everything else does .....

JLNobody wrote:

While it does seem that Eastern and Western cultures emphasize intuitive and rational approaches to understanding respectively, we must not exaggerate the differences. It is more a question of cultural "elaboration". The West elaborates on the value of reason and the East elaborates on the value of intuition, but both forms are critical in both areas.
I feel that intuition (as predominantly unconscious activity) operates critical in rational endeavors, even mathematical study, and rationality (as predominantly conscious activity) informs much intuitive understanding.

Yes. It would be wrong to say that the East exclusively emphasizes intuition, and the West exclusively emphasizes rationality. Furthermore, the Western mindset has come to dominate world consciousness to a large extent. For example, we can see in the news that China and India have taken up Western capitalism, and Western science and technology, to a large degree in recent years. (China is nominally communist, but has still absorbed significant elements of capitalism.) As valuable as science and technology are, there is a dark side -- the efficient weapons of war, pollution, global warming, drug abuse, increasing isolation among individuals in society, etc.

In addition, the mood of Western science is separateness. The scientist must maintain an aloof objectivity to study the world properly. This stance may be appropriate for conducting science but it is not a something to base a philosophy of life on. Life is participatory. We must actively engage in, and commune with, life. We must have relationships with nature and other humans, in order to realize our full potential. We must transcend the limits of the conceptual mind. We must engage the intuitive and spiritual dimension experientially, not by disinterested objectivity and intellectual speculation, and not by "blind faith" in religious dogma.

0 Replies

Yes indeed!

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

echi wrote:
Are you suggesting that the benefits of holding spiritual beliefs should serve as evidence for their literal truth?

No. I'm not advocating a faith-based approach to spirituality. Belief should be founded on evidence, which should include your own experience.

Even faith-based beliefs can be supported by anecdotal evidence.

IFF wrote:

I have vivid memories of a past life, I have had experiences of higher states of consciousness, I have experienced profound states of bliss, energy, love, and peace which is the way that I understand God, I have seen changes in my awareness that confirm the notion that the ego is the root cause of suffering.

You abandon the scientific method because you're too attached to your hypothesis.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
echi wrote:
Are you suggesting that the benefits of holding spiritual beliefs should serve as evidence for their literal truth?

No. I'm not advocating a faith-based approach to spirituality. Belief should be founded on evidence, which should include your own experience.
Even faith-based beliefs can be supported by anecdotal evidence.

To the extent that the beliefs are based on evidence, they are not faith-based.

Quote:

IFF wrote:
I have vivid memories of a past life, I have had experiences of higher states of consciousness, I have experienced profound states of bliss, energy, love, and peace which is the way that I understand God, I have seen changes in my awareness that confirm the notion that the ego is the root cause of suffering.
You abandon the scientific method because you're too attached to your hypothesis.

I recognize that scientific methods, as valuable as they are, are limited. To emphasis our verbal, analytical, left-brain abilities to the exclusion of intuitive, psychic, right-brain potentialities does not do justice to what it means to be human. We must recognize and develop our full capabilities.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

echi wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:
echi wrote:
Are you suggesting that the benefits of holding spiritual beliefs should serve as evidence for their literal truth?

No. I'm not advocating a faith-based approach to spirituality. Belief should be founded on evidence, which should include your own experience.
Even faith-based beliefs can be supported by anecdotal evidence.

To the extent that the beliefs are based on evidence, they are not faith-based.

I can't think of any belief systems that are not supported by some type of evidence, no matter how flimsy.

Quote:

Quote:
IFF wrote:
I have vivid memories of a past life, I have had experiences of higher states of consciousness, I have experienced profound states of bliss, energy, love, and peace which is the way that I understand God, I have seen changes in my awareness that confirm the notion that the ego is the root cause of suffering.
You abandon the scientific method because you're too attached to your hypothesis.

I recognize that scientific methods, as valuable as they are, are limited. To emphasis our verbal, analytical, left-brain abilities to the exclusion of intuitive, psychic, right-brain potentialities does not do justice to what it means to be human. We must recognize and develop our full capabilities.

In what way do you consider the scientific method to be limited?

0 Replies

echi, you know the answer to that; science can only answer questions that are falsifiable, questions that take the form of empirically testable hypotheses. Our "spiritual" concerns, those dealing with ultimate meanings are meaningless from the scientific perspective; they can never be sufficiently precise or empirical to take the form of experimental inquiries. That does not diminish their value at all, but it requires different forms of investigation. The most important of which is meditation, the examination of our most basic and immediate experience. The discoveries made are ineffable (personal rather than public "knowledge") which is why it is generally useless to talk about mystical religion--but intensely real and enriching.

0 Replies

IFF: The scientist must maintain an aloof objectivity to study the world properly. This stance may be appropriate for conducting science but it is not a something to base a philosophy of life on. Life is participatory. We must actively engage in, and commune with, life. We must have relationships with nature and other humans, in order to realize our full potential. We must transcend the limits of the conceptual mind. We must engage the intuitive and spiritual dimension experientially, not by disinterested objectivity and intellectual speculation, and not by "blind faith" in religious dogma.

I can agree with most of this thesis, but I have a problem with "... We must engage the intuitive and spiritual dimension experientially,..."

Spiritual and intuitive boils down to very subjective and non-confirming reasonings that cannot be challenged, so what makes it superior to simple "humanity?"

0 Replies

echi wrote:

I can't think of any belief systems that are not supported by some type of evidence, no matter how flimsy.

The flimsier the evidence, the more faith-based it is, and the more tentative and uncertain the beliefs. I don't make a sharp distinction between science and other systems of gaining knowledge, provided that they are logically consistent, and agree with the evidence. Even within science we have the "soft" sciences -- psychology, sociology, economics, etc. -- which are less rigorous.

Quote:

In what way do you consider the scientific method to be limited?

You cannot learn about love or self-transcendence through the scientific method. You cannot reduce nature to its component parts and hope to understand the totality. When the scientific method is held out to be the only credible means for gaining understanding, then subjective, intuitive, psychic modes of knowing are denied. You suppress the sacred, higher order that is incomprehensible to the conceptual mind.

0 Replies

-
JLNobody....Well said!
-

0 Replies

If we define "Science" solely in terms of the "scientific method", we must then agree that humankind has been generating knowledge long before the advent of Science. In other words Science has no monopoly on knowledge (or truth). I would say, however, that science is much more efficient than the trial and error (most error) techniques of prescientific human history. But perhaps Science has been (with the New Physics this may no longer be the case) most productive of material knowledge related to engineering and medicine. And our need for "knowledge" goes beyond such endeavors. Philosophy, art and mystical practices pursue very different kinds of knowledge. Knowledge that, while not practical in the same way as are engineering and medical skills, is nevertheless crucial to life. Such forms of nonmaterial knowledge may not promote physical survival in the same way that Science does but they make it worthwhile.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

IFF: The scientist must maintain an aloof objectivity to study the world properly. This stance may be appropriate for conducting science but it is not a something to base a philosophy of life on. Life is participatory. We must actively engage in, and commune with, life. We must have relationships with nature and other humans, in order to realize our full potential. We must transcend the limits of the conceptual mind. We must engage the intuitive and spiritual dimension experientially, not by disinterested objectivity and intellectual speculation, and not by "blind faith" in religious dogma.

I can agree with most of this thesis, but I have a problem with "... We must engage the intuitive and spiritual dimension experientially,..."

Spiritual and intuitive boils down to very subjective and non-confirming reasonings that cannot be challenged, so what makes it superior to simple "humanity?"

Because spiritual experiences are subjective, we tend to discount the insights they produce. To do so is to limit ourselves. When I consider a spiritual insight, I demand that it be consistent with what I know about the world, that it does not present a logical contradiction, and that it has explanatory power. I look for supportive and contradictory evidence. For example, when I experienced the awakening of my heart chakra the symptoms were dramatic. I first went to the hospital to be sure that I wasn't suffering a heart attack. I wasn't. I knew about the chakras, so I read about similar experiences of others. It began to make sense. Finally, I noticed in the following weeks and months a distinct change in my experiences during, and sometimes after, meditation practice. The blissful energy that I had sometimes experienced in my abdomen region (solar plexus chakra) had moved up to my heart region (heart chakra) and become more frequent. It has persisted and grown stronger over the years. I am aware of it during much of the day.

As for humanity, what is the source of our humanity? What allows us to sense our connectedness to others? Behind the seemingly random, chaotic events in our lives there is a higher order and purpose. We can't understand this higher order by thinking about it, but we can directly experience the realm of consciousness which gives rise to this higher order. We can align ourselves with it. We can be conscious participants in the unfolding of that higher purpose.

0 Replies

IFF, How do you externalize your "spiritual" experiences? Good works, charity(both personal time and money), social outreach/services , help the poor(homeless/food), help those in need in other countries, and other forms of "giving."

How would you rate yourself in your charity to others vs the average joe?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

IFF, How do you externalize your "spiritual" experiences? Good works, charity(both personal time and money), social outreach/services , help the poor(homeless/food), help those in need in other countries, and other forms of "giving."

How would you rate yourself in your charity to others vs the average joe?

Charity should come as a natural desire to help others. I feel shy to talk about my own actions, but I will say that I have given a great deal of time (without pay!) and a modest amount of money (I'm not wealthy!) to causes I deemed worthwhile. Just knowing that what you give out comes back to you, makes us want to be generous towards others. We have to balance that with our personal responsibilities.

0 Replies

Sorry for asking the personal (tough) q's, but I'm curious as to how your spiritual internalization transfers to your external actions. Thanks.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Sorry for asking the personal (tough) q's, but I'm curious as to how your spiritual internalization transfers to your external actions. Thanks.

With the growth of consciousness and the dissolution of ego comes the flowering of impersonal love. Impersonal love is not directed at specific individuals, but rather it is a general feeling of love towards all creatures. This can't help but influence your actions.

0 Replies

C.I., while one's spiritual condition and compassion do go together, it is also the case that one can be very "moral", even "ethical" without enjoying spiritual maturity--e.g., as mere comformity with social norms and desire for supernatural reward.
I would say that spiritual maturity (so-called "enligtenment") is, at least in the zen sense, manifest in the quality of everyday mundane actions like the way one fixes his bed and prepares and drinks tea. And, we might include "negative" qualities such as a lack of avarice, resentment and envy. Most basic, I think, is a deep sense of appreciation of life without fear of death.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

echi, you know the answer to that; science can only answer questions that are falsifiable, questions that take the form of empirically testable hypotheses. Our "spiritual" concerns, those dealing with ultimate meanings are meaningless from the scientific perspective; they can never be sufficiently precise or empirical to take the form of experimental inquiries. That does not diminish their value at all, but it requires different forms of investigation. The most important of which is meditation, the examination of our most basic and immediate experience. The discoveries made are ineffable (personal rather than public "knowledge") which is why it is generally useless to talk about mystical religion--but intensely real and enriching.

Why is meditation a "spiritual" practice? Meditation, to me, is the practice of opening up my mind and, in conjunction, turning up my skepticism. It is, like you said, an examination of our most basic and immediate experience. What is "spiritual" about that? Is it beyond the limits of reason and logic? Is there another means of examination besides reason and logic? What else can meet the conditions for what we can accept as "true"?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Why is meditation a "spiritual" practice? Meditation, to me, is the practice of opening up my mind and, in conjunction, turning up my skepticism. It is, like you said, an examination of our most basic and immediate experience. What is "spiritual" about that? Is it beyond the limits of reason and logic? Is there another means of examination besides reason and logic? What else can meet the conditions for what we can accept as "true"?

True meditation is spiritual because it is the movement of awareness beyond thought, beyond the conceptual mind. It is a state of pure awareness. If you fall asleep or get drunk, your awareness moves toward unconsciousness. Unconsciousness is also a state beyond thought. The difference is that meditation is the absence of thought along with consciousness, as opposed to the absence of thought due to unconsciousness. If meditation is awareness without thought, you might wonder how you would even know if you experienced it. The answer is that it is often experienced, especially in the beginning, as gaps of time in which you felt awake, but without any mental activity. Its as if you were somewhere else for a while, but not asleep. As the practice matures, the ability to maintain pure awareness along with some mental activity is noticed. There is an aliveness, an inner silence, blissfulness, a sense of freedom, along with occasional mental activity. Eventually, this starts to spill over into your daily activity and you begin to notice a backdrop of inner silence, or restful alertness, while you're engaged in activity. You also may notice that you are thinking less. The incessant chatter of the mind is quieted. However, you don't become stupid. Thoughts arise when they are needed, but compulsive thinking diminishes. You are simply here in the present moment. So, what does all this talk about consciousness have to do with spirituality? Spirit is pure consciousness. The awareness of pure consciousness is the experience of a higher state of consciousness. It is a spiritual experience. As the experience matures, it is possible for more dramatic shifts in consciousness to take place. Other types of spiritual experience can arise. I have spoken about my chakra experiences which arose quite spontaneously and unexpected in me.

0 Replies

echi: "Why is meditation a "spiritual" practice?" Well, that depends on what one means by spiritual doesn't it? To me, it is the realization of our basic unity with all that is, the transcendance of Dualism, that orientation that causes existential alienation. It just seems to me that some forms of meditation (esp. vipassana or mindfulness technique) are effective for achieving these "spiritual" ends.
Boy are you a question box.
Smile

0 Replies

As echi has stated, meditation can mean different things to different people. It doesn't have to be "spiritual" or identified in any way by the individual who practices meditation. It could be a "time out" or a "quiet" time with no special purpose except to be alone with one's own thoughts. It can even be done in the middle of a crowd.

0 Replies

everything else does .....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know