Experiential evidence for religion

[smaneck]

Also, I'm curious as to why you're exalting the annihilation of self but seem to be against the expansion of self. The two are practically identical at their conclusion.

When al-Hallaj said that he was Truth, did he lose his identity in his love for the divine? Or did his sense of self expand so much that his awareness equaled that of God?

Assuming that al-Hallaj was not simply a heretic, I would presume that his self became transparent in God.

 

[smaneck]

Crowley was a Victorian "bad boy" who spent his entire life rebelling against the fundamentalist ethos of his radical Christian parents. Ironically, this reaction shackled him just as much to their influence as compliance would have.

That's my impression of him.

Was he still a perfectly self-absorbed individual? Sure. But the path he founded was anything but.

The question for me is can someone teach what they cannot do?

 

[dlamberth]

The question for me is can someone teach what they cannot do?

That's a good question when looking at any spiritual path.

.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Assuming that al-Hallaj was not simply a heretic, I would presume that his self became transparent in God.

al-Hallaj was most definitely a heretic. The border between mysticism and heresy is very fine. Mystics tend to have more in common with each other than with their parent religions.

 

[cloudyday2]

You only get that evidence once you start working on the task. And you don't get a "clear understanding" of the task before you begin, only in hindsight will you look back and see the amazing things God has done with your willingness to act through trust and love...

Kingston Trio - Desert Pete Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Thanks for the link to the lyrics. It seems to me that in the real world of religion the desert is littered with dry wells, broken water pumps, notes from pranksters, wild stories from madmen, shysters selling treasure maps, and the skeletons of those who "didn't have enough faith/persistence/whatever".

My aunt told me something that I thought was silly at the time, but gradually I'm seeing the wisdom in it. I was telling her I thought there must be something important I'm supposed to do, but I didn't know what. She said "God just wants you to be happy."

I honestly wish we could eradicate all religion.

 

[light upon light]

Thanks for the link to the lyrics. It seems to me that in the real world of religion the desert is littered with dry wells, broken water pumps, notes from pranksters, wild stories from madmen, shysters selling treasure maps, and the skeletons of those who "didn't have enough faith/persistence/whatever"...

I honestly wish we could eradicate all religion.

I wasn't talking about religion at all though. To a large degree, these days when people say "religion" they really mean their beliefs about how they are right and everyone else is wrong and perhaps even following Satan. And that you need to convert to their beliefs or else you are in big trouble.

I was talking about life itself. We have to put ourselves out there without knowing what will happen, with faith that what we does matter, and a desire to serve what is good, true and beautiful.

I know when I have lived in that way, living from a place of trust and faith, without an agenda about how things will unfold, that is when I have truly lived. That doesn't mean I get everything I want!

In the end, the desire to give our lives to the beautiful and the practice of doing that is worth more than anything else...

None of this has much to do with "religion" per se.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

I wasn't talking about religion at all though. To a large degree, these days when people say "religion" they really mean their beliefs about how they are right and everyone else is wrong and perhaps even following Satan. And that you need to convert to their beliefs or else you are in big trouble.

I was talking about life itself. We have to put ourselves out there without knowing what will happen, with faith that what we does matter, and a desire to serve what is good, true and beautiful.

I know when I have lived in that way, living from a place of trust and faith, without an agenda about how things will unfold, that is when I have truly lived. That doesn't mean I get everything I want!

In the end, the desire to give our lives to the beautiful and the practice of doing that is worth more than anything else...

None of this has much to do with "religion" per se.

Worthy of a thumb

 

[dlamberth]

al-Hallaj was most definitely a heretic.

I for one do not believe that the stage of Fana-Fi-Allah is heretical.

The border between mysticism and heresy is very fine.

It's interesting how living IN the Divine opens one up to a very different set of boundaries than the religious believe are in place. It's only those bounded by dogma and one true way correct beliefs who by extension also wrongly bound mysticism in the same way.

.

 

[dlamberth]

When al-Hallaj said that he was Truth, did he lose his identity in his love for the divine? Or did his sense of self expand so much that his awareness equaled that of God?

In the Sufi tradition fana-fi-Allah is not an ego self-expansion. It's just the exact opposite. It's more of an absorption or losing one's self into Truth through Love. From a Christian mystic's perspective, (Fr. William Johnston) "It's riding Love like an arrow into the Heart of God" and loosing one's self in God as it is absorbed into the consciousness and fullness of God. Full immersion IN God through absorption by way of Love.

.

 

[cloudyday2]

I wasn't talking about religion at all though. To a large degree, these days when people say "religion" they really mean their beliefs about how they are right and everyone else is wrong and perhaps even following Satan. And that you need to convert to their beliefs or else you are in big trouble.

I was talking about life itself. We have to put ourselves out there without knowing what will happen, with faith that what we does matter, and a desire to serve what is good, true and beautiful.

I know when I have lived in that way, living from a place of trust and faith, without an agenda about how things will unfold, that is when I have truly lived. That doesn't mean I get everything I want!

In the end, the desire to give our lives to the beautiful and the practice of doing that is worth more than anything else...

None of this has much to do with "religion" per se.

O.k. I misunderstood you.

 

[LoAmmi]

I wasn't talking about religion at all though. To a large degree, these days when people say "religion" they really mean their beliefs about how they are right and everyone else is wrong and perhaps even following Satan. And that you need to convert to their beliefs or else you are in big trouble.

Religion to me is the framework I use to live a more moral life. Without the teachings of my faith, I would likely be another of those people I see that walk past a homeless person as if they were refuge on the side of the road. I recall the teachings I have read and attempt to at least treat them as fellow human beings created in the image of the divine.

 

[smaneck]

al-Hallaj was most definitely a heretic. The border between mysticism and heresy is very fine. Mystics tend to have more in common with each other than with their parent religions.

Yes, but that alone does not make them heretics. Within a monotheistic tradition heresy enters in when one claims unity not with God's will but with His Essence. Unfortunately when one is in the midst of mystical ecstasy, that distinction often gets lost. We simply don't know what al-Hallaj had in mind.

 

[light upon light]

O.k. I misunderstood you.

No problem.

Honestly a certain kind of "I'm right and you're wrong" religiosity has been such a toxic influence in the world that people are rightly wary of anything that smacks of such.

I need to do a better job communicating next time...

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Religion to me is the framework I use to live a more moral life.

And here's where another "disconnect" happens with me.
As far as I am concerned, following an authoritarian code of conduct will always be a less moral life, even if the end results might be similar.
Why?
Because I do not think helping another person just because you think some external authority commands you to do so is all we can aspire to. I'd aspire to help another person because I truly wish to help another person, out of sympathy, compassion, brotherly love - in short: an internal motivation.

Doing good simply because "the Authority tells me to" does not cut it.
It comes too close to refraining from a life of crime simply because one fears the repercussions, instead of rejecting it because it harms people.

Even worse, authoritarian morality can cause people to act worse than they ever would on their own. The Bible contains a (thankfully ahistorical) account of the Israelites slaughtering women, children and lifestock for the sake of ritual purity, all to avoid being contaminated by another religion. And history is fraught with people who believed themselves to the the highest champions of Good and Justice performing horrible deeds because of authoritarian morality: "I was just following orders." "The Cause demanded it." "I was taught that this was the right thing to do." "The Authority said it, that settles it. Case closed." "If the Authority says so, that should be good enough for any true believer. The Authority knows best."


I'd rather cultivate and refine my inner compass than try to adapt to another. This way, I might make some errors of judgment, but it's a process of training, always edging closer to the goal of truly loving my neighbour as I love myself.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The question for me is can someone teach what they cannot do?

Well, I'd say that it's the message that counts, not the messenger.
Even the most highly regarded role models in history were not without their flaws - we simply tend to forget about those when we put those people on a pedestal for hero worship, turning their memory into something other: something almost inhuman in its flawless virtue.

Mahatma Gandhi made racist comments about the native ethnicities of South Africa, actually lauding the British for bringing law and order to the "kaffirs who behave like animals". He also thoroughly enjoyed Italian fascism.

Nelson Mandela was involved in terrorist bombings that claimed innocent lives.

And Albert Einstein - who had many very wise things to say about religion, spirituality, and morality - treated his wife atrociously, setting up a list of rules that ought to raise the hackles of anyone who reads them.

In short: I believe that the message is often vastly more important than the one who delivers it. And a wise word is no less valid if it comes out of the mouth of a homeless drunkard with mental problems than if it is broadcasted by a venerated leader. It just reaches a smaller audience, who will be less inclined to listen.

 

[LoAmmi]

And here's where another "disconnect" happens with me.
As far as I am concerned, following an authoritarian code of conduct will always be a less moral life, even if the end results might be similar.
Why?
Because I do not think helping another person just because you think some external authority commands you to do so is all we can aspire to. I'd aspire to help another person because I truly wish to help another person, out of sympathy, compassion, brotherly love - in short: an internal motivation.

If you read this thread, you'll find that I am a person who doesn't have a great natural compassion toward others. I am more likely to be apathetic to their situation. It's just not something I have a natural abundance of, so the best way for me to do it is to understand what my faith tells me to do. I just don't think that way. Even in personal relationships I have been called somewhat robotic and unfeeling. I approach things very logically and without emotion. It is the way I am wired.

If you wish to look down upon me as not moral because I follow a code, would you prefer I not follow it and simply not care about others?

Is it better to help others out of compassion or to help others out of a sense of obligation to the faith you choose? Either way people get helped.

 

[smaneck]

Well, I'd say that it's the message that counts, not the messenger.
Even the most highly regarded role models in history were not without their flaws - we simply tend to forget about those when we put those people on a pedestal for hero worship, turning their memory into something other: something almost inhuman in its flawless virtue.

Mahatma Gandhi made racist comments about the native ethnicities of South Africa, actually lauding the British for bringing law and order to the "kaffirs who behave like animals". He also thoroughly enjoyed Italian fascism.

Nelson Mandela was involved in terrorist bombings that claimed innocent lives.

And Albert Einstein - who had many very wise things to say about religion, spirituality, and morality - treated his wife atrociously, setting up a list of rules that ought to raise the hackles of anyone who reads them.

Here is the difference. Mahatma Gandhi was trying to liberate India, not the blacks of South Africa. Mandela was trying to liberate South Africa not preaching non-violence. Albert Einstein was a genius in mathematics. We don't go to him to learn about family life. The problem with Crowley is he was preaching the very thing he showed no capacity to practice.

 

[cloudyday2]

If you read this thread, you'll find that I am a person who doesn't have a great natural compassion toward others. I am more likely to be apathetic to their situation. It's just not something I have a natural abundance of, so the best way for me to do it is to understand what my faith tells me to do. I just don't think that way. Even in personal relationships I have been called somewhat robotic and unfeeling. I approach things very logically and without emotion. It is the way I am wired.

If you wish to look down upon me as not moral because I follow a code, would you prefer I not follow it and simply not care about others?

Is it better to help others out of compassion or to help others out of a sense of obligation to the faith you choose? Either way people get helped.

I'm the same way, so you're not alone. After I quit going to church, I found I could no longer make myself donate to charity. That shows I was only trying to bribe God. Of course I need to become more charitable, but I'm very cynical by nature. I needed religion to make me do the right thing.

 

[LoAmmi]

I'm the same way, so you're not alone. After I quit going to church, I found I could no longer make myself donate to charity. That shows I was only trying to bribe God.

I don't really feel like I'm trying to bribe anything. As I said, I use it as a framework. Judaism doesn't have a salvation concept where we need to be saved from Hell, so the motivation of my actions would not be bribing the divine.

I can point to about a dozen or so times in my life where I would realize that the people around me were actually individuals, that they were actually people and it was wrong of me to attempt to manipulate them into doing what I wanted them to do. It's something that has occurred at various times. I think without the framework, I would have trouble viewing people as people on a regular basis.

 

[light upon light]

Count me as someone else who behaves more ethically when religious than when not (I've done it both ways).

Having a clear teaching what our lives is about, an understanding that moral behavior is a matter of primary importance in life, that we are accountable for our actions, and that when we leave this world we get to see and understand the consequences of how we lived our lives - has made a big difference for me.