West and East

[Kongming]

The notion that the individual 'self' is an illusion, that the self does not end at the brain, or the skin, but essentially extends to the entire universe, is entirely compatible with a material belief system. The notion that we are all part of the One is, if anything, strengthened by modern science. Existence is change -- "annihilation" need not enter in to it.

 

A material belief system doesn't account for the transcendent dimension, namely that which is beyond space-time, the latter of course being the measurable, material universe known to science. The Dao (or Brahman or the Neoplatonic One or God for example), while encompassing this material dimension, also extends timelessly beyond it.

 

In any case, the most prominent viewpoint I encounter by modern materialists is that consciousness is a product of our brain and that with death the result is the destruction of consciousness, and that it does not transform or go elsewhere. In other words, there is no postmortem consequences to how we live our lives or our actions and that all that awaits us at the end is an eternal dirt nap. This is nihilism and is the only logical consequence to materialism.

 

I know you intend this topic for discussion of similarities between sacred places and other themes in ancient Eastern and Western traditions, but I see no reason to throw modernity out of the window.

 

Well I personally do throw modernity out the window since it is the most advanced stage of what Hindus call Kali Yuga, Buddhists call the Dharma Ending Age, Hesiod called the Age of Iron, and some Daoists referred to as the Shanghuang or Highest Sovereign. This notion is also present in the Norse concept of Ragnarok. In other words all of them held the notion of a spiritual and moral decline of humanity and their descriptions of this pretty accurately reflect the modern world.

 

A modern figure who touches on these points in detail who I highly recommend is Rene Guenon. 

 

The chosen path is to progress spiritually. If you say it is the meaning of your life, it is the meaning of your life -- a meaning that you have chosen. A sage surely realizes that there is a choice.

 

There is a choice in how one lives ones life, but not to meaning. The choice is between success and failure, progress and regress, making use of or wasting ones life. In all cases the meaning of life is to progress spiritually.

 

Again, if meaning is merely an individual choice then it is really pure imagination, something that can be fancifully imparted by anyone for any purpose. In other words, it means that life has no real meaning.

[Michael Sternbach]

A material belief system doesn't account for the transcendent dimension, namely that which is beyond space-time, the latter of course being the measurable, material universe known to science. The Dao (or Brahman or the Neoplatonic One or God for example), while encompassing this material dimension, also extends timelessly beyond it.

 

In any case, the most prominent viewpoint I encounter by modern materialists is that consciousness is a product of our brain and that with death the result is the destruction of consciousness, and that it does not transform or go elsewhere. In other words, there is no postmortem consequences to how we live our lives or our actions and that all that awaits us at the end is an eternal dirt nap. This is nihilism and is the only logical consequence to materialism.

 

I agree with this. It is understandable though, if we consider that the established religions have always been misusing the concept of there being consequences of our actions after our physical life for enforcing their particular moral codex by inducing fear and guilt. For individuals not ready transcend the dualistic view, the only way to liberate themselves was to renounce the belief in a post mortem existence altogether. Transcendence of the belief in good and evil can basically be found in most metaphysical systems, but it is generally a result of rather advanced initiations. Not least, it was also considered that the average human being needs a moralistic frame of reference, and there is some truth to that.

 

Well I personally do throw modernity out the window since it is the most advanced stage of what Hindus call Kali Yuga, Buddhists call the Dharma Ending Age, Hesiod called the Age of Iron, and some Daoists referred to as the Shanghuang or Highest Sovereign. This notion is also present in the Norse concept of Ragnarok. In other words all of them held the notion of a spiritual and moral decline of humanity and their descriptions of this pretty accurately reflect the modern world.

 

A modern figure who touches on these points in detail who I highly recommend is Rene Guenon. 

 

Other representatives of this view of history were Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler. I thorougly tested this perspective in my younger days and concluded that, although it is not completely wrong, in its extreme form it is far too dualistic and limiting. Modernity has its own brilliance, and great potential for a more spiritual future! Not all of the modern developments in science, technology, philosophy, politics etc are bad.

 

But if you want to throw modernity out the window in toto, that's fair enough. Please make sure that you include the computer that enables you to communicate your views over the Internet.

 

There is a choice in how one lives ones life, but not to meaning. The choice is between success and failure, progress and regress, making use of or wasting ones life. In all cases the meaning of life is to progress spiritually.

 

This I consider to be ultimately true, even though what the spirit innate to a human being temporarily needs in order to progress may not look very spiritual on the surface.

 

Again, if meaning is merely an individual choice then it is really pure imagination, something that can be fancifully imparted by anyone for any purpose. In other words, it means that life has no real meaning.

 

What gives meaning to your life indeed originates beyond the boundaries of the conscious mind, in the depths of the psyche. It is often being translated to the conscious mind by the imagination, actually.

[Kongming]

I agree with this. It is understandable though, if we consider that the established religions have always been misusing the concept of there being consequences of our actions after our physical life for enforcing their particular moral codex by inducing fear and guilt. For individuals not ready transcend the dualistic view, the only way to liberate themselves was to renounce the belief in a post mortem existence altogether. Transcendence of the belief in good and evil can basically be found in most metaphysical systems, but it is generally a result of rather advanced initiations. Not least, it was also considered that the average human being needs a moralistic frame of reference, and there is some truth to that.

 

Well while fear and guilt certainly aren't ideal, if we truly believe that there are consequences for how we live our lives that extend beyond the grave as traditional civilizations and cultures most certainly did, then I imagine when weighted against each other the negative psychological states of fear and guilt aren't as negative as possibly entering hell states, animality, etc. after death. It's also a fact that most men will not and cannot become sages, and so since transcending all dualities is hard to come by for most, I suppose having an ethical or moral framework would in turn be the best medicine for most.

 

Other representatives of this view of history were Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler. I thorougly tested this perspective in my younger days and concluded that, although it is not completely wrong, in its extreme form it is far too dualistic and limiting. Modernity has its own brilliance, and great potential for a more spiritual future! Not all of the modern developments in science, technology, philosophy, politics etc are bad. But if you want to throw modernity out the window in toto, that's fair enough. Please make sure that you include the computer that enables you to communicate your views over the Internet.

 

I am also a fan of Evola, though I haven't read much Spengler. That said you should know that Guenon, Evola, etc. weren't necessarily Luddites and that rejecting the spiritual premises of modernity need not also include a rejection of possible technological benefits of modernity.

 

Though I do have a bit of a streak of Luddism in me, mainly in regards to industrial waste, pollution, the ugliness of modern cities, and my personal dislike of automobiles and how they've made the environment ugly (asphalt roads everywhere), destroyed natural habitats, and make the world a noisy place. Not a total primitivist in other words but a bit of a deep ecologist at heart.

 

What gives meaning to your life indeed originates beyond the boundaries of the conscious mind, in the depths of the psyche. It is often being translated to the conscious mind by the imagination, actually.

 

I of course agree that many things can give meaning to a person's life and that such a meaning may be different for different people. That said what I am talking about is objective meaning, as in why are we here and share this same human condition, what is the goal of this life, etc.. A true relativist has to conclude there is none, whereas I contend that objectively it is to spiritually progress, which of course includes various subsets (like experiencing beauty, etc.)

[Michael Sternbach]

Well while fear and guilt certainly aren't ideal, if we truly believe that there are consequences for how we live our lives that extend beyond the grave as traditional civilizations and cultures most certainly did, then I imagine when weighted against each other the negative psychological states of fear and guilt aren't as negative as possibly entering hell states, animality, etc. after death.

 

Fear and guilt are far worse than "not ideal"; they can easily turn one's earthly life into hell. (Bear in mind that I am talking from the perspective of a professional therapist here.) They are not even that effective in preventing negative behaviour, as strong instinctive desires will often win  over guilt-induced objections - plus the believer will now be living in fear of eternal damnation. Paranoia, neurosis, psychosis - they are all in one way or another related to the psychological conflict between what are basically natural desires and the prohibitions of the Super-ego that reflect the standard of whatever society/culture the individual lives in.

 

For that matter, the deceased person may indeed be experiencing tantalizing states for awhile, as a confrontation with the formerly unconscious contents of their psyche seems to be part of what follows after physical death. So better choose your beliefs carefully - you will tend to encounter them, whether you are on this plane of existence or another.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't deny that an ethic frame of reference is generally a necessity and can actually be quite constructive, as long as it's not overly rigid. But there is the catch, a rigid religion will always declare some perfectly natural things (like masturbation and sex before marriage, but also taking interest in other religions etc) as "sinful", and warn of dire consequences in the after-life.

 

It's also a fact that most men will not and cannot become sages, and so since transcending all dualities is hard to come by for most, I suppose having an ethical or moral framework would in turn be the best medicine for most.

 

Again, as long as it's a reasonable one, there is nothing wrong with this. But there are good reasons why the restrictive religions of yore have lost much of their grip over Man in many parts of the world. And watch its destructive effects on societies where this is not the case!

 

It is regrettable, although historically speaking quite inevitable, that this has happened on the foundation of a reductionistic rationalism. The next step should be the introduction of a spirituality that is reconciled with the scientific perspective. In keeping with this, initiation can no longer be limited to just few individuals, it needs to occur on the large scale, else humanity will be facing slavery and possible extinction.

 

Fortunately, there are the prerequisites for a true uplifting of humanity to occur in this century. I recommend reading The Morning of the Magicians by Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier. A good discussion of this classic can be read here.

 

 

 

I am also a fan of Evola, though I haven't read much Spengler. That said you should know that Guenon, Evola, etc. weren't necessarily Luddites and that rejecting the spiritual premises of modernity need not also include a rejection of possible technological benefits of modernity.

 

I am not sure about Guenon's view, but Evola called modern science "knowledge of what is not worth knowing." Rejecting the modern scientific world view altogether while relying on its fruits would be hypocrisy indeed.

 

Though I do have a bit of a streak of Luddism in me, mainly in regards to industrial waste, pollution, the ugliness of modern cities, and my personal dislike of automobiles and how they've made the environment ugly (asphalt roads everywhere), destroyed natural habitats, and make the world a noisy place. Not a total primitivist in other words but a bit of a deep ecologist at heart.

 

I certainly sympathize with that.

 

I of course agree that many things can give meaning to a person's life and that such a meaning may be different for different people. That said what I am talking about is objective meaning, as in why are we here and share this same human condition, what is the goal of this life, etc.. A true relativist has to conclude there is none, whereas I contend that objectively it is to spiritually progress, which of course includes various subsets (like experiencing beauty, etc.)

 

However, as the "absolute" spiritual goal that one progresses towards may be (in) Infinity, it can never actually be attained. Therefore, all the truths accepted by an entity on its eternal way there can only be relatively valid.

[Kongming]

Fear and guilt are far worse than "not ideal"; they can easily turn one's earthly life into hell. (Bear in mind that I am talking from the perspective of a professional therapist here.) They are not even that effective in preventing negative behaviour, as strong instinctive desires will often win  over guilt-induced objections - plus the believer will now be living in fear of eternal damnation. Paranoia, neurosis, psychosis - they are all in one way or another related to the psychological conflict between what are basically natural desires and the prohibitions of the Super-ego that reflect the standard of whatever society/culture the individual lives in.

 

For that matter, the deceased person may indeed be experiencing tantalizing states for awhile, as a confrontation with the formerly unconscious contents of their psyche seems to be part of what follows after physical death. So better choose your beliefs carefully - you will tend to encounter them, whether you are on this plane of existence or another.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't deny that an ethic frame of reference is generally a necessity and can actually be quite constructive, as long as it's not overly rigid. But there is the catch, a rigid religion will always declare some perfectly natural things (like masturbation and sex before marriage, but also taking interest in other religions etc) as "sinful", and warn of dire consequences in the after-life.

 

Well it is clear that you are talking about Christianity and perhaps Catholicism specifically. While not my ideal and while negative states of guilt and fear can arise from the system, I will have to overall agree to disagree insofar as I admire traditional Catholicism (especially medievalism) and find it infinitely superior to modern secular humanism. While I cannot agree on the notion of an eternal hell, I believe that hell states are real and that by committing some of the actions Catholics would call mortal sin may lead one to hell, or at least rebirth as an animal or a poor human life as per Indian doctrines.

 

One must also wonder why in the modern West, which has largely discarded its traditional Christian morality and way of life and engages in the actions formerly prohibited by Christianity, that depression, anxiety, and mental illness run so rampant. I am sure a variety of causes could be pointed to, but overall I don't think what the West has replaced Christianity with (secular humanism, atheism, scientific materialism, relativism, etc.) has been a liberation so much as a greater bondage.

 

 

I am not sure about Guenon's view, but Evola called modern science "knowledge of what is not worth knowing." Rejecting the modern scientific world view altogether while relying on its fruits would be hypocrisy indeed.

 

From what I understand Evola's view on science is that it is an inferior sort of knowledge since it doesn't do anything in regards to man's existential situation--even as the master of atomic weapons man is just as fragile as he'd be without it, indeed if the modern techno-industrial society were to ever collapse he would find himself much worse off to face the trials of nature than the primitives of Papua New Guinea or the Amazon. Furthermore the scientific worldview has largely manage to desacralize nature for modern man and alienate him further from his spiritual nature.

 

Thus a true strength, a true superiority, and true wisdom hasn't arisen from science, only a superficial material power and knowledge which, while temporally and relatively quite useful, on the ultimate level it carries no use and has even weakened man. Contrast this with the notion of the liberated man, the yogi, the mahasiddha, the Daoist "zhenren", etc. which were the ideals of traditional civilizations.

 

However, as the "absolute" spiritual goal that one progresses towards may be (in) Infinity, it can never actually be attained. Therefore, all the truths accepted by an entity on its eternal way there can only be relatively valid.

 

I personally am a believer in a final attainment. If one manages to reach transcendence, there is no time. Where there is no time, there is no change. How then can one speak of improvement or progress any further since such possibilities can only occur where there is time and change?