Religion as Practice: No pain, no gain?

[Pineal]

Religions offer a set of practices that are supposed to lead to outccomes.

Should these appeal to us as individuals?
Should we, rather, adapt to them, even if they do not feel good (or right?)?
How does on evaluate how well practice is working?

(in body training there has been a strong shift away from no pain, no gain. Also away from rigidly repetitive workouts. Variety, functional exercises, longer individualized breaks from training, choosing times when you have energy and interest are newer trends and seem to create more lasting changes. might this not also be good for our souls?)

 

[wynn]

(in body training there has been a strong shift away from no pain, no gain. Also away from rigidly repetitive workouts. Variety, functional exercises, longer individualized breaks from training, choosing times when you have energy and interest are newer trends and seem to create more lasting changes. might this not also be good for our souls?)

My guess is that this is how religion was (in some cases, is) - before institutional bureocracy took over.

 

[Arioch]

Most religions go through a phase where they've very fluid and loosely structured, almost always in the very early days before the person or persons who created it(almost universally hailed as prophets) have a firm grasp on their religion. There may be another shift towards a looser structure if the religion grows too quickly beyond the ability of it's bureaucracy to control. I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other, though unorganized religions typically aren't as eager to kill the unbelieving masses.

 

[wynn]

No pain, no gain says:

If you're having fun, then you're not working!
If you're having fun, then you're not being spiritual!
Unless you sweat blood, you're not being spiritual!

 

[Pineal]

My guess is that this is how religion was (in some cases, is) - before institutional bureocracy took over.

I would tend to think this is the case, though I am not sure. Many religions develop from leaders who came out of other traditions and modified and their follwers were often people who were already in organized religions, so the new system involved changes in practices but not necessarily a shift to more spontaneous or varied activity. But I don't know.

I mean, I would guess the first students of the Buddha were meditating their asses off, but I don't know.

 

[Pineal]

Most religions go through a phase where they've very fluid and loosely structured, almost always in the very early days before the person or persons who created it(almost universally hailed as prophets) have a firm grasp on their religion. There may be another shift towards a looser structure if the religion grows too quickly beyond the ability of it's bureaucracy to control. I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other, though unorganized religions typically aren't as eager to kill the unbelieving masses.

If you know of examples you can document where religions were fluid and loosely structured - especially the religions of the Book - I'd be interested. There seems to be a difference between religions that emphasize doctrine and those that emphasize more ecstatic, individual experiences - though both seem to be present in most religions, at least nowadays. Doctrinal religions seem more rigid to me.

 

[Pineal]

No pain, no gain says:

If you're having fun, then you're not working!
If you're having fun, then you're not being spiritual!
Unless you sweat blood, you're not being spiritual!

and if this is not the case, what a crime those memes are.

Is it alright to choose a path that feels good rather than simply seem right mentally or sounds moral?

 

[Arioch]

@Pineal --

Luckily we do happen to have a few such examples available, there have been some new religions created in the last few centuries so we have an almost complete(fully complete in a few cases). The best one that I can think of, and it is technically a religion "of the book", is mormonism.

When it was founded mormonism was quite fluid, which each "saint" being capable of not only directly communing with god but of receiving "official" divine revelations. However after Smith got more power hungry he quickly curtailed that by having a revelation which said that only his revelations(and those of his chosen successor) were genuine. The larger it got the more rigid it's form became until it reach what I like to think of as "religious critical mass" where it became highly intolerant to change(Of course, because it's still relatively new as religions go it's still more flexible than most forms of christianity).

Are there religions which deviate from this trend? Of course, many of the "suicide cults" were just that. But those appear to be outliers in the data set.

 

[wynn]

Is it alright to choose a path that feels good rather than simply seem right mentally or sounds moral?

I think this is actually a split that some people (religious or not) are not able to relate to.
That is, for some people, "feeling good," "seeming mentally right" and "sounding moral" go hand in hand, and there cannot be one without the other.

In some Eastern cultures they do not have the separation between the "head" and the "heart;" to them, it's all one ("citta").


That the moral or the reasonable are that which we often would rather not do and don't feel good about - that is a typically Western idea, many Christians have it.

 

[wynn]

I would tend to think this is the case, though I am not sure. Many religions develop from leaders who came out of other traditions and modified and their follwers were often people who were already in organized religions, so the new system involved changes in practices but not necessarily a shift to more spontaneous or varied activity. But I don't know.

I mean, I would guess the first students of the Buddha were meditating their asses off, but I don't know.

Some religions also emerged or gained prominence in socially and economically difficult times.

I find it hard to separate on the one hand the effects of the socially and economically difficult times, and on the other hand, the difficulties one might experience in attempting to practice a religion.

If a person is upset about the troubles at work - can they realistically hope that their spiritual practice will be plain sailing?

Spontaneous or varied activity (in a positive sense) of any kind seem to me to be in the domain of socially and economically prosperous and peaceful times.

I am sure there is a lot of spontaneous or varied activity in times of strife and war, but we usually don't think about strife and war in terms of opportunity for "spontaneous or varied activity."

This is not to say that social and economic factors determine spirituality/religion as such; but I think they do determine how a beginner can engage in spirituality/religion.

 

[Pineal]

@Pineal --

Luckily we do happen to have a few such examples available, there have been some new religions created in the last few centuries so we have an almost complete(fully complete in a few cases). The best one that I can think of, and it is technically a religion "of the book", is mormonism.

When it was founded mormonism was quite fluid, which each "saint" being capable of not only directly communing with god but of receiving "official" divine revelations. However after Smith got more power hungry he quickly curtailed that by having a revelation which said that only his revelations(and those of his chosen successor) were genuine. The larger it got the more rigid it's form became until it reach what I like to think of as "religious critical mass" where it became highly intolerant to change(Of course, because it's still relatively new as religions go it's still more flexible than most forms of christianity).

Are there religions which deviate from this trend? Of course, many of the "suicide cults" were just that. But those appear to be outliers in the data set.

I can't say whether Christianity was fluid or not. I don't know how strict Jesus was with the disciples or how they approached spreading the word.

I would guess Buddhism was pretty disciplined in the beginning, but that is just a guess.

Likewise I would be guessing with Islam.

I just think that religions often arise within another religion - I think Jesus thought he was a Jew, teaching Judaism, and in some ways he was even stricter - not only can you not commit adultery but even looking the wrong way....etc. But he may have just set very, very high standards, but in terms of practice everything may have been just hanging with Jesus. I don't know.

But thanks for the Mormonism example. I know little about Mormonism, despite living with a couple of Mormons for a year. But they were on their year off before missionary work and didn't seem to want to think or talk about it.

 

[Pineal]

I think this is actually a split that some people (religious or not) are not able to relate to.
That is, for some people, "feeling good," "seeming mentally right" and "sounding moral" go hand in hand, and there cannot be one without the other.

Yaaaah, well.....that I am quite sure is their conception, but I think it is one they force onto themselves and certaintly others. IOW they assume that these are unified, when in fact they experience it rather differently. It should feel this way, but it does not. You can see this in their lack of empathy for those who are open about experiencing the issue.

In some Eastern cultures they do not have the separation between the "head" and the "heart;" to them, it's all one ("citta").

And I am sure many flagellants conceive of it this way. I am not sure this is how the organism experiences it however.

That the moral or the reasonable are that which we often would rather not do and don't feel good about - that is a typically Western idea, many Christians have it.

I think there are parallels in Hinduism, about being sucked into material pleasures and resisting the discipline of practice. And I am pretty sure both Buddhism and Hinduism recognize resistance to disciplined meditation, for example, and service and sacrifice, etc.

 

[Pineal]

Some religions also emerged or gained prominence in socially and economically difficult times.

I find it hard to separate on the one hand the effects of the socially and economically difficult times, and on the other hand, the difficulties one might experience in attempting to practice a religion.

If a person is upset about the troubles at work - can they realistically hope that their spiritual practice will be plain sailing?

But if they are offered a job with less trouble, a more supportive employer, more enjoyable work, whatever, are they wrong to choose it? Wrong to seek it? Likewise with religion? and 'plain sailing' is one thing, but such an argument could be used to make it impossible to feel right not choosing a very harsh, ascetic, even masochistic version of religion - a specific sect of one of the main ones for example.

IOW this vague general sense that we can't expect everything to be plain sailing, can be used to prevent making certain choices that may be healthy for the person spiritually and otherwise.

Spontaneous or varied activity (in a positive sense) of any kind seem to me to be in the domain of socially and economically prosperous and peaceful times.

I can see sense in this, though those are not necessarily the only attractive qualities religious practices might have. They could, it seems to me, still avoid no pain, no gain models.

I am sure there is a lot of spontaneous or varied activity in times of strife and war, but we usually don't think about strife and war in terms of opportunity for "spontaneous or varied activity."

This is not to say that social and economic factors determine spirituality/religion as such; but I think they do determine how a beginner can engage in spirituality/religion.

If the beginner has time to engage in a highly disciplined experienced and unpleasant set of practices, they have time to engage in something else.

 

[wynn]

But if they are offered a job with less trouble, a more supportive employer, more enjoyable work, whatever, are they wrong to choose it? Wrong to seek it? Likewise with religion? and 'plain sailing' is one thing, but such an argument could be used to make it impossible to feel right not choosing a very harsh, ascetic, even masochistic version of religion - a specific sect of one of the main ones for example.

IOW this vague general sense that we can't expect everything to be plain sailing, can be used to prevent making certain choices that may be healthy for the person spiritually and otherwise.

To be sure, some religious people indeed hold "If you feel troubled, this only means that you are on the right path and should not abandon it."

I can see sense in this, though those are not necessarily the only attractive qualities religious practices might have. They could, it seems to me, still avoid no pain, no gain models.

I think they should indeed come more naturally.
Stretching oneself in practice is one thing. But a persistent feeling of worthlessness, meaninglessness in one's religious/spiritual practice is something else.

If the beginner has time to engage in a highly disciplined experienced and unpleasant set of practices, they have time to engage in something else.

Time, yes, but probably not quality time, not clarity or wisdom or energy.

 

[wynn]

Yaaaah, well.....that I am quite sure is their conception, but I think it is one they force onto themselves and certaintly others. IOW they assume that these are unified, when in fact they experience it rather differently. It should feel this way, but it does not. You can see this in their lack of empathy for those who are open about experiencing the issue.

And I am sure many flagellants conceive of it this way. I am not sure this is how the organism experiences it however.

Actually, I do tend to think that the head vs. heart is an artificial distinction.
Of course, many people were raised with it, so they default to experience themselves through it.


I myself have always had problems with this distinction, I could never really internalize it.

When I experience internal discord, I conceptualize it in different terms, not in terms of head vs. heart.
In fact, I find that I am able to conceptualize it in several different ways.

I think there are parallels in Hinduism, about being sucked into material pleasures and resisting the discipline of practice.

And I am pretty sure both Buddhism and Hinduism recognize resistance to disciplined meditation, for example, and service and sacrifice, etc.

Sure, and they can sometimes speak about this harshly and nonchalantly at the same time.

 

[Pineal]

To be sure, some religious people indeed hold "If you feel troubled, this only means that you are on the right path and should not abandon it."

And if I were to listen I would be like a battered man with a battered man syndrome. In fact, I once was - not the battered man, but in this metaphorical sense.

And hey, religious people say a lot of stuff.

I have to by my actions and beliefs go against what most religious people say in the world. I cannot meet their criteria for goodness, holiness, correct choices. Most will think I have chosen the wrong path whatever I do. I cannot avoid failing by most people's standards when it comes to religion.

I think they should indeed come more naturally.
Stretching oneself in practice is one thing. But a persistent feeling of worthlessness, meaninglessness in one's religious/spiritual practice is something else.

Agreed.

Time, yes, but probably not quality time, not clarity or wisdom or energy.

Agreed. But my point is that their poverty or refugee status does not mean it is better for them to take on a religious system that feels bad and is not right for them. Whatever challenges one that felt better would present would also be present or matched by ones that feel bad about who they are.

many if not most people are aligned with this. Some people want religious practice to sever what would feel to me if I participated as parts of myself and to help me reinforce judgments of myself and harden them and to disidentify with much of what feels like me. I don't know what they experience, but I know it is not right for me. What I am saying here is that the logic of hardship, sacrifice, etc. is right for me too, since I am a human, I disagree with.

And as a note. I see atheists as having very similar beliefs to the people of the Book as to self-relation. both emphasize transcendence, both of the mammal we are (or the Beast), and emotions. The disidentifications are often remarkably quite similar.

 

[Pineal]

Actually, I do tend to think that the head vs. heart is an artificial distinction.
Of course, many people were raised with it, so they default to experience themselves through it.


I myself have always had problems with this distinction, I could never really internalize it.

When I experience internal discord, I conceptualize it in different terms, not in terms of head vs. heart.
In fact, I find that I am able to conceptualize it in several different ways.

Me, too actually. I used to say, rather more seriously than people seemed to catch, that I had to take a vote to get out of bed. And sometimes I could not achieve a majority position, let alone consensus.

The main issue for me here is not head vs. heart, but that one part must force another.

Sure, and they can sometimes speak about this harshly and nonchalantly at the same time.

Oh, goodness yes.

 

[wynn]

Me, too actually. I used to say, rather more seriously than people seemed to catch, that I had to take a vote to get out of bed. And sometimes I could not achieve a majority position, let alone consensus.

The main issue for me here is not head vs. heart, but that one part must force another.

In our culture, we have the belief to the effect of:

If you were left to yourself, you would sit on the sofa, watch tv and eat chips all day.
You won't act unless you force and beat yourself into action.
By nature, you are bad.
If you don't force yourself, you won't get anything done.
The only way to get anything done is by forcing yourself.
If you didn't force yourself, you didn't get anything done.


Much productivity advice assumes this and promotes it implicitly.

 

[wynn]

Agreed. But my point is that their poverty or refugee status does not mean it is better for them to take on a religious system that feels bad and is not right for them.

No, it doesn't, but in times of hardship, it seems this is precisely what people are inclined to do.

many if not most people are aligned with this. Some people want religious practice to sever what would feel to me if I participated as parts of myself and to help me reinforce judgments of myself and harden them and to disidentify with much of what feels like me.

Some Western Buddhist teachers point out that many Westerners take up Eastern beliefs and practices in this spirit: to reinforce their negative self-image.
These people perceive those Eastern beliefs and practices as proof that what they believed about themselves all along, is true. But they couldn't be further from the truth!

Some Western Buddhist teachers even maintain that spiritual practice cannot begin until the self-hatred stops.

And as a note. I see atheists as having very similar beliefs to the people of the Book as to self-relation. both emphasize transcendence, both of the mammal we are (or the Beast), and emotions. The disidentifications are often remarkably quite similar.

Sure.

 

[Pineal]

In our culture, we have the belief to the effect of:

If you were left to yourself, you would sit on the sofa, watch tv and eat chips all day.
You won't act unless you force and beat yourself into action.
By nature, you are bad.
If you don't force yourself, you won't get anything done.
The only way to get anything done is by forcing yourself.
If you didn't force yourself, you didn't get anything done.


Much productivity advice assumes this and promotes it implicitly.

Very concise! In the part of the world I grew up in might refer to this as Calvinist thinking.

It presumes a real (portion of) the self that will always be a burden or potential reprobate for the good portions of the self. Setting aside whether this is correct or must be correct or is the best approach to this issue.....
it seems much of the world presumes one has a kind of double nature, or two selves, one making sure the other is not taking over and being bad.