How do you Define Spirituality??

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I'm not particularly interested in getting caught up in your intellectual games

Definitions my friend, are anything but a game. Indeed they are the very essence of effective communication, most particulary via the written word and especially on forums such as this. Indeed they are the LIGHT which supports our one-ness. Without them, all we are doing much of the time, is blowing smoke up our own a*s for the sheer personal vanity such efforts delight in us.

So if you imagine definitions to be an 'intellectual game' some play, then may I ask - what be this 'light' such 'bringer of light' brings to this forum?

Moreover, I find it interesting that you will not (or is that cannot) support your 'sounds good' contention with a couple of seemingly basic definitions. Yet be that as it may ...

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

but I'll just say this to your third point:

It is impossible for someone to have Love and not to act on it. The nature of Love itself is to act.

Hmmmm Well I've seen enough news reports to suggest the nature of hate or greed is much more likely to be enacted upon than anything, ie. far less likely to be ignored. So as we're leaving definitions out of this, then obviously you equate love with hate and greed, huh?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Ah Reject, this is how I read this:

I totally get what you're saying but my mind needs something more concrete to grab onto.

If by 'concrete' you reference a more verifiable elucidation, a more authentic expression, a less ego-powered assertion; then Chris my friend, you'd be absolutely correct.

[ChristsLight]

Reject,

As I've said, definitions cannot touch Being itself. This is why I've refused to engage you on this point over and over again. Those who will understand, will, and those who will not, will not.

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Spirituality is learning how to stop banging your head against the wall.

And yet this may very well be part of the process, after it cracks open everything drains out, wink.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Reject,

As I've said, definitions cannot touch Being itself. This is why I've refused to engage you on this point over and over again. Those who will understand, will, and those who will not, will not.

And those who are delusional will by their own hand, remain deluded.

[bodi]

come on...............................can't we just..............all get along????

[bodi]

lol

[bodi]

Originally Posted by raykilleen

And yet this may very well be part of the process, after it cracks open everything drains out, wink.

Daniel Pinchbeck would agree...

breakingopenthehead.com

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

And those who are delusional will by their own hand, remain deluded.

You seem to have a fixation on making me deluded.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

If by 'concrete' you reference a more verifiable elucidation, a more authentic expression, a less ego-powered assertion; then Chris my friend, you'd be absolutely correct.

That's quite a lot to read into five words that you apparently agree with. I stand by my original statement.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

That's quite a lot to read into five words that you apparently agree with. I stand by my original statement.

Five words? I think you might have a couple of crossed wires there. In any case Chris my friend, you may indeed choose to stand by anything your heart desires.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Five words? I think you might have a couple of crossed wires there. In any case Chris my friend, you may indeed choose to stand by anything your heart desires.

I was referring to the original five words by CL that you both agreed with but needed something for your mind to grasp onto.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

I was referring to the original five words by CL that you both agreed with but needed something for your mind to grasp onto.

In that case your wires were certainly crossed, for I was originally referencing my request for a little definition per those five words.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

In that case your wires were certainly crossed, for I was originally referencing my request for a little definition per those five words.

Yes, I know. The point has actually been all along that you seem to believe that clarity is found in relentlessly defining everything and complicating it as much as possible. While this process can be useful in moderation to have a coherent discussion, it is important to recognize that truth is not found in over intellectualizing everything. The truth is remarkably simple and the words are only pointers.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Yes, I know. The point has actually been all along that you seem to believe that clarity is found in relentlessly defining everything and complicating it as much as possible. While this process can be useful in moderation to have a coherent discussion, it is important to recognize that truth is not found in over intellectualizing everything. The truth is remarkably simple and the words are only pointers.

I must ditto this, AR.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Yes, I know. The point has actually been all along that you seem to believe that clarity is found in relentlessly defining everything and complicating it as much as possible. While this process can be useful in moderation to have a coherent discussion, it is important to recognize that truth is not found in over intellectualizing everything. The truth is remarkably simple and the words are only pointers.

Whilst it's true that words are merely pointers to anything at all, for the sake of discussion/sharing, yet it appears in this world and forum, delusion (based upon ego as it is) is even simpler than knowing/appreciating truth (that is reality).

By inference from your words, you have arrived at that place of knowing truth, huh?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I must ditto this, AR.

So you too believe I'm complicating things as much as possible. So this is my intention, huh?

Well let me ask this; in the instance I'm just not getting it, and often not even understanding how the words being used in the sentence relate to one another, how on earth am I ever going to understand what someone is saying if I don't ask them to define what it is they are expressing?

I do not ask to create complications, I do not ask to generate confrontation, I do not ask for fun. I ask to understand, so where again is the problem?

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Yes, I know. The point has actually been all along that you seem to believe that clarity is found in relentlessly defining everything and complicating it as much as possible. While this process can be useful in moderation to have a coherent discussion, it is important to recognize that truth is not found in over intellectualizing everything. The truth is remarkably simple and the words are only pointers.

If you know the simple truth and the truth is simple, why do 'we' not get it?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Maguru

If you know the simple truth and the truth is simple, why do 'we' not get it?

Ditto to that!

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So you too believe I'm complicating things as much as possible. So this is my intention, huh?

Well let me ask this; in the instance I'm just not getting it, and often not even understanding how the words being used in the sentence relate to one another, how on earth am I ever going to understand what someone is saying if I don't ask them to define what it is they are expressing?

I do not ask to create complications, I do not ask to generate confrontation, I do not ask for fun. I ask to understand, so where again is the problem?

Not wanting to be contentious here, Spongebob, but just to offer another perspective. I don't see wanting to define things and complicating things as some kind of an intention, (Though it does happen) but just the result of your intellectual focus. I think the intention is to honestly and openly explore your ideas. However.....as I see it, you're only interested in expanding your ideas, not challenging them, and so when one of us finally does understand what you're saying, and presents an alternative, you generally just try to clarify your ideas more, as though we just don't get the truth of it, so it seems like a lot of work for no reason in particular.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Maguru

If you know the simple truth and the truth is simple, why do 'we' not get it?

Because it's not to be found in the concepts. You have to see for yourself. This has been said many, many times. I don't even think your question is sincere. I think it's your way of dismissing the possibility.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well let me ask this; in the instance I'm just not getting it, and often not even understanding how the words being used in the sentence relate to one another, how on earth am I ever going to understand what someone is saying if I don't ask them to define what it is they are expressing?

I do not ask to create complications, I do not ask to generate confrontation, I do not ask for fun. I ask to understand, so where again is the problem?

Originally Posted by Maguru

If you know the simple truth and the truth is simple, why do 'we' not get it?

I understand well these fundamental questions, as it has been my modus operandi for some time.

I'm going to quote Nisargadatta Maharaj on this, because I can't put it any better than he did--

You cannot possibly say that you are what you think yourself to be! Your ideas about yourself change from day to day and from moment to moment. Your self-image is the most changeful thing you have. It is utterly vulnerable, at the mercy of a passer by. A bereavement, the loss of a job, an insult, and your image of yourself, which you call your person, changes deeply. To know what you are you must first investigate and know what you are not. And to know what you are not you must watch yourself carefully, rejecting all that does not necessarily go with the basic fact: 'I am'. The ideas: I am born at a given place, at a given time, from my parents and now I am so-and-so, living at, married to, father of, employed by, and so on, are not inherent in the sense 'I am'. Our usual attitude is of 'I am this'. Separate consistently and perseveringly the 'I am' from 'this' or 'that', and try to feel what it means to be, just to be, without being 'this' or 'that'. All our habits go against it and the task of fighting them is long and hard sometimes, but clear understanding helps a lot. The clearer you understand that on the level of the mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker you will come to the end of your search and realise your limitless being.

In terms of practical application, he explains,

Hold on to the sense 'I am' to the exclusion of everything else. When thus the mind becomes completely silent, it shines with a new light and vibrates with new knowledge. It all comes spontaneously, you need only hold on to the 'I am'. Just like emerging from sleep or a state of rapture you feel rested and yet you cannot explain why and how you come to feel so well, in the same way on realisation you feel complete, fulfilled, free from the pleasure-pain complex, and yet not always able to explain what happened, why and how. You can put it only in negative terms: 'Nothing is wrong with me any longer.' It is only by comparison with the past that you know that you are out of it. Otherwise -- you are just yourself. Don't try to convey it to others. If you can, it is not the real thing. Be silent and watch it expressing itself in action.

Nothing I've ever read or heard have I ever so resonated with. Nothing.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I don't even think your question is sincere.

This was a little unnecessary, I'd suggest.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Not wanting to be contentious here, Spongebob, but just to offer another perspective. I don't see wanting to define things and complicating things as some kind of an intention, (Though it does happen) but just the result of your intellectual focus.

My focus is a whole lot more experiential than you can imagine right now. You don't recognise this because you don't appreciate what I've been exploring, so by default you relate to it as 'intellectualism', yet such dynamics will not continue indefinitely.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I think the intention is to honestly and openly explore your ideas. However.....as I see it, you're only interested in expanding your ideas, not challenging them, and so when one of us finally does understand what you're saying (Please tell me who has thus far?), and presents an alternative, you generally just try to clarify your ideas more, as though we just don't get the truth of it, so it seems like a lot of work for no reason in particular.

IT certainly would seem like that - the way you relate to it, at least. However my friend, I am profoundly more interested in having my concepts challenged than you'd care to imagine.

Also, as soon as this phantom poster who 'understands what I'm trying to say' comes along and poses another perspective to mine, despite your expectations; I'll more than happily engage in his alternative. Yet thus far the closest I've come across are posts from well meaning members who think they get it, or part thereof, yet upon a clear inspection, are missing vital links, so I try to clear this up for us both.

In any case, on a forum such as this, I'd have hoped we're all (apart from perhaps Chris) trying to clarify our ideas more, as well as have them challenged, so where again do you see the problem?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

In any case, on a forum such as this, I'd have hoped we're all (apart from perhaps Chris) trying to clarify our ideas more, as well as have them challenged, so where again do you see the problem?

With respect to Arcanum, I don't think he's suggesting it's a 'problem' (at least not as far as those who have been trying to understand your explanations are concerned). Rather, I think all Arc and CG and CL have been trying to explain to you is that you're trying to explain and elaborate on something that can't really be explained or elaborated on. I'm wont to agree, myself, which is why I quoted Niz in my last post, who, to paraphrase, explains that you can only define Truth in "negative terms only"--the minute you say or even think that "this" or "that" is Truth, is the minute you don't "get it". Truth simply IS. It's not something that can be intellectualized.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Because it's not to be found in the concepts. You have to see for yourself. This has been said many, many times. I don't even think your question is sincere. I think it's your way of dismissing the possibility.

So I don't get it because I want it to fit into a concept when the only way to know this simple truth is to see for myself? Also my question is not sincere because I wish to dismiss the possibility of this simple truth?

It was a simple question and your answer is 'we don't get it' because we are at fault in some way. How does that help to see the simple truth?

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Maguru

If you know the simple truth and the truth is simple, why do 'we' not get it?

Because almost everyone in the world equates 'getting it' with coming to a conceptual conclusion.

Have you ever tried to find something in the fridge you've seen thousands of times and for the life of you couldn't see it even though it was right in front of you? And then someone walks over and points right to it? Not one complex thing about it. Having the person convince you conceptually that it's there in the fridge doesn't do you one bit of good. You have to actually look and usually in a different way and with a different attitude in this case.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I understand well these fundamental questions, as it has been my modus operandi for some time.

I'm going to quote Nisargadatta Maharaj on this, because I can't put it any better than he did--
In terms of practical application, he explains,

Nothing I've ever read or heard have I ever so resonated with. Nothing.

You cannot possibly say that you are what you think yourself to be! Your ideas about yourself change from day to day and from moment to moment. Your self-image is the most changeful thing you have. It is utterly vulnerable, at the mercy of a passer by. A bereavement, the loss of a job, an insult, and your image of yourself, which you call your person, changes deeply. To know what you are you must first investigate and know what you are not. And to know what you are not you must watch yourself carefully, rejecting all that does not necessarily go with the basic fact: 'I am'. The ideas: I am born at a given place, at a given time, from my parents and now I am so-and-so, living at, married to, father of, employed by, and so on, are not inherent in the sense 'I am'. Our usual attitude is of 'I am this'. Separate consistently and perseveringly the 'I am' from 'this' or 'that', and try to feel what it means to be, just to be, without being 'this' or 'that'. All our habits go against it and the task of fighting them is long and hard sometimes, but clear understanding helps a lot. The clearer you understand that on the level of the mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker you will come to the end of your search and realise your limitless being.
In terms of practical application, he explains,
Quote:
Hold on to the sense 'I am' to the exclusion of everything else. When thus the mind becomes completely silent, it shines with a new light and vibrates with new knowledge. It all comes spontaneously, you need only hold on to the 'I am'. Just like emerging from sleep or a state of rapture you feel rested and yet you cannot explain why and how you come to feel so well, in the same way on realisation you feel complete, fulfilled, free from the pleasure-pain complex, and yet not always able to explain what happened, why and how. You can put it only in negative terms: 'Nothing is wrong with me any longer.' It is only by comparison with the past that you know that you are out of it. Otherwise -- you are just yourself. Don't try to convey it to others. If you can, it is not the real thing. Be silent and watch it expressing itself in action.

Yes, it sounds wonderful but all of it is trying to make us into something we are not. In accepting who we are right now with a belief there is nothing wrong with me as is, maybe the human race will have a change of heart and not merely changing one's mind.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Maguru

So I don't get it because I want it to fit into a concept when the only way to know this simple truth is to see for myself? Also my question is not sincere because I wish to dismiss the possibility of this simple truth?

It was a simple question and your answer is 'we don't get it' because we are at fault in some way. How does that help to see the simple truth?

You know, this is so unbelievably weird, but, as one can see in the "What Is, Is" thread, I used to think about Arcanum, myself, as judgmental, however subtle his judgments may have appeared to me (thus my reaction evident in the thread). But, since going through this latest shift, I can see more clearly now, that he is simply more one to cut to the quick, and in our inflated view of ourselves, we react. He's not judging, but as he's said a number of times (even while I was reacting, myself), he's only offering his perspective.

That said, and at risk of you, Maguru, reacting, I can understand exactly what Arcanum's getting at, and it's not that he thinks you're 'at fault' in any way. Rather, it's likely you who think that of yourself, for not 'getting it'. But you'll 'get it'. Of that, I'm fairly confident. But be advised that 'getting it', or at least the process of it, isn't all rainbows and unicorns.

[Frisky]

I gotta be honest, I read this entire page and I have no clue what you guys are arguing about anymore

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Yes, it sounds wonderful but all of it is trying to make us into something we are not.

Actually, it's more like trying to convince you that You already simply ARE, but we tend to get in the way of accepting that by intellectualizing, by trying understand precisely what that is that we are, when What We are can't be defined.

In accepting who we are right now with a belief there is nothing wrong with me as is, maybe the human race will have a change of heart and not merely changing one's mind.

Indeed, it's a heart thing, not a mind thing.