+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' (/showthread.php?tid=7562)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - xise - 07-08-2013
Just because all things from one source doesn't mean there are things closer or further away from the source. Just because all things are perfect and balanced in the context of unity doesn't mean that imbalance doesn't exist within the illusion. Some things are more or less distorted, including seekings, but all experience is seeking.
There's nothing wrong with the logic that spirit may be a more undistorted connection to the Creator and to Unity, or that the mind/body are further away. This may or may not be the case in actuality. But there's nothing inherently illogical about that. Just because things transform into one another, and are in a sense equal once that unity is re-realized, does not mean within the illusion they are the same.
There is something about spirit in this illusion that seems closer to the Creator. It may or may not be an accurate observation - it may be an perceptive illusion "to be overcome". Or it may a perception that warrants much more study. There is something about the study of spirit that inherently leads one much more directly, and much more quickly, to the realization of the unity. It is also useful to study body and mind that way, without a doubt (and I would also say study of the mind leads to unity faster than study of the body). I see many of my fellow men who study the mind and body, without ever even hinting upon the underlying unity. True, there are many who seek to understand the spirit and do not find unity (terrorists, fundamentalists), but there is in my experience with the study of mind/body/spirit myself, and in those people I met, an seemingly inherent closeness between spirit and unity. Am I making value judgments? No my friend. I do not believe there is anything wrong with even remaining completely 100% asleep, I say this truly. I have the utmost love for everyone and for whatever way they wish to live their life and explore their own reality.
There is unity within this illusion, but there are also different paths to that unit. All paths do lead to unity eventually and time is an illusion so there is no best path, but within the illusion of time, there are paths that are faster if one is interested in a faster path. It feels that if one cannot right away be in tune with all the spirit body and mind in seeking unity and if one had to focus on one, it seems that the more in tune one is with spirit, as opposed to mind or body, the faster one travels along that path. Ra speaks of the negative path without judgment, but does indicate it is more windy, and lengthy. These are observations, not judgments.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with any path. There is nothing wrong with slower paths. These are not value judgments. These are mere observations. But at the end of the day, I call what we are discussing, "spirituality", for a reason.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - Unbound - 07-08-2013
You could say that my philosophy stems from a deep desire to be of service to other selves. How can I ever do that if I fill myself with self-importance? I wish to be a humble servitor of the Creator and that is what I shall be, but only if I so choose to answer the callings around me.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - Spaced - 07-08-2013
The way I see it (if its worth anything
), mind body and spirit are all distortions of one point which could be called the soul or the entity. These distortions match the distortions of the Law of One. Mind allows us to work with the first distortion (free will), body allows one to work with the second (love), and spirit allows us to work with the third (light). In the end all is one.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - AnthroHeart - 07-08-2013
I am thinking I am on the slow path. Things still get to me. I still have emotional responses to catalyst.
I am not fully seeing through the illusion.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - Unbound - 07-08-2013
Also, I would like to bring this discussion round to the topic again.
The term 'spiritual' is indeed very interesting as the word 'spirit' itself is quite old.
I think one of the main issues with the word is the connotations with regards to social groups such as religions, new age groups, hippies, etc
I think, personally, that spirituality can sometimes be indistiguishable from philosophy. It is an applied philosophy.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - Adonai One - 07-08-2013
(07-08-2013, 05:12 PM)TheEternal Wrote: Yes, that is what I am saying, and I do not mean it in any regard beyond my own personal choices of perception and biases of distortion. I have made choices in my life that have caused me to gain a view in which both individual and collective are united, but the whole point is to stop bickering about whether or not anything is better or worse and the way I see it, that can only happen from a collective attempt from many individuals. So, are many individuals better than one? Of course not.Beautiful words, my friend.
However, two, or three, can accomplish what may be very difficult for one. It is not about any sort of superiority or negation of the individual and really I think that kind of perception can come from a very deep yellow ray blockage feeling of unworthiness and insignificance of the self. It is not about making anything more important than anything else, but the realization that there is a choice.
Will you choose your own, individual will over the will of the collective will? Will you live only to fulfill your fleshly desires and ignore the callings of sorrow from millions or billions? How can one live with themselves as an individual when the masses are suffering? I do not say this to you, I say this to all, I question this to all.
This world and the creatures on it are my children, our children, we created this beautiful garden, but how many think of the planet itself as being alive and conscious? How many know that the trees whisper and talk, and love? How many know that the rocks love to cuddle and that's why they squeeze so tight together?
This is magic, this is life, this is the spirit that enlivens everything, and is everything. The fact that a lead will one day be gold does not negate the experience and purpose of the lead, but in truth the lead only becomes gold because that is its deepest and most primal impulse, to transform and transcend. This is not done to avoid being lead, but to experience also the joys of being gold and every stage in between. You see, transcendence is actually just the mechanism of the evolution of the cosmic self. It is as natural of a process as a plant sprouting or an egg hatching.
My only real concern is this: When we deny the ego, the self completely, service becomes quite impossible.
I will not accept slavery, I will not accept or put anything above myself in this regard.
I attest we are of the best service when we have all of our freewill. When we sell it over to the spook known as the collective, we become absorbed only by the ones with freewill and chances are that they do not wish to be of postive service.
Anyways, I see this argument is just a Hegel vs. Stirner debate.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - Spaced - 07-08-2013
Yeah, I consider myself more philosophical than spiritual.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - Adonai One - 07-08-2013
(07-08-2013, 05:15 PM)TheEternal Wrote: You could say that my philosophy stems from a deep desire to be of service to other selves. How can I ever do that if I fill myself with self-importance?
When you consider others yourself while treating yourself in all capacities well, self-importance can work out for the better.
(07-08-2013, 05:15 PM)TheEternal Wrote: I wish to be a humble servitor of the Creator and that is what I shall be, but only if I so choose to answer the callings around me.Why not be the creator and serve yourself by serving others?
Unite the polarities. I am a 6th-density wanderer. I am not going to put up with duality. It's inane.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - Unbound - 07-08-2013
Ahahahaha well ain't that the statement of the century!
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - xise - 07-08-2013
To me, the philosophy behind the Law of One is the most important aspect of it.
But I would be lying if I said that I didn't feel that the Law of One was a spiritual body of material as well.
On the other hand, when I asked to describe my beliefs to random people who ask me, I truthfully tell that I'm spiritual, but my spirituality is more of a philosophy as opposed to what is normally thought of as spirituality.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - AnthroHeart - 07-08-2013
Too bad we can't live by 6th density values while being in 3D.
I tried once thinking that Lucifer and me were one, and it made me a little crazy.
I've done more work with him than Ra, without meaning to.
(07-08-2013, 05:25 PM)Adonai One Wrote: I am a 6th-density wanderer. I am not going to put up with duality. It's inane.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - Adonai One - 07-08-2013
I have always been an existentialist. Let's just say this philosophy is completely compatible with The Law of One.
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - Unbound - 07-08-2013
Isn't every philosophy compatible with the Law of One?
RE: Concerning the term 'Spiritual' - Adonai One - 07-08-2013
(07-08-2013, 05:38 PM)TheEternal Wrote: Isn't every philosophy compatible with the Law of One?
I wish you luck opening a Hindu, Muslim or fundamentalist Christian to a further expansion of The Law of One over their current works.
Puns aside, when you believe that reality is created by the individual perceiving human subject, the philosophy of all being one is very easy. This could easily go down the STS path but since I love people, it works out quite well.
For one who is not of polarity, "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand can look like a philosophy espousing genuine care and love for others as one cares for themselves. That's at least how I read the book many years back, heh. That's not to say Objectivism as a total philosophy isn't a steaming pile of crap.