What Is Your New Spirituality?

[Deva]

I don't want to hang out with anyone who has some "spiritual" package to sell me anymore because no matter its ilk, it turns into ego at some point. I can no longer tolerate standing there being told how to live by some idiot who clearly hasn't worked it out for themselves yet. Group dynamics always come into play and the only way I can see it working is if every person in the group is humble and completely committed to not allowing ego to rule them. I'm sure there are groups like this but I imagine they would be few and far between. There always seems to be some twit who wants to tell us all how it should be done, and always some naughty little bugger like me who wants to tell him to shut up

 

I completely agree, and the group dynamic always prevails. Its an ego trip most of the time. Very few (think I could count on one hand) people seeing beyond what they can get for themselves. I would even include myself in that I read a good book on this subject which especially related to Tibetan Buddhism. It is titled "Spiritual Materialism" by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. He was the fellow who basically brought Tibetan Buddhism to the U.S. I sure think of this book a lot.

 

What it boils down to in the end is that the group becomes more important than the person in the group. It is very hard to remain in such a place.

[Galien]

I read a good book on this subject which especially related to Tibetan Buddhism. It is titled "Spiritual Materialism" by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. He was the fellow who basically brought Tibetan Buddhism to the U.S. I sure think of this book a lot.

 

What it boils down to in the end is that the group becomes more important than the person in the group. It is very hard to remain in such a place.

 

I will read that Deva. That is EXACTLY why I hate groups, because the group takes priority over the person, I believe once that place has been reached by a group that holds to a belief system, its basic tenets have been lost and its belief system becomes worthless. I am still basically in shock at finding out that applied to christian organisations of all kinds. I had spent my whole life in a bubble believing that because jesus cared for us as individuals, that we were meant to have individual worth in each other's eyes more than just our conformity to a group. That was MY belief, not everyone else's. I am still amazed I was so dumb for so long.

 

I guess for some of us, the individual will always be more important than the group. For us, groups are dangerous places. I could just kick myself that it took me so long to work that out.

[Antlerman]

I meditate (tho' not as often as in the past), and subscribe to a 'not this, not that' philosophy for the numinous feelings of oneness such practices can generate. I don't believe those feelings of 'oneness' are actually connecting me to anything 'out there.' Regardless, it's a pleasant, stress-lowering, insight-facilitating thing to do.

This is a curious statement. If you subscribe to nonduality how is there any 'out there'? Technically speaking you aren't 'connected to' anything and there is no 'you' and no 'it'. Subject/Object relationships don't exist in nonduality. I suppose we could say, though we recognize the illusion of duality, it's where we live and function and talk about our reality through that mental framework, but at the end of the day we recognize it's an illusion. If we say nonduality is the illusion, then we are a dualist, and we don't subscribe to nonduality and instead subscribe to dualism. Or I'm just confused what you mean?

 

I'm not sure how what I said could be construed as a form of dualism when I specifically say that although there are feelings of oneness there's no connection to anything 'out there.' There is no 'out there' in the sense of anything supernatural to feel a oneness with. The only thing 'out there' is empty space, stars, planets, etc and whatever dark matter is. The feelings of oneness are entirely a mental experience that remains inside my skull.

Perhaps it would help if you explained what you mean by dualism, and what you mean by nonduality. How I'm hearing you describe nonduality does not square with what I understand is traditionally understood as is meant by that term, as well as dualism. What I've heard lately being called nonduality is essentially materialism, taking the subjective and making it nothing more than a feature of the objective, thereby making the physical the only reality and thus supposedly getting rid of duality. That is not what I understand nonduality to be, which fully embraces the reality of the subjective and the objective and transcends both into formlessness; One without a second.

 

So, I don't believe in duality in the sense that the mental is a wholly separate thing than the physical.

Which is why this sounds more like a "sexed up materialism" than what is actually spoken about when the various nondual schools of thought speak of Neti Neti, "Not this, not that". In truth, if the subjective were reduced to the physical than it would the "that", not "not that".

 

But I certainly believe that there is me-ness in this clump of molecules and this clump of molecules is me, which is a separate clump of different molecules than what comprises my laptop, which is a different clump than the moon I can see in the sky, or the tree which is in my yard.

Which to me defines dualism: This versus That; Me and You; Subject and Object. In here, out there. To clarify what I meant before, that relating to the world this way is in fact how we normally navigate our world. Everything starts as an experience, which is singular. It then splits into two questions, "what was that?" (the objective) and "what does it mean" (the subjective). We build our entire edifice of understanding reality in that division of the phenomenal. We interpret experience through that framework of thought and build understanding of reality as we further refine it. Nonduality steps outside that framework, that division between subject and object, and beyond phenomena itself. At least in how it is understood traditionally when using such words as Oneness.

 

And technically, its less about 'feelings of oneness' than it is about a conscious awareness of the non-separateness of mind and matter, subject and object. You and I are simply different forms of One, like the waves of the ocean. We are all water.

 

When we speak of duality, can't you say that creates a feeling of separateness, in the way you say nonduality creates a feeling of oneness? Same thing. It is an understanding, and hence how we experience it. I would suggest people experience nonduality all the time, but it is simply a matter of supporting framework of thought and language to support it. We fall back into dualism. And because the subjective or 'spiritual' is messy in our culture due to the whole Christian church in history sort of thing, materialism tries to get rid of it by making it physical, rather than embracing it and exploring its depths beyond myth.

[NaturalMary63]

@ Antlerman, without re-quoting all the previous discussion:

 

I have understood dualism to mean the mind/body, soul/body, or consciousness/body split. Or a split between supernatural/natural. I have not understood it to be merely a split between my physical clump of molecules and the molecules of other physical things.

 

This is explained here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)

 

and here...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

 

So when I'm talking about a feeling of connection or oneness, I'm talking about connecting my mind/soul/consciousness with that of the universe/God or whatever I label as the universal mega-spirit the sky. Or becoming aware of that connection, which some say is always present regardless.

 

I no longer believe there is any consciousness 'out there' in the universe to connect to. No god, no pantheistic mega-spirit of the universe. Nor is there any evidence that my numinous feelings extend beyond my skull - just like other feelings, dreams, or hallucinations. That doesn't make them less real or less pleasant. The feeling is real. I can create it with meditation (or drugs, alcohol, etc.) However, I don't attribute it to any connection between my consciousness and other consciousnesses. It's just a feeling I can create in myself. I can also make myself angry, if I focus on anger-producing thoughts. Or happy. Or sad.

 

I hope that better explains what I'm trying to convey.

[Margee]

Lately I've been fascinated by the latest research into energy and intention. Love just may save the world after all.

 

This would be my favorite thing to practice right now also! It's just a positive thing to do!! Keeps my head from thinking too many negative things..........

 

http://ezinearticles...hers&id=6105938

[chosendarkness]

Lately I've been fascinated by the latest research into energy and intention. Love just may save the world after all.

 

This would be my favorite thing to practice right now also! It's just a positive thing to do!! Keeps my head from thinking too many negative things..........

 

http://ezinearticles...hers&id=6105938

Here's an interesting video that might be encouraging..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqFpxOodwgQ&feature=related

[hereticzero]

I am comfortable without a god or spirituality. I had to have something for a while but now I do not feel anxious to look for something to replace any of it. I suppose I am agnostic and not totally atheistic because if someone can prove to me god exists, any god, I would pay homage. The closest thing I can find to a god that is alive is the earth. I have a few pagan instincts and interests but I don't feel like they are a religious part of my life.

[lostman42]

Does smoking weed count as spirituality?

[Kaiser01]

My religion is knowlage, my gods are books and my great commision is humanity

 

 

[SleeplessGhost]

I ascribe to a pagan philosphy.

[Deva]

As a former fundamentalist I have to say that the main problem is "Is it real or not?" By real I mean as real as anything we see, hear or experience everyday. If not, what's the point?

 

I never did allegory well. I understand allegory, I know what it is - but how do you stake your whole life on it? Are the gods, buddhas, etc. actually real? This is the burning question.

[asanerman]

I hate to be the village idiot but when people speak of spirituality in the sense of a religious or spiritual experience, meditative experience, or peak experience the meaning of "spirituality or spiritual" seems to slide all over the place without anybody being able to figure out why or how. Thus does the discussion!

 

When somebody says "Religion or spirituality tells us about deep connections and eternal values," I'm clueless! I have no idea which religion or spirituality they mean.

 

But hey, every village needs an Idiot!

 

saner

[hereticzero]

Does smoking weed count as spirituality?

Yes, it does and getting arrested for it is religious persecution--honestly. If we have the right to worship in our own way in the USA, and we believe that marijuana is a means of communion with our creator, then the arrest, conviction and incarceration or fining because of those beliefs, is religious persecution. I'm just modeling that after the way in which xtians teach how to recognize religious persecution against themselves. Being harassed over the use of marijuana is religious persecution.

[Antlerman]

As a former fundamentalist I have to say that the main problem is "Is it real or not?" By real I mean as real as anything we see, hear or experience everyday. If not, what's the point?

 

I never did allegory well. I understand allegory, I know what it is - but how do you stake your whole life on it? Are the gods, buddhas, etc. actually real? This is the burning question.

Experience is real. How we talk about it is a matter of growing understanding. Not towards some sort of objective reality which trumps all understanding, but a reality that integrates the subjective and objective worlds.

 

If the gods are representations of subjective reality, then the question of objective truth about them is misplaced, as their purpose is not to talk about objective realities. If the objective mind can recognize that the language or symbol sets of the subjective world is not about objective reality, then it can allow it 'non-literally'. Likewise, if the subjective can allow the language or symbol sets talking about the objective world, the world 'outside' individuals, to be ways to talk about that experience of reality, as opposed to hard, immutable, unchanging language (science as the Word of God, so to speak), then it holds understanding in both the subjective and objective spheres loosely, rather than with a rigid mind. Holding it loosely does not mean it is unusable, only that we become open to evolving understanding, which in my view is the point of life and conscious awareness itself.

 

To me, to integrate these subjective and objective ways of talking about reality is to open dialog between them and allow our experience of reality to gain a perspective which embraces perspective of both spheres as one, rather than gutting one out to make it one, such as denying the language of the subjective as not objective, or visa versa. Neither is Absolute, as the only way to see that is to transcend both into something beyond them. The gods are about us, inside.

[SleeplessGhost]

I'm not sure about everything you just said mister, but...

 

Experience is real. How we talk about it is a matter of growing understanding. Not towards some sort of objective reality which trumps all understanding, but a reality that integrates the subjective and objective worlds.

 

+1 good sir.

[chosendarkness]

As a former fundamentalist I have to say that the main problem is "Is it real or not?" By real I mean as real as anything we see, hear or experience everyday. If not, what's the point?

 

I never did allegory well. I understand allegory, I know what it is - but how do you stake your whole life on it? Are the gods, buddhas, etc. actually real? This is the burning question.

I don't think that meaning, gods, spirituality, etc. exists outside of ourselves. No one even knows what a god is much less if it exists, but the meaning and perception of a god or gods interacting with us exists.

 

I think we understand a lot of the mechanical ways reality exists, but we don't know why or how. It's like a child memorizing the multiplication table, he has no idea how or why it works, he just knows it does. Similarly I think we're clueless as to the why and how of what we call reality. Somehow I suspect that we as a whole actually create reality ourselves.

[Deva]

To me, to integrate these subjective and objective ways of talking about reality is to open dialog between them and allow our experience of reality to gain a perspective which embraces perspective of both spheres as one, rather than gutting one out to make it one, such as denying the language of the subjective as not objective, or visa versa. Neither is Absolute, as the only way to see that is to transcend both into something beyond them. The gods are about us, inside.

 

 

I am going to have to get back to you on this in more detail. Intellectually I can subscribe to this and it sounds good, but emotionally I am still thinking I am here and there is some entity "out there" that may or may not help me.

 

This is my quandry.

[Antlerman]

I am going to have to get back to you on this in more detail. Intellectually I can subscribe to this and it sounds good, but emotionally I am still thinking I am here and there is some entity "out there" that may or may not help me.

 

This is my quandry.

How I tend to see that at this point comes somewhat to what I was talking about earlier in response to the subject of dualism. How I see theism is more some language of the subjective that transcends the experience of mundane, touching into the experience of being itself, our spiritual nature. It's also a Face we put on existence that is in its own right both subjective and objective. It is objective because it touches on the fact of existence, the world as it appears to our looking out at it, and it is subjective in that we identify our subjective self-identity with it. It is spiritual in that it goes beyond a rational thought, an explanation, an interpretation, into the nature of experience itself, both subjectively and objectively. So in this way, God, becomes the ultimate expression of that state of transcendent perception in a dualist reality; dualistic in that it is a symbolic face of That, which we look at to try to relate to.

 

Where Nonduality comes in in this context, is that our identity simply falls back into Being Itself, timeless, spaceless, formless. We for all intents and purposes are God and all things. We are beyond God; Godhead. Our prior nature. It is no longer outside you, but realized as what we are. It is our true Nature that is before and beyond and outside subject/object relationships. And it's a simple as opening the window that doesn't exist.

[Guest Xtech]

 

How I tend to see that at this point comes somewhat to what I was talking about earlier in response to the subject of dualism. How I see theism is more some language of the subjective that transcends the experience of mundane, touching into the experience of being itself, our spiritual nature. It's also a Face we put on existence that is in its own right both subjective and objective. It is objective because it touches on the fact of existence, the world as it appears to our looking out at it, and it is subjective in that we identify our subjective self-identity with it. It is spiritual in that it goes beyond a rational thought, an explanation, an interpretation, into the nature of experience itself, both subjectively and objectively. So in this way, God, becomes the ultimate expression of that state of transcendent perception in a dualist reality; dualistic in that it is a symbolic face of That, which we look at to try to relate to.

 

Where Nonduality comes in in this context, is that our identity simply falls back into Being Itself, timeless, spaceless, formless. We for all intents and purposes are God and all things. We are beyond God; Godhead. Our prior nature. It is no longer outside you, but realized as what we are. It is our true Nature that is before and beyond and outside subject/object relationships. And it's a simple as opening the window that doesn't exist.

 

That is so well said. Yes.

 

Thank you.

[Deva]

I understand the non-dualist view and it can be beautiful and inspiring - very calming. I have a lot of sympathy for it and I admire non-dualist teachings. We may include in that group Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta Hinduism and other philosophies. But I am forced to say that when things really turn to shit -- nothing really helps.

 

This is a sobering realization. I came to it last year and I wonder if, because of my past, I can never really get it.

[chosendarkness]

I understand the non-dualist view and it can be beautiful and inspiring - very calming. I have a lot of sympathy for it and I admire non-dualist teachings. We may include in that group Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta Hinduism and other philosophies. But I am forced to say that when things really turn to shit -- nothing really helps.

 

This is a sobering realization. I came to it last year and I wonder if, because of my past, I can never really get it.

I don't see religion offering any comfort at all when things turn to shit. That's what I thought it was supposed to do before though. It's supposed to comfort the grieving at funerals and be there for you when you have no where else to turn. That must be a western idea because it's so fake. It's more like a mirror that shows me I'm the only one with the power to do anything.

[Antlerman]

I understand the non-dualist view and it can be beautiful and inspiring - very calming. I have a lot of sympathy for it and I admire non-dualist teachings. We may include in that group Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta Hinduism and other philosophies. But I am forced to say that when things really turn to shit -- nothing really helps.

 

This is a sobering realization. I came to it last year and I wonder if, because of my past, I can never really get it.

I don't see religion offering any comfort at all when things turn to shit. That's what I thought it was supposed to do before though. It's supposed to comfort the grieving at funerals and be there for you when you have no where else to turn. That must be a western idea because it's so fake. It's more like a mirror that shows me I'm the only one with the power to do anything.

Yes, I think this very much reflects a Western mindset. What exactly is it we expect? To be saved from the experience of living?

 

I suppose we could put it in this light. Do you think the various understandings you gained growing up all go flying out the window when you encounter adversity? Do we suddenly forget everything we've learned and fall into a state of absolute chaos? If so, can't you also conclude that your entire experiences of life themselves are worthless?

 

How is it that we see religion as an escape? The whole Western notion of a Sky-Parent to save us seems very embedded in how we look at religion, or any other belief.

 

To me it's all about growth. If difficulties come, we try to draw from the whole of who we have become to process the world in all its faces to us. It's not about being freed from difficulties, being freed from pain. It's about having a developed knowledge of life to aid us in difficulties. To have a developed awareness of the nature of life and your place within it is something that we process life through. We additionally can learn skills that help in adversity, as difficult as it may be to draw on them in the midst of anguish.

 

For me as part of that growth, the spiritual is the highest awareness. In navigating life it offers a more developed perspective and consequently the experience of the world than when I'm lost within my own swirling imaginations. It affects the quality of my life, it affects my choices, and actions. It is part of me and defines me, in the way being educated would except in a different way, a more holistic way rather than just some cerebral philosophy. But none of all of that will prevent adversity from impacting me and potentially taking a toll. It is very easy from me to lose sight of gains in life no matter where they came from such as lessons learned through suffering in the past, and find myself right back at square one again trying to learn the whole lesson over again. How is any of that the fault of religion and not my own, not just lessons I haven't yet quite mastered?

 

Again, to me its not about freedom from pain. The 'suffering' we become freed from in spiritual realization, in enlightenment if you will, is the suffering of existential angst; freedom from the search, the anguish of longing and desire for awareness of Self. With that then, we face life.

[asanerman]

...God, becomes the ultimate expression of that state of transcendent perception in a dualist reality; dualistic in that it is a symbolic face of That, which we look at to try to relate to.

 

Existentially that is true about my thinking, Antlerman. And I'm sure that my dualist mindset prevents my falling "back into Being Itself, timeless, spaceless, formless." My incessant need for "security" (salvation) in itself blocks the trans-rational(understood as anti-intellectualism by my dualism) and the trans-intellectualism which would bring transcendence and inclusion(Enlightenment) is as illusive as the wayward wind.

 

I'm left with conjecture: a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork. I'm left with every religious/spiritual side show and guru, priest, preacher, prophet,poet shaman and showman, that bids for my confusion.

 

Evidence of my dualistic thinking is I expect something, anything "when things fall apart," Rather than understanding on a gut level that anything can and will happen. If life has taught me anything it has taught me that my dualistic Reality cannot be counted on to satisfy my hunger for security (the salvation of myself as individual). For me it is becoming clear that there is no salvation only inclusion, an enfolding into the evolutionary process of live.

 

In other words I think (on my better days) like an evolutionists but in my gut I’m a romantic theist looking for home! The dualism is obvious in that statement and also the potential for misery and stunted joy.

 

A teacher of mine said that "things" for her "don't really get solved. They come together and they fall apart." I've found that to be the case also. For me the healing comes, if there is any healing, from letting there be room for all "the falling apart" and "all the coming together" to happen. Room for grief, for relief,

room for misery, room for joy, room for all of "it."

 

And to be not only comfortable, but satisfied with that may be what it means to "fall back into Being Itself, timeless, spaceless, formless," freedom (Emptiness) and fullness (Form), Together!

 

saner

[Deva]

Yes, I think this very much reflects a Western mindset. What exactly is it we expect? To be saved from the experience of living?

 

No but somehow to be better able to cope with it. I remember hearing some stirring speeches about people in Soviet gulags that came out due to faith - or at least that is what they attributed it to. Similarly - religious people surviving various terrible situations and not being permanently embittered or unable to function.

 

Also, yes I suppose that is the expectation - that at least it will provide some comfort. One part of me sees how that is bogus and yet I still wonder.

 

I suppose we could put it in this light. Do you think the various understandings you gained growing up all go flying out the window when you encounter adversity? Do we suddenly forget everything we've learned and fall into a state of absolute chaos? If so, can't you also conclude that your entire experiences of life themselves are worthless?

 

Yes to the first question, it does seem that way. One step forward and two steps back when circumstances change. No to the second. Not absolute chaos but just requestioning everything again.

 

How is it that we see religion as an escape? The whole Western notion of a Sky-Parent to save us seems very embedded in how we look at religion, or any other belief.

 

Yes, that was the indoctrination.

 

Again, to me its not about freedom from pain. The 'suffering' we become freed from in spiritual realization, in enlightenment if you will, is the suffering of existential angst; freedom from the search, the anguish of longing and desire for awareness of Self. With that then, we face life.

 

I can agree with that, but sometimes I feel there must be something more.

[asanerman]

but sometimes I feel there must be something more.

 

That is the core of my "existential angst." Not to be satisfied.