Different vehicles

[Simon Anders]

Back when I was actively exploring a wide variety of religions, I met a large number of people who had put religion in the center of their lives. This included Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Sufis, Hasids and practitioners of Native American religions. Many of these people specifically did not think of their path as THE RIGHT ONE, but rather as the vehicle that was right for them. They listened with interest to practitioners of other paths, often finding inspiration there.

One thing that non-theists often seem to assume is that these different religions could not possibly lead to the same goal, place, God, state of consciousness, etc. This is often accompanied by a rigid, literalist translation of all texts in the various religions, rather than a viewing of the texts, statements of master or mystics and the various ceremonies, meditative/prayer practices, etc. as tools to reaching what might in fact be common ends. What a text does is often viewed as its truth rather than what it contains.

So the idea was not to find the right path, but the path suited to you. The part whose metaphors, stories, leader if there is a leader, and practices work or are appealing.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

 

[draqon]

life is shapeless and we are to shape it

 

[disease]

I look at it like this:
The different vehicles are like instruments we have to learn how to play. The meeting of minds is then learning how to play together. It really is a kind of music, which means we are kinds of instruments too, and there are ways we can 'play' our own, or techniques that have a spectrum of their own.
One of them is prayer - this has different meanings in different religions and cultures.

 

[Simon Anders]

I look at it like this:
The different vehicles are like instruments we have to learn how to play. The meeting of minds is then learning how to play together. It really is a kind of music, which means we are kinds of instruments too, and there are ways we can 'play' our own, or techniques that have a spectrum of their own.
One of them is prayer - this has different meanings in different religions and cultures.

Do you think the different tunes can, ultimately, have the same meaning?

 

[Simon Anders]

life is shapeless and we are to shape it

Can you connect this to what I said? I can imagine ways, but I am not sure.

 

[draqon]

Many of these people specifically did not think of their path as THE RIGHT ONE, but rather as the vehicle that was right for them. They listened with interest to practitioners of other paths, often finding inspiration there.

They did not just listen, they wanted to learn what to do with their lifes and make adjustments if they thought they were necessary.

People of many religions, people of many beliefs, all do the same thing as everyone else, they make out of life what they think life is.

Building their own houses of life, some of brick, others of metal, and later of paper.

 

[Leo Volont]

Yes, in case anybody doubts these words of, who is it again, Simon Anders, let me affirm that they are experientially true.

For instance, one can look at the core Teachings of Sufism, most of Hinduism, the better parts of Buddhism, and discern that their are no Deal Braking Differences, and that the variations are mostly a matter of taste or perspective.

But, yes, also, it is much too simplistic to claim that All Religions Lead to the Same End. Some Religions are Ass Backwards. Some Religions are Wrong. Some Religions do lead to Hell. Surprisingly, not the Religions we would at first suppose. For Instance, only Christianity is largely based on the Doctrine that God forgives Sin, if certain minimal requirements are abided by, consisting mostly of paying off a member of the Clergy. Hmmmm. Sin for a Pay Off. does not sound like a very good Religion, does it?

Oh, and Protestants blame Civilized Catholism for moving beyond Free Sin to the Marian Doctrines of Spirituality and Moral Responsibility. It was so HERETICAL.

But looking at the Eastern Religions, one sees more of a trend toward Moral Responsiblity and Spiritualism. though not always. Christianity's success with Selling Sin caught on all over the World and in many Sectarian Doctrines we see the tendency toward Moral Laxity. JOIN US, WE HAVE LESS RULES AND YOU CAN STEAL AND SCREW AND STILL GO TO HEAVEN. If one can phrase it in the proper language, as did Saint Paul, then it is almost certain a good Sales Point for a Popular Religion.

So the way to determine Real Religions, is to check for Saints. False Religions will never have a saint, or not a saint that will pass any real review. For instance, Paul... never had his first miracle... Paul was all talk and no action. Protestantism has gone 500 years without its first Miracle. But all the valid Spiritual and Moral Religions will have a History of Wonder Workers.

Back when I was actively exploring a wide variety of religions, I met a large number of people who had put religion in the center of their lives. This included Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Sufis, Hasids and practitioners of Native American religions. Many of these people specifically did not think of their path as THE RIGHT ONE, but rather as the vehicle that was right for them. They listened with interest to practitioners of other paths, often finding inspiration there.

One thing that non-theists often seem to assume is that these different religions could not possibly lead to the same goal, place, God, state of consciousness, etc. This is often accompanied by a rigid, literalist translation of all texts in the various religions, rather than a viewing of the texts, statements of master or mystics and the various ceremonies, meditative/prayer practices, etc. as tools to reaching what might in fact be common ends. What a text does is often viewed as its truth rather than what it contains.

So the idea was not to find the right path, but the path suited to you. The part whose metaphors, stories, leader if there is a leader, and practices work or are appealing.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

 

[Leo Volont]

We can refer to the Sanskrit Doctrines of Dharma here. Not everything is supposed to be the same. There are Different Dharmas. Hinduism allows for almost an infinite span of different temperaments by institutionalizing almost an infinite number of Castes and Dharmic Categories... there they have the practrical problem of realistic assignment, but their initial assumptions were more or less in order, and they fell down only in the execution.

Not all flowers are the same, but all flowers are beautiful.

Now, where we need to pay attention to things is in the Moral Injunctions of a Religion, that is, how it plans to run a Civilization.

Now, the difference between Civilization and Barbarism can be summed up shortly enough in this way... supposing Civilization and Barbarism to be Absolutes, and that we could talk of the Extreme End of both Civilization and Barbarism, then Civilization would be able to maintain an Infinite Level of Population -- and infinite number of people can get along peacefully in an Absolutely Perfect Civilization. Only a Very Good Religion can do that. Barbarism, on the other hand is all about Empowering the Individual, and so the very lowest population levels can exist in Barbarism, as everybody is always killing everybody, and nobody can ever cooperate for the common good. In Absolute Terms NOBODY survives because the one Screwed Up Guy that kills everybody else to be Super King then commits suicide out of sense of defiled Barbarian Honor... you see, Barbarians have all sorts of Codes and Rules that lead them to Slaughter and Massacre and even Suicide.

Religion and Civilization are adapted by Societies which desire a greater Population Density. Barbarism, Captitalism, Republicanism are adapted by cultures that tend toward Depopulation and Death Spiral... the Idea that IF EVERYONE ELSE DIES FIRST, I GET ALL THEIR STUFF. Its the "burn down a Cathedral to steal a golden candlestick mentality". I think they call it the Bush Doctrine now. Thank God that's past.

Do you think the different tunes can, ultimately, have the same meaning?

 

[swarm]

one can look at the core Teachings of Sufism, most of Hinduism, the better parts of Buddhism, and discern that their are no Deal Braking Differences, and that the variations are mostly a matter of taste or perspective.

Sure, except for the diametrically opposing claims and having completely different views they are almost similar.

Some Religions are Ass Backwards. Some Religions are Wrong. Some Religions do lead to Hell.

Yours for example.

 

[swarm]

Not all flowers are the same, but all flowers are beautiful.

Such as the Rafflesia which is not only beautiful, but also smells like rotten meat:

 

[Simon Anders]

Sure, except for the diametrically opposing claims and having completely different views they are almost similar.

Come on swarm, you can do better than simply stating that he is wrong....

Yours for example.

and a pseudo-insult.

 

[disease]

So what does the reproductive part of a plant convey to us if it smells like carrion? If it attracts insects because of the way it smells?

That not everything in nature can be categorized the same way or assumed to exist so we can see or smell it a certain way?

 

[swarm]

Come on swarm, you can do better than simply stating that he is wrong....

And what would be the point?

and a pseudo-insult.

Why start with the assumption religions go any where?

Why start with the assumption any religion is right?

Despite millennia of intermingling and the similarity of people and their needs, the divergence in religions is astounding. It is only by brutal suppression that there are wide swaths of seeming similarity and that degrades quickly as the 34,000 cults of Jesus can attest too.

Even among xtians there is no continuing agreement about god or JC or salvation or even the bible and the enforced agreement of the past is failing fast now that you can't just kill "heretics."

So let's assume all religions and religious claims are false until proven true and I mean actually proven not just incestuously cited from some holy book.

Any similarity is coincidental or a product of cultural cross fertilization until an actual "there" is produced.

Until then I've more respect for gamers than priests.

 

[S.A.M.]

Back when I was actively exploring a wide variety of religions, I met a large number of people who had put religion in the center of their lives. This included Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Sufis, Hasids and practitioners of Native American religions. Many of these people specifically did not think of their path as THE RIGHT ONE, but rather as the vehicle that was right for them. They listened with interest to practitioners of other paths, often finding inspiration there.

One thing that non-theists often seem to assume is that these different religions could not possibly lead to the same goal, place, God, state of consciousness, etc. This is often accompanied by a rigid, literalist translation of all texts in the various religions, rather than a viewing of the texts, statements of master or mystics and the various ceremonies, meditative/prayer practices, etc. as tools to reaching what might in fact be common ends. What a text does is often viewed as its truth rather than what it contains.

So the idea was not to find the right path, but the path suited to you. The part whose metaphors, stories, leader if there is a leader, and practices work or are appealing.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

I agree with everything you say. For some reason, many people have a black and white view of religion. Like saying theists are atheists to other gods or some nonsense like that. In India, we say "Sarava dharma sambhavana" All religions are the same, though it more accurately implies there are many spiritual ways. That is our cultural ideology and I have never felt the gap between people of different religions until I came west.

 

[Simon Anders]

And what would be the point?

If you have no interest, you have no interest. I was curious to see where the discussion would go between you two. I thought it would be interesting for me to read. But if it seems fruitless to you.....

Why start with the assumption religions go any where?

Why start with the assumption any religion is right?

Curiousity about the claims and a few experiences of chanting, as one example amongst many, might lead one to believe - given the experiences following chanting - that there is something in it. Further curiousity and noticed changes in yourself over time might make the endeavor seem worthwhile. Short term intermediate confirmations of promised effects might make one curious and willing to continue said process.

I find in life that I do not form complete assumptions or conclusions before experience. So I do not hear about a process - psychotherapeutic, health related, spiritual...etc. - and analyze and decide it is likely to be effective or correct. Sometimes it just has some appeal. If this appeal leads nowhere, then it is dropped.

It seems to me many people function like this. Some people become instant believers. They decide rapidly that THIS IS THE TRUTH or true path or whatever. Maybe they learn over time to draw conclusions later in the process, who knows. Some obviously do not.

Despite millennia of intermingling and the similarity of people and their needs, the divergence in religions is astounding. It is only by brutal suppression that there are wide swaths of seeming similarity and that degrades quickly as the 34,000 cults of Jesus can attest too.

Even among xtians there is no continuing agreement about god or JC or salvation or even the bible and the enforced agreement of the past is failing fast now that you can't just kill "heretics."

Yes, many religious people are sectarian. Many are literalists and do not view language as something that does things but rather as something that contains things. But my experiences with a smaller % of this mass was that their views were different. These people were often those most actively engaged in the core practices of the religions, rather than following the rules, or being good little boys and girls or in using their 'right' choices to view others dimly.

So let's assume all religions and religious claims are false until proven true and I mean actually proven not just incestuously cited from some holy book.

Do what you want.

 

[Sciencelovah]

Back when I was actively exploring a wide variety of religions, I met a large number of people who had put religion in the center of their lives. This included Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Sufis, Hasids and practitioners of Native American religions. Many of these people specifically did not think of their path as THE RIGHT ONE, but rather as the vehicle that was right for them. They listened with interest to practitioners of other paths, often finding inspiration there.

One thing that non-theists often seem to assume is that these different religions could not possibly lead to the same goal, place, God, state of consciousness, etc. This is often accompanied by a rigid, literalist translation of all texts in the various religions, rather than a viewing of the texts, statements of master or mystics and the various ceremonies, meditative/prayer practices, etc. as tools to reaching what might in fact be common ends. What a text does is often viewed as its truth rather than what it contains.

So the idea was not to find the right path, but the path suited to you. The part whose metaphors, stories, leader if there is a leader, and practices work or are appealing.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

I had similar experiences (the part in bold). Moreover, many people that I meet do not actually choose their religion or choose being atheist. Many of them follow religion of their parents. Me, being raised by parent who had different religion, come to a point in life, where I need to decide which one suits me best. Perhaps only about 1% of the population that I meet really think of their preferences disregard of the way they raised. They are the types that read and discuss much. These people tend to be atheist and at the same time restless.

 

[swarm]

If you have no interest, you have no interest. I was curious to see where the discussion would go between you two. I thought it would be interesting for me to read. But if it seems fruitless to you.....

I have yet to see a conversation with him actually go any where. If you have a topic of interest to you, feel free to present it yourself and we'll see what happens.

Curiousity about the claims and a few experiences of chanting, as one example amongst many, might lead one to believe - given the experiences following chanting - that there is something in it.

Mental effects are not difficult to generate: chanting, drugs, hypnosis, various deprivations...but that doesn't mean the effects are anything more than mental imagery and I've nothing against full on mental imagery. Fun stuff. But to claim those mean something you need more.

An example of more is meditation. Like biofeedback, meditation gives demonstrable effects in physiological control and mental focus.

Further curiousity and noticed changes in yourself over time might make the endeavor seem worthwhile. Short term intermediate confirmations of promised effects might make one curious and willing to continue said process.

Sure if you find something that works it makes sense to practice that, but that doesn't mean you have proven god exists because you can get high chanting.

On of the great difficulties of religion is that techniques which do something are used to justify completely unrelated metaphysical claims.

I find in life that I do not form complete assumptions or conclusions before experience.

Then how can you characterize yourself a theist?