tradition – Xenofact.com

I was discussing assorted spiritual issues with a friend during one of our regular calls.* We specifically discussed attempts by people to claim spiritual authority and out of the discussion two ways came to mind that I wanted to discuss. Now that I see them, I really see them, and thus I share my insights and the opportunity to call me on my bullshit.

The first is what I call the Ancient Tradition method. People claim their spiritual path is valid as it’s an Ancient Tradition. The endurance of said tradition over time is a marker of its validity. In addition, those who follow or say they follow the Ancient Tradition thus claim spiritual authority. It’s “old-is-good” essentially.

Of course there’s a few flaws with this method, the first and foremost of which is, if you’re aware of any systems or organizational theory, it’s that time is not a measure of validity. The ability for something to survive is a measure of its ability to survive. There indeed may be other valid reasons for its survival, and in cultural areas it gets fuzzy, but it’s not an immediate measure of actual truth.

But there’s more. The idea that there are unchanging traditions is on the face of reality, pretty laughable. People change, cultures change, ideas change, spiritual leaders change. What you see of a tradition today is not what it was a thousand years ago, or perhaps even ten years ago. Maybe said Ancient Tradition survives because it did change – which might give it more validity if you admit it.

And, of course, plenty of people claim to be the bearers of said Ancient Tradition that are liars, frauds, or self-deceiving. If you follow any “spiritual history” you’ve read about things made up of whole cloth more or less and treated as ancient. Ancient Tradition isn’t what it used to be in some cases, because it never was anything.

The other form of Spiritual Authority I saw was Initiatory Authority. Someone claims a direct revelation, often through great suffering, that granted them power and authority. In modern times, it took on an almost masochistic flavor.

The amount of people I’d see studying modern cults that claimed some horrific trauma that granted them a kind of religious or spiritual insight was disturbing. There was the usual “survivor of satanic abuse” story which was almost disturbingly pat. But there were also refugees from alien-controlled Secret Space Programs, or those claiming to have been mind-controlled by nefarious forces until they broke free. It was validity through suffering.

I mean you get the occasional people who just had deep revelations, but it felt like in modern times suffering was validation. This is why I honestly think some conspiracy theories and cultic behavior are substitutes and declaration of a need for therapy.

(Plus, note how these Initiatory Authorities often tie into Conspiracy Theories in modern times? That also seems to be getting a bit of Ancient Tradition going there.)

Either way, the idea of some kind of Initiatory experience or revelation giving someone authority was common, but also needed validation. Usually these days you just get charisma instead, or at least rage and sarcasm. But validation? Nope.

As we discussed these ideas, I felt I had a better sense of the modern (and perhaps not-so-modern) spiritual landscape. People were trying to claim authority from Ancient Tradition or some kind of Initiatory experience, perhaps both. In the age of the Internet Influencers these seemed even more amplified.

But what was missing was the thing that matters most – does the spiritual tradition actually help out? What good is it? What is it doing for you, for others, for the world? Are there useful techniques that make you saner, happier, calmer, provide insights and practical experiences? Does it work?

The people in charge, the authorities, the initiated, need to prove what they’ve got works. I wasn’t seeing a lot of proof, but I was seeing a whole lot of trying to claim it. Maybe because if you’ve actually got some spiritual goodness going on you don’t need to get flashy (says the Taoist guy).

This is where I get things like people joining religious traditions for community and support – theologically things may be questionable but the community is real. This is where I get why some Buddhists and Taoist practices have endured as they work – the Four Noble truths are helpful and Golden Flower breathing has results.

In the end, I’m interested in results. Those I can understand I can use. Sometimes they surprise me . . .

But when I see Ancient Tradition and Initiatory Authority pop up? I get suspicious. For good reason.

* If you and a friend are busy, or you’re physically distant, try a regular phone chat, like every two weeks or once a month. It’s very helpful and it’s not being on the computer (he writes, on a computer).

–Xenofact

Win One For Confucians

Last column I talked about how Taoists irritated with detail-obsessed Confucians reminded me of how people got annoyed with conspiracy theorists. It was a strange revelation, and one I’ll probably analyze for awhile to understand underlying human behavior. But let’s talk about something I learned from my (limited) reading of Confucian thought.

First, I want to be open about my opinions – and limits on my knowledge – of Confucianism. I took an interest in it due to A) Taoists arguing with them and B) an interest Chinese history, usually communications. I’ve read a few texts, a few historical documents, and a larger amount of Taoist mockery or fellow-feeling depending on when said texts were written. I’m no expert.

I would sum it up as “anal-retentive humanism about cultivating morality.” Confucius himself seems to have been a thoughtful, witty, pleasant, but at times anxious or neurotic person who didn’t seem to really intend to found a religion. In practice it has often served power and patriarchal culture, but through it run elements of counter-culturalism and principle. My limited experience have been more “WTF” than I expected.

But in my limited readings, a story stood out – one that, years later, taught me a lesson. So let’s give the Confucians a win.

In my readings there are often stories about the importance of mourning one’s parents when they pass. It’s important to recognize their sacrifice, the duration of mourning, and so on. There’s enough dead parents in a casual reading Confucian literature to make you worry you stepped into a Disney film. Yes I get filial piety and all that, but still.

Once or twice I’d encounter a story of an king who’s father (who had stepped down) passed away. This meant big public ceremonies and so on because, hey, dead king. What stood out to me is people being impressed at how sad the living king was, how he wept and mourned so aggressively. At first I thought the stories were annoying, performative – I mean, you know, let’s not make a show of it, be honest.

Years later, as I contemplated politics in America in the 2020s I thought about all the transgressive politicians. The ones that were basically online Influencers, the ones acting like they were Shock Jocks. The ones who were supposedly both the best of us and hideous assholes and in no way role models.

They were being performatively against what we supposedly valued.

. . . and suddenly I got the king and his Big Mourning.

I don’t want leaders who violate our principles, I want them to embody them. I want the continuity and stability of society, not its fracturing. Wanting leaders that violate everything you say you care about means you’re both an asshole and destructive – and stupid. Even if a leader is, dare I say it, a bit performative, it’s saying there’s an agreement on what matters, even if things might get a tad fuzzy around things in the “best face forward” way.

Moral performances of certain kinds – what people might call “virtue signaling” – are ways of communicating and reinforcing values. They are reflections of the agreement that hold society together. It may be a janky agreement, it may have edge cases that aren’t on the edge, but unless a society is totally screwed, it matters.

Then I got it. These kings were virtue signaling, but about stuff important to the community, the love of parents, the proper activities. King and peasant were bonded together in “when we lose our parents, we respect those that created us.” A weeping king was, at that moment no different than a farmer who lost his mother and father.

So know what? Chalk one up for the early Confucian writers. Some moral and ethical continuity, via ritual, is important. Yeah it might not be 100% true or honest all the time, but if it’s enough for society to grow and function, then it’s important. It might not seem like a ritual, but there is a time to say “we are on the same side” and act on it.

Because we’ve damn well seen what happens when destroying everything is lauded, and violating what actually works is worshiped.

-Xenofact