Why do you think ancient religions are so committed to negating the worldy experience?

[Lou Gold]

While I generally like the scholarship of Robert Bellah, I'm unconvinced by the distinction of "historical religion." Does anyone believe that old aboriginal religion has not -- where it has survived the conquests of dominating civilizations -- also had an evolution into so-called, 'modern times'? Consider the Kogi People of the higher elevations Santa Marta range in Columbia who chose to flee rather than fight and thusly continued to evolve their history and civilization to the point where they think of us 'moderns' as their 'younger brothers'.

He states that his categories and concepts are only a heuristic and not intended to represent all situations:

Of course the scheme itself is not intended as an adequate description of historical reality. Particular lines of religious development cannot simply be forced into the terms of the scheme. In reality there may be compromise formations involving elements from two stages which I have for theoretical reasons discriminated; earlier stages may, as I have already suggested, strikingly foreshadow later developments; and more developed may regress to less developed stages. And of course no stage is ever completely abandoned; all earlier stages continue to coexist with and often within later ones. So what I shall present is not intended as a procrustean bed into which the facts of history are to be forced but a theoretical construction against which historical facts may be illuminated.

Steve, I grok and appreciate Bellah's cautionary statement. It fits well with the transcend-and-include perspective. But, as a thought experiment, consider whether it's open to the possibility that the Kogi might be the 'transcended' and we 'moderns' might be the 'included'?

[Steve Petermann]

Steve, I grok and appreciate Bellah's cautionary statement. It fits well with the transcend-and-include perspective. But, as a thought experiment, consider whether it's open to the possibility that the Kogi might be the 'transcended' and we 'moderns' might be the 'included'?

One has only to look at how certain indigenous and aboriginal peoples conduct their lives in tune with nature and each other to see them as remarkable exemplars for us. Religious sentiment evolves but that doesn't mean prior or indigenous people today are somehow backward spiritually.

[Lou Gold]

Steve, I grok and appreciate Bellah's cautionary statement. It fits well with the transcend-and-include perspective. But, as a thought experiment, consider whether it's open to the possibility that the Kogi might be the 'transcended' and we 'moderns' might be the 'included'?

One has only to look at how certain indigenous and aboriginal peoples conduct their lives in tune with nature and each other to see them as remarkable exemplars for us. Religious sentiment evolves but that doesn't mean prior or indigenous people today are somehow backward spiritually.

We agree on this Steve.

How might it fit with progressive hierarchical notions of spiritual evolution found within the Western tradition and, at times, expressed here at the forum? Please note that I'm not intending to invite the never-ending debate. Instead, I'm asking if anyone can offer a 'bridge model' that is open to the possibility that we 'moderns' might be the 'younger brothers'?

[AshvinP]

This question just keeps nagging at me. Both ancient Hinduism and Buddhism are very committed to the idea that people's mission in this reality is to check out of it. To awaken to its illusory nature, not just for the purpose of being able to experience it in a more level-headed way, not just for realising their inter-relatedness with others and thus to refrain from selfishness and harming others; but to really check out of it. In Buddhism the only reason for an enlightened soul to return to Samsara is to be a Bodhisattva and help new souls awaken.
Why do you think this is, and what changed with Christianity, which regards the world as God's perfect creation, which is perfectly aligned with the Divine plan?
Obviously, the first answer that comes to mind is that there are different cultural roots, but this doesn't seem satisfactory. Those who established the doctrines of this religion were both intellectually and spiritually highly developed men, who I assume have made their own realisations and conclusions, not just drew upon what had already been there.

Religious scholar Robert Bellah thinks it arose because of the entry into religious and philosophical thought the concept of transcendence. He calls this period "Historic Religion". That was when the major religious traditions emerged and Greek philosophy blossomed. The periods prior to that (Primitive Religion and Archaic Religion) had a cosmological monism instead of the dualistic ontology of Historic Religion. Here's an excerpt from his essay on religious evolution:

The criterion that distinguishes the historic religions from the archaic is that the historic
religions are all in some sense transcendental. The cosmological monism of the earlier stage
is now more or less completely broken through and an entirely different realm
of universal reality, having for religious man the highest value, is proclaimed. The
discovery of an entirely different realm of religious reality seems to imply a derogation
of the value of the given empirical cosmos: at any rate the world rejection discussed
above is, in this stage for the first time, a general characteristic of the religious system.

This explanation breaks down at any time prior to the modern age, as dualism of "entirely different realm" between spiritual and physical does not really exist before then. There is a trend towards it and certainly monumental transformations in spiritual conception occur in the Axial Age, but it does not amount to a sharp rejection of the "empirical cosmos" at that time. These details are very important because, if missed by a cursory analysis, they will lead to seriously faulty conclusions about what is driving the mythic-spiritual-religious evolution and what is simply an effect of those underlying forces. The abstract conceptual division of "immanence" vs. "transcendence" is itself a product of modern dualism. It is not as if people in the Axial Age sat down and said, "actually we have now discovered there is a separate spiritual realm which cannot be sensed in the physical world, which everyone before us somehow missed". It is these sorts of superficial conclusions which throw off the analysis and then imply the opposite of what is patently true, reflected by Hedge's question. Most current Eastern spiritual traditions do, in fact, treat the sense-world as an illusory dream, longing for a return to idealized past state of dream-like existence (which they consider the "real" spiritual state). Most Western spiritual traditions have come to do that as well, because they have failed to notice the spiritual evolution and therefore long for an idealized past state of simple faith in a transcendent God who is no longer to be found in the sense-world. Both of those lead to world-negation i.e. nihilism by two different paths.

[lorenzop]

This question just keeps nagging at me. Both ancient Hinduism and Buddhism are very committed to the idea that people's mission in this reality is to check out of it. To awaken to its illusory nature, not just for the purpose of being able to experience it in a more level-headed way, not just for realising their inter-relatedness with others and thus to refrain from selfishness and harming others; but to really check out of it. In Buddhism the only reason for an enlightened soul to return to Samsara is to be a Bodhisattva and help new souls awaken.
Why do you think this is, and what changed with Christianity, which regards the world as God's perfect creation, which is perfectly aligned with the Divine plan?
Obviously, the first answer that comes to mind is that there are different cultural roots, but this doesn't seem satisfactory. Those who established the doctrines of this religion were both intellectually and spiritually highly developed men, who I assume have made their own realisations and conclusions, not just drew upon what had already been there.

Even with best intentions, all religions erode over time. Any Great Teacher speaks, and his/her followers hear the words from their level of understanding, and little by little, more and more of the Wisdom is lost. Within a few generations the teaching barely resembles the original. Renumiation or 'checking out' is an example of a teaching missing the original intent.

[Jim Cross]

This question just keeps nagging at me. Both ancient Hinduism and Buddhism are very committed to the idea that people's mission in this reality is to check out of it. To awaken to its illusory nature, not just for the purpose of being able to experience it in a more level-headed way, not just for realising their inter-relatedness with others and thus to refrain from selfishness and harming others; but to really check out of it. In Buddhism the only reason for an enlightened soul to return to Samsara is to be a Bodhisattva and help new souls awaken.
Why do you think this is, and what changed with Christianity, which regards the world as God's perfect creation, which is perfectly aligned with the Divine plan?
Obviously, the first answer that comes to mind is that there are different cultural roots, but this doesn't seem satisfactory. Those who established the doctrines of this religion were both intellectually and spiritually highly developed men, who I assume have made their own realisations and conclusions, not just drew upon what had already been there.

Look at some of the tantric traditions. It is not so much checking out of reality but using physical, material reality as a vehicle to reach higher truth.

Tantrism is a religious and philosophical movement appearing in India around 400 CE that existed within both Hinduism and Buddhism. In medieval India, Tantrism was a common element of all the major religions. Tantrism focuses upon ritual aspects that involve the use of the physical in sacred and worshipful settings to access the supernatural.

https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 6086-2_682

Materialism is considered to be an anathema to Indian philosophy. Despite this, Indian tradition boasts of a strong materialist trend predating the Vedas. This paper traces the proto-materialist ideas as found in the ancient Tantra and pre-classical or original Sāṃkhya. Representing the naturalistic trend in Indian philosophy, ancient Tantra identified the brain as the seat of human consciousness. The pre-classical Sāṃkhya considered matter as the primal non-intelligent or non-sentient first cause from which the universe was to evolve. It considers the material cause to be self-sufficient for the purpose of producing the world; the principle of consciousness is potentially contained in the primeval matter.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... hxsi9arbqT&

Some also claim tantric influences in early Christianity.

[Hedge90]

This question just keeps nagging at me. Both ancient Hinduism and Buddhism are very committed to the idea that people's mission in this reality is to check out of it. To awaken to its illusory nature, not just for the purpose of being able to experience it in a more level-headed way, not just for realising their inter-relatedness with others and thus to refrain from selfishness and harming others; but to really check out of it. In Buddhism the only reason for an enlightened soul to return to Samsara is to be a Bodhisattva and help new souls awaken.
Why do you think this is, and what changed with Christianity, which regards the world as God's perfect creation, which is perfectly aligned with the Divine plan?
Obviously, the first answer that comes to mind is that there are different cultural roots, but this doesn't seem satisfactory. Those who established the doctrines of this religion were both intellectually and spiritually highly developed men, who I assume have made their own realisations and conclusions, not just drew upon what had already been there.

Even with best intentions, all religions erode over time. Any Great Teacher speaks, and his/her followers hear the words from their level of understanding, and little by little, more and more of the Wisdom is lost. Within a few generations the teaching barely resembles the original. Renumiation or 'checking out' is an example of a teaching missing the original intent.

How do you know then that this is not what they intended? Your guess is as good as the "official" one

[Ben Iscatus]

Aside from what Eugene said about the low quality of life for the poor in ancient times, and often now (overcrowding, disease, pain, backbreaking work etc), so that return to such conditions is a horrendous prospect, "checking out" also appeals because it would mean escape from the id and ego granted us by our culture and evolution, with all their insistent, unfulfillable desires. As we all know, even priests and spiritual leaders, repressing their sexual desires, failing to acknowledge their Shadow side, end up abusing the young.

Also, if you look at the World as it really is (as in BK's elephant eaten alive for 6 hours by a pride of lions example), without First-World, let's-live well-by-exploiting- the-rest-of-the-world rose tinted glasses, it's easy to believe that a Demiurge is in control and pulling the wool over our eyes, so total escape from his clutches is highly desirable. From this viewpoint, it would appear hopeless to try to come back and help those who think the Demiurge is really a loving god.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Also, if you look at the World as it really is (as in BK's elephant eaten alive for 6 hours by a pride of lions example), without First-World, let's-live well-by-exploiting- the-rest-of-the-world rose tinted glasses, it's easy to believe that a Demiurge is in control and pulling the wool over our eyes, so total escape from his clutches is highly desirable. From this viewpoint, it would appear hopeless to try to come back and help those who think the Demiurge is really a loving god.

Ah yes, the old M@L as Self-flagellating Androgynous BDSM Dominatrix cosmology. M@L as alter escapes its corporeal guise only to find its also the Demiurge Dungeon Master

[Ben Iscatus]

You may well laugh now...