Religion, what is it?

[Thomas]

The problem with ‘Absolute Becoming’ or ‘Ongoing Transcendence’ is that these concepts apply to 3D thinking, where our understanding is based on perception of time. This is one of the reasons it is most difficult to understand ‘God’, there is no ‘becoming’ or anything ‘ongoing’, it all exists simultaneously, at least that is closest we can come to describing in terms of time.

For me, coming closer to God or religion, means the effort to try and understand how to perceive and think outside of time, seeing and understanding the constraints that our thinking imposes on us.

I try to understand how everything exists, and everything has the right to exist, including those with the intention of destruction. All make up the whole and have their place, which implies even what we term as evil, is part of creation and has a right to exist and is part of God.

 

[Guest]

So I gather (if I correctly understood) that you believe "evil" is an unalterable constant, and that "outside of time" reality is like a flash-photo of all at once-ness, that is essentially immobile, and that our "perspective" is the cause of the illusion.

It is not my intent to contradict anyone's deep beliefs, not for any reasons of correctness, but simply because they can only be encountered effectively on their base level, where rationalization only floats on top. I would like to explore the ramifications of beliefs, because I believe that is their most manifest, and hence tangible aspect.

So then the illusion of time, if I understand correctly, is the illusion of perspective, where temporality is the objectification of constantly shifting perspective. If we take this to the question of creation and entropy (or good and evil) it may be that it is our perspective that qualifies those terms through temporality (in terms of their actions and durational qualities).

It would be then that expanding our perspective may allow "evil" to be what it really is (a part of the Absolute continuum). I gather you will agree that our current perspective of "evil" is that it tends to promote discontinuities (another term for destruction).

Thus, a truly unconstrained view of evil would then reveal it as an essential part of Absolute continuity, and hence alter its very nature or rather reveal its true nature, which would be radically different than the former one. This would imply that our unconstrained view would also apply to "good" and alter its nature. In essence the two formerly antagonistic, discontinuous and irreconcilables of good and evil would be one harmonic composition.

Regardless of the nature of our temporal perspective, the effects of good and evil in 3D are tangible, and to me real enough. The illusion, is thus a tangible one, yet it is based on perspective. Hence, would it not be the case that changing perspective would change the tangible effects? In other words, would then evil and good not be transformed into a unified deeper meaning that may have tangible effects upon 3D.

From my experience, no illusion is created out of nothing, and all illusion is dependent on perspective. Thus, understanding not good and evil per se, but the realities out of which they propagate in terms of our perspective to those realities, would transform the effects of good and evil and hence transform the world.

The underlying perception is that good and evil seem poised against each other, and seem to contradict each other. Yet we notice that good is motivated by evil and evil be good. We have two aspects motivating each other because of their contradiction. Thus, there does, even in 3D seem to be an underlying connection between the two.

Now, if we alter our perspective (which would entail a COMPLETE transformation on mental, emotional and sensory orientation and approach) that underlying orientation of mutual motivation becomes one of mutual support in coherence with the totality of the Absolute.

Good and evil would then be the results of a global perspective that compels action into one or the other direction. Shifting global and even individual perspective might then fuse good and evil to a mutually supportive relationship, and the gap between them would disappear.

What would be the result of that fusion? Perhaps it brings us at least one step closer to what has been called the Will of God.

 

[Pierre]

Religions have many aspects according to time, location, interpretations... Within the three monotheistic religions we can identify various groups including some "esoteric" ones like Soufis, Cathars or Essenians.

However those groups are a tiny minority in the religious ocean and most of them have been the target of the dominant religious systems (it might validate some content of this minority "religious" movement).

To go back to religions in general, we can isolate its dynamics by comparing its ethymology to "intelligence". Both (religere intelligere) have the same root : "ligere" i.e. join, unite , joining the One.

However this union process works in different ways : religere : unites through application of dogmas (unproven collective rules, morals) vs intelligere that brings to Oneness through personal rules based on intelligence : real scientific approach : no beliefs, objective data collection and analysis...

A trap would be to think that mysticism is equal to religious system and then throw the baby with the bathwater.

Another trap would be to think that intelligence would be enough to progress on the initiatic path.

As emphasized by the Cs, spirituality and science are complementary. I even suspect that the more it goes the more similar it gets, like a progressive fusion of the two brain hemispheres.

Knowledge protects ...and its one of the compulsory components for the ascension towards and along the STO ladder

 

[Rashi]

Religion always interesting topic to discuss. My experience about religion while growing up was that religion is related to fear you have to pray to god for everything, do fasting every now and then and what you eat during fasting is food full of carbs. If you don’t pray to god something horrible will happen to you. I grew up in India where you have over 330 million gods and goddesses from multiple religions. Can you imagine how confusing that is? I have read the famous Indian epics, Mahabharata and Ramayana and only thing I deduced was that people were fighting and killing each other in name of religion and caste even back then. They were
just killing each other, raping women, misusing powers in the name of religion. Imagine the amount of negativity that has been generated in the history.
You actually can’t think straight as religion takes over your thinking process. Looking for a job? Pray to god dearly for it, doesn’t matter how much skills and qualifications you have. If you don’t get it, blame your god, not the fact that you were not suitable enough for it. Another very upsetting eg and which still happens is expected mother’s go to local priest ( pundit that’s what we call them in India) to pray and do prayers, spend lot of money so that they can give birth to baby boy instead of girls ( again chromosomes don’t play any role). It’s all blind faith and fear. I never fitted in that culture as, I always ask that why we have to do it. Why out of 330 millions god don’t listen to me. I never got anything by luck or prayers. I always had to work hard and even then credit went to the prayers and the gods. Luckily my parents never forced me to believe in anything but whenever I used to ask them why do they follow all the rituals? Why mom would go to all the temples in the world? I never got the proper answer out of them. But at least they never forced me which was great. Now that I understand the concept (thanks to all the knowledge), I think they just end up doing this to create lots of negative energy which gets generated in name of god and goes to our bad old friends, Lizzies. All the corruption and misuse of power is done under the name of religion. Religion and all the negative things gets related to each other so easily.
Still no questions asked and people believe everything such a blind faith. Hats off to the STS, very well played, everything is under their control and no questions asked. What an awesome prison they have created full of blindness!
From what I understand, religion does help if it is made with right people with right thinking( not just with blind faith and fear). With working towards a goal to get things on track and by asking right questions. To help each other in learning lessons without having any selfish motive.

 

[Metrist]

Religions have to be interpreted. And what a religion is is subject to interpretation. I like to think of it as a mold. We mature, and outgrow and leave the mold behind, because we have gained control of our capacity to believe as we see fit. And, it is a social moderator that augments a parents ability to guide a child where a parents guidance might be lacking as well.

But at some point, religion serves little purpose as ones sense of self takes on its own direction. But religion is still there to fall back on, and when you have children, they are molded as well, but it isn't really necessary with your guidance.

So, people who argue about religion are like children, yet capable to stand on their own, and their devotion is idolatrous - not knowing the mold which they are forming in is only until they mature. But most people are naturally inclined toward growth and respect the process of development, and do not demarcate what is childish, and what is mature, as that is taught by example.

And so, religion gives form to a spiritual path that you set out on when you are ready, but not meant to house you permanently - although you are rooted in your past, owing to your becoming.

 

[whitecoast]

Religions have to be interpreted.

What specifically is it that is being interpreted? What do you suppose it is that allows us to sort religious experiences from non-religious?

So, people who argue about religion are like children, yet capable to stand on their own, and their devotion is idolatrous - not knowing the mold which they are forming in is only until they mature. But most people are naturally inclined toward growth and respect the process of development, and do not demarcate what is childish, and what is mature, as that is taught by example.

I would say that's true of a type of religion. Gurdjieff claims there are seven types of religion: one for each level of being a person occupies. What you're referring to here sounds like what the apostle Paul would call Nomos/Stoicheo, or a religion structured as a legal code for binding people in their spiritual infancy (i.e. while they are immersed in a mechanical life and subject solely to (epi)genetic and environmental factors) and preventing them from receding further from the divine, but which can become a hindrance once one internalizes the holy spirit and no longer stumbles in sin.

Ashworth talks about this a lot in Paul's Necessary Sin, especially the early chapter on spiritual infancy.

 

[Ina]

’Religion is the opium of the masses’. This is an old communist slogan that circulated freely in Europe before my time. It was designed in such way for the working class to believe that self-actualization would be assured by party ideology and regimented 5year programs. It was catchy because it was true albeit in a derogatory manner, minimizing religion to the level of addiction. My parents were war orphans, losing their fathers at a very early age, and were also war children. I was raised atheist by the system but constantly drawn to a tradition no one was talking openly about. I started to ask myself what is religion in my late teens. I remember the incense smell, the old priests in black robes, and the quiet and empty churches. Orthodox churches do not have benches so usually one goes in the church to pray and light candles for the dead and the living and to cry In silence. There are no ornaments or marble columns or or decorations for people to look at. There are regular services but one’s attendance is not compulsory. I was not quite sure why people need to go to church so I started to go and observe what other people (mainly old women) were doing. Going to church, randomly as I did, I remember always feeling protected and safe and that I was not alone. I cannot explain it though. When I was 25 or 27 I bought myself my first Bible which I read from cover to cover. I was quite .... confused and I decided that Bible was some writing of epic proportions. Some years later I bought the second Bible and read both and realized that there were differences. I knew about religion from school, about the religious art from the art history museums but I realised that I still have to do homework to find out what religion was, and why should I be christian orthodox. That is when I started to read about all other major religions, and I remember entering my first drastic depression after diving into Buddhism and starting to increase my awareness. I did it all ‘wrong’ all by myself and without any guidance but by studying other religions I managed to understand the religion I was born into and I returned to it in full acceptance. So fast forward few decades later, my understanding is that religion is a level /state of being you attain within yourself that eases the connection with your surrounding reality,

 

[Metrist]

What specifically is it that is being interpreted? What do you suppose it is that allows us to sort religious experiences from non-religious?

Stories, morals, teachings, warnings. How they relate to your experiences.

But I commented because, I felt that religion is taken for granted, and though you become capable and mature enough to observe the phenomena around you as well as any other, it wasn't always this way, and because you grew, doesn't mean your time was wasted - it helped form you. So it is meant in gratitude.