Spirituality
09 Nov 15
30 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI grew up on Hammer Films -- Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, yeah!
I think it's useful to talk about why these things aren't spiritual as it helps us refine our ideas of what spirituality is. Certainly Satanism as depicted in "The Devil Rides Out" (*) would count as anti-spiritual.I'm going to start a religion - that's where the money is!Says it all really.
L. Ron Hubbard - founder of Scientology
W ...[text shortened]... sement I'm trying to see how many Hammer film titles I can get into posts in a relevant fashion.
06 Dec 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtGandhi did not say that.Gandhi said that it is more difficult to control one's thoughts than to control the wind.Ain't that the truth.
I agree there's something wrong with "consciousness raising for business success", at first glance it seems unlikely to lead to anything like a spiritual awakening. I don't think this criticism quite applies to "meditation for ...[text shortened]... hey're spiritually negative. Your consciousness deadening point applies more clearly to the SS.
It was stated by Lord Krishna I the Bhagavad Gita.
Bhagavad Gita As It Is.....Chapter 6: Sāṅkhya-yoga
TEXT 34
cancalam hi manah krsna
pramathi balavad drdham
tasyaham nigraham manye
vayor iva su-duskaram
SYNONYMS
cañcalam—flickering; hi—certainly; manaḥ—mind; kṛṣṇa—O Kṛṣṇa; pramāthi—agitating; balavat—strong; dṛḍham—obstinate; tasya—its; aham—I; nigraham—subduing; manye—think; vāyoḥ—of the wind; iva—like; suduṣkaram—difficult.
TRANSLATION
For the mind is restless, turbulent, obstinate and very strong, O Kṛṣṇa, and to subdue it is, it seems to me, more difficult than controlling the wind.
PURPORT
The mind is so strong and obstinate that it sometimes overcomes the intelligence, although mind is supposed to be subservient to the intelligence. For a man in the practical world who has to fight so many opposing elements, it is certainly very difficult to control the mind. Artificially, one may establish a mental equilibrium toward both friend and enemy, but ultimately no worldly man can do so, for this is more difficult than controlling the raging wind. In the Vedic literatures it is said:
ātmānaṁ rathinaṁ viddhi śarīraṁ ratham eva ca
buddhintu sārathiṁ viddhi manaḥ pragraham eva ca
indriyāṇi hayānāhur viṣayāṁs teṣu gocarān
ātmendriya-mano-yukto bhoktety āhur manīṣiṇaḥ.
"The individual is the passenger in the car of the material body, and intelligence is the driver. Mind is the driving instrument, and the senses are the horses. The self is thus the enjoyer or sufferer in the association of the mind and senses. So it is understood by great thinkers." Intelligence is supposed to direct the mind, but the mind is so strong and obstinate that it often overcomes even one's own intelligence. Such a strong mind is supposed to be controlled by the practice of yoga, but such practice is never practical for a worldly person like Arjuna. And what can we say of modern man? The simile used here is appropriate: one cannot capture the blowing wind. And it is even more difficult to capture the turbulent mind. The easiest way to control the mind, as suggested by Lord Caitanya, is chanting "Hare Kṛṣṇa," the great mantra for deliverance, in all humility. The method prescribed is sa vai manaḥ kṛṣṇa-padāravindayoḥ: one must engage one's mind fully in Kṛṣṇa. Only then will there remain no other engagements to agitate the mind.
06 Dec 15
Originally posted by FMFWhat a bunch of gobbledygook.
"Spirituality" is a word that we should not allow to be kidnapped by religionists.
And I also don't think atheists should allow theists to apply it only to themselves on account of the fact that they've used their spiritual nature and capacity for abstraction - something all humans possess (the human spirit - the only kind of spirit that every human being ca ...[text shortened]... with things like immortality and supernatural beings who have supposedly communicated with them.
14 Dec 15
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThought
I think it's useful to talk about why these things aren't spiritual as it helps us refine our ideas of what spirituality is. Certainly Satanism as depicted in "The Devil Rides Out" (*) would count as anti-spiritual.I'm going to start a religion - that's where the money is!Says it all really.
L. Ron Hubbard - founder of Scientology
W ...[text shortened]... sement I'm trying to see how many Hammer film titles I can get into posts in a relevant fashion.
While we're on this subject is there a good introductory book on Zen Buddhism, ideally one that assumes its reader has a scientific rationalist world view, in other words one designed for a reasonably well educated Westerner.
I don't know what a good introductory book on Zen would look like (apart from various schools of Zen, the unifying aspects of it seem notoriously difficult to put into words). And, honestly, I know little about the subject. However, I do recall enjoying some of Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs. A major theme of the book is B's insistence that Buddhism at its core is not committed to any dubious or far-reaching metaphysical claims. His point, as I recall, is that Buddhism at its core is not about commitment to such metaphysical claims but rather about dharma practices that conduce to mindfulness.
On the other hand, many persons -- including many experienced practitioners -- do not agree with B's interpretation. On top of which it is a fact -- and one that B accepts since he himself laments it in the book -- that many schools venture away from the default agnosticism that B is referring to on the big metaphysical questions. So, who knows....
16 Dec 15
Originally posted by LemonJelloI wonder if that's a feature of spirituality generally, that it can't be reduced to a string of symbols?While we're on this subject is there a good introductory book on Zen Buddhism, ideally one that assumes its reader has a scientific rationalist world view, in other words one designed for a reasonably well educated Westerner.
I don't know what a good introductory book on Zen would look like (apart from various schools of Zen, the unifyin ...[text shortened]... default agnosticism that B is referring to on the big metaphysical questions. So, who knows....
16 Dec 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtZen points to the reality that is prior to our conceptualizations. When Zen uses language, it has to be understood in that sense. Zen koans, while not being direct pointing, are aimed at deconstructing the habitual conceptualization—the conceptual lenses through which we tend to “see” reality, always colored by those lenses.
I wonder if that's a feature of spirituality generally, that it can't be reduced to a string of symbols?
Note: Because of linguistic differences from western languages, Zen tends to be based on a reality theory of truth, rather than a correspondence theory of truth. That is, truth just is the naked real, before conceptualization. There’s no need to set one theory against another, only to understand the differences in expression.
An introductory text on Zen? Like LJ, I have some difficulty. (The Batchelor book he mentioned is an excellent text, though, on Mahayana Buddhist thought generally.) Do you want Zen? Or somebody’s conceptualization of Zen? If the latter, I might suggest Shunryu Suzuki’s Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind (with the understanding that it is explicitly based on a particular school of Zen: Soto). Or, Dropping Ashes on the Buddha, which represents a Korean Zen (Song) perspective[/i]. Or, perhaps, Waking Up in the Present, translated by Thomas Cleary.
These all take some work, though they are not complex in the scholarly sense. They might awaken you.
For a “middle ground” work, maybe Alan Watts’ The Spirit of Zen.
Be well.