Are "repeatable" spiritual paths, simply a myth ?

[Sunya]

this is the problem when comparing spiritual paths and equating goals, using words like 'enlightenment' when they have different meanings. everything of Bardon and Western Magick is still in the Desire realm, be careful in comparing that to Nan Huai-Chin. the whole framework of Buddhism is completely different,

 

but I could be wrong, thats just what it seems like from my superficial understanding of Bardon, isn't it all about just communing with spirits, elementals, gaining astral super powers, how does that aid one towards the goal? and how is this more effective than the Zen approach of ignoring all phenomena?

 

if there is 'always more to learn', i gotta ask.. who is it that is learning? isn't this a subtle grasping for identity?

Edited February 18, 2009 by mikaelz

[Bruce]

Going back to the original question: Are repeatable spiritual paths a myth?

 

The more I think about it the more I would be inclined to say that, yes repeatable spiritual paths are a myth. Why? The word repeatable would, to me, infer that everyone who follows the path, to the letter, would experience the advertised fruit of the path.

 

Not one of us could say that everyone who follows the Buddhist path or the Vedic path or the Barton path or whatever becomes enlightened, at least in one lifetime, and this lifetime is the only one we can know.

 

We can argue this to death. It seems to me that a lot of the responses to this thread have been given in the definite sense. Some quite fundamentalist. We can have faith in our chosen path, but we all base that faith on something we can't really know for sure. We believe that some people who have followed said path have become enlightened, because it was written down somewhere in the distant past, or even the present. Nothing wrong with faith, but I think we should be critical in our thinking about where our faith comes from, and accept it as just that. Faith. It's all speculation really. Maybe educated speculation, but speculation none the less.

 

I think I need more coffee now.

[NeutralWire]

everything of Bardon and Western Magick is still in the Desire realm, be careful in comparing that to Nan Huai-Chin.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth IMO, but this would be a silly argument to have. You can be sure I am extremely careful in my comparisons, more so than you obviously think! But anyway...

 

I think I will just post some of Rawn's notes on step 10 for the Hermetic student -- of course expressed in Hermetic terminology, just as all these experiences are always given in the terms of the particular practice. Then anyone who likes can determine the truthfulness of what I'm saying for themselves, and of course, all opinions are valid and personal. And anyway I hope it is interesting.

 

If you really believe all this occurs 'in the desire realm' and that Buddhism is based on completely different concepts, then of course go ahead and practice accordingly! No point in endlessly reiterating.... Either way, what Rawn describes is what Bardon claims, and both are saying the experience is repeatable, that is, that method brings it on.

 

Meanwhile, as far as concerns questions on 'identity' and 'power seeking'... a couple of months of actually practicing IIH may put right a few misconceptions, but no amount of forum back-and-forth is going to.

 

isn't it all about just communing with spirits, elementals, gaining astral super powers, how does that aid one towards the goal?

 

Well that's a big subject! The bottom line is, it's about expanding one's mind, wisdom, experience of the cosmos, moral compass, and understanding of God's truth -- any more and you need a new thread.

 

and how is this more effective than the Zen approach of ignoring all phenomena?

 

When did I say it was? I did not compare this path to any other, I simple said it was repeatable.

 

Nan is an advocate of Zen, and his method seems to me to go all the way. This thread is about methods that go all the way! I'm not trying to compare paths here.

 

The parallels between Bardon's practice and other forms of Buddhism (Tibetan) are very obvious to lots of people... and even I know that 'ignoring all phenomena' is hardly a good description of Zen... after all, Nan's book 'Tao and Longevity' is descriptions of phenomena from one end to the other! But then, since Zen is by definition indescribable, it probably doesn't matter.

 

 

 

Bruce -

 

Not one of us could say that everyone who follows the Buddhist path or the Vedic path or the Bardon path or whatever becomes enlightened, at least in one lifetime...

 

No, although it's often done to plan for multiple lifetimes... it all depends on how you look at things, for example:

 

We can have faith in our chosen path, but we all base that faith on something we can't really know for sure... It's all speculation really. Maybe educated speculation, but speculation none the less.

 

Well yes and no... let us say you have a book that says do this and this, and say 50 more steps, and there is enlightenment. My question to you: if you do the first 30 steps and everything checks out, and you know someone who says, I did all 50 and yes they still all check out... isn't it more than educated speculation? Not certainty, not some kind of conveyor belt -- but certainty of the potential, yes. Certainty you are going in the right direction and cutting out alot of mistakes you would otherwise make -- unquestionably yes IMO.

 

 

When I first met Glenn Morris (whose repeatable path is still repeating away nicely, I'm glad to see) he wasn't sure that reincarnation was even real; later he started remembering his past lives. I love it where he writes about visiting the astral realm where his mother -- on her deathbed -- is going to end up in spirit, and does some bargaining to make sure she's comfortable there. Meanwhile Rawn Clark says it's quite commonly done for a magician to plan where they will continue working for some time after dying, and even transfer their tools there...

 

When I first read things like these, it was speculation. When I began to notice the sincerity, insight, and how many of these things were there between the lines in wisdom traditions worldwide, it became educated speculation. But the night I first found myself looking down at my body from the region of the ceiling was the night it became more than speculation.

 

Some general thing called the 'vedic path' or the 'Hermetic' path is definitely different from something which proves a step-by-step repeatable effectiveness to others and, gradually, to oneself, this is the way I see it. You've taken a step away from 'faith' when someone you're sitting next to says it works repeatedly and (for reasons best known to each person individually) you trust them. Human trust is different from generalized faith, and is precious.

 

One gets the confirmations available. I don't say anyone 'has the true path', of course not, nor even that a path is necessary -- maybe just as much can be achieved without one. But that is not the question at issue. The question at issue is, are repeatable paths a myth? The answer is no, they're not. Everyone's experience of a given path will be very unique, but the same path can work repeatably.

 

You'll all be relieved to know I shall not comment further on this subject! I'm slipping off the shoulders of my giants here... over to Rawn...

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

 

(BTW, the 'Unity' is a term he uses to avoid precisely any sorts of religious arguments.)

 

 

I must caution you at this point that due to the finite nature of words, it is impossible for me to accurately describe either the Unity or the experience of merging with the Unity. Non-sequential experiences simply don't fit into such sequentialized things as words! Consequently, each thing I say in this regard will be only partially true and will convey things in a sequential manner that belies the essential non-sequentialized reality of the Unity.

 

But even in saying this I have implied things that are inaccurate. Case in point is when I say that the Unity is non-sequential. The deeper mystery is that the Unity encompasses both the sequential and the non-sequential realms, simultaneously. When I say it is non-sequential, I am referring more to how the Unity appears to our sequentialized human consciousness and not to its essential nature. Often, how we attempt to describe the indescribable involves pointing more to the differences between these things and "normal" things, than it does to their similarities. The greatest problem with this is that pointing out only differences seems to limit our understanding of the essential Unity of Being. In the hopes of avoiding that obfuscation, I will try to point out as many similarities as I can in what follows.

 

The first thing I should say in terms of describing the merging with the Unity, pertains to the sense of self that the magician experiences. The self-awareness of the Unity is often described as an "I am" state, but what is often overlooked is the fact that this deific sense of self-identity is of the same quality as that experienced by a normal human being. The only difference is in quantity as the Unity encompasses every thing that has existence and the individual human encompasses only a minute portion of that infinite expanse. It is, in fact, this continuum of alikeness that the magician follows in the ascent or expansion of the quantity of consciousness. In simplistic terms, the magician stands firmly rooted in the quality of self-awareness and expands the quantity of that awareness until it encompasses the Unity of All Being.

 

The implications of this in practice are that the magician, once merged with the Unity, experiences the entire universe as if it were in fact a part of their own self. There is no part of the infinite universe of which the Unity is not aware.

 

This brings us to the four attributes of deity, which I think will serve as a good foundation for further describing the ramifications of merging with the Unity. Please note that the four attributes listed in Step Ten vary slightly from those listed in Step Nine. It is the Step Ten list that I will concern myself with here, though it pays to compare the two on your own.

 

The four attributes are --

 

1) Omnipotence (All powerfulness): This is associated with the Element Fire. The sort of omnipotence experienced by the Unity, and by one merged with the Unity, is not akin to the popular conceptualization of a god "up there" who points down at us mere mortals and, poof!, things change according to "his" will. The Unity's omnipotence works from the inside-out of EVERY thing, all at once. There is no splitting of consciousness at the level of the Unity proper -- the splitting of consciousness is only a manifestation of the Unity.

 

Within the Unity, there is also no willing akin to human willing. Instead, the Unity exists all at once, as a unified whole, and what we think of as divine will is merely the Unity being what it naturally is. When initiates speak about merging with the divine will and say things like "let Thy will be my will", an incorrect impression is given that the individual will is somehow transplanted by a higher will. This is not the case. The individual will is transformed by the experience of merging, not replaced. Again, an initiate follows the continuum of similarity as they rise to the divine. The thread of similarity here has to do with the fact that the human will is an aspect or manifestation of the divine will. And once again, the difference is a matter of quantity not of quality.

 

The omnipotence of the lesser gods is more limited that of the Unity. Because they exist below the Abyss, they are finite, sequentialized creatures. Thus they are of limited, specific use to the magician. For example, in modern ceremonial magic, one must carefully choose the appropriate "god form" for the task at hand. But if one can merge with the Unity, then nothing is impossible.

 

But having said that, I should note that the magician capable of merging with the Unity will not be willing petty things nor things that violate the universal lawfulness. You must keep in mind that this transformation touches the individual adept at EVERY level of his or her being.

 

2) Omniscience (All knowing): This is associated with the Element Air. The root essence of the Unity -- the stuff of which it is composed -- is consciousness. Every thing that exists (mentally, astrally and physically) is a manifestation of this consciousness. The consciousness of the Unity is self-aware within all of its parts or manifestations, simultaneously and fully. In other words, the Unity knows EVERY thing, from the inside-out. This is not just the knowing of an external observer; rather, it is the knowing of a participant.

 

I wish for you to carefully consider the implications of this for the magician who merges with the Unity. Truly, any thing the magician wishes to know or explore is made instantly available. But this knowing will be from the inside-out in a most intimate manner. It is similar in quality to the sort of knowing we experience in our daily lives as we pass through a specific event. The difference is, as usual, in the quantity of the knowing. For example, we all know how to tie our shoes because we have experienced it numerous time, but in relation to the Unity we are like a small child who has never tied a shoe and our understanding of this mysterious art comes from the descriptions of our parents. In other words, the Unity knows EVERY thing from the inside-out and the normal human knows only a relatively few things from this perspective.

 

I must say that the conceptualization of this sort of all knowing is quite different from the actual experience. The magician who merges with the Unity is not only ABLE to know everything, she/he DOES know everything *while in the merged state*. Few magicians, however, choose to bring this knowledge back into their normal consciousness used for daily life. Knowing too much tends to take all the fun out of life -- there is no longer any surprise.

 

3) All-Love or Mercifulness (Divine benevolence): This is associated with the Element Water. Please note that in Step Nine, Bardon associates Immortality with Water.

 

The divine Mercy is similar in quality to human love, except that in the human manifestation of love we tend to direct it at specific persons, ideas and things. Thus our human love is more limited than the divine love and it is a projection from ourselves to something external (self-love aside). The deific love of the Unity comes from a broader perspective that includes EVERY thing and it works from within each thing. It is without bias and is shared equally with All that exists.

 

It is common for us to wonder how the unpleasant aspects and events of life can exist in a universe permeated by a Benevolent deity. The answer to this lies within the quantity aspect of the divine benevolence or Mercy. The Unity permeates the whole of the infinite universe all at once and completely, thus it has an eternal perspective from which every event is seen as conforming to the universal lawfulness of things. In other words, from the eternal perspective of the Unity, benevolence is an undercurrent in All events, even the most unpleasant ones.

 

Suffering exists for a reason. It teaches us lessons that we have not been able to otherwise learn through more pleasant means. So at the core of each unpleasant situation lies the divine benevolence that knows this is the way in which we must learn -- it is the root lesson that holds the benevolence, the manifestation of events is itself secondary. The only way sometimes, to perceive the divine benevolence behind unsavory events is to broaden one's perspective to include lifetimes instead of single moments.

 

An adept who has merged with this divine Mercifulness may at times seem very stern, but this should not be mistaken for a lack of caring. At its root is the awareness of a much broader perspective on things than the ordinary human consciousness is able to achieve.

 

Such an adept will feel a deep love and concern for all creatures and will manifest their loving kindness willfully and in the most appropriate manner befitting the occasion.

 

4) Immortality (The same as Omnipresence in this case): This is associated with the Element Earth. In Step Nine, Bardon lists Omnipresence here, but if you think about it, this is essentially the same as Immortality in that the Unity is an immanent thing and thus it exists throughout the whole of space-time. The divine Immortality is not the same thing as what we consider when we think about the immortality of a human form. Theoretically, human immortality (if such a thing were to exist) is strictly a moment-to-moment matter of prolonged duration. In other words, the immortal human would pass through time moment-by-moment. While the quality of this is similar to divine Immortality, the quantity is quite different. The Immortality of the Unity occurs at an eternal level -- the moment-by-moment duration is only a manifestation of the eternal Immortality.

 

But, and here's a big but, nothing that is either astral or physical in its nature is eternal or immortal. True Immortality exists only at the level of the eternal, non-sequential realm.

 

I compare the Immortality of the Unity with its Immanence and say that they are the same thing because the Unity's Immortality is eternal. It has no beginning and no ending and there is no 'who', 'what', 'why', 'where' or 'when' that does not partake of the Unity. The connection between these two may be easiest to perceive when you consider the space-time continuum. From the eternal perspective, the whole infinite span of space-time is perceived as one single present moment or as a grand, infinite "Now". But, since the Unity is Immortal and eternal, this perspective is not just a from-afar sort of experience; instead, it is experienced simultaneously from the inside-out -- from the perspective of each thing involved with the minute details of the physical manifestation of space-time to the most ephemeral and comprehensive experience of space-time.

 

While the feeling or quality of Immanence is similar to what the student experienced in Step Six with the practice of being aware of their mental body within their astral and physical bodies, there is a difference in terms of quantity. For the Unity, there is no separateness -- there is no immediate sense of being WITHIN a body. Instead, the Unity completely fills the embodiments of its Immanence. The entire infinity of the manifest universe IS the Unity -- it is not the mere shell which houses the Unity. There is no separation between the "body" of the Unity and the Unity itself. When we look at a rock or a leaf or through an electron microscope at a single molecule, we are looking directly at the Unity. When we look at each other or within our own selves, we are looking at the Unity.

 

I will now close my comments upon the merging with the Unity with one final note. This pertains to the process the adept must undergo in order to integrate the experience of merging into their daily lives. Many fail to successfully re-cross the Abyss and return to their normal functioning consciousness. I presume you are aware of the many tales of mystics who have returned from an especially deep experience only to become raving lunatics. Here is where preparation and a proper training come into play for the Hermetic magician.

 

In many ways, the integration into the normal day-to-day consciousness of an experience of the non-sequential eternal realm is an even more difficult task than the achieving of such an experience. The experience of Unity is so foreign to our normal level of self-awareness that it, in effect, doesn't fit, in its entirety, within the confines of normal human consciousness. Thus it is of vital importance that the adept have a thorough working knowledge of their mechanisms of perception. Essentially, the adept must translate and interpret the non-sequential experience into terms understandable to the normal, sequentialized consciousness. Only in this way can such an experience be integrated at a normal functional level.

 

Upon the return to normal waking consciousness, the adept will be inexorably transformed. So deep and pervasive a transformation requires a reassessment and a readjustment of the adept's personality and individuality akin the Step One and Two work with the soul mirrors, but on a much broader level.

 

The adept will not be able to retain full consciousness of the infinite details encountered in the merging experience once he/she has returned to a normal state of awareness. These details (the fullness of the experience) must be compressed in the memory and be made available so the adept can draw upon them at any moment desired. But to experience the fullness of a merging experience, the adept must be within the non-sequential realm and be functioning with their higher mind. This dichotomy of being so close, yet so far, from Unity, can at first be very disorienting even for the most advanced adept. Once again, the training of the previous nine Steps is essential for success in this matter.

[Bruce]

It's up to you to decide mate. If it checks out for you in the end, let us know.

[NeutralWire]

lol will do

[rookie]

short answer, no.

otherwise why have teachers?

but eventually you have to fly out of the nest.

[adam mizner]

hi

as far as i use the word the completion of IIH is not enlightenment (nibbana) but we are talking hermetics and not Dhamma. in my view the completion of step ten makes one a true initiate. without my working through the initiation i would not have been able to understand and decode the Dhamma or taiji the way that i have. i consider the years working through the initiation my foundation and my blessing. it is not the end of the hermetic path but allows one access to all paths and skills. i also found great growth in the so called Kabbala and some of the exercises from the 4th book which was to be on alchemy (these were almost too powerful and very confronting). without the constant help of my teacher at the time i would not have had the success i have had with the work. all paths do not lead to the same goal (sorry new agers) so it comes down to ones choice and view on what the most important work is.

 

in reference to the topic, yes a path is repeatable. the cause and effect is the same, the universal laws are the same. what differs is the talent, effort and conditions of the student.

 

metta

adam

 

Adam Mizner -

Absolutely, but I don't mean enlightenment in terms of an ending of course. That clearly is the end of book 1, and if that was all there was to it, there would be no more books! But there are plenty more books. Still, yes. You don't agree?

 

NW

[NeutralWire]

as far as i use the word the completion of IIH is not enlightenment (nibbana) but we are talking hermetics and not Dhamma. in my view the completion of step ten makes one a true initiate.

 

Interesting perspective! So from your point view, what is the difference between the final step of IIH and nibbana?

 

NW

[ThisLife]

Edited February 19, 2009 by ThisLife

[Bruce]

Another eloquent and thoughtful post my friend. I too am grateful for finding Tao Bums. I love the diversity. It's thought provoking.

[Sunya]

Interesting perspective! So from your point view, what is the difference between the final step of IIH and nibbana?

 

NW

 

 

boomp

[Unconditioned]

We can have faith in our chosen path, but we all base that faith on something we can't really know for sure. We believe that some people who have followed said path have become enlightened, because it was written down somewhere in the distant past, or even the present. Nothing wrong with faith, but I think we should be critical in our thinking about where our faith comes from, and accept it as just that. Faith. It's all speculation really. Maybe educated speculation, but speculation none the less.

 

If you take this one step further, what is faith? It's a belief... based on what? PRIOR experiences or imagining what the future could be (based on the total of all prior experiences).

 

Do we base our faith on something we can't really know? I think we base it on something that we can and do know, our past (using our in the sense of human history) in hopes that it will lead us to the unknowable.

 

Edit: I'm not condemning faith here, just trying to examine what it is. If we call it 'good' or 'bad' what are we basing that judgment from?

Edited February 20, 2009 by Unconditioned

[ThisLife]

boomp

 

 

Boomp ??

 

What a perplexing reply. It certainly has the great benefit of being brief,.... but the complementary quality of 'clarity' seems to be missing.

 

I do like the sound of it though. It's just that I feel somewhat boomphed as to its meaning. Any helpful clues you can give us ?

 

 

ThisLife

 

 

.

[ThisLife]

If you take this one step further, what is faith? It's a belief... based on what? PRIOR experiences or imagining what the future could be (based on the total of all prior experiences).

 

Do we base our faith on something we can't really know? I think we base it on something that we can and do know, our past (using our in the sense of human history) in hopes that it will lead us to the unknowable.

 

Edit: I'm not condemning faith here, just trying to examine what it is. If we call it 'good' or 'bad' what are we basing that judgment from?

 

 

I think this is a very interesting question that you have raised here,... "What is faith ?"

 

It kind of stopped me in my tracks because it's another one of those terms that we use so much that we can easily forget that we've never really been clear within our own mind what the word means to us.

 

Chambers Dictionary is always a good place to start for an exercise in clarity like this :

 

Faith : (1) trust or confidence (2) belief in the statement of another

 

Reasonable starters I guess. For myself, the word means an extrapolation from some information or situation,... and projecting what that information seems to suggest into an 'unknown' situation.

 

For me, there is always the element of hoping something will carry on holding true into some future, unknown situation. Primarily, faith is the state of NOT KNOWING, but hoping something will be true. Whether our hopes are based on deep and profound intellectual processes,... or simply having a lucky rabbit's foot and touching wood at the same time, the act of 'having faith' , in either situation, to me is identical.

 

The idea you expressed about 'good' or 'bad', I can't see how it applies. I've never heard anyone refer to faith using those adjectives,... any more than one talks about a good or bad rock.

 

ThisLife

 

 

.

[adam mizner]

in my view many are the differences yet just one wil do

the completion of step 10 is a form of becoming, nibbana is the ending of all becoming.

 

metta

adam

 

Interesting perspective! So from your point view, what is the difference between the final step of IIH and nibbana?

 

NW

[Sunya]

Boomp ??

 

What a perplexing reply. It certainly has the great benefit of being brief,.... but the complementary quality of 'clarity' seems to be missing.

 

I do like the sound of it though. It's just that I feel somewhat boomphed as to its meaning. Any helpful clues you can give us ?

ThisLife

.

 

it's like bump but better, the thread was on the 2nd page and i wanted to bring it back to the top to incite more replies

[Bruce]

Faith : (1) trust or confidence (2) belief in the statement of another

 

This is an interesting question, and it's why I said we should critically examine where our faith comes from.

 

(1) often follows (2) here. We have trust or confidence because we believe the statement of another who we consider trustworthy. The question we have to ask ourselves is, how do we arrive at this conclusion. Why do we consider the other trustworthy? Is it by demonstration or word alone? Is it based soley on history and the fact that millions before us believed? Not that basing trust and confidence in what others before us has done is bad. We would probably all be afraid to get on an airplane or drive a car or do any number of things if it wasn't or the experience of others, but in those case we have demonstration as proof.

 

When it comes to the matters we're discussing here, that proof gets fuzzy. It seems that we examine what evidence is available, think for ourselves about the reasonability of it, then decide whether or not we want to try. Given the dictionary definition of faith above, it seems to me that the first step on the path is more the willingness to try, withholding belief, trust and confidence until such time as we feel it's deserved. Maybe that's just me, though.

[ThisLife]

This is an interesting question, and it's why I said we should critically examine where our faith comes from.

 

(1) often follows (2) here. We have trust or confidence because we believe the statement of another who we consider trustworthy. The question we have to ask ourselves is, how do we arrive at this conclusion. Why do we consider the other trustworthy? Is it by demonstration or word alone? Is it based soley on history and the fact that millions before us believed? Not that basing trust and confidence in what others before us has done is bad. We would probably all be afraid to get on an airplane or drive a car or do any number of things if it wasn't or the experience of others, but in those case we have demonstration as proof.

 

When it comes to the matters we're discussing here, that proof gets fuzzy. It seems that we examine what evidence is available, think for ourselves about the reasonability of it, then decide whether or not we want to try. Given the dictionary definition of faith above, it seems to me that the first step on the path is more the willingness to try, withholding belief, trust and confidence until such time as we feel it's deserved. Maybe that's just me, though.

 

 

The questions you have asked here are of a sort that makes this thread more like an exercise in peeling off layers of an onion,...only, unlike our standard 'under-kitchen counter' variety, this is one whose size we are completely unable to know.

 

You start off saying that we should critically examine where our faith comes from,.. then point out that in the dictionary definitions of faith I gave, the reverse order actually works better. You then gave a carefully thought-out, two paragraph explanation of what you feel is the best way for individuals who are trying to find answers to spiritual questions, to make the most effective use of this quality we call 'faith'.

 

Oddly enough,...after carefully reading your explanation, I feel that you, too, have made a reversal of order. In this case, it is the content of your two paragraphs which I think should be reversed.

 

Our normal human inclinations are almost always most comfortable with the standard order of : (1) we find some question going round in our head. To get peace of mind again, we set about trying to resolve it. Then, if we are lucky, (or our question is an easy one),...(2) we find an answer. The resulting peace lasts till the next question, whereupon the process starts over again.

 

However, I think that the process with spiritual seeking actually progresses in the reverse order to that. We start off with something we may have taken as 'understood', (perhaps throughout our entire life up to this point),... then, something unexpectedly triggers a surprising 'doubt'. "Do I really know what this word, 'faith' means ??", for example.

 

If we truly are spiritual seekers with a burning desire to know,... then the final stage of this seeking is finding ourself unexpectedly 'questioning', after having started off from something we thought was 'known'.

 

It is for this reason that I feel your order is reversed. In the concluding paragraph of your development of ideas about faith, you say, " It seems that we examine what evidence is available, think for ourselves about the reasonability of it, then decide"

 

Yet, in the preceding paragraph, you make the strong point, "The question we have to ask ourselves is, how do we arrive at this conclusion". Or, in other words,... "How do we decide ?" Your initial question regarding the nature of 'faith',... has now removed a layer of the onion,... only to leave you with an unexpected new question, "How do we decide ?"

 

The way we normally think of the term. 'deciding', is that there is some part of ourselves which is capable of standing apart from two or more possibilities, weighing up the relative merits of each, and then choosing one or the other. The assumption which is presumed unecessary to say, is that we have the free will to choose whichever one of the possibilities we want.

 

What my own path has led me to question now, is whether we have any choice whatsoever regarding the decision which gets made. Or is there simply the appearance of a choice being made, due to our inability to comprehend the almost limitless complexity of this body-mind apparatus we so flippantly imagine that we 'know' ? Our self.

 

Our familiarity with computers can help understand this idea, (even though I, personally, am extremely weak in that domain).

 

Everyone knows that computers are capable of such extraordinary feats of 'number crunching',... that the ones at Nassau can make the gazillion calculations necessary to land a space probe on Mars. Unbelievable, really !!

 

Well,... if we know that that amount of data can be stored and constantly updated to produce a desired action,.... imagine that we used this computing power to register every piece of genetic information that existed regarding individual "X" prior to his birth.

 

Then, from the moment he arrived into this world, this same computer entered into it's hard drive every single environmental interaction that X experienced. Every minute shade of experience up till a point in time, "T", where he had to make a decision,... say a dinner choice between 'Fish and Chips' or 'Tandoori Chicken'.

 

 

Now, for the computer, there is no question involved,... because through having constantly updated the totality of X's genetics and life experiences, it knows that X will have the Tandoori Chicken. Because, at every moment of our life, presented with an array of possible actions, the updated totality of our genetics and our experiences can and will 'choose' only one action. THE ONE THAT HAPPENS !!

 

Other than the constantly evolving totality of our genetics and life experiences,... there is NO ONE else here !!! We are nothing other than that ! But, not having a Nassau computer's ability, or access to all that information,... we simply say, "I've decided to have Tandori Chicken".

 

So, to finish off another of my excessively long-winded ramblings,.... I think that if you want to understand how to make best use of 'faith',....before that, I think you first needs to closely examine this whole previous matter of how we 'decide' anything.

 

 

ThisLife

 

 

.

[Bruce]

Hello my friend,

You make some very good points here. I'm going to have to take some time to reflect on it all and see if I did indeed talk around in a circle. That wouldn't be untypical for me as I tend to think "outloud" and the thought evolves as I go.

 

I do know that I wasn't trying to get at anything "deep". It was more observational, and probably based on myself. My only point was questioning what we base our faith on, or rather that we should question what our faith is based on in order to see if it holds up to reason. I also believe that the questioning should be ongoing as our understanding evolves.

 

More on this tomorrow, or later today as it were.

[forestofsouls]

I would say Yes and No.

 

Yes, there are techniques we can use that are time tested, tried and true.

 

No, because in the end, the path is formless. Every individual, every moment is unique and different--- how could a single way encompass it all?