Similar Posts

14 Comments

  1. Yes, the journey, the process is all. I would like to share with you a Deepak Chopra revelation. It addresses “mastering” difficult situations….”You are seeking to realize who you really are. Life will give you lots of opportunities to create that. This opportunity (the letter writer’s) you are facing now is one of them. So be thankful, and bless it. Why? Because that’s what love would do.”

    Namaste.

    1. A very effective idea Patricia.

      Reminds me of a Rumi poem (I think the translation is by Coleman Barks)

      “A joy, a depression, a meanness,
      some momentary awareness comes
      as an unexpected visitor.

      Welcome and entertain them all!
      Even if they’re a crowd of sorrows,
      who violently sweep your house
      empty of its furniture,

      still, treat each guest honorable.
      He may be clearing you out
      for some new delight.

      The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
      meet them at the door laughing,
      and invite them in.

      Be grateful for whoever comes,
      because each has been sent
      as a guide from beyond.”

  2. “But if you aren’t doing something, you’re the spiritual equivalent of a 98-pound weakling.”

    Hi Tom

    With qualification, I agree with these words of Jay Michaelson. The problem for me comes when comparison becomes prescriptive rather than descriptive. When I think I am normatively better than a drunk or felon, I don’t seem to be able to optimize my spiritual performance. I seem to remain safe only when the comparison is restricted to various levels of ability to enjoy life.

  3. “The point of religion is to shift consciousness . . .”

    No doubt shifting consciousness is one of the elements likely to be part of religion, but religions are what they are, and serve a broad range of functions, including social cohesion, moral authority, personal and group identity, mythological explanation, a focus for literature, art and music, a framework for ritual enactments, and so on.

    I like to think of religion as a language which allows things to be expressed that otherwise couldn’t. For example I think prayer and thanksgiving is innate, almost instinctive; so it’s necessary to construct myths that make sense of the instinct. Most religions started before there was organized science (including cosmology, physics, biology, psychology, neurology etc) so it had to be the vehicle of mythological explanations for phenomena as observed both externally and internally.

    The realization in late 20th, early 21st century, that various functions of religion may have been superseded, together with an increase in global communication, has led to a decline in traditional religious loyalties, a consequent panic reaction by certain traditionalists, and an impatience with traditions by intellectuals.

    I’d argue for greater tolerance and understanding in this crisis, and less cherry-picking in the matter of what the point of religion is.

    Sorry if the points made above are only tangentially relevant to the main thrust of your essay!

    1. “I’d argue for greater tolerance and understanding in this crisis, and less cherry-picking in the matter of what the point of religion is.”

      That makes sense to me Vincent, as far as taking a normative view. However from an individual view it might be best to cherry-pick whatever works best for a person. Perhaps authentic spirituality is individual choice, and nothing more or less.

    2. Thanks very much for your thoughts. I do agree with and value your comment “I like to think of religion as a language which allows things to be expressed that otherwise couldn’t. For example I think prayer and thanksgiving is innate, almost instinctive…”
      Yes. This insight explains why Raymond’s pragmatic apophatic mysticism works. Prayer and thanksgiving have been evolutionarily selected, they resonate, which, I feel, is why many folks who try bare-bones Buddhist meditation report feeling dry and lifeless at times. (And while there may be some benefit to working through these feelings, to get past them, I have my doubts about the long term implications).
      I do agree with both you and Raymond on the next point: that of cherry picking, and I don’t think what you two say are at odds. Yes, I also would argue for less cherry picking if by that we mean picking and choosing to the point of dissecting religious practice into inert slices; but I also feel that we need to find those aspects of religious practice which works for the individual without killing the root from which it emerges. Greater tolerance about what religion is — yes, and finding an authentic religious practice through the exercise of wise, non-harming discrimination–yes.

    1. Thanks very much Rob. I just saw your site–very nice. Warmly, Tom

Comments are closed.