Beyond confinement
lobster
Crusty Veteran
We may sympathise with the deluded theist or wish for a wider interior life for the convinced atheist. Each may find value increasing a store of wisdom by being true to ideals. Is dharma open to a larger sphere of influences?
In a secular and post theistic society, organisation of transcendental experience moves into the field of science. So for example the knowledge of the future as displayed by meditators is open to analysis. Is it wanting, incomplete or wrong?
We may find the practices of ritual, meditation, physical systems such as yoga or Qi-Kung have benefits. Does this mean we have to become pseudo orientals, chant to our local lama or stand on our head? Sanity and rationality may provide some truthful insight. Science is sorting wheat from chaff. Are the Buddhists baking?
A spiritual path that enhances our existing qualities and enables and empowers our well being often requires independent efforts. Otherwise we may be confined to partial, bogus or incompetent systems. Sadly that may be the best that is available. Can we provide better? Certainty, order and method may be programmed into us. Is partial knowledge representative of the excesses of all confined thinking?
:wave: .
Comments
Why would we assume that the convinced atheist doesn't have a rich inner life? I don't see how one has any relation to the other. Aren't most Buddhists atheists? Don't they have rich inner lives?
That point makes me wonder: what's so "spiritual" about being kind to people, enjoying quietude, and not harming, stealing, lying or using mind-altering substances? Why is that labeled a "spiritual path"? What's "spiritual" about it?
:scratch: .
@lobster
Geeze..
Who is a theist or atheist in meditation?
Is ritual anything more than the sanctification of the mundane?
Can a store of wisdom bound by ideals, really apply to the fluidity of existence?
Could the Dharma become any wider than ceasing from evil, doing only good and purifying the heart/mind?
Can the questioner who bridges each nano moment with a constant identity really make use of those answers?
I'm pretty convinced, and it doesn't really detract from my "spiritual" side. Gods just aren't necessary for everyone.
The fact that I am an atheistic Buddhist invariably gives my Christian friends the impression that my spiritual life is somehow wanting, if not downright missing. Why should that be?
I lead a very spiritual life, despite the fact that the notion of a God does not fit into my scheme.
I'm not even sure what "spiritual" means.
That's just replacing one set of cultural baggage with another.
"This above all:
To thine own Self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any Man."
(Hamlet.)
Which "Self" though?
That's for you to discover and decide.
I'm not here to do that for you.
What do you think I am, you mother...? Jeesh! :rolleyes: .
...
.
So you think there is a "Self" to be true to?
Thanks guys
Yes.
How?
:wave: .
Dharma or Nature is always as it is - no widening, no shortening, no good, no evil - just empty phenomena rolling on.
>
Yes of course. We have to know what this 'self' is, in order to also realise and appreciate its evanescent non-existence.
First there is a mountain
Then there is no mountain
then there is....
There is a self.
There is also a Not-Self.
It's 'getting it' which is the obstacle, not the existence/non-existence.
Could the Dharma become any wider than ceasing from evil, doing only good and purifying the heart/mind?
Yes.
Come orf it, guv, that's a bleedin' full-time job. I've got me work cut out trying to do all that....unless you're offering some over-time paymints?
.
Baggage comes in handy, especially when one is on a journey.
As long as it carries what you need.
I think we're trying to get rid of baggage though, aren't we? It's like getting rid of one form of attachment only to take on another.
This powerful quote, from Ramana Maharshi, helps me falling down again every time I’m trying to get back up on my feet.
“Don’t believe a single thought.”
I had to look it up yesterday, after pondering the OP. Because suddenly it seemed like the OP (along with many of the rest of us, I imagine) was ascribing a meaning to it that wasn't there.
spir·it·u·al/ˈspiriCHo͞oəl/
adjective
of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
of or relating to religion or religious belief.
By this definition, I don't think Buddhism fits the description of a "spiritual path". I guess it depends on whether you define Buddhism as religion (haha! Not this again!) and whether you see Buddhism as involving "belief". One thing we know for sure (?) is that the Buddha never taught about the soul or the human spirit.
Well, regardless, you'll have a new attachment in every moment of every day for the rest of your lives until you achieve Buddhahood.
What you seem to be describing is a game of karmic wack-a-mole and a species of asceticism.
I don't remember the Buddha teaching anything about "baggage", do you? Inquiring minds .....
What you seem to be describing is a game of karmic wack-a-mole and a species of asceticism.
Not at all. I'm just working on the basic principle of the second Noble Truth. Reducing clinging rather than adding to it, a gradual path.
Yes, unless we define "human spirit" in a broader sense. I don't like the word "spiritual" but I'm struggling to think of something better at the moment. Or we could just say "Boodist" :rolleyes: .
I've recently conceded that, as much as they may overlap, "objective" and "subjective" are their own sides of the coin. If we acknowledge that Science is the best system and methodology for evaluating our objective reality, we're then left with an opening for something... some system, way of thought, method... of evaluating our subjective nature and experience. Maybe this is the actual concern of "Spirituality".
This is not to say objective/subjective are "non-overlapping magisteria", because they are hopelessly interdependent as we know. That's how some people view Science vs. Religion, but if we concede that any religion that attempts to explain both objective reality and our subjective nature is stepping into both areas... then it has to "match" our scientific understanding, and be provable to us all on a subjective level.
Spiritual may not be exactly the right word. Buddhism might be about freedom, independent being or truth. I appreciate that does not entail or require ideas of spirit or soul.
Does chanting make us pseudo orientals? Sounds sectarian rather than scientific.
Yeah .... spirit as a quality rather than a phenomena? Like "That's the spirit!" Or something like that?
this is Dependent Origination
Yes, DO, but all those nidanas are a bit complicated so for me just contact-feeling-craving is plenty to work with.
.
Chanting in the Queens English is probably OK. No foreign stuff though.
.