I agree with most of what you said. On a basic level it is a stripped down version of what most religions attempt to achieve. But I find this isn't enough, I need the stories, myth, ritual, art, literature, theology, saints, virtue, metaphysics, etc. This makes it exciting and real...maybe I'm just a spiritual gluttoninteractive processing wrote: the two don't seem that far apart from a gnostic perspective either. the idea of working toward sainthood seems especially well aligned (minus the catholic miracles perhaps)
admittedly some mysticism is very disconnected from the material world but i would tend to count it in with the fluff. the type that deals in a deep interest in altering the way the world is perceived tends to take an introspective nature and a lot lot lot of hard work,(some mysticism even gos as far as recommending a couple years of psychoanalysis at the beginning) and its not just about meditation, any practice that requires the kind of focus that forces or encourages entering into a state of flow (being truly in the moment) is good, it can be anything from martial arts, rock climbing, to painting or knitting. the real work or "what to do" is really no different than "what to do" to be a good christian, and that requires deep self examination and understanding of what you are thinking and how that is causing you to act in or see the world, when you understand it, you begin to change it, and the process of learning to truly shut down the internal dialog is underway.
One thing that Joseph Campbell said that has stuck with me, is that one needs to select the mythology/religion that resonates with them and then stick with that system. These mythologies have everything already built into them to give that "fullness" of life. But we must take the whole system rather than pick and choose what we like. Obviously I think Christianity is "correct", but I can see a lot of good in other religions/spirituality, and Vatican II even echoed this sentiment:
Vatican II - NOSTRA AETATE wrote:1. In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.
One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth.(1) One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men,(2) until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.(3)
Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what is sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?
Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun ... te_en.html
interactive processing wrote: i tend to be model-agnostic when it comes to picking the paradigms i view the world through, each model of the world is a bit like a lens making some things clear and blocking out others, for example if i wanted a model that built strong family values and tight nit community i might look to what the Mormons do, if i want to understand suffering Buddhism is a strong contender for shedding light, if i want a philosophical approach to understanding the universe (this suits me well) i might look to Taoism, if i want to understand how a volcano works or how the personality develops i would look to science, and psychology. and as great as each of these is in its ability to illuminate in one area, they all have their own blind spots in others
in science light can be a particle or a wave depending on how the experiment is preformed and the tools used for measurement, one tool/experiment isn't necessarily more right or wrong than the other, it becomes a question of which is more useful to achieve the goals you want at this particular point in time.. i tend to view religion the same way..
all that being said... i don't disagree with the idea that "if you find something that resonates with you stick with it", some aspects of religion like ritual and community (neither a strong draw for me) require a pick one and stick with it approach to have value, and most religions/paradigms have a lifetime worth of growth to offer even if they have blind spots... especially if you can retain the "open to the value and good others have" attitude you and tortoise have shared..
