A religion about what is happening, as opposed to what has happened

[amorphous_constellation]

It seems that the standards for religion are often placed far back into history, and the relevant events are as bubbles, encased deep in the rock. Therefore, how do we know that we are not actually archaeologists: each of us bringing out from the ground of history, what we consider to be spiritual fossils? The finding of products, perhaps, more than an awakening to co-present processes. The latter runs no risk of being fiction, at least. Everything if you feel now, is surely realer than anything you could study - not to say that the past is not very real, but it gets no 'realer' than the 'now'

Searching for religious meaning, deep in history, seems to predisposition us into several modes. Firstly, the mode of constant interpretation, and honing this as a skill. Alternatively, or in tandem with this, we must bolster our sense of trust, either in the source materials themselves, or in those we trust to figure them out. As well, it is about trying to establish a correspondence, between the ancient materials, and the very alien present

The present, I might argue, is extremely alien to anything that has happened in the past, with a fairly sharp cutoff, starting not too long ago in history at all. I have argued things like this before. We have entered a viscerally imagistic, if that's the right term, age, where computers and machines have ferried your attention, and divided it. In short, people seem to live by an external rhythm, via technologies, more than an internal one

I guess I would argue that little effort has been to made to search for a sense of spirituality or deity within these modern processes, and I wonder if that's a mistake.

Modern technologies seem to forward a vivid, visceral, and ever-present 'moment-life' of information, which corresponds with the fact that we also search for religion in information, albeit ancient information, as opposed to the aforementioned 'living' information

Anyway, I feel like this thread idea is a dead-end, I almost chose to erase all of this

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The teachings of spirituality are timeless, and to this day spiritual philosophy continues to be developed and written about. New religions have formed even, but most go unseen because they have such a small amount of followers.

 

[Secret Chief]

Zen is only always now.

 

[PureX]

Most people fear the unknown because it's uncontrollable. So they look for some kind of universal knowledge that they can use to guide them through the unknowns of life. And this is why we tend to look back, and seek out prophets. We want answers that work for all times and situations.

Now days, though, more and more of us are looking to science to become our source of universal knowledge that will see us through an unknowable future. Hence, the rise of 'scientism'.

There are very few religious philosophies that actually seek to accept our unknowing, in the present and as it is. But they are not well understood in the west. They stem from Taoist philosophy, and do not seek to control the unknown, but to align with it. And this is very difficult for westerners to understand, or practice.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

.., how do we know that we are not actually archaeologists:

Because most of "us" haven't a clue how to engage in archaeology.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The teachings of spirituality are timeless, and to this day spiritual philosophy continues to be developed and written about. New religions have formed even, but most go unseen because they have such a small amount of followers.

Fair enough. It's a good enough point - the 'timelessness' of spirituality - that I haven't really come up with a good way to push back against that, and start debating with the comments in this thread.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Most people fear the unknown because it's uncontrollable. So they look for some kind of universal knowledge that they can use to guide them through the unknowns of life. And this is why we tend to look back, and seek out prophets. We want answers that work for all times and situations.

Alright, I'll go into a kind of 'debate mode' here, even though I agree with you somewhat

It can be argued that the past is idealized, and was always fertile for idealization. For example, go google an ancient marble statue of any roman figure. There it is, chiseled to perfection. Unrealistic. Controlled and formed, to represent what is not real. Reading the gospels: now you have lepers, now you see some stories that involve strife. But still, the past, where no camera is rolling, allows for the perfected figure of a messiah to be formed. The past, which was poorly recorded, allowed people to record what they decided was ideal, to guide the future.

Marcus Aurelius. The sloppiness that even an empire sees around himself. Comments about random trash you see on the ground. Perhaps then, one might console themself with the fact that the logos is at least perfect, or the platonic spirit world is perfect: the western impulse to fortify a substance of perfection, somewhere, somehow.

But the unknown is inevitable. The unknown is that which we need to deal with: It is not western. What the 'prophets' did, where ancient priest and prophet figures went, cannot be subject to being encased in a museum. Scientific knowledge and new technology encroach upon us. Not facing it, is not an option. We should know who we are, before the AI and the artificial wombs come into play. Before the human body is decked with computer chips.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Zen is only always now.

You mean like right now?

 

[Secret Chief]

You mean like right now?

No, just then.