If a religion is to save me, I must possess an unproblematic self. If my self is problematic, then which bit of me is to be saved ? All of me, presumably. But how would that work ? I would have to be all that I was, all that I am, and all that I will be, all at once, so that none of my experiencing is denied me. If some of my experiencing was denied me, then I couldn’t be fully saved, but I’m not sure how experiencing everything at once, all the time, would work out in practice. God has it worked out, is the reply. Maybe, but I feel a sense of defeat at the prospect of a comprehensive salvation, like the one outlined above. It just seems like a piece of nonsense, and an unattractive one at that.

Interestingly, none of the religious books speak about salvation in these terms. So if we are to be saved in this way, then none of those already saved have thought to make this clear. This is puzzling. Don’t they know what’s happened to them ? Or perhaps they aren’t really saved, but only think they are. More likely still, we are dealing with imaginings, and nothing else. Not much of a salvation, and not much for the rest of us to hold on to.

Normally, when people say they are ‘saved’, they mean that they have had a positive psychological experience reassuring them at the time when they thought about such matters. If I think about what Jesus or Krishna wants of me, and then have an experience of psychological reassurance, I feel myself to be ‘taken care of’, or ‘saved’, by the God of my choice. I have no other evidence for my conviction: it justifies itself. Intellectual considerations are put aside, or made to be subservient, to the experience of psychological reassurance itself. This experience ‘feels’ profound, and self-justifying, but it doesn’t stand up very well in the cold light of analysis. It starts to look very sentimental and not a little embarrassing in its self-absorption. Is that all I’ve got, when I say that I am ‘saved’ ?

Where is this line of analysis going ? Back to the problematic nature of the self. Which bit of me is worthy of being saved, and how can I be sure that, when all is said and done, that I am truly saved, and not just deluding myself ?

Preliminary booklist on Metaphysics

Melhuish, George:  THE PARADOXICAL NATURE OF REALITY [St. Vincent's Press, Bristol, 1973.]

Kelley, C.F.:  MEISTER ECKHART ON DIVINE KNOWLEDGE [Yale, 1977]

We can take as our starting point, our human situation, our here-and-nowness; that which is referred to as our human condition.

Why do we start with that ?

Where else is there to start ? We could begin with a belief system, but if the system is in any way incorrect, or inaccurate, or fanciful, we will be looking only at imaginings, and not at anything more substantial.

Does it matter ? What’s wrong with looking at imaginings ?

Nothing. But if your mind is hungry for something else, imaginings will not satisfy you.

Hungry for what ?

Hungry for something which does not turn out to be smoke. Hungry for ideas, and experiences, and convictions, which will not leave you feeling that something is missing, that something has been left out. Hungry for something which does not constantly lead on to something else, on and on, ad infinitum. Hungry for something absolute, substantial, rock-solid; an end-in-itself.

Is such ‘hungry mind’ thinking realistic ? Isn’t it just another form of self-delusion ?

Quite possibly. But if your mind is of a certain analytical cast, and you don’t easily give in to sentimentality, then, over the long term, you somehow keep going, discarding beliefs and experiences and ideas, which show themselves to be inadequate, unsatisfactory, tainted, immature, illusory.

What do you replace beliefs with ?

Nothing. You just don’t believe in anything. You lead a normal life, doing what everyone else does, but not cluttering your mind with embarrassingly silly beliefs as to what life is really all about. You don’t pretend you know, when you don’t know. And you don’t disguise your lack of knowledge by adopting a set of beliefs. You keep looking. You keep an open mind.

Why would you do that ? Why not just be like everyone else, and believe all kinds of things – from Islam to Darwinism – and hope for the best ?

Because, within the privacy of your own thoughts, you don’t want to. Something keeps nagging away, undercutting your convictions, telling you, ‘this is not good enough, this is sentimental, this is subject to further improvement, this is not the last word on the subject.’ If you possess such a mind, then you just have to get used to the fact that it will not let you join in with the soft, soppy, pathetic thinking that everyone else seems to be happy with. This doesn’t have involve  a kind of solitary martyrdom. You can still work hard, and have fun. But when it comes to the serious questions as to the human condition, in all its naked vulnerability, you don’t hold fast to ideas which you don’t know to be true, and which you suspect, deep down, are products of human inadequacy, rather than the fruits of any kind of genuine knowledge. You discard all this self-delusion, and wait patiently for something better to come along – even – and this is the difference between the soft and the hard mind – even if it doesn’t. And even if the situation looks completely hopeless. And in your darkest hour, if you should be laid low by despair, you can take it easy, relax, take good care of yourself, pour yourself a drink or two, wait for the sense of desolation to pass [may take some weeks, months], and then, when you have recovered your composure, take another look at the big questions of life. This is an adult approach. Joining some sect in the meantime is not going to be an adequate solution. It is an admission of defeat.

Why not admit defeat, and be done with it ? Why not become a Muslim, or a Christian, or an atheist, or a Darwinian ? Why hold out ? What’s the point ?

If your mind is soft, then the Buddhist quest will not offer you a happy home. Analytical thinking can be cold and unforgiving, and you have to put sentimental thinking to one side. The Buddhist quest is only for those who have had enough of the fake rewards of beliefs and belief systems, and want to try for something better. It is not about improving your life by encouraging pleasurable mental states, with which you medicate yourself, and then live in a kind of blissful, self-justifying fog. It is about trying to find out the root cause of the problem of the human condition, and then solving that problem on its own terms. If it can’t be done, then too bad, we had a go.  If it can be done, well, then, that will be something.