T
What isn't spiritual?
- Thread starter dauer
- Start date
Bandit,
I was presenting my own perspective on how things can become spiritual based on Definition A as given previously. As the Jewish tradition goes, that brachah is said after leaving the bathroom and it advocates not thinking about G!d while on the toilet. One of your previous posts was very sarcastic and rude in both creating a straw man and poking fun at it, and you've become that way before in discussion with me. I don't quite understand why you have that reaction. Instead of ignoring your behavior, I responded to it directly in the hopes that by seeing it again you would realize your actions and redirect yourself. Unfortunately, you just seem to have gotten very defensive. I come here to learn from others and share with others my own thoughts. Why do you come here?
Path,
I can relate to that.
-- Dauer
I was presenting my own perspective on how things can become spiritual based on Definition A as given previously. As the Jewish tradition goes, that brachah is said after leaving the bathroom and it advocates not thinking about G!d while on the toilet. One of your previous posts was very sarcastic and rude in both creating a straw man and poking fun at it, and you've become that way before in discussion with me. I don't quite understand why you have that reaction. Instead of ignoring your behavior, I responded to it directly in the hopes that by seeing it again you would realize your actions and redirect yourself. Unfortunately, you just seem to have gotten very defensive. I come here to learn from others and share with others my own thoughts. Why do you come here?
Path,
I can relate to that.
-- Dauer
B
Bandit
Guest
Dauer
if you are going to ask what is not spiritual then turn everything into what IS spiritual, what is your real point of asking?
Other than creating an antogonistic thread.
You answer 3 out of 15 of my questions & one them is about crapping on the toilet.
& we already settled that. We disagree. So why keep arguing the same thing? That is not my idea of learning something.
B
Bandit
Guest
Beer and wine. Duh!!
with a pizza.
Bandit,
If you look back, I intentionally did not include my own thoughts from the start. I let other people say what they wanted to and the thread took the direction toward "what is spiritual" on its own. That is hardly a decision on my part. If you review my post in which I provide three definitions, I'm not saying spirituality is all of those three or none of those three. I am saying those are the three definitions of spirituality that I have seen in the thread and pointing out which I tend to agree with. When you protest to spirituality being one definition by identifying with two definitions I point out that you're mixing up two different concepts of spirituality that have been presented.
I've seen very few conversations on forums where the individual who responds to another responds to every point and query that they've made. I responded to those issues in your post that I found engaging and was interested in exploring further.
I will note that in your post to which I'm responding you made no attempt to own the behavior of yours that I pointed out previously, that is your sarcastic and mocking straw man of a point of view that you disagree with.
-- Dauer
If you look back, I intentionally did not include my own thoughts from the start. I let other people say what they wanted to and the thread took the direction toward "what is spiritual" on its own. That is hardly a decision on my part. If you review my post in which I provide three definitions, I'm not saying spirituality is all of those three or none of those three. I am saying those are the three definitions of spirituality that I have seen in the thread and pointing out which I tend to agree with. When you protest to spirituality being one definition by identifying with two definitions I point out that you're mixing up two different concepts of spirituality that have been presented.
I've seen very few conversations on forums where the individual who responds to another responds to every point and query that they've made. I responded to those issues in your post that I found engaging and was interested in exploring further.
I will note that in your post to which I'm responding you made no attempt to own the behavior of yours that I pointed out previously, that is your sarcastic and mocking straw man of a point of view that you disagree with.
-- Dauer
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
some other time
B
Bandit
Guest
you DID include your own thoughts from the start. You said enough time is spent talking about what is spiritual. Hello? Is that not your own thought?
I also would not go to a topic that is defining what it is to be spiritual & what spiritual means.
then it is really about what is spirtual & defining the word spiritual not defining what is not spiriutal. I see plenty of posts about what is not spiritual. so, this is really about what is spirtual even though your opening thougt says something totally different.
Then why keep talking about what IS spiritual, sacred, holy & divine? when you asked for something different?
it says QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION:WHAT IS NOT SPIRITUAL?
WHY?
because enough time is spent talking about what IS spiritual sacred holy & divine.
That is not your own thought? Then who came up with it?
I would never had joined in the first place if it was about what is spiritual. WHY? because enough time is spent on what is spiritual.
I hardly view such a silly argument as learning something, other than people don't mean what they say.
On a side note You must hold grudges for a very long time, Dauer, but I honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about with all the other rif raf about me personally except to create more arguments for discussion & I am not biting.
If you should ever want to discuss what is NOT spiritual I will reconsider.
So do continue with whatever points you feel you need to make about what is spiritual & defining that - from here count me OUT.
I also would not go to a topic that is defining what it is to be spiritual & what spiritual means.
then it is really about what is spirtual & defining the word spiritual not defining what is not spiriutal. I see plenty of posts about what is not spiritual. so, this is really about what is spirtual even though your opening thougt says something totally different.
Then why keep talking about what IS spiritual, sacred, holy & divine? when you asked for something different?
it says QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION:WHAT IS NOT SPIRITUAL?
WHY?
because enough time is spent talking about what IS spiritual sacred holy & divine.
That is not your own thought? Then who came up with it?
I would never had joined in the first place if it was about what is spiritual. WHY? because enough time is spent on what is spiritual
.I hardly view such a silly argument as learning something, other than people don't mean what they say.
On a side note You must hold grudges for a very long time, Dauer, but I honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about with all the other rif raf about me personally except to create more arguments for discussion & I am not biting.
If you should ever want to discuss what is NOT spiritual I will reconsider.
So do continue with whatever points you feel you need to make about what is spiritual & defining that - from here count me OUT.
Bandit,
You are now taking me too literally, and I am not certain if that's intentional or if you really don't understand what I meant. I meant that I did not express my opinion on what is not spiritual. Presenting my reasoning for why this might be a worthwhile discussion is a separate matter. I also note that in your response here you continue to be rude and defensive.
The direction this thread took has nothing to do with my initial post. It developed organically. Certainly in discussing what is not spiritual, what is spiritual will come up because the absence is being defined. This is quite different from a thread on what is spiritual in which what is not spiritual might not come up at all.
Again, you're taking me too literally and I note by your use of caps and rhetorical questions that you are not thinking rationally but instead are acting impulsively.
I don't see what this is in reference to, although I will note that instead of making observations about what I've said you've resorted to calling it a silly argument and suggesting that I don't say what I mean.
Bandit, I don't hold grudges. I do, however, have a superior long-term memory (incidentally there are other elements of my memory which are not very good, like my ability to remember names, dates and faces.) There is a huge difference between the two. I am not attempting to create an argument. I am pointing out your rude and inappropriate behavior earlier in this thread. If you don't agree with something, that's fine. Just say you don't agree. When you create a straw man out of something that you don't understand and poke fun at it you're not helping much at all. I've seen you do that much and revert to ad hominem attacks in the past as well as here.
-- Dauer
You are now taking me too literally, and I am not certain if that's intentional or if you really don't understand what I meant. I meant that I did not express my opinion on what is not spiritual. Presenting my reasoning for why this might be a worthwhile discussion is a separate matter. I also note that in your response here you continue to be rude and defensive.
The direction this thread took has nothing to do with my initial post. It developed organically. Certainly in discussing what is not spiritual, what is spiritual will come up because the absence is being defined. This is quite different from a thread on what is spiritual in which what is not spiritual might not come up at all.
Again, you're taking me too literally and I note by your use of caps and rhetorical questions that you are not thinking rationally but instead are acting impulsively.
I don't see what this is in reference to, although I will note that instead of making observations about what I've said you've resorted to calling it a silly argument and suggesting that I don't say what I mean.
Bandit, I don't hold grudges. I do, however, have a superior long-term memory (incidentally there are other elements of my memory which are not very good, like my ability to remember names, dates and faces.) There is a huge difference between the two. I am not attempting to create an argument. I am pointing out your rude and inappropriate behavior earlier in this thread. If you don't agree with something, that's fine. Just say you don't agree. When you create a straw man out of something that you don't understand and poke fun at it you're not helping much at all. I've seen you do that much and revert to ad hominem attacks in the past as well as here.
-- Dauer
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Namaste and thank you for the response.
As far as I know, the Buddha Dharma does not say that specifically. But to the best of my knowledge, it also does not specify the limits of possible applications for Dharma concepts and principles. There are many possible uses for a given tool .... some of them perhaps not mentioned in the instructions. If it works, it's hard to argue against a given application!
It would be an oversimplification to say that Buddhism lacks theology because it has plenty (e.g., Emptiness, causality, and Buddha nature doctrines). On the other hand , I think it would be fair to say that much of the Buddhist wisdom literature is concerned with a description of mechanisms, dynamics, and expressions that would appear to have a lot of universality. This description makes for a fairly generic nonsectarian psychology of transcendence and doesn't necessarily support an agnostic or atheist line of inquiry.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing about the Manjushri teachings, for example, that would make them incompatible with Christian understandings of spiritual knowledge.
You are correct to point out that whenever I make comments about Buddhism, it's usually with my own applications in mind. However, I don't think I'm the first to make an East-West link by thinking of Mahayana consciousness (e.g., dharmakaya and the perfection of wisdom) as Christian noumena.
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste Netti-Netti,
thank you for the post.
are you aware of any teaching of the Buddhas which indicate that consideration of deities is, in any way, relevant to ones practice?
Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-lə-jē\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural the·ol·o·giesEtymology:Middle English theologie, from Anglo-French, from Latin theologia, from Greek, from the- + -logia -logyDate:14th century 1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2 a: a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement> b: a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>
3: a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary
Buddha Dharma has theology in the loose sense of definition number 1, leaving out the God bits of course. kby g kyboard brokn back lar
thank you for the post.
are you aware of any teaching of the Buddhas which indicate that consideration of deities is, in any way, relevant to ones practice?
Main Entry:the·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-lə-jē\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural the·ol·o·giesEtymology:Middle English theologie, from Anglo-French, from Latin theologia, from Greek, from the- + -logia -logyDate:14th century 1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world2 a: a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement> b: a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>
3: a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary
Buddha Dharma has theology in the loose sense of definition number 1, leaving out the God bits of course. kby g kyboard brokn back lar
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Sure.
A quick look at the Pali Canon reveals many references to deities that seem to vary in stature. The Mahasamaya Sutta mentions 60 diva groups. There is the story of Kevatta the householder who went to the Brahma world looking for answers who had a chance to meet several of these beings.
The Kevaddha Sutta describes the householder's conversations with a variety of deities, who are identied as follows: Four Great kings, the gods of the Thirty-three Sakka, the ruler of the gods, Yama gods, the god named Santusita, the Nimmanarati gods, god named Sunimmita, Paranimmitavasavatti gods, the god Vasavatti, gods of the retinue of Brahma, and the Great Brahma. None of these gods had an answer.... apparantly because the question was misstated....not because they had no potential to provide insight and guidance.
DN 11: Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta
It seems deities are routinely consulted for informational purposes. For example, the Khuddaka Nikaya's Sesavati that suggests that an individual practitioner might consult them to gain an understanding of rebirth:
Of what calming and self-restraint is this the result? By the fruit of what deed have you arisen here?
As for authenticity:
The Khuddaka Nikaya have been identifed as "the fifth and last section of the Pali-language Sutta Pitaka, one of the sacred texts of Theravada Buddhism. Written between 500 BC and the 1st century AD, its contents include sermons and doctrinal and ethical discourses attributed to the Buddha. It also contains all the major poetic works of the Pali canon (see Tripitaka)."
Khuddaka Nikaya definition of Khuddaka Nikaya in the Free Online Encyclopedia.Clearly, consultation with deities is being modeled and thus implicitly encouraged in these various accounts.
There is also an attempt to alert us to evil spirits such as Namuci, whose team is described as purveyors of various degeneracies. From the Padhana Sutta:
Sensual passions are your first army. Your second is called Discontent. Your third is Hunger & Thirst. Your fourth is called Craving. Fifth is Sloth & Drowsiness. Sixth is called Terror. Your seventh is Uncertainty. Hypocrisy & Stubbornness, your eighth. Gains, Offerings, Fame, & Status wrongly gained, and whoever would praise self & disparage others.
Sn 3.2: Padhana Sutta The Padhana Sutta is part of the Sutta Nipatam, which features some of the oldest discourses in the Pali Canon (i.e., some of the Buddha's earliest teachings).
We know that later Buddhism embraced deities and sacred beings wholeheartedly even if they were adopted from the indigneous cultures. Oni Jinja or demon shrines were not uncommon. The implication here is that the original teachings apparently did not specifically exclude consideration of deities or else the syncretic varieties of Chinese, Tibetan, Thai, and Japanese Buddhisn (all of which have lots and lots of gods, deities, "Knowledge Kings," etc) would not have come about.
Indian/Nepalese Buddhism likewise had deities. For example, Vasudhara the deity of abundance resmbles Laksmi, the popular Hindu goddess. With minor modifications, Nepal's Newar Buddhism would adopt an entire pantheon of Hindu gods (Hariti).
Buddha dealt with the supernatural himself and clearly took it seriously. So why shouldn't an individual practitioner?
N
Nick_A
Guest
Yes there does appear to be a vertical scale of being in Buddhism much like in Christianity. On the Buddhist scale of being we have :
1. Devas or gods.
2. Asuras or titans (or jealous gods, or demigods),
3. Manusyas or humans.
4. Tiryaks or animals.
5. Pretas or hungry ghosts.
6. Narakas or demons (hell beings)
So we have two levels above us
At one time there was a great convention including various gods along with bodhisattvas and others for the purpose of getting to the bottom of it.
The Demonstration of the Inconceivable State of Buddhahood Sutra
We are in basic agreement. I am sure that all religion has an element of imagination or magic with little fairies living in the yard & things like that.
I also liked your analogy of being IN when compared to father & son while using the log in the pond & the pond(water) in the log. Both maintain their own identity yet are inseperable when being IN, by or through.
The only difference we might have is I see spirit as more than just mind though including the mind. The spirit can travel & detatch itself & actually move from the place it was to another place. Some might call it telepathic, Near Death, or an array of words & definitions.
I dont rely on anything material to get to a spiritual place or state of mind which is probably unique as most people seem to need a ceremony or order of service to get off the gorund. I don't need other people to do it either, though sometimes that is nice to reflect & bounce off of others in the same room.
I have discovered that each spirit has a substance, though it cannot be measured in terms of weight, volume, time or girdth. A vapor, mist-like, substance, able to pass through the material world, able to move in & out & at speeds that cannot be measured... though not always at will, it can be done.
One can send thoughts in the material world, kind of like sending your voice over the telephone or writing it in a paper or manifesting oneself in love through, in & by sending flowers, this does not make the one (mind/spirit) manifesting itself the actual flowers.
Probably the best & most heartwarming analogy would be knowing someones voice. Then you do not hear them speak for 25 years. At last you hear that persons voice in a different location or perhaps the location you always knew the voice & without actually seeing the face, you know who the person is by the words spoken, the dialect, the tone, and a particular sound, frequency & vibration.
When sonmeone says, "It is good to hear your voice." That is a sign of recogintion...I know you from hearing you & I remember your voice from 25 years ago.
So in a nutshell, the mind & spirit are in essence the same thing & though invisible to the human eye- one spirit CAN see another spirit. it has many parts & many ways to manifest itself, not excluding that it can literally move faster than the speed of light passing through mass & stone and mass passing through spirit (as if it were the same thing though it is not).
Sprits/Souls can also merge with each other & become one (thus your log & water analogy). Though this appears to be within limited reach while still bound to mass & appears to be more or less restircted to be during & after a time of transition. I am sure it can be practiced but have found no real appeal or need to apply myself, as they seem to come to me before I have a need to go to them which makes me curious while being comforted.
Thus, I conclude that even though spirit does yield some type of unmeasurable substance, it is in a different realm of that which can be easily viewed and measured such as body mass, gas, liquid or physical time travels.
Can Spirit be stopped? the same way a penny can be stopped from rolling?
When someone says I do this, this & this when I go to church & that makes me spritual...I put money in the offering plate & drove the church bus- it made me feel spiritual (things like that), -to me that is just the Joel Olsteen, pass out bibles type of feel good religion but no real change takes place. We can be stirred within & the stirring feels good, but that does not mean a spiritual change happens.
Or someone is searching how to enter a spiritual realm, for whatever reason they have no clue where I am coming from. If they have not been there yet then I would certainly not try to explain how to do it as it can only be discovered when that person is in tune with the spirit realm & (this may be where we disagree) NOTHING material needs to be involved
I suppose it could happen & does happen at a time when people are not expecting such a jolt, thus leaving them curious for a long time as to what they really experienced, until
so there does have to be some kind of search I would think though not everyone is going to like what they find & what we find will not always be desirable...but to try & make something happen again & again is where I get off the boat....because nice things just happen without trying to make it happen
Of course these are only tiny little examples & not limited to these alone. It would become a chore & a bit too complicated to explain or discuss depth in an environment like this.
I am sure there are spiritual realms beyond human comprehension waiting to be discovered.
Dear Bandit,
I am delighted to read. You have been given a very special gift from the heavens within and from above, a tremendous blessing to glimpse the spirit realm in such majesty. You display a tender and humble heart, an extremely powerful and lovely Ora. Humor is charming. You are correct that you do not need to practice your gift if you choose not to. This is most likely why they come to you. They knew you would not abuse it and they trust you. The spirits on the other side are quite capable of looking at the inner man while very few on this side are trusted with such acquired proficiency.
I am sorry you were cheated out of the discussion. There are not many who know the real difference between spirit and flesh which explains why religion and traditions are so skewed. If you would like to indulge on what isn't spiritual, it will be my pleasure.
Here is one for you to ponder-
Dead skeletons are not spiritual. Find white and gray in his x ray, the black and void is where one must go.
Check your PM. I have a book for you and some other goodies to share.
I see.
Young man
With all respect, I am in complete agreement with the poster you are nit-picking at.
If you can not tolerate the opinions of others, then don't ask for them.
I wish to give my opinion like others and yourself have.
When one writes in English, "Let's discuss what isn't apples", and continue to write only about apples, as you have done, one needs their grumpy head examined. That is equal to you picking apples all day and repeating to yourself, "I am not picking apples." You should concede to your own straw man and personal attacks on others. When your own ad hominem on yourself fits, wear it.
Your toilet ritual, if taken serious or literal, is archaic, repulsive, shallow and disturbing.
I sense a little ego problem and an inferior complex over your own religion and toward those who strongly disagree with your opinion. I am an attorneyfor more years than you are old. In the majority of courtrooms, I see a perverse verdict here due to your own bias and intolerance.
Young boys should not swing such big sticks that have been trusted to them. Someone bigger may one day take it and whip them with it.
I would only excuse your own mistake(s), compulsive and rude behavior based on youth talking and your inexperience(s).
Peachy day.
A fitting scripture from 1 Corinthians 2:13:
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
We don't speak about these things using teachings that are based on intellectual arguments like people do. Instead, we use the Spirit's teachings. We explain spiritual things to those who have the Spirit.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
We don't speak about these things using teachings that are based on intellectual arguments like people do. Instead, we use the Spirit's teachings. We explain spiritual things to those who have the Spirit.
This is correct. We often may not find the message until may years later as I am sure you know of this. It is important for the mystic to keep the channels open to what the spirit is saying. Sometimes 100% animal- Sometimes 100% spirit. We will not always be happy about all things all the time and to be unhappy for a spell may be correct.
Francis king
Well-Known Member
... murder, rape, paedophillia, sex with non-consenting beings/animals, racism, classism, lying (to people you love or have responsibility for), being violent and aggressive to victimise and attack (different in cases of defense...), taking drugs for non-spiritual or non-medical purposes, the abuse of alcohol, defiling/desecrating graves/places of worship (of any faith), adultery, making a profit from the sale of drugs and medicines, participating in the sale or manufacturing of guns and arms, being involved in the meat trade, people trafficking, slavery, making money from the sale of prophecies or use of powers which you know are fake/untrue ...
there's my list...
there's my list...
Leno,
It's nothing to do with his opinion. It's with how he presented it. It was sarcastic and rude. I would hope that he would present his opinion and I would hope that he would do so respectfully. I would suggest you would be wise to read a thread in full before blindly criticizing one who has taken part in it.
That is not what I have done. I presented the question of "what isn't spirituality" and others sought to understand what the word spirituality designates. That is understandable since we are discussing an absence of something. That thing necessarily needs to be defined. I created a separate thread specifically to discuss what spirituality is when this thread headed in that direction and summarized what had been stated on the issue of what is spirituality. I have not been grumpy. I called someone who was behaving quite grumpily on their presentation.
I disagree. I don't think any of those adjectives fit the ritual based on definition A of spirituality as I supplied previously. I should add this it isn't my own practice to do such a ritual nor is it a Jewish ritual as I clarified previously. I used it as an example because the toilet had been brought up.
I really have no interest in ageism or claims to authority, and I find your assumptions to be extremely inaccurate. I don't have a problem with a poster disagreeing with me and I called someone in this thread on presentation, not because they held a different point of view.
I suggest you consider getting to know the atmosphere of a forum and the posters better before you throw accusations at those of us who have spent quite some time here.
-- Dauer
edit: for clarification, from Bandit earlier in the thread:
It's nothing to do with his opinion. It's with how he presented it. It was sarcastic and rude. I would hope that he would present his opinion and I would hope that he would do so respectfully. I would suggest you would be wise to read a thread in full before blindly criticizing one who has taken part in it.
That is not what I have done. I presented the question of "what isn't spirituality" and others sought to understand what the word spirituality designates. That is understandable since we are discussing an absence of something. That thing necessarily needs to be defined. I created a separate thread specifically to discuss what spirituality is when this thread headed in that direction and summarized what had been stated on the issue of what is spirituality. I have not been grumpy. I called someone who was behaving quite grumpily on their presentation.
I disagree. I don't think any of those adjectives fit the ritual based on definition A of spirituality as I supplied previously. I should add this it isn't my own practice to do such a ritual nor is it a Jewish ritual as I clarified previously. I used it as an example because the toilet had been brought up.
I really have no interest in ageism or claims to authority, and I find your assumptions to be extremely inaccurate. I don't have a problem with a poster disagreeing with me and I called someone in this thread on presentation, not because they held a different point of view.
I suggest you consider getting to know the atmosphere of a forum and the posters better before you throw accusations at those of us who have spent quite some time here.
-- Dauer
edit: for clarification, from Bandit earlier in the thread:
Last edited: