Contributions of theistic theory and ritual to theistic perfection

What is the connection between thesitic ritual and theistic theory, which, I am taking of the liberty of assuming, contribute to theistic realisation?

Is it sufficient for a person to be thesitically realized on the strength of either ritual or theory, or do both contribute to coming to the stage of perfection.

I guess I had better belabour a few definitions and guidelines for the thread.

*** This is non-denominational so there is some room for discussion on exactly what is the perfection of realisation for Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian etc, but obviously such discussion should tally with scriptural quotes or authoratative scriptural reference


*** By ritual I mean not just things like attending a place of worship, but also observing festival days and fasting days, chanting on beads, compliance to vows - in otherwords all sorts of things that act as guidelines for one's behaviour

*** By theory I mean scriptural knowledge - like being familiar with philosophical definitions and articulations of scriptural incidents, historical precedents etc etc - in other words book knowledge

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about normative narratives?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What sets the scene then - the TV or the transmission?

In other words what came first?

The normative value or the narrative?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The theory is the initial attraction of the fantasy and the rational committment to follow it. The ritual is the acting out of fantasy and the emotional reinforcer.

 

So do you have premimses for your opinion or are you more interested in making statements to the world?

 

Ritual is vital for the survival of the religion. If it can work it's way into a groups tradition which guarantee's it's survival for a good while. Without it, the buzz of group worship isn't there and it makes indoctrination far more difficult.

 

You asked a question and I submitted an answer. People need rational and emotional committments to embrace and sustain loyalty. For example, the rational committment gets you discussing the stats and strategy of your favorite football team. The emotional committment gets you to the game cheering your face painted brains out like a lunatic. Theory, ritual, connection.

 

I guess you are referring to theistic theory and ritual that doesn't lead to realisation -
football would be a good example

 

Sorry Ron but I don't follow
Maybe we will have to break out of communicating back and forth in a haiku format

 

Ahhh yes

Where would any socialable conversation (of the likes you are to encounter on this site) be without that element that makes politics and religion dynamic.

BTW whats the official buddhist outlook on the liklihood of socializing the sexual act around successful spiritual practice?

 

ritual is training.
With knowledge, ritually exercised one found meanings in their rituals, more and more.
One found meanings in rituals, embodied the teachings in their lives, so their actions will follow.
Without rituals, one may have knowledge, but not necessarily act the way the teachings promote.
Without knowledge, rituals just merely ceremonial, not have much meaning to one practicing them.

 

Football fans would disagree with you. They get their 'realization' all right.

 

Crunchy Cat

Lets back track

So how do you determine whether those rational and emmotional commitments are based on something factual or illusory?

At the very least you seem to be saying that just as football really exists god also exists
Otherwise what is the basis of your analogy?

 

So does one come to a point of theistic perfection where rituals are obsolete - inother words are the rituals examples of activities that are done to secure some seperate result,or are the rituals the means, the means to the end, as well as the end in themselves?

 

In general, if the person cares about such a distinction then they can test any particular assertion against reality.

Human behavior. It doesn't matter if the subject that is being given loyalty to exists or doesn't.

 

Ritual is largely a result of magical thinking, evident in the manner by which its employed. The baseball player who always eats 7 chili dogs before a home game and a steak before an away game but wears the same unwashed underwear at either believes this to be effective in ensuring favor and not jinxing his winning streak. Should he lose, the failure resides in not performing one of the rituals correctly or timely.

The same is true for rituals in religion: the adherent believes that by performing ritual he is courting favor from the supernatural or satisfying a supernatural force. When favor isn't granted or realized, the adherent accepts that either the ritual(s) wasn't performed correctly/timely or that the supernatural deity has alternate plans.

With regard to "theistic theory," this a bunk term. At best, it can only refer to a worldview that limits the observer to magical explanations rather than natural, either in whole or part. "Theistic theory" assumes that theistic explanations are true in spite of the lack of evidence or reason, often based solely on dogma and doctrine that has evolved in a given culture from previous cultures.

"Theistic realization," therefore, is an imagined perspective of a willing believer. In all probability, a delusion since there are no foundational data that support that such a "realization" can be objectively achieved. But then, this sort of delusion isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most people delude themselves, or allow themselves to be deluded, all the time with "feelings" of success or failure; self-worth; personal satisfaction; and other actualizing thoughts.

These delusions can be helpful or harmful, depending upon how they're employed, even the religious ones. If the person "thinks" he has achieved some sort of "theistic realization" that provides him with a sense of piety, and this form of actualization works for him, who can fault the religious adherent?

But don't try to bullshit those that actually have the ability to think critically and apply reason to the magical thinking that goes along with ritual and "theistic theory" and see it for what it is: bullshit.

 

Crunchy Cat

So how do you determine what is real?

football fervour may be an imaginary response - but it is a response to a real phenomena (football) - in other words it does actualy have a basis in reality - If you want to maintain the footbal thing as a tight analogy you have to esablish what aspect of reality theists are perceiving when they launch into apparent imagination - when a theist is "imagining god", what are they actually perceiving? Remember there are many intelligent persons in the history of theism, including philsophers and scientists, so its not valid to write them off as crazy or drug induced, unless you want to advocate some philosophy that the entire world is deluded except for you and a few of your friends

 

So when scientists make the premise that there is order in the universe, which is a primary step required for any type of scientific investigation, that is also ritual?
INother words all you seem to be indicating is that some people engage in understandings of the world in an imaginative way .. but all that really proves is exactly that - that some people enagage in undersatndings with the world in an imaginative way - it says nothing about the nature of knowledge, but perhaps something of human nature.
Its not clear how you go from here to a serious analysis of the knowledge presented in theism, since in every brach of knowledge you se that some people get it wrong and some get it right - it is not sufficient to indicate that because some people get it wrong every one gets it wrong - in fact you would have to turf out science if you seriously advocated such general principles

Perhaps you can tell us the general principles you applied to determine that religion has evolved from human culture (as opposed to human culture having emerged from religion) - this would help us determine whether your statements are in fact dogma

By what means do you determine whether realization can be objectively analyzed - Again it might be better to speak in terms of gneral principles to elp us determine whether your statements are in fact dogma

Again - you have to establish that piety is the paramount level of achievement for the successful theist.

Well by all means reveal your general applications of critical thinking and reason - because frankly as it stands, it seems to be composed of the very substance you state to abhor

 

This is very personal.
Individuals experiencing different level of depth in their rituals, which some achieve something, others achieve different things, while many achieve nothing. None is to secure separate result directly. Rituals just trigger people's minds; to be confidently sure to be able to execute things, which sometimes aimed to secure some results of separate / non-ritual actions.

Rituals give fuel for (powering) one's endeavors.

 

My question is what becomes of the rituals when the perfection of performing rituals is achieved - do they all remain? Do they all become redundant? Or does it require a further analysis to determine which rituals remain and which become redundant?