Plunging deeper into Universism

As reported on my other weblog, I’ve decided to sponsor a Universist face-to-face discussion group here in Salem. Currently the group has two members: me and my wife, Laurel. This makes it easy for us to meet, but it would be nice to expand the membership between the confines of Hines.

So if you live in the Salem area, consider becoming a group member (sign up here). Though this discussion group will be under the Universist banner, there’s essentially no difference between the philosophy of Universism and what gets preached here at the Church of the Churchless.

I know this, because I read all the way through the Universism FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) today. A brief browse of the Universist web site had led me to strongly suspect that Universism and me were highly compatible. Studying the FAQs convinced me that this was the case.

[Note: the Universism Movement FAQs were edited after I wrote this post. They now are considerably improved and more readable. The comments below refer to the original version.]

Highlighter in hand, I was expecting that I’d mark some “?”s in the margins. After all, I rarely agree completely with a philosophical or metaphysical writing. However, in making my way through the twelve pages I only encountered one area of significant potential disagreement, and that was soon cleared up.

My sole question mark was penned in when the author, Ford Vox, said “We have no authority to pronounce a religious truth we find because as Universists we recognize there are no universal religious Truths, just personal ones, and even those are open to challenge with new experiences and information.”

That struck me as an overly confident statement for a movement that espouses an ardent embrace of uncertainty as an antidote to faith-based religious certitude. Who can say whether there are universal religious truths? Maybe they exist; maybe they don’t. Universism says that “We cannot have a true search if the conclusions are preset.” Wasn’t Vox doing just that?

However, on the next page I read the answer to this question: “What does Universism mean when it says there is no universal religious truth? Isn’t it likely that God exists or doesn’t, one or the other is the truth, for example?” Here’s a portion of the excellent answer:

Objective reality is that which we can learn about through science. Universism addresses the domain of existential, religious and moral questions for which science has no certain answers. Universism presents the empowering absence of a religious reality that applies to everyone. In the absence of religious reality, no one has religious authority.

It can truly be said "Universists have faith in nothing." If universal religious truth is ever found it will no longer be religious Truth, it will be science fact. Presenting a religious truth requires faith, a dangerous concept eschewing reality. Rather we advocate reasoned uncertainty in these areas until they are made apparent through the light of science.

When a fact becomes known, it is no longer religious. It is mystery that makes things religious, and it is mystery that Universism advocates we use as a motivating force for good, for continuing progress to understand that mystery, beginning with the individual search, rather than funneling the mystery's power into faiths which can spiral out of control.

The domain of Universism will shrink with every advancement of science, and ultimately disappear completely. In the meantime, Universism will accelerate the progress of science by emphasizing to humanity how open our possibilities really are, how our future is limited only in imagination.

Nicely said. Here are a few other quotes about faith from the FAQs that I enjoyed:

Faith is adherence to a religious Truth despite evidence to the contrary and without continuing efforts to seek out, understand and weigh evidence. Faith devalues the universe and disrespects our individual efforts to understand the universe.

Universists do not rely on the “comforting” force of faith in our lives; we no longer need constancy and tradition. In its place we celebrate the living world that changes every day, the reality we know, and the aspects of reality that are uncertain. Our constancy is our engagement with the universe and our ready receptivity.

[Universism] is a philosophy liberating people from faith whether that faith is Christianity or atheism or deism (etc.), replacing that faith with open continuing inquiry. It is the great insight of Universism to state that an absolutely certain atheist or deist or pantheist (etc.) is harboring a faith, just as a Christian; she is not a freethinker.

I was a bit reluctant to embrace an “ism,” but the FAQs reassured me that Universism is a commitment to the open-minded search for truth and not the holding onto of any set-in-stone dogma.

Anyway, “Universism” is just a word. What’s important is the philosophy expressed by the word: “A progressive, naturalistic worldview in which all meaning and purpose is understood through personal reason and experience.”

I’ve got no problem signing on to that.

Comments

[Who Am I ?]

Plunging deeper into Univers-ISM said: "A .... worldview in which all meaning and purpose is understood through personal reason and experience."

Then why not simply abide in the understanding gained from personal reason and experience ? Why super-impose, attach, or place in the context of an "ism" or "ist" ?

To do so seems artificial and contadictory.

[Brian]

No, I don't think embracing Universism is artificial and contradictory, because in this case the "ism" is a process of inquiring into the nature of reality that doesn't have any dogma or preconceptions attached.

This is made clear in the FAQs that I mentioned in this post. It's analogous to the idea of the "scientific method." It doesn't make sense to say that one should simply "abide in the understanding gained from scientific experience," as Who Am I? suggests, and not embrace the scientific method that leads to such experience.

In my opinion, it actually is less artificial and less contradictory to be upfront and honest about our most basic assumptions about the nature of reality and how reality is best known. As the Universist FAQs point out, you can be a dogmatic atheist because you've got a preconceived and rigid notion about ultimate reality that isn't founded on direct experience.

I know that Who Am I? has a deep fondness for Advaita philosophy, as do I. But reading Ramana and Nisargadatta I'm struck by how even Advaita is very much an "ism." Everything is, as soon as an attempt is made to describe a subjective experience in objective words.

I mean, there is an overwhelming tendency to reify and rigidify personal experience into absolutes. This is why I'm attracted to the Universist folks, because they have a good understanding of this. They abjure all attempts to make universal statements about non-physical reality, which would include such Advaitist conceptions as "the Self is All."

That's just four words, not reality. Simply abiding in one's direct experience may be the truest thing that can be said (or not said), but this leaves us isolated from other people. So I believe that if we're going to relate to others and have discussions about spiritual matters (as occurs on this blog), the focus should be on reason and personal experience--as the Universists urge.

Once I say "my truth is The Truth," I've made a personal experience into an unprovable proclamation, which is the root of what's wrong with religion. But to talk about how to approach truth, humbly and with a recognition that I could be wrong--that I am comfortable with.

Hope this clarifies why I don't view Universism as the usual sort of "ism."

[Who Am I ?]

Brian wrote:

"...reading Ramana and Nisargadatta I'm struck by how even Advaita is very much an "ism." -- and -- "...attempts to make universal statements about non-physical reality, which would include such Advaitist conceptions as "the Self is All.""

Response: Advaita philosophy can and may become an "ism" for some folks, but that is not the point of advaita (non-duality) in terms of direct experience and realization. When advaita is postulated as a particular philosophy, then it tends to be seen as another "ism".
But I would strongly disagree with your perspective that Sri Ramana Maharshi (and Nisargadatta) espoused 'advaita-ism'. Sri Ramana focused and taught one thing, and one thing only, ie: Self-inquiry (atma-vichara). Self-inquiry is not a philosophical construct or conceptual "ism". It is founded and centered in direct experience, discovery, and ultimately realization, of the true nature of existence. To think that Sri Ramana (and Nisargadatta) represent "advaita-ism" is fundamentally incorrect and mistaken. Both sages used words to communicate and point towards the direct experience of reality, but the focus was over-whelmingly upon the direct experience, not upon conceptual, intellectual, or philosophical constructs such as advaita-ist philosophy. Their focus was on the direct experience and realization of non-duality (advaita) and Self-knowledge, not simply upon conceptual constructs about the Self.

Brian wrote: "Simply abiding in one's direct experience may be the truest thing that can be said (or not said), but this leaves us isolated from other people.

Response: Yes, this is the point. But I would have to disagree with your assumtion that it "leaves us isolated from other people". Self-knowledge is the direct experience and realization of the non-dual (advaita) nature of one's self and existence. In non-duality, there is no isolation, because there is only absolute Oneness (non-duality). Thge sense of isolation can only arise in the duality that is the mind. Separation and isolation are simply illusions when there is an absense of Self-knopwledge. An awakened Sage has no sense of isolation or separation, because he (or she) abides in Reality, the state of non-duality, Self-knowledge.
To assume any sense of "isolation" or separation from anything or anyone, is simply an illusion based in the duality of mind. It is due to only to ignorance (ignorance is an absence of Self-knowledge).
Self-inquiry leads directly to the direct experience and awakening of Self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is not simply a word or intellectual idea. It is Direct Experience itself.

Brian wrote: "I believe that if we're going to relate to others and have discussions about spiritual matters (as occurs on this blog), the focus should be on reason and personal experience."

Response: Exactly. And that is exactly and all that I have been speaking about and pointing towards, in all of my comments. on this weblog. The sharing and discussion of Direct Experience and Reason, is known as true 'Satsang'. Satsang literally means to associate with Truth/Being (Sat). That does not mean intellect, belief, philosophy, or "ism". It means to associate in, and consider the Truth or Reality itself, the direct experience of one's true nature and Being (Sat).

[Who Am I ?]

Brian wrote: "Universism is a commitment to the open-minded search for truth and not the holding onto of any set-in-stone dogma."

Response: The open-mided search for truth, is exactly what Self-inquiry (the teaching of Sri Ramana Maharshi) is all about. But to view Sri Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta, and the essence of Advaita, as being "dogma" or "ism", is to not have a proper understanding of their teaching. The teaching and practice of Self-inquiry leading to Self-knowledge, has noting to do with assuing or believing in concepts, ideas, or the 'advaita philosophy'. Self-inquiry is the actual "open-minded search for truth", that you and your Universist/Universism perspective speaks about. My point is that it is quite unecessary to further label it and turn it into a philosophy and "ism". All that is needed is simply to put it into practice, to engage in it (Self-inquiry). The result will be the direct experience of Self-knowledge, which is beyond all "isms". But Self-knowledge must be experienced and realized, not simply theorized about or postulated, such as even "Universism" does to some small extent. Yes, Universism is oriented to an open-minded search for direct and personal experience of truth, but for an awakened Sage abiding in the natural state of Self-knowledge, Univers-ism is simply superfluous.

It is likely that this will be my last comment for awhile, or even longer. This is primarily due to the relatively poor reception and obvious resistance to my sincere comments and offerings about Self-inquiry and Self-knowledge. This is mainly coming from the area of other commentators. There is far too much argumentative discussion and focus on various rigid spiritual ideas and notions, dogmatic beliefs, and the comparison and defense of such perspectives. I prefer to engage in productive discussion oriented towards real awakening and the direct realization of Truth. I have little or no interest in discussing cults and their beliefs, intellectual exercises, or wrestling with other people's concepts and acquired beliefs about their spiritual paths, and about spiritual notions in general.