"Spirituality" - A Discussion

[ubiquitousquintessence]

I'm interested in discussing what spirituality is, how this forum relates with our definition of spirituality, and how we as human beings relate to this forum, and...well.... Let's see where this goes....

Starting at the beginning.
"Spirituality" - What is it?
What is your definition of spirituality?

[Seashore]

Having a sense of reality that takes into account that which is not physically experienced by the five senses but is nevertheless real.

[Gnosis5]

Originally Posted by Seashore

Having a sense of reality that takes into account that which is not physically experienced by the five senses but is nevertheless real.

Right, and this forum allows me to expand and express and share beyond physical realities.

[Leunamros]

Originally Posted by Seashore

Having a sense of reality that takes into account that which is not physically experienced by the five senses but is nevertheless real.

real but non communicable. That means is only real for the one who experiences it.

Wikipedia:


"Spirituality is relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. Synonyms include immaterialism, dualism, incorporeality and eternity.

Spirituality is traditionally associated with religion, deities, the supernatural, and an afterlife. It may include existentialism and introspection, and the development of an individual's inner life through practices such as meditation, prayer and contemplation.

Traditionally, religions have regarded spirituality as an integral aspect of religious experience and have long claimed that secular (non-religious) people cannot experience "true" spirituality. Many do still equate spirituality with religion, but declining membership of organised religions and the growth of secularism in the western world has given rise to a broader view of spirituality.

Secular spirituality carries connotations of an individual having a spiritual outlook which is more personalized, less structured, more open to new ideas/influences, and more pluralistic than that of the doctrinal faiths of organized religions. At one end of the spectrum, even some atheists are spiritual. While atheism tends to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims and the existence of an actual "spirit", some atheists define "spiritual" as nurturing thoughts, emotions, words and actions that are in harmony with a belief that the entire universe is, in some way, connected; even if only by the mysterious flow of cause and effect at every scale.[1]

In contrast, those of a more 'New-Age' disposition see spirituality as the active connection to some force/power/energy/spirit, facilitating a sense of a deep self.

For some, spirituality includes introspection, and the development of an individual's inner life through practices such as meditation, prayer and contemplation. Some modern religions also see spirituality in everything: see pantheism and neo-Pantheism. In a similar vein, Religious Naturalism has a spiritual attitude towards the awe, majesty and mystery it sees in the natural world.

For a Christian, to refer to him or herself as "more spiritual than religious"[citation needed] may (but not always) imply relative deprecation of rules, rituals, and tradition while preferring an intimate relationship with God. The basis for this belief is that Jesus Christ came to free humankind from those rules, rituals, and traditions, giving humankind the ability to "walk in the spirit" thus maintaining a "Christian" lifestyle through that one-to-one relationship with God."

[Gnosis5]

Originally Posted by Leunamros

real but non communicable. That means is only real for the one who experiences it.

Non-communicable fo some, but not for all. I can experience someone else's reality and beingness or viewpoint, IF I SO CHOOSE. That's the key, if I so choose.

Gnosis

[Leunamros]

By non-communicable i mean you cannot make other person experience exactly what you have experienced, deciding so by your own will. As far as i know, obviously.

Maybe in the future, with some technology capable of recording experiences, but not now.


I think that for other people to experience what you have experienced, they only have to be you completely; and this is not related to the "we are all one" meme, no, when i say to be you completely, is to be you completely: all your experiences, all your life, etc. So in the end i dont know if that´s possible really, for other consciousness to experience what other has, even if is through recording technologies, because everyone is conditioned to perceive a thing by the filter of their own circumstances and or awareness peculiarity, you dig me?.

[Gnosis5]

Originally Posted by Leunamros

By non-communicable i mean you cannot make other person experience exactly what you have experienced, deciding so by your own will. As far as i know, obviously.

Maybe in the future, with some technology capable of recording experiences, but not now.


I think that for other people to experience what you have experienced, they only have to be you completely; and this is not related to the "we are all one" meme, no, when i say to be you completely, is to be you completely: all your experiences, all your life, etc. So in the end i dont know if that´s possible really, for other consciousness to experience what other has, even if is through recording technologies, because everyone is conditioned to perceive a thing by the filter of their own circumstances and or awareness peculiarity, you dig me?.

Right, when you add the element of force ("make"). If they do not wish to experience it. I am aware of some disciplined clearing practitioners who can volitionally see the incident as the client is seeing it.

"We see through a glass darkly" because we are not yet clear enough within ourselves and, as you said, we "filter". That is one reason when I see something or experience through someone else, being that person, I feel validated when I find independent confirmation.

It's probably like a muscle -- has to be exercised, same for other native abilities.

Umm, when you said technologies that reminded me of the technology I saw some tall whites working with. I think they do have devices that can for all practical purposes do what you propose.

There seems a pearl here in what you are saying -- if one could exactly "be" another person, what do you think the applications could be?

One that comes to my mind, as a student of rehabilitative clearing, if I "AM" a certain person, receive therapeutic processing as that person, and then change my mind...we did that rather matter-of-factly during my PEAT course.

Perhaps that is another thread topic....

Gnosis

[Gnosis5]

Besides the approach that they have to be you COMPLETELY, i.e., all your experiences, etc., could not they simply be YOU? The YOU before you had all that baggage? Sort of the essence or energy signature of you...

I think that is more or less what I do when I decide to be someone before I process them. It's all considerations anyways -- the real beings wants to go towards truth and wants to be processed, so I do get cooperation from the being on some level of his beingness.


Gnosis

[Leunamros]

Originally Posted by Gnosis5

Right, when you add the element of force ("make"). If they do not wish to experience it. I am aware of some disciplined clearing practitioners who can volitionally see the incident as the client is seeing it.

"We see through a glass darkly" because we are not yet clear enough within ourselves and, as you said, we "filter". That is one reason when I see something or experience through someone else, being that person, I feel validated when I find independent confirmation.

It's probably like a muscle -- has to be exercised, same for other native abilities.

Umm, when you said technologies that reminded me of the technology I saw some tall whites working with. I think they do have devices that can for all practical purposes do what you propose.

There seems a pearl here in what you are saying -- if one could exactly "be" another person, what do you think the applications could be?

One that comes to my mind, as a student of rehabilitative clearing, if I "AM" a certain person, receive therapeutic processing as that person, and then change my mind...we did that rather matter-of-factly during my PEAT course.

Perhaps that is another thread topic....

Gnosis

I dont know you and i dont know what it is that hability to "be others" you are talking about, but i suggest you to make a new thread explaining what it´s about in the most understandable way you can with your actual intelligence limitations. Because if it´s true, it´s quite interesting to know more.

From my own perspective, the only thing similar is a certain approach i did on the idea of what telepathy could be, just a "imagine you are the other being you wanna send a message, then, think the message in his mind because you are him". In conclusion, you have to actually, believe you are the other person for all it to work, in theory.

[Gnosis5]

I concur, except I would change "believe" to "know" or be aware or intend.

"I don't know you"? What is that about?

Gnosis

[Gnosis5]

Spiritually, who am I when I am "ME"?

What if we best know each other by our individual Prime Thought?

What is my Prime Thought?


These questions are too simple and too high for me to answer.

Gnosis

[Leunamros]

i meant, "i dont know enough about you".

[Gnosis5]

Originally Posted by Leunamros

i meant, "i dont know enough about you".

What is it you wish to now about me?

Gnosis

[Leunamros]

Originally Posted by Gnosis5

What is it you wish to now about me?

Gnosis

make a new thread about what i asked you to do one.

[Gnosis5]

Originally Posted by Leunamros

make a new thread about what i asked you to do one.

Why?

[Gnosis5]

Originally Posted by Leunamros

make a new thread about what i asked you to do one.

You said you don't know me. Why did you say that and what is it you need to know about me? Why are you not answering this question? Is this your thread? Did you start this thread?

[ubiquitousquintessence]

Can "prime thought" be individual?
To me, prime thought is "source". Source is the origin of all, and therefore IS all. As soon as I attempt to individuate prime thought, it ceases to be prime thought....

Can there be a definition of "me"?
Yes, but that definition would not be "me". A description of a thing is not the thing - as a painting of a mountain is not a mountain.

[Gnosis5]

Originally Posted by ubiquitousquintessence

Can "prime thought" be individual?
To me, prime thought is "source". Source is the origin of all, and therefore IS all. As soon as I attempt to individuate prime thought, it ceases to be prime thought....

Can there be a definition of "me"?
Yes, but that definition would not be "me". A description of a thing is not the thing - as a painting of a mountain is not a mountain.

Good correction re Prime Thought. I would have to revise that to say individuated Prime Thought and let my question stand.

Have you experienced the ultimate simplicity of "ME"?

[ubiquitousquintessence]

Originally Posted by Gnosis5

Have you experienced the ultimate simplicity of "ME"?

Certainly.
I am awareness.
I am consciousness.
I am the space for all.
Everything I experience is an experience of "me".
I choose to experience "me" as both simple and complex, good and bad, right and wrong.
There is no difference.
I am not simple OR complex, good OR bad, right OR wrong.
I am the awareness of them.
I am the consciousness in them.
I am the space for all of them.

[Leunamros]

Originally Posted by Gnosis5

Why?

because i ask you!.

[Gnosis5]

Originally Posted by Leunamros

because i ask you!.

because i dont want to!.

[Gnosis5]

Originally Posted by ubiquitousquintessence

Certainly.
I am awareness.
I am consciousness.
I am the space for all.
Everything I experience is an experience of "me".
I choose to experience "me" as both simple and complex, good and bad, right and wrong.
There is no difference.
I am not simple OR complex, good OR bad, right OR wrong.
I am the awareness of them.
I am the consciousness in them.
I am the space for all of them.

That's pretty good....did you make that up yourself? Thank you for creating the space for all with this thread. I shall honor that.

Gnosis

[ubiquitousquintessence]

Originally Posted by Seashore

Having a sense of reality that takes into account that which is not physically experienced by the five senses but is nevertheless real.

So you're suggesting that spirituality is the ability to intuit what is real beyond the five senses?
Isn't even intuition experienced physically, though? Perhaps not through the five senses, but still through physical sensations? Sensed either within the physical body or outside of it, but sensed physically nonetheless?
Or is it possible to sense the reality of something, completely apart from any physical experience of it, while in a physical body?
In other words...while in a physical body, how do I determine if something is real in a way that doesn't involve any physical sensing?
Is this actually possible? How is this possible? (asking sincerely)
And I understand that you're saying "not physically experienced BY THE FIVE SENSES but is nevertheless real."....it just has me wondering about whether we could take it a step further and say "NOT PHYSICALLY EXPERIENCED but is nevertheless real."....

[Gnosis5]

Originally Posted by ubiquitousquintessence

I'm interested in discussing what spirituality is, how this forum relates with our definition of spirituality, and how we as human beings relate to this forum, and...well.... Let's see where this goes....

Starting at the beginning.
"Spirituality" - What is it?
What is your definition of spirituality?

It can go towards a rhythm or undulation from ourselves as sovereign creator beings to ourselves that are communing via this forum.

If one were fully awakened to their static sovereign state and at the same time fully aware of being here on this planet, and everything in between, wouldn't that be a real recipe for happiness?

[ubiquitousquintessence]

Originally Posted by Gnosis5

It can go towards a rhythm or undulation from ourselves as sovereign creator beings to ourselves that are communing via this forum.

If one were fully awakened to their static sovereign state and at the same time fully aware of being here on this planet, and everything in between, wouldn't that be a real recipe for happiness?

Yes. That is a recipe for contented joyousness.
Since I think the majority of us are aware of being here on this planet, let's look into the "static sovereign state"....
I think you are referring to the same thing I refer to as "the essence of being"...
Isn't "essence" something inherent... If it's inherent, it's not something that needs to be (or even CAN be) attained or learned...it is not something we can become. We can not change essence - it is as it is.
So if spirituality is "bringing that essence into the physical world, via the physical body, through the use of words, actions, etc.", is it possible to bring forth ANYTHING that is NOT essence? Isn't "essence" EVERYTHING? And, therefore, isn't spirituality the bringing forth of everything into the physical world? Or perhaps it's the awareness that EVERYTHING IS 'the essence of being'. There is NOTHING that is NOT "the essence of being".
So, isn't the "real recipe for happiness" simply being aware of being here on this planet, and being aware that EVERYTHING here on this planet is a physical manifestation of "the essence of being"?