Episode 1
Non-Affiliated: Dismantling Dogma
Tracking Wisdom
Episode 1
Non-Affiliated: Dismantling Dogma
Recorded - 03/21/22
DESCRIPTION
This inaugural episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast embarks upon an extensive exploration of faith, spirituality, and the nuanced experiences of its hosts, Ryan and Peter. The discussion is firmly rooted in their personal journeys, eschewing any claims of formal authority or doctrinal representation. They candidly share their backgrounds, delineating their paths from childhood Christianity to a more individualized spiritual exploration. This personal narrative serves as a backdrop against which the hosts express their intention to foster a respectful dialogue concerning the diverse beliefs that populate the spiritual landscape. They emphasize the importance of mutual respect and understanding amidst the complexities of religious discourse, asserting that their insights are drawn from lived experience rather than institutional dogma. In doing so, they invite listeners to engage with their content critically and reflectively, ensuring that the conversation remains accessible to those traversing similar spiritual paths, particularly individuals identified as 'nuns'—those who are spiritual yet not religious. The episode ultimately seeks to provide a space for shared exploration, resonating with the experiences of those who may feel alienated from traditional religious structures.
Takeaways:
- The podcast explicitly states that the views expressed are not representative of any institution, emphasizing a personal perspective.
- The hosts, Ryan and Peter, bring their personal journeys and experiences to the discussion of spirituality and faith.
- They aim to create a respectful dialogue around religious beliefs, focusing on commonalities rather than differences.
- The show addresses the emotional complexities surrounding discussions of faith, encouraging thoughtful engagement over anxiety and anger.
- Ryan and Peter emphasize that religion is a response to human suffering, providing a framework for understanding the human condition.
- The hosts advocate for personal exploration of spirituality, urging listeners to question institutional teachings and seek their own understanding.
Episode Resources
- Buddhists Take Refuge in the Three Jewels - In this episode, Peter refers to the idea of the three refuges of Buddhism: The Buddha, The Dharma and the Sangha.
- Conversations With God: An Uncommon Dialogue by: Neale Donald Walsch
If this content has been meaningful or entertaining for you,
consider showing your support to help make this content possible.
Review us on Podchaser
We are grateful for your gifts.
Have a discussion topic idea or show feedback? Use the Suggestion Box link below!
Social Media:
License: Unless otherwise noted, all excerpts of copyright material not owned by ETH Studio are used under the Fair Use doctrine for the purposes of commentary, scholarship, research and teaching. Works are substantially transformed by means of personal insight and commentary as well as highlighting important corollaries to additional thoughts, theories and works to demonstrate alignments and consistencies.
Copyright 2025 Ears That Hear Media Corporation
Keywords: spirituality, organized religion, personal exploration, faith journey, spiritual growth, religious institutions, nuns, belief systems, discussions on faith, informal spirituality, core teachings, institutional challenges, emotionality in religion, respectful dialogue, spiritual but not religious, understanding suffering, core truths in religion, perspectives on faith, exploring belief systems, Tracking Wisdom Podcast
Transcript
Views, interpretations and opinions expressed are not advice nor official positions presented on behalf of any organization or institution.
Speaker A:They are for informational and entertainment purposes only.
Speaker A:Welcome and thanks for joining the discussion.
Speaker A:Today's show launches the official episode one of the podcast.
Speaker A:We introduce the hosts, discuss pitfalls of institution, and identify the core teaching at the heart of the project Thesis.
Speaker A:Now join Ryan and Peter for the official premiere episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
Speaker B:Welcome everybody to the show.
Speaker B:I'm Ryan.
Speaker B:I'm here joined with my friend and colleague Peter.
Speaker B:If you've been following us through our previous posts, we've been discussing our perspective on faith and religion and spirituality, and we come to this discussion without any formal training.
Speaker B:Our path has been our journey and that we've been.
Speaker B:We're interested in finding our way through this space with what resonates with us.
Speaker B:And that's the perspective that we take to the show, that we aren't presenting any information from a place of authority.
Speaker B:We are not here to represent Christianity, Buddhism, or any other faith structure.
Speaker B:More, it's a discussion about what it is for us and where we come from.
Speaker B:Is that accurate?
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:And although we both occasionally, or more than occasionally attend a congregation, neither of us is formally affiliated with a congregation or denomination.
Speaker C:That's not what we're talking about.
Speaker C:We're not talking about what we learned in church last week or something.
Speaker B:So in discussing that, we want to be clear that the perspective we're presenting is our own background and journey.
Speaker B:And because we are speaking on our own experiences, we can only speak to our.
Speaker B:Only our own experiences.
Speaker B:And while we may refer to specific faith practices or denominations or religions, we're not calling anyone out specifically.
Speaker B:We believe that the items we're discussing are consistent throughout any of these religions.
Speaker B:Any religions in general, certainly organized religions specifically.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker C:So just to be explicit, Ryan and I both have childhood Christian backgrounds, which we fell away from, so clearly they were not entirely positive.
Speaker C:So we have some negative things to say about that.
Speaker C:But those are not negative comments against Christianity that are negative comments about our experience, correct?
Speaker B:Yes, that's a great way to put it.
Speaker B:And also that we're talking about, there is a demographic of people who have similar experience.
Speaker B:They are casually referred to as nuns, which we talked about previously, which is this group of people who is considered spiritual but not religious and is looking to explore and experience and learn from a variety of perspectives with regard to spiritual growth and development.
Speaker B:And that this discussion and this show, while we're here to discuss, for our own benefit and growth as well, that the Idea of putting it out on the Internet would be that if we're finding value from it, others who are in similar journeys may also find value in this conversation.
Speaker C:And I think our concern is that there is a tendency of anxiety, emotionality, anger around discussing religious issues.
Speaker C:These are filling feelings that come up when people discuss beliefs.
Speaker C:And our intention is to frame all of our conversation in a very respectful, rational, reasoned way, to hopefully provide an example that it's fine to disagree about issues of belief and that it can be done safely and respectfully.
Speaker C:And we kind of want to be part of that voice of spiritual seeking.
Speaker C:There are certainly scholarly disciplines that have approached these issues.
Speaker C:And we're not that, and we're not attempting to take a scholarly approach.
Speaker C:But if you want a scholarly approach, you should definitely go and find it.
Speaker C:But this is, by intent, a very informal approach to make it more accessible and to do our informal exploration and discussion of these things.
Speaker B:Yes, in our early discussions, which was offering Peter and I an opportunity to kind of ground ourselves in this project and gain some insight into one another's perspective.
Speaker B:So Peter and I have known each other for over a decade.
Speaker B:We worked with each other.
Speaker B:We also shared an office space for five years or so and had some really great intellectual conversations.
Speaker B:And so we're here, we know each other, but we haven't necessarily had extensive discussion with one another around the religious or spiritual context as well as other social stuff.
Speaker B:So we're learning about each other as much as anybody else.
Speaker B:And those first recordings have allowed us to kind of come to terms with that.
Speaker B:We.
Speaker B:We agree and believe that there's a core truth or teaching or understanding present within organized religions as a whole.
Speaker C:I guess we maybe want to try to make more explicit in what we believe is implicit in every faith the core truth that religion is there to represent.
Speaker B:I believe that is from my perspective, which is I believe that one of the core teachings is that we are all one, ultimately in existence.
Speaker B:That we're all connected and one being, so to speak.
Speaker B:That there is an eternal existence that we.
Speaker B:That is for everybody, but that the existence here on earth is transient, but that there is a higher, eternal existence that we have and experience.
Speaker B:And that, in part, we are all part of the divine.
Speaker B:To me, that is represented in the created, in the image and likeness of God, to bring a Christian perspective to that.
Speaker B:But I don't think that, in general, Christian denominations are presenting that in that way, that we, too, are divine.
Speaker B:Just as Jesus was son of God, we also are sons and daughters of God and children of God.
Speaker B:So that was part of my perspective.
Speaker B:And ultimately that suffering exists in this earthly life or realm or plane and can be alleviated and is not a requirement to experience.
Speaker C:Yeah, that suffering is inevitable but not permanent.
Speaker B:Yeah, that kind of encompasses the, the basic idea that we're trying to put forth and hypothesize as far as what is consistent or what we believe is consistent throughout these belief systems and is what we're seeking to do, which is to focus on what we have in common instead of what we have different, which I think is in contrast to what we experience in culture generally.
Speaker C:Yeah, I mean, my, my belief in, in general, at this stage of my journey, I, I, I've come to believe and realize that organized religions are not inherently bad.
Speaker C:I think that any bonafide religion which wasn't an intentionally created cult is a response to a need, a response to human need or a solution to a problem.
Speaker C:And the problem is being human.
Speaker C:Being human is difficult and problematic.
Speaker C:Being human creates the need to deal with the, the pain, the suffering of being human.
Speaker C:And so that's why religions exist, because people are struggling to deal with that and that there is a core truth in each, each religion which is the solution to the problem of being human and suffering as a human being.
Speaker C:But that over time, after the creation of a religion, or rather after the teaching of a core teacher who is identifying the solution to this problem, there is accretion over time that obscures that core teaching.
Speaker C:And this is happens because of the necessary process of institutionalization of a religion, which is something that Ryan has a lot of ideas about.
Speaker B:The thesis we have for this season, which is that there is a core teaching or truth that is, that is being put out by a multitude of teachers, and each of those teachers have followers, and those followers in an effort to perpetuate the teaching that resonated with them, to help enlighten, not necessarily in the Buddhist sense, but, you know, but to bring insight to other people, you know, as you said.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So religion in general is, is a solution.
Speaker B:It's, it's an answer, it's, it's a response to the human condition.
Speaker B:And that our desire to share that, similar to what we're doing.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:I mean, it's our desire also to share some of what we have come to believe or understanding in our own journey.
Speaker B:And we want to especially help those who may be struggling in trying to find a direction.
Speaker B:Very interested.
Speaker B:To talk about, talk with and with people who are in similar places as we are, where we are comfortable in where we have landed in our perspective and our understanding, but still enjoy discussing this and discussing contrary views from an intellectual perspective.
Speaker B:You know, the desire to share the information is inherent within us and I think is important as a love and compassion gesture that we want to share.
Speaker B:I think it goes back to what was a Buddha, right, that became enlightened and then just wanted to peace out and had to come to terms with the fact that now that you have this understanding, it is now your responsibility to help share that.
Speaker B:And I think that that will also lead into part of our discussion around weaponizing religion.
Speaker B:Absolutely, because it's that, it's that urge that I think drives that as well.
Speaker B:And so that there's, it's not that the urge is, is wrong or inherently bad in any way, it's how we.
Speaker C:How we engage with that urge.
Speaker C:Yeah, exactly.
Speaker B:The institution appears to come from the students of a teacher, a prominent teacher of some sort, in an effort to perpetuate this teaching.
Speaker B:And necessarily as you spread that knowledge, there's going to be logistical challenges to that.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So it's easy enough for, for a disciple to go and hold, you know, an in home discussion with a small subgroup of people.
Speaker B:But when you're trying to perpetuate that message over long distances and mass amounts of people, there needs to be some organization to that to make sure the message is being presented in a way that is consistent with what at least the students understand the teacher was saying, and that that becomes an authority, a central authority or a place of authority by which to discern what messages are consistent with the original teaching and what may be inconsistent with that, and that the institution is designed to be able to navigate that.
Speaker B:And as a result, over time, as the institution grows, it becomes, and we had said this previously in our discussions, that there's a life drive for it.
Speaker B:So now the institution itself becomes invested in the message that it's advocating for in a self perpetuating sense.
Speaker B:So it becomes invested in, in presenting a message that retains the structure and power and authority of the institution and generally restricts the ability of the followers to be able to engage with it from a personal and individual perspective.
Speaker C:And I think that's particularly the case in hierarchical religious institutions where now power is vested in individuals and now the individuals have an interest in preserving their own power.
Speaker C:One comment I want to make in terms of Buddhism is that it seems that Buddha actually did intentionally institutionalize because he created, or rather he created the idea, he taught the idea of the three refuges which I think we've talked about before, but that's the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.
Speaker B:Oh, yeah.
Speaker C:And the Sangha is actually the institution that he created, which is the community of monks who are dedicated to living a religious life, dedicated to studying teachings which are the Dharma.
Speaker C:So there's at least one major air quote, religion, where the original teacher actually did conceive of institutionalizing, which is, you know, as you're saying, quite different from Christianity.
Speaker C:As.
Speaker B:As we're discussing it, we're talking about institution, which I think can be synonymous with organized religion.
Speaker B:In this context, I favor institution as the label of choice because I believe that both the benefit and value of institution, as well as the limitations of institution are inherent in all institutions.
Speaker B:So not just the religious institutions, but also political institutions and medical institutions and any of these other institutions.
Speaker B:Institutions both have inherent value but also inherent limitations.
Speaker B:And I think that what one thing I would like to have the listeners understand or at least be presented with is the concept that while we acknowledge, or at least I acknowledge, that there is inherent value to institution and having that central body to be able to coordinate a.
Speaker B:A concise message over long distances, with that comes inherent limitation.
Speaker B:And I think that it's important that we understand those limitations when we evaluate the messages that are coming from institution.
Speaker C:Yeah, I mean, I think.
Speaker C:And in that those limitations can manifest sometimes as outright hazards.
Speaker B:Yeah, for sure.
Speaker B:So there was a.
Speaker B:A quote from Conversations with God, which is a book that I have found value in and have.
Speaker B:Have gone through many times.
Speaker B:That quote is, what if everything you thought you knew was wrong?
Speaker B:That, I think is a valid question for an earnest seeker of an individualized journey.
Speaker B:That the messages that are put out, the coordinated message of institution, which we put value in because of the authority given to the institution, basically, that the people who are involved in the institution have credential to be putting forth this information and that we want to believe it and take it as absolute truth because we believe in the authority and the.
Speaker B:And the credential of the institution.
Speaker B:But what if what they were saying was wrong?
Speaker B:And just to consider that, just not to discount it, but to take the time to at least inquire or explore what the implications of that are.
Speaker B:Because if those implications are dire, I think it's worthwhile and important to get a broad base of input from various sources to be able to land on what you think is less wrong.
Speaker B:Less wrong.
Speaker C:A title of a nice blog that I came across.
Speaker C:Less wrong.
Speaker C:I like that title.
Speaker B:I like that it's important that we take the time to evaluate what we're hearing and reading and experiencing from an objective position.
Speaker B:And while it takes time and effort, and I acknowledge that because I've had the same challenges, you know, there's so many things I want to investigate.
Speaker B:And I mean, there's another reason why we have institution, right, Is people who are dedicated and have the time and resource to be able to deep dive on these things and then present their findings.
Speaker B:Because in order to do that, it's time consuming and you need some knowledge on even how to do this.
Speaker B:And that is difficult.
Speaker B:So we, we give authority and power to institution to be able to provide that background to us.
Speaker B:But then we are in a position to have to accept whatever they say.
Speaker B:And I think that's where some danger can come into play.
Speaker C:Yes, I mean, I agree and I'm thinking of.
Speaker C:So, you know, you're saying institutions have this authority, but of course, ultimately it comes down to individuals who directly present us with, with information.
Speaker C:Basically religious leaders for most folks.
Speaker C:And one of my concerns is that most followers of most religions aren't even really aware or concerned with the idea of anyone taking a scholarly approach or taking a deep dive on these things.
Speaker C:So one of my, I guess, assumptions is, is that most practitioners of most religions do it for historical reasons, for cultural reasons, for familial reasons.
Speaker C:My parents taught me that this is what we do.
Speaker C:And you know, I think, you know, I've said before, there's, there's value in having an existing structure to your, to your beliefs, but the problem is when the structure substitutes for everything.
Speaker C:And that because you're given the structure, you don't see the need to understand what you're doing.
Speaker C:You don't see the need to understand why these are the rituals.
Speaker C:It's enough just to say these are the rituals, which is fine on an individual basis.
Speaker C:But the danger comes when you say these are the rituals and they are right and they're the only way to do it.
Speaker C:And then you have no understanding of what's behind it.
Speaker C:And it becomes much easier to say someone else is wrong when your approach is, I believe this because I believe it.
Speaker C:I believe it because this is what I was taught and I have to defend this belief and I have to weaponize and attack someone who doesn't, doesn't share these beliefs.
Speaker C:I guess what I'm saying is what I'm really thinking about is the familial pass down mom and dad.
Speaker C:Why is this?
Speaker C:Because we said so.
Speaker C:That's the kind of thing that alienates.
Speaker C:And again, my, my assumption is that this is the source of a lot of alienations with the folks who find themselves as nuns, that they're alienated because they weren't able to get good answers when they said, why do we do this?
Speaker C:And I know of people with personal experiences with religious leaders who.
Speaker C:Who essentially said, because I said so, which obviously is a disservice to the faith.
Speaker C:So it's important to be able to question and to be able to get reasonable answers to what you're asking.
Speaker C:So I guess what I was saying is that's part of the hazard of institutionalization, is because then by definition, you have religious leaders and then by definition, those individuals might not be good at their job.
Speaker C:Yeah, not that it's a bad job, but you.
Speaker C:In every.
Speaker C:In every profession, you have people who just are not good at their job.
Speaker C:Just to make the point that just because you had a bad doctor doesn't mean that medicine is bad.
Speaker B:Sure.
Speaker B:I personally find value in the individualized journey.
Speaker B:I know not everybody does.
Speaker B:I know that there is certainly value placed on the scholastic engagement using what we have understood as a society as the way to evaluate and interpret historical teachings like this, where it's.
Speaker B:You can't just go and interview these people, you know, so there has to be some sort of interpretation to that.
Speaker B:And there are people and disciplines that do that work, like you said.
Speaker B:And my personal perspective is that I prefer to do some of that on my own.
Speaker B:I trust my own instincts, I guess.
Speaker B:And I think that's where I come from on this.
Speaker B:Not that I purport to know more than people who have spent decades, like, learning how to do this.
Speaker C:I agree.
Speaker C:I mean, I think that.
Speaker C:So first, make explicit I have an advanced degree in science, so I'm not going to denigrate scholarly approach to things, But I'm also not going to discount the value of personal exploration.
Speaker C:And I think that's the point of what we're doing, is to offer people the opportunity to engage in personal exploration, exploration in a constructive way, and hopefully avoid going down bad paths.
Speaker C:Because we're really mutually concerned about the ability people to do that, to start out with very good intentions and end up in very bad places.
Speaker A:Thank you for listening to the Tracking Wisdom podcast.
Speaker A:Join us next time as we continue to the discussion.
Speaker A:Don't forget to follow us on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube and visit www.eth-studio.com for more information and content.
