I would like to preface this post by saying that I am quite well studied in the religions of the world, the rhetoric from/of and surrounding various faiths, their practice(s), and while I have heard and understand the answers from the faithful to the questions and thoughts that I will produce in this post... The answers that I have been provided by the faithful don't hold enough water for me. On to the post right?
Something that I have discussed with a number of people over the years is the concept of something being revered and holy. For example, Christians believe that the bible is either the word of God or that it was written by people who were "filled with the spirit". Recently, I spoke to a devout Jehovah's Witness who would circle around to numerous portions of both the Old and New Testament. I can accept that the Bible was written by people inspired by their faith. There is enough history for me to believe that the bible isn't a book that a bunch of early Christians cooked up to keep their numbers growing. However, the statements that the Bible is "the word of God" is not something that I can buy into. Looking at Islam, we can examine the historical record and know Mohamed existed. He probably wrote the Qur'an by himself. What is to say that he wasn't trying to unite disputing tribes? That, to do this, he knew it would require divine inspiration and so he went through with it. I respect that someone else might hold the belief that the Bible or the Qur'an are holy, but they are artifacts created by human beings.
Humans are flawed and every person has their own reasons for doing what they do. Why can we trust something that has been created by people? What criteria does something have to meet to become holy? I am mostly Buddhist by practice. I have read, thought, and wrote about a lot of the texts from the various branches of Buddhism. I have spoken to people about aspects of Buddhism and almost any other faith. When someone says "His holiness the Dali Llama" (for example), although I don't say anything, I do mentally step back and think "Why not just say 'the Dali Llama'? What is the need for adding the prefix? We can both acknowledge his wisdom, but again humans declared him to be the reincarnation. He was raised from a young age and indoctrinated in teachings. Why wouldn't he take on and believe the mantle that he was raised in? I like many of his teachings and writings, but they aren't holy to me.
Another thing I have trouble with that touches on this area are 'gurus', priests, etc. Consistent spiritual advisors or teachers shape people to their own belief and practice. I talk to a priest on occasion because he's known me through a lot of my past life issues. I have a friend who is a pastor at a Presbyterian church. We talk about issues of faith, but they aren't my teachers. With a guru, I have seen people shape themselves to the teachings of the guru even if they didn't agree with the teachings. These sort of spiritual relationships bother me quite a bit. Why tailor what you think is right or correct on a religious or moral level to that of someone else? If they have gone through lots of study, I understand that.
An example from recent experience, I was asked to start a guided meditation from a co-worker because I have been meditating for a long time. It started with one person and went for 5 months. By the end of the 5 months there were 12 regulars rain or shine once a week. After one session someone came to me after and asked "What should I be reading?" This led to a long conversation about what they wanted to know more about. Ultimately, I suggested 5 readings and told them that they should journal their own thoughts about what they think. For a week, I thought about this and asked the person I started with to lead the session. When they asked why I said that people are starting to take my words as direction. That wasn't a role I believe in. That we all have to find ourselves and while some help is okay I didn't want anyone thinking that I was better or more able than them to find themselves and their path. The person responded that they would lead the session, but that people were paying close attention to me. It was at that point I noticed the regulars would have copies of the book I was reading. So I asked them why and the genral response was that I must be reading it for a reason. At the time it was a collection of HST stuff from his time on the campaign trial of Nixon. While it was relevant to my thinking at the time, it wasn't anything I was ready to address, and I wouldn't be teaching my thoughts on it, but I would discuss it with them. From then on, I rotated the leaders of the meditation and had coffee with people to discuss their thoughts on basically anything. It became an open discussion rather than me telling them how to think. After 5 months, schedules changed and I still do a guided every two weeks.
I can acknowledge the wisdom of many texts. I cannot ascribe holy or divine attributes to anything because they are creations from human beings. Citing the Bible to support the writings within as the word of God, isn't enough for me. I was raised Catholic. I understand the dogma. This leads me to my questions... If you believe that something can be holy, what is the threshold? Is it within your own faith? Do you subscribe to one faith or are you more spiritual (for lack of a better word)? Past a sign of respect, it is something I logically understand, but do not grasp from a faith standpoint. Anyone who could help me understand more clearly this issue of holy and divine... I would appreciate it and a discussion around it.
Hope you are all well,
VerbalTruist
Something that I have discussed with a number of people over the years is the concept of something being revered and holy. For example, Christians believe that the bible is either the word of God or that it was written by people who were "filled with the spirit". Recently, I spoke to a devout Jehovah's Witness who would circle around to numerous portions of both the Old and New Testament. I can accept that the Bible was written by people inspired by their faith. There is enough history for me to believe that the bible isn't a book that a bunch of early Christians cooked up to keep their numbers growing. However, the statements that the Bible is "the word of God" is not something that I can buy into. Looking at Islam, we can examine the historical record and know Mohamed existed. He probably wrote the Qur'an by himself. What is to say that he wasn't trying to unite disputing tribes? That, to do this, he knew it would require divine inspiration and so he went through with it. I respect that someone else might hold the belief that the Bible or the Qur'an are holy, but they are artifacts created by human beings.
Humans are flawed and every person has their own reasons for doing what they do. Why can we trust something that has been created by people? What criteria does something have to meet to become holy? I am mostly Buddhist by practice. I have read, thought, and wrote about a lot of the texts from the various branches of Buddhism. I have spoken to people about aspects of Buddhism and almost any other faith. When someone says "His holiness the Dali Llama" (for example), although I don't say anything, I do mentally step back and think "Why not just say 'the Dali Llama'? What is the need for adding the prefix? We can both acknowledge his wisdom, but again humans declared him to be the reincarnation. He was raised from a young age and indoctrinated in teachings. Why wouldn't he take on and believe the mantle that he was raised in? I like many of his teachings and writings, but they aren't holy to me.
Another thing I have trouble with that touches on this area are 'gurus', priests, etc. Consistent spiritual advisors or teachers shape people to their own belief and practice. I talk to a priest on occasion because he's known me through a lot of my past life issues. I have a friend who is a pastor at a Presbyterian church. We talk about issues of faith, but they aren't my teachers. With a guru, I have seen people shape themselves to the teachings of the guru even if they didn't agree with the teachings. These sort of spiritual relationships bother me quite a bit. Why tailor what you think is right or correct on a religious or moral level to that of someone else? If they have gone through lots of study, I understand that.
An example from recent experience, I was asked to start a guided meditation from a co-worker because I have been meditating for a long time. It started with one person and went for 5 months. By the end of the 5 months there were 12 regulars rain or shine once a week. After one session someone came to me after and asked "What should I be reading?" This led to a long conversation about what they wanted to know more about. Ultimately, I suggested 5 readings and told them that they should journal their own thoughts about what they think. For a week, I thought about this and asked the person I started with to lead the session. When they asked why I said that people are starting to take my words as direction. That wasn't a role I believe in. That we all have to find ourselves and while some help is okay I didn't want anyone thinking that I was better or more able than them to find themselves and their path. The person responded that they would lead the session, but that people were paying close attention to me. It was at that point I noticed the regulars would have copies of the book I was reading. So I asked them why and the genral response was that I must be reading it for a reason. At the time it was a collection of HST stuff from his time on the campaign trial of Nixon. While it was relevant to my thinking at the time, it wasn't anything I was ready to address, and I wouldn't be teaching my thoughts on it, but I would discuss it with them. From then on, I rotated the leaders of the meditation and had coffee with people to discuss their thoughts on basically anything. It became an open discussion rather than me telling them how to think. After 5 months, schedules changed and I still do a guided every two weeks.
I can acknowledge the wisdom of many texts. I cannot ascribe holy or divine attributes to anything because they are creations from human beings. Citing the Bible to support the writings within as the word of God, isn't enough for me. I was raised Catholic. I understand the dogma. This leads me to my questions... If you believe that something can be holy, what is the threshold? Is it within your own faith? Do you subscribe to one faith or are you more spiritual (for lack of a better word)? Past a sign of respect, it is something I logically understand, but do not grasp from a faith standpoint. Anyone who could help me understand more clearly this issue of holy and divine... I would appreciate it and a discussion around it.
Hope you are all well,
VerbalTruist
not with pete, for petes sake...?
