What is Religion? Six Insightful Statements (from Marcus Borg) to Describe It

 

What is Religion? Six Insightful Statements to Describe It

By the late Marcus Borg (biblical scholar and theologian)

Found in the public domain at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHIv-c-Rpzw&t=0s&index=2&list=WL  /  (from 08:30 to 21:05) / Annotations by Julius-Kei Kato

(The main text is a transcript of Marcus Borg’s talk. Italicized parts within square brackets [ ] are my own [jkk’s] annotations.)

 

Marcus Borg:  I will develop this part of my lecture by describing a general understanding of religions with six statements. All six statements are commonly affirmed within the academic study of religion. That is, there is widespread agreement amongst scholars of religion about these statements. In each case, I will put the statement into a very short sentence and then of course explain it.

 

[1] Religions as Cultural-Linguistic Traditions

First statement about religions: "Religions are cultural - linguistic traditions." That’s pretty abstract but it's actually a very helpful definition. Let me repeat it: Religions are cultural-linguistic traditions and I owe this language to George Lindbeck of Yale Divinity School. I'm not sure that it’s original with him, but that's where I ran into it. And what it means to say is that each religion originates within a particular culture. And thus, it uses the language and symbols of that culture. So, in that sense each religion is a cultural-linguistic tradition. Moreover, if that religion survives for any length of time and, of course, all major religions have. If that religion survives, it becomes a cultural-linguistic tradition in its own right. That is, it becomes a way of construing the world, of structuring the world, and it has its own particular language and symbols.

     And thus, being Christian or Jewish or Muslim is a little bit like being French or Italian. To be French means not only knowing French (the language). It also means knowing something about the ethos of being French. It means to have lived within a French world and to have that world structure your vision of life. And of course there's a sense in which being religious is different from this as well because it is a much more universal identity - one that transcends national, ethnic, and racial boundaries but nevertheless it is very helpful to think of religions as cultural-linguistic traditions, each with its own language, symbols, etc.

 

[2] Religions as Human Constructions

Second statement about religions, "Religions are human constructions". Religions are human constructions or human products. This is a corollary of the first statement of religions as cultural-linguistic traditions. Religions are human creations and, within that, I'm including their scriptures. Their scriptures are human products, and thus for Christians, the Bible is a human product. The religions’ teachings, their doctrines, their rituals, and their practices, all of these are human creations, human constructions.

     This time I'll use a phrase from a Harvard religious scholar, Gordon Kaufman. Kaufman speaks of religions as " Imaginative human constructions." And by imaginative he doesn't mean imagined, imaginative and sort of a negative sense of the word as when we say about something that sounds really far-fetched or that's really imaginative, not in that sense but imaginative in the sense of both creative, as well as using the language of the imagination, the language of images and symbols, and story, and so forth.

     Now, of course not all religious people would agree with this statement that, "Religions are human products or human constructions." Within the three major Western Religions, the Abrahamic traditions, as they are commonly called, there are many who would say that their religion comes from God, that it's a divine product and not a human product. I think you are all aware that official Muslim teaching is that, the Koran was dictated by Allah to Muhammad. Within Judaism, Orthodox Jews, not all Jews but Orthodox Jews typically affirm that the Torah including the laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai that are included in the Pentateuch but also the ‘Oral Torah’, all of it was given directly by God to Moses. And of course, fundamentalist Christians typically claim that the Bible is a divine product, and thus infallible and inerrant. But, within the framework of the academic study of religion, these claims look like a common human tendency to ground their sacred traditions in God. That is, if lots of religious traditions say this (that “our traditions come from God”), we can say then that one of the characteristics of religions is that they tend to ground their traditions in divine origin. 

[When seen in a humanistic way, we can say that, in order to strengthen the claims that religions make, some of the key figures involved in the institutionalization of a particular religious tradition established at a certain point in history the notion that this particular religion (e.g. Christianity) was “revealed” directly by God. Seen from a more theological or faith perspective, we can say that religions often have their origins in a powerful religious/spiritual experience of certain people at the start of the religion’s history. Reflecting on their profound spiritual experience, they concluded that this experience was a revelation of God, hence, the religion that was born out of that experience “came from God”.]

 

[Borg’s statements #1 and #2 are not theological evaluations of religions. That is, they do not come from a perspective of faith. They are a result of looking at the phenomenon of religion from a purely humanistic standpoint. We can consider them, therefore, as coming from the discipline of religious studies, which does not presuppose any faith but studies religion as a human phenomenon. The statements below, however, contain some faith perspectives. Although they are still affirmed by many in the academic study of religion, they can be considered as grounded more in the discipline of theology, which presupposes religious faith but tries to deepen its understanding of faith through reason.]

 

[3] Religions as Human Responses to the Experience of the Sacred

Now, those first two statements both stress the human origins of religion. The third statement brings God back into the picture, namely, "Religions are responses to the experience of the sacred or the experience of God, or the spirit." Those terms are ones I use synonymously and interchangeably. I take the reality of God very seriously. I am utterly convinced that there is a “More,” to use [philosopher and psychologist] William James's marvellously generic term for the sacred -- a stupendous, wondrous “More,” and I am convinced that this "More" has been experienced in every human culture, and that the origin of the major religious traditions lies in experiences of the "More". So, I see religions as human products but as human products created as response to the experience of the sacred in the particular culture within which each emerged.

 

[4] Religions as Wisdom Traditions

My fourth statement, "Religions are wisdom traditions." And I owe this statement to a man I'm honored to call my friend, Huston Smith [He was a widely respected US professor of world religions]. He speaks about this a lot--of religions being wisdom traditions. Wisdom (in both religion and philosophy) is concerned with the questions: "How shall I live?", "What is life about?" [Religion attempts to respond to humans’ most perplexing questions – also known as “ultimate” or “existential” questions.]  This is what the religions to a large extent are about. They are disclosures of how to live, and by that I don't mean just morals but something more comprehensive than that. They are disclosures of what life and reality are about, and it's not just that they have responses to that question, but they are the accumulated wisdom of the past of centuries of thinkers. [An insightful way to refer to the activity of learning about religions is the expression A.W.E. ‘Ancestral Wisdom Education’, as proposed by theologian Matthew Fox.] This wisdom ranges from very practical wisdom to theological and metaphysical wisdom. The religions are a treasure trove of wisdom.

 

[5] Religions as Means of Ultimate Transformation

Fifth statement: Religions are means of ultimate transformation. I'll repeat the sentence, religions are means of ultimate transformation, and I owe this short statement to Fredrick Strang, author of An Introduction to Religion textbook, published some 25 years ago or so now. Let me unpack that definition. Religions are means; it's partly that they're not ends, okay, but it's also that they are means in the sense of that they have a very practical purpose; and that practical purpose is ultimate transformation. And when we speak of ultimate transformation, we mean not just psychological transformation (important as that is) but ultimate transformation in the sense of spiritual transformation, in the sense of the transformation of the self at its deepest level. That is the very practical purpose of religion, and that transformation is from an old way of being to new way of being, from an old identity to a new identity. And the fruit or product of this transformation across religious traditions is compassion, becoming more compassionate beings. This is central to all the major religions and the saints of the various traditions look very similar in this respect.

 

[6] Religions as Sacraments of the Sacred

And sixth, and finally, "Religions are sacraments of the sacred." Religions are sacraments of the sacred. Now, let me define the word sacrament here. Those of us who are Christians are familiar of course with the two universal sacraments of the Protestant and Catholic traditions and then of course the five additional sacraments of the Catholic tradition itself. But I'm using the word sacrament in a broader sense and not just to refer to those two or those seven.

     Namely, a sacrament is a mediator of the sacred, or a sacrament is mediator of the spirit. A sacrament is anything finite and visible through which the spirit becomes present to us. Now, in this broad sense, nature can be a sacrament; music can be a sacrament. Okay, virtually everything in human history has, for somebody, been a means whereby the Spirit has been mediated to them. [This is the meaning of “a sacrament” in the broad sense: Something that makes the sacred present and tangible for us humans in our world.] 

     Now, to apply this definition to religions, the purpose of religions is to mediate the sacred [to make “the Sacred” present and tangible in a concrete way]. The purpose of their scriptures, their rituals, their practices is to become a vehicle or a vessel for the sacred to become present to us. Now, if one takes this seriously, it also has an effect upon what we think being religious means. Within the Christian tradition over the last 300 years (especially for Protestants but for Catholics as well because this is generally true of what's happened in Western Christianity since the Enlightenment), there's been an enormous emphasis on ‘believing’ as what it means to be a Christian: that to be a Christian means believing in the Bible and Jesus, and God, or in Christianity, or whatever. Well, if you see religions as a sacrament, the point is not to believe in the sacrament. The point is to live within the tradition and let the sacrament do its work within you; to let the sacrament mediate the reality of the sacred to you. And it seems to me that this is the purpose of the Buddhist tradition, the Muslim tradition, the Jewish traditions, and so forth -- that they are means whereby the sacred becomes present to people and works within people.

*****

How to Meditate? My Suggestion - "Vital Reading"

 

Meditation Described Briefly (by spirituality teacher Roger Walsh)

Meditation is a universal practice found in practically all spiritual-wisdom traditions. It is basically a concentration technique that has two key elements: 

1. First, choosing a focus for attention. This is usually one's breathing (in and out). But it can be extended to an emotion, a thought, a part of one's body, etc. It can even be applied to a sacred word or mantra (as it is done in the prayer-practice known as "centering prayer"). 
2. Second, when one notices that one's attention has wandered elsewhere, gently bring it back to the point of focus.

The heart of the method is to gently turn your attention back when it wanders to other places. Our minds--as Buddhism often teaches--are like restless, wild monkeys that jump from tree to tree ("the monkey mind"). When one can tame this restless, wandering mind and train it to focus on something, then the spiritual path can progress in earnest. (cf. Roger Walsh, Essential Spirituality, pp. 155-56)

A Suggestion on How to Meditate - A "Vital Reading"

For the absolute beginner, I would recommend starting with 10 minutes every day and aim to expand that eventually to 15~20 minutes. For people who are especially addicted to being mentally engaged (often, distracted) with technological gadgets, that can seem daunting. But it is necessary to resolve and set out to "just do it" (as the Nike ad says).

There is a popular spiritual practice in the Catholic Christian tradition called the "Lectio Divina." That means "Sacred [Divine] Reading." It is a time-tested and proven method of reading the scriptures in a prayerful manner. It is based on a simple method that can be summarized in the following steps: (1) Read -- (2) Think -- (3) Pray -- (4) Act.

I will adopt and tweak a bit the 'Sacred Reading' method and propose it to beginners or people who want to progress further in their meditation practice. First, I'll rename the practice to "Lectio Vitalis" (Latin) which I take to mean "a life-sustaining reading." We can call it in English "Vital Reading" for the time being and take "vital" to mean primarily "life-giving, life-sustaining, life-affirming," but also as "important" for cultivating and sustaining one's spirituality.

I name it this way because this practice is meant to sustain us in our life and help us both to go deeper within and also transcend ourselves. In this way, we tap into the resources that--the spiritual wisdom traditions say--can sustain, affirm and lead us to greater peace, balance, and wholeness. It is not only meant for religious believers but for everyone as long as they feel that they can use meditation for its many potential health, psychological, and spiritual benefits, as even science clearly shows nowadays. It is described as a "reading" because it presupposes an attitude of openness and listening to what life itself is teaching us - adopting an attitude that Zen Buddhism calls "the Beginner's Mind" (初心者). All of that is what the expression "vital reading" implies. 

The method I propose here will take the traditional lectio divina steps with a few tweaks. Instead of "Read" as step one, I will add--what I think--is a more fundamental first step. Let me propose the following steps then (BReTMA):

1. Breathe
2. Read (or Recall)
3. Think
4. Meditate
5. Act

The Method: Nuts and Bolts

The different steps explained more in detail:

1. Breathe - This is the time to quiet and calm your heart and mind. Concentrate exclusively for a short while on the breath (deep in-breath / deep out-breath) until you experience some measure of inner calm. Note well that in many contemporary explanations of meditation (whether secular or broadly "Eastern"), this first phase is already what meditation is all about. This is what one should mainly be doing during one's meditation time. If you feel that you want to adopt that practice because you feel that going to the other steps would "clutter" your meditation practice too much, that is of course OK and good. Refer to the simple description of Roger Walsh above. If you feel you need more structure though, you can proceed to the other steps.
2. Read / Recall - You can use a literal text here or--what I'd like to call-- a "life text". I use "text" in the wider sense of the term. A "text" can refer to practically anything (an event, something you read, something you witnessed, a phrase you heard in a movie, a beautiful nature scene, etc.) that struck you or stood out for you recently and to which you would like to direct some reflective and meditative attention. Remember: when something "strikes" you, that usually means you need to discern some important lesson from that thing because it has a special significance for where you are in life now. If you use a written text, it can be your religious tradition's scripture (Bible, Quran, Teachings of the Buddha, etc.) or a book with short excerpts that is good for meditation purposes (for example, short passages from spiritual teachers or collections of great teachings). It is not advisable to read passages that are too long.
3. Think - This is when you reflect on what you have read (or the "thing" that stood out to you from life). This phase is when we engage in the active, cognitive reflection on what we have just "read". We actively discourse about it interiorly, in our minds: trying to understand more deeply its meaning and implications, drawing out conclusions, making connections, etc. We can also ask ourselves: What does the text say to me? Religious believers can also incorporate prayer into this phase.
4. Meditate - I differentiate "think" from "meditate." In this "meditate" phase, we tone down the busy interior cognitive/reflective activities going on in our minds about the text, select a key word, phrase, or thought (like a mantra or a "sacred word" in the practice called "Centering Prayer") and savour it, make it sink deeply into ourselves by slowly repeating it for a while. This is a move away from active thinking to a more "contemplative" phase in the process.
5. Act - We end the session by asking ourselves 'How will I act in response to the reading I've just done?'. Then we go back to life and try to practice our resolution.

Those steps might make the 10-15 minutes of 'Vital Reading' survivable for absolute beginners, right? For more advanced practitioners, this process will definitely be "too busy," way too active and structured. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit. Those steps are not set in stone at all. The main goal is  to train your mind to be less distracted and focus for a little while on a point that will hopefully lead to more interior peace, balance, and wisdom. 

The God-Question and What Really is “Faith in God”?

 

PART 1: Dimensions of the God-Question

“God” as a “Symbol” of the Human Effort to Wrestle with Life 

     As humans, we wrestle with life and its many apparent absurdities. I have come to conclude after many years of studying religion that, seen from a humanistic standpoint, “god” is primarily a symbol of the human effort to wrestle with life’s difficult questions … such as the “why” of natural calamities or epidemics (very relevant to us in now 2020-21 as I write!). In other words, when humans try to make sense especially of great suffering (such as the one caused by the COVID-19 pandemic), many of them have and continue to invoke “god,” imagining a supernatural and powerful Being with the ability to stop disasters from happening or to turn things around when the situation becomes quite bad. Again, analyzed from a humanistic standpoint, a god who might directly intervene to alleviate the world’s suffering primarily seems to be a symbol of the trust and hope that continue to live on in our hearts, which in turn give us the strength and courage to go on with the struggle as we face the different painful challenges that beset us in life. I understand and respect that. However, I also want to acknowledge its severe limitations.

     On the positive side, “god” is also a symbol of the human effort to dance with the glorious aspects of life. This has to be kept in mind too although here we will deal with the connection between “god” and dealing with suffering.

     Now, as we have seen, Christianity (and, as far as I know, any other religious tradition) has no easy and conclusive answers to the question of <why do life’s sufferings happen?>. To expand on that by rephrasing it, let me say unambiguously that the “God” invoked by Christianity usually does not have answers to the big “Why” question of calamities such as chaos-generating and deadly epidemics. It’s enough to look at God’s answer to the fabled Old Testament character Job when he requests some answers to the question of his undeserved suffering. God in the book (Job 38-39) proclaims that human wisdom just cannot plumb the mysteriousness of God’s ways (recall “limit experiences”) and so it (human knowledge-wisdom) amounts to nothing before God. That is another way to say that all our human efforts to understand the wherefore and whither, the why and the <to what end?> of suffering are practically pointless in a sense, because we will never get any satisfactory answers.

     Even Jesus in the New Testament gospels does not make an effort to answer these questions. Rather, what the Christian tradition (embodied especially in Jesus) presents is an invitation and a summons (and this is very important), first, to refrain from judging, because we really do not know everything; second, to be compassionate for the sufferings that all of us have to endure; and, third, to act resolutely and lovingly to alleviate suffering.

     But the plot thickens with regard to the god-question. If that is so, what use is there for “god” then? Is it any good to have faith in a god who seemingly cannot even supply us with adequate answers to our questions about the apparent random suffering that is visited upon us in life (such as COVID-19)?

     I think that this question is crucially important especially for people who consider themselves religious believers. Some will simply choose to ignore it for fear of rocking the boat too much and losing their “simple, childhood” faith. As a scholar of religion and theology, I have wrestled with this question through the years and I’ve realized that unless one faces this gnawing question squarely in the face and attempts to give some response to it, I’m afraid one will never shed a childish faith and advance to a more mature stage of being a believer. So let me share my two cents’ worth coming from some of my efforts over a long time to make sense of the God-question.

 

“God” as a Hypothesis about Reality

     One of the most useful and thorough books (although a bit on the cerebral side) on the questions of
God’s existence and nature that I’ve come upon thus far has been the Catholic theologian Hans Küng’s Does God Exist? An Answer for Today [1980]. There Küng uses a good amount of space to survey and analyze the many efforts to prove, be agnostic about, or deny the existence of God through the centuries. When he comes at last to stating his major conclusions about God’s existence and nature, he starts by positing God as a human hypothesis. God as a hypothesis, Küng proposes, would be the answer to humanity’s most ultimate questions. Apropos that, we can say that these three following questions are probably the most important and consistent “ultimate” questions that human beings have asked:  Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going?

     Küng points out that if God does exist (hypothetically!) there would be meaningful answers to those questions. Therefore, in answer to ‘Who are we?’, God would be the ultimate ground of being that defines our identity: We (and all of reality) are all grounded in God; we carry in ourselves—as the Bible says—the divine image (Imago Dei). Thus, God is the “primal ground” for all life and reality.

     In answer to ‘Where do we come from?’, God would be the source, the creator and sustainer of all human and natural existence. God is then the “primal support” of everything.  Finally, in answer to ‘Where are we going?’, God would be the (primal) goal in whom everyone and everything will ultimately find their fulfillment.

     Therefore, the ideal hypothetical situation is that all human and natural life takes on a deeper meaning with this awesome “God” as the ground, support, and goal of everything that is. And that would make life definitely worth living to the full, despite the acute menace of fate and death, apparent emptiness and meaninglessness, sin and suffering. This, I can say, is a rather sophisticated way of expressing the traditional God-believer’s ultimate reasons for having belief in God.

 

The Unprovability of God - Revelation

     Let me underline that in the reflections above, God, we can say, is a hypothesis that humans have and continue to put forward in order to make sense of life. However, there is one big problem that is seldom stated in a straightforward way: It is commonly acknowledged in the discipline called the philosophy of religion that, despite the best efforts of many brilliant minds throughout history, there is actually no definitive way to prove conclusively this hypothesis that God exists. What Küng has stated above is merely that, if the hypothesis of God were true, then all life and existence would take on a deeper and fuller meaning.

     Meanwhile, religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have emphasized the notion of divine revelation: that God has—it is believed—revealed to some chosen humans the very nature of the Divine and also certain firm truths about God and about life which are trustworthy and reliable.

     Well, I don’t like to enter too deeply into this line of discussion here. Let me just state my personal and very honest opinion on the notion of revelation. I may sound like an agnostic here but bear with me: I honestly think that the concept of revelation just does not speak anymore to many people in our contemporary world—especially people who have not been raised to believe that there is a God. Moreover, a detailed historical study of, say, Christianity and of its different supposedly firm and solid revelations (as I have done professionally for practically my whole life as a scholar of religion) will reveal instead that these grandiose claims about “revealed truths” should always be taken more modestly because all so-called “truths” (that not only Christianity but practically any religion proclaims) actually bear the tell-tale marks that they are all too human (more than divine!)—that is, these “truths” are anthropologically, historically, and culturally conditioned in a radical way. 

    It is seldom acknowledged that these very “human” truths have been imbued with an aura of sacredness and infallibility by some authority in the tradition’s history more than anything else for the purpose of forging a given community’s identity through a common belief in supposedly “revealed truths” rather than as a witness to conclusively demonstrable truths. Despite that, I continue to be a person of faith-trust for reasons I cannot explain sufficiently here but let me just say now that I am a very, very “modest” believer (hoping that I will have to explain my reasons for being so on another occasion). For these reasons, I do not usually like to take the path of “divine revelation” when attempting to speak about “God” to present-day people (to myself first and foremost!) who are on the whole historically conscious and are trained to think critically through things.

     The more fruitful path to take for me when we attempt to study religion and the idea of God (or gods) nowadays, especially when it is done in the context of a growing number of people in my (Western) context who consider themselves SBNR (Spiritual but not Religious), “Dones” (We’re “done” with religion!), or “Nones” (We have NO religion!), is rather to understand religion and the idea that there might be a God as first and foremost a human endeavour to search for meaning. “God” functions then as a way that humans have made use of in order to add meaning to life or to make some sense of life—life which many times can be very mysterious indeed.

     Can there be other ways of making life meaningful other than positing the God hypothesis? Of course there are! This is by no means the only way to “create meaning.” But it is probably the way by which most people have tried to make sense of life and reality throughout human history. That is why it is still important that we study the God-question if we are to understand humans and everything connected with them.

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.

---

The “Limit Experience” and What It Can Achieve

The Limit Experience in Regarding Henry: A Limit Experience Resulting in Ethical Awakening

Thinking about “Limit” Experiences and Situations

     The film Regarding Henry (1991 starring Harrison Ford and Annette Benning) [Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regarding_Henry ] can be considered nowadays a rather unremarkable film that is too sappy and corny for an audience, many of whom are “jaded” and used to more glitzy films. I consider it though a chance to reflect on the concept of “limit.” One of my favourite theologians, the University of Chicago theologian David Tracy, considers “limit situations/experiences” a major key for understanding and reflecting about the most important questions of human life and existence and how these relate with God, spirituality, and religion.

     According to Tracy, the concept of “limit situation” refers “to those human situations wherein a human being ineluctably finds manifest a certain ultimate limit or horizon to his or her existence.” Tracy distinguishes two main kinds of existential situations: “Either those ‘boundary’ situations of guilt, anxiety, sickness and the recognition of death as one's own destiny, or those situations called 'ecstatic experiences'... intense joy, love, reassurance, creation.” (David Tracy [1975], Blessed Rage for Order, p. 105).

     Let me explain “limit” in my words. A “limit experience or situation” can be described as an intense moment when something major (either positive or negative)—be it an event, an overwhelmingly magnificent or evil person, extraordinary beauty or ugliness, a serious crisis or extraordinarily beautiful moment, or the like—so powerfully discloses the limits of human beings to understand the mysteriousness of human existence. It forces us who experience this event as “a limit” to nevertheless make at least some sense of this event’s mysteriousness that transcends the ordinary limits of human understanding. How to do that? By attempting to do an interpretation of the experience (“interpretive understanding”). That’s just a fancy way to say: When faced with a limit situation, we try to put forward a possible explanation of the event. Of course, it is obvious that the effort to make sense of limit experiences often takes place in the midst of many strong positive or negative emotions, such as hope, faith, love, anxiety, sadness, anger, fear, despair, etc., elicited by such powerful experiences.

The Limit Situation in Regarding Henry

     Let’s go back to Regarding Henry. First point for consideration: At the beginning of the film, we see that New York lawyer Henry Turner is at the top of his game. He is a tremendously successful lawyer who “has everything” in terms of worldly success. At this point, take note first that in order to reach such success in one’s career, Henry has had to work and study hard, hone his rhetorical and reasoning skills, have the right connections, and pursue everything with drive and perseverance. Being successful in life is itself an impressive feat that could not be reached without much sacrifice. Being university students, most of you are in that “struggling” stage now.

     But Henry’s life and success are obliterated in a single moment because of a seemingly random and senseless shooting that almost kills him and tragically reduces him to the state of a helpless person who has lost even the most basic of human capabilities such as walking or speaking, let alone reading or writing. This is the story’s BIG limit experience and situation. How can a whole life of hard work culminating in great success be gone in a few seconds? Such tragic experiences make us come face to face with our limits to comprehend life’s utter mysteriousness. Henry himself as well as his family and colleagues think of the whole situation as a tragedy. But is it really? (see the Zen story below)

The Change that Happens in Henry: Before & After the Limit Situation

     In the course of becoming a successful lawyer, Henry’s humanity (we understand little by little as we go on with the film) became severely compromised: He prosecuted without adequately considering the ethical rightness or wrongness of the causes he was promoting; he didn’t value much his family; he had an extramarital affair going which affected the people he loved; he didn’t have any concern for poor and marginalized people.

     But being reduced to a helpless state sort of wiped his slate clean. All the former bad, unethical habits he had as a successful lawyer were gone. Being humbled by the experience, he became a decent human being who had a high ethical sense, was connected with the joys of life (symbolized by the puppy), deeply loved his wife and daughter, cared nothing for worldly success but instead for human connection, had time for the little significant things in life that make it so much richer. It is all summarized in the words that the Turner family Latina housekeeper, Rosalina, tells him after his recovery, “I like you much better now, Mr. Henry.”

 

Wisdom (Spirituality / Philosophy of Life) in order to Face Life

     How do we react to such limit situations/experiences, particularly, negative ones? Most of us are hoping that life would go on smoothly or “good enough” for us. But real life is not so. If it isn’t already, life definitely becomes tough and hard. What can we do in order to survive and also flourish in the midst of the many setbacks and tragedies of life? This is something that we have to prepare for in order to be not completely taken by surprise by the difficulties of life.

     One message that this course on perplexing issues will emphasize is this: In order to be prepared for life (especially its suffering), we must acquire true WISDOM (not only knowledge!). (In more religious terms) We have to develop some kind of spirituality; (in more philosophical terms), we have to acquire a robust PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE (both of those expressions are contained in the word “WISDOM”) so that we could develop resiliency for the sufferings and “curve balls” of life and even find authentic flourishing, fulfillment, and happiness as human beings.

[Optional Reading]

The Zen-Daoist Tale about the Farmer and Good-Luck/Bad-Luck 

This is one of my favourite Zen stories. It tells us that what we perceive as “good luck” or “bad luck” is not often accurate because many things in life can be understood only with the passage of time and when put in the bigger context of a greater reality. This story sheds more light on the message of the film Regarding Henry.

(This version found in the public domain at: https://blog.mindfulness.com/meditation/are-these-bad-times-or-good-times-the-story-of-the-zen-farmer  )

There once was an old Zen farmer. Every day, the farmer used his horse to help work his fields and keep his farm healthy.

But one day, the horse ran away. All the villagers came by and said, “We're so sorry to hear this. This is such bad luck.” 

But the farmer responded, “Bad luck. Good luck. Who knows?”

 

The villagers were confused, but decided to ignore him. A few weeks went by and then one afternoon, while the farmer was working outside, he looked up and saw his horse running toward him. But the horse was not alone. The horse was returning to him with a whole herd of horses. So now the farmer had 10 horses to help work his fields.

All the villagers came by to congratulate the farmer and said, “Wow! This is such good luck!”

But the farmer responded, “Good luck. Bad luck. Who knows?

 

A few weeks later, the farmer's son came over to visit and help his father work on the farm. While trying to tame one of the horses, the farmer’s son fell and broke his leg. 

The villagers came by to commiserate and said, “How awful. This is such bad luck.” 

Just as he did the first time, the farmer responded, “Bad luck. Good luck. Who knows?” 

 

A month later, the farmer’s son was still recovering. He wasn’t able to walk or do any manual labor to help his father around the farm. 

A regiment of the army came marching through town conscripting every able-bodied young man to join them. When the regiment came to the farmer’s house and saw the young boy's broken leg, they marched past and left him where he lay.

Of course, all the villagers came by and said, “Amazing! This is such good luck. You're so fortunate.”

And you know the farmer’s response by now…

“Good luck. Bad luck. Who knows?”

 

---

The School of Life's "Eight Rules" and Some Annotations

 

JKK’s Annotations [#2] to the School of Life’s “Eight Rules”

"The School of Life" (henceforward, SOL) is an organization co-founded by British-Swiss “practical philosopher” (I’ll call him that way) Alain de Botton (ADB). It aims to help people to acquire “wisdom for life” through its various videos, classes, and resources. It has summarized its key teachings into "8
Rules" found here (text in the public domain).  Video version on youtube .

In brief the eight rules are:

1. We are imperfect; 2. Cultivate (True) Friendships, 3. [Be vulnerable] Know [admit] your Insanity, 4. Accept your idiocy, 5. (You’re) Good Enough, 6. (Go) Beyond Romanticism, 7. (Develop) Cheerful despair, 8. Transcend yourself

***

(The main text below is from the School of Life [=SOL]. The italicized parts are my own [jkk’s] annotations)

Eight Rules of The School of Life

The School of Life has produced 500 films and written 5 million words. This is an enormous problem. To stand any hope of remaining in anyone’s mind, ideas – even very good ideas – need to be brief and reduced to an essence. That’s why, for the sake of our followers, we’ve summarised everything we believe down to eight key points: the credo of The School of Life. 

1. ACCEPT IMPERFECTION

We are inherently flawed and broken beings. Perfection is beyond us.Despite our intelligence and our science, we will never stamp out stupidity and pain. Life will always continue to be – in central ways – about suffering. We are all, from close up, scared, unsure, full of regret, longing and error. No one is normal: the only people we can think of as normal are those we don’t yet know very well.

[jkk] This seems to be a reaction to the false, glitzy "perfection" that the mass media presents to us all the time. We are surrounded by seemingly perfect images of humans, things, and nature in the media all the time. This gives us a "false expectation” that life should always be beautiful and perfect (“Romanticism”). Hence, the SOL urges: we have to remind ourselves that we are imperfect, crazy, hurting, idiots because those aspects are, in many deep ways, the more usual and prevalent human characteristics.

2. Being VULNERABLE - the Foundation of True Friendship

Recognising that we are each one of us weak, mad and mistaken should inspire compassion for ourselves – and generosity towards others. Knowing how to reveal our vulnerability and brokenness is the bedrock of true friendship, which we universally crave. People do not reliably end up with the lives they deserve. There is no true justice in the way that rewards are distributed. We should embrace the concept of tragedy: random terrible things can and do befall most lives. We may fail and be good – and therefore need to be slower to judge and quicker to understand. Those who have failed are not ‘losers’; we may soon be among them. Be kind.

[jkk] This deals with the horizontal aspect of human life - our relationship with others. We usually wear metaphorical masks in front of people we don't know too well. We even do that with people we know well for fear that they would reject us! These metaphorical masks hide our struggles and give us a beautiful exterior. This is also true with things we post on social media. The SOL’s principle #2 tells us that only vulnerability (the ability to show who we really are, especially our not-so-good aspects) on our part and acceptance by the other (and vice-versa) will give birth to the authentic friendships that we deeply desire. 

3. KNOW YOUR INSANITY (jkk: I think “insanity” here means: the aspects of ourselves that depart from what is considered "normal" and "respectable")

We cannot be entirely sane, but it is a basic requirement of maturity that we understand the ways in which we are insane, can warn others we care about what our insanities might make us do—early and in good time and before we have caused too much damage—and take constant steps to contain rather than act out our follies.

[jkk] "Insane" is a strong word and it's deliberately being used for shock effect. That is, each one of us have pretty stark "deviations" from what is considered "normal" and "respectable" in conventional society.

We should be able to have a ready answer – and never take offence – if someone asks us (as they should): ‘In what ways are you mad’?

[Childhood] Most of the madness comes down to childhood, which will – in a way unique to our situation – have unbalanced us. No one has yet had a ‘normal’ childhood; this is no insult to the efforts of families.

[jkk] Childhood is an important theme for the SOL and I wholeheartedly agree with it. In order to understand ourselves well, we have to understand our past history, especially our "childhood" and the many formative and “deformative” (negative) experiences we've had in our growing-up years.

 

4. ACCEPT YOUR IDIOCY ([jkk] Bluntly speaking, this means: There is a lot of foolishness and stupidity in us)

Do not run away from the thought you may be an idiot as if this were a rare and dreadful insight. Accept the certainty with good grace, in full daylight. You are an idiot but there is no other alternative for a human being. We are on a planet of seven billion comparable fools. Embracing our idiocy should render us confident before challenges – for messing up is to be expected – comfortable with ourselves, and ready to extend a hand of friendship to our similarly broken and demented neighbours. We should overcome shame and shyness because we have already shed so much of our pride.

5. YOU ARE GOOD ENOUGH

The alternative to perfection isn’t failure; it’s to make our peace with the idea that we are, each of us, ‘good enough’. Good enough parents, siblings, workers and humans.

‘Ordinary’ isn’t a name for failure. Understood more carefully, and seen with a more generous and perceptive eye, it contains the best of life. 

Life is not elsewhere; it is, fully and properly, here and now. 

[jkk] This is the more sober kind of optimism that the SOL advocates, not founded on a facile and unrealistic optimism (Don’t forget: reality is often quite grim), but on a realistic assertion and upholding of an attainable ideal – TO BE just “Good Enough.” This realistic, sobering goal can actually be quite an accomplishment, given our human weaknesses and the world’s insanity.

 

6. OVERCOME ROMANTICISM

[jkk] “Romanticism” (as it is used by the SOL) refers to “the attitude that trusts in feeling and instinct as supreme guides to life, and a corresponding suspicion of reason and analysis” (The School of Life Dictionary, p. 201).

‘The one’ is a cruel invention. No-one is ever wholly ‘right’ nor indeed wholly wrong. 

True love isn’t merely an admiration for strength; it is patience and compassion for our mutual weaknesses. Love is a capacity to bring imagination to bear on a person’s less impressive moments – and to bestow an ongoing degree of forgiveness for natural fragility.

No one should be expected to love us ‘just as we are’. Learning and developing are at the core of love. Genuine love involves two people helping each other to become the best version of themselves.

Compatibility isn’t a prerequisite for love; it is the achievement of love.

[jkk] I think this is one of the truly insightful teachings of the SOL. It is brutally frank but that is necessary in this world that is usually overrun by romanticism. (Note that romanticism is experienced differently by the privileged and underprivileged) 

 

7. DESPAIR CHEERFULLY (a calm yet "cheerful" melancholy might be the best and most realistic attitude to life)

We are under undue and unfair pressure to smile. But almost nothing will go entirely well: we can expect frustration, misunderstanding, misfortune and rebuffs. We should be allowed to be melancholic. Melancholy is not rage or bitterness; it is a noble species of sadness that arises when we are open to the fact that disappointment is at the heart of human experience. In our melancholy state, we can understand without fury or sentimentality that no one fully understands anyone else, that loneliness is universal and that every life has its full measure of sorrow.

But though there is a vast amount to feel sad about, we’re not individually cursed and against the backdrop of darkness. Many small sweet things should stand out: a sunny day, a drifting cloud; dawn and dusk, a tender look. With the tragedy of existence firmly in mind, we can take pleasure in a single, uneventful day, some delicate flowers, or an intimate conversation with a friend.  We can learn how to draw the full value from what is good, whenever, wherever and in whatever doses it arises.

Despair but do so cheerfully: believe in cheerful despair. 

[jkk- To be honest, I feel conflicted about this principle because I feel that this message will often not stand the test of really tough and tragic life-experiences. Because it encourages us to be cheerful without suggesting a possible reason why we should be. Instead, it might eventually lead to depression, nihilism, despair and even suicide.]

 

8. TRANSCEND YOURSELF

We are not at the center of anything; thankfully. We are miniscule bundles of evanescent matter on an infinitesimal corner of a boundless universe. We do not count one bit in the grander scheme. This is a liberation.

[On the one hand, this can be a powerful, humbling thought that “puts things in perspective.” On the other hand, I don’t think it works all the time. It can push people over the brink of utter hopelessness and despair. Hence, I have quite a few reservations about this principle. Moreover, it conflicts with the assertions of most spiritual-wisdom traditions which firmly uphold that although the human being is a puny, little creature, every single one is precious in the eyes of the Divine Spirit -jkk]

Rather than complaining that we are too small, we should delight in being humbled by a mighty ocean, a glacier, or planet Kepler 22b, 638 light-years from earth in the constellation of Cygnus.

We should gain relief from the thought of the kindly indifference of spatial infinity: an eternity where no-one will notice, and where the wind erodes the rocks in the space between the stars. Cosmic humility – taught to us by nature, history and the sky above us – is a blessing and a constant alternative to a life of frantic jostling, humourlessness and anxious pride. 

***

[The Importance of Review and Repetition]  A final point: some of this may sound convincing. But that isn’t enough. We know – in theory – about all of it. And yet in practice, any such ideas have a notoriously weak ability to motivate our actual behaviour and emotions. Our knowledge is both embedded within us and yet is ineffective for us. 

 We forget almost everything. Our memories are sieves, not robust buckets. What seemed a convincing call to action at 8am will be nothing more than a dim recollection by midday and an indecipherable contrail in our cloudy minds by evening. Our enthusiasms and resolutions can be counted upon to fade like the stars at dawn. Nothing much sticks.

For this reason, we need to go back over things. Maybe once a day, certainly once a week. A true good ‘school’ shouldn’t tell us only things we’ve never heard before; it would be deeply interested in rehearsing all that is theoretically known yet practically forgotten. 

That’s why we should keep the eight rules in mind – and why the next step is to subscribe – and to return here often.

***********

(The comments below are jkk’s)

Some Critical Reactions and Reflections

The School of Life (SOL) is not "ideology-free" or completely "objective" as it claims to be; Nobody/no school is entirely objective. Everyone is advocating a particular point of view and that is, yes, an ideology. Let me express what I think are some central presuppositions and “agendas” of the SOL.

[Atheism - SOL's Presupposed Worldview]  With regard to God and the supernatural, the SOL presupposes that there is of course no real objective truth in the idea of God or the supernatural. However, religion is an important field to study in order to know humanity better and because it has some useful things to teach us apart from its mythological teachings (which are neither true nor useful anymore).

Alain de Botton (ADB), the SOL’s co-founder—I would say—lives in a universe that--he believes--is just physical. Therefore, he says that we humans are just "evanescent material without any significance" in a tiny corner of the vast universe. This is a good example of a post-Enlightenment, thoroughly secularized worldview - a worldview philosopher Charles Taylor calls "disenchanted" (not imbued with the supernatural).

[Existensialism]  Moreover, the philosophical position of existentialism is advocated. Existentialism is the point of view that claims that Life is, in the final analysis, "absurd.” Existentialism is an important foundational base of the SOL's general philosophy of life. 

For more on this, see its video on the philosopher AlbertCamus and the Flood.

An Alternative Worldview - That of the World’s Spiritual-Wisdom Traditions

In this course of study on life's various perplexing issues, in order to balance out the positions of the SOL, I will make frequent reference to “our ancestors.” (By “ancestors” I refer to the people who lived before us who had “more traditional” worldviews and were deeply religious.) Our ancestors saw life differently from the SOL. They lived in an "enchanted" (religious) universe. ....  The reality of Spirit was the most important and the greatest reality for them. They were part of some of the world’s great religious-wisdom traditions. These wisdom traditions still claim: If you live within that “Greater Reality,” life arguably has greater meaning. I personally also think that within such a religious outlook on life, it's harder to slip into nihilism and hopelessness. 

I would like to invite you to weigh both positions carefully and think critically about each one's merits and demerits.

My reflections on the 'School of Life within a Greater Reality' is found here.

---

The 'School of Life' within a Greater Reality

 

To note well: Atheism; Existential Questions and some examples; life as a mystery; limit situation; “religious-spiritual attitude” to life; trust in the goodness of life; a “Greater Reality”; the Enlightenment

(Before reading, please view first the "Eight Rules" of the School of Life. A text version of the "Eight Rules" with my extensive annotations-comments can be found here.)

[#1] The School of Life’s Wisdom and Its Atheistic Presupposition

We are about to engage in a study of different “perplexing issues” that come with life. These issues are also known as “ultimate questions” (they ask about the ultimate, most important things in life) or “existential questions” (deep questions that arise by the very fact that we exist as humans in this world). 

I think that the School ofLife (SOL) has many valid messages and deep insights about the different perplexing issues of life. However, I’ll point out clearly here at the beginning of this course of study that the SOL is explicitly atheistic (It does not believe in anything ‘beyond the natural world’), and it assumes this position just "as a matter of fact," without really examining well the question of whether atheism is the best philosophical stance to approach life. At the same time, it also maintains that we can still learn many practical and useful things from religions (apart from their false mythological claims).

In this course of study regarding different “perplexing issues” of life, I will use many of the insights of the SOL but will, at the same time, make important “additions” (or “annotations” – extra “notes”) of things that I (as a scholar of religion & spirituality) consider to be necessary if someone wants to respond more adequately to life’s most perplexing issues.

My (jkk's) First Annotations to the “Rules of the School of Life”

[#2] Life is a Great and Precious Mystery  

Let's begin with this first and foundational principle: We live in a big and vast universe full of mystery.

Even in our so-called scientifically and technologically "advanced" age in which humanity has reached a high level of knowledge about the scientific principles that govern how the material world works, the questions (perplexing issues) that matter most to us, humans, are so-called “existential questions.” These are questions that come from the very fact of existing or having a human life. Some examples of these are: 'What's the meaning of it all?', 'What are the values that we should have, uphold, and defend?', 'Why is it important to be compassionate rather than hateful?', 'Why is it better to be on the side of the good rather than evil?', and such questions that touch humanity's deepest core and encourage us all to go "beyond ourselves" and overcome our egoism. These more important existential questions cannot be answered by the advanced science and technology that we humans have achieved. (This is only my opinion…) They can be faced more adequately (although never answered conclusively) only when we have an open-minded attitude to--what I shall call--a "religious" or "spiritual" disposition or outlook on life. 

[#3] A “Religious-Spiritual” Attitude.  So, what precisely is a "religious" or "spiritual" approach/attitude to life? The following things—I think—are important components of it: It is basically an attitude of standing in front of the big and vast mystery that is life (some consider that "vast mystery" as “God”) ... and then ...

·         Humble ourselves by acknowledging that I am (or we are) so small and puny in front of this big mystery of life. (This is also called awareness of a “limit situation” – a situation in which we realize that life is so vast and we humans are so “limited” because we cannot understand many things about it. More on that later.) [optional: The SOL version of this attitude is in this clip entitled "Don't worry; no one cares"]

·         Accept this great mystery in its multiple dimensions --both its beautiful aspects as well as its ugly sides; its many joys as well as its many sufferings; its dazzling lights as well as its deep shadows-- yet through it all ...

·         Continue to trust that this mystery called "life" or "existence" is still worth living, treasuring, continuing, defending and, if need be, worth fighting for.

·         A “religious-spiritual” attitude then is, first and foremost, a kind of TRUST first of all in the goodness and worth of LIFE, not because one knows everything but because one deeply feels the worth of life and MAKES the optimistic DECISION to trust in the goodness of life. When one commits oneself to trust in the fundamental graciousness of life (reality, existence), then MEANING is born. Life begins to have a reason, a meaning. One knows why one gets up in the morning to begin one's day. (I get this from Catholic theologian Hans Küng)

·         In line with one's trust in the fundamental goodness and graciousness of life, one engages with life. This is the "dancing and wrestling" with life that is born because one trusts that life is worth living. 

·         Many (explicitly) religious believers give a name to the ultimate reason for why they trust in the goodness of life. In the Western religious traditions, it is usually known as "God." In the Eastern religious traditions, the names can be more impersonal such as “the Way” (道), “Heaven” (天), or “Nirvana”, etc.

[#4] A Bigger or Greater Reality.  To explain further, a "religious or spiritual attitude" to life includes an openness to the possibility that: REALITY (in the total sense) might be a lot bigger than "material reality" (the things that conventional science can verify or what we can access with our five senses); Reality might even be bigger than entities that have life (the Biosphere) or even animal and human minds (the Noosphere).  (below figure 1)

In other words, a religious or spiritual outlook in life is fundamentally an openness to the possibility that what the world’s religious-spiritual traditions claim might be true – namely, that there is some kind of “ultimate reality” which:

·         is the ground of everything;

·         is present in everything yet is bigger than any single thing; 

·         envelops and embraces everything as the biggest and most total reality of all (see figure 1) 

For the time being, let’s call this bigger/greater dimension – the dimension of SPIRIT (monotheistic religions call it “God”). It is a level that is not directly accessible at this point even to our advanced science or technology. But, in history, religious-spiritual practitioners (sages, saints, shamans, etc.) have claimed that they have experienced this Greater Reality by having a religious-spiritual openness which led to “religious-spiritual experiences” or “mystical experiences”. 

Of course, we cannot conclusively prove the existence of this realm. At this point, there has not been any way to conclusively prove the existence of this realm. But for most of humanity's history, humans have believed that this realm exists and that this realm is the most important reality of all. 

It is only with the European Enlightenment (from the 1600-1700s onward) and the rise of the scientific method that humans began to grow disenchanted with religious and spiritual things and have turned to material reality as the most important of all.

****

When the above-mentioned principles are in place, when we have this “greater” or “bigger” framework in place, then we can add other gems of wisdom (such as the different rules of the School of Life) and find that we will be better prepared—again, just my opinion—to face the different perplexing issues of life and respond more adequately to them.