Are There Multiple Paths To God?

same reason you don't believe in leprechauns and would be worried if your mother suddenly professed belief in them and also worshipping them because in the leprechaun book it says to do so (but not the gingerbread man book, those guys are obviously wrong).

I never said my way or the highway, don't put words in my mouth. I made no mention of coercion or trespass. I'm very fun to be around, people like me, thanks for your concern.

 

"I have said over and over that spiritual things are an issue of subjective proof not an objective proof."
" For me, I needed a very stringent proof that I could not find any way to rationalize"


And by making this invocation over and over you make it so for you. What is sole subjective about the community belief? Proof to you is something you cannot explain but you make associations and assert that god is the explanation. A contradiction in terms.

 

What makes any soundly asserted view a system is the way it filters incoming information.

That is it exerts systemic influence on the way you apprehend the world.

 

My mother is dead, but if she were alive and literally believed in leprechauns, I'd be worried. I doubt that even many Irishmen today believe in the fairy tricksters who guard their pots of gold. If my mother believed in leprechauns metaphorically, as a Jungian trickster archetype, I'd be less concerned. The trickster is one of a dozen archetypes that Jung believed to be products of the human collective unconscious. The trickster symbolizes spontaneity or the desire to live in the moment with full enjoyment and to lighten up the world by playing pranks and practical jokes. That doesn't sound like Mom, so following a trickster would involve a major personality change for her, but I hope I'd respect the move as a step toward her personal liberation. Another archetype is the hero. Jesus is my hero, whether he actually existed or not (I think he did) and whether he did and said the things attributed to Him (more problematic, but the Jesus Seminar thinks he did and said almost 20% of them.).

 

No---I never said Red Man's ways are better than White Man's ways----I said they are different----I have said in many places that there is spirituality and mysticism in every religious tradition, I may not have made that clear here----but I believe I did mention it. Yes, I am critical of religious institutions---but in terms of the subjective spiritual experience----for me, it is an indigenous tradition that fits, so yes that is better for me. For someone else, it would be a Western one, or an African one, or whatever. People find the path that is best for them within religion too----that is my whole point of arguing here----is that everyone has the tradition that suits themselves the best. Dealing with the spirit directly is not a better way for many people. I am sorry if I did not get that point accross to you.

My point about the Wiccan traditions is not that they are no good, or not as good as the Native traditions----it is that they are not what they try to be-----but on second thought----maybe in so far as it is a New Age phenomena----then yes I guess I do have a bone to pick there-----because the New Age beliefs are very bad about stripping traditions of their cultural context and mixing it together with other traditions----it is more of a con than anything else. I don't think Wicca is really that bad at it---the authors of the belief system did try to stick with the older European paganism, and build from what we do know of, and what was still practised of, the old ways. But here again----if someone finds their own subjective path through Wicca, or a New Age tradition----then that is what is good for them. It is the best way for them. We can be critical of the structure all we want---but we have no right to determine that our way is any better than their way in terms of giving meaning to their life, and their ability to find god or the divine.

I can certainly talk about the problems of the Bible, and how it fits into the overall mythical structure of the Middle East. I can talk about its sexist nature, and so on, and so forth. Christianity is not for me. But if a Christian tells me that it has provided meaning to him and that his faith in GOd is undeniable---then I respect that, and I will understand that it is just as good as mine. Yes, that connection may have dogma and carry beliefs that are hypocritical and so forth----but undoubtedly there is something deeper there too, especially for him. You won't see me trying to force my opinions and beliefs upon him-----well, unless he tries to force his on me. You don't see me, for example, arguing religion in Christian Sanctuary on this forum. And where I have argued the merits of Chritianity, where Christians are participating and defending their beliefs, I do refrain from digging under the surface, and have been respectful of other's beliefs.

Case in point---if to you indigenous traditions are all conjuring and what not, then such traditions are not a better way for you. I am fairly certain, through our past conversations, what your beliefs are, and I have shared with you why they are not for me-----but I have never attacked your beliefs as wrong (or if you feel I did---I assure you it was not intentional). However I have pointed out to you on occaision that not everyone believes the same way, or would get value from your belief system, as you do.

In that same yuwipi ceremony my wife, who was under a lot of stress at the time, and really needed her mother at the time (who she has always turned to in times of stress---a mother she lost when she was a small child), found herself in her mother's arms----in a way that she has not been since she was a small child. She was in her mother's arms---the same smell, the same warmth, the same lost feeling, the same everything. After this happened,the medicine man told her that, 'yes, her mother was here.' She wondered how he knew that she was experiencing that in the dark room----and he did not even know that her mother was dead and gone. (This was my wife's first ceremony, and she had no idea what to expect, and when that happened she was surprised, and then for the medicine man to even know it...) I have related in the past how my wife's ancestors were healers in the old Philippine traditions and that my wife has insisted that she inherited gifts from them (like all members of her family---which ties into the mental breakdown of my stepdaughter when she was young and did not even know of such things). This particular Medicine Man gets his yuwipi gift from his dead grandmother. My wife did not know this until the night of the yuwipi. She developed a connection to the grandmother, without knowing who it was, who guided and prepared her for the ceremony weeks before the ceremony. She continued to communicate with the grandmother for months after as well.

Would you tell my wife that this was just conjuring and she wasn't really in her mother's arms? Or that she wasn't really communicating with the medicine man's grandmother---before she even knew who she was. I think I know what her response to you would be---an angry Filipina is not very polite.

Your existential experience of such things is not the same as my wife's. It is not the same as mine. Neither of ours is the same as yours. So whose is better? Mine is better for me, my wife's is better for her, and yours is better for you-----there are many paths.

By the way, my point about the devil was that we are responsible for our own actions. But if you carry a sacred pipe---this is especially true. There is no excuse 'the devil made me do it...'

 

[background=#ebe3ed]" For me, I needed a very stringent proof that I could not find any way to rationalize"[/background]


[background=#ebe3ed]And by making this invocation over and over you make it so for you. What is sole subjective about the community belief? Proof to you is something you cannot explain but you make associations and assert that god is the explanation. A contradiction in terms.[/background]

From the very first time I realized that I didn't really dig what I was being taught in Sunday School, I realized it wasn't for me, and I needed proof. In fact, I remember---it was a baptismal class----I was 8 years old. I didn't need to invoke it over and over. Eventually I gave up and determined that such proof was impossible. Then things started happening that shook my belief that it was impossible to find proof of such things. Things got more unbelievable despite my denials and attempts to come up with a rational explanation----until one night, under a harvest moon----you've read the story several times...

So I am not quite sure what you are saying, what was the contradiction? That God is a community belief yet I needed a subjective proof? Or that I was making associations with a community concept? Let me put it this way, I rejected the community definition of god---which was the Christian god. (This was before I connected with the local Native communuity). And what exactly were the associations I was making---as I have said before it was my existential experience-----is it possible that you are making unwarranted assumptions here?

 

What is the danger of new cultural paradigms emerging. Certainly yours have changed from no god to a whole kingdom. I once had a conversation with an auryuvedic who spoke of the sanctity of tradition and that the information in the system is forever accurate. The person made the claim that plants only had essential nutritional value or life force when consumed fresh. I asked if this really applied now with modern preservation techniques and the answer was yes. Then I asked the question does this mean that a human embryo that is conceived from previously frozen gametes is less vital. The answer again was yes. I understand the impulse to want to protect ones home turf with claims that tradition imparts anything other than a sense of specially endowed stature. A bone to pick? i think you pretty much splay and filet the whole carcass of spirit. It's okay for them if it floats their boat but it makes a mockery of what you do by mixing up the traditions is the impression I get. I will admit that it is important to preserve tradition to get the traditional effect. One of the traditional effects is dissing other cultural paradigms. We can be critical of the structure all we want and allow them their own beliefs as a way of excusing the criticism.

Your case in point assumes a negative connotation to the word conjuring. I've done plenty of conjuring on my own. I am not attacking your beliefs but reflecting on your reasoning and the corresponding apprehensions that are produced. We are spirited, spirit reaching toward spirit in all things

How do you know my essential experience is not the same? If there are many paths does that mean the essential experience of god is not the same if the paths lead to the same place? i say it is essentially the same experience and it appears to us individually in a form we have affinity for or can find personal assurance in. You know i'm good at reading minds from the responses I get from people in person, does this mean that I am some woo woo psychic or does it mean that I have a good understanding of how premises lead to conclusions or that there are tell tale signs in body attitude that aren't consciously acknowledged? The difference between you and i is not experience, it is your assumption of special experience.

The point about the devil is that spirits intercede because you smoke the pipe, i. e. you assume greater responsibility or are more spirited.

 

What you have said over and over is what you said you said over and over, i. e. "I have said over and over that spiritual things are an issue of subjective proof not an objective proof."

You say that you needed proof that you could not rationalize, yet you rationalize the experience that you can't rationalize as being god. Therein is the contradiction in your statement.

 

Couldn't agree more.

I think some posters here are too deeply "zoomed in" to their own spiritual decisions and worldview to take a step back and see the big picture. It appears that higher education cannot help with this, it only bestows upon them greater vocabulary and name dropping ability for bolstering what amounts to them just wanting to believe, dangit. I find lysergic acid to be helpful in these cases sometimes but you never know . . . sometimes it goes the other way.

 

Yeah, academic inbreeding. You know like with the mind reading comment I made. I could choose to go the route of paranormal phenomena and I imagine to have special powers might seem attractive but I am too aware of my own capacity to be deceived and I know there is nothing exceptional in real things. No special locations where the same laws don't appear. My observation is that if the hypothetical suggests an imbalance as the true proposition then it is fatally flawed as a true measure.
These hypothesis that claim imbalance as the correct proportion come from the egotistical mindset that finds it's higher worth or sense of accomplishment in how it is superior to one thing or another. An example being proud of resisting temptation or pumped up from weight training or if you have attained that special feeling of self worth. Actually this mindset is unstable and oscillates between pride and self recrimination or pride in self and disdain of others. This level of identification works on the basis of how you are different or unique among all things and this ego calls it's body itself while the scientific taxonomy of the human creature has it's identification in how we are the same or our features in common. The physical scientist finds identity in wave and particle of which we are all a part and here we have a physical scaffolding for ideas like the eternal soul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

These well educated cultural afficianados appear as scientists with personal problems. Kind of a talent misplaced or to reiterate a phrase a mind gone to waste on theoretical and sentimental ascents. The word tradition means at it's root to trade away. You trade away general inherent recognition for self indulgence in a specific form. The form suits me is one comment I hear. this suggests it is a matter of comfort, not of truth seeking.

 

there are infinite possibilities. some of them might be paths to somewhere. none of them are certain.
even when you've been following one. nor does how long you've been doing so make it more so. only easier to imagine it might be.

paths to god? what even is a god? does anyone know? can anyone know?
people have written books saying that they do.
but people have been saying bullshit longer then there have been books to say it in.

maybe we all have super powers, in tiny amounts, we don't know about and don't know how to use.

ok, so its all maybe. but isn't that all almost everything is anyway?

everything other then what you stub your toe on.

if it eases you stress, relieves some panic, to chant some mantra, or light some candle,
call a god that listens, or call it something in the act itself.

these are all good things.
to call them bad things
to make an excuse to hurt someone else
doing that is what would be a bad thing.

 

What I have trouble with is exploitation and manipulation. Yes, new traditions can come to be---and I would allow that the New Age is a transition---it is a search for meaning, but it is an attempt to deal with Post-Modern nihilism, and it is artificially constructed----so while people may find truth and meaning through it----there is also a lot of manipulation and exploitation. And when traditions are stripped of their cultural context---that which gives it its essential meaning and value----then we are simply left with artificiality. I allow that individuals may still make their connection to spirit through this artificiality---not to excuse my criticism of New Age traditions----but simply because spiritual value is subjective. I have no right to determine what works for someone else.

I don’t follow Ayurvedic traditions, I suspect that those who do tend to live healthier lives than I do. But I don’t believe in such traditions. And I place value on modern ways. However, if an Ayurvedic comes to stay at my house, I will respect that tradition, and I will accommodate him in every way I can and not trick him by sneaking processed food into what I serve him. And really you are accusing me of elitism by arguing that spiritual traditions should be left alone. Yet you are demonstrating elitism by stressing that modern ways are better than Ayurvedic ways (if I may make the same assumptions about you that you make of me). Or that breaking traditions for the sake of the modern ways is better---yes it is still elitist if you think your way is better. He may try to convince me that I should eat the way he does, or treat disease as he does, but I am fairly certain he is not going to force it upon me. I have New Age friends, and I show them the same respect, and again they do not try to manipulate or exploit me.

But that does not mean to say that the New Age movement is benign. Take for example, sweat lodges. Do you remember a few years ago when several people died in a sweat lodge and many others were sent to a hospital down in Arizona. That does not happen in a Native run sweat lodge. Right now there is a new age sweat lodge advertising on the web and FB that charges $40 per person. The Natives are pretty upset because you don’t charge for the sacred. The group doing it claims that it is to cover expenses. Based on the size of their sweat lodge I would say that they could easily net $800 or more per sweat. The sweat lodge I typically go to is run by a medicine man who has no money, and many of the others in the community have no money either. Generally you will give a gift of tobacco to him before the sweat---such as a cigarette, that is all. There are no expenses to run the lodge.

The Indians are very sensitive to the bastardization of their traditions---and for good reason. They have a long history of being persecuted over their traditions, their traditions are made fun of, they are turned into circus acts, they are belittled, sacred objects and ceremonies are demeaned by being sold, imitated, and mass produced, their traditions were even illegal until the mid 70’s while white New Age people could do them freely without recourse. It is no wonder that, in addition to the money there are many other things offensive to Indians about that new age sweat lodge. Of course they are trying to protect their traditions. And I will help them in whatever way I can.

My Native friends have gone to sweat lodges in the area that were not following tradition. They have offered to teach the people doing it the proper way of doing it, or to correct what they were doing wrong. When they refused to abide, my friends shut them down---today they have legal recourse to do that. The argument---and a good argument it is, is that a sweat run by someone who is not properly trained is dangerous----and in fact that is the case----the deaths in Arizona were not the first ones in a New Age sweat lodge. Imagine the bad rep that proper sweat lodges get for such New Age incidents----various members of my family feared for my safety when that happened---simply because I go to sweat lodges.

Let me put it this way. The implication of what you are saying is that my wife did not really experience her mother as her unique individual entity----but spirit simply because we are all the same spirit. That doesn’t match her experience, nor does it match my experiences. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong. I agree that there is a point where it is all one spirit. But our difference, based on our different experiences, is that I think there is more significance to our individuality than you do, including at a higher dimension—as I have told you before. I embrace the uniqueness of each of us. Here again---that works for you, and is right for you, but my perspective works for me.

The point about the devil is that spirits intercede because you smoke the pipe, i. e. you assume greater responsibility or are more spirited.

Our difference is as I just explained. We simply have a different perspective----and as you say----it appears to us individually in a form we have affinity for or can find personal assurance in. You keep insisting that I am saying that I am assuming I have special experience. I keep repeating that it is special for me, but that does not make it any more special than anyone else’s. If you want to push me on it, then I would concede that yes----I could assume that it is more special than that of those who blindly accept their faith, or unquestioningly buy into everything. But I can't really be so presumptuous---I cannot experience their beliefs through there eyes. But my whole point---and I don’t know why this isn’t coming through---is that everyone can find what is special to them, and many have. But what is special to me, or special to you is not going to be special to others.

Of course I talk about it as being special---it is special to me. But there are many many other traditions like it. I have heard amazing stories coming out of the Buddhist temples in Japan. I have heard amazing stories come out of the Buddhist temples and Taoist shrines in China. I have seen some pretty weird stuff in both countries. I have seen some pretty weird stuff in connection with the Catholic church in the Philippines. Growing up I heard stories here too---of miracles and things that god or Jesus has done for people. I was always a skeptic. But now I know that such things can happen---and so yes---to each of these people that experience these things----it is special to them. Mine is no better than theirs, theirs is no better than mine.

I mean, come on thedope, we all know that you think your perspective on the sacred is better. Why else would we debate over and over, often over trivial points, and other times go around and around, when we are both saying the same thing. It’s cool man---I dig it----because it is better for you. It provides meaning and understanding---and an assurance for you. That’s what it is all about----that is why there are many paths. But----before you get too full of it----yours is no better than mine, and vice versa. Yes---I will talk about mine in a special way----but I won’t try to challenge yours. I won’t try to convert you. I may share my opinion, and bits and pieces of my experiences, or tell why yours does not jive with mine for me, but I won’t claim it to be the one and only answer, or belittle your beliefs, or try to change them-------honestly, in all of our debates have I ever done that?

Finally---on the pipe---to be a pipe bearer does not make you special, or better than anyone else. But you do not carry the pipe for yourself----you carry it for the people. So in these traditions you are held to a higher standard---because you, like anyone else, are responsible for your actions. And you are expected to be there to pray for anyone.

So the pipe is a very sacred thing in these ways---so what? There are things that are considered sacred all around the world, and treated with reverence, and respected because of its power---malas, vajras, Tibetan Prayer Wheels, rosaries… Around the world, in all kinds of traditions---altars are considered sacred and imbued with power. You are taking my whole point about there being no devil and turning it to something else-----the point was we are responsible for our own actions.

 

You say that you needed proof that you could not rationalize, yet you rationalize the experience that you can't rationalize as being god. Therein is the contradiction in your statement.

See, this is why this experience was for me, and not for you. You are making assumptions, and clearly not a woo woo psychic. When that happened, my rational mind was too busy trying to figure out what just happened, and did it really happen, and trying to find a rational explanation of how it could have happened.

Another part of my mind was telling me---if you have ever had that kind of experience---almost like another voice, 'here is the answer.' I never thought about what it meant. I thought about why did it happen that way. And I spent days trying to figure out some rational explanation for it----the skeptic part of me was hard at work. But from a deeper level, I knew what it meant, from the moment it happened. There was never even a need to question or rationalize that part of it.

And it simply wasn't just a proof of God---it was proof of the whole thing, all that I was questioning at that time. And as fantastic and strange as it was, it came with this instant understanding that this is what it meant.

 

Yes that is so right----it would probably be better to institutionalize these people and their damaged views of reality. Because they just can't see the big picture----clearly that is objective reality, right? I mean, how can magic hocus pocus fit into the real world. It's like that other crazy stuff------such as mind over matter, as if our minds could change physical matter. LOL!!!!

Yes Mr.Writer, there can only be one way---that of objective reality-----because that is what is right and correct for everyone----one size fits all, and there can only be that one size...

Ohhhh, but wait... Here is the problem about objective reality-----we can only understand it from that single subjective point of the self. You can only see it from your own worldview. And what you have subjectively determined to be objective truth----that there can be no proof of god-----you have now determined for all of us to be the only real truth. If someone has had a different experience than you, then they are just zoomed in to a limited closed world, because they just, "...want to believe, dang it."

Now I do recall you stating that you didn't like the word path, because it implies a mutually exclusive superior path. Yet you expect us all to abide by your standards of belief----which if I now understand----is not atheist, but that you wish you would see a proof of god, but that such proof is impossible and never going to happen for you or anyone else (...now wait, I'm confused, you believe in a god who will never reveal himself to you or anyone else, and therefore it is all poppycock...?). Regardless, if anyone has had a different experience, and claims that such proof is possible at a subjective level-----that they are fools. And they could even be, like myself-----fools that like to throw around a bunch of big words.

The whole point I was trying to make to you, from the very first time I responded, was that, while your beliefs may be suitable for you, there are many other beliefs out there, which others have found to be suitable for them.

Now which viewpoint represents a better grasp of the bigger picture-----the viewpoint that there is only one objective standard and everyone must abide by it because it is the sole objective truth? Or, the viewpoint that different people will find their own individual ways of dealing with the universe, including those that have found, what is for them, proof of higher powers----a viewpoint that reflects the diversity and multiplicity of human experience?

And by the way, that mind over matter stuff---which I assume you would also have a hard time believing in-----MIT has done a series of experiments, and have provided the means for anyone to duplicate it, that demonstrates very significant evidence that the human mind can affect matter---specifically such things as, the .ph level of water, coagulation of blood, the growth of insect larva, and other physical states, or processes of matter. The physical world is just not the simple mechanical world, abiding strictly to the laws of physics, that it appears to be




P.S. It is interesting that you picked a comment from, and allied with, thedope, as he was criticizing me for being critical of the New Age Movement. And yet you stated your own disdain for the New Age Movement only a page or so earlier.

...which reminds me----you said that, 'Live and let live,' was a New Age concept (what? just New Age----and you were accusing me of a limited world view?) and a sign of weakness.

Yeah man, it was a real sign of weakness at Kent State, going up against the guns of the National Guard. It was a real sign of weakness at all the sit-ins and peaceful protests after Kent State and Nixon's declaration of war upon the youth of America. It was a real sign of weakness for all those who openly broke the law by publicly burning their draft cards, because those people didn't want to go kill Vietnamese peasants who simply wanted the land they were promised when the French pulled out, and religious freedom, under the US puppet government and Catholic Dictatorship of South Vietnam. It was a sign of weakness when all those Indians (in India) marched peacefully against the British soldiers and their Enfield rifles, even as they were steadily gunned down...

All too often I wonder if I am still on Hipforums------an online hangout for hippies...

 

Hippies? Thin on the ground these days............

 

Shoot, you got me, I'm secretely a huge Nixon fan and my favorite part of Vietnam was Agent Orange. Dang, if only I had understood that there is no truth, that everyone can just find their own!

 

This is simply an I know better than they or my traditions are more meaningful
statement. It has no redeeming meaning to anyone except the one making the claim. I think you could sell a book. Are you serious? " I allow that individuals may still make a connection through this artificiality?" Thank you for allowing that, If they are making a connection what is artificial about it? 'You are absolutely on the same tack as the auryuvedic I was speaking of. Thinking that tradition is the valuable thing, that tradition makes spirit what it is. I tell you traditions are not up to the task of transcendence at any time which is why they become threatened in the face of other advancing cultures. Indigenous tradition is the guiding light for a relatively isolated neighborhood. If not for the new age there wouldn't be any popular interest in indigenous spirituality. If indigenous spiritually is significantly superior why does what you call manipulation occur? I think it is because the system is not up to the task of protecting or informing the individual adherent in a meaningful way. If not for the failure of tradition in responding to a changing world then there wouldn't be a need for people to be seeking meaning.

The reason post modernism seems nihilistic to the traditionalist is because he has his head buried in the dust. The tribalist attitude isn't up to the task of global consciousness. If not for the failure of tradition in responding to a changing world there wouldn't be a glut of people seeking for or finding no meaning.
And really you are accusing me of elitism by arguing that spiritual traditions should be left alone. Yet you are demonstrating elitism by stressing that modern ways are better than Ayurvedic ways (if I may make the same assumptions about you that you make of me). Or that breaking traditions for the sake of the modern ways is better---yes it is still elitist if you think your way is better.

No I suggest egoism and narrow mindedness on the basis of the use of the words should be. There is what is and it's constant state of becoming. Your position offers nothing but contention and suggests that being upset is a virtue considering the offenses of historical circumstances. Get over it! I am not saying my position is better, it is equal to the task and I am saying your position is an affront to innocence then and going forward. No one knows what they are doing therefor the search for meaning. Your historical accounting justifies continuing tensions. If not for your negative assertions about the behavior of others you wouldn't meet mine. Again I am not attacking your faith but reflecting on the reasoning here. By your account it is an affront to what is sacred that the aztecs were discouraged from making human sacrifices.

Sacred means to be sprinkled with blood. Things should be and then blood is spilled because of it.

 

You simply miss my point because you are too busy defending yourself. What I said is not complicated and does not require a detailed personal history to be meaningful. Now you rationalize your ongoing rationalizations. I said you made a self contradictory statement. You can explain yourself in a way that doesn't contain that contradiction if and when you want. You haven't yet. Part of the difficulty you have is the idea that people have different truths. Truth is had by comparison, Truth is people have different beliefs or things they invoke as authority and beliefs do not even contend with the truth but only with other beliefs. You wanted to find a way to believe something, to disrupt the habit of your mind.

 

What is the cultural battle cry, We need to defend our way of life.

Of course we could learn to get along in the world instead.

 

follow the bouncing ball....

those singalong songs are funny with the bouncing ball going to each new word.....