Welcome to this blog looking at the basics of spirituality by Pilgrim Simon. This blog contains a series of relatively short introductory articles on common themes in spirituality: What is the role of Scripture and sacred literature? How important are religious rituals and ceremonies? Do I need a spiritual teacher or guru? How important is it that I belong to a religious community or fellowship? Does God talk to me personally? Can I receive a personal revelation from the Divine? Am I going to face a Final Judgment? Is there a principle of Karma at work? Why does God allow pain, suffering and evil? All these issues are addressed here! Taking a contemporary, multi-faith approach, these articles seek to introduce you to modern spirituality. Check out our archives or key words in the left hand margin.
If there is One God, why are there so many different and contradictory religions?
The answer to this question takes a more advanced viewpoint than most of the articles on this blog, and therefore presents a correspondingly harder to follow discussion.
The traditional religions of the world have traditional or established ideas about what God is like: a theology. In the light of these ideas about God, a right or correct practice or behaviour follows on. Often, these ideas and practices are associated with the idea of ‘truth’. Thus some religions say: ‘we have the truth, other religions do not, we have the right way, others do not, we are true believers, others are infidels, heretics, apostates, outcasts, heathen e.t.c.’. Now the Pilgrim is a seeker after Truth and God is often declared to be Truth. Yet, these different religious beliefs and practices are indeed quite different. It can be argued that there are similarities in some core ideas and views, but there are also real differences on how God is perceived and followed.
At the ground level, Pilgrims will state that God exists. Some will state that though they are fully assured that God exists, God cannot be proved or demonstrated objectively. Some mystics also declare that God is:
i) Spirit
ii) Simultaneously Transcendent and Immanent: in all things
iii) Formless
Certain conclusions can be drawn from these three declarations.
i) God is Spirit. God is not an object and not material, but Spirit and therefore cannot be proved using scientific, objective, material means.
ii) God is simultaneously Transcendent and Immanent. Rationality, reason and logic cannot be fully brought to bear upon God. God transcends logic and rationality and is beyond logic, reason, concepts and ideas. No mind can encompass God, and no argument is sufficient to prove or demonstrate the existence of God. The usual rules of logic and rationality do not apply as we near the Divine. At the same time God is ‘in’ or ‘is’ all things. Thus all things have the potential to lead us to a sense or experience of the Divine. Wherever we look, whichever way we face, wherever we are, God is there, and thus personal integrity or truthfulness may be more important than any striving to achieve spirituality. Thus there are as many paths to God as there are individuals.
iii) God is Formless. God is Transcendent of form. Form, be it language, idea, concept or symbol, all delimit God. But without form, we could not communicate about God to others, or understand God in any way, or orientate ourselves to God. Therefore, many mystics declare that God delimits to forms of language and symbol in order that we may have some understanding and orientation. Thus God may present to us as Father, or Creator – terms that we can identify with and use.
These forms, these symbols and allegories which God uses to manifest to the Pilgrim in mystical encounters can become established as ‘the Truth’, whereas other forms, such as God as Mother, may find opposition and be condemned as heresy, lies and untruths. This is a process called intellectual binding. The intellect works by binding: by giving things fixed names and concepts. But in approaching the Divine, this fixing or binding of forms is a primary error. Not only may our insistence on and imposition of a particular form of God be divisive, but in time, these forms often become outdated and irrelevant, as cultures and the individuals within them change, mature and develop. Furthermore, the disproving or discrediting of such forms, such as a literal six 24hr day creation may then threaten the whole belief system, causing a crisis of faith, fragmentation or division with the faith and even potential collapse. For Mystics, this is merely the collapse of form, symbol, metaphor and allegory. It is a collapse of a form of religion rather than spirituality itself.
In respect of the Divine, there is a continual change of the forms used in presentation and disclosure, a process called perpetual transformation. In this view, the forms, aspects, faces or attributes of God are ephemeral and transitory. They are for the moment only; relative and ever-changing. God meets the Pilgrim where they are, with forms that are contingent upon that Pilgrim’s cultural context, the time and place where they are situated, their personality, their intellect and education, their personal history and the issues that are of concern to them at that particular time. Thus all forms are relative to the individual and their place in space and time. We are located in time and space, but God transcends time and space, therefore the forms are relative to us, in order to be meaningful to us. In this view of perpetual transformation, there is no production of a static, orthodox philosophy or theology. There is no production of a standard, static set of behaviours or religious practices or set of spiritual disciplines. There is no closure of a systematic study of divinity, no canon of sacred writings, no closure of scriptures, no end of an age of mystics. Certain themes may return again and again, in a form of perennial philosophy embedded within different cultures at different times and locations, but that is as much as we can say.
In what sense then is God Truth? Well Truth itself is a concept and idea and as such is transcended by the Absolute. When we say God is Truth, we are merely using the symbol and allegory of conceptual forms to describe the Formless and indescribable. But God is Truth in these senses:
i) God is the Absolute Ground, Foundation and Essence of all that is.
ii) God is the Absolute End, Peak and Height of all that is.
iii) God is the Absolute Reason, Purpose and End for all that is.
When all manifest form is stripped away, when the universe ceases to exist, the Truth is that God IS.
The Divine Essence then is beyond form and Transcendent, but religious manifestation necessarily partakes of form. This means that in relation to the Essence, all religions are relative and therefore no religion can lay claim to Absolute Truth to the exclusion of other religions. Yet, each religion is true by virtue of the Absoluteness of its intended Essence – the Divine Source.
‘There are as many gods as Pilgrims’ a faithful Companion once told a Pilgrim. When one looks at the different religions in the world and the different religions that have existed through different times and cultures, one is struck by their sheer diversity. Even with Christianity there is such diversity within it as to bewilder the mind. This statement is the other side of the coin which says that each Pilgrim treads or walks their own path
Yet, while God is spoken of as Unity and Emptiness or formlessness, some Pilgrims state that God contracts into separate expressions or manifestations. In fact all things are manifestations of God. One of the results of this contraction is the arising of Ignorance and the tendency for us to identify our true nature as being a finite body-self instead of contracted-God. Our True Self and Transcendent God are veiled by form and Ignorance.
How does God as Formless Emptiness communicate with us who are now bound in form? There is only God, but God is manifest in many ways, each way appropriate to different people at different times, locations and cultures. In addition, such manifestations have domains, or limitations of scope: One Pilgrim recorded in his spiritual Journal: ‘I knew that Ashtar was a manifestation of God. I knew that God transcends gender, but that in human terms, she represented the feminine. Her domain was Passion, Emotion, Sensuality and Sexuality, and her sign was the Moon. She had taught me about seasons and rhythms…’. Form itself is related to concepts and the mind but the mind is inadequate to grasp God, particularly Absolute God-as-Spirit and this bounded-self perspective gives us a partial, inadequate and flawed view of the Divine, a view distorted by our Ignorance and context: Inappropriate questioning of God led one Pilgrim to be rebuffed: ‘Who are you to question God-As-Spirit in this way? Just because things do not match your contracted view. Religious ideologies are of human construction and ultimately become just one partial, flawed perspective, often set against other flawed perspectives in violent warfare.
However, the experience of God-Immediacy and any corresponding insights and enlightenments that are gained enable to us to grow and develop in our appreciation of the Divine.
Even so, as we have seen, there is a tendency by humans to establish forms of ideology around such experiences and these can soon become rigid belief structures. But what we have seen earlier is that all form is absolutely relative. The true nature of all form is that it is contracted Absolute: God is in all things, for all things are manifestations of God. Consider the waves of the sea. The surface of the sea rises and turns over itself, forming droplets and spray as it does so, but they remain as the sea. They do not cease to be water, but remain seamlessly part of the ocean and return back again. Therefore all form, including the forms of religious ideas and practices, is absolutely relative to the Absolute. What is the more correct form: an acorn or an oak tree? Both are correct and viable forms, one has properties that the other does not, one is more complex and differentiated than the other, but both are viable forms. So it is with religious forms and forms of the Divine. They are legitimate forms, viable forms, useful forms, but none can convey or encompass the Divine and in this way they are also partial and flawed and must always be considered as such. We find then that all form is absolutely relative with regard to the Absolute, who is all form; and relative to the perspective of the subject, who is shaped by their development, in terms of cognitive faculties and education and emotional and physical development and so on as well as their spiritual insight, enlightenment and awakening, and their context: the development of their culture and society, their cultures language, history and values in which they are situated and have developed.
Through evolution, development and growth, older religious forms of the Divine may become redundant, both for the individual and society. Forms that worked well and were appropriate for a given level of development, may, at a new level, be transcended, rendered useless or superseded. What we have here is the transmutation of forms of the Divine. The Divine itself is Formless: it has no intrinsic form, no essential form, but only that form gained by contraction or delimitation to all things. The Absolute is transcendent of form yet in all form. What is being transcended in this transmutation are certain forms of the Divine that were useful but are now archaic or rendered useless. When I say that form is being transcended or transmuted, changed from one form to another, then the old forms that are being discarded or changed may be very far reaching. They may include concepts of the Divine, forms of worship, theological, doctrinal and philosophical ideas, patterns of obedience and service and so on. What we are saying is that each society, culture and the individual has its own forms of the Divine. No form of the Divine is given as an absolute, ideal form, or as some sort of universal proto-form for all cultures or for all history. Each form is right for the time, the culture and the individual and God meets us where we are, being Immediately relevant to us, rather than demanding that we attain some standard of belief or practice.
In this situation, there is no orthodoxy, no heresy, no right belief or wrong belief other than perhaps the very broadest of brush strokes. There is each individual Pilgrim following their own path and finding that sometimes, their path runs close to or parallel with another Pilgrim’s path, whilst yet others are journeying in a completely different direction. The direction is relative to the perspective of the traveller as well as the Absolute.
Religions are so many forms of the supra formal: of That which is Transcendent of form. Only the Essence is Real but all sacred forms can be seen as aspects or modes of this Essence which both infinitely transcends them and immanently pervades them. The essence is like water – poured into and taking the shape and colour of the container (the religious form).
Despite the fact that a Pilgrim may be bound by the religious prescriptions of their own religion, all revelations should be seen as branches of the one spirituality and all the diverse conceptions of God positioned within these revelations are assimilated as so many Self-revelations of God – so many manifestations of Divine beauty, therefore revelations in religions other than one’s own are to be investigated, verified and so on.
The God that is found within the different religious traditions can be referred to as ‘the God created in belief’ or ‘the God constructed in belief’ as opposed to the intrinsic Reality of the Divine which transcends all conceptual bounds. The God constructed in belief is inevitably relative, but it is a relativity willed by the Divine in revelation.
Relativity and Absolute relativity of form
As we have seem, in relation to the Absolute, these forms are absolutely relative – wherever we look, there God is, whichever way we turn, there we see the face of God, there is nothing that exists that is not a manifestation of God – the Absolute transcends all forms and is all forms. Therefore anything that exists can lead to God – anything at all. A typical example is nature mysticism whereby just looking at a sunset, a blade of grass blowing in the wind, a mountain, the stars – anything at all – may lead to a sense of God-Immediacy. Similarly, any word, any sentence, any phrase, in sacred literature or not, may transport the reader or hearer to an Immediate sense of the Divine.
However, in any sort of deliberate practice, this does not mean that we can use any form we wish or follow any method that we wish, because in relation to other forms, the nature of our own forms are vitally important. God-with-Attributes is a relative form – a form in relation to other forms. Sacred literature is a form in relation to the form of God-with-attributes. We exist in a world of relative form and relative form is a necessary starting point for a spiritual ascent that may ultimately transcend all form in Emptiness. But relative, even illusory form is the starting point. There is also a direction in our movements and some things lead us away from experiencing God and some make it more likely that we may Immediately experience the Divine. God is in all, yet some experience God and some do not…some deny that God exists.
The forms and concepts that we use concerning the Formless inform our beliefs and orientation to the Formless. In turn, our beliefs, constructs, concepts and orientation affect our attitude – our approach and relationship not only to Absolute-as-Transcendent, but to Absolute-as-Immanent, here and now. Our beliefs, constructs, orientation, attitude and relationship to Absolute-as-Immanent, to Absolute-with-Attributes therefore affects our relationship and therefore our behaviour or action towards all things, Since all that exists is an expression of God, relationships, by definition, are of God with God-in-contraction:
1) in relation to the environment such as the universe, planet, plants and animals.
2) in relation to other people.
3) in relation to ones own self. Because a person has a relationship with themselves, they can let themselves down e.t.c.. Ultimately the True Self is God as the Ground of Being.
Forms and concepts of the Absolute filter down and inform what we think, do and say with regard to all around us and ourselves; they shape our relational attitudes and behaviour and are therefore very important.
Finding direction – Unity and Virtue
Most mystics in their experience, find that God is in all things; it is a common, perennial report of those who encounter God through all ages. There is nevertheless a direction to the Absolute. Mystics, sages and Gnostics commonly report that the Transcendent Absolute is One; Unity. All the diversity of the manifestation of creation, the ‘many-ness’ of manifestation emerges from or proceeds from this Oneness, this Unity. Oneness or Unity is the Prime Attribute of God – Oneness and Unity is where all difference, all paradox, all division and all separateness is resolved. Oneness and Unity, as the Prime Attribute, is the last attribute to be swallowed up in Attributeless-God, to be swallowed up in Emptiness. As all manifestations have proceeded from the Prime Attribute, so they will ultimately return through Unity to their True Undifferentiated Essence.
The direction often given or revealed by God then, to those who have attained or approximated Realisation is that of Unity. (Nature mysticism often comments on the underlying Unity of all creation, for example.) In terms of behaviour and practice, that which leads to Unity is the Virtuous Way, and the Virtuous Way embraces the environment, (Unity with creation), other people, (Unity with the human race), and one’s self (Unity with God-Within). These lead to Unity, (as far as is possible or comprehensible) with the Transcendent. If the Cardinal Virtue is Unity, then its opposite is Disunity – Division – Separateness – Isolation. Thus, from this Prime Polarity of Attributes (for attributes are always at least bi-polar and arranged in a hierarchy) we find clusters of secondary attributes which taken together reveal a direction and quality which has a tendency to evidence itself: a self-evident relationship (because all attributes describe relationships) with All-that-is, which guides us in our understanding and evaluation of claims concerning Divine Revelation.
This direction is intrinsic and situational. It advocates the following of inner principles in any given situation. Although Unity and it’s cluster of associated attributes can be codified into extrinsic laws, this is seen as inferior and shadowy. The intrinsic path then seeks to follow the Positive Virtues that promote Unity and Transcendence. It is an emulation of the Light of the Divine. With Unity and Disunity as the Prime Attributes, the cluster of attributes that we may include are:
It is these Unifying qualities, characteristics and relationships with all-that-is that provide some of the evidence (or evidence to the contrary) that supports (or rejects) any claims to Divine Revelation. The tendency and inclination of the writing as a whole and in particular are considered, together with effects on the recipient and its adherents. It also provides a principle of interpretation; for all sacred writings are interpreted, sometimes misinterpreted by its devotees. That which does not conform to this cluster of Unifying Attributes in all the dimensions listed above is to be considered suspect or rejected as a revelation/interpretation that purports to lead to God.
The other direction – the opposite polarity
By contrast, the downward path of following the Negative Virtues results in a different spiritual aspect as well as psychological and material aspects. To persist in the negative path is to have qualities of Ignorance, Delusion, Foolishness, Greed, Lust, Hatred, Ill-Will, Anger, Cowardice, Cruelty, War-mongering, Violence, Contempt, Lies, Deceitfulness, Betrayal, Imbalance, a delight in Ugliness, Pain, Secrecy, Injustice and Evil. Though God is in all these things, no claimed Divine Revelation that is promoting Unity with God would be admired for these qualities. They lead to Division, Separation, Isolation, Sorrow, Destruction and Preoccupation. They also lead to further Ignorance and Blindness, which in turn may feed the downward path. For there are two directions: as we have seen, each attribute has its opposite and the opposite of Unity is Division – Separateness – Isolation. This is the direction opposite to Oneness, it is the direction of contraction, it is the direction from Spirit to material, from Oneness to Many-ness, it is the direction of the rolling out of the universe, not the rolling back to God.
Degrees of attainment – length of travel
Of course, few people exhibit all these qualities (in either direction) to great degrees. But these aspects (Positive and Negative) are present in all of us to varying degrees in different circumstances and situations. Just as there can be step-by-step ascent into higher realms, there can be step-by-step descent into degradation.
Ever-changing dynamic forms
This approach means that Revelation is not a fixed, once-and-for-all event or process in the past that has now ceased and remains fossilized in ancient traditions that have out-of-date pre-modern mindsets and world-views. On the contrary, it reveals a continued dynamic relationship with the Divine: a Theomorphic Divinity, that is, a Formless Essence Who changes and modifies the forms by which it/he/she is revealed, forms which we use and co-create to conceptualise the Formless; forms changed and modified to suit and apply to and remain relevant to our changing cultures, situations, economic and political structures, contexts, history, development, knowledge, understanding, relationships and so on. No form is fixed but there is this underlying direction to Unity, Oneness as the direction to Transcendence.
Spirituality and morality
It should also be noted that this is not primarily a moral or ethical system. It is primarily a spiritual method, approach and principle for adherents seeking to evaluate claims of revelation and inspiration and to attain Enlightenment, Realisation and Transcendence. Morality and Ethics are a secondary effect, a by-product of spiritual discipline and practice, as are environmental concerns and one’s relationship to creation and one’s own self, one’s own body. It is spirituality and it’s forms that give Absolute meaning and value to these aspects of form.
Suffering can be defined as a physical quality of discomfort and pain and mental or emotional quality of anguish, anxiety and concern, though it not exactly the same as illness or disease. In spiritual terms, suffering arises from the contraction of the Formless Divine into material forms and expressions. It is further aggravated by the experience of the individual self, who is bound up in Ignorance which itself is a product of this contraction of the Divine. This Ignorance, which is inherent in all of us, gives rise to Illusions: to mistaken perceptions of what reality is. We mistake the material, physical world to be the ultimate and only reality. If we accept the existence of the Divine, our understanding of God is usually mistaken and inadequate.
Those who perform acts of cruelty and wickedness, causing the suffering of others, follow a path of further contraction and thus act more like animals – they abandon not only their higher expansiveness, their True Nature, in pursuit of more contracted interests, but they also abandon their humanity, their humanness, to act like animals. This suffering, pain and anxiety is indeed tragic when viewed from the position of Ignorance, where a person is seen only as a mind housed in a body; and the material world as the only reality. However, in spirituality, everything is contracted-God, it is God who is set against God in these matters and at the end of time, Balance and Unity of God-As-Spirit will be restored.
Operating from the bounded, materialist perspective of Ignorance, which is a position of blindness to spiritual things, those who cause such suffering arouse a sense of vengeance and retribution, and a sense of crimes and punishments. For example, America sees the cruelty, suffering and pain inflicted on it’s fellow citizens by terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers, and it’s war against terrorism is driven, or at least fed by what is seen as a major crime and the need for justice and punishment under the law.
The problem of pain, suffering and evil in relation to God is a perennial one for nearly all religions and theologies. ‘How can God let this happen to me?’ is a common expression of the frustration, pain or anger that may come with suffering, be it physical or mental or both. We may look around us and see either directly or via the media, some of the terrible suffering that takes place in the world and begin to question: ‘How can an all-loving, all-powerful God allow this to happen?’. These questions often assume a certain view of what God is like: all-loving, all-powerful. Some of these assumptions are an erroneous perception of the Divine, a perception of God that arises from Ignorance. We personalise God and tend to think of God as a Big-Person-In-The-Sky, or Big-Consciousness-In-The-Sky, who is able to intervene and assist e.t.c, e.t.c. We use human-like terms to describe God as having a Voice, speaking to us, watching over us, or give God a gender, sometimes referring to God as He, or Him, or Father. In the same way, we tend to think of the post death state as being like an extension of earthly society, with communities, Judgments and so on. But death is not like this and God is not like this either. Absolute God is Formless, yet in order to communicate and understand Absolute God, we use concepts and language that gives God form. But such forms are an extension of what we know, a projection of what we understand, heavily tainted by our culture and experience. Ultimately, these forms do not matter, for God transcends them all. This is a common question: How can a God of Love allow this…? But Absolute God is above the polarity of Good and Evil, of Love and Hate. God is beyond Good and Evil, transcending such forms and concepts. God is also in all things. Without God, nothing can exist, for all things are God contracted to a span.
However in contracting from Transcendent Formless Spirit to distinct and separate expressions God is indeed the Author of suffering and division. How can it be any other way if this is so? If all things are God contracted to a span and nothing can exist without God, then God is in the light and the dark, in the good and the evil. If God chooses to be divided against God in the process of contraction to form, then so be it. Echoing the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans, ‘Who are we, as God in mere contracted, material form, to answer back to God as Absolute Spirit?’. God is only accountable to Absolute God. It is part of the nature of contraction of the Formless to form that suffering and pain arises. If there is Light, so there is Dark. Malfunctions, accidents and diseases occur naturally as part of the material nature of contraction. This is not to say that we should not attempt to alleviate suffering, pain and illness. Of course, we should. But what I am saying is that suffering and pain is part of and inherent in this contraction to form.
We also perceive suffering as a problem when we view it from the bounded, material, contracted, ego self-sense. If we think that the material universe is all that there is in existence, then our physical suffering and pain and even our mental anguish is viewed as a real tragedy. This is even more aggravated when we identify ourselves with this bounded self-sense. If we see ourselves as being only a physical body, as only a material organism in a material world, then what hope have we got when disease or suffering arise? When we identify ourselves as just a material organism in this way, all that we are is invested in a living physical body that at some point will die and decay and which may also suffer pain and malfunction along the way. No wonder the theme of suffering becomes so connected with the theme of justice, for what greater crime is there in such a world-view, than to be robbed of our health, well-being or life, never mind our possessions. But judging the world by these material and non spiritual standards itself causes pain. Pain is a Dark Virtue that leads to sorrow and destruction and leads away from God. How can this be since God is in all things including the Dark Virtues? What is meant is that pain leads us away from our experience of God-Immediacy and leads us to a way of increased contraction, to focussing on the material or to rebellion.
We can note two solutions:
a) We must move from identifying with our bounded self, because this is only a partial and restricted view of what we are. We are much more that a material organism, we are, in fact, God contracted in space and time: our true nature is God. There is more to existence than the mere physical and material and the spiritual perspective gives us other views and considerations. There are things beyond the physical which transcend the material level and its restrictions. When the body suffers and begins to decline, it is by no means the end.
b) Unity will be restored will be restored at the end of time. In the beginning there was God-as-Spirit and at the end of time, there will be God-as-Spirit. As the universe was rolled out, so it will be rolled up again and all that is will return to the Unity and Bliss of Absolute God-as-Spirit. There will be no division and no contraction, only the expansiveness of transcendent Spirit.
The Pilgrim’s lot in this world then is not one of being protected in some sort of God-made bubble or cocoon of special or individual providence that protects from suffering and wickedness. Indeed, rather, God is the Author of suffering, for in contraction not only ignorance arose but also loss of Unity into separation and division. God is not fragmented, but contracted expressions are separated and divided like spray on the ocean. The water that forms spray does not change in nature from the water that makes up the ocean, neither does spray cease to be the ocean, but for a moment it is separated and divided. The Pilgrim lives in a world where contracted-God is set against contracted-God. Humans obtain Unity with the Absolute at death. Complete Unity will only be restored at the consummation and unfolding of all the Cosmos into the Absolute.
Is there a Final Judgment, or a principle of Karma and Samsara?
Many religions share an idea of some sort of Final Judgment or need to be morally right before one is accepted by the Divine or achieves union with the Divine, such as the idea of karma and samsara: where moral acts have positive or negative aspects which accrue over a number of lifetimes until all negative aspects are removed and one attains release. The Inner Path rejects such ideas and declares that they are used to justify moral codes in the material world. As one Journal records: ‘Some religions hold to the idea of Karma, the idea that a person almost endlessly recycles through death and reincarnation until at last they achieve release. But this is a mistake. I have already indicated to you that at death, God returns to God.’ Then it goes on to say: ‘Look at the dispute in some religions concerning creation and evolution. Some cling tenaciously to creation ideas, because, in their eyes, to argue for evolution is to argue for chance, randomness and lack of moral authority. This lack of moral authority is the hub of their argument. They argue that God has created mature human beings, because the alternative to them is no God, mere chance and above all, no moral or spiritual authority. But they need moral authority. This need for moral authority and high moral standards also informs the practice of Karma..
So it is also with the idea of a Final Judgment: ‘There is no Final Judgment, no standing before God’s Great Throne to be cast into everlasting punishment or bliss. The idea of everlasting punishment, or of needing to live a moral life in order to merge with or enter into the presence of God is born out of a need for moral authority.’. In other words, ideas like Karma, Samsara and Final Judgment by God arise out of a fear of moral breakdown in society: ‘When some human beings sense that there is no moral authority, they fear that society may plunge into moral chaos and seek to impose sanctions on undesirable behaviour. To give their sanctions authority they look to God: If you are not good, God will punish you, or you will not achieve unity with God, but come back again and again and again until you achieve purity. Furthermore, if you are not good, you may come back as a worm or snake. These are all attempts by humans in Ignorance to induce and instill an authoritative moral code, and what higher moral authority than God? So they claim God’s authority for their statements and ideas.’.
It a number of areas this view varies with some of the Eastern traditions that the Inner Path otherwise finds unity with. a) Like Gnosticism, and the Indian Sant tradition, it does not restrict itself to any Scriptures, though it may draw from them; unlike Sufism and Advaita Vedanta, which are constrained by Scriptures such as the Upanishads or Koran. Shankara’s ideas arise out of commentaries on the Scriptures for example. Rather the Intrinsic spirituality emphasizes personal immediate revelatory experience of the Divine as its prime source of authority. Like Gnosticism, it stresses novel or new forms of the Divine, which should be understood metaphorically or allegorically. As such it is not orthodox. b) Like Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta, Meister Eckhart’s Christian mysticism, and to a great degree Ibn al-Arabi’s Sufism, as well as Buddhism, the Intrinsic spirituality emphasizes the Unknowability and Emptiness of the Divine. Like all these, except Buddhism, it stresses the Divine as a Conscious Entity-Being, as opposed to Nothingness or Non-Existence. c) Unlike any of the above traditions, the intrinsic spirituality regards ideas of Karma, Samsara, and Final Judgment as mistakes. Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta both subscribe to Karma and Samsara: the cycles of birth and rebirth until free from the negative bias of one’s actions. Eckhart, as a Christian would accept the Final Judgment. In the same way, Ibn al-Arabi accepted resurrection and Final Judgment, in a form of what Christians may understand as a covenant of works. In other words, at the end of the age, all humanity faces God and receives rewards and punishments according to what they have done. For Arabi, the Mercy of God (with attributes) was superior to all other attributes, and thus eventually, after what may be a very long time, the punishment would be met and all will find Mercy in God. Interestingly, Eliot Deutsch’s philosophical reconstruction of Advaita Vedanta also rejects Karma and Samsara. Therefore unlike most religious systems, morality in Intrinsic Spirituality is placed not at the heart of the system, but on the periphery. d) Like Advaita Vedanta, the Intrinsic Spirituality stresses that Atman and Brahman, that Self and Absolute are one, that the whole universe is in fact a manifestation of the Divine. Similar thoughts can be found in Meister Eckhart’s writings. Ibn al-Arabi it seems wavers between this idea and the idea of some duality, with creation as God’s Word, perhaps, like Eckhart, under pressure to appear orthodox. (Eckhart was eventually charged with heresy).
Is Worship, Praise and adoration of God necessary?
All the religions that I can think of have this element or aspect to them of praise, adoration and worship, indeed, it may even be one of their primary functions. As the Westminster Confession of Faith says in its first paragraph: ‘The chief end of man is to glorify God….’. All the major religions emphasise worship and praise: it is almost assumed that this takes place. Only Buddhism serves as an example to the contrary. Buddhists do not accept the Absolute Divine Consciousness, or Being, but rather emphasise Emptiness or Nothingness. This is why Buddhism is sometimes not regarded as a religion.
A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH
Intrinsic spirituality, the Inner path, is critical of the worship of objects. This is typified in one spiritual journal by a woman nature worshipper: ‘A woman bowed to the ground, praising and worshipping a small tree sapling, whilst others clapped as the moon waxed and waned overhead. “These people worship the sun, moon, stars and earth.” said Michael, “But God is not a tree, or a sun, or moon. God is in all these things but is not any of them.”. What is criticized here is the idea that any object, or form can encapsulate the Divine. In essence, all objects are undiluted, unfragmented Absolute, but in expression as form, they are delimited aspects of the Divine. Therefore to worship an object or form as Divine is to worship a delimited aspect of the Absolute.
Worship and its forms may also be something that is defined by humans, and especially by orthodox thinkers, who are often portrayed by those following the Inner Path as isolationist, separatist and autocratic. This is parodied in the same Journal by the picture of one preacher in particular: ‘One preacher stood high in the pulpit at the front of the church, with a whip in his hand, which he used viciously if anyone stepped out of line, or if they appeared to lose interest, or if anyone dared to express a view different to the one he expressed. He told his group how to worship God, and how to serve and obey God. He told them all to have nothing to do with the other groups in the church’.
Sometimes, the whole concept of service and worship may be dismissed: ‘Effort, sacrifice and service do not find God. These are the ideas of another generation: the whole concept of serving God, of God demanding worship and adoration, of the need to obey commands, of service and obedience, are all mistaken ideas.’ And again: “Many of those who find themselves on the Golden Way wish to have feast days, celebrations and festivities; special days that mark their journey or aspects of God that they have come to love and understand, or days when they can re-focus on dedicating themselves to the Way. But God gives none of these. God does not need to be worshipped. Rather, they arise from different cultures and traditions within those cultures.”
The idea of worship then is relegated to more primitive concepts and ideas arising from cultures and societies. Ceremonies and festivals of worship have not been ordained, appointed or fixed by the Divine. They do not carry that weight of Authority. The statement that God does not need to be worshipped, has more in common with Buddhism, but unlike Buddhism, intrinsic spirituality does not accept Emptiness and Nothingness as a negation of Divine Being or Consciousness. The view of the Absolute is more like Shankara’s in the Advaita Vedanta system of Hinduism, or like Ibn al-Arabi’s view of the Essence or Absolute in Sufism: that of a Transcendent Attributeless, Formless Spirit.
Spirituality may emphasise individual personal revelation, mysticism, Gnosticism, Immediate Experience or tasting of the Divine as the source of spiritual authority. It often stresses an intrinsic experience rather than an extrinsic one. All the previous questions have considered external sources of spiritual authority: Scripture and sacred writing, Tradition, Ritual and ceremony, Rules, Laws, and Moral Codes, Teachers, Leaders, Founders of movements, Gurus e.t.c., Ideology, Theology, Philosophy, Rationality, Community and Fellowship, Angels, Spiritual. Intrinsic spirituality offers individual and personal resonance and relevance: God meets us where we are. This intrinsic, personal revelation takes primacy and precedence over the external means I have listed above. The external means are not necessarily rejected, but they are seen as inferior, shadows, Illusionary, and potentially restricting, burdensome and a hindrance in the spiritual walk, even dangerous.
It is important to stress that intrinsic manifestations and forms of the Divine are partial: they are relative views from a particular perspective. More than this they are symbols and allegories of That which cannot be understood or encompassed. Such symbols should not be reified, or turned into concrete existing objects-out-there which are capable of exerting an influence over us.
Intrinsic spirituality stresses knowledge: immediate knowledge, a tasting or experience over and against faith. The world’s religions are often talked about in terms of world faiths, but intrinsic spirituality does not use the word ‘faith’ except in critical reference to martyrdom and ideology. It does not talk about faith and belief, but about knowing, tasting and an experience of the Divine. Thus one Pilgrim in their Journal records: ‘I asked what the Dark Hills and Valley were. “It is the darkness of Ignorance.” said the Faithful Brother. “Those who do not come through the Valley remain in ignorance, they have never seen, they do not know, they have never tasted and rest satisfied in empty things.” And again, “But your eyes have seen, and your ears heard. You have tasted the Immediacy of God.”. And yet again: ‘In being enlightened by this teaching you find yourself in two worlds. You have seen and tasted that you are God. You have experienced the Immediacy of God and your perspective and vision has been correspondingly widened.’ And once more: “In the Immediacy of God, our concepts and understanding are deepened, yet they are transcended”. Thus it is that theology, or spiritual philosophy arises from these experiences of the Divine.
This kind of thought places intrinsic spirituality in the tradition of enthusiasm with regard to religious and spiritual movements. The word ‘enthusiasm’ was originally a critical and negative term and has been applied to a wide diversity of movements such as religious revivals, Quakers, the Charismatic movement, Mysticism, Gnosticism and so on and is usually used by those who place emphasis on rationalism and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy and rationalism will never sit easily with enthusiasm. The reliance on personal revelation and experience is non rational or irrational to the rationalist, and is a rival authority to the orthodox, who want to confine their spirituality to certain sets of sacred literature and tradition which they have selected. Thus such ideas of personal revelation are dismissed by the orthodox and rationalist as vain belief, feverish imagination and exaltation of fancy, or even the work of the devil. However, to take Christianity as an example, the Apostle Paul put his revelation of Christ at the Damascus road on an equal footing to encounters with Jesus by the other disciples: he needed no further authority or any sanction from the other apostles. He did not try to justify his experience. (See Armstrong, K. (1983) ‘The first Christian. St. Paul’s impact on Christianty’. Pan London p.55). This teaching, which Paul received directly from God, makes up most of the new testament literature. Thus, orthodoxy itself is based upon such claims to revelation and the contents of such revelations. If orthodoxy is to dismiss subsequent revelations then it has to show: a) That such revelation has indeed ceased, or, b) That later revelations, if they do exist, are somehow inferior to Scriptural ones, and how and why they are inferior. c) That their revelation is right and that other claimed revelations are wrong, together with principles of assessment. Remember, orthodoxy only seems united because it effectively stifles alternative revelations such as the Gnostic gospels, by banning and outlawing such literature and punishing those who advocated them as heretics and blasphemers.
In his book ‘Interpreting charismatic experience’ (SCM Press) David Middlemiss looks at some of the qualities of groups that are accused of enthusiasm. Some of these qualities are positive, some of them are negative. He suggests that: a) They claim to restore primitive or pure spirituality. b) They are denounced and opposed by mainstream (orthodox) groups. c) They often become schismatic and divided. (Contradictory reified forms) d) The supernatural is an expected part of life. e) A transformation of the personality is expected. f) There is a separation from the material or worldly and a desire for purity. g) Spirituality is an affair of the heart (intrinsic) as opposed to outward (extrinsic) traditional form. h) There is an impatience for grace, for heaven on earth now. i) Direct insight and experience of God (Immediacy) may be accompanied by a degrading of human reason. j) The enthusiast has a new status and authority k) The enthusiast always hankers after theocracy. (God ruling society) l) Such a group may retreat into the wilderness to set up its own society and sub culture. m) There may be a conviction that the end of the world, and thus the new age, is shortly to be expected. n) There may be a host of unusual phenomena (tingling of hands, weeping, laughing, falling over, changes in breathing e.t.c.).
Intrinsic spirituality then, gives primary importance to experience, to the immediate experience of the Divine. Its perspective, its philosophy, is justified mainly on these terms which are presented as relative perspectives on the Formless. Middlemiss suggests that any belief can be justified on these grounds, that in fact, in some groups, there is the idea that the less ground there is for faith, the better the faith is, which he suggests is insane. Intrinsic spirituality does not talk about faith but about knowing through experience. It argues that the Ground of knowledge about the Divine is through experience and that the beliefs, philosophy, doctrine and theology that is declared is accountable to this experience. That is why there is sometimes quite a bit of talk about faithfully recording what was seen, or heard, or experienced. Intrinsic spirituality agrees with Sufi Ibn al-Arabi, that ultimately, people worship their own beliefs, their own forms of the Divine which arise from such experiences and which are in fact nothing more than projections of form onto the Formless Unknowable Absolute. It argues that these forms are metaphors and that it is a mistake to reify them: to turn these forms into concrete, independently existing realities and objects. This experience cannot be verified, any more than I can verify to you that I got wet in the rain yesterday. But I know I got wet – I experienced it.
Middlemiss, in looking at justification for belief, declares that this branch of philosophy, (called epistemology), is in crisis. He eventually argues, after a critical survey of different approaches, that to rely on just one criteria is problematic and that though none of them, by themselves, are fully waterproof as it were, the more criteria that are taken together, the better the support. It is like taking three cups each with a hole in them. Put them inside one another and they will hold water better.
The views expressed here are very consistent with core ideas exemplified by the Islamic Sufi Ibn al-Arabi, the Sheik of Sheiks, and the Sufi poet Rumi, with Samkara, or Shankara and the Hindu system of Advaita Vedanta. These are leading and respected thinkers in their own areas and so this view is not unique or entirely novel, but shares thoughts and ideas with these Masters. It also shares some similarities with Christian Mystic Meister Eckhart, and with Neoplatonism. Ken Wilber’s influence is also seen.
This intrinsic spirituality, as exemplified in the articles on this and other blogs has both internal consistency and fits external facts. Ii is not anti-rational: this whole blog is dedicated to discussion and evaluation of these issues. This article itself is an attempt at rational discussion and evaluation. Intrinsic spirituality also has a general philosophy: it has an expansive explanation, yet retains a certain simplicity and elegance in its philosophy. It sits alongside mechanistic claims and explanations, such as evolution. It argues against theological monopolies and orthodoxy and is tolerant of multiple theologies, even contradiction and paradox. It does not advocate syncretism, but allows for cultural and temporal differences with its view of relativism and perspectivism. With regard to spirituality and issues such as healing, wealth/poverty, peace/joy/happiness, success, unusualness, the safety/danger of its ideas and experience, it is ambivalent or silent. It advocates balance, proportion, symmetry, simplicity, elegance and the fruit of love, peace and unity - the positive virtues, although in fact, it inevitably makes divisions and distinctions. It is related to fideism, which bases faith in experience, but as already indicated, intrinsic spirituality does not talk about faith, but rather knowledge.
Unlike most religious, occult and spiritual traditions, the author of this blog emphatically denies the existence of spirit beings. There are no spirits, there is only God, manifest in many ways, each appropriate to different people at different times, locations and cultures. There is no such being as Satan, nor is there a realm of evil spirits arrayed in principalities and powers. There are only light and dark Virtues. The fears and terrors of the human heart create devils and demons. Similarly, the spirits of dead people do not continue to exist after death: You are judging things by material and worldly standards. How much pain people cause! Death is not what you think! You are thinking that when someone dies, they continue to exist in some spiritual form after death, caught up into some sort of spiritual society, mingling with the spirits of other people that they met on earth, as though this is some kind of extension of the material world. This is not what death is like. In death all things are become new. You have heard it said that in heaven there is no giving of people in marriage, and this is true. All these earthly ways cease. Heaven is not a spiritual earth, with its law courts and judgments and other institutions. It is not an extension of earth but a completely different realm. But it is true that the Spirit returns to God because the Spirit is God. God is in us all and is Imperishable, Indestructible and cannot die. Therefore, when a person dies, God returns to God.
The danger is that these manifestations of God in the imagination, these fears and terrors of the human heart, this judging of things by material and worldly standards may be reified: that is, an abstract concept or emergent quality may be turned into a concrete object, considered as actually existing ‘out there’. For example a manifestation of God may be turned into an external God or Deity, which is then seen as being capable of acting on the subject. Or it may be turned into a Guardian Angel, a demon, a ghost, the spirit of a dead person and so on. I do not advocate such an idea. Rather I emphasise the imagination as a peninsula between the material and the spiritual, as a realm where God meets us where we are.
Welcome to Spiritual Basics! This blog consists of a number of short articles by Pilgrim Simon addressing common questions about spirituality and the spiritual life. Use the labels below of the archive below that to find articles of interest. If you are starting out on the spiritual quest, then try http://startingspirituality.blogspot.com/
About Me
Pilgrim Simon
Freely sharing spirituality on the web. Check out the blog 'God Blog Spot' to begin with.
