RELIGION WITHOUT SUPERNATURALISM

Can there be religion without supernaturalism and superstition? Of course. Surely you’ve heard of religious naturalism? Now, naturalism takes various forms including but not limited to cosmological naturalism, methodological naturalism, ethical naturalism, scientistic naturalism, social naturalism, and religious naturalism. I am only concerned with the latter here.

The American philosopher and theologian Jerome A Stone [pictured left] offers the following definition of religious naturalism:

Religious naturalism may be defined as the affirmation that there are one or more aspects of the world to which religious responses are appropriate.

Religious naturalism exists in its own right as a religious movement, and it also subsists in a number of the world’s religions including (most especially) Buddhism but even Judaism and Christianity. However, even in the case of those religions that are supernaturalistic in their orientation and thought forms, the natural world is by no means unimportant, and most religions in their earliest forms were naturalistic in orientation and thought form. Indeed, as David Suzuki has pointed out:

All religions explore the place of people in the natural and social worlds around them.  They provide explanations for mysteries such as death and disorder, and use myths and moral teachings to relate human and nonhuman spheres. The earliest forms of contemporary world religions, such as Hinduism, Christianity and Islam, presented an animated, integrated world similar to that of traditional worldviews.  As Lao Tzu puts it in the Tao Te Ching:

    

The virtue of the universe is wholeness,

It regards all things as equal.

But some of those world religions have shifted ground over the past centuries, supporting the development of a very different picture of reality and our place in it.

The prominent theologian James Luther Adams [pictured right] saw Jesus as a leading exponent of naturalistic religion, at least as regards his teachings and his methods of teaching. Despite the assertions of many in the mainstream churches, Jesus for the most part used a rational method of analogy---he always taught in parables, and taught nothing but parables---appealing to empirical experience self-evident to any Jew, gentile, or Samaritan. You may also recall that when the Scribes and Pharisees went to Jesus, asking that he show them a ‘sign’---that is, some miracle (whatever that word means)---so that they might be convinced he was a true prophet, Jesus said to them, ‘Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign’ (Mt 16:4). 

Jesus left them and went away, but he made it clear that the only ‘miracle’ that can attest a prophet’s teachings to be true is the change---a change for good, that is---that the prophet makes in the hearts of his hearers. I could give you many other examples in the scriptures of where Jesus repudiated the proposition that a belief in the supernatural is necessary in order to attest to spiritual truth. The English poet and critic Matthew Arnold wrote,’ Suppose I could change the pen with which I write this into a pen-wiper, I should not make what I wrote any the truer or more convincing.’

Insofar as the Jewish scriptures are concerned, a Baptist minister, the Rev Geoffrey Thomas, has rightly noted:

                                                                                                

There were just three periods of miraculous activity during the Old Testament dispensation. There were virtually no wonders wrought by Abraham and the patriarchs, or the judges, nothing during the reign of David, in the period of Isaiah and Jeremiah, or at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The first period of miracles was during the exodus from Egypt, and the second was under the prophesyings of Elijah and Elisha, and finally in the Old Testament during the time of Daniel in Babylon there were some extraordinary signs.

Even the prophecies contained in the Hebrew Bible were not really about fore-telling but about forth-telling, that is, speaking out on issues immediately at hand. Enough said.

For religious naturalists such as the cell biologist Ursula Goodenough [pictured left] and the philosopher Donald Crosby nature is both ultimate reality and a religiously ultimate object in and of itself.  In the words of Professor Crosby:

I regard nature as both ultimate reality and as religiously ultimate.  There is nothing beyond it, outside of it, or over against it that is needed to explain its origin, continuing existence, or irrepressible creativity. Nature itself, without a God, Goddess, gods, or animating personal spirits of any kind, is for me an appropriate and, indeed, the most appropriate focus of religious commitment and concern especially for our ecologically conscious times. Thus, I am neither a monotheist, a polytheist, a pantheist, a panentheist, nor an animist, and yet I claim profound religious value and meaning for the immanent, self-contained powers of nature admittedly impersonal though they be that produce, suffuse, and sustain us and all other forms of being.

Religious naturalists are not all a bunch of godless pagans or earth worshippers.  They may be ‘God people’ or ‘non-God people.’ As to the former, Professor Goodenough, who incidentally belongs to the latter, has written:

There are two flavors of God people: those whose God is natural and those whose God is supernatural. Certainly there are a lot of people within religious naturalism who have no problem with God language - God as love, God as evolution, God as process. People see God as part of nature and give God-attributes to the part of nature that they find most sacred. I encounter people like that all the time.

However, few modern religious naturalists would view nature itself as ‘God.’  Most religious naturalists don’t deify the universe. In his book The Humanist Way Edward L Ericson writes:

The philosophical and religious naturalist refuses to divert human idealism and effort to the vain and untestable attempt to account for the existence of reality as a whole by postulating some external ‘divine’ or ‘supernatural’ power that, as popular religious supernaturalism contends, must be propitiated and worshipped. The naturalist sees no ground for supposing such a being to exist, or for investing human resources in pursuit of a will-of-the-wisp so footless in logic or meaning.

Religious conservatives, even a few religious liberals, and many militant atheists object to claims by religious naturalists from time to time that the latter are ‘religious’ and have ‘religious faith,’ but the phenomenon of religious naturalism is nothing new. With its historical roots going as far back as Baruch Spinoza in the second half of the 17th century---not to mention its long association with and embodiment in various eastern religions---the phenomenon now known as religious naturalism has a long, well-established and, for the most part, distinguished history, particularly in the United States of America. Its ‘spokespersons’ include such notables as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Mordecai Kaplan, George Santayana, John Dewey, and Henry Nelson Wieman (who called his belief-system ‘naturalistic theism’). William James [pictured below], although not a religious naturalist in the strict sense, nevertheless favoured empirically-based naturalistic reinterpretations of supposedly supernaturalistic phenomena.

Naturalistic religious faith----faith being understood as living with courage, confidence, and hope---involves all of the key elements of a supernaturalistic religious faith, such as piety, awe, reverence, devotion, mystery and surrender, contains elements of both immanence and transcendence, and satisfies the tests of both ultimacy and intimacy.  Further, religious naturalism is and can genuinely claim to be concerned about what is truly sacred---life itself. Show me anything more wonderful than that!

Any attempt to define or otherwise understand religion that does not take into account the phenomenon of religious naturalism is bound to be inadequate not to mention downright misleading.

I mentioned the words ‘immanence’ and ‘transcendence’ above. Can those terms really apply to religious naturalism? I think they can. Donald Crosby sees immanence and transcendence as being the two things that permit appreciation or recognition of a thing being a religion, and he has demonstrated that religious naturalism satisfies both of those things. Its immanence can be found in its rejection of all notions of supernaturalism and its repudiation of all theories of intelligent design or underlying purpose, while its transcendence is three-fold: first, we human beings, as ‘creatures of nature,’ have the capacity for self-transcendence; secondly, there occur transformative events that transcendent our expectations and lie outside or beyond our conscious will or control; and, thirdly, there is the transcendence, both in time and space, of nature itself over human beings, together with our utter dependence upon nature for the continuance of our lives both physically and otherwise. 

I have often written that supernaturalism is the enemy of all true religion and all that is good and meaningful in it. There, I’ve just said it again.

RELATED POST

MINDFULNESS, SUPERNATURALISM, THEISM AND SPIRITUALITY

YOU SHALL CEASE TO BE NEVER!

There is really only one ‘message,’ one ‘truth’ to be known and lived, and this is it:

Never the spirit was born; the spirit shall cease to be never;

Never was time it was not; End and Beginning are dreams!

Birthless and deathless and changeless remaineth the spirit for ever.

I am a minister to people of all faiths---and none. Each year I conduct a number of funerals, and I almost always include in my oration or invocations the above lines taken from Sir Edwin Arnold’s [pictured above] beautiful ‘translation’---or rather poetic version---of the Bhagavad-Gita (dubbed ‘The Song Celestial’).

Now, you may have read much from the world of philosophy and religion, and you may be quite confused as to what is, and is not, 'true.' You may have been told that this person, or that person, is the only way to ‘God’ or ‘Truth.’ You may have been told that only your church was the 'one, true church,' and that all other churches---and religions---were man-made. You may have been told that you must believe in this or that particular person, or this or that set of dogmas, or that you must follow a certain path, or lead a certain kind of 'moral' life, in order to be ‘saved,’ to be ‘enlightened,’ or to know ‘truth.’ Forget it. The people and institutions that expound that sort of 'message' are a menace to society and world peace---and they are seriously deluded, and sometimes very dangerous indeed. I kid you not.

There is no need to believe anything. If you want to know truth---which is what is---my advice is forget all about beliefs, for they put a barrier---a wall---between you and truth. You see, you are always in direct contact with truth, wherever you are, and whatever you are doing from one moment to the next---even if you are not consciously aware of that fact. You are a manifestation of truth, for truth is life, and that is what you are. You are life---an inpost and outpost of life---and you can never be less than life. So, there is nothing to ‘find.’ There is no ‘self’ that you need to know or get in contact with. Some people spend 20 or 30 (or even more) years trying to get to know their ‘self.’ They keep trying to ‘expand’ their consciousness. Ha! There is nothing to ‘expand.’ All you get is 'mathematics,' in the form of multiplication and division---that is, more and more little ‘selves,’ more and more mental images of ‘self.’ I have news for all of these people. They are wasting their time, because what they are hoping to find and know is and always has been---an illusion.

And forget about 'following' some other person. As the Indian spiritual philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti would say, ‘when you follow somebody, you have destroyed your own thoughts, you have lost your own independence, you have lost your freedom.’ Yes, and that is one of the very worst things you can do with your life---following others, even someone you have been told is 'God.' If you persist in doing that, what do you ‘discover,’ assuming you discover anything meaningful at all? Someone else’s version of ‘truth'---that's what---which is not truth at all, because it is 'filtered' down to you through someone else's words and thoughts. In any event, as Krishnamurti would also say, 'The teachers, the gurus, the mahatmas, the philosophers, have all led us astray.' Ditto the so-called saviours and messiahs. And just because I quote Krishnamurti does not mean I am 'following' him. There is no such need. What he says is demonstrably true---it is a self-evident fact. Look around you, and you will see it for yourself.

You may ask, 'Ellis-Jones, how can you say all these things?' I say to you, how could it be otherwise? When it comes to what is truth anything else is ‘unspeakable.’ Truth is---what is. Truth is---life. You are life---an individualized part of life’s self-expression, life’s ‘aliveness.’ You cannot be less---nor more or other---than that, and you can never be separated from life. Never! Not even for a moment! This is not a truth which can be known by the use of so-called conceptual or analytical thought. No, this truth---Truth itself---can only be known in the livingness of life, and as life, itself … in the moment … and from one moment to the next. That is, in the Eternal Now, which is (to use, yes, a figure of speech, a metaphor) ‘God,’ ‘Life,’ or ‘Truth.’

I have said all of this before, but I will continue to say it for so long as there is life in me because not all people have heard it or got the ‘message.’ The truth is, there really is no ‘message.’ There is no ‘path.’ There is nowhere to ‘go.’ There is nothing to ‘believe.’ There is no one to ‘follow.’ And there is nothing to 'transcend'---except, perhaps, your own limited thinking. There is, however, a truth to be known---and lived---and it is this: you shall cease to be never. Yes, you will die, and you will vanish from view---at least, the ‘form’ of the person that you are---but the real ‘part’ of you, the essence of you, which is life itself, will never cease to be because it was never ‘born,’ and it was never ‘created.’ The spirit of life will never cease to be. It changes not, even though all forms and things are in a constant state of change and degradation. The spirit of life forever takes form, is forever being incarnated, is forever being crucified, and is forever being resurrected into newness of life. That is the true meaning of those Christian teachings---but please don't believe that. Know it, for there is nothing to believe.

‘Birthless and deathless and changeless remaineth the spirit [of life] for ever.’ That is the one way of being. That is the way things really are.

RELATED POSTS

MINDFULNESS ACCORDING TO THE BHAGAVAD GĪTĀ

WALKING IN THE ETERNAL NOW

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

YOU ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE

FORGET ABOUT HAVING A 'TRANSCENDENTAL' EXPERIENCE!

MINDFULNESS IS A PATHLESS LAND

BIGOTED BUDDHISTS



A SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING

No, I am not talking about a so-called spirit guide, but a 'spiritual guide' ... that is, a guide which makes reference to certain 'spiritual' [see below] principles.

The meaning of the word ‘spirituality’

First, what do I mean by the word ‘spirituality’?

The English word ‘spirit’ comes from the Latin spiritus meaning, among other things, breath, breathing, air, inspiration, character, spirit, life, vigour, and courage.

Spirituality does not require nor depend upon any notions of ‘supernaturalism’ but refers to non-physical and non-transient things such as faith, hope and charity as well as states of affairs or human consciousness which, going ‘beyond words’, are only partially (if at all) graspable by human concepts ... things that cannot be seen but which are otherwise capable of being apprehended, if not fully understood. 

Spirituality is thus a composite word referring to the ‘domain where mind, personality, purpose, ideals, values and meanings dwell’ (Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan). In a similar vein, Father Joe Martin (pictured left), an acknowledged authority on spirituality and addictive disease, would always make it clear that spirituality, in the first instance, had little or nothing to do with God, but everything to do with the development of the mind, the emotions and the will.

Similarly, another Catholic priest, the Redemptorist Father Gerard H Chylko, wrote that spirituality is ‘made up of all those qualities of mind and character that make us who we are: our values, our desires, our feelings, and our dreams’.

All of the above makes perfect good sense to me.

Finally (at least on this point), Quaker writer Parker J Palmer has described spirituality as a ‘longing to be connected with the largeness of life’, that is, to something larger than one’s ego or 'self' (that is, some ‘power-not-oneself’). I like that.

Many people say, 'I am spiritual, but not religious,' as if the two things were worlds apart. Mind you, it does seem that way far too often! Never forget that religion is concerned with spirituality but, sadly, it is also concerned with other things as well ... such as power, wealth, control, dependency and, even at times, abuse.

Perhaps the main difference between spirituality and religion is that the former gives one complete freedom to choose one’s own individual path towards wholeness, recovery and ‘enlightenment’. Religion is the institutionalised, organised formal practice of a particular spiritual tradition's beliefs (ugh!), ethics, and rituals, whereas spirituality, doesn’t necessarily entail any adherence to a religious tradition.

Seven principles for mindful living

I have referred to these working ‘principles’ in many different blogs but I thought it might be helpful to bring them altogether ... for present purposes and otherwise.

These ‘principles’ are NOT articles of faith. They are NOT beliefs. I will have more to say about ‘beliefs’ shortly. At best, these principles are to be ‘accepted’ as working hypotheses ... and as guideposts to mindful living. They have served me well.

First principle: Life is one

Now, I must be careful here. I am not advocating monism or pantheism. When I say that life is one, I am trying to say a couple of things.

First, a single logic applies to all things and how they are related. All things exist in the same order or level of reality ... and on the same ‘plane’ of observability. If that were not the case, it would be impossible for us to be attentive to, and otherwise aware of, what happens from one moment to the next. Just think about that for a few seconds, and it will be obvious to you that such is the case.

Secondly, nothing is simple, indeed all things are complex, have internal differentiation, and interact with other things ... but, once again, all on the same level or order of reality and observability. Yes, all things are constituent members of wider systems and exchanges of things. The forms of things are constantly being transmuted.

Call it the ‘interconnectedness of all life’ or, if you like, ‘InterBeing’ (the latter wonderful term comes from Thich Nhat Hanh [pictured right]; see also the 'InterBeing' calligraphy, above left). In that sense, there is only one life manifesting itself in all things and as all things.

You don’t have to be a monist to know, intuitively, that life forever ‘gives’ of itself to itself in order to perpetuate itself. In that sense, we can rightly say that the ‘One [referring to ‘life’ itself, not some supposed transcendent Being] becomes the many.’

Also, when we look around us, what do we see? Living things, all living out their livingness, in and as themselves.

I also think it is self-evident and intuitively obvious that the ‘life’ flowing through your veins – and through and in all other living things as well – is, in a metaphysical (if not also in a physical) sense the same ‘life’ flowing through me. That’s as strong as I can put it without plunging into subjective idealism or monism.

Second principle: There is nothing ‘supernatural’

This second principle flows logically from the first.

As I have said many times, how can we conceive of there being any existence, or other order or level of reality, other than our ordinary ‘natural’ existence, that is, the way in which ordinary things exist in space and time. Any notion of there being different orders or levels of reality or truth is contrary to the very nature and possibility of discourse ... that is, unspeakable ... not to mention meaningless.

In short, we can have no conception of any such existence, nor any conception of what it might possibly be like.

Further, as already mentioned, if there were 'higher' and 'lower' orders or levels of reality, it would be impossible for us to be attentive to, and otherwise aware of, what happens from one moment to the next. The 'observer', the thing 'observed', and the 'act of observing' itself, must all be located on the one order of level of reality.

Listen to these words from the late Australian bishop Lawrence W Burt (pictured left):

'In a universe of LAW there can be no supernatural. There may be the super-physical, or super-normal, but there can be no super-natural. You cannot transcend Natural law, nor suspend it.' [Original emphasis]

So, if someone says to you, ‘There is a supernatural dimension to life, I’ve experienced it, but the reason you haven't experienced it is because you don't believe like me,’ just smile benignly, and say, ‘Have a cup of tea.’ (That's pure Zen. See the other piece of calligraphy, below, which reads, 'Go and have some tea.')

Having said all of the above, if you choose to believe [see below] in the 'supernatural', that does not prevent you from practising mindfulness. You see, mindfulness doesn't require any beliefs at all, nor will any beliefs prevent mindfulness from 'working' ... except, perhaps, a negative belief pertaining to the nature of mindfulness itself (eg that it is 'demonic' or something similarly silly). Further, as mindfulness, being entirely naturalistic, operates on the one so-called 'ordinary' order or level of reality in which all things live and move and have their being, mindfulness can and will work irrespective of the existence or non-existence of other supposed orders or levels of reality.

Third principle: Reject the unobservable as the cause of the observable

This third principle flows logically from both the first and the second principles.

One of the reasons I like Buddhism, and am a Buddhist, is that Buddhism, at least in its simplest and most ‘uncluttered’ forms, is almost entirely empirically-based. (Not so with most other religions, especially the monotheistic ones which, at their fundamentalist irrational worst, become quite toxic.)

Now, whether you are a Buddhist or not, it pays to be an empiricist. Buddha Shakyamuni was one ... indeed, one of the greatest empirical philosophers of all times. He refused to affirm that which was unobservable. He relied solely on the observable. Not a bad way to proceed. The 'answer' to any problem can only be found on the same order or level of reality as the 'problem.' Obvious, isn't it?

Unfortunately, many people still seek 'answers' to their problems from 'outside' or otherwise 'beyond' this spatiotemporal world, and they even believe [sic] that they receive answers. It's only a matter of time before this sort of problem is categorised by the American Psychiatric Association or some similar body as a 'mental illness.' Indeed, as belief in the so-called 'supernatural' wanes – particularly in Western societies – then it will no longer be able to be asserted by religionists of the kind in question that their false and fixed, and otherwise irrational, belief [sic] is one 'normally held by others of the same culture or subculture.' At that point in time, belief in the so-called supernatural will be seen to be what, in truth, it really is – a clinical delusion. Even at this point in time, it's a very fine line, for as the noted psychiatrist Dr Thomas Szasz has said, 'If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.' It's not funny. It's serious.

Nothing – I repeat nothing – is more important than, or superior to, facts ... that is, occurrences in space and time. Nothing! Indeed, there are only facts.

So, discard forever the idea that there are entities beyond space and time which yet work out their supposed purposes within space and time. Both science and logic compel us to reject the unobservable as the cause of the observable.

In all things, draw your conclusions and inferences from objective facts, based on observation and the use of unaided reason, and without appeal to any supposed ‘supernatural’ causes ... and NEVER accept anything that offends against your sensibilities or is otherwise contrary to reason.

So, if some person says to you, ‘You will never understand God [or Super-person X or whoever] unless you get beyond or abandon reason,’ again, just smile benignly, and say, ‘Have a cup of tea.’ (More Zen! The only sensible response to people of that kind. If they mention so-called 'revelation', tell them that reason is the only form of 'revelation', for the reasons previously given.)

Once again, there is only one order or level of reality. That is why we speak of the practice of mindfulness in terms of the presence of bare and curious attention to, and choiceless and non-judgmental awareness of, the action of the present moment ... from one moment to the next.

Fourth principle: Don’t ‘believe’

People ordinarily believe when they don't know or understand something. There is no need to believe anything ... and nothing to believe. Strange as it may seem, there is also no need to disbelieve anything ... and nothing to disbelieve. Whether or not something is the case does not depend upon belief or disbelief. That is why Buddha Skakyamuni said, 'Do not believe, for if you believe, you will never know. If you really want to know, don't believe.'

So, forget about belief-systems. Beliefs are for ‘spiritual cripples’ ... for those who can’t, or won’t, think for themselves. Beliefs, by their very nature, take the form of prejudices, or biases, of various kinds. The Buddha referred to beliefs as being in the nature of thought coverings or veils (āvarnas).

Choose a religion or, if you don’t like religion, a philosophy or a ‘way of life’ that doesn’t require you to believe or disbelieve anything. Life is Truth, and life is forever open-ended. We, as part of life's self-expression, are always in direct 'contact' with, and can always be choicelessly aware of, Truth. No doctrine or dogma, and no priest, guru or saviour, is needed for you to know and experience Truth. Beliefs actually get in the way of things. They are a barrier to Truth. In the words of Krishnamurti, 'Truth is a pathless land.' He also said, 'To find truth, or God, there must be neither belief nor disbelief. ... To seek God without understanding oneself has very little meaning.'

So, that is another reason I like Buddhism. Buddhists don’t ‘believe’. They know (well, obviously not everything, or even most things, but some things at least) ... and they try to understand.

Avoid, like the plague, those who say things like, ‘Super-person X is the only way to God,’ or ‘You must believe this [or "Super-person X"] in order to be saved.’ As I have said many times, if people are rewarded for believing such things, then I wouldn't want to believe [sic] in or worship such a god.

We, in the West, live in an age of crass materialism. Is it because most Westerners have given up on so-called 'orthodox' Christianity? The mainstream Christian churches would have you believe [sic] that is the cause of Western materialism ... that, along with human greed. No, I tend to agree with Bishop Burt (referred to and quoted above), who, after accusing the Christian Church of having 'lost the chart of man's spiritual origin and destiny,' went on to say:

'Western materialism is the product of certain orthodox Church doctrines which have been the substance of Christian thought for centuries. If modern civilisation is to be saved from the suicidal doom to which it is drifting, materialistic doctrines, even though invested with a halo of sanctity, must be expunged from Christian teaching.'

'Orthodox Christianity has lost its appeal to thoughtful people because its primitive doctrines are divorced from reason, from logic and commonsense.'

Those words were spoken in Sydney, Australia, over 70 years ago. Ever since then, Australians and most other Westerners – who, like me, are not prepared to believe that which offends against one's sensibilities or which is otherwise contrary to reason – have been leaving the churches in droves. For the most part, I don't blame them.

So, dear friends, whatever you do ... don't 'believe'.

Fifth principle: There is no ‘self’

That's right, there is no such thing as ‘self’. Now, I know that is a hard concept for many to grasp, but it is the considered view of most leading philosophers and neuroscientists.

If you stop and think about it for a moment, there is something intrinsically wrong with the notion of the ‘self’. So-called ‘consciousness’ – for there really is no such thing (except in a ‘relational’ sense) – is neither a fixed quantity or quality nor of fixed duration, but simply ‘something’ quite intermittent in nature that undergoes change moment by moment.

The truth is our ‘stream of consciousness’ (awareness-ing) goes through continuous fluctuations from moment to moment. As such, there is nothing to constitute, let alone sustain, a separate, transcendent ’I’ structure or entity. Yes, we have a sense of continuity of ‘self’, but it is really an illusion. It has no ‘substance’ in psychological reality. It is simply a mental construct composed of a continuous ever-changing process or confluence of impermanent components (‘I-moments’) which are cleverly synthesized by the mind in a way which appears to give them a singularity and a separate and independent existence and life of their own.

Sixth principle: Obey the ‘law of indirectness’

The metaphysical ‘law of indirectness’ is easy to explain because it is self-evident and intuitively obvious. It is also empirically based.

The ‘law’ says this – don't attempt to put a negative or otherwise troublesome thought or problem out of one's mind directly but rather let the thought or problem slip from the sphere of conscious analysis.

That is the ‘right’ ... indeed, the only ... way to proceed.

Don't try ... instead, let.

Seventh principle: Resist not!

There is another metaphysical or spiritual ‘law’ which is very closely related to the one mentioned above – the ‘law of non-resistance.’

Put simply, this ‘law’ says, ‘Whatever you resist, persists.’

Even Jesus is reported to have told his followers, 'Resist not evil' (Mt 5:39). The American spiritual teacher Vernon Howard, whose writings and lectures have had a big impact on my life, said this: 'Resistance to the disturbance is the disturbance.' Get the picture?

So, when it comes to your mindfulness practice, don’t try to actively bring thoughts or feelings up to the surface. Instead, be with the moment. Indeed, remain embodied in the moment. Whenever a body sensation, sense perception, thought, feeling, emotion, image, plan, memory, reflection or commentary arises, do not resist it or try to expel, drive it away or change it. Simply observe and notice, with passive detachment, and without attitude, comment or judgment.

RELATED POSTS

IS MINDFULNESS A RELIGION?

DALAI LAMA SAYS 'MINDFULNESS IS NOT RELIGIOUS'

MINDFULNESS IN THE BIBLE

THE MINDFUL ART OF KNOWING ONESELF

RATIONAL HUMANENESS IS THE ANSWER

FORGET ABOUT HAVING A ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ EXPERIENCE!

MINDFULNESS, THE ‘SELF’ AND SERENITY

TAKING REFUGE IN MINDFULNESS

THE MINDFUL MIND OF NO-MIND

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

THE POWER OF PRACTICAL MINDFULNESS

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

FORGET ABOUT HAVING A ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ EXPERIENCE!

Emeritus Professor Paul Kurtz and Dr Ian Ellis-Jones



I am a rather sceptical sort of person. I am proud of that fact. I refuse to accept or believe in anything unless and until I am satisfied that there is sufficient probative material attesting to the existence or veracity of the thing in question.

Trained as a lawyer to always look for evidence, ordained into the Unitarian ministry (which has always been a sceptical, questioning, open-ended denomination or form of religion), a former president of both the Humanist Society of New South Wales and the Council of Australian Humanist Societies, and a student of empirical philosophy, I find absolutely no evidence for the existence of any 'supernatural' order or level of reality, any 'transcendental' realm of reality, or any 'paranormal' activity ... and I can't stand superstition of any kind.

As regards the latter (superstition), I am simply amazed, and at the same time equally appalled, at the number of people I encounter who boast how they are 'not religious' in any way but who are otherwise incorrigibly superstitious and credulous, often engaging in New Age nonsense or dubious forms of 'alternative healing' of various sorts in respect of which there is little or no empirical support. Please check out the wonderful websites of Quackwatch and James Randi.

I have never forgotten the good advice received from Paul Kurtz (pictured above, with yours truly), to always resist what Kurtz describes as 'the transcendental temptation' as well as to avoid engaging in 'magical thinking'. Kurtz, who is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, is one of the world's greatest living philosophers and freethinkers, and the author of many seminal books on philosophy, religion, humanism and freethought, including, not so coincidentally, one entitled The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. For those interested, you may wish to listen to this YouTube video of Paul Kurtz discussing 'Affirmations of the New Skepticism':

'Supernaturalism.' How I hate that word ... and its supposed meaning! A man I respect greatly, the late Australian bishop Lawrence W Burt (pictured left), once wrote, 'In a universe of LAW there can be no supernatural. There may be the super-physical, or super-normal, but there can be no super-natural. You cannot transcend Natural law, nor suspend it. Every branch of science is a testimony that this is a Universe of inviolable LAW.'

I fully agree. Whilst there may be states of experience which can be labelled  transmundane or transnatural (as opposed to 'supernatural', 'transcendental' or 'paranormal'), I see no need whatsoever for us to attempt to ‘extricate’ ourselves from, or otherwise ‘transcend’, our ordinary existence or ordinary states of consciousness or so-called ‘relative experience’ (whatever that means, if anything) ... whether by means of chemicals, prayer, mantra meditation or any other means.

How can we conceive of there being any existence, or other order or level of reality, other than our ordinary ‘natural’ existence, that is, the way in which ordinary things exist in space and time. John Anderson (pictured right), former Challis Professor of Philosophy, at the University of Sydney, would refer to this as the ‘problem of commensurability’, that is, that any notion of there being different orders or levels of reality or truth is, in Anderson's words, ‘contrary to the very nature and possibility of discourse’. 

Yes, any concept of there being some ‘supernatural’ order or level of reality is strictly meaningless and unspeakable.  We can have no conception of any such existence, nor any conception of what it might possibly be like.  Further, as Professor Anderson often pointed out, even if there were, in fact, more than one order of reality, how could there be connections between them? 

Empirical observation can find nothing ‘metaphysical’, ‘occult’ or ‘beyond experience’. Both science and philosophy afford us no evidence or support for the idea that there are any entities beyond space and time which yet work out their supposed purposes within space and time. Both science and logic compel us to reject the unobservable as the cause of the observable.

Forget about having a so-called ‘transcendental’ experience, whether in the sense of supposedly 'going beyond' (whatever that means) the normal, physical, three-dimensional limitations of human functioning, perception and existence or otherwise. We - that is, all of us except, perhaps, those suffering from various forms of delusions, clinical or otherwise - spend most, if not all, of our time in so-called ‘ordinary’ reality, so it stands to reason that, if we are to have any meaningful experience at all, it can, must and will be found in our ordinary day-to-day existence ... as just another occurrence in space and time.

Yes, there is the ordinary ... and the extraordinary ... but the latter is to be entirely found and experienced in and among the ordinary. There is no transcendence except to the extent that there clearly occur transformative events that can be said to ‘transcend’ our expectations and lie outside or beyond our conscious will or control. (As an aside, I shudder when I hear of meditative or other similar practices being trademarked and only able to be taught by certain supposedly 'initiated' gurus. Forget all about gurus, As Krishnamurti said time and time again, they are unproductive, and even prevent one from having an otherwise direct relationship with reality [that is, truth] itself.)

Forget about ‘expanded consciousness’. There's nothing to 'expand' (or 'enlarge'), for there is no ‘consciousness’ whose nature it is to be known. I repeat, there is no consciousness whose nature it is to be known ... so there can be no degrees of that which does not exist. Consciousness, as philosophers such as David Hume and William James have pointed out, is not an 'entity' in its own right but simply a name for the logical relationship between the person who knows and the thing known ... the third necessary element in the relation being the act of knowing. So-called 'expanded consciousness' means nothing more than waking up or leaving the cave.

There is absolutely no need to ‘elevate’ your self-awareness. (Indeed, all attempts to do so are bound to end in failure. For starters, there is no 'self' of which to be or become aware.) All you need to do, dear friends, is to become more alert to, and aware of, what is happening in and around you. It’s as simple as that. Become more open, more curious, and more flexible.

So, forget about forms or methods of prayer or meditation which would seek to ‘elevate’ your consciousness or self-awareness or ‘extricate’ yourself from your ordinary state of experience thereby purportedly putting you in touch with some supposed transcendental or supernatural state of reality.

Now, this is fact ... there is only a continuity of moment-to-moment experience and awareness ... a continuous process or transformation from one state to another. Everything is observable, and all things observed exist and are observable on the same plane of observability. Thus, there needs to be a direct continuity between what is proposed as an explanation for any occurrence and the occurrence itself, for if there were no such continuity it would not be possible for us to say how observable effects are produced ... nor even that they are effects at all.

In light of all of the above, it should come as no surprise, except to those who want or choose to believe otherwise, that rigorous independent systematic scholarly reviews over many decades have found little probative evidence of demonstrable  lasting health benefits - other than general relaxation and certain positive spinoff effects - attributable to, or otherwise associated with, a certain type of meditative practice which invokes notions of ‘transcendence’ in some or all of the senses referred to above. That is not to say that people cannot, and do not, derive benefits of various kinds from all forms of meditation and relaxation ... but, when one looks at the evidence, nothing compares with mindfulness.

Yes, the evidence for the efficacy of mindfulness is abundant and very strong indeed. Since 1967 over 1,500 studies worldwide have been conducted by over 250 independent research institutes and centres showing mindfulness meditation to be clinically effective for the management of, among other things, stress, depression, anxiety and panic disorders, chronic pain, substance abuse, eating disorders, obsessional thinking, impulsivity, strong emotional reactivity and a wide array of other medical and mental health related conditions.

Mindfulness, to the extent that it takes the form of meditation - for it is much more than that as well - is totally unlike all other forms of meditation. Dr Jon Kabat-Zinn  (pictured right), who has done more than any other Westerner to promote mindfulness as both a way of life and a therapeutic modality, refers to mindfulness as ‘falling awake’.

I love that ... falling awake ... not falling alseep ... not falling into or otherwise creating some dreamy state ... but falling awake! Mindfulness is simply mindful living, as opposed to living on auto-pilot. In addition, mindfulness takes meditation and applies it to one’s entire life. Thus, mindfulness is not something you do for, say, 20 minutes a day, rather it’s something you do 24/7... yes, even when you’re asleep ... at least, to the extent humanly possible.

A single logic applies to all things and how they are related. All things exist in the same order or level of reality ... and on the same ‘plane’ of observability.

So, stop trying to ‘elevate’ your self-awareness. There is nothing to elevate. Stop trying to 'expand' or 'elevate' your consciousness. There is nothing to expand or elevate. Simply wake up ... and become more aware of what is happening in and around you. Stop seeking the ‘transcendental’. There is nothing to transcend or to which to transcend. Finally, stop trying to 'extricate' yourself. There is nothing from which to extricate yourself ... except fallacious thinking.

Seek only the extraordinary within the ordinary ... for you can find it everywhere! It is more than enough ... but don't just take my word for it, experiment for yourself!


POSTSCRIPT. Paul Kurtz died on October 20, 2012.

RELATED POSTS

RATIONAL HUMANENESS IS THE ANSWER

A SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

MINDFULNESS, THE 'SELF' AND SERENITY

MINDFULNESS AND THE LIVINGNESS OF LIFE

MINDFULNESS AND THE TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS

YOU SHALL CEASE TO BE NEVER!

THE MINDFUL ART OF KNOWING ONESELF

THE DEATH OF PAUL KURTZ---FATHER OF SECULAR HUMANISM