Santa V God

[juantoo3]

I couldn't help but notice the banner ad as I was trying to exit this thread:

True Religion Wholesale
Save up to 75% - 90% off retail
price Using our wholesale
database $2.97

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Yep. There's something missing too, I haven't put my finger on it yet, but I think it has to do with cause and effect. Like maybe confusing effect for cause. Tao's explanation is way too simple, necessarily so to support his view. But incomplete, and therefore not true. It disregards the quest for spirit, sky-walking, vision quest, astral projection, spirit communion, spirit communication. This is far more than a simple drug trip hallucination, and it is a vital component of all "personal religious" walks of all shaman and others who seek that connection to the unseen. This is worded really clumsy, and I don't have time just now to word it better. I hope the message conveys...

I agree Juan, Tao articulates a very real aspect of religion in the history of Man but you bring up an excellent point: there has to be something else.
Many believe that consciousness carries a price, that of laboring under an illusion of separation. It is here that we begin to step away from the scientific method as we know it and begin to move toward the study of consciousness. This would include understanding a little psychology, a little philosophy and some poetry for good measure.
I'm a little tired right now so I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but the history of religion and spirituality must include the motivation of the individual to find the "something more". Sensing a separation or finding a hole within oneself, one begins to seek out what must be an "other". Of course even this is a simplistic outlook but given time I might be able to elucidate a bit.

I have used existential angst as a motive for clinging to religion, and there is something to that, but for many there is much more. The questions about self and relation to the whole, why am I me and not you? Many of us remember as children we asked questions about our own selfness which now would seem either quite profound or quite pointless and silly depending on your outlook.
I think it is these kinds of existential questions that provoke our search for the "other" for wholeness, or for God.

The problem with this search, this eternal hungering for "oneness" or mystical union or union with God, is that there will always be a self and other, and it is this that keeps the cycle going, the self always searching for what it must belong to. The secret may be that we were never separate at all and the problem is we keep searching keep striving, keeping and cultivating a hunger which can never be fulfilled.

[Netti-Netti]

Tao, thanks for your reply.

My impression at the moment is:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Tomorrow I'll consider the specifics of your argument in greater detail.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

The prophets of old who ran around in animal skins and subsisted on locusts and wild honey must have lead a very glamorous life. Are you saying that they lived this way as some sort of ego-fulfilling means to control the people?

Of course not wholesale. But you have to admit it is human nature to pursue and hold onto any advantage one can gain. Think of Rasputin as relatively recent example. I do not imagine for a moment that every shaman was ruthlessly out only for himself nor that to themselves they were always setting out to be deceptive. But power corrupts. And there were doubtless very many who realised that creating themselves as visionaries was an easy meal ticket.

Well, of course, being able to find a holy man in the building down the street is much more convenient than having to go out into the wilderness looking for one. So, was it the prophets, seeking to control the people, who moved into 'town,' or was it the people, seeking to control the prophets, who moved them into 'town?'

Thats just glib SG, and neither. Most primitive cultures a successor/apprentice was selected by the Shaman to learn the craft. Thus you have the establishment of a tradition of formal structure. I do not place the shamans outside of the community but integral to it.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Many believe that consciousness carries a price, that of laboring under an illusion of separation. It is here that we begin to step away from the scientific method as we know it and begin to move toward the study of consciousness. This would include understanding a little psychology, a little philosophy and some poetry for good measure.
I'm a little tired right now so I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but the history of religion and spirituality must include the motivation of the individual to find the "something more". Sensing a separation or finding a hole within oneself, one begins to seek out what must be an "other". Of course even this is a simplistic outlook but given time I might be able to elucidate a bit.

I have used existential angst as a motive for clinging to religion, and there is something to that, but for many there is much more. .

The tools of the early shaman also included psychology, philosophy and poetry and with them he wove tribal history, origins and causation all together to give his people a complete world-view. Way back when a tribal member had no ability to go to a library or online and start presenting contradictory ideas. The kind of angst we talked about takes the ability to process information that is independent of superstition. In a society where religious belief is endemic this angst is only ever realised by a minority. it is too easy to assume that everybody are like the people here, who think deeply about things. Most people do not think or question. They were born, conditioned into their faith and rarely ever really do anything but go through the motions until there is some major crisis. For the people the function of the shaman was to take care of the why, to provide a paradigm so they did not have to descend into not knowing. And because they wanted to feel important, to belong and a part of something that did not end in their own death.

tao

[juantoo3]

I think I might be beginning to discern a really pessimistic POV, with the presumptive paintbrush carrying onto all the rest.

In addition, I see the habit of overlaying modern contexts onto ancient contexts.

During ancient neolithic cave dwelling mastodon hunting ice age era hunter-gatherer societies, there simply did not exist any institutional religious structure to resemble anything like the Vatican or the CoE. There was the shaman, who was probably the most in tune with spirit. And there were the rest, who were still in tune, but to a lesser degree. The shaman was the one the tribe allowed or dedicated to pursuit of spirit. While from what I gather shaman were sometimes hereditary, meaning some families had a tendency or sensitivity, more often shaman were apprenticed. Whoever happened to have an inclination and a proclivity, learned the trade from the shaman. Shaman were not in it for profit, and it was quite inconvenient to also hold political leadership power. IOW, there was no political benefit to being a shaman. It was not unheard of, but pretty rare for the shaman to also be chief. Too many hats to wear.

Now, sure entheogens likely played a role, but I think it is *way* premature to imply that the spirit quest was no more than the result of drug induced hallucinations. Not all hallucinations produce spiritual states, and not all spiritual states are drug induced. Not all shaman made use of hallucinogens.

So, even if we presume the worst as you suspect, and prune out all of those who would abuse the whole process, we still end up with a select group who were legit. Now, and this again is a variation on the same question I have been asking all along...why does the legitimate pursuit of spirit, the shaman, even exist to begin with if there is nothing to pursue? The assumption that it is an hallucinogenic invention is a casual dismissal in order to avoid the facts: if there were nothing to pursue it seems a rather useless and complex fraud to invent in that day and age for the sheer hell of it. There was no appreciable material gain, no political reward, and no incentive to defraud your cousins. These things came much later, when people moved into cities and politics began to take a different form, and religious institutions came into being.

You are not incorrect, but you simply cannot superimpose modern social forms and psychology onto ancient sociological structures. It doesn't work without a lot of manipulative massage, trimming corners and forcing pieces to fit. And the end result is inaccurate, because it is forced.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

You are not incorrect, but you simply cannot superimpose modern social forms and psychology onto ancient sociological structures.

With respect I do not. What I attempt to do is to explain the origin and evolution of religious belief in the context of ordinary human ambition. Ambition is a part of the foundational quest to survive and prosper and if any single human characteristic was shared between ancient and modern man it is that. The psychology of survival is very simple and is not a solely human characteristic but an animal one. Early shamans were normally keepers of tribal history and storytellers and thus had a charismatic role in their community. They were greatly valued. Combine that with their medicinal knowledge and their use of hallucinogens to give tribal members a powerful mystical experience and you can see that they clearly were regarded as magicians. Set apart from the herd. I stand by what I say. It is too easy to overcomplicate when there is a simple truth very evident.

tao

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Of course not wholesale. But you have to admit it is human nature to pursue and hold onto any advantage one can gain. Think of Rasputin as relatively recent example. I do not imagine for a moment that every shaman was ruthlessly out only for himself nor that to themselves they were always setting out to be deceptive. But power corrupts. And there were doubtless very many who realised that creating themselves as visionaries was an easy meal ticket.

I'm not denying that there are selfish fakes. There are the examples of the Pharisees in the Gospels.

I also agree that power corrupts. I suspect that might be the reason why so many holy men went to live as hermits. (They were devoured by the mountain? --As mentioned by the Buddha in MN 116: Isigili Sutta)

Thats just glib SG, and neither. Most primitive cultures a successor/apprentice was selected by the Shaman to learn the craft. Thus you have the establishment of a tradition of formal structure. I do not place the shamans outside of the community but integral to it.

tao

I dunno, Tao. Legend says that Lao Tzu got fed up with the moral decay of city life and went to leave to go live as a hermit. When he got to the western gate of the city, a guard recognized him and would not let him leave until he produced a record of his wisdom, which supposedly was the Tao Te Ching.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Shaman were not in it for profit, and it was quite inconvenient to also hold political leadership power. IOW, there was no political benefit to being a shaman. It was not unheard of, but pretty rare for the shaman to also be chief. Too many hats to wear.

In some cultures (Inca), holy men did have leadership roles. However, in other cultures holy men were on the periphery of things. They were cave dwellers and wanderers who had very little contact with others. Sometimes they were ostracised, which is functionally equivalent to having no political power.


Consider the Sin Eaters of Scotland (of all places) and England. How does one reconcile this description to Taos's imagery of shamans being socially and politically priviledged:

Abhorred by the superstitious villagers as a thing unclean, the sin-eater cut himself off from all social intercourse with his fellow creatures by reason of the life he had chosen; he lived as a rule in a remote place by himself, and those who chanced to meet him avoided him as they would a leper. This unfortunate was held to be the associate of evil spirits, and given to witchcraft, incantations and unholy practices; only when a death took place did they seek him out, and when his purpose was accomplished they burned the wooden bowl and platter from which he had eaten the food handed across, or placed on the corpse for his consumption.

Funeral Customs: Chapter IV: Wakes, Mutes, Wailers, Sin-Eating, Totemism, Death-Taxes

To get a grasp on the politically-minded career professionals Tao has in mind, we would need to see detailed biographies that trace how these people sought their positions rather than drift into them even though they were uncomfortable with the responsibilities and unfortunate social consequences.

Finally, I am puzzled that Tao has ignored the fact that two of the most historically important religious leaders - Jesus and Guatama Buddha - articulated very clearly that they were not in the least bit interested in worldly kingdoms. Both were tempted by wealth, power, and priviledge and both refused.

Tao wrote:

They were greatly valued. Combine that with their medicinal knowledge and their use of hallucinogens to give tribal members a powerful mystical experience and you can see that they clearly were regarded as magicians. Set apart from the herd. I stand by what I say. It is too easy to overcomplicate when there is a simple truth very evident.

Evident without evidence.

The trance-journey aspect associated with psychoactive substance use did not have a major role in all shamanic traditions. Moreover, the persons who specialized in the visionary practices that involved substances were not necessarily seen as political figures, medicine men or even spiritualy gifted religious leaders. They were a separate group whose isolated functions were limited to trance-journey practices. I think the monolithic thinking that ignores these distinctions makes for a confusing picture of the anthropology of religion.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi and love the new avatar,

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I'm not denying that there are selfish fakes. There are the examples of the Pharisees in the Gospels.

I also agree that power corrupts. I suspect that might be the reason why so many holy men went to live as hermits. (They were devoured by the mountain? --As mentioned by the Buddha in MN 116: Isigili Sutta)

Living as a hermit apart from the community does not preclude it is that community that supports him. The hermit shaman would expect 'gifts' from those seeking his wisdom. So while it can be argued that such an individual was not seeking power it can be argued he was seeking an easy life. Whether he knew it or not is another question. You have to understand that I think early shamanism to be an entirely natural response to emergent curiosity and not something deliberately manufactured to deceive That came later.

I dunno, Tao. Legend says that Lao Tzu got fed up with the moral decay of city life and went to leave to go live as a hermit. When he got to the western gate of the city, a guard recognized him and would not let him leave until he produced a record of his wisdom, which supposedly was the Tao Te Ching.

He has my sympathies, I sometimes feel that way about some of the threads I start.


tao

[Tao_Equus]

Sorry Netti but you are dancing on the roof tiles but not undermining the foundation of my argument. For every example you present you are looking at highly evolved civilisations not at the origins of humanity. Jesus, Buddha or any other prophet we have the alleged wisdom of is 100s, maybe 1000s of generations removed from when the first people would have perceived an advantage in proclaiming mystical ability.

tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

....we have the alleged wisdom of is 100s, maybe 1000s of generations removed from when the first people would have perceived an advantage in proclaiming mystical ability.

Hi Tao, thanks for your reply.

I was wondering who in particular you have in mind. Who were these people that saw the proclamation of mystic powers as giving them some advantage?

Also, how did their professional practices help validate a G-d concept?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Hi Tao, thanks for your reply.

I was wondering who in particular you have in mind. Who were these people that saw the proclamation of mystic powers as giving them some advantage?

Also, how did their professional practices help validate a G-d concept?

Ordinary self-ambitious people, you think they are a product of the modern era?
Because they used it in their stories to convey a heady mix of a place in eternity/spirit realm for the believer and linked the spirits/gods to natural events and to animals. A whole supernatural world-view was built to give the individual and the tribe an importance in 'the scheme of things'. Over 10s of thousands of years this evolved into complex structures and successive generations were taught it as fact at the campfire. Each generation being given this so young for so many generations has created what we have today, people that believe because people have never done anything else.

Tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Ordinary self-ambitious people, you think they are a product of the modern era?
Because they used it in their stories to convey a heady mix of a place in eternity/spirit realm for the believer and linked the spirits/gods to natural events and to animals. A whole supernatural world-view was built to give the individual and the tribe an importance in 'the scheme of things'.

I'm interested in the anthropology you mentioned elswehere. References, citations.

It is unclear why you would want to go back to primitive religions.
Long before Buddhism came along, the Chinese had folk religions that involved sorcery and magic. As in the case of the Bon religion in Tibet, some of these pre-Buddhist practices have continued to exist alongside Buddhism. Since they antedated Buddism by hundreds of years, it is unclear how sorcerers' practices helped validate Buddhism.

It is quite possible that the sorcerers of ancient China had lucrative practices from ostensibly manipulating energies and spirits. I don't know that, but let's assume. What does it matter in relation to Buddhism, which some say has no G-d concept at all?

Moreover, what does it matter in relation to the G-d concept of a personal monotheistic deity?

One other thing. How would you presume to know that the sorcerers of ancient China were all just a bunch of money grubbing fakes?

Over 10s of thousands of years this evolved into complex structures and successive generations were taught it as fact at the campfire. Each generation being given this so young for so many generations has created what we have today, people that believe because people have never done anything else.

This is much too simplistic. Religions have been evolving for a long time, rather than simply being passed on without being reworked and modified.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

It doesn't work without a lot of manipulative massage, trimming corners and forcing pieces to fit. And the end result is inaccurate, because it is forced.

.... Forced and over-simplified.