Can there be New Ways of Understanding and Practicing Ancient Religious Teachings?

[Leonardo17]

This is a continuation of the thread “Does the Quran support Theocracy?” Thread.
 
I was talking about how the 10th century Church was using images on main cathedrals to relate the most basic biblical stories to its audiences who were mostly very poor, illiterate and has very limited perceptions about the world in general and had to be taught some sort of simplified version of religious teachings because that’s the most that could be done back in those days.
 
I don’t know if I was clear enough on this issue in that thread. There are two things I wanted to state here:
 

---

 
1) Each and every culture has these “sagas” if you like. Usually they are in the form of some oral tradition. Homer “The Blind Poet” for instance simply put already existing stories of the Iliad and the Odyssey into written form. So the more “knowledgeable” people in a cultural group have the duty to transfer these sagas or traditions to younger generations. So we don’t have pictures on our mosques here. But I was given children’s books with very nice pictures and illustration on the accounts of the Quran about the lives of the most notable prophets.
 
My comment on this issue is this: Stories, even fairy tales have some hidden meaning in them. When Osiris is murdered by the evil God Seth, Isis “remembers” him and puts all of his parts together. So Osiris than becomes this Christ-like figure “who conquers” death. And Isis (the Goddess of life) brings him back to life by “remembering” him. And Horus (the Sun God / Apollo / Jupiter) is actually the result of the Union of these two primal forces.
 
Don’t laugh at me but this is how “pagan” religions work as well. There are these “forces” that tell us a story about the fabric of the universe. And this is easier to discern in Hinduism for instance. But the tendency of ignorance is to ritualize these with no or minimal care about the deeper meaning.
 
2) There is the issue of rituals. In the old system step one is to take the most basic stories and try to make sure that everybody gets the most basic sagas or religious stories. The second part is the issue of rituals.
   That’s the part in which Sadhguru affirms the fact that all religions started as spiritual teachings. Everyone knows that Muslims pray 5 times a day. Ancient Christians also had a similar number if I am correct. Current meditators Say you must meditate in the morning in the evening and in the late afternoon if you can. This is not an offering to God. It’s like exercising, it’s designed to train your brain muscles so that you are reminded to reconnect with you Inner Truth.
   Christians like to criticize Muslims because they tend to learn Qur’anic verses by hearth and repeat them without even knowing their meaning. That’s the ritualization I am talking about. They taught me some of the shorter verses when I was a child. I am not ashamed to say I forgot almost all of them. That’s simply because that’s not my mother tongue. So they say that knowing the meaning of the verses is also important. But in practice, people just go to the mosque, repeat the verses (in Arabic) that are associated with every position of posture, then leave the place thinking they accomplished their duties as Muslims.
 
So I don’t know in detail but I think that the usage of ancient languages are not uncommon in Christian Churches. I also know that many Yogis end up learning Sanskrit in an attempt to try to understand The Bhagavad Gita more thoroughly.
 
And this is the main difference between what I would call modern and traditional approach:
 
1) I believe in symbols and stories because I believe in some subtle messages and/or teachings in those stories. But I know people who discard them all together or who focus on the “mythology” of one spiritual tradition only (which also a rather smart thing to do if you goal is to maintain your mental health on some level)
 
2) “Ritual” are not meant to teach people to learn to sleep in different Yoga postures (this is also from Sadhguru). In 10th century Europe for instance they had things called Triptych that were sometimes made of ivory and the priest would just open it in front of him where ever he is and see an image of Jesus – Mary and several other saints and prophets in front of him in order to be more focused in his prayers:



(This is the Harbaville Triptych. It’s a 10th century Byzantine Triptych. 9 x 11 inches in size. It’s on display at the Louvre Museum, One the prayer is was over, the owner could simply fold it on itself and put it back into whatever object he/she was using as a suitcase)
 
/ So these are all the deeper aspects. But if I am talking about “genuine” spirituality I think there should be some guidelines to that too.
 
If I was to sum this up to one thing only I would ask the question:
- Is the person being present in the “here and now” and achieving some degree of connection with what we like to call “Inner Realities” or “Higher Realities”.
 
Of course there is a whole knowledge to all of this, I don’t know anyone who simply jumped in and simply started to practice these things without doing some amount of research first. So this is just to lay-out some of the basic rules.
 
One of these basic rules is that: Seemingly religious stuff that focuses on appearances and/or the visible parts of religious practice may have nothing to do with any type of spirituality after all. The Arabic word for that is munafiq.
These terms are mostly being distorted by seemingly pious people themselves in an attempt to put all of these religious teachings to the service of their own ego or the super-ego structure they are identifying with.
 
But since I am mostly talking about Islam I will talk about this in Islamic terms: The Prophet curses such people (the only other two types of person he curses openly are those who value money more than humanity and those who destroy the world’s ecosystem in the days before “the end of times” [Today’s multinational corporations like Gasprom, Rosneft, Shell and all the others]   )
 

---

 
So the conclusion is that modern theists can and do in many cases have what I call a better approach to spiritual themes. Yes there are many who think (for instance) that half an inch of dark colored cloth is the main difference between endless riches and luxury in the after-life or centuries of torture in the hands of the most vicious creatures one can ever imagine. But yes, there are those with a more intelligent approach: I personally see myself as a rational explorer of these “possibilities” I believe to be real. My opinion is that the second approach is a more logical one in our times. Simply because of the fact that we are far more empowered than the people of 10th century and it is expected of people of our age to show signs of better reasoning, usage of better methods in our quests for answers and greater open-mindedness in our overall approaches and spiritual practice in general.
 
/And I am not afraid to say this openly because at least in my culture, there are serious scholars who are pointing to the fact that the second approach is more suitable in the reality of our times.

[arewethereyet]

We need a continuation? Who decided this?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, that was horrible.

Boru

[Belacqua]

This is a continuation of the thread “Does the Quran support Theocracy?” Thread.
 
I was talking about how the 10th century Church was using images on main cathedrals to relate the most basic biblical stories to its audiences who were mostly very poor, illiterate and has very limited perceptions about the world in general and had to be taught some sort of simplified version of religious teachings because that’s the most that could be done back in those days.
 
I don’t know if I was clear enough on this issue in that thread. There are two things I wanted to state here:
 

---

 
1) Each and every culture has these “sagas” if you like. Usually they are in the form of some oral tradition. Homer “The Blind Poet” for instance simply put already existing stories of the Iliad and the Odyssey into written form. So the more “knowledgeable” people in a cultural group have the duty to transfer these sagas or traditions to younger generations. So we don’t have pictures on our mosques here. But I was given children’s books with very nice pictures and illustration on the accounts of the Quran about the lives of the most notable prophets.
 
My comment on this issue is this: Stories, even fairy tales have some hidden meaning in them. When Osiris is murdered by the evil God Seth, Isis “remembers” him and puts all of his parts together. So Osiris than becomes this Christ-like figure “who conquers” death. And Isis (the Goddess of life) brings him back to life by “remembering” him. And Horus (the Sun God / Apollo / Jupiter) is actually the result of the Union of these two primal forces.
 
Don’t laugh at me but this is how “pagan” religions work as well. There are these “forces” that tell us a story about the fabric of the universe. And this is easier to discern in Hinduism for instance. But the tendency of ignorance is to ritualize these with no or minimal care about the deeper meaning.
 
2) There is the issue of rituals. In the old system step one is to take the most basic stories and try to make sure that everybody gets the most basic sagas or religious stories. The second part is the issue of rituals.
   That’s the part in which Sadhguru affirms the fact that all religions started as spiritual teachings. Everyone knows that Muslims pray 5 times a day. Ancient Christians also had a similar number if I am correct. Current meditators Say you must meditate in the morning in the evening and in the late afternoon if you can. This is not an offering to God. It’s like exercising, it’s designed to train your brain muscles so that you are reminded to reconnect with you Inner Truth.
   Christians like to criticize Muslims because they tend to learn Qur’anic verses by hearth and repeat them without even knowing their meaning. That’s the ritualization I am talking about. They taught me some of the shorter verses when I was a child. I am not ashamed to say I forgot almost all of them. That’s simply because that’s not my mother tongue. So they say that knowing the meaning of the verses is also important. But in practice, people just go to the mosque, repeat the verses (in Arabic) that are associated with every position of posture, then leave the place thinking they accomplished their duties as Muslims.
 
So I don’t know in detail but I think that the usage of ancient languages are not uncommon in Christian Churches. I also know that many Yogis end up learning Sanskrit in an attempt to try to understand The Bhagavad Gita more thoroughly.
 
And this is the main difference between what I would call modern and traditional approach:
 
1) I believe in symbols and stories because I believe in some subtle messages and/or teachings in those stories. But I know people who discard them all together or who focus on the “mythology” of one spiritual tradition only (which also a rather smart thing to do if you goal is to maintain your mental health on some level)
 
2) “Ritual” are not meant to teach people to learn to sleep in different Yoga postures (this is also from Sadhguru). In 10th century Europe for instance they had things called Triptych that were sometimes made of ivory and the priest would just open it in front of him where ever he is and see an image of Jesus – Mary and several other saints and prophets in front of him in order to be more focused in his prayers:



(This is the Harbaville Triptych. It’s a 10th century Byzantine Triptych. 9 x 11 inches in size. It’s on display at the Louvre Museum, One the prayer is was over, the owner could simply fold it on itself and put it back into whatever object he/she was using as a suitcase)
 
/ So these are all the deeper aspects. But if I am talking about “genuine” spirituality I think there should be some guidelines to that too.
 
If I was to sum this up to one thing only I would ask the question:
- Is the person being present in the “here and now” and achieving some degree of connection with what we like to call “Inner Realities” or “Higher Realities”.
 
Of course there is a whole knowledge to all of this, I don’t know anyone who simply jumped in and simply started to practice these things without doing some amount of research first. So this is just to lay-out some of the basic rules.
 
One of these basic rules is that: Seemingly religious stuff that focuses on appearances and/or the visible parts of religious practice may have nothing to do with any type of spirituality after all. The Arabic word for that is munafiq.
These terms are mostly being distorted by seemingly pious people themselves in an attempt to put all of these religious teachings to the service of their own ego or the super-ego structure they are identifying with.
 
But since I am mostly talking about Islam I will talk about this in Islamic terms: The Prophet curses such people (the only other two types of person he curses openly are those who value money more than humanity and those who destroy the world’s ecosystem in the days before “the end of times” [Today’s multinational corporations like Gasprom, Rosneft, Shell and all the others]   )
 

---

 
So the conclusion is that modern theists can and do in many cases have what I call a better approach to spiritual themes. Yes there are many who think (for instance) that half an inch of dark colored cloth is the main difference between endless riches and luxury in the after-life or centuries of torture in the hands of the most vicious creatures one can ever imagine. But yes, there are those with a more intelligent approach: I personally see myself as a rational explorer of these “possibilities” I believe to be real. My opinion is that the second approach is a more logical one in our times. Simply because of the fact that we are far more empowered than the people of 10th century and it is expected of people of our age to show signs of better reasoning, usage of better methods in our quests for answers and greater open-mindedness in our overall approaches and spiritual practice in general.
 
/And I am not afraid to say this openly because at least in my culture, there are serious scholars who are pointing to the fact that the second approach is more suitable in the reality of our times.

Thank you for posting the triptych! It's wonderful to come across such a beautiful work of art unexpectedly like this. This and St-Lazare from the other thread really do make a person's day better. 

I think you're bringing up some very ancient debates, which are still relevant for people who want to be sincere in their spirituality. The argument concerning icons and idols has been going on pretty much from the beginning of the Abrahamic religions. 

The way I understand the debate is: in a (too simple) nutshell, so long as an image inspires and guides us toward the ineffable, it is serving its purpose. If, however, we don't look beyond the object, and begin to limit our attention merely to the physical thing, it becomes a distraction and a block. Probably the most intense and in-depth arguments on these topics took place between the iconoclasts and the iconodules of the Byzantine Empire. 

I'm going to approach these objects a little differently than you do in your earlier post. You said that the sculptures at St-Lazare are intended to teach stories to people who otherwise couldn't read them. This I think is only part of their purpose, and maybe not the main part. If they were meant ONLY to get the story across, then simpler, less elaborate cartoon-type pictures would in fact be better. If instructive purposes are all there is, then all pictures aspire to the condition of Ikea assembly instructions -- and you have to admit that St-Lazare is far from that. 

It seems to me that the beauty of St-Lazare and of the triptych is an integral part of its message. (Remember what the man said: the medium IS the message.) 

Plato makes it clear that beauty is only one aspect of the Good (i.e. God), but it is the most easily accessible aspect. We perceive and react to beauty much more naturally than we react to justice or mercy, which have to be discerned intellectually from the actions which may embody them. The other virtues are abstractions, in the way that beauty is not. This is why beauty (for Plato, the beauty of hot boys) is considered the first and easiest step toward knowledge of God. In religious art, beauty is not "just aesthetic," or added skin-deep appeal. It is the main part of the message. This is why, too, Muslim buildings which don't have narrative art still aim to the greatest beauty possible. When Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite Christianized Neo-Platonism, he called "beauty" one of the names of God.

But I agree with you that this may become an interruption and a distraction. The tension between beauty that leads one to the spiritual and beauty that stops one's progress at the surface level seems unavoidable. I suppose it comes down to what an individual is open to. Those who have ears, let them hear. 

I'm not sure what you're advocating here, or what you mean by a more modern approach to spirituality. I don't think that we should discard the beauty of art, music, and ritual as if they are outdated. If you're advocating that we substitute a more reasoned, logical approach -- as if the ineffable can be explained purely by argument -- that does seem more modern, but also fundamentally against what spirituality has been, forever. 

I do think that one of the problems spirituality faces in our time is a terrible lowering of the quality in its beautiful expression. The times we live in don't lend themselves to great art, and the incredible heights of a van Eyck or a Bach seem to have plummeted down to cartoons and guitar bands. I have never attended a church service, but I saw part of one on YouTube once. When the pop music started up I turned it off in disgust. The idea that the arts have to lower themselves to the lowest common denominator of the audience, rather than lifting people to unaccustomed beauty, seems exactly wrong to me. 

Proust said:

“Thanks to art, instead of seeing one world only, our own, we see that world multiply itself and we have at our disposal as many worlds as there are original artists, worlds more different one from the other than those which revolve in infinite space, worlds which, centuries after the extinction of the fire from which their light first emanated, whether it is called Rembrandt or Vermeer, send us still each one its special radiance.”

Bad art flatters us and repeats what we already know.

[arewethereyet]

And that was more horrible.

[The Grand Nudger]

 
But since I am mostly talking about Islam I will talk about this in Islamic terms: The Prophet curses such people (the only other two types of person he curses openly are those who value money more than humanity and those who destroy the world’s ecosystem in the days before “the end of times” [Today’s multinational corporations like Gasprom, Rosneft, Shell and all the others]   )

Big Mo was the ceo of a rapacious multinational corporation himself.  Lay aside that you're just making this shit up - even if it were true, it would be akin to the coke guys telling us not to drink pepsi.

[brewer]

OP: Have you asked ChatGPT?

[Foxaèr]

Understanding? Develop a curriculum.

Practicing? Forget that nonsense.

[Nay_Sayer]

No need. My religion is the only correct one there has ever been

[brewer]

No need. My religion is the only correct one there has ever been

I never get enough garlic, please pray for me.