Woo!

[Ouroboros]

BAA,

 

I think you're getting it.

 

From Wiki's definition of "Spirituality":

Spirituality is the concept of an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality;^[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his/her being; or the "deepest values and meanings by which people live."^[2] Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual's inner life. Spiritual experiences can include being connected to a larger reality, yielding a more comprehensive self; joining with other individuals or the human community; with nature or the cosmos; or with the divine realm.^[3] Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life.^[4] It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.

Notice: the last part, "it can..." means that it doesn't have to include belief in a spiritual world, it can, but doesn't have to.

[Antlerman]

Thank you Deva and thanks too, A-Man.

 

"No. It depends on how you define spiritual. If you mean supernatural, disembodied entities, maybe, depending how you view that. But if you mean spiritual in the sense of higher realization, than no."

 

"The spiritual life to a great extent consists of finding out who you really are. It's not easy."

 

For a good while I've struggled to understand what other members of this forum could possibly mean by the word, 'spiritual', especially when they're Ex-Christians. But now a light dawns.

 

So, when Deva or the Antlerman talk about 'spiritual' things, they aren't referring to the Judaeo-Christian understanding I was familiar with. Instead, they mean deeper and higher forms of understanding or inner voyages of self-discovery, self-realization and self-awareness.

 

If I'm on the right path here, please let me know. If I'm wandering into misunderstanding, please let me know about that too.

 

Thanks guys.

I think (and I hope) I've turned a corner on this one.

 

BAA.

Yes!!

 

I like the wiki article Ob posted too. Yes, the inner path, higher development. It exposes something that expands our awareness into richer and deeper experience of our very Being. You grow personally as you gain tremendous insights into yourself and the yourself in the face of the nature of reality itself, beyond just what we think and feel. The result is a deep grounding and sense of connection to the Universe itself. You truly experience Peace. (And I am using capital letters to distinguish these as a sense of the Absolute in us, as opposed to just concepts).

 

If you're interested in cracking the lid on this, just let me know! It's wonderful.

 

As in interesting but related aside. I've just spent the last 5 days alone at a cabin a relative lets me use. I use the time to go bike riding, reading, swimming if weather permits, and meditation. I brought a few of my Tibetan singing bowls with as I use them as aides in meditation. I had them sitting out on the table, and a man came by the cabin to do an appraisal for the owners of it for some loan they are looking into. I let him in, and went back to my reading on the couch. He then asked me if I made these bowls. I chuckled, "I wish!", then explained to him what they were, that there were hand-beaten bowls around 100 years old each from the Nepal/Tibet areas. I then got up and played them to demonstrate them for him.

 

I watched his entire being suddenly become carried off. He was visibly moving into that 'space' as I call it. I had said nothing more than the above about them. As I played them a little longer, I then told him how they were used in meditation. We ended up having a brief discussion of meditation and what it does for us, a little of how to practice it, how that it can be used to go quite deeply into those inner spaces, and how it is really independent of any religious tradition, though it does exist in many. I then shared the book I had with me called "Meditation for the Love of It" by Sally Kempton. He wrote everything down saying, "I was just about to ask if you had any book you recommend on mediation."

 

Yes... all I can say is... yeah... it's right. This ain't no "woo". I'm a very rational, intelligent person, and there is no violation of that here. It simply is a different way of "knowing yourself" in ways nothing else exposes. It is very real, deep, and true.

 

Very cool BAA!

[Deva]

So, when Deva or the Antlerman talk about 'spiritual' things, they aren't referring to the Judaeo-Christian understanding I was familiar with. Instead, they mean deeper and higher forms of understanding or inner voyages of self-discovery, self-realization and self-awareness.

 

If I'm on the right path here, please let me know. If I'm wandering into misunderstanding, please let me know about that too.

 

Thanks guys.

I think (and I hope) I've turned a corner on this one.

 

BAA.

 

That's right BAA! It has nothing whatsoever to do with the garden variety Christian variety of what they mean by "spiritual".

 

The great Indian teacher Nisagadatta Maharaj set one of his students, Stephen Wolinsky, straight on this. When Stephen started talking to Nisargadatta about his spiritual life, including feeling great bliss and even seeing energy patterns, Nisargadatta basically said with much contempt in his voice "I don't care about your spiritual life. Do you know who you are? Until you do, sit down and keep your mouth shut!".

 

He relates the story briefly in this video about 3:55:

 

[Yrth]

The great Indian teacher Nisagadatta Maharaj set one of his students, Stephen Wolinsky, straight on this. When Stephen started talking to Nisargadatta about his spiritual life, including feeling great bliss and even seeing energy patterns, Nisargadatta basically said with much contempt in his voice "I don't care about your spiritual life. Do you know who you are? Until you do, sit down and keep your mouth shut!".

Kaboom

 

I think I turned that corner this past December, but I just recently hit the accelerator on the learning curve. Looking forward to understanding more and prejudging less.

[asanerman]

... It has nothing whatsoever to do with the garden variety Christian variety of what they mean by "spiritual".

 

 

You nailed it Deva!

 

That we had a functional definition of the word 'spiritual' void of any religious notion would go a long way in freeing many of us from the limited, constricted, dead end notions of a supernatural.

 

What is 'super' about this human experience of mine is its naturalness--that we are not separate from 'all that is' needs no miracles, no magic, no religious authority, no supernatural to be experienced, lived!

 

And thanks for the link!

[Akheia]

Reminds me of one day when I was shopping in the Phoenix and Dragon bookstore in Atlanta (gorgeous little place, if you're into anything like that... AM would be like a little kid in a puppy-filled pet shop I think, and I say that in the most affectionate of ways; I hope it still exists) for books about Zen Buddhism. I'd only recently gotten into it and found it to be remarkably calming and centering. I'd been reading a lot about it and practicing mindfulness and whatnot and it was one delicious discovery after another and I wanted more.

 

I was looking over the shelf of books about it and suddenly realized I already knew everything I ever needed to know about it. It was all inside me already. I didn't need someone external telling me about it. I could find anything I needed inside myself. I never bought another book about it again and felt completely at peace with what I already had within me. Amazing to come to a spiritual insight in the middle of a New Age bookstore/gift shop, but stranger things have happened.

 

I bought a lovely moonstone pendant from there instead and probably got an assload more out of it than I would have gotten out of yet another book teaching me shit I already knew.

[Antlerman]

Reminds me of one day when I was shopping in the Phoenix and Dragon bookstore in Atlanta (gorgeous little place, if you're into anything like that... AM would be like a little kid in a puppy-filled pet shop I think, and I say that in the most affectionate of ways; I hope it still exists) for books about Zen Buddhism. I'd only recently gotten into it and found it to be remarkably calming and centering. I'd been reading a lot about it and practicing mindfulness and whatnot and it was one delicious discovery after another and I wanted more.

 

I was looking over the shelf of books about it and suddenly realized I already knew everything I ever needed to know about it. It was all inside me already. I didn't need someone external telling me about it. I could find anything I needed inside myself. I never bought another book about it again and felt completely at peace with what I already had within me. Amazing to come to a spiritual insight in the middle of a New Age bookstore/gift shop, but stranger things have happened.

 

I bought a lovely moonstone pendant from there instead and probably got an assload more out of it than I would have gotten out of yet another book teaching me shit I already knew.

I can tell you that knowing its inside you, and coming face to face with it is the difference between concept and experience. I think it's valuable to have an mental understanding of these things, some conceptual frameworks in order to be able to try to talk about them to others and to ourselves, and some context in which to process them, but none of that, no matter how knowledgeable, no matter how philosophical, no matter how diverse an understanding you have can come close to the understanding that happens through direct experience. None of them, no concept, no theory, no religion can impart that knowledge.

 

As Deva said, and I'll underscore here it is not about having an experience of the spiritual though. That is not the prize. That's really more the means, a certain side-effect from having your eyes opened this way. Eventually, it's no longer a big 'wow' factor, but rather becomes just the norm. Halving the Universe rip open and Divine Light pour into your soul, is part of the process of Self Realization. The experiences expose things to us, through which we learn and grow as people. The end result is being Awakened and living life in the now, not in some heavenly abode elsewhere in the supernatural realms of gods. As 'high' as the gods are in this context, they are inferior to the Self. It is about 'knowing yourself', but not in some simple egoic, "Gosh, I'm an OK guy!". Rather it is a deep knowledge that forever enriches our life, our very Being. We are not the same, even though we are still 'us'.

 

As everyone is saying, and I agree completely, it is not supernatural. It is Natural, exposed and realized in all we are, all those potentials. It is seeing what IS.

 

One thing about Zen that does not speak to me is that it minimizes these phenomenal experiences in meditation. It says to basically ignore them as they are inferior. I would argue otherwise. It is through these subtle level experiences that a great deal about ourselves is exposed through symbolic means. It is as much a stage of our development than any other towards higher realizations. It is the second stage up in the transpersonal, and Tibetan Buddhism places a great deal more value on that than Zen does. This is where the Tantric practices come it, which I tend more to relate to than Zen.

 

There are certain authors I like, but they are more in ways to hear how others talk about these things from their point of view, which of course adds insight and dimension to my own. Not just that, but an understanding of these dimensions I am exploring myself. A lot of times you don't have the benefit of having someone else say, "Yes, that's normal what you're experiencing. Here's what I've found." Going completely solo lacks that benefit of having others insights.

 

As far as "how to" guidance though, I have a hard time having following any traditional disciplines. I'm very self-guided, and learned quickly how to respond to what simply arises and let it guide you. It's my personality that finds "do this, and nothing else" to work for others, not me. Most often that hinders and blocks me when I'm already well beyond that step. For others, that's good. So 'instruction' books are valuable. I'm just a sort of intuitive, self-taught kind of person.

[Akheia]

Yeah, I think I view Zen Buddhism as a nice adjunct to other practices, but like you, I feel it doesn't speak to me as a practice to replace all others. I think its emphasis on mindfulness and connectedness and universality of experience (especially with how it treats human suffering as perfectly normal and change as an element of life that is not only okay but essential) is what I got out of it the most, and it helped me a lot as I processed various life experiences like grief.

[asanerman]

Reminds me of one day when I was shopping in the Phoenix and Dragon bookstore in Atlanta (gorgeous little place, if you're into anything like that... AM would be like a little kid in a puppy-filled pet shop I think, and I say that in the most affectionate of ways; I hope it still exists) for books about Zen Buddhism. I'd only recently gotten into it and found it to be remarkably calming and centering. I'd been reading a lot about it and practicing mindfulness and whatnot and it was one delicious discovery after another and I wanted more.

 

I was looking over the shelf of books about it and suddenly realized I already knew everything I ever needed to know about it. It was all inside me already. I didn't need someone external telling me about it. I could find anything I needed inside myself. I never bought another book about it again and felt completely at peace with what I already had within me. Amazing to come to a spiritual insight in the middle of a New Age bookstore/gift shop, but stranger things have happened.

 

I bought a lovely moonstone pendant from there instead and probably got an assload more out of it than I would have gotten out of yet another book teaching me shit I already knew.

 

 

It reminds me of the day I realized that I did not have to live from one tentative conclusion to the next, thinking each one to be final.

 

No longer do I have to get annoyed with the present moment and look upon my difficulties as unjust. No longer is there any need to assume there is something unnatural and strange about not having all the answers or making all the right move or for that matter, failing at something most folks think is important.

 

I used to interpret this "inner push," this energy, this whatever label fits, as meaning that there was some one thing out there that I wanted to do or be or have--the mate, or the occupation or the religion etc.

 

I'm certain, for the moment, that this "energy within" is not "seeking" more of anything--even pleasure, power or meaning!

 

There is no seeking. I feel it's more about releasing what I "already" know about myself and haven't, for whatever reasons given myself the privilege of acknowledging and releasing.

 

Anyway.

[Deva]

What I have found is that the preliminary practices of Tibetan Buddhism consist of nothing else than repetition. Repeat chants, repeat prayers, repeat actions, such as prostrations, thousands of times. Then it is on to observing ceremonies on certain dates.

 

I don't think I need to do this. Its not arrogance that leads me to say it, I just can't see how doing these things lead logically to the result, which is liberation. Its like putting yourself in shackles in order to get free! Otherwise, on an aesthetic level, and from point of view of making sense of the world, I am completely on board with Tibetan Buddhism, especially the Madhyamika school. I am enthralled by reading things like The Heart Sutra and The Diamond Sutra. This is the heart of Buddhism. If a person can deeply understand these texts, then what else is there to do?!

 

Perhaps these practices arose in a culture where the population was largely illiterate, without access to the resources a modern person has.

 

I don't feel like I should limit myself at all. If I see that there is a self-realized master in another tradition, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj, a Hindu, or even no tradition at all, I am going to learn as much from him/her as I can.

 

A true master who knows who they are is not overly concerned by the events of this life or by death.

[Antlerman]

What I have found is that the preliminary practices of Tibetan Buddhism consist of nothing else than repetition. Repeat chants, repeat prayers, repeat actions, such as prostrations, thousands of times. Then it is on to observing ceremonies on certain dates.

I can see the value of the repetition of these for those who have never tasted what lays beyond them, or even to learn techniques to aide those who have in more easily moving themselves into it. The external forms eventually become internal expressions. It is good practice for any meditator to prepare the mind for meditation through things such as prostration, or some ritual of clearing the space, creating sacred space, etc for the practice. I liken it to training the dog to salivate at the sound of the bell. Certain actions say this is the mind you must now move into.

 

The practice of mantras have a definite effect on how the mind is able to move into meditation. Simply chanting them alone as rote saying without any mind towards them will have limited value. But as a vehicle or an aide to move into deeper and deeper states of meditation, they have more than proven value. So to the beginner just learning the form is all that's going to happen. It's like learning how to play notes on a piano. That's the form, but its not making music yet.

 

How I see these traditions is that these are proven forms that work, and to learn these have value to those who wish to go deeper. But I would hope that a master could recognize where a student was at and not just have him stuck at the basics when he is able to go far beyond that already. It really depends on the individual student. If they've never had any experience than maybe just keep repeating Om Ah Hum a thousand times is what they need to do until something opens up for them. Or maybe they have had experiences, but have no discipline and its just all over the place. Then chanting a thousand times is to help put a point on that persons practice, or as an aide to help them take it even deeper, more focused discipline to help them get more.

 

So I can see these having value, but I suppose my big fear is that the form is seen as the all-important thing and that you are judged by 'not doing it right'. Or that the practice actually might hinder my inner exploration. I have a Tibetan Buddhist monastery close by and am friend with several of the people there, including a couple of the nuns. I'm always invited to come for their chanting, which I'm sure would be a cool experience, but I'm very hesitant to go that route for myself. Seriously, I don't have any struggle in meditation and what I move into is only restrained by how much I feel I am able to integrate at the time. There are times it can overwhelm, and my 'lesson' so to speak is to learn to simply trust that more and more, and that's a totally individual process between my own psyche and that "Light". So it's not a matter of how do I go deeper, or how do I do it. The value of it would be to add new texture and color to my practice already. I think I do better in a more eclectic practice. It's that whole 'self-taught' thing about me, like in my music.

 

I don't think I need to do this. Its not arrogance that leads me to say it, I just can't see how doing these things lead logically to the result, which is liberation. Its like putting yourself in shackles in order to get free! Otherwise, on an aesthetic level, and from point of view of making sense of the world, I am completely on board with Tibetan Buddhism, especially the Madhyamika school. I am enthralled by reading things like The Heart Sutra and The Diamond Sutra. This is the heart of Buddhism. If a person can deeply understand these texts, then what else is there to do?!

Deeply understanding the texts is not the same thing as falling into the Ocean. There is a world of knowledge that takes texts like these and they begin to make sense that never could have without that direct experience of the Ocean itself. Reading about the Ocean, imagining it to the point you can 'taste' it in you, feeling it's cool breezes hitting you from afar, is good. But becoming intimate with that Ocean by swimming directly within it, is an entirely different experience. Then, you become the author of such texts about the Ocean yourself!

 

Maybe your practice is not challenging you to go far enough? Halving you still lean to play whole notes and half notes on the piano when you're ready to play arpeggios? Maybe you're waiting for others to tell you you are, and they're waiting for you to display self-confidence and take the initiative? Maybe their not good teachers? Hard to really say. All I can say is that its all there already in all of us, and it really becomes a matter of, dare I say the word, "faith" in order to trust that in ourselves to open ourselves to it?

 

You said before it's about personal growth, and I absolutely agree. It creates self-confidence that comes from within us, not by looking to things outside us to bring that out. The forms are external, the reality is internal.

 

Perhaps these practices arose in a culture where the population was largely illiterate, without access to the resources a modern person has.

Or they are a structured discipline that works as a basic training for students to advance to the next levels. It works well for a culture where all the linked symbols permeate that culture, but maybe not as effectively in a culture where they don't, such as here in the West. I tend to think that's why, as you suggest, we need to draw from many traditions, such as Hinduism as well - which I personally do. I think our culture is so pluralistic it makes sense. To me, the richer the symbol sets, the more personalized, the more individualized you are able to make them. They become very specific to you in how you relate to yourself, though not so far removed from culture they can't help you integrate the insights into it.

 

Not sure if they makes sense to you what I just said.

 

I don't feel like I should limit myself at all. If I see that there is a self-realized master in another tradition, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj, a Hindu, or even no tradition at all, I am going to learn as much from him/her as I can.

Suggestion? Maybe it's about you learning to find your own Inner Guru? Personally, I think that's what all these traditions are ultimately all about. Find that Inner Guru.

 

It's useful to look to others to teach you to set aside your own ego and learn to see beyond it, but ultimately these human Guru's are a symbol of what you have in you already. Eventually you see beyond the Guru and they become your brother, no longer your teacher. Then you become the Guru and beyond.

 

BTW, on the subject of "woo", as I said before, to me none of this is. But to someone without the context of an experience in these areas, it certainly can sound like it to them. But I see all of this as a natural process of self-transformation beyond just the ego into a Realization of who we ultimately are. They sound 'woo' but they are deeply real. These are symbols of something vastly far beyond them all. It's that further shore, that these are towards. At such point, they vanish.

[asanerman]

... If a person can deeply understand these texts, then what else is there to do?!

 

I don't feel like I should limit myself at all. If I see that there is a self-realized master in another tradition, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj, a Hindu, or even no tradition at all, I am going to learn as much from him/her as I can.

 

I applaud learning!

 

We do not need to limit our curiosity to know or to understand. How else is it that we are to survive and flourish, especially when we understand that no one else that can do that for us, divine or human!

 

For me, not trusting that fact has led me into all sort of difficulties. [The fact that I'm here at Ex-c is testament to that. Finding others bold enough to speak the realities of their own lives, is extremely satisfying and encouraging.]

 

So, the broader my reach, the more I seek to know and learn, the more options I understand to exist and the less constricted or limited my freedom, hopefully! There are no grantees,

 

I understand that part of maturity is availing ones self of all that "shows up," subjectively and objectively, in life--a least to the extent I am capable and willing. Not to do so, in my estimation, is a recipe for disillusion, pain and suffering--disaster!

 

... If a person can deeply understand these texts, then what else is there to do?!

 

Something Ken Wilber suggests is, "Supplement!"

 

Another way of putting it is "Trust but verify!"

 

I'm really not concerned what "spiritual path" (whatever that means, the definition are vague) a person is traveling if "it" cultivates human qualities that support growth, equity, honesty, integrity, authenticity, beauty... I find nothing "wrong" in that. I do see a lot of what's humanly right in that!

 

Whatever the Path, "it needs to be situated in relation to more recent discoveries from the modern and postmodern turns." Wilber

 

None of the great wisdom traditions could be expected to have access to the methodologies--research and models of the unfolding of our multiple intelligences (cognitive, interpersonal, psycho-sexual, emotional, moral) that exist today any more than they could be expected to know about DNA or serotonin.

 

An understanding of our own interior awareness demands, it seems, that we supplement and verify, anything less is not Enlightened thinking--logical and reasoned, mature. That is not to say that elevated conscious-awareness is restricted only to cognitive understanding, it isn't. And that gives most reason to question the spirited life and they should.

 

If something smells rancid, taste strange, smells and looks toxic, well you decide what should be done with it!

 

As for me, I'm inclined as Deva, "If I see a self-realized individual I'm interested!" Rich, poor, education or no-- creed, color, language, age or looks are beside the point.

 

The finger I want to trust points beyond itself to "already."

 

Don't expect me to leave my brain at the temple door if your serving up tainted wine for Eucharist (Greek for "gratitude").

 

No thanks, my last "jigger" of substantiation nearly killed me!

[Deva]

Yes, the ultimate guru is one's own self. At the same time, I like to read the masters to get different perspectives.

 

For some reason, sitting meditation doesn't do anything for me. I have tried it, listened to some DVDs tried different techniques, and it just has no real effect whatsoever. Or, if it has an effect, it is on some subconscious level. I am not doing it at the present time, but may take it up again.

 

I don't think I mentioned mantra practice before, but I like doing this during stressful times when the brain seems to be on overload. Repetition can have its uses, and repetition of mantras is a lot better than the repetition of a bunch of other junk the brain manufactures in order to get itself all excited, irritated and upset.

 

So, for me there is a kind of separation between the philosophy and the practices. The two don't jibe that well for me. I am trying to work it out, but reading a text such as "The Diamond Sutra" or the book "I Am That" is far more effective that any amount of sitting meditation, so-called walking meditation, chanting, or anything else.

 

I investigate things and decide for myself if it is beneficial. If it isn't useful or I can't see the application for it, I drop it.

 

There are a lot of things in Tibetan Buddhism that would be called "woo" by a lot of people. I don't go on faith or just because someone tells me something. It is all carefully evaluated. There is a lot of cultural stuff in any eastern religion that is either not really accessible or not applicable over here and I just carefully sort it out. What I have kept from these traditions is not "woo" at all to me, but more a psychological approach that deals with the inner thought process.

[bornagainathiest]

To Deva, Asanerman and the Antlerman.

 

First off.... Thanks for you help with my breakthru.

I can now see a difference between the non-Christian spiritual and the Christian spiritual. I'm sure that I'll have more questions about this in the near future, as the pieces begin to fall into place.

 

Asanerman wrote...

"That we had a functional definition of the word 'spiritual' void of any religious notion would go a long way in freeing many of us from the limited, constricted, dead end notions of a supernatural."

 

Yes, indeed!

Why is it that a better word doesn't exist, to fulfill this need? Please note that I'm not complaining about this, but I am a little confused here. Why do the non-Christians use exactly the same word as the Christians, but do so to describe something this is quite different? Doesn't this lead to a repeating cycle of category errors and confusion, on the part of each new person you're trying to explain the difference to?

 

I can't help but think of the potential for confusion between an Englishman, an Irishman, an Australian, a Canadian and an American - when they talk about Football.

 

From Wikipedia...

Football refers to a number of sports that involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball with the foot to score a goal. The most popular of these sports worldwide is association football, more commonly known as just "football" or "soccer". Unqualified, the word football applies to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears, including association football, as well as American football, Australian rules football, Canadian football, Gaelic football, rugby league, rugby union^[1] and other related games. These variations of football are known as football codes.

 

All five will use the word, 'Football' to describe five different things, but if each of them had qualified what they meant at the outset, there'd have been a lot less confusion, right?. As I said above, I'm not complaining about this. I'd also like to add that I'm not trying to tell you your business, either. However, perhaps you can now see why it's taken me so long to grasp the salient diffence between Christian and non-Christian spirituality?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

Why do the non-Christians use exactly the same word as the Christians, but do so to describe something this is quite different? Doesn't this lead to a repeating cycle of category errors and confusion, on the part of each new person you're trying to explain the difference to?

Here's the way I am coming to see this. I see it the other way around. Why do Christians use all the right words, yet end up in such a different place?!

 

I have a great deal I'd like to go into on this but I have limited time at the moment. Suffice to say I am always amazed at how I hear all the right words from them, even words from within their own tradition, yet end up with a different meaning? The answer to this is simple actually. It is the difference between them meaning some external object, some external truth that they most conform themselves to in order to be 'right', or 'good', or 'saved', and them meaning some internal self-realization. In the latter, then the words make sense! In the former, they are contradictory to good reason. They exude hypocrisy and superficiality. They are the right words, but no real living substance. Spirituality is a valid term, but not in meaning as some externalized, exoteric religion.

 

Even they say those same words, the meaning is different. It's like it hits a watershed mark and ends up on opposite sides of the stream. I use the analogy to express this saying, it is because they have found the diaries of adults, and themselves being children. Having no adults around them, they read the words and role play adults. Imagine them wearing baggy over-sized adult clothes, big shoes that don't fit, pretty hats with feathers in them and long pearl necklaces, all trying to play by the "rules" of the adult diary. "No, you're not doing it right! That's not what an adult does! He does it this way! You can't play with us. You're not one of us! You're not a true Adult™!" Not one of them has any real understanding of the subtleties of these words from adults, because they have no experience being an adult! They only get externalized images of what they think and imagine in the child-minds that being an adult means. There is no self-realization, as they are all still yet only 7 and 8 years old. It is not until they internalize adulthood, by growing up and becoming one, that the words have any real significance. Then it becomes an internal realization.

 

So the adult uses the right words, because they are the words that fit being an adult. And the child uses those right words, but they aren't meaningful as an adult language because they are children. Same words, different meaning. To the child they are literal, facts! To the adult, they are subtle expressions of a lived reality.

 

Hope that helps.

[Ravenstar]

wow.. I like this ^^^^^

 

makes a whole lot of sense. thanks

[Deva]

To Deva, Asanerman and the Antlerman.

 

First off.... Thanks for you help with my breakthru.

I can now see a difference between the non-Christian spiritual and the Christian spiritual. I'm sure that I'll have more questions about this in the near future, as the pieces begin to fall into place.

 

I thank you for your post, BAA. I agree that this word, "spiritual" is inadequate. "Techniques to train the mind" "self-realization", "finding out who you are" - sort of better descriptions, but not as pithy. To me, its all about the mind and the exploration of the inner world.

 

"Spirituality" the way it is generally understood actually does not exist - it is an inadequate word, a symbolic representation that describes something that isn't there.

[asanerman]

 

"That we had a functional definition of the word 'spiritual'....

 

Why is it that a better word doesn't exist, to fulfill this need? Please note that I'm not complaining about this, but I am a little confused here. Why do the non-Christians use exactly the same word as the Christians, but do so to describe something this is quite different? Doesn't this lead to a repeating cycle of category errors and confusion, on the part of each new person you're trying to explain the difference to?

 

I can't help but think of the potential for confusion between an Englishman, an Irishman, an Australian, a Canadian and an American - when they talk about Football.

 

BAA.

 

 

Ken Wilber says,

 

You can take virtually 99% of the discussions of "the relation of science to religion" and put them in the mush category.

...These discussions never get far because the definitions that the discussants are using contain...4 hidden variables,

and the variables keep sliding all over the place without anybody being able to figure out why, and the discussions slide

with them.

 

...Somebody says "Religion or spirituality tells us about deep connections and eternal values," and I have no bloody idea

which religion or spirituality they mean, and all I'm sure is, they don't either. There are at least 5 or 6 major

levels/stages

of

religion--from magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral and higher--across 4

states

(gross, subtle, causal, non-dual),

which are also types or classes (nature, deity, formless, non-dual), not to mention the four usages or

meanings

we are outlining

in this chapter (Chapter 4). And we didn't even get to the

quadrants

(spirituality as great Self or I, spirituality as great You or Thou,

spirituality as great It or other).

 

~

Integral Spirituality

2006, p.102

 

Wilber goes into detail concerning the definitions of spirituality in both Integral Psychology ( Shambhala Press:Boston & London, 2000 chapter 10, pp 129-138) and in

Integral Spirituality (integral Books: Boston & London 2006, pp.100-102).

 

Because knowledge is global, "the sum total of human knowledge is available, that is the knowledge, experience, wisdom and reflection of all major human civilizations--per-modern, modern and postmodern-- are open to study by anyone."

 

Over the last several decades, there has been an extensive search for a comprehensive map of human potentials using all the known systems and models of human growth-form the ancient shamans and sages to today's breakthroughs in cognitive sciences that are essential elements or keys to unlocking and facilitating human evolution.

 

In the early days of my undergraduate work (1969) I had a professor of ethics whose favorite phrase was "it's a great time to be alive!"

 

There is much for the serious traveler to "trust but verify."

 

Again, whatever the Path, "it needs to be situated in relation to more recent discoveries from the modern and postmodern turns." Wilber

 

For myself an integral approach applied to spirituality make sense!

 

What does it mean when I say "Spirituality is about deep connections and human values?"

 

Our language symbols are one of our greatest treasures, its a crime that their meanings have been distorted, hijacked, used to control, manipulate and deceive by the simple minded.

 

I for one am angry as hell and plan to do all that is within my limited and waning power to redeem (not in the Christian sense) the words we all use in expressing our human spirit, breath, "inward push" to the highest of our human potentials!

 

We are That and That is We!

[LivingLife]

Perhaps a better word to describe the non woo spirituality could be introspection? If you think about it all the fuzzy shit folk relate to still occurs in the brain and inner thoughts. There is really nothing out there and the xians that have these divine fuzzy feel good moments are merely triggering chemicals in the brain whether intentional or by fluke.

[bornagainathiest]

To Antlerman and Asanerman.

 

I very much appreciate the input you guys are giving me on this, but...

.

.

.

(Oh shuggles! I'm walking on eggshells here and I don't want to cause offense or generate confusion.)

.

.

.

 

Please understand that I'm taking my very first, tentative steps in a new direction of understanding - when it comes to spiritual matters. That's as far as it (currently) goes. All I've done so far is to realize that one description of 'spiritual' is not the same as another. That's all. I now see that a Christian understanding of the spiritual is not the same as your non-Christian understanding of it. Both paradigms, confusingly, have used the same word to refer to different things. This realization is where I'm at, right now.

 

What follows, is where I'm not.

 

* I'm not in a position to make an informed comparison between the Christian and non-Christian interpretations of what the spiritual is and what it should be.

 

* I'm not in the position to make a value judgement about the faults and de-merits of one model of spirituality versus the strengths and merits of another.

 

* Nor am I able to properly examine your descriptions and quotations of how non-Christian spirituality should and does work. I feel that doing that would be premature and ill-advised. (Please note that I do not reject what you write. But neither can I endorse it. It is way too soon for me to do either. I hope you will understand this and graciously extend to me the space and time to bring myself to the point where I can look at your words from a more mature perspective.)

 

Since we are Ex-Christians, perhaps an example from Christianity will serve to illustate what I mean here.

When Saul experienced a life-changing event on the road to Damascus, he had to take time to take stock of it. Though Acts 9: 20 says that Saul began to preach immediately (after the scales had fallen from his eyes and he'd spent a few days with the Christians living in that city) a careful examination of scripture shows that there is, in fact, a three year gap between verses 25 and 26. Galatians 1: 17 & 18 tells us that Saul (now Paul) went into Arabia and then spent three years in Damascus, before seeking out Jesus's disciples in Jerusalem. Though I cannot prove it, I contend that Paul's time in Arabia and later, Damascus could well have been a period in his life where he took stock of what he'd learned. Then, once he was ready, he came and made peace with Peter, John and the other apostles.

 

I hope that you can see what I'm outlining here.

 

Like you, I've left Christianity behind... but I did so for my own reasons.

These had nothing to do with competing models of spirituality. I deconverted because the Bible and the Christian faith didn't live up to their claims and their promises. I saw that in their lives of fellow Christians and I saw that in my own life. When I was ready I also saw that the Bible was fatally flawed, self-contadicting and was totally refuted by a mountain of extra-Biblical evidence.

 

My new exploration of what spirituality means must proceed at my pace and not that of anyone else, no matter how good their intentions are. Please do not take this as any kind of rejection of anything you've written in this thread. It isn't. All I'm trying to say here is that your enthusiasm for what you've discovered on your own paths is too much and too soon for me, ok?

 

I hope we are all cool about this.

 

Wishing you nothing but peace of mind,

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

To Antlerman and Asanerman.

 

I very much appreciate the input you guys are giving me on this, but...

.

.

.

(Oh shuggles! I'm walking on eggshells here and I don't want to cause offense or generate confusion.)

.

.

.

 

Please understand that I'm taking my very first, tentative steps in a new direction of understanding - when it comes to spiritual matters. That's as far as it (currently) goes. All I've done so far is to realize that one description of 'spiritual' is not the same as another. That's all. I now see that a Christian understanding of the spiritual is not the same as your non-Christian understanding of it. Both paradigms, confusingly, have used the same word to refer to different things. This realization is where I'm at, right now.

 

What follows, is where I'm not.

 

* I'm not in a position to make an informed comparison between the Christian and non-Christian interpretations of what the spiritual is and what it should be.

 

* I'm not in the position to make a value judgement about the faults and de-merits of one model of spirituality versus the strengths and merits of another.

 

* Nor am I able to properly examine your descriptions and quotations of how non-Christian spirituality should and does work. I feel that doing that would be premature and ill-advised. (Please note that I do not reject what you write. But neither can I endorse it. It is way too soon for me to do either. I hope you will understand this and graciously extend to me the space and time to bring myself to the point where I can look at your words from a more mature perspective.)

All these are very good. To just go headlong into some other form of spiritual practice without doing what you're doing would be to run the risk of just falling into a whole new nest of wrong exceptions; to simple trade one form of magical thinking for another. Believe me, I'm with you on this. I'll certainly show enthusiasm for what I have found is working for me on my path, but I'd be quite nervous to see someone jump in before they were ready for something like this in their life. The expectations need to be tempered from that of what their previous experience was. It has to be approached from a different mindset, not the same one.

 

I hear you doing exactly what I had to do, and continue to need to do, which is something I have nothing but respect for. Be informed, be skeptical, protect yourself in healthy ways. That way it's not some pie in the sky magical thinking. It needs to be grounded and real for it to truly benefit.

 

Since we are Ex-Christians, perhaps an example from Christianity will serve to illustate what I mean here.

When Saul experienced a life-changing event on the road to Damascus, he had to take time to take stock of it. Though Acts 9: 20 says that Saul began to preach immediately (after the scales had fallen from his eyes and he'd spent a few days with the Christians living in that city) a careful examination of scripture shows that there is, in fact, a three year gap between verses 25 and 26. Galatians 1: 17 & 18 tells us that Saul (now Paul) went into Arabia and then spent three years in Damascus, before seeking out Jesus's disciples in Jerusalem. Though I cannot prove it, I contend that Paul's time in Arabia and later, Damascus could well have been a period in his life where he took stock of what he'd learned. Then, once he was ready, he came and made peace with Peter, John and the other apostles.

I had that Damascus road experience 30 years ago, before I became a Christian. I joined Christianity to find Answers™ to these huge questions, "What is God? What is the nature of existence?" I would say the entire path through Christianity to agnostic to atheist to where I am now has all be part of my process of exploring those questions which began that day. All of it. Not one of these ways of looking at this has The Answer™. Not even how I view things now. That's an important realization to come to, but hard to explain the meaning of that. It boils down to knowing that within yourself, and seeing ways of looking at things, systems and models of belief, as structural supports in the construction of that building, and not the building itself.

 

Like you, I've left Christianity behind... but I did so for my own reasons.

These had nothing to do with competing models of spirituality. I deconverted because the Bible and the Christian faith didn't live up to their claims and their promises. I saw that in their lives of fellow Christians and I saw that in my own life. When I was ready I also saw that the Bible was fatally flawed, self-contadicting and was totally refuted by a mountain of extra-Biblical evidence.

Exactly the same here. It had nothing to do with competing models of spirituality for me, but rather what was within me was unable to find support with them, for the same reasons. It failed to live up to their promises. Again, all the right words....

 

That you are saying things this way as you do is huge! A lot of the time people say, "I left because the Bible was false". I always say it's a lot more subtle than that. People often cannot recognize that internal voice that was first becoming dissatisfied in order for them to turn that skeptical eye to the teachings and see the flaws. That was precisely my experience. But to see the former, means we're beginning to recognize that 'voice' of the inner person, rather than looking to external ideas to define that. It was there speaking to you, and me, and all of us, against what was being told us - and it had nothing to do with having some external, cognitive knowledge first! It was an internal knowledge.

 

The whole thing I'm talking about now is to really, really develop that knowing, that inner voice. It's moving from the external voices, Truth!™. The Bible! Science! Reason!, sought out in such authoritative ways to help define us, to try to answer that 'inner voice'. But the secret is to learn to let that inner voice speak for itself! To develop it, to know it, and to integrate it into our lives. It has more to say than any of us can possibly begin to fathom. That's the key to all of this.

 

My new exploration of what spirituality means must proceed at my pace and not that of anyone else, no matter how good their intentions are.

Absolutely! This is Wisdom speaking.

 

Please do not take this as any kind of rejection of anything you've written in this thread. It isn't. All I'm trying to say here is that your enthusiasm for what you've discovered on your own paths is too much and too soon for me, ok?

 

I hope we are all cool about this.

 

Wishing you nothing but peace of mind,

 

BAA.

Trust me, none of this is to make converts to some belief. It doesn't matter what structure someone find works for them. What is important is that people find that inner voice, their own inner voice and grow and develop that. That, is coming to know yourself. And in coming to know ourselves, wow. Then we all share that with one another and grow and learn. It's not about being "right". It's about be True, each in our own uniqueness.

 

Self-realization defines living spiritually. You shine from within, not defined by or held up by your belief structures. You stand free of them, rooted and grounded in your Self. And that freedom, since it is not bound to beliefs and structures, the body or any object, for lack of any better word, is as air in breath, wind, or "Spirit". Hence, "spiritual". IMO. We exist everywhere, and no where. We are that Freedom in ourselves.

[Antlerman]

Perhaps a better word to describe the non woo spirituality could be introspection?

Introspection is part of it, but its what opens through it that is better described as Realization. I use the capital letter because it is experienced as an Absolute reality. To be careful too though that introspection typically means to think about ourselves inwardly, to cognitively self-examine. That doesn't describe the core of 'going inward'. That inner exploration is one where you don't use those normally 'thinking about' processes, but rather silencing them and allow the inner to speak from itself. It's letting the subconscious surface and inform the conscious of itself. Then, following such a voyage and such an encounter, then we make process with the rational mind what we have discovered. In other words, introspectively look at what we have just experienced and learn from it, in order to integrate that into our normal waking conscious states. That lets us bring that forward to heal and to grow the whole person.

 

If you think about it all the fuzzy shit folk relate to still occurs in the brain and inner thoughts. There is really nothing out there and the xians that have these divine fuzzy feel good moments are merely triggering chemicals in the brain whether intentional or by fluke.

Yes, but don't devalue these experiences. It is through such experiences that enormous amounts of insights are gained. You have to realize that that subconscious mind speaks through symbols, not through the linguistic centers of the brain. The problem you see, and I agree with you, is that someone might take these as literal encounters with literal gods, if they are thinking about them in a purely mythological framework. Believe me, I get how they see that! It's extraordinarily powerful! To me, this is the danger of someone 'encountering the gods' before they are ready. They take them literally and miss the point! The point is to expose something within themselves through them, through the gods, so to speak. These experiences are to open ourselves, to open our consciousness beyond it limited notions of self and reality. It is to gain insight into the Self. To become Aware.

 

My analogy, to share another one!, is like those kids again playing adults. Those Charismatic churches are like a children being led by children who find a car with keys in the ignition. They learn how to start the engine and discover the gas peddle on the floor. Vroom, vroom, vrooooom!, they race the motor making lots of powerful noise! They climb in and out of the seat showing each other how to do it. What fun! But not a one of them ever stops to look at that stick shift on the floor, nor understands what its for. It's not a noisy machine to feel the power roar, but a vehicle of transportation.

[Deva]

I thought the word "introspection" was a good one, just that it didn't go far enough. It is as if you are scratching a hole in the sand as opposed to drilling a tunnel to the center of the earth, if that makes any sense at all. I'm not sure what the appropriate word would be for the process.

 

There is both "realization" and "introspection". But there is also a process of unlearning or negation.

[Ouroboros]

Antlerman and Deva, you might appreciate this article on Wiki: Implicate and explicate order, according to Bohm. Especially the part that says, "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement. This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow". This is the right kind of "woo".

[Deva]

Yes, Yes, YES! David Bohm. I have his book "Wholeness and The Implicate Order". I am not smart enough to understand it all, but it is exactly what I think the universe might well be like. It is extremely exciting to see someone who does understand quantum theory actually say this, that the universe is like a hologram. I was very impressed with Bohm in some of his talks with Krishnamurti, too.