Until you get some vague aroma of yourself, you can't really apply the shoulds and musts of any normatives. Arguably though,, spiritual discipline grounds one in both ... IOW one comes to see what one is and what one should be (or rather, what one was) gradually.
What is the starting point?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Until you get some vague aroma of yourself, you can't really apply the shoulds and musts of any normatives. Arguably though,, spiritual discipline grounds one in both ... IOW one comes to see what one is and what one should be (or rather, what one was) gradually.
But generally, you'd agree that those who have a good material foundation, who have established themselves as worldly persons first (family, career, hobbies, ...), then have it easier to apply themselves to spiritual discipline?
And that in this sense, material welfare is a prerequisite for spiritual discipline?
not at all. In fact there's a good argument that they have it harder since they've done the harder miles of attachment
I don't know. They all seem to be so much better off! So cool, relaxed, respectable. Looking at them, seeing how they walk and talk with such confidence - it suggests that they know full well what they are doing, and that they are way beyond any issues of epistemology and ontology. They "just know".
Know what?
Which shampoo to use?
They look like they have never had any difficulty in deciding between Jehowah and Krishna, or Allah and Krishna, or between whomever, that they never had any doubts, that they are beyond offenses to the holy name, and say they are guilty of them simply to prove how humble and modest they are. That it was all smooth sailing - they heard, they read, they came, they decided, they stayed, they flourish. No trouble, no doubts, no philosophical questions: they understand everything, they know everything. They are beyond reproach or falldown. God is on their side. Woe is the one who earns their dislike.
But they have a good material foundation, and they've had it before they ventured into spiritual discipline.
Hence my point that a good material foundation seems to be a prerequisite for spiritual discpline.
Perhaps all the troubles that I keep having are simply a sign that I should give up on trying to establish any kind of spiritual discipline, and instead focus on work and hope for a favorable rebirth, so that I may take to spiritual discpline in a future life.
There's probably some reason why these persons appear more visible to you than others. Beyond having shelter, food and clothing, having any more of a material foundation doesn't offer any spiritual bonuses (and that's a conservative guess)
It's not just those persons, as if they wouldn't be an overwhelming majority.
Everyone who is a member of an established religion seems to me like that.
Those who have doubts or problems, material or spiritual, quickly leave - either on their own, or they are pushed out of the group.
I have gotten the impression that the religous group is not the place where one could develop some certainty about whether to aspire belong to that group and the philosophy it promotes.
No, the decision about that apparently has to be reached independently, outside of the group, without the group's help. One apparently has to be a full-fledged religionist of that particular religion before one can even just visit its actual society, what to speak of joining it.
Isn't that so?
There are specific types of indecision that might grant one a short shelf life in spiritual life, but it has nothing to do with material acquisition or absence. Actually, materially speaking, everyone's life is besieged with problems. Sometimes it can be just another guise of maya to dress everyone up in envy by placing greener grass in the other person (and in this way keep the soul conditioned in material nature by their persistent hankering and lamentation)
What could I do to get at least some "vague aroma of myself"?
With what do those specific types of indecision have to do then?
One can find help and understanding for all sorts of problems - all kinds of addictions, abuse, illness, bankruptcy, criminal past.
But come there with a problem of philosophical or religious indecision - and one is treated like a basket case.
"You have been abused as a child? You're homeless? You have AIDS? Your partner left you? Come here, we can help you with that! We have solutions for you! You don't know which religion to choose and where to start? Off with you, you leper!! Don't you ever come near us again!!"
actual indecision can also render solutions to addictions, abuse, illness, bankruptcy, and criminal past ineffective also.
If one decides, sure
solutions also come with a set frame work that they operate in. For instance a diabetic may find any solutions to their problem ineffective if they continue to eat large amounts of sweets at irregular hours.
IOW its application that does it.
Usually a person requires some element of conviction (which in turn diminishes the aspect of indecision) before they venture into application. Otherwise, one still remains in a state of searching (or in the extreme sense, being convinced of the diametric opposite, which dramatically curtails any application. This is explained in BG 4.10 - anger, fear and attachment impede the whole process.
a good run down in the 12th chapter of a sliding scale of options (about text 9 onwards)
I would know! They don't take one into counselling unless one makes it clear that one is sure that one wants counselling or other help offered.
Sure, and I was able to get along with the regimen for some time. But sooner or later, there come frustrations and the usual optimistic and postive pep-talks don't work anymore, and I needed a more substantial encouragement.
I almost cried when it was suggested to me to go to the movies or to go swimming on the weekend as a reward for a week of work.
But how does one develop that initial conviction?
So what I am noticing in religious people and calling "material welfare" is actually a considerable absence of attachment, fear and anger?
And that these people have had a lot less attachment, fear and anger than me to begin with - which is why it was easier for them to take up spiritual discipline than it is for me?
This is me - some of them disbelieve in everything, being angry at all sorts of spiritual speculation out of hopelessness.
What if I saw it differently:
What if I don't actually lack conviction so much (and so shouldn't beat myself up over lacking conviction and trying to contrive it), but instead think that I have some conviction, it is just that I also have a lot of attachments, fear and anger which make it harder for me to act on that conviction -?
And that therefore, I should first find a common-sense way to reduce my attachment, fear and anger?
Yes, I expected you'd say that.
but seeing the title "what is the starting point".. i'm a bit confused..
what is religion to you?
why do you feel the need to start at all?
just by wanting to start, how could you stop abruptly?
is it like you decided god exists and are looking for the best suiting religion? or though it fun or more healthy or something and decided to follow one but are confused as to which one? or do you already hold one and you're now questioning it?
how can you stop at the start?
what is religion to you?
why do you feel the need to start at all?
just by wanting to start, how could you stop abruptly?
is it like you decided god exists and are looking for the best suiting religion? or though it fun or more healthy or something and decided to follow one but are confused as to which one? or do you already hold one and you're now questioning it?
how can you stop at the start?
Last edited:
with honesty
hmm..IMO to address the OP..
its not a logical descision..
you can easily search churches,find what they say they focus on,
research mission statements,get advice from ppl who attend that particular church,etc..etc..etc...
but it all comes down to how you feel in that church..
do you feel they are following their own rules?
do you feel comfortable in that church..
when i say church i am not talking about denominations..cause in my experiance
that is just a 'label'..something to line themselves up with..
i have found myself in a few different denominations, the ones i have attended tend to be the same internaly..
i tend to look for the churches that don't make you feel worthless when you attend..the ones who encourage you to 'think for yourself' as opposed to the ones who seem to be a 'do as your told' church..
i also tend to look for the smaller churches as it is a more personal experiance and they seem to encourage the 'relationship' aspect of church..with a big church it is too easy to be a 'loner' in them,(show up for the show, then go home when it is over)
IMO the 'right' church is the one where you feel at home in..
its not a logical descision..
you can easily search churches,find what they say they focus on,
research mission statements,get advice from ppl who attend that particular church,etc..etc..etc...
but it all comes down to how you feel in that church..
do you feel they are following their own rules?
do you feel comfortable in that church..
when i say church i am not talking about denominations..cause in my experiance
that is just a 'label'..something to line themselves up with..
i have found myself in a few different denominations, the ones i have attended tend to be the same internaly..
i tend to look for the churches that don't make you feel worthless when you attend..the ones who encourage you to 'think for yourself' as opposed to the ones who seem to be a 'do as your told' church..
i also tend to look for the smaller churches as it is a more personal experiance and they seem to encourage the 'relationship' aspect of church..with a big church it is too easy to be a 'loner' in them,(show up for the show, then go home when it is over)
IMO the 'right' church is the one where you feel at home in..