Re: That Which Sustains

Roland, Re:
 
> The question I pose to you all is:  What sustains life?

Ooh, I didn't intend to cause a discussion about spirituality here on the
list...  However, since the damage is done now, I will add my two cents...

> The Who have
> always represented to me great wit,musicality,love and above all the
> spiritual basis of life. They do this through the message of keeping your
> spirits up.

To me, listening to any kind of music I like is kind of a spiritual act.  Music
is more than just a bunch of perceptible acoustic vibrations, it is always
supposed to transmit some feelings, impressions, sometimes even ideas.

The Who were (and still are) great in transmitting emotions along with their
performances and records.  And, yes, you are right, often their messages were
very spiritual, as e.g. in `So Sad About Us' or `Bargain'.  Their greatest
attempts to express spirituality in their music were perhaps their rock operas
Tommy and Quad.

Though Tommy's spiritual message reached and affected millions, it somehow
failed to gain any importance to me:  Sorry, I think that Tommy is just a nice
story with a lot of very good songs and instrumentals, but nothing that really
touches my soul.  This whole thing - mistreated child has to suffer before
becoming messiah and having to suffer again - is just too old, too mystical,
and too obtrusive a topic to have any deeper effect on me.

Quad, however, does affect me deeply.  It covers one of the most important
problems in everybody's life:  The everlasting conflict between the striving
for individualism and the need to be accepted by others which burns deep in our
souls and which becomes even worse as soon as we have to endure some hardships
in our lives.  Culminating perhaps in puberty, this conflicts is likely to
accompagny us throughout our whole existence.  The great thing is that Quad
does not even try to find a remedy.  All it offers is some self-reflexion, and
a vague hope for a solution in the future:  `Love Reign O'er Me'.
                                                                
> None the less I propose codifing this language into a
> cyber-faith.......bear with me......I propose three principals governing
> this cyber-faith

Cyber-faith.  Great word :-).  Are you aware that you could make a fortune with
this in today's sect business?

> (1) That there is a Supreme Being above us all

Though I believe in this statement, I still doubt whether we should postulate
it as a general truth.  If someone's religion or spiritual belief said the
contrary, and that person's belief enabled him/her to live a happy and
reasonable life, then I wouldn't try to convert him/her.

Remember:  It is not the Supreme Being who needs our religiosity, it is us
humans who need some spirituality to get along with some of the worst problems
in our life: injustice, illness, death.  The most important task of religion is
to help its followers through those hardships.  (That doesn't mean that
worshipping God is superfluous.  Quite the contrary - by voluntarily laying
your destiny in the hands of the Supreme Being, it becomes easier to bear your
problems and to enjoy the bright side of your life.)

> (2)that human-kind are Spiritual Beings

Hm.  Humans are capable of becoming spiritual beings, that's true.  But they
can also spend their lives working like dogs, eating like dogs, fucking like
dogs, and sleeping like dogs, without ever becoming aware of their
spirituality.  It is necessary to see that humans are more than the sum of
their bodily functions before getting access to spiritual matters.

Experiencing romance, music, philosophy are good ways to become a spiritual
being.

> &(3) that we should follow the golden rule(do unto others etc.)

The golden rule is a good starting point when discussing ethics, and it can
sometimes help when you are facing a difficult ethical decision, but it
definitely is not the essence of ethics.

There are times when someone does you a favour which you will never be able to
return.  And there are times when your heart tells you to do something that no
one will appreciate, but that still serves a good purpose...

> ....that's it!... no other dogma involved..beyond
> this you can believe anything you want...no priests..no church..no
> Bureaucracy!

Roland, of course everyone is entitled to find his/her own way of spirituality.
However, there is one great advantage of traditional forms of religion:  They
have proven to be helpful for their followers' needs throughout centuries,
whereas your very own self-made spirituality still has to prove this.  The key
question always is:  Would a serious accident, causing you to consciously die a
very slow death (for, say, three months), hurt your soul, make you afraid of
death, cause you to panic?  If not, then your spiritual way is a good one.  If
yes, then you should think again about your statements mentioned above...

And if you don't like bureaucracy and certain priests, then you are perfectly
right:  Religion has to serve its followers, and not to satisfy some priests'
urge to domineer their parishes.  I also see some black sheep and some
superfluous bureaucracy in the church I belong to, but I don't care much since
it is only the value my religion has to me that really matters.

BTW:  Religion not only has a spiritual value, but also a cultural one.  I like
to visit churches and to go the mass whereever in the world I currently am.  It
is interesting to see that in spite of all cultural differences the
presentation of religion still feels the same everywhere...  But now Gary M.
might again accuse me of observing the world too much with the eyes of a
European :-).

> P.S. Great job B. Gramlich on your Hyde Park comment.

Thanks.

Stepping out of my pulpit,

Bernd