Me? I'm the embodiment of defensive.
Much better than being offensive...![]()
A spritual person is one who is in tune with that which is greater than he/she...that is my explaination.![]()
Defense is simply that, to defend against a threat. Not to harm or hold accountable, just simply survive to see another day (or provide for the progeny, etc.). Offense is to become agressive, provocate a crisis where there was none...these are totally different mind sets, particularly in the life of one who wishes to be spiritual vice religious...Offensive and defensive behavior are essentially the same, they are merely different approaches to the same response. The nature of this response is why I have apologized for maybe seeming to attack you. They both function to protect from a statement, to perhaps avoid it in some way. This is evident in that you have not approached my statement directly still.
It is as though you are intimidated by my words, something I wish to avoid. Your views are as valid as mine, in that both are utterly irrelevant and only function to convey ideas. There is no need to back down, talk freely![]()
I see an injured animal and I stop my vehicle (now I'm late for work), to help, or hold while it dies. What's in it for me? Nothing, but a sense of responsibility, and a soul that does not want to be alone in its pain...what is that?Agreed, we are discussing how this is attained.
Would you agree that a person doing good acts with ulterior motives is not a spiritual person? This is why for me it is invalid to say morals and ethics are part of spirituality, for many do this to benefit themselves - whether it be for a resume or to earn a ticket to heaven.
For me, to attune to what is "greater", one must first know what is less and renounce it - not identify with it. Would you agree with this?
Defense is simply that, to defend against a threat. Not to harm or hold accountable, just simply survive to see another day (or provide for the progeny, etc.). Offense is to become agressive, provocate a crisis where there was none...these are totally different mind sets, particularly in the life of one who wishes to be spiritual vice religious...
I see an injured animal and I stop my vehicle (now I'm late for work), to help, or hold while it dies. What's in it for me? Nothing, but a sense of responsibility, and a soul that does not want to be alone in its pain...what is that?
But where I come from my friend, I am taught that I am responsible, for both my neighbor and my fauna... I am my brothers' keeper.I do not like your explanation here... a responsibility. For me, a responsibility is something we do not necessarily wish to do, an obligation, or perhaps a sense of control on some level. You are also showing that this is against what you are actually trying to do in conveying you are now late for work. You are saying this is something which is costing you something, but it is costing the animal its life.
True compassion, for me, is free from these considerations, it is to assist because you are given the opportunity to assist. It is to console because you are there to console, there is no other consideration. This is simply the next task in your journey of life. If there are ramifications later, you deal with those at that time, but this is what is occurring during the present. If you should be fired for assisting in saving an animal, so be it, there are other jobs. If the animal lost its life, that is it, that animal is no more.
At first it is a duty...until one looks into the eyes of the other...then compassion flows like water, and worlds of stories exchange without a sound...does that make sense?I am not saying it is not a compassionate act, I am asking you to consider for yourself whether it is truly compassionate or not.
But where I come from my friend, I am taught that I am responsible, for both my neighbor and my fauna... I am my brothers' keeper.
At first it is a duty...until one looks into the eyes of the other...then compassion flows like water, and worlds of stories exchange without a sound...
But please see, I did not have to stop (according to the world). But I did according to my consciense. I am connected to all life, every life (even the sparrow in the field, worth two cents). That, is the spiritual life...I do not like your explanation here... a responsibility. For me, a responsibility is something we do not necessarily wish to do, an obligation, or perhaps a sense of control on some level. You are also showing that this is against what you are actually trying to do in conveying you are now late for work. You are saying this is something which is costing you something, but it is costing the animal its life.
True compassion, for me, is free from these considerations, it is to assist because you are given the opportunity to assist. It is to console because you are there to console, there is no other consideration. This is simply the next task in your journey of life. If there are ramifications later, you deal with those at that time, but this is what is occurring during the present. If you should be fired for assisting in saving an animal, so be it, there are other jobs. If the animal lost its life, that is it, that animal is no more.
You don't know me. But I spent 35 years duty bound to save life (I guess it was bred/taught me from childhood). But I never thought of it as a duty. I just did what I loved/came natural/spiritual...does that make sense?This will come across as offensive, but for me this is like assigning children a buddy when taking them to the park so you can keep better track. Compassion should arise simply because you recognize the same struggle in the other as is present in you. It should not be necessary to see it as an instruction, an obligation. You are not obligated to care for yourself, you do it because you do not wish to suffer, compassion is simply treating others as you treat yourself - seeing no difference at all. This, for me, is the nature of Jesus saying "love your neighbor as yourself", he doesn't merely command you watch your neighbor, he states as part of his only law that you should see them as yourself. Everything that causes you to help yourself should be the same way you treat another being in need. Is the avoidance of your own suffering a responsibility?
Other than viewing it as a duty, this is truly beautiful.
But please see, I did not have to stop (according to the world). But I did according to my consciense. I am connected to all life, every life (even the sparrow in the field, worth two cents). That, is the spiritual life...
You don't know me. But I spent 35 years duty bound to save life (I guess it was bred/taught me from childhood). But I never thought of it as a duty. I just did what I loved/came natural/spiritual...does that make sense?
I think it is a good idea to ask other people what they think.My words are used to convey an idea which is impossible to convey accurately using them, truth is found once words cease because words are not natural to our human state. The point, for instance, of the contemplative exercises I have explained above is that you arrive eventually at a point where mind can no longer logically continue, in this moment something happens, thought entirely ceases and you are aware. I know that you are closed to such instances, I have known this is the nature of your dispute with me since the start of this thread - that you think I am delusional. These exercises cannot be done through interaction, in interaction you remain rational and the experience is not possible through the rational mind.
I agree with you that I am wrong, from your viewpoint.You are actually wrong about the different understandings of soul and spirit through the world, I have studied many faiths and they are essentially all in agreement, although Christianity seems confused on the matter. Christianity is the only faith I know of that seems to use them interchangeably, they have forgotten what they actually mean. Yet, even in this faith, what is the "Holy Spirit"? They understand the soul is inside you, but what is the Holy Spirit? It is the Spirit of God, the oneness, the whole expression of their mysteries.
I think when you use the word 'I', or 'we', that you are referring to yourself. Am I wrong?As for ego, I am not particularly interested in debating what you think this word means, so I will just tell you how I use it. I use it as a more recognizable form of the concept of atman - the false self. Brahman is synonymous with the Holy Spirit in Christian thought, and in Hindu thought we are told to realize that our true nature is Brahman not atman. Christians have a similar concept, for they say that you must accept the Holy Spirit and do God's will rather than your own. You can dispute based on semantics if you'd like, but as I've quoted earlier, the Bible states you can enter the Kingdom of God before you taste death, this is when you truly accept the Holy Spirit, not when you are still fighting for self, seeing yourself as this impermanent state - this is all I describe, although through a more broad description as I am not Christian.
I think when you use the word 'I', or 'we', that you are referring to yourself. Am I wrong?
I have only met a few people who think they can choose to not do their own will. Do you think you can choose to not do your own will?
I say that to differentiate it from a cold hearted variant: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.I want to address this directly... what exactly do you think the Golden Rule means? Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
You advise people to empty their mind in meditation. I submit that two or more people being one, as expressed in some religions, means something different than what you describe.I am not here to tell others what to believe, in fact I am here to mutually discuss spiritual matters. Forums such as this can assist in this, we can compare notes - so to speak. This is very much correlated with the Golden Rule, for I only donate my experience so others are more free to share their own without believing they will be mocked. The only thing I am not prepared to waver on is my personal realization, that of oneness. Anything else we are free to discuss and I will learn from others as I'd hope they'll learn from me.
I never proclaimed your experience to be a delusion. I don't think you know what I comprehend. You have claimed the ability to choose whether or not to use your mind, and I submit that being conscienctious would be a matter of using it.I would say it is you that should consider the Golden Rule while on this site, for you have proclaimed my experience to be delusional merely because you do not comprehend it and have not experienced it yourself. You state as your display message "conscientious objector" but you are anything but. You have no desire to understand others it seems, and more than this, it seems you are ignorant to most of the scriptures of the world. How can you object to something you plainly do not comprehend? You mistake mind for conscience, this is your error - I only discuss how to realize this delusion.
I am sorry, but I have not mastered the ability to meditate, not using my mind, and to converse with you at the same time. Have you? You have shared your definition of faith. Your definition is based on the information and experience that you know, or do not know. I know and accept another. So, you can count me out of your 'We'.You have your motivations for being on this site as do I, if your purpose here is to simply dispute anything that doesn't fit your perception of reality I would say you have missed the entire point of religion and faith. We take things on faith because they are outside our perception, meditation is used to perceive without need of faith what is real. Religion is the result, the merging of oneself into the whole - the re-binding of plurality into singularity.
I say that to differentiate it from a cold hearted variant: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
You advise people to empty their mind in meditation. I submit that two or more people being one, as expressed in some religions, means something different than what you describe.
I never proclaimed your experience to be a delusion. I don't think you know what I comprehend. You have claimed the ability to choose whether or not to use your mind, and I submit that being conscienctious would be a matter of using it.
I am sorry, but I have not mastered the ability to meditate, not using my mind, and to converse with you at the same time. Have you? You have shared your definition of faith. Your definition is based on the information and experience that you know, or do not know. I know and accept another. So, you can count me out of your 'WE'.