Sign Up Now
Login/New User

Psyche

The Original Religion

Charles Eisenstein

Within all religions today there is a common core, an inner spiritual transmission going back to the dawn of human consciousness, to a time when religion was not necessary.

The original purpose of religion was to bring sacredness to life. Imagine a time (whether prehistorical or transhistorical) when human beings lived moment-to-moment in the presence of the sacred. Religion was unnecessary. There was no separation between spirituality and life, no distinction between the sacred and the mundane, no division of the Godly and the worldly. When we lost the ongoing and immediate sense of sacredness, then we needed religion to bring us back to it. "Religion," after all, means "that which renews our connection."

No matter that modern religions have been distorted into a force for separation and not connection. If we look carefully within any one of them, we will find traces of the Original Religion, the religion borne from that immediate, experiential identity with the divine. Born from the divine, it also has the potential to bring us back to the divine.

I am afraid that when I use phrases like "bring us back to the divine" I am strengthening a separation that is actually an illusion. The Original Religion is not a program for attaining to a divinity separate from ourselves or the world of matter we inhabit. It arises from the felt experience that no such separation exists. To even use words like "divine" or "sacred" establishes them as separate categories of existence and widens the division.

We have a name for the Original Religion. We call it animism, and it is still practiced today by isolated groups of indigenous people. We usually define animism as the belief that all things have a spirit: including animals and plants, rocks and streams, the wind and the sky. Actually, this belief is a step away from the original animism, which is perhaps better termed "panentheism," a belief in the indwelling divinity of all things. Panentheism says not that all things have a spirit; it is that all things are spirit. Spirit is not a distinct element that can be separated out from the being itself. The entire universe, and everything in it, is irreducibly sacred. Everything that exists, even two apparently identical drops of water, is unique, special, and sacred.

The panentheist thus lives in a constant state of reverence. Each action takes on a sacred significance. Each word is a prayer. Each event is divinely arranged, a communication from the All to a temporarily separate piece of it, the self.

The detachment from this way of being began with the earliest rudiments of human separation from nature: symbolic culture and domestication. When we try to encompass the infinity of the world within a finitude of labels, we distance ourselves from its immediacy and uniqueness. As the author of the Biblical Genesis understood, to name is to objectify and therefore to own. Domestication of plants and animals, similarly, risks converting them from coequal beings sacred in their own right into chattel, subordinate to human purposes.

This process was well underway in the Mesolithic if not before, but human beings still lived in harmony with nature because they had beliefs, stories, and rituals to reconnect them to the truth of the irreducible sacredness of all beings. Shamans were the original priests, the caretakers of this sacred knowledge, which they recognized is indispensable for human beings' survival. In those days, we understood the necessity of religion – renewing or remembering our connectedness. It is necessary because it is true, and no being can live very long or very well outside of truth.

Traces of the original religion survive within the esoteric traditions of modern religions, embodied in teachings like, "God is everywhere," "God is in all things," or "Everything happens for a divine purpose." The experience of God's constant presence is essentially the experience of the Original Religion. The mystics tell us that it is a Presence so close and so intimate that the self is submerged in it. The Presence suffuses all life, each moment of it, and it shines forth from every being we encounter. We have the sense of living in a wholly divine world, a holy world. And because the same Presence shines forth from all, our customary sense of division falls away, and we have the feeling that you and I are really the same being looking at itself through different eyes.

This is actually very easy to experience, at least for a split second. Look someone in the eye, and pay attention for an instant of recognition and union. It is so intensely intimate that we usually cannot stand it, so we shift our eyes away or shift our mind away, and forget that moment before we realize it has happened.

I think the original motivating intent of religion is to seize and expand such moments until they widen to encompass all of life. Even the attenuated rituals of modern life have something of this power to evoke the presence of the sacred, which we can then recognize was there all along, immanent and waiting.

Any religion can connect us to that presence, even an atheistic religion such as Buddhism. After all, if God is in everything and everyone, and not external to everything and everyone, what does it really mean to say God exists or does not exist? Buddhism speaks of interconnectedness or interdependency, and we typically understand that to mean a kind of relationship among separate subjects. The true teaching goes much deeper. It says that our very existence is woven out of relationships, that we are our relationships and nothing else. Inter-existence would be a word for it. And so karma is not an externally imposed punishment for doing ill to a separate "other" being; it is simply the direct consequence of all that we do, because the other is not in fact other.

In Western religion we can apply the same understanding to the Golden Rule. Perhaps when Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," he wasn't prescribing a moral rule. He was simply stating what was, from his perspective, an obvious truth: As you do unto others, so you are in fact doing unto yourself. This is obvious from the felt perspective of nonseparation.

Every action is significant, every word deserves mindfulness. God sees everything. There are not some words and actions that don't matter and others that do. Everything matters. Everything is sacred. Nothing is left behind in the cold dead world of the mundane.

Does that mean that our sacred objects, our times of meditation and prayer, our rituals and observances have no purpose? No. Their purpose is to remind us of the truth. The purpose of a holy object is not to say, "This object is holy and others are not." The purpose of a holy object is to remind us of the holiness of all objects. The purpose of a ritual is to remind us of the sacredness of all action. The purpose of a prayer is to remind us of the sacredness of all speech. And, when we see our holy men or women as divine, it is to remind us of our own divinity and the divinity of all.

Too often the teachings of our great spiritual leaders have been perverted, so that holiness has become something outside ourselves. When that happens, we naturally trust external authorities in most matters, and lose the confidence and ability to be the creators of our own lives. Today, more and more people are returning to the truth: that we are divine beings living among other divine beings in a world that is itself, in its parts and in its entirety, wholly divine.

Whether conscious or not, it is this realization that ultimately motivates the environmental movement, the peace movement, the justice movement, and so many other areas of activism. None of these make sense in a world of force and reason, where more for you is less for me. Why should I care about the fate of other beings? As long as I can insulate myself from the blowback, why not just maximize my own security? Arguments for justice or the environment that attempt to appeal to rational self-interest ("think of all the medicines we could derive from rainforest plants") are never compelling. They do not compel others to change, as forty years of failed environmentalism demonstrates. Nor do they compel meaningful changes from within. We cannot scare ourselves into virtue.

That is why the panentheistic revival in all its forms is key to the transformation of the planet. Underneath all the New Age expropriation of the trappings of indigenous spirituality and shamanism lies a yearning to return to the living realization of the indwelling divinity of all things. It is a way of seeing the world profoundly at odds with modern materialism's reduction of the universe into a pile of stuff: generic masses subject to arbitrary, purposeless forces. And it will engender profoundly different results. Can you imagine a science, a technology, an economy, a culture founded on reverence? That is the promise of the once and future Original Religion.

 

Artwork by Colin Purrington, used courtesy a Creative Commons license.

email

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Picture of <em>Jeffery DeCelles</em>

A Recovering Cynic muses...

Until a year ago, I would have nodded, noting the references, critiquing the scholarship, the style of this blog, then clicked on, smug in my deep nihilism, no fucking way. But something HAS changed, in me, in my heart, and its connection to my brain, subtler than the old medicines, the 'shrooms and such. It's a technologic augment, ladies and gentlemen, a biofeedback practice to engender "coherence" in heart-rate-variability, and it seems to be working. I feel things, a participative reverence, not common since my entheogenic explorations were curtailed in the interest of making a living. The tech is simple, a portable "emWave" monitor from HeartMath.com, reading pulse, and binaural meditation soundtracks from BrainSync.com. I prop to monitor on the laptop, load the track, and watch a Visualization on the media player with the monitor in periferal view. Twenty or so minutes of this a day, for over a year, and I'm a kinder, gentler egomaniac. If this simple tech-trick can turn a feral geek like me even slightly toward the Light, there's hope. Anyone in RS land tried this angle?
Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

now that you mention it

i was just thinking about my options, but you know a mushroom comes from the earth or a culture, the meditating people that had no mind devices, had to do the practice, i wonder if we are missing something.I suppose if you do both then maybe you can find a path through the best of both worlds. just a passing thought.
Picture of <em>Jeffery DeCelles</em>

Grateful for the thought

Thanks, sensei. I look forward to combinatory exploration, if and when the sacrement(s) bless me with manifestation. Until then, I'll work in the medium at hand, the digital domain. If we take Panentheism literally, then my electronics are just as imbued with ju-ju as anything else.

Is chanting the sutras in clouds of incense intrinsically more valid than my practice in front of a screen? Is shit-sprung fungi more genuine a vehicle to gnosis than silicon/software modalities? I get leery of archaic nostalgia, or luddite fundamentalism. Just sayin', eh?

Strait up, the visionary vegetables kick ass, as ten millenia of morphogenetic momentum can give quite the leg up in efficacy. What jazzes me is the notion of executive-types getting into "Heart Coherence" with biofeedback, ostensibly to improve their golf game, and chilling themselves into a compassionate bliss state. Crypto-Satori?

Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

ju ju mojo

well, i read some stuff about the heart coherence guys, seems there is some contraversy with Dan Winter. the pi guy.

if you want to do shamanic cyber-crypto get the Roshi device, only a million, well almost.

if we got the corporate types to cohear their hearts, and hey that little hand held thingie looks boss.

Picture of <em>JahSun</em>

Brain Machines

I have found such brainwave influencing tools to be valuable. Particularly the older style brain machines with both audio and blinking light glasses (or goggles). They seem to bring me into a profound meditative state 50-60% faster than I would get there on my own. And for some of my friends who have very little success with meditation, this technique works for them in less than 15 minutes.

It is also a very cool bonus that the blinking lights give you you enjoyable CEV's. Combine this with some sacraments, and you can travel fairly deep down the rabbit hole. (perhaps 2wice the journey on 2/3rds the fuel)

 
;-)

Picture of <em>Peter Deane</em>

About the Divine

Reverence Pick them up if they tumble.

Figure it out if they’re jumbled.

Pick up the slack if they’re fumbling.

Listen closely when they’re mumbling.

Break them apart if they’re rumbling.

Iron them out if they’re crumpled.

Hold them up if they’re crumbling.

Teach them when they’re bumbling.

Hug them when they’re grumbling.

Remove sharp edges if they’re stumbling.

Heal wounds when pummeled.

Reason when they’re troubling.

The divine never stops reaching

Into the heart of holy realignment

Moment-to-moment-to-moment

An answer becomes clear

And here all is revered and humbled.

What do you think Mr. Moore?

Today is part of forever.

'GODDESS'

I have to remark that I need to see 'Goddess' as well as 'God'.

'God' is a loaded term after long long time patriarchal insistence and application of the term, and it being implied a male principle over all things, 'his' creation'.

I am not trying to disenfranchize the male principle of course, but it is so that the Goddess since very long ago has been under attack.

Was it not the upstart god Marduk who 'dis-member-ered' the Great Goddess, who was both Earth and Heaven? So I have been really interested what this mythic assault on the Goddess, on the Divine Female in all her aspects must mean for us here, in all aspects of our life.

I am really interested in your differentiation emphasis between animism and panentheism, which you claim to be the original animism:

"We have a name for the Original Religion. We call it animism, and it is still practiced today by isolated groups of indigenous people. We usually define animism as the belief that all things have a spirit: including animals and plants, rocks and streams, the wind and the sky. Actually, this belief is a step away from the original animism, which is perhaps better termed "panentheism," a belief in the indwelling divinity of all things. Panentheism says not that all things have a spirit; it is that all things are spirit. Spirit is not a distinct element that can be separated out from the being itself. The entire universe, and everything in it, is irreducibly sacred. Everything that exists, even two apparently identical drops of water, is unique, special, and sacred."

In this concept? Everything is 'spirit'. Isn't that Idealism? The opposite of saying everything is material?

Picture of <em>Charles Eisenstein</em>

spirit and matter

I'm glad you asked this question. Certainly "everything is spirit" is really no different from saying "everything is matter", right? What I mean by that (and I alluded to it in the last sentence quoted) is that matter has the properties we might attribute to spirit. For example, conventional scientific belief says that all electrons are inherently identical (thus the need to invoke randomness to explain quantum indeterminacy). A panentheist would say each is a unique individual, and invoke choice to explain their unpredictable behavior. And the same goes for any other particles, and everything made from them as well. Each being is unique and special and self-determined and sacred and sentient.

I also appreciate you bringing up the God/Goddess issue. I think the term Goddess is only necessary when we assign "God" a male gender. Otherwise, God encompasses a unity of all polar opposites. 

 Charles Eisenstein

http://www.ascentofhumanity.com 

Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

i haven't read the article yet but

is this not some kind of reduction, in the human equation

to relegate the Goddess to a mere equivocation of the male designate "GOD"

were as to would see the Goddess as the best possible word to describe spirit, then we step down from there, and see forces of nature respectively, and where as it is not necessarly a step up to merely say everything is "spirit"

except in so far that we see the progression of the "spirit"

in its attributes, that the goddess encompasses, in all her various manifestations.

 

oh, whatever!

Picture of <em>ToMarGames</em>

or nothing

Or we could simply say "Everything is." 

 marie

http://www.tomargames.com

Picture of <em>sirguymanbro</em>

spirit is matter

Charles, your ideas remind me a little of Amit Goswami's theory of Monistic Idealism. In brief, he believes universal consciousness to be not only the basis of all world religions, but also the ground of all existence, and that an objective reality without consciousness is nonexistent. I dig this interpretation of quantum mechanics, as it seems to tie up all the weird paradoxes of the quantum world with my spiritual beliefs. Thanks for the great article.
Picture of <em>JahSun</em>

Goddess

Personally I think we should get over the "Goddess" designation. Sure, "God" has been commandeered by fundamentalists and misogynists for millennium, and many do think of it as a he... but GOD, as we speak of it here, is Unity and thus all inclusive. Male, female, animate, inanimate, past, present, future. There is no gender to the word Universe. The word Universess would seem ridiculous. Even more so with GOD.

I know more than a few Goddess types out there who will berate me for saying this, but it is just my opinion. Words are meaningless abstractions after all.  My concern lies only with the ultimate unified consciousness of existences.  Call that what you will.  The word "Goddess" however, implies by its semantics that there are other Gods and Goddesses. At the very least it implies that the divine is divided into male and female aspects.  Perhaps your notion of the divine is sexually segregated like an orthodox synagogue... but mine is far more cosmic than that.

 

Picture of <em>Peter Deane</em>

Everything Is...

Everything is spiritual. This a a quote be a Kentucky Monk that I believe belongs here...

“A life is either all spiritual or not spiritual at all. No man can serve two masters. Your life is shaped by the end you live for. You are made in the image of what you desire.”

P.S. And thanks Mr. Moore.  Your poetry really does seem to have an effect on how I believe.  Some deep insight that's for sure. 
Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

and thank you

but you can call me cat, or joe, or you can call me jim or jack, or you can call me poe or you can call me mo.

fo short. j c is cool.

Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

so language

separates and unifies, so if Jesus was a revolutionary, then language in its most unifying possible context within the dominant culture would perhaps begin with the least offensive observation, and by some inner guided logic progress toward a more all inclusive vision. on the other hand if language is like the way the original people saw the universe, and in that a total immmersion in nature in all its wide perspective, in its not this not that, in seeing the cycles of the stars reflected in the back of a turtle, or an elephant holding up the earth, ect.then speaking of ages, as a beginning when all was as a golden rule, and coming down from there, we get the babal of language as we know or don't today.

so, then the most connected spoken word, such as..."do unto others as you would do unto yourself" has by the descending rule become a much more complex statement in that it is now given to relative meaning in a meaningless world, which is a reflection of the way things were in Jesus time.Where as this simple true, need to be interpreted in a vast complexity of world views, science, religions, wars, environmenatal, end times, the parallel between then and now.

Picture of <em>Peter Deane</em>

The Turtle thing might be right

Some think soccer ball a soccer

Now a new study of astronomical data only recently available hints at a possible answer: The universe is finite and bears a rough resemblance to a soccer ball or, more accurately, a dodecahedron, a 12-sided volume bounded by pentagons.

A Turtle's back resembles a soccer ball but has thirteen differnt shapes all fitting neatly into the next... sometimes they seem like pentagons.  So yeah, it would be ok if we believe that the eath rest on the back of a turtle. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_finiteuniverse.html

The scientist might be off... I do believe that we are on the back of a turtle... curved, 13 shells bound together,  and not a soccer ball.


Today is part of forever.
Picture of <em>vibe-sage</em>

Perfect

 Thank you

Picture of <em>vibe-sage</em>

ie Thank you for the article Charles Eisenstein.

 Perfect.

"god" and "goddess"

this notion is somewhat disturbing to me, and quite frankly, i think it's high-time we did away with it. how is it that one can ascribe gender to the divine? whether the trappings are female or male, the idea of quantifying the entirety of existence is ludicrous.
Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

ludicrous

is an interesting word, i wonder if it has a male or female root.

It is about being aware of what has happened?

Hey fedaykin0,

 

I an quite happy with Charle's explanation in a way. I love where he emphasizes the individuality/uniqueness of elements of reality.

Because if every leaf of a tree is unique, every pebble of a beach, every cell of the body, then this must be so all the way down. Defying the mechanical interpretation of reality the offical stamp of 'science' imposes on our thinking.

 It is noteworthy where you confess how 'disturbed' you  feel when someone mentions about 'God' and 'Goddess'. Feeling disturbed is a deep emotional response, isn't it? I also felt same hearing what I believed was an over-mention of the term 'God' in that article, which prompted my remarks.

Your central query is: How can we ascribe gender to the divine?

But we have haven't we?

Do you agree?

I mean haven't the old master artists done just that? For example, Michaelangelo's Sistine chapel depiction of a fierce looking old male 'God'! Do you not think that is image of 'God' being male hasn't been imprinted on the psyche, via imagery like that, and theological doctrine, etc?

Wasn't 'Jesus Christ' male, who was representing 'God'. And in that Christian myth is supposed to be God.

So what concerned me is where is Goddess in this? Where is understanding of female principle in the sense of the spiritual aspects of reality. After all our actual day to day life is the experience of male and female, no?

And along with this is the knowledge of what this mythical-sexist imposition has meant in history in regard the patriarchal disrespect for females, and Nature. So it's really important to be disturbed. 

Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

hey you paint watt you see

well, maybe that's why the catholics are scramblin in the light of da de Vinci code. don't convince me, especialy in the light of Disney's latest smear.

watt is that called, pathetic fallacy ?

oh yea the Sistine Chaple, with the truth and glory of GOD,

its all in that touch, that finger.

but watt is it really pointing to?

who is god, who is man?

why is the mother of god not directly in the line of his sight?

does Spirit, have a say? in this homage to the hosts on high?

 

all or nothing

like the song says.
Picture of <em>Jeffery DeCelles</em>

Polarity, ain't no escape, while incarnate

The gender-rap is funny, like it's possible to be gender neutral while incarnate. Funnier still, getting torqued about sexing God. Any word will be a finger pointing at the moon, so why sweat it? What seems stone-cold obvious is, nature loves polar relations, Yin/Yang, Day/Night, He/She, etc. She uses lots of integer relations, such as four amino-acid "letters" in DNA, six-atom carbon rings in all organic compounds, three-atom molecules of H2O supporting ALL life. For my money, this number-fetish is the basis of Platonic Idealism's emphasis on mathematics as the true Divine Language, a language of relationship. So, I rant thus: Panentheism without mathematical sensibility is a dim shadow, a wraith, sans vitae.

in agreement

zezt- we have ascribed gender to the divine, yes. and while i understand quite well nature's love of polar relations, i think that it is folly to attempt to qualify (a word i should have used originally) the over-arching totality at all. i'm quite against any sort of terminology that somehow limits, in my eyes at least, the culmination of the reality that surrounds us. "disturbed" is indeed a deep emotional response. throughout my life, i have felt energies working around me that i could say felt categorically male, as well as female. at other times, i couldn't say with any certainty that i understood at all what was happening around me, what i was feeling, only that it was somehow "other;" that is, the forces seeming to surround me were inherently beyond my comprehension, and thus beyond my ability to "qualify." having felt that otherness, i am quite honestly disturbed by such circumscriptions. i also appreciated what Charles had to say about the uniqueness and sacredness of, well, everything. as a species, we have spent entirely too long taking things for granted, most especially the opinions and viewpoints of others. what works for me works for me, and what i believe is just that. not to say that i'm closed off to options or new ways of seeing, but im not a proselytizer, and i try not to sound like i'm on a soapbox. words, logical and rational, direct and intelligent, may be able to change people's minds, but that's not what i'm here for. i certainly hope that my opinions, valid as they may be to me, do not offend anyone.

oh, look at that. . .

right down there at the bottom: "more information about formatting options." fedaykin0 should be more observant.
Picture of <em>Peter Deane</em>

I think I have an answer...Himer

Some think Father While others think Mother Some think both Father and Mother. I think Creator. But what do we say When speaking of him or her or it? What word can we use to combine him and her maybe himer... Like, himer created everything... himer is gender nutral. Maybe that should be the name of the Great Creator... Himer... O Himer save us all... Himer is so great we can't dare to figure himer out. I think it will work. She combined with he when speaking of Himer too. We'll just say heeshe or shehee.... Himer, shehee loves us all.

Today is part of forever.
Picture of <em>FartMcNoodle</em>

prince

better yet we throw all learned vocabulary and proper grammar out the window and call this goddess/ god a symbol or sign.. like the artist formerly known as prince did. even better yet we should never again try to describe the spiritual world with our tiny insignificant language. we will simply be immersed in it and when you pass a stranger and look them in their eyes all will be known, and websters dictionary will be forever gone. and for the symbol for the great divine i think . would do quite fine. .

the goddess

the original european religion was goddess worship.... the mother goddess, the dark goddess, the snake goddess, the bird goddess...please see Language of the Goddess,a book that uses excellent research and hundreds of illustrations of prehistoric art to document goddess worship. i note you say "the religion of the west," and then mention "jesus." the religion of the west was Paganism, and the forced overlay of the christian religion was an unnatural suppression of an indigenous population. Some unnatural ideas it has imposed are: the concept of original sin, an alienated supreme being, the debasing of the Material, and the eventual destruction of existence.
Picture of <em>Jeffery DeCelles</em>

Aye, She Lives!

Nicely put, ithilien. I first heard Mckenna rap this, then Eisler's Chalice and The Blade opened it up more.

Latest novel angle I've found is John Lash's Not In His Image. He's got some free audio downloads available at www.futureprimitive.org. I enjoyed his "Sacred Cows" series with Joanna Harcourt-Smith, on that site.

Pagan, and proud,

JED

Picture of <em>LionKimbro</em>

Only a few indigenous cultures are matriarchical...

...so I really don't get Chalice & the Blade.
When women camp instead of opting for the hotel; When women don't pressure their husbands to get promotions in stable corporate work; When I can sincerely believe that she'd rather have her husband hunt than farm (and I KNOW which HIS preference is,) -- then I can believe that goddess & women are the path to sustainability. As far as I can tell, white middle-class men, already live in matriarchy. Just ask a husband..!
Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

no you really

don't get it, maybe you ought to try reading it

'making Nature better'

HI ithilien~~~~

 

isn't the Christian vision a 'making Nature better'? Ie., they believe through the apocalyptic destruction of the world a new better brighter more spiritual version of Nature emerges which is all light. Right?

 

 

original religion

listoh

"making nature better"

If I'm understanding correctly the Christian concept of making nature better (King James "to dress and keep it", "fill and subdue") fits into the dominator scheme. There's an implication that, due to the Fall, there is something ruined in nature that must be renewed - or actually, destroyed and then remade. So per traditional Christian teaching, there's something sick inherent in creation i.e. nature. I find the teaching itself sick...
Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

when you get a fix on this

therein lays the rub, how did this sick view come into the garden? What are we not seeing, or what is so hidden?

if all is nature, then how does anti-nature become the dominant paradigm?

QUESTION!!

Let us please explore the vital question you put cjmore.

If all is nature, whence cometh ANTI-nature?

Animals, and all other species, don't do it. They can have places where the Land , when in balance; is an ecosystem. But some humans seem to become anti ecosystems, anti-nature. Why?

I believe it is when the intellect assumes the identity over organism.

How would this happen?

Of course that very mindset has captured 'history' so it cannot be gathered up as factual analysis of 'WHAT HAPPENED'. In fact that very attitude is that mindset. The linear collection of dead facts believed to show life.

Please, I am not claiming there is no value in trying to find out the past. But not to get word-dominated by the very clever historians whose main aim is to make sure the alienating lies continue through sole intellectual inquiry. There are rather deeper more spiritual ways to explore the 'past', which is completely connected with present and future.  

So although there is nothing wrong with intellect/ratio~nality/reason as tool, it is also very important we see its limitation and great great danger when it assumes predominance over feeling, and spiritual sensual interelationship with the Land and other species and community.

So in that spirit, I  continue.

 

I am thinking that a mindset would look at the stars and analyze patterns, and create correlations with events on earth, and spin myths from these correlations, and knowledge as power (hidden from those not told)

So it is a gradual, or sudden, or both, insidious enlarging of the intellect via analysis of objective and subjective reality,  which then arrogantly assumes its origins have nothing to do with the 'chaos' of Mother Nature, and one's human nature, and rather must in exile from the 'ordered' heavens.

Think of Zoroastrianism and their 'heretics' the Magi; the Orphics, whose motto being 'soma sema', meaning 'body a tomb'. Their belief being that they were in essence 'divine sparks' trapped in 'gross' bodies in gross Nature, and through Orphic rituals the initiated could either in this life time, or after many lifetimes eventually find release, and return to their 'spiritual home' in the stars.

Orphism influenced Gnosticism and Christianity.

So it is very important to see how such beliefs influence each other, and how written text (Orphism was first 'mystery' school to write down their doctrine!) transmits their alienating doctrines through the generations. Until you, me,  as newborns raised in this 'world'--a present victim of generations of interlocking alienating belief systems all feeding off from each other--are at a loss (if you have an inkling) the whys and wherefores that such an anti-natural world could come to be.

For after all, from the moment we learn to walk, we are soon primed for the schooling system, and then there's TV after school , and faster faster faster.....pressure to succeed, partnering, children?.....No time to reflect. Questions you may even want to ask. Deep questions.

How many people have the time to even think about them, let alone answer them? Because the State has us running round faster faster  faster. And Nature is being eaten up faster and faster......dig?!

 

Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

dig it

dig up the Nag, let the cat out of the bag!

Cultured or cultivated

CJ...I believe anti-nature becomes the predominant paradigim through cultural conditioning which through we attain an established world view, self-image, mind-set, faith and belief. I do not believe our mind is meant to be aligned with a fixed dogma about anything but is moreso to be cultivated by art, music, poetry etc so we can reach for higher human achievements. Our enculturation is adaptation to the mental environment we must adapt to. Most social theorists tell us that if society is sick it enculturates the sickness to its parts. John Ralston Saul stated that a sign of a sick civilization is the growth of an obscure, closed language (specialized groups in society such as scientific, medical, psychiatric jargon) that seeks to prevent communication by holding aloft superiority against those seen as being inferior.
Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

exactly

language is free, putting it in a book, may liberate it, or may make it dead.

thats were the idea of dead languages came from.

Language versus Information

Saul proclaims that our corporatist driven society is suffering from the fragmantation of language into dialects....for example, social science dialects, medical dialects, science dialects, linguist dialects and artist dialects. He claims many of them are purposely made impenatrable to the non-expert, making us without a language and communication which makes it easy for a civilization to slip off into self-delusion and non-participation into what he calls, "the good of the public" and the right to live with a sense of society.

puttin Nature 'right'

It is dominating and it is sick.

What we need to understand though is that this idea is not just coming from the Christian camp, but also from mechanistic mindset of official science, and the occultist/transhumanist mindset. The latter as I understand it being the major covert belief system controlling things!

And it is this collection of sick belief systems that is causing and promoting the escalating destruction of Land, all species, and general health

 

The root of these mindsets is a malesupremacist sense of being alienated from Nature.

Picture of <em>Jeffery DeCelles</em>

Gnostic Archons implicated?

 zezt, you've done some homework here, what's your insight on the "Archons" referred to in Gnostic texts?

 John Lash makes them out to be wannabe gods with dark, control-trip agendas.

 Sounds like a fit with the nasties you often refer to.

careful of the myths they tell you

As with any cult there will be warnings about obstacles, and that only sticking with that cult and being good and doing the compulsory rituals will one 'eventually' overcome the obstacles and reap the 'promised' reward

'Archon' comes from Greek for 'ruler' and in Gnostic terms has been meant to mean 'gatekeeper gods' of the 'demiurge' which bars the souls journey back to their 'spiritual home' past the 'seven' planets~~~unless they know their names or secret occult signs etc etc.

Archons have also been understood to be the 'fallen angels'.

 

But the premise underlying this myth is that Nature is a trap that is only fit to escape from. The rest follows if you fall for that explanation.

In modern times this myth has morphed into the fear of reptilian entities that create an unescapeable matrix. The '3D world'.

But it is just the same myth, and it is created to make us fear Nature and cling to a semantic reality created by the very rulers who promote such myths for their own purposes.

>The root of these mindsets

>The root of these mindsets is a malesupremacist sense of being alienated from Nature.

 

Maybe this could simply be equated with ego? After reading earlier replies discussing the "loss of Goddess" i remembered something related written by Tolle:

http://pg.webring.com/cgi-bin/members/blog.cgi?monthyear=Oct_2007&userid...

and scroll down to "THE COLLECTIVE FEMALE PAIN-BODY"

 

- The flap of a butterfly's wings in the Atlantic may cause it to fly -

'the I'

Yes, if 'ego' is being defined as 'the I', ie., as mind/intellect/reason over and above the whole organism, then it seems that is what is happening.

Good article by the way!

The clues are everywhere. Young men, and their high suicide rates. It is said because they find it hard to express their emotions. 'Emotions' being associated with females, by them.

I find it very interesting that even in some animist tribal traditions there is fear of the female also, and females in these traditions can suffer forced sexual mutilations/circumcision. Why would that be so when 'animism' suggests understanding Nature as alive?

Well maybe they associate the main spirits 'behind' natural objects to be more male dominant?

 

I recently watched a documentary about a tribe , and we saw the women doing the most menial chores. Hefting very heavy logs, etc etc. Back breaking work. And the males were taking entheogenic substances and dancing about in the main building of the village!

They had told the women that the 'spirits' said it was strictly for males-only to 'shamanize'!!

I feel we should see 'spirit' as neither male or female. And we should see it as male and female. And we should deeply understand consciousness/spirit as flow, and not flow

Christian de Quincey in his book Radical Nature, warns not to speak about consciousness with 'energy-talk'. What he means is this:

Matter~energy has extension, and can in principle be measured even at its most subtlest.

Consciousness does not have extension and cannot be measured. Yet consciousness is always with energy, and it how energy feels~from~the~inside.

But is not inside as say the brain is inside the skull. because consciousness is not a thing, thus has no location!

So maybe I shoulda said, matter~energy is neither male or female. Is male and female. And it is good to understand matter~energy as flow. And as soon as things become rigid, to inspire flow.

 

We know that the body can get disease when it doesn't excercise, and all its functions are not flowing healthily. Likewise the mind.

thoughts?

Excellent Article

It's too bad it's predicated, and limited, entirely by the words of it's first paragraph. "Within all religions today there is a common core, an inner spiritual transmission going back to the dawn of human consciousness, to a time when religion was not necessary."

I was sure that panentheism was the way to go for a long time. It's idealistic, without being fanatical. In your description of panentheism I think your trying too hard. " a belief in the indwelling divinity of all things. Panentheism says not that all things have a spirit; it is that all things are spirit. Spirit is not a distinct element that can be separated out from the being itself. The entire universe, and everything in it, is irreducibly sacred"

If this description is your intent and everything is spirit, and thus sacred you are in fact perfectly describing monotheism. Everything in it's perfection=sacred spirit is monotheistic worship.

I'm very impressed that you were willing to claim you knew exactly what the original religion was in the first place, and the article is very well put together. From my perspective Cosmogenesis, Original Religion, whatever, are and is a whole batch of questions that I don't even bother to think about anymore. Have you read Hegel's Philosophies on Religion or History? They are both great books and will definitely help any body that tries to tackle this train of thought.

The closest thing that I have ever read that accurately describes a way to find original religion is the first parable of the Tao te Ching. Of it's many translations to put it succinctly might go something like this. "To see beyond truth To the subtle heart of things Dispense with names With concepts Ambitions, expectations and differences. Tao and it's many manifestations (eg: Religion) arise from the same source. Subtle wonder within mysterious darkness."

That's just my opinion though.

Picture of <em>Charles Eisenstein</em>

The Tao

I doubt anyone will read this at this late date, but this is a very rich comment that deserves a response. First,I think your equation of monotheism with panentheism is valid. They are two sides of the same coin, much like Nirvana and Suchness in Buddhism. I would say, though, that the original religion is not a religion at all in our sense of the word; it is not a separate category from life.

I don't know whether you were being facetious when you said you were impressed by my willingness to claim that I know what the original religion was. That is one of those things that is true whether or not it is factual. (See "Truth and Magic in the Third Dimension", which appeared here last month). It rings true. I can also cite certain anthropological evidence, but this is suggestive only, not conclusive, and I would be surprised if many real anthropologists would agree with me.

Your interpretation of the first stanza of the Tao Te Ching takes quite a few liberties (I am fluent in Chinese and can read the original) but is basically true to the spirit of it. I read it, though, not to say that the Tao and its manifestations arise from the same source, but that the superficial and the subtle both arise from the Tao, which includes and transcends both. I won't drone on about it now though. 

Charles Eisenstein

www.ascentofhumanity.com 

Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

hmmm

there is that"transcend and include" odd couple again.

or" includes and transcends both"?

oh both subtle and superficial.

i wonder, and i recently read that the Tao Te Ching is a later outcome that came down from I Ching.

i wonder what was understood as meaning, "superfical"

is that the begining of some ...original religion? when that part of the brain was kicking in?

how did things become superfical? as balanced by subtle, did people look around at each other and think something was not so subtle anymore, but now we have superficial, or was there more an understanding of the ten thousand objects, that go from high to low, and this yin of subtle and the yang of superficial, are just a constant turning of the paradigm, but where is the transcend? what transcends the subtle?

originally 'to bind'

How is religion defined?

Is it 'to bind'? A bonding?

I know that Indigenous peoples have had sacraments they take as a commuinity that inspires their sense of birth, and connection with their ancestors and the land

What interests me is now. Considering what we all have been through, and are going through. How then do we understand religious experience in the context I have just described now?

What I am reaching out to mean is---on one hand we have extremely dangerous and destructive forces wanting a control grid they call a 'New World Worder/ globalism. Which would be a real monoculture, with souldead psychopaths with incredible power at top of their pyramid in control creating even further ecocide and genocide.

Whilst on tother hand, the more sensitive, subtle and caring amongst us don't want that, but realize the need for global awareness.

Of not being a tribe apart from other tribes, as in conflict.

But rather a tribe/local community which is interrelated with others who all understand the Intelligence of Nature, and need for deep respect for Nature and each other, and animals, and all species.

This wouldinclude the VOLUNTARY understanding of population reduction. Not from horrific assault on people, but an innate knowing via deep sacramental experience.

The barrier to this evolved (?) insight is the negative globalists who have seen fit to demonize and divide up community and entheogenic experience. But the original religion is now. And it just needs us see through the matrix that has been weaved around us from the mindset which loves skull and bones rather than full fleshed and abundant life, and joy.