It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1.In my travels and dealings with the self-proclaimed spiritual ones, whenever I was asked if I agreed with their assertions, and I gave them the honest truth, there always seemed to arise a superiority complex immediately after. Rarely are the accepting of my views. Especially when I express that I have no other-worldly or supernatural interests, hopes and wishes, that my existence is purely terrestrial, and I am concerned with the things on this world rather than the next, I am both implicitly and explicitly deemed inferior, lower, and impure, before they have even had the chance to know me. It is obvious their doctrines speak for them when this happens, and it is therefor natural for them to bestow upon me whatever doctrinal labels they have in the spiritual repertoire in order stigmatize myself under a blanket of inferiority, while only ever exposing their own.
2.We must ask ourselves: Who is more absurd? An insane man who believes himself to be king? or a king who believes himself to be king? At least the insane man is honest.
3.I would like to believe that the philosopher Shakyamuni would have renounced the title “Buddha”, and that this bestowing of a nominal crown was a product of his overly religious acolytes still unable to awaken themselves from their dogmatic slumbers and superstitions. They could not conceive that he may be “just a man”, as such an image was so dangerous to the prevailing Brahmanism and Vedism of the culture, so instead, reimagined him as a perfect or awakened being. We, of course, cannot know if he took the title upon himself or not, but his famous saying "Birth does not make one a priest or an outcaste. Behavior makes one either a priest or an outcaste" is indicative of his dislike of the invention and use of spiritual hierarchies. He makes it clear that value is derived from individual merit and conduct, not caste.
4.One could just as easily accept another as a spiritual equal, without resorting to any superiority complex, condemnation or shame tactics, while at the same time finding a legitimate interest in someone else’s beliefs all while sharing them without fear and dogma – and then both can go on their merry way. But, as can be shown, once a conflict of interests comes into play, the superiority complex rears its head, and the spiritual caste is acted out.
5.No one is more or less spiritual than another. Indeed, one may act more or less spiritual, but one never is more or less spiritual. One may act more or less awakened, but one never is more or less awakened. We are not metaphors. The spirituality is in the behavior, in the actions, of the embodied, concrete and living human being. Our actions are more or less pure. Our actions and behavior are more or less Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and so on. One can behave like a Buddha or one can behave like a devil. We never become anything higher or lower, anything above or below, anything more or less.
However, this attitude doesn't only exist among those who claim spiritual enlightenment. It also comes from those who claim nothing, and see themselves as superior to those who believe in nonsensical "fairy tales", such as a spiritual hierarchy. So the door swings both ways. We're a tribal species, and my tribe is always better than yours.
I don't believe I singled you out. I was speaking in general of those who do have such an attitude. If you're looking to be offended, at least be offended over an actual personal affront.
Why should they give you respect when you flat out tell them that you do not respect them?
If there is nothing spiritual then you cannot respect anyone, nor anything, more so than any other thing, least it be some contrived value in vain - something made up by a man and is a system of pretension that he alone has created, and holds himself to be god of.
Think about it.
Who "in general" shares this attitude, and see others as inferior?
As I stated in my first post. The attitude that exists in some of those who believe in a spiritual hierarchy, can, and frequently is, also be shared by those who don't. No hidden meaning.
I went and visited a spiritual retreat for Buddhists who collect money from the public in exchange for their tourism. I was trying to ask one of the monks about the bells they rang and what the significance was, and he departed from me in anger, presumably because I was interfering with his serenity. Can an egoless one really be angered or annoyed? I thought they were to sacrifice the self and be totally detached from the things of this world?
No matter how much people deny themselves, they can never truly escape. In this way, people like you have already won.
No where did I say I didn't respect them. Because there are a variety of perspectives does not mean they are all valid.
According to what? According to some contrived value in vain. It isn't in vain, however, if it involves real things.
If nothing is spiritual, that is, nothing is divine, and there is no divine value system, then any and all value systems are complete bull# that are made up nonsense. If that is the case, you are then implicitly stating that they (whomever you are addressing in the OP) truly have no value outside of your man-made system, which is itself (your man-made value system) logically worthless, as it is just made up by a man's irrational feelings of worth.
You are saying what? That anything that can contemplate "real things", and has feelings enough to contemplate value, can then create true value?
Unless there is something divine which has created true value then everything else is bs. You cannot just say "okay it has x value so it deserves x amount of respect" unless you are spiritually divine or know divine truth - logically, it does not work. Logically, it is just feelings which you are talking about when you consider value, if there is nothing spiritual and there is no divine value system.