It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Real Spirituality Is Not 'Spirituality ' At All

page: 1
17

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I think I'm beginning to be of the opinion that real spirituality isn't 'spirituality' at all. I think that what true spirituality is is so intricately and intimately personal, so deeply intertwined with everything a person does, involving extremely subtle and complex mental processes and motivations, that it absolutely cannot be put into a standardized box. There are absolutely no universal standards, no string of words that you can use to judge an individuals actions or words by to determine how well they are in keeping with some pre-defined 'ideal.' It is not a part of life, something you read about and do certain practices for, that you call 'spirituality.' It's not something you can compartmentalize. It IS life, it is every aspect of life, and it is absolutely personal.
edit on 22-6-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Spirituality is, in part, the direct and undeniable experience of certain ineffable qualities of "reality".

Which is why it's so incredibly difficult to explain to people who either don't have such experiences for one reason or another, or do not recognize them as such, what all the hubub's about. Words don't work.

As the saying goes, if you have to ask, you'll never know (or something like that).



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
A persons spirituality, or connection to the..all...is like a fingerprint of the person.
Its different, perhaps slightly to some, significantly compared to others, but their own overall.

Those that complain you don't have the same fingerprint as themselves are a bit daft really...of course you don't..its your connection..your understanding..your fingerprint.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

breathe, walk, breathe, mow the lawn, breathe, pet the dog, breathe climb a mountain, breathe, make the bed.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

It took me a good 18 months of meditation to figure this out. I have a very analytical brain and like to put everything in boxes. I persevered and when I stopped trying to analyse everything I started to experience and understand things. The understanding is a type of faith as I cannot verbalise or even intellectualise it.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
If you mean spirit as in soul, we are living souls, are we not?

If you mean spirit as in essence, that may be more like an eternal soul, or perhaps a ghost or an astral body.

If you mean spirit as in a mood, like in good spirits, then you have feelings covered.

Are all these meanings included in the word spiritual, or do you mean something more religious like being in the spirit?

I would like to know what does spiritual really mean? is it a selfless, non-material attitude? A feeling of some kind? All of the above?


edit on 22-6-2014 by MichiganSwampBuck because: for clarity



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I agree, for the most part. But there is one thing I would like to nit-pick about.


originally posted by: TheJourney
There are absolutely no universal standards


In depth comparaive analysis of world religion and myth does elicit the perennial philosophy, which all mystics would identify with, to some degree. So, I would say that your use of the word 'absolutely' is unwarranted. I would recommend reading The Perennial Philosophy by Huxley.

"All mystics come from the same country and speak the same language" -St. Martin of Tours


edit on 551SundayuAmerica/ChicagoJunuSundayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Great thread! Love it!

I still have a guitar magazine from the early 1970s that featured an interview with Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones. The interviewer remarked that although Richards had composed music that was ethereal and beautifully artistic, he was the most unassuming, down-to-Earth person you could meet. Like a bloke you'd meet in the pub
and have a drink with.

The interviewer brought up the subject of famous musicians and celebrities going to India to learn TM with the
Maharishi. It was a big fad for a time.

Keith replied:
"That's not my cup of tea. While they're off floating in the cosmos, I'll be standing down here, in the street, with my feet in the mud." The interviewer wrote a comment about how Keith let out the most wonderful laugh after he'd made the remark.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ColeYounger


I don't see why one could not galavant around the cosmos while still having one's feet firmly planted in the mud here on Earth.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: ColeYounger


I don't see why one could not galavant around the cosmos while still having one's feet firmly planted in the mud here on Earth.


I think Keith did his share of cosmos galavanting, if you get my meaning.
The point he was making, imo, was that one didn't need to go to India and hang with the Maharishi to be spiritual.

Whoa...as I type this, "Ruby Tuesday" is playing on the radio. Thanks, Keith!



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
I agree, for the most part. But there is one thing I would like to nit-pick about.


originally posted by: TheJourney
There are absolutely no universal standards


In depth comparaive analysis of world religion and myth does elicit the perennial philosophy, which all mystics would identify with, to some degree. So, I would say that your use of the word 'absolutely' is unwarranted. I would recommend reading The Perennial Philosophy by Huxley.

"All mystics come from the same country and speak the same language" -St. Martin of Tours



I'm familiar with the idea of the 'perennial philosophy,' and I basically agree with the idea of it. In fact, the last thread I made dealt with a related idea. It was called "The Old Universal language, confounded by babel." The idea was an original root spiritual/conceptual system, which our existing systems are the surviving divided relics of. So that basic idea is one I think I believe. That is a separate stream of thought though from what I was getting at in the OP. I'm not entirely sure about the way in which they are reconciled and made complementary, haven't really put any thought into it. But I felt inspired by the idea in OP, and feel it's an important one. It isn't that SOME PEOPLE are spiritual, and they are so because of SOME THINGS they do. Spirituality is the experience and doings of your genuine self, and it's evolution.
edit on 22-6-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Imo spirituality is simply following the guidance of one's inner spirit, your true self. Unclouded by ego or selfishness.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: ColeYounger


I don't see why one could not galavant around the cosmos while still having one's feet firmly planted in the mud here on Earth.


I think Keith did his share of cosmos galavanting, if you get my meaning.
The point he was making, imo, was that one didn't need to go to India and hang with the Maharishi to be spiritual.

Whoa...as I type this, "Ruby Tuesday" is playing on the radio. Thanks, Keith!



From Keith's words, it would appear he didn't believe in that particular tea blend of spirituality, rather just being in the here and now - in the physical only. If Keith did partake of hallucinagenics without control of mind and spirit, then I would guess his cosmic galavanting would look something like a frenzied darting around of confusion.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney
I think I'm beginning to be of the opinion that real spirituality isn't 'spirituality' at all. I think that what true spirituality is is so intricately and intimately personal, so deeply intertwined with everything a person does, involving extremely subtle and complex mental processes and motivations, that it absolutely cannot be put into a standardized box. There are absolutely no universal standards, no string of words that you can use to judge an individuals actions or words by to determine how well they are in keeping with some pre-defined 'ideal.' It is not a part of life, something you read about and do certain practices for, that you call 'spirituality.' It's not something you can compartmentalize. It IS life, it is every aspect of life, and it is absolutely personal.


It is personal but can be shared and usually done so by others observations. It can't be explained but you can provide an explanation or rational to someone who asks about an observation. Many times they don't get it, as I say often enough it can't really be put in words, but through time others "pick up" on certain aspects for their own personal growth. For those who believe in their own spirit, after all, one must believe it to see it. Bringing yourself closer to nature is obviously a good start, seeing the machinations of mother earth and how we similarly behave helps. Ebbs and Flows, Order from Chaos, Law of Attraction and Manifestation all play a part.
edit on 23-6-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
I agree, for the most part. But there is one thing I would like to nit-pick about.


originally posted by: TheJourney
There are absolutely no universal standards


In depth comparaive analysis of world religion and myth does elicit the perennial philosophy, which all mystics would identify with, to some degree. So, I would say that your use of the word 'absolutely' is unwarranted. I would recommend reading The Perennial Philosophy by Huxley.

"All mystics come from the same country and speak the same language" -St. Martin of Tours



I was familiar with the basic concept of the perennial philosophy, and had done a bit of reading on the topic, but had never actually read Huxleys book. Weird, come to think about it. Anyways, your post inspired me to read it, and it seems extremely interesting so far. Thanks for the recommendation.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Glad to hear it!
Maybe when you finish, you could make a thread about it!



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 4/7/2014 by zackli because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17

log in

join