| |
|
Well i cant leave this thread alone, religion is gnosis to me, direct experience of divinity, i dont keep a magickal record, i build a greater and greater devotion on a daily basis.
I have just considered some hypocrisy of my own, my practice is very much dependent on archaeological speculation, in fact some of the words i use, i wouldnt know without those whom have investigated egypt.
I guess my definition of religion isnt traditional in the respect that i seek to merge my subjective self with what i consider to be an objective divinity, some of that is based on the gathering of information from the sciences as starting points, for example current understandings of the egyptian sed festival, so in a sense scientific understandings and atheist philosophies add to my understanding of an ancient religion.
Yet i am still not sure they play a part in the experience of religion, i guess you could argue that candle light incense, tonality of voice in invocation, the physiological effects of assumed postures, time of day, astronomical bodies, food consumed, the amount of ginseng and green tea in my system all play a part, but i dont think they create the context of the religous experience i walk away with from a session in front of my altar. The context is very much created by an underlying feeling i have, an intuition, and a sense of binding to something greater than myself.
I currently work in a way that is about assuming god forms to put it in the words of the golden dawn, or to become merged with principalities, this actually works really well from a point of faith, a word i had been trying not to use, but some faith is needed as the principles become real, belief in the experiences produced as they are produced adds something to subsequent devotions.
I think religion as a social institution can be studied from a variety of perspectives, but religous experience..... I still contend that this is an experential phenomena, that breaking down all the parts of and then reassembling wouldnt provide you with the same or similar experience i have had by you repeating my experience.
Critical rational logical studies certainly have there place in the context of religion as a social and psychological phenomena, but not in the religous experience, wether that be an ecstatic fury or melancholy compassion, i believe poetry is perhaps a better option, art or song. Thou perhaps i am more geared for that expression.
I do see what you mean totsik on rereading your definition, i do use trial and error in my practice, and i do source alot of scientific material. but yet i have a real problem with religous experience being classified as scientific phenomena, or even investigated from the view point of reductionism. |
|
|
