The West’s Spiritual Pillaging

[zazen]

Still formulating my thoughts on it but found this interesting.

Here’s what I think so far:

A sort of spiritual and spiral dynamics supremacism exists that subtly degrades in their own grading - other civilisations and “religion”. This has been used by empire to justify empire and still is today via interventionist neoliberal democracy spreading.

Just like the idea of coming from below vs from above - I think one can approach “organised religion” from above also. After studying plenty of non-duality, Osho (in my anti-religion phase lol) etc I actually came to understand religion (its depth) a lot more and find an appreciation for it.

I get that religious literalism and superstition can be irrational because it takes what should be a metaphor for reality as reality itself - but can’t crystal alignment new ageism be just as irrational? 

Muslim prayer according to the suns timing is seen as lesser than Sadhguru prompting seekers to pray at the “auspicious” time of 6:20pm local time..because Western new age has validated one but not the other. Marcus Aubrey needs to sign off on fajr (Islamic sunrise prayer).

At the same time - I don’t see any of these as total nonsense either. They can be ritual or psychics guard rails, as long as they aren’t mistaken for reality but ways of engaging with reality ie the menu is not the food.

Organised religion basically socialised spirituality into a social operating system for society. The issue comes when the two get conflated (spirituality with society/survival) which unfortunately happens for many. But awakening to that doesn’t negate the value in that organisation or that one can engage in society from a place of spirituality - which is what aspects of organised religion try to inculcate.

It’s like spiritual libertarianism, similar to political libertarianism - attractive from the get go (because freedom always is), but then you realise the short comings in a lack of organisation scaled up to and extended towards a social order itself.

Humans can’t unneed what they need - one of those needs is structure. We literally are the “formless” existing in the structure of “form” to begin with.

So when societies develop structure it’s shallow to view them as mere constructs or un-realities that need transcending - as if you can escape form altogether. Even an enlightened master is in-forming you of his awakening, in the form of words, through the form of his body, before he leaves that very form we think needs transcending. Where are we transcending to? Can you go anywhere but here?

It may be semantics but perhaps the word transform is more accurate. As in transforming how to live and engage with form, not seeking to escape form all together. What we have is a formless reality (Oneness, God) that transcends the duality of form - but we don’t transcend that form, only transform in it by awakening to that which transcends it.

In the same way, we can be awakened in “organised religion” - while realising it as a spiritual form-ality. Just as the world of form (material) is itself a formality (means) for the formless (spirit) to live through and enjoy. 

The form of religion can then be approached from above as having a strong belief (in an operating system) held loosely, whilst its essential kernel of spiritual truth being grasped tightly and in total.

There is a meaning people and societies find in all this that shouldn’t simply be discarded or taken for granted. People find meaning in having a means to an end (purpose), but how is meaning sustained after reaching that end? By having that end be endless - which is God itself. That makes life not just a means but meaningful for many.

[zazen]

Related:

On 02/11/2025 at 11:43 AM, zazen said:

These stage green philosophies aren’t errors due to compassion or their original intent that is sincere and valid - it’s that they’re taking what are situational individual choices and universalizing them into a cosmic ethic. Why can’t lifestyle choices remain as such? Why do they need to become moral crusades and isms? (veganism, anti-natalism)

The wider point about this phenemona emerging in the West is that these moral overextensions keep emerging in the context of a culture trying to re-soul itself through moral absolutism - because for a long time it submerged itself in rational scientific materialism that metaphysically unmoored it.

They are symptoms of what happens when you have a correct moral intuition (suffering is bad) but no metaphysical container for it (no understanding of suffering’s role in growth, or a transcendent meaning that contextualizes earthly pain, or spiritual framework that grounds existence as fundamentally good despite its difficulties).

So that moral impulse - which in a traditional framework would be tempered by wisdom, cosmology or initiation into life - instead becomes absolute. It eats itself. “Suffering is bad” becomes “therefore existence is bad” becomes “therefore reproduction is unethical.”

This is the West’s particular pathology: we rejected a transcendent metaphysics, kept the moral sensitivity, and now that sensitivity has nowhere to go but into increasingly totalizing, life negating philosophies that we call progress.

Spiral Dynamics assumes a linear, universal trajectory of development that’s actually Western centric in both its aesthetic and milestones. It interprets progress through the lens of the Western psyche: material mastery (Orange), then moral overreach and empathy (Green), then synthesis of the tensions and contradictions in the below stages (Yellow).

Other cultures with a spiritual or metaphysical anchor already resolved these tensions without collapsing into nihilism. Spiral Dynamics can’t see that because it reads history through a Western teleology and developmental arc, where everyone else looks like a “lower stage” for not following. It universalizes the Western developmental arc - as if that trajectory is the natural path for all humans. Every other culture is measured against this Western timeline and implicitly cast as “behind in development” rather than “differently developed”.

The West lost its metaphysical grounding and then tried to reconstruct it through psychology - then mistake its own rediscovery of balance as “the next stage of evolution.” It’s civilizational amnesia posturing as progress. As if these colour coded values never existed before and only “came online” in Ken Wilber’s terms - in recent history. How does stage green or yellow values only come online recently - as if they never existed before lol. It’s called spiral dynamics yet approached as if it’s ladder dynamics in some linear manner.

Concern for the environment and marginalized is a recent evolution? Tell that to Jains who’ve been practicing radical non-harm for 2,500 years, or indigenous cultures with sophisticated ecological wisdom embedded in their cosmologies, or mystics who experienced universal divine love. Tell that to every traditional culture that understood humans as embedded in - not separate from - the web of life.

Apparently none of that counts because it was wrapped in “mythic” or “magic” worldviews. It only becomes a real developmental stage when white Western baby boomers discovered empathy after dropping acid lol. The model literally takes Western culture’s temporary pathological detour through mechanistic rationalism and calls it a necessary path of evolution for the entire globe. It treats these values as novelties that “emerged” rather than a recovery from lost and found.

I’m not saying spiral dynamics is junk - just that “the map is not the territory” - and this map doesn’t map onto the territory of reality so cleanly and neatly in the way we think it does.

 

[Breakingthewall]

On 18/10/2025 at 5:44 AM, zazen said:

 

Seriously you don't realize what nonsense does that guy spout? A smart guy like you? Everything in the West is bad; it's a deliberate plan to do evil, appropriating other people's religions to humiliate them and strip them of their identity, all while impoverishing them. Well, I suppose the 12th-century world that Muslims long for was richer, and they respected a lot others religions. The Islam is expansionist, it's written in Quran, and that guy complains that Christianity expanded. Poor man, he's very sad and bitter, and his vision is extremely limited, because he's just jealous.   don't you see it? He's full of anger because he feels inferior, then he needs to put west down. Too obvious. 

This man probably would have approved of the fate that the Islamic authorities reserved for al-Hallaj, perhaps the purest known mystic in history. Ana al haqq, I am the truth. Alter ego of Christ.

Edited November 3 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

On 18/10/2025 at 5:44 AM, zazen said:

while realising it as a spiritual form-ality. Just as the world of form (material) is itself a formality (means) for the formless (spirit) to live through and enjoy. 

That would imply intentionality, which would imply a conscious god who does things for a reason, which would imply that this god is limited.

True spirituality is openness to the unlimited, and it cannot be formulated. Religion is a formulation of spirituality so that it can be integrated into the human conceptual system. Spirituality is non-conceptual.

No religion is true; they are all systems of social cohesion necessary for coexistence. The great religions have a core of true mysticism, but true mysticism is formless. It's an action, not an structure.

[Nivsch]

I think Green and Yellow exist in underdeveloped countries too, even if surely not as common as in Western countries.

I agree with you that it doesn't make sense that Green and Yellow didn't exist in the past.

After all those are neorological structures that can be developed independently regardless of the structure of society, just that it will be less common when the society is pre modern and the brain is more worried about basic physical needs.

Edited November 3 by Nivsch

[zazen]

On 03/11/2025 at 5:30 PM, Breakingthewall said:

Seriously you don't realize what nonsense does that guy spout? A smart guy like you? Everything in the West is bad; it's a deliberate plan to do evil, appropriating other people's religions to humiliate them and strip them of their identity, all while impoverishing them. Well, I suppose the 12th-century world that Muslims long for was richer, and they respected a lot others religions. The Islam is expansionist, it's written in Quran, and that guy complains that Christianity expanded. Poor man, he's very sad and bitter, and his vision is extremely limited, because he's just jealous.   don't you see it? He's full of anger because he feels inferior, then he needs to put west down. Too obvious. 

This man probably would have approved of the fate that the Islamic authorities reserved for al-Hallaj, perhaps the purest known mystic in history. Ana al haqq, I am the truth. Alter ego of Christ.

Me being smart includes me ignoring his biases and learning from any other insights he has that are interesting - which he does. But for sure he definitely has as pro-Islam bias. He's actually a revert - so if he was jealous of Western civilization he would have remained a non-Muslim and been a Western supremacist instead lol.

Expansion happened yes, just like with all empires at the time. Conflating empire with religion is a issue, though religion/ideaology is co-opted and used as a pre-text. For example today, liberalism has spread / is still trying to be with democracy bombs in the Middle East. Does that say anything about liberalism itself or make it inherently bad? No. Also, on average if you take a look you'll find that Islam spread much more through exchange and trade than just simple wars of conquest, compared to Christianity.

The point of the video is this. The West metaphysically uprooted itself due to greater emphasis on science, rationality etc. They then mined for spiritual meaning and transcendent significance in other cultures and traditions, then proclaim to know the ''deeper spiritual truth'' of those cultures and traditions better than its own people. Spiritual appropriation and arrogance. That then gets re-enforced via Spiral dynamics that ranks them as higher up because they have approached religion ''from above'' - cementing their own sense of supremacy and righteousness. The West believe in evolution yet can't extend that logic of evolution to religion itself - that religion can't evolve or operate from and at a higher place. Even if it does, it proclaims that only Westerners seem to know how because they are higher up the linear ladder of development. As if stage yellow religious people didn't or couldn't have existed before.

Western spiritualists and liberal types also mock religion despite it being the foundational pivot and orientation which introduced the very same values they hold today. Its like a child ridiculing their parents and thinking that their independence from them means some sort of enlightenment. They don't have to deny their heritage, they can just keep evolving within it or even from it if they want whilst shedding the religious shell - but no need to deny the roots and soil they grew from. Ironically, they went looking for roots elsewhere due to the emptiness.

The Western mind universalized its own arc of development, moral logic, and metaphysical assumptions and claim them to be universal - including the path and aesthetic itself. Stage green is only green if it looks like Western stage green - with pride flags waving around, debates about whether chicks can have dicks, gender neutral bathrooms etc. They must also de-construct everything without constructing anything to ground and help them feel a sense of rooted belonging. The world must go down this same path of nihilism just like the West apparently or its still ''behind''. This is retarded. Not only was much of the worlds land colonised, then its politics and global institutions, but now even development and spirituality is colonised lol. That's what Shahid is pointing to. And he's not entirely wrong.

The West dismantled its own Christian metaphysic through rationalism and materialism and instead of evolving that tradition they discarded it. The void left them spiritually disoriented but intellectually confident enough to go extract from other traditions and teach its adherents about it better than they ever knew. They broke their own spiritual ladder, built a new one from everyone else’s wood, then insist everyone climb it to reach where they already stand as if their standing in the highest place ahead of everyone else. Spiral dynamics says to transcend and include - but what I see is exclusion and amputation of religion without any appreciation for it. It's like a civilization orphaning itself and being proud about it. Silly willy.

 

Just see - Sadiq Khan is mayor of London and now Zohran Mamdani of New York. Muslims governing the two financial hearts of the Western world. Are these cities going to be Sharia hell holes that aren’t inclusive?  Or is it that there is nuance among Muslims in that they can also be developed and practice the religion at higher level? You don’t want to offer that nuance though and instead  have this caricature that every Muslim must be like the Taliban who are practicing the “real Islam”. Yeah, just like how Neocons are practicing the “real liberalism”.

Edited November 7 by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

The West dismantled its own Christian metaphysic through rationalism and materialism and instead of evolving that tradition they discarded it

On 18/10/2025 at 5:44 AM, zazen said:

 

I don't think so. What happened was that the tyrannical dogmatism of the Church was transcended, allowing minds to open to new possibilities. A large majority remained Christian; many great scientists were and are Christians. Christianity isn't ridiculed; the Church is, and that's a positive thing. In the Islamic world, it's more difficult because they kill you even for one design of Muhammad. Here the Inquisition used to do the same thing here, but thankfully that was left behind centuries ago.

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Me being smart includes me ignoring his biases and learning from any other insights he has that are interesting - which he does. But for sure he definitely has as pro-Islam bias. He's actually a revert - so if he was jealous of Western civilization he would have remained a non-Muslim and been a Western supremacist instead lol.

If someone is so biased and full of rage, their entire message is biased. It's worthless to me. You say he converted to Islam. It seems he needed someone to give him firm certainties. I hope that makes him feel better about life, more secure.

1 hour ago, zazen said:

The Western mind universalized its own arc of development, moral logic, and metaphysical assumptions and claim them to be universal - including the path and aesthetic itself.

The Islam also claim to be universal and the only way that avoid the hell. 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

They then mined for spiritual meaning and transcendent significance in other cultures and traditions, then proclaim to know the ''deeper spiritual truth'' of those cultures and traditions better than its own people.

They never did that, They studied Eastern spirituality and venerated Eastern figures such as Osho, Krishnamurti, Tagore, Ramakrishna, Rumi, yogananda and many others. I don't know why this guy says that this is unrespectful. He's very angry, maybe some private issues, I don't know.

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Just see - Sadiq Khan is mayor of London and now Zohran Mamdani of New York. Muslims governing the two financial hearts of the Western world. Are these cities going to be Sharia hell holes that aren’t inclusive?

Islam cannot impose Sharia law directly. Not even in Turkey is that possible, despite having a clearly Islamist government. The idea is to gradually spread Islam as far as possible. Islam is expansionist; it absolutely rejects any other religion. It tolerates coexistence but considers it inferior, false. Do you think Muslims can be open to Eastern philosophies, different ideas? It's forbidden; they would go to hell and have molten lead poured down their throats, just like all non-Muslims and their impure prostitutes. 

Let's see what happens with that people in London and America, it's interesting. 

[Jodistrict]

When he talks about spiritual pillaging, Bolsen is talking about theosophy, citing it as example of colonialism.  He is correct about theosophy, but I don’t think theosophy has had any great influence on Western thought. 

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall

Those mystics are the flowers of their respective traditions. The issue is that Westerners (not all jeez -don’t @ me) belittle or demote the religious or cultural soil they grew from. It’s one thing to criticize the dogmatism of religion, another to say that religion itself is rigid and silly beyond repair and must be left to the dustbin of history as a stage blue relic. Stage blue (and others) aren’t about form but orientation. The form of religion doesn’t just belong in stage blue but can have a stage blue orientation - which is dogmatic. There can be stage orange, green and yellow religious practitioners and mystics.

I think the error is that Westerners secularise these mystics and saints into the “enlightened individual” who became liberated from the backward religious dogma and culture all around them. They’re trapped in their own historical narrative of rebellion (against the Church etc) and project it. They see eastern saint's radiating love and light - then jump to conclude the only way they could get that way was through rejection of the path and cultural soil that led them there. For example - did Sadhguru reject and shed his own cultural soil, language and metaphysics? Or is it possible that it in fact aided him, as it does others who he teaches it too?

The shift in perspective is that Rumi wasn’t a rebel against Islam but was Islam’s flowering. Just like with the others. Maybe the error is we mistake transcendence within the form of religion for rebellion against it - because we can’t imagine total devotion within a religious framework leading to awakening. I think we need to separate awakening from understanding. For example - all kinds of people from different backgrounds and religions have had awakenings or are awakened - yet that doesn’t mean they understand it at the same level as say how Leo Gura does.

This is where I appreciate the West’s approach to spirituality. We could say it’s a scientific one and that it using a technical / neutral language is what allows it to be a sort of lingua franca of spirituality for everyone. Eckhart Tolle did this really well by using words that purposely had no historic baggage or conflations ie presence instead of God. But that doesn’t and shouldn’t erase the localised expression of the spiritual through various cultures, traditions and religions. Those are like local dialects and accents that bring richness to life and allow people to engage with the spiritual in their own way, in their own tongue. We could say that’s the art of religion.

I’ve seen some videos on meta-modernism that goes into meta-modern religion. There could be a world where both scientific (neutral) and artful (culturally colourful religious) spirituality co-exist as complementary to each other.

Let’s say we all got enlightened one day - what would we do anyway? Before enlightenment chop wood carry water, after enlightenment chop wood carry water. People will still live and want to express and share awakening in various forms, traditions and religions. But it will be done at a different level “from above”. Then the next generations slowly become less enlightened and make the same mistakes of the religions of old - introducing dogmatism and fundamentalism - and the cycle begins again where later generations mock the old religions for being “untrue” lol

Edited November 7 by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

10 minutes ago, zazen said:

Then the next generations slowly become less enlightened and make the same mistakes of the religions of old - introducing dogmatism and fundamentalism - and the cycle begins again where later generations mock the old religions for being “untrue” lol

Just my view: All true mystics speak the same language, but there are few true mystics. In Islam, the purest is al-Hallaj, who was tortured and crucified by the Iranian Islamic authorities. Others, like Rumi and Ibn Arabi, were more intelligent and did not directly challenge the religion. Among Christians, the main ones are Christ and Meister Eckhart; in India, Tagore and Ramakrishna and others were authentic mystics.

But be careful, Sadguru I'd say is not a real mystic(well who really knows), nor is Krishnamurti. There is a line that separates the sage from the mystic.

The mystic is open to the living energy of reality, is absolutely pure and at the same time alive, passionate. Like Ramakrishna or Anandamayi ma, but not like Ramana Maharshi or most Buddhist . 

Then, is it possible doing a religion Based on Ramakrishna? Possible, but extraordinarily difficult. Ramakrishna is the living heart of reality, the opening to the unfathomable from a human perspective. What would that religion preach? That you be like Anandamayi Ma? In constant mystical ecstasy? It's not something you can do, nor does it depend on certain behaviors. Jesus tells you: love. Can you love everything? Existence itself? Your enemies? Then they change the religion and said: don't kill. Well, it's easier, but deeply Christians know that Christianity, really, says: be Christ, and this is almost impossible. 

In other hand the religion of Muhammad is much easier: obey. Submit, and you will be rewarded. That's why it's so successful.

[Jodistrict]

24 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

J

Then, is it possible doing a religion Based on Ramakrishna? Possible, but extraordinarily difficult. Ramakrishna is the living heart of reality, the opening to the unfathomable from a human perspective. What would that religion preach? That you be like Anandamayi Ma? In constant mystical ecstasy? It's not something you can do, nor does it depend on certain behaviors. Jesus tells you: love. Can you love everything? Existence itself? Your enemies? Then they change the religion and said: don't kill. Well, it's easier, but deeply Christians know that Christianity, really, says: be Christ, and this is almost impossible. 

 

There is a sort of "religion" based on Ramakrishna.   I attend his puja  on  Saturdays at the Vedanta Society.   There is also a  gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.

https://chennaimath.org/

 

Edited November 7 by Jodistrict

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

There is a sort of "religion" based on Ramakrishna.   I attend his puja  on  Saturdays at the Vedanta Society.   There is also a  gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.

https://chennaimath.org/

 

Interesting. But maybe more than a religion, it will be something like honoring his memory and drawing inspiration from him to reach or approach his level of mystical openness, not a religious worldview with a defined structure.

[Jodistrict]

46 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Interesting. But maybe more than a religion, it will be something like honoring his memory and drawing inspiration from him to reach or approach his level of mystical openness, not a religious worldview with a defined structure.

It is approaching the truth from a particular lens, in this case Ramakrishna and his disciple Vivekananda.  You can do initiation with a Swami and he will give you one of their  mantras for your spiritual practice.  All the Swamis of the Vedanta society can trace back their lineage to disciples of Ramakrishna.

[Breakingthewall]

10 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

It is approaching the truth from a particular lens, in this case Ramakrishna and his disciple Vivekananda.  You can do initiation with a Swami and he will give you one of their  mantras for your spiritual practice.  All the Swamis of the Vedanta society can trace back their lineage to disciples of Ramakrishna.

Vivekananda said: 

If Brahman is real, the world must also be real, because the world is Brahman manifested

Great (and obvious btw, those ideas about illusion.....)

Edited Saturday at 11:53 AM by Breakingthewall

[zazen]

On 20/07/2025 at 5:24 PM, zazen said:

 First time being exposed to Rupert Sheldrake - that was a great first listen. Religion is much more than simply being a mechanism for awakening - it serves multiple needs and makes up a large part of cultural heritage and identity. Recognising it as a construct - seeing ''through it'' doesn't mean its redundant - awakening doesn't necessarily mean abandonment of forms. Recognising money or nationality as construct doesn't render them valueless - they are operational and instrumental, not the ultimate or the essential, but necessary in their own ways. Perhaps part of awakening and integration is seeing through constructs while remaining functional within them.

Humans are meaning making creatures who live in communities across time. In this sense religion in some format or another is inevitable. Humans also create culture around everything meaningful - food, music, art, love. Why would our deepest (spiritual) encounters with reality be any different. Why wouldn't people sing, pray, create temples to commune in, best practices and rituals to pass down the ages. That most people forget the source that gave inspiration to those practices and rituals doesn't negate them. The game is to participate in the form while seeing through it. Neither trapped by heritage or alienated from it. Because why not? What else would we do? Non-duality isn't no duality - and part of ''Truth'' is that it includes duality, which is very much as real as reality, as is a non-dual essence behind and beyond it.

Pure teaching is like pure water - it takes the shape of whatever container holds it. It seems humans need forms, structures, rituals, stories. Even celebrated non-dualists gather in circles, create practices, write books, revere teachers. They can't help but create what will eventually look like... religion.

If tomorrow all of humanity awakened to their true nature, what would happen next? They would ask ''What next with this New Age awakening?" And being human, they would create: guidelines for living this awakening, communities for mutual support, methods for teaching others, sacred spaces for gathering, texts to preserve the wisdom, teachers to guide seekers. It would become institutionalised and perhaps eventually ossified over time as most religions have become. Then another ''New Age'' religion would prop up critiquing the ''Old New Age'' religion of its dogmatic flaws and lack of purity. The cycles begins again.

Individuals who awaken directly by non-traditional means (non-dual teachings) don't need to reject the cultural inheritance of religion any more than a master chef rejects recipes. They might transcend religious rituals or frameworks, but they can still appreciate and even employ the forms that serve the various other needs of others - not for the purpose of awakening, but as a celebration of awakening.

@Breakingthewall Sharing a old comment that goes into what we’r talking about.

I think your after purity of essence and against anything that can dilute it ie institutions. But that’s the nature of the beast. Once a “real pure mystic” is there - it’s human to build around it to keep that flame alive - and eventually that flame diminishes or dies down.

That doesn’t mean institutions (religions or structures) shouldn’t exist - it’s just a baked in flaw that they are bound to diminish the spirit of whatever value they were inspired by or hoping to keep alive down the ages.

We can start to judge who’s more “enlightened” than another - again being puritanical about it. But just like in sports where we have gold, silver and bronze medals - and everyone else who tries. Do we then say the whole institution of sports (training, coaches, camps etc) aren’t correct because not everyone will be 1st or not everyone can be taught by the best?

This is a good short from Ram Dass on the trap of structures, methods, gurus:

 

Edited Sunday at 10:33 AM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

think your after purity of essence and against anything that can dilute it ie institutions. But that’s the nature of the beast. Once a “real pure mystic” is there - it’s human to build around it to keep that flame alive - and eventually that flame diminishes or dies down.

 I think everyone is at a different stage, at a different moment, and there's no need to compare which is better. But I do think it's important to understand as deeply as possible how the human psyche works, the dynamics of group dynamics and belonging, and to go further, to delve into pure mysticism (for those who can).

Most non-dualism is evasion, an attempt to escape mental suffering, and if you truly want to understand how human reality works, you must see these kinds of traps and evasions. Similarly, it's important to understand that religions like Islam play on the psychological vulnerability of the need for belonging, and that's what makes them strong. This isn't criticism; it's a view of reality.

My life path is pushing me toward direct mysticism, not by choice but by circumstance, like almost everything else in life. Cause and effect, karma if you prefer. I clearly see that human tides occur synchronously and that the fact I have a certain tendency doesn't mean that's the tendency most people should have. This doesn't mean you can't criticize approaches that tend toward closure and prefer others that point toward openness. 

I understand what you're saying about organized religion, but in my personal opinion, it's something that's on the path to being overcome. It's obsolete. It still exists, but the human tendency in the AI age is toward the dissolution of external spirituality and toward an inner openness to the essence of reality. It's the culmination of a long journey from the tribal, through the normative, through nihilism and disconnection, to arrive at total openness to living reality

[zazen]

On 03/11/2025 at 7:10 PM, Nivsch said:

I think Green and Yellow exist in underdeveloped countries too, even if surely not as common as in Western countries.

I agree with you that it doesn't make sense that Green and Yellow didn't exist in the past.

After all those are neorological structures that can be developed independently regardless of the structure of society, just that it will be less common when the society is pre modern and the brain is more worried about basic physical needs.

I agree. A good way to look at it is container (structure, construct) vs consciousness. Religions and government structures (democracy vs monarchy) are containers - that the peoples conciousness within them is distinct from. Although there is a relationship between the two also. So it’s not about the doctrine alone but about the development of those engaging with it.

Some containers are perhaps better than others at elevating our conciousness - because some containers have more trappings than others. This is why non-duality and actualized (Leo’s body of work) is better at elevating conciousness - it just has way less trappings than religion does.

For example in Islam the idea of jihad (struggle) or in Judaism - the chosen people. Both of these can be approached form a lower or higher place. A lower conciousness turns jihad into ISIS and the notion of chosen people into candy for the ego. A higher conciousness turns jihad into struggle against ego/impulses and chosen people into a burden or responsibility to embody good virtues. These trappings are higher risk than a neutralised scientific approach to spirituality which has less baggage, words or ideas that can be conflated or confused.

Osho actually did this and said it was his intention - he spoke from a higher place on all the world religions. He drew in people of all walks by doing this, and then he went onto the next step and said to even drop those containers (religions) and approach spirituality without them ie more scientifically.

But like I said to breakingthewall - there is a place for both the scientific approach to spirituality, and the art of spirituality which is more colourful and localised to where people are from. We don’t necessarily have to drop our identity - otherwise how do we culturally “belong” with everyone around us without feeling alien. We need to synthesise the two approaches and view the scientific approach like a formal universal language and the artful approach like a local cultural language.

In other words transcend the container but live within it - the same way we’re told to be in the world but not of it.

Edited Sunday at 11:17 AM by zazen