Spirituality might work if it wasn't so stupid.

a reply to: bb23108

Saying Jesus' admonitions were stupid does not make them so. Care to elaborate?

Jesus' two great commandments are brilliant as they confound the mind because they require complete surrender to reality - which the mind (based on subjectively separating from all objects) cannot inherently do. These commandments cannot possibly be done from the standpoint of the mind, and yet he required them as preparation for his disciples to receive his spiritual initiation into the light above.

Such spiritual initiation requires transcendence of the mind in its usual mode.

The second commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself also points to the inherent unity of reality - our actual non-separation. His commandments were definitely revolutionary for the times as they were truly a non-dual teaching.

Your statement that people need to believe in something is already dooming any such spirituality. Anything new that would work cannot be something that requires belief. Real spirituality must be tacitly obvious from the beginning, not needing to be believed in until some result is obtained.

Yes; the idea that one should love one's neighbor as oneself assumes that the neighbor wants to be treated the same as oneself. It does not consider the neighbors autonomy, that he is a being with his own preferences. He doesn't want to be treated as you do—ask any masochist. Should he treat you how he wishes to be treated? This is not surrendering to reality, but surrendering to one's own dogma and narcissism.

Also, love your neighbor simply because they are your neighbor is a really bad idea. No; being nearby or in close proximity is not a measure of how much one should be loved. What if you lived next door to a rapist and a pedophile? Should one love him simply because he exists or is in a closer proximity? No, it's ridiculous that people should hold hands and love each other on the basis that they simply exist or are nearby. It's dangerous.

And turn the other cheek? Only if you wish to be slapped a second time. A morality for slaves does not help the slave; it helps the masters. It is the masters who want you to turn the other cheek, to love your neighbor, so they can continue to do what they've always done, without worry of uprising.

Rather, talk to your neighbor, learn from your neighbor, consider their unique personhood as separate from your own.

If people believed in, loved and sanctified the things of reality—for instance you, I and the world—like they do a God, how could they lay a finger to harm it? Stop finding inner principles until we have found the outer ones.

a reply to: TzarChasm

my point was that we look inside for that sort of guidance. save a family because it makes you feel better about yourself, or save the billionaire because you can barely afford to feed your own family. and really, most of life isnt nearly as black and white as all that, which only complicates things. its a "me vs you" kind of world when we barely have enough time to earn the minimal resources that only just keep us afloat. sometimes, we have to choose between our own needs and those of others. choose who to make happy and when, and sometimes who to shut out or let drown. sometimes that person ends up being us, and we dont know why or if we can take it. if only we could all be as cocksure as you present yourself. and for those who arent, there is spirituality. which is only as helpful or harmful as the people who wield it. so perhaps it isnt spirituality thats stupid. its people. i will happily agree that people can be ginormous idiots. i will also cheerfully assert that not ALL people are idiots. just like not all conspiracy forum board members are total whackjobs, even when some most certainly are. but as long as we are in the business of generalizing...

Well put.

I know I am generalizing (spirituality itself is about nothing in particular), but since you mentioned the generalizing angle, perhaps you can furnish it with instances of when spirituality was being smart?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

The spirit is not a thing, and describes nothing in particular.

The words you use to describe reality are describing nothing in particular.

What is this moment?
What are you?

Would you consider yourself to a be 'particular thing' - separate from this moment?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well put.

I know I am generalizing (spirituality itself is about nothing in particular), but since you mentioned the generalizing angle, perhaps you can furnish it with instances of when spirituality was being smart?

even if its just a glorified placeholder for a more mundane concept, spirituality has led us to share food and living space with those who have none. it has led us to sit down with a perfect stranger and have a conversation. it has led us to play in the sand with children who havent the slightest idea what troubles us yet somehow manage to help us through it anyway. smart? smart is a tricky word to use because smart can be just as ambiguous a label as spirit. ted bundy was smart. and i have known autistic people who couldnt tie their shoes without help yet laugh and clap when a bird lands outside their win dow. maybe i would rather be dumb and spiritual than smart and cynical. are you really so much happier than a priest who tends his garden by day and reads his good book by night?

a reply to: TzarChasm

even if its just a glorified placeholder for a more mundane concept, spirituality has led us to share food and living space with those who have none. it has led us to sit down with a perfect stranger and have a conversation. it has led us to play in the sand with children who havent the slightest idea what troubles us yet somehow manage to help us through it anyway. smart? smart is a tricky word to use because smart can be just as ambiguous a label as spirit. ted bundy was smart. and i have known autistic people who couldnt tie their shoes without help yet laugh and clap when a bird lands outside their win dow. maybe i would rather be dumb and spiritual than smart and cynical. are you really so much happier than a priest who tends his garden by day and reads his good book by night?

I'm not sure how spirituality itself has led to these things. Catholic child-molesters are spiritual. Charles Manson was spiritual. Jihadis are spiritual. Jim Jones was spiritual. Marshall Applewhite convinced forty people to commit suicide; he was spiritual. So spirituality has also led to the murders and genocides of innocent people, as well as, apparently, sharing food. Even someone like Goebels used the Bhagavad Gita to spiritualize his SS officers. Enlightened Zen masters adamantly advocated nationalism and Japan's part in the second world war. But my claim is not that spirituality leads to wicked behavior, but to stupid ideas. Whether someone is spiritual or not is not a valid unit of measure of when it comes to ethics.

I hold a very unfavourable opinion about spiritual people that no one likes to hear, and that is that spirituality is an act of vanity. People want to appear spiritual, over wanting to actually be spiritual. That is the only way to account for all the lying. But, I'll save that for another thread.

I don't see happiness as a legitimate goal. Unhappiness, too, is necessary. Interest and curiosity has proven to be a more fruitful endeavour. I think that anyone who says all they want is happiness is a perfect candidate for a "happy machine", a machine that will pump the body full of pleasure, and they willingly hook themselves up to it for the rest of their lives as long as it keeps pleasing them. Spirituality is such a machine.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

What is this moment?

A moment is a brief period of time, always considered after the fact.

What are you?

My name is LesMisanthrope from the species Homo Sapiens.

Would you consider yourself to a be 'particular thing' - separate from this moment?

Yes. You wrote this a number of hours ago. "This" moment is long past. Can I separate from now? Yes. "Now" is simply another honorific term used to describe reality. Can I leave reality? If there is no boundary, then it is not a thing, and thus, not a container of things, but is simply a human categorization. If there is a boundary, then theoretically, yes could leave it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Whether someone is spiritual or not is not a valid unit of measure of when it comes to ethics.

Never got an answer to my question. Could this be part of it? In case you missed it, what do you mean by "work"?

Wouldnt this imply that at times it does work but can't be trusted to always work?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You don’t seem to like human beings either

I could understand that!

Spirituality is a human endeavor whether we like it or not

You’re just the run of the mill hater of God and religion.

I understand that

But to lump a huge field of endeavor with all kinds of levels and differences into one thing is basically unintelligent in the extreme, imo.

There are some forms of “spirituality" that I abhor along with most people: Isis, fundamentalism, evangelicals, and sectarian religion and of course the Manson' and Jim Jones’ and other dangerous cults.

I wouldn’t put that in the same breath as a Deepak Chopra, Jalaludin Rumi, St Thomas Aquinas and many more.


But there are principles of metaphysics or just life in general that covers the extremes in religion such as the concept of yinyang which explains the reality of having a Jim Jones and a Thomas Aquinas in Christianity and a Bin Laden and Jalaludin Rumi in Islam.

Solomon a spiritual guy if there ever was one said:

All is vanity


Spirituality is merely a life jacket thrown to the drowning humanity from above and few can handle its power

Why?

Because the operand: human beings are so messed up they despoil everything the touch

It’s a simple case of the disease devouring the medicine.

Spirituality is not cumbaya. It is a thankless operation, a rough 21 playground game where few survive its power

Spirituality is a war an inner Jihad for certain and few come out on top against the power of the lower soul

That’s why in the end the great Buddha said to his followers

Work out your salvation.

True spirituality speaks of love thy brother and sister as you would love yourself


That idea is stupid?

It advocates the earnest seeking of higher knowledge and any form of knowledge

Is that a stupid idea

It advocates NOT to start wars

Whats stupid about that?

Feed the poor, tend to the sick, give to charity

Are those stupid ideas?


Spiritual people are frail lost humans as imperfect as any, so believe me believers will in the millions veer from these lofty ideals.

That's why genuine spirituality is a war on your ego and lower soul

Its not believing some ideals and just having an intellectual faith

Its an actual challenge to transformation

and that isn't easy

To be fair to Mis

I would like to add something I told a close friend .......You are so so spiritual ... you just don't "Get it"
This was said in the context of me explaining my discomfort with being asked to stand in circle and hold hands whilst having Tibetan bowls played in celebration of Mid Summer ...

I also wanted to go for a cigarette in the woods... but being a smoker in the presence of non smokers of a certain spiritual holier than though bent ... I was made to feel like a social pariah ... and walked a mile or so off the property

In a field of ripening corn under a Mid Summer Sun ... I contemplated the nature of what Mid Summer truly is ... watched a Bald Eagle swoop ... thought of home and those I love and who love me ... Lines of poetry coming to mind ... envisioning a new painting ... but there again I am not spiritual because I don't smile benignly and play "bongos in the dirt"

a reply to: Willtell

I love human beings. I consider myself one of them. It is spirituality that disfavours the human being in favor of a spirit.

Humanity is not drowning. All is not vanity, friend. We can change things for the better.

a reply to: artistpoet

THIS is why I will defend the idea of personal spirituality, as self searching, introspection,
but still have a habit of making disparaging remarks and mocking the New Age adepts.

a reply to: artistpoet

Sounds like a nice night. Taking part in spiritual ritual is something I enjoy doing personally. It is a sign of respect, and I commend you for doing it. Merriment is an important aspect of human connection, and one of the things spirituality offers that could be of some value to the whole of the earth—reverence in our predicament. Well said.

a reply to: Bluesma

i hope you never lose your protective nature. Your wisdom always make me reconsider my mocking tone—at least for a little bit.

To me there is outer so called spirituality which encompasses an exterior God and rituals etc. Pure Ego crap that means absolutely nothing and leads to submission to a higher authority (usually a pedophile or some psycho with cross eyes). Then there is an inner spirituality, a true state that leads to the truth. The folks in the first state are completely deluded and contribute to the trouble we see in the world. The folk in the second state bother no one and do not force their views on others. Although if asked they could contribute so much to society.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
How is this thread working for you?
Is it producing the desired effect?
If 'spirituality' is the food of some then why let it bother you?

Your wisdom always make me reconsider my mocking tone—at least for a little bit.

ATS is your outlet for mocking people yet you like to portray yourself as a kind and loving person. There is no sign of this in how you relate on ATS but you will have us believe that we can't possibly comment because we don't know you. What are you really looking for?
I will be the first to admit that you have fooled a lot of apparent individuals into proceeding to feed your sense of lack.
You are a superior troll indeed (was it not LesMis who wrote the thread entitled 'The Lost Art of Trolling'). Having to feed of other peoples emotions to feel big and strong is bad taste. Not that I care or want it to stop, it is amusing to watch the game.

Even in cases of strong disagreement with other participants, an attitude of respect and decorum is expected.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
See it is not as if you are even in strong disagreement, yet you are mocking in general.
Is it respectful to mock?

In my own opinion, the word “spiritual” is derogatory, a sign of a weaker more tender sort, whom I have some instinctual obligation to defend from bullies whenever the need should arise.

Do you not consider mocking to be bullying behaviour?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"This" moment is long past.

This moment is when this is being read. Is this being read?
Then this is what is happening.
What is happening is what there is.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108
Yes; the idea that one should love one's neighbor as oneself assumes that the neighbor wants to be treated the same as oneself. It does not consider the neighbors autonomy, that he is a being with his own preferences. He doesn't want to be treated as you do—ask any masochist. Should he treat you how he wishes to be treated? This is not surrendering to reality, but surrendering to one's own dogma and narcissism.

Also, love your neighbor simply because they are your neighbor is a really bad idea. No; being nearby or in close proximity is not a measure of how much one should be loved. What if you lived next door to a rapist and a pedophile? Should one love him simply because he exists or is in a closer proximity? No, it's ridiculous that people should hold hands and love each other on the basis that they simply exist or are nearby. It's dangerous.

And turn the other cheek? Only if you wish to be slapped a second time. A morality for slaves does not help the slave; it helps the masters. It is the masters who want you to turn the other cheek, to love your neighbor, so they can continue to do what they've always done, without worry of uprising.

Rather, talk to your neighbor, learn from your neighbor, consider their unique personhood as separate from your own.

If people believed in, loved and sanctified the things of reality—for instance you, I and the world—like they do a God, how could they lay a finger to harm it? Stop finding inner principles until we have found the outer ones.

You do not understand the actual meaning that Jesus' was trying to convey when he gave his two great commandments to love. You strip out the spiritual basis on which he founded those commandments - namely the profound understanding Jesus had that he was not separate from God and that no one else is separate either.

So the reality of unity is what he was founding these commandments on. To love one's neighbor as oneself means to love them as not fundamentally separate from the very divine reality in which our body-minds are all appearing and disappearing.

Of course we respect and take into account each of our own differences in terms of our body-minds, but Jesus was describing our essential unity prior to the body-mind as the only way to truly love.

In other words unity prior to what appears is the principle, and if you do not get this, cannot feel this to be true, then of course the commandments may allow you to draw your conclusions as quoted above.

We have considered this at length in the past and it is clear that our twains will not meet - except that we already exist non-separatively in reality!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ritual makes me uncomfortable ... I prefer spontaneity ... Yet I do perform rituals ... such as that strong cup of coffee each morning ... However I like to be challenged and taken out my comfort zone ... Most often such times prove to be beneficial and offer a broader perspective on life in general ... to enter other spheres or circles and find common ground ... I guess I am saying ... It is good to be flexible ... great post btw