"In every sizeable community, one finds atheists who think there is not God, polytheists who acknowledge many gods, monotheists who believe there is a single God, and mystics who say there is only God." (Huston Smith)
The Unitarian minister we met in Part I, Peter Tufts Richardson, feels that it's important to pay attention to the works of religious, spiritual, and philosophical teachers in traditions other than own. Among other things, this may enlarge our world view and make us more tolerant of differing faiths. But how can we identify which teachers in other faiths might be helpful to us?
Richardson believes that our inherent personality type (see links at bottom) helps to determine which parts of any faith or religion are attractive, meaningful, and/or helpful to us. (For more information, click here to read Part I).
Psychologists believe it's possible to determine the personality profiles of people who are long dead, provided that we have reliable records of their words and deeds. This has been done for all of the world's major religious founders. Because we now know the personality profiles of many famous people, it's a simple matter to figure out which spiritual teachers have personalities similar to our own (see Part III). And although the writings of like-minded teachers will probably resonate with you, Richardson also advocates reading the works of teachers whose personalities are opposite to yours.
For example, anyone with an Intuitive personality like me may be attracted to mystical teachers. I've found that the writings of the mystical teachers from different traditions tend to converge, and they all seem to say much the same thing.
Here are quotes from three mystical teachers in different religious traditions. Can you match the quote to the author's religion? One is Muslim, one is Buddhist, and one is Christian. (Answers at the end of article*)
"I am so renewed that all nature seems renewed around me and with me. The sky seems to be a pure, a cooler blue, the trees a deeper green. The whole world is charged...I feel fire and music under my feet.
"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."
"Like a dream, whatever I enjoy will become a memory; the past is not revisited."
Richardson believes that each of the four personality types (see Part I) has a different spiritual journey. Chances are, depending on your personality, your spiritual quest will be different from your neighbor's, and also different from that of the person who sits next to you at church.
Based on his long years as a minister, Richardson has described the spiritual journey of each of the four personality types (click here for type descriptions). Richardson has also identified a number of "mentors"-- religious teachers and leaders, past and present, of matching personality type-- for each journey. Interestingly, each of the four journeys has at least one major religious founder with a matching personality (see Part III). That's good news for all of us.
Sadly, Richardson doesn't fit atheists and agnostics into his scheme, although he clearly feels that some Eastern traditions support these mindsets. Personally, I suspect that most atheists and agnostics are people with a very strong "Thinker" bias.
Richardson does not contend that anyone should or must convert to a religion in which the founder's personality type matches their own. The spirituality in which we were raised is deeply imbedded in our psyche, and it's better to integrate it into our adult belief system rather than exorcise it.
However, Richardson makes it clear that we should:
1) Pay attention to the teachings of mentors matching our personality type, no matter what their religious affiliation.
2) Use this knowledge as a guide in deciding which parts of any spiritual tradition are useful to us.
As religious scholar and mythologist Joseph Campbell has pointed out, all religions are true. All constitute a valid roadmap, providing that we interpret them metaphorically, using the full abilities of our heart and our mind. The tricky part is finding the path (or lack thereof) that works for you.
*First quote from Thomas Merton (Christian/Catholic), second quote from Rumi (Muslim), third quote from Shantideva (Buddhist).
To determine your personality type, take one of these online tests. You will receive an answer with four letters, but for the purposes of this article we are interested in only the two middle letters:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/ (Take "Jung Typology Test")
www.similarminds.com (Click on "16-Type Jung Personality Tests", then take "Jung Tests IESNFTJP".)
http://www.personalitypathways.com/ (Abbreviated version)
Photo Credits: Purple Teapot Mandala by Susan B. (Gather), Raindrops on Leaves II by Moggy K. (Gather), Sandpainting by Gabriel Ortega.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 134
This link seems to be missing.
You are too fast for me! It takes a few minutes to link up two articles that you have just published. I think all of the links are working now.
Alarm bells are going off! I am not ready to buy into this statement.
References here.
My alarm bells went off, too, until I realized that more than one author/psychologist has done this, and they are in general agreement.
There were a few disagreements. For instance St. Teresa of Avila (whom I don't cite)is listed both as an NF and an NT. I have avoided discussing any mentor whose personality type is debated.
These references are the primary ones, but there are others:
Oswald, Roy and Otto Kroeger. (1988) Personality Type and Religious Leadership. New York: The Alban Institute.
Kroeger, Otto and Janet Thuesen. (1988) Type Talk. New York: Dealcorte Press.
Richardson, Peter Tufts (1996). Four Spiritualities: Expressions of Self, Expressions of Spirit. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Quite an adventure, Ann.
(Note: I too was frustrated by the link that WM H. illuminated.)
I'm somewhat surprised by how much Part II readership has diminished since Part 1. I'm struck by the subliminal contrast of title words: "You" vs "Other."
My thought is that most want to absorb themselves in themselves and far fewer wish to wander into the land of "Other". Whatchathink?
Like a fine wine, I'll save Part III for tomorrow over morning coffee.
That would be me. I don't care who believes what or why. I don't care how I got here or where I'm going. As long as I'm happy with me today, I'm cool. I'm pretty sure that makes me odd, but I don't mind being odd either.
I'm reading, and you do a beautiful presentation, Ann.
Thank you for reading. You will enjoy the metaphysical discussion on Part III.
This very human habit does have value, but not the value we generally attribute to it. In the purest sense any time you're looking at a piece of the universe, no matter how small, you're looking at all of it at the same time. Everything that's in the universe is in every piece of the universe. However, our perceptions of everything we 'see' are limited by our nature. We perceive things the way we do because we have to, not because things are the way see them.
So I would have to say that for me, spirituality is an effort to define how our perceptions misrepresent what we perceive because of their built-in limitations. Think of a telescope which looks at things very far away. What it actually sees is a product of everything which distorts the information between its source and our viewing instrument. So we try to understand how those distortions work, and then create equal-but-opposite undistorting effects. In so doing, we hope to be able to look at those far away things as they really are—as we would see them if we were standing right next to them. In the process, we learn not only the truth about the thing we're looking at, but we also learn a great deal about the universe and the ways in which it distorts things. I believe the same thing happens within us. We can only understand that which is not us by first understanding ourselves.
Should say "as they really WERE". Everything we perceive and interpret using vision (or any sense for that matter) is already in the past by the time it enters our consciousness. Whether nano-seconds for a nearby object or light-years for an astronomical one.
I will probably re-post Part I later today or tomorrow, so it will become more manageable.
TH, I think this is key. And it seems to me most people do this backwards. They try to define themselves through the beliefs/teachings of others.
What a wonderful metaphor! You have a way of re-wording concepts that have been expressed by others in a way that makes them clear to me.
I particularly like this: "Everything that's in the universe is in every piece of the universe.
As you are somewhat familiar with Buddhism, perhaps you have heard of "Indra's Net," a concept that sounds very similar to the views you have expressed above:
From Wikipedia: Indra's net symbolizes a universe where infinitely repeated mutual relations exist between all members of the universe. This idea is communicated in the image of the interconnectedness of the universe as seen in the net of the Vedic god Indra... Indra's net has a multifaceted jewel at each vertex, and each jewel is reflected in all of the other jewels.
You and TH are sounding strikingly Buddhist to me this morning.
There are a number of schools of Buddhism, two of which are the Theraveda school and the Mahayana School.
The Theraveda school postulates that one must enlighten themselves before they can help others. (This school used to bear the name Hinayana, which translates as "small raft").
The Mahayana ("large raft") school grew up alongside Christianity, and shares some beliefs with it. The central myth in this tradition is one of the Buddha (or a buddha) achieving enlightenment but turning back at the gates of Nirvana, with a vow to reincarnate endlessly, helping all sentient to achieve enlightenment.
It strikes me that both of these traditions are true in the metaphorical sense, and they complement each other beautifully.
Based on your metaphysical writings and your background in math and physics, I believe that your comment is a joke. I hope I got that right.
Indra's Net is a metaphor for the fact that we are all interconnected, yet we each have our own view of reality. I'm not expecting any explosions. True fractals (which are infinite) don't exist in nature, only in math.
As for the mathematical likelihood that the universe would suffer catastrophic instability if everything in the universe was in every piece of the universe... even our best theoretical mathematics can't begin to make a thorough description of the relationships between everything in the universe from the smallest to the largest scales. I'm not particularly convinced by mathematical constructs which say, in effect, 'we know very little about this but we know it isn't that'. We are only beginning to advance the field of theoretical mathematics to the point where little buds of spirituality are beginning to pop up here and there within it. I guess what I'm saying is that I believe there is a sense in which the statement is true, even though our limited understanding of such things would seem to indicate that it can't be true.
Remember, we have long been certain that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. While we are still subject to that speed limit, we now recognize that certain mysterious kinds of information are not. As a result, we are having to rethink the whole idea of a universal speed limit.
Although I have thoroughly rejected those parts of Catholicism which those who taught it to me seemed to feel were the most important, I have to admit that some elements of it inform my philosophy to this day. It seems to me that it all started out with a guy wanting to call people's attention to the need to be mindful of how the things we do affect others and the world we all live in. Further, we should heed the lessons that this increased mindfulness would give us. In other words, if each of us made an honest effort to do less harm and generally be better people, the benefits we would experience would far outweigh the difficulties involved.
Somehow, I managed to absorb that message despite all the fearmongering and righteousness. I'm pretty sure I would have come to the same understanding even without the teachings of the Catholic church, but I'm trying to be generous with the credit.
As a lapsed Catholic, I agree completely with your second comment. You have said it more eloquently than I could have, though.
I personally believe that organized religion is a bad idea simply because it is organized. That simple fact confers power upon the organization, which some small minority within the organization will inevitably use to harm others. True spirituality doesn't need to be organized. Religion, if it is to be organized, can only remain a force for good if it organizes around the central principle of rejecting all power. It must build in massive safeguards against that principle ever being undermined. I have yet to see an example of this principle being adopted and followed. In my opinion, that is because power is too tempting to reject.
I always slept with my head under the covers. I knew God could see me anyway but at least I didn't have to feel him seeing me:)
It would be interesting to hear from some current day Catholics. I think they teach differently now. Hmmmmm . . . ???
Steven Batchelor, an American Buddhist writer, is all excited because American Buddhism is in the early stages of development, and as yet has no power structure. He makes a convincing argument for keeping it that way.
His book is a lovely glimpse into the fresh, early stages of any religion:
Batchelor, Stephen (1997). Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Enlightenment. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group.
The only practicing Catholic to comment is is James C. (he answered on the original version of Part I), and his beliefs seem a bit unorthodox!
Whenever I hear believers talking about the power of the church, they always want you to feel that they can be trusted with it. Of course, that totally misses the point that such power is never wielded by one trustworthy person acting alone. Not to mention the foolishness of thinking that no untrustworthy peson can ever come along and take it away.
I imagine that the early days in the formation of religion are quite exciting, if the leader is charismatic and you are enthusiastic about the tenets of the faith.
Seeing Thich Nhat Hahn speak was an amazing thing for me. There was an auditorium full of 3,000 people, but you could hear a pin drop. TNH is an old man, in his eighties now, who nevertheless sat cross-legged on the floor for three hours and told us, among other things, that 9/11 is a piece of trash that we need to compost and use to grow flowers.
Ooh, ooh, teacher Ann. Over here, Over here. (Still waving.**)
"Early days in the formation of religion." Ooh Ooh, Axial Age ... Jaspers. I read about that during my religion homework after the baseball game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age
Yay, Tigers won again today ... 4-3!
Awesome connection! Being the offspring of two historians, I have an aversion to history and know little about it (please correct me if I get any of this wrong!).
It seems that the Axial Age was the Asian equivalent of the Golden Age of Greece and Rome (I hope that's the right name!) and also the Renaissance in Europe, both of which were later events.
It sounds like a similar period of "flowering," during which cultural progress was rapid and self-perpetuating.
From Wikipedia:"During the axial age (800-200 BC)"the spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently... And these are the foundations upon which humanity still subsists today..."
[This includes] the rise of Platonism, which would later become a major influence on the Western world... Buddhism, another of the world's most influential philosophies, was founded ... during this period. In China, Confucianism arose during this era, where it remains a profound influence on social and religious life.
I take it that you are referring to my comment:
"I imagine that the early days in the formation of religion are quite exciting, if the leader is charismatic and you are enthusiastic about the tenets of the faith."
I want to go back and live in the Axial Age.
Why they leave this out of World History courses is a mystery to me. It often seems that all of Eastern history and culture is ignored until college.
While researching this article, I was startled to find that Confucius had laid out the principles of creating and governing a democracy well before (and independently of) our Founding Fathers.
I've already confessed that I'm largely into this Gather experience for the continuing adult education. During the past month, some conversation on Gather led me to a literary reference that mentioned an "Axial Age." I had never heard of such a thing, thus I Googled the term and learned about Jaspers and his coined expression, "Axial Age" or "Axis Age."
Another aside: There were many benefits to my sturdy Catholic education BUT diversity of content was not among them. (Dem Catliks left out a whole lotta stuff!)
If any readers are curious, I urge them to go to the wikipedia article I previously referenced.
In a related vein, I also strongly suggest learning more about John Frum and "Cargo Cults." You can see first hand how religion(s) may or may not have developed by peering through the prism of contemporary times.
Aside: I got my glimmer into Frum from Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion."
Do you have any John Frum on your religious radar, Ann?
No, John Frum is not on my radar screen. Please elaborate.
It would be easy to dismiss what I am about to reference as blithering idiocy, especially when considers the Frum story within the hallowed context of ancient tales about Confucius, Abraham, Buddha and the like. But it serves as a potent example of how community thinking in isolated populations can (and does) morph into full-blown religion.
Good time here to mention Richard Dawkins again and the key word, "meme."
Go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Back to Frum …
On the island of Vanuatu in the Pacific, February 15 IS John Frum day. It was this year 2008 and has been for most of the last century. There is even a Frum flag. This is the real deal.
Frum (who may or may not have ever existed) is thought of as certainly to once have … and get this … is expected to RETURN. These islanders are waiting and have built an entire belief system to support their cravings. Now, doesn't THAT sound like a familiar story line?
If you look carefully at the Frum tales they are a suitable anthropological explanation for the spontaneous explosion of religious thought. The key word here is "spontaneous" as opposed to "authored", as in the L. Ron Hubbard model for Scientology.
Wikipedia has a suitable primer for our discussion. This is serious data for any serious analysis of the human condition as regards religion.
Go here … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum
I find human reverence for things that are ancient to be curious when contrasted with their regard for things more contemporary. Dare this be one one of reasons why some are condescending toward Joseph Smith's exploits in upstate NY. I think so.
Thank you for the info on John Frum. I vaguely remember seeing a movie along a similar line-- The Gods Must Be Crazy.
It wasn't you who stalled the conversation. Folks tend to turn in early on Sunday night.
"I find human reverence for things that are ancient to be curious when contrasted with their regard for things more contemporary."
Yes, it is interesting how we are more likely to accept the occurrence of supernatural things that happened a long time ago than we are to accept the occurrence of contemporary "miracles." It makes the scientist in me proud, though.
Oh oh, nearly 10:00 pm. I'm going to collect Bucky and hang up my spurs too. But not without two observations:
1) Ann, yours was a remarkable effort today, yesterday and the day before. I know you painstakingly moderated popular three articles, a series of serious debaters and a myriad of mini-topics. Heavy stuff. That takes time and attention.
Aside: Your husband might well be "beatified" for his saintly patience.
2) I owe you many thanks for a rich adult learning experience. I sure never got this shit during Catholic catechism class.
Good night!
~ Ken (& Bucky)
Tell Bucky that I will be over to read his articles (we all know that you don't write them) as soon as I recover.
As you have been on both sides of the "God" issue at different times in your life, I really appreciate your comment.
Tip of My Hat
to Boris G.
who contributed the
‘other voices’
from non-believers
to our discussion
in Part 1 (3rd Edition).
Man create the gods after their own image,
not only with regards to their form
but with regard to their mode of life.
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic
is no more to the point than the fact that a
drunken man is happier than a sober one.
Anyway, I will be returning with more quotations from that book once I finish reading it. ( I was half-way through it when I selected those quotations. )
The religions of mankind must be classed
among the mass-delusions of this kind.
No one, needless to say, who shares a
delusion ever recognizes it as such.
If I were personally to define religion
I would say that it is a bandage that man invented
to protect a soul made bloody by circumstance.
Will you tell us about this book?
I took a Personality test linked and then found it was $! So I wrestled with your two questions and decided I was an NT - though a strong ST. I have come across many personality tests (in and out of the church) and have been discovered to be a "Driver" in two unrelated ones. I have concluded, though, that I want to be a person that moves in and out of the situations of my life in a way that disregards my particular personality bent and tailors my response behaviour (verbal, body language, AND emotions) to truth - not what I think or feel (which is static according to my personality or changes with the weather or my digestion). Thus, it behooves me to try to determine what truth is - what is the real reality of the social/fleshly/spiritual soup in which we live. I do not want to make my religion or my life in my image. I want to walk it out according to the facts.
Sooooo, I'll continue to investigate. I'll be working my way through your post. Thank you for your thoughts, Ann.
Kat
Carl Jung told us to go ahead and believe in our gods and myths, as this will likely make us happier and help us to lead a better life, whether or not what we believe is true.
I know that atheists take issue with the "better life" part. However, that doesn't change the fact that many people need religion.
First, I want to apologize for deleting your comment in Part I. You explained that the comment was not directed at anyone in the discussion, but still, it read that way. It's very important to me that everyone who joins these discussion threads knows that their belief systems will not be attacked.
In answer to your other question-- no, this thread is not more to my liking. I am an agnostic. I'd like to repeat my request that my personal beliefs not be attacked here, because I can't both moderate impartially and defend myself at the same time.
John, it seems to me that you have had a very intense and life-changing experience of God. I know that this can't be put into words, but you are a poet, and I would like to hear your best approximation. You've told us about the results. What did the experience(s) feel like?
No, I've never heard of that book, but it sounds intriguing.
Many people who have no strong innate preferences as to how they process information are frustrated by the Myers-Briggs test. But I think you've given us a very accurate description of your "spiritual personality" type: NT/ST.
You are a strong thinker, and you like to investigate the "big picture" while remaining grounded in the facts of the real world. Does that sound right?
I think this "atheist" treatment you are dishing out is karmic reparation for me.
I was once nasty enough to join The Chive on a thread asking for the "stupidist liberal quotes" anyone could think of. I fed the author of the article an endless stream of Mark Twain quotes on religion. I suspected that would come back to haunt me one day!
Foxe's was written by John Foxe, who lived in England in the mid-1500's(think of the political atmosphere!!!); but he researched first-century martyrdom also. I'll get back later.
Kat
I freely recognize that hominids
have various imperative 'needs'
- and religion fills many of them.
However, I wonder out loud if 'religion' is
the optimum way for individuals to lead
their lives
and co-exist
on a teeming planet.
Experience the Parade of ‘Fools’
only 5 mins.
Come on, let’s discuss with Ann!
Terrific post, as usual. I've missed a lot this summer and will try to catch up, but I enjoyed this article and the comments.
I've been reading "The God Delusion" for the past week... and even though I am already part of the choir, I am finding it to be incredibly interesting.
I hope you are having a great summer. Be well.
I hope you will check back in on this discussion if you have time. I'd love to hear more from a believer who's reading Richard Dawkins.
I'll check out the book online when I have a bit more time, but if you want to offer a brief summary, that would be great. Religious writing often seems timeless to me.
Very cool video. You will be happy to hear that, as an agnostic, I am evidently an atheist as well.
One thing strikes me about all of those famous atheists-- they declared their atheism, for the most part, at a point in their lives when they were powerful, famous, and well-to-do. I suspect that these things decrease the "need" for religion.
Your experience, as you have recounted it, was the opposite. Any thoughts on that?
The choir I'm a member of is the choir of the non-believers.
Religion and spirituality are not one in the same. I fall into that category of "nature believers", and feel wonder in a stone and a twig.
It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is
than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring.
Foxe's Book covers the martyrdom of Steven (stoned), Andrew (crucifixion lasted two days and he preached the greatest part of the time), Peter (crucified upside-down), and Paul (beheaded) - who were all disciples of Jesus. All the disciples met violent ends except John who was exiled. Then it covers the persecutions under Emperor Nero in 67 AD (Christians dressed in animal skins and given to the dogs, clothed in shirts made stiff with wax and tied to trees and set on fire) up to the massacre of Protestants at Barletta in 1866("houses were sacked, the occupants thrown out of the windows or hacked to pieces, and the mutilated victims, some dead, some dying, burned in the street...stabbing and stoning many of the hapless martyrs"). All this because they were Christians. What FOOLS these Christians are!
Ken, that video was beautiful and the music fit very well; but I think you might agree that foolishness is different than intelligence and talent. I'd have to do some research (Sir Isaac Newton, etc); but I think we need to base our conclusions on things more substantial than dueling names - or dueling atrocities. The reference to Foxe's is to point out that choosing Christianity can make life significantly more difficult. Even in my private life, I cannot "take my ease". I am called to "compel every human thought to surrender in obedience to Christ" II Cor. 10:6.
This is my simple religion. No need for temples.
No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind,
your own heart, is the temple;
your philosophy is simple kindness.
Unfortunately, I must step away to attend to household obligations. Rest assured I will offer my perception to your comment when I return. Thank you for caring enough to watch the video.
Ann, our esteemed backboard, will not be on-line for some of this afternoon (or so she lead me to believe.) My personal goal is to keep this wonderful dialogue moving.
? Isn’t this GREAT!
Later -
and before Boris G. returns to this post,
please let me leave ya'll with perhaps
the most revelatory
quote of all (at least for me) ...
Three-quarters of the American population literally believes
in religious miracles. The numbers who believe in the devil,
in resurrection, God does this and that - astonishing.
These are numbers that you have nowhere in the industrial world.
Guess that's it for now.
"Curse the wretch. In 20 years, Christianity will be no more. My single hand will destroy the edifice it took 12 apostles to rear."
"For all the wealth in Europe, I would not see another atheist die." And later a physician, waiting up with Voltaire at his death, said that he cried out with utter desperation, "I am abandoned by God and man. I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months of life. Then I shall go to hell and you will go with me, oh, Christ, oh, Jesus Christ!"
No, you are not disqualified! You gave a us a lovely description of your spirituality without condemning ours. (Way to go!).
But when Jesus describes himself as "the way" to somewhere, isn't that a metaphor itself? He was in human form when he said that, and a human can't be a road or path.
I find literal interpretation of scriptures to be very tricky and very fraught with dangers, not the least of which are, in the end, any number of violent actions and conflicts.