So then I really am the
!!! UNDISPUTED OVERLORD OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE !!!
cool.
you're probably not so convinced when you have a migraine or lose your wallet
What constitudes a spiritual person for you?
- Thread starter Wisdom_Seeker
- Start date
you're probably not so convinced when you have a migraine or lose your wallet
So to you "saintly" = "spiritual"?
It is a fact that it is your opinion, I presume (unless you are unsure of your opinion?) - but nowhere did you state that it was your opinion. You stated it as though your opinion was fact. Which is different.
Issue with? No. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, however odd / bizarre / pointless / or of value they might be. I think your opinion is significantly different to most (a) in that it seems fairly prescribed, and (b) it in that it appears to see spirituality as a removal of the material, whereas most see spirituality as being additional to the material.
A different viewpoint - but not one I have an issue with.
And just how do you know that I didn't plan to lose my wallet and get a migrane? I work in mysterious ways...you're probably not so convinced when you have a migraine or lose your wallet
yes, if you engineer the workings of the universe to deliver yourself repeated setbacks, sufferings and traumas, you truly do work in mysterious ways ...
Sarkus
more specifically, according to sanskrit
"sat" (literally "eternity")is the substance of the spiritual
its really not such a complex thing - If ask "what constitutes a nice meal for you", you would get different factual answers from different people - an italian might say pasta, a bangladeshi may say rice, a termite might say bamboo, etc etc
lol - I know exactly what you mean
what do you mean by prescribed and how would that automatically render information suspicious? I mean most people's definitions of spiritual fall within the characteristics given.
For instance if you asked the italian what is pasta and they gave you a recipe, would you suddenly get suspicious and think "Gee this sounds prescribed"
its not so much removing the material, but superseding it because the spiritual has inherent properties of eternity (and matter obviously doesn't)
I appreciate that - but when your answer is nothing but a recipe it comes across impersonally - i.e. that you are merely answering from a prescribed list of answers with no actual input from yourself.
No personal involvement in your answer.
It doesn't. It just smacks of impersonal thoughts - when the question is aimed more at individual, personalised thoughts. i.e. what is YOUR opinion - not what is written in some book.
Maybe you don't like wandering into your own thoughts, and want everything detailed to you by someone you regard as being in authority.
Maybe you have thought long and hard about it - and realise that your own thoughts match what you have been taught 100%.
No - they don't.
There are some elements that are similar, sure, but most people's do not.
Ask them what they think are the characteristics of a "saintly person" and you'd probably have very similar ideas - but to most being "saintly" and "spiritual" are different.
No - because "pasta" is defined by its recipe.
"Spirituality" is not defined for most people.
So your analogy is false.
From the passage you gave it seems to be far more about removal than superceding:
Start with the standard "human behaviour" - your "spirituality" is the removal / conquering of unnecessary acts, desires, feelings etc.
Most see it instead as being additional to the standard.
I.e. yours is an elevation through removal - whereas others see it as an elevation through addition.
But then this is merely what I gauge from the passage you gave.
And please don't give confidence statements such as "and matter obviously doesn't" unless you have the evidence to back them up?
Sarkus
(BTW - its an incredibly rare thing to encounter something "original" in this world)
hint
so in other words nothing can be perfectly liked by a person unless it is totally reconstituted by them?
ditto above
what if I personally agree with the book?
(BTW - its an incredibly rare thing to encounter something "original" in this world)
Maybe you aren't widely versed enough to understand how most people's ideas are mostly other people's
Or alternatively, maybe after a long time searching I have found what I am looking for
aside from the contributions of atheists and other persons who are antagonistic to the notion of spiritual life, can you name any post here that offers something that doesn't fall within the Srimad Bhagavatam quote?
true - there is no standard definitions for such things in a materialistic society
assuming of course that spiritual life has no standard (another version of the "God is an imagination/doesn't exist" argument) , and thus practitioners also have no standard
can you suggest where?
depends what you mean by standard human behaviour
and exactly how do you think such conquering is proposed?
hint
the "standard" being?
who are the "others" and why is their view less substantial?
your suggesting there is no evidence that we die at the rate of 100%?
I never suggested that.
Indeed.
You obviously do.
However, when your arguments and ideas tend toward mere quoting of scripture it smacks of blinkered vision - and, dare I say it, brainwashing. It smacks of someone who doesn't think for themselves - and adds nothing to the discussion than what can be found in the various books themselves.
Afterall - the thread is about what YOU THINK - not what the SCRIPTURES state.
Although if you are happy to concede that you don't think...?
Did you finish this sentence?
And please don't start down your elitist notion of superiority - unless of course you happen to know how well read people are.
Perhaps - which speaks volumes of the need, little of the desire to challenge.
Yes thanks.
Celpha Fiael: One who has a capacity for awe and wonder and immerses themselves in the inspiration that exudes from that.
The implication being that there are "standard definitions" in a "spiritual" society? Yet it is exactly what constitutes "spirituality" that is in question. So your comment is (a) elitist drivel, (b) irrelevant.
Not assuming at all. You provide evidence that (a) there is a spiritual / non-material existence, and then perhaps we can move on to there being (b) a standard for this non-material existence.
Oh, right - you can't - because I obviously don't have the right education.
You want me to provide teaching as well? Sheesh!
…he is free from all envy and jealousy... and he is free from possessiveness. He… strictly controls his eating. He has conquered over the six material qualities….. He is free from all desire for prestige…
“Free from” = removed himself from, i.e. removed – not added.
I guess you would understand it as the behaviour of a “non saintly person”.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Again you put words into others mouths!
I have never said that other peoples’ views are less substantial – or any more substantial for that matter.
Or is it YOU that is now claiming them to be? If so – why?
Strawman fallacy, LG. And a pathetic one.
Energy conservation – ever heard of it?
Please detail how energy is destroyed.
If you can, and can prove it, feel free to collect your Nobel prize for Physics.
If you can’t – then please stop making confidence statements.
Last edited:
Sarkus
something like "His strength and meaning in life come from the truth itself", eh?
just provide examples for your statements
:shrug:
“
If you can, and can prove it, feel free to collect your Nobel prize for Physics.
If you can’t – then please stop making confidence statements.
once again, are you advocating that nothing can be perfectly liked by a person unless it is totally reconstituted by them?
how many ideas presented on this forum are ideas that cannot be traced to some already existing body of work (aside from the ideas that are too inane to be accepted in intelligent circles)
once again, it seems like you under the impression that the goal of knowledge is to reinvent everything like a mad artist just so one can stick one's signature on it
something like "His strength and meaning in life come from the truth itself", eh?
certainly
and how do you propose to question such things without standards?
from a viewpoint of someone who holds materialist pursuits as elite, most certainly
the beginning of which would be theory (ie establishing standard definitions)
without standard definitions to begin with we might as well be painting watercolour landscapes on ice cubes
if you have a notion how one can approach the realms of practice and values without theory, be my guest
no
just provide examples for your statements
what is your understanding on how to remove envy, etc?
what is your understanding on how to to be free from possessiveness?
as clearly evidenced by western society, many diseases are caused by unnecessary eating - its not like a saintly person gives up eating - they just give up eating unnecessarily
if you think that a saintly person attains such states of being by simply "giving up" you are totally unaware of what they are "adding"
and why is that the standard?
not if the said conquering involves "adding" something
I.e. yours is an elevation through removal - whereas others see it as an elevation through addition.
:shrug:
“
our bodies are not made up of matter
please indicate an eternal energy that doesn't periodically undergo transformation - good luck
If you can, and can prove it, feel free to collect your Nobel prize for Physics.
If you can’t – then please stop making confidence statements.
Not at all - brainwashed people generally all "perfectly like" what they are taught.
Irrelevant / strawman / flawed understanding on your part.
I'll leave you to decide which is appropriate to which of your comments.
Not really.
But then if you spout enough generalisations you'll probably hit upon one of them.
If I ask what constitutes "big" for people - it depends upon their own personal viewpoint - not some definition or standard.
You are too driven by stamping the "standard" of your own scriptures upon everyone else.
Please prove that I hold "materialist pursuits as elite". If you can't - or if your comment is aimed at someone else - then it is irrelevant. Please stop posting irrelevant comments.
Please feel free to start anywhere you want - just provide the evidence. Don't write about what you intend to do - just do it.
If that is your whim.
I thought the standard definition of "non-material" was NOT MATERIAL?
Maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to provide an alternate working definition that we can all be comfortable using.
As stated - and as obviously missed from your reading of the previous posts - either deliberately on your part to create an argument, or purely through not bothering to read properly what others have written - my comments were based purely on the excerpt that you gave.
But your aggressively defensive attitude has once again prevented any reasonable sharing of ideas with civility. Congratulations.
Eh?
Why is this relevant?
You claim matter is not eternal - and yet your only retort is now to claim that it is, but it undergoes transformations? Please sort out your own arguments before you bother bringing them to others.
Sarkus
“
????
you will advocate some general principle in connection to religion, and when one applies that general principle to situations outside of religion, you label it irrelevant/strawman/etc and leave it at that without further discussion or elaboration
If you want to put a glass ceiling on your arguments, fine. Its just another way of saying "I don't want to discuss this anymore"
rather than address "why" something is specifically wrong you just label it in some sort of way as if that is final
For instance if I retorted to this comment of yours that it is a strawman (and didn't exactly explain why it was a strawman, but instead directly or indirectly indicated that you were too much of a doofus to understand why it is a strawman) how would you expect to progress with the discussion?
everything has standard definitions - if they didn't you could travel to china and speak english and go about your daily life with just as much ease as you might in america
for instance if I said your shoes are too big and came out with a pair of shoes that were bigger than the ones you were already wearing, would that indicate that i had a standard understanding of the word "big"?
similarly most people would consult scripture for definitions in that field
in the absence of such a foundation, if you want to talk about things such as "Start with the standard "human behaviour" its kind of like hanging up laundry in a cyclone to a line that is only tied at one end
but then if you keep with enough generalizations I'm sure you will find something
(just joking)
your earlier gloss about "standard human behaviour" (aka - materialism)
Strawman/irrelevant
(just joking)
Actually I am not exactly sure how your response relates to mine - is this an intro to the new thread you created? If it is perhaps we should take it up there
kind of like describing fire as non-water or something (rather than describing what something is, it is describing what something isn't)
it should have read
are our bodies are not made up of matter?
“
“
so in other words your logic follows a path similar to this - if a person likes something that is prescribed (ie not presented with some sort or whimsical or "personal" slant on it) then that is a clear indication they are brain washed
????
I've noticed you have this habit in discussion
you will advocate some general principle in connection to religion, and when one applies that general principle to situations outside of religion, you label it irrelevant/strawman/etc and leave it at that without further discussion or elaboration
If you want to put a glass ceiling on your arguments, fine. Its just another way of saying "I don't want to discuss this anymore"
ditto above
rather than address "why" something is specifically wrong you just label it in some sort of way as if that is final
For instance if I retorted to this comment of yours that it is a strawman (and didn't exactly explain why it was a strawman, but instead directly or indirectly indicated that you were too much of a doofus to understand why it is a strawman) how would you expect to progress with the discussion?
everything has standard definitions - if they didn't you could travel to china and speak english and go about your daily life with just as much ease as you might in america
for instance if I said your shoes are too big and came out with a pair of shoes that were bigger than the ones you were already wearing, would that indicate that i had a standard understanding of the word "big"?
most people would consult a physics text book for definitions if they were interesting in discussing physics
similarly most people would consult scripture for definitions in that field
in the absence of such a foundation, if you want to talk about things such as "Start with the standard "human behaviour" its kind of like hanging up laundry in a cyclone to a line that is only tied at one end
Strawman/irrelevant
but then if you keep with enough generalizations I'm sure you will find something
(just joking)
your earlier gloss about "standard human behaviour" (aka - materialism)
Strawman/irrelevant
(just joking)
Actually I am not exactly sure how your response relates to mine - is this an intro to the new thread you created? If it is perhaps we should take it up there
non-material is vague (it indicates something that is not apparent compared to things that are inferior to our senses)
kind of like describing fire as non-water or something (rather than describing what something is, it is describing what something isn't)
:shrug:
sorry
it should have read
are our bodies are not made up of matter?
“
hope the above clears it up