|
![]()
| Religion Question1 #150845 Religion (as we are using this word) is what binds us together, and what makes us—and our systems—alive | (Technical note: By 'religion' we mean a certain phenomenology. We are aware of possible confusion: 'religion' is now usually understood as a specific belief system, about the origins of the world etc. We however prefer the word 'religion' to 'spirituality' because of its etymological meaning — 're-connection,' which points at a core aspect of the mentioned phenomenology.)
Role (ethical stance, a certain insight leading to certain practice and values, force that binds us together into structures). [This is a very rough sketch, to be developed later.] Zdravko Mršić is a public figure in Croatia. In the first government after Croatian independence he was a foreign minister. Later he retired from politics and focused on writing books about a variety of contemporary issues. 'Antibiblicus' is about Christianity.
In the book (allow us to interpret it freely) Christ is someone who knew that a certain attitude combined with corresponding practice, call it 'unconditional love,' can bring a human being closer to a certain experience. The interesting part, the reason why we mention this book, followed after Christ's crucifixion: Christ's disciples were themselves in the danger of being crucified. Naturally, they turned to the ruling Jews and said: We too believe what you believe; Christ is simply the Messiah we all have been expecting... Hence Old Testament became part of the Bible.
The reason why this story is interesting for us: The message that Christ undertook to deliver is exactly the one that has been notoriously difficult for us humans to receive, and for our culture to embody and emulate. It is so much easier to base our shared narrative, the one that binds us into our culture, in a shared myth, about how the Universe got created, and how it functions. And not the least, this myth as a rule turns out to be linked with some specific power structures that bind the society and its institutions together.
To picture the alternative, we borrow from Aldous Huxley's book "The Perennial Philosophy," where he explores the writings of the ones "who have chosen to fulfill certain conditions, making themselves loving, pure in heart, and poor in spirit" across the world traditions. The conclusion naturally follows, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are all talking about the same experiences. For example:
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." (Christ)
"The astrolabe of the mysteries of God is love." (Rumi)
But let us quote this from Huxley's Introduction:
In recent years a number of attempts have been made to work out a system of empirical theology. But in spire of the subtlety and intellectual power of such writers as Sorley, Oman and Tennant, the effort has met with only a partial success. Even in the hands of its ablest exponents empirical theology is not particularly convincing. The reason, it seems to me, must be sought in the fact that the empirical theologians have confined their attention more or less exclusively to the experience of those whom the theologians of an older school called "the unregenerate"—that is to say, the experience of people who have not gone very far in fulfilling the necessary conditions of spiritual knowledge. But it is a fact, confirmed and re-confirmed during two or three thousand years of religions history, that the ultimate Reality is not clearly and immediately apprehended, except by those who have made themselves loving, pure in heart and poor inspirit. This being so, it is hardly surprising that a theology based upon the experience of nice, ordinary, unregenerate people should carry so little conviction. This kind of empirical theology is on precisely the same footing as an empirical astronomy, based upon the experience of naked-eye observers. [...] Natural science is empirical; but it does not confine itself to the experience of human beings in their merely human and unmodified condition. Why empirical theologians should feel themselves obliged to submit to this handicap, goodness only knows. REFLECTION: Think about the following couplet by Hafez, 13th century Persian poet, was one of those who 'fulfilled the conditions' (Hafez is talking to God, about the quarrels that traditions and states have over their belief systems):
The wars of the 72 states [estimated no. in his time], forgive them all
Since they didn't see the Truth, they took the way of the fable
Vision: An Honest to God Approach to Religion We propose to build the bridge from ordinary contemporary human experience to the higher realm of 'religion' by talking about the ability to feel. We know that something makes us feel good; we love beautiful others, and a good meal. Interestingly — we may not have this in experience, but information, the experience of others, can help us bridge this gap — beyond a certain point that is reached rather quickly, the higher realms of experience, or of wellbeing, are reached by working with our inner condition, which determines what and how we feel. This work has an interesting phenomenology, or 'rules', which can be understood and communicated.
Hence 'religion' becomes a continuum, a way from here where we are to infinity.
We propose to communicate the phenomenology of religion in a new way; which suits the modern people; which speaks in a contemporary language; takes advantage of information media; makes conscious use of the body, and the ritual; and not the least—takes advantage of the vast phenomenological evidence that has spontaneously become available, by the world religions all being present together in the 'global village.' There are a number of people today, also within conventional churches, who practice and speak true religion. Rev. Deborah Johnson is a notable example. |
|
|