sprituality- the possibilities are endless!

Aupmanyav

I would not guarantee that, as you know nothing gives more pleasure to hindus than discussing their philosophical or religious views. But we always part as friends.

Sahanavavatu, Sahanau bhunaktu;
Saha veerayam karavavahay;
Tejaswi navadhitamastu, Ma vidvishavahay. (invocation from Katha Upanishad)

(May Lord protect us both, nurture us both;
may our action together be strong;
may our study be invigorating, may we never have hatred for each other.)

jituyadav

Bump! I did not get the head or tail of OP’s last thread or this one. It seems I am at the bottom of spiritual evolution and it is a long road ahead. Nevertheless, one thing I am sure about is that sunspirt is much more mature than anyone imagined. In fact, I have a feeling that she is the ringmaster of freestyle wrestling and right now having a blast, if you understand what I am saying ...Ok, carry on, I am off to find my brains (though some say I never had it)...where did I lose it...probably in the second or third page of last thread.

__________________
I started with nothing and I still have most of it!

kullukid

The lack of words in your reply speak volumes, perhaps you should stick to expressing yourself through Emoticons in future, you seem to make more sense.

Anyway, for your benefit & others here's an explanation (which I'm not expecting you to grasp!) by Franklin Merrell Wolff on why different types such as Spiritual & Dualistic (Subject-Object based) Egocentric types fail to understand what each other are talking about;

There are three, not two, organs of knowledge: perception, conception, and introception.

The third fundamental of Wolff's philosophy is an affirmation of a third way of knowing, or a third organ of knowledge. Secular philosophy in the west admits only two modes of knowledge: perception and conception. Perception includes all sensory knowledge we derive from seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting. Conception includes all knowledge we derive from thought, memory, imagination, and the like. If we admit only these two forms of knowledge, then our knowledge of reality is forever limited to our hypothetical, conceptual speculations about what reality might be "behind" our perceptual appearances. If we are limited to conception and perception alone, any certain, categorical knowledge of reality and truth is not possible, and there is no rational way to understand the possibility of mystical realization or transcendental consciousness. The third fundamental, however, affirms the existence of a third way of knowing, which Wolff calls "introception". The introceptive capacity is normally latent or partially latent, but can be activated partially or fully, through intentional effort, spontaneously or both. When activated, introception provides immediate, categorical knowledge that transcends the subject-object distinction, i.e., it is not a relational knowledge of something by something else, but a knowledge through identity in which there is only knowledge itself that includes and transcends both knower and known. The third fundamental, in short, affirms that, in addition to the capacity of perception and conception, there is also a capacity for transcendental knowledge.
Source;http://www.merrell-wolff.org/philo.htm

livinhimalayas

Pranams to you Gurudev . Finally put into word what all of us were avoiding to on this thread as well as the other. Mostly because it is useless to waste words on 'rationalists' for whom everything has to be cut and dried. For those who have transcended the barrier that is provided by the perceived world there is no need for explanations - they know what it is and best of all - don't need to prove it to anyone because there is nothing to be proven but everything to be experienced.

__________________
He that would live in peace and at ease must not speak all he knows or all he sees. - Benjamin Franklin

livinhimalayas

If you could get that Jitu, then you are on the expressway to enlightenment won;t be too long when you will be posting on spirituality like none of us has done .

Aupmanyav

Am I not a rationalist, livinginhimalayas? But not of 'cut and dried' variety.

bjp

It is English humour from the 70's. A sort of reaction to churchism.


About ten years ago, I thought I my "world view" was rational and logical, I was some sort of agnostic,.....hmmm, maybe not atheist, I think I was just ignoring, but then, after some subtle shifts in perception and focus, the world view was wiped out.

So,...

That's too much for my head, now - or probably anytime, but it seems to be the... - yes, it is, sense perception, reason and logic, and shabda pramana.
I stick to that - the shabda, the word, because I learnt with years - and the world view wipe-out I referred to - that the others are unreliable and relative, and sense perception is limited.

That's a better situation than being intellectual. Less nonsense for guru to strip away.

That's a good way of putting it. I am biased. I understand the implications, but I am biased, and there must be some limit to acceptance of all offensive denigrations and attacks. I say it's a good way of putting it because I support the stance and motivation of [some hindutva] groups although I distrust some of the behaviour and some of the outcomes.
Secondly, beware of the word "fundamentalist". On the one hand it means basic without nonsense or compromise but on the other hand it is used as a term to denigrate, to promote....uhh, undesirable influences and agendas.


Anyway, on a less serious note: ah, the pleasures of..uh..civilised tradition: Lots of nice Puratassi prasad brought to work today. yum.

theyyamdancer

Can you please define "churchism" for me? It is not to be found in the dictionary!

__________________
"Wandering seemed no more than the happiness of an anxious man." - Albert Camus

bjp

I saw it the other day, it seemed to express it well. uhh, without googling it, it was about the...uhh, institutionalised, dogmatic, deviation and distortion from what Jesus was teaching. (That's one way of putting it. Someone already referred to it, how the original teaching and illustration gets distorted by human tendencies.)

theyyamdancer

So, you were saying that the humour of the Monty Python's Flying Circus, the team of John Cleese, Michael Palin, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Graham Chapham, who wrote and played in the satirical T.V. show which ran on British television from 1969 onwards, is a "reaction to churchism". Sorry, but I am lost here.

bjp

I think that's what it basically is (the part that was referred to here in this thread,) although there was more to it than just the anti-religion aspect of it.

delhiwala

Baba re.....

Checked this thread today only, What heavy stuff ? Points and counter points, really the possibilities to discuss spirituality are endless.

Sunspirt, are you still following the thread ??

__________________
Travel only with thy equals or thy betters; if there are none, travel alone. - The Dhammapada

sunspirt

nice one either works!

amen!

I am glad!



me


wow this thread exploded fast, I am glade you guys found it easliy, I would just like to remind you guys to be mindful of what you say and how you say it not that I don't think you don't

__________________
be true to yourself, everyone else is taken

KABAARY

Humourism born in cigar lounges...so named because of Winston Churchill.

A few examples of the same (to make you understand the context - and please don't dare ask me how the cigar comes into the picture ) :

Man to Churchill : Your fly is open.
Churchill : Dead birds don't fall out of nests.
---------------------------------------------------
Lady Astor (to Churchill) : If you were my husband, I'd poison your coffee.
Churchill : Madame, if I were your husband, I'd drink it.

jaibharatma

livinginhimalyas ,kk, jitu, bjp, delhiwalah,and sunspirt. Finally the thread has lightened ( enlightened ) up.
Oh, sunspirt, little did you, outwardly know, what your very first post would lead to ! It's wonderful, isn't it?