One Year in Your Religion

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Thomas, I am curious as to how the Catholic Liturgical year and mass would be different from my usual Anglican/Episcopalian one?

Let me detail the Liturgy for you ... I'll get it together and post.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

but in our church it seems the only significant difference in service is that the Catholic one is spoken while the Episcopalian one is entirely sung/chanted.

We do the sung mass, too. I think the Orthodox even moreso. Again, it's a bit 'old school' ...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I would imagine in Roman Catholicism the Virgin gets more attention, which would be very interesting.

Not in the Liturgy. In the petitionary prayers we do ask that 'the Blessed Virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, pray for me to the Lord, our God' ... but then we believe that there's more present at Mass that the people.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Do Catholics believe that it is only necessary to be Christian (to believe in the saving grace of Christ) or that more is required before metanoia?

Good question, and worthy of a longer answer. Short answer is it is only necessary to believe in God's love ... in fact, we're much like the Moslem in that regard, who say that all one has to do to become a Moslem is declare oneself one.

In Catholicism the Gift of Grace is always there, but we have to accept it: no pre-destination, it's a free offer. Lip service doesn't cut it, however, you can't pull the wool over the Guv'nor's eyes! We have to love, if we want to be loved, that's the deal.

Metanoia is itself part of the gift — you make the effort, and the Holy Spirit matches (and often, to one's delight and surprise, surpasses) with His own. He does the work, He makes Christ known in us.

Hope that helps

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Does someone have to be baptised as a Catholic to participate, or baptised as a Christian?

Baptism is a pre-requisite, and one can apply for a dispensation if not a Catholic. It's not common though.

We hold the Eucharist as a Mystery — something real is happening — there is Presence — if you don't believe that, then there's no point in engaging in the Mystery in the first place.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I'd find that offensive, but I'm tolerant of being offended.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I consider the Eucharist to be a very sacred act. For me, it approaches a mystical experience every time I take it. I tend to be picky about it though. What I mean is that I prefer the older way of doing Eucharist — that people confess their sins (we do that collectively in Episcopalianism) and that people approach the altar, kneel, and are fed the bread and wine.

Yup. Today we receive in the hand or on the tongue, but standing. Kneeling at the altar went out with Vatican II.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I don't think other ways of doing it are wrong, but rather that they don't give me the time I need to reflect on what I'm doing that makes the whole ritual meaningful.

Ah! Someone sensitive to symbol! It's another language really, a not-rationalistic one, very right-brain, I would say, far more encompassing and penetrative. Rationalism stops on the surface ... in symbolism, every surface is a veil ...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I've been to a lot of churches where stuff is just passed around, or people serve themselves off a table... it just isn't the same for me.

I'd walk out. Might as well stay home and get it mail-order.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

It is too chaotic for me to have the time necessary to think about repentence, grace, and reconciliation.

Absolutely. If one can't invest oneself in something, how can one hope to get anything out of it?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I can't see why people couldn't just have Latin classes, as the Jews have Hebrew classes, and then the mass would be accessible.

It's a common assumption among those who don't know that the Mass is inaccessible if in Latin. Every Catholic knows what's going on, they're taught the Mass prior to first communion ... then, of course, there's the richness of symbolism that surrounds them.

I like the Latin Mass. I like the sung Latin more. I like the vernacular mass because I can ponder particular words (and lose my place in the mass!). My only problem with the Mass in English is the language is so bland! They should have done a translation, then given it to a poet or a lyricist or someone...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I recognize most people do not tend to have a great patience for symbolic act.

I seriously believe it's a language we lost, when we moved off the land, as it were. From the moment we started living in cities, we started constructing ivory towers. I think this process has accelerated dramatically with the advent of the Enlightenment (which poo-poo'd symbology) and industrialisation. Now we 'invent', having lost touch with the past. Even the New Age looks not much further back than the Romance movement for its symbolic meaning, and they were already in deep trouble.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I'm odd because I love symbols and I don't really need to intellectually grasp what is going on to find meaning in ritual.

Symbol is my 'big thing' ... once you rationalise a symbol, it ceases to be a symbol, and becomes a sign. That, in essence, is my beef with modern Christian movements, and why I'm so into first millennium Christianity — it's the language they spoke, and it's as clear as day to me.

You can't rationalise a Mystery without losing sight of it.

But you speak it too! You'll get more out of your year, wherever you are, than I might have first thought.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The whole idea is that if you hang around long enough, even the most strange people will feel more like family and you'll "get it."

When I learnt classical martial arts, that's the way we were taught. It was rarely explained, it was shown, and you copy ... this idea horrifies the modern mind that assumes nothing is inaccessible to it, as if it had a right to all knowledge, no, that's unfair ... it assumes that an answer to a question will suffice, as if by knowing the answer, you've embodied it ...

(I saw a book on koans once, with a koan, and then the 'answer', and then the next koan, as if you could work through it like a manual! As if knowing the answer would trigger the 'breakthrough' ... Lord help us ... )

So you copy and you study ... and then it happens, and you get it, and the sensei looks across the dojo, and grins, and nods, and next time he shows you the same thing he's shown you a hundred times before, but it's a whole different ballgame!

I asked my sensei once, if 'the first thing you learn is the last thing you understand', what does the sensei look for when one performs a technique: "In a young man, virility; ten years later, proficiency; ten years later, maturity; ten years later, timing; another ten, economy; ten years later, insight; ten years later, wisdom."
Same move, every time.

I listened awestruck to Taj Mahal playing 'Dust My Broom' once ... it's not what he played, it's what he didn't ... I've never heard anything played so minimally, and be so absolutely right in what it was about ... it was like a comet ... almost nothing there at all, but it was incandescent.

There's a bit in Thomas Merton somewhere when he talks about catching another man's eye, he's a monk and the other guy's a Sufi, or a Buddhist, or whatever. The thing that hit Merton was he saw in the other something he knew in himself ... that thing you looked for, that you'd touched it, couldn't quite hold on to it, but you knew it was there, and you'd touched it.

They nodded. 'nuff said.

Pax tecum,

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I saw a book on koans once, with a koan, and then the 'answer', and then the next koan, as if you could work through it like a manual! As if knowing the answer would trigger the 'breakthrough' ....

So you copy and you study ... and then it happens, and you get it

Some descriptions of Buddhist monastics becoming enlightened give the impression that it is a sudden event that had nothing to do with their practice. If they practice afterwards, it's basically a form of "maintenance."

My experiences have been totally unlike anything I would have expected from my religious upbringing or, for that matter, any understandings I may have gleaned about religion from later studies. My sense is that formal doctrine provides rather poor coverage of religious experience.

Another issue: a breakthrough experience may not have any obvious implications at the time. It may take years to sort out the meaning and then apply it. Hence, a 1-year time frame won't tell you much.

I think individual experiences become meaningful in a total-life context. This is partly why a description of the experience in isolation means so little.

[17th Angel]

You can come join me in my religion for a year if you want.... Take it or leave it, I wouldn't really care lol....

Pointers you're gonna need to know...

Theres the kettle....
This is MY mug.
There's the xbox.
There's the Plasma remote control.
This is MY recliner... You can sit on any of the others though.....
Friday is Shabbos...
Saturday is Shabbos....
Sunday is Shabbos......
Monday is Shabbos...
Tue - Thu we pretend to look busy.
And my dogs are a higher rank than you, this is their house you're a guest. (A -very- silly mistake that happens alot... People soon learn their place lol.)

ok we're all set! Welcome to the Lex experience....

[Dondi]

path of one,

I suppose what you are suggesting will bring you to a closer understanding, to a certain extent, about various faiths and I applaud your willingness to consider such a project, as tasking as it will be.

But I don't think you can just 'test drive' a religion. If you were committed to just one year, in the back of your mind you know that all things will come to an end. You will then proceed to the next religion. To me that would be a bit disingenious, I should think. It wouldn't be fair those whose lives you've invested in, nor in the long run, it wouldn't be fair to you. You would end up breaking important relationships for the sake of research. Most religions are of a cummunal nature, and many of the religious tenets, doctrines, rituals, activities revolve around interaction with others in the group. It's a question of loyalty as well. Are you going to serve until your time is up and merely leave?

While you may gain knowledge of a certain religion, I would see it hard to switch around like that. You would be changing your religious view every year. Are you committed to believing those views? Deep in your mind, you won't.

Now unless you are an open-minded seeker, willing to explore everything and believe whatever comes your way, let go of whatever biased and beliefs you current hold, and be willing to find a permant system of belief, seeking until you find it, then the journey, while educational, will be shallow at best.

Just my opinion.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by arthra

My comment:

Well Baha'is use a different calendar through out the year with each month and day named after an attribute of God.. also there are nine Holy Days scattered over the year. One of the months involves a nineteen day fast from sunrise to sunset.

Also each day involves special obligatory prayers. So the Baha'i year would probably be an experience.

That sounds very interesting. I'm aware that some religions do operate on a different year than the American calendar. If I follow those, I would start when it was recommended by members of the religion so it made maximum sense.

I must confess that I am dreading the fasting in any religion; I know the Muslims do this as well. I can't imagine not eating all day. I'm naturally very thin and get hypoglycemic and when I don't eat, I get headaches and pretty weak rapidly. I actually usually eat small snacks around every two hours rather than large meals as it is. So the idea of missing food all day kind of frightens me.

My comment:

I think being involved in the Baha'i community for a year could be of interest as there are social principles that are somewhat unique to our community including race unity, equality of men and women and being non-partisan, accepting other religions and participating in inter-faith work could also be of interest. Also we have no professional clergy.

I did not know you have no professional clergy. That would be interesting to see in terms of how it works and if it feels different in terms of personal responsibility from religions with clergy.

Thank you very much for the tips, Art!

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

PoO, you’re determined to join something aren’t you??!! And so many questions! For my part, for now, I shall just say have a look around the San Francisco Zen Center website (they have dharma groups all over the country apparently, not just the main three locations in SF).

Welcome - San Francisco Zen Center

s.

LOL- I'm actually not much of a joiner. Which is partly why I think I'm a good person to do this type of experiment. I tend to be very self-reflective and critical (not negative, just analytical) about what's going on when I'm in a group and how I feel about it. I guess you could say I'm an introvert that isn't shy. I find social life fascinating, but I've never been very good at social conditioning...

I'll look into the Zen Center. I'm also considering Deer Park Monastery in Escondido. Close to my So Cal home and based on Thich Nhat Hanh- there is the bonus opportunity to stay for a week or two at a time if I can scrounge together the money...

I know Tao suggested I try to get some of it financed, but...

I'm loathe to market the work I'd be doing to New Age for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is precisely the opposite point I'm making than what New Age typically does. I'm for deeply experiencing and studying each religion in its own right. What I find in terms of unity would be carefully delineated in terms of my own experience spiritually as opposed to what I notice as a scholar. I have no problem with the concept of New Age, but the practice is disturbing to me as an anthropologist because it often just pulls bits and pieces without context from all faiths, and ignores the richness actually present in the diversity.

Since my profession is anthropological research, I figure I might as well do the thing properly and give the usual solid ethnographic year that is field-approved for participant observation, put serious work into understanding the beliefs and practices, history and so forth behind the religion, and dedicate serious time to the depth of it. I wouldn't feel right marketing it in a way that is untrue to my sense of ethics in fieldwork and representation.

It's not meant to be a feel-good project, but a "what do I feel?" project.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Will be

Hospice takes volunteers.

Been there, done that. Was an amazing experience. Dying people have a lot to teach us.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

My sense is that formal doctrine provides rather poor coverage of religious experience.

I agree. Hence, the project.

Another issue: a breakthrough experience may not have any obvious implications at the time. It may take years to sort out the meaning and then apply it. Hence, a 1-year time frame won't tell you much.

No... but I imagine at the end of 6-10 years of doing this, I'd have begun integrating the first few years and will have some clue about the process and where it is going. That's the hope, anyway. I put a lot of thought and time into my breakthrough experiences, so I've been decent about getting at least something out of them relatively soon after the experience, but other things may always be a mystery. Every experience is something that, as I age, I come back to year after year to touch again with a new perspective.

That's a lifelong endeavor, and I can't see how it could be otherwise. It's a built-in constraint to the entire idea.

I think individual experiences become meaningful in a total-life context. This is partly why a description of the experience in isolation means so little.

I agree. That's why the experience has to be described in a way that integrates it with the rest of life and the whole person.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Dondi

But I don't think you can just 'test drive' a religion. If you were committed to just one year, in the back of your mind you know that all things will come to an end. You will then proceed to the next religion.

Thank you for your opinion, Dondi. The thing is, I don't think it'd be entirely like that. I am the open-minded seeker. Yes, I have beliefs- everyone does. Yes, I come with baggage- everyone does. But if I found a community that was life-altering and God moved me to join for good...

Who knows what would happen?

That is part of the heart of the project, and the problem I perceive with most academic studies of religion. There is no embrace of the mystery, no real desire to have faith. It becomes bland and doesn't get at the real meaning and experience of religion. My project isn't just an academic one, but a real and sincere purpose of understanding others and understanding myself. Who knows? I could find a religion.

Yet, at the same time, the purpose is not to find a religion. It's an open-ended idea. It's like life- we meet people, we have experiences, we might be moved to convert. But maybe not.

There is no way to really understand a religion, I would say, and to know if it is the right religion for oneself, than to leap into it. Life is a test drive of ideas, of experiences, of social groups.

So who knows... maybe I would be a "real" convert. And even if so, could I not gain something from other faiths? I think I could.

To me that would be a bit disingenious, I should think. It wouldn't be fair those whose lives you've invested in, nor in the long run, it wouldn't be fair to you. You would end up breaking important relationships for the sake of research. Most religions are of a cummunal nature, and many of the religious tenets, doctrines, rituals, activities revolve around interaction with others in the group. It's a question of loyalty as well. Are you going to serve until your time is up and merely leave?

Yes and no. What I mean by that is that I would apply the same ethics I use as anthropologist. Our fieldwork is a minimum of one year, and often we work in the same community for years at a time. We become godparents to children, we stay in people's homes. It's a very intimate and personal way to do research. We form relationships with people. And so we are very sensitive to the ethics of taking up time and a space in a society. In terms of spiritual practice- that is, being a congregant- yes, I would go in for only one year. And I would work with each religious institution on this matter, explaining the project and my personal reasons for doing it, asking them for guidance. I would be up front that I am a seeker and am unlikely to stay for longer than a year. But that does not mean I would leave everyone and not maintain the relationships.

On the contrary, I would love nothing more than to have a diverse group of people near my home that I could share my spiritual journey with for the rest of my life. I need not stay in one religion in order to maintain the spiritual and social relationships with others. I would also hope that this leads to community interfaith work eventually. I don't intend to abandon anyone I find along the way...

While you may gain knowledge of a certain religion, I would see it hard to switch around like that. You would be changing your religious view every year. Are you committed to believing those views? Deep in your mind, you won't.

Now unless you are an open-minded seeker, willing to explore everything and believe whatever comes your way, let go of whatever biased and beliefs you current hold, and be willing to find a permant system of belief, seeking until you find it, then the journey, while educational, will be shallow at best.

Just my opinion.

Well, I actually think I would be rather good at it due to my professional training. This is what I already have done in other ways for my field research in the past. I go to the field and try to leave all my biases and beliefs behind. I suspend them in an effort to understand another person as much as I possibly can. I "shelve" them, so to speak.

Is it perfect? No. No person can fully get rid of their biases and beliefs. But then again, every convert to every religion therefore goes in with biases and beliefs that they must overcome in order to grow in their religion. So I am not so sure it is different.

While I am unwilling to find a permanent belief, because I believe I am a changing, growing person, I am not unwilling to find a permanent spiritual community. So in many ways, my project would be a genuine one that, as much as would be possible, would replicate any seeker's search for a religion.

The primary difference, I think, would be the training I have to critically reflect on my experiences and observations and the thought I would put into how the project is constructed- the ethics, the approach, and so forth so that issues that would truly be natural (such as those you are saying about loyalty and disingenuity) would be carefully discussed and planned with the communities with whom I spend my time.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

[/i]



I must confess that I am dreading the fasting in any religion; I know the Muslims do this as well. I can't imagine not eating all day. I'm naturally very thin and get hypoglycemic and when I don't eat, I get headaches and pretty weak rapidly. I actually usually eat small snacks around every two hours rather than large meals as it is. So the idea of missing food all day kind of frightens me.

[/i]

Looking at the Abrahamics that seems to be a fast track to revelation, I think it essential you try it 40 days and 40 nights !!

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I know Tao suggested I try to get some of it financed, but...

I'm loathe to market the work I'd be doing to New Age for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is precisely the opposite point I'm making than what New Age typically does.

Well these religious retreats are more expensive than the all inclusive Hedonism resorts of the Caribbean. Religious enlightenment does not come cheap!! It seems God is even worse at money management that your average banking executive and needs constant flow of $'s. Have you any idea how expensive fasting is? Or the sack-cloth hammocks and tin buckets for your ablutions? Personally I think your money would be far better spent in the Caribbean

[mee]

[quote=path_of_one;193659]Just... what would I learn? And how would it compare with what I am used to? quote]




you would learn what the bible REALLY TEACHES In the kingdom hall of Jehovahs witnesses, and even if you did not become a Jehovahs witness you would never forget what the bible really teaches

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by path

Yes and no. What I mean by that is that I would apply the same ethics I use as anthropologist. Our fieldwork is a minimum of one year, and often we work in the same community for years at a time. We become godparents to children, we stay in people's homes. It's a very intimate and personal way to do research. We form relationships with people. And so we are very sensitive to the ethics of taking up time and a space in a society. In terms of spiritual practice- that is, being a congregant- yes, I would go in for only one year. And I would work with each religious institution on this matter, explaining the project and my personal reasons for doing it, asking them for guidance. I would be up front that I am a seeker and am unlikely to stay for longer than a year. But that does not mean I would leave everyone and not maintain the relationships.

That is a reasonable approach, I suppose. I would think that if there was anyone on this forum with the openmindedness to partake in such an endeavor, you would be a frontrunner.

On the contrary, I would love nothing more than to have a diverse group of people near my home that I could share my spiritual journey with for the rest of my life. I need not stay in one religion in order to maintain the spiritual and social relationships with others. I would also hope that this leads to community interfaith work eventually. I don't intend to abandon anyone I find along the way...

That's a relief. I'm glad that it will be more than just a scientific and academic curiosity.

Is it perfect? No. No person can fully get rid of their biases and beliefs. But then again, every convert to every religion therefore goes in with biases and beliefs that they must overcome in order to grow in their religion. So I am not so sure it is different.

Sure, we ought to approach anything we encounter with a bit of skepticism, and that will be predicated by our current worldview, no matter how hard we try to suppress our biases and beliefs. And I suspect that you will be more skeptical of some religions than you will be of others. Your analytical mind will try to form reasons why you shouldn't believe in such and such. All very natural. On the otherhand, you may be willing to adopt some aspect of the system you involved in.

At the end of each timeframe, however, you will have to evaluate just how much you believe or place in your life. And while there will be many commonalities between religions, there are probably far more differences. It would be interesting to know how you will reconcil these.

While I am unwilling to find a permanent belief, because I believe I am a changing, growing person, I am not unwilling to find a permanent spiritual community. So in many ways, my project would be a genuine one that, as much as would be possible, would replicate any seeker's search for a religion.

Oh, you will have a permanent belief. It may not concur exactly to a particular faith system, but it will be your's. You will still have a path of one.


BTW, have you thought of where you plan to begin your journey?

As a matter of suggestion, may I encourage you to start with the earliest religions and move forward. I gather from your Druidian experiences that you are already familiar with the primitive animistic religions (not suggesting that you sacrifice animals, but your are familiar with the communion with nature, right). The next religion would spring from Egypt, but I don't know of many faith groups associated with it.

Staying with the major religions, which I assume is you intention, at least on the outset, you would then start with Hinduism, then Judaism, followed by Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. This progression would allow you to see how certain faiths evolved.

May I also suggest, a matter of diveristy, that in regards to Christianity, you would break it down to two separate journeys: one involving the Catholic faith, the other with a Protestant denomination. (or maybe not, for what I gather you are already affiliated with a certain Protestant denomination). Perhaps though, if you haven't been too deeply involved, you could commit yourself more into it. Or go to a different, like say Baptist or Charismatic, just for kicks and giggles.

In any case, I hope you find what you are looking for, path.

[Netti-Netti]

"My sense is that formal doctrine provides rather poor coverage of religious experience."

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I agree. Hence, the project.

If there is no coverage of it in doctrine, where would it be? You can study ritual as an outsider, but that only tells you so much.

I'm trying to imagine what the anthropological data would look like. Unlike the psychology of religion or exegesis of scripture, I see anthropology as dealing with excavations and digging up ancient artifacts. Maybe I need to broaden my understanding of it.

[nativeastral]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

"My sense is that formal doctrine provides rather poor coverage of religious experience."


If there is no coverage of it in doctrine, where would it be? You can study ritual as an outsider, but that only tells you so much.

I'm trying to imagine what the anthropological data would look like. Unlike the psychology of religion or exegesis of scripture, I see anthropology as dealing with excavations and digging up ancient artifacts. Maybe I need to broaden my understanding of it.

you are thinking of physical anthropology not social. The aim is to live 'as if' in a participant/as well as observant way, 'bracketing off' your own biases etc [almost impossible however objective you try]. l would imagine PO1 has already done field research otherwise she wouldn't be an anthropologist which now deals with modern societies and phenomena but before dealt purely with non western pre modern societies, deemed 'primitive'. For instance l had planned to study the lifestyle/structure of the marrones or runaway slaves in the blue mountains of Jamaica as a contrast/comparison to the cities/coastal villages and other plantation towns basically to find out whether they had developed differently socially/politically/religiously even in such a small island as that.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

"My sense is that formal doctrine provides rather poor coverage of religious experience."


If there is no coverage of it in doctrine, where would it be? You can study ritual as an outsider, but that only tells you so much.

In cultural anthropology, one is a participant observer. You learn as a child learns- both the ideas, but also the deeper information that only comes from socialization and participation with the group.

Of course you need to learn doctrine (as any religious member does) for understanding what is going on. But doctrine presents an ideal, while the experience provides the real... and typically the two differ, which is partly why there is a high level of intra-group diversity in any social group, including a religion.

I'm trying to imagine what the anthropological data would look like. Unlike the psychology of religion or exegesis of scripture, I see anthropology as dealing with excavations and digging up ancient artifacts. Maybe I need to broaden my understanding of it.

Yes, you are referring to archaeology, which is only one of the four fields of anthropology. The others are linguistics (the study of languages), biological/physical anthropology (including human evolution, genetics, forensics and primatology) and my field of study, cultural anthropology.

Cultural anthropologists have a long history of studying cultural groups, including religion, by doing extensive fieldwork- it is learning by doing, with lots of follow-up questions. Participant observation traces itself back to Malinowski. Unlike comparative religion, it tends to be more interested in what actually happens, what participants feel, how it is integrated into the rest of life and culture. Anthropology is deeply wholistic- looking at the entire human being and how all aspects of culture are interrelated.

There are dozens of sub-field specializations within cultural anthropology; my own is cognitive anthropology (which studies the interrelatedness of human thought/feeling, decisions/action, and cultural patterns), applied to environment and health. I've also studied comparative religion for some years, so I have some background in their methodology and theory.

I'd love to get a second doctorate in comparative religion so I had both perspectives, but that's some cash I just don't have. LOL

Tao seems to think this journey would be expensive, but it really is not. Most congregations are relatively free or cheap, and even retreats like spending a week at a monastery is cheap. For example, one Buddhist monastery near home is just $250 a week, including all your meals. That's very reasonable, since groceries run about $100 a week anyway.

More later... grading to do.