Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[FrankSophia]

It arises in Sufism because tawhid literally means oneness.

Fana is the annihilation of the subject or Nafs, resulting in baqaa and constancy with Ruh Allah...

It answers John 17:20-26

This is really everywhere if you can actually see it, but if you can't you judge by the adherents not the message.

[FrankSophia]

The only reason foreign traditions look superior is because you don't have to deal with the lowest expressions...

It is why I am fixated on the peak examples not what the masses believe...

There is no tradition where the majority of followers haven't misunderstood.

[FrankSophia]

My feeling is there are currently around 5-10 million awakened beings on the planet right now and that's a high percentage because we're going through a major transition right now...

There are around 7.5 billion religious adherents.

That is a tiny percentage who actually get it.

[FrankSophia]

In the past it has been much lower...

There was a spike around 500 BC and 1000 AD

There is another right now.

[FrankSophia]

I would like to say that for me the peak worldwide is Gorakhnath, a man recognized as a mahasiddha in Buddhism and mahayogi among Hindu's while creating what the west calls Yoga suggesting his actual global impact...

No other has fixated on opposites like him, and the effectiveness of this transcends traditions...

He has influenced liberal Sufi's and Bhakta's along with their culmination in Sikhi...

The western esoteric concept of "do what thou wilt" stems from his concept of svecchacara...

This translates into Tibetan Buddhism as nyonpa, crazy wisdom... which has ties to various western figures like dionysus and odin...

Every position you uphold is a duality you're projecting.

[FrankSophia]

Truth doesn't need you to mentally affirm it.

[Stoppelmann]

I would like to say that for me the peak worldwide is Gorakhnath, a man recognized as a mahasiddha in Buddhism and mahayogi among Hindu's while creating what the west calls Yoga suggesting his actual global impact...

So, do you strive for immortality by transforming your human body into an imperishable divine body?

Gorakhnath's movement combines esoteric traditions drawn from Buddhism, Shaivism, and Hatha Yoga, which sounds like quite a mixture.

[chewybrian]

I don't really feel happy by studying and practicing philosophy.

See, the quality of the sage is eudaemonia which translates as happiness... but you're rejecting the possibility and so it's not having the desired result.

I am rejecting the idea that I could reach the ideal, just as any philosopher would. I am not rejecting the idea that we can approach the ideal. Approaching is the process. As the scientist approaches knowledge, the philosopher approaches wisdom. Gains are tentative and subject to review--forever!

Diogenes is interesting but not a valuable measuring stick for me.

For me he is the most liberated figure in the Western cannon.

I sometimes recall, for example, that he discarded his cup when he saw a child drinking from his hand.

His whole deal is that we should return to our natural states because human life has become wholly artificial... this is a highly important concept along the way because most spiritual paths are just superficial behavioral requirements that can't ever lead to liberation or insight.

I agree, but I don't think being that 'liberated' is the most productive path. I think some restraint is called for--at least for me it is. His example, like that of Jesus or Socrates, should give people pause and cause them to examine their own actions and motives. I don't there is any cause to discard our cups or to live in a pot, though.

I mostly find value in Plato in his description of the life, thoughts and actions of Socrates. Thus, I would not choose him over Socrates any more than I would choose Arrian over Epictetus. Epictetus is the first person I call to mind when I wish to decide if my actions seem just or if my choices are likely to make my life better.

For me Plotinus is the peak of philosophy because he is largely focused on the goal and letting you live from that of your own accord... I can't tolerate those who want to tell you what the outcome should be because by emulating them you negate the point of your own distinct life.

You've already claimed that I have no accord and no distinct life. On your terms, I will do only what the universe and the past dictates. So, I find it odd that you would get angry with people who disagree with you or try so hard to convince them to join you in your dead end beliefs. How can you be angry with folks for doing the only thing they could do, for believing the only thing they could believe?

I'll gladly accept the judgement of Epictetus as to what the outcome of my hard work in philosophy should be. This is fully rational when you consider that I have concluded that he is wiser than me. I can grow by emulating him because he is greater than me. You evidently can't go this way because you seem to have concluded that nobody is or ever was greater than you (see below).

I'm disputing the concept, the sentiment, the very idea that one should claim that they are wise, not the choice of the label.

It would be problematic if the claim was false, but as a statement of fact without identification it's fine.

Indeed, denying it would be dishonest.

I feel like I am talking to the ghost of Rush Limbaugh. There are few requirements for a philosopher. I won't try to list them all, but things like intellectual honesty and an attempt to be objective jump to mind. When you look at the world this way, you quickly see that no man can know a materially significant subset of the available knowledge. Nobody can be objective. We are al subject to cognitive bias and prejudice. The philosopher tries to overcome these obstacles, but he knows he can only make progress and get better, never claiming victory.

Thus, one glaring requirement for a philosopher is humility. Look back at the way that @LuckyR and @Pattern-chaser conducted themselves in their discussion with you about free will. Bertrand Russel said something like "the problem with the world is that fools are so damned sure of themselves while the wise have so many doubts." To be wise, you must be humble. If you say you are a sage, you are not wise.

[Sculptor1]

Is spirituality just another belief system?
People on this thread seem to be dancing around a concept that no one has really thought to define. Nor do they seem to think that such a thing needs to be made clear.
They have made the most fundemental philosophocal mistake of assuming that your terms do not need to be defined, and are running about like the acolytes of a vauge religion with the assumption that everyone knows what they are talking about.
This meake the whole thread an empty catalogue of verbal accretions with no direction.

So has any non theist on the thread the courage to state terms here, as it seems to me that what is the phantom of spiritiality is simply a quality that all humans possess to varing degrees and has no necessary connection with religion or belief.

[chewybrian]

I'm disputing the concept, the sentiment, the very idea that one should claim that they are wise, not the choice of the label.

It would be problematic if the claim was false, but as a statement of fact without identification it's fine.

Indeed, denying it would be dishonest.

This is the way that last quote should have looked. I quoted you but somehow you had misplaced something like "/quote". The first sentence was mine and the rest was your reply.

[Sculptor1]

As an atheist, I still find myself uttering phrases such as “Oh, my god!”, “God only knows!”, “Heaven help us!”, “Why the hell did you do that?”… I don’t think that this is an indication that I haven’t fully ditched religion; that I still harbor belief in god(s) or hopes of ending up in heaven and not hell when I die. It’s just habit, and an indication of how deeply these expressions, which denote shock, surprise, fear, etcetera, are imbedded in our language. I understand that they just express emotions and that they do not refer to anything that I consider to be unreal such as gods, heaven or hell. By continuing to utter them, I don’t think I’m subconsciously trying to keep a foot in both camps.

On the spectrum of belief in the supernatural, it seems to me that there are atheists like me at one end and, at the other end of the spectrum, there are fully practicing religious believers who organize their lives around religion, some of whom even go around knocking on doors in an effort to convert others to their religion. Between these extremes there are agnostics who just don’t know. I this middle area, I understand that there are also those who call themselves “non-religious but spiritual”. Some of these even say that they don’t believe in anything supernatural and yet they still call themselves “spiritual”.

It may be an indication of my own limitations, but I have trouble getting my head around this section of the middle area of the spectrum. If one does not believe in the supernatural then surely one is an atheist, no? What does it mean, what could it mean, to be a “spiritual” atheist? Is it just trying to keep a foot in both camps? Is there a way to be a spiritual atheist and still maintain a straight face? Are there any spiritual atheists here who could tell us how they manage it?

If your concept of "spirituality" is a "liberal/democrat" belief in supernatural then it is no wonder the thread is floundering.
I have no belief in the supernatural - its a contradiction. But I think I understand that "spitituality" refelcts an element in human experience which we all share that is not related to the supernatural.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is spirituality just another belief system?
People on this thread seem to be dancing around a concept that no one has really thought to define. Nor do they seem to think that such a thing needs to be made clear.

I think spirituality must be a "belief system". What else could it be? As for the thing itself, it is, I think, a catch-all term, and as such, it is not formally or precisely defined or described. But, as for many things, we all have a general and vague idea of what it's about.

This isn't really a satisfactory response to the reasonable points you raise, but maybe that's all there is, in this case?

[Lagayascienza]

Is spirituality just another belief system?
People on this thread seem to be dancing around a concept that no one has really thought to define. Nor do they seem to think that such a thing needs to be made clear.
They have made the most fundemental philosophocal mistake of assuming that your terms do not need to be defined, and are running about like the acolytes of a vauge religion with the assumption that everyone knows what they are talking about.
This meake the whole thread an empty catalogue of verbal accretions with no direction.

So has any non theist on the thread the courage to state terms here, as it seems to me that what is the phantom of spiritiality is simply a quality that all humans possess to varing degrees and has no necessary connection with religion or belief.

Yes, the question was whether it is possible to be a "spiritual atheist". I'm guessing that the term "atheist" doesn't need to be defined here. But "spiritual" probably does. The difficulty is that it's such an amorphous concept and different people will have different definitions. My dictionary tells me that it is a term "relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things". So if person describes herself as spiritual, I take her to be someone who believes in "spirit", who believes in something immaterial that is beyond, or not subject to, the deterministic laws that govern the physical universe. I'd be interested to read other people's definitions if they are different to this.

As I've said, I'm an atheist. I don't believed in spirits or gods or anything supernatural. However, I do practice a form of meditation that I find useful. But, again, this has nothing to do with gods or anything supernatural. I don't think my meditation practice makes me a "spiritual" atheist. To my mind that would be a contradiction in terms. That does not mean, however, that I cannot avail myself of a practice that creates a feeling of centeredness, of losing ones "self" and feeling a unity with the rest of cosmos, which is a feeling that is not possible in my ordinary everyday non-meditative conscious state.

I don't think think my mediation practice means I'm trying to keep a foot in both camps. But others may see it differently and I'd be interested to hear their thoughts on it.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think I understand that "spirituality" reflects an element in human experience which we all share that is not related to the supernatural.

Now this is interesting, or could be. Are you able/willing to extend this description?

[Sculptor1]

Is spirituality just another belief system?
People on this thread seem to be dancing around a concept that no one has really thought to define. Nor do they seem to think that such a thing needs to be made clear.

I think spirituality must be a "belief system". What else could it be? As for the thing itself, it is, I think, a catch-all term, and as such, it is not formally or precisely defined or described. But, as for many things, we all have a general and vague idea of what it's about.

This isn't really a satisfactory response to the reasonable points you raise, but maybe that's all there is, in this case?

Indeed.
It seems to me that if you have ever stopped to look at a sunset then you are "spiritual". No supernatural belief needed.
But people want to try to explain things and so gather such experiences under one convenient word, as if nominating them is an explanation.