Spiritual Practice: contextual measure & benefits

[Jayson]

Snipped and moved to a separate thread for further discussion....
-----------------------------------

According to anthropological theory ritual may have preceded belief. However, I don't see it as essential for spiritual religion now.

Comparably, this is somewhat like suggesting that we don't need communal language.
Not everyone needs to learn English in Japan, for instance, but on the larger scale; if you suggest that the world can work without such a thing as a common form to assume the context of communication and experience with, then we would be rather mistaken on how the social paradigm of the human being works.
I'll circle back to this in a moment.

Spirituality, as I put it, is a finger of humanity. Just like science, art, politics, tools, academia, and the like are fingers of humanity.
There are four principle relationships of humanity as far as I see it: the human's relationship with their self, the human's relationship with other humans, the human's relationship with inanimate things, and the human's relationship with the universe as a whole - the state and condition of existing as a human.
The first is intrapersonal. The second with interpersonal. The third is mesaphysical. The fourth is metaphysical.
You could equally title the last two as: mesapersonal and metapersonal.

If, for instance, you are as yourself; then intrapersonal metaphysics is all that is required.
However, for the gross movement of humanity; with regard to how to feel in context about existing in a highly emotionally charged and reverent manner; interpersonal metaphysics is vital to a tangibleness of life.

Circling back to the above now. That is to say, that if humans want a community of unified comprehension of what it is to exist as a human existentially, then the ontological uniformity through thought (belief; mind), action (practice; body), and sensation (emotion; spirit) is required to accomplish a tangible context with which to communally convey the linguistic transference of the idealized experience, and the experience of attempting that ideal.

Uniformed Warrior Religion or Spirituality, for instance, is historically well known to be a very robust and powerful asset for a community of warriors of a given civilization.

This doesn't mean you need to draft artificial projections, but instead, it means that the linguistic ontological index must be relatable and productive to the individual as much as the community.

A human of great spirit by their self is no one at all. They may as well be a rock in a pond for as much human as they have engaged in being.
The great humans of spirit, religious and not, have all been communal and strive to create or expand a linguistic index for which the community references.

Buddha did not strike up a chord with so many by being a hermetic hidden man of spirit, nor did he repeat the same linguistic index preceding him without alteration.
Instead, he communally shared his expansion of the ontological index from the culture by which he existed.

On a gross scale, humans tend to share a break through of ideology as best as they can accomplish. And the ideology of how to perceive existing on a deeply emotional level of relationship with existence itself in all of its facets is fairly paramount to the majority of human beings.

Ritual, to bring it around to the point at hand, causes a communal linguistic index of bodily exchange with existing and links it directly to the belief (thought; mind) and emotion (sensation; spirit).
If you all move the same together with the same belief and the same emotional attachment, then you are uniting the community as if the community is a collection of cells of one body, one mind, and one emotional range.

It will always seem useless to the onlooker that does not have any attachment of mind or emotion to the communities index of tangible relation.
But it will always be around in thousands of forms; and not just in purely religious contexts.

That's my take on the matter anyway.

[Valley]

I don't mean to intrude on a good discussion; I just wanted to share my opinion on the matter of the following:

According to anthropological theory ritual may have preceded belief. However, I don't see it as essential for spiritual religion now.

Comparably, this is somewhat like suggesting that we don't need communal language.
Not everyone needs to learn English in Japan, for instance, but on the larger scale; if you suggest that the world can work without such a thing as a common form to assume the context of communication and experience with, then we would be rather mistaken on how the social paradigm of the human being works.
I'll circle back to this in a moment.

Spirituality, as I put it, is a finger of humanity. Just like science, art, politics, tools, academia, and the like are fingers of humanity.
There are four principle relationships of humanity as far as I see it: the human's relationship with their self, the human's relationship with other humans, the human's relationship with inanimate things, and the human's relationship with the universe as a whole - the state and condition of existing as a human.
The first is intrapersonal. The second with interpersonal. The third is mesaphysical. The fourth is metaphysical.
You could equally title the last two as: mesapersonal and metapersonal.

If, for instance, you are as yourself; then intrapersonal metaphysics is all that is required.
However, for the gross movement of humanity; with regard to how to feel in context about existing in a highly emotionally charged and reverent manner; interpersonal metaphysics is vital to a tangibleness of life.

Circling back to the above now. That is to say, that if humans want a community of unified comprehension of what it is to exist as a human existentially, then the ontological uniformity through thought (belief; mind), action (practice; body), and sensation (emotion; spirit) is required to accomplish a tangible context with which to communally convey the linguistic transference of the idealized experience, and the experience of attempting that ideal.

Uniformed Warrior Religion or Spirituality, for instance, is historically well known to be a very robust and powerful asset for a community of warriors of a given civilization.

This doesn't mean you need to draft artificial projections, but instead, it means that the linguistic ontological index must be relatable and productive to the individual as much as the community.

A human of great spirit by their self is no one at all. They may as well be a rock in a pond for as much human as they have engaged in being.
The great humans of spirit, religious and not, have all been communal and strive to create or expand a linguistic index for which the community references.

Buddha did not strike up a chord with so many by being a hermetic hidden man of spirit, nor did he repeat the same linguistic index preceding him without alteration.
Instead, he communally shared his expansion of the ontological index from the culture by which he existed.

On a gross scale, humans tend to share a break through of ideology as best as they can accomplish. And the ideology of how to perceive existing on a deeply emotional level of relationship with existence itself in all of its facets is fairly paramount to the majority of human beings.

Ritual, to bring it around to the point at hand, causes a communal linguistic index of bodily exchange with existing and links it directly to the belief (thought; mind) and emotion (sensation; spirit).
If you all move the same together with the same belief and the same emotional attachment, then you are uniting the community as if the community is a collection of cells of one body, one mind, and one emotional range.

It will always seem useless to the onlooker that does not have any attachment of mind or emotion to the communities index of tangible relation.
But it will always be around in thousands of forms; and not just in purely religious contexts.

That's my take on the matter anyway.

I would think it is bad to say we don't need ritual at all, but i do think that we have an over reliance on it, or a sort of addiction. Think of this many believe that it is best to have Faith in God, which is to choose to believe regardless of all the evidence such as to have that non-100% belief non-knowning thing influence your descisions and so on... but if people are over ritualistic then people tend to think they come closer to God by simply doing physical things rather than achieving spiritual growth. Like wise people will often force the bible on a child, make them go to church (another ritual), and drive the idea of God into them, and instead of hveing Faith in God, and choosing to believe, they accept without actual understanding that God must exist and assume that they can know that God exists. All this detracts from growth.

We humans have a tendancy to find something that works and keep doing it too much untill it breaks. We see it in a child playing with a toy forcing it this way and that untill it falls apart, and then they cry, does this realy get completley overcome with age?

[Jayson]

We humans have a tendancy to find something that works and keep doing it too much untill it breaks.

Which is why you see what you see around you today; lots of anti-theists and lots of new spiritual pursuits getting more serious chances.
The first new pursuits are commonly just augmentations to previous methods; those are the easiest.
The more radical are commonly smaller and stay there until one of them really hits a chord that everyone feels is what they have been wanting and latches on to it.

It also doesn't hurt if you can coincide that production with an oppression. People tend to really latch on to things they like even more when someone tells them that they cannot have it.

[Valley]

It also doesn't hurt if you can coincide that production with an oppression. People tend to really latch on to things they like even more when someone tells them that they cannot have it.

To clean something you must first wet it and then dry it.

[Jayson]

It also doesn't hurt if you can coincide that production with an oppression. People tend to really latch on to things they like even more when someone tells them that they cannot have it.

To clean something you must first wet it and then dry it.

More or less.
I liken it more to plate tectonics and creation of new land. To get more land, you have to really shake things up and the fringes of the expansive land will be the most violent regions as one body of land is subducting to another, and the subducting land will fuel the explosive force of the overriding land that it will use to make new land.
But after the major subduction takes place, you'll have new land and fresh resources for the current to carry while the subduction crawls along more softly for a while ever inching once again to another major event.

[felix dakat]

I don't mean to intrude on a good discussion; I just wanted to share my opinion on the matter of the following:

According to anthropological theory ritual may have preceded belief. However, I don't see it as essential for spiritual religion now.

Comparably, this is somewhat like suggesting that we don't need communal language.
Not everyone needs to learn English in Japan, for instance, but on the larger scale; if you suggest that the world can work without such a thing as a common form to assume the context of communication and experience with, then we would be rather mistaken on how the social paradigm of the human being works.
I'll circle back to this in a moment.

Spirituality, as I put it, is a finger of humanity. Just like science, art, politics, tools, academia, and the like are fingers of humanity.
There are four principle relationships of humanity as far as I see it: the human's relationship with their self, the human's relationship with other humans, the human's relationship with inanimate things, and the human's relationship with the universe as a whole - the state and condition of existing as a human.
The first is intrapersonal. The second with interpersonal. The third is mesaphysical. The fourth is metaphysical.
You could equally title the last two as: mesapersonal and metapersonal.

If, for instance, you are as yourself; then intrapersonal metaphysics is all that is required.
However, for the gross movement of humanity; with regard to how to feel in context about existing in a highly emotionally charged and reverent manner; interpersonal metaphysics is vital to a tangibleness of life.

Circling back to the above now. That is to say, that if humans want a community of unified comprehension of what it is to exist as a human existentially, then the ontological uniformity through thought (belief; mind), action (practice; body), and sensation (emotion; spirit) is required to accomplish a tangible context with which to communally convey the linguistic transference of the idealized experience, and the experience of attempting that ideal.

Uniformed Warrior Religion or Spirituality, for instance, is historically well known to be a very robust and powerful asset for a community of warriors of a given civilization.

This doesn't mean you need to draft artificial projections, but instead, it means that the linguistic ontological index must be relatable and productive to the individual as much as the community.

A human of great spirit by their self is no one at all. They may as well be a rock in a pond for as much human as they have engaged in being.
The great humans of spirit, religious and not, have all been communal and strive to create or expand a linguistic index for which the community references.

Buddha did not strike up a chord with so many by being a hermetic hidden man of spirit, nor did he repeat the same linguistic index preceding him without alteration.
Instead, he communally shared his expansion of the ontological index from the culture by which he existed.

On a gross scale, humans tend to share a break through of ideology as best as they can accomplish. And the ideology of how to perceive existing on a deeply emotional level of relationship with existence itself in all of its facets is fairly paramount to the majority of human beings.

Ritual, to bring it around to the point at hand, causes a communal linguistic index of bodily exchange with existing and links it directly to the belief (thought; mind) and emotion (sensation; spirit).
If you all move the same together with the same belief and the same emotional attachment, then you are uniting the community as if the community is a collection of cells of one body, one mind, and one emotional range.

It will always seem useless to the onlooker that does not have any attachment of mind or emotion to the communities index of tangible relation.
But it will always be around in thousands of forms; and not just in purely religious contexts.

That's my take on the matter anyway.

Well then let me re-phrase. I see spirtiuality essential for true religion. And spirtual religion is more spontaneous springing as it does from the inner life of the person. Ritualistic religion is less spontaneous and more a matter of conforming to an outward practice. Depending on what we categorize as ritual, a certain amount may also be indispensible. So if prayer and meditation are considered rituals maybe ritual is unavoidable. Certainly there are ritual prayers. But are all prayers rituals or do some spring spontaneous from the heart free from ritual adherence? Those I would think are more spiritually genuine then ritual prayers.

[Jayson]

I still disagree that practice has no use and it is a simple reason why.
It is because I agree with you on what Spirituality is.
And as such, if you want to bend your spirit to your will; how do you do this?
You do this through evocation of your psyche and emotions spiritually.
How do you do that?
One of the most relied upon methods is through physical representation.
If we can tangibly morph that which we want that is intangible into a tangible form and control it, then we can more easily provoke our psyche to engage our emotions spiritually in the same light.

Ergo, even a private practice is considerably relevant.
A highly spiritual human without practice of principles is no different than any slothenly bum because they haven't any power of evocation over their own spirit.
They are merely a highly resonating impulse sensory novelty and that's about it.

Do not mistake me to mean that our over abundance of practice without substance in our current sociological paradigm is preferred.

But I'm neither going to throw the baby out with the bathtub.

[felix dakat]

I still disagree that practice has no use and it is a simple reason why.
It is because I agree with you on what Spirituality is.
And as such, if you want to bend your spirit to your will; how do you do this?
You do this through evocation of your psyche and emotions spiritually.
How do you do that?
One of the most relied upon methods is through physical representation.
If we can tangibly morph that which we want that is intangible into a tangible form and control it, then we can more easily provoke our psyche to engage our emotions spiritually in the same light.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but it sounds painful.

Ergo, even a private practice is considerably relevant.
A highly spiritual human without practice of principles is no different than any slothenly bum because they haven't any power of evocation over their own spirit.
They are merely a highly resonating impulse sensory novelty and that's about it.

Do not mistake me to mean that our over abundance of practice without substance in our current sociological paradigm is preferred.

But I'm neither going to throw the baby out with the bathtub.

But as I asked before: are all spiritual practices necessarily rituals? And even if they are, can't they be graded on a relative scale in terms of say spontaneity and authenticity versus nominal going though the motions of meaningless forms?

[Jayson]

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but it sounds painful.

The same thing as an physical and audible sigh caused from the intangible thing of stress.
The sigh grants some control over the stress sensation.

Practices do the same thing, but in more avenues than simple sigh.

are all spiritual practices necessarily rituals?

In my opinion, no.
Because a ritual is a ceremony, and a ceremony is defined by its containing culture or sub-culture for a specific formal act.
For instance, the inauguration of the President of the United States is a ritual.

Simply meditating is not a ritual. It is a practice, but not a ritual.
The same is for many practices.
You can take many rituals and isolate one of its practices and use it outside of the ritual, and you can take any practice and turn it into a ritual. But neither are inherent of the other.

And even if they are, can't they be graded on a relative scale in terms of say spontaneity and authenticity versus nominal going though the motions of meaningless forms?

Yes you could, but why care?
I think you mostly have a problem with practice without substance.
Which I agree with you on that. I think most around here will.
By the way, spontaneity does not equate to authenticity outright.
Or better said, just because something is not spontaneous doesn't make it inauthentic.
I create my own practices for myself regularly. I take my time creating each one and refine it over a longer period of time.
They are not empty motions. I make specific use of the meaning of each motion and form, and they come from my authentic emotions of spirituality.

Practices can be the result of long meditations on the matter.
They do not have to be impulsive reflexes.
In fact, spontaneous reactions are not practices.
Practice attempts to help spontaneous reflexes have a particular tendency of reaction, rather than flailing blindly in "authentic" attempt to function.
In the practice, however, what you want to keep is the "authentic" impulse that a person had; you only want to refine their functional control over how they react.

You want a practice to meet the person half way so that the practice is for the person and the person is for the practice.

You don't want a line-dance-a-thon of sit-kneel-pray-sit-kneel-pray's anymore than you want to run everyone through the mindless martial arts practices.

Here's something from a smart guy on the matter of practice and form.

There are no prearranged sets or "kata" in the teaching of JKD, nor are they necessary. Consider the subtle difference between "having no form" and having "no form"; the first is ignorance, the second is transcendence. Through instinctive body feeling, each of us 'knows' our own most efficient and dynamic manner of achieving effective leverage, balance in motion, economical use of energy, etc. Patterns, techniques or forms touch only the fringe of genuine understanding. The core of understanding lies in the individual mind, and until that is touched, everything is uncertain and superficial. Truth cannot be perceived until we come to fully understand ourselves and our potentials. After all, 'knowledge in the martial arts ultimately means self-knowledge.'

At this point you may ask, "How do I gain this knowledge?" That you will have to find out all by yourself. You must accept the fact that there is in help but self-help. For the same reason I cannot tell you how to "gain" freedom, since freedom exists within you. I cannot tell you what 'not' to do, I cannot tell you what you 'should' do, since that would be confining you to a particular approach. Formulas can only inhibit freedom, externally dictated prescriptions only squelch creativity and assure mediocrity. Bear in mind that the freedom that accrues from self-knowledge cannot be acquired through strict adherence to a formula; we do not suddenly "become" free, we simply "are" free.

Learning is definitely not mere imitation, nor is it the ability to accumulate and regurgitate fixed knowledge. Learning is a constant process of discovery, a process without end. In JKD we begin not by accumulation but by discovering the cause of our ignorance, a discovery that involves a shedding process.

The most pitiful sight is to see sincere students earnestly repeating those imitative drills, listening to their own screams and spiritual yells. In most cases, the means these "sensei" offer their students are so elaborate that the student must give tremendous attention to them, until gradually he loses sight of the end. The students end up performing their methodical routines as a mere conditioned response, rather than 'responding to' "what is." They no longer "listen" to circumstances; they "recite" their circumstances. These pour souls have unwittingly become trapped in the miasma of classical martial arts training."

-Bruce Lee
Liberate Yourself from Classical Karate
September 1971

I would like to especially highlight the following, which I believe sums up our sociological entrapment with practice and form today in regards to spirituality and religion:
"The most pitiful sight is to see sincere students earnestly repeating those imitative drills, listening to their own screams and spiritual yells. In most cases, the means these "sensei" offer their students are so elaborate that the student must give tremendous attention to them, until gradually he loses sight of the end. The students end up performing their methodical routines as a mere conditioned response, rather than 'responding to' "what is." They no longer "listen" to circumstances; they "recite" their circumstances. These pour souls have unwittingly become trapped in the miasma of classical martial arts training."

To which, I believe Bruce Lee was absolutely correct in saying:
"Through instinctive body feeling, each of us 'knows' our own most efficient and dynamic manner of achieving effective leverage, balance in motion, economical use of energy, etc. Patterns, techniques or forms touch only the fringe of genuine understanding. The core of understanding lies in the individual mind, and until that is touched, everything is uncertain and superficial."

But that does not mean that Bruce Lee did not practice at all.
Hardly.
It meant that he understood that practice needs to form to the individual so that the individual can form to the practice; so that the practice becomes an authentic extension of the person.

If a practice does not increase the articulation of an individuals authentic impulse of spirit without drowning that same spirit, then it is worthless.

So you don't really need a metric by which to gauge practices anymore than your own self.
If a practice is not reaching towards you and you towards it; if a practice is not malleable to your needs spiritually; then it is meaningless for you to participate in that practice.
If only one small part of a practice is what you connect with, but the rest is empty to you; take that small part and incorporate that as you want and leave the rest to its owner.

In my opinion, our cardinal issue is that, as a society, we still think of religion and spirituality like those sensei above thought about martial arts.
Collectively, we think there is one correct form, that will prove through its form, that it is the best and right way; the right form.
They thought that no matter the physicality of the person, the form would succeed in making the person the best they could possibly be at martial arts.
We collectively think that no matter the spirituality of the person, the form will succeed in making the person the best can possibly be at succeeding at right spirituality.

Two faults are in there; thinking every person can be connected with the same as any other, and thinking of spirituality as a succeeding margin to grossly win at.

But these faults do not mean that practice is a fault itself.
Practice is helpful. But practice that does not touch with the individuals understanding in their individual mind is uncertain and superficial.
I agree with Mr. Lee completely on that.

It took great efforts for Bruce Lee to socially challenge these ideas against his backing tradition.
Imagine how much greater the challenge is to something as large as a societies overall religious tradition?

It seems to me to be futile in so many regards due to the sheer volume.
Instead, we can each look to our own self and not concern over the volume of empty practice and focus on forms around us spiritually.
We can instead focus on what practice does help us individually and what does not; take what helps and leave what does not.
All the while, staying focused on our authentic impulse of spirit that guides what practices we try so to help that authentic spirit grow in articulation in our lives.

Bruce Lee wanted his physical prowess to be one with him in every respect. He practiced endlessly to that aim. Borrowing from anything that gave inspiration to his authentic vision for his self.
I see no issues with each person doing the same for their own spirit instead of their body.

Evolution was neither successful by uniformed ambiguous non-individualized form, or by removal of practice in all forms from growth.
Evolution has been successful because there is a generalized form that is tailored to the individual and couples with practices which borrow from anything found to be useful to the ends needed by the species.

Indeed, that sums up what has caused humanity to be so successful at all; adaptability.
It seems strange to take our greatest asset and simply toss it out under a wash of uniformed non-individual practice.
But again, this is why I still maintain that practice - on the individual levels, and yes, in groups in some forms for communication - are perfectly fine; in fact needed.

OK, I'm going to cut myself off there...this is something I could go on and on about at great length so I kind of got carried away there. Apologies for that.

[felix dakat]

Stumps --At the point where you disagreed with me I was talkiing about rituals not spiritual exercises or practices in general. Bruce Lee confirms what I was saying and even goes further when he says:

Formulas can only inhibit freedom, externally dictated prescriptions only squelch creativity and assure mediocrity. Bear in mind that the freedom that accrues from self-knowledge cannot be acquired through strict adherence to a formula; we do not suddenly "become" free, we simply "are" free.

Your use of the term ceremony as synonym for ritual is apt. I agree that spontaneity does not guarantee authenticity. Spontaneity is a necessary but not sufficient element for authenticity. Finally, I don't reject ritual absolutely. I view ritual as a means rather than an end. Some people find rituals more helpful than others. Different rituals work for different peple. Some may not need them at all to achieve spirituality.

[anon]

But as I asked before: are all spiritual practices necessarily rituals? And even if they are, can't they be graded on a relative scale in terms of say spontaneity and authenticity versus nominal going though the motions of meaningless forms?

I agree that practices (say, practicing generosity) aren't necessarily rituals. I'd say rituals have a more formal aspect, for starters. But what makes a form meaningless, or authentic? Surely not the form itself. And formal rituals might inhibit spontaneity during the ritual itself, but the whole point of the ritual could be the development of the possibility of real spontaneity.

[Jayson]

Felix; I think we're pretty much on the same page at this point then.

I do want to highlight one part, just for measure.
I do think it is important to keep in mind that what fails is, "externally dictated prescriptions", not internally dictated prescriptions; which I think is what Mr. Lee was primarily considering his concepts to offer. As his "form of no form" primarily focused on the individual uniquely and how that individual could improve in martial combat in general; not in strictly traditional Chinese martial art forms.

Again, I think we pretty much agree; though I will probably always be found a bit more interested in form than you are and you probably will be a bit more interested in spontaneity than I.
For my part, I think I prefer outlining form. I just don't take that form too seriously; I use them like a tool kit.

I'm actually working on a long-haul draft concept atm that I'm referring to as the way of the reacting spirit; which has several meanings as "reacting" was nearly reflexive, reflecting, responding, and several others similar.
However, I believe "reacting" best summarizes all of these together; I like the word. re-action.

At any rate; it is much about this idea of having spiritual form without form; spontaneity.
Or, in a nutshell, it adopts the philosophies outlined somewhat by Mr. Lee about physical practice and applies the basic root concept, and elaborates on that more, to spirituality in like fashion.

Of which, spontaneity is primal - ironically - as a practice...kind of like Anon suggested (though not a ritual).
One of the principle cores that Bruce Lee focused quite a bit on was base reflex; he really liked how much energy came out from raw reflex and wanted to allow it the best room to efficiently move to the target as it was impulsed to do.
It was interesting at times, as reading his ideas is something akin to reading the idea of a form that works on removing form (even natural form) until only the raw reflex is left.

You could fairly well consider his teaching to think of his combat students as blocks of rock that were to be chiseled out, rather than pieces of wood that need to be formed together to make a structure.

I think much can be understood about our spirituality in the same light there, for sure.

And this is an interesting puzzle that I like our discussion for.
How to describe the process of chiseling away form without making a form itself.
I do not think that even Mr. Lee completely succeeded in this ambition. There are many wandering around that will say, "I know JKD", which is technically impossible!

It will be an interesting exploration to attempt; that's for sure.

----
But to the point; Felix, I agree. And Anon, I think context helps some here.
Our current sociological favor of practice over spiritual reflex is tremendous.
Repression is the fashionable tradition of our time, and repression is completely counter to reflex.

For a while, repression is good; during small stages of learning. We restrict to remove a habit of direction that isn't useful to our core want in our reflex.
But to continue doing so indefinitely causes reflexive atrophy.
Eventually you begin to lose a portion of mobility.

But as it stands, I consider this:

untab

To be rather inefficient.
Just as much as this:

untab

I think this:

untab

Is far more effective.

Dammit; I'm rambling again...I gotta stop getting in this thread while waking up.

[anon]

So Stumps, are you saying you know what's going on in the minds of all those people you just posted photos of? Perhaps the Buddhist guys are lusting after all those hot western women they've seen on tv, the Christians are peacefully abiding with open and loving minds, and the guy at the ocean is planning how to best kill his boss and get away with it!

I confess I wasn't concerned with context at all. I saw Felix's post and thought it stood on its own as something worth discussing. I blatantly ignored context.

[Jayson]

Anon. Do not think me to say either image was wrong.
I said that I see them as less efficient for spiritual reflex growth. And I meant so in general.

[anon]

Anon. Do not think me to say either image was wrong.
I said that I see them as less efficient for spiritual reflex growth. And I meant so in general.

Right. I disagree.

[Jayson]

So you believe that the individual reflexive intuition will be individually nurtured more efficiently through mass address?


Also...I'm curious. Do you take me to be stating that mass spiritual commune is less efficient as a whole?

[felix dakat]

But as I asked before: are all spiritual practices necessarily rituals? And even if they are, can't they be graded on a relative scale in terms of say spontaneity and authenticity versus nominal going though the motions of meaningless forms?

I agree that practices (say, practicing generosity) aren't necessarily rituals. I'd say rituals have a more formal aspect, for starters. But what makes a form meaningless, or authentic? Surely not the form itself. And formal rituals might inhibit spontaneity during the ritual itself, but the whole point of the ritual could be the development of the possibility of real spontaneity.

Right. perhaps people do access the divine, or spontaneity or compassionate behavior or something worthwhile via ritual. I suppose, it's possible that my assessment of ritual was no more than an expression of my own taste. If people have a taste for those things, it's OK by me.

[anon]

So you believe that the individual reflexive intuition will be individually nurtured more efficiently through mass address?


Also...I'm curious. Do you take me to be stating that mass spiritual commune is less efficient as a whole?

I'm saying what matters is the quality of one's mind. Forms and images convey nothing of that, when all is said and done. That's why I imagined what was going on in the minds of the people in those photos. Ritual forms are vehicles for self-transformation, but without the mind's active involvement, as well as quality philosophy/values for the mind to engage with, those forms are nothing. Forms are not, in themselves, value laden.

[Jayson]

I wasn't putting up the images as a diagram of people.
I put up the images as a shortcut to typing.
I could have as easily stated that I was referring to the form of congregational mass spiritual address and practice; not the people of congregational mass spiritual address and practice.

A public school is fine. A genius may arise from it, surely.
Another may fall to the wayside.
Is public school the most efficient method of individual address of each student's individual needs?
No, and we don't expect it to be; that is not its design.

The same is so for mass spirituality. It is not within the design of its practices to be the most efficient method of meeting each individual's personal spiritual needs for growth.
It is a general facilitation of spiritual fulfillment to at least a provisional level; that is its task.

We are in error if we think it to be the answer to all of our spirituality.
Of late, at least in my culture, we have focused too intently on congregational facilitation as the only means by which to adopt for tutelage of the spirit in practice.
The individual is grossly left to only receive vague advice; not instruction of practice from observation of their self (conduct, mind, and spirit).

There are risings that counter this, indeed. However, they are few as of now.
This will likely begin to change over time as we are on a flux in regards to spirituality at this time.

What I'm getting at is that it leaves people to flop right where Felix has landed.
Requiring the individual to take all of the bearing upon their self without any offer of learning how to work with their spirituality and the spirituality work with their self.

If it were a martial form, it would be to say that we only train in big groups - without even sparring - and if you want to get anything more than exercises in the hundreds, then you will have to work on figuring that out completely on your own.
Some will state as Felix; fuck it man, raw reflex works well enough for me.
And for some; that is true.
For others, they cannot step into combat with raw reflex. They will be beaten down quickly.

And the exercises in mass teach nothing about their own body unto itself; it forces them to only think about their body to the form; this is fine as well, but not alone.
If they go to combat with only this, then they will not know how to adapt at all.
They will only know how to approach according to form.
When the skirmish suddenly produces a condition that is beyond the form; an error of confusion takes place and the student must run away to seek advice, or risk great defeat.
And in analogy of today's common mass practices, upon seeking advice on how to approach the circumstance where the combat does not fit the form; the student will be told to practice their form more and to search the answers there in the form.

These are not useful approaches to the individual's spirit.
These are what should be there for the gross approach; not the individual.

The individual needs their specific approach as well. The communal form should not be the only means by which our culture is left to pick the bones off of for sustenance.

[anon]

I wasn't putting up the images as a diagram of people.
I put up the images as a shortcut to typing.
I could have as easily stated that I was referring to the form of congregational mass spiritual address and practice; not the people of congregational mass spiritual address and practice.

I was pretty sure you were referencing the form rather than the people. I disagree that a particular form is inherently better or worse than any other form.

A public school is fine. A genius may arise from it, surely.
Another may fall to the wayside.
Is public school the most efficient method of individual address of each student's individual needs?
No, and we don't expect it to be; that is not its design.

The same is so for mass spirituality. It is not within the design of its practices to be the most efficient method of meeting each individual's personal spiritual needs for growth.
It is a general facilitation of spiritual fulfillment to at least a provisional level; that is its task.

Whatever "level" you take your "spiritual fulfillment" is up to you. It's not up to the ritual you engage in. I'm not really sure what the "mass spirituality" comment is about. People aren't really so extraordinarily special that they need their own special way of doing something handed to them by their own special teacher from the top of some special mountain as if they're the chosen one. Generic teachings are all you need. The rest is up to you.

We are in error if we think it to be the answer to all of our spirituality.
Of late, at least in my culture, we have focused too intently on congregational facilitation as the only means by which to adopt for tutelage of the spirit in practice.
The individual is grossly left to only receive vague advice; not instruction of practice from observation of their self (conduct, mind, and spirit).

You're only left out if you leave yourself out. It's up to you. Granted, some advice is more vague, and some more precise. People will complain about vagueness, and they will complain about preciseness. But no matter how vague, or how precise, they are tools only. They don't work unless you take ownership, and use them well.

There are risings that counter this, indeed. However, they are few as of now.
This will likely begin to change over time as we are on a flux in regards to spirituality at this time.

What I'm getting at is that it leaves people to flop right where Felix has landed.
Requiring the individual to take all of the bearing upon their self without any offer of learning how to work with their spirituality and the spirituality work with their self.

The individual has always, ultimately, been left to work on his or her own self. The person who abrogates this responsibility has never truly taken up spiritual work.

If it were a martial form, it would be to say that we only train in big groups - without even sparring - and if you want to get anything more than exercises in the hundreds, then you will have to work on figuring that out completely on your own.
Some will state as Felix; fuck it man, raw reflex works well enough for me.
And for some; that is true.
For others, they cannot step into combat with raw reflex. They will be beaten down quickly.

And the exercises in mass teach nothing about their own body unto itself; it forces them to only think about their body to the form; this is fine as well, but not alone.

This is simply not true.

If they go to combat with only this, then they will not know how to adapt at all.
They will only know how to approach according to form.

At all? Again, this is not true.

When the skirmish suddenly produces a condition that is beyond the form; an error of confusion takes place and the student must run away to seek advice, or risk great defeat.

This is just silly. It's like saying that people who learn math at school cannot use it in the real world. That there is an "error of confusion". Faced with a real world physics problem they must "run away to seek advice, or risk great defeat".

And in analogy of today's common mass practices, upon seeking advice on how to approach the circumstance where the combat does not fit the form; the student will be told to practice their form more and to search the answers there in the form.

These are not useful approaches to the individual's spirit.
These are what should be there for the gross approach; not the individual.

There is no such split between the "gross approach" and "the individual". The individual is pretty gross! Nothing wrong with that. I'm not special. But I do have to engage the teachings, engage the forms.

The individual needs their specific approach as well. The communal form should not be the only means by which our culture is left to pick the bones off of for sustenance.

Again, you're proposing a substantial distinction (a schism, really) between the "communal" and the "individual" that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The only problem is the abrogation of responsibility (though I think many "spiritual" teachings are trash, frankly, but that's not my focus at the moment).

[Jayson]

- Will reply when can throughout the day -

[Jayson]

OK, Anon.

That section on martial form and training was purposefully hyperbolic for point of draft.
The concept is essentially the same; the application is unique, of course.

Now, I'm not saying everyone is so special that they need their own Buddha on a mountain top.
What I am stating is that many cultures in the past, and several still around, do spend time on promoting individual practice quite specifically and do not rest on communal practice in a polarized amount.

In this culture, however, that has faded off considerably.
We don't really even regularly have an individual practice concept to our adherence's outlined very well at all.
Perhaps it was the advocation of Protestant revolution and freedom from being told how to be spiritual in a time when tyranny reigned heavily that set things on course to atrophy that part of spirituality so heavily as it appears today; I'm not completely sure.

But what I am sure about is the considerable lacking of such in our culture today.
What I'm trying to explain is that if you only have mass communal practices, then you have an entire section, of what quite often has been a part of human history ontologically, missing.

And in my opinion, it is a rather powerful part of ontology as you unto yourself is a cardinal piece that takes considerable ontological meditation and practice to arrive at spiritually.
You cannot get that by communion alone.

And not everyone out there gets the advantage of being able to do the entire organization and conducting of individual practice on their own.
That's why so many religions have instructions and options of practices to choose from that are designed for individual use; rather than mass use.

Our culture is unique, in fact, in its lacking such in high volume of presence.

[anon]

I understand better what you're saying now, Jayson. I'll come back to this with some more thoughts on the matter. My overview of your post isn't very thorough yet, but I think I agree with the gist of it.

[Bob]

Now, I'm not saying everyone is so special that they need their own Buddha on a mountain top.
What I am stating is that many cultures in the past, and several still around, do spend time on promoting individual practice quite specifically and do not rest on communal practice in a polarized amount.

My observance is that the communal practice serves a number of purposes in modern society, but spirituality is in the minority. On the other hand, a spiritual person might use communal practice in order to connect and concentrate better than at home on his own. I agree with anon, the external form is irrelevant for real spirituality and is either there or not.

Take Care

[Jayson]

So you would say that it is bad if a religion outlined personal meditation practices, since the mass and core spiritual desire are all that are needed?

Again, I hold both are needed.
Not simply one or the other.

Most of us in this conversation do practice on our own.
How do we do this, and yet say it is not needed?