what is religion?
I noticed this in the main screen and, well, of course my commentary kicked in.
Here’s the internal discussion externalized, if anyone’s interested…
or bored and nothing better to do. 😆
“This website is no way trying to treat “Nagualism” as a religion, nor a cult.”
This is easier said than done.
If we look (just looking) at what a religion is, it’s basically a collection of beliefs.
Various religions, and various denominations within religions, arise due to various beliefs.
So to say that we can approach CC’s works without beliefs or without creating new beliefs that are opposed to other beliefs, just like any religion does… Well, it’d be nice if it was that way. But it’s not. Perhaps it’s intended to be.
Anyway, I could just be nit-picking with words, but I also don’t think “Castaneda-ism” is any different or special when compared to any other religion. Everyone has their version of freedom, no matter how obscene. Many so-called religions, when done correctly, transcend the religious structure and code of morals, etc.
And nit-picking with words isn’t such a bad thing. They often do create the structure of our intent. The more awareness we put into them, the more aware is our intent.
D5 Creation
I know the word “Castaneda-ism” sounds bad, but as long as one takes his word as authority, that’s what it is.
Any good teacher or system says “Don’t believe me. Don’t take my word for it. Find out for yourself. Investigate. Inquire… You are your own authority.”
And any good system aims at transcending all systems, even itself.
Castaneda’s books fulfill both of these guidelines. The books do their part.
It’s up to each individual to prevent this from becoming religious-ized by not being a fanatic or philosopher. The system is action-based. Thinking plays a very small role, as it is thinking that gives the tonal its seeming power/authority.
How can you be an authority? Because knowledge only becomes power through a being such as yourself; through a being’s acts, it becomes actualised.
This is old news, but it can’t be stressed enough.
ps. I like etymology – the study of word origins (greek: etymos=true, logos=word).
So you’ll notice I break words down now and then. To me it reveals their essence or intent.
Religio is latin for holiness, but that’s deceiving IMO. I would break it down further.
First re means to do something again, repetition… which already begins to reveal the ignorance of religion. And there are several roots similar to ligio:
ligare, which means to bind; leger, which means to read or to gather; and lex which means law (as in legislation, legal, legitamate, etc.)
We’re talking serious bondage here! One may thus define religion as the gathering and binding of rules or laws (and people), and re-reading them over and over. I guess that’s supposed to make one holy. :rolleyes:
In my humble humble opinion i find you funny (that’s a good thing), you do tend to sound like a philosopher. Jumbling up ideas that are unoriginal, combining it with your life experience and calling it your own.
Just another book on the shelf.
Everyone believes in something. i have never been in love with the term ‘Nagualism’. Puts a label on something abstract. i prefer ‘Silent Knowledge’. An abstract term for abstract concepts.
Couldn’t agree with you more on your view of being picky with words. We can be so careless sometimes.
A religion is saying that you must do something or you will go to hell (or some other consequence). This is a way of life because there are only suggestions, and if you follow the suggestions, results. No dogma.
Is taoism a religion? I’ve always found “nagualism” (sorcery, warriorism, intentism, abstractism, etc.) closer to taoism than many of the other religion/philosophies.
I’d say Taoism is the least religious, if it is a religion.
It has no god. Not even an Eagle. No Bodhisattvas… etc…
Hey QuietXKiller!
I don’t think DJ would call the Rule a suggestion, but how can I know?
There may be no dogma. My point was that people can turn it into a dogma or religion. Personally, I feel Jesus’ teachings are a pretty comprehensive path and need never have become a religion, but they did.
BratscheWarrior,
:rolleyes: Castaneda’s work is not original. Do you think he came up with it on his own? He tells you in the books that he was taught by a Yaqui indian. He tells you this knowledge has a lineage going back hundreds of years.
Did he make it his own, as best as he could? Sure he did. We all do. Do you imagine it is supposed to remain someone else’s?
This is a mute point you are making. I’ve never claimed to be original. There is nothing original about me. I’ve never had an original thought in my entire life. The problem, for you, is that you imagine that people do. Maybe you’ll get over this someday. None of these thoughts are mine or anyone’s. I own none of them – no one does. I am not these thoughts. They arise, and I post, and they pass away, and sometimes arise again.
I may be a book on a shelf somewhere in the library of infinity. As long as the pages keep turning, I have no problem with that.
Nothing is mine. If I have called something my own, I apologize that you got stuck on it, but writing is too cumbersome if I have to say “in the collected consensus of this bundle of thought-objects that arise out of the void appearing as a mind now which is being identified as “mine”” instead of IMO.
If you’re looking for contradictions, I’m an easy target. Going back and forth between the “me” and the impersonal, I appear to contradict myself all the time. I’m not concerned with it. If you want to be, knock yourself out. But I can’t continue to invest this much attention towards your keeping accounts on “me”.
Yes, I do sound like a philosopher. But remember that you are listening from “there” and I am speaking from “here”. If you were here with me, I’d appear to be seeing what is. Not always. Much of the time I am just retrieving inventory. Anyway, who knows what a philosopher is? It means ‘lover of wisdom/Sophia’. To know who Sophia is, you’d have to be familiar with Gnostic writings. The word “philosopher” has come to mean something intellectual only, but most people we call philosophers were great initiates as well.
So I’ve already addressed labels. I won’t clarify, explain or defend or expose anymore with you. From now on, I’ll just write “labels” and you can figure out the why and how yourself since this seems to fascinate you.
Brat,
You’ll be greatly pleased to find that I have lied and already explained some of your labels. I know you’ll “find” meaning in this, specifically “failure” will come to mind, and you will equate that as “success” on your part.
Well, let me be the first to congratulate you. Well done!
I am a sucker for explaining.
In my explaining, I endeavor to unscramble what appears scrambled, to make known what was misunderstood. Communication is important to this program called “me”.
Anyway, congratulations on… ummm…
what was it you did? 😀
No, you didn’t coerce me into explaining. I’ve been explaining before I arrived at this forum. And you’ve been antagonizing before then.
We are both being done. The success and the failure belong to spirit.
PRAISE JESUS!!
😛
Since you are a lover of words and their origins, it’s a ‘moot’ point, not ‘mute’.
I wish you well my friend.
Thanks for the spelling lesson!