That which is pyschological is not eternal (herenow,
existential) and that which is psychological is time-bound ( past n
future). The thread is entitled eternal hope. Hope is futurizing.
Perhaps what was meant was everlasting (which is time-bound)
Intellect is acquired thru learning from outside of oneself thru
books, parents, schools or theology/ideology and it bound to react
to what is. That which transcends psychology is spirit soul or god
or whatever one feels resonates with oneself. It is a knowing, a
surrender (not to a person or a theology or ..) to what is; an
acceptance of what is. When one is being kind, being loving, being
, a process, in being so one is already emobodying the qualities so
very much espoused in religion or what-have-you. This person has
transcended the duality of what is good, what is ugly or … (the
latter are divisive and a consequence of conditioning or
…
Jesus was spiritual. How? His being kind, his being …. So it was
with Buddha, Krisha and so many others, too numerous to mention
here. Theirs was a spiritual experience shared with human beings.
Of course, those around them were open and willing to surrender.
The mistake or the erroneous assumption is that it was a surrender
to a person or … No it is in the disappearnce of one ‘self” that
the ’’merger’’ happened or happens. Buddha, Jesus embody the
nameless, the formless!
My standing in a garage does not make me a car nor does my
standing in a church or t emple make me spiritual, in the latter it
may make me religious, spirituality all said and done is
transcendence of all creeds, dogmas, theology, ideology and it is
thru the unlearningof one ‘self’ that it may happen or at least an
understanding , a knowing. It is the synthesis of poralities that
one is free – eg love n hate (actually it is fear!) are not two but
non-dual. Human mind divides and chooses and in choosing the split
happens within. Hot and cold are not two but one. One can choose
and deny or keep the other at bay. How long? It is mere suppression
and it woud surface. It is the nature of existence! Religion is
learning …. and spiritual is unlearning …. and hence the word
spirit! Religion is collective and spirituality is individual.
Truth is collective hence the talking about it and what is true is
an individual experience and a partaking of what unfolds.
When one assumes that something/someone higher is above us – it
is negating oneself, it is disrespecting oneself. It is bondage, it
is servitude. It has come about cos of the utter folly of man
creating god in his own image (man’’ image of ….
Lest it is misconstrued – i dont believe or disbelieve and it
matters that one is willing to question oneself and be open to
possibilites. However and whatever it is unwise to blindly imbibe
or follow ….
PS – Take the eg of prayer, if god created man in his own image,
then why pray and ask for this and that – is this not in other
words saying that there is something that is lacking in the process
of creating …
why is this transpiring – cos man has created god according to his
own prejudices n bigotry. hence, the labelling, the excluding, the
…
Prayer if and when it is of gratitude – is being thanful for all
that is transpiring and that includes the excluded ….
When I look beneath the multitude of often confusing words
you post that confounds the reader more than anything, I think
I can nail down your ideology or religion to what I
call the "ing-ism". All one needs to do is to add "ing" to the
words you use! For example, to know, love, talk, eat, think, feel,
etc is inferior to knowING, lovING, talkING, eatING, thinkING,
feelING etc. Not only that, there is this attitude of not
committing to anything, as in, neither believe nor disbelieving,
neither agreeing nor disagreeing, not this not that etc.
You keep speaking out against blindly following dogma, that
is all well and fine. No one should blindly follow what anyone
says. But the problem is that you simply conclude that all
religious people are merely blindly following religious leaders or
books. It seems that for you, unless someone agrees with your
existentialist worldview musings, then he must be a blind religious
follower parroting sacred Scriptures. In short, for you there is no
such thing as a religious person who has examined his own religious
beliefs.
Am I right? Or am I be-ING right?