Some free talk about the flow of religious wisdom

[Jim]

I did not know that you were studying Daoism ...

I haven't actually started yet, except for a little bit of reading. I still have some more work to do with Confucius.

 

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas Can you think of any words for your orientation or relation to, or your relationship or connection with, the Dharma, that you want to cultivate? Awareness? Devotion? Attraction? Attunement?

I can think of many, but why would they matter?

 

[Jim]

I can think of many, but why would they matter?

It might help me understand what people mean, when they say "Dharma," but that response might be a good answer to my question, better than any words you might say.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Don't worry. I am not very inclined to perceive people as speaking on behalf of others in the first place.

Thank you for being so understanding. So you are a ‘religious atheist’? Hmmm

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas You might have given me everything I was wishing and hoping for. Without even trying? Or did you know?

 

[Jim]

Don't worry. I am not very inclined to perceive people as speaking on behalf of others in the first place.

Hm ... "We Baha'is ..." ... figure of speech. How did I not see that?

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas Now I'm going to go back and study what you said about Dharma, in the light of what you just taught me, and do some research.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank you for being so understanding. So you are a ‘religious atheist’? Hmmm

For all of my life as I can recall it.

It may sound strange, but it really isn't. Religion is real and a part of this shared reality. God-beliefs are deeply personal and, well, a matter of belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas You might have given me everything I was wishing and hoping for. Without even trying? Or did you know?

I had faith that it would go in the general direction. You should give yourself some merit by expressing the relevant issues in the other thread, you know.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This thread is a spin-off from Diverging views of Baha’is about their religion

I think that it addresses some of the core issues discussed in other threads as well, most notably the very recent The Qur'an: Intentions vs. Effects

The core of that thread was discussion of how Bahais hold views of their own religion that not too rarely clash with each other and, at least some of the time, with the orientations and expectations of the Universal House of Justice. An interesting subject matter in and of itself, for certain. But I felt that a significant part of its substance is not at all exclusive to the Bahai Faith and deserves some wider discussion.

@Jim seems to agree, so I hereby invite him and anyone else interested in considering and commenting on some of my understandings. Most of those connect to my understanding of Dharma in some way or another.

First of all, I think that we can consider that there is an inherent tension inside pretty much any living tradition - not even necessarily religious traditions.

To the extent that they see fit to organize themselves and establish some form of ideology or doctrine, a need for some form of official stance, an authority, will unavoidably arise. That is advantagerous in many ways, but brings very real downsides with it.

One of those downsides is that there will be pressure towards conformity. Personal beliefs are varied, but a group's official stance will not always easily allow for or align itself with that variety. Some form of negotiation between those clashing trends will have to happen, and there are many possible strategies.

Perhaps frustratingly, among those strategies there is a very solid tendency to emphasize ease of understanding and implementation at the expense of validity, or vice versa. Also, there is a considerable amount of denial, delusion and obfuscation in that space, much of it fairly unconscious.

I posit that to a large extent that conflict is self-inflicted and actually desirable, mainly because it enables much necessary renewal and rediscovery within the doctrine. More than that, one of the most desirable qualities for any religious institution is the ability to deal with conflict in a respectful, thoughtful way that does not exclude learning from it.

That may be a real challenge, because there is no clear boundary between the cultural and the religious, nor is it a small task to continuously balance tradition and authenticity of expression.

Yeah... thanks for explaining how we religionists are deluded, and unaware of personal biases, being that we're deluded at the unconscious level (you meant subconscious level, but I digress).

"More than that, one of the most desirable qualities for any religious institution is the ability to deal with conflict in a respectful, thoughtful way that does not exclude learning from it."

Perhaps if skeptics would leave RF, we can get on with this business of learning among ourselves!

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah... thanks for explaining how we religionists are deluded, and unaware of personal biases, being that we're deluded at the unconscious level (you meant subconscious level, but I digress).

What, did you think that I was talking about religious people without including myself?

I wasn't.

No, we aren't deluded or unaware. Not always, and certainly not uniformly. And I meant unconscious, thank you very much.

You are a brat, but I love you anyway. I will just make sure to keep you in line when I feel like it and you call for such.

Hey, what do you know? It rhymes.

"More than that, one of the most desirable qualities for any religious institution is the ability to deal with conflict in a respectful, thoughtful way that does not exclude learning from it."

Perhaps if skeptics would leave RF, we can get on with this business of learning among ourselves!

That is exceedingly unlikely, and it also fails to acknowledge that RF is only one of the many arenas where our fight has to happen. Also that skepticism is very much a necessary value for believers, even more than for unbelievers.

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas I've reviewed what you've said in this thread.

First of all, I think that we can consider that there is an inherent tension inside pretty much any living tradition - not even necessarily religious traditions.

To the extent that they see fit to organize themselves and establish some form of ideology or doctrine, a need for some form of official stance, an authority, will unavoidably arise. That is advantagerous in many ways, but brings very real downsides with it.

By "advantageous," do you mean that it helps the flow of religious knowledge in some ways?

I see that it helps the flow in some ways, and impedes it in others. It remains frozen in time, and impedes the flow more and more. That leads to conflicts of interest, which might sometimes be negotiated in friendly ways, but which possibly more often lead to a lot of grief on all sides. It may or may not be possible to avoid all that grief, but it might be worth a lot of trouble to some of us to try help reduce and counteract the damage.

 

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas I've reviewed what you've said in this thread.

By "advantageous," do you mean that it helps the flow of religious knowledge in some ways?

Yes, very often indeed it does. It is only human to seek authority. There is a place for that, although there are also dangers to watch for and to confront.

I see that it helps the flow in some ways, and impedes it in others. It remains frozen in time, and impedes the flow more and more.

Stagnation is a very real danger, and one reason why a religious institution can't afford to enslave itself to its own traditions.

That leads to conflicts of interest, which might sometimes be negotiated in friendly ways, but which possibly more often lead to a lot of grief on all sides.

The way I see it, we can't really avoid jumping into that risk. In a very real sense, there is a leap of faith to be made.

It may or may not be possible to avoid all that grief, but it might be worth a lot of trouble to some of us to try help reduce and counteract the damage.

It seems to me that to heal grief is one of the most pure manifestations of the sacred, which some people call the divine.

 

[Jim]

I posit that to a large extent that conflict is self-inflicted and actually desirable, mainly because it enables much necessary renewal and rediscovery within the doctrine.

I'm still not sure that I've understood what you mean by "self-inflicted," beyond the fact that it happens internally, by definition in the context of our discussion, but thinking about that gave me a new idea. The system of beliefs and practice continues to help the flow of religious knowledge, however weakly, sowing the seeds of its own destruction.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm still not sure that I've understood what you mean by "self-inflicted,"

A doctrine may pursue improving its own validity and honesty, often at the expense of its demographic success. Or it may do the opposite: it may attempt to ensure its own popularity, at the expense of its own worth.

The classic example is the use of discrimination against homosexuals and/or atheists in order to promote a quick yet unholy sense of union and community among theists.

In that sense, either choice brings its own price that must be paid. Both have downsides, but they are very asymetrical in nature and consequences.

beyond the fact that it happens internally, by definition in the context of our discussion, but thinking about that gave me a new idea. The system of beliefs and practice continues to help the flow of religious knowledge, however weakly, sowing the seeds of its own destruction.

I don't know if it is destruction as much as it is renewal and revalidation.

 

[Jim]

It seems to me that to heal grief is one of the most pure manifestations of the sacred, which some people call the divine.

Luis ... I'm sitting here looking at that, wondering how to tell you what I'm feeling, or if it's even possible. A possible kinship between us, in something that we both love, that you may or may not feel too. A faint, oh so faint hope that we might go somewhere with this together, in some way that will help both of us do whatever we can do to help heal grief.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis ... I'm sitting here looking at that, wondering how to tell you what I'm feeling, or if it's even possible. A possible kinship between us, in something that we both love, that you may or may not feel too. A faint, oh so faint hope that we might go somewhere with this together, in some way that will help both of us do whatever we can do to help heal grief.

I think you just might have realized what Dharma means, @Jim , or at least be well on your way to.

 

[Thief]

That may be a real challenge, because there is no clear boundary between the cultural and the religious, nor is it a small task to continuously balance tradition and authenticity of expression.

mmmm......so!

no clear boundary between culture and religion...???
religion is what you do about your belief in God
and culture arises from day to day living

and to say that a tradition is not an authentic expression?
as if people do things with no mind and heart?
ritual without soul.....

you might ask someone.......why did you light that candle?
(in a display of many side by side)

 

[Thief]

ROTFL! Not on the Internet! My sides are splitting! I can't imagine anyone saying that with a straight face on the Internet! "Loving consultation is the way we work together peacefully." Loving! Peacefully! Oh! Oh! Catch me I'm falling!

get a grip.....

loving consultation can also be dealt with a slap in the face

what?.....your parents never bothered?

 

[Thief]

the flow of religion can be harsh
Moses descended the mount and soon after 3000 people were killed
by his command

Jesus walked into a crowded temple and made the announcement.....
Get out!!!!!

and then the whipping began

culture clash?