Do you think it's wrong for people to create a religion?

[HansKecht]

I can't find a religion that makes sense to me, or that has enough proof to get me into it. Would it be wrong of me to make my own?

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 39 by Divine Insight]

The enlightenment that Siddhartha was talking about is easily achievable for people like you and me, and many others. In fact, we might even ask, "Who thinks they are their ego? That's ridiculous". But then again, if we are honest, we can not only understand how it's possible, but we also need to confess that we've fallen into that trap many times ourselves. Fortunately, we come to our sense and realize what we've done before things get to absurd. Very Happy

What my be helpful to understand is there are many people out there who have totally fallen into the trap of the ego to the point where they no longer have any real control over themselves at all. When you're not in that situation it doesn't seem so important to need to find a way out of it.

Yeah I agree, and in that way I can see how Buddhism could be a great source of preventing bad thoughts, ridiculous ego or pointless vanity. It could be effective in getting rid of negativity or bad karma. But I am still not sure how effective it is in creating anything really good.

I think Christianity or the belief in Jesus offer a bit more than a "happy Jesus ego". For with the teachings of Jesus you have at least 3 great advantages over both Buddhism and Atheism. 1. You have a hope or reason to believe in something greater or bigger in the meta-physical or spiritual 2. You have a guide for right and wrong behavior, objective morals and a continual goal to move toward BECOMING perfect rather than just having to rely on random events or be reduced to nothing but a state of mind which isn't your own. I mean with the belief in Jesus your OWN could become ego-less, Buddhism does not really offer that solution from what I can see. 3. You have far more answers, guides and clarity about the goal and the goal gives promise of something far greater than what Buddhism or Atheism offer in my opinion, so you have a motive of something to work on.

This is why I think Jesus has a far bigger carrot than Buddha or Stephen Hawking
So I am not sure I agree it is just a swapping of egos.
I am not a christian though because I find a lot of holes in christian teachings. But as far as motive, purpose or something to desire I think Christianity annihilates Buddhism and Atheism.

I agree completely. In fact, if you are trying to use meditation to reach "Nirvana" that most likely will be a futile endeavor.

Keep in mind that the concept of Nirvana was not the invention of Siddhartha Gautama. This is a cultural belief he brought with him.

Yeah true. Good point, but there seem to be a lack in clarity about what the ultimate goal Siddhartha Gautama was aiming at. I think that goal is more clear with Jesus and Muhammad too for that matter. though thanks to Paul I think the Jesus teaching is clearer and more desirable than what we have from Muhammad.

In fact, this actually brings up Naturalistic questions about the true nature of the "self", because according to many fans of Secular Naturalism, they suggest that the "ego" we create in our brains is indeed the true essence of what we are.

But according to Siddhartha's observations that clearly can't be true. Why can't it be true? Because we can consciously become aware of that ego, and CHANGE IT to our liking. So clearly the ego that the brain constructs cannot be our "True Self".

If it was our true self, then we couldn't stand back, look at it, and change it.

Yes great argument, but what IS the "true self" then?

So, in a way, Buddhism seems to be proving "Pantheism" in some way.

Of course, proving pantheism does not imply either Samsara or Nirvana.

Yes good points again, and this is another "flaw" with Buddhism I think. It is very tough to set your entire life after a goal that is so vague, and offer so little sensation.

I mean reincarnation, many Gods, a self-less enlightened state of being connected to the universe seems to offer no real hope of progress. The picture I get from it is more one of something going in never-ending circles...like being told I will work for the same job forever, with the same wage, with the same employers...good grief that kind of thinking could do my head in

As you say:

"In other words, when you die in this life as a human, your conscious self reawakens being born into yet another state of being. One that has no memory or connection back to this life.

That may seem kind of useless. But like a patient who has had extreme amnesia, it would still be YOU who is having this new experience.

And that entity of consciousness would be the "True You".

Yes but being in another state of being I don't know what is, extreme amnesia or a new experience I have no hope of understanding, is not much of a "carrot" for me. I mean I can get all of that just by taking the "right" pills

When it comes to something like Nirvana I agree that there is no evidence to support Nirvana. I wouldn't call that a "contradiction" though. Just a concept that has no evidence.

Pantheism could be said to be "self-evident" only because there is no reason to imagine anything more. Very Happy

No the contradiction I was referring to, was about a hope in Nirvana as I stated, the contradiction I see with Buddhism is in purpose. It's war for an unspecific enlightenment and goal over a self-less ego. In other words the contradiction as I see it is Buddhisms claim to "BE ENLIGHTENED" and having gotten so much about the human condition, motive and scientific evidence wrong.

To use a Biblical reasoning "by the fruits shall ye know them" I can not see any logical argument of how the fruits of Buddhism is any better than the fruits of monotheism or atheism.

You say:

Samsara seems to have evidence in the conservation laws of physics. Even in Secular Naturalism we must then necessarily be this universe. What else is there to be? And if that's the case then our conscious awareness must also belong to the universe. What else could it belong to?

So if the conservation laws apply to everything in the universe, then it probably applies to conspicuousness as well. At least in terms of the "thing" that is having this conscious experience. For if the universe is not having this experience, then what is?

Just my thoughts.

Yeah except all of that is shut to hell with Quantum physics, the unseen observer and the mind being able to create reality and even impact atoms

You say:

Well, I can't say that meditation cannot ultimately lead to an experience of Nirvana. I have meditated to where I have actually escaped ALL THOUGHT. The river of thoughts disappears entirely and I find myself in a mental state of pure white light. It is a state of total bliss

Really? Why is the escape of thought total bliss? What you describe here sounds a bit like Christian spirituality, do you know that there is a difference?

I am not really familiar with Gardenarian Wicca, though I know about Wicca (less than I do about Buddhism, Christianity and Islam).

What is the purpose of your "religion"?

Yeah I support anything positive too including fantasy. In fact I am a big fan of a lot of fantasy which can give very REAL experiences..and not just by being "fun"

[Divine Insight]

But as far as motive, purpose or something to desire I think Christianity annihilates Buddhism and Atheism.

Well, atheism (or more specifically Secular Materialism) offers nothing but non-existence after death. So from that perspective atheism as nothing to offer in terms of an imagined afterlife.

Christianity is often seen to promise a "perfect eternal life" which most people imagine in their own mind as "paradise". So that's automatically going to be attractive to everyone. Who wouldn't want to live for eternity in what they consider to be a "Perfect Paradise"?

When it comes to Buddhism I think it's far less clear what actually happens after death. Clearly they believe in Samsara in general. Just an endless reincarnation of the type of life we are currently living. Although they even allow that in future reincarnations things can improve due to an improved karma.

Of course, in Buddhism the ultimately religious God is to escape the cycle of Samsara entirely. But it is extremely unclear what that would mean. Nirvana itself means to "snuff out". Many people claim that this means that escaping the cycle of Samsara means to simply cease to exist. (not unlike Secular Materialism has to offer).

In fact, I think you had already mentioned that it seems that staying in the cycle of Samsara would seem to be a better goal than to simply cease to exist. I tend to agree.

However, there are other ideas of what Nirvana can mean in Buddhism. Just because the term means "To snuff out" this is only referring to the cycle of Samsara, not necessarily the existence of the one who has reached Nirvana. In fact, many people believe that Nirvana is like heaven. It's the ultimate "Perfect Paradise" where there no longer is any suffering. If that's the case, then it's offering the same thing as Christianity. Everlasting life in Paradise.

I have my own ideas of what might happen, but they don't really have anything to do with Buddhism specifically.

Yes great argument, but what IS the "true self" then?

The "true self" is the entity that is having the experience. Don't ask me to explain it in terms of physics.

But if we consider reality as pure secular materialism, then there's still the question of just what it is that is having the experience? The brain? How does a brain experience anything if all it is made of itself is energy and matter? It's not clear at all in Secular Materialism what the "true self" would be either. Where the "true self" is simply defined as the thing that is actually having the experience of life.

Yes good points again, and this is another "flaw" with Buddhism I think. It is very tough to set your entire life after a goal that is so vague, and offer so little sensation.

I mean reincarnation, many Gods, a self-less enlightened state of being connected to the universe seems to offer no real hope of progress. The picture I get from it is more one of something going in never-ending circles...like being told I will work for the same job forever, with the same wage, with the same employers...good grief that kind of thinking could do my head in

I agree. But don't forget this would be the same problem with the Christian "Heaven".

What would you do there but hang out with the same people doing the same sort of things for all eternity.

And if you can imagine the Christian heaven to be any more interesting, then just take that same solution and apply it to Buddhism as well.

If a constantly repeating or boring eternity is undesirable then suddenly Secular Materialism starts looking pretty good.

Secular Materialism is one step ahead of Buddhism because it assures "Nirvana" for everyone the first time through life. Assuming Nirvana simple means to cease to exist.

Yes but being in another state of being I don't know what is, extreme amnesia or a new experience I have no hope of understanding, is not much of a "carrot" for me

I agree. It doesn't sound very inviting to me as well. I was just offering it as one possible answer to reality (not necessarily an answer that we would like). But if you think about it, it does seem to match up with our current situation. We have no memory of having lived any past lives. So a reality where every new life starts over from scratch at least wouldn't be any worse then the one we are currently experiencing. You would never know that you are locked into a never-ending cycle of live. Instead, you would feel like there only is ONE LIFE and this is it. Just like you do right now.

See, it's not all that bad is it?

What is the purpose of your "religion"?

Wicca serves to help me stay focused. And I confess that I could do this without Wicca. So I don't need this specific religion. But I find it the most fun to use.

Keep in mind that that the root of the term "religion" is to practice something dutifully, habitually, reverently, etc. And Wicca is extremely useful toward this end.

I personally don't see where it's necessarily to actually believe that any supernatural entities exist. Some Wiccans are Animists, Taoists, and even Secular Naturalists. Or course, there are also Wiccans who treat their God and Goddess figures in much the same way that Christians treat Yahweh and Jesus too. So there's a very wide range of view in Wicca.

I should add here also that I'm speaking in terms of Solitary Eclectic Wicca as I personally practice it. I don't recommend joining a Wicca coven. I have no clue what they are like. Some may be quite good, others may be totally weird. I have no experience with Wicca covens. And like I say, some may lean toward Animism, Taoism, or even Secular Naturalism, whilst others may be as dogmatic as hardcore Christian Fundamentalists. So Wicca covers a lot of ground.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 41 by Divine Insight]

Well, atheism (or more specifically Secular Materialism) offers nothing but non-existence after death. So from that perspective atheism as nothing to offer in terms of an imagined afterlife.

Christianity is often seen to promise a "perfect eternal life" which most people imagine in their own mind as "paradise". So that's automatically going to be attractive to everyone. Who wouldn't want to live for eternity in what they consider to be a "Perfect Paradise"?

When it comes to Buddhism I think it's far less clear what actually happens after death. Clearly they believe in Samsara in general. Just an endless reincarnation of the type of life we are currently living. Although they even allow that in future reincarnations things can improve due to an improved karma.

Of course, in Buddhism the ultimately religious God is to escape the cycle of Samsara entirely. But it is extremely unclear what that would mean. Nirvana itself means to "snuff out".

In fact, I think you had already mentioned that it seems that staying in the cycle of Samsara would seem to be a better goal than to simply cease to exist. I tend to agree.

True, again excellent points and explanation. Yes I think we agree on this.

I have my own ideas of what might happen, but they don't really have anything to do with Buddhism specifically.
I would love to hear it since you definately seem to know what you are talking about
The "true self" is the entity that is having the experience. Don't ask me to explain it in terms of physics. But if we consider reality as pure secular materialism, then there's still the question of just what it is that is having the experience? The brain? How does a brain experience anything if all it is made of itself is energy and matter? It's not clear at all in Secular Materialism what the "true self" would be either. Where the "true self" is simply defined as the thing that is actually having the experience of life.

haha..fair enough, you have explained just about everything else and I would be surprised if even Siddh�rtha Gautama himself could explain this

Exactly! Those are indeed the questions on my mind. You have an impressively broad understanding mate, I could never have gotten such good insight on youtube where I was recruited

I agree. But don't forget this would be the same problem with the Christian "Heaven". What would you do there but hang out with the same people doing the same sort of things for all eternity.

Would it? I'm not so sure. The Christian heaven talks of PROGRESS, progress is the exact opposite of repetition. So I don't get teh picture of doing the same things with the same people for eternity, I get more the picture of keep learning and then using that knowledge to create with and enrich the lives of others. But how would you get that with Buddhism if senses or the ability to create is seen as "ego or attachment" and the very thoughts needed to progress with is seen as "an obstacle to enlightenment"?

The Bible offer a lot deeper insight to the idea of "heaven" than any Buddhist book I have read. So even if the solutions can apply in both religions, Christianity has the advantage here because it is more clear about it and even has Jesus as a living example of some of the teachings. There is more specifics right and wrong, do and don't decribed by Jesus than Buddha.

Whether it is all true or not is another matter, but as a guide I think Christianity is far more useful as a hope of experiencing a "heaven" than Buddhism.

I agree. It doesn't sound very inviting to me as well. I was just offering it as one possible answer to reality (not necessarily an answer that we would like). But if you think about it, it does seem to match up with our current situation. We have no memory of having lived any past lives. So a reality where every new life starts over from scratch at least wouldn't be any worse then the one we are currently experiencing. You would never know that you are locked into a never-ending cycle of live. Instead, you would feel like there only is ONE LIFE and this is it. Just like you do right now.

See, it's not all that bad is it?

Yes we agree that it does not sound very inviting, and also that Buddhism offer a possible answer, but Christianity has a answer to this question too and one I think is better.
That the lack of memory of past is a deliberate "veil" put on our heads to forget because life is a testing ground for us to figure out what we really want.

That to me makes both more sense, and is a more inviting option even if I don't think religion is a very inviting option, but like you have your own ideas about Buddhism I have my own ideas about what the Bible is actually saying. For I do not recall seeing any command or even advise to go to church or seek religion in there.
So I think it is entirely possible that the christians has misunderstood their own Christ.
In reading the new testament I do not find any current christian religion living the teachings of Jesus, Paul and John.

I actually like the New Testament (though I don't like the old one), but it seems so much better than anything I get from any religion including christianity and buddhism.

I really wish I had met Jesus or Paul for I am very curious about what they teach, for it is extraordinary to me and a better teaching than any I have read from any source.
That said though I think it kind of contradict the Old Testament, for the Old Testament do not seem inviting to me at all.

Sure Buddhism do not seem all that bad, but it doesnt seem all that good either. I love to learn, I love the idea of progress, to create, to share to feel...but I hate the idea of being "locked into a never-ending cycle" for what I love more than anything is freedom and to progress and learn. I don't think Buddhism really offer that option, and since I don't find scientific evidence of it's claims either, I can only conclude that yes it is not that bad, and may be a good alternative to those who are in something bad, but it is not a very good alternative for those who are not in bad and hope for something more good.

It feels a bit like eating oatmeal instead of steak to me. Sure it is food and it can be survived on, but it isn't much fun

Wicca serves to help me stay focused. And I confess that I could do this without Wicca. So I don't need this specific religion. But I find it the most fun to use.

That sounds a lot like me and the reason I could go to Buddhist temples, christian churches, read their books, but also find ffulfillmentwithout it

Yes "religion" is to practice dutifully and habitually, and I suppose this is both my main attactration and main criticism of it.

Habitual, traditional, dutiful or ritual practices can be great if you lack the discipline or focus to keep your mind from being "junktified" and I need that at times, but at the same time there is nothing more damning to life, freedom, enjoyment and being in the moment or spirit than working in "auto-pilot" doing the same thing over and over. There is not much progress in this if you have a mind free of junk.

I have studied a bit of Taoism myself and like a lot of their teachings but I like many buddhist and christian teachings too. I just can not see the good in living it dogmatically.

Sorry for the long post.

[Divine Insight]

Would it? I'm not so sure. The Christian heaven talks of PROGRESS, progress is the exact opposite of repetition. So I don't get teh picture of doing the same things with the same people for eternity, I get more the picture of keep learning and then using that knowledge to create with and enrich the lives of others. But how would you get that with Buddhism if senses or the ability to create is seen as "ego or attachment" and the very thoughts needed to progress with is seen as "an obstacle to enlightenment"?

The Bible offer a lot deeper insight to the idea of "heaven" than any Buddhist book I have read. So even if the solutions can apply in both religions, Christianity has the advantage here because it is more clear about it and even has Jesus as a living example of some of the teachings. There is more specifics right and wrong, do and don't decribed by Jesus than Buddha.

Whether it is all true or not is another matter, but as a guide I think Christianity is far more useful as a hope of experiencing a "heaven" than Buddhism.

I'm just curious about your comments above? This seems to be implying that attachment to the ego is somehow important to what Christianity has to offer for progress to be possible? Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression here, but this seems to be what you are saying.

Also, I'm thinking that we may have different ideas on precisely what Buddhism means when it speaks about awakening to the illusion of the ego. I don't think it means that you ever actually lose your situation of being an independent and sovereign entity in this physical world. In other words, you never actually "lose" your ego (or individuality), you simply "awaken" to the realization that your true nature is not dependent upon this human physical condition.

Just as an added note: I realized that many Buddhist traditions do seem to focus entirely on trying to "lose the ego" completely. But that's what I was referring to earlier as being rather silly. You're never going to achieve that in this life, because in this life you are indeed an individual human. You can't make that go away. But you can realize that this is just a temporary condition and does not constitute the true nature of you being.

I confess, that when it comes to Buddhism things can get pretty crazy. And this is partly due to the fact that many sects of Buddhism do tend to focus on extreme ideological ideals that simply aren't realistic, IMHO.

So I confess to having a very practical view of Buddhism. And so I may not see Buddhism as they might actually teach it in Buddhist Temples. Having said this, I have watched many interviews with the Dalia Lama and he seems to have many views about Buddhism that seems to be in harmony with mine. Not sure exactly where we would start to disagree if we actually sat down and had a one-on-one conversation.

Yes "religion" is to practice dutifully and habitually, and I suppose this is both my main attactration and main criticism of it.

Habitual, traditional, dutiful or ritual practices can be great if you lack the discipline or focus to keep your mind from being "junktified" and I need that at times, but at the same time there is nothing more damning to life, freedom, enjoyment and being in the moment or spirit than working in "auto-pilot" doing the same thing over and over. There is not much progress in this if you have a mind free of junk.

I have studied a bit of Taoism myself and like a lot of their teachings but I like many buddhist and christian teachings too. I just can not see the good in living it dogmatically.

Sorry for the long post.

A agree that confirming to dogma is not a good. And in a sense, in Solitary Eclectic Wicca you create your own "dogma" by writing up your own Book of Shadows that you must then "follow". However, there are two important things to realize here.

First, you are the one who creates the "dogma" in the first place, so you have the freedom there to create whatever dogma you would like to follow.

Secondly, you don't need to carve your Book of Shadows into stone tablets. In fact, I prefer to keep mine in a 3-ring binder precisely so I can modify it and change things around as I feel necessary.

So this becomes a very flexible "dogma". It's still helps to keep my well organized and on track, but it's not carved in stone. I'm not dictating to myself that I'm not permitted to change my future plans, goals, or even my beliefs. It's all totally flexible and dynamic. And my goals do change over time to be sure.

I only wish I had been taught this particular format of Wicca as a child. I think this would have been extremely helpful back then. I didn't take Wicca seriously until I was 57 years old.

In fact, prior to that I thought Wicca as a JOKE. I thought it was as silly as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I didn't even think of it as a serious religion. Of course being raised as a Christian I was taught that witchcraft is nonsense (not evil) just plain nonsense. My Christian denomination simply didn't believe in witchcraft at all.

I was introduced to Wicca as a serious religion by a particle physicist. I actually met her on a physics forum and we were discussing physics. I could see that she was extremely well-educated in physics and knew far more than myself. She was far better with the math too.

In any case, during our conversation one day the topic of religion came up. I mentioned that I find some things in Buddhism to seem fairly rational. And then She told me that She is a Witch. I say WHAT?

I figured she was joking, but then she went on to explain that she's actually a Wiccan and started to explain her views on Wicca. She explained it really well, and made a lot of sense. The she recommend some books for me to read, and I've been hooked ever since.

But way too late in life for it to do me much good. I needed Wicca back when I was a child. It would have been fantastic to have my current system back then! It would have been far more useful than Christianity could ever hope to be.

By the way, if you want a religion that is focused on progress and learning, Wicca sure fits that bill. And I confess to not being as astute a witch as I could be for sure! Don't look at me as an example of a great Wiccan. To the contrary I'm a very relaxed student who actually isn't nearly as "religious" about it as I should be. There are times when I pay more attention to it than others. Currently I'm in slump, and it shows! Just because I like the religion doesn't make me a "saint" in terms of following its practices and rituals.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 43 by Divine Insight]

"I'm just curious about your comments above? This seems to be implying that attachment to the ego is somehow important to what Christianity has to offer for progress to be possible? Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression here, but this seems to be what you are saying."

Yeah I did not express myself too good there, for I can see how you can read that from what I wrote, though it was not what I was trying to say. Sorry about that.

What I meant is more that Christianity needs the SELF/individuality, the PERSONAL FREE-WILL, not the ego. The ego would be considered sin or being "un-enlightened" in Christianity as much as Buddhism, you are right about that.

Yes we likely have a different idea about what Buddhism means when speaking about awakening to the illusion of the ego, for it seems even Buddhists has that.

I certainly prefer your definition of keeping individuality and waking over loosing it and sleeping

"I confess, that when it comes to Buddhism things can get pretty crazy. And this is partly due to the fact that many sects of Buddhism do tend to focus on extreme ideological ideals that simply aren't realistic, IMHO."

I agree, that is my opinion too and I too have watched and read a lot about the Dalai Lama who's views I tend to agree with too, but they don't seem to agree with all Buddhist teachings.

"First, you are the one who creates the "dogma" in the first place, so you have the freedom there to create whatever dogma you would like to follow.

Secondly, you don't need to carve your Book of Shadows into stone tablets. In fact, I prefer to keep mine in a 3-ring binder precisely so I can modify it and change things around as I feel necessary."

I love the second part, for that one suggest openness and progress to me, Dogma does not.

I would love to have had been taught differently as a child too. I was both influenced by Christianity and Atheism and both was taught with far too much dogma for my liking.

I have heard Christians calling Wicca "witchcraft" but is that really true?
I have similarly heard Christians claim that card games, dungeons and dragons and heathen holidays to be evil. I disagree with all of that and I think its a very square and not a very spiritual or open-minded way of viewing things.

In fact if you look at what Moses, Jesus and Paul did you might label their actions "witchcraft" if you don't know better, and I suggest that the Christians who so easily dismiss Wicca, card games, dungeons and dragons and holidays...."don't know better"

But where things get tough as I find in debating here too, is in with defining of words. For it seems there are so many different ways to interpret the same words.
I mean what does it mean to be a witch? Is a witch always evil?
Witch is just a word and can be as good or bad as what we term it to be.
So is a evil witch evil? Yes of cause it is implied in the word Evil.
But is it implied in the word "witch" that being a "witch" is evil? Perhaps so to the Christians in the Dark Ages, but these christians could not perform the miracles they claimed to believe in and did not know much of the scientific truths we know today.

But scientific or Jesus standards these Dark Age Christians would likely be defined "evil" for there was burning of innocent people to death.

What you describe sounds very interesting to me. I wish I knew of places here where I can get more "hands on" experience of what it really means to be in Wicca. I have had a few Australian friends who was big into it, but they never showed more than what British "Druids" or Scandinavian "Asatro" believers might do.

Is Wicca about practical practices or does it have a "higher" agenda?

"By the way, if you want a religion that is focused on progress and learning, Wicca sure fits that bill."

Well you have my attention now, I could be convinced to pick the "religion hat" out of the trash can I put it in, but to do so I need to know more about the practical living and the purpose, for I don't have time to waste on more things which get me nowhere. I have arrived at too many dead ends, and thats a killer for a free-spirit like me

[automorphism]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I have meditated to where I have actually escaped ALL THOUGHT. The river of thoughts disappears entirely and I find myself in a mental state of pure white light. It is a state of total bliss. You physical body even disappears in that state of mind. Some people might call this the experience of "Nirvana". I don't go that far. I just see it as a "state of pure consciousness" devoid of any thought or sensory input. Clearly the even the white light isn't coming from any "sensors". It's not actual light (i.e. photos). It's just an state of pure conscious awareness. Where it comes from is anyone's guess. It could be coming from the brain, or somewhere else.

This sounds like the first jhana -- an excellent achievement! The Buddha told his monks to regularly practice jhana meditation to work toward becoming enlightened. I've stumbled into this state once and can attest that it's quite incredible. I'm currently working on getting there regularly, but it's very hard.

[Divine Insight]

But where things get tough as I find in debating here too, is in with defining of words. For it seems there are so many different ways to interpret the same words.

My view on semantics is as follows. The purpose of language is to communicate. So when two people associate the same word with different meanings, all they need to do is ask each other what they each mean by the word in question and communication has been achieved.

If they end up in a heated debate demanding that the other person accept their definition of the word only, then they have lost the value of language entirely.

Obviously when working in strict disciplines it's often necessary to demand very specific meanings associated with specific words or terms. Therefore in order for people to work together in a clear and concise way they need to agree upon a single meaning for a given word or term. But even in that situation if all they do is stand around arguing with each other over what the word or term should mean they aren't going to get very far.

I mean what does it mean to be a witch?

You need to ask the person who's using the term what they mean by it. I use this word to mean different things depending on the context in which I use it. Most generally I use the term to simply mean, "A person who practices witchcraft"?

And then of course we move on to ask, "What do you mean by witchcraft?" and so on.

In fact, this is actually all covered in your "Book of Shadows". Assuming that you use these words. In other words, if you chose to use these terms then you define precisely what you mean by these terms in your "Book of Shadows".

This is one way in which the Book of Shadows is useful. It serves to clarify for you precisely what you mean when you use these terms (or whatever concepts you personally use).

This also leads to some interesting things. Take the following example.

Question: What is a witch?

My definition: A witch is any person who practices witchcraft

Question: What is witchcraft?

My Definition: Witchcraft is the art of practicing magick.

Question: What is magick?

My first clarification: It's not the same as magic. I define magic as the art of illusion or purposeful deception.

My Definition: Magick is the intentional orchestration of thought, energy, and vibration to cause a change in my environment that I cannot explain using my knowledge of physics or science.

Notice that there is nothing in this definition that proclaims that magick is in any way caused by any supernatural forces or entities. All the definition requires is that I have intentionally caused a change in my environment in a way that I personally cannot explain using my knowledge of physics or science. There is no claim that science cannot explain what has just occurred, or that I was not the cause of this change.

In fact, as a witch I would definitely proclaim to be the cause of the magick I perform.

What you describe sounds very interesting to me. I wish I knew of places here where I can get more "hands on" experience of what it really means to be in Wicca. I have had a few Australian friends who was big into it, but they never showed more than what British "Druids" or Scandinavian "Asatro" believers might do.

Well my knowledge has been gleaned from many different sources, and I am very free-spirited and I have no problem embracing what I like and rejecting what I don't care for. So for me, "Wicca" (as I practice it) is a hodgepodge of many different ideas, philosophies and techniques.

And going back to your previous statement about the meaning of words, there are certainly those who claim that the type of "Wicca" that I practice shouldn't even be referred to as "Wicca". They proclaim that I should just say that I practice "witchcraft".

I reject that notion because I do far more than just practice witchcraft. In fact, practicing witchcraft is the least of my activities. I am far more into structuring the religion in my Book of Shadows, my Grimoire, and my Book of Mirrors. Also most of my actual time spent is in Shamanic Journeying which I often perform as "Circle Rituals".

I also embrace the Wicca Rede which is "Do as you will but harm none". I also structure my pantheon after many Gods, Goddesses, and other spirits associated with folklore that is often associated with Wicca. Yes, I have a quite extensive pantheon, but I think of these as "Thought Forms" that I use in my Shamanic Journeys rather than actual supernatural entities. The idea is that spirits are supposed to then use these thought forms that I create as a means of manifesting themselves within my Shamanic Journeys. Whether that actually happens is anyone's guess.

Is Wicca about practical practices or does it have a "higher" agenda?

If you are practicing Solitary Eclectic Wicca like me, then it has whatever agenda you want to give it. This is one thing that I found very attractive about it.

On the other hand, if you join a Wicca Coven chances are that they will already have an agenda and expect that you want to join in to learn about their agenda and participate in that. Many Wicca Covens have an agenda (at least in part) of holding circle rituals where they send out healing energies to people they know are sick, and things like that. These are more like social parties (although religious just like Christians have) where people get together and collectively perform a circle ritual in dedication to some "higher cause". Not necessarily a supernatural cause.

But these Covens probably also hold more serious circle rituals too for the purpose of communing directly with their deities. Typically those rituals are not open to the general public.

By the way, when they commune with their deities it is often done using "though forums" and a ritual that is basically a group "Shamanic Journey", although they probably never actually use the term "Shamanic Journey". I learned about Shamanic Journeying from North American Indians, (not in person, but through books and videos), and I realized that the Wicca Circle rituals actually are a form of Shamanic Journeying. And so this has helped me considerably since I now approach all my Wicca Circle work precisely as I would begin a Shamanic Journey.

I should write a book about my experiences with Wicca. I'm almost starting to do that here.

I better quit.

By the way, I'm not trying to encourage you to get into Wicca. It's just something I discovered and it works very well for me. Whether it would be useful or entertaining for you is a whole other story.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 46 by Divine Insight]

My view on semantics is as follows. The purpose of language is to communicate. So when two people associate the same word with different meanings, all they need to do is ask each other what they each mean by the word in question and communication has been achieved. Very Happy

If they end up in a heated debate demanding that the other person accept their definition of the word only, then they have lost the value of language entirely.

I couldn't agree more

In fact, this is actually all covered in your "Book of Shadows". Assuming that you use these words. In other words, if you chose to use these terms then you define precisely what you mean by these terms in your "Book of Shadows".

This is one way in which the Book of Shadows is useful. It serves to clarify for you precisely what you mean when you use these terms (or whatever concepts you personally use).

I like that, very existentialistic

If you are practicing Solitary Eclectic Wicca like me, then it has whatever agenda you want to give it. This is one thing that I found very attractive about it.

Yeah that would appeal to me too. I love the idea of freedom in expression and action as it frees the creativity, and it certainly seems to have done that for you

Thanks for explaining all that, I am definitely intrigued and curious to learn more.

By the way, I'm not trying to encourage you to get into Wicca. It's just something I discovered and it works very well for me. Whether it would be useful or entertaining for you is a whole other story.

What do you love the most about Wicca?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I have meditated to where I have actually escaped ALL THOUGHT. The river of thoughts disappears entirely and I find myself in a mental state of pure white light. It is a state of total bliss. You physical body even disappears in that state of mind. Some people might call this the experience of "Nirvana". I don't go that far. I just see it as a "state of pure consciousness" devoid of any thought or sensory input. Clearly the even the white light isn't coming from any "sensors". It's not actual light (i.e. photos). It's just an state of pure conscious awareness. Where it comes from is anyone's guess. It could be coming from the brain, or somewhere else.

This sounds like the first jhana -- an excellent achievement! The Buddha told his monks to regularly practice jhana meditation to work toward becoming enlightened. I've stumbled into this state once and can attest that it's quite incredible. I'm currently working on getting there regularly, but it's very hard.

Oh yes! It's very difficult to achieve this state intentionally. In the beginning I could only get the briefest glimpse of this state of consciousness. The problem was that as soon as I would reach this state of consciousness I would instantly think, "Wow! It's the white light!", and that thought would instantly pull me right out of it.

It's extremely difficult to experience this state of consciousness without actually THINKING about it. Yet that's the only way to achieve it. If you so much as think, "I'm here" then your no longer in that state and it vanishes.

You can only experience this in the absence of all thought. And that's extremely difficult to do. But it is possible. Your brain is still thinking in the "background", your just not paying attention to those thoughts at all.

The best way to describe it is like sitting on a bank by a fast moving stream. That's your "stream of thoughts". The stream never disappears, it's always there. But you can get lost in mediation to where you are no longer aware of the stream, even though you can still hear it running. You're aware of the noise, but you aren't thinking, "Oh that noise is coming from the stream".

It's the same way with transcendental mediation. The constant stream of thoughts in your brain are forever flowing. You can't turn that off. But you can ignore the thoughts. And that's when you experience the white light. But if you so much as think, "I'm experiencing the white light" than this is an analytical thought and you find yourself not only recognizing the stream of thoughts but being carried away with it.

It's hard to explain. You can be 'aware' of the experience of the white light, just as long as you don't try to think about it in any analytical way. The very moment you have an analytical thought, you're done.

So it's a state of mind of "Pure Awareness" devoid of any analytical thought.

I guess that's a pretty rock-solid definition.

[Divine Insight]

What do you love the most about Wicca?

Wow, that's a tough one. There's quite a few things I love about Wicca.

I think the first and foremost is the freedom to create your own version of it. And this was what that physicist I mentioned really bought home for me. She was very good at explaining this freedom of Solitary Eclectic Wicca. And this was in part due to our previous discussions about Buddhism. I had told her that I found Buddhism interesting, and we had discussed various forms of Buddhism. One of the things I mentioned that I like in particular was Siddhartha's suggestion that a student should always see their own truth, and not accept anything as dogma, not even from Siddhartha himself.

It was from this that she then said, "Oh you would love Solitary Electric Wicca then!" And she was certainly right.

It has much to offer in the way of freedom of artistic expression in terms of viewing the world as a mystical place. Not necessarily "supernatural" unless you want to go there. In fact, what does "supernatural" even mean? It basically means 'beyond the natural world". Well, duh? I've been a physicist my entire life. I understand the sciences very well, and I can absolutely assure everyone that we do not know the totality of what constitutes the natural world.

What does this mean? This means that talking about the "Supernatural" is ridiculous. How can we talk about the supernatural when we don't even know that's natural?

Sorry, I believe I just went off on a tangent there.

Anyway getting back to Wicca. It's very open to personal interpretations and modeling. But at the same time there is a core structure to it.

For example, it embraces two main "deities": The Moon Goddess, and the Sun God. These deities are associate with the moon and the sun for good reasons. The moon cycles about monthly, and the sun cycles annually. Associating the Moon with the Goddess places you on a very tight schedule!

Why? Because a large part of this "game" is to impress the Moon Goddess. She's your "Mother". She waxes and wanes every month. So the ritual goes as follows:

You go out and tell the Moon Goddess at FULL MOON what you want to achieve in this life. You are doing two things here. You are basically promising to her that you will work on this goal, and you are simultaneously asking her to help you in any way she can. You also tell her any problems you currently have that you would like to get rid off.

She then begins to wane. Taking your problems with her. In the meantime you need to then get busy working toward this goal you asked her to help you with. Because you're going to need to REPORT back to her next month when she returns as the full moon again. And you don't want to let her down.

It's a silly game I agree. But face it, you've got this big ball in the sky that you have to answer to every month. That's got to be some pressure to get your butt in gear.

You play the same game with the Sun God. Every winter and summer solstice you need to report to the Sun God with your semi-yearly progress. Most people also include the spring and fall equinox just to keep the game more lively.

There are also really cool meanings associated with all these events that makes this "holidays" even more meaningful.

Obviously you could use these orbs in the sky as a secularist too. But it becomes too easy to say, "Ahh, it's just ball of gas, I don't need to answer to a ball of gas".

So associating the sun with a God and the moon with a Goodness makes the game far more meaningful. I think as a child if I would have thought of the moon and sun in this way it would have been far more inspiring than going to church and seeing a crucifix of Jesus hanging on the wall reminding me that I deserve to be damned and should be feeling guilty as hell.

Where is there any dynamic periodic incentive there?

I also, like the circle rituals of Wicca, that are far too complex to describe in any detail here. But they also work as incentives and markers for progress and goals, etc.

And of course, for me, when I realized that the circle rituals are actually "Shamanic Journeys" that made them all the more attractive to me as well. I enjoy going on Shamanic Journeys. Explaining how that works would require a book.

I have created many standard "thought-forms" to use in these Shamanic Journeys. Most of which came from Celtic, Pagan, and Greek folklore. And I have to say that the whole structure of my circle rituals is probably one of the greatest things I personally enjoy about Wicca.

I'm an artist and a romantic. I also love to create things. So creating my entire Wicca Pantheon was a lot of fun. And it has since become quite meaningful to me.

It's a fun hobby. I don't even mind calling it a hobby. I have a whole collection of "daggers" that I use for rituals. They are actually called "Athames" in Wicca. These are used to direct energies during various rituals. Any pointed object will do, even a finger. But its fun to use the Athames.

So yeah, it's an artistic "hobby" as much as a religion. In fact, I confess that I actually do think of it much more as a hobby than a religion.

And I also take no offense if someone suggests that I'm just playing silly games.

I'll just say, "So what?"

What am I supposed to do in this life? Go sit in a church pew and stare at a lifeless crucifix of Jesus? I'd rather cast a circle with pointy daggers and go on a Shamanic Journey through my vivid imagination. It's far more FUN!






.