Well lets start with the absurdity you posit above which was, to be fair, not an aspect of teh version which I came across- the idea that each level incorporates the ones below it- now the models which  am familiar with require them to reject the levels below, which becomes abundantly clear at the level of polytheism->monotheism. You cannot simultaneously believe in multiple deities and that there is only one deity (though in that transition ground there is certainly some interesting overlap, which s hwere I began this discussion which you assert I have nothing to contribute to...).
Incidentally teh version of this linear model I first came across was one used by christian fundamentalists which posited that pantheism and pantheism were nothing but a relabeling of animism, in that spirit infused enverything while in true monotheism (TM their version of true monotheism) God exists outside the universe.
Liek I said, I have come across multiple versions of this hypothesis and whomever is positing it always has tehir own belief system at teh top as where everyone is evolving towards.
At teh same time I know plenty of 'fluffy bunny' pantheists who simply want to see The Divine in everything but reject the concept that the divine might have any sort of personality or motives. I've also met a pantheistic Hindu who described the world divided into Krishna and not Krishna, in which Krishan infused everything but tehre were still somehow demons which opposed him.
The concept of a worldview which incorporates all of teh above perspectives would not be termed pantheism or panentheim, those are a worldview of their own, and the comprehension of how these persepctives fit together can begin at any point within the wheel, even starting from a 'common' pantheism or panentheism and progress from there. I don't believe that any belief system makes one inherantly more enlightened than any other belief system.

Why the aggressivity?

I think you're confusing  two things here: the belief, and the structure. Pantheism or monotheism aren't beliefs, they are structures of belief. There's monotheistic Christianity, pantheistic Christianity, same for Islam, Buddhism, Zen... Of course, it is barely possible to be at the same time monotheist and polytheist (though the Hindu seem to have found a solution there), but it is very well possible to adopt a stance in which those structures are seen as necessary steps towards a more complex spirituality.



I already apologized and tried to clarify myself. If my intent isn't clear enough yet, or if you have a counter-argument, I'd be glad to participate, but I don't think passive-agressive comments are leading us any further.



It is if you postulate that one form of belief (polytheism, animism, monotheism...) is inherently better than another. I did not postulate such a thing. I was just pointing at how these belief systems link to each other.



On the other hand, wouldn't giving the Divine a personality and motives be a reduction of a great spiritual experience to a mere humanized concept?



That depends how you define enlightenment. I define it as the capacity to encompass a greater, deeper, more complex truth based on spiritual experience and the interpretation thereof. Thus, some belief structures are characteristic of a more enlightened spirituality than others. The way towards these more complex structures, be it Christianity, Buddhism, or whatever, matters only insofar as those systems tend to gravitate around a particular structure (e.g. Christianity and monotheism) and thus make it difficult to move beyond that particular structure and towards a more complex spirituality.

monotheism is a belief - a belief that there is one and only one deity. Lets not try to complicate the issue by reinventing language.

By postulating a linear evolution in which pantheism is the epitome of spiritual development and 'non duality' you incorporate the assertion that it is superior yto the other beliefs in your developmental paradigm.

the same way Calculus is superior to Algebra, s a greater development, though in the case of calculus/algebra the point is accurate.

And I didn't say that the structure one embraces cannot *hinder* spiritual development, merely that it does not inherantly bestow it.

In fact I would go so far as to assert that any structure which insists upon a single path to enlightenment inherantly limits the enlightenment of those adhering to it.

Including one true way "real" pantheism.

There are several concepts here getting grouped together which perhaps should not be.

1) Evolution  - evolution is the change of one form to another form. The assumption we like to carry is that the form which has changed the most is the most advanced or best. That is a basic species bias (and an uninformed one at that. I suspect we'd find whales or birds have evolved more overall than we have). I don't think this is a necessary component though - suffice to say that the creation of one system permits or encourages certain modifications that may lead to another system.

2) Require the rejection of the levels below - I don't think anything 'requires' that, however that change may permit it. If you are polytheistic, you can't reject the idea of multiple gods, by definition. If you are monotheistic, you have that luxury (as long as you only WORSHIP one god). So some monotheistic religions may reject multiple gods and some may not, but there's no requirement one way or another.



We've also seen evolution used to show that white men are superior to black men or women. That doesn't mean that evolution itself is a flawed model.



... nor the fact that almost every evolutionary tree you care to find ends with the creation of man at its pinnacle.



I would disagree with that. There have been plenty of belief systems which are structured such that they seriously inhibit the achievement of enlightenment. An easy example is Heaven's Gate, which believed a comet would bring spirits who would usher them away from Earth and to paradise. Killing oneself seems a pretty heavy bar to achieving enlightenment.

No. Just no. More complex does not mean better.



Completely agree with that.



Careful, structure/belief confusion. A structure does not give a path, it does not give anything, a structure just is. It is beliefs, and even more so institutionalized beliefs, which insist upon a path.
This put aside, I do agree with you, but what are the alternatives? All beliefs are centered around one single way to attain enlightenment, that could practically be called their defining characteristic. Do you know of any spiritual schools that teach more than one way to enlightenment? I personally don't know any.

The Unitarian Church tries to incorporate multiple paths to enlightenment. So does Ba'hai.



No, monotheism is WORSHIPPING a single god. This has been pretty well established in other threads on this same forum.



Calculus isn't 'superior' to algebra. It has specialized uses. In fact, you use algebra IN calculus. The one can't supplant the other. You could at least try competing fields, saying that say theory of relativity is superior to Newtonian physics, but you'd still be wrong. Realitivity gives better answers than Newtonian physics in some cases, but it does so at a cost. When calculating the speed of a car, I still use Newtonian physics because the margin of error compared to ToR is miniscule, and the amount of time required to calculate is significantly less and less prone to error.

<quote>
In fact I would go so far as to assert that any structure which insists upon a single path to enlightenment inherantly limits the enlightenment of those adhering to it.quote>

Do you have a source for this? It sounds like you're saying "we should teach kids all ways of doing math, and let them choose their favorite". It sounds nice, but in practice, it's not true. Our brains are formed certain ways and we accept information better in some ways than others. Structure guides us along particular pathways, hopefully the most efficient pathways, to achieving a particular goal. Lack of structure or limitations may well result in lost time (or complete failure) as time is wasted exploring redundant pathways to achieve understanding already gained.

Math does not lead to enlightenment. Unless you are calculating lumens output...

the point is that the goal defines the parameters.
and FYI, a structure can define a path- a belief structure can define a path of spiritual development from vague to highly ritualized, a physical structure can create, define or limit paths through things like hallways, doors, etc.

I either case the limitations only apply to those operating within the structure.

and in teh same way that someone who never leaves the house learns nothing of the world behind so do structures which limit spiritual develop inhibit spiritual learning/development. even if your hypothetical house is the library of congress with master teachers and a gymanasium (hypethetical allegory obviously) you are still limited in teh perspectives that you can envision to those contained within the structures, and will, for example, never comprehend the perspective of someone raised with fewer advantages (okay, allegory is reaching the breaking point...)

The point is that religion isn't math, isn't a linear development, and there is no better one true way. We don't ascend up a chain of beliefs where one belief system is on the top and teh epitome of spiritual development as the 'highest' form. Personally I feel the real state of enlightenment is when you can comprehend how all of the forms can be simultaneously true and false. sort of a quantum theology...

Not quite. It can act as a limiting factor regarding what can be found in a path, but it doesn't define the path itself.



Yes and no. It does indeed limit development once you reach the limits, but you have to start somewhere, and every unfolding in a new structure is an expansion of spiritual experience. In other words, gotta start walking before you run. Structures become limiting once you believe there's nothing outside ot them.



That's an unverified (and certainly unverifiable) assumption. As long as we agree that there are worse ways, then we have to admit that there are better ways too...



Of course not. But there is a possible ascension through different beliefs structures, going from the less complex to the more complex. This progression  is explicitely described in platonism and neoplatonism, sufism, mahayana buddhism, among others, which are pretty independent faiths with different assumptions. It's not a solid proof, but it's one hell of a hint.



You might want to specify what you mean with form. Many spiritual paths recognize formlessness as the epitome of spiritual development, where the question of true or false is irrelevant.

Ho ho ho, you're so funny :P

But seriously, math is a language for understanding the world. I would say that math leads to englightenment the same way English or science does - it creates a basis for which we can understand at all.

(And on many occaisions, discoveries in the fields of math or physics have directly translated over to theology, for instance regarding the creation or shape of the universe, the nature of planes or time and so on. So yes, math may lead to englightenment the same way any religion might. Math is burdened, however, in that it moves far more slowly and cautiously, and is still very young.)

But more importantly, I (and you) were using it as an example for one mindset overtaking and incorporating another. I may be monotheistic, but that does not mean that I am naturally antagonistic, or cannot synthesize the lessons from polytheism.




But so do the advantages. I would get from New York to San Francisco much faster following highways and signs. The highway signs don't help me very much if I'm driving through backyards.



But here's your problem - you assume that the structure we apply to learning minds must be applied forever. That's silly. I was introduced to Catholicism throughout my young life, but as I got older, I was also introduced to other religions, and as an adult, I regularly study most of the ones I can get my hands on. That structure gives me a basis from which I can build (and that method of teaching is pretty well agreed upon as being ideal by child psychologists).



Math isn't a linear development. Check out the history of String Theory for example, or encryption, which went back and forth and all over since its inception. Nor are any of these necessary the 'one true way', just 'effective ways for particular circumstances of problems'.



Great example!

(Some of my comments here are strictly in defense of math, and for the purpose of correcting some mis-statements. If you want to use a different allegory, you're welcome to.)

People please try to folow what i am saying before you argue against it. The last two posts seem dedicated to undermining a statement I did not make- I never said that all structure was bad, I said that structures *which define one true path to enlightenment* are inherantly limiting and as such inhibitory towards achieving true enlightenment. Obviously if you start on such a path then leave it then those limitations do not apply anymore, and if the structure recognizes multiple paths than the conditional statement is not met. If you never leave teh highway from LA to New York you will run out of gas, because gas stations are off teh highway, not on it.
Ultimately One True Wayism is about controling people, not enlightenment, though the assertion of enlightenment can easilly be a carrot that is offered, even if it is in fact unobtainable within that structure.
Platonic ideals do not ascend in complexity, complexity in Platonic theory is sthe result of imperfection in teh reflection of those ideals, so in fact platonic theory argues agaainst the idea you offer- sure most philosophies have an idea that tehre is a goal to be reached in spirituality, but that hardly argues for the inherant truth of the ascendancy of philosophies from animism to pantheism or panentheism. But let me here make a point -
assume for a moment that you are, as a begining argument, correct, and pan(en)theism is where it all leads to. Then when you get there you find that God infuses everything, and as such has a multitude of perspectives.
So what do you call an omnipotent being with multiple personalities?
Multiple beings.

Glass houses...



I understood you the first time and still do not agree with you. I said the structures BECOME limiting once you reach a certain development. They are not INHERENTLY limiting; rather, they serve the purpose of bringing you up to a certain point, after which they become obsolete.



We haven't read the same Plato, or at least, don't have the same interpretation... Platonic ascension is always directed towards a broader encompassing state, which contains, by very definition, more, and is thus more complex. Complex doesn't mean complicated.



You're starting with wrong premises, jump to conclusions, and end with a questionable conclusion.

First, panentheism does not merely profess that God infuses everything. That would be the first and most basic form of pantheism, to be related to Plato's allegory of the sun. It is the Over-Soul of Emerson, the buddhist Invisible Eye. Panentheism is best summed up by the classic Hinduist mantra "Brahma is the world". It is the nondual stance, the realization that there isn't God and the world, or form and substance, but rather that God is the world, the world is God, form is substance and substance is form.

Second, you're humanizing the divine again. Perspectives and personalities are concepts that make sense only in the light of individual egos and thus completely stop making sense once you adopt pantheism (and sure enough don't make more sense in panentheism).

And last, I never pretended that panentheism is what it all leads to. If you read my messages carefully over again, you'll notice I spoke of another unfolding starting from panentheism to end in animism and even farther, in materialism and atomism. In neoplatonic terms, the ascending movement towards panentheism is Wisdom. The descending, away from panentheism, is Compassion.

If two people are arguing against the 'wrong' argument, consider perhaps it needs rephrasing? :)



Why? If that path says "God is the true God, have faith", so on and so forth, then goes on to say "understand God has many faces, look at these other religions and see if there is truth in them... but remember God is the one true God..." that would seem to be saying there is one "true" path, but recognizing there is still value to be acquired from lesser paths (even if that value is as minor as "silent meditation in lotus position").

I guess ultimately what it comes down to is, I feel like you are giving a hard statement which sounds nice ("you should accept other peoples' ideas, because only through diversity can you find truth"), but I've not seen any real arguments for it.

And of course, this completely ignores that "The True Way" is a huge simplification. Are you talking about "The True Church Name"? "The True Teaching Method"? "The True Prayer Book"? I consider Catholicism a "One Way" religion, but that does not preclude it from taking some ideas from Buddhism or Paganism and incorporating them to enrich the experience of its practitioners.



It can be, but that doesn't mean it always is.



That seems a simplistic answer. Why not just call it a multi-faceted god? Or a trinity (or polyity, or whatever)?

1) All limitations by tehri nature become signifigant after some point of development, but still exist prior to that point. A ceiling in my house limits the altitude of flight for bugs and any birds which may enter my house. It imposes a limitation on the altitude of flight. technically it limits my own ability to fly inside my house as well, though my lack of wings or other ability to fly is a far more signifigant limitation. Nevertheless the limitation is there whether it affects you or not.

2)


if it ackowldges the validity of other paths but does not recognize their equality then it is not 'one true way' it si 'one better way'. One true way is when either a) all other paths are considered to eb deceptions which lead away from the truth or b) all other paths are considered ancilarry and only of value in the presumption that they will lead to the true path.
the second is rare in modern christianity, but was/is applied to a lot of pre-christian beliefs by christians who tend to be 'one true way'ists and see the value in prechristian religions as preparing teh way for Christianity.

Which is not to say that one true wayism is either inherant to all forms of christainity nor limited to christinaity, it just tends to be the way it manifets within the mainstream.

But as you pointed out, that limitation may not be relevant. Buddhism may be the 'one true religion' which provides everything we need as humans. If we were octopi, maybe it would not be so super.



I think you're defining a religion as though it's a one-line thing. I can say "Buddhism is all wrong, and following Buddha will lead to Hell, but they have meditation methods which, if turned to God, may help towards salvation". Or alternatively, "Buddhism is all wrong, but their understanding of the nature of the spirit augments our own and can be used".

Heck, you love to bring this up yourself. Catholicism I'd say is pretty heavily a "one true way" religion, yet it borrowed all over the place from Greek, Roman and other pagan religions.

The point is that if you are looking for enlightenment then you have to be able to see the truth within teh lie and teh lie within the truth, so cutting yourself off from one aspect or another of the world arrund you is inherantly limiting, the more you do so the more limiting it is.
Catholicism is hardly teh monolithic entity it is made out to be. Many Popes have reached out to other religions even acknowledging that other religions 'seek the same light' by different paths. Compare this to a born again charismatic christian who won't even listen to another religon because they are in league with the devil and Catholicism looks remarkably open. of course the issue is on a sliding scale not bianary, and within any large group there will be variation of adherance to teh strictures of any belief. And of course there may well be goals to a religious belief system besides enlightenment, which may be seen as either coequal to enlightenment or superior to it. My point is one which I had thought to be simple and self evident when reduced to it's essence- strictures restrict, and a prohibition against considering a perspective leaves you blinded to it's wisdom.

I think your a priori assumption here is that you are especially enlightened, and that your 'truth within the lie' is part of that. Unfortunately, in a debate scenario, you would have a difficult time proving that.




You are correct. But your assumption here is that strictures restrict but cannot provide sufficient wisdom on their own. Railroads restrict, but if they get me where I need to go, that restriction is acceptable, even desirable.

If you could prove that no single religion can provide all the religion-stuff a person requires to reach enlightenment (or salvation, or whatever your end-goal is), your argument would be bulletproof. But no one can prove that, and on that basis, exclusive religions are still as valid as inclusive ones, all else being equal.

1) If enlightenment could simply be taught, then it inevitably would be
2) If one religion taught enlightenment, then everyone following it's lessons would be enlightened.
3) Since there is no religion wherein all of it's members are, after a given amount of training, enlightened, then no single religion can hold all the answers in a transferable format.
4) since no religion has all the answers, then obviously it is necessary to look outside the religion to get answers.
5) Ergo any religion which does not allow one to look outside itself prevents full enlightenment.

Your points about acceptability of limitation are acknowledged, indeed I have even made the point myself that they can easilly be valid if there ar goals to the religion besides simply enlightenment. In other words saying 'the rails are usefull if I want to go to new York' is meaningless in the context of 'be able to go anywhere in the world' in which case you would be better off with your own two feet.

Question: What is it to be "enlightened"?

I know what the Buddhist definition of the word is but many religions and spiritual teachings do not define it nor is it their goal.  I believe you have to define this universal "enlightenment" before you can say what paths can or can not be used to attain it.

From Webster:
en·light·ened/enˈlītnd/Adjective
1. Having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook.
2. Spiritually aware

Now in the ideal sense I would say it would have to include both of these things and apply them to each other- someone who is well informed and rational about spirituality and spiritually aware in their rationality and outlook. Now what that means in the extreem can be hard to define, as one would have to be enlightened to fully define the criteria, and I suspect anyone that enlightened would not actually claim to be enlightened.

At the same time most religions do seek enlightenement, but most do not make it their primary goal - for Christianity it is salvation, Islam submision to teh will of God, and so on, but each also requires some degree of enlightenment to be pursued.

This is not true. My school taught calculus, but not all students could do math. I don't know of any religion which has said the only requirement of achieving understanding is to attend lessons every Sunday - it requires work - usually more work than the average person will or can give.

This is all very abstract and non-quantitative (necessarily so), but I would be very interested to find a definition of who is 'enlightened'. Then all we would need to do is find one individual who achieved it relying on a single religion and we'd have definitive counterproof to your argument.

On the other hand your calculus class had what, a semester, one year to learn it? I would think in say 10 years everyone would either give up or learn calculus. If enlightenment vould be objectively taught then I would expect anyone who stuck with it for say 40 years would have made some measureable progress.

I would expect only those who are required to or interested in achieving progress would achieve progress. There's no guarantee or requirement that the followers of a particular religion show that. So for instance, Christianity's self-stated goal is for people to establish a relationship with Jesus - nothing more. However, I think they offer a lot of wisdom (perhaps all necessary religion-provided stuff to achieve enlightenment). Those who wish to pursue it may find that Christianity provides all the religion-stuff necessary, but most Christians just don't care to make that investment.

Sure, enlightenment is hardly a necessity... I already expressed a caveat that this was a one dimentional analysis...

But you can't say 'clearly this religion doesn't offer enlightenment because not 100% of its followers are enlightened, and they probably wouldn't even want it if they found it anyway'.

If you accept that adherents to a religion may not WANT enlightenment, and that just being a member of a religion may not impart all the wisdom that religion has to offer, you can't make the argument 'not 100% of followers of this religion have achieved enlightenment, ergo this religion does not have that information'.

In fact, you can't even make a comment on whether a singular religious path can deliver you to enlightenment. They best you can do is show no occurences of the inverse. To show your position, the first thing you need to do is make honest attempts to disprove your position (and fail). Look for people who HAVE achieved enlightenment, and figure out how many followed multiple religious paths, and how many followed only one.

I'm sure this has been done before, but I've never read about it. I'd be extremely curious what the results are.

I ddn't say "this religion doesn't offer enlightenment". Indeed most religions do *offer* it. What *none* of them do is deliver reliably. You ar e'disproving' points I am not trying to make and, I suspect, getting upset at things you are reading into what I am saying. The point I ma trying to make is not about the innate superiority of any given religion but about the nature of enlightenment compared to insular thinking.