Let it go. So simple.

Most people think that being spiritual or religious means holding on to something or someone. That's what they think faith means: clinging to unproven beliefs or an unsubstantiated savior.

"Jesus died for our sins." "Guru is God." "There is no God but Allah."

There's no end to religious dogma. An amazing variety of thoughts and world-views are contained in the minds of true believers.

If you can conceive of it, likely someone has faith in it at this moment. So how is it possible to choose which of these countless belief systems is worthy of acceptance, given that they contradict each other and lack evidentiary proof?

My advice: let them all go.

Every single one. Start fresh. Or as fresh as possible, since it's hard to sweep the belief-floor completely clean after a lifetime of religious rubbish has been strewn around.

That's been my goal for the past decade or so – out with the old and in with the new. Which to begin with (and maybe to end with) will be a new that's nothing.

Not an absolute nothing. It's nothing but what is really there. It'll feel like nothing, though, if your spiritual or religious practice used to be founded on ideas, concepts, emotions, imaginings, and beliefs.

Getting rid of clutter, whether physical or mental, can be bittersweet. Bitter, because we get attached to our crap, as useless as it is.

Whenever I'm poised to toss a worn-out shirt in the garbage, or take an unwanted book to Goodwill, there's usually a part of me that says, But maybe I should keep it…

I can't think of any reason to. It just can be hard to let go of familiar objects. And even harder, to let go of familiar beliefs.

Which is where the sweet part comes in, when I do let go. Then I feel the lightness that comes with a reduction in my crap burden. I've gotten rid of something that I didn't need, which means there's more room in my life for useful stuff.

For quite a while I've only been attracted to philosophical or mystical teachings that take the same approach to spirituality: toss out whatever you can.

If it moves, it goes, because reality isn't all the clutter – it's the floor that our mental crap sits on.

As non-Christian as I am, one of the books that sits permanently in my meditation area is Thomas Keating's Open Mind, Open Heart (this is a new edition, which I haven't read, but am confident is as good as the original).

Most mornings I open it up and read a few paragraphs to inspire my churchless soul. Into letting go.

Keating preaches the value of repeating a simple word during a period of contemplation to cut down on the myriad thoughts, religious or secular, that normally fill our minds.

Even that word is to be let go also. It isn't the goal, but rather it represents our intention to reach the source of the stream of consciousness upon which our thoughts, emotions, beliefs, perceptions, and what-not float.

Some excerpts:

The sacred word is not a vehicle or means to go from the surface of the river to the depths. It is rather a condition for going there. If I hold a ball in my hands and let go, it will fall to the floor. I don't need to throw it.

In similar fashion, the sacred word is a way of letting go of all thoughts. This makes it easier for our spiritual faculties, which are attracted to interior silence, to move spontaneously in that direction. Such a movement does not require effort. It only requires the willingness to let go of our ordinary preoccupations.

…The chief thing that separates us from God is the thought that we are separated from Him. If we get rid of that thought, our troubles will be greatly reduced.

…By training ourselves to let go of every thought and thought pattern, we gradually develop freedom from our attachments and compulsions.

…God's presence is available at every moment, but we have a giant obstacle in ourselves – our world view.

"God," for me, is a synonym for "reality." And that's pretty much the meaning Keating ascribes to the word.

Something remains when all of our ideas and beliefs are let go of. Whatever it is, no name can describe it. But it's real. And here, now.

Just let go. And there, it is.

Comments

[Jen]

It's late and I have a headache, so I have not had the strength to investigate this site or much of the "let it go" post. However I would like someone to try and answer my question.

I have been searching the net for several hours now for any trace of an opinion on this question and this site is as close as I have gotten so far.

Please don't get impatient, I need to explain a bit before I pose the question. I think :P

I have found many anti-religion websites and information. i.e. why religion is bad etc and why science based ideas or no idea at all is good. I mostly agree with all these ideas. However I feel like they are missing the point.

Would you agree that science is always evolving and is always being found faulty or proven incorrect by other science? I believe this is the nature of true science.

Ok so here is my question: how was the universe created?

Both religion and science try to answer this question. I am not an expert in either. However I have noticed a few popular theories. A: the big bang and B: God.

In my opinion and as far as I know, neither of these answers anything. Because: where did god come from (who or what created him?) and the big bang only says "Mater = mater" or "energy = mater". Big deal!

So what is the point of these theories? All they say is that one thing came from something else, anybody could tell you that. I don't care if a theorie is correct or not, I only want to see one that anwers that question. I can not even make one up. How can it be that something came out of nothing? How is it possible that anything exists anyway? Obviously it does. My religious friends would say "faith is the answer". Great, a brick wall.

Jen

[Komposer]

To Brian,
This post is beautiful, inspiring.
To Jen,
I have the feeling that your question is, unfortunately, unanswerable.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear Brian,

A very nice post indeed. Hope to have a few more like this from your end.

Let it go. So simple. It is simply like this in India. Majority of the people are busy with earning their better and butter.

They get up in the morning, spend sometime in the name of God in the form of singing prayer etc. Then attend to their respective business or service and in the evening again fold hands before God and go to bed. Once again they get up in morning and follow the same routine.
Let it go. So simple. Here it is. Excessive thinking is the main culprit. I personally take the life as it comes to me.

with regards

[Tucson]

Jen,

As Komposer said, and most will agree, your question is unanswerable. I think what is absolute is unknowable to a self-identified entity. The word "It" could be substituted for "I" in the following and even that would be too much, but some sort of terminology is necessary in order to write. Maybe "Blank" would be better. Anyway..

I move.
Space becomes as a result of my movement.
Time is born as a measure of my movement in space.
I have objects because I have become the subject of space and time.
Dualism is established.
The universe appears.
I identify with my objects.
There are illusory egos.
I suffer illusorily.

*************

I rest.
Space vanishes.
Times ceases.
There are no objects because I am no longer a subject.
Dualism is no more.
The universe dissappears.
There are no illusory egos.
There is no suffering.
I am, but there is no me.

[A. Decker]

Brian: Amen! ;-)

Jen: Are you sure anything exists...?

[Brian]

Jen, great questions. Don't stop asking them. But also, don't expect that you'll find answers to them. Or that there are answers.

I've pondered what you've been pondering. A lot. Some of my own ponders are reflected in these posts of mine:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2005/07/existence_exist.html
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2005/12/somethings_happ.html
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2007/03/deepening_the_m.html
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2007/06/maybe-the-meani.html

I'd say more that science evolves, rather than it is found incorrect. That's certainly generally true of modern science. Einstein didn't overturn, or find incorrect, Newton. He just found deeper laws of space, time, and motion.

So to my mind science is a much better means of getting in touch with reality than religion. Science makes mistakes, but moves forward. Religion claims infallibility, and stays stuck.

Back to existence...I've come to believe that we simply can't grasp the "why?" of existence. There may not be a why. There may not be a cause of the universe. There may not be a "before" of the big bang.

Many scientists consider that time began with the big bang. No time, no before or after. Mind-blowing? Yes. So let's just accept the mystery, and not try to explain it away with feeble religious dogma.

The links above came from the "reality" section of my posts compendium. You might find more to ponder in there. See:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/compendium.html

[Jen]

Thanks for all the great responses to my bady placed question: sorry Brian :P

A Decker: In a word YES! I don't know in what form something exists, maybe I can not even imagine what the true reality is. But something in some form must exist for me to be aware of any existance, imaginary or not.
Therefore my perception at least comes from somewhere. And whatever or wherever that is, it DOES exist.

[Jen]

Thanks Brian, so much for such a great response :)

Actualy interestingly religion has evolved, which is funny more than anything for those religious people who claim that it has not. But that does not mean much, this does not stop it from being stagnant ;D

Religion attempts to explain reality without attemting to use much logic or without an open mind to other possibilities. I could come up with a thousand other stories by myself that would explain existance just as well. Which in my mind makes religion useless and redundant.

However I do envy the religious among us. I would love to have such faith. Then maybe I could get on with my life without the nagging question in the back of my mind: "why?" and the desperate despair that often comes with not beleiving in an after life.

[Jen]

Yes I know my spelling is bad. I should prob put this by a spell checker. But what the hey :)

I think science definately is found incorrect. I would be dissapointed in a scientist who suggested that it does not. They prob will not be much use to us any more. I think a scientist, many actualy, theorised that the world was flat a long time ago. This was the theory that made sense with all the given evidence: science.

Please leave the illusions of infallibility to the religions of the world, not the scientists.

We now have two theories pertaining to inner and outer space that blatantly contradict each other. There may or may not be a perfectly logical explanation for this. But to suggest that our current theories are correct and we just have not figgured out why they contradict each other would be a mistake. I could theorise anything given evidence and find that a thousand other people came to different conclusions. Are we all correct? That is getting a little close to religion for me.

[Jen]

back to science and existance

Brian: Yes science makes mistakes and is therefore found to be INCORRECT. But one must make mistakes to learn and accept falliblility to learn faster. So therefore it moves forward.

I believe some "bright" scientist in the 1800's wrote or said something like "we know most of all there is to know and in a few years there will be no more to discover." He was refering to how modern science was so good that it was getting towards infallibility. Please remember that every year in history was considered "modern" and knowing more than ever is no measure of how correct you are.

[Jen]

Brian: It looks to me, after reading your first post http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2005/07/existence , that you have thought this through a bit more than I have and infact done more reasearch. At least at a philisophical level.

I just watch a lot of documentaries. Like most in the Y generation I need to be spoon fed :D
I am prob more well read than most in my generaton but that is not saying much.

Maybe in a number of years from now I will have the patience to put some real effort info these ideas.

Glad to see there are other people thinking about it. I knew this had to be the case.

[Stuart Resnick]

Jen wrote...
> how was the universe created?

You're creating it, right now, with your thinking. However you're keeping your mind, that's the universe you're experiencing.

Beyond that, I'd say the correct answer is "don't know."

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[Deepak Kamat]

To Tucson,

Are you truly Advaita or pseudo advaita. Don't tell me there is no one to have the choice.

[tAo]

Deepak,

You said "Are you truly Advaita or pseudo advaita". Did you intend to say/mean 'neo-advaita' rather than "pseudo advaita"?

Pseudo means false or fake. So what would fake advaita be? It doesn't really make sense.

So I personally don't think that "pseudo advaita" is an appropriate term in any case.

Also, some people have recently bugun using the term "neo-advaita". But I don't think that has much merit either. It's a bit like splitting hairs. Thus it defeats the real meaning of advaita.

I also feel that the tired old arguement of advaita versus dwaita is rather foolish. A far better philosophy is that which can be described and known as the concept of the 'achintya bheda-abheda tattva' of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, which means simultaneous oneness and difference.

However, to correctly understand 'achintya bheda-abheda tattva' it may be helpful to begin with a good preliminary foundation such as can be found here:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/mayavada_sata_dusani.htm

Other additional useful resources:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/articles_to_read.htm

http://www.stephen-knapp.com

[tAo]

Additional resources:

Sri Brahma-samhita:

http://brahmasamhita.com/foreword/en

http://vedabase.net/bs/5/en

VedaBase Index:

http://vedabase.net

[tAo]

Sri Brahma-samhita:

http://brahmasamhita.com/foreword/en

http://vedabase.net/bs/5/en

[tAo]

VedaBase Index:

http://vedabase.net

[Deepak Kamat]

To Tao, I am a Madhwa brahmin. So I know those arguments.
Even Kabir says: If I say that I am God, it is blasphemy. If I say that I am not God it is not true.
Anyway, there is this story: Hanuman says to Ram: Physically, I am your slave. At the mental level I am a part that belongs to you. At the spiritual level, there is no difference between you and me.
They say dwaita belongs to the lowest level. visithadwaita belongs to the second level and advaita belongs to the highest level. I really don't know. They are stories. For me, they are mental concepts at best.

[Roger]

Tao,

Glad to see you are commenting again.

In your above comment, you stated, "A far better philosophy is that which can be described and known as the concept of the 'achintya bheda-abheda tattva' of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, which means simultaneous oneness and difference."

I liked the inclusion of the word, Concept.

A concept is: A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion..

A person or a group of persons can decide if a concept is "a far better philosophy."

Is it possible that another person or group can decide that another concept is a, "far far far greater philosophy?"

[Tucson]

Deepak,

I am not advaita, pseudo-advaita, neo-advaita or Catholic. I'm just a commenter on this blog. Maybe I'm a "What Is"... What is right now is It and that's it.

I agree with TAo about the difference between advaita and neo-advaita is like splitting hairs. To me, what people are calling "neo-advaita" is simply an ancient philosophy expressed in modern idiom. The meaning is the same.

I agree with you that it is certainly possible for someone to study advaita and then parrot it without true intuitve insight or apprehension. I think this is common.

[A. Decker]

Brian, thank you sir, for this 'forum.' Letting go is the most effective 'ability'-if one can call it that-that I have learned for finding oneself in the presence of...The Great Electron(borrow from George Carlin, why not?:D), I don't what to call It, the livingness that we're all part of? You know, "reality."
Anyway, thanks again, brother. You do good here.;-)

Jen, I love your quandary! Not because I want to, but because I have to, as I have it, too! No matter what anybody says, I still want to know why, and how'd it start.
I get some solace from Taoist writings, largely because the way they're written(I'm thinking only of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu)a kind of letting go can result, much like Brian is referring to in the article here.
It seems that when the brain gives up on grasping, a much, MUCH wider consciousness is...'accessed,' which makes it easier to accept that you can't "have" the answer.
It's like trying to put the ocean in a bucket.

Lao Tzu says: "The myriad creatures in the world are born from Something, and Something from Nothing."

I think he's trying, like Zen masters do, to make your mind give up, so you can sense the vast, incomprehensible...peace! You don't have to grasp anything.

I don't want to take up more of Brian's space here. If you don't think I'm just nuts(could be;-) and you wanna talk some more about it, contact me through comments on my blog. I will answer.

~peace~

[Bill Hartke]

"Dear Brian,

A very nice post indeed. Hope to have a few more like this from your end.

Let it go. So simple. It is simply like this in India. Majority of the people are busy with earning their better and butter.

They get up in the morning, spend sometime in the name of God in the form of singing prayer etc. Then attend to their respective business or service and in the evening again fold hands before God and go to bed. Once again they get up in morning and follow the same routine.
Let it go. So simple. Here it is. Excessive thinking is the main culprit. I personally take the life as it comes to me.

with regards"

Well said Rakesh, there's really nothing more to it.

Bill