Originally posted by vistesdJust shining forth
I bow (and thank you for that)—
Though, in the spirit of old-time mondo:
Nothing to get,
there is nothing “there”;
just get out of the way—
what always was
without a place
to call its own:
no holiness,
vast emptiness
just shining forth!
Hope you are well, old friend.
our -filled with snow-
silver bowl!
Namaste
😵
Originally posted by moonbusAnd them monks, how did they gain and sustain stable control of their clear light mental activity?
We're getting sidetracked by the word "requirement," which, after all, wasn't mine. It is not as though anyone is ordering you to serve others; it doesn't work like that (and I didn't say it does).
This is not merely my personal opinion. I have spent time in a monastery. I have observed genuine Tibetan masters at close range and seen how they live.
😵
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYour question (not meaning the title) has three separate questions and to hammer it down to a singular meaning can be difficult.
This question has erupted in my mind due to a couple of other threads. I cannot answer it for myself, so tell me, what does it mean to have a spiritual life or to describe oneself as spiritual? What is spirituality?
FMF posts of the human spirit. Seen especially when disaster strikes, when people go beyond what is their normal, in aid to others.
On many religious fronts, spirituality can be speaking of the soul (an interior part of ourselves) or of God (as a spiritual entity).
In the concept of a spiritual life, it is simply a person who strives to live by a certain set of rules, usually of a religious nature. Example: Levites (Jewish), Pagans, and monks (Buddhist, Christian).
Being spiritual, or describing oneself as spiritual, would be the result of striving to live a spiritual life.
Originally posted by SuzianneLOL maybe your friend was a prism, milk went in one end and came out another.
Bwahaha. I have never laughed so much in my entire life.
Oh, wait, there was that time my friend drank some milk and started laughing. The milk shot out her nose and sprayed everyone in front of her. THAT was the time I laughed more than this.
I hear you
Originally posted by PudgenikThe members of the Waffen SS strived to live by a certain set of rules - I doubt that many would regard them as having lived spiritual lives because of it. I don't think that living a disciplined life is a defining feature of spirituality, I think it is more a means to an end.
Your question (not meaning the title) has three separate questions and to hammer it down to a singular meaning can be difficult.
FMF posts of the human spirit. Seen especially when disaster strikes, when people go beyond what is their normal, in aid to others.
On many religious fronts, spirituality can be speaking of the soul (an interior part of our ...[text shortened]... l, or describing oneself as spiritual, would be the result of striving to live a spiritual life.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe SS did have a type of spiritual aspect to their philosophy. And there were rituals at some of their meetings.
The members of the Waffen SS strived to live by a certain set of rules - I doubt that many would regard them as having lived spiritual lives because of it. I don't think that living a disciplined life is a defining feature of spirituality, I think it is more a means to an end.
Living a spiritual life does not mean that you are a good person or a negative person. That is caused by the results of your actions. (spiritual, physical, mental)
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIf the rules say "round up all the Jews and gas them," then this takes it out of the realm of spirituality and puts it in the realm of fascist politics.
The members of the Waffen SS strived to live by a certain set of rules - I doubt that many would regard them as having lived spiritual lives because of it. I don't think that living a disciplined life is a defining feature of spirituality, I think it is more a means to an end.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by moonbusYou seem confused.
gf: "You seem to be implying that EVERYTHING that doesn't relate to "empirically verifiable facts" is spirituality, in which case I reject your definition of spirituality as being neither a good approximation of what most people are describing in using the term, or for being in any way shape or form useful.
I don't think you actually mean that, but that' ...[text shortened]... terms, something along the lines of releasing endorphins in the brain) and nothing beyond that?
You are giving me alternatives that are neither exclusive nor exhaustive as if they were both
resulting in a false dichotomy.
I think that it is objectively true that there is immense psychological value in the arts. And enjoy
a number of different forms myself. We crave stimulation and information and suffer stress from
boredom and monotony.
I think that it is objectively true that there is immense psychological value in [positive] social
activities as we are a social species. We crave interactions with other people.
Our cultures form a social glue and cohesion that allow our societies to function and thrive.
And I think that all of the above can is caused by the purely materiel interactions of the stuff
of the universe following the laws of physics. And can be explained [at least in principle] entirely
in scientific terms.
The subjective experience of what it feels like to watch/perform [say] a dance with a live audience
may only be able to be gained by actually doing the same, and we may not be able to describe
what is going on in scientific [or any other] terms that manage to transmit that experience and
the knowledge of what that experience was like to anyone else. But what is going on at a fundamental
level is all [in principle] able to be analysed objectively/rationally/empirically/scientifically.
I am [just as an example] a huge fan of the late great Terry Pratchett and of his fantastic [in every sense]
Discworld series. The imagination, creativity, satire, and humour of which are uplifting and enlightening
and endlessly fascinating. The pleasure and stimulation these books have [and do] give me is of
immense value to me. But that experience is not spiritual. It's rational, philosophical even, but not
spiritual.
Does that help?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI agree that discipline is a means, not an end. It also matters what kind of discipline it is. So let me throw out another puzzle piece and let us see whether we can fit it into a broader picture which is gradually emerging here.
I don't think that living a disciplined life is a defining feature of spirituality, I think it is more a means to an end.
Gandhi said that it is more difficult to control one's thoughts than to control the wind. This touches on something which I believe is relevant to the question what spirituality is: it has something to do with what we in the West call "consciousness raising." Unfortunately, this came to be commercialized and then trivialized -- 'institutes' started springing up like mushrooms promising to "actualize your potentials" and similar such tommyrot (Scientology springs to mind here), and charged money for this 'service.' But there is, or at least was, a genuine insight there -- and there still is a well-established practice of teaching consciousness raising in the genuine (Asian) spiritual traditions. I would cite transcendental meditation as a pertinent example; unfortunately this too has been adapted and trivialized in the West (as a bio-feedback mechanism to help people lower their blood pressure -- this can actually be measured as a positive benefit, BTW). Beyond lowering one's blood pressure, meditation is a means or technique of learning to control one's thoughts. Instead of concentrating on following sets of rules, a spiritual path consists in the cultivation of certain mental habits or virtues. Marco Pallis writes that "to practice a virtue is like clearing a window in the soul; to indulge in a vice is like smearing the same window with dirt." (A Buddhist Spectrum, p 82.)
One cannot by any stretch of the imagination consider what goes on in satanic cults, or what went on in the Waffen SS, to be consciousness raising or the building up of virtuous mental habits. Those practices are/were just the opposite: consciousness deadening, brutalization, the trampling of accepted ethical boundaries, and to a greater or lesser degree the indulgence of mankind's basest and crudest instincts. In the same brutalizing category belong the ideologues who are indoctrinating angry young men to blow themselves up Paris theaters and cafes.
Originally posted by moonbusI think what ToO was saying is that what passes for spirituality is nothing but a political tool for manipulating the masses and keeping them docile, or sometimes a scheme for cheating them out of their money (e.g., Scientology), devoid of any higher or nobler purpose. I could be wrong; he may have meant something else.
I think what ToO was saying is that what passes for spirituality is nothing but a political tool for manipulating the masses and keeping them docile, or sometimes a scheme for cheating them out of their money (e.g., Scientology), devoid of any higher or nobler purpose. I could be wrong; he may have meant something else.
Let me ask you and ThinkOfOne a que ...[text shortened]... re something about love which transcends hormones and cannot be understood in terms of hormones?
I have no idea how you got that out of the following. How'd you get there from here?:
"From what I can tell, all of "spirituality" ultimately stems from a non-understanding of the unconscious and internal biological incentives used to control behavior."
Let me ask you and ThinkOfOne a question: is love just evolution's way of tricking us into passing on our genes, or is there something about love which transcends hormones and cannot be understood in terms of hormones?
"...evolution's way of tricking us.."???
gf: You seem confused. Yes, I was; I recalled one of your posts to another thread in which you maintained that we do not know anything which cannot be proved. And so I was momentarily perplexed, whether you think there exists anything in the universe other than sub-atomic particles and the forces which move them about.
I think that it is objectively true that there is immense psychological value in the arts. ... We crave stimulation and information and suffer stress from boredom and monotony.
I think that it is objectively true that there is immense psychological value in [positive] social activities as we are a social species. We crave interactions with other people.
Our cultures form a social glue and cohesion that allow our societies to function and thrive.
But you apparently think either that religion is not one of the factors of social cohesion (which is demonstratively false), or that it is a negative, damaging factor.
And I think that all of the above can is [sic] caused by the purely material interactions of the stuff of the universe following the laws of physics. And can be explained [at least in principle] entirely in scientific terms.
Which brings us to the point above about a symphony and sound waves impacting the eardrum: yes, a symphony can be 'explained' (if that is the right word) in purely causal terms, but that still misses something important about it. And similarly, our subjective pleasure in the arts can be 'explained' in purely physiological terms, and their effects on social cohesion might even be 'explained' in broadly scientific (sociological) terms -- but that too would miss something essential about the arts.
The arts do of course help to relieve boredom and lower stress, but that is a very impoverished view of the arts. That is like driving a Ferrari around in first gear all the time.
There is another dimension to the arts which is pertinent to what other posters here have already mentioned, regarding the search for man's place in nature. Man's place in nature is not exhausted by tracing his biological or evolutionary genealogy. Man seeks meaning and purpose, not merely relief from boredom. Not only where we come from, but where should we be going, is what matters. The "wherefore" of mankind is not to be found by any scientific analysis of what you claim is "fundamentally going on" precisely because mankind's wherefore is rooted in his own understanding of meanings and purposes (not in material causes).
The arts and religion are modes of expression of mankind's wherefore. Consider, for example, Beethoven's Ode to Joy or Bach's B-Minor Mass. These are not just pretty melodies which have a merely psychologically pleasing effect on the listener -- they are profound expressions of man's place in nature and his wherefore ('wherefore we give thanks...' ).
It appears that you are not sensitive to this dimension of meaning, but that does not show that it is not there. Part of what a spiritual tradition does is to open one's mind to enriched layers of meaningfulness.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne1. So tell us what you mean by "all of "spirituality" ultimately stems from a non-understanding of the unconscious and internal biological incentives used to control behavior."
[b]I think what ToO was saying is that what passes for spirituality is nothing but a political tool for manipulating the masses and keeping them docile, or sometimes a scheme for cheating them out of their money (e.g., Scientology), devoid of any higher or nobler purpose. I could be wrong; he may have meant something else.
I have no idea how you go ...[text shortened]... s and cannot be understood in terms of hormones?[/b]
"...evolution's way of tricking us.."???[/b]
2. "...evolution's way of tricking us.."??? Do you think, as googlefudge appears to think, that love is fundamentally a chemical reaction in the glands (hormones)?