Spiritual Forum

(Gwynn/66344) Anybody have a website with better sutra translations? One of my...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:38:00 -0600

Anybody have a website with better sutra translations? One of my fiance's
coworkers is getting into Buddhism and I'm helping him out, because he seems to
think I've got useful things to say about it, outside of the Theravadan monk
he's talking to. I need this sutra specifically obviously, since it's the one
he's supposed to be studying this week.

http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/001-mulap
ariyaya-sutta-e1.html

I dunno, the translation just isn't grabbing me, it could be more
understandable, maybe with a bit of explanatory notes. For instance:

Perceives water, thinking it's water, becomes water,
thinks it's mine, delights. What is the reason? I call it not knowing
thoroughly.

It sounds here like they're literally becoming water, but later on in the same
passage:

Perceives the heard, thinking it is the heard becomes the hearer, thinks it's
mine and
delights. What is the reason? I call it not knowing thoroughly.

This makes a bit more sense, and I'm guessing the stuff about water, fire,
the produced, Etc. is getting at that too, it's been taken into your mind, as
it were. But it would be nice to have little footnotes or such with some of
these, e.g. one or two examples of what qualifies as "the produced". But the
main thing is just the translation, I think we could get something far more
readable, and I'm also not sure why the language changes. Example:

Thoroughly knowing water, does not think it's water, become water does not
think and delight
it's mine. What is the reason, I say, he thoroughly knows it.

OK, so does the "not" apply to everything? E.g., he does not think "it's
water", he does not become water, Etc? Or does it only apply to thinking, but
he still "becomes water"? I guess you could just say, OK, he can ask the monk
about all of this, but parts of this just look like they could be solved with a
better translation. If there aren't websites, I'll take books, but I'd really
prefer sites, then I can read them too, heh.

(Gwynn/66343) These people?

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:04:00 -0600

These people?

http://www.idmr.net/

Here's some Crazy fundamentalist criticism of them.

http://www.letusreason.org/cult10.htm

Searching for the founder's name gives:

http://www.ayahasherayah.org/hck.html

They have a bunch of his lectures.

(Mama K/66342) Is anyone familiar with the Institute of Divine Metaphysical Res...

Mama K@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:16:00 -0600

Is anyone familiar with the Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research?  I'm a
member of a branch of the United Metaphysical Churches, but the nearest
congregation of the UMC is a 6.5 hour drive from me.  I've been researching
some to find something at least remotely similar.  The local Unitarian
Universalist congregation is weird, and the Christian Scientists have some
beliefs that I'm not personally comfortable with.  the IDMR has regular local
"meetings," but I can't find any information on their beliefs, teachings, what
they do at these meetings, anything.  Anybody?

(Gwynn/66341) I'm looking for a story, and I swear I read it online, but I'll ...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:00:00 -0600

I'm looking for a story, and I swear I read it online, but I'll be damned if I
can find it again. Here's the rough outline.

Man releases genie, genie says "you get a wish but when I've fulfilled it, I'm
going to kill you!" Guy goes to guru/whatever using a mala, explains problem.
Guru tells guy to get ... I forget what, a rope?, a tree?, a pole? Somehow he
sets up the wish such that the genie has to continuously climb up and down the
thing, so it can never be done. When the guy goes to thank the guru/holy man,
he says his mind is the genie, and the mala is his rope/pole/whatever.

Anybody know what I'm talking about and feel like tracking it down? Could have
been in a book. Huh, maybe that one where the prince meets a goblin or somethin
and has to tell it stories? I can't quite remember.

(QUITTNER/66340) Is that th beginning of the end - or the end of the beginning? (...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 02:51:00 -0600

Is that th beginning of the end - or the end of the beginning? (Apologies to
the late Winston Churchill!) - And being the non-being? Are spirits non-beings?

(Peccavimus/66339) Those new fangled postmodernists!

Peccavimus@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:07:00 -0600

Those new fangled postmodernists!

(Gwynn/66338) I should, I suppose, produce my favorite Zhuangzi passsage in or...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:04:00 -0600

I should, I suppose, produce my favorite Zhuangzi passsage in order for all of
that to make sense.

Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the
category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their
category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in
that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try
making my statement.

There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is
a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is
being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is
a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly
there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is
really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't
know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't
said something. (Zhuangzi (Chuang-Tsu), Ch. 2, Burton Watson Tr.)

(Giraffe/66337) It's not rejection. It's an homage.

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:26:00 -0600

It's not rejection. It's an homage.

(Gwynn/66336) I wasn't rejecting them, I was explaining them, in light of Zhua...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:26:00 -0600

I wasn't rejecting them, I was explaining them, in light of Zhuangzi no less!

(Faunus/66335) geez guys, surely the bbs has slowed down enough that we might a...

Faunus@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 11:22:00 -0600

geez guys, surely the bbs has slowed down enough that we might as well enjoy
QUITTNER's weird little contributions -- it seems unwise to reject any
participation on the BBS in these twilight days.

(Giraffe/66334) I thought I had something meaningful to say, but I said it wrong...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 07:35:00 -0600

I thought I had something meaningful to say, but I said it wrong and was
expelled from my belief system. Just like they used to do it in ORIGINAL
CHRISTIANITY.

(Gwynn/66333) Happy New Year! As I understand it, there are people who say som...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 06:35:00 -0600

Happy New Year! As I understand it, there are people who say something because
they have something meaningful to say, then there are people who say something
to say something because they think saying something means that they've said
something. *laughs*

(QUITTNER/66332) HAPPY NEW YEAR! As I understand it, people who are in contact wi...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 02:43:00 -0600

HAPPY NEW YEAR! As I understand it, people who are in contact with spirits (God
is one of them) may be far for spiritual than the many "believers" of the many
invented belief systems all over this planet. ^far more^ - And there are many
who seek solace with the spirits that come in bottles, without being spiritual
at all!

(DesCartes/66329) I think you're confusing Spiritual> for Spirits>?

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:35:00 -0600

I think you're confusing Spiritual> for Spirits>?

(QUITTNER/66327) I am reminded of the killings in 1947(?) after India got its ind...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 03:45:00 -0500

I am reminded of the killings in 1947(?) after India got its independence from
Britain and Pakistan (in 2 parts then) was invented, followed by mass killings
of Hindu/Muslims who were in the "wrong" country. These days many people are
more enlightened, that killing should be a No-NO in ALL religions!

(Giraffe/66326) I'm glad the many faith traditions of South Asia are getting alo...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:13:00 -0500

I'm glad the many faith traditions of South Asia are getting along so well. I
hope this means they will stop killing each other soon.

(Hooligan/66325) http://www.cathnewsindia.com/2011/10/05/hindu-puja-festival-in-f...

Hooligan@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 04:38:00 -0500

http://www.cathnewsindia.com/2011/10/05/hindu-puja-festival-in-full-swing/

The biggest Bengali Hindu festival in Bangladesh is currently underway and has
attracted the interest of thousands of people from different religions.
The five-day Durga Puja (Worship of the Goddess Durga) began on Sunday across
the country and will end with the washing of the goddess' statue tomorrow.
People have been flocking every day to celebrate the feast of Durga, the
goddess of peace and safety.
Festival goers are being treated to drama and cultural shows and are receiving
prasad, an offering of milk, sweets and fruit, which symbolizes a blessing from
the goddess who, according to Hindu scripture, saved the Earth from a tyranny
of giants.
Robin Dias, 55, from the Holy Rosary Church in Tejgaon, Dhaka, said he has
enjoyed the Puja celebrations with his family.
"Durga Puja is a festival for all, so we flock to take part in the
celebrations. It comes out of respect for our Hindu brethren," he said.
Ferdous Ahmed, 25, is a Muslim from Old Dhaka, which has a large Hindu
population.
"Hindu people are our neighbors and a sense of harmonious co-existence leads us
to join their festivities and share their joy," he said.
One of the organizers of celebrations in Monipuripara in Dhaka said the
attendance of so many people from other faiths gives the festival a different
dimension.
"During Eid we join Muslims and Christians invite us to join their Christmas
celebrations. The tradition of sharing joy during religious festivals
strengthens interfaith harmony," said Dayal Chandra Mondol.
Thousands of Christians and Muslims have also been joining Puja celebrations
and fairs in northwestern Bangladesh.
In Thakurgaon district, the Govinda Jiu Temple has seen more non-Hindu visitors
than Hindus.
In Natore and Rajshahi districts, Christians in their droves have joined the
celebrations.
Episcopal Commission for Christian Unity and Interreligious Dialogue secretary
Holy Cross Fr James Cruze said common celebration of a religious festival is a
part of Bengali culture.
"Faith interaction adds to the joy of any religious festival in the country,
turning them into a universal celebration." he added.

(Gwynn/66324) I think he means ezen. Points to anybody who gets the reference!

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:08:00 -0500

I think he means ezen. Points to anybody who gets the reference!

(Faunus/66323) What's the difference between a jinn and an afrit?

Faunus@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:26:00 -0500

What's the difference between a jinn and an afrit?

(And I don't want to hear that one is Chaotic Good and the other Neutral with
Lawful Evil tendencies.  Let's be real here.)

(Vanity/66322) You mean like jinn and afrit?

Vanity@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:51:00 -0500

   You mean like jinn and afrit?

(QUITTNER/66321) Anything you want to discuss that is SPIRITUAL? How about Spirit...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 03:50:00 -0500

Anything you want to discuss that is SPIRITUAL? How about Spirits that are NOT
in a bottle?

(Peccavimus/66320) Yeah, pretty much.

Peccavimus@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:23:00 -0500

Yeah, pretty much.

(Vanity/66319) Aren't those all the same person?

Vanity@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:13:00 -0500

    Aren't those all the same person?

(Peccavimus/66318) If you don't see yourself on this list, good for you.

Peccavimus@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 07:44:00 -0500

If you don't see yourself on this list, good for you.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19474_4-idiots-who-show-up-wherever-religion-dis
cussed-online.html

(Gwynn/66317) Then cat is really spelled B M G. I think anyway.

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:16:00 -0500

Then cat is really spelled B M G. I think anyway.

(Peccavimus/66316) What if "dog" is really spelled c - a - t?

Peccavimus@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:07:00 -0500

What if "dog" is really spelled c - a - t?

(DesCartes/66315) I provide laws for them: get out of my kitchen, or I'll get you ...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:19:00 -0500

I provide laws for them: get out of my kitchen, or I'll get you out. They may
not be engraved on tablets, but that doesn't mean they're not a law.

I'm not sure that fruit flies have the rational capacity to consider divinity.

(Gwynn/66289) Bodhi:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 19:35:00 -0500

Bodhi:

Oh yay, I see we're back to a level of great intellectual excitement again. The
Bible is a mythic tradition. The emergence from other worlds is a tradition
among many Native Americans of the Southwest, e.g. the Hopi. A nymph condemned
to repeat things is found in Greek myth. These are all documented traditions I
can point to.

Gods drink puddles. Where's that from? Who came up with it? Who, if anybody,
believes/believed it? I can tell you where the seven day creation comes from. I
can tell you who believes it now. I can probably find who believed it in the
past. The puddles thing, so far as I know, is not a documented myth from an
actual culture. Considering I said this from the very beginning, I'm not quite
sure if you're just being inattentive, or if you're doing this whole act
deliberately, but either way, it's infuriatingly annoying.

It's a simple question, gee, I wonder where that example, gods drink puddles,
comes from? Why you feel the need to pick everything into meaningless bits of
gibberish, I have no idea. Would you like to question my use of the Roman
alphabet next, perhaps? We haven't delved into that magical excitement, I'm
sure everybody will find it absolutely enthralling reading.

(Bodhi Dharma/66288) the puddle idea is no less of a myth than the 7 day creation.

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 18:10:00 -0500

the puddle idea is no less of a myth than the 7 day creation.
So, when you say "I find that in no myth whatsoever..See the difference?" No, I
don't.

(Gwynn/66287) Bodhi:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:12:00 -0500

Bodhi:

Umm .. no, no we don't. See, it works like this: You: Where do preachers get
this idea that the earth was created in seven days? Me: It's a myth in Genesis.

Me: Where do atheists get this idea that evaporation of puddles is a god
drinking? I find that in no myth whatsoever. You:  ...

See the difference? I can point to the myth, to the tradition, that makes both
atheists and preachers talk about earth being created in seven days. Yes, we
already know atheists talk about gods drinking puddles. What I want to know is,
who came up with that example/where does it come from? Saying atheists doesn't
really answer that question in the same way at all.

(Bodhi Dharma/66286) We've got the same type and quality of information that "where d...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 15:32:00 -0500

We've got the same type and quality of information that "where did this puddle
came from" came from atheists as we do that "where did the 7 day creation coem
from" came from fundamentalist Christian ministers' interpretation of the
Bible.

(Giraffe/66285) How do you know that?

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 15:16:00 -0500

How do you know that?

(Bodhi Dharma/66284) I know where the question of "where did that puddle come from" c...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:59:00 -0500

I know where the question of "where did that puddle come from" came from (at
least in the sense that the 7 day creation thing came from the Bible), it came
from atheists.

(Gwynn/66283) But I know where the seven day creation comes from. Partly the B...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:00 -0500

But I know where the seven day creation comes from. Partly the Bible, and
partly fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. So sure, it's the same
question in the sense that I'm asking where it comes from. But one of them I
know, and one of them I don't. That's why we ask questions and stuff.

(Bodhi Dharma/66282) Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, USA

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 12:52:00 -0500

Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, USA
http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/

(Bodhi Dharma/66281) The question of "where does this puddle thing come from" is no d...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 12:44:00 -0500

The question of "where does this puddle thing come from" is no different from
"where does this idea that God created Earth in seven days come from"

(Gwynn/66280) What's really interesting to me is where they get their stuff. M...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 12:30:00 -0500

What's really interesting to me is where they get their stuff. Many of them use
19th century theories without knowing it of course, but then the examples are
interesting too. For instance, I've heard the evaporating puddles one before,
but I've come across nothing whatsoever like it in any mythology that I've
seen, though I haven't seen all of them of course, or even the ones I have seen
in similar detail. I don't know a ton, for instance, about the various Native
American groups in the Southwest.

So who knows, maybe the Hopi, to pick an example, have something like that. But
I've never actually encountered it. So sure, you get explanatory myths, but
it's interesting that you'll get people making up random stuff instead of, I
dunno, taking five minutes and finding an actual explanatory myth, let's say.
The typical one most people are likely to encounter is Echo and Narcissus, but
even then, OK, it's an explanatory story, but did people believe that's why
echoes occur? That's the real question to answer.

Hell when I was a kid I was told, for instance, that thunder was God bowling,
or some such. So we have stories like that too, not as fleshed out as Echo's,
but still there. I don't think anybody seriously expected me to believe that
though, even as a kid. It was just kind of this story you told. Assuming we
don't believe that because we've got all this nifty science sort of begs the
question. I didn't know the science as a kid, after all, I couldn't have told
you the real explanation for thunder to save my life, or probably even hazarded
a decent guess for that matter. I don't think we've changed radically as a
species since the ancient Greeks, so I don't see why you couldn't easily have
Echo being a similar story, rather than this pre-scientific ironclad
explanation of why echoes occur.

(Bodhi Dharma/66279) The drive to jump into Spiritual forums on the Internet and spou...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 12:26:00 -0500

The drive to jump into Spiritual forums on the Internet and spout
pseudo-sceintific claims regarding religion seems to be a ritual or personal
spiritual practice performed by many atheists.
It seems to serve the role of an affirmation.

(Peccavimus/66278) Maybe . . . but that person would be an idiot, becaues that's no...

Peccavimus@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 08:50:00 -0500

Maybe . . . but that person would be an idiot, becaues that's not, largely, the
role that early religion fulfilled.

(QUITTNER/66277) Maybe some people will think/say that the earliest religions wer...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 19 May 2011 03:51:00 -0500

Maybe some people will think/say that the earliest religions were doing the job
that Science is doing these days: Explain nature and all the happening that
is/was caused by "somebody" or "something", but NOT by any plants, animals, nor
humans, such as the evaporation of puddles of water after a rainstorm. Maybe
early clerics explained that as evidence that one or more gods have been
drinking that water. [OH YEAH?]

(Bodhi Dharma/66276) Vanity> I could not have said that better!

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 17 May 2011 17:34:00 -0500

Vanity> I could not have said that better!

(Peccavimus/66275) Vanity> OH YEAH!

Peccavimus@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 17 May 2011 11:13:00 -0500

Vanity>  OH YEAH!

(Vanity/66274) The whole Quittnerian 'history' of the development of religion a...

Vanity@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 17 May 2011 04:28:00 -0500

   The whole Quittnerian 'history' of the development of religion and science
is a superb example of an elaborated, self-consistent, supposedly explanatory
system, which allows no input from reality at all.

(QUITTNER/66273) Religions were inventend MAMY, MANY CENTURIES before Science was...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 17 May 2011 03:49:00 -0500

Religions were inventend MAMY, MANY CENTURIES before Science was invented.,
bute religions do not intend to get superseded by that "newcomer" Science. By
the way, in case you haven't heard, the end of "The World" has been predicted
(wrongly) to be this coming 21st of May, 2011 [OH YEAH?]

(Vanity/66272) Well, in many western religions, the answer (supposedly) to the ...

Vanity@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 16 May 2011 15:52:00 -0500

   Well, in many western religions, the answer (supposedly) to the question
"why don't human beings seem to fit particularly well with the universe" is
"sin", which to me seems less like an explanation than a label.  And various
explanations for "sin" are things like "because Adam and Eve disobeyed God and
ate the apple" (which is perhaps satisfying on a mythological level, but less
so on a philosophical one), "free will" (which I think simply adds another
label, whose primary virtue is that nobody knows quite what it means) or
deterministic explanations which suggest that God intentionally created the
universe and man with a major design flaw.  Which might be acceptable if it
were presented as a feature rather than a bug, but that's not the traditional
interpretation...

(Gwynn/66271) Rather than reposting my response to that article, here's the bl...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 16 May 2011 13:01:00 -0500

Rather than reposting my response to that article, here's the blog post I made
about it, it's a damn good article actually.

http://post.ly/23BUh

(Hooligan/66270) http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-buddhism-truest?page=0,0

Hooligan@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 16 May 2011 11:09:00 -0500

http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-buddhism-truest?page=0,0

"I first heard about the Gandharan manuscripts while living in Germany in 2009,
when I attended a lecture on early Buddhism by Professor Salomon, who was
visiting from Seattle. The complex details of the talk he delivered left me
mystified -  at that point the technicalities of early Indian philology stood
as a dense forest I hadn't yet entered. But I was curious about those scrolls.
I wanted to understand what this new literary tradition meant for Buddhist
practitioners like me.

While searching online, I found a 2006 talk by Salomon in which he first
unveiled for a general audience the importance of translators' findings. Toward
the end of that talk, my attention became riveted. As Salomon was explaining,
scholars had traditionally expected that if they traced the various branches of
the tree of Buddhist textual history back far enough, they would arrive at the
single ancestral root. To illustrate this model, he pointed to a chart
projected on the screen behind him. The chart showed the Gandhari canon as the
potential missing link along an evolutionary ladder - the hypothetical
antecedent of all other Buddhist canons. "This is how someone who began to
study this [Gandharan] material might have thought the pattern worked."

As scholars scrutinized the Gandhari texts, however, they saw that history
didn't work that way at all, Salomon said. It was a mistake to assume that the
foundation of Buddhist textual tradition was singular, that if you followed the
genealogical branches back far enough into the past they would eventually
converge. Traced back in time, the genealogical branches diverged and
intertwined in such complex relationships that the model of a tree broke down
completely. The picture looked more like a tangled bush, he reported.

Here is where I clicked Rewind: these newly found manuscripts, he declared,
strike the coup de grace to a traditional conception of Buddhism's past that
has been disintegrating for decades. It is now clear that none of the existing
Buddhist collections of early Indian scriptures - not the Pali, Sanskrit,
Chinese, nor even the Gandhari - "can be privileged as the most authentic or
original words of the Buddha."

Apparently Richard Salomon is the Walter Bauer of Buddhist studies and the
author of the Tricycle article wants to be his Bart Ehrman.

(Gwynn/66269) That's a hell of a lot of good questions Vanity, so let me start...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 16 May 2011 11:02:00 -0500

That's a hell of a lot of good questions Vanity, so let me start with one of my
own, to better understand what you're driving at. You say that religions have
attempted to address this making of our own reality but have generally done no
better than slapping a label on it. What sort of examples are you thinking of?
I guess there's the concept of maya in Hinduism and Buddhism, but I'm wondering
if you ahve others in mind?

(Vanity/66268) The concept that religion and science ought to have an impermeab...

Vanity@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 16 May 2011 10:23:00 -0500

    The concept that religion and science ought to have an impermeable wall
built between them is a very attractive one both to scientists (who don't want
religious people telling them what the answers to their latest questions are
before they've found them out) and to religious professionals (who don't want
scientists crashing their party with suggested edits to whatever scriptures
they use).  It's a sort of pact between two neighbors with vastly different
habits (one gets up at dawn, one sleeps past noon; one keeps the thermostat at
75 degrees, the other leaves the windows open in winter) to agree to get along
by ignoring each other.
    Yet while that *is* a successful recipe for neighborly concord, I wonder
whether it ends up impoverishing both science and religion by 'ghettoizing'
particular questions.
    And the particular question which I think needs to be addressed by both
science and religion is the following.  We have learned an awful lot about our
universe and how it works over the past 500 years -- and most of that has been
packed into the last century, much of it indeed in the last few decades.  But
despite, or indeed because of this expansion of our knowledge of the universe,
we understand *less* -- or rather, our astonishing ignorance has been uncovered
-- about how human beings fit into that universe.  Not so much as physical
beings (though much research on that subject is still needed) but as observers,
analysts, recorders and discussers of that universe.  Human beings, or human
*minds* just don't make a whole lot of sense.  If we were perfectly rational,
dispassionate beings, whose minds perfectly mirrored the universe as our senses
reveal it to us, that would be easy.  That would make sense.  And that is,
indeed, the concept of human beings that many religions and philosophies have
adhered to.
   The only problem with that concept is that it's completely wrong.  We are
not perfectly polished mirrors of reality.  Rather, both the genius and the
problem with humanity is that we routinely warp reality, creating a distorted
image of the world that often maps irrationally to the real universe, and
sometimes doesn't map at all!  Some of this faulty mapping is idiosyncratic,
and leads to eccentricity or, at an extreme, to madness; but much of it is
near-universal.  We all live in a common constructed world of the imagination,
whose contacts with even sensory reality are intermittent or absent.  And yet
this constructed world has more influence on how we behave than reality itself!
   How does this make sense?  Why would the universe, or nature, or
evolutionary pressures, produce creatures who on the one hand are capable of
thinking about more than food, sleep, sex and safety, but on the other hand use
that capacity in such an erratic -- or even dangerous -- fashion?
   It's not human perfectibility, but human fallibility and perverseness that
really requires explanation.  At times it seems to introduce an element of
randomness, a failure of predictable causation, that screws up things that
science has so carefully worked out. (Hence the design of experiments to reduce
the distorting human element as much as possible.)  Science is largely
interested in compensating for this irrational factor, and while religion does
occasionally try to address it, many of the explanations are hand-waving, or do
not get much further than sticking a label on the phenomenon.  Even the human
sciences, which have to deal more directly with the problem, find it a sticking
point, and try to get around it by avoiding the individual and working with
large aggregations of data. (Though, it seems, even large numbers of people are
capable of behaving as perversely as many individuals.)
   And the further question, which I think cannot be answered simply by
assuming a solution or defining it away, is: "What 'reality', what coherence,
what influence does our constructed world -- the world of our ideas, our words,
our systems of thought and expression, our ideologies, ethics, principles and
rituals -- have, and what is its relationship to our sensory reality?  How do
we explain the fact that the former often seems more 'real' (though less
measurable and quantifiable) than the latter?  Does it have an existence
independent of us, and if so, how can we describe it?  What is its long
term-future?  What happens to it when all humans are extinct?  Would
intelligent non-humans have a comparable structure, and if so, would it be
essentially similar to our own, or completely different (so that we could not
communicate about anything that wasn't a concrete reality?).  All of these
questions tend to get away from the restricted field of scientific inquiry, and
perhaps tend toward the metaphysical or mystical, yet I'm not convinced that
they're altogether unscientific.

(Lammam P Yrruf/66267) Lesley Stahl.

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 08 May 2011 13:53:00 -0500

Lesley Stahl.

(Giraffe/66266) Whose?

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 03 May 2011 14:41:00 -0500

Whose?

(Lammam P Yrruf/66265) When's his funeral?

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 03 May 2011 14:25:00 -0500

When's his funeral?

(Feoh/66264) I think they did.

Feoh@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:14:00 -0500

I think they did.

(Giraffe/66263) I hope they didn't send Lesley Stahl!

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:45:00 -0500

I hope they didn't send Lesley Stahl!

(Feoh/66262) For anyone who may have missed it, 60 minutes this week has a pi...

Feoh@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 08:49:00 -0500

For anyone who may have missed it, 60 minutes this week has a piece on the
Orthodox monasteries (spelling?) of Mount Athos.  Incredible.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/21/60minutes/main20056101.shtml

(Bodhi Dharma/66261) Gwynn> I kinda question Tennessee's position, but I think it can...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:49:00 -0500

Gwynn> I kinda question Tennessee's position, but I think it can be safely
argued that both the Tennessee River Valley and Oak Ridge are tasty targets.
Oak Ridge is pretty heavily guarded, but I suspect most of the Tennessee River
Valley's flow control is guarded about as well as the flow control in the rest
of the United States (which is to say very poorly).

(Q Who/66260) Scopes!

Q Who@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:48:00 -0500

Scopes!

(Gwynn/66259) Tennessee's law, I haven't checked OK's yet because i don't feel...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:44:00 -0500

Tennessee's law, I haven't checked OK's yet because i don't feel like the
adventure of my screen reader meets pdf files right now, looks particularly
crazy. TN apparently feels that it particularly is threatened by terrorism, or
Islam, or something, I haven't quite figured out what yet.

(Giraffe/66258) Someone wrote a law forbidding terrorist organizations from empl...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:25:00 -0500

Someone wrote a law forbidding terrorist organizations from employing Sharia?
WTF?

(Bodhi Dharma/66257) Vanity> You posed (in msg# 66248) that Islamic law is banned.

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:06:00 -0500

Vanity> You posed (in msg# 66248) that Islamic law is banned.
The Oklahoma law does not ban Sharia.  A person is free to use Sharia.  The
state is not.
A cursory look at the Tennessee law gives the impression that it is directed
only against organizations which, "engage in, or retains the capability and
intent to engage in, an act of terrorism" and which act of terrorism,
"threatens the security or public safety of the state's residents".
NOTE that I don't agree with the implications in either of these states' laws,
but, then, I'm not a resident of either of these states and they don't seem to
be illegal (though I admit that I have a limited understanding of both states'
laws).

(Vanity/66256) Well, each state has proposed a different law. Here's a link to...

Vanity@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:02:00 -0500

   Well, each state has proposed a different law.  Here's a link to the
Tennessee Senate bill:
   http://www.scribd.com/doc/49475739/SB1028-Outlawing-Sharia-law-in-Tennessee

(Steppenwolf/66255) Oklahoma:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:02:00 -0500

Oklahoma:
https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/755.pdf?7,7

(Bodhi Dharma/66254) Vanity> I see absolutely no point in discussing this further unt...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:57:00 -0500

Vanity> I see absolutely no point in discussing this further until we know what
the text of these laws regarding Sharia actually is.
Do you have a link to them?

(Vanity/66253) Suppose there were a pagan society or temple in the United State...

Vanity@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:44:00 -0500

   Suppose there were a pagan society or temple in the United States that had
certain rules as to who could be a member; let's say there was a required
contribution to the maintenance of the society, and/or certain rituals which
had to be adhered to to be a member.  Let's say there were also certain rules
regulating the interaction between members of the society, maybe something
saying who could or couldn't be an authority figure, or setting out procedures
for handfasting and so forth -- this would be the equivalent of a set of
religious laws, even if they weren't called that.
   Now then suppose that the State steps in and says "these pagan rules are
dangerous to the well-being of the state, and we forbid them being recognized
in any manner."
   Then, maybe, a bunch of guys who have been hanging around but have never
actually joined suddenly say they're members and they own the rooms that the
society has been using for ritual.  You go to court and say "hey, these guys
never paid their dues (or whatever), they're not members, they don't own shit."
And the court says: "According to state law, we can't recognize your internal
rules as valid."  Whereas in the case of a similar dispute among members of a
synagogue, or parishioners of a church, they *would* go with internal synagogue
or church rules about ownership.
   Is it really acceptable for the State to pick and choose which religions it
considers valid?  I understand that some other countries do that, but the
United States?

(Bodhi Dharma/66252) I hate Google. I had found the actual text of the law. I close...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:45:00 -0500

I hate Google.  I had found the actual text of the law.  I closed that Window.
Now all I can find is a bunch of blow hards spouting off about the law.
Do you have a link to the actual text of the law referencing Sharia?

(Steppenwolf/66251) 14th amendment requires equal protection under the laws.

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:47:00 -0500

14th amendment requires equal protection under the laws.

People of one religion can't choose as a matter of contractual law to use their
religious laws in determining the answer to a question, whereas people of
another can.

Invidious discrimination. BOOM!

(Bodhi Dharma/66249) You're wrong, Pecc.

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:38:00 -0500

You're wrong, Pecc.
The first amendment does not grant protection to citizens.  It enforces a
restriction on the Federal government.
And the 14th Amendment says nothing about enforcing restrictions on states
which exist on the Federal government.
An example of a protection would be the 5th Amendment.

(Vanity/66248) Constitution of Tennessee:

Vanity@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:28:00 -0500

Constitution of Tennessee:
"all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God
according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be
compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any
minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case
whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no
preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode
of worship."
Constitution of Missouri:
"all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God
according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can
control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on
account of his religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any
public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying
or serving as a juror, or be molested in his person or estate; but this section
shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify
practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or
with the rights of others."
Constitution of Oklahoma:
"Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and
no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or
property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no
religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights."

  N.b., a religion or sect is a private organization that operates according to
its own internal rules.  States frequently enforce the right of private
organizations to maintain their own rules or standards, whether they be
corporations, clubs, private associations, or churches, save where there is a
direct conflict with state or federal law.
   If Islamic law is 'banned' (but no other religious law is), then doesn't
that amount to interference with the rights of conscience?  What does it mean
in practical terms?  That Muslim marriages would not be recognized?  Could that
really be anything but a violation of the right to religious freedom?

(Bodhi Dharma/66246) "Doesn't the First Amendment to the U.S.

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:22:00 -0500

"Doesn't the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution..have something to say about
that?""
Nope
As for "most state constitutions", I'm not familiar with most state
constitutions, but the only states constitutions that matter are the states in
which this Sharia thing is being passed.

(Gwynn/66245) Vanity:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:17:00 -0500

Vanity:

1. Because most people don't know that.

2. Those people aren't scary anymore.

3. But they used to be, and not too long ago, you see it show up a lot in
politics. When Lieberman ran, there was stuff about how he'd basically take
decisions from his rabbi, or at least run them past him, JFK had the Pope for
that, and I think Mit Romny got a bit of it for being Mormon too.

Basically the only reason people know about sharia is because certain segments
of the media like to trot out horror stories about it. I wonder if you go back
a bit, when you had a lot more anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic prejudice, and
news about it, if people didn't talk more specifically about the courts? But
part of it must be the figurehead aspect as well, you don't have to know about
canon law, you just gotta know the Pope makes the rules.

Of course, Islam and Judaism have a lot more of a direct parallel, since IIRC
the rabbi and imam basically fill the same role, but I don't think America has
enough of a Muslim population for most people to realize that yet. But where
you do get talk of imams in the media, I think the parallel is understood, if
not really remarked on. Just as Lieberman would have taken dictation from his
rabbi, the imams seem to be the real issue for some people, anyway. So somebody
thinks imam == teacher/dictator, anyway.

It's a good parallel though, and one I hadn't necessarily thought of in those
terms, even though I knew about all of it. Weird, but it never struck me to
think about it as parallel courts.

(Vanity/66243) States have the right to "ban" a law that is not a law? Sort of...

Vanity@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:20:00 -0500

   States have the right to "ban" a law that is not a law?  Sort of like states
have the right to legislate that pi = 3?  Or states have the right to interfere
with the private practice of religion?  Doesn't the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution (as well as most state constitutions) have something to say about
that?

(Bodhi Dharma/66242) States have the right to do that.

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:16:00 -0500

States have the right to do that.
As for whether they should?  If they tried it in my state, I'd pressure the
state politicians to include -any- religious based law including laws banning
same-sex marriage.

(Gwynn/66241) This will surely interest somebody or other here, I'd guess.

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:12:00 -0500

This will surely interest somebody or other here, I'd guess.

http://www.acidharma.org/aci/index.html

Online courses in audio and with pdf notes and such, on Tibetan Buddhism.
Meditation practices included of course, but it also covers a good chunk of the
philosophical stuff, from what it looks like. The courses can be streamed or
downloaded as realaudio, if you're still into that sort of thing, or downloaded
as mp3 files. The pdf files are set up to be printed as a binder, they even
have spine inserts and such. Enjoy!

(Vanity/66240) Since this month's crazy legislative fad appears to be "banning ...

Vanity@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:05:00 -0500

    Since this month's crazy legislative fad appears to be "banning Shariah
law" (in Oklahoma, Missouri, and Tennessee; crazy, because Shariah law is
neither enforced nor enforceable in any state of the United States) I wonder
whether somebody will notice that, you know, Roman Catholics have canon law,
and canon law courts, Jews have halakhah, and the _beit din_, and probably
several other religions have their own legal system and religious courts
operating in the U.S. -- whose competence (as with Shariah) extends no further
than to members of those religions who are willing to accept the power of those
courts.  Why don't we have laws proposed to ban Catholic canon law and
halakhah?  (IIRC, Catholic courts actually appeal to courts in a foreign
jurisdiction.)

(Giraffe/66239) Let us know what you find.

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:58:00 -0500

Let us know what you find.

(Faunus/66238) Ouch.

Faunus@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 05:31:00 -0500


Ouch.

(QUITTNER/66237) I'll see what is on the web about the NOMUCOP and see how the va...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:55:00 -0500

I'll see what is on the web about the NOMUCOP and see how the various belief
systems' scores compare. Thanks for mentioning that!

(Giraffe/66236) And let's not even get started on the NOMUCOP (Normalized Multiv...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:06:00 -0500

And let's not even get started on the NOMUCOP (Normalized Multivariate
Compassion Profile) scores!

(Feoh/66235) Giraffe: Well said :) QUITTNER: Yes, it pays, but mostly in good...

Feoh@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:27:00 -0500

Giraffe: Well said :) QUITTNER: Yes, it pays, but mostly in good dinners with
friends and the occasional cool lapel pin for your suit.  And oh yes, as
Giraffe says in fezzes and clown cars if you become a Shriner (Personally, I
can't see myself in a fez, so no shiriners for me :)

(Giraffe/66234) Accordin g to the Journal of Fraternal Lodge Studies, membership...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 04:15:00 -0500

Accordin g to the Journal of Fraternal Lodge Studies, membership in Freemasonry
results in positive spiritual outcomes. Entrance and exit profiling reveals
that Blue Lodge members experienced a 38% increase in SASI (Spirituality and
Sagacity Index) scores. York Rite: 42% increase. Scottish Rite: 57% increase.
(In addition, membership in the Shriners results in a 78% increase in ownership
of fezzes and miniature clown cars). Compare this to IOOF: a relatively weak
7.8% improvement in SASI, and BPOE: -12% (shameful!).

Is that the sort of thing you are looking for, QUITTNER?

(QUITTNER/66233) As I understand it, Freemasons are said to be BUILDERS. Builders...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 03:56:00 -0500

As I understand it, Freemasons are said to be BUILDERS. Builders of "better
persons"? Are there credible comparisons between a BEFORE joining versus AFTER
having been a member of 5 years? Any important difference in personality? A
different outlook on life? More cooperation with other people - members and
non-members? Does membership "PAY"? How?

(Feoh/66232) Whoa, you people are incredibly prolific, I can't begin to keep ...

Feoh@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 06:28:00 -0500

Whoa, you people are incredibly prolific, I can't begin to keep up :)

Gwynn, since you've admitted that you don't know much about Freemasonry, please
allow me to edify you a bit.  Freemasonry is very specificically *not* a
religion.  One of the basic tenets of the craft however is a requirement for
membership that you aspouse a belief in some kind of higher power beyond
yourself.  That's it, that's as far as it goes.  We have muslims, Christians,
jews, pagans and Discordianists in our ranks, so it runs the gammut.  Wikipedia
has a nice piece on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Membership_and_religion

As to your quote "where religion ends, spirituality begins" - I think
Babuji Maharaj was trying to make a point here, not help us define the
distinction between these two concepts.  IMO the point he's trying to make
is that while religion can provide structure for people, it's far too easy
to allow the structure and rules to become the whole of the experience
(like my experience with Catholicism - Stand, sit, kneel, stand, sing,
take communion, kneel, stand, sing, leave) whereas spirituality is something
uniquely personal and internal - to steal the first sentence from Wikipedia's
write-up "an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of their
being".

To bring this full circle, I have found through my involvement with
Freemasonry that the rituals it encompasses (which are mostly centered around
the idea of improving yourself and 'building a better man' using the
allegory of King Solomon's temple) has helped me to be more at peace with
myself and more in tune with my own spirituality far more than any of my
experiences with organaized religion have.

I'm not trying to make broad comparisons here, and recognize that for many
people Catholicism is an incredibly force for good in their lives.

(Giraffe/66231) Significant portions of the Religious Society of Friends have no...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:38:00 -0500

Significant portions of the Religious Society of Friends have no clergy, yet
are quite content to remain a "Religious Society." There is no apparent move
afoot to switch to "Spiritual Society."

(QUITTNER/66230) Clergy are employees that are supposed to do whatever their empl...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:21:00 -0500

Clergy are employees that are supposed to do whatever their employers wants
them to do. However there are apparently many clergy whose own private beliefs
differ (widely?) from their official preachings. Therefore, DesCartes, clergy
can be official "religion", but privately "spiritual".

(DesCartes/66229) What if you are clergy? Is it then both religion and spiritual?

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:04:00 -0500

What if you are clergy?  Is it then both religion and spiritual?

(QUITTNER/66228) Many people have religious experiences that are different from w...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:01:00 -0500

Many people have religious experiences that are different from what "their"
particlar brand of clergy preach and/or write. That's how I understand that
split between "religion" and "spiritual" comes about. Clergy=religion, Own
experience=spiritual.

(Bodhi Dharma/66227) "I'm sure not

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:32:00 -0500

"I'm sure not
seeing a whole lot of positivity towards it"
Which is -your- projection.  What I'm curious about is why you are projecting
this negativity onto the religion/spirituality split.

(Giraffe/66226) Faunus: I think you're pretty much right. A problem arises in th...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:03:00 -0500

Faunus: I think you're pretty much right. A problem arises in the assumptions
underlying the rejection of the religion label. I think a lot of people use
"spiritual" as meaning religious but outside of a conventional church or other
institutional structure. But when they say they aren't religious, they are
communicating the assumption that religion doesn't have personal, private
non-institutional aspects to it. And sometimes the rejection of the word
religious also carries the added assumption of a patriarchal hierarchy.

(Gwynn/66225) Sorry for the triple. But now we're getting somewhere. I posted ...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:01:00 -0500

Sorry for the triple. But now we're getting somewhere. I posted my original
post on my blog, and a friend of mine is having a complete meltdown about it.
But he helpfully provided a couple webpages, with at least two people's idea of
spirituality Vs. religion.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Spirituality-vs-Religion
  This person says "religion doesn't have to be negative", but I'm sure not
seeing a whole lot of positivity towards it.

http://samsara.ihostyou.com/spirituality-religion/
  We seem to start out with something like Faunus' religious autodidacticism,
but then get into a whole bunch of stuff about how religion is all absolutes
and condemnations and blah blah blah.

(Gwynn/66224) SFTD:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:13:00 -0500

SFTD:

Bodhi, you might want to look into the difference between a description and a
theory.  Here's a pointer.

Description: Many religions seem to have institutions, and these institutions
serve the purpose of organizing members.

Unitary theory: Religion originated as a way to organize society.

A theory of why people make the religious spiritual distinction might run
something like:  This distinction originated in the 60s counter culture
distrust for authority, and maintained its relevance as religious institutions
fell out of touch with the concerns of the younger generations.

See, that there's a theory. I'm saying, here's why I think it originated, and
here's why I think it continues. I haven't been saying anything like that at
all though, I've been describing how the distinction is used, i.e. what the
distinction is, as far as I'm aware of it. We've already had two usages I
wasn't familiar with, the person involved with freemasonry, and Faunus' idea
that "spiritual", means "religiously autodidactic", which seems entirely
plausible to me, I just haven't encountered it.

Temiar religion:

OK, here you go.

http://www.everyculture.com/East-Southeast-Asia/Temiar-Religion-and-Expressive-
Culture.html

Even Christian missionaries have a handle on this one.
http://www.joshuaproject.net/people-profile.php?peo3=14030&rog3=MY

Aaaand another one.
http://www.spiritwatch.ca/Past%20issues/THE%20SELLING%20OF%20THE%20SENOI.htm

I just chucked Temiar religion into google.

(Gwynn/66223) Faunus:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:08:00 -0500

Faunus:

That's a lot closer, yeah. I think I still want to work in some sort of
ignorance, and that's from both sides. Just as somebody making the distinction
from the spiritual side of things might consider all institutions suspect, for
instance, a Tibetan lama might consider true understanding and such to only be
available via the institutions of Tibetan Buddhism. But see my song example in
#66173.

My contention is that the distinction, again as far as I can tell, dissolves
with a proper understanding of religion as a general category. There's a
difference between, we sing this song from this book because the priest says,
and I made up my own song, but that difference is encompassed in religion, the
larger category.

(Bodhi Dharma/66222) I didn't understand what 'snark' Step was talking about. I gues...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:00:00 -0500

I didn't understand what 'snark' Step was talking about.  I guessed he thought
I was directing snark towards Gwynn.  If he thought I was directing snark
towards Faunus, I have even less of an idea as to what the hell Step is talkng
about.

(Faunus/66220) I honestly haven't been reading anything Bodhi Dharma and Gwynn ...

Faunus@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:22:00 -0500

I honestly haven't been reading anything Bodhi Dharma and Gwynn have
been saying to each other, no offense to either intended, it just
seemed like it wasn't an argument I was part of or wanted to be part
of.  So any snark went right over my head.  No worries.

(Bodhi Dharma/66219) If Gwynn is making an exception to his "anti-unitary theory" pos...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:41:00 -0500

If Gwynn is making an exception to his "anti-unitary theory" position, I'd like
him to make that exception explicit and explain why he's making that exception.
I think that understanding where someone is coming from isn't tangential to a
discussion, it's pretty much the whole point of a discussion.

(Steppenwolf/66218) I don't know what's worse, trying to harp on the unitary theory ...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:36:00 -0500

I don't know what's worse, trying to harp on the unitary theory thing when it's
clearly tangential to the substance of the discussion, or using it snarkily to
describe someone's attempted repost.

(Bodhi Dharma/66217) > Saying "I'm spiritual but not religious" makes "religious" in...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:32:00 -0500

>  Saying "I'm spiritual but not religious" makes "religious" into a
>  negative term, and in doing so, associates tradition and community
>  with servility and shallowness.  It's not just a bad word but a bad
>  distinction, because the things that it puts together on either
>  side of the distinction do not necessarily belong together.
That sounds like a unitary theory of why people use the religion/spirituality
split.

(Bodhi Dharma/66216) "I gave you an example of a religion where your second case is t...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:28:00 -0500

"I gave you an example of a religion where your second case is the norm."
Actually, you gave me an example of people signing songs that they learned
in dreams.  That that practice is "religion" is only something you've asserted.
As for "the debate still being open", I'm not debating whether the
religion/spirituality split is still open.  The idea of such a debate shouldn't
make sense to someone who "generally think[s] unitary theories
are limiting and miss things anyway" (msg# 66165)

(Faunus/66215) Gwynn: now my oversimplified take on what you're saying is this:

Faunus@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:24:00 -0500


Gwynn: now my oversimplified take on what you're saying is this:

>  Saying "I'm spiritual but not religious" makes "religious" into a
>  negative term, and in doing so, associates tradition and community
>  with servility and shallowness.  It's not just a bad word but a bad
>  distinction, because the things that it puts together on either
>  side of the distinction do not necessarily belong together.

Is that more accurate?

(Gwynn/66214) Bodhi:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:10:00 -0500

Bodhi:

No, I suggested that it was a synonym, but that wasn't the main point. You said
there's a big difference between you going into a building and singing a song
you're told to sing out of a book, and you sitting at home, or wherever, and
making your own song to God. One presumes from context that going and being
told sing a specific song fro ma book is "religious", and you making your own
song to God is "spiritual".

I gave you an example of a religion where your second case is the norm. I
specifically referred you to the liner notes for a discussion of the subject,
as opposed to the blurb, which uses the word spiritual. My point is, if we take
a broader view of religion, we find, as in this example, that an activity set
apart as "spiritual", is in fact quite as easily religious.

In addition, you'll note from the Wikipedia link I posted later, the difference
between "religious" and "spiritual" is still being debated, i.e. is there any
difference at all, the very debate we're having right now. It also notes that
the words can be synonyms, so I hardly think I'm begging the question, I'm
suggesting that in this context, they are synonymous. However, even if the
blurb meant something as opposed to religious, the practices of receiving songs
in dreams is in fact part of the Temiar religion, as I'm pretty sure the liner
notes make clear.

(Bodhi Dharma/66213) However, I note that, in msg #66173, you refer to a web page whi...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:01:00 -0500

However, I note that, in msg #66173, you refer to a web page which calls
something "spiritual" and -you- replace that word with "religious" and then
base your argument on it being "religious".  You're begging the question in
msg# 66173.

(Bodhi Dharma/66212) To respond to the thing you specifically addressed to me, "I'm s...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:47:00 -0500

To respond to the thing you specifically addressed to me, "I'm still really
curious to know what you meant by music being ritualistic", I thought I did
address it.  Music (for the most part, improvizational jazz being a
counter-example) is easy to memorize and record history in.  Songs (again, most
songs, not all) can survive for generations after they were created (how long
as Ave Maria been around?).  Not only can history be recorded in songs, but
groups of people can organize behavior around the song.  This kind of social
record is what I mean by "ritualistic".

(Gwynn/66210) Bodhi:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:27:00 -0500

Bodhi:

Sure thing, as soon as you respond to the thing I specifically addressed to you
about songs, #66173.

(Peccavimus/66209) Bodhi Dharma> His name is Bill.

Peccavimus@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:57:00 -0500

Bodhi Dharma>  His name is Bill.

does that help?

(Bodhi Dharma/66208) Gwynn> I'm having real trouble following along in the discussion...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:23:00 -0500

Gwynn> I'm having real trouble following along in the discussion about
religion/spirituality because you keep talking about "people" (who, exactly, is
unspecified, but they are apparently -everywhere-) who argue the same thing I
do (that there is a difference between religion and spirituality) for reasons
you feel are wrong.
I feel like I'm being put into the "good nigger" role in a racist discussion
about crime.
How about, instead of saying "people", you start being specific about -who-
exactly you are talking about?

(Bodhi Dharma/66207) Has anybody here ever seen something like this?

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:21:00 -0500

Has anybody here ever seen something like this?
www.torah.tv?
I've been browsing through it trying to figure out where the Judaism is in it.
It seems they took Christianity and tried to file off the serial numbers.  The
question is "why?"  Is it some sort of Trojan Horse evangelism?  That's what I
thought, but noone can be that naive.  It seems like an attempt at authenticity
for Christians trying to emphasize their religion's roots in Judaism, but I
can't figure out why they might feel like they need that.

(Gwynn/66206) Faunus:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:16:00 -0500

Faunus:

OK, what it seems to mean, I mean when I hear people say it, and their
attitudes mind, is ... how can I explain this. It's like they've reified
"religious" as some sort of bad category they need to stay away from. It's like
I said about "dogmatic", where this is bad because it means the person or
institution is inflexible, controlling, authoritarian, Etc.

I get the sense from some people that it's almost like, religious is like, you
go to the church, and you do whatever you're told, and often it's implied that
you do it because you're told, you don't actually understand it. So some
people, and unfortunately this often shows up in conversation, I don't think I
have a written example, have this set up, religious is all the bad yucky
controlling authoritarian just do what you're told institutional stuff.
Spiritual is all the stuff they do. But then you find out, oh OK, they pray,
they meditate, they light candles, whatever. That's kind of all the same stuff
the religious do, you see what I'm driving at? So I just don't see much of a
difference.

That's sort of the sense I get from, where religion ends, spirituality begins.
Religion is, if not bad as such, something lesser, something we have to get
through, or transcend maybe, or get past. Then we get to the good stuff,
spirituality, where we get deeper, and start really understanding stuff, and so
on. But you pray, the religious pray, your praying isn't somehow magically
different. It's the same stuff.

And, take Bodhi's example, maybe the closest to what I'm talking about. He
wants to say, there's a difference between me going to the special building,
where we do the special things in the special order, and the special person
tells me what song to sing and I sing it out of the special book, and me
spontaneously singing a song to God/the spirits/whatever. Absolutely true,
there's a difference. But as the example I referenced shows, there are whole
religions where the second thing is the default. The first thing is, well I
won't say totally Western, because of course it can show up other places, but I
really get the sense that the distinction hinges on a reification of that.

Religion is where we go to the special building and special people tell us poor
ordinary mopes what to do, and we have to obey them, because they're special.
Spirituality is where we say, fuck that noise, and go do our own things, which
totally aren't religious. I'm not religious, but I pray and read sacred texts
and meditate and ... I'm not political, but I protest and write my
representatives and vote and ... I'm not an environmentalist, but let me tell
you about recycling and the dangers of CFCs and BPA and chemicals and food
additives and ... It's like, from what I can tell, you do all the typical
religious stuff, you just don't want to be called religious, or call the things
you do religious. But all of it traditionally IS considered religious, and I
can't quite figure out why the separation is so important for people.

It's as though somebody claimed rap isn't poetry, because poetry is written,
and rap is rarely written and is done to music, so it's a song, not poetry. If
you look at poetry throughout the world, OK probably just English poetry would
work but you get my point, you pretty quickly realize, yeah, rap is poetry. I
feel the same way about the religion/spirituality distinction, all the stuff
under spirituality traditionally falls under religion, as far as I can tell
,and the only real big difference for people, again that I can tell so if
somebody's got other ideas, speak up, is that religion has been categorized as
problematic in some way, so they're not doing religion, they're doing
spirituality.

I don't want to give the impression that a connection to an institution is the
only issue either, but that's the one I seem to be encountering so far. I think
the poster who's a freemason, sorry I didn't catch your handle, is the first
time I've heard spiritual used to mean what you might, in an academic setting,
call ... hmm .. quasi-religious maybe? I'm not really up on freemasonry, so I'm
not sure if it's traditionally studied as a religion or not, I suspect it is,
with provisions of course. Like DesCartes, that doesn't bother me so much,
because nobody's going to go around saying, I'm part of a quasi-religious group
that ... Not unless they enjoy that sort of thing, anyway. Like DesCartes, it's
the "but I'm spiritual" part that bothers me, that sort of antagonism between
the two.

(Faunus/66205) Gwynn -- straighten me out then.

Faunus@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:22:00 -0500

Gwynn -- straighten me out then.

Let me back up.  If somebody says to you "I'm spiritual but not religious," do
you think you know what they mean by that (never mind what the words *should*
mean, do you think you know what they actually mean when they say those words)?

If you think you understand what they mean by those words, do you approve or
disapprove of (or are you completely neutral on) the position they have taken
by saying that?

I thought you'd said you understood that "spiritual but not religious"
meant more or less the same as "DIY religion," which is more or less
what you do.

I took from that the notion that you were fine with the SBNRs but
didn't like the way they described it because, for example, it used
"religion" to mean something limited and negative.

But I got that wrong?  OK, forgive me for my cluelessness and bring me
up to speed if you don't mind taking the time to do so after you've
already written so much on the topic. :)

(DesCartes/66204) What Feoh says doesn't bother me: I'm spiritual, but I don't sub...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:52:00 -0500

What Feoh says doesn't bother me: I'm spiritual, but I don't subscribe to an
organized religion.  (It sounds like the setup to a joke, though.)
I also wouldn't be bothered by somebody saying they were spiritual, and leaving
it at that.

I'm not really sure where my problem is with the ...but not religious.  I
suspect, though, that it's similar to what I feel when people say they're
vegetarian but eat fish (or poultry, or whatever).  I'm still trying to see
where my dissonance with that expression comes from.

(Gwynn/66203) No, what gave you that idea? I thought of this while I was takin...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:17:00 -0500

No, what gave you that idea? I thought of this while I was taking a shower,
maybe it will help.

It seems to me that when people make the distinction between "religious" and
"spiritual", religious is often on the bad end of things, and spiritual is on
the good end of things. Why? What's the big distinction people keep mentioning?
Institution Vs. lack of institution. OK, but maybe that's a totally benign
distinction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality#Religion

Here's a quote from, either William Erwin Thompson, or Babuji Maharaj, I'm not
sure if they're a name for the same person or not. "Religion is not identical
with spirituality; rather religion is the form spirituality takes in
civilization. 'Where religion ends, spirituality
begins'"

OK, so religion is the spirituality of a nation. But then, weirdly,
spirituality begins where religion ends. Doesn't that sort of imply that
religion is holding us back from something? Also, if religion is the
spirituality of a nation, doesn't that mean that spirituality is the religion
of the individual? I seriously don't understand what this is driving at, but
the second half of the quote, or maybe it's another quote entirely,
spirituality begins where religion ends, really implies that spirituality is
the good stuff we really want, so we have to get past religion.

So it seems to me that, in a fair number of cases I've encountered anyway,
spirituality is used based on a misunderstanding of religion, e.g. it's
institutional, perhaps authoritarian, Etc. And keep in mind, I'm saying, this
is what I'm seeing, this is how it seems to me. If you've got stuff that
doesn't do that handy, feel free to straighten my ass out. I'm not wedded to
this, I just think that it's a strange and, so far as I can tell right now,
unnecessary distinction. I'm also not sure it always means, spiritual this is,
religious autodidacticism. I certainly don't get RA from the quote(s) I posted,
anyway.

(Feoh/66202) I think that particular turn of phrase has been used incorrectly...

Feoh@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:15:00 -0500

I think that particular turn of phrase has been used incorrectly by a bunch of
people.  It's a fad, and I've heard people even go so far as to mean that they
like hooking up with random sex partners *boggle* which has nothing to do with
the actual phrase in question.

When taken outside of the current cultural context, I have no problem with the
phrase, and in fact identify with it to an extent.  I don't subscribe to any
organized religion, but being a Freemason (which carries with it a truly rich
body of deep, meaningful ritual), I definitely consider myself to be a
spiritual person.

(Faunus/66201) Gwynn -- so you know exactly what people mean by "spiritual but ...

Faunus@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:01:00 -0500

Gwynn -- so you know exactly what people mean by "spiritual but not religious,"
you approve of what it is they mean by it (religious/spiritual autodidacticism)
but you don't like them using those terms to make that distinction?

(Gwynn/66200) Faunus:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:18:00 -0500

Faunus:

What DesCartes said, plus, I tend to think of it a lot more in terms of
activity. Let's say somebody's using a mala. So I start talking to them, and
go, why are you doing that? Then they say something about how, no, they don't
use it because they're religious, they're spiritual. So it's a spiritual thing.
OK, so I ask them, what do they do with the mala? Oh they say aum mane padme
hum and use it to count the repititions of the mantra.

So let me come back to my question. What's different? Again, nothing, as far as
I can see, this person uses a mala, a Buddhist who attends ... umm .. whatever
Buddhists attend, does it have a name?, also uses a mala. They do the same
thing with it. Why is my hypothetical interlocutor trying to set themselves
apart? If all they're saying is, sure I do what Buddhists do with a mala, but
I'm not Buddhist, i.e. I don't attend Buddhist groups/institutions, well, OK,
but again, you're still using a mala for precisely what it's supposed to be
used for. You didn't come up with that yourself, you found out about it via a
Buddhist institution of some sort, directly or indirectly.

I'm not laughing at religious autodidacticism, not at all. Hell, it's pretty
much what I do, I can't recall the last time I attended any sort of religious
group. But I also recognize that if I say mantras with a mala, or sing for God
or what have you, or draw for God, Etc., those are still perfectly normal,
perfectly religious actions. And what I'm trying to find out is, what would I
gain, what distinction would I be making, if I instead said, no, I'm being
spiritual.

I think on top of this, it's sort of a weird dichotomy for me, because, well
let's look at dogma. You might hear, "he's dogmatic", meaning something like
"he's authoritarian, inflexible", that kind of thing. Why should we lose a word
that just means teaching, i.e. saying "he's dogmatic" means "he expounds some
set of teachings and expects people to take them seriously"? The whole thing
kind of smacks of, authority's all yucky and restrictive, we need a new word
for the special stuff we're doing. But my point is, even though you're not
directly involved with the supposed authority, e.g. you don't attend Catholic
mass, if you're doing Catholic stuff, that's still religious stuff.

Further, as I pointed out to Bodhi, if we look at religion as a whole, as
opposed to whatever Western religion we happen to be familiar with, we see that
there's a huge amount of variation, and the stuff people claim as "spiritual",
actually falls quite nicely into religion. So two things:  1. I don't see the
utility of the religious/spiritual distinction. 2. It seems to posit
religious/religion as a bad thing, and I think that's problematic, since
"spiritual" is basically concerned with and doing the same sorts of things
"religious" has been doing forever and a day.

I'm trying to think of an analogy. It would be like somebody saying they were
apolitical, because they didn't support/weren't involved with any political
groups, but they regularly protested, and wrote their representatives, Etc.
Except they'd have to invent a different word for the analogy to be accurate,
which I'm too tired to do right now, but let's say they did. Do you see what
I'm driving at now? I mean all of that stuff is pretty political. About the
only way you could get more political is if you ran for office. So what does it
give us to use their new adjective for their activities? What they're doing is
political, very possibly by definition. So why the need for a new category all
of a sudden?

(DesCartes/66199) For me, it's because I think that both ritual and religion are i...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:17:00 -0500

For me, it's because I think that both ritual and religion are important.  When
I hear people decry either, I look at what they're doing, and I (usually) see
both ritual and religion.

I'm not sure why "I'm spiritual, but not religious" rubs me wrong when the same
person doing the same thing saying something like "I prefer less formal
religious practice" or "I practice a personal religion" or something like that
would be fine for me.  (Likewise, people who claim not to have ritual would rub
me the wrong way, but people who say they have fewer rituals, or something
along those lines wouldn't.)  I guess it might be because in the former case,
they don't see the need for religion or ritual (despite, in my opinion, still
using them) feels like it denies my own sense of how the world is ordered,
whereas I'm more comfortable with the idea that people might have different
religious views and ritual acts.

(Gwynn/66198) Giraffe:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:12:00 -0500

Giraffe:

But you do have a ritual. You have a specific time, and a specific place. You
have a symbolic action, sitting in silence. Sure, that's not prescribed in a
book somewhere, and in theory somebody could stand in silence, or do a
handstand in silence, or lie down and go to sleep, I guess. Wait, could they go
to sleep, or would that be frowned on? Anyway, that's sort of my point, though
it's minimal, I'll bet you have something. If I showed up and played a vuvuzela
for an hour straight, I imagine I'd be considered a nuisance, even if I said I
was moved to do so. And you probably don't get many people standing in silence,
or lying in silence, or what have you.

(DesCartes/66197) Catholics must have a higher developed sense of ritual. :)

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:14:00 -0500

Catholics must have a higher developed sense of ritual. :)

(Faunus/66196) Why is "spiritual but not religious" so contemptible?

Faunus@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:04:00 -0500


Why is "spiritual but not religious" so contemptible?

When people use the phrase, they invariably mean something like: "I
believe in God, or gods, or the supernatural, or a transcendent
purpose, or the other things that religions are about -- in short,
Spirit by one definition or another -- however, I have not agreed to
join a group of people and give them the authority to tell me what to
think, what to do, and how to feel on these matters."

It's almost exactly parallel to educating yourself by reading and
doing what you're interested in, rather than signing up and taking
classes and being graded on your work and hoping that somebody
approves of your work enough to give you a degree.

But in religion, autodidacticism is apparently laughable.  Why?

(Unless what's objected to is the choice of "religious" and
"spiritual" as terms for subjecting yourself to a traditional
authority vs. refusing to do so, in which case, the objection is just
pedantry, comparable to laughing at people for using "begs the
question" to mean "raises the question" or some such nonsense people
with way too much spare time concern themselves with.)

(Giraffe/66195) So a symbolic action consists of an action which is a sacramenta...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:09:00 -0500

So a symbolic action consists of an action which is a sacramental and an
attitude or belief about the action which is a ritual?  That's not how I've
ever used the term.

(Feoh/66194) Definition:

Feoh@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:04:00 -0500

Definition:

rit-u-al
Noun: A religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions
performed according to a prescribed order: "the ancient rituals of Christian
worship".
Adjective: Of, relating to, or done as a religious or solemn rite:

I think you folks are splitting hairs around what's ritual and what isn't.

Pretty much everything you've described is ritual to one extent or another.

(DesCartes/66193) I would describe the physical parts of a ritual as (in Catholic ...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:30:00 -0500

I would describe the physical parts of a ritual as (in Catholic terminology)
sacrementals.  Genuflecting or bowing would be the physical aspects, but the
reverence to the altar or tabernacle would be the ritual.

Maybe I'm off in this way of thinking about it.  Certainly, ritual might
proscribe certain physical manifestations, but I think it's also possible that
ritual could happen without proscribed physical symbols.  (Even in a very
ritualistic worship like a high Mass, not everything is mandated. There is
still some flexibility.  The less ritualistic an act gets, the more flexibility
there is in physical signs, but I don't think that no physical manifestation
exhibited necessarily means that there is no ritual.  I can imagine, for
example, that a basketball player shooting a free through might imagine the
ball going through the net right before the shot, even if he or she doesn't
actually do anything.  This, I think, is ritual.)

(Giraffe/66192) Okay, so you are identifying a spiritual attitude as a ritual. T...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:13:00 -0500

Okay, so you are identifying a spiritual attitude as a ritual. That's where we
differ. I'm thinking of a ritual as a symbolic act, not a mental state or
belief or attitude.

(DesCartes/66191) The mental or spiritual attitude, at least, according to that ar...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:09:00 -0500

The mental or spiritual attitude, at least, according to that article, is
different than regular silence. It's not the position the person takes, but the
attitude they have toward the silence and the purpose of it.  In the same sense
that meditation might be a ritual, I'd say this is also ritual.

(Giraffe/66190) Yes, that is describing worship as expectant waiting. But you're...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 06:39:00 -0500

Yes, that is describing worship as expectant waiting. But you're still not
describing to me the ritual part of it.  The sitting is incidental, it's just
sitting. You could stand if you wanted to.  Mind you, it's not important to me
that there be no ritual. I don't think ritual is always bad. I just don't
really see it in play here.

(DesCartes/66189) I'll bow to your experience on this, but I googled Quaker servic...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 06:33:00 -0500

I'll bow to your experience on this, but I googled Quaker services, and I got
this:
http://www.quakerinfo.org/quakerism/worship.html

"The practice of sitting together in silence is often called "expectant
waiting." It is a time when Friends become inwardly still and clear aside the
activities of mind and body that usually fill our attention in order to create
an opportunity to experience the presence of the Holy Spirit. It is not a time
for "thinking," for deliberate, intellectual exercise. It is a time for
spiritual receptivity, so it is important not to clog one's mind with its own
busy activities. Nonetheless, thoughts will occur in the silence. Some thoughts
will be distractions and should be set aside. (Make that shopping list later.)
But some thoughts or images or feelings may arise that seem to come from a
deeper source and merit attention. If you are visited by a spiritual presence,
if you seem to experience perceptions that are drawn from a deeper well or are
illuminated with a brighter light, then let those impressions dwell in you and
be receptive to the Inward Teacher. Each person finds his or her own ways of
"centering down," or entering deep stillness during meeting."

This sounds like ritual to me.

(Giraffe/66188) Certainly showing up every week at a particular time is a routin...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 06:30:00 -0500

Certainly showing up every week at a particular time is a routine, but I think
calling it a ritual is a stretch. What's the symbolic action and what does it
mean?

(Gwynn/66187) But aren't you setting aside a particular time, and waiting for ...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 06:18:00 -0500

But aren't you setting aside a particular time, and waiting for possible
promptings from .. I forget, the light?, God? I'd say that's a ritual, sure
with a lot less symbology, but still a ritual. I'd have to dig into Victor
Turner to be sure if it fits with the classical definition, but I'm pretty sure
it does. I get what you're saying about lack of symbology and such, but there
is a bit more than, "hey let's all get together every week and sit quietly for
an hour, just because", right? And I'd argue that even if it is that, it's
still a ritual.

Wow I used the word sure way too many times there. Sorry, I didn't get a whole
lot of sleep.

(Giraffe/66186) DesCartes (#66180): I'm going to argue a little with you. I disa...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 05:30:00 -0500

DesCartes (#66180): I'm going to argue a little with you. I disagree that
Quakers sitting silently until moved to speak is a ritual. On the contrary,
it's just people sitting quietly and no more a ritual than Baptists sitting
quietly listening to their pastor
(oops) pastor's sermon. Rituals are symbolic. They hold meaning beyond the
superficial ordinary meaning. Eating a sandwich and drinking Pepsi is (for most
people) not a ritual, it's just eating food because you are hungry. But if the
thing you are eating is a little wafer and what you are drinking is wine, and
thebread and wine either represent the body and blood of Christ (or have
actually become the body and blood) then that is a ritual, because the eating
and drinking have symbolic meaning beyond the ordinary meanings and purposes of
eating and drinking. But for Quakers, the sitting quietly is exactly what it
appears to be: sitting quietly. There is no prescribed posture or arrangement
of chairs or manner of dress (I would agree that "plain dress" did at one time
rise to the level of ritual, which is one reason it has fallen out of our
practice). If people cross their legs or close their eyes or hold their hands
in a certain way, it doesn't mean anything -- which is quite distinct from the
many highly symbolic gestures and motions frequently used in other
denominations.