Plans for a religion

Here!

I’ll also PM you a copy of my book.

Besides the theory/doctrine, my religion also comprises practice: the exploration of alternate states of consciousness. ← But that’s not necessary for the religion to survive. It’s mainly theory/doctrine oriented.

So how would you summarize your ideology in a nutshell?

So would these not be the same thing? Direct contact with our creator and consulting with him (it)? Is it a matter of balance? We need more direct contact with our creator but to always remember it will reveal only so much?

BTW, what does CHOP stand for?

The idea that life and being alive is more important than race, gender, beliefs, etc.
Belief systems can help if you get the right ones,
but we gotta put things in order of priority.

There are two parts:
[1]CHOP is church of pantheism, which is supposed to be the truth about creation.
[2]RR is right reason, a philosophy that basically says that real virtue, morals, etc. tend to be logical, make sense, be reasonable, etc.
So basically, doing the right thing, is also doing what makes sense to do.
This means that god cant or shouldnt be unreasonable. An unreasonable god is not a good god.
And we serve the good, not the bad, etc.

How does that sound so far?

I read the original post and think to myself - in a world before the Bible, I would endeavor to believe that a man had similar thoughts and began to organize people in such a fashion

We have recorded wisdoms that I think we would be well off not to forget, as a species

Keep in mind something as simple as eating (albeit consecrated) bread every week can serve a very innocent human purpose, to feed the masses.Your religion and catholicism seem to touch upon this common basis

Freedom of choice is a very appealing feature - I can’t help but compare to Judaism/Christianity, where there are commandments which articulate things that people should both do and not do. (Don’t kill, do keep holy the sabbath). I think sometimes humans are forgiving of eachother for being less than perfect with being consistent with these commandments. I can see how the freedom of choice would be a good thing in this regard, preventing humans from casting less-than-perfect judgement on eachother for complying with the rules/failing to do so. I do worry that a freedom of choice as a basis for a religion would encourage people to not follow the rules

I am interested in what was meant, specifically, by “freedom of choice”. How you would approach freedom of choice from a religious standpoint? My mind goes “freedom to choose to do what?”

My initial thoughts on starting a religion: what rituals from common religions should be maintained? what additional rituals should be repeated to the point of a religion? (Should brushing ones teeth be important enough to bring into a religion?)

Google Brook Farm.

If you look at Christianity as an example, following the rules brings you closer to God and improves your life. Not following the rules makes your life worse. Your self-interest should motivate you to follow the rules. If you look at something specific like stealing … although you can get some small thing of value, overall you lose more than you gain … separated from God, you’re living a dishonest life potentially in a society full of dishonest thieves.

It sounds like you’ve got something sustainable. It’s good that you follow reason and common sense rather than dogma as that will most likely encourage followers to stick with the religion on their own accord.

Good things do not produce evil things,
and evil thing do not produce good things.
Therefor a good world comes from a good force, or creator.
However, my mormon friends seem to think that satan and evil are somehow necessary or are a part of freedom.
Freedom is good.
Freedom does not produce slavery,
and slavery does not produce freedom.

You see where i am going with this?

Direct theism is different than christian theism, in that, the christians receive divine things through human channels.
Direct theism means we try to experience gods directly, without any literature or leaders.
Prayer shouldn’t be about grovelling and begging.
Direct prayer is as good as it gets, and the gods a person encounters are all going to basically be finite.
That doesn’t mean they are useless, but, normally self and friends sustain the soul moreso than any deity.

What does “direct prayer” involve?

That’s quite easy in my religion. To me, God is the universe. I’m in direct contact with him every day. :smiley:

That’s actually quite touching. But how does prayer work? As a pantheist who sees the universe as God, I usually rely on the scientific descriptions of the world that I’m fed by the media–these tell me what God is “doing,” how his body works–with this picture, I fail to see how the universe reacts to human prayer. How does it work?

“To pray” means “to seek of”, related to “preying upon”. When you reference a dictionary, in a very small way you are actually praying to the dictionary. If you are going to pray to the universe as your god, then you seek of the universe for your prey (study the sciences to gain revelation on how to get whatever you wanted).

Geez, makes one sound like a leach.

I guess you could consider that a form of prayer, but is that what Dan meant?

Enlightenment:

You -are- enlightenment, but you do not know what enlightenment is. Enlightenment is sleeping within things.
Awakening realizes an already existing enlightenment.
Enlightenment isn’t an absolute, or a thing, or an ideology.
I’d call it meta-formic.
It is something so deep and clear that it predates thoughts and sensations.

I agree, Dan, but who is the ‘you’ that’s Enlightened?

Most people don’t seem to understand that it’s not the psychological ‘you’ that becomes Enlightened. The psychological ‘you’ (false identity or ego) can never be Enlightened because it doesn’t exist outside the human mind. In other words, the dream character is not that which wakes up. How can the dream character enter the ‘real’ world? It can’t.

What happens is, as the a person begins to Awake, the psychological self/ego - like the dream character - dissolves and the dreamer, which has been there all the time, comes into focus. It’s in this shift of consciousness that one realizes that he has always been the dreamer playing the part of the dream character.

It’s important to remember because when a person has a genuine Awakening experience and falls back ‘asleep’ again into this mundane world, the psychological self (dream character) assumes that it had the experience when in actual fact, the psychological identity/ego was absent.

If the psychological self/ego believes it had the experience then trying to reexperience it again is going to be in vain. The psychological self/ego cannot experience its own absence but what it will do is create imaginary states of mind or mystical experiences and claim them to be Enlightenment.

Mystical experiences – as beautiful and profound as they often are – are not Enlightenment. Enlightenment is hyper clarity… hyper transparency… emptiness… no-thingness… spaciousness. To the mind, Enlightenment appears bland and boring. Mystical experiences, on the other hand, are drenched with emotion, meaning and awe. The psychological self/ego thrives on this.

You probably know this already Dan, I hope I don’t sound like I’m lecturing; I just want to clarify it so others don’t confuse Enlightenment with all the other imaginary or mystical states. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with those experiences if you’re aware of what they truly are.

From your post I’d say you’ve got a good understanding.
You explained it in ways that had not exactly occured to me at the time.
Sometimes illusions are incredibly artistic.
Other times images look so real.
Being good and wise is not amusing or funny, or exciting.
But that’s ok. Culture just doesn’t focus that way.

I like Chakra’s explanation for this. Let me add my own:

The enlightened self is like an actor, whereas the ‘ego’ as Chakra is calling it is like the character played by the actor. If the actor is really good, he will lose himself in the role. He will forget who he really is and make believe that he is the character. Enlightenment is like pausing the play, or taking a break to go back stage–you recall who you are (the actor) and suspend your persona as the character. But even in that state, you always return to the play. Pausing from the show, taking a break, is a good way to rejuvenate, but the actor knows that the play must go on (even if it’s a terrible tragedy in which the character suffers horribly), and so he dives right back, even joyfully, into the role in order to perpetuate the life of the character to the point of fulfilling his purpose.

So yes, Dan, enlightenment is always there. The actor is always there, playing the role, even if the character has no clue the actor exists or why he is playing him.

Yep, that’s pretty much it, gib, particularly the part about the character losing him/herself in the role but I wouldn’t say the Enlightened person needs to take a metaphorical break from the play.

After adjusting to the profound shift (adjustment can take many years) the Enlightened one can be in the world but not of the world, simultaneously.

.

Interesting read CS … echoes of the writings of two popular 16th century Spanish Mystics … St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross … Interior Castles and Dark Night of the Soul respectively. Both in your description of the pinnacle of enlightenment and your warnings about the potholes along the way.

Interesting timing … maybe :slight_smile:

16th Century Spain was home to 3 individuals( St Teresa, St John and St Ignatius … founder of the Jesuits) … each leaving a substantial and enduring legacy. A blessing or a curse? … suppose it depends on one’s perspective.

At the time … 16th century … Spain was a formidable Empire and today it’s one of the PIGS of Europe … Hmmm!

Montserrat … about 20 miles from Barcelona … was the place of St Ignatius’s conversion … St Teresa dreamed of opening a Discalced Carmelite Convent in Madrid … St John spent his last years in Segovia … not far from Madrid.

Any connection to the current political events in Spain? Who knows eh?

Is the notion of ‘enlightenment’ a good thing for humanity?

Yes, you’re absolutely right. It’s hard to think of a good analogy to that though. Perhaps the actor playing himself?

Hey Pilgrim,

Any connection to your Fatima thread, maybe?

How’s that thread going, BTW? If you could sum up your main message in that thread, what would it be?

I would think so. It gives people hope, something to aim for, while at the same time not being moral imperative. I think in every religion, there’s some groundless superstition, but I also think there are kernels of truth, and I don’t think they’re all equally weighted in this regard. I think Buddhism (and other religions focused on enlightenment) are onto something, a lot more than other religions. That’s not to say other religions are complete rubbish, but I think Buddhism can boast more hands-on results. For example, brain scans done on Buddhist monks who are well seasoned in meditation have been compared to lay people who aren’t very experienced in meditation, and the results are noticeable. Lay people show brain activity more or less scattered throughout the brain (not much different from lay people who are not meditating) whereas the Buddhist monks show almost no brain activity in the left lobe and heightened brain activity in the right lobe. And also just the reported experiences of people who practice meditation–feeling more at peace, happier, being more able to feel compassion and love for other beings.

One of the major differences between Western and Eastern religions, which I think plays a role here, is that Western religions teach us that salvation is not to be found here in this life, that we must play our cards right and if we’re lucky, then maybe we’ll find salvation (God, enlightenment, heaven, etc.) in the afterlife. Eastern religions, on the other hand, teach that salvation (God, enlightenment, heaven, etc.) is attainable in this life, and directly attainable by the individual. It leaves the adherent with two very different approaches to life, and consequently with two very different sets of results.

You are pretty much an idealist, whereas your Dad and your brother Andrew are pretty much realists (respectively: materialists, at least your Dad, or hedonists, at least your brother) and therefore do not like your idea.

Is this very first analysis true?