My first recognition (not just "experience" in the sense in this article) of G-d occurred when I was 17, after reading the sentence, "Religious founders never intended to promote merely a set of beliefs, rituals and dogmas, but rather, a direct experience of God."
I looked up - it wasn't a "feeling" and saw (as clearly as you see the screen in front of you and feel your body) the walls were God, the floor, furniture was God, the birds, trees, houses and cars outside were God (this wasn't a pantheistic philosophy; though I woke up that morning in May, 1970 an atheist/agnostic who had thought that "God" was the old guy in the sky with the long beard who didn't treat humans so well - I only later learned the distinctions of theism, pantheism, panentheism, non dualism, etc)
I turned to rabbis, ministers, priests, none of whom could give me any guidance. I turned to academics in the study of religion and philosophy, who were even less helpful.
I recognized what I had "seen" in the writings of Jewish, Sufi and Christian mystics, but the first "home" I found was in the non-religious, universalist spiritual teachings of Ramana Maharshi (though often put in the context of Hinduism, he insisted one did not have to belong to any religion to practice what he taught, which in "translation" was recognizing one's True Nature and following the teaching, "Not my will but Thine be done" - which is hardly a simple matter of feeling!)
The next year I found Sri Ramakrishna, who famously taught that Jesus, Mohammed and Krishna were all ultimately presenting varied paths to the one Divine Reality, and again, as one can see throughout the writings of the monks and nuns of the Ramakrishna order, taught that one may follow a religion if one wishes, but one can lead an integral spiritual life outside the folds of any particular tradition.
Then I found my home in the teachings of the Egyptian/Turkish Jewish woman, Mirra Alfassa, and the Indian leader of the Independence movement, Aurobindo Ghose. That was in 1975, and my wife and I have remained happily there for the past 50+ years. Sri Aurobindo famously wrote, "the Age of religions is over.'
I've noticed in the past 10 years or so an upsurge in academic writing regarding the "Spiritual but not religious category." Writings about SBNR are often far more negative than that in this, but the subjectivist interpretation of spirituality remains.
how profoundly different is the understanding of Sri Aurobindo regarding spirituality that he wrote about in the articles between 1914 and 1921.
He clearly identifies religion with that which maintains one in what the modern world knows as the ordinary waking consciousness. Spirituality involves a radical transformation (which in the Buddhist Lankavatara Sutra is spoken about as a turning about in the deepest seat of one's being, which Rabbi Nachman wrote of similarly as a shift in the seat of one's identity from the ordinary surface consciousness to reocognition of one's essence of beings as the Divine Spark of the Soul, a teaching very similar to that of Mirra and Sri Aurobindo.
I was the music director for a Spanish Catholic Church through the 1980s. There was one mystically oriented priest there, Father Alphege, who taught me much about the Christian contmplative practices, but for the life of me, I just could never understand what it was that led people to become religious guides when there was no interest in genuine spirituality.
If anyone can help me understand this, I would appreciate it. I can see for centuries how perhaps humanity was not ready for these direct teachings. But we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in science infinitely greater than the one that occurred with Galileo/Bacon/Newton. Scientists have finally joined with the great contemplatives to see Consciousness (Sat Chit Ananda, really) as not just the foundation but the very substance of the universe.
Religion as it is taught and presented in most of the world today still seems stuck in a newtonian world view, almost as if the behaviorist mode of psychology still predominated.
Iv'e been exploring this on the Substack of a scholar of religious ethics, Liz Bucar, who seems to share the view of the authors, though she is struggling. She herself admits never having been religious, and also correctly sees spirituality as something beyond mere subjective experience but she seems terribly confused about the metaphysical foundations of spirituality which would take it far far beyond the idea of personal, subjective experience.
I wish someone would write about this and help clarify the issue!
In terms of action, in case it wasn't clear, I also "received" in that initial awakening that I was to work one day to help integrate psychology, spirituality and science. I was taking a year off from high school to study music full time and had never before thought much if at all about psychology.
It was 20 years later that I began graduate school in psychology. there was nothing in the world that I personally wanted to do less than go into the field of psychology. I thoroughly enjoyed a moderately successful career as a pianist/composer in NY City, but I knew this was my calling.
In 2000, I came as close as I ever had to "hearing a voice" - it said "it's time to write the book." I had never before thought of writing a book. For the next two weeks I mentioned repeatedly to my wife that "I wish some rich guy would come along and give me money to have more time to work on the book." Two weeks to the day after hearing the voice, I received an email from the founder of the Infinity Foundation who ended up giving me $30,000 to work on the book and to go to India to meet with people from Auroville and the Sri Aurobindo Ashram to talk about it.
Now, in our mid 70s, my wife and I expect to spend at least another 10-15 years integrating the works of Mirra and Sri Aurobindo with science and modern psychology, a fulfillment of that vision in 1970.
hardly a mere 'Feeling'!!
I look back and can see clearly, every aspect of my life of the past 56 years, contained in seed form in that moment in 1970.
I have studied and meditated on these thoughts for 70 years. And I congratulate you on your concise and profound exposition. I once taught mysticism and spirituality, and about 50 years ago began a transformation to be an observant Orthodox Jew. Your essay was enlightening as to the nature of that transformation. Thank you.
Interesting, but religious commandments must be moral. If not, they are something else, some inner need masquerading as a religious commandment.They must be moral because religious doctrine is to promote morality. If not they are commandments of some internal devil and not 'religious" commandments.
Ayreh has me beat by about 15 years:>))
My first recognition (not just "experience" in the sense in this article) of G-d occurred when I was 17, after reading the sentence, "Religious founders never intended to promote merely a set of beliefs, rituals and dogmas, but rather, a direct experience of God."
I looked up - it wasn't a "feeling" and saw (as clearly as you see the screen in front of you and feel your body) the walls were God, the floor, furniture was God, the birds, trees, houses and cars outside were God (this wasn't a pantheistic philosophy; though I woke up that morning in May, 1970 an atheist/agnostic who had thought that "God" was the old guy in the sky with the long beard who didn't treat humans so well - I only later learned the distinctions of theism, pantheism, panentheism, non dualism, etc)
I turned to rabbis, ministers, priests, none of whom could give me any guidance. I turned to academics in the study of religion and philosophy, who were even less helpful.
I recognized what I had "seen" in the writings of Jewish, Sufi and Christian mystics, but the first "home" I found was in the non-religious, universalist spiritual teachings of Ramana Maharshi (though often put in the context of Hinduism, he insisted one did not have to belong to any religion to practice what he taught, which in "translation" was recognizing one's True Nature and following the teaching, "Not my will but Thine be done" - which is hardly a simple matter of feeling!)
The next year I found Sri Ramakrishna, who famously taught that Jesus, Mohammed and Krishna were all ultimately presenting varied paths to the one Divine Reality, and again, as one can see throughout the writings of the monks and nuns of the Ramakrishna order, taught that one may follow a religion if one wishes, but one can lead an integral spiritual life outside the folds of any particular tradition.
Then I found my home in the teachings of the Egyptian/Turkish Jewish woman, Mirra Alfassa, and the Indian leader of the Independence movement, Aurobindo Ghose. That was in 1975, and my wife and I have remained happily there for the past 50+ years. Sri Aurobindo famously wrote, "the Age of religions is over.'
I've noticed in the past 10 years or so an upsurge in academic writing regarding the "Spiritual but not religious category." Writings about SBNR are often far more negative than that in this, but the subjectivist interpretation of spirituality remains.
how profoundly different is the understanding of Sri Aurobindo regarding spirituality that he wrote about in the articles between 1914 and 1921.
He clearly identifies religion with that which maintains one in what the modern world knows as the ordinary waking consciousness. Spirituality involves a radical transformation (which in the Buddhist Lankavatara Sutra is spoken about as a turning about in the deepest seat of one's being, which Rabbi Nachman wrote of similarly as a shift in the seat of one's identity from the ordinary surface consciousness to reocognition of one's essence of beings as the Divine Spark of the Soul, a teaching very similar to that of Mirra and Sri Aurobindo.
I was the music director for a Spanish Catholic Church through the 1980s. There was one mystically oriented priest there, Father Alphege, who taught me much about the Christian contmplative practices, but for the life of me, I just could never understand what it was that led people to become religious guides when there was no interest in genuine spirituality.
If anyone can help me understand this, I would appreciate it. I can see for centuries how perhaps humanity was not ready for these direct teachings. But we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in science infinitely greater than the one that occurred with Galileo/Bacon/Newton. Scientists have finally joined with the great contemplatives to see Consciousness (Sat Chit Ananda, really) as not just the foundation but the very substance of the universe.
Religion as it is taught and presented in most of the world today still seems stuck in a newtonian world view, almost as if the behaviorist mode of psychology still predominated.
Iv'e been exploring this on the Substack of a scholar of religious ethics, Liz Bucar, who seems to share the view of the authors, though she is struggling. She herself admits never having been religious, and also correctly sees spirituality as something beyond mere subjective experience but she seems terribly confused about the metaphysical foundations of spirituality which would take it far far beyond the idea of personal, subjective experience.
I wish someone would write about this and help clarify the issue!
In terms of action, in case it wasn't clear, I also "received" in that initial awakening that I was to work one day to help integrate psychology, spirituality and science. I was taking a year off from high school to study music full time and had never before thought much if at all about psychology.
It was 20 years later that I began graduate school in psychology. there was nothing in the world that I personally wanted to do less than go into the field of psychology. I thoroughly enjoyed a moderately successful career as a pianist/composer in NY City, but I knew this was my calling.
In 2000, I came as close as I ever had to "hearing a voice" - it said "it's time to write the book." I had never before thought of writing a book. For the next two weeks I mentioned repeatedly to my wife that "I wish some rich guy would come along and give me money to have more time to work on the book." Two weeks to the day after hearing the voice, I received an email from the founder of the Infinity Foundation who ended up giving me $30,000 to work on the book and to go to India to meet with people from Auroville and the Sri Aurobindo Ashram to talk about it.
Now, in our mid 70s, my wife and I expect to spend at least another 10-15 years integrating the works of Mirra and Sri Aurobindo with science and modern psychology, a fulfillment of that vision in 1970.
hardly a mere 'Feeling'!!
I look back and can see clearly, every aspect of my life of the past 56 years, contained in seed form in that moment in 1970.
Something that had nothing to do with religion.
I have studied and meditated on these thoughts for 70 years. And I congratulate you on your concise and profound exposition. I once taught mysticism and spirituality, and about 50 years ago began a transformation to be an observant Orthodox Jew. Your essay was enlightening as to the nature of that transformation. Thank you.
Interesting, but religious commandments must be moral. If not, they are something else, some inner need masquerading as a religious commandment.They must be moral because religious doctrine is to promote morality. If not they are commandments of some internal devil and not 'religious" commandments.