You don't have to 'believe' anyone just leave your mind open and skeptical then ask for logical proof or preferably prove it for yourself. Anything else is heresy.

tgecks wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 9:32am:


A thought for Today:
There is seemingly so little love shared in this world, it is not surprising that we ask, "Where have all the lovers gone?" Since love is the most vital energy for good that is within our power to utilize, it is puzzling why we so seldom do so. Love is just a useless, abstract idea until we put it into action...Unless we are always actively living in love, we are not utilizing the greatest gift we have been given and which we, in turn, have to offer.
~Leo Buscaglia

   

Thomas brings up some really good points, among them 2  that deal with common pitfalls of spiritual aspirants - one by way of comment and the other by way of a question. We seem to end up discussing these two issues here quite frequently and my guess is that it is because the people who come to this site are active, conscious seekers or else people waking up to those possibilities, making these issues prominent or essential.

These are: 1) the issue of what is practical?, and
               2) the issue of mistaking or getting stuck in an expedient as the goal itself  (ACIM: "forget these words...").  

In addressing the first - on the issue of what is practical I would propose that:
What is practical is that which serves as an expedient or means for the fulfillment of any intention. It doesn't even have to be a "spiritual" intention, as the definition seems to fit in any case.

The greater, more direct, more comprehensive the fulfillment of the intention, the more efficacious and practical the expedient. Note that paradoxically, "more direct" in the spiritual sense may actually not be so linear, lol. Also the issue of some type of guidance being part of what defines practicality may be pertinent, as we know that the trial and error method is in most cases one of the least efficient compared to adapting individual specific needs to what is already generally known - e.g,  If one wanted to climb the tallest mountain on Earth, one could wander aimlessly all over for a lifetime hoping to stumble on Mt.Everest (even if recognized) then attempt a likely disastrous ascent. Or - one could research and consult maps, authentic accounts, guide books, organize or join an expedition, hire a guide, sherpas, etc. and approach it in a more deliberately inter-dependent way - accessing the huge reserve of practical knowledge and wisdom embodied by many people - the results of those who through their own committment of life energy, have acquired valuable actual experience with some, or every aspect of the intended purpose.

In the most broad sense all life experience is "practical" because life is by nature taking place in the physical with its necessary laws of action and reaction, vibration and attraction, attitude and consequence, etc.. However due to a cosmic Ignorance in which we are involved, we are not fully (even partially?) aware of our Divinity, our Identity, and our oneness with God/Source and therefore "suffer" and act in confused ways leading to unfortunate realities both individually and collectively, including and perhaps especially as Thomas says due to our puny intellects, which is a part of the problem. Fortunately we have other options.

While there are practical considerations within the operational realities of Earth life, the results we find are not satisfying, nor do the obscure even if apparently intrinsic opportunities of life present themselves in a way making it obvious what is necessary to break the endless cycles of ignorantly intentioned living with the attendant and necessary painful conclusions - iow's not ultimately very practical.

For most people, even those we would consider "awakened" to the potential - the (for some radical) notion that we are essentially divine, can ascend to Godhood, become God-realized, etc. is only a possibility, a theory or an intellectual concept - until through some expedient or practice it becomes a fulfilled conscious Reality. It is in the reorientation that allows for a conscious, deliberate acceleration of that potential fulfillment - now theoretical and held in place by faith that provides the impetus for any ongoing practice - where practicality takes on a deeper and more refined purpose leading towards that full realization, in the fully practical sense, in the physical.

I do not happen to believe that institutional religion is the representation of "practical spirituality", at least exclusively that is. Yes, religion is an expedient and a means for certain intentions leading towards some spiritual goals, for instance - the necessity for organized communion as reinforcement to individual search, the delineating and adherance to certain basic moral principles, a rudimentary understanding of some type of spiritual "cosmology", etc. I think that at one time in human development it may have been in the forefront of what may be considered practical because of course it is - for its intended purposes. However, there are now large numbers of people for whom the structure and purpose religion as we know it serves intentions that while being practical for some needs, do not address a fuller range of potential now recognized by many who are awakening to greater possibility and are searching for new expedients, and so now that set of applied principles of religion may appear to be limiting to many. I would suggest that there is a continuum of practicality based on the successive transcendance of limitation as intention evolves to meet newer recognized potentials and possibilities of the involved soul. I think beyond this, a good discussion might be had on the intrinsic differences between religion and spirituality, but maybe in another thread.
   
What is theoretical would be what is not serviceable as a means or expedient for the intended purpose, or an intention that is not followed with some enacted practice.
For instance as in the discussion above about religion, it might be true and is for many, that given the present shortcomings of religion to practically address newer recognized potentials, people may be actively searching for new ways/means/expedients to become the fulfilling practices of newly discovered intentions. Unless and until these expedients are identified, formulated and enacted, these new intentions will remain theoretical. The means of fulfilling well experienced and previously transcended/mastered intentions, by definition will not suffice.

As one proceeds, one determines what serves and is a successful expedient and what is not, and makes alterations by free will accordingly.
It is this process of alignment between intention and means, held together and furthered by faith in positive outcome which is at the core of what is practical. This could also be called aspiration, which is the connecting thread, life-line, inner breath that provides a direct link to that ascending definition of "practicality" - always providing appropriate means, clearing the path, as each step embodies a fragment of the destination.

There is also a subsidiary discussion available on the appearance in history of certain human beings, who's presence figured prominently and uniquely in serving as a focus for major reorientation of whole cultures or in some cases the entire world regarding urgently needed new intentions and expedients - again, probably for another thread.

In the case of what would be "spiritually" practical, it seems that the issue of general orientation is paramount regardless of the specific means or expedient chosen, since many paths lead to what is generally considered the same goal. This brings up the second issue, that of mistaking the form of expedient for the goal itself. Again, using the example of religion, it can be seen that people can get stuck within ritual, practice, structure - form, that does not serve an evolving purpose and so when that happens it is appropriate to seek new forms/ways/means/expedients/solutions that align with newer intentions and recognized new possibilities.

There are 2 cases when this does not happen: When new possibilities are not recognized, there is stasis, an adherance/attachment to outer form, denial of further potential. Eventually this will lead to crystallization, stagnation, dissatisfaction, frustration - iow's crisis. This is the painful difficult way, because it deals with the consequences of attachment and the inevitable destruction of form that is necessary to move on to new forms/means that serve authentic inner necessity, and not the other way around (as in, "God made the sabbath for man", etc.).

The other way is when new intentions are formulated resulting from recognition of new possibilities, dissatisfaction with old useless forms, but as yet - no replacement has been found for the obsolete expedient. Once again, regarding religion, there are many people in total limbo - completely dissatisfied with the old structure - bored, unfulfilled, even stifled - but they do not know where to turn. I believe this is one reason why people come to this site, among many other explorations available as precursors to establishing a practice - seeking answers to questions that the old forms do not answer for whatever reason, or cannot answer because of a fundamental incapacity to do so.


Further on mistaking means for goal -
There is a problem when individual aspirants, or institutions for that matter, become attached to one specific form of expedient (their own) and begin to view this as the only practical means to the general "goal" and then alter their behavior to reflect this attitude by seeing their way as exclusive and superior, not allowing for the different other individual practical applications, solutions and acheivements, which are not as obvious in their practicality because they have not been personally chosen and used. Ironically, it turns out that this attitude of exclusivity is not practical, since it is inherently opposed to oneness (and acceptance of diversity), a presumed goal of any authentic spiritual quest. This is a common difficulty of seeking to be overcome and often appears regardless of specific path.

- u

Thank you very much for your inputs guys, much appreciated and right on.

Duality and path are such difficult topics to treat using simple language - like much else spiritual we seem to end up circling and describing aspects of something that's in the end hard to capture.

I suppose non duality for me is at the basic level the realisation that all is one. That all beings at the level of this physical existence are in truth not separate and consequently that it's in our interest to treat them with love and consideration, and that in the higher and extra normal sense that this whole reality and the beings within it is actually the result of the apparent division and projection of aspects of the only mind there is outwards - that there is only one mind that contains all.

It relates to path (practical and theoretical) in that for example Buddhism at the level of basic teaching intellectually or theoretically shows how all is interdependent, and all is driven by cause and consequence. e.g. we need say bread to live, but you can't have wheat for the loaf you eat without rain, land, soil, fertilisers, weather, the earth, the universe, the cosmos and so on - all are interdependent, from the most microscopic to the grossest level. Ditto for anything else we care to mention.

That however is initially only a theoretical understanding. We may intellectually espouse the view, but we don't necessary intuitively know or experience it.

Meditation, contemplation and the varieties of extra normal experience that spiritual work/practice of this sort may produce can lead to mind states where these sorts of realities are directly experienced. For example a meditator may find his/her awareness transferring to locate in say a tree. Or may experience such a rise in empathy/loving kindness that he can no longer mistreat another. Or while journeying in the afterlife realms we may communicate at such a deep level with other non physical being that we become convinced that life exists beyond the physical. The highly realised may experience realities entirely beyond space time, and associated much higher knowings, for example an overwhelming experience of the loving nature of God or higher mind.

This, and the work needed to train the mind to the point where we open to these sorts of realities and consequently come to know them experientially is what I mean by practical spirituality. You could actually call it 'real' spirituality I guess.

That's not to say that the intellect (theoretical spirituality) does not have a part to play in our development - it's essential to helping us to start thinking in a way that minimises the fear and obscuration that blocks our opening and seeing of higher realities and truths.

But no matter how subtle it becomes it's no substitute for experience, for direct knowing. The former is just a thought, the latter produces direct (right and higher/deeper brain/3rd eye/extra sensory) knowing and greatly increased intuition into higher truths.

Theoretical spirituality is also often a trap. The path entails the continuous evolution of our view, and of the beliefs that support it. Trouble is that ego in its unceasing search for security often gets us hung up on a specific set of beliefs, which we may then defend as though our life/'eternal salvation' depended on it. Despite the fact that concepts/thoughts can only at best approximate to reality, but very often bear no relationship to it at all. e.g. we're routinely conditioned to think of a world where loving behaviours minimise suffering and maximise happiness as actually requiring dog eat dog behaviours.

Fundamentalist tinged orthodox religion goes even further, it turns a set of beliefs into dogma, and then uses these and expertise in them as a means of suppressing thought and securing its power. Many set themselves up as experts, and use their knowledge to control others.

Spiritual materialism is a term used to describe this phenomenon of making beliefs sacred and unchangeable for what's perceived (often  unconsciously) as personal advantage. (albeit often very subtly as in an unconscious but feel good producing thought that 'I'm holier than thou', the ego becomes subtler as we progress along the path)

The journey from rules for living in the external world, to intellectual/theoretical understanding to a seamless non dual awareness of the inseparability of external and internal realities is in effect the journey inwards Thomas talked of, the spiritual path in a sense.

As Ultra said it takes us from a conventional subject/object external reality via the inkling there may be more to it than that to the knowledge that all is One, and that as Kathy said Love is ALL.

This is not some intellectual overview, this is the changing of mind over time so that we literally become something else. As Cathy said it's no easy journey, it can entail major physical as well as mind/behaviour  based consequences but it increasingly delivers joy. (wish I was there)

We're all at differing points on this path/continuum. Depending on where  we need different teachings (the Eastern traditions have bodies of teachings at the levels of rules for living, theoretical explanations as to the deeper nature of reality, and practical techniques for the experiential realisation of these and higher realities), and will hold differing views as to the nature of the reality we inhabit and what matters within it.

This seeing of spiritual matters from differing points on the path is often the basis of the arguments that arise between those holding differing views of matters spiritual, their 'views' are literally different....

PS Should have said that there's a view that we all find our way along this path over many lifetimes. The role of a capable spiritual teacher and appropriate spiritual work as Ultra sais is that it hopefully speeds our progress.

Rondelle:

I don't know Greg Mackie, but I figured on my own that Gary Renard is a fraud. Some people know that the new age supermarket is a cash cow, and Gary Renard took advantage of it.  He used ACIM to this end. He was asked during an interview if any recording of the conversations were made. He replied that the beings he supposedly talked to wouldn't allow this because people would just say that actors played the role.  He said he secretly recorded the conversations in order to use them while writing the book, and then threw them a way.

Translation, if one purposely created a hoax and involved actors, one would 1) have to find people who would agree to be a part of a hoax; 2) find people who could act well enough so they seemed like light beings and not people who were reading a script; 3) find people who could fake accents from the days the people Renard supposedly spoke to came from, a hard thing to accomplish, since only a linguistic expert would have an idea of how people from such a time period spoke; 4) pay these people some of the proceeds from the book; 5) hope that none of them tells the truth; and 6) hope that nobody recognizes these people. Even if you believed that nobody would believe you, would you throw the tapes away?

People like Gary Renard take advantage of people who won't question, even though they say that they do.

rondele wrote on Oct 4^th, 2008 at 4:58pm:

Albert,

If you are to be brutally honest there is not a single source that is without falsity. All truth is subjective and dependent upon the observer. In fact just making an observation changes whatever is being observed. Most people see what they expect to see. This is how we all limit ourselves and the possibilities/potentialities.

Every time someone mentions one of your “pet peeves” you start sounding off like a noisy gong that reminds me of the mud-slinging politicians plastered all over television. Personally I’m growing tired of it and I believe Bruce has warned you about this previously.

You may think that you are acting in a loving manner, but it sure looks to me like you are using your intellect to defend your egotistical and superior attitudes when in fact you take someone’s thread entirely off topic as Vajra pointed out to you. “Bloody hell” is right on! Not a single post of yours was in line with the subject of “Practical VS Theoretical Spirituality.”

There’s a time and a place. If you want to speak out against ACIM, false gurus or whatever then start your own website or at the very least do it on your own threads. Just remember to stay in touch with Bruce’s posting guidelines, particularly the following two:

It is a violation subject to banning to post any message that is:
“An attack upon the beliefs of individuals or groups”
”A personal attack on another member or public figure”

Kathy

Hi Albert. I think that we need to agree to differ on sources, on the basis that realistically there isn't much point exchanging posts which only ever revisit the same territory every time one or other is mentioned.

Put it this way - I'm not aware of anybody here claiming to express more than a personal view. We each in the end must make our own mind up. In my own case my view seems to keep on evolving (that's if I can even meaningfully express it) so I can't even assign any great certainty to what I write.   OK?

Hi Alan. Nice list. Pardon my delay in coming back. Your principles are I guess another way of looking at the nature of the spiritual path. They very nicely bring out the issue of the difference between the essentially internal process of becoming, and external behaviours; also the distinction between practical and theoretical spirituality.

The first few can be simulated by intellectual (theoretical) means, and by behaving in accordance with what we think they look like. So we find people doing this in life - for ego/selfish reasons simulating humility or whatever. But the latter ones (creativity, compassion, selfless love) unconsciously emerge from a deeper place or knowing (the heart?), and are intuitive/empathetic responses/abilities which reflect the nature of the person/being rather than intellectual ones.

The latter can be cultivated, but it seems only through spiritual work and life experience. (practical spirituality) They are emergent, and essentially cannot be intellectually simulated.

Buddhist teaching is big on the perfections. (or paramitas) Six or ten are listed depending on the school and level of teaching - generosity, morality, patience, energy, meditation, wisdom, skillful means, spiritual resolution, spiritual power and knowledge/knowing. All apply in the context of the spiritual life. e.g. knowledge/knowing means not just theoretical knowledge, but also a deeper knowing of transcendential or extra normal realities.

They too move from in a sense theoretical or behavioural rules to emergent or inherent qualities of being in the last five - the idea being you only truly realise them all with enlightenment.

As is typical the whole body of thought has been worked out to the finest imaginable level of detail - monastic Buddhism has this tendency to become theoretically very heavy duty, to the point where it can when transmitted to the West with it's intellectual emphasis drown out the practical side. ( what you get when you have a monastery full of thousands of monks focused on refining their thought. Zen is on the other hand essentially a practice only, almost theory free variety of Buddhism) Try Googling Six Perfections, Ten Perfections, Paramitas and the like if it's of interest. Here's a shortish description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81ramit%C4%81

Rondelle:

I see your point, but to be fair, I'm the person who really got the ACIM conversation going.