h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

With reeling head and battered brain ( having just caught up on the last five pages since me hols.....)

Here's a salutation to music and the gods. The tendency has been to refer only to Christian churches and their music, or the European pagan alternatives. But there are many musical traditions where the sacred and the musical inspiration are inseparable, e.g. Tibetan Buddhist ritual music, which is awesomely powerful, being designed to produce changes in the awareness of both participants and listeners ( while being technically quite boring, depending as it does on a very limited instrumental and musical palate .) Having organised a couple of concerts by travelling troupes of Tibetan monks visiting here in Dublin, I have been very surprised at how such an alien musical tradition ( alien to Irish ears brought up on either our own traditional music, or the standard western popular and classical fare ) so completely entrances their audiences.

Maybe entrances is the word for it. But it's something more than hypnotic, it is profoundly moving. Japanese shakuhachi ( end-blown bamboo flute ) has a similar power, and is also associated with Buddhism. Authentic Aboriginal didgeridoo should get a mention too.

Drumming and rhythmic dance are possibly the oldest known forms of religious observance.

I would also mention Indian classical music ( which while not necessarily directly devotional, nonetheless often carries a strong devotional content ) especially in the hands of such sublime musicians as the late, great Nikhil Bannerjee, or the young Ravi Shankar. Much here depends on the musician him or her self. In India, Saraswati is the goddess, interestingly, of music, wisdom, knowledge, and spiritual insight. Some times she is depicted carrying a veena, sometimes a book, and is accompanied by a swan.

With regard to the nature/nurture argument, and remarks alluding to the place of practice in developing musical skills, Nikhil Bannerjee told me in an interview I did with him, that 16 hours a day was the norm for Indian musicians! And to work on one note for a year was not unusual for trainee Indian singers. In concert, Nikhil Bannerjee was utterly egoless, and became physically transformed. It appeared that his features became feminine, as though he were totally possessed by and surrendered to Saraswati. No musician I have ever heard played with such effortless virtuosity, while radiating such egoless humility and devotion, an awesome combination, which somehow carried his entire audience into a totally different realm.

Finally ( it's late, I'm tired, and you probably are too, if you've read this far...) the best thing that ever came out of Christianity was the music, right from the beginning. From Byzantium to Bach and Beethoven, Gesualdo, Monteverdi, Josquin, Machaut, Mozart, Faure, Coptic chant, Orthodox chant and so on. But that's another whole area.

So, thank god/ess for music, and thank music for god/ess.

At the mention of Ravi Shankar I was moved to say this: His music is transendental and beautifully timeless. He can move my spirit in new directions every time I listen. He is the background music for my meditation and my inspiration when I compose sermons. I couldn't imagine my world without him.

Hi Della .

Your god is beginning to sound like Gollum, though I suspect Jesus is just a PR stunt by the Metatron (the voice of God) in order to cover up His genocidal past.

I have never understood OT apologists like yourself. It just seems a bit like the neo-nazis who deny the facts of German aggresssion in WW2 and the Holocaust. Note: I am not saying you are a Nazi, I think you know me better than that .

Just picking out the parts of the Bible that you like and denying the parts that offend your sense of right and wrong is a poor way to participate in a religion. Either it is true, or it isn't. If you wish to deny over half of your religious tract I doubt you can claim, in all conscience, membership of that faith.

Maybe it is time for you to begin exploring your spirituality for the truths you hold and try to find a path that suits you better?

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Noggin (and SD, thanks - I shall try to respond later).

Thanks for this Nogg:

I thought I had a new take on knowledge as a whole, but having left it to stew before trying to spell it out, I now think I'm only making the problem different - if not harder. I started thinking about the phenomenon of 'blindsight' (which we've mentioned here more than once, I think). This appears to involve knowledge of where things are without any accompanying belief concerning their location. "Eureka, counterexample!", you might think.

But let's recall that in addition to 'knowing that' there is also the category of 'knowing how'. We might know how to ride a bicycle (have the skills) but we need not also know that we do it in some particular way. I guess this begins to both blur and spotlight the distinction between propositional and non-propositional knowledge. We seem to be substituting 'skills' for 'beliefs' and perhaps there's a sense in which we can do this for *all* beliefs!

A baby might 'know' that if she moves the cushion, the toy reappears - without also knowing that the toy is underneath the cushion! Indeed, we might know how to walk from the station to the town hall without having a complete cognitive map concerning their relative locations.

This brings me to 'mental models', which is something of a hobby-horse of mine (It's not just the KCA, you know! ). What quality of cognitive state 'counts' as a belief. Yup, I'm trying to look at epistemology in the light of cognitive psychology. It's about time that we stopped thinking that 'empirical philosophy' is an oxymoron. I notice that this also ties in with my view of theology. Any thoughts from people here welcomed at this early stage.

toxx

Hi Chai ,

I couldn't agree more.

It is interesting that music plays such an important part of all religions with a strong contemplative component.

Within druidry the foundation stone of development is the Bard. Until one has reached out and touched the Awen (the divine spirit of inspiration) it is difficult to move forwards to other stages.

Music is thus one of the keys to truth and the universe. Considering music's strong mathematical basis this makes complete sense.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Math. Exact simulpost eh!

I think you're being a little unfair on Adele. After all, the Bible is only a fairly arbitrary concatenation of writings. I don't think you can justify claiming that it is 'the faith, the whole faith and nothing but the faith'! It might be termed 'canonical', but that doesn't really mean much except that people in positions of power, and perhaps with vested interests, have agreed at some point.

Furthermore, since most of us find inconsistencies in the Bible, it is logically impossible to believe the whole of it. As with our other belief systems, we don't reject the whole lot - but take a closer look at what are the essentials and what the bells and whistles. That is most certainly what we do in the case of science and I'm being consistent in suggesting that scientific practices be applied to theology too.

toxx

>>What is my experience of religious music outside Christianity? More extensive than you might think! <<

So give us all your list. I am waiting with bated vreath, as, I am sure, are many others.

Jez

Chai - yes, trad music from the Indian subcontinent is great stuff, from most of the cultures. When I was in Nepal, the music was difficult for me, but awesome. I had actually not mentioned dig. music, though I have a mate - he's on here, actually - who plays dig. in megalithic monuments, which has to be heard to be believed.

I think that music must be one of our oldest traditions, since singing is something that even our earliest hominid ancestors could have done. And our experience of humanity from its earliest days is that whatever it /can/ do, it /will/ do.

So I feel that wordless 'singing' must have been in our deepest genetic past.

Jez

Matholwch, sometimes your sense of humour is quite troubling - Gollum indeed! I know what I believe, thank you very much. The Old Testament (I am not an apologist for what you evidently see as a mess of genocidal fury, and nowt else) - is the Old, which is precisely the point. There have been events since then - including one particularly momentous Event - and things have changed radically. God became a human, for the purpose of reconciling humans to Godself, and for the other purpose of explaining what God wanted humans to be and do. Besides not being a Nazi, another thing I am not, is a biblical literalist or a believer in what has been called the "Heavenly dictsphone" theory. The Bible is quite capable of having in places, a wrong emphasis, or a wrong attitude. That being said, there is a lot more to the OT than rules, laws, and massacres! Try the book of Habbakuk for one..

Matholwch, would you include Christianity as one of your "religions with a contemplative tradition"? If not, then you need to reassess your knowledge of it! Thomas Merton for one...

Well, now that we're really back on track and flashing our talons, let's look at the contemplative tradition, mystical religion etc.

Interestingly, the entire formula for accessing the "divine" can be found, of all places, in the Old Testament: viz -
Be
Still
and know
That
I am
God.

The first step is simple being, awareness experienced as consciousness devoid of an object of awareness. Yes , this is paradoxical, but it is the core mystical experience as attested to by all traditions in all cultures.

Be Still. This amplifies the first step, as it is in stillness of mind, heart and senses that simple being is accessed.

Be still and know. This developes the theme, as wisdom/knowledge, knowledge of the unbounded aspect of awareness arises from the stillness of simple being.

Be still and know That. The 'T' is capitalised for the moment, as knowing 'That' suchness, essence, whatever, is the usual Vedic and Buddhist expression of the awakened awareness.

Be still and know that 'I Am'. Ultimately, the true identity is not individual nor personal, but the individual connection to the 'ground of being', from whence arises the sense of the personal self, expressed as the fundamental 'I Am.'

Now for the tricky bit ( especially for Christians who believe in the absolute separation of Creator and creature...). That fundamental 'I Am' knows its self as inseparable from the Divine gound of being, not apart from that which ( on this thread ) we will disagree to call 'God.'

Having said all of that, it is quite an eye-opener for those raised in the church-going Sunday bits-of-the-Bible-reading tradition to sit down and read the entire thing through, cover to cover. Yes, I have ( and discussed this aspect yonks ago on this thread.) It's pretty grim stuff, for the most part, and while things pick up in the New T, this is so coloured by Pauline anti-semitism as to be almost more repugnant. The footnote provided by Revelations that a mere 144,000 virgin males constitute the entire 'Elect', specially saved, says it all.

PS. The Roman Catholic Church has always had a problem with mystics and mysticism, precisely because their language tends to be universal rather than specific. This is tricky when you're waving the banner of a particular creed or theology. But the same applies across the cultural board. Buddhism, at its core, denies deities of any sort, and a personal self, in any guise. And yet it has to embrace the notion of 'being,' ( carefully avoiding either nihilism or existentialism in the broadest sense.) Which puts it much closer to the Vedic notion of being, termed 'atman', or self. But these are differences of terminology/theology.

The problems arise when beliefs are made into creeds, which are simply banners to fight under. We need faith/trust in order to function, but belief is always a limiting factor. As Alice said,"Why, sometimes I have believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!"

Once more with feeling...

There are no limits
other than our beliefs and
they are all limits.

Chaiwallah, I would take issue with a few things you have said - first, that Paul is anti-semitic. Not a bit of it! If you read the Epistles, you will see that he had great care and love for his fellow Jews.
Second, the 144,000. Who said they were "virginal males"? Revelation is still vociferously argued about - Jehovah's Witnesses for instance, believe that the 144,000 passages apply to them, others, that they are Jews.. I don't know, but I do know your interpretation is just one of many!
Third, Catholics and mysticism.
<>

Yet there are and were so many mystics in the Catholic church! Julian of Norwich is one, and Thomas Merton whom I mentioned before.. There are others, and I may remember them later. For the meantime, there's two to be going on with.

Re Pauls anti-semitism

Personally I have a huge problem with pauls epistles, they seem to me to represent confusion and contradiction in the extreme.

I am increasingly of the opinion that Paul's role in the formation of the early church had very little to do with the message of Christ, and far more to do with a quest for personal power on his part.

I find reading his epistles somewhat like listening to someone with a narcisistic personality disorder, it would be very easy to believe from Pauls (And Luke's) writing that Paul believed he was gods only purpose for existance.

It seems to me that his remarkable ability to avoid the vhement anger he seemed capable of generating in others (Particularly the Jews of the time) was related to his equally remarkable ability to obtain protection from the equally hated and reviled Roman occupying forces.

Paul's positive 'love' in his letters can easily be read as politicing, and there seems no small amount of damning with faint praise by Peter of Paul in his letters. ie "What Paul tells you is complicated" not an exact quote and I can't remember chapter and verse but I'll look it up when I can.

Paul also contradicts himself promising obedience to the Jerusalem church in one breath, and preaching against it with the other. My reading of all the epistles is that there is a huge argument going on between James on the one hand, and James on the other with Peter trying to find a middle ground and keep the peace.

Pauls antisemitism is further supported by the passages in acts where he not only requires half a Roman Legion to protect him from furious Jews, but creates enough fury for 40 sicari to swear a blood oath to kill him or die trying.

The history of Revelations seems to me just one part of the development of the Canon, which reading ignatious valentius clement and others seems as more about centralising power than preserving the truth.

The Catholic discomfort with mystics seems related to the above as when the canon was being formulated there was what I would describe as a pogrom against the mystics who were discovering a 'personal' christ, resulting in the exclusion of 'sayings' gospels apocolypses and secret gospels by the church which were probaly of equal importance to the finalised canon.

All religion attracts mystics, this to my mind is the only thing which gives them real form and spirituality, without which they are little more than a collection of rituals. But can you be spiritual and mystical without a religious framework? I think it is possible, and this makes it possible for me to belive the mystics of all religions have something important to say to us all, I just wish they could hear each others wisdom without getting bogged down in doctrine and dogma.

Sorry I didn't quite mean that to read as much like a rant as it does, but I do get quite Cross about Paul.

Chai, if you've got 'Real Player' you can listen to Bede Griffiths,
an English Benedictine monk who is regarded as a guru as well as being a Benedictine monk.
Bede Griffiths left Prinknash Abbey and set up an ashram in India with the goal to "set the orthodox tradition of the Christian faith alongside the orthodox tradition of Vedanta and to see how they can mutually enrich one another."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/audiointerviews/profilepages/griffithsb1.shtml

Alji

I'm with Chai on this one. It's the sense of everything as a unity that seems to me to be at the core of the mystical experience. And materialism is not fundamentally at odds with this. Science is just another piece of the puzzle.

Noggin

Hi Della

Yes my sense of humour can be troubling on occasion, but that is one of the skills of a bard, to prick the pompous and reveal the truth through satire.

This God of the NT is the same one revealed in Revelations I believe? The one attributed with many of his old traits by the blessed Paul?

Time to reform the Sulphur Outfall No4 club I believe?

Seriously though, I have listened to your beliefs over the last couple of years my dear kiwi. Many of them fall well outside the boundaries of the orthodox christian thought. Some are directly contradictory indeed. A few of them are so out of whack they mirror mine .

I do wonder how you can still call yourself a 'christian'?

never mind, each person must walk their own path and deserves resp[ect if they hold to truth.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Be
Still
and know
That
I am
Fred.




az

az. Er, like - ya know - ummm, keep on rockin' Fred.

Math. Your message finishes in great style. Sure, we must come to our own conclusions. What we call ourselves is, by comparison, a trivial issue. You will doubtless agree that 'Christian' covers a multitude of sins.

toxx

Actually toxx, "That I Am Fred" seems a perfectly legitimate interpretation. az is talking about the same thing as Chai, after all.

Noggin