[Buddha-l] Religious, But Not Spiritual

[Joy Vriens]

Eric wrote,

>Hadot tells me that philosophy used to be the general way to happyness  
>and wisdom, untill a group of fanatics convinced some king that it is  
>abolutely necessary to believe in something and the king made it  
>obligatory for all his subjects.

I am starting to doubt presentations in which a king forces a view onto his citizens or has them convert to a religion. That would be to attribute too much power to them. Just like contemporary leaders, they probably followed public opinion and rarely succeeded in influencing it. So I expect that those "fanatics" must have had some impact on the citizens first and that at a certain point the king decided to surf on the wave. Every interventionist is a fanatic. And every group has its beliefs that may not be obligatory or presented as such, but groups have other ways and dynamics to spread beliefs (group motivations), mimetism being an important one. And I don't limit beliefs to religious matters. I have seen the Netherlands change dramatically beyond recognition, France is changing dramatically and yet nobody imposes the beliefs those countries are focussed on. They are simply behaving like lemmings.     

>Still the old philosophical bag of  
>tricks was at everybody's disposal and the ones who used it became known  
>as mystics. They were a much distrusted bunch of loners who tended to  
>neclect the fattwas of the pope. When in modern times the church and the  
>instutionalised religion lost their popularity because of the upsurging  
>wave of bourgeois romanticism and individualism, the loners became heros  
>of spirituality. This word was reinvented after his origin (spiritus or  
>pneuma, which means breath) was long forgotten. 

I am not sure what you are referring to here. Being someone very confused and chaotic I tend to see everything in the same bag. I can hardly distinguish between the secular and the religious, philosophy and religion, religion and politics. And if I look at the state of the world, I don't have the impression I am the only one. 

There are two categories of people :-). There are those who think it is possible to know things and some of those even think they know (e.g. our friend Wilber) and there are those who think it is impossible to know things. As I see it, there is a link between scepticism and mysticism. E.g. quietism is sometimes considered as the most extreme form of scepticism. If you look at Pyrrhon's life, it's hardly distinguishable from that of a mystic. Those who think they know, dogmatics, have a tendancy to intervene and to change things. They are in fact the fanatics, the hyperactive ones (e.g. neocons, nation builders). Whereas the mystics tend to be sceptical, know they don't know, know they are not in control and therefore don't have a tendancy to action, because what action would that be? 

One possible form of action (perhaps the only one, providing one can call it an action) if one is a sceptic or a mystic, is to disagree  with the beliefs of dogmatics when they tend to dominate one's life too much. The disagreeing doesn't have to be active. Is not going along with a mob an action? Can be, but doesn't have to be.        

>> I see the trans-thing as an integration of something as another perspective. I consider seeing things only through a rational perspective as an impoverishment or an amputation.  
 _ 
>The meaning of the word 'rational'  is another source of confusion.  
>Ratio is a Latin translation of the Greek 'logos',  which meant  
>originally 'meaning' or 'principle'. Ratio has however the connotation  
>of calculation, so some of the original meaning was lost. Now some may  
>see anything that can be proven by clever reasoning as rational, and  
>someone who only relies on calculation can be called a rational person.  

Ok, let's take the meaning of calculating, perfect, that's exactly what can be a flaw of ratio as I see it. The "spiritual" would be beyond calculation. I am talking about "spiritual" (for lack of a better pithy word) as a mode, not as connecting with a core entity. In fact Tibetan meditation manuals keep repeating exactly that slogan "without calculating" (rtsi med pa), basically without control-freakishness. What Wilber tries to do is utter spiritual control-freakishness, a contradiction in terms.

>But another possible interpretation is that rationality is the demand  
>that anything that is put forward has to be clear and concise so that  
>it's open for discussion and criticism.

Yes, that can be a positive thing. But even if ratio means that and if we are said to be rational beings, there is of course no obligation for everything to be clear and concise, or to discuss and criticise everything, all the time. To want to impose that would be like the behaviour of the king you mentioned.  

> I have no trust in 'wisdoms'  
>which are based on fallacies like an argument on authority or any other.  
>Transrational has this meaning of being beyond discussion.

I am not sure how Wilber defines, but I would use the term to denote a mode without discussion, without knowing actively, probably what some would call contemplative. 

> Anyone who  
>disagrees is an outsider and possible fuel for the stake first and hell  
>later. Most transrational wisdoms I've heard of are like raw meat, bad  
>for the digestion because not properly cooked. 

That would clearly be no transrational wisdom.

Joy