What Comes After Religion? - Transcript and Annotations

 

School of Life: What Comes After Religion? (Please watch the video first!)

Published: Feb 4, 2015

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL--1Z_g4DE&list=PLV7Diz4DTv4mnAutv5CEqN7Y9HRKmejor&index=18

Accessed: 2021-02-01

(The main text is a transcript of the ‘School of Life’ video. Sub-headings and parts in blue are my own annotations. The concluding reflections are also my own)

Secularization

Fewer and fewer people believe nowadays. It's possible that in a generation, there simply won't be religion across Europe and large sections of North America, Australia and Asia. That 's not necessarily a problem.

Above, we find a brief description of the rapid process of secularization taking place in the so-called “developed world.” Of course, institutional religions think that this loss of faith and belief is a problem. How do you see the matter? Is the demise of religious belief and institutional religions a problem?

Why Religions were/are Important

But it's worth thinking about why people made up religion in the first place and what we're doing with the needs and longings that led them to do so. 

Examining the origins of religion and what were/are the human needs that religions have met in human history --- is a very important task!

At one level, religions are about asking us to believe in something. And when people say they can't believe, they tend to stop right there with the whole religion business. And often point out all the horrid things that religions have undoubtedly done and continue to do. But in this sense, belief is almost the least important and definitely the least interesting side of religion.

“Religious belief” often involves trying to give our intellectual assent to mythological ideas that cannot be proved by science (or has been disproved) by science.

The Valuable Things Religions Teach even in a Secularized World

What's fascinating is all the other stuff religions get up to. For example, the way they regularly gather people around and, strikingly, tell them to be nice to one another. Or the way they create a sense of community, acting as hosts, making sure that granny and the child, the big chief and the little guy learn to see each other as human beings rather than abstract entities.

Religions use rituals to point stuff out to us and lodge it in our fickle minds. For example, that the seasons are changing or that it's the time to remember your ancestors. That the moon looks pretty or you can atone and make a fresh start or that it's rather amazing that there's food on the table. Religions know we're not just intellectual creatures so they carefully appeal to us via art and beauty. We think of beauty in one category a frivolous and superficial thing, and truth and depth in an another. Religions join them together. They build temples, cathedrals, and mosques that use beauty to lend depth to important ideas. They use the resources of art to remind us of what matters. Their art is didactic. It's directed at making us feel things: calm, pity, awe ---

Those are the things (above) that—the School of Life’ thinks—are the valuable lessons we can learn from religions which we ought to continue practicing today, even in a secular age. The following statements below are why we still need the things that religions used to and still deliver to its adherents.

We may no longer believe, but the needs and longings that made us make up these stories go on. We're lonely and violent. We long for beauty, wisdom, and purpose. We want to live for something more than just ourselves.

Below we find critiques of the superficiality and inadequateness of contemporary society from ‘the School of Life’

What Modern Society Focuses On

Society tells us to direct our hopes in two areas: Romantic love and professional success. And it distracts us with news, movies, and consumption. It's not enough, as we know. Especially at three in the morning.

The Lessons We Need to Learn

We need reminders to be good, places to reawaken awe, something to awaken our kinder, less selfish impulses. Universal things which need tending like delicate flowers and rituals that bring us together. The choice isn't between religion and a secular world as it is now.

 The challenge is to learn from religions so we can fill the secular world with replacements for the things we long ago made up religion to provide. The challenge begins here.

***

Some Concluding Comments (by jkk)

On the one hand, the ‘School of Life’ adheres to an atheistic, materialistic worldview. It does not believe that there is any “Greater Power” (such as God, the Spirit, the Holy) out there. On the other hand, it thinks that there are many valuable things we can continue to learn from religions aside from the supernatural claims (which it does not believe).

My own (as well as many other “scholar-believers”) position is a bit different. I continue to hold that a standpoint of faith (in a Greater Something or “God,” if you will) is still possible and even important today, even for someone who believes in the value of science and progress but is also aware of its limitation. My definition of faith is that it is primarily a trust in the goodness of reality and life – that trust is often linked with a greater power, but it need not be. It is enough to hope that there is some greater power with which all of us are connected (For a more detailed description, see: https://spiritual-notandyet-religious-jkk.blogspot.com/2020/04/part-3-epidemics-and-god-covid-19.html )

I absolutely agree with scholar-spiritual practitioner Roger Walsh MD, PhD that if we think of life and reality as—in his words—“disenchanted” (just material) as ‘the School of Life’ does, we run the risk of living in a world devoid of meaning and significance. That would lead to us feeling adrift, without any sense of a higher purpose. That, in turn, would lead to more meaninglessness and depression. (See Walsh, Essential Spirituality, 1999, pp. 195-196)

I do agree with ‘the School of Life’ though that religions over-emphasize mythological beliefs. This is a problem for contemporary people who live in a world with an advanced level of science and critical thought. I am, therefore, also for shifting the emphasis on—what the same Roger Walsh—calls “transconventional religion” (I’ll write more extensively about this in a future post) with a greater emphasis on ethical and spiritual practice that would enable one to have genuine “awakening” experiences. These in turn will lead to a deeper experiential sense of the “spiritual” unity of everyone and everything. And that is the core truth that all spiritual-wisdom traditions (aka, the religions) teach.

---

Why Religion and Spirituality Matter as Part of One’s Education

Why not Take a Course on Religion-Spirituality?

[#1] The Meaning of Key Terms and Expressions Here

[A] When I mention religion here, I do not primarily mean <participating in an "organized religious tradition"> (such as being a member of Roman Catholicism or Islam - although that might be good for some people). By “religion” I refer, first of all, to what is the heart of all religion: spirituality. "Spirituality" is basically what is in our deepest core: it is the life-force that animates and drives us; it is not scientifically quantifiable. It is from one's spirituality that we draw the energy (“the spirit”) to pursue meaning in life. It is also in spirituality where—the great Traditions point out—we can find our fundamental goodness as humans. This is expressed for example as Imago Dei [Image of God] in Judaism and Christianity or “Buddha Nature” in Buddhism”. I will, therefore, use the term "religion-spirituality" (taken as one, singular entity) to emphasize all the things mentioned above.

[B] To explain further, by spirituality, I also mean the deep drive--hardwired in humans--to search for MEANING. There is a very strong drive found in humans to search for their deepest, most genuine, and authentically good desires (I’ll call this "Depth") and, at the same time, there is also an equally strong drive to pursue something bigger than themselves, something beyond our small and (often) selfish EGOs. I’ll refer to this as "Self-Transcendence." Spirituality then is: the human quest for meaning by acquiring greater depth and transcendence. That is actually also my working definition for “religion” itself because that could be a description of the heart and core of any authentic religion. This quest for meaning, depth and transcendence has been engaged in for most of human history within the context of concrete religious traditions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Today, however, more and more people do not feel the need to belong to a religious tradition to be on a spiritual quest.

[C] The “Open-Mindedness” I suggest for Studying Religion.  I think it would be optimal if a person who wants to study religion-spirituality is also a “seeker.” A seeker—we can say—is someone who seeks to live life not superficially (as many do) but at a deeper, more authentic level. In effect, that would mean—at the minimum level—not accepting an uncritical scientific dogmatism (the idea that “only what can be scientifically proven is true”) but instead being open to at least the possibility that there is Something Bigger (or Greater) than what conventional science can verify. I think that this is the best attitude to have as one takes a course on religion…

In other words, this is a position that deeply values modern science but rejects “scientism” (the quasi-dogmatic belief that the only truly real things are what science can prove). More proactively, it means making the effort to cultivate some kind of "spirituality" in oneself. For some, it means considering oneself an active adherent of a religious tradition.

If that is not possible for you, then, at the very minimum, I suggest a healthy curiosity and openness to study human religiosity and what positive and negative roles it has and continues to play in human society, culture, and civilization.

Resource: See Huston Smith’s thoughts on “the religious sense”

***

[#2] Our Primary Question: Why Does Religion-Spirituality Matter?

With that we can now ask: Why does religion-spirituality still matter? In a learning environment such as the university, this is connected with the question: Why is it good to study religion-spirituality or even, why is it beneficial to be religiously "literate"?

To make that more existential or more applicable to concrete life itself, we can also ask at a deeper level: Why is it a positive thing to have a "religious-spiritual" sense or a “religious outlook” on life? Why is it good to cultivate some kind of "spirituality" in oneself? Below are some responses to those key questions as we start this course in religious studies.

Let’s start with a sociological, historical, and cultural reason for studying religion.

[#3] Religion-Spirituality has been a vital and integral part of human reality for most of humanity’s history and across all human cultures. It continues to be so for the majority of people in the world today.

A religious outlook on life has been the standard worldview of almost everyone for most of human history in all human civilizations. It continues to be so today for most of the world’s population (according to some estimates, at least 70% of the world's inhabitants still consider themselves “religious”). However, it is in the so-called "developed" countries that religion is widely considered "unenlightened" or “backward” by an increasing number of people. Nevertheless, if one seeks to understand how almost all people who have lived in the past and how most people even in the present, think and view the world, one definitely has to study religion. So, do you want to understand the foundations of your culture and civilization (yes, that includes this supposedly “enlightened” Western culture and civilization!)? Studying religion and being religiously “literate” about the great world religions and their positive as well as negative effects on human civilizations, cultures, and societies is an essential task.

Resources: Former US Secretary of State John Kerry famously said that if he went back to College today, he would major in comparative religions. (In this LINK, it is found around the 10th minute mark) 

Let’s go now to a deeper, existential reason for pursuing a more serious engagement with religion-spirituality.

[#4] It is Religion-Spirituality (taken here as a single, holistic, and integral area) that can more adequately deal with the questions that are most important for humans, namely: What would
enable me/us to find higher meaning, genuine non-egocentric self-fulfillment, depth and transcendence?

In psychologist Abraham Maslow's widely used "hierarchy of needs,” (School of Life version) the more basic needs of humans (such as physiological and safety needs) are located at the lower levels of the pyramid. This is not to say that they are unimportant. In fact, they are supremely important as a foundation because if these primary needs are not met, humans will not even realize that they have “higher” and more noble needs.

It is seldom mentioned that for all the importance given to the so-called STEM areas (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) in higher education today, these fields are meant to meet areas of human life that belong to the more basic, “lower” human needs in Maslow’s scheme. The fact of the matter is that science (and related areas) is largely incapable of responding to “higher” human needs such as love and belonging, emotional maturity, self-actualization (the highest need), as well as the deepest existential questions of life.

What then can respond more adequately to these “higher” or “deeper” perplexing issues? I must say that it is the humanities (philosophy, literature, history, art, psychology, etc.) that could deal in a better way with these questions. And within the humanities, it is obviously religion-spirituality as a more integral discipline that is—one can say—most capable of responding to humanity’s higher and deeper questions, needs, and aspirations.

 

[#5] Know the Limits of Science!  One important skill to learn at the university is how to more clearly discern different “domains” -- such as which domains of life are more proper to science (and related areas) and which ones are more proper to Religion-Spirituality and other fields in the humanities.  Although we live in a world that prioritizes empirical science (and its applications such as technology and engineering) above all else, it is rarely acknowledged that although science works wonderfully with the things that properly belong to its domain, it has severe limitations in areas beyond its domains, such as existential and ultimate meanings, purpose, values, etc. These questions are normally "beyond" science and "more properly" religious-spiritual and philosophical. 

The late scholar of religion, Huston Smith frequently decried "scientism" (not science itself!). Scientism is the intellectual position that holds that the only truly valuable things to learn and know in life can ONLY be taught by science. In other words, scientism is the fallacious thinking that what science has turned up or can turn up is the sum of all that is. That is simply not true, as any true scientist will admit.

Smith, for example, clarified that science cannot handle some of the following, crucially important matters for human life:

1. Values in their final and proper sense, for example, Why should we have integrity?
2. Existential and global meanings: for example, Why am I depressed? What is the meaning of life?;
3. Final causes: for example, What is the ultimate meaning of it all?;
4. The “Invisible”: We're not talking of "invisibles" that can affect matter (e.g., magnetism) but invisible entities such as thoughts, love, even spirits, ghosts, etc. (if those things exist). These are outside of the realm of science
5. Quality (not quantifiable quality such as the material indicators of the quality of life but ...) = spiritual, philosophical and existential "quality”, such as, the quality of my life in terms of love, contentment, happiness, purpose or meaning
6. Our "superiors" – this refers to anything superior to our material reality (no offence to materialists but it is considered the "inferior" realm in this scheme) that cannot be measured by our conventional scientific methods at this point (if such things exist) such as angels, God, non-bodily beings, etc. 

In another place, Smith clearly points out: "We have not discovered anything that conclusively proves that beings greater than us [our “superiors”] do not exist." This illustrates the principle that science cannot deal with its "superiors" – that is, possible realities that are greater than material reality. These beings (if they exist) are, at this point, beyond conventional scientific methods and even if they do exist, science cannot discover them at this point.

 

[#6] Epistemic Humility. One clear mark that someone has integrity is that they are aware of their limitations. That can be called “epistemic humility” – a humble acknowledgement of the limits of one’s knowledge. A true scientist is well aware of the limits of science. When someone claims that the only real things are limited to what we can see and touch, there is no epistemic humility there and, therefore, no integrity as well.

What field can handle the things that conventional science cannot deal with? Again, it is religion-spirituality taken as an integral discipline that includes not only religion in the narrow sense but also disciplines such as philosophy, art, literature, history, and psychology practiced within a worldview that is open to the possibility that the TOTALITY of REALITY is so much bigger and greater than the material realm.

 

[#7] The God Question.  The Abrahamic religions that we are more familiar with in the West (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have historically given a central place to the question of “God”—believed to be an Omnipotent Being who created everything and continues to sustain them. When religion is discussed here in the West, therefore, foremost in people’s minds is usually the burning question: Does God really exist? 

It is noteworthy, however, that the discipline called the philosophy of religion teaches us that there is no 100% perfect or conclusive way to convince everyone about the reality of God’s existence. In fact, the plain truth is that, from a philosophical standpoint, although there are seemingly valid reasons for continued belief in God (for religious faith), there are also sufficient reasons for agnosticism and even atheism.

Agnosticism (the position that says: No one really knows for certain that God exists)—I personally think—can be a position of integrity. Moreover, a sincere “open to listen to different positions” kind of atheism can likewise be a standpoint of integrity. However, a vicious and intolerant atheism that is ironically "dogmatically held" goes against "epistemic humility" (Recall that this means: I am aware of the limits of my knowledge). I consider epistemic humility as a crucial indication of integrity in those seeking for truth and knowledge. I therefore consider this kind of atheism an unhelpful and even dishonest position.

At the other end of the spectrum, a vicious, blind, "too convinced," and equally intolerant "faith stance" is also unhelpful and dishonest because it likewise goes against--the abovementioned--epistemic humility.

 

[#8] Religion and the human quest to understand the TOTALITY of things, “the Big Picture”

Personally, and as a scholar of religion and theology, I do not think that the question “Does God really exist?” is the most important issue in the study of religion. It is—I suggest—a secondary question in terms of importance. Besides, since there can be no conclusive way to answer this question, pursuing it endlessly is, in a sense, a futile endeavour.

Rather, the more helpful approach for me is studying the concept of “god” (or similar expressions such as “Spirit,” “the Real,” “the Holy,” “Nirvana,” etc.) as an important and key symbol of humanity’s ongoing effort to “relate to the total scheme of things” which—according to religion scholar Huston Smith—is the heart of the religious problem. In short, the idea of “god” (and parallel notions) is a crucial key to understanding the ways by which humans throughout history and in every milieu have tried to cope with, make sense of, shed light on, maintain hope and positivity about LIFE and EXISTENCE which nevertheless remain ultimately mysterious. In this sense, “god” (and parallel notions) is a crucially important theme to examine. It also follows that the human “faith in God” (or some other ultimate factor) that religion-spirituality examines is actually a study of one of the most important aspects of humanity.

Religion-spirituality is important because it studies this human quest to understand the “totality of things” by utilizing the idea of “god” (and parallel ideas). Huston Smith calls “God” the one who completes the jigsaw puzzle and shows the whole of reality to be a “panorama.” (in an interview with Robert Kuhn - Closer to Truth)

This, however, is being severely challenged in our postmodern world. The postmodern world dislikes “metanarratives” and religion is as perfect a metanarrative as one can get. We will deal with this theme in another essay on contemporary forms of religion-spirituality.

 

[#9] Theology Gives a Glimpse of a Believer's “Insider-Perspectives”   The main difference between two related fields of study, "Religious Studies" and "Theology" is this: "Religious Studies" aims to eplore religions and spiritualities from a humanistic standpoint and does not require religious faith. Theology, on the other hand, is based on religious faith but endeavours to support that faith by using various university disciplines such as history, literary criticism, philosophy, etc. 

If you go on further to study "Theology", you'll even be able to see history or religious belief systems, as it were, "from the inside" or from an "insider's perspective."  You'll come to understand better how believers' minds work, what makes them tick.

One good resource for this is this article by Tara Burton in The Atlantic titled "Study Theology, Even If You Don't Believe in God".

Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/study-theology-even-if-you-dont-believe-in-god/280999/

 

[#10] The Religion of Life.  In our postmodern world, believing according to how the traditional religions define belief, is becoming increasingly difficult for more and more people. There seems to be a new kind of "religion" (or “spirituality”) that is arising and becoming dominant in the West today. The philosopher of religion Don Cupitt calls this "the Religion of Life." Its main point is that nowadays more and more people make "life" itself as the supreme value instead of "God." 

This is a fascinating development of people's religiosity/spirituality and many of you (I'm sure) identify with it already, whether you are conscious of it or not. To learn more about this, please refer to: Don Cupitt's thoughts on "The Religion of Life" and this youtube lecture about this titled "Don Cupitt and the Religion of Life." I have also written a summary-essay of Don Cupitt's 'Religion of Life' HERE. To be honest, I do not completely agree with Don Cupitt when he claims that there is nothing else than this life here and now. I think that is a lack of epistemic humility! But I agree that life here and now should be our main focus. This is my position: If there is something else beyond this life, living this life well will be our best preparation for it!

You can also refer also to my essay titled, The Secularized West - Source of Immorality and Godlessness or (Flawed) Embodiment of the "Kingdom of God"? .

---

Resources:

Huston Smith, Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief. Harper, 2001.

_____, The Soul of Christianity: Restoring the Great Tradition. Harper, 2005.

John Cottingham. Why Believe? Continuum, 2009.

Alain de Botton. “TED talk: Atheism 2.0.” January 17, 2012. https://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0

Roger Walsh, Essential Spirituality: The 7 Central Practices to Awaken Heart and Mind. Wiley, 1999.

_____, The World’s Great Wisdom: Timeless Teachings from Religions and Philosophies. SUNY Press, 2014.

University of Northern Iowa. “Why Should I Study Religion?” Accessed December 29, 2020. https://philrel.uni.edu/why-should-i-study-religion

Dale Tuggy. “Why Study Religion?” Published: February 17, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmEWtEl0oPo&list=PLMCt15e8gG-j3nRRZlmhltadY8XDn4KAH

“Why Study Religion?” Accessed December 29, 2020.   http://www.studyreligion.org/why/leads.html

---

Can We Prove the Existence of God? [or the Realm of Spirit?]

This is Part 2 of a series in Patheos.com in which Philosopher Ken Wilber tries to answer some "Big Questions" of Life. The annotations are by Julius-Kei Kato 

(The main text is of Ken Wilber. The subheadings, emboldened and underlined parts are added by the annotator. My (jkk) further reflections and observations are in italicized form.)

Source in the public domain (accessed 2020-10-08): https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kenwilberwakeupgrowup/2014/04/can-we-prove-the-existence-of-god-the-big-question-series-question-2/  

It always comes down to that: “How can you prove the existence of Spirit or God if you’re so convinced that it exists?” Part of the problem is that we tend to try to prove Sprit’s existence with tools that can’t actually do the job. And we tend to be unaware of the type of tools that can prove Spirit’s existence. So I’ll run through what some of those are, and give an example of what’s involved.

[jkk] This is especially fascinating for me because it is usually said, “we cannot prove the existence of Spirit (or of God).” I myself also say this and I still maintain that there is no direct, empirical way to “prove God” such as can be done in empirical experiments. However, here Ken Wilber claims that there is a “kind of” scientific way to prove the “greater reality” (the realm that transcends our physical reality). I encourage you to reflect on whether this proposed method is “scientific”for you.  After all, in our secularized age, the “scientific” way of making one’s points is deemed to be the best way.

The Method to Access the Spirit-Dimension

So it’s actually very experimental and very scientific. It rests on the fact that there is a scientific method, and this method can be applied to any number of domains. It can be applied to the eye of flesh, the eye of mind, and the eye of contemplation.

So what is this method? Very briefly, it has three major components. [#1 “Injunction” or “Eperiment”] It has an injunction or experiment or exemplar, which is always in the form of “if you want to know this, do this.” And once you do that, it results in an experience, or what William James called a datum, or an illumination—some sort of [#2 Experience] direct immediate experience. And that’s the second strand. And then that experience or data is [#3 Verification] checked with others to make sure that they get the same results, to make sure that you’re not hallucinating or getting it wrong or somehow confused.

So let’s say, using the eye of flesh, we want to know if it’s raining outside. Very simply, we go to the window and look. That’s the injunction—if you want to know if it’s raining outside, go to the window and look. We look, and yes it does indeed seem to be raining. That’s our experience, our data, our illumination. We do the injunction and we have an experience, we see the data. To make sure that we’re not hallucinating or otherwise mistaken, we ask someone else to take a look as well. They go to the window and yup, they see it raining too. So that’s our confirmation or verification, our third major strand.

[jkk] Remember the three phases: #1 Experiment - #2 Experience - #3 Verification of the Experience (with others who are having the same or similar experiences). That does seem like a “scientific” way to prove something, right?

Further Elaboration

All science has those three strands. When applied to the eye of flesh we get physics, chemistry, biology, and so on. When applied to the eye of mind we get things like logic and mathematics. But what’s not often understood is that it can be applied to the eye of contemplation as well. And here it offers proof of the existence of Spirit, every bit as real as rain or mathematics.

So what we’re talking about is that there’s sensory experience, there’s mental experience, and there’s spiritual experience, and each of these experiences give particular types of data or information or knowledge. Too often we have attempted to try to prove the existence of Spirit by using the eye of flesh and the eye of mind. Aristotle’s proof of God, he gave five proofs, and they were all logical. But that won’t get it—it doesn’t touch Spirit, it doesn’t activate the spiritual dimension in us.

So if we want to see how it can operate in a spiritual practice, we can take Zen as an example. The injunction here, the practice or exemplar, is zazen or meditation or contemplation. You’re taught to sit in a relaxed position, rest the mind, and focus it on one item. It could be following the breath, or it might be an inquiry like “who am I?” And this is the first strand, the injunction or activity or exemplar—if you want to know whether Spirit is real, do this.

After anywhere from several months to a year or two, you will start having a series of experiences, interior data or illuminations. These profound experieces or experieces of a spiritual nature are called kensho, which means “seeing into true nature.” This is strand two, the direct experience Spirit itself—naked, unmediated, real, and direct. This direct religious experience is said to be of Spirit itself. Even in the case of individuals who have a Ph.D in science and who experience kensho, over 95% report that kensho is as real as anything that they study in conventional science. It’s a very powerful, convincing experience.

And just recently someone had an experience that for some reason made all the news, a neuroscientist who had a near death experience, but it was so real to him that he was simply, absolutely, 100% convinced that this was a real experience, as real as anything he had ever experienced. That’s exactly the same kind of feeling that mystics have when they have a kensho, or a mystical experience, or an experience of oneness or unity. And he said he couldn’t find it described anywhere until he was looking through some Christian mysticism books and he found an explanation that spoke of infinite darkness suffused with luminosity. And he said that was it exactly! Anyone who knows the stages of meditation will recognize that as a causal state, it’s described that way in every major meditative tradition the world over. But of course we’ve so forgotten about this in the West that we just don’t know where to look. So he was completely confused until he found that one particular explanation.

Check with the Community of Practitioners

After the individual has had their unity experience, their awakening experience, just to make sure, they check with a spiritual teacher and a community of practitioners. Now this means all those who have completed the first two strands. If you want to vote on whether the Pythagorean theory is real, you have to learn mathematics, and then learn the Pythagorean theorem, and once you have completed the injunction and have had the experience of looking at the triangle and looking at the Pythagorean theorem, then you’re allowed to vote and confirm or not confirm whether it’s real. Most people who do that report that the Pythagorean Theorem is real.

     But the same thing is true in any other scientific experiment, and it’s true for this interior science of contemplation. So you check it with a spiritual teacher and a community of practitioners, all those who have completed the first two strands of injunction and illumination, just to make sure you’re not hallucinating or otherwise confused, just like in all the other sciences. If their illumination, the discovery of their own True Self that is one with Spirit, matches those in a larger community of knowledge-holders, then their kensho (見性 Japanese, “seeing the true nature of things”) is passed and their realization is confirmed.

[jkk] I want to underline the fact that Wilber calls the study of the transcendent realm the “interior science of contemplation.” By that, he implies that there is this realm of Spirit, this transcendent dimension that we can directly know, experience, and validate (the existence of) through methods and a process that are quite scientific. What is “the community of practitioners” anyway? In practically every religious tradition (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc.), there are groups of people (both in the past and in the present) who have had direct, religious-spiritual experiences of the Sacred and the Transcendent. These people were/are able to have these spiritual experiences through methods of spiritual practice such as meditation, service, ethical living, training in compassion, etc. that are time-tested and proven in these religious traditions to effectively transform people and lead them to wisdom, peace, compassion and authentic happiness.

Direct Experience – Public Knowledge

So notice this is a real science, a direct and immediate 1^st-person experience. It’s not anything taken on faith or mere belief, but a direct realization. And this is true whether the contemplation is Christian, or Buddhist, or Jewish, or Islamic, or Hindu, and so on. And this realization proves that Spirit is just as real as mathematics, or logic, or rain, or rocks. And those who have had that experience, even if they have Ph.Ds in science, take it as being as real as anything that they know. So it’s as real as “real” has any meaning. It’s a direct injunction, giving immediate data or illumination, and checked with a community of the adequate.

This is why contemplative knowledge is public knowledge, in both the East and the West it has been passed down for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. That’s not private knowledge. Anything that can be trained and passed down is public, and it all reaches that same conclusion: God is real, and tat tvam asi—you are that.

[jkk] Let me continue to comment on the nature of the time-tested spiritual practices of the world’s religious-spiritual traditions. Studies have been done of these spiritual practices and one can say that across the various religious-spiritual traditions of the world, there are striking commonalities in the spiritual practices that are encouraged and taught in order to be spiritually transformed. One notable study is Roger Walsh, M.D. Ph.D.’s Essential Spirituality: The Seven Central Practices to Awaken Heart and Mind. There Walsh distills many of the practices from various religious-spiritual traditions into seven general principles that spiritual practitioners across the ages have observed to be continually transformed and renewed.

Wilber and Walsh also emphasize that spiritual transformation and direct experience of the Sacred NEED NOT BE just taken on faith or believed in blindly (as is often encouraged by religious institutions) without proof. Wilber and Walsh encourage people to, as it were, “check it out for themselves” by actually engaging in the time-tested spiritual practices because if they do, the practitioners will in time experience for themselves the truth that there is indeed a spiritual realm and that realm will transform the person who wakes up to it and continually grows more fully into it.  

 

---

Star Trek Discovery New Eden Episode – Those “Unenlightened” Religious People

Wikipedia article on the series

(Season 2, Episode 2. Viewed the episode on 2019-08-07. It was noteworthy for me because of themes connected to religion.)

Episode Plot: What to Do with (Religiously) Unevolved Mentalities?

In one of their missions, the USS Starship Discovery encounters "New Eden," a religious community transported to a different planet during earth's World War III by a "Red Angel." Discovery's crew finds that the community has depleted their power source which condemns them to remain in a scientifically and technologically backward situation. Besides, the members are heavily invested in religion and in concepts such as divine revelation so much so that they have cobbled up a religion comprised of various religious traditions that existed on earth at the time of--what they believe--was its destruction. 

The protagonist—Commander Michael Burnham feels that it is the Starship's crew's duty to bring the members of New Eden to a more up-to-date, "enlightened" state and help them shed their "primitive" religious beliefs. Her commanding officer Captain Pike on the other hand maintains that, following the United Federation of Planets’ General Order #1, they have to let civilizations evolve organically and not needlessly intervene and  force evolutionary development in consciousness and knowledge in any species they encounter. 

However, in the New Eden community there lives a family that carries on a tradition of science and learning. One of its members, Jacob, has been maintaining the loop mayday message for assistance. That was the signal picked up by the Discovery which then brought its crew to New Eden. Jacob (and his family) is a symbol of the scientific mind that finds itself in a predominantly unscientific religious culture. Jacob himself strongly suspects that humanity has evolved significantly and seems to be ready for the revelation of the scientific truth.

Noteworthy for me: Captain Pike firmly maintains that the "enlightened" (the Starship's crew) have to let civilizations evolve organically and not force evolutionary development in consciousness and knowledge. 

Conversation between Captain Pike and Commander Burnham

(Here is a pertinent part of the episode's conversation exchanges between Burnham and Capt. Pike about this issue)

B (Burnham): Anthropologically speaking (she is also "Xenoanthropologist"), they (the New Eden

people) cobbled together a new religion based on the primary faiths of earth. Amesha (the community leader) and the others (members of New Eden) are kin to us. They deserve to be reintegrated into modern society.

P (Pike): By their own account, they left earth in 2053.

They are subject to General Order #1. We cannot interfere in their natural development. 

• General Order 1: "No starship may interfere with the normal development of any alien life or society." 

B: They believe earth and the human race were destroyed. They're wrong. Worse, the faith they cling to is a lie.

P: Can you prove that?

B: What I will prove is that none of this happened by some miracle.

Later on, Capt Pike rethinks his position and goes back to talk with Jacob (the scientifically enlightened one on Terralysium) to tell him the truth: that earth wasn't completely destroyed and that humanity evolved scientifically in fantastic ways, etc. 

My Reflections – Religion as Backward and Our Superiority Complex

This episode struck me as very significant because it showed, on the one hand, a civilization (New Eden) that is portrayed as backward and unevolved in a historical epoch in which humans have already reached advanced levels of scientific knowledge and technology such as travelling faster than the speed of light (through warp drives). Hence, these backward civilizations in Star Trek are called "pre-warp" civilizations. 

This particular pre-warp civilization of New Eden happens to be deeply religious and, as the conversation above shows, Michael Burnham, the protagonist of Star Trek Discovery, considers them as inferior and feels that she has to "bring them up to speed" by showing and proving that things have happened not because of any religious or supernatural reason but because of a scientifically explainable cause. 

Against her, Capt. Pike, her commanding officer (whose father has had some religious background) firmly invokes the Federation’s General Order #1 which states: No starship may interfere with the normal development of any alien life or society. What that means is that Starship crews should not forcefully interfere with the organic and natural development process that any life-form or society should undergo on its own. It just has to leave individuals and social groups to go through the developmental process at its own pace and in its own time. 

Applied to the New Eden situation, that means that the starship crew members who are in possession of superior scientific knowledge, a knowledge that discounts religious-supernatural phenomena in favour of scientific ones, should just leave the—deemed to be—“inferior” faith-based community of New Eden to itself in the hope that it may organically develop and one day hopefully overcome the darkness of religion-faith and come to know the superior scientific knowledge of post-warp civilizations. 

It also happens to us that sometimes we think we are more correct and thus superior and in so doing we consciously or unconsciously think that others are less correct than we are or that they are in an inferior ideological or even religious position than we. What do we do? Like Commander Michael Burnham, do we sense a duty to "enlighten" others? 

If we follow Capt. Pike's position (which reflects the Federation's sacrosanct directive), we just have to leave unevolved entities alone in that state and hope that, in time, at their own organic pace, they would also come to evolve in their consciousness. Is that the best thing to do?

What is the best course? At this point, I’m not yet sure I have a good answer to this question. I need to examine this issue more deeply.