On Travel and Spirituality

reply to post by BlueMule

Then again, you might not. Not if you realize first that its you trying to tell others what their personal spirituality requires, not me. A hermit in a cave all his life can reach heights a traveler can't. Would you barge into his cave and tell him that his spirituality doesn't meet your requirements? Or into a monetary to tell the monks that their spirituality is a costume?

I presuppose that people understand I am writing from opinion. I have seen monks with my own eyes. I have been in monasteries. I have met them with my own hands. They need no one to tell them what their spirituality is, nor would they care.

A hermit in a cave sees only what’s inside the cave. A monk in a monastery sees only what’s inside the monastery. I would leave him amongst himself if he doesn’t wish to see more—that is his right. I didn’t write this for them. I wrote for myself and the ones walking by.

Does your personal spirituality require you to tell other people about deficiencies you perceive in their spirituality? Or spirituality in general? Or to go on forums and try to sniff out hypocrites? Or what?

Yes I am cynical; honesty is sometimes refreshing in a sea of lies. But it is only through my own experiences and expression that I write from, not yours. If there is no value in my views, why take a bite out of it?

Why take it as an insult? If I’m so wrong, I therefor display my stupidity. Why not laugh at my ignorance? Teach me, don’t tell me, where I’m wrong.

Or perhaps there is a grain of truth in it?

reply to post by Kashai

It is relevant to point out that you made comments related to having an understanding of world cultures beyond your own.

You then commented about something being wrong so how did you measure this?

Looking at another society from the perspective of ones own has historically lead to all kinds of problems. Inherently only when one immerses themselves in other cultures and the meaning of there symbolism.

Does one then understand how there symbolism is referenced in their daily lives? What it means and why it is important to them? Only then does one begin to understand where they are coming from.

One can understand our world as a microcosm for everything. But one can also consider that in that regard, our ability in general to how, such a microcosm, relates to a reality, that is beyond the scope of our current comprehension.

Consider the human race from the perspective and analogy of four blind men approaching an elephant from different angles. Then describing individually their definition after having only inspecting that angle, are asked to describe an elephant.

Any thoughts?

I don’t think any view is true. Not even my own. I don’t deal in absolutes. I am merely trying to relate what I see with my own eyes using my own expression. I am relating observations in a certain manner. Do I realize others do the same? Of course. I think everyone is spiritual.

And yes, the elephant analogy...at least they tried to inspect the elephant before speaking about it. How does one observe with eyes closed? Seated? Senses closed off to the rest of the world?

reply to post by Kashai

In respect to "measurement", it is one thing to travel to Tibet and stay at a five star hotel and quite another to travel to a small village. There you secure a room with a family that has a room to spare. This during winter where the roads are so blocked that one is trapped their until Spring.

No electricity and everyone including you must do there share which is included in the arrangement for wintering in this village. In other words the fee you agree upon does not include food which you are willing to work for.

Then you will begin to understand that culture.

Any thoughts?

I agree. Travelling to a resort doesn't seem much of a deviation. If you've been amongst other cultures, then surely you've noticed that people are not that much different than each other. One cannot see this when the people are there merely to serve us drinks. Luckily, people are easy to find.

In relation to the Tao (as an example) transcendence can be accomplished without leaving a room.

Have you ever read the works of the Desert Fathers

Further

reply to post by Aphorism

yup
A belief should be moving and flowing like the fabric of the universe .... like time.
Reality for me is ... the single point at which no time ... collapses into time ... meaning all there is ... is now ... beyond time is the all and ether ... reality is virtual and holographic and fractal

Aphorism
A hermit in a cave sees only what’s inside the cave. A monk in a monastery sees only what’s inside the monastery.

Not at all. As I said, consciousness is non-local. I think your personal spirituality has not advanced enough for you to know what that really means. Hence your cynicism.

Aphorism
How does one observe with eyes closed? Seated? Senses closed off to the rest of the world?

Eyes closed in some forms of meditation perhaps open third or more eyes elsewhere.

It appears the KNOWN and or acknowledged senses are like tools for reality vision or reality information processing both metaphysical and physical reality. So you see, hear, touch, smell and even taste to process reality data with your physical eyes, ears, body, nose & mouth.

Now consider the Unknown senses ALSO part of the/you and further THE CREATOR and beyond and inhabitants there where your SOUL/SPIRIT/INTERNAL ENERGY IS associated and may even interact when in attached local stagnate (enclosed mode) or be interacted with as if SOUL/SPIRIT/INTERNAL ENERGY is sleeping or worst subdued? -Internal question you do consider yourself to possess a ETERNAL non physical metaphysical SOUL/SPIRIT/INTERNAL ENERGY yes Aphorism?) and if so then what or where does it SEE or Sense as well as locations permitted?

If you do not acknowledge any SOUL/SPIRIT/INTERNAL ENERGY associated with the Aphorism, then perhaps a local planetary travel attached? is all that can be perceived or sensed as well as interacted with as of now...

For how can the travel to or access or even contact? non locally that which may require awareness and acceptance of the metaphysical self that is not being acknowledged?


NAMASTE*******

reply to post by BlueMule

Not at all. As I said, consciousness is non-local. I think your personal spirituality has not advanced enough for you to know what that really means. Hence your cynicism.

Advanced me to what? Sitting in a cave? What of the world do you see with your non-local consciousness? Perhaps your personal spirituality has not yet allowed you out of the house.

reply to post by Kashai

In relation to the Tao (as an example) transcendence can be accomplished without leaving a room.

Nonetheless, until they leave the room do they transcend it.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

Internal question you do consider yourself to possess a ETERNAL non physical metaphysical SOUL/SPIRIT/INTERNAL ENERGY yes Aphorism?) and if so then what or where does it SEE or Sense as well as locations permitted?

I consider that I possess a movement of some sort that I did not start. Beyond that is a conjecture I'm not yet willing to make.

If you do not acknowledge any SOUL/SPIRIT/INTERNAL ENERGY associated with the Aphorism, then perhaps a local planetary travel attached? is all that can be perceived or sensed as well as interacted with as of now...

For how can the travel to or access or even contact? non locally that which may require awareness and acceptance of the metaphysical self that is not being acknowledged?

I accept the metaphysical self insofar as one speaks metaphysically.

Aphorism
reply to post by Kashai

 

In relation to the Tao (as an example) transcendence can be accomplished without leaving a room.

Nonetheless, until they leave the room do they transcend it.

No, I mean literally without leaving the room.

Chapter 47

Without going out the door, know the world
Without peering out the window, see the Heavenly Tao
The further one goes
The less one knows

Therefore the sage
Knows without going
Names without seeing
Achieves without striving

Source

reply to post by Aphorism


i see a lot of value in your sentiment... and I have enjoyed the bickering. I will raise my own contention.

A hermit in a cave sees only what’s inside the cave. A monk in a monastery sees only what’s inside the monastery. I would leave him amongst himself if he doesn’t wish to see more

its not the eyes that see. I know that sounds canned and trite.

from my own well-travelled and thoroughly-effed-up-multiple-times perspective, my personal greatest asset is critical thought. it could be said, agreeing with your op, that this comes only from a d3ep well of experience. that may or may not be true. its irrelevant.

the basic underlying function of critical thinking is in the 'traveling' and 'seeing' of multiple imaginary scenarios which are constructed exclusively in the mind and are held in a type of simultaneous superposition during the rational process. importantly, this includes the ability to obtain and assume a perspective which is on the 'outside'. we are all perfectly familiar with what the world looks like from the 'inside'.... but the 'inside is of limited use.

for instance, I am in a much better position to discern the value of the exchange of words between you and bluemule than either of you are able. you are inside, I am outside.

but how are we (any of us) qualified to discern the contents of reality when the only definitions we have for critical judgment are those which already exist 'inside'? how is it that anything truly novel and unique can ever be achieved if reality is one great big referential bumble?

the answer must come from outside of you.

people are far more beautiful when viewed from the outside. in fact I do not think it is possible to truly appreciate another person without acknowledging that your 'inside criteria' can only be a distortion of their beauty.


a well-honed critical mind is only obtained through countless hours of examining the contents of one's own mind using the tools that are, in reference to your op, most generally used for examining the external world.

and so, it is the mind that sees.... it is the mind that travels.

I think you pose a valid observation. I feel some slight difference in the possible conclusions I come to though.

For example, you wrote:

Spirituality requires movement. Braving spiritual valleys and mountains requires going through real ones. One cannot learn about oneself without putting oneself in different environments, different languages, experiencing new things, new cultures, new customs, new religions, new gods, new food, and the highly unconventional situations a wayward wanderer often finds himself in

I am not sure spirituality requires movement, but even if I chose to embrace that idea, I perceive that there is "internal movement" and "external movement".
That the "I" or eye of the observer (ones focus of attention) is drawn towards movement.
When the exterior is changing and moving, we pay attention to the exterior- to others, to the environment, to the physical body which we can see in mirrors, or looking at with our eyes, as a part of the environment.

When the movement is internal we look within, and observe the landscapes and environments accessed there, and aspects of self which are non-physical.

When you write "to know oneself" it seems you refer to the self as a physical form interacting with other physical forms. For someone engaged in a spiritual perspective, they might hear "self" as refering to a non-physical concept, which can only be glimpsed or known through introspection.

You wrote about the moral rules and lessons religions offer, but of course those are religious, not spiritual.
(why a person can be religious and not spiritual, or spiritual and not religious...)

A spiritual person who does not travel, and practices deep introspection still comes to the same moral concepts. One who is extrospective comes to them through examining the effects of their acts (be unkind to a stranger, they might punch you), while the introspective comes to the same moral conclusion but for different reasons- they become highly aware of their feelings when someone is unkind to them, and separation between self and other being less clear, they empathize- feel the feelings of others.

Two roads to the same destination. But the word spirituality is most often applied to a focus of internal or non-physical meaning, isn't it?

Aphorism
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Not at all. As I said, consciousness is non-local. I think your personal spirituality has not advanced enough for you to know what that really means. Hence your cynicism.

Advanced me to what? Sitting in a cave? What of the world do you see with your non-local consciousness? Perhaps your personal spirituality has not yet allowed you out of the house.

You remind me of a cynic who left ATS a few months ago. You've only been here a few months, right? Have you had any previous forum identities here at ATS?

It looks like you're a bit offended. Perhaps you think your honesty and realism make your spirituality more advanced than the droves of hypocritical costume-wearers you think you perceive, and so you don't like hearing that your spirituality is in fact not advanced.

Look, I'm not saying that travel has no place in spirituality. It's just not as vital a place as you say. You would know that if you had achieved a certain level of mystical awareness. Non-local awareness.

reply to post by BlueMule

You remind me of a cynic who left ATS a few months ago. You've only been here a few months, right? Have you had any previous forum identities here at ATS?

It looks like you're a bit offended. Perhaps you think your honesty and realism make your spirituality more advanced than the droves of hypocritical costume-wearers you think you perceive, and so you don't like hearing that your spirituality is in fact not advanced.

Look, I'm not saying that travel has no place in spirituality. It's just not as vital a place as you say. You would know that if you had achieved a certain level of mystical awareness. Non-local awareness.

Good morning.

I am not offended. I'm not writing for those who claim themselves more spiritually advanced than others. I am writing to those who are called spiritually less by people such as yourself. You can only ever insist we are less spiritual without taking the necessary steps to convince us otherwise. That says a lot and people need to see that sort of egoism and vanity for what it is.

reply to post by Bluesma

A spiritual person who does not travel, and practices deep introspection still comes to the same moral concepts. One who is extrospective comes to them through examining the effects of their acts (be unkind to a stranger, they might punch you), while the introspective comes to the same moral conclusion but for different reasons- they become highly aware of their feelings when someone is unkind to them, and separation between self and other being less clear, they empathize- feel the feelings of others.

Two roads to the same destination. But the word spirituality is most often applied to a focus of internal or non-physical meaning, isn't it?

I'm not sure I would recommend one (introspection) over the other (extrospection). I am saying that one without the other is useless. But yes, spirituality is applied mostly to the immaterial or internal. Why can we not apply it to everything else? Because spirituality teaches only inner-value, and it's advocates teach that we should hide and retreat inwardly instead of act.

reply to post by tgidkp


There's not much I can disagree with there. And you expressed it very eloquently, thank you. Your statement about mind makes sense. Even in the mind we can "travel", or deviate from normality, and in the process learn.

Aphorism
You can only ever insist we are less spiritual without taking the necessary steps to convince us otherwise.

I'm not insisting that your spirituality is weak. You're demonstrating it. I'm just observing it. You have nice manners though. Not that they matter. Spirituality requires neither manners nor travel.

There are common denominators in mystical traditions, travel isn't one of them. One can achieve Buddha-hood without ever leaving home.

But, one can't achieve Buddha-hood without altered states of consciousness. States that transcend time and space. States that are transpersonal.

Traveling through time and space is nice, but its no substitute for transcending time and space. They are after all just illusions.

This is in no form disrespect to those who potentially feed-thrive this way.

If there is a more metaphysical part of the human or other and some forms of CREATED energy feed off of negative soul energy or thrive off of positive soul energies that may even interact or manipulate the physical? in order to bring forth these thrive or feed points associated with the human or other metaphysical Soul/Spirit/Internal Energy. Is it not important to alert or teach many of the more metaphysical self as to prevent an imbalance in what is considered here as the physical. 1 wonders

Ex-
Some in the meta-realms causing pain suffering mass death thru conscious manipulations of the physical body to produce...

Or some in the meta-realms encouraging peace humility love thru conscious channeling encountering in order to increase a certain positive stability which may support positivity more where they inhabit and so balance.

Aphorism
In all acts of stationary meditation and prayer, one learns mostly what the back of his eyelids looks like, or how to sit, how to kneel, how to lay down, how to calm, how to seek quiet of environment for quiet of mind, how to seek quite of mind for quiet environment—how to not experience.

“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”
― Blaise Pascal, Pensées