It seems to me that every religion in the world has some practitioners who use their beliefs to find inspiration for living a meaningful and charitable life, and other practitioners who use it as an excuse to harm or even kill anyone who disagrees. Good people will find reasons to do good things, and bad people will find reasons to do bad things, and religion only gives both groups a chance to about their work in a more organized fashion. Without religion, they’d probably just be individual sociopaths limited to destroying one life at a time.
I do think that bad people tend to congregate within their religion, by becoming involved in the Taliban or the KKK or whatever group is currently destroying lives in the name of “morality.” But of course once they are organized enough to be recognized as dangerous, they are organized enough to fight back.
I wish there was a way to revoke the religion privileges of these people, or require them to attend meetings of Self-Righteous Monsters Anonymous or something. I can’t think how to make that happen, though.
@angel_vow - The problem, pure and simple on that level, is religion itself. It IS opium for the people. Neither Jesus, nor Buddha, nor Krishna founded religions, their followers did.
Hmmmm. Very thought-provoking. Confessing my complete lack of knowledge about Ken Wilber and his works (the sheer number of his books alone, as well as the intellectualism, always scared me away), from this tape it seems that he certainly has done a thorough and impressive job researching, categorizing, and labeling (1) the stages of religious / spiritual development of individuals, (2) states of consciousness, and (3) people’s various perspectives on the Divine. And his findings were all summed up concisely in this little 17-minute tape (which I hope means I don’t have to read his books now )! Here, now, are my little impressions about his talk, rightly or wrongly interpreted.… What I found interesting was: Just as the findings of quantum physics back up the spiritual teaching of the unreality of the world, so too do the conclusions of his spiritual research seem (to me) to support the ideas that: (1) each individual is right and not wrong about his particular religion/spirituality, because each person is at a different stage of spiritual development and has a different perspective on God (“So which of these three perspectives [on God] is correct? All of them!”) (about correcting error in others, the Course says: “He is still right, because he is a Son of God.” ACIM:T-9.III.2:9); and (2) ”which path is best [for anyone to follow] is which path is best for you.” (the Course says: “There are many thousands of other forms [paths], all with the same outcome.” ACIM:M-1.4:2), a message that seems to me to be in accord with Course teachings. He also observe that: (1) ”exoteric religion, or religion of myth and dogma, [is] arguably the cause of more human suffering and death than any other man-made cause on the face of the planet”; (2) ”the only path out of human suffering that we know of [is esoteric, contemplative spirituality in its various forms]“; and (3) ”What religion in its highest effort can do is help men and women move from the pre-rational forms of religion to the rational forms to the trans-rational.” Interesting to me to hear it put that way so logically and clearly. His statement that “religion actually is one of the very few human disciplines that seems to span the entire spectrum of human development” reminded me a bit of mythologist Joseph Campbell, who, in his life-long study of the world’s mythology, also found that (if I understood him correctly—and I have to state this in my own words from memory) human beings’ multitudinous symbolic expressions of their relationship with God is universal, spanning all of known history and cultures of the world, and that the similarities of actual symbols are astonishing, down to minute detail, in spite of great distances of historical time and geographical locations, where cross-culture mixing was highly improbable. He concluded that these similaries were due to something innate in humans, not due to an actual cross-sharing of cultures (the only two possible choices, as he saw it). Apparently, (I believe it was he who also said) archeologists have observed the same thing. Like Wilbur (I believe), Campbell also said that all religions are right [in the sense that all religions are the individual's attempt at reaching God and the symbolism of any particular religion can be transcended, I believe is what he meant]. Mother Teresa seems to me to be a good example of one who supposedly was able to transcend the symbols of her religion, working within the confines of its system, not by abandoning it. Wilber is funny, too! I must say I particularly enjoyed his “English lesson” in pronouns (about 11 minutes into the tape) to explain the “one-two-three of God…the way [we] interpret the Divine,” especially his little side bar where he includes the second-person-plural “youse.” Of course, however impressive his analysis is, it’s ultimately all illusion, speaking from a Course perspective. Within the illusion, the ego loves to analyze itself. Ultimately, the problem is in the mind, not with anything “out there,” but the temptation is to find the problem “out there,” in religion. Everything “out there” is a mere image of the mind’s thoughts. And we’re one mind, so those religions R us, no? And ultimately, of course, our only function is accepting the Atonement for ourselves—the only way to peace. And of course Wilber (I think) is saying that it’s the esoteric forms of spirituality that lead one there. His message does seem to me to be one of great understanding, tolerance, and hope. And that’s where he’s at right now! And this is where I’m at. The end.
@elalight - Personally, I thought it was an interesting recap, as far as it goes. It is somewhat limited to the phenomenological aspects – like you said, a catalog, though I still sensed it could open some doors.
Comments (6)
Definitely interesting!
It seems to me that every religion in the world has some practitioners who use their beliefs to find inspiration for living a meaningful and charitable life, and other practitioners who use it as an excuse to harm or even kill anyone who disagrees. Good people will find reasons to do good things, and bad people will find reasons to do bad things, and religion only gives both groups a chance to about their work in a more organized fashion. Without religion, they’d probably just be individual sociopaths limited to destroying one life at a time.
I do think that bad people tend to congregate within their religion, by becoming involved in the Taliban or the KKK or whatever group is currently destroying lives in the name of “morality.” But of course once they are organized enough to be recognized as dangerous, they are organized enough to fight back.
I wish there was a way to revoke the religion privileges of these people, or require them to attend meetings of Self-Righteous Monsters Anonymous or something. I can’t think how to make that happen, though.
@angel_vow - The problem, pure and simple on that level, is religion itself. It IS opium for the people. Neither Jesus, nor Buddha, nor Krishna founded religions, their followers did.
Hmmmm. Very thought-provoking. Confessing my complete lack of knowledge about Ken Wilber and his works (the sheer number of his books alone, as well as the intellectualism, always scared me away), from this tape it seems that he certainly has done a thorough and impressive job researching, categorizing, and labeling (1) the stages of religious / spiritual development of individuals, (2) states of consciousness, and (3) people’s various perspectives on the Divine. And his findings were all summed up concisely in this little 17-minute tape (which I hope means I don’t have to read his books now
)! Here, now, are my little impressions about his talk, rightly or wrongly interpreted.…
The end. 
What I found interesting was: Just as the findings of quantum physics back up the spiritual teaching of the unreality of the world, so too do the conclusions of his spiritual research seem (to me) to support the ideas that: (1) each individual is right and not wrong about his particular religion/spirituality, because each person is at a different stage of spiritual development and has a different perspective on God (“So which of these three perspectives [on God] is correct? All of them!”) (about correcting error in others, the Course says: “He is still right, because he is a Son of God.” ACIM:T-9.III.2:9); and (2) ”which path is best [for anyone to follow] is which path is best for you.” (the Course says: “There are many thousands of other forms [paths], all with the same outcome.” ACIM:M-1.4:2), a message that seems to me to be in accord with Course teachings.
He also observe that: (1) ”exoteric religion, or religion of myth and dogma, [is] arguably the cause of more human suffering and death than any other man-made cause on the face of the planet”; (2) ”the only path out of human suffering that we know of [is esoteric, contemplative spirituality in its various forms]“; and (3) ”What religion in its highest effort can do is help men and women move from the pre-rational forms of religion to the rational forms to the trans-rational.” Interesting to me to hear it put that way so logically and clearly.
His statement that “religion actually is one of the very few human disciplines that seems to span the entire spectrum of human development” reminded me a bit of mythologist Joseph Campbell, who, in his life-long study of the world’s mythology, also found that (if I understood him correctly—and I have to state this in my own words from memory) human beings’ multitudinous symbolic expressions of their relationship with God is universal, spanning all of known history and cultures of the world, and that the similarities of actual symbols are astonishing, down to minute detail, in spite of great distances of historical time and geographical locations, where cross-culture mixing was highly improbable. He concluded that these similaries were due to something innate in humans, not due to an actual cross-sharing of cultures (the only two possible choices, as he saw it). Apparently, (I believe it was he who also said) archeologists have observed the same thing. Like Wilbur (I believe), Campbell also said that all religions are right [in the sense that all religions are the individual's attempt at reaching God and the symbolism of any particular religion can be transcended, I believe is what he meant]. Mother Teresa seems to me to be a good example of one who supposedly was able to transcend the symbols of her religion, working within the confines of its system, not by abandoning it.
Wilber is funny, too! I must say I particularly enjoyed his “English lesson” in pronouns (about 11 minutes into the tape) to explain the “one-two-three of God…the way [we] interpret the Divine,” especially his little side bar where he includes the second-person-plural “youse.”
Of course, however impressive his analysis is, it’s ultimately all illusion, speaking from a Course perspective. Within the illusion, the ego loves to analyze itself. Ultimately, the problem is in the mind, not with anything “out there,” but the temptation is to find the problem “out there,” in religion. Everything “out there” is a mere image of the mind’s thoughts. And we’re one mind, so those religions R us, no? And ultimately, of course, our only function is accepting the Atonement for ourselves—the only way to peace. And of course Wilber (I think) is saying that it’s the esoteric forms of spirituality that lead one there. His message does seem to me to be one of great understanding, tolerance, and hope. And that’s where he’s at right now! And this is where I’m at.
@elalight - Personally, I thought it was an interesting recap, as far as it goes. It is somewhat limited to the phenomenological aspects – like you said, a catalog, though I still sensed it could open some doors.
@RogierFvV - Absolutely.