Just to raise this issue for discussion. My personal take is that blind belief and zealotry have no place whatsoever in spirituality or on the spiritual path - at least not the 'have faith or go to hell in a bucket variety' beloved of mainstream dogmatic religion.

The pain and suffering that has flowed over the centuries from the blind and over zealous application of irrational beliefs and prejudices is surely enormous. We somehow take information delivered in the form of societal, family, cultural or religious conditioning (which may even be useful in certain circumstances) and before we know where we are we are so locked into seeing things universally in this way that we'll deny reality or worse still love/our heart rather than adjust our views.

That's not to say that teaching is not important, or that we should ignore advice coming from what seem to be authoritative sources. Just that we should not under any circumstances seek to suppress our genuine doubts or intelligence, or invest belief in stuff that we don't genuinely have confidence in or experience with.

Faith/belief is something (and this is not an original view) that grows with experience. From sounding right, to still sounding right after careful thought, to working when you try it out a little, to working routinely over a long period when you apply/try it out a lot.

Even stuff that you have a lot of confidence in must remain a provisional view - variables or the entire  paradigm for example may change meaning that it suddenly doesn't work any more.

There's a very wise saying in the spiritual traditions (repeated by Gjurdieff?) to the effect that truth is not something you arrive at by positing a theory and trying to prove or disprove it. Even less so by attempting to beat others into submission by intellectual feats, assertive behaviours or the like. That this is doomed to failure as a result of egotistical bias. That the only way we can come to the truth in anything is by progressively eliminating that we prove not to be true. So that that which is left is (in this situation or context at least) basically the truth.

Blind faith on the other hand promotes a suspension of rationality, plus an unhealthy dogmatism and zealotry. Delusion in effect.  Not to mention a painful and damaging collapse of the belief system when reality finally intervenes.

We've such a psychological or fear and ego driven need for eternal or at least firm truths that it seems to me that rather than always searching for truths (and routinely fabricating falsities) we'd almost do better to instead lighten up and continuously cultivate openness, flexibility of mind and spaciousness.

Could it even be that this is the greatest demand made of us in our journey towards selflessness - towards manifesting the ability to live lightly from wisdom and compassion -  through love??

Thoughts??

[the seeker:] "religion is silly."
[dave_a_mbs:] "silly, maybe.  But what better cause do we have to inflict our personal moralities on others.  Religion is a good excuse for...inhumanity of all sorts, and if nothing else, brainwashing."
[vajra"] "yep"
_________________________________

These quotes illustrate how you and your ilk have recently felt the need to create unkind and insipid stereotypes of people of faith whose beliefs you do not understand.   Of course, such smarmy bigotry merely projects the myopia of the New Age ghetto on to devout people who actually have the integrity to read many books that pose fundamental challenges to their own perspectives.  In fact, Christianity teaches three basic principles about faith:

(1) In both Greek and Hebrew, the word translated "faith" really means "faithfulness."  This
    means that my mind can be plagued by doubts, but I must be faithful to my quest and the
    quality of moral conduct that quest requires.  

(2) "We do not understand in order to believe; rather we believe in order to understand
    (St. Augustine)."   In other words, we provisionally act as if certain spiritual principles are
     true in the hope of verifying them by direct experience. Thus, we hold our beliefs
     passsionately but provisionally--passionately in the recognition that beliefs derive their
     value solely from the potential to support spiritual transformation and provisionally in
     recognition of our need to be open to the possibility that we are misinformed and need
     correction and further illumination.

(3) We learn by having the courage to doubt certitudes that might hold back our progress.
    Thus, the father of an epileptic boy cries out to Jesus: "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief
    (Mark 9:24)."  This father wants to open his heart to the imparted faith that makes
    the difference and can heal his sick son, but he honestly expresses his doubts about Jesus'
    challenge to think outside the box.  

John the Baptist is arrested for imminent execution and, from prison, expresses his growing disillusionment with Jesus (Matthew 11).  Jesus is not fuflilling John's preconceptions of what a Messiah's mission entails.  Jesus senses His disciples' indignation at John's skepticism and shuts them up by praising John: "I assure you, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist."  In so doing, Jesus celebrates the courage to doubt in an honest spiritual quest.  Of course, Jesus Himself was plagued by doubts throughout His ministry and, even in this respect, is a model for the Christian seeker.

Don

thanks U,  thats some good stuff to read there.

Greetings,

@Don

The point, where Christianity lost much credibility, was during the middle age, where fraudulent clerical dignitaries and greed driven landlords abused religion, creating a misconception called the "feudal system",
where peasants (seemingly more devout than clergy and aristrocracy those days) where held 3rd class, in order not to endanger the clergy's and aristrocracy's power trip.
The "common man" was scared off by a concept called "hell", was also told, if "he" wouldn't obey, "he" would be punished in order to fulfill gods will.
Free thinking, that was apart from the dogma of the church, was answered with Inquisition, it was the best method to keep anyone away from thinking for him/herself.

This is not the fault of religion, it is the fault of human failure, overrated self-pleasing cravings.
So why talking about lost credibility, why should one take religion seriously, when it was long enough misused by false prophets to spread their message, furthermore to please their ego?

Devout people respect the clerical dignitaries as authorities, and one who sees him-/herself in the position to govern, should have the neccessary respect for the ones, he/she is responsible for.
In addition, this responsibility has to be fulfilled, as they present themselves as worthy to be a role model for a believer. But then, this one should live according to the religious teachings, and not in favour of forcing others to obey to systems, that have nothing in common with gods word.

So it is not new-age ghetto, but proven by history!

I personally do not see faith alone as our driving force. Knowledge is the key to this recent life's circumstances, in order to understand. As wanting to know something is necessarily one feature of a seeker. Knowing how it works, knowing how to practice, knowing how to improve.
But in case, that faith is there to encourage our understanding, what about the faithless ones? Lost?
I would go that far, to say, that faith without knowledge is not possible, how could one believe in a divine principle that he/she does not understand at all?
Is it not more like faith growing with growing knowledge about such a principle? Trust growing with knowledge? Faith bound to the personal relation with god?
The apple story tells us that knowing means to deny god.
Nothing I could ever accept, or what would be reasonable anyway. Not knowing means also not to know god. Which would lead to having no faith. IMH(umble)O.

Faith is a feature of trancendental nature (god), knowledge is an earthbound feature to progress as humanbeing. So both things help to progress, not one thing more than the other. Knowledge is in fact, understanding the world, divinity has created, so why talking condescenting about it?

What holds christianity back, is the lacking will to progress, to change, to overcome this antiquated view of the believer, who creeps on his/her knees. I think that cannot be , what a god wants.
So how to redefine a belief system, that has knocked out itself?
Knowledge and belief must be connected, to reach (sounds cheesy) "salvation".

You are seemingly a perfectionist, in order to serve your beliefs/ what you believe in.
In spite of the new agers, you should also challenge your devout fellows to be insitent on progress.
It is of course one main goal in life to progress, on the level of knowledge, experience and for the believer, growing in having faith.
But one easily forgets that this lifetime is way too short to be "perfect". It lies within the human nature, that none of us is in fact perfect. But that is no disadvantage, it supports, that we are here to interact, each and everyone of us to his/her own possible extend (what lies within "possible extend, is also to crash mind frauds, that hold back progress).
No matter how hard one tries to be perfect, perfection is nothing we could ever reach, what lies in our abilities, is to look at the recent circumstances, look back in history how they came about, then connect knowledge from the past and today, to built our tomorrow. The ones to come after us will do the same.
So in fact, life is a process, and we are only one short part of it. So we can help to perfectionize things according to our ability, but the ones after us will surely find something to add, that makes it more perfect.
Our task in my pov is not to go for the impossible, perfection, we can only live life to its full extend, to create something, living life to its full extend means not enjoying ourselves (surely one part, but a minor one), but to push thinking and moral acting to the limit (of our abilities), where progression lies, is when this limits can be teared down.

The ability is given to everyone.

yours sincerely,

pulsar

Hi Ultra. Sorry I took so long to reply, it took me a while to get to read it carefully. Yes, I was responding to your post when I wrote about the idea that we somehow need to combine a generalised faith so that we remain motivated to progress along the path while at the same time staying fluid and relatively flexible (perhaps provisional is a good word) in our beliefs.

I agree very much with what you say and with the idea that especially intellectually expressed beliefs can only ever be provisional - the nature of discursive dualistic logic is that it tends only to capture facets of any situation, or single (usually selfish) perspectives. Meaning as I think you imply that we get stuck in a partial view of things if we grasp or seek for rigid truths - at least at this physical level of reality anyway, in that there are higher truths that are absolute. That somehow the journey requires us to keep on discarding so called truths and reaching for ever higher understandings.

You've very nicely outlined what in essence is the Buddhist view which sees this reality as a a huge network of interdependent cause and consequence - the implication of which is that we normally only ever see bits of it, that we can as you say never act without influencing others, and equally cannot act except constrained by the reality we find ourselves in.

Higher truths or consciousness seem somehow to be a matter of integrating across ever wider swathes of this reality. Love for example is a (the?) top level principle that infuses all, is the basis of all that is good. Is an absolute (and not just a relative) truth.

It's also a Buddhist principle that when faced with opposing views on anything and when looking for optimum solutions that it's best to rather than judge and discard one or the other (head for either polarity - doing this in any argument leads to a sterile did/didn't sort of argument) to look for the relative truth in both positions and seek to reconcile this by reaching for a higher integrating principle. Buddhism is sometimes referred to as the 'middle way' for this reason.

All of this leads inexorably to the view that exactly as you say that rather than rejecting traditions and views it's better to seek for the truth in them, and too try to integrate it. If for no other reason that as above truth is truth, and if what provisionally makes sense somehow doesn't fit the theory then it's the theory that needs amendment and not the data. That it's necessary to reach for the higher truth. Suppressing or rejecting the data can lead only to 'stuckness', and block growth.

It's always possible to change tack if calls we make in this way prove wrong - it only becomes an issue if for some reason we're hung up on or have built a belief system that needs always to be right, or which fears error.

Which I suppose brings us back to the issue of orthodox institutional Christianity and the exchange with Don above. There's so much in its original teaching that's as I said above so correct and so useful - that can be drawn on by anybody on the path.

But the attendant dogmatism, the fear that follows from the preaching of a devil and the possibility of eternal damnation by a vengeful God should we make even a small slip, a tendency to reject all other traditions and to block interpretation of teaching by the 'smelly unwashed', and preaching which has for centuries lost touch with the spiritual underpinnings of the religion has resulted in a culture where it can (except via some of the more mystic strands) be  so hard to access these truths. Surely no surprise, since the objective of the church has since Roman times been to assert absolute temporal control.

It also by locking individuals into a rigid and dogmatic belief system must surely block spiritual progress. Those that have achieved realisation from within this environment seem to have done so despite rather than because of it.

This is not a bashing of Christianity in general, but rather a good faith attempt to set out in a reasoned way the issues that may underpin the negative experiences of many like those of mine I outlined in the post above.

This doesn't have to be the way it is. Surely grounds can be found through respectful debate for some movement on this??? This site if it could start to reconcile these positions through that debate has surely the ability to make an enormous contribution to all our futures???

I think LG makes a goodf point in her last post, and who ever it was (Vajra?) that said we have to have some sort of faith in something to keep seeking and aspiring to be more spiritual etc, other wise we would only focus on worldly matters like making more money etc.

However if "faith" means stuff like the fundamentalist Christian view that you go to Hell if you don;t have set beliefs about the natur of Jesus, well I consider that ridiculous. Like many other people of different religious paths and none (including liberal Christainity), I think Christianity makes sense if you see Jesus more as an inspirational figure and someone who tried to get people to be more spiritual and less dogmatically "religious", and in whom we can see aspects of God, rather than being THE one and only incarnation. I must also say that I find the dogma of the atonement - a kind of sacrifice on bahalf of hopelessly sinful mankind, that has to be believed in to work (thus preventing us from the Hell we deserve due to our ancestor's misdeeds), most illogical and ungelpful, and I do not personally think any such idea ever entered Jesus'head.

I don't mean to only criticise evangelical Christianity. I just happen to know it well. I would also oppose any other system that thinks its dogmas are the only ones that lead to people being "saved", and I have more respect for any system which involves working on yourself to try and be a better human being, and not judging others too much. For example, Buddhism requires little "faith" and more "working on yourself", as the Buddha specifically said he should not be worshipped and that people should not even believe his teachings without testing them to see if they found them useful.

Ultra said:  Faith is a principle which organizes and impels access to belief.

this is very good condensed thought. I like it.

Your post is well written Ultra I followed it easily. I do believe (whoops, theres that word again!) that your post reflects what I learned was <cognitive  thinking>

its kind of an art, or like the art of meditation. Cognitive thinking is like you did in your post. It is to: thoughtfully consider all the possibilities in any given situation, rather than shutting down the mind to a finite and one dimensional channel and attitude.

as far as TMI teachings go, "there is no good, there is no bad, there is just being."

maybe someone out there wants to know Monroe's short philosophy here, (Monroe founded The Monroe Institute where balance between the left/right hemispheres of the brain is the premise to aid our balanced approach to life (whether dead or alive)

I know some of you won't understand it but I myself found it a very good meditation practice whatever I find conflicting with my own views; so here it is:

your attention is a function of your energy being-creative
your mind simply responds to your attention (my personal meditation)
_____
From Monroe:
There is no beginning, there is no end,
   There is only change.
There is no teacher, there is no student,
   There is only remembering.
There is no good, there is no evil,
   There is only expression.
There is no union, there is no sharing,
   There is only one.
There is no joy, there is no sadness,
   There is only love.
There is no greater, there is no lesser,
   There is only balance.
There is no statis, there is no entropy,
   There is only motion.
There is no wakefulness, there is no sleep,
   There is only being.
There is no limit, there is no chance,
   There is only a plan.
_____

and now my last little bit of wisdom gathered from 60 yrs painstakingly...

when we die, or before we die we should think of priorities, for instance here is a list of things we will not be able to take with us into our afterlife stations:
1) your mercedes
2) your degrees
3) your next door neighbors wife
4) your wardrobe
5) your physical body
6) your diamonds and gold
7) your insurance plan
8) the house you built with your own hands
9) anything that is defined as an object of attachment emotionally. this is defined as if when you think of losing a person or a thing, it gives you a twinge of pain or conflict to consider that loss, then that is an attachment needs to  be looked at.

List of items we can take with us into the afterlife:
1) The love you have for your mate
2) or the love you have for all others, including family members
3) the love you have for your pets and animals
4) the love you have for your temporary home, the Earth
5) all these relate to how well you loved and is directly related to how well you served the earth and the people and your close loved ones.

so basically, nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists. Love is real.
fear is illusion or F=false E=evidence A=appearing R=as real.

then faith is a person who has no doubts, and when love enters such a person all doubts are gone and only what is like god remains, love.

Hi vajra,

And you though it took you a long time to respond? Sorry - busy week.
Please note that a significant portion of this is not so much directly responding to you personally (I guess you will ascertain which do), but your comments were the source of some exploration I've been thinking about for a while - issues that I run into in my own life, and observe in others engaged in similar pursuits, and I see these issues illustrated here on this site, which you did mention specifically.

(to all) Please excuse the length. Maybe I am making up for lost time between my 1st and 2nd post - ha. I apologize in advance. Too much coffee perhaps. I am sure there is much redundancy but wanted to get this out and do not have time to edit down now. So skim and skip if necessary.

all quotes except where noted are vajra's
Quote:


Is it possible that "looking for the relative truth in both positions" still represents a qualification by exclusion? Perhaps the reconcilliation by 'higher integrating principle' in dealing with so-called 'opposing views' may also be represented by the principle of full unconditional acceptance, oneness, etc., thus rendering any seeming opposition, even a component of opposition - as unified within the complete set of possibilities represented by different individuals' choices, values, etc...

Yes, why supress or reject? Let a thousand flowers bloom as they say. I think that is my point, or one of them anyway.
However, I actually did not speak of seeking truth 'within' any person vs reject his/her methods or traditions - but to fully and completely accept the entire reality of others' beliefs, which come out of the same universe of possibilities we also have complete access to. There is a difference.

One way is to objectify/separate the reality or reported experience of another person and extract by our judgement (which may lead to negative consequences, since those judgements originate in the objectification itself) what seems viable and valid for us, rejecting the remainder (which is still part of a whole). Another way - by completely accepting the here and now totality of another person's motives and choices as being 100% valid for them, and by doing that, becoming firstsubjectively unified (oneness) with their reality as to have access to it wholly and internally. The former is done more with aspects of consciousness that deal with outer perception, logic, concrete rational, mental and reasoning process - ie: the separative mind. The latter deals with the more internal, inclusive, intuitive 'heart' energy.

A benefit of the latter approach is that by inclusion of the other's entire 'package', we also have an opportunity to see, be more aware of, and be compassionate towards the faults and foibles also held within the greater reality of other people, etc.,  essentially because we have identified them as our own in the process. In the former rational approach, because of the inherent division which is necessary to make a comparison, what is supposed to be compassion born of oneness may frequently be in actuality a subtle (or not so subtle) kind of condescension.

In a way this issue seems to involve the same discrimination process individuals use internally without need for external justification,  analysis or rationalization - ie: people just choose and then proceed onward with their lives. But  when those same processes become openly discussed, more transparent - the potential for sharing motives, ideals and methods increases within expanding communities and institutions linked by constantly enhanced and pervasive communications - we become more and more suceptible toward the perception of these externalized 'personal' realities as representing potential conflicts with our own.  Jealousy, fear, doubt, insecurity - all kinds of untransformed separative negative emotions then become energetically attached to the original rational comparison of perceived difference. It seems to be a fundamental human problem that operates individually, interpersonally and communally. Is it any coincidence that this issue has reached a fever pitch during perhaps the greatest quantum explosion in open communication and cross-cultural, trans-traditional 'pollination' the world has ever seen as globalization intensifies?

In the olden days, spiritual seekers somewhat relied on a relatively reliable model of monasticism (or asceticism) and its attendant physical, geographic separation was a useful expedient to avoid many of these potential conflicts (aside from the other obvious reasons). But now there really is no place to 'hide'. Some advanced people have realized that conflict is not the answer - either within themselves or with others. We need to operate in tolerance of, and oneness with others ideals and so-called imperfections (even in ourselves) while pursuing our own highest goals, individually and institutionally. This is one of the keynotes of urgently needed social dynamics. But it cannot be forced, externally legislated, nor will it take place on the institutional/international level without first being integrated on an individual level. So this is an urgent issue.

Quote:


This is a good point and there seems to be some of this within the subjects of the general discussion on these boards. Perfection is an ongoing evolving process and may mean adopting new strategies and beliefs as well as relinquishing unsatisfying old habits and forms along the way. We may use so much energy promoting and preserving our 'rightness', both internally to ourselves, and projected onto interpersonal or communal settings for fear of being in error - whether based on fear of failure, jealousy of others' choices and decisions equally as effective as ours, but not 'mine - the only way', or even in doubt, ie: 'Is my way a mistake now that I know of another way? Better pump up the volume!', etc. The prominent incursion of these issues into the tought-life may mean we that are not trying to improve by utilizing our choices actively as in a practice, but rather to rest where we are 'comfortable', while merely defending and reinforcing our own choices instead of really using them. In this context practice may represent oneness and self-transcendence, whereas the other way is representative of divisiveness, or assertion of supremecy. One effective, the other, not. (more on this below)

Quote:


Frankly, I do not see how anyone is locked in. There is nothing but freedom. And if there is freedom, why use it to direct energy to institutions or attitudes which are not progressive in our view, whatever that view is?

Quote:


I think that what you describe here is more or less the entire game! It is the play of life itself in all its evolving forms within the ignorance of the physical, and these travails are not limited to the inevitable distortions of the Christian Church, Islam, or even Bruce Moen! They are quite available in our own consciousness, yet they may be reflected in those outer forms for us to see. That does not mean we must become attached to them, even in a negative way, once we are fortunate enough to see them, move beyond them, and then again see them in the rearview mirror.

Quote:


I think you and I have already addressed many of these points in our previous discussion - you quite eloquently, btw.

No, I don't think you are 'bashing Christianity' - maybe you are concerned about some narrow principle that is not only endemic to Christianity (although evidently not uncommon in our culture) but of ego projection by people of any tradition who attempt to impose one thing or another that appears to 'impinge' on personal and group dynamics. It is an issue that comes up, no doubt.
Yet,
I personally do not see the need to have any 'debate' in this matter per se, since there is really nothing to reconcile, and the requisite 'enormous contributions to everyones' futures reside within themselves already, totally accessible - with or without the so-called perversions of Christianity, represented by any other person or institution, on or off this forum. That is the theory anyway.

When people assert their 'superior, exclusive, or negative and fear based beliefs', I do take note, however. There is a difference between like-minded seekers joining together in common purpose, as in sharing resources or experiences for inspiration, vs. someone trying very hard to convince themselves of their own experience or theory by aggressively 'trying to convince' others - as if to demand permission to believe themselves by 'authority of consensus'. This particular approach turns out to be not so inspiring in case you haven't noticed. Of course - their assertion HAS TO BE futile, since it is intrinsically self-limiting, hence their frustration, and why they try so hard. It is even sometimes painful to witness. I do admire the devotion though. But maybe in that case we just need the courage and conviction to channel and temper that fervent devotion into doing the requisite work to evoke and promote the practical testing that genuine spirituality demands. It's hard work but somebody has to do it - right? Without that crucial interface with actual practice, devotion may turn into fanaticism - an incomplete, unintegrated, imbalanced and mostly mentalized form that must use its life energy to 'practice' on others as a projected proxy, substitute, diversion, etc.

The same principle operates within corrupt institutions which resort to inauthentic means (like fear or false pride) to promote their survival. They want converts to promote continuity even if the original integrity of purpose is debased in the process - as if the sole purpose is nothing but self-perpetuation no matter what the form. (common problem with institutions of any kind, not only religious). No wonder our culture has a fascination with vampirism.

How a vigorous and condescending proselytizing contributes to enlightenment I have always failed to see. On the other hand, I have sometimes observed that the tendency to do this is noticably diminished in those who are relatively 'successful' in some ongoing regular practice, especially like that of meditation or anything which deliberately and dynamically increases receptivity, vs the ego based self reinforcement/projection that promotes separativity, etc.. They seem also to have been able to integrate various related qualities (like humility), that generally mitigate against these kinds of ego disturbances, even when they appear to vacillate or struggle with it from time to time. Like with any practice, consistency is both a desired goal and a basis for further progress. So, onward ____________soldiers (please insert any tradition, guru, etc.)....

This divisivness born of fear, presumed superiority, etc.,  is a real  error in seeking, but it can and may be ignored in others, since one does not have to participate in another's error. Have you ever studied water safety & life-saving? The most stressed point is: "Don't ever let a drowning person pull you down."  Such a person is drowning in a sense - in their own doubt (the personality compensation of self-doubt is pride), fear, insecurity, etc..We can make suggestions, pray for our receptivity to higher values - like throwing a line, but at some point, we have to want to grab it ourselves.

Specific to your above mentioned concerns, and also touched on indirectly above, I have also been completely bewildered by so-called spiritual seekers devaluing others' spiritual search/ideals/proponents/leaders all in the name of Christ's Universal Love. Is there anything more ridiculous? I am wanting to believe that there are also many followers of the Christ who likewise feel puzzlement (and disappointment?) over this.  It is an old addage that "A master is known by his disciples." Should that be true, it would be something for everyone following any tradition to reflect on in this context. Also, if anything, this attitude does not indicate any 'advanced awareness', but probably is indicative of precisely the contrary. Granted, it may be distasteful, but it can be ignored. (uh oh, there's my door bell ringing.....)

People have choices. Seekers have choices. One who is seeking Truth, God or Whatever does not have to submit to the various so-called negative manifestations of any orthodox institutional religion, which as an institution may not be monolithic, as it is existing in numerous forms, degrees of usefulness for many purposes, for all kinds of people in all stages of spiritual evolution.. Why deliberately engage another's deficiencies when we have our own to deal with?

If they wish to be mired in some apparent perversion excused and promoted by ignorance, which might or might not be an apt  characterization, they can do that and it will not negate our, or another's search for truth. They themselves might think they are living a most inspired life, and good for them - why is that not true? - they will eventually achieve and embody the consequences of their choices according to the intensity and integrity of their pursuit, including the karma for misleading or harming others if that is involved. They may adjust their beliefs according to their needs as they go too, and if they don't, then....there they are, where they are. They have a choice and we have a choice. Again, one needn't go to Christianity for this - it is everywhere and within too - both the 'good' and the 'bad', and why discrimination and self-examination is valuable to acquire, increase and use in the appropriate way -- within.

Aside from any one religion - the whole body of religion and its general operating structure may itself not continue to be an appropriate vehicle for increasing numbers of people to spiritually evolve within anyway.  So, as people go forward they may step away from what does not serve their needs, just as anyone makes any transition to more fulfilling purpose and newer growth experiences. Then again some may persist in, revert to, or convert to older traditions and conventions that may be suitable for them.

Seekers can also completely change traditions as you have done and I admire that because I know of the attendant consequences - it is not easy. However, to make a big move like that which represents a serious committment, if for meritorious reasons ie: an authentic seeking, is meritorious. Many seekers need the structure of a group association or 'institution' that provides the cohesion, regularity and reinforcement of like-minded people within a common orientation and leadership. It facilitates growth. Only a century ago it would have been much more difficult to make that choice if you were even able to be aware of it at all, so you are fortunate that you were able to recognize your need and then do something about it. It is a kind of Grace. You made a necessary change to something more appropriate for your needs. So why look back? Why be drawn back into the old energy when everything you needed to remove yourself from the previous unaspiring situation has been decided on and affected?

As humanity progresses, many unformed, partially formed, deformed and outright obsolete forms will have to be released, bypassed, or ignored by wise people if they want to progress. If anything has the potential to 'block spiritual progress' as you say, it is these types of debates about the 'relative objective validity', or negative potential of any personal obsolete ideals choices and methods - of which debate only serves to preserve, energize, and something more....These debates draw people back into their unsatisfying past and fosters guilt, bitterness and resentment about what in the spiritual life amounts to an occassional falling down while learning to be a proficient traveler. The same author who's writing I recommended previously in this thread - Sri Chinmoy - also said,

Quote:


I think this touches on the issue at hand.
We see this phenomenon a lot. Seekers are fortunate to be able move on, to progress, but then they energetically remain attached in some part of their psyche to older previous growth experiences that in retrospect they identify with 'bad labels', and continue to carry around with them as dead weight. Instead of being joyful about their progress, they get bitter and resentful about what?... Their very transcendence of their own ignorance. Because they have moved on to some degree, it becomes enough 'distance' to see/compare the 'deficiencies' of choices and associations they made 1, 2, 10, 20 or 40 years ago. Some common ones among seekers are: The 'bad false guru', the 'corrupt religious institution'. We've all been there. More common and among non-seekers are the 'big bad evil government', 'evil public school system', 'my dysfunctional family', or the 'parent from hell'. We've all done that.

We all have a starting point in life, we all go through experiences that most likely embody some degree of unsatisfying imperfection, and our institutions are the collective embodiment of our aggregated individual experiences and consequent consciousness -- and we all grow through it and in spite of it, and why it is so important to transform our individual consciousness. 'Amazing Grace' indeed. It is simply the field of experience to work through, and when something is accomplished, then why remain attached? Just move on. Especially for truth/God seekers it is important to move forward and not look back. One can see how the inability to release old 'negative experience', even obsessional retention in varying degrees might be contributory to debilities which can persist for lifetimes in physical and non-physical dimensions. I believe some of the intent of this website is for the purpose of dealing with these issues so I think this discussion is very pertinent. The past only embodies lesser perfection. Note how that is stated. This is not 'new age relativism', but an extremely practical paradigm for progress that allows for the acceptance of aspects of life that need transformation. Nothing can be transformed if it is not first accepted. Nothing can be accepted if it is divided from us. Also, this is not an advocacy of an unsympathic or uncompassionate life - just detachment from our own negativity (or projected negativity, when we deny the validity of others' experiences, resources, choices ie, the same 'mistakes' our guidance allowed us to make) .

Ha! You thought this was the end? .........to be continued.......