Rather removing karma or growing from it?

Originally Posted by Jyotir

So, when ego-mind resists, rejects, and refuses the non-linear supra-rational faith inherent in spirituality, which is simply a reflection or partial awareness of the Truth of the totality of Being / Highest Self (that obviously includes the non-linear), it is because it sees that as a threat to its false sovereignty and ignorant prerogatives as a presumed separate entity in linear time, especially as that is reinforced, defined, and circumscribed by “science”, a rational objective linearly reasoned method of material inquiry.

The specious argument that attempts to dismiss the Law of Karma by the presumed axiomatic mutual exclusion of linear vs. non-linear time in its manifestation or perception is a falsehood - - it is irrelevant. In whatever way it may be perceived, whether in linear or non-linear context - karma is simply the necessary effect or result from actual cause, unless altered. Simple. Meanwhile, Spirit has access to all time or no time within an indivisible movement and sees each containing the others. It is aware of all tendencies, energies and forces as the diverse play of unity and knows their relation to each other in the single movement of the one spirit.

Well said, as usual.

Thanks,

JL

Originally Posted by Altair

We are a 'whole' being, everything that is part of us finds itself back in our 'spirituality'. Beliefs, words used, concepts adopted, the lifestyle you have, the things you put into your body, the practices you perform, the people you surround yourself with. It is one system, with its many parts influencing one another.

Considering words, if I call a bond I have with someone ''karma'' or ''attachment'', or I call it ''love'' or ''affection'', it will make a great difference in outcome. Some religions and paths seem to wish to end the human, and that ain't my cup of tea. This poll here is biased but how many people noticed it? Remove what exactly? And why? What even triggered people to think of things in such a way?

You make very good points in your last post, Greenslade.

I'd have to work very hard to take issue with anything you're said there, and just right now it's more bother than it's worth. So yes, the 'whole being' is part of a hugely complicated network of interconnected systems but few seem much interested in becoming aware of what doesn't suit the label, which is an irony and I often wonder how Spiritual people are when they have the flu and a head-full of snot.

I don't even use the word 'karma' in the mainstream sense because it's become corrupt, essentially. It's gone from meaning cause to all kinds of silliness, and frankly I'm not much interested in that paradigm. It represents a mentality NOT Spirituality - but the two are connected.

Religions were formed when people began to realise that there was something beyond the physical, they were a way of helping people understand what is now termed as meta-physical. It's simple group dynamics and what began in the days of the hunter-gatherer is still in play today, like-minded people will naturally gravitate together and their respective Spiritualities will be affected accordingly. However, religion and Spirituality are driven by humans and not divinity and that is reflected in how religion and Spirituality is expressed. There's more of a move away from the human by way of denial or seeking escape. It's not so easy to deal with yourself, it's easy to declare yourself Spiritual and enlightened and the idea that you can create your own reality - however unconsciously that comes through - can be very appealing.

Originally Posted by Altair

We project our human sense of meaning and desire for order upon everything else, but there's zero proof there's a soul in a spider and in a bug, and the two will meet again in a future incarnation. The cycle of incarnations with deliberate purpose is also highly dubious. Not to mention, species go extinct and 'simple' lifeforms haven't gone away. The whole attempt of projecting our humanity on nature is kinda rubbish. This is what a bunch of priests from a priestly class came up with, in a society that was/is highly structured along caste, and projected this upon other lifeforms.

Indeed we do project our own meaning, it's an essential part of human nature - religion and Spirituality is just such a projection. But in the case of reincarnation and the time spent discussing events that are mutually remembered? When a little boy comes out with facts of what happened on a secret mission during WWII, facts that inly someone who was on that mission could possibly have known? It depends on what you call 'proof' but as far as I'm concerned reincarnation happens - or at least in a way that I am conscious of.

I don't know if I have a Soul but I do know there is something other than the five-sensory existence. Those bugs exist, live and breathe as much as I do and if that means they have a Soul too then I'm OK with that. I'd like to think that we all have 'something inside' that is a part of something more eternal than seven-score and ten years worth. I'm a medium and I know there's 'something more', but at the same time I have to put that into some kind of human context in order to grasp it. I don't see a problem with that.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by janielee

Well said, as usual.

Thanks,

JL

Not a problem.

Although one encounters various adversative discussion on internet websites where access is open and free, this is a well established area in genuine spiritual culture, with credible, authentic, and useful resources (such as the one I provided) for the edification of sincere aspirants - not controversial at all, except for confused novices and even more confused rational materialists with obvious existential agendas that are not compatible with real spirituality (e.g. conscious deliberate practice as energetic), but rather consistent with the energetic of denial or (self) limitation of that possibility in human life, often by clever incessantly theoretical negation.

~ J

[running]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Not a problem.

Although one encounters various adversative discussion on internet websites where access is open and free, this is a well established area in genuine spiritual culture, with credible, authentic, and useful resources (such as the one I provided) for the edification of sincere aspirants - not controversial at all, except for confused novices and even more confused rational materialists with obvious existential agendas that are not compatible with real spirituality (e.g. conscious deliberate practice as energetic), but rather consistent with the energetic of denial or (self) limitation of that possibility in human life, often by clever incessantly theoretical negation.

~ J

the nature beyond mind is much different than mind. beyond mind is love itself. silence jtself. non dual. due to its nature its not in opposition to who one is.

beyond mind dissolves what may arise from mind. dissolve what emotion may arise. the mind and emotional body are no match for beyond mind. yet again due to the divines nature also not in opposition. therefore for the all. and for one whom is fully absorbed in such all rides as one in joy and silence. irrespective to what is.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Not a problem.

Although one encounters various adversative discussion on internet websites where access is open and free, this is a well established area in genuine spiritual culture, with credible, authentic, and useful resources (such as the one I provided) for the edification of sincere aspirants - not controversial at all, except for confused novices and even more confused rational materialists with obvious existential agendas that are not compatible with real spirituality (e.g. conscious deliberate practice as energetic), but rather consistent with the energetic of denial or (self) limitation of that possibility in human life, often by clever incessantly theoretical negation.

~ J

It's called the limited trying to keep people within the limited.

It's easy to "attack" spirituality and the wisdom of the realized, rather than admit that one is behind the walls.

J

[running]

Originally Posted by janielee

It's called the limited trying to keep people within the limited.

It's easy to "attack" spirituality and the wisdom of the realized, rather than admit that one is behind the walls.

J

i would agree in that until its causeless your in the mind conjuring reasons of. reasons for. those are obstructions(walls). although the truth will set one free its not by doing but by witnessing it happen by its own power. not by the mind unfortunately. how one comes to that can be as varied as there are people on the planet. as diverse of culture of one whom opens to it as there are on the planet. but there are some things such as meditation, presence of a guru, yoga, and other practices that help one open to such.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Not a problem.

Although one encounters various adversative discussion on internet websites where access is open and free, this is a well established area in genuine spiritual culture, with credible, authentic, and useful resources (such as the one I provided) for the edification of sincere aspirants - not controversial at all, except for confused novices and even more confused rational materialists with obvious existential agendas that are not compatible with real spirituality (e.g. conscious deliberate practice as energetic), but rather consistent with the energetic of denial or (self) limitation of that possibility in human life, often by clever incessantly theoretical negation.

~ J

Part of so-called 'real Spirituality' needs to be the inward Journey and how the machinations of Chitta - I'm using that word since you do so seem to like your Spiritual integrity but only apply it when it suits your current agenda - creates karas from which the Aham is created and therefore the Self is constructed from. Such as personal definitions for instance and the binary thinking of true and false as judged against those definitions. Ignorance is also exacerbated when one denies the Jungian definition of the ego has any relevance to the Spiritual Aspirant, the irony there being that in using the term 'Spiritual Aspirant' the Spiritual Aspirant is merely making Jungian-ego associations. The Spiritual Aspirant becomes an unwitting victim of what he/she ignores, which is what the Spiritual Aspirant merely limits his/herself to. As far as the ego is concerned, the acquisition of Spiritual knowledge and psuedo-wisdom is status akin to wealth.

Once the material constructs are understood then the Spiritual Aspirant can move past the psychological frameworks and reach potentials no longer constrained by the Chitta or 'lower mind' and its materialistic frameworks. The true Spiritual Aspirant recognises the actual source of the associations of being a Spiritual Aspirant and transcends the need for the illusionary grandioseness of using a title to reinforce egotistical (Jungian definition) illusionary status.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by running

the nature beyond mind is much different than mind. beyond mind is love itself. silence jtself. non dual. due to its nature its not in opposition to who one is.

beyond mind dissolves what may arise from mind. dissolve what emotion may arise. the mind and emotional body are no match for beyond mind. yet again due to the divines nature also not in opposition. therefore for the all. and for one whom is fully absorbed in such all rides as one in joy and silence. irrespective to what is.

Yes, exactly.

That’s why I’m happy to invest my time in serving the needs of some, just as happy to not waste my time with the needs of others, and happy that some have no need. All of it good karma.


~ J

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by janielee

It's called the limited trying to keep people within the limited.

It's easy to "attack" spirituality and the wisdom of the realized, rather than admit that one is behind the walls.

Based on abundant evidence over years of participation here (and there!), I'm confident that some members will find this hard to accept, even if it represents absolute futility and ultimately an identity of schism and frustration, but

the incessant attempts to negate and invalidate spirituality in principle
by what amounts to sterile intellectual debate,
does not in any way constitute an authentic spiritual practice!

~ J

[running]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Yes, exactly.

That’s why I’m happy to invest my time in serving the needs of some, just as happy to not waste my time with the needs of others, and happy that some have no need. All of it good karma.


~ J

good points.