neo-Paganism an intellectual edge: one is allowed to practice and verify magical and mystical results for oneself instead of listening to what others have written.
I am drawn to neo-Paganism - in particular the path of Hermeticism - *because* of its intellectual tradition. World mythologies sparked my youthful imagination. The study of comparative religion drew me further from favoring one mythos or the other and toward a comprehensive study with an emphasis on magic. Now, I am not averse to becoming a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Muslim. But being a magician would put me out of favor with many members of these religions. I would have to put out debate in favor of 'faith'. I would have to accede to one cultural bias, one path of salvation instead of experiencing life's entirety from Hermeticism's mystical, interfaith perspective. Having been raised nonreligious, I cannot adhere to anything as a childhood tradition. But if I were raised Christian, Jewish, etc. I would also study & practice Hermeticism in addition to my birth religion. There's room for everyone in the syncretic world of Modern Witchcraft, Hermeticism, and neo-Pagan traditions.
LeGuin expressed this metaphorically in one of her novels (it might be The Dispossessed).
In it, a Taoist physicist named Shevek has his mind wiped completely free of memories. However Shevek instructs his assistant to repeat the first four line of The Tao to him after his mind-wipe. Eventually these lines lead Shevek back to his true path, the one he was on before he lost his memories.
I don't see myself needing salvation so much as improvement.
I took that to mean a lot more than the idea that "one is easily led upon a false path". I took it to mean the whatever path we humans can conceive of following is not the real thing--that remains forever ineffable, undefinable, and out of our reach. In other words, when any of us speak about the Tao, we're not speaking about the Tao. The details we fill in are all illusions.
From my own point of view, however, there should be a sort of natural flow to life when one is on their Tao (and I think I'm off mine as much as I'm on it).
When I'm in the flow, I feel as if the universe is somehow cooperating with me. Decisions are made easily, synchronicity is common, and if I need guidance from my subconscious mind, it shows up.
When I'm "off" my Tao, I feel as if I'm swimming through some kind of heavy, resistant liquid to get things done. I may feel an overwhelming urge to do something different or unusual, as as often as not that action may push me back to my Tao.
(The question now is "Does this make sense to anyone but me?")
Ann, thanks. I'll continue to think that that first line means more than that, though.
I think everyone experiences the phenomenon you describe. The "heavy, resistant" thing sounds very familiar. Liquid sounds pretty good, though--those days are actually navigable.
Shira, I understand the difference between the map and the territory, but "the way you can go", for me, would have to include all those techniques of "letting go of the map". (A "technique" is much like a map, I think--a new one to replace the old one we're throwing away.) I don't see the process by which they could be exempted from the human condition and the imperfections and general bumbling that go with it.
Yes.
"I took it to mean the whatever path we humans can conceive of following is not the real thing--that remains forever ineffable, undefinable, and out of our reach. In other words, when any of us speak about the Tao, we're not speaking about the Tao. The details we fill in are all illusions."
The Tao would be an illusion in so much as everything we perceive is an illusion. We don't perceive true reality, only the reality our senses represent.
Swimming upstream may feel no different than swimming downstream. It is only when you look at the shore that you notice you are not moving.
As to the "Paths" to follow ... their is no such thing, you must create your own, and then only in retrospect can you look back and see it.
When I sought something better than life offered me, I sought Truth Only, as I did not find it on earth and I was finally open to it being available from a spiritual realm ... that is what I finally got ... IMnsHO ... it has more than satisfied me ... and thus I always recommend it to others ... yet I have also found truth to be relative on this realm, that being a part of the Greater Truth which can only be complete and absolute from the view of said GOD... again, IMnsHO.
"In a boat down a fast-running creek, it feels like trees on the bank are rushing by. What seems to be changing around us is rather the speed of our craft leaving this world." (Rumi)
Ann--that's exactly what I mean. I started with the idea that "everything we perceive [and pursue]" is imperfect (admittedly, that's an axiom for me) and saw a confirmation of that in the first like of the Tao Te-Ching, which seems to acknowledge that whatever we can say about the Tao , and the extent to which we could follow it, is subject to the same limitations. (Not the Tao itself, by the way, if one believes, like the writer of those lines obviously did, that the real thing really exists. That would be perfect. It's the human approaches to it that aren't.)
One of the things I like about the Tao Te-Ching are all of the contemporary renditions, shaped to reflect on particular applications.
Some years ago, the Easter Bunny left, in my teen daughter's basket, a version designed for parents. I think EB was hoping she might walk a mile or two with an altered view. It seemed to help a rocky time between us!
Indeed... and Zen emphasizes throwing away the techniques as they cease to be useful, until ultimately, no technique is needed.
This is a sneak into The Parent's Tao Te Ching. It's a beautiful book and very useful.
Ade ~ (no longer housebound but once initiated to Gathering ... well ...)
"until ultimately, no technique is needed"
There's no Way, then. :)
My point here is not to "attack" any beliefs, of course--I'm trying to show how we always end up crashing into a paradox as we approach ultimate explanations/solutions. I still think that is exactly what the first line of the Tao Te-Ching meant, but of course I'm as likely to be projecting what I already believe into a text as anyone.
suffering strikes like a tiger from the tall grass, snatching us from one life into another without cause or warning.
One thing I love about Buddhism is that it's all right to feel that the world doesn't always make sense. I used to waste so much time and energy trying to figure out how things fit into a pattern. Now, if I don't see a cause that I can do something about, I can just accept an event and deal with it.
Stripped of much of the mumbo-jumbo I experience with Buddhist dogma and tales, I feel it offers answers to some of the existential questions that other beliefs and religions do not.
I think Americans have interjected a more stripped-down everyday pragmatic Buddhism. By that I mean not so much dogma other than some of the basic precepts and teaching.
I can go into this in more detail but mention karma, rebirth, reincarnation, life/death.
“When one defines oneself as Pagan,
it means she or he follows an earth or nature religion,
one that sees the divine manifest in all creation.
The cycles of nature are our holy days, the earth is our temple,
its plants and creatures our partners and teachers.
We worship a deity that is both male and female,
a mother Goddess and a father God,
who together created all that is, was, or will be.
We respect life, cherish the free will of sentient beings,
and accept the sacredness of all creation.” --
Edain McCoy
It does to me enough to make me believe you have a good understanding of the Tao. It is something like walking on a path that's slightly mounded and easy to slip off but with continual attn and watching your steps, you'll be OK.
Like tightrope walking, the risk maybe as dire for those serious about "doing the right thing".
??
That is to me just what the human Jesus experienced, only he attempted to tie it in with his Jewish beliefs of that day and age ... a natural and normal thing to do ... for him.
To consider such folks anything more than relative gods, is doing the whole concept a dis-service ... to worship them as God becomes a "religious" experience ... the natural generic Spiritual experience should be a relationship with the ONEness ... but through the Spiritual Soul that resides withIN each of us,our personal relationship to That ALL ... our eternal aspect that knows how we truly relate to it ALL ...
Said Soul should not be "worshiped" by placing a divine likeness to it attaching a specific "name" to it with religious connotations, other than a generic name that represents all such Spiritual Truths of the highest order concerning UNconditional Love ... which it really is.
Then when one makes that personal connection to IT ... it is as a heavenly wedding of the highest UNconditional Love where forgiveness is always available with due respect for the person who continually strives for the perfection offered by highest truth ... as relative as that is on this realm ... it is all about INtention ... I personally, in having such a relationship, cannot conceive of people settling for anything less such as a simple feeling of a simple Oneness only ... without wanting to use it to relate always with the ALL in Love and Truth.
I think there's a big part of me that's pagan, how could I not be living in Hawaii?
To Whom this may concern (an open letter)
Thankyou for this blessing of my existence (the most part of my being).
I feel so blessed to be part of the band of all the others who believe as I do that the warding of this habitat is a sacred duty. To work for the wellbeing of all those who share our home/planet, including the non-human sentient ones and even the inanimate parts and the cosmos is vital to promoting Life.
TY for this wondrous Creation!
Sincerely, Frank
I should probably phrase my question more explicitly: when poets speak about worshiping their beloved, are they responding to an external force or demand, or are they expressing an unavoidable internal reality?
To me worship implies that the worshiper is "less than" the worshiped. This is appropriate for a relationship with a deity, but in my opinion doesn't bode well for a relationship with another human.
Personal experience tells me that if a man places me on a pedestal ("worships" me), he usually has bit of the "madonna/whore" complex and will be disenchanted when I fall off it (which I will, being human).
Either they are using worship in a metaphorical sense, or they are under the influence of that very powerful internal opiate called dopamine, which is responsible for the giddy highs of "falling in love."
That state seems to be what is described by many as a spiritual experience, and is frequently celebrated on LYR if it occurs while contemplating nature, meditating, whirling in a Sufi ceremony, etc. On the other hand, if a Christian church is involved, what many associate with the word "worship" is being forced as children to sit in uncomfortable pews and listen to boring sermons and old people's music for extended periods of time. What I'm trying to say is that perhaps in its original, primary sense, the word is supposed to mean much like what the whirling dervishes experience, and (other) religious people, even Christians, might just mean that when they use it instead of the moldy-pewed-stuffy-church-you-don't- want-to-be-in scenario.
(Regarding the dopamines, is there anything that happens in a human mind that could not be reduced to biochemistry (if we knew more, of course)? And if there isn't, does that mean there's no point in talking about anything else but biochemistry--that's all there is to us, and anything else is illusion?)