The Spiritual Path

[seattlegal]

Hi SG —

I would like to understand how Taoism sees 'spirituality' in context of the whole person, as the point I've been arguing is that in the West, 'spirituality' and 'religion' are the same, the former is the essence or the latter, the latter is the form of the former, but the two cannot be separated.

Certainly, religion without essence becomes 'hollow ritual' ... but are there no 'full' rites in Taoism?

Taoism values spontaneity more than "rites"

Conversely, I would argue that many of the 'I am spiritual but not religious' types are really hiding from the truth.

Frankly, I would not have the temerity to say "I am a spiritual person". As our Scripture says: "because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted" (Luke 18:14).

Taoism agrees with this.

The question really centres one whether we have to conform ourselves to It, whatever the Tradition determines 'It' to be, or whether 'It' must of necessity conform Itself to us.

God bless,

Thomas

The question then becomes "what are you conforming to?" Is a religious overlay the Tao? No.

Chapter 38

High virtue is not virtuous
Therefore it has virtue
Low virtue never loses virtue
Therefore it has no virtue
High virtue takes no contrived action
And acts without agenda
Low virtue takes contrived action
And acts with agenda
High benevolence takes contrived action
And acts without agenda
High righteousness takes contrived action
And acts with agenda
High etiquette takes contrived action
And upon encountering no response
Uses arms to pull others
Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
Those who have etiquette
are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos
Those with foreknowledge
Are the flowers of the Tao
And the beginning of ignorance
Therefore the great person:
Abides in substance, and does not dwell on the thin shell
Abides in the real, and does not dwell on the flower
Thus they discard that and take this
​

 

[wil]

I've been arguing is that in the West, 'spirituality' and 'religion' are the same, the former is the essence or the latter, the latter is the form of the former, but the two cannot be separated.

Tis where we disagree....and can agree to disagree should you concur.

Spirituality....to me.... is the exploration of one's relationship with all that is... with this big blue ball, with each other, with the one....and it is all one...yet that is another point of contentioin.

Religion....to me....is man's attempt to tell other (wo)men how to accomplish the above...and how others are wrong in their methodology.


a story...which may assist in the definition... I couldn't find a source so I am paraphrasing what I recall...

There were these monk/priests on an Island sabatical, while in their morning prayers, across the water from a neighboring island they heard another praying...and doing it pathetically. After they finished their morning ritual they got in their boats and paddled to the beach across the way.

Their they found this hermit, living happily within nature, enjoying his life alone. They taught him the correct ways to pray, how to sit, the chants, and the rituals they had studied for years which had been passed down for centuries. He thanked them profusely for their advice and education, and provided them with an amazing feast from his bounty.

They rowed back to their shore, proud of what they had done, discussing how they had benefitted this poor lost soul. But the next morning, their prayers were again interuppted by his chanting and prayers... they listened and realized he was trying, but didn't have it right yet, so they vowed after they finished they would again row to his island.

As they were wrapping up their meditation time...they heard this slap, splash, splap, splashing sound getting closer and closer, they closed their prayers and turned an looked and saw the hermit running across the water towards them....he stopped and bowed and asked the holy council...."Can you tell me again about your prayers, I am afraid I have forgotten..."

 

[taijasi]

And you assume you do? You must excuse me, but there are two millenia of voices that renders that notion ridiculous.

Sorry, but the evidence that modern theosophy has consistently misinterpreted the ancient Traditions is, to my mind, undeniable. With regard to Christianity, McGregor's misrepresentation and fabrication of Origen's teaching to support his own thesis on reincarnation is enough to condemn it, and the fact that the Theosophical Association continues to promote the falsehood to this very day shows how bankrupt its founder's statement that 'there is no religion higher than truth' has become.

Thomas, I don't suggest that there aren't plenty of practicing Christians within the world at present, nor that there haven't been 2100 years of them. I simply say, when you join their company and take up the Walk, then do your mighty boasting.

You, as always, are out to "condemn" as you put it ... be it the individual, the Tradition (which doesn't meet with your approval or Mother Church's) or the Movement. The Gods Themselves, with Christ at the Helm of the Earthly Vessel They Ensoul and propel is not Good enough ... for you.

You even assail the sublime statement that "There is no higher religion than Truth," aptly proving that you understand neither. Rather, you prefer to malign both, vilifying the proponent's of God's Love and God's Wisdom.

You parade about, showing us all how many books you've read ... and as has been pointed out before, even a DONKEY can carry a library on its back. This one, it seems, has learned how to bray at the top of its lungs, or, when occasion permits, to low with the cattle ... as once it knew how to take up their cause.

Apparently it has forgotten that the same One Who walked among us those many years ago also told US that He would not leave, nor abandon US ... and you CLEARLY weren't listening when He gave unambiguous, PERFECT elucidation of such Wisdom as is preserved in John 10:16, Luke 11:36 and John 12:32.

YOUR CHURCH DAMNS, to this day, those who do not abandon and forsake their indigenous religions or chosen Faith ... thereby directly blaspheming and driving a man apart from God, delaying his approach to the Divine and confusing him along the Way.

Then you seek to ABSOLVE yourself of the SINS which your false fathers CANNOT (in their little outhouses, OH they take so much CRAP from the like!) ... by hurling insults at the Sacred FOUNT of LOVE-WISDOM Itself, and at all who drink thereat.

You, as a person, are free to speak boldly about the importance of allowing the Individual to find his OWN approach ... yet instead, you rail on about Tradition, and only demonstrate that what you really mean is "MY Tradition, Roman Catholicism."

You have been this way since ever first you arrived at Interfaith/CR, and you have not changed one bit over these many years. I can only imagine that you have been this way longer still, and for all the many frustrated souls who have banged their head against your walls, tried in vain to connect with the REAL you, or otherwise wasted time, energy and genuine effort to try and communicate, LET ALONE COMMUNE with you (Matt 18:20), I WEEP, I sympathize, and I send forth PRAYERS that the discouragement not continue to Taint their search, and stay them in their course. For, the LORD ANSWERETH ... yet Thomas, both to Him (at times, here and with me, and anywhere you see the word `Theosophy'), and to others in this respect, yours is a CLOSED DOOR.

I'd take a leaf from your own book, as you seem to delight in the odd film reference, and point to The Wizard of Oz, and some comment about it not being necessary to leave home?

The Wizard of Oz is a wonderful allegory. Dorothy represents the Soul, the Agnishvatta, the Manasaputra ... inasmuch as we overlook the error and allow this to represent the HUMAN Soul, for the time being (granted, you have never understand the latter, as you reject both the Wisdom of the East, and its Divine Representatives, some walking this planet 18 million years before Christ became Christ).

Dorothy LEAVES the Heaven-world, symbolizing the descent of the human jiva into incarnation. As she descends into samsara, she takes on a mind body (the Scarecrow, intellect), an emotional vehicle (the tin man, who had a heart all along) and the courage of the cowardly lion (Will-ATMA reflected into the etheric body).

She journeys to find the Wizard, the Master, as this one will surely know what is best for her, and be able to guide her homeward. Lo! The Master is a humbug. He is shown this way to demonstrate something for us which you, Sir Thomas, have apparently never quite grasped, and probably never will in your current incarnation.

The Master reveals (or the Good Fairy does, at any rate) that what Dorothy sought was present all along. She does not need your trappings, or any for that matter, to reach (return to) Nirvana. She has what was required, just as did her friends along the way ... and thus the Will, empowering Love-Wisdom Intelligently, comes out Supreme.

Here is not a rejection of Tradition, which this man with the magenta-colored spectacles can only behold; rather, it is an affirmation that the TRUE Tradition is one that proceeds from within, as religion was made FOR MAN, and certainly not vice versa. But of course, we were asleep when that part was explained, also.

This, my old chum (as you like to jeer), is something a bit too sublime for your likes, but until you work some deviltry and call up old Frank Baum to disprove it, I'll stick with my interpretation for the time being, OKAY?

You style yourself a Wizard, yes, then hats-off to Christ and Mother Church in the final act ... but I've had my eye on the stage the whole damn time, and for the record, yeah, I've been collecting a few facts.

It's not a matter of perspective, but insight ...

Such irony, then, that yours is so like that of a ROCK. No, I am not above a cheap shot, especially when I'm spot on. Thomas, you must prove me wrong. I haven't the least concern about getting your dander up, provoking your ire. Now do something with it, and constructive, you know?

Why don't you try and go topical, here. You see? At one point you were even going to moderate some kind of theology discussion, were you not?

Well, does it exist? Are there others? USE IT (or ... lose it, as they say)

I'm going to withdraw, for several reasons (so don't get happy and take all the credit) ... and perhaps others will appreciate a breath of fresh air which accordingly WILL issue forth ~ with Positive result.

You, I hope, will learn to find more meaning in silly song lyrics, and one day, perhaps one day, understand just what is taking/has taken/shall continue [yo dude, Forever even] TO TAKE PLACE.

GOOF! *sigh*

Probably that you're so into 'looking' that you don't see what you've got under your nose?

This is the one thing you've said in ages, to me, which actually makes good sense. I concur, wholeheartedly!

How long will it take you to realise you're barking up the wrong tree? 7 or 8 lifetimes, and you've learnt next to nothing? sheesh!

As you are that tree, again, I can see it.

As for "next to nothing," well, let's put it this way. I have probably forgotten more about Sophia Perennis in the past 5 years than you have learned in 50, or maybe even 500. The goal, on the other hand, has never been to swell one's ego up to beyond the size of Eurasia, becoming in the process an impudent PRICK.

Bite into that, and it's yours. I simply stated a FACT. Hence there is such a thing in psychology as a head SHRINK ... and hence the Buddhist and contemplative, the Taoist and other Traditions do their best to encourage the individual to find his or her `place' within the Scheme of things.

DON'T ask me to avoid egos, btw, and pretend it's all eggshell time when you yourself have had yolk on your face since ever you cracked out of your proverbial hiranyagarbha and cracked up ... which, for the life of me, never manages to crack ME up (but that's another matter).

Now ~ and for awhile ~ you can go along and continue your contemplations, as I could not cure this swollen head with another whole lifetime equally spent in renunciation/Penance (as you Catholics call it) ... and every exchange like this just makes that basket over there a bit more burdensome for the lifting.

Realize, one day, Brother man, that when we burden our own basket, we burden that of our fellows ~ ALL of our Fellows (60 billion humans, 140 billion angels, that's about 200 billion by my reckoning) ~ and you'll see ... that Christ had REASON ENOUGH to be a man of sorrows, IF that were indeed what, or who, he is.

He isn't.

Good day and ...

Really?

Really?

Really?

Yes, Yes, Yes

I shall see you, again, either in the in-between ...

... in our next incarnation(s) ...

... or both (and by far, most likely, this lattermost).

Now, you may wager me Wales, but that's more than you can afford.

Don't bet your Soul, don't bet your Mother's ... bet, instead, your ego ~
and be ready, plenty ready, to lose it.

Have I quite lost it, yet? Oh, I keep 'em guessing, old Bean, but I doubt anyone here is confused about that.

What remains to be SEEN is ... how cool of a Christ is a ... (wait a second)

 

[Sam Albion]

Thomas, in response to your reply to my comments...

... I don't think there IS any objective measure or specific expression of "spirituality", or "religion". As the bible says... "Ye shall know them by their fruits". I like to believe that both God and myself are on the same page with this one.

...I see that your major concern appears to be that man is forgetting to place God at the centre. You worry that people place themselves there, instead. You seem to be saying that only the perspective of Traditionalists is valid, as they are the only ones who do religion how it should be done.

But... using myself as my only real example... I still have God. That God is the same God I marvelled at, as a child, but now I know God better. Instead of God being the Mega-magic-being; the Judge, the Jury, God, for me, now, is an ally, and a friend.

Union with God is the goal of God-seekers. Yet most people who practise religion don't do it to meet God. They have other issues, more pressing concerns that they hope religion will help them to address. It's often not about God. It's about blindly following tradition, or seeking community, or seeking solace or succour. Not meeting, uniting, with God.

and, yes... blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, the needy, those who grieve, for they may find God.

Religious observance should be something private and interior, in my opinion. In Matthew, it says... "be not like the hypocrites and stand on the street corner shouting about God. If you want to speak with God, stand in the wardrobe".

Okay, I'm paraphrasing, for the sake of humour, but... Is Matthew wrong? For me, part of the reason I mistrust religious types is my awareness that the majority of them wouldn't know God if he jumped up and bit them on the ass. People can recite trite mantras, and they can contort their bodies into various shapes, but that's not about God, either.

I find it a little... disconcerting... that you struggle with the idea that man can be a self-propelled entity and decide for himself how his inner world should look. Yes, man, utilizing traditions, shapes himself to become more favoured in the eyes of God, but why should a man shape himself to become more agreeable to a God who cares nothing for him? Why should a man make himself perfect to please a God who will not reveal himself no matter how perfect man becomes?

I have often spoken in IF about my "(pseudo) religious experiences". I feel I DO unite with God. And when we meet, and become one... it's amazing. Then I see God as massive, and majestic, and I am supremely grateful, grateful that God wants to know me, as I know him.

But it makes me question, too. Am I not good enough for God, as I am? Surely I must be, for God to seek me out? God must "like" me. Otherwise God would surely punish me? Maybe God sees me; unloved, unworthy, ugly, and he says, to me: Sam, I love you. Sam, I accept you, and you are beautiful, to me. I find it difficult to believe this is epilespy, or oversentimentality, or downright self-deception, because God seems to give me what I need when I need it.

And, yes... I do have to "behave" a certain way. Not because if I don't behave, I go to hell, but because I believe that God wants me to behave a certain way. God doesn't want me to lie, or to cheat, or to commit murders. I do not behave this way so that men will like me. I behave this way to honour God.

You said: "Take the Sermon on the Mount ... it says it all". Indeed it does. Jesus tells his disciples that charity, and decency and religious observance are all well and good, but if man does these acts to impress other men, and not because of a desire to please God, then the mans acts have no merit. It says that before leaving your gifts at the altar, go and make peace with your brothers first. Here Jesus himself states that "wrongly directed" religious observance is useless, and worthless.

I worry that you, and not I, lessen God. I feel that you believe that without a "gate-keeper", without a guru, or a priest, or a shaman, man cannot know God/cannot seek God. Yet -- when God spoke to Moses, he did not use an intermediary. When Paul went blind, did a priest make him blind? Did Jesus speak to God via another being, or by himself? I am not placing myself at the same "rank" as Jesus, Moses, or Paul, but we four DO have something in common -- we are all human beings, human beings who feel that God speaks to us.

we can't all be epileptic fantasists. Or maybe I am, and paul and jesus and moses are not.

why them, and not me?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Tis where we disagree....and can agree to disagree should you concur.

Well I'm arguing from the historical position, to offer background on the debate, rather than contemporary understanding, which I would argue rather assumes an historically unsound speculation without realising it.

The distinction in the West only arose with the emergence of secularism. It's not there in writing before the 17th century, and in Greek or Russian Orthodoxy, you'd get a polite smile and shake of the head — they regard it as just another symptom of a materialist culture.

The idea came into fruition under Enlightenment thinking, but the Enlightenment was anti-religious and anti-spiritual, even by your definition.

So I'd go further and say that the change in definition of the term over the last 300 odd years renders what was once understood as an objective reality, but has now, under discreet secular argumentation, come to define a somewhat subjective and sentimental personal disposition, tinged with superstition depending upon how much one refers to a religion within the idea of spirituality.

A classic example is the staggering amount of 'Quantum hokum' emerged with regard to the soul, spirituality, etc., etc ...

Spirituality....to me.... is the exploration of one's relationship with all that is... with this big blue ball, with each other, with the one....and it is all one...yet that is another point of contention.

OK, but that's a self-declared subjective determination though, which is not really very helpful. It's not a definition really, as it would mean someone would have to know you before they could begin to know what it meant.

I use 'spirituality' within a more concise context. I would say what you call spirituality I call personal psychism, as it refers to one's approach to things.

Religion....to me....is man's attempt to tell other (wo)men how to accomplish the above...and how others are wrong in their methodology.

Oh Wil, that doesn't touch on what religion is at all does it, that's just a negative observation about a human tendency which makes itself evident in any activity.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

but to say you MUST dance? so all you in wheel chairs you are headed to my perceived hell....or you must chant, or call and respond...all you deaf and or mute...sorry...can't join the club... or if they get special dispensation...hee hee...I want the triple A rate too.

Why do you always look for the negative?

God bless

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, I don't suggest that there aren't plenty of practicing Christians within the world at present, nor that there haven't been 2100 years of them. I simply say, when you join their company and take up the Walk, then do your mighty boasting.

I'm not the one boasting here.

You, as always ...

Quite the opposite. I'm the one in this dialogue defending Tradition, be it Abrahamic, Brahminic, Buddhist ...

It just seem that way to you, because modern Theosophy is one of the worst offenders when it comes to misrepresenting what Christianity is.

You even assail the sublime statement that "There is no higher religion than Truth,"

You've got some neck, I'll give you that.

What I said, as well you know, is that anyone who says that, and then promulgates a lie, is a hypocrite.

I would also point out that, as I have been told by Nick and yourself, your Theosophy movement places no obligation on anyone to believe anything ... so by your own declaration, the religion of one's own opinion is higher than the religion of truth ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

As the bible says... "Ye shall know them by their fruits". I like to believe that both God and myself are on the same page with this one.

I hope you are, and I hope I'm there, too.

I see that your major concern appears to be that man is forgetting to place God at the centre.

Forgetfulness of God is part of the human condition. My concern is man is putting himself there, and even the self he is putting there falls a long way short of what he truly is.

The God of which modernity speaks is, more often than not, an idol of our own projection. Certainly the cult of the West is that of the Ego, Hollywood the new Jerusalem ... understandable in the face of the grinding inhumanity of industrialisation.

You worry that people place themselves there, instead. You seem to be saying that only the perspective of Traditionalists is valid, as they are the only ones who do religion how it should be done.

I'm simply saying that 'spiritual but not religious' seems to me to mean 'God my terms'...

As George Santayana said:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.( italic my emphasis)

Most are oblivious, or ill-informed, or present nothing but a tissue of prejudice, when discussing the origins of the ideas they're reformatting.

Its the fruit of the prevailing philosophy today, the Philosophy of Relativism, and if one is not aware of that, and its inherent tendencies, and the fact that the world's Sacra Doctrina were produced under a radically different philosophy (of a Transcendent Absolute) then it's pretty obvious that the chances of correctly interpreting those Scriptures is almost nil.

That's a given in the science of literary theory, and yet when it comes to Scriptural interpretation, almost the opposite is the case.

Union with God is the goal of God-seekers. Yet most people who practise religion don't do it to meet God. They have other issues, more pressing concerns that they hope religion will help them to address. It's often not about God. It's about blindly following tradition, or seeking community, or seeking solace or succour. Not meeting, uniting, with God.

Are you sure? Could it not be that perhaps people don't have the capacity to verbalise it like that? Are we not 'writing them off' because they're not as clever or as erudite as we'd like them to be? Most people just want to be loved ...
... whereas a lot of 'God-seekers' I've met want something out of it as a reward for their efforts.

And where did the 'God seekers' get the notion of 'union' from? It's patently a preposterous idea — how can anything so ephemeral, unite with the Changeless Absolute? As someone observed, God and man are more unalike than man is unalike anything else in the universe. (I am being rhetorical here)

So the idea of 'Union with the Divine' comes from a Tradition, but not the how of it, that's for me to decide ... admittedly, the how of it in Christianity is hard, but the how of it in the Greek Philosophical Tradition is nigh-on impossible!

Augustine v Pelagius:
Everyone will side with Pelagius in his dispute with Augustine, 'cos' Augustine represents the Roman Catholic Church and we don't like them. If Augustine is right, then you and I and most people here have a chance. In fact the offer is open to anyone.

If he's not however, and Pelagius is right, then I doubt there's anyone here who has a snowball's hope in hell of attaining Divine Union.

Arius v Athenasius:
If Arius is right, then there's a major impediment between man and God, and moreover the gulf between God and us is beyond measure, a chasm never to be crossed. We cannot know God in any way, and the idea of 'Divine Union' is off the table, it's a non-starter in the Arian scheme of things.

Religious observance should be something private and interior, in my opinion.

No, it absolutely should not. Prayer is private and interior ... check your Matthew again.

And I know about 'worship neither on the mountain nor in the temple' — but if it is private, then Christ would never have gone public, would He?

In Matthew, it says... "be not like the hypocrites and stand on the street corner shouting about God. If you want to speak with God, stand in the wardrobe".

Quite ... prayer ... not religious observance. Alms giving, helping the poor, the sick, the needy.

God makes Himself known to us, but we say the knowledge of God is to be kept secret, personal and interior, and must not impinge on anyone else. So God says, OK, if that's the way you want it, I'll keep Myself to Myself too ...

Put another way. You have a girlfriend, but you keep her secret ... how long is that relationship gonna last?

For me, part of the reason I mistrust religious types is my awareness that the majority of them wouldn't know God if he jumped up and bit them on the ass.

OK. But that's the 'type', not the Tradition. That's my point. It's so easy to pick out an example ... Dr Harold Shipman was a doctor in the UK who took it upon himself to kill over 250 people ... so by the same rule, the practice of medicine in crap, stay away from doctors, and regardless of what the texts might say, better to make it up as you go along ...

I find it a little... disconcerting... that you struggle with the idea that man can be a self-propelled entity and decide for himself how his inner world should look.

Because look at the outer world those inner worlds have produced. And for all their clichéd arguments, non-religious cultures have done more harm and damage, and inflicted more violence on people, than religion ...

It's not my inner world I'm interested in, it's God's inner world.

Yes, man, utilizing traditions, shapes himself to become more favoured in the eyes of God,

Yes, and Tradition is his best bet.

You said: "Take the Sermon on the Mount ... it says it all". Indeed it does ... Here Jesus himself states that "wrongly directed" religious observance is useless, and worthless.

So that does away with all Tradition then? Is that not a 'baby with the bathwater' scenario?

And, that being the case, why not, without the tradition, rightly directed, we're all lost?

I'm not saying that, I'm putting a viewpoint that is just as valid as the assumption, based on nothing more than the fact that I exist, that God is obliged to me ...

Read Job. Read Exodus — many exegetes interpret the 'I am that I am' statement to mean 'who the hell d'you think you are, asking Me who I am?'

I mean, God just says 'to heck with it' and this particular universe blinks out as if it never was ... no loss to God ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Hi Wil —

Well I'm arguing from the historical position, to offer background on the debate, rather than contemporary understanding, which I would argue rather assumes an historically unsound speculation without realising it.

As if the contemporary perspective does not include the historical...it just ain't tied to it. I'm not going back to slavery, marrying concubines, stoning etc. We've contemporarily moved on.

The distinction in the West only arose with the emergence of secularism. It's not there in writing before the 17th century, and in Greek or Russian Orthodoxy, you'd get a polite smile and shake of the head — they regard it as just another symptom of a materialist culture.

Again....so what. e=mc squared wasn't understood before the 17th century either, nor was flight.... again, I ain't going back to throwing the chamber pot out the window every morning... we've come a long way baby..(in spirituality) religions are largely frozen in time with old historical perspectives....a crying shame to allow humans to evolve and their minds to stagnate.

The idea came into fruition under Enlightenment thinking, but the Enlightenment was anti-religious and anti-spiritual, even by your definition.

So I'd go further and say that the change in definition of the term over the last 300 odd years renders what was once understood as an objective reality, but has now, under discreet secular argumentation, come to define a somewhat subjective and sentimental personal disposition, tinged with superstition depending upon how much one refers to a religion within the idea of spirituality.

A classic example is the staggering amount of 'Quantum hokum' emerged with regard to the soul, spirituality, etc., etc ...


OK, but that's a self-declared subjective determination though, which is not really very helpful. It's not a definition really, as it would mean someone would have to know you before they could begin to know what it meant.

I use 'spirituality' within a more concise context. I would say what you call spirituality I call personal psychism, as it refers to one's approach to things.


Oh Wil, that doesn't touch on what religion is at all does it, that's just a negative observation about a human tendency which makes itself evident in any activity.

Definition of RELIGION

1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back

First Known Use: 13th century

Constrain, sanction, restrain, tie back... I'll buy that.

Definition of SPIRITUAL

1
: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>

2
a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>

3
: concerned with religious values

4
: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>



Middle English, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French espirital, spiritual, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus First Known Use: 14th century

spirit, breath... like G!d breathing into man, like the contemporary...not historical baptism with water....but with breath, Holy Spirit, with spirit...spirituality

Mark 1:8, "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."￾

John 1:33, "And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, "He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit."
Acts 1:5, "for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
Acts 11:16, "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit."



again....

Religion.....First Known Use: 13th century
Spiritual....First Known Use: 14th century

Daggone newfangled things...who can keep up.

 

[Thomas]

As if the contemporary perspective does not include the historical...I'm not going back to slavery, marrying concubines, stoning etc.

Am I? You're straw-manning again ...

we've come a long way baby...

Really? Ask Gandhi his opinion of that.

I think technologically we certainly have, and we dazzled ourselves with its marvels to convince ourselves of just that. Personally, I'm not convinced.

... a crying shame to allow humans to evolve and their minds to stagnate.

You are kidding, right? And do you realise how prejudiced you come across? D'you really think the idea one had just now outweighs everything that's gone before?

You do realise that the Greeks had atomic theory? That, as someone said, 'the history of philosophy is a footnote to Plato' ... our minds are not so much stagnant, as surfing on the crest of the utterly ephemeral.

Gandhi said "Indolence is a delightful but distressing state; we must be doing something to be happy" and that about sums us up, we keep ourselves busy with our technologies ... and yet we are less happy today than we were ...

spirit, breath... like G!d breathing into man, like the contemporary...not historical baptism with water....but with breath, Holy Spirit, with spirit...spirituality

But, Wil, hey ... maybe some guy said this thousands of years ago, maybe they just made it up! What the heck do they know, right? He probably had slaves and was shagging his concubine! This is just old myth baggage, right? The exaggerations of old men round the fireside?

Or ... what makes this bit valid, when you discard and discredit the sources?

And, come on, don't quote the Bible at me, you told me that's just old mens' tales round the fireside. Don't tell me you've had an epiphany?

Religion.....First Known Use: 13th century / Spiritual....First Known Use: 14th century

Well old then ... not worth a light, by your measure.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Namaskar Thomas,

It ISN"T that the old thought and understandings and tradition has no value.....it just ISN"T valuable because it is old or traditional.


And do I think that ideas that some folks come up with today can outweigh all that have come before?? Of course I do, these ideas stand on the shoulders of all the other ones, they have the benefit of all of the previous ideas..... Now do I think all ideas or modern thought fit in that category? Of course I don't.

And you tell me not to quote the bible atcha? Now that is hilarious my brother, you can't scream the sky is pink for years and then when I agree with you tell me I am a nincompoop...

or I guess you can.

 

[Thomas]

...it just ISN"T valuable because it is old or traditional.

Never said it was, did I? Yet whenever the old or traditional is mentioned, you always jump to the negative aspect to discredit the whole caboodle.

And do I think that ideas that some folks come up with today can outweigh all that have come before? Of course I do, these ideas stand on the shoulders of all the other ones... they have the benefit of all of the previous ideas...

That's quite a quantitative way of looking at things though, isn't it? Standing on someone's shoulders does not make you taller than they, and rather indicates a dependence.

And you tell me not to quote the bible atcha? Now that is hilarious my brother...

No, I'm saying you can't dismiss Scripture as hokey one moment, then cite it as a clincher the next.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Oh gad, guys, this debate is as old as language. The first human who strung together a sentence was probably told (in grunts of course) "stick to what worked for our forefathers". It is not really a case of modernism versus tradition or religion versus spirituality (hint, those terms are all old enough to qualify as tradition, thank you OED). It's liberal versus conservative--keep tradition for tradition's sake because it is right or trust that G!D gave individuals the brainpower to blow their own nose.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I'm saying you can't dismiss Scripture as hokey one moment, then cite it as a clincher the next.

I agree.

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

. . . Hollowed be thy Name . . . on earth AS IT IS in Heaven.

OMG:
Appropo, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami presented His Translation &
Commentary on a New edition of the Bhagavad-Gita
[pub c.1966 in NYC USA] with the title,
Bhagavad-Gita AS IT IS ---All for the sake of The Spiritual Path [aka, in sanskrit, dharma-patha].

 

[Bhaktajan II]

It ISN"T that the old thought and understandings and tradition has no value.....it just ISN"T valuable because it is old or traditional.

Ironically, you have expressed the pathos of the emperial colonialists conquestador expansions of the old world . . . during the Renaissance.

Ironically, while exploited natural resources took place . . . so did educating the Natives ---the Japanese too soaked up every lesson.

 

[wil]

No, I'm saying you can't dismiss Scripture as hokey one moment, then cite it as a clincher the next.

God bless,

Thomas

I don't dismiss scripture as hokey, it is my number one goto book for my spiritual contemplation.

I see it as 66 books containing truth, not often historical facts but truth, parables, allegory, mysticism, metaphors, metaphysical thought and ancient mythology, all incredibly valuable for my understanding, spiritual growth and acceptance of the world around me.

Hokey? Hell no.

Something to be read literally and shoved down someones throat? Hell no.

A good place to start quoting from when someone condemns others sanctimoniously? Hell yes.

 

[iBrian]

Originally Posted by I, Brian
After all, that's the entire point of religion, isn't it? To try and organise and formulate what may or may not be spiritual experience, insight, and revelation so that those without may be provided with a glimpse of what it may be?

No. That's a modern material/consumerist view.

Are you saying that religion is a form of consumerism, then?

After all, if religious beliefs did not require organising and formulating of what constituted spiritual experience, insight, and revelation, then what would be the point of any church?

 

[MARIE NICKERSON]

Some great thoughts to be found
in this thread! I like this: Don't past-
trip, don't future trip, and don't be
conceptual in the here-and-now!
Long conceptual posts tend to
lose me.

 

[Nephilim48]

Spirituality is difficult to define and I found that the source foundation helps us understand ourselves better than any. Take a look

 

[JakeH]

If you want to truly understand yourself, instead of the source foundation, try going to the source. "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find....". Most important verse there is, period. A word of advice....you better be sincere as God's BS meter is flawless. Also, your desire to know The Truth better be solid as it can be rather troubling at first.
Laus Deo