We the men of the mind...
I have talked about the issues this video raises before. For most people religion is seen as the only true form of morality, whether they are religious or not. The religious sink into a pious mythology about the self being worthless and that only death will bring true hope and salvation to mankind. The nihilist believes in nothing but death and so ruthlessly pursues his own pleasures, even to the detriment and cost to his own life..
"And no one came along to say your life belongs to you.. And that the good, is to live it.."
"Both sides agree that morality is the surrender of your self interest and of your mind"
Mystics beware, your morality sits on a precipice.. XCowboy2's second part of his adaptation of Ayn Rand's speech by John Galt in her novel Atlas Shrugged...
Comments
In fact, a mystic might be quicker to *agree* with you rather than disagree. The whole point of mysticism in all its forms is to expand what you view as yourself. Different religions use different terminologies. Some of them say you need to die to your self that you may live, yes. But this isn't an asceticism or a moral depravity, not at its core (mainstream religion is not an accurate representation of mysticism...in fact it barely has any left in it). What needs to die are the barriers we set up within ourselves because of our fears and our need to avoid pain (these barriers are often reinforced by mainstream religion). We need to remove our illusions and wake up to truth and to life.
And a mystic will tell you that God *is* not a being, but is Being itself. In other words, existence exists. And that the purpose of your life is for you to live it as fully as possible. To enjoy life, but not on a superficial level. Often religion tells us we need to come to a place where our experience shows us that the "I" is not as separate and distinct and limited as we had thought. That our "self" can expand to be the whole thing. A redefinition of what we think is the self, and so then when we act in self interest we *are* acting on the interests of everyone else.
But this is too difficult a message for all to comprehend. So religion sets it up in stages. For the children and the spiritual beginners, all there is is a moral code, because that's all they will be able to see. This is supposed to habituate a person in good things, but also to eventually get them to question authority and find life for themselves. What we call mainstream religion was never supposed to be the be all end all. It was only the first step. But because it is so much easier and caters to people's fears, people elevate it up to the only step.
Also, I could go on and on about the actual spiritual meaning behind turning the other cheek...and it is not to make us roll over and be weak. But I will spare you. I'm sure this comment is long enough! ;)
For a mystic, the moral code is meant to help people reach union with God (self-actualization). But there usually comes a point where it holds us back, since reality is much more complex and cannot be contained by it...and then we are meant to transcend it. Morality is, essentially, for beginners.
If you would like me to explain the turn the other cheek idea, I will. But do you understand my point? Mysticism is not what is described in the video.
Personally, though I derive inspiration from all the world's great religions, my home base as you might call it, is Christianity. But the way I understand Christianity is much different from the mainstream understanding. Because it is not based in dogma or blind faith. It is based in the idea that the stories *are* myths, and that we can use these myths to help us understand our own psychology.
And yes, it is quite clear that many of the proponents of all the world's religions expect servitude to others in return for some reward that will be given after death. And I agree with you that this is a harmful perspective that keeps people chained and ignorant.
But that is not the heart of religion. That is merely the surface, the dumbed down version. The version for beginners on the spiritual path. The only thing they can see.
As for your argument about God, I agree with you that we should not deny the truth or make up illusions that we might find comfort. As I said, I don't believe God is a being, but Being itself. That is, all these ideas about God that differing religions put forth are but mythologies that point to the heart of reality (or at least their perspective of it). And I believe that we can and do experience God in the form of insight and inner knowledge, when our perspective widens and we let more of reality into our normally shut tight view. All of this stuff is analogical and psychological.
So the idea of turning the other cheek... This is not a commandment to be weak or to let others step all over you. Instead it offers us profound advice on how to deal with offense and suffering. To really live in truth we cannot deny the pain that comes with it. But yet that is exactly what most of us do. We bury it, avoid it, build walls against it. And by doing so we let our fear enslave us, which only leads to more fear and pain. Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek not as an outward response to violence but as an inward response to pain. Rather than run from it and deny it, remain receptive and open. Because, as Jesus says over and over, we don't need to be afraid. The fear of suffering is worse than the suffering itself.
This is why religion seems to be so preoccupied with suffering and death. It's not that they condone it or want it, it's that we are normally so shut tight against it that we fool ourselves into living in a false reality. We avoid death to the point that we cease to truly live, and so religion points us towards facing reality without a shield, that in death we may find life.
None of it is literal or physical. It's all about the mind and the heart. Every outward sign is pointing to an inward reality. But those who cannot see yet, those who are still living with their hearts closed beneath layers and layers of security measures will only see the outside. Their eyes are fogged and that is all they can see. And because their lives are controlled by fear they hold onto the outer symbols with all their might, thinking them to be the essential truth, unwilling to let go.
And so we must dispell the fog, by looking inward. As Socrates said, know thyself. This is the secret behind all religions. When you know yourself and your part in reality, you know God. And to come to know ourselves, we must destroy our illusions and our protections, which is often painful.
And this is why Jesus is the only way to God. Because what he represents is an outpouring of the self. Living not from the perspective of fear but from that of truth and love. Eliminating no aspect of reality from your view. Casting out the fog and facing the world unprotected, because there is nothing to fear. When we follow the example of his perspective (not his actions alone, that doesn't have any truly transformative power) we come to reality without fear, and we come to God.
How's that? :)
And what is so wrong with mythology? I grant you that when people take it at face value (which you say is the only way to take it), it's very destructive and keeps people blinded and chained. But the whole point of myth is symbolism. What's wrong with searching deeper into that symbolism? Don't symbolism and metaphor enable us to speak about reality with creativity? Something that, if freed from the need to claim absolute factual and historical truth, can spark our creative instincts and express what is most important to us?
And yes, insight and inner knowledge can be attributed to your environment and the inner workings of your brain. I agree. Remember that to me, all of this imagery represents aspects of the psychological (I'd add spiritual, but I don't think that means much to you). I am describing the way it feels. It comes suddenly, and all at once. Where does it come from? Within yourself, of course. But not from the everyday normal thought process. From a place within you that is more closely rooted in reality, some psychologists have called it the unconscious. And when something that was unconscious suddenly becomes conscious, it feels like a gift...especially since we largely define ourselves by what is in our conscious mind. Experience of God can be experience of an expanded self. When you realize you are more than just your ego and your paradigm changes.
I'm not sure how much you respect the field of psychology, but Jung posited that there isn't just an unconscious but a collective unconscious. And this he linked very closely with God. Interesting idea. And perhaps I should note that when it comes to our psychological workings..."real" to me means authentic, excluding nothing. And so to have a real psychological experience is to experience your own authenticity, free from self-deception.
You've done the work for me. :) It's not the physical pain she must be receptive to. "The reality is that she denies her pain because she believes that he will either change or that he requires better understanding." This is the pain she must be open to feeling, the kind within herself. But instead she buries it and consents to feel physical pain, because often the fear of existential pain is far greater than the fear of physical pain. She lives in fear, not really that she'll be beaten, but that he will leave her, because she's afraid of what life will be like after, or she's afraid to make him more angry. She feels trapped, but the chains are illusory and of her own creation (though certainly reinforced by the husband). And religion says that this fear is the illusion, and that by letting go of it (facing it) she can come to a healthier, more centered, more authentic place from which to act.
I just meant that Socrates said, "know thyself." And I wanted to point out that this is the whole point of mysticism (not mainstream religion). God is a symbol for the light in our own hearts, to know God is to know thyself. God is only an illusion when you take him literally and concretely as a cosmological concept. And yes, you can talk about the same things without the symbolism, but stories have a power to resonate with us the way talking about things plainly can't always do.
Okay, I should clarify. Unprotected by the lies and self deception we normally use as a shield against the difficulties of life. This is the "self" we must sacrifice, this is what we need to be willing to crucify. The false self. So that we can come to a deeper understanding of our deeper selves and of reality in general. This allows us then to act confidently and wisely.
For many people, this will mean letting go of religion. Many people use it as a shield and a self-deception, I don't pretend to ignore that. But then, hidden underneath all these layers of widespread and communal self-deception within religion lies the very key to ridding ourselves of it (at least, as much as we can). And that is the attitude of acceptance. Not the "roll over and play dead, submit to authority" kind, but the "I'm not going to be afraid and let my fear and anger control me" kind. And from this does not foster weakness but inner strength and vitality.
Also, I'd like to note that I'm not trying to prove God's existence. For most mystics, the question of God's existence is a meaningless one. For most religious people, on the other hand, it is all that matters. All I am trying to do is (a) give a more accurate picture of what mysticism is in contrast to popular religion (which may be the real understanding you're trying to combat), and (b) provide a way of looking through religion that seeks to remove illusion in favor of facing reality with honesty and openness.
And on the subject of psychology, Jung is a great person to point to. Why? Because you're right, he didn't take religion at face value and often looked at it as allegory. He was a huge fan of the Gnostics in particular, a group which I am somewhat a part of. I find his idea of the collective unconscious and of the archetypes very interesting because although it does not posit something greater outside of us it does posit something greater that we are a part of. Essentially, it points to the unity of existence.
Regarding the woman, I think you misunderstand my position. I, too, would suggest she leave the relationship. The reason she does not is because of her fear of psychological anguish, and that outweighs her fear of physical pain. To be accepting is to be honest with oneself. This means that rather than running from what she is most afraid of in her mind, she should stop and face it, and by acknowledging it and integrating it, she can come to a place where she can see that she was enforcing her own boundaries, and that they are illusion. At this point she is centered enough to make the decision that will really benefit her the most: the decision to leave her husband.
Much easier said than done of course. But the point is that her avoidance of this particular suffering (or what she sees as suffering because of her fear -- the idea of leaving her husband) is what keeps her in a relationship that very well *does* give her suffering. So it is her fear that is causing (or at least allowing) the suffering to continue. If she could face it, she may find hope and be able to change the situation.
The summary: don't be afraid to be honest and face the truth. It's usually not as scary as we think it is and avoiding it is often what causes the most pain.