Why I Cannot Accept Any Religion

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Didn't you make a thread talking about the language idea once??? I don't remember if it was you or not but someone did and it was a great example of how people are actually putting their faith and/or belief not on those things they believe in but basically on the words which aren't real at all.

originally posted by: mOjOm
All paths are different just as all people are different even though many of them are similar.

No two people will ever take the same path even though they all cross each other at different points, each path is it's own.

Nobody can tell anyone else what their path is, only each one of us can choose it for ourselves.

Even if we assume there is one truth as our destination, we must all take a different route in getting there.

I am not you and you are not me so why would our paths be identical??? They can't be. They might be similar but they will never be the same.

Go find your path.

Yes. That's the thing. I think spirituality could be said to be almost infinitely individuality. It comprises all the subtleties within our psyche. Yet through the acceptance of common terms and labels, we falsely generalize a multitude of individual paths a single paths.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: TheJourney

And then you can say that really all expression is fundamentally flawed, in that the very utterance of anything specific is inherently exclusive, and thus can have this 'religious' connotation we are painting,

Interesting observation Journey. I can see in a way how this action of utterance can bind us to the material. This attempt to express the "non-espressable", can solidify and calcify inner experience into a material state. Then, we cleave to the utterance rather than the inspiration. To me, religions hold to the utterance and accept it as a symbol of the inspiration, while spirituality suggests an attempt to remain free of the more dogmatic utterances and "be" in the inspiration. And that is about all I can express in this utterance.

That's true as well. We may have real, genuine insight. But we phrase this insight in a particular way. Then we take the insight as the phrase, when the phrasing may have simplified things in such a way that certain subtle yet extremely important nuances which were intended to be implied, become lost. And then we confine ourselves to the box created by this phrasing, which has lost the initial depth of meaning.

a reply to: mOjOm

I have, yes. Thank you for remembering. I'm glad someone read it.

So it is with all spirituality. the true art of spirituality is in the creation of principles, rather than the adopting of them. We are all tongue-tied prophets, but not too many can loosen the knot.

Im into Integral Spirituality so I’ve studied many of the mystical paths with affinities to Buddhism, Sufism, Gnostic Christianity, and Vedanta

I could hang out with a Buddhist who doesn’t even believe in God and a Sufi who are nominally Muslim but mystically inclined

Then I could and do hang out with the Gnostic Christian or Vedanta Hindu and get along with any and all of these paths participants doctrinally speaking.

It took a while to become this eclectic but that really not what it is alone…

It’s about seeing the same truths in different paths that are reconcilable with each other.

What’s important for the individual is what is Integral to his or her particular circumstance and who knows that better than oneself.

It’s a matter of getting use to separating the wheat from the chaff

Its about understanding

I agree with everything you say thejourney and might even go a bit further, that one really doesn't have to believe in religion or God to be on one of the paths to enlightenment. A video with the title "why I hate religion, but love Jesus" seems to echo the sentiment of many Christians judging by the 28 million hits it received.

a reply to: TheJourney

I'm not saying what you say is meaningless drivel. It's just that, I have found that inevitably when a dialogue begins with me having to clarify my position in terms of propositions introduced by other people that I feel no connection to in relation to my intention with an OP, and it goes back and forth multiple posts of simply trying to clarify meaning, it inevitably becomes drawn out with nothing substantial coming of it.

I'm cool with that. I just felt it might be worth saying that all paths
will inevitably lead to that one truth. Despite what the traveler
believes his path leads unto.

I do apologize if I caused any drift.

originally posted by: TheJourney
I would like to explain in a bit of detail why I fundamentally cannot accept any religion. Or this is one way of phrasing and thinking about what I am getting at. I'm one who tends to feel that there is truth to be found in all religions. More depends on the mind which approaches religious texts and teachings than the religious texts and teachings themselves. Different religious traditions approach truth in different ways, but I see these more as veils of truth rather than truth itself. But, caught in the veil, people see stark contradiction between spiritual traditions, and miss the truth in their own tradition.

However, there seems to be an attitude which is perhaps inextricably bound to the religious mentality. And that is, your path is THE path. Every other path is in some way mistaken. Every other path leads ultimately to failure. Even with religions which I personally believe express 'the truth' in a quite direct way, like some of the Eastern religions, those who identify with the religion tend to exhibit this tendency. And, to me there is a problem with this. I feel like you could say it stems from looking at spirituality in a material way, rather than a spiritual way. What I mean is that one engaging in sincere spiritual practice, will more and more cultivate spiritual virtue, embody its principles, and perceive it in their lives. What spirituality is aiming for, is developed within the individual. Thus it can be developed in innumerable contexts. It is that development itself which is primary. Not the label which you choose to identify with, which is the most surface-level, or material, aspect of spirituality.

You can identify with a religion, and you feel that your religion is true, thus your identification with it means you are on the right spiritual path. And others who identify with other religions, are following false or lesser ways, and thuse they are on the wrong spiritual path. And yet that other person may be more sincere in his practice, and develop and embody spiritual principles far more than you. So who advanced more, spiritually? Only from a material perspective is your opinion of the ultimate truth of a religious tradition of any primary importance. From the spiritual perspective, it is the inner life and development which matters.

Point well taken but let me ask you a question without getting religious...... After looking around this planet and understanding that it is impossible that all life, in the air, on the ground and in the water including all plant life etc... started accidentally, by chance, or by design?

Do you believe that there is a creator....... a God?

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
Point well taken but let me ask you a question without getting religious...... After looking around this planet and understanding that it is impossible that all life, in the air, on the ground and in the water including all plant life etc... started accidentally, by chance, or by design?

Do you believe that there is a creator....... a God?

See, this may(or may not) be an example of this semantic model thing I was talking about. Because, from my perspective it is a false dichotomy. I feel there is meaning and purpose in existence, but I feel that it is implicit within existence itself, as opposed to designed by an outside force. God is the source of all things, but is also imminent in all things. Physical reality is the outer boundary of God. Existence is a manifestation of God, rather than created by. Though you could say there is a creative intelligence which lies in the depths of all manifested objects and beings. This view puts me at odds with many, as theist vs. atheist is a widely accepted dichotomy which my views don't exactly align with. Thus the atheists see me as theistic and the theists see me as atheistic. lol.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TheJourney

The truth is, though, that if one religion IS absolutely right then it follows that the alternates are wrong.

Religious choice is an unclear and confusing thing but is that a valid reason for not attempting at all to determine that absolute truth?

But the ultimate truth or untruth of a particular path is not what the thread is about. Suppose one particular religion is absolutely true. So I can say I believe that religion, but remain totally unchanged as a person. My mentality doesn't change, my behavior doesn't change. There is no internal transformation whatsoever. The only difference is that I say I believe *insert label.* Another person identifies with *insert different label*. This person undergoes transformational processes. He becomes harmonized internally and externally. He finds peace and happiness in the most simple things in life. He feels a genuine connection with the people he comes across in life. Even if the first religion is true, it is the second person who has made far more spiritual progress.

If that second person is wrong, then the 'progress' is toward nowhere, pointless and unsubstantial. They would be just as lost as the one who has only applied a label.

Both conditions must be met. The path and the transformation must be true.

Becoming harmonized, peaceful, and joyful internally and externally would be pointless if you believed the wrong religion?

That would be seen as being self centered and smug from an external onlooker.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TheJourney

The truth is, though, that if one religion IS absolutely right then it follows that the alternates are wrong.

Religious choice is an unclear and confusing thing but is that a valid reason for not attempting at all to determine that absolute truth?

But the ultimate truth or untruth of a particular path is not what the thread is about. Suppose one particular religion is absolutely true. So I can say I believe that religion, but remain totally unchanged as a person. My mentality doesn't change, my behavior doesn't change. There is no internal transformation whatsoever. The only difference is that I say I believe *insert label.* Another person identifies with *insert different label*. This person undergoes transformational processes. He becomes harmonized internally and externally. He finds peace and happiness in the most simple things in life. He feels a genuine connection with the people he comes across in life. Even if the first religion is true, it is the second person who has made far more spiritual progress.

If that second person is wrong, then the 'progress' is toward nowhere, pointless and unsubstantial. They would be just as lost as the one who has only applied a label.

Both conditions must be met. The path and the transformation must be true.

Becoming harmonized, peaceful, and joyful internally and externally would be pointless if you believed the wrong religion?

That would be seen as being self centered and smug from an external onlooker.

I was literally just trying to express positivity in terms of ones internal and external life. So any negativity is being imposed by you over my words, which were intended to express pure positivity to demonstrate my point. This positive development is more primary than a label one identifies with or proclaims belief in.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TheJourney

The truth is, though, that if one religion IS absolutely right then it follows that the alternates are wrong.

Religious choice is an unclear and confusing thing but is that a valid reason for not attempting at all to determine that absolute truth?

But the ultimate truth or untruth of a particular path is not what the thread is about. Suppose one particular religion is absolutely true. So I can say I believe that religion, but remain totally unchanged as a person. My mentality doesn't change, my behavior doesn't change. There is no internal transformation whatsoever. The only difference is that I say I believe *insert label.* Another person identifies with *insert different label*. This person undergoes transformational processes. He becomes harmonized internally and externally. He finds peace and happiness in the most simple things in life. He feels a genuine connection with the people he comes across in life. Even if the first religion is true, it is the second person who has made far more spiritual progress.

If that second person is wrong, then the 'progress' is toward nowhere, pointless and unsubstantial. They would be just as lost as the one who has only applied a label.

Both conditions must be met. The path and the transformation must be true.

Becoming harmonized, peaceful, and joyful internally and externally would be pointless if you believed the wrong religion?

That would be seen as being self centered and smug from an external onlooker.

I was literally just trying to express positivity in terms of ones internal and external life. So any negativity is being imposed by you over my words, which were intended to express pure positivity to demonstrate my point. This positive development is more primary than a label one identifies with or proclaims belief in.

I sincerely apologize, I have a migraine and had reverted to self-righteous bastard mode without my awareness.

I'll try and be better behaved in future.

But I was essentially trying to show that emotional state and spiritual state can be unconnected. A crazed madman could calmly and happily dissect a living being, horrible as that is, it demonstrates the disconnect.

originally posted by: chr0naut
That would be seen as being self centered and smug from an external onlooker.

How is being peaceful and joyful confused to mean smug and self centered???

Honestly, if every time you see another person who is peaceful and full of joy and you see them as self centered and smug, you've got some serious internal issues. It sounds to me like you resent someone else being joyful and out of spite or jealousy for the lack joy in your own life, see them in a negative way.

That is of course just my arm chair psychological assessment though and should be taken as just my opinion.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut
That would be seen as being self centered and smug from an external onlooker.

How is being peaceful and joyful confused to mean smug and self centered???

Honestly, if every time you see another person who is peaceful and full of joy and you see them as self centered and smug, you've got some serious internal issues. It sounds to me like you resent someone else being joyful and out of spite or jealousy for the lack joy in your own life, see them in a negative way.

That is of course just my arm chair psychological assessment though and should be taken as just my opinion.

How could a truly contented person ever empathize with those around them?

If they remained contented, and did not mirror the anguish of the other then they would be psychopathic.

This is great topic TheJourney and I share a similar view on all religions.

I am one of those who like to research all materials. Because as you said there are many paths to enlightenment and there are many old or maybe even present enlightened people in all religions and what does that tells us? It should tell us that real truth is far beyond words and rules which are set by some religion. But people are so "smart and bright" that they think they know all the truth and discard all others, without even looking and contemplating that which they discard.

For instance if one reads the stuff about Ramakrishna he experienced the real truth beyond words. He researched many different religions and even said that all are the truth - like rivers leading to the same ocean - god. But people put too much emphasis on words and too little on experience. Everyone should read between the lines when researching or believing various religions.

Every religions has almost the same principles. Be a virtuous person, love all, dont hate, steal, fight, and on and on. Those are the basic which are spread throughout all. But don't do it for god expecting some kind of reword, that is false and it's just our ego who want something in return.
Does river, sun, earth, moon, etc... want something in return for always sustaining our beautiful planet and make it livable. NO! That is how it is naturally and I believe that all religions teach in some way to be completely natural - without ego.

So words can be a very poisonous or very good. And for many religious people are sadly poison, they just feed their own ego on it and think they got it right and everyone else is wrong.

But that is how people are, they like to put labels and category on everything even when talking about god who created everything there is. I would love it if there were no different names. We should just drop them and let the things be as they are. If you like the bible, hey that is great! Read it, contemplate about it and live it! The same if you like koran, or any other text. Why would we limit ourself with just one prospective?? That is just silly.

I like how In Hinduism they allow people of different faiths to follow their religion, it's a very free religion for all. That is the right way. Because when religion or your own view of the truth forces you to hate, fight, be greedy, jealous, untruthful, scared... - then you are doing something wrong and you should break those limitations!

True religion or faith should lift you up and never ever put you down!

originally posted by: chr0naut

How could a truly contented person ever empathize with those around them?

If they remained contented, and did not mirror the anguish of the other then they would be psychopathic.

Ok, but if you're talking about empathizing with someone, if they were joyful that is what the other should be feeling as well, not the opposite.

Other than that I agree. Empathy should reflect joy for joy not pain for joy and that is what your first statement sounded like.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut

How could a truly contented person ever empathize with those around them?

If they remained contented, and did not mirror the anguish of the other then they would be psychopathic.

Ok, but if you're talking about empathizing with someone, if they were joyful that is what the other should be feeling as well, not the opposite.

Other than that I agree. Empathy should reflect joy for joy not pain for joy and that is what your first statement sounded like.

I was suggesting that a religiosity or spirituality do not a good person make.

a reply to: chr0naut

That is very true. One's membership to an organization doesn't automatically make them a good representation of said organization just because they are a member.

As to your question about a content person's ability to empathize with another I'd say that contentment could be equated to being room temp. and should they empathize with the feeling of another they would then become either hot or cold from their contented room temp.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Didn't you make a thread talking about the language idea once??? I don't remember if it was you or not but someone did and it was a great example of how people are actually putting their faith and/or belief not on those things they believe in but basically on the words which aren't real at all.

It seems that individuals cannot get past words and language - they believe in all sorts of 'things'. But what is real, what is there prior to words and language? What is there prior to conceptualization?
What is real? Is it what you can see, hear and touch? Or does there have to be an aware presence for any appearance (smell, taste, touch) can appear?

The truth lies beyond conceptualization.

originally posted by: randyvs


I'm cool with that. I just felt it might be worth saying that all paths
will inevitably lead to that one truth. Despite what the traveler
believes his path leads unto.

Every experience is different. Have you ever had exactly the same experience more than once? Deja vu comes to mind - once in a blue moon an experience may feel the same. When this body disappears 'the appearance that is' will change - nothing new there.
Notice that what is appearing (in your direct experience) is constantly changing - scan the environment to see and hear what your experience is full of.

Is there a path to what there is?
You are what there is and what you are is constantly appearing different.
The 'truth' is not somewhere or some when else.