I think that the conversation should start with the question: Do you believe that Physical Material Reality is all there is, or do believe that there is “Something Other”?
What a great essay Matt. I echo another's comment - how very impressive for one so young at the time but suspect it stems from your experience as a college freshman.
Beauty is Truth, especially when understood as the ancient Greeks understood truth as 'un-concealment'. There is something transcendent about beauty. It is an experience of Presence or Being as both Parmenides understood and Heidegger alluded to. George Steiner wrote about what Keats understood about Real Presences in great art that includes beauty in pathos. As pointed out in Psalms: 'Deep calleth unto deep'.
Excellent essay. Very deep, well read and academic for 25! You cover the great spiritual mysteries here. Like how you have you weaved in Keats - one my favorite poets. Nothing to add here but the humble quote from Keats of Not really knowing reminds of Socrates similar admission - the more you learn the less you know or the classic Huxley Doors of Perception concept inspired by psilocin - one door closes - but then two open etc. to infinity. Here is where I stop because as many brilliant mathematician/physicists have found out the hard way, when you go to the edge of the cosmic knowledge abyss - you risk falling into the dark void which often results in insanity. Maybe Jung was wrong and Adam should not have taken a bite of the apple from the forbidden tree of knowledge. We already had paradise and we blew it! Yet God did give us freewill and curiosity so here we are. This is where faith/trust in God comes into the picture - as in Let Go and Let God! Here is a one of several plays I wrote imagining Buddha and Jesus meeting.
I wonder if it has to be "religion" in any sense related to what we've known for 5000 years.
Humans were around for 245,000 years before anything resembling the institutional religions of the West (and far less institutionalized religions of the East) came into being.
Sri Aurobindo wrote, "The Age of religions is over.' Of course, the spiritual but not religious crowd (SBNR) mostly is putting together a syncretistic mush; but perhaps we might do well to tune into the evolutionary Zeitgeist and consider that what emerges in terms of the evolution of consciousness may bear little if any resemblance to what we think of as religion (Swami Vivekananda, by the way, made a brilliant case for this view in his talk that electrified the attendees of the 1893 Parliament of World Religions).
I just received this from my friend Marco Masi. I think it might be relevant to this question of "What comes next?"
“The Human Cycle” is one of the key works on the psychology of social development by the Indian mystic, poet, and visionary Sri Aurobindo. I first read it in the 1990s, and it left a deep impression on me with its grand vision for the future evolution of mankind, which, despite all appearances, is driven behind the veil by ‘soul factors.’ Although his text is now over a century old, it feels more relevant than ever. This is not surprising when we consider the evolution of consciousness that unfolds over centuries, if not millennia. I believe we are on the cusp of the evolutionary transition he so eloquently described as a shift toward a post-material society. In this opening paragraphs of the first chapter, he outlines the in-between period in which we currently find ourselves, and I believe it perfectly describes the issue we are facing.
“Modern Science, obsessed with the greatness of its physical discoveries and the idea of the sole existence of Matter, has long attempted to base upon physical data even its study of Soul and Mind and of those workings of Nature in man and animal in which a knowledge of psychology is as important as any of the physical sciences. Its very psychology founded itself upon physiology and the scrutiny of the brain and nervous system. It is not surprising therefore that in history and sociology attention should have been concentrated on the external data, laws, institutions, rites, customs, economic factors and developments, while the deeper psychological elements so important in the activities of a mental, emotional, ideative being like man have been very much neglected. This kind of science would explain history and social development as much as possible by economic necessity or motive,—by economy understood in its widest sense. There are even historians who deny or put aside as of a very subsidiary importance the working of the idea and the influence of the thinker in the development of human institutions. The French Revolution, it is thought, would have happened just as it did and when it did, by economic necessity, even if Rousseau and Voltaire had never written and the eighteenth-century philosophic movement in the world of thought had never worked out its bold and radical speculations.
Recently, however, the all-sufficiency of Matter to explain Mind and Soul has begun to be doubted and a movement of emancipation from the obsession of physical science has set in, although as yet it has not gone beyond a few awkward and rudimentary stumblings. Still there is the beginning of a perception that behind the economic motives and causes of social and historical development there are profound psychological, even perhaps soul factors; […] ”¹
Of course the Buddha “uproots suffering” by pointing out, in reality, there is no self or soul. This is in stark contrast to Western Christianity that wants to “save the soul” through Christ for eternity (not necessarily Jesus’s teaching). They are essentially incompatible at the level of soul. This is one reason why applying a developmental arc, even in mysticism, is so clarifying. Mystical states evolve too. Subtle mysticism acknowledges the validity of “soul making,” but Causal (no self) mysticism allows for the transcendence of self and even soul. The common error proposed by unenlightened scholars and philosophers is that this eliminates participation in the arising reality of the relative world. But it’s the exact opposite: participation is enacted from (and as) a state of absolute freedom and happiness. Being in the world, but not of it, as it’s said. In any case, it is a profound writing, especially for a young man. Once you know the Dharmakaya first hand, your considerations will even deepen, for you’ll no longer just be quoting your excellent mastery of source literature (which is extremely impressive), but speaking from your own awareness. BTW, I highly recommend following the true Divine Incarnations, like Christ, here on Earth. They are the ones who truly know. In fact, one has appeared in your lifetime 🙏❤️
I think that the conversation should start with the question: Do you believe that Physical Material Reality is all there is, or do believe that there is “Something Other”?
What a great essay Matt. I echo another's comment - how very impressive for one so young at the time but suspect it stems from your experience as a college freshman.
Beauty is Truth, especially when understood as the ancient Greeks understood truth as 'un-concealment'. There is something transcendent about beauty. It is an experience of Presence or Being as both Parmenides understood and Heidegger alluded to. George Steiner wrote about what Keats understood about Real Presences in great art that includes beauty in pathos. As pointed out in Psalms: 'Deep calleth unto deep'.
soul-making as worldbuilding ✨
Excellent Essay!
https://christophermeestoerato.substack.com/p/christ-and-buddha-meet-at-the-coffee?r=12utpl
Excellent essay. Very deep, well read and academic for 25! You cover the great spiritual mysteries here. Like how you have you weaved in Keats - one my favorite poets. Nothing to add here but the humble quote from Keats of Not really knowing reminds of Socrates similar admission - the more you learn the less you know or the classic Huxley Doors of Perception concept inspired by psilocin - one door closes - but then two open etc. to infinity. Here is where I stop because as many brilliant mathematician/physicists have found out the hard way, when you go to the edge of the cosmic knowledge abyss - you risk falling into the dark void which often results in insanity. Maybe Jung was wrong and Adam should not have taken a bite of the apple from the forbidden tree of knowledge. We already had paradise and we blew it! Yet God did give us freewill and curiosity so here we are. This is where faith/trust in God comes into the picture - as in Let Go and Let God! Here is a one of several plays I wrote imagining Buddha and Jesus meeting.
https://christophermeestoerato.substack.com/p/christ-and-buddha-meet-at-the-coffee?r=12utpl
I wonder if it has to be "religion" in any sense related to what we've known for 5000 years.
Humans were around for 245,000 years before anything resembling the institutional religions of the West (and far less institutionalized religions of the East) came into being.
Sri Aurobindo wrote, "The Age of religions is over.' Of course, the spiritual but not religious crowd (SBNR) mostly is putting together a syncretistic mush; but perhaps we might do well to tune into the evolutionary Zeitgeist and consider that what emerges in terms of the evolution of consciousness may bear little if any resemblance to what we think of as religion (Swami Vivekananda, by the way, made a brilliant case for this view in his talk that electrified the attendees of the 1893 Parliament of World Religions).
I just received this from my friend Marco Masi. I think it might be relevant to this question of "What comes next?"
“The Human Cycle” is one of the key works on the psychology of social development by the Indian mystic, poet, and visionary Sri Aurobindo. I first read it in the 1990s, and it left a deep impression on me with its grand vision for the future evolution of mankind, which, despite all appearances, is driven behind the veil by ‘soul factors.’ Although his text is now over a century old, it feels more relevant than ever. This is not surprising when we consider the evolution of consciousness that unfolds over centuries, if not millennia. I believe we are on the cusp of the evolutionary transition he so eloquently described as a shift toward a post-material society. In this opening paragraphs of the first chapter, he outlines the in-between period in which we currently find ourselves, and I believe it perfectly describes the issue we are facing.
“Modern Science, obsessed with the greatness of its physical discoveries and the idea of the sole existence of Matter, has long attempted to base upon physical data even its study of Soul and Mind and of those workings of Nature in man and animal in which a knowledge of psychology is as important as any of the physical sciences. Its very psychology founded itself upon physiology and the scrutiny of the brain and nervous system. It is not surprising therefore that in history and sociology attention should have been concentrated on the external data, laws, institutions, rites, customs, economic factors and developments, while the deeper psychological elements so important in the activities of a mental, emotional, ideative being like man have been very much neglected. This kind of science would explain history and social development as much as possible by economic necessity or motive,—by economy understood in its widest sense. There are even historians who deny or put aside as of a very subsidiary importance the working of the idea and the influence of the thinker in the development of human institutions. The French Revolution, it is thought, would have happened just as it did and when it did, by economic necessity, even if Rousseau and Voltaire had never written and the eighteenth-century philosophic movement in the world of thought had never worked out its bold and radical speculations.
Recently, however, the all-sufficiency of Matter to explain Mind and Soul has begun to be doubted and a movement of emancipation from the obsession of physical science has set in, although as yet it has not gone beyond a few awkward and rudimentary stumblings. Still there is the beginning of a perception that behind the economic motives and causes of social and historical development there are profound psychological, even perhaps soul factors; […] ”¹
I don't disagree. Christ is not Christianity, nor Buddha Buddhism. Consciousness evolves, as does what is meant by "religion."
Of course the Buddha “uproots suffering” by pointing out, in reality, there is no self or soul. This is in stark contrast to Western Christianity that wants to “save the soul” through Christ for eternity (not necessarily Jesus’s teaching). They are essentially incompatible at the level of soul. This is one reason why applying a developmental arc, even in mysticism, is so clarifying. Mystical states evolve too. Subtle mysticism acknowledges the validity of “soul making,” but Causal (no self) mysticism allows for the transcendence of self and even soul. The common error proposed by unenlightened scholars and philosophers is that this eliminates participation in the arising reality of the relative world. But it’s the exact opposite: participation is enacted from (and as) a state of absolute freedom and happiness. Being in the world, but not of it, as it’s said. In any case, it is a profound writing, especially for a young man. Once you know the Dharmakaya first hand, your considerations will even deepen, for you’ll no longer just be quoting your excellent mastery of source literature (which is extremely impressive), but speaking from your own awareness. BTW, I highly recommend following the true Divine Incarnations, like Christ, here on Earth. They are the ones who truly know. In fact, one has appeared in your lifetime 🙏❤️