To Linh's point on opinions. When we discuss views of reality it's maybe worth bearing in mind that if we can rise above relatively minor differences of opinion and interpretation that 'the perennial philosophy' (or the broad territory we tend to explore here) has in various shades and forms been around for a very long time.
Here's a list of esoteric spiritual traditions (those proposing that the route to God is inwards, and by the raising consciousness) I extracted (just for the hell of it) from a book this morning:
Atlantis?
Mesopotamia
Egyptians
Hermeticism
Vedanta
Yoga
Taoism
Buddhism
Zoroastrianism
Neoplatonism
Essenes
Esoteric Christianity/Gospel of Thomas
Kabbalah
Sufism
Christian Kabbalah
Gnosticism
Catharism
Some Western systems of magic
Alchemy
Homeopathy
Christian Mysticism
Rosicrucianism
Freemasonry
Amercian & other Native
Surrealism
Theosophy
Aquarian New Age
New Age
These are only some that by an accident of history have been named, there's been many, many more views and paths that have developed around individuals but not been. Many of these too are huge, and contain or have contained multiple streams within them. e.g. Buddhism
A superficial reading of any of these may lead to the view that some are very different from others. The world is in fact full of even well-meaning followers of -isms who feel precisely that. A deeper and more accommodating reading however (at least where I've looked) tends to surface the thought that while the language, imagery and emphasis can vary quite a bit, that it's really all just the same view expressed in differing ways, or adjusted as a result of differences in individual emphasis. Which latter may well have been responses to the needs of the time.
The 'big picture' that runs through it all remains constant - if we can open enough to drop our need to discriminate. Do we really have the ability to figure this stuff out to the point that we can say with certainty that the other guy's shade of emphasis is wrong? Much more likely that the old ego and need to be right is raising it's head again.
Quite apart from creating a likelihood of getting hung up on beliefs and rigid interpretations of experience, rigid thinking is anyway pretty much universally regarded as an impediment to spiritual opening.
It's sobering to look at the length of this list, and the very extended time over which it's existed - what can we we possibly say or speculate that's not been said before???
Another perspective that suggests that we'd be better to not get too hung up on the idea we 'know it all' is the way that we seem to unconsciously get up to all sorts of stuff. (including retrievals re. Alysia and Staci's recent posts) We tend to focus our entire sense of 'self' in what we are consciously aware of. (especially body, intellect and external reality)
Yet all the signs are that we're operating with only very piecemeal data, with very limited sense making capability in what is only one very narrow and particular view of even this reality. (our beliefs as to 'what is real' prevent us from seeing a truer picture)
That's not to say that a degree of intellectual sense making is not useful as a means of avoiding unnecessary fear, perplexity or running astray. To help us past our individual blocks. But it's surely in the end much more about transforming ourselves by working day to day with meditation, contemplation and whatever other tools are available to deliver an evolving insight - than it is about winning any argument.
There's very clearly a point beyond which excessive identification with beliefs and opinions becomes an impediment to spiritual progress - to seeing things as they are, and consequently becoming capable of living through wisdom and compassion. Or love, or God's will - however you like to put it.
I'm very convinced that one very important part of the journey is for us to actively look for ways to accommodate differing views and attitudes, to try to loosen enough get beyond language, emphasis and looking for differences.
By this I don't mean the sort of closing and dumbing down that's involved in the usual ego driven process of compromise - where both parties competitively bargain to give away as little as they can, and in doing so end up with almost nothing. (try the Aesop's fable about the old monkey settling the argument between two younger ones over the piece of cheese they are arguing over - he progressively nibbles more and more away in evening it up into two equal pieces. They go away satisfied, but not seeing that he ate most of the cheese.)
I mean open and becoming more flexible, so that in the end it dawns on us that what we're encountering are differing elements of the mythical elephant hidden in the jungle.
When we encounter a stand alone view or input that seems not to fit and comes from a credible source the game is not to reject or cut it down as a result of it as screwing up our nice watertight model. It's instead to put it to one side. Not to forget it, but to instead to let it simmer until eventually (as happens most of the time for me) inspiration dawns and we see where it fits.
Where it maybe even requires a fundamental rejig of our model if we're to reach for a higher truth.
Mind made spiritual models can only be that. Tentatively held and ever changing methods to help the mind make conscious sense of something that's ultimately unknowable....
PS Brock - That Godwin's Law hits the nail on the head...
Home
Pages: 
