Religion? No. Spiritual Path
The concept of “spirituality” is usually associated with religion. In the case of the Teaching, this association is reinforced by the fact that it uses terminology partially drawn from religious lexicon. A person who looks at our texts and other materials sees that they mention the Creator, gods, the afterlife, reincarnations, revelations — and they might get the impression that they are dealing with religion. However, this impression would be mistaken.
The Creator in the Teaching is referred to as the being who transformed its organism into what we know as our Universe. It is not a supernatural being, nor an all-powerful God. But how else can we call someone who created the Universe? Even if he created it out of himself, and did so not by means of supernatural powers, but through abilities gained over an unimaginably long evolution. The Creator is the Creator. The gods of the Teaching are, in fact, the laws of Nature. More precisely, the energetic components of these laws, possessing a peculiar form of intelligence and, in a certain sense, being personalities. One could say that they are a form of life not yet known to science. The same applies to the afterlife and reincarnations. Science still lacks the tools to detect the energetic essence of a person that continues to live after physical death. It is also unable to track the path of such an essence from the deceased body to its union with a new one. However, this does not mean that reincarnation is a religious myth. It is a reality, it occurs according to the natural laws of Nature, and one day it will be discovered and, if possible, studied. As for revelation, the Teaching uses this word to refer to an informational message received by a person from one of the gods. This is also a natural phenomenon, though extremely rare. There is nothing supernatural in one form of life communicating with another. The only difference is that due to the rarity and enormous significance of these contacts, each such case becomes unique and astonishing. Religious worldviews could only perceive them as a miracle, an intervention of supernatural forces.
The religious terminology is used by the Teaching simply because there is no better alternative. Behind these terms lie entirely real concepts and natural phenomena that have not yet been discovered or described by science. And since the Teaching rejects belief in the supernatural, it does not include anything else that makes religion a religion: worship of “higher powers,” prayers, rituals, priesthood or clergy, etc. In other words, there is no cult. The Teaching is alien to both religious-mystical worldviews as such, and their practical expression.
Those who consider the concept of “spirituality” to be exclusively related to religion are mistaken. I would say that it pertains to the life of the soul in a moral, ethical sense. But morality does not appear from nowhere or hang in the air. It needs support; so to speak, the soil on which it can grow. In other words, it needs a framework of concepts of good and evil. Such a framework can only be built on a worldview that provides an understanding of the structure of the world and the place of man in it. And therefore, it provides criteria for determining what is good and what is evil, and the ability to make a conscious choice between them. In such conditions, the moral evolution of the individual takes place, the improvement of their ethical qualities — that is, the perfection of the soul. Any worldview that provides this opportunity is a spiritual path — whether it is a religion, a speculative philosophical system, or a social doctrine based on scientific data.
The Teaching of the United Temple is neither the first, nor the second, nor the third. It is based on revelation — but this revelation is not from a supernatural source, but from Nature itself; and it does not reveal mystical secrets inaccessible to scientific knowledge. Yes, the information it provides is not scientifically confirmed. Not yet confirmed. This will happen in the future — some of it in the near future, some in the more distant future. One could say that now these teachings are being given to us through the mind of science, ahead of it. And although the Teaching is not a religion, it cannot be called materialistic in the usual sense of the word. Simply because the Universe is not limited to the material world. Science itself has already come close to understanding this. One fine day, it will cease to be purely materialistic. But that will not mean a turn to mysticism. Science will begin to perceive the world in the way the Teaching already perceives it.
The Teaching explains how the Universe is structured, why it exists, and what role intelligent beings, including humans, play in it. It provides a definition of good and evil and shows the importance of making the right choice between them. It says that it is precisely this choice, made by humans and other intelligent beings, that is the key factor in the evolution of the Universe. It helps to gain the understanding necessary to make this choice, and to make it consciously and freely. Therefore, the moral-ethical aspect occupies a central place in the Teaching. It represents a spiritual path, where the acquisition of knowledge is inseparably linked with its practical application. According to the Teaching, practice is not meditation, energy work, ritual actions, etc., but life itself. One must learn to understand the world and people, so that through this understanding, one can improve oneself and help improve others. One must learn to live in such a way that one is a benefit, not harm, to the Universe.
Upon first acquaintance with the Teaching, a misunderstanding may occur. And even two, mutually exclusive ones. To advocates of science, the Teaching may seem too similar to religion, while to advocates of religion, it may be displeasing that it rejects the supernatural realm. In fact, the Teaching reconciles science and religion by showing that what science considers nonexistent actually exists, and what religion considers supernatural actually has a rational explanation. If the Teaching resembles religion, it is only superficially, purely externally. It is not a scientific concept in its pure form either. It is a spiritual path.
© Atarkhat, 2016