Spirituality as Costume

reply to post by Itisnowagain

The box is 'spiritual'.
It is the whole subject of this thread.

Spirituality as a box.

If you don't get the gist, I am saying everyone is spiritual, including Hitler. Everyone is spiritual in their own way. Some just choose to wear it.

reply to post by Aphorism

Aphorism
Spirituality is, in its essence, a display of “spirituality”,

No spirituality is spirituality .
So now spirituality is not Hitler’s and your “personal opinions” it’s just a ‘display” of spirituality?
To you spirituality is just a display of a brand of opinion?
Hitler’s display was of the egotistical will to power, fed to the mad man by a powerful occult secret society.


Here’s your first definition of spirituality (before you said spirituality is a display of a” brand of opinions”

Aphorism
Yes, he held on to his brand of opinions, his spirituality, and what he thought were truths worth striving for, but which proved more immaterial than the very material things he destroyed to reach them. Spirituality in a nut shell.

Aside from Hitler I don’t know anyone else who thinks spirituality is just a “brand of opinion” or a “display of a brand of opinion”.

You should probably clarify and only pick one of your two different definitions of spirituality. Is it 1) Hitler’s “brand of opinion” or is it a 2)Hitlers “display” of opinion? Is it will to power ,hate and murder in thoughts or his will to power, hate and murder in actions?

Aphorism

Am I not allowed to have an opinion on spirituality?

Sure as you can see you have no trouble repeatedly quoting yourself.
But remember you have said that your brand of personal opinion WAS your spirituality .
You think Hitlers and your personal opinion (OR NOW “what you both display”) is your spirituality.
Its very revealing.
The way you excessively quoted yourself, why you must really believe your personal opinion/display is sacred.

Itisnowagain
Spirituality as a box.

But, he seems to be saying that spirituality changes from one person to the next so, is it really a box?

Spirituality is a variable that can be similar in importance but different in purpose.

reply to post by BDBinc

No spirituality is spirituality .
So now spirituality is not Hitler’s and your “personal opinions” it’s just a ‘display” of spirituality?
To you spirituality is just a display of a brand of opinion?
Hitler’s display was of the egotistical will to power, fed to the mad man by a powerful occult secret society.


Here’s your first definition of spirituality (before you said spirituality is a display of a” brand of opinions”

Aside from Hitler I don’t know anyone else who thinks spirituality is just a “brand of opinion” or a “display of a brand of opinion”.

You should probably clarify and only pick one of your two different definitions of spirituality. Is it 1) Hitler’s “brand of opinion” or is it a 2)Hitlers “display” of opinion? Is it will to power ,hate and murder in thoughts or his will to power, hate and murder in actions?

I think you're a little lost.

I don't know if some of this is getting lost in translation (your english is very good by the way), but I use parallelism in my rhetoric to get a point across, meaning I say different things that pretty much mean the same thing according to which way one looks at it. It's meant to confuse the non-thinkers. I think you might have to re-read the OP and try a little harder to have this conversation.

Let's hear your definition of spirituality, because so far it seems you don't even know what it is. Can you take your costume off and look at it?

Sure as you can see you have no trouble repeatedly quoting yourself.
But remember you have said that your brand of personal opinion WAS your spirituality .
You think Hitlers and your personal opinion (OR NOW “what you both display”) is your spirituality.
Its very revealing.
The way you excessively quoted yourself, why you must really believe your personal opinion/display is sacred.

Oh that's what I think! I was beginning to wonder what I was thinking and what my personal opinion was. Thanks for letting me know.

Of course, that is an assessment that is completely wrong but I'll let you have it just to bolster your confidence.

I was wrong about everything I wrote. Now, do you feel better? Is that what you wanted to hear?

So, what is spirituality to you? I wouldn't mind hearing what spirituality truly is.

reply to post by Aphorism

The reason we feel ill at the thought of a spiritual Hitler is that his name tarnishes “spirituality”. To hear that Hitler wore the exact same costume, used it to justify his actions, thereby fouling the air around every person who also adorns this costume, doesn’t please one’s vanity as practicing “spirituality” usually does.

Hitler was also an artist. Not a great one by any stretch but he did paint quite a lot... and by applying your (ahem) logic here, this makes all artists fairly worthless.

One's spirituality is an individual approach to a dynamic landscape of various approaches and views. There's no single venue; no one single belief set.

Closed minds get lost in open spaces and this is indeed one subject that is a vast, open space of possibility.

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

No spirituality is spirituality .
So now spirituality is not Hitler’s and your “personal opinions” it’s just a ‘display” of spirituality?
To you spirituality is just a display of a brand of opinion?
Hitler’s display was of the egotistical will to power, fed to the mad man by a powerful occult secret society.


Here’s your first definition of spirituality (before you said spirituality is a display of a” brand of opinions”

Aside from Hitler I don’t know anyone else who thinks spirituality is just a “brand of opinion” or a “display of a brand of opinion”.

You should probably clarify and only pick one of your two different definitions of spirituality. Is it 1) Hitler’s “brand of opinion” or is it a 2)Hitlers “display” of opinion? Is it will to power ,hate and murder in thoughts or his will to power, hate and murder in actions?

I think you're a little lost.

I don't know if some of this is getting lost in translation (your english is very good by the way), but I use parallelism in my rhetoric to get a point across, meaning I say different things that pretty much mean the same thing according to which way one looks at it. It's meant to confuse the non-thinkers. I think you might have to re-read the OP and try a little harder to have this conversation.

Let's hear your definition of spirituality, because so far it seems you don't even know what it is. Can you take your costume off and look at it?

Sure as you can see you have no trouble repeatedly quoting yourself.
But remember you have said that your brand of personal opinion WAS your spirituality .
You think Hitlers and your personal opinion (OR NOW “what you both display”) is your spirituality.
Its very revealing.
The way you excessively quoted yourself, why you must really believe your personal opinion/display is sacred.

Oh that's what I think! I was beginning to wonder what I was thinking and what my personal opinion was. Thanks for letting me know.

Of course, that is an assessment that is completely wrong but I'll let you have it just to bolster your confidence.

I was wrong about everything I wrote. Now, do you feel better? Is that what you wanted to hear?

So, what is spirituality to you? I wouldn't mind hearing what spirituality truly is.

edit on 17-12-2013 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)

This thread is not about spirituality its about your vanity .


You do not care what spirituality is. You think you know and you have told us your two definitions 1)you believe that it is Hitler’s and your brand opinions and 2)the display of Hitler's & your brand of opinions (now you say spirituality is both of them 3) Hitler's brand of opinion AND display of his brand of opinion.
If you want to know first you have to not know.
Right now you believe spirituality is Hitler's hate and separatism in thought & hate and separatism in action. You think Hitler was spiritual in his opinion & display which to others might seem like you have some serious “issues” to work through.

reply to post by redoubt

Hitler was also an artist. Not a great one by any stretch but he did paint quite a lot... and by applying your (ahem) logic here, this makes all artists fairly worthless.

That is your logic. No where did I say spirituality is worthless.

Hitler was also a vegetarian. Does that say anything about vegetarians?

reply to post by BDBinc

This thread is not about spirituality its about your vanity .


You do not care what spirituality is. You think you know and you have told us your two definitions 1)you believe that it is Hitler’s and your brand opinions and 2)the display of Hitler's & your brand of opinions (now you say spirituality is both of them 3) Hitler's brand of opinion AND display of his brand of opinion.
If you want to know first you have to not know.
Right now you believe spirituality is Hitler's hate and separatism in thought & hate and separatism in action. You think Hitler was spiritual in his opinion & display which to others might seem like you have some serious “issues” to work through.

You mean to you it appears I might have issues? It's laughable how much you assume you can speak for others

And that is your opinion, and how you display your spirituality through it. You're free to it. However, your opinion of me, which I might add is purely assumptive, is your opinion, not fact nor in any way true. This seems quite an "issue" of integrity to me.

This is how you interpret things, and I bet you do the same with other people's ideas of "spirituality". If it conflicts with your own, it must be wrong. Correct?

Now. What is your idea of spirituality?

reply to post by Aphorism

That is your logic. No where did I say spirituality is worthless.

Hitler was also a vegetarian. Does that say anything about vegetarians?

No.

Not yet.

reply to post by Aphorism

Aphorism
You mean to you it appears I might have issues? It's laughable how much you assume you can speak for others

And that is your opinion, and how you display your spirituality through it. You're free to it. However, your opinion of me, which I might add is purely assumptive, is your opinion, not fact nor in any way true. This seems quite an "issue" of integrity to me.

This is how you interpret things, and I bet you do the same with other people's ideas of "spirituality". If it conflicts with your own, it must be wrong. Correct?

Incorrect.
I’m so glad that you say its OK for only you, that you only can speak for others and make assumptions .
Hitler’s personal brand displayed in full view.
Mein Hmmph.

reply to post by BDBinc

Incorrect.
I’m so glad that you say its OK for only you, that you only can speak for others and make assumptions .
Hitler’s personal brand displayed in full view.
Mein Hmmph.

It seems you do not wish to talk about your spirituality—you wish to fight about it. How spiritual of you. You wear your costume so well that you even forget what's hidden underneath—someone like Buddha, someone like Hitler—a human being. Hitler did the same.

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

Incorrect.
I’m so glad that you say its OK for only you, that you only can speak for others and make assumptions .
Hitler’s personal brand displayed in full view.
Mein Hmmph.

It seems you do not wish to talk about your spirituality—you wish to fight about it. How spiritual of you. You wear your costume so well that you even forget what's hidden underneath—someone like Buddha, someone like Hitler—a human being. Hitler did the same.

Your thread is about your personal opinion, which you call your spirituality. It is your brand of opinion on display.
So far you have told me many things about what you believe your spirituality is, such as "men with beards are lazy" (which you claim is your spirituality).
How can I keep talking about your "enlightened spirituality" "which is " men with beards are lazy" ?
For how much longer do you want to talk/fight about your brand of opinions.
(Do you feel you might want a microphone to shout into ?....Mein beards lazy numpf!)

reply to post by BDBinc

Your thread is about your personal opinion, which you call your spirituality. It is your brand of opinion on display.
So far you have told me many things about what you believe your spirituality is, such as "men with beards are lazy" (which you claim is your spirituality).
How can I keep talking about your "enlightened spirituality" "which is " men with beards are lazy" ?
For how much longer do you want to talk/fight about your brand of opinions.
(Do you feel you might want a microphone to shout into ?....Mein beards lazy numpf!)

That is your interpretation and opinion—which probably coincides quite nicely with your particular brand of spirituality. Twist it however you wish, shoehorn it to make it fit.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I have watched your video.

I do agree with his concept of chaos and that we cannot know reality as such. I do disagree with the idea that it is concepts and ideas that lead us from knowing these "absolute facts". Ideas are the consequence of not knowing reality, not the cause of it.

I cannot agree with his version of "true spirituality". First, he says we cannot know the world, therefore, how can we know spirituality? How is his spirituality "true spirituality"? Surely he has conceived of this and wasn't explained this by the universe. How he says it is outside of all laws, outside of all boundaries and outside of all concepts, at the very moment he makes it into a law, draws a boundary around it, and conceptualizes it. If it is beyond all those then why is he talking about it? Why are we conceptualizing it? The very fact that we conceptualize it makes it conceptual. There's nothing of spirituality outside of conception.

But where's his beard?

Why do you like about and agree with in his version?

And out of curiosity: Do you see this man as more spiritual than you or I because he puts into words and dictates what "true spirituality" is in front of others?

What is spirituality to you?

reply to post by Aphorism

Below is an extract from Peter Browns website - that is if you are interested in finding out more.

We are word and idea junkies; we are addicted to semantic systems.

This means that we use words/ideas with an unchallenged confidence that they bear a somewhat accurate correspondence to the actual state of things, Reality.

Within a limited context this may be somewhat true. We can record information, instructions, recipes, etc. in words, and another human will be able to use those words to approximate the "real-world" conditions we intended to refer to. This semantic functionality has apparently given our species a large evolutionary advantage.

BUT... for "spirituality", inquiry into Reality, into our true condition, words/ideas are worse than useless. They are potentially our biggest impediment.

This is because we may tend to assume that the objects/actions which words refer to, ACTUALLY EXIST IN THE WAY THE WORDS THAT REFER TO THEM SEEM TO DEFINE THEM. That is, we may tend to view our experience as being actually made up of the objects and actions that the words we are using to describe it imply.

This is a fundamental mistake, due to the fact that ALL experience is in actuality an infinite, constantly changing, non-repeating, indefinable (in any final way), unpatterned field of miraculously appearing Radiantly Present "energies" existing nowhere else than IN experience, perceived by unknowable, miraculously appearing "consciousness". But our use of words implies that objects and actions may actually exist in the way we refer to them, as knowable, definable objectively existing "beings", "things" and "situations".

This is actually NOT the case.

theopendoorway.org...
Peter Brown does not have a beard and he would never call himself a guru either.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


The beard remark was a joke.

I agree with much of his ideas—the fact that we tend to believe in the implications of names rather than what they are meant to name is astoundingly apparent. We tend to deify certain words to almost God-like status (soul, love, God, freedom, democracy, country for instance—words we will and have killed and died for), where we will run over real things on our way to see them realized.

BUT... for "spirituality", inquiry into Reality, into our true condition, words/ideas are worse than useless. They are potentially our biggest impediment.

I have a problem with this statement however—it is written in words. How do words and ideas impede inquiry into reality, "spirituality" and our "true" condition, when it is our true condition and a fact of reality that we speak in words and ideas? Every human speaks and uses ideas—that is what is true about our condition. Consequently, the opposite, that we shouldn't use words and ideas, is inquiry into a false reality, into our false condition—there's nothing true about it. If words are useless, why do we use them?

The incorrect use of words and ideas my be our biggest impediment, but not words and ideas in themselves. By using words and ideas, we display our true condition and act in accordance with it.

Do you agree?

Aphorism
Every human speaks and uses ideas—that is what is true about our condition.

Babies are born without words and ideas.
Words and concepts are secondary.

Aphorism
How do words and ideas impede inquiry into reality, "spirituality" and our "true" condition, when it is our true condition and a fact of reality that we speak in words and ideas?

Please state in words what reality is.


Reality can appear as a word but what is it made of? What is the present moment made of?
In this moment are there only words arising or is there colour and sound and sensation?