To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/12/13 18:52
Subject: Re: [K-list] judgement or enquiry
From: peter j bolton
On 1999/12/13 18:52, peter j bolton posted thus to the K-list:
On 13 Dec 99, at 15:34, Marion Hanvey wrote:
> Don't you think that all the main religions of the world are outmoded?
> They're all too old. Thousands of years old. It's like the spiritual
> essence which motivated them has gone and that all that's left are the
> rituals. (With maybe the exception of shamanism, which seems to be a
> do-it-yourself religion with no priests keeping knowledge for
> themselves and telling the masses what to do, and also Hinduism with
> it's guru tradition)(The last may be my own personal bias, but there
> you are.) Regards Loulou
>
Dear Loulou,
obviously religion is as old as Man and as such, religion comes in
2 modes:
1. Institutional religion: Generally institutional religion was devised
to control the individual impulses of man by supplying answers to
all the questions so that more work could be extracted for the
community, state and church; work such as food production,
buildings and war - not to mention fund raising.
But such institutions are run by men with all the weaknesses of
man. Now, weak man is drawn to institutions as they provide
protection and if man get in the upper structures, then they provide
more to that man.
Institutions have never worked and a priori, will never work and
cannot work. But, within these institutions there has been work
carried out by many men/women of integrity over the ages; so
there is some good data within.
I would consider any work carried out by individuals prior to the
advent of TV, worthy of investigation but the philosophical works of
the ancients, certainly worth a moment of time for consideration.
Mans' intellect/logic systems don't seemed to have changed over
the past 10,000 years or so, and as a consequence, one can learn
from historical documents - please note that i don't use the term
history.
Institutions never change their nature and their nature is to control
for want or will or whatever; afterall they are composed of the
weakest of man; the lowest common denominatior of human
intelligence; they are of a cross section of the community of man;
"and the meek will inherit the earth" comes to mind. this principle
is what the applied principles of corporate commerce and
advertising is based on. Anything institutional is seen to be
democratic -of the people - or communist - of the state - or
religious - by the will of god.
But then the will of 'god' was applied intelligence - man being the
application agent of intelligence - in process and each man/woman
born individual, fully capable.
Religion: religion could be described as that inherent drive in man
to enquire of himself the nature of being and becoming and the
personal nature of the process; when this state becomes at rest it
could then be described as a religious belief but whilst still in
process, then the formulation cannot affirm a religious state, only a
process. intelligence is total: but a simple accepted data can be a
religious truth - a religion - to an individual a man - if it is accepted
by that individual and therefor is beyond question; if at rest.
Shamman: individual truth out of perception shift normally
associated with a great physical alteration. An individual truth
definitely beyond question. Very few shammans follow the same
path although the direction seems to be the same.
Attachment to something should be a pause for reflection not a full
stop for becoming; Man already is and should become what he is
and not stop to become that which he isn't. Man if anything is a
process of intelligence, ad continuum.
respect
peter
>
> >On 10 Dec 99, at 22:59, CKRESSATnospamaol.com wrote:
> >El,
> >and so you should listen to the counsel of your heart.
> >
> >I think that i didn't say that which you refer to clearly; i
> >apologize.
> >
> >enquire into everything and keep an open mind,
> >don't accept anything and
> >
> >don't be too eager to judge unless you have all the facts.
> >By 'judge' i mean being judgemental and/or definition beyond
> >question.
> >of having all the facts: in the matter of religion as a capacity of
> >man, I doubt if any man has all the facts. It then follows that more
> >enquiry is usually necessary. I am not an advocate of blind faith,
> >true believerism or cults. Each Man/Woman is unique and is to be
> >counted so.
> >
> >and the question as to what religion is; it should be examined in
> >depth and detail with the full scope of resources that man has
> >available.
> >
> >please don't interpret 'judge' in the same reference as 'weigh',
> >'consider' or compare.
> >
> > > In a message dated 12/10/1999 5:21:07 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > peterboltonATnospamsuperconsciousness.org writes:
> > >
> > > > > However, I disagree on judging them by the fruit they bear...
> > > > > William
> > > > > James thinks that religion must be judged by its fruits, but
> > > > > I think they should not be judged at all. True religion (of
> > > > > which Samadhi is IMO a part, even if it's not a necessity)
> > > > > can't be judged, graded or dissected.
> > > > >
> > > > Being judgemental suggests that one has *all* the facts of the
> > > > matter at hand and one stands on an independant platform;
> > > > attributes that very few - if any - bear. But religion, as a
> > > > force or capacity available to intelligent man as a direct
> > > > result of being a creation of intelligence within a closed
> > > > system with no obvious evidence of outside intervention,
> > > > suggests to that it is an event horizon for enquiry for both
> > > > philosophical and scientific criterea. It is a part of us and
> > > > who really are we if we don't know what we are? respect peter
> > >
> > > Say what?
> > >
> > > Even to say that spiritual experience and religion shouldn't be
> > > judged is a judgment. A lot of the specious
> > > mental-gymnastic-double-talk that fuels esotericults is built
> > > around the you-don't-know-enough-to-judge-what-I'm-saying precept
> > > (just as it keeps the fundamentalist followers from rocking the
> > > boat by asking questions).
> > >
> > > Hey, do what thou wilt. Turn off your mind and float
> > > downstream... or into the local septic tank, whichever way the
> > > flow takes you. Call me a fool or an ego-ramus, but I'm listening
> > > to the counsel of my heart before I dive in the water.
> >listen and decide what you will; there is no judgement inferred here?
> > >
> > > El
> > >
> >
> >respect
> >peter
> >peter j bolton
> >peterboltonATnospamsuperconsciousness.org
> >http://www.superconsciousness.org
> >http://www.BoltonAssociates.com
> >pboltonATnospamboltonassociates.com
>
> ______________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
peter j bolton
peterboltonATnospamsuperconsciousness.org
http://www.superconsciousness.org
http://www.BoltonAssociates.com
pboltonATnospamboltonassociates.com
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.