Metaphysics, spirituality, Ascetism

Post Reply New Topic

Are aspies more into spirituality??

Well I am.......i meditate, pray, read tarot etc
Even my mother is same...

But socially im challenged is that the reason inorder
to find solace, or mental peace i turn towards spirituality

Are there other Aspies who are too much into spirituality.

I know quite a few of them who left their jobs, family etc
to accept ascetic life becoming sanyasis at Hare Krishna

How much is too much?

I suspect we need to distinguish at least:

A immersion in scripture / theology

B stable, meditative seclusion

C solitary mendicant lifestyle

D group monastic life

E ecstatic group membership

Religion, spirituality and cults are one of my special interests. I wouldn't be surprised if it was common for Aspies to take an interest in some part of that.

It never made sense to me at all and I was always shocked people actually believed that kind of thing. So I learned everything I possibly could about it...

I was into all those things until one day I realized that it's all about affecting an attitude of superior spirituality while simultaneously manipulating gullible people with vague promises and conning them out of their hard-earned money.

It's all a scam.

Speak for yourself.

There are some of us who do not need to act superior - I act much less superior as I develop.

There are some of us who could not gull people ifd they tried and have no interest in trying,

And I have BEEN conned - never by anybody even close to claiming spirituality - but never conned anybody.

You need your mouth washed out with soap. Go malign someone else.

I've been interested in Buddhism for a while and would like an opportunity to meet a teacher or attend a convention to learn more.

[Semiseriously] I THINK you are supposed to go sit under a tree till you are enlightened.

[Serioyusly] How very different. Me, the LAST thing I would do is attend a convention, and well before seeking a teacher I would go for example here:

http://www.buddhanet.net/

But it takes all kinds - even Wrong Planeteers are not all natural recluses and autodidacts.

The link - or one like it might actually steer you to a teacher or meet.

I'm not especially spiritual...

But I am a soft-determinist, deist who studies Stoic philosophy and leads a semi-ascetic, voluntarily simple life.

I think Stoicism is very suited to those with AS... as long as you have a bit of self-discipline.

I used to consider myself an aspiring sage, but the more I learn the more I realize I'm just a recovering fool (on good days).

Simply learning how to bear and forbear has made my life so much better.

even i feel inclined towards buddhism.....and want to visit dharamshala someday
but i keep control on this tendencies....they are like strong flowing currents carries you away into too deep

I am not a teacher per se but have certainly been capable of answering some difficult or unusual questions in the past

what knowledge I have is the product of personal practise, and exposure to more experienced and erudite discourses

please feel free to ask about anything that may not be clear and I will respond as I can, having some confidence

Bad luck

I do. That's why I post from experience, and not from fantasy.

... oh, now that's a good one! Especially after what follows:

Truly spiritual people would not be so judgmental, nor would they attempt to impose their own will upon another as you just have.

You have just provided all the evidence I need to support my claim that spirituality is an affectation, a pretense, and an act!

In other words, "Spirituality" is no more than HYPOCRISY masquerading as righteousness - only without the ritualist mumbo-jumbo of religion.

I think you are referring to a different type of spirituality. I have never been conned of my money nor asked for money. Most of the spiritual people I associate are free spirits that meet out of genuine interest & curiosity. We share our viewpoints. Any spirituality that deems itself superior to another is dogmatic and has more in common with cults and organized religion. What type of group were you associating with, Fnord?

Well to respond to the topic, I do consider myself spiritual, and it leaves room for experimentation with different perspectives. I consider my spirituality my speculative side when it comes to our reality. Science and logic knows only so much at the moment, for it does not assume more than it already knows, and has a gap that I fill until evidence comes up.

I am especially interested with multidimensionalism and higher dimensional thinking. Raising us out the duality of "us vs them, right vs wrong, superior vs inferior, strong vs weak" is especially of interest. Encouraging to not limit ourselves to solely dualistic thinking is my way of raising "global consciousness". I view reason, logic, science, and systematics as essential tools to developing not only width and height (2D, concept) to our thoughts but also depth (which is a 3D concept).

Go beyond the surface.

Which no one could say about making - how much profit was it? selling "I am with the movement" T-shirts? But of course those were artistically designed, quality American-grown organic cotton, printed with environmentally safe dyes and 25% of your profit was donated to the Freedom From Religion Foundation [which unlike religious organizations deserves its non-profit status because ...].

Less than 10% of all earned income. Or 40 bucks for some new hipster newage book.

I think this is where the Glass House analogy thing comes into play.

"any spirituality that deems itself superior to another is dogmatic and has more in common with cults and organized religion" is a dogmatic statement which unselfconsciously implies that the speaker is unaware that he or she has determined this statement of belief (and/or system of thought which has generated it) to be superior to any others

in fact, maintaining belief in any system of thought requires that the believer hold a view compatible with that system of thought, such that they will implicitly consider that system of thought to be superior to others, whether justified on the basis of the merits of that system, or in fact on the basis of the compatibility of the system with that believer's view. there is no moral aspect of this phenomenon to condemn - it is merely a mechanism or process of thought. capable analysis, however, may allow a person to consider not only a given thought and account for its implicit and contextually determined biases, but also self-reflexively consider the mechanism of thought, or the view, accounting for its implicit and contextually determined biases as well, and thereby correcting to some slight degree for the problem of necessary subjectivity

that said, there are merits upon which systems of thought - spiritual or otherwise - can be assessed with validity, rendering them relatively, and only sometimes situationally, superior and inferior as systems

hurble glurble finnish pfagle

... systematic organization of sense data and logical inference are unfortunately also the basis of comprehensible language

this sentence is coded to indicate:

multiple == superior
single == inferior
higher == superior
lower == inferior

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

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, thought and dualism play valuable roles in maintaining coherence of communication and in the reduction of historically and psychologically perpetuated harmful choices