Where I am at Now

David, Ok . This is worth talking about. I agree with you that within the sphere of religion the less spiritual should be under the influence of those who are more advanced spiritually. However that does not mean that this influence has to be exercised in the way of command and submission. Persons can for example learn very effectively by watching the admirable example of another. One can learn as the result of discussion and persuasion. The problem is that within many religions, the institutions of authority, are rigidly hierarchical in spite of the fact that it is doubtful that the supposed spiritual superiority of the ruling castes such as the caste of Hindu Brahmans or for example the Roman Catholic Clergy are in any meaningful way morally or spiritually superior. Furthermore within these institutions often certain groups such as women or the so called untouchables of India are excluded from any role of importance because they are supposedly unfit for any meaningful role.

Another problem is how does one determine who is superior? I personally believe that those religions which in various degree allow their laities to have an influential role are often much more spiritually centered than those which believe falsely the some priestly hierarchy should always rule. In fact they show a better example of godliness than those which are strictly hierarchical. Just a few examples of this might be the early Quakers and Anababtists. I think that one would therefore have a hard time arguing that in todays world that Roman Catholicism is in any way morally or spiritually superior than most Protestant denominations. And I would argue that Buddhism with its rejection of the caste system is certainly not inferior to Hinduism.

Another problem as I see it is that because of human diversity often one group of people may be gifted in an certain field while another is gifted in another. Thus those that may not be formally religious may in fact understand certain aspects of reality better than the supposed better educated.

Now regarding the issue of equality when applied to the secular sphere, again certainly all persons do not have either equal abilities or skills. So in this way they are not equal. However does this fact mean therefore that some humans deserve for what ever reasons to live as luxuriously as gods while others such as the landless peasants of Ancient China, India and Europe often starved and lived often as if they have no dignity or power. This is exactly what caste systems and extremely developed class system create.

Now modern capitalism of course within the developed nations of the West are very productive in the creation of wealth. So yea most persons within these societies do not starve and most have a lot of toys such as TVs, smart phones, etc. However even within these societies many do not have decent healthcare and die at a much earlier age as a result. And of course the biggest cost of this obsessive interest in the creation of wealth is the continuing ecocide of the earth as a result of global climate change and habitat destruction. I would also add that secularism and consumerism are the rule of the day. Most modern societies are post religious. I have said enough for now.

David the differences between you and I regarding these issues are probably as great as the differences between the adherents of  religions  such as Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. Another comparison might be between competing tendencies within Christianity such as between the liberal and fundamentalist forms of it. Thus the fact is that each of us could each spend a large amount of time arguing for our diverse points of view, but our positions would change very little. 

Thus, I do not want to spend much time on this. Now it might be different if either of us had an  audience of persons who care about what we say about these subjects. But that is evidently not the case. Thus I am going to keep this response as short as possible. But before going into that response I will just list a few of the fundamental differences between our positions. In describing myself I have to say that in spite of my rejection of much about the modern world and my disappointment in many of the directions in which it is going, I still hold many of the assumptions of both modernity and even post modernity. Thus for example I do believe in biological evolutionary theory even if my worldview is ultimately a religious one. I believe in modern disciplines of history, anthropology, archaelogy and modern science. All of these positions were treated with scorn within the writings of Traditionalism's founding father Rene Guenon and by the Madrian Sisterhood founders of Madrianism, and  later Aristasianism.

You, on the other hand, have a seemingly absolute faith in the Traditionalist, Feminine Essentialist worldview of the Madrian Mothers. Thus our perspectives could hardly be more apart in spite of some similarities. 

Now directly to your comments. The primary problem with patriarchy from my point of view, David, is not that it does not work. It often does work quite effectively in certain  ways, but it is in itself inherently unjust and oppressive. For example Roman Catholicism has worked; that is it has functioned as the primary religion of the Christian West. However this does not change the fact that its authoritarian system is inherently oppressive to women, and many other groups of persons. Orthodox Judaism, and traditional Islam likewise are successful in many ways, but clearly oppressive to woman. 

The same would apply to any purely matriarchal system if such systems have ever really existed on a large scale. They would be intrinsically be unjust to men in spite of the fact that they might work in some matter. Now you have often argued that under matriarchy the elite, the priestesshood would be "pure." The spiritual purity of the ruling elite would be such that they would rule beneficently and everyone including men  would get what they deserve and need under the system. Those who would claim that the system does not meet their needs or who claim to be oppressed by this pure system could be simply dismissed as spiritually blind or depraved. The same basic charge of course is regularly made of those who in the name of womens, gay and lesbian rights oppose the current system of the Roman Catholic Church and other patriarchal religious communities. 

The fact, David, is that I do not believe that human beings either men or women can be inherently pure or saintly. All human beings whether they worship a Goddess or a God are flawed;  they are sinners; they have kear. Yes I believe that, God whether seen as Dea or as a male Lord does help humans to be more virtuous or pure. But human sin and self delusion is such that even in spite of such help perfection is seldom achieved. Kear / sin still glares. And it glares to a much fuller degree within human hierarchies of power and authority. Those who have absolute power almost by definition must live to a great degree on the dark side whether they are men or women. If in fact they tried to live in any other way they soon would be lose their positions of power. That is just reality. While I could go on with this, I think that I have said enough for now

Glenn

Glenn and David,

I've been following this discussion and it does reflect an issue I've been wrestling with lately - how do we support Dharma / Thame in a world in which these principles are substantially absent in the public sphere, replaced at best with an empty moralism. I've been moving substantially leftward over the years (in line with Glenn's worldview) initially based on my analysis of U.S. foreign policy, but increasingly based on my analysis of domestic policy and the structure of power in the U.S. A similar analysis can be applied in most countries, I believe - namely that national and global civil, cultural and economic institutions are generally run by self-selected and generally self-serving oligarchies. To the extent that these oligarchies are not purely self-serving, they seem to subscribe to a political realist philosophy as articulated by Machiavelli and Hobbes, namely the view stability, power and order are the principle social ends and violent and oppressive political action to maintain stability, power and order are generally justified. As far as I can tell, this oligarchic structure remains true of societies throughout recorded history, although the philosophical justification may vary in detail. My challenge has been to maintain equanimity in the face of the manifest injustice and violence characterizing power relations in human history.

One of the major themes in spiritual literature is non-judgment and non-attachment. So, I see it as a matter of thame to cultivate equanimity and non-blame. Those in power are following their own paths. It is not my place to judge what is in other peoples hearts, including those who seem most responsible for suffering in the world. I can call for justice where there is injustice, but I need to trust in Dea with respect to how the world develops over time, and that suffering in the world has a higher purpose. I see my duty as to act without being attached to particular outcomes in the world, difficult as that can be.

I believe that there is a hierarchy of spiritual knowledge. In an ideal republic, we would be governed under the guidance of those with true spiritual knowledge. This is the ideal in Plato's Republic and of the varna caste system in India (to be distinguished from jati caste system). In an adharmic/athamic world, those in power may put in the mantle of spiritual or moral authority, but the pretense is easily seen through. I don't know to expect the restoration of Thame in our own time, but tradition teaches that Thame will be restored (e.g. Bhagavad Gita 4.8). I don't know the form that restoration may take. I do believe the disorder in the world has its own purpose, and trust that all will unfold according to the divine will.

David, thanks for the frank statement of your positions. OK, to start out, the answer to your question is a qualified yes. I am not aware of any religions that can be said to avoid the corruptions of humankind. Yes I know of examples of religions, normally in the days of their initial inspiration, which inspire their adherents to great heights of spirituality and morally creative human endeavor. This has been true particularly of certain Protestant sects such as the Quakers, Shakers, and Anabaptists. There has also been examples of greatness within all of the major religions, in spite of the fact all of these religions have significantly compromised themselves to the violence and injustice the world. And certainly many noble souls have existed within all of the major religions of the world. Thus Christianity has produced its saints and Islam its mystics, and some of these people really were good. Furthermore even members of corrupt religious elites such as Pope Julius 2 financed and incouraged the work of  artists such as Michelangelo and the building of great cathedrals and mosques. So I do not believe that religion has failed altogether. But I would argue in spitie of these achievements the religions certainly the religions of today in general fail to deliver on many of their primary promises. 

Now David to your comments regarding  the inquisitions. David the inquisitions are hardly the only crime of which Christianity has been guilty. The only reason many people focus on the example of the inquisitions as the chief crime of Christianity is that these  are a very easy targets. Christianity also has many more crimes on its hand such as its indorcement of the crusades, its support of the class privalidge of the rich, and most recently the American evangelical community's endorcement of Trumpist ideology by the And of course the Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists have their own unique problems of moral failure.


Now regarding  some of your statements regarding how human beings should live on this earth,. Hopefully they will live here righteously, peacefully, demonstrating justice and love of others, and a concern for the earth itself. Most of the major religions of the world contain scriptures and traditions which support such moral visions. Unfortunately these religions also hold to other scriptures and traditions which tend to weaken or reverse there more positive ideas in major ways. 

Now David if humans attempt to live within a purely spiritual realm, ignoring the material world as you suggest that they should, then how are persons to live in a loving relationship with reality. How to be just if politics and the negativity is ignored. How to live positiively in relation to others if one lives as a hermit. 

Now in relation to Jesus, you say that it is a real problem that he came down to the earth,the realm of matter, to save humanity, so that the Spiritual could be incarnated, enfleshed, within matter to save in order to save it. You state in stead that we should focus entirely on the spiritual and thus gnostic-like draw away from matter. At least this is how I interpret much of what you say. 

Well David, while I reject much within Christianity I am attracted to the very element which you relect so vehemently. I have no problem with it. And in fact I have a hard time seeing much difference between the nature of the Deanic Daughter's sacrifice and the Christian son's sacrifice. Both were done in the name of love, both were descents into misory and suffering, and both achieved savific results according to their corresponding myths.

You argue, David that it is a lack of spirituality within Christainity which is its main source of trouble. Actually it seems likely that it is its often excessive focus  on spiritual/otherworldly "realities" such as heaven, hell, life after death that many have seen as being its major problem. Christians have often spent so much time worrying arrogently about the souls of others that they have ignored the concrete suffering and injustices of real human life. Thus the inquisitors worried so much about the souls of the heretics and witches of the Middle Ages that they burned them for sake of their souls. And the "good" Christian slave owners of the old American South thought complacently that they had done their slaves a favor because they had "Christianized them. I can site many more examples of this otherworldly spirit I have said enough. 

OK, I think I will stop here for now. I may respond to other aspects of your post latter.

Glenn, I don't ignore the physical world, but I don't see it as an end in itself. To do that is materialism. The world is a reflection of the Spirit, and all the things of the world are reflections of Divine Ideas. This way, we can use material things to lead us to the Spirit.

The difference between the life of Jesus and the life of Our Lady is the difference between matter and Spirit. We are all being drawn towards Our Lady, whether we want to or not. That is why She never incarnated in a physical form. To do so would draw us to the physical. The Death And Resurrection of Inanna took place beyond time and space in the Eternal Moment which contains all time, and the Primordial point which contains all dimension. This is what we are being drawn to. Jesus was a man, and to worship him is to be influenced by his faults.

There is not much that is spiritual in the New Testament. The parables don't relate to spiritual principles, and reading about miracles is not of spiritual benefit. There are only the brief lines spoken in the Sermon On the Mount, but surely the meek should inherit the Heaven, not the Earth? I suspect that Jesus my have had a spiritual teaching which the Gospel authors did not understand because they had no spiritual vision, but, since it is not recorded, it is of no benefit. They are not part of Christianity, and no Christian can act according to them. There are Christians reputed to be saints, but they had to work in a Christian ethos, because that was the only one possible to them.

May She be with you,

David.

Philemon, Yes my position is not far from yours at least as far as our differing analysis of the world situation goes. I also agree with you that there is a long history of spiritual tradition calling for non-attachment to ones own works and to the world in general. I am also aware of the related value of non-judgement. However I have never been particularly inclined toward those values. And it certainly seems to me that many spiritual traditions such as the mainstream of the Western Abrahamic traditions have not on a regular basis practiced non judgement as a virtue. In fact they have often demonized those who disagree with them on major issues.

I do not condone this necessarily. After all religious elites have used their judgmentalism to condemn whole peoples and then destroy them. But on the other hand I do not see how one can not condemn the old Nazism and those who committed its acts of genocide, or for a modern example Saudi Arabia's current war of genocide in Yemen.

Now I do understand there is a difference between the individual and a system of oppression. Certainly one should condemn systematic oppression. But what about individauls who have been hoodwinked by it. I count most modern day supporters of modern Trumpist like movements in this category. Well I at times get really angry at them. But on the other hand most of the time I do not hate them. However neither am I going to make excuses for them.

Another thing is that often people commit the error of thinking that they are on the side of the angels and that the other is on the side of Satan. The reality is that most of us live in the world of mediocre grey. Most of us even if we may have many virtues have some deep inner evils as well. And most who we might think are evil may have some marvelous virtues as well. Oh well I am just attempting to explain some of my complicated attitudes regarding some of these issues. Thanks for the comments. Please post some more.

Glenn