Are There Multiple Paths To God?

I buried my heart at wounded knee.

Now I am heartless and can't walk very well.

Perhaps if I take heart instead of exception I can dance with joy instead.

 

what wounded your knee and made your heartless?

 

The Wounded Knee Massacre (officially Battle of Wounded Knee) occurred on December 29, 1890,[5]near Wounded Knee Creek (Lakota: Čhaŋkpé Ópi Wakpála) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservationin the U.S. state of South Dakota. On the day before, a detachment of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regimentcommanded by Major Samuel M. Whitside intercepted Spotted Elk's band of Miniconjou Lakota and 38Hunkpapa Lakota near Porcupine Butte and escorted them five miles westward (8 km) to Wounded Knee Creek, where they made camp.
The remainder of the 7th Cavalry Regiment arrived, led by Colonel James W. Forsyth and surrounded the encampment supported by four Hotchkiss mountain guns.[6]
On the morning of December 29, the troops went into the camp to disarm the Lakota. One version of events claims that during the process of disarming the Lakota, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote was reluctant to give up his rifle, claiming he had paid a lot for it.[7] A scuffle over Black Coyote's rifle escalated and a shot was fired which resulted in the 7th Cavalry's opening fire indiscriminately from all sides, killing men, women, and children, as well as some of their own fellow soldiers. The Lakota warriors who still had weapons began shooting back at the attacking soldiers, who quickly suppressed the Lakota fire. The surviving Lakota fled, but U.S. cavalrymen pursued and killed many who were unarmed.
By the time it was over, more than 200 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 were wounded (4 men, 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300.[4] Twenty-five soldiers also died, and 39 were wounded (6 of the wounded would later die).[8] At least twenty soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor.[9] In 2001, the National Congress of American Indians passed two resolutions condemning the awards and called on the U.S. government to rescind them.[10] The site of the battlefield has been designated a National Historic Landmark.[5]

 

Yes, but what hurt your knee?

 

Burying the heart

 

why?

 

There has always been a fascination with indigenous beliefs. We have labeled it as savage, yet used it to sell medicine and cure-alls. There was always the story of the sea captain, superstitious because of savage ways he saw in the South Pacific. The slaughter of unarmed men, women, and children at Wounded Knee was representative of a fear of Native traditions, and this theme appears over and over through the relations between white men and the Natives in the Americas. The whole archetype of the Golden Age (as in the universal golden age myth, e.g. the Garden of Eden) is based on a long lost indigenous past, and a reverance for it (Yes---it is an archetype). And now that Native traditions are no longer illegal, they are making their way back among native people as they rediscover their own heritage and culture. Then too Natives around the world are speaking up about what is happening to the earth, and fighting to gain legal recognition, and to protect the land and resources around them.

The New Age movement may contribute to an interest among non-natives----but it is in no way the reason for its rising interest today. I can seriously and honestly say that it did not influence my own interest.

A connection to the divine does not require any man made structure. Therefore why would it matter if it were achieved through an artificial one or a traditional one. The difference between them however is, 1.) richness of experience (even if it is simply because it is steeped in centuries of tradition---people place value and truth on such things---whether they should or shouldn't---no I am not being elitist here, it is just how it is.) 2.) the openness to exploitation and manipulation----yes, all religions are manipulative and exploitive-----but consider, for example, the Catholic Church as a cult, or the Unification Church (Sun Myung Moon) as a cult.

Spirituality, indigenous and non-indigenous, is not exploitive because it is not an institution. religion is an institution, not a spirituality. People can take a spirituality and use it to exploit----oh wait----that's why we were talking about the New Age movement----what a coincidence. The spirituality itself is not exploitive.

If you understand what I am saying and put it all together from this and previous posts, then you would see that it is not a matter of I know better than they. But then, it seems that this is a battle of elists----an issue of shadow projection.

You either don't understand post-modern theory, or are making a statement about meaning and value in modern life-----if the latter case, then that is subject for a whole nother thread. Except that then you contradict yourself in the last sentence. Regardless---your last statement is only half right. The Post Modern problems are also a logical end-conclusion to the rationalist-objectivism of traditional religion----it took us right to this point as it was designed to do.

To insinuate that I am a traditionalist because I speak out in defense of indigenous spiritual tradition, or that I point out that there is something flawed with taking old traditions and stripping them of their cultural context is also only partly correct. Your amazing ability to take people's words and bring them to their conclusions---or however you referred to your gift, is once again flawed when it comes to my philosophy.

We can go around and around on this all day----but to what end?

 

Oh good, I'm glad you cleared that up.

...Oh wait----is not possible that there were many events that led up to this massacre. Was it just a spur of the moment thing, and the soldiers just happened to be there? Is it possible that these Indians were out doing something significant? Or were they just a bunch of savages wandering around with rifles.

It seems like there are so many holes in this account of events----a whole story that is missing...

 

It is the garbled language I am working on. The self contradictory statements on their face or by definition, not in connection to anyone's philosophy. If the philosophy is built on the foundation of these statements then the philosophy itself might be suspect. What is spirituality? An Idea about spirit? We are spirit-ed, spirit reaching toward spirit in all things. People have the spirit to find their good in life and everything you see is spirit clamoring for more or seeking after it if not recognized.


On your suggestion about this,
" 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."
This is not a self contradictory statement. It speaks to the phenomena of the discontented or those that see no meaning in modern life. It is not an attempt to define the classic academic meaning of post modernism, it is a turn of phrase.

The reason we go round is for clarification.

When we make exemplary comparisons to what we say we then can detect previously unrecognized personal biases or inaccuracies...

I used the example of you saying that traditional means should not be imposed upon and I compared that statement to the example of the aztec practices. In that light it seems a rather simplistic or not well considered conclusion. It is vanity to suggest that things should be one way or another. It is wise to recognize what they are.

 

Because your post was below mine I think you have jumped to the conclusion that my comment about hippies was aimed at you (if I'm wrong, sorry to take up time).

It was actually only a general observation.

 

No---I think he was responding directly to me.

 

The path is a circle ? or a rising spiral . The circle is properly a place of rest , sustainance and trust as
in May the Circle Be Unbroken . This winter I have wondered at a vision of a circle . It was at first just
named , announced as ' Circle of Blue ' , then appeared to my mind a few days later . I find it pleasant
to hold this in memory actively , viewing that painterly harmony of light and space - whenever - and
with a nod of respect to whatever random inspiration brings it once again to mind .

 

Ok, one last thing…

Good point----now let me see if I can defend my point against it:

To quote from Wikipedia, “ Belief is a mental representation, …of a sentient beings attitude toward the likelihood or truth of something.” (which is actually quoted from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

When we are speaking of a negation of a physical object, such as a table, then no table, or the lack of a table means, simply—there is no table. When we are speaking of a mental representation, I posit that it becomes a little more difficult and cloudy when we are talking about mental representations towards the likelihood of a truth; especially when it involves the truth (or non-truth) of an absolute, which, based on the dominant zeitgeist, is the source of all meaning, value, and even life itself, and the implications regarding mortality. The definition of god, and all that its existence entails is intimately built into man’s culture. God is even structured into the subconscious of man as an archetypal motif. (This last sentence does not mean that god is real, after all, an atheist could simply argue that such an archetype is a defense mechanism evolved to help man survive and be productive and socially viable.)

We could say, I don’t have a belief in UFO’s, which would imply, I don’t believe one way or another in UFO’s, because I don’t know, and I don’t care. This would be more representative of a lack of belief. There is enough confusion and/or disinterest by some about such things that one would not even have to place a value judgment towards the likelihood of truth.

To deny the existence of god, on the other hand, is to go against cultural programming and to defy one’s own archetypal mechanisms through which man relates to the universe at a subconscious level. It is not something we can categorically or summarily reject or deny without some kind of a value judgment of belief. Even if a person made a deliberate effort to reject a belief in god in a purely objective manner, as a coke machine rejects a bad coin, human interaction within the world around us would make it inevitable that at some point he would be forced to defend his position, explain it, or in some other way, place meaning or value upon it as a belief.

Because elements of a belief in god are archetypal in nature, it is not even something that we can claim to be a priori at an existential level---in other words, we cannot even claim to be born as an atheist. In fact, Jungian psychologists have demonstrated that it is our experience with our mother that gives us our first understanding of an omnipotent, all-encompassing being that is both giver of life and sustenance, and the being that just as easily takes it away. That is to say that our very first early formative belief system---though rudimentary, crude, and based purely on a conceptual experience of the world, is that of the goddess. In time the father becomes a more significant authority figure, and symbolically represents a different level of religious experience. Even though we do not understand it or label the father-child, or for that matter the mother-child, relationship in such terms at this early age---the experience, motifs, and symbolic references certainly reappear within our later actual spiritual and religious experiences. (I will concede that at birth, one has no belief what so ever and therefore we could argue that this is the only point we could label as atheism that would not be based on belief. But by the time we achieve any level of cognition we are already experiencing a reality of what appears to be an all-powerful omnipotent being.)

To choose atheism is therefore a rejection or rebellion against, not only our cultural programming, but our own self at a deeper psychological level, as well as of our own parents as they exist internally as a mother and father archetype (just as a belief in god is an acceptance of the same self and parental figures). There can be no value-free rejection of, or lack of, belief of a god (or goddess).

Therefore, if we were to allow that it is merely a lack of belief, and thus not a belief, and because it is a determination that is imbued with meaning and value and a subjective defining truth of our existential reality, then what would such a ‘mental representation of this attitude towards the likelihood or truth’ be referred to? What can we call this determination to not believe? Atheism---meaning without god---is not a mental process, nor a mental action, it is not even a verb, so that word would not suffice.

There is no word to describe a mental representation of the attitude towards the likelihood or truth of an atheist nature, other than the same verb we use to refer to the ‘mental representation of the attitude towards the likelihood or truth’ of a theist nature: to ‘believe.’ They are both one and the same, because to reject god is too much of an assertion of value, and meaning of an ontological nature.

This is why I argue that atheism is a belief. But is it a belief system?

To answer this let’s answer two key questions. The first one being, ‘what is a system?’ The second question would then be, are there a minimum level of beliefs, doctrines, tenets, positions, etc. we must maintain in order for a belief or set of beliefs to be a system?


As to the first question, Thedope made an interesting comment on systems:

It may not be complete in its definition, but it is a good description. And indeed, the lack of a belief in God provides a filter through which an atheist systematizes his perception of the world, exactly as, only to the opposite conclusion of any theist. An atheist may experience a very strange synchronicity (coincidence) and determine that it is the work of God. An atheist would experience the same thing, but determine that it was just one of those strange coincidences, nothing more.

Consider that an atheist, in systematizing his world view based on this belief, does not, for example, insist that there is no God, and then pray to God in a time of need---if that is the case then he is, in time of need, no longer an atheist.

On to the second question, are there a minimum number of beliefs, etc., required for a belief or set of beliefs to be a system? I propose that the answer to this would depend on how relevant it is the validity of the system. For example if the belief or doctrine is that, ‘any and all sacraments should be hallucinatory in nature,’ then no matter how popular (or unpopular), or controversial, or cool, such a doctrine would be, it is incomplete as a belief system, and does not systematize the world around us. Such a tenet or doctrine would clearly require additional beliefs, doctrines, or what have you, to become a belief system.

Because the rejection of God, or the belief that god does not exist, is so significant on a psychological, cultural, and ontological level, I assert that this is sufficient all by itself to be a belief system. It alone determines the validity of the system. As long as nothing happens that shakes or changes the atheist’s opinion about the existence of god, he will be an atheist. As the one and only position, doctrine, or belief, it may not allow for anything more than a rudimentary and crude, or blatantly simplistic system, nonetheless, this one position does exert systemic influence on the way one apprehends the world.

Someone could disagree and point out that, if we turn the issue around and then claim that the opposite is not true---that theism is not a belief system because it is too broad to be considered a belief system by itself, therefore atheism cannot be a belief system either. However, such an argument would not be relevant. While theism speaks to a broad set of varied beliefs, atheism is basically one belief. An atheist, for example, would not consider that, ‘God does not exist, but Krishna is everywhere.’ An atheist rejects the belief in a supernatural, transcendent, all powerful Creator being—despite what name one uses to refer to it.

Therefore, if we look at the quote you provided, it says that,

That belief system is simply that there is no god. And for each and every atheist individual in all these various traditions and philosophies, that belief that there is no god, shapes their ontology—it exerts systemic influence on the way they apprehend the world.

As the quote also stated, people do not recognize a lack of belief in elves or in Big Foot as a belief system. However for most people, a ‘belief in’ elves, or Big Foot is also not a belief system. In the Philippines, for example, there are many people who believe in the little people. And there we could argue that it is at least part of a belief system. Such Filipinos will be careful how they act around mounds, will attribute illnesses to the little people, will be leery of wandering off into a jungle or messing with thick vegetation… On the other hand, a belief in the little people is not so critically significant to the local culturally-based ontology, such that we would also call a lack of belief in little people as a belief system. Conceivably, with the little people, much like the UFO’s mentioned earlier, it is not a big deal. However, this is not the case at all when we are talking about the far more significant lack of belief in god. Not in the Philippines, not anywhere.

Anyway-----that is my argument that atheism is a belief system. I would like to hear your opinions on this, and you may very well have something to say that will change my mind. However, so as not to beat a dead horse, I will not debate it anymore. This is my whole argument, I don’t think there are any more substantial points that I could add to it.

To beat a dead horse you will only help it to bloat, at which point you risk an explosive rupture, which could all too easily cover you in festering and fetid innards. Besides, while beating a dead horse you are only competing with the dogs and other wild animals as they rip at the bodily orifices, and gnaw at the soft tissues and soft anatomical protrusions in order to get to the meat inside. We don’t really need, or even want, that rotten maggot-infested, and sun-baked, horse meat…

 

It need not be a complex system of terms but a simple assertion that influences or filters the way you apprehend the world. An assertion is something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.

 

I think you misunderstand me often because of an academic mindset. It is the same principle at play as we are discussing about belief or strongly asserted views in filtering the way we apprehend the world which is through our previous learning. So you say words like existentialism to me and it doesn't mean much because I didn't have an academic education in philosophy or philosophers or history or really any subject. Anything I say simply reflects what has become of my own interests. Even though this is the case you will still be tempted to classify what I say into some form of classical position. I have to constantly research to stay in the conversation sometimes and you greatly rely on your previous associations and in so doing seems I learn something and you misapprehend what I am saying.

I didn't say new age movement, I said new age and what I mean by new age is the age of modern communications. The reason for the new age movement comes from mass cross cultural communication beginning with the advent of popular speedy transportation, railways and steamships. If you are talking about rising interest you are talking about increased communication. I wouldn't have suspected a rising interest to develop from within the sweat lodge as they are all choir members already.

I've noticed now some terms that seem to catch in your throat or that you don't want to be associated with due to the the way that you have come to understand them, one being new age movement and another being conjuration. I mean conjuration in terms of western esotericism and indigenous ritual not parlor charlatanism. I purposefully use words that have both positive and negative connotations regarding the same thing and it is very telling in peoples responses if they have a hysterically one sided interpretation.

I think it a far more relevant question not, are there many paths to god, but what are the effects of the one you have chosen.

 

As far as paths go, there is only one path. And it’s so wide as to not be a path at all. If we both have walked through the woods, are you going to tell me that I didn’t actually walk through the woods because I was a little--or a lot--behind you, and some distance to the right or left? Dividing the path into separate paths is like dividing the world into separate countries, and results in the same judgment-based ideas about the “others.”

If I’m walking through the woods and I get lost and wander, and in so doing, become familiar with the forest and its creatures, then I was never lost at all. It was never a race. To conclude that anything outside of your own experience, as reported by others, is not valid is not much different than stating: it’s not been my experience, and therefore it’s not your experience. Or: it’s not been my experience, and therefore it is basically a meaningless experience.

 

The same could be said for cultural or traditional certification. If it is not culturally sanctioned or academically certified then it is not worth anything or considered heretical. This even effects the questions you are willing to ask. The saying it is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter can be applied to a mans wealth of knowledge. Knowledge flows easily into an open mind and faces much debate from the mind trained in dogmatism.