Religion and Spirituality

[Ivo Banaco]

Taking this expression again:

"We are not human beings on a spiritual journey,  we are spiritual beings on
a human journey."
Teilhardt de Chardin.

Again if we assume this as our ontological base of understanding, this left
us with a big (I think the biggest) problem. How do we interpret our
experiences. If, by definition this letter that I am writing is in a broad
way a spiritual experience, if psychodrama, meditation, dance, movement and
all sort of human depth technologies could lead us to profound connection
with something that is way beyond our ego borders, how can we interpret
this, how can we communicate this?

Karl Marx says that  "In history as in nature, *decay* is the *laboratory of
life". **Are we bound to misunderstood the core wisdom of the man and woman
that we considered to be examples of living beings? What was Jesus tried to
say? And Bhuda? And Krishnamurti...and ...Madre Teresa de Calcutá ...and...(I
am not comparing none of them, just for the record)*

*Misinterpretation is one of the problems of mankind. We all have
our intricacies...our life histories and are from that coloured lens that we
see the world. Can we cross our unique experiences with others and reach a
common (not equal) understanding. It was just me or it seemed to me that
what Peter said was essentially the same that of Ed. What changed for me was
the different avenue from which he came from. But what about the core
message of the two... *

*Examples: *

*Peter:    "You yourself are presenting something like a passionate explorer
or anthropologist or scientist returning from one or other Sharngri La's
with news that you find both momentous and crucial for larger human
development, survival and thriving. Is this at all close to how you are
feeling?"*

and then Peter again: "Currently I am seeking ways to present psychodrama
along other than the therapeutic lines. I use the terms "Technology of
Creativity" and "Techniques of learning" as some of my newer ones. I have
also had the experience of protagonists in spiritual roles - such as
meditating, being a monk, being god et al - of them having profound
experiences in these roles. Myself as well. I am inclined to run but haven't
yet a workshop with the name something like "Finding God" and then have
protagonists reverse roles with god, gods, demons, angels and all manner of
ideas, roles, objects, experiences that they are inclined to in order to
experience god.

My question is...what is the essential difference between the two? Are you
not in the same boat? Aren't we all?

Ivo


On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Peter Howie <
peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au> wrote:

> Dear Ed and colleagues,
>
> There are many things you are bringing forward here both with how you are
> presenting yourself, the content and the responses to that content.
>
> You yourself are presenting something like a passionate explorer or
> anthropologist or scientist returning from one or other Sharngri La's with
> news that you find both momentous and crucial for larger human development,
> survival and thriving. Is this at all close to how you are feeling?
>
> As well you are keen to alert us to kernels of truth or seminal ideas that
> lie at the heart of what you are bringing forward. And you are bringing this
> forward to us in a kind of synthesising manner and noting the confluences,
> overlaps and similarities of different stories of life.
>
> Now I respond to what you have written here more as somewhat of a
> supportive colleague and also a seasoned and sceptical spiritualist. When I
> left a 12 years exploration of a spiritual community including 4 years as a
> celibate ashram members I came across psychodrama. I was challenged by how
> both being a protagonist, an auxiliary and group member opened up identical
> experiences in me. Up until that time I had been taught and partially
> believed that those experiences could only occur through spiritual practice
> and deep and prolonged spiritual practice at that. Now I might have had
> access to those experiences in the psychodramas because of my previous
> practice. I might also have noticed the experience because of recognising it
> from earlier experience. However the experience came without calling it. The
> experience appeared to come to others. Others were not surprised by this as
> I was. The experience was one of heightened spontaneity which led to great
> flexibility in my feeling, my thinking and the pictures I had of how the
> universe works best. This is a slightly long winded way of saying "yes".
> Currently I am seeking ways to present psychodrama along other than the
> therapeutic lines. I use the terms "Technology of Creativity" and
> "Techniques of learning" as some of my newer ones. I have also had the
> experience of protagonists in spiritual roles - such as meditating, being a
> monk, being god et al - of them having profound experiences in these roles.
> Myself as well. I am inclined to run but haven't yet a workshop with the
> name something like "Finding God" and then have protagonists reverse roles
> with god, gods, demons, angels and all manner of ideas, roles, objects,
> experiences that they are inclined to in order to experience god. Somewhat
> like that thing we can do on stage - having someone be in their future
> looking back. Having them be god looking at life. maybe this year.
>
> And as I mentioned to Anath - I thought the role the woman and the
> presenters were in was more like lovers than serious researchers. If we take
> her content then that is one aspect of a role only. If we take how she
> presented the questions - the body movements, the facial expressions, the
> voice modulations, the eye glances - and the content, we must put it into
> another role name other than questioner. If we leave the content out all
> together for a moment and focus on their relationships (her's and their's
> with her) we could imagine her as trying to get herself out of a snow
> avalanche and every time she gets up on top of the snow another avalanche is
> pushed down on her - an avalanche of ideas and wisdom and knowledge and
> suggestions and humour. This role from Cohen and Wilber could be seen as a
> type of over-keen teacher role or perhaps a desperate teacher. These
> reflections with the application of role theory let me see a larger picture
> than worrying only about the content which in itself is useful but like any
> magicians magic there is too much diversion from the real story which is not
> the content but the realtionships.
>
> Cheers again
>
> Peter
>
>
> Peter Howie B.Sc, TEPManaging Director
> The Moreno Collegium for Human Centred Learning, Research and Development
> 0411 873 851
> www.morenocollegium.com.au
>
> On 10/01/2009, at 7:27 PM, Edward Schreiber wrote:
>
> From: edwschreiber at earthlink.net
> Sent: Jan 9, 2009 10:43 PM
>
>
> Although it's easy to have reactivity to the content of the Cohen and
> Wilbur exchange with this participant, the larger and more pressing concern
> being addressed (that is to say, to be addressed) is the question inherent
> to the exchange between Cohen, Wilbur and the participant, which is:  Is
> there such a thing as "enlightenment" which is what they are essentially
> talking about.  React as we will to the contect, the jibber, the words, the
> exchange, we are left still with that fundamental issue:  is there anything
> real to enlightenment which they are speaking about?  Certainly HH the Dalai
> Lama would argue, YES, enlightenment is inherent to the nature of the human
> being, albeit obscured with ego, discursive thought.  That this
> "enlightenment" is a process of being-present-with-enlightenment, which from
> the Zen teachings, is our "Original Nature" and our "Original Face" is the
> essence of what I hear Wilbur, Cohen and the participant talking
> about.  Moreno, in this state, while writing "Words of the Father" was from
> his own account touching upon and giving expression to this enlightened
> nature.  My thesis during my training with Zerka - was that our method
> offers a homeopathic dose of the transcendental, that is to say enlightened
> nature within us, within humanity. Zerka writes about the
> white-heat-of-action, the fullness of being awake in the present to the
> present From a Zen structure, this is the corridor, the entry-point to what
> these folks in this video are attempting to POINT TO.  There is a Zen Koan:
> Don't look AT the fingers pointing, look TO WHERE the fingers are pointing.
> In fact I believe that our method is about this state of being in its
> essence, what Zerka speaks and writes about: as our being cosmic beings.  We
> need not be ashamed of this as we adventure further into the fabric of the
> world and of psychotherapy.  Our method has been just this:  it goes beyond
> therapy. I did not particularly enjoy the Wilbur-Cohen-participant exchange.
>  I would have preferred someone ask the participant to role reverse with the
> state of being she was struggling to integrate.  We can do that!
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090112/615272b4/attachment.html>