Spiritual Masters

[Thomas Knierim]

I came across the suggestion (by a Westerner) that one tends to find more spiritual masters in the Eastern religions than in the Abrahamic religions for the same reason that one finds more master musicians in the field of Jazz and Classical music than elsewhere. According to the idea, spirituality has many styles just as music has many styles. In music, the ones that are most difficult to master -because of the required virtuosity- are Jazz and and Classical music. Simultaneously, these styles also stand out for their complex modes of expression.

Now according to this theory, spiritual masters are more frequent in the Eastern traditions, because these are more complex and allow greater degrees of freedom in expression which means that masters are less limited by rigid doctrinal systems. Masters are attracted to these religions because they find them closer to perennial truths and better suited to express spiritual teachings. Hence, the situation is somewhat analogous to music. This doesn't mean that there are no masters in the Occidental religions, but just not that many.

I am not sure what to think about it.

On one hand, I cannot deny that Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are (culturally and doctrinally) more complex than the Abrahamic religions. On the other hand, I am not sure whether this constitutes an advantage. I can certainly think of a number of spiritual masters in the Abrahamic faiths, for example Jesus, Meister Eckhart, Bahá'u'lláh (had to look up the spelling), Ahmad ibn Ajiba, Maimonides, just to name a few.

What is your opinion?

Cheers, Thomas

[kris]

Here is an Easterner's opinion. It is time the West realizes that religion is a Western notion. As far as I know the only Eastern religions are those that the Westerner's creasted as Eastern religions. I have explained my views on religion here (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3409).

The way I see it, religion by its very nature scuttles any efforts to think independently and I submit to you that one cannot attain mastery in any field when there is no independent thinking. Masters are attracted to these religions because they find them more appropriate for expressing perennial truths and spiritual teachings.Religions claim that they have already expressed all the perennial truths, (though I am hard pressed to find those expressions) what then is the point in expressing them again and again?

[Pyotr Izutsu]

There's still a very strong tendency for some people to fetishize the Dharmic religions because they seem "exotic", which I think accounts for the view that "Eastern religions have more masters".

The fact that many "spiritual" Westerners have something of a chip on their shoulder when it comes to Judaism and Christianity (and often a number of biases and misconceptions when it comes to Islam) tends to make them ignore or dismiss spiritual masters from the Abrahamic religions.

[Pyotr Izutsu]

Kris,

I think you are overemphasizing the semantic difference between "religion" and dharma. I certainly agree that Western preconceptions about what "religion" is have effected how scholars and "experts" view other traditions, but overall I think there are many similarities which you do not emphasize.

There is a negative association with the word "religion" that many spiritual traditions are now trying to distance themselves from. For instance, even when speaking English, many Muslims do not use the word "religion" to refer to Islam. Instead, they use the Arabic word din, which, much like yourself, they allege isn't rendered adequately in English as "religion". Depending on the context, din can mean either "way of life" or "law". In the latter respect, there is at least some overlap with the concept of dharma, insofar as dharma means "law". The Christian equivalent of this concept is the Greek word logos, which is a central concept to Christians.

I'm not one of those people who claims that all religions are "the same". But nevertheless, I think there a lot of broad similarities that transcend particular traditions. The definition of religion you insist on (i.e. as something that by definition stifles "independent thinking") is extremely narrow and ignores these broader trends.

Personally, I go by the ancient, pre-Christian, Latin definition of religion, which simply means "to observe". And the human capacity to observe the eternal law is something that seems to be transcultural.

One person whom I find offers an interesting perspective on these matters is Raimon Panikkar (http://www.raimon-panikkar.org/). As the son of a Roman Catholic from Catalonia and a Hindu from Kerala, he's been exposed to both the "East" and the "West". I don't agree with everything he has to say, but in general his perspective is quite nuanced. Maybe it's because of my own background as a multiracial, multicultural individual, but I tend to think the similarities between people and cultures are often overlooked, and differences overemphasized. The idea that "East is East, and West is West, and ne'er the twain shall meet" is very much outdated, if it could ever have been said to apply at any point in human history.

[kris]

PI, it is not just the semantic difference that I consider, although that is important. Let's leave aside for the moment scholarly discussion of religion and dharma. We can get to that later if we need to. It is the street level understanding of the term, how a common man understands and uses this word that leads me to my disdain for religion. I think you need to reason why the negative association with the word that you refer to comes about.

I am glad though thst you are familiar with dharma. And I agree that the notion of logos, that the Greeks introduced about 500 years before Christianity, is quite similar to dharma. Greeks were clever. I have an abiding interest in sanAtana dharma (http://kris10846902.tripod.com/) or the Eternal Law which forms the basis of my life.

Now let me tell you this. I have never felt a need for religion. I cannot think of any use for it. And I cannot imagine wasting my time on it. Why should I even care about any religion?

[cmckoyrall]

PI, it is not just the semantic difference that I consider, although that is important. Let's leave aside for the moment scholarly discussion of religion and dharma. We can get to that later if we need to. It is the street level understanding of the term, how a common man understands and uses this word that leads me to my disdain for religion. I think you need to reason why the negative association with the word that you refer to comes about.

I am glad though thst you are familiar with dharma. And I agree that the notion of logos, that the Greeks introduced about 500 years before Christianity, is quite similar to dharma. Greeks were clever. I have an abiding interest in sanAtana dharma (http://kris10846902.tripod.com/) or the Eternal Law which forms the basis of my life.

Now let me tell you this. I have never felt a need for religion. I cannot think of any use for it. And I cannot imagine wasting my time on it. Why should I even care about any religion?

Religion is a man made concept. Devised by the carnal mind to divide us all. Spirituality is what unites us. After all God or the universal consciousness or one Universal Being what ever you want to call him, he/she is a spirit. Therefore those that have communion with him are spirits also. The world has told us a lie even the bible tells us so , Romans 1:25 Says "who took the truth of God and turned it into a lie and worshipped and served the creature instead of the creator who is bless for ever amen." The world know now that energy is eternal and cannot be destroyed. Energy is spirit with intellect or consciousness. Spirit, energy and the things of God are eternal. It does not matter what you think, the truth is what it is,even you you dispute it. All true relationships with God or the universal consciousness is a oneness with everything. The same energy in a rock or a plant is the same energy in you. The only difference if the level of consciousness we have along with the free will.
The only reason we have science and or philosophy is that our souls know we have a spiritual identity and seeks to acknowledge it with interferance from our own carnal minds. The carnal mind , our intellect is a liar. It wants us to be mere men when we are eternal being made like unto the image of our creator and father. Being one with the creator means working to reach at oneness through acknowledge of our own being and understanding that we are one with the universe. Religion is carnally predisposed for it denies the oneness that orders your being and cultivates your ego. Spiruality is relational. Your relation with God, the univesal conscious is not directly related any other concept. Therefore if you seek God or the universal consciousnes, it will find you, without a minister, preacher or pastor. And this works even if you dont believe it, because truth is the truth today and yesterday and tomorrow. Test it and see. I dare you.

[cmckoyrall]

I came across the suggestion (by a Westerner) that one tends to find more spiritual masters in the Eastern religions than in the Abrahamic religions for the same reason that one finds more master musicians in the field of Jazz and Classical music than elsewhere. According to the idea, spirituality has many styles just as music has many styles. In music, the ones that are most difficult to master -because of the required virtuosity- are Jazz and and Classical music. Simultaneously, these styles also stand out for their complex modes of expression.

Now according to this theory, spiritual masters are more frequent in the Eastern traditions, because these are more complex and allow greater degrees of freedom in expression which means that masters are less limited by rigid doctrinal systems. Masters are attracted to these religions because they find them closer to perennial truths and better suited to express spiritual teachings. Hence, the situation is somewhat analogous to music. This doesn't mean that there are no masters in the Occidental religions, but just not that many.

I am not sure what to think about it.

On one hand, I cannot deny that Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are (culturally and doctrinally) more complex than the Abrahamic religions. On the other hand, I am not sure whether this constitutes an advantage. I can certainly think of a number of spiritual masters in the Abrahamic faiths, for example Jesus, Meister Eckhart, Bahá'u'lláh (had to look up the spelling), Ahmad ibn Ajiba, Maimonides, just to name a few.

What is your opinion?

Cheers, Thomas

The Abrahamic religions were hijacked by liars. the real Abrahamic religion would have come from the Essence, the people of John the Baptist, Mary mother of Jesus and Jesus himself. If the truth were told his message was the same as eastern religion. But somebody told a lie. They refused to put the books of Enoch in the bible. Jesus and the apostles quoted him but Constantine and his appointed Bishops refused allow anyone with the real truth to in the bible. But once again religion any religion seperates us.
The truth of God or the Universal Being is present in all one god religion even that of Egypt. If y0u read what one of the women minister of Amen Ra, talk of Him, you would immediately know she was talking of the one and Living God or Universal Consciousness. The the western religion would have you believe she was talking of some pagan God. The God of the Sun was the God of the Universe. Religious leaders would have us believe that their God is of their truth only. The Real God of the Universe can be found in any religion that supports one God. To know for your self, Ask God or Ask the Universal Consciousness, He will answer you every time because you seek him. The Words, Ask and it will be given, Seek and you shall find , knock and the door will be open is universal. It does not matter what religion you are eastern western, southern ,northern or on the plains of madagascar, if you seek our Creator he will answer you every time. Can you imagine a creator who did not love his creation. Meditate on this.

[Thomas Knierim]

You may be right, cmckoyrall,

The Essenes were an outstanding group. They did not sacrifice animals or take life, they weren't usually wearing weapons, did not engage in warfare, didn't keep slaves, and they believed in reincarnation. They were also the authors of the Dead Sea scrolls, at least the majority of scholars think so.

Cheers, Thomas