Metaphysics, spirituality, Ascetism

Post Reply New Topic

First, namaste.

People who have asperger's can vary...

I think it is also about experiences, intelligence, etc, as much as Asperger's?

I am so curious about more opinions, and whether people with AS are more spiritual...

For others above who said...You made me suddenly think about a Buddist quotation. If I translate it very badly:

Your heart is so, therefore you see it as thus.

Have you read the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, linguist? I cannot understand why it is called The Prajna Paramita Heart Sutra on the website?

so far as I have seen, it is a category which indiscriminately collects people whose cognitions habituate primarily among the cortical neurons, instead of elsewhere in the brain - which is not to say that there is more cortical activity, or that such a cortical emphasis produces operations which are superior or inferior in any respect to other habituations - but that there are necessary informational advantages and social disadvantages that must appear when consciousness is less habituated with other areas of the brain

broad exposure to stimuli and ease of processing should certainly improve any person's ability to relate and contextualize information

have seen no evidence that people of any diagnosis are more spiritual than some other diagnosis

would have to see a citation to accept the origin; I may have seen the statement before as attributed to some jewish rabbi

am assuming that 'linguist' refers to me. diamond-cutter sutra and heart sutra are both located within the classification of prajnaparamita - perfection of wisdom - literature. this body of writing emphasizes the meaning of sunyata - emptiness - and its ramifications within mahayana buddhist doctrine and praxis. so far as I can tell there is no misidentification of these sutras on the buddhanet website (which again I must assume is the website referenced in the question)

An excellent principle - I follow it myself consistently. Unfortunately you seem to have a limited and unbalanced experience.



It happens to be literal truth. In my 20s, now... But as it is today, I am able to keep reminding myself that God made you, as you are, and is using you in the plan no less than me.



I do not recall claiming to be s truly spiritual person, and I KNOW that I do not know what they are like as well as you, who know exactly what spiritual people would or would not do.

I, claiming only to be a single unit in the Church Militant, do not have access to your understanding of spirituality. I do have the example of my parents, who washed out the mouths of children who trash-talked [which prompted my suggestion for you], and the example of Jesus at the temple when he saw something that needed correcting. I hsve not "attempted to impose my will on you" - I have reproved your impenetrable prejudice and your gratuitous insults.



One more sample of massive stupidity. I will not challenge your definition of spirituality, because I do not know to my satisfaction what spirituality is. I suspect those who better understand spirituality might differ wiuth you.

But the claim that my rebuking you "provides evidence" for your definition is stupid or unsane, in that

A. I think I can safely say at the least that Spirituality does not make one incapable of judging between truth and falsehood

B. you have no ground nor authority for claiming that judging and reproving false speech and wrong action is inconsistent with Spirituality

C. Even a casual reading will show that I have not laid claim to deep spirituality nor to great advancement in the Imitatoon of Christ.

I fear [I will not say what I thought of ending with] that you are one of those sorely crippled people who attribute to others their own character. The T-shirt episode combined with your emphasis on scams strongly suggests this.

I had been thinking you one of the Powervolk, perhaps a low-level Bobbie. But I am starting to think that you might be closer to one of the Cornered. Most of those I actually know are female, but I think it fits.

It does not imply anything of the sort. One of the tenets of life I follow is "there is no such thing as superior nor inferior". I do not deem my views to be superior nor inferior to others. They are something to be discussed especially if, to others, they lack substance.

What I made is a general observation and comparison. Seeing oneself's beliefs as superior is a trait that many organized religions and cults share. That is the connection I made.

Here is a rewording: "Any spirituality that deems itself superior to another is likely to be dogmatic and have more in common with cults and organized religion."



Yes, maintaining belief in any system of thought does require the believer to hold a view compatible with that system of thought. But it doesn't have to lead to a feeling of superiority of that system of thought to others.

For example, I don't view dogmatic religions as inferior to my personal views. They have their pros, cons, and consequences. So do my views. This is a multidimensional system of thought about the world.



This "capable analysis" is outside the dualistic thought process. People who are heavily concerned with right vs wrong do not care to analyze.



So being interested in something makes me think the other thing is automatically inferior? A point (1D) and a circle (2D) only holds my interest for so long. It is only natural for the curious to want to move on to the next thing like a sphere (3D) and hypersphere (4D). That does not mean I think 1D and 2D are inferior. They are just the first concepts I have mastered.

1. there is suffering in life
2. suffering is caused by specific harms
3. action can be taken to encourage or discourage harmful choices
4. encouraging harmful choices is always wrong, and never right
5. it is always inferior to encourage harmful choices
6. repeated accumulation of harmful choices will make a person weaker than accumulating alternative choices
7. when harmful choices by some other do not directly involve or impact me, some other can be distinguished from me[/quote]

Dualism limits the choices we can make. For example "you're on our side or their side" is a dualistic concept when in reality you don't want to fight any side or you actually care for both sides equally.



"Encouraging to not limit ourselves to solely dualistic thinking is my way of raising "global consciousness"

"thought is the mechanism perpetuating dualism. while exclusive reliance upon it, or use of it in place of the senses for collecting data - which it should instead be organizing - can produce harm"

In a strange way, you actually agree with me. In other ways you do not but that is perfectly okay (and respected). It indicates you are multidimensional. A multidimensional thought process avoids absolutes and plurality until it serves a meaningful purpose.

If you were truly a dualistic thinker you would say "This is bull. You are just wrong" without bothering to add something meaningful to the discussion of why you think and/or feel that way.

"Raising us out of dualism" is my way of encouraging others to not have exclusive reliance on the dualistic thought process. It is, by no means, seeking to destroy or get rid of dualism. If that was implied, then it was a poor choice of words on my part.

any spirituality that deems itself superior
is dogmatic
in common with cults and organized religion

these are meaningless clauses unless the reader is supposed to infer that 'dogmatic' has some value designation lesser than the value designation of an alternative. similarly, because of social and cultural stigma, the word 'cult' has a negative value designation in common usage, and mention of 'organized religion' seems to follow with choice of the descriptor 'dogmatic'. if there is no contrast intended to be conveyed between dogma and lack of dogma, or between cult, organized religion, and some presumed alternative social organization of persons having beliefs held more or less in common, could you clarify the statement

in other words, why might it not be inferior to maintain a form of spirituality that produces adherents who determine it to be superior

it is regularly superior to consume a clean organically grown apple, while it is regularly inferior to consume refined and concentrated arsenic. it is occasionally superior to consume chocolate flavoured ice cream, while it is occasionally inferior to consume curry flavoured ice cream. it is substantially superior to own and use steel-based alloy tools, while it is substantially inferior to own and use zinc-based alloy tools. it is situationally superior to profess devotion for allah or christ when adherents of such faiths intend to produce a forced conversion by credibly threatening harm or death, while it is situationally inferior to not profess such devotion within such circumstances - presuming that one values life and bodily integrity over integrity of professed devotion. under the same conditions as the previous statement, it is superior to believe that ideology will definitely cause harm or death if devotion is not professed, while it is inferior to believe that mere humanity will prevent harm or death by overcoming ideology - again presuming that life and bodily integrity are valued over integrity of professed devotion. it is philosophically superior to develop principles of thought which depend upon valid objects, while it is philosophically inferior to develop principles of thought which depend upon invalid objects. it is discursively superior to maintain intellectual consistency, integrity, honesty and so on including validity, while it is discursively inferior to neglect to develop and maintain these qualities in thought - which can be used as criteria on the basis of which systems of thought or belief can be qualitatively compared

in another sense, the human head is superior to the human torso when upright, while the human torso is inferior, etc

one also notes that you have self-described a 'tenet of life' here

it may be the case that in expressing such a statement you are in fact meaning to express that a given expression of personal view in no sense changes the value of a given person, as a person, either intrinsically or socially in relation to you - in which case, equivocation is entirely legitimate and possible. views qua views, however, rely on perspective, which can be greater or smaller, relevant or irrelevant, helpful or unhelpful, detailed or vague, and so on - which can be used as criteria, on the basis of which views can be qualitatively compared. this difference, between views as a reflection of the value of a self, and views qua views, actually justifies the illegitimacy of ad hominem argumentation

comparison requires the objects of comparison to be relative, and thus have some manner of relation which can be described - often qualitatively

out of curiosity, can you define a form of socially implemented spirituality that does not have dogma, and that is not a cult or organized religion

feelings of superiority are inferior to determinations of superiority, when based upon characteristics which display principled intellectual formulation

I disagree with this statement because I am heavily concerned with right vs wrong and do care to analyze

the christian bible is not an axiomatic system capable of mathematical exposition, and I do not accept that GIT is relevant outside of attempts to respond to hilbert's 2nd problem

to the contrary - you have described an implicit dogmatism instead of an explicit dogmatism. eg, empirically falsifiable knowledge is a primary determinant of what is valid; gaps left by the limitations of falsifiable knowledge are trivial enough for imaginative explanations to suffice; replicable empirical methodology is superior to idiothetic rumination

ideas and scientific methodology are not distinct; one is merely an organized and implemented form of the other. scientific conclusions are also as intrinsically temporary as individually generated ideas, if perhaps having more historical use and thus accumulated social value - when considered both interesting and current. this historical use and accumulated social value impart authority in consideration

you seem to ignore, discount, or be unaware of the possibility for, the direct experience of knowledge that is not empirically testable, but can nevertheless be intersubjectively agreed upon by those who hold such experiences in common, due to similarities of methodology in praxis, when considering information which fits categorically into your 'gaps of falsifiable knowledge'

for clarity, I prefer etymologically determined definitions when distinguishing such terms as 'doctrine' or 'dogma' or 'tenet', to wit, 'doctrine' is from the latin 'doctrina' or teaching; 'dogma' is from the greek 'dokein', meaning 'to seem good', through the latin 'dogmatos' for 'that which one thinks is true; while 'tenet' is from the latin 'tenere', which means 'to hold'. I propose that a tenet is held because it seems good, and is taught doctrinally as dogma, because it carries an increasingly positive value designation when maintained by more than one person; authority determining dogma is the result of pedagogical process

when interest is coded to include at least one moral sentiment, eg 'raising us out (from) the duality of...', then yes, interest implies the inferiority of the morally assessed alternative, as something to be avoided, minimized, or taught against

am beginning to suspect that you may benefit from consideration of the slight difference in definition between 'dualism' and 'dichotomy' as in 'dichotomous thought' as informed usage may in fact clarify some points

I assume mutual respect as a precursor to most enjoyable conversation