Originally posted by lucifershammerI can't really argue with the positive criteria. They seem quite universal.
Quite simply -- living in a state of grace. Positively (i.e. in terms of 'do's) it means cultivating and developing the virtues of faith, hope and charity. Negatively, it means avoiding mortal sin.
Without some criteria, there is no “path,” since a distinct path is defined by it’s boundaries. At some point, one can say: “This path is not working for you, since you are disinclined to stay on it—perhaps another path would work better for you.”
Most spiritual* teachers of all persuasions recommend finding a path that works for you, with the help of a spiritual guide (roshi, rabbi, priest, whatever) , and using that path to travel deeper into the territory than one can by slashing painstakingly through the underbrush. Sooner or later, however, one does need to wander off the pre-set path if one’s spiritual journey is to be more than a wandering along the pre-drawn paths—like touring a zoo, with all the wild animals safely behind bars. Nor should the existence of set pathways lead one to think that the [ ] has been somehow tamed.
Of course, there are those who assert that “the territory” (e.g., the basileia tou theou) is strictly an after-this-life affair, and only this path will get you there, but you won’t know it till you die...
Paths are of two kinds: behavioral or conceptual (or a combination). Slavish devotion to behavioral practices (e.g., Zen meditation) can become a bit like exercise for exercise’s sake (not altogether a negative thing, mind you), with no intention ever to put your strength and endurance to work (splitting wood, or hiking the mountains).** Clinging to conceptual schema (e.g., doctrine and theology) becomes mind-play—like doing spiritual crossword puzzles (again, not a negative thing in itself). The [ ] is before/behind/beyond/between concepts. You’ve got to drop them; otherwise, you’ll never know...
For those disinclined to leave the path, however, it is always there. The spiritual territory is a “wilderness”:
“The wilderness is not just a desert through which we wandered for forty years. It is a way of being. A place that demands being open to the flow of life around you. A place that demands being honest with yourself, without regard to the cost of personal anxiety. A Place that demands being present with all of yourself.
“In the wilderness your possessions cannot surround you. Your preoccupations cannot protect you. Your logic cannot promise you the future. Your guilt can no longer place you safely in the past. You are left alone each day with an immediacy that astonishes, chastens and exults. You see the world as if for the first time.” (Rabbi Lawrence Kushner, Honey From the Rock, 1994)
* I, along with others, dislike this word. I use it in the sense that bbarr once gave: seeking to experience the real ground of being (probably not his exact words), with or without theistic or extra-natural understandings.
** Note: Once again, without denying a moral component to behavior here, I have no desire to engage in a discussion that simply reduces to morality, as so many on here seem to.
_____________________________
With regard to “worldly desires,” that is a difficult phrase. Surely one is not less “spiritual” if one desires love, joy, enjoyment of food and drink, physical health, etc. And yet many people have this sense that spirituality has some “ethereal” connotation. In Judaism, Zen and Taoism such a “divorce” is rejected. In reading an Orthodox writer recently, he gave the phrase (since it is used in early writings) a technical definition; I forget exactly what it was, but it was akin to a self-destructive addiction...
_____________________________
With regard to the parental analogy: valid up to a point. And that point is when parental authority per se holds no sway. “Don’t steal Mommy’s purse ‘because Mommy says so’,” are not words spoken to an adult. The question becomes one of when religious authority promotes spiritual infantilism—or becomes a kind of spiritual terrorism.
Originally posted by vistesdWithout some criteria, there is no “path,” since a distinct path is defined by it’s boundaries.
Without some criteria, there is no “path,” since a distinct path is defined by it’s boundaries. At some point, one can say: “This path is not working for you, since you are disinclined to stay on it—perhaps another path would work better for you.”
Most spiritual* teachers of all persuasions recommend finding a path that works for you, with the help of a ...[text shortened]... hen religious authority promotes spiritual infantilism—or becomes a kind of spiritual terrorism.
A path also generally leads somewhere.
At some point, one can say: “This path is not working for you, since you are disinclined to stay on it—perhaps another path would work better for you.”
Only if one has a priori criteria for what "works".
“Don’t steal Mommy’s purse ‘because Mommy says so’,” are not words spoken to an adult.
Because adults are expected to know why "Mommy says so". If they don't, or refuse to, then we'll still need "Mommy says so".
Originally posted by lucifershammerA path also generally leads somewhere.
[b]Without some criteria, there is no “path,” since a distinct path is defined by it’s boundaries.
A path also generally leads somewhere.
At some point, one can say: “This path is not working for you, since you are disinclined to stay on it—perhaps another path would work better for you.”
Only if one has a priori cri ...[text shortened]... why "Mommy says so". If they don't, or refuse to, then we'll still need "Mommy says so".[/b]
Yes.
Only if one has a priori criteria for what "works".
Not sure how you mean a priori here. Presumably there are those with a posteriori criteria, based on what has worked. No rabbi/roshi/rishi/priest worth her/his salt offers a path as an untestable hypothesis—in my view anyway.
Because adults are expected to know why "Mommy says so". If they don't, or refuse to, then we'll still need "Mommy says so".
Adults only know that because they learned it along the way (also when “Mommy” may have been wrong)—and I don’t mean learned just as rote. My whole point, however, is about moving toward spiritual maturity; my former (Episcopal priest) spiritual director used to say, “The first step toward spiritual maturity is becoming conscious.”
But none of it is riskless (as soon as one says, “I think Mommy was wrong about ________,” one takes a risk; one also takes a risk by choosing always to believe Mummy, no matter what). To phrase it in the Christian paradigm, one can only trust in God’s charis, and get on with the risky business of living—including the spiritual journey. But even that is a decision that one must make on their own recognizance and responsibility and authority; think of it—one can only relinquish one’s authority to a “higher power/authority” on one’s own authority (for whatever reason, in the face of whatever evidence or need, etc.).
And, at some point, even your guru will kick you out if you’re unwilling to “leave home.”
BTW: Sometimes I think I need to point out when all the “you’s” are general, as they are in this case...
Originally posted by vistesdDon't worry about the "you"s -- I can generally tell when you're speaking generally.
[b]A path also generally leads somewhere.
Yes.
Only if one has a priori criteria for what "works".
Not sure how you mean a priori here. Presumably there are those with a posteriori criteria, based on what has worked. No rabbi/roshi/rishi/priest worth her/his salt offers a path as an untestable hypothesis—in my view anyway. think I need to point out when all the “you’s” are general, as they are in this case...[/b]
Not sure how you mean a priori here. Presumably there are those with a posteriori criteria, based on what has worked.
Do you see the circularity here? How can you know whether something has worked (and therefore to recommend to future seekers) unless you have some (logically) a priori criteria to test whether something has "worked" or not?
EDIT: Naturally, those criteria can change over time. For instance, a rabbi who started off prescribing a certain spiritual path may change his approach because, say, he finds that his wards end up unhappier in the process. There are two ways of seeing this. One would be to acknowledge that his criteria have actually changed; but they remain nevertheless (logically) a priori in any given (future) instance.
The other (which I feel would be closer to the truth) is that the rabbi actually started off with an implicit, unacknowledged criteria of success=[temporal] happiness which was exposed by the experiences of his wards.
My whole point, however, is about moving toward spiritual maturity
Mine too. But spiritual maturity (as with social/moral maturity) is not simply about the amount of time you've spent with something. A mature 12-year old may not need to be told not to steal from his mother's purse whereas an other 18-year old may need to.
But none of it is riskless (as soon as one says, “I think Mommy was wrong about ________,” one takes a risk; one also takes a risk by choosing always to believe Mummy, no matter what).
Only if one has no a priori reasons for thinking Mommy must always be right about certain things.
And, at some point, even your guru will kick you out if you’re unwilling to “leave home.”
Only because he feels you're ready and mature enough to take on "the world".
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you see the circularity here? How can you know whether something has worked (and therefore to recommend to future seekers) unless you have some (logically) a priori criteria to test whether something has "worked" or not?
Don't worry about the "you"s -- I can generally tell when you're speaking generally.
[b]Not sure how you mean a priori here. Presumably there are those with a posteriori criteria, based on what has worked.
Do you see the circularity here? How can you know whether something has worked (and therefore to recommend to future seeke ”[/b]
Only because he feels you're ready and mature enough to take on "the world".[/b]
Let me try this (I’m not sure we’re in real disagreement): I make, for me, an a priori decision to test what other spiritual guides have recommended (maybe several things). I do a lot of research, to find commonality and what makes sense to me. Then I have to test it. Based on the results, I may or not recommend it to someone else, with or without certain warnings (e.g., about makyo in meditation). What I can say to someone is: “This worked out this way for me; here are the people I decided to trust in order to try, etc., etc.” I also will not recommend beyond where I have been; though, again, I may talk about various teachers/teachings, etc. as guides.
Actually, I am becoming more and more reticent to recommend anything, especially in a public forum. (Fortunately, I don’t think anybody listened to me when I was less reticent...)
But spiritual maturity (as with social/moral maturity) is not simply about the amount of time you've spent with something.
True words.
Only if one has no a priori reasons for thinking Mommy must always be right about certain things.
One may have reasons—that does not remove risk. We pay attention to those who have traveled before in order to reduce some of the risk—but even then, we have to choose.
The risks I’m really thinking about, however, have to do with the experience of the journey itself—something Annie Dillard once said about invoking the holy [ ] (or whatever term you want to use) without a crash helmet...
Only because he feels you're ready and mature enough to take on "the world".
And only because you are for some reason resisting that...
EDIT: When I say "this worked out this way for me," I need to stress I'm not talking about any finality...
Originally posted by vistesdI don't think there's an actual disagreement here. As I understand it, what you're basically saying is that you've read some spiritual writers who've followed certain techniques and who've seen certain effects. You've judged that those effects are desirable and therefore tried those techniques (note: there is an a priori element here to judge the success/failure of the technique). Now you may not have experienced the same effects, or you may have experienced effects that you judge to be better than what you expected, or you may have decided at the end that experiencing a particular effect wasn't really the point at all (as long as you experienced something, anything).
Let me try this (I’m not sure we’re in real disagreement): I make, for me, an a priori decision to test what other spiritual guides have recommended (maybe several things). I do a lot of research, to find commonality and what makes sense to me. Then I have to test it. Based on the results, I may or not recommend it to someone else, with or without ...[text shortened]... say "this worked out this way for me," I need to stress I'm not talking about any finality...
In recommending these techniques, you basically say, "Spiritualist X experienced x using technique XX; I experienced x/y -- try it for yourself."
Correct?
Originally posted by lucifershammerSomething like that... I missed your edit in your prior post, however.
I don't think there's an actual disagreement here. As I understand it, what you're basically saying is that you've read some spiritual writers who've followed certain techniques and who've seen certain effects. You've judged that those effects are desirable and therefore tried those techniques (note: there is an a priori element here to judge t ...[text shortened]... perienced x using technique XX; I experienced x/y -- try it for yourself."
Correct?
Also, experiencing nothing is a possibility (that is, having no experience beyond just sitting around thinking, or whatever—I don’t mean samadhi or mushin). One may also experience something that seems powerfully, even sublimely “mystical,” but is illusion, another mind-making (without regard to whether or not it seems in accord with any correct doctrine).* That is another risk—especially if you’re on your own, or you’ve hooked up with a teacher whose caught by the same kind of thing. The Zen masters, and folks like Thomas Keating and Thomas Merton, issue strong warnings here...
Descriptions are always provisional, and in some way metaphorical, or just hints and allusions. We really are talking about the ineffable here. I’ve tried, and generally failed. Probably a good thing, since I am not a spiritual guide. Mostly, I’ve offered some “koans” that people might work on (from “Behind the makings of the mind...” to St. Paul’s ouketi ego/en emoi Christos to the goose in the bottle, depending); I’m not even sure I should be doing that... Actually, I am sure: I shouldn’t. I’ve had too inflated a view of my own progress (another risk), and too deflated a recollection of my own scars... I just need to get back to work.
I might recommend some reading—and a good crash helmet...
* This seems to be why Krishnamurti, for example, counsels against using the term “experience,” even.