Spirituality has to go

[Nungali]

 

I'd encourage you to have a go at those five terms and the relationships between them, too.

 

If anyone expresses interest, I'll share my thoughts on them later, when I am using a full-size keyboard rather than a phone.

 

Maybe in a new thread ?

 

(My face palm is actually more about the opening post and the subsequent outlining of its related ..... 'gnosis' ? )

 

I admit my lack of knowledge on the five subjects ... I might share some of my limited ideas about them ... but am certainly not going to try and demolish them or hold them 'in contempt regardless'.

 

oky ... I will hold the usage of certain people's supposed 'religion' in contempt ... but that IMO is more of a socio-political / power issue than a 'religious 'one - although intertwined ... although I like the idea, philosophically and 'from the armchair' of 'Liberation Theology'.

 

On a mainly religious level I like the doctrine of a 'Prisca Theologia' or ' Progressive Revelation'.

[Nungali]

I heard something last night I hope I can repeat properly.

 

The guy was eating something he had never eaten before and said, "It tastes like the smell of Christmas."

 

To me Christmas smells of pine trees , mum's xmas pud boiling away in the 'copper' in the laundry and a BBQ at the beach

 

However, what you say is interesting ... well, to me anyway, as I have thought that trying to define an unknown sensual experience can often stimulate such a 'synesthesial' response.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Nungali

[Nungali]

Just to add in this thread (but not in the Atheist thread), I do consider myself a soulful and spiritual person even though I don't talk about it much.

 

Hmmmm ... (pondering another Marblehead 'jem' ) ....

 

You know, I do see you as a spiritual atheist , now I come to think about it.

 

A spiritual person can see the 'spirit' in things and appreciate the inherent beauty and nature of a thing - like a garden, fish, stone or butterfly.

 

You dont need to believe in a God to do that.

 

Perhaps 'spirituality' has a lot to do with 'appreciation' ?

 

And I think 'soul' has a relation to 'desire to express and experience ' .

[Nungali]

I don't think spirituality encompasses only the powers. The super power people get top billing on my list of spiritual nuttiness, the second place would be the lifestyle and world view. That's the thing that promotes the acceptance of psychics and such around here. That's what I've been trying to talk about but the topic kept shifting on how the spiritual is the enjoyment of wonderful or something.

 

Hey Proc ... there are some things I admire in you ... so dont get me wrong ... but ... errrrmmmm ...

 

 

you are under 25 ... yeah ?

 

Things will settle as you move on ... just keep learning and being open to things .... I might put a quote in here I said to someone else ... "dont be blinded to the internal reality of something due to its sometimes bullshit outward clothing ... use your own penetrative vision, backed up by accrued learning experience to find your own understanding of internal realities. "

[doc benway]

 

 

 

Speak for yourself

 

Also, I'm the one who feels trolled. I keep going on and on about how crazy this place is and then you tell me that this whole time you were trying to prove that spirituality is thinking that life is wonderful or that roses smells nice.

This is not a site about rainbows or roses or wonderment or spirituality giving life meaning. This is a farmhouse where everyone thinks they have psychic powers and that's wonderful.

So if I turned it around, I could say that science is irrelevant and unnecessary after reading some threads about poorly designed experiments on a pseudo-science web page. With all due respect, this forum is not representative of nor replete with credible spiritual practitioners. It is more a place where folks hang out who want to spend time on a chat forum talking about whatever strikes their fancy - mostly Asian topics. Most of the folks who discuss Daoism here have little or no formal, credible training. The same can be said for Buddhism, especially Dzogchen. Many (?most) folks here are self-educated in their spirituality for a variety of reasons - imagine a website dominated by self-taught "scientists." So while you are certainly free to discredit all of spiritual endeavor based on reading TaoBums' threads, it's my opinion that it is foolish to do so.

 

It's nice to hear that you are happy and well adjusted enough to have no need for real spirituality in your life currently. I was the same way for many years until faced with a life altering trauma. Spirituality is about understanding oneself at a fundamental level - emotionally, psychologically, etc... And most serious practitioners I encounter come to it out of a deep need due to trauma or some other source of pain and suffering, things that science can't fix. Some, of course, are raised in it and some come to it out of a sense of wonder regarding things that science can't answer.

 

The other misconception is about faith. When one sees positive changes in their life due to a spiritual practice, belief and faith are not necessary. When those positive changes don't manifest, belief and faith are foolish. In a sense, spirituality is also evidence based. While it is generally difficult to measure and study the benefits of spiritual practice, it can be quite profound and transformative in one's life and benefits from meditative and other "spiritual" practices (taijiquan, qigong, ...) are well documented in the medical literature.

 

All considered, I wonder why you still hang out here if that's how you feel? Telling people on a forum dedicated to Daoism that spirituality is bullshit does seem a bit trollish, don't you think?

[Marblehead]

Spirituality is about understanding oneself at a fundamental level - emotionally, psychologically, etc...

 

I wanted to highlight this for its importance even though I don't necessarily agree with the entire post nor do I wish to get into another discussion like I am in in the Atheist thread.

[Seth Ananda]

Spirituality is far more than feeling wonder or appreciation, which are still great by the way.

 

Spirituality has to do with the word 'spirit' and the experiences and development that come from interacting with it.

 

Science can crap on all day about 'not repeatable' 'unverifiable' 'anecdotal' and so on, but most of the experiences that come from spirituality all fall in these categories... It does not neatly fit in a rational box.

 

When I sit in a space of sympathy with nature, in my local environment, 'opening' my senses and start to quite literally see a spirit living within a tree, a spirit which initiates dialogue, tells me that humans have stuck something in its trunk and that I should climb up and have a look, and that if I fix it, it will remove an ongoing physical malady for me. I agree, climb up, {which I have never done before} and find part of a rusty star picket hammered in to it. Something I had no way of seeing from the ground. Its a lengthy process removing it, but I check the next morning and my condition is gone. Permanently.

 

Or {and this happens over and over again} I work with certain spirits, nature spirits, and I don't speak about what I am planning or do. I don't use paraphernalia, incense, or anything to clue her in to what I am doing.

My daughter will see those spirits later in the day or night. With startling accuracy. Things i have not spoken about, ever.

She is not 'always seeing spirits either' so its not a lucky strike based on saying she sees things every day and occasionally having them line up. Its only after I have done a working.

 

 

 

These kind of experiences are real, but they can not be neatly boxed up, cannot be measured or replicated.

 

But what is the nature of the experience itself? In asking about the nature we must first look at the standard answers/interpretations from outsiders.

 

There tends to be 3 typical responses from skeptics:

 

1.) Mental Illness It can not be written of as mental illness, because it is brought on by practices designed to bring those experiences on, and does not plague you afterwards {usually}... Not to mention various shaman have been diagnosed and are shown to have exceptional mental health.

Fairly rude and ignorant {and unscientific} a claim, to assume someone is crazy without diagnosis.

 

2.) Just Imagination! Saying its just a flight of fancy of an overactive imagination, in no way does justice to the power of such experiences, and you have absolutely no control over what the spirit says or does {just like anyone else} which to me rules out 'visualization' or day dreaming.

Also just a rude condescending statement. Its assuming someone is naive, soft in the head, or too simple minded to know the difference between a daydream and the 'real' world.

 

3.) You could say the 'experiencer' is just a charlatan making it all up because they want money, authority, or are so afraid of death they would rather live in a delusion. {this in all fairness would accurately describe some people, but all of them?}

When I hear that one I think "Wow! Really?" Some people live so securely in their prison of rationality that they would rather call someone a liar and a fraud than consider that there are very very different ways of experiencing the world?

 

 

I think there is a fourth way:

 

4.) I am not saying they have to accept the 'interpretation' of the experiences that spiritualists give, {such as the reality of spirits} but if they actually want to reach understanding of anothers actual experiences {not just demonise it} they must consider it carefully. Even be willing to try it on to see for themselves.

Do what you need to do to actually 'meet' a spirit properly. Then analyse the experience afterwards, and include any physical world interactions/alterations that may have come with via the experience

 

 

That really is the only way to have an informed or valid opinion on the subject.

 

Anything else is sitting on a cloud of rationalist bullshit, staring through a black and white telescope at a distant village that you have never been too, that is filled with awesome interesting people doing strange strange things, and while you peer at them, you pat yourself on the back saying:

"I know with total infallible comprehension everything about those tiny people and what they are up too"

[Protector]

Hmm, yes, psychological transformation is useful at times of trouble. Knowing self, all that. But you know, guys. At times it takes too long. And when it takes a long time, said transformation becomes a spiritual journey and experience and a personal religion.

Let's say somewhere in the western world, there is a person at the point of breaking. There's no one they can talk to so they turn to god and through some soul searching they find Jesus. The person gets so focused on serving god that they don't feel the pain and work things out. After a while everything is awesome and everything is perfect, but they don't stop serving god and, in my person deeply atheistic opinion , that's a waste of time.

This fixation is very visible in saved people but I think just deeply spiritual people don't notice it when it happens to them. A super amazing psychiatrist could probably clear things up, and Buddhism was one of the world earliest sources of psychiatric help, but Buddhism has a lot more monks then psychiatry. Also, they don't run a forum after the experience.

It is kinda silly talking about it here, but I figured I'd just make one thread instead to just jumping all over the forum bothering everybody.

[Taomeow]

"Spirituality" in the sense the word is used in the modern West (as well as East, South and North -- no difference) is a completely meaningless made-up notion.

 

In the real world populated by real humans, it used to mean being in touch with spiritual beings. You had your physical, mental and spiritual faculties as parts of the unified whole, and you had physical relationships with physical beings, mental communication with other minds, and spiritual contacts with the spiritual entities, and/or the spiritual side of unified entities. To be able to communicate with physical beings, you have to have a body. To communicate with other minds, you need a mind. To experience spiritual beings, and spiritual sides of the unified beings, you need spirit. If you don't have it, there can be no "spirituality." You can't substitute more of your physicality nor more of your mentality to replenish the missing part. You (the generic you) are going to make do with living in a world that's only 2/3 "there" -- 1/3 is missing. It's missing from the outside and it's missing from the inside. This is an existential disability.

 

If you find a modality that holds the potential of treating and possibly curing it, I'd go for it. I did. Otherwise, you're right, don't bother. Everybody is only 2/3 human at best anyway, why would anyone want to be whole, "c'mon, everybody's doing it this way, and look -- everybody's mighty fine!" Why bother rocking this leaky boat. Let it swim some, then sink, end of story. Right?..

[Marblehead]

 

It is kinda silly talking about it here, but I figured I'd just make one thread instead to just jumping all over the forum bothering everybody.

Hehehe. Well, you still managed to bother a few people.

 

I don't disagree with what you said but perhaps it could have been said with a lighter touch, like maybe with a feather?

[Marblehead]

Let it swim some, then sink, end of story. Right?..

That would be a pretty defeatist attitude, wouldn't it?

 

No, one gets the bail bucket and empties the water out of the boat so that it doesn't sink. Then patch the leak and sail on sailor, sail on.

[Brian]

You know, there are a few scientists on the forum.

[Marblehead]

You know, there are a few scientists on the forum.

And why would that matter?

[Protector]

Hehehe. Well, you still managed to bother a few people.

 

I don't disagree with what you said but perhaps it could have been said with a lighter touch, like maybe with a feather?

 

or a lighter truck

 

hmm...

[Brian]

And why would that matter?

Well, the thread is really (albeit falsely) one of science vs. spirituality, as if either precludes or invalidates the other. That it is a false dichotomy is besides the point.

 

If the thread, instead, were accounting vs. baseball, I would value the input & oopinions of actual accountants and baseball players. That doesn't mean the custodian in my office building or the person behind the counter at the local hardware store don't have meaningful insights but one wouldn't necessarily expect them to be subject-matter experts.

 

If the thread were about soldiering, I would seek out your opinion. If the thread were about the film-making industry, I would pay special attention to what Nungali says.

[Brian]

Well, the thread is really (albeit falsely) one of science vs. spirituality, as if either precludes or invalidates the other. That it is a false dichotomy is besides the point.

 

If the thread, instead, were accounting vs. baseball, I would value the input & oopinions of actual accountants and baseball players. That doesn't mean the custodian in my office building or the person behind the counter at the local hardware store don't have meaningful insights but one wouldn't necessarily expect them to be subject-matter experts.

 

If the thread were about soldiering, I would seek out your opinion. If the thread were about the film-making industry, I would pay special attention to what Nungali says.

To carry the thought a step further, if I were stopping people on the sidewalk to get their opinions on accounting vs. baseball and one said, "Oh, I hate baseball! All they do is run back and forth across a wooden floor, whacking that little ball with a little round paddle and shouting 'Touchdown!'" -- I might reply by asking, "So tell me what you know about accounting..."

[Nungali]

Ah yes . I can understand that :

 

 

How do you know I am 'Beautiful Svetlana' ?

 

 

I might be some fat hairy guy sitting in his underpants smoking a cigar in my apartment in Moscow .

 

or that I am Nungal that that worked in the film industry ?

 

The only answer I can come up with is ... by the content of what is written.

 

So ... in one way ... credentials and qualifications here dont really exist ....

 

Here , I go more on what you or anyone else writes about science - or any other subject (and any references or papers to back it up one links to).

 

That doesnt mean I dont appreciate the scientific method though. .... or your input and the further knowledge I gean from you and some others here.

 

But I dont really take advice from people that dont really know their subject matter ( or 'Svetlana's' misogynists views on female psychology ) ... although I can enjoy their speculations

 

 

 

 

 

[Brian]

Oh, I totally agree! I am neither an academics snob nor a sucker for credentials, but I am more likely to seek the advice of a civil engineer if I wish to build a bridge than I am the advice of the 16-year-old behind the concessions counter at my local movie theater, and I am likely to assume the engineer knows his/her stuff until/unless the contrary is demonstrated while the kid selling popcorn will probably have to convince me he/she knows something about bridge-building.

 

On the Internet, of course, I assume everyone is a hairy 50-year-old guy posting in his underwear from his mother's basement -- or I take everyone at face-value (depending on my mood).

 

In truth, I am more inclined to take everyone (whether IRL or online) at face-value and then constantly reassess "face-value" as information is slowly revealed...

[Brian]

In this particular thread, the OP offered a hostile and seemingly bizarre understanding of "spirituality" so I inquired about his understanding of "reality," and "science" and "technology" because he seems to think they invalidate "spirituality." The last century of physical discovery, on the other hand, invalidates the idea of a mechanistic, deterministic and causal reality. That doesn't means the older models are necessarily useless, mind you, only that they are wrong (as are the new models, probably).

[Nungali]

Oh, I totally agree! I am neither an academics snob nor a sucker for credentials, but I am more likely to seek the advice of a civil engineer if I wish to build a bridge than I am the advice of the 16-year-old behind the concessions counter at my local movie theater, and I am likely to assume the engineer knows his/her stuff until/unless the contrary is demonstrated while the kid selling popcorn will probably have to convince me he/she knows something about bridge-building.

 

On the Internet, of course, I assume everyone is a hairy 50-year-old guy posting in his underwear from his mother's basement -- or I take everyone at face-value (depending on my mood).

 

In truth, I am more inclined to take everyone (whether IRL or online) at face-value and then constantly reassess "face-value" as information is slowly revealed...

 

 

Ahhh Brain thank you ! ... I love a hearty out loud laugh !

[Nungali]

 

 

On the Internet, of course, I assume everyone is a hairy 50-year-old guy posting in his underwear from his mother's basement -- or I take everyone at face-value (depending on my mood).

 

 

 

 

Is this better ?

Edited October 12, 2014 by Nungali

[iain]

Just a thought, the discourse seems to be Western in slant, by which I mean that the subject of God is only referred in relation to an Abrhamic monotheist; old man in the sky type of deity. Just as Richard Dawkins never speaks to one who is versed in sanAtana dharma, they would refer to the multidimensional model of the universe from which modern science has borrowed so very heavily.

God is a tool, by transferring adoration from ones self or ones vices and desires onto a benign form, so as to help destroy ones own ego and remove attachments to others or things; from which point onwards the tool is perhaps no longer needed, thus disregarded. God consciousness is a state of mind, not a belief; belief requires that the ego get involved in the whole process. Of course many over time misunderstand this, until the doctrine is so old that it no longer works and quite the reverse happens. Like a tree with no sap.

To channel energy rather than consume or give unwittingly; the ego must go.
The Hindu Devas, are another good example of this, used heavily in Jyotish shastra. They are our emotions or senses which are them selves considered to be tattva/elements; used in a profound testable scientific system and are used to make regularly accurate predictions. If you don't see what I mean by devas being our emotions think of mob or group mentality to see the deity or demon. How else would you describe it a thousand years ago?

Are we so indoctrinated in our atheism as to believe that God is only of Abrahmic construct; the proverbial old man in the sky?

"Spirituality has to go" is sounding rather thin at the moment, due to a lack of valid response or augment ...

To which I say: sociopothy and narcissism have to go; only spirituality can assist in achieving this.

Edited October 12, 2014 by iain

[Nungali]

Good point there ...

 

[iain]

[Marblehead]

Well, the thread is really (albeit falsely) one of science vs. spirituality,

I don't see that as a significant part of the thread. And I state here that I did not read any of the posts prior to the one post before I made my first post in this thread.

 

But still, if anyone reading any thread on the TaoBums takes for the absolute truth anything that anyone has said they will likely be in error.

 

One cannot compare science against spirituality. That would be like trying to compare an octopus with a ....., well, you know what I mean.

 

I will even suggest that the two, science and spirituality, not octopus and ....., are of different realities.