Buddhism And Agnosticism

[rychrde]

In my opinion some of the greatest work on religious experiences was done by Carl Jung. I have read all his later works, when he diverged from Freud, and although heavy reading he sought to discover the psychic meanings of religious images and how those images and processes were used internally so that people could become 'whole' again. As we are all humans, it makes sense that the deepest psychic structures are going to be the same - the images may differ at certain levels but the functions arethe same. One of my Tibetan masters told me that when he was a novice many of the visions he had were technically correct in that they produced the correct function, but were populated with indian figures rather than tibetan because he had been brought up in India. It thus proved to me that the buddhist practices were about the focus of energy rather than the very elaborate visualisations they often demand. Indeed, the most aware Tibetan masters have come to understand that for most westerners tibetan images do not have the same resonance as they do for tibetans, and have thus concentrated on what is 'essential' - the focus of the mind, breathing, colours etc.

So the whole mind - actually best to see it as the whole psycho-electric nervous system - has the capacity to heal itself, to enlighten itself. For those with acute psychosis, like Jung's patients, the purpose of this seems obvious - to bring psychic balance back to a fractured mind. For the rest of us I am not sure. Are we all mentally ill in some way and seeking the same balance?

I disagree that non-believers also have a faith in their non-belief. It is a very different psychological state to have and have not this thing we call 'faith'. It is not a matter of the existence or otherwise of a supreme being, it is about one's internal state. I remember vividly having to break my religious indoctrination. I never, from my earliest memories, believed in christianity - I was shocked that so many people believed this nonsense and did all kinds of strange rituals to support it. It made no sense to me, but having been taught to pray from an even earlier age I realised that altho the words were meaningless there was a program put in place that made me do it. I had to break that program, and succeeded, with some effort. It is the same as breaking a hypnotic suggestion - it can be done but takes a lot of will power. The relief when freed was enormous. I therefore don't even count myself as a lapsed catholic as I don't recall ever believing it in the first place.

So it could be argued that having a faith is a kind of psychic balancing mechanism. It does not protect you from other imbalances, such as neuroses, but those are more 'surface' problems rather than deep ones, although their resolution may lead one further down the rabbit hole!

So what are the faithless searching for? A psychic centre of gravity. a completed mandala.

.......

[Huw]

In my opinion some of the greatest work on religious experiences was done by Carl Jung. I have read all his later works, when he diverged from Freud, and although heavy reading he sought to discover the psychic meanings of religious images and how those images and processes were used internally so that people could become 'whole' again.

Agree. We share a respect for his work.

As we are all humans, it makes sense that the deepest psychic structures are going to be the same - the images may differ at certain levels but the functions arethe same. One of my Tibetan masters told me that when he was a novice many of the visions he had were technically correct in that they produced the correct function, but were populated with indian figures rather than tibetan because he had been brought up in India. It thus proved to me that the buddhist practices were about the focus of energy rather than the very elaborate visualisations they often demand. Indeed, the most aware Tibetan masters have come to understand that for most westerners tibetan images do not have the same resonance as they do for tibetans, and have thus concentrated on what is 'essential' - the focus of the mind, breathing, colours etc.

So the whole mind - actually best to see it as the whole psycho-electric nervous system - has the capacity to heal itself, to enlighten itself. For those with acute psychosis, like Jung's patients, the purpose of this seems obvious - to bring psychic balance back to a fractured mind. For the rest of us I am not sure. Are we all mentally ill in some way and seeking the same balance?

We seek our true self. IMHO

I disagree that non-believers also have a faith in their non-belief. It is a very different psychological state to have and have not this thing we call 'faith'. It is not a matter of the existence or otherwise of a supreme being, it is about one's internal state.

I dont agree this is true for most people.

I remember vividly having to break my religious indoctrination. I never, from my earliest memories, believed in christianity - I was shocked that so many people believed this nonsense and did all kinds of strange rituals to support it. It made no sense to me, but having been taught to pray from an even earlier age I realised that altho the words were meaningless there was a program put in place that made me do it. I had to break that program, and succeeded, with some effort. It is the same as breaking a hypnotic suggestion - it can be done but takes a lot of will power. The relief when freed was enormous. I therefore don't even count myself as a lapsed catholic as I don't recall ever believing it in the first place.

I am a Chrsitian but probably not one that most Christians would recognise. I came here by a windey road.

So it could be argued that having a faith is a kind of psychic balancing mechanism. It does not protect you from other imbalances, such as neuroses, but those are more 'surface' problems rather than deep ones, although their resolution may lead one further down the rabbit hole!

Possibly.

So what are the faithless searching for? A psychic centre of gravity. a completed mandala.

We covered the vexed subject of Richard Dawkins. Why do you think he rails so much against the beliefs that other people have? What could be his motivation?

H

[camerata]

We covered the vexed subject of Richard Dawkins. Why do you think he rails so much against the beliefs that other people have? What could be his motivation?

It makes him feel superior. He says the God delusion is a mind-virus, but he doesn't realise that the ego is the biggest mind-virus of them all... from a Buddhist perspective that is.

[rychrde]

Hi Huw

thanks for your comments.

I don't know Dawkins that well! As others have mentioned he rails against organised religions and doctrines but seems to have no experience of his own regarding any esoteric state, of whatever tradition.

I had a long public argument with another scientist, forget her name, at the Royal Society, who took Dawkins' stance, about the scientific validity of shared internal states. I mean, the whole of psychology is based on that kind of science! She rejected this in thename of measurements. Well, the measurements are coming out and there is now much data about brain frequencies and the states they either relate to, or can be induced.

Unfrtunately Dawkins holds a very senior position in british academia, being Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. This gives him clout, if little gnosis.

I actually understand his position - I just think he makes a very bad job of expounding it.

OK this may make me more enemies than friends, but I also have no respect for anybody's beliefs. (red rag to a bull, anybody?)

Anybody who is going through their own path, that's OK, you mention in a very veiled manner your own 'windey road'. Anybody who comes to me telling me about their beliefs, I have no time. I respect people who are having, or had, a 'hard time' and coming to terms with themselves.

Psychic images are powerful, and Jung near the end of his life thought that people having abandoned their religion were best to find their new harmony in the same religion, just because of the powerful imprint it has, and because the ultmate aim was not to pick which side you are on, but your own personal realization.

Jung's work was very largely christian in nature. His few attempts at analyzing eastern religions are less successful. But he created an invaluable gateway back into chritianity through its mystical side, which is just amazingly lacking in modern chrstianity. I know people on that path and it is interesting. It just isn't mine.

rych

[rychrde]

There are surely many other mind-viruses. Sex, marriage, obedience to authority, tv soaps, belief in advertising, patriotism, trust in the law, world domination etc etc.

Religion has many hallmarks of a virus, but as a darwinian biologist he could have chosen other apposite metaphors... such as symbiosis. He didn't. That says more about him than about the metaphor.

rych

Edited May 26, 2007 by rychrde

[Huw]

We covered the vexed subject of Richard Dawkins. Why do you think he rails so much against the beliefs that other people have? What could be his motivation?

It makes him feel superior. He says the God delusion is a mind-virus, but he doesn't realise that the ego is the biggest mind-virus of them all... from a Buddhist perspective that is.

I agree, even though it is difficult to define the ego as the word is commonly used. It has a negative connotation that was not there when the word was coined for modern psychology parlance.

I dont agree about Dawkins motivation. I think what he is trying to do is a common device among those who have an inner need which their intellectual training (and thus conscious mind) decides is unacceptable. I think he is doing what zealots often do, persuading himself by trying to persuade others. What gives him away is his over-the-top rhetoric.

H

[Huw]

Hi Huw

thanks for your comments.

I don't know Dawkins that well! As others have mentioned he rails against organised religions and doctrines but seems to have no experience of his own regarding any esoteric state, of whatever tradition.

I had a long public argument with another scientist, forget her name, at the Royal Society, who took Dawkins' stance, about the scientific validity of shared internal states. I mean, the whole of psychology is based on that kind of science! She rejected this in thename of measurements.

And there was me thinking the deterministic scientists died out at the end of the 19th Century!

Well, the measurements are coming out and there is now much data about brain frequencies and the states they either relate to, or can be induced.

Indeed so. An interesting question is raised though. Is this electrical activity the cause of changes in consciousness or merely the way they are propagated?

Unfrtunately Dawkins holds a very senior position in british academia, being Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. This gives him clout, if little gnosis.

Many scientists, despite their laying claim to intellectual integrity and unfettered modes of thought ,are often just stuffy old farts protecting their palace walls.

I actually understand his position - I just think he makes a very bad job of expounding it.

I would go further, I understand his position, he just doesnt understand enough to expound an opinion at all. His ranting appeals to those with a superficial knowledge of religion. Mystical systems deserve better investigation than Dawkins can give.

OK this may make me more enemies than friends, but I also have no respect for anybody's beliefs. (red rag to a bull, anybody?)

Here is an interesting quote I came across some years ago. It is from a kind of religious ceremony. I have paraphrased it from memory so it may not be verbatim: "Remember not to blaspheme the name by which another knows his God. Hold all religions in respect for there is none that does not contain a spark from the Divine flame you seek." Something like that anyway. In short, I understand that my beliefs may not be right for you and indeed they may not even be right for me when I know more about it. I respect your right to believe whatever seems right to you, we all do what is best for us as individuals.

Anybody who is going through their own path, that's OK, you mention in a very veiled manner your own 'windey road'. Anybody who comes to me telling me about their beliefs, I have no time. I respect people who are having, or had, a 'hard time' and coming to terms with themselves.

I mentioned it in that way for 2 reasons: first, anyne reading what I wrote would know that I have beliefs and would probably work out that they were not orthodox. In a sense, it is sometimes useful to be told even the blindingly obvious. Secondly, for exactly the reason that I would not wish to burden anyone with those beliefs, uninvited.

Everyone has a hard time in one way or another. It is a part of the way we grow.

Psychic images are powerful, and Jung near the end of his life thought that people having abandoned their religion were best to find their new harmony in the same religion, just because of the powerful imprint it has, and because the ultmate aim was not to pick which side you are on, but your own personal realization.

Jung approached some ideas that have been better articulated by others who were not burdened by the boundaries of his perceptions of psychology.

Jung's work was very largely christian in nature. His few attempts at analyzing eastern religions are less successful. But he created an invaluable gateway back into chritianity through its mystical side, which is just amazingly lacking in modern chrstianity. I know people on that path and it is interesting. It just isn't mine.

There is a kind of mystical Christianity which he touched upon. Later in life I recall he mentioned to someone that if he had his life to live again, he would study mysticism rather than psychology. I dont believe any such boundary exists and that trying to separate the two is futile.

rych

Edited May 27, 2007 by Huw

[Huw]

There are surely many other mind-viruses. Sex, marriage, obedience to authority, tv soaps, belief in advertising, patriotism, trust in the law, world domination etc etc.

Religion has many hallmarks of a virus, but as a darwinian biologist he could have chosen other apposite metaphors... such as symbiosis. He didn't. That says more about him than about the metaphor.

rych

This may sound like nit-picking, for which I apologise in advance. No religion is virus-like. All religions are the outcome of serious attempts to understand the Divine and to enable people to be mindful of the Divinity within.

We often confuse the religion with the way that people practice it, and the things that people do in its name.

H

[rychrde]

Here is an interesting quote I came across some years ago. It is from a kind of religious ceremony. I have paraphrased it from memory so it may not be verbatim: "Remember not to blaspheme the name by which another knows his God. Hold all religions in respect for there is none that does not contain a spark from the Divine flame you seek." Something like that anyway. In short, I understand that my beliefs may not be right for you and indeed they may not even be right for me when I know more about it. I respect your right to believe whatever seems right to you, we all do what is best for us as individuals.

I think I find it hard to understand how someone can have a belief whilst at the same time accepting someone else's different beliefs. I think it makes more logical sense to deny these other faiths. Does it not weaken one's attachment to one's own dogmas? On a global level this kind of religious truce always seems to be temporary. All religions seem to let slip how much disdain they have for non-believers and the universal superiority of their own position. The monotheistic religions have centuries of practice at this. If open warfare was declaed then it would be a grim day for humanity, I just think that the logic of their position makes more sense. I don't mind them killing each other, I just want to be out of the way!

This is contrast to the mystical/esoteric path where different people will be at different levels and have different experiences. One reason why Buddhism has such a vast literature of practices compared to, say, Catholicism, is that buddhism accepted religious experiences and evolved new practices that were found to be efficient. Cathlicism is based on dogma and therefore persecuted mystics because their experiences could be very dangerous to their dogma, and also removed the power of priests as intermediaries.

Strangely, the one mystical work welded onto the bible is the apocalypse of st john. Who thought this was a good idea? A horrendous piece of psychic poison. Contrast this with neoplatonic/alchemical works and they seem to come from two different species.

[rychrde]

We often confuse the religion with the way that people practice it, and the things that people do in its name.

I think religion IS the way people practice it. No people, no religion. Without people we have dead religions. I don't buy the idea that somehow there is a 'pure' and 'good' religion that somehow gets polluted by people.

Yes, religions do get hijacked and can turn from teachings of liberation into teachings of enslavement, but I also think it the responsibility of every individual to accept or reject such teachings. It takes energy and courage, and perhaps is only valid for a few people.

[camerata]

I think I find it hard to understand how someone can have a belief whilst at the same time accepting someone else's different beliefs. I think it makes more logical sense to deny these other faiths.

I think it's a lot easier if we think of these beliefs as a way of life. My practice of Dhamma is a way of life that gives satisfaction and meaning to me, but I can accept that it might not for others. If someone else gets the same satisfaction from belief in God - whatever I think about the validity of that belief - I can accept that. I don't feel I have to deny someone else's faith, even though I know it wouldn't work for me.

[camerata]

Getting back to the original post, what Bachelor meant by agnostic Buddhism was not having to accept or reject the doctrines of karma and rebirth. This seems quite doable in Buddhism, given the Buddha's "come and see" attitude.

But it's difficult to see how a Christian can be agnostic on the question of God's existence. In theory, it should even be impossible to call oneself a Christian without a belief in Christ as the son of God, but I've met many people who do.

[Huw]

I think religion IS the way people practice it. No people, no religion. Without people we have dead religions. I don't buy the idea that somehow there is a 'pure' and 'good' religion that somehow gets polluted by people.

Dont agree. To agree with that allows the divine message in any religion to be debased based on the lowest common denominator. Inasmuch as 'the map is not the territory" (horrible horrible cliche I know), the message is not what people do with it.

Yes, religions do get hijacked and can turn from teachings of liberation into teachings of enslavement, but I also think it the responsibility of every individual to accept or reject such teachings. It takes energy and courage, and perhaps is only valid for a few people.

Fully agree with this. Most dont have the courage or the energy. Or indeed the inclination. Takes all kinds of folks.

H

[Huw]

Here is an interesting quote I came across some years ago. It is from a kind of religious ceremony. I have paraphrased it from memory so it may not be verbatim: "Remember not to blaspheme the name by which another knows his God. Hold all religions in respect for there is none that does not contain a spark from the Divine flame you seek." Something like that anyway. In short, I understand that my beliefs may not be right for you and indeed they may not even be right for me when I know more about it. I respect your right to believe whatever seems right to you, we all do what is best for us as individuals.

I think I find it hard to understand how someone can have a belief whilst at the same time accepting someone else's different beliefs. I think it makes more logical sense to deny these other faiths. Does it not weaken one's attachment to one's own dogmas? On a global level this kind of religious truce always seems to be temporary. All religions seem to let slip how much disdain they have for non-believers and the universal superiority of their own position. The monotheistic religions have centuries of practice at this. If open warfare was declaed then it would be a grim day for humanity, I just think that the logic of their position makes more sense. I don't mind them killing each other, I just want to be out of the way!

IMHO faith must be a living, evolving thing, otherwise it stays what it usually begins as; a mere acceptance of someone elses dogma. What one believes must be what one has developed oneself.

This is contrast to the mystical/esoteric path where different people will be at different levels and have different experiences. One reason why Buddhism has such a vast literature of practices compared to, say, Catholicism, is that buddhism accepted religious experiences and evolved new practices that were found to be efficient. Cathlicism is based on dogma and therefore persecuted mystics because their experiences could be very dangerous to their dogma, and also removed the power of priests as intermediaries.

Agreed

Strangely, the one mystical work welded onto the bible is the apocalypse of st john. Who thought this was a good idea? A horrendous piece of psychic poison. Contrast this with neoplatonic/alchemical works and they seem to come from two different species.

Dont know if it's a mystical work, it is certainly heavily laden with symbolism. Might be mystical...

H

[Huw]

I think I find it hard to understand how someone can have a belief whilst at the same time accepting someone else's different beliefs. I think it makes more logical sense to deny these other faiths.

I think it's a lot easier if we think of these beliefs as a way of life. My practice of Dhamma is a way of life that gives satisfaction and meaning to me, but I can accept that it might not for others. If someone else gets the same satisfaction from belief in God - whatever I think about the validity of that belief - I can accept that. I don't feel I have to deny someone else's faith, even though I know it wouldn't work for me.

IMHO the reason why people find it difficult to accept the existence of a God is because they have been asked to accept an unrealistic view of God. I believe that Buddhism as a mystical system requires a God at its very highest level, but most wont go there. This is probably why Buddhism has almost uniquely been able to maintain its integrity as a peaceful religion, but it does leave many gaps, and in the way most practice their Buddhism, it becomes peopled with Angels Spirits and Gods. Many, perhaps most people need these things in order to be able to explain what they caannot understand. Same as it always was.

H

[Huw]

Getting back to the original post,

Discussions often evolve away from their origin. This is not a bad thing.

what Bachelor meant by agnostic Buddhism was not having to accept or reject the doctrines of karma and rebirth. This seems quite doable in Buddhism, given the Buddha's "come and see" attitude.

It is a version of Buddhism but I think both are essential to the pristine Buddhism. Of course we take on and slough off beliefs as we grow in ourselves. The OP may well have a discussion sometime in which the ideas of karma and rebirth are presented in a context or manner which make sense to him. Then he will believe, but not until then.

But it's difficult to see how a Christian can be agnostic on the question of God's existence. In theory, it should even be impossible to call oneself a Christian without a belief in Christ as the son of God, but I've met many people who do.

I agree with this completely. But it is OK to call yourelf whatever you believe describes you. If this presents condundrums to people then they can simply reject them.

H

[rychrde]

what Bachelor meant by agnostic Buddhism was not having to accept or reject the doctrines of karma and rebirth. This seems quite doable in Buddhism, given the Buddha's "come and see" attitude.

It is a version of Buddhism but I think both are essential to the pristine Buddhism. Of course we take on and slough off beliefs as we grow in ourselves. The OP may well have a discussion sometime in which the ideas of karma and rebirth are presented in a context or manner which make sense to him. Then he will believe, but not until then.

I was nearly put off buddhism by some discussions had at the Buddhist Society in London, in which I was just not convinced about their own explanations of karma and rebirth. Luckily I thought about it for myself and headed in another direction. Buddhism is a reformation of hinduism and those two doctrines come from the latter. I did this exercise many years ago, of seeing how much doctrine one can strip away from buddhism to see what remains.

In my opinion, we are left with two things. Why do people suffer? And what can we do about it? The former is the starting point, the latter leads into the various practices which, hopefully, will resolve the first question. I personally just found karma and rebirth to be hindrances rather than explanations. Perhaps ironically, the tibetan practices related to awareness during death are very powerful and beneficial. so what do I know?!

[Huw]

what Bachelor meant by agnostic Buddhism was not having to accept or reject the doctrines of karma and rebirth. This seems quite doable in Buddhism, given the Buddha's "come and see" attitude.

It is a version of Buddhism but I think both are essential to the pristine Buddhism. Of course we take on and slough off beliefs as we grow in ourselves. The OP may well have a discussion sometime in which the ideas of karma and rebirth are presented in a context or manner which make sense to him. Then he will believe, but not until then.

I was nearly put off buddhism by some discussions had at the Buddhist Society in London, in which I was just not convinced about their own explanations of karma and rebirth. Luckily I thought about it for myself and headed in another direction. Buddhism is a reformation of hinduism and those two doctrines come from the latter. I did this exercise many years ago, of seeing how much doctrine one can strip away from buddhism to see what remains.

In my opinion, we are left with two things. Why do people suffer? And what can we do about it? The former is the starting point, the latter leads into the various practices which, hopefully, will resolve the first question. I personally just found karma and rebirth to be hindrances rather than explanations. Perhaps ironically, the tibetan practices related to awareness during death are very powerful and beneficial. so what do I know?!

I for one understand what you mean and your experience proves my point in another thread that religion simply isnt just accepting someone elses ideas; to be meaningful, it has to grow from within, and of course, will often and perhaps should always, evolve over time.

I take my approaches and mysticism from a personal derivation of Christian mysticism, with an influence from Judaic mysticism. In my model, both karma and reincarnation are required in order to make sense of other components, so I have no problem with tither though my view of karma would be unorthodox.

I disagree with strongly Buddhists who say that all life is sorrow or suffering, though I think I understand the perspective from which it springs. I believe life is a learning opportunity and obligation and is therefore a joy and a duty to the inner person.

H

Edited May 28, 2007 by Huw

[chutai]

I think that the content of this new site might be of some interest those who take a more skeptical and agnostic approach to Buddhism. Ignore the opening page bumph on e-sangha , some of the post there are very erudite, thoughtful and articulate.

http://www.thebuddhawaswrong.com/index.php

correction

the opening page isn't as I thought. I just followed a link sent to me - probably only designed for users of e-sangha.

chutai

Edited May 28, 2007 by chutai

[rychrde]

I think that the content of this new site might be of some interest those who take a more skeptical and agnostic approach to Buddhism. Ignore the opening page bumph on e-sangha , some of the post there are very erudite, thoughtful and articulate.

http://www.thebuddhawaswrong.com/index.php

correction

the opening page isn't as I thought. I just followed a link sent to me - probably only designed for users of e-sangha.

chutai

Interesting site with another interesting link

http://www.samharris.org/media/killing-the-buddha.pdf

a little too much venom perhaps but the article above says, stripped of its rhetoric, what I said somewhere else here - the need for an esoteric science removed from its religious outer clothes.

be careful if using the forum as I suspect they are using an older version of phpBB, or at least unpatched, and already have a hacker deleting posts.

rych

[camerata]

The following passage echoes Bachelor's approach:

"For the fact is that a person can embrace

the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a

genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one

must presume, a buddha) without believing

anything on insufficient evidence. The same

cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based

religion.

In many respects, Buddhism

is very much like science. One starts with the

hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed

way (meditation), and engaging in or

avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear

the promised result (wisdom and psychological

well-being). This spirit of empiricism

animates Buddhism to a unique degree."

[Huw]

The following passage echoes Bachelor's approach:

"For the fact is that a person can embrace

the Buddha's teaching, and even become a

genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one

must presume, a buddha) without believing

anything on insufficient evidence. The same

cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based

religion.

In many respects, Buddhism

is very much like science. One starts with the

hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed

way (meditation), and engaging in or

avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear

the promised result (wisdom and psychological

well-being). This spirit of empiricism

animates Buddhism to a unique degree."

This is very nice and very sensible. Buddhism however, in eschewing the notion of a God, misses on a large part of the purpose of self-development and spiritualisation. I believe the ultimate goal of we mortals is to so refine and expand our spirituality that we are then fitted for union with Godhead. In this act, the soul returns to the Father.

The idea is not entirely mine though each will place their own patina on it. It actually comes from Judaism and Christianity with a bit of license also taken from some aspects of Hinduism. In deciding not to embrace this idea, (which it will certainly know about), then Buddhism actually presents some problems (which I am happy to discuss and which may in fact be my own misunderstanding). It undeniably gets around the problem of having to believe in a God of course and I rather like the self-determination aspect of it as well. It is a trade-off I suppose.

H

[camerata]

There's an interview with Steven Bachelor in Insight Magazine.

[sleepyjohn]

I take my approaches and mysticism from a personal derivation of Christian mysticism, with an influence from Judaic mysticism. In my model, both karma and reincarnation are required in order to make sense of other components, so I have no problem with tither though my view of karma would be unorthodox.

I disagree with strongly Buddhists who say that all life is sorrow or suffering, though I think I understand the perspective from which it springs. I believe life is a learning opportunity and obligation and is therefore a joy and a duty to the inner person.

H

Hey Huw

I wonder if you have read The Laughing Jesus by Freke and Gandy (real historians, not New Age nonsense brokers). If not you may enjoy it.

The first half is a scathing criticism of literalism in following Christianity, Islam and Judaism and is riveting. The second half is the constructive one and promotes the gnosticism it says was the common basis of these three religions, the stories and characters in which.....Jesus included..... it says were not meant to be taken literally but, as was the fashion of the day, were meant as parable. A truly fascinating and enlightening read.

SJ

Edited June 22, 2007 by sleepyjohn