#Neo Vedanta | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

meaningfulstorysblog · 3 months

Text

Teachings of swami vivekananda

Swami Vivekananda, born Narendranath Datta on January 12, 1863, in Calcutta, India, was a revered spiritual leader, philosopher, and a key figure in introducing Indian philosophies of Vedanta and Yoga to the Western world.

After the passing of his guru, Narendranath, now known as Swami Vivekananda, embarked on a transformative journey. He traveled extensively across India, witnessing the diverse socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country. He was deeply moved by the poverty and backwardness that afflicted many and resolved to work towards uplifting the masses.

In 1893, Swami Vivekananda represented India and Hinduism at the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago. His opening words, “Sisters and Brothers of America,” captivated the audience and laid the foundation for his impactful speeches. He eloquently spoke about the universal values of tolerance, acceptance, and religious harmony, emphasizing the idea of the universality of religions and the importance of accepting all paths that lead to the same truth.

Following the success of his speeches in the West, Swami Vivekananda spent several years lecturing and spreading the teachings of Vedanta in America and Europe. He aimed to bridge the gap between the East and the West, encouraging mutual respect and understanding between different cultures and faiths.

Upon returning to India in 1897, Swami Vivekananda founded the Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission, dedicated to spiritual growth, humanitarian work, and the service of humanity. The mission focused on providing education, healthcare, and relief to the needy, irrespective of caste, creed, or religion.

Swami Vivekananda’s teachings centered on the divinity of the soul, selfless service, and the harmony of religions. He emphasized the importance of individual strength, fearlessness, and the realization of one’s potential to contribute to society’s welfare.

His writings, including books like “Karma Yoga,” “Raja Yoga,” and “Jnana Yoga,” remain as guiding lights for spiritual seekers worldwide. His practical approach to spirituality and his emphasis on the development of the mind and character inspired many to lead purposeful lives.

Swami Vivekananda’s tireless efforts to awaken India’s spiritual consciousness and his impact on the global understanding of Hindu philosophy and spirituality earned him immense respect and admiration. His teachings continue to resonate with people seeking spiritual guidance and a deeper understanding of life’s purpose.

Works Bartaman Bharat which means “present-day India” is a Bengali scholarly article written by Vivekananda and first published in the March 1899 issue of Udbodhan, the only Bengali-language journal of Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission. The essay was reprinted as a book in 1905 and later compiled in the fourth volume of The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda in the lower caste. Vivekananda is a key figure in Neo-Vedanta, a common interpretation of Hinduism based on Western mystical traditions such as Spiritualism, New Vision, and Philosophy. His new interpretations were and continue to be enormously successful, resulting in new comprehension and gratitude of Hinduism both inside and outside of India, and are the primary basis for Western interest in yoga, transcendental meditation, as well as other forms of Indian spiritual identity.

Teachings of Swami Vivekananda

Vedantic Humanism

As an exponent of Vedantic humanism, Swami Vivekananda believed that external rituals of religion are of secondary importance but the spiritual essence of a religion should be preserved and accepted. He believed that there is only one Self in the universe. There is only one Existence. He saw the entire universe as a manifestation of the absolute One. He believed religious acceptance was more important for the coexistence of various faiths and not tolerance. The idea of tolerance was associated with a superiority complex. Selfless service of man was the most desirable path for self-realization. Unity of all humans could be realized through unconditional love for all, judicious detachment, and expansion of self through service to fellow humans. Divinity within Ourselves

Swami Vivekananda asserted that each soul is potentially divine. Humans should aim to manifest this divinity within, which can be done by controlling nature, external and internal. Pathways to Attaining Moksha

Karma Yoga: Swamiji emphasizes the importance of work for attaining god. He uses Karma Yoga to teach how to employ to the maximum advantage of our energies in our work. Karma-Yoga teaches how to dedicate ourselves to work without worrying about the results. Our work should be our worship. Bhakti Yoga: Bhakti Yoga teaches that love is a vital element of all human beings and how to love without any ulterior motives. He believed that love is expansion, and all selfishness is contraction. Love is therefore the only law of life. Raja Yoga: Raja Yoga opens up the psychological way to union with God. It uses a method called concentration to acquire knowledge. The stronger the power of concentration, the more knowledge is acquired. Faith in Oneself

Swamiji says that keeping faith in ourselves is of the greatest help to us. It helps us make what we believe ourselves to be. No power in the universe can injure us unless we first injure ourselves. One should not shy away from taking responsibility for their actions.

#Biography of vivekananda #teaching of vivekananda #vvivekananda

0 notes

rw7771 · 5 months

Text

Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one deity, or in the oneness or uniqueness of God. It is a type of Theism, and is usually contrasted with Polytheism (the belief in multiple gods) and Atheism ( the absence of any belief in gods). The Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), as well as Plato's concept of God, all affirm monotheism, and this is the usual conception debated within Western Philosophy of Religion.

The word "monotheism" is derived from the Greek ("monos" meaning "one" and "theos" meaning "god"), and the English term was first used by the English philosopher Henry More (1614 - 1687).

History of Monotheism

The earliest monotheistic religions can be traced back to the Aten cult in ancient Egypt, the Nasadiya Sukta from the Vedic period of India, and Ahura Mazda, the one uncreated Creator of Zoroastrianism. There are also monotheistic denominations within Hinduism, including Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and Smartism.

The Torah (or Hebrew Bible), which was created between the 13th Century and 4th Century B.C., is the source of Judaism, and in turn provided the basis for the Christian and Islamic religions (these three together being known as the Abrahamic faiths). Jews, Christians and Muslims would probably all agree that God is an eternally existent being that exists apart from space and time, who is the creator of the universe, and is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnibenevolent (all-good or all-loving) and possibly omnipresent (all-present). The religions, however, differ in the details: Christians, for example, would further affirm that there are three aspects to God (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit).

More recently, Sikhism is a distinctly monotheistic faith that arose in northern India during the 16th and 17th Centuries, and the Baha'i faith, a religion founded in 19th Century Persia, has as its core teaching the one supernatural being, God, who created all existence.

Philosophical monotheism, and the associated concept of absolute good and evil, emerged in classical Greece, notably with Plato and the subsequent Neo-Platonists (who developed a kind of theistic monism in which the absolute is identified with the divine, either as an impersonal or a personal God).

Types of Monotheism

Exclusive Monotheism:

The belief that there is only one deity, and that all other claimed deities are distinct from it and false. The Abrahamic religions, and the Hindu denomination of Vaishnavism (which regards the worship of anyone other than Vishnu as incorrect) are examples of Exclusive Monotheism.

Inclusive monotheism:

The belief that there is only one deity, and that all other claimed deities are just different names for it. The Hindu denomination of Smartism is an example of Inclusive Monotheism.

Substance Monotheism:

The belief (found in some indigenous African religions) that the many gods are just different forms of a single underlying substance.

Pantheism:

The belief in one God who is equivalent to Nature or the physical universe, or that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God.

Panentheism:

The belief (also known as Monistic Monotheism), similar to Pantheism, that the physical universe is joined to, or an integral part of, God, but stressing that God is greater than (rather than equivalent to) the universe.

Deism:

A form of monotheism in which it is believed that one God exists, but that this God does not intervene in the world, or interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. It posits a non-interventionist creator who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws.

Henotheism:

The devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of other gods, and without denying that others can with equal truth worship different gods. It has been called "monotheism in principle and polytheism in fact".

Monolatrism (or Monolatry):

The belief in the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity. Unlike Henotheism, Monolatrism asserts that there is only one god who is worthy of worship, though other gods are known to exist. This is really more Polytheism than Monotheism.

Misotheism:

The belief that a God exists, but is actually evil. The English word was coined by Thomas de Quincey in 1846. Strictly speaking, the term connotes an attitude of hatred towards God, rather than making a statement about His nature.

Dystheism:

The belief that a God exists, but is not wholly good, or possibly even evil (as opposed to eutheism, the belief that God exists and is wholly good). There are various examples of arguable dystheism in the Bible.

0 notes

ghostlycreatorconnoisseur · 1 year

Text

Odia Book Beda Bedantara Ra Amrutabanee By Pandita Daitari Mahapatra

Vedanta likewise Uttara Mimamsa, is one of the six schools of Hindu way of thinking. In a real sense signifying "end of the Vedas", Vedanta reflects thoughts that rose up out of, or were lined up with, the hypotheses and ways of thinking contained in the Upanishads, explicitly, information and freedom. Vedanta contains many sub-customs, which are all in view of a typical gathering of texts called the "Three Sources" the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.

All Vedanta customs contain broad conversations on philosophy, soteriology and epistemology, however there is a lot of conflict among the different schools. The principal customs of Vedanta are: Advaita (non-dualism), Bhedabheda (distinction and non-contrast), Suddhadvaita (unadulterated non-dualism), Tattvavada (Dvaita) (dualism), and Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism). Present day improvements in Vedanta incorporate Neo-Vedanta, and the development of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya.

Most significant Vedanta schools, with the exception of Advaita Vedanta and Neo-Vedanta, are connected with Vaishnavism and underscore dedication (Bhakti yoga) to God, comprehended as being Vishnu, Krishna or a connected indication. Advaita Vedanta in the interim, underscores jñana (information) and jñana yoga over mystical dedication. While Advaita monism has drawn in significant consideration in the West because of the impact of present day Hindus like Master Vivekananda and Ramana Maharshi, the vast majority of the other Vedanta customs center around Vaishnava philosophy.

0 notes

turiyatitta · 2 months

Text

Illuminating the Path

Celebrating Black History Month through the Contributions of Black Spiritual Leaders in Advaita Vedanta and Neo-AdvaitaIn the heart of Black History Month, we turn our focus to the luminous contributions of Black spiritual leaders who have enriched the realms of Advaita Vedanta and Neo-Advaita. This period of reflection and celebration offers a unique opportunity to acknowledge and honour the…

View On WordPress

#Advaita Vedanta #Black History Month #Black Spiritual Leaders #Diversity in Spirituality #Enlightenment #Mooji #Neo-Advaita #Non-Duality #spiritual awakening

1 note · View note

truth-of-words · 5 years

Video

Quote by Swami Vivekananda "He who struggles is better than he who never attempts."

#quote #video #inspiration #quotes #videos #qt28 #Swami Vivekananda videos #19th century videos #20th century videos #Neo Vedanta videos #Hinduism videos #Eastern philosophy videos #Indian philosophy videos #Motivational videos #Strength videos #Faith videos

32 notes · View notes

superlittlecannibal · 5 years

Photo

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Russian: Еле́на Петро́вна Блава́тская, Yelena Petrovna Blavatskaya; 12 August [O.S. 31 July] 1831 – 8 May 1891) was a Russian occultist, philosopher, and author who co-founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. She gained an international following as the leading theoretician of Theosophy, the esoteric religion that the society promoted.

#theosophy #esoteric #russian #neo-vedanta #void #webcore

7 notes · View notes

kailasaguptakashihyderabad · 3 years

Text

VEDAS ARE THE COSMIC SOURCE OF THE COSMIC KNOWLEDGE.

28 MARCH 2021, SUNDAY (IST)08:01 AM - THE SPH APPEARANCE SHAKTI PADA AND SHAKTINI PADA WITH THE LIVE DARSHAN OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF OF HINDUISM (SPH), JAGATGURU MAHASANNIDHANAM (JGM),

HIS DIVINE HOLINESS (HDH) BHAGAVAN NITHYANANDA PARAMASHIVAM. 08:08 AM TO 8:59 AM - NITHYANANDA SATSANGPARAMASHIVA’S

MESSAGE DIRECTLY FROM KAILASA:*COSMIC SOURCE OF THE COSMIC KNOWLEDGE IS THE MESSAGE FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, UNIVERSE FROM PARAMASHIVA TODAY.

*VEDAS ARE THE COSMIC SOURCE OF THE COSMIC KNOWLEDGE.*TODAY I AM GOING TO INTRODUCE THIS GREAT VEDAS IN THE FORM OF SHABDHA VEDA WHICH IS HERE. THIS BOOK IS THE COSMIC SOURCE OF THE COSMIC KNOWLEDGE.

*IT IS THE COMPILATION OF ALL BRANCHES OF VEDAS AVAILABLE AS OF NOW IN PLANET EARTH, FOR PLANET EARTH

.*PARAMASHIVA IS ALSO GOING TO INITIATE POWER MANIFESTATION.

*ALL BALASANTS AND SANYASIS - SIT WITH THE COPY OF THE BOOK.*PARAMASHIVA STARTED MANIFESTING THE COSMIC VIBRATIONS. WHEN THOSE COSMIC VIBRATIONS GOT MAPPED AS POWERFUL COGNITIONS FOR ALL OF US TO UNDERSTAND, THAT IS CALLED VEDA; SHABDHA VEDA - COSMIC SOURCE OF COSMIC KNOWLEDGE

.*FORTUNATELY, WHATEVER AVAILABLE BRANCHES OF THE VEDAS IS THERE ARE COMPILED AND PUBLISHED IN ONE BOOK, WITH THE GRACE OF PARAMASHIVA AND ALL THE GREAT RISHIS THROUGH WHOM THE VEDAS WERE REVEALED AND VEDA MATA HERSELF.

*ALL THE ASHRAMS SHOULD START WORSHIPING THIS BOOK. THIS IS THE COSMIC SOURCE OF THE COSMIC KNOWLEDGE.

*THIS IS THE BASIS OF EVERYTHING WE DO IN KAILASA. HOW WE LIVE IS BASED ON THIS BOOK. THIS BOOK IS EVERYTHING FOR US. *IT CONTAINS UPANISHAD, ARANYAKAS, ALL THE RITUALS WE DO, CHARYA PADA - LIFESTYLE, KRIYA PADA - ALL THE KRIYAS WE DO, YOGA PADA - THE YOGA WE DO, JNANA PADA - ALL POWERFUL COGNITIONS AND POWER MANIFESTATION SCIENCE AND LOT MORE

*BEFORE GURU PURNIMA, ALL ASHRAMS, CENTERS, KAILASAS, SHOULD RECEIVE A COPY OF THE BOOK FROM THE HEADQUARTERS. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO GET IT FROM THE HEADQUARTERS.

*THIS IS THE SOURCE OF ALL KNOWLEDGE. MY COMMENTARY ON BHAGAVAD GITA, AND ALL THE BOOKS I WROTE, IS BASED ON THIS BOOK. *ALL THE BOOKS I WROTE ARE LITERALLY THE BHASYA, EXPLANATION, COMMENTARY OF THIS BOOK - VEDAS. SO THIS IS THE SOURCE BOOK.

*THIS BOOK SHOULD BE KEPT NICELY IN A GLASS CASE AND WORSHIPPED IN ALL OUR ASHRAMS EVERYDAY.

*PARAMASHIVA IS GOING TO INITIATE ALL OF YOU INTO THE GREAT POWER OF SARVAJNATVA. *YOU SHOULD JUST BE ABLE TO READ ANY PAGE OF THIS BOOK THROUGH YOUR THIRD EYE. *ALL KIDS WHO ALREADY STARTED MANIFESTING THE POWER OF THIRD EYE WILL BE ABLE TO DO IT TODAY ITSELF, IMMEDIATELY.

*ALL OTHER DEVOTEES, I WILL INITIATE, YOU; YOU CAN START PRACTISING AND MANIFESTING IT FROM TODAY.*FROM COMING GURUPURNIMA TO NAVARATRI, THIS CHATURMASYA, WE WILL DEDICATE TO SHASTRA ADHYAYANA AND SARVAJNATTVA POWER!

*AT LEAST ALL INITIATED DISCIPLES SHOULD MANIFEST THIS POWER OF SARVAJNATTVA IN THIS CHATURMASYA. THAT IS THE GOAL. WITH THE GRACE OF PARAMASHIVA, YOU WILL ALL BE ABLE TO DO IT.*24 JULY 2021 - GURU PURNIMA. BEFORE THAT, THE BOOKS SHOULD REACH ALL THE ASHRAMS, AADHEENAMS, CENTERS, KAILASAS.

*LONG BEFORE IN KAILASH COURTYARD I INITIATED THIS POWER TO SUNDARESWARA AND MA NITHYANANDITHA WITH THE BOOK - THE COMPLETE WORKS OF SHANKARACHARYA. IMMEDIATELY AFTER INITIATION THEY BOTH STARTED MANIFESTING THIS POWER! ANY PAGE ANY PARAGRAPH THEY WILL JUST WRITE IT BLINDFOLDED!*TODAY I AM INITIATING ALL OF YOU INTO THIS POWER WITH PARAMASHIVA’S GRACE.

*FROM TODAY I WILL TELL THE POWER MANIFESTATION CLASSES TO BE FOCUSSED ON THIS POWER OF SARVAJNATVA.

*UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE INTRODUCTION: THE UNIVERSAL ENERGY, COSMIC ENERGY, MANIFESTS THE COSMIC VIBRATIONS. THAT VIBRATIONS, WHEN IT GETS MAPPED INTO POWERFUL COGNITIONS, KNOWLEDGE, THAT IS CALLED SHABDHA VEDA.*EVEN IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MEANING, JUST CHANTING WILL MAKE YOU MANIFEST THOSE POWERS.*THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF THE VEDAS!*IF YOUR THIRD EYE IS AWAKENED, ALREADY YOU HAVE THE POWER TO RECEIVE THOSE VIBRATIONS AND POWERFUL COGNITIONS. *SO YOU DON'T EVEN NEED TO OPEN THE BOOK. JUST LOOK THROUGH YOUR THIRD EYE, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO READ EVERY PAGE, EVERY LINE.*ALL THE BALASANTS WHO ARE ALREADY INITIATED INTO POWER MANIFESTATION, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DO IT NOW, TODAY. *START MANIFESTING THE POWER NOW.*READ ANY PAGE AND WRITE WHAT YOU ARE READING. *WHOEVER WANTS TO SEE HOW YOU ARE MANIFESTING THE POWER, THEY CAN CHOOSE THE PAGE, SAY 293. AND YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY TO READ EVERYTHING IN PAGE 293! *TOMORROW ITSELF, OUR BALASANTS WILL DO THE DEMONSTRATION!*I AM INVITING EVERYONE TO COME AND SEE THIS POWER MANIFESTATION IN TOMORROW’S SATSANG! *I THINK THAT WILL MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND I AM OMNIPRESENT AND THAT PARAMASHIVA IS OMNIPRESENT AND HE CAN INITIATE ANYBODY ANYWHERE! *MA ADVAIT CAN HELP IN SETTING UP THE DEMONSTRATION TOMORROW. *ANYONE WHO MANIFESTS THIS POWER ONLY SHOULD SIT IN THE SARVAJNAPEETHAS AS THE UTTARA ADHIKARIS.*THOSE WHO CAN MANIFEST THIS POWER OF SARVAJNATVA, WHO CAN JUST READ THIS BOOK AND WRITE ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK WITHOUT TOUCHING THE BOOK, THROUGH JUST THE THIRD EYE, WILL BE THE CROWN PRINCE AND PRINCESSES AS UTTARA ADHIKARIS, ALL OVER THE WORLD.*YOU WILL ALL BE ABLE TO MANIFEST ALL THESE POWERS.*ALL THE BALASANTS WILL START MANIFESTING FROM TODAY.*THIS IS NOT JUST A BOOK. IT IS LITERALLY GOD - VEDA, SHABDHA VEDA, BHAGAVAN HIMSELF. IT IS DIRECTLY GIVEN BY PARAMASHIVA JUST TO INTRODUCE THE SOURCE OF THE COSMIC SOURCE OF THE COSMIC KNOWLEDGE*TODAY I CAME TO THE SATSANG TO INITIATE ALL OF YOU INTO THIS POWER.*I GOT AN IMPORTANT REFERENCE FROM THE SCRIPTURES:*CONTINUOUSLY ALL HINDUS ARE BEING ATTACKED BY THE ANTI-HINDU GANG - THE ENEMIES AND TRAITORS OF HINDUISM - BOTH.*THEY TRY TO DELEGITIMIZE HINDUS BY SAYING THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS HINDUISM, AND THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE FOR THE WORD HINDUISM OR HINDU, AND THIS TITLE WAS GIVEN BY WESTERNERS JUST FEW 100 YEARS BACK. *EVEN HINDUS DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THIS AND THINK: MAYBE IT'S TRUE.*EVEN NEO-HINDUS ARE CONFUSED. *BUT IT IS FALSE.*I HAVE THREE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES FOR THE WORD ‘HINDU’ AND ‘HINDUSTANA’ - BOTH.*FROM MERU TANTRA -SHAIVA AGAMA:हीनं च दूष्यत्येव हिन्दुरित्युच्चते प्रिये‘HĪNAṂ CA DŪṢYATYEVA HINDURITYUCCATE PRIYE’TRANSLATION: O MY DEAR! ONE WHO RENOUNCED IGNORANCE AND INFERIORITY IS CALLED A HINDU!*NEXT IS FROM SHABDHA KALPA DRUMA:हीनं दूषयति इति हिन्दूHĪNAṂ DŪṢAYATI ITI HINDŪTRANSLATION: ONE WHO RENOUNCED IGNORANCE AND INFERIORITY IS CALLED A HINDU.*NEXT IS FROM BRIHASPATI AGAMA:हिमालयं समारभ्य यावत इन्दु सरोवरं।तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिन्दुस्थानं प्रचक्षते।।HIMĀLAYAṂ SAMĀRABHYA YĀVATA INDU SAROVARAṂ।TAṂ DEVANIRMITAṂ DEŚAṂ HINDUSTHĀNAṂ PRACAKṢATE।।TRANSLATION: STARTING FROM THE HIMALAYAN MOUNTAINS AND EXTENDING TO THE INDIAN OCEAN, GOD-CREATED COUNTRY IS CALLED ‘HINDUSTHANA’.*SO THIS IS NOT GIVEN BY SOME WESTERNERS / INVADERS. *THIS BEEN DEFINED BY THE SCRIPTURES. *THEY STOLE ALL THESE SCRIPTURES FROM US AND STARTED PROMOTING THEIR VERY CHEAP AND FALSE NARRATIVES ABOUT US AND MADE US FORGET THE TRUTH ABOUT OURSELVES AND WE ALSO LOST EVERYTHING AND STARTED SWALLOWING THEIR NARRATIVES ABOUT US.*THAT IS THE WORST GASLIGHTING. EVEN NOW HINDUS ARE SUFFERING.*FIRST OF ALL I NEED TO MAKE HINDUS UNDERSTAND ABOUT HINDUISM.*I KNOW FOR SURE, 99% OF HINDUS DO NOT KNOW THESE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES.*I KNOW THERE ARE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES. I WAS COLLECTING AND HAVE SHARED WITH YOU ALL IN THE PAST. *TODAY I AM SHARING THESE THREE REFERENCES WITH YOU ALL. I WILL ASK THEM TO POST IT IN FACEBOOK.*I WANT ALL OF YOU TO PUT THIS AS YOUR STATUS. *LET US REMOVE THE IGNORANCE OF HINDUS AND ENLIGHTEN THEM, REMOVING THEIR GASLIGHTING. *SHARE THIS VIRALLY.*THERE IS A REFERENCE FOR THE WORD ‘HINDU’ AND ‘HINDUSTANA’ - BOTH, IN OUR SCRIPTURES WITH DEFINITIONS IN SOME MULTIPLE PLACES.*SO NOW I HAVE GIVEN THE AGAMA REFERENCES ITSELF.*FOR THE NEXT TWO - THREE DAYS, I WANT THE MORNING VAKYARTHA SATHAS, JEEVARTHA SATHAS AND PRE-SATSANG TO BE FOCUSSED ON SPREADING THIS ONE IMPORTANT INFORMATION.*NEO-HINDUTVAS - HINDU TRAITORS - ARE MAKING US BELIEVE THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE FOR THE WORD ‘HINDU’.*NOT ONLY ENEMIES OF HINDUISM ARE TRYING TO CONTINUOUSLY ATTACK, DISINTEGRATE US, EVEN NEO-HINDUTVA TRAITORS ARE TRYING TO DO IT!*HERE I HAVE THREE REFERENCES TODAY, AND LONG BACK I HAVE COLLECTED AND SHARED OTHER REFERENCES ALSO.*TODAY IT WILL BE SHARED IN THE FACEBOOK. SHARE THIS IN AS MANY WAYS AS POSSIBLE, IN SOCIAL MEDIA, EVERYWHERE.*WHAT A BEAUTIFUL, AMAZING DEFINITION!*WHAT AN AMAZING IDENTITY OUR ANCESTORS BUILT FOR US!*WHAT A GRAND NARRATIVE!*SO LET US ENLIGHTEN THE HINDUS AND GET THEM OUT OF THIS GASLIGHTING.*I WANT ALL MY DISCIPLES TO WRITE THIS DEFINITION OF HINDU - ESPECIALLY THIS VERSE AT LEAST 11 TIMES AND SHARE IT WITH THE REFERENCE: FROM MERU TANTRA -SHAIVA AGAMA:हीनं च दूष्यत्येव हिन्दुरित्युच्चते प्रिये‘HĪNAṂ CA DŪṢYATYEVA HINDURITYUCCATE PRIYE’TRANSLATION: O MY DEAR! ONE WHO RENOUNCED IGNORANCE AND INFERIORITY IS CALLED A HINDU!*THIS IS DIRECTLY PARAMASHIVA TALKING TO PARASHAKTI.*ALL THE VEDANTA FEMALE SANYASIS WILL HAVE ANY ONE OF THE THREE WORDS: ‘PRAVRAJIKA’ (FEMALE VERSION OF THE ‘PARIVRAJAKA’ WORD), ‘PRIYE’, ‘PRANA’, IN THEIR SANYAS NAME. THE WORD ‘SWAMI’ IS A COMPULSION. THESE THREE ARE LIKE OPTIONAL TITLES.*IT IS A TRADITION WHEN THE POORNA SANYAS IS GIVEN.*LET US SHARE THIS. *SO LET ME INITIATE YOU ALL OF YOU NOW IN THE POWER OF SARVAJNATTVA.*SIT STRAIGHT. INTENSELY JUST CHANT PRANAVA 'OM'. I WILL CONNECT WITH ALL OF YOU WHEREVER YOU ARE AND MANIFEST PARAMASHIVATVA IN EVERYONE OF US. *ALL THE INITIATED DISCIPLES, DEVOTEES, AND EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT INITIATED, IF YOU DECLARE YOUR INTEGRITY TO ME NOW, I CAN CONNECT WITH YOU AND INITIATE YOU NOW. *CLOSE YOUR EYES, SIT STRAIGHT, CHANT THE ‘OM’, JUST PRANAVA.*WITH THIS I BLESS YOU ALL.

#kailasa #nithyananda

1 note · View note

4dkellysworld · 1 month

Note

hi! i feel kind of stuck in a cycle and i'm not sure how to break it ? basically, i try to go on with everyday life by just observing and not identifying with thoughts, but then i have this voice in my head that's like "if you know who you are, why do you still see things you dislike? change it right now... oh that's right, you can't!" now obviously i'm aware that's ego creeping in, but she's kind of right? in a way? like Ada and Sophie both said, "whatever IS instantly and undeniably is. if you still see what you don't like that's all the confirmation you need." and so i just don't know how to keep going after that, because everyone's like "there's nothing to do" but there gotta be something that i'm doing wrong otherwise i wouldn't be dreaming this dream. i might've over-consumed, i'm not sure, but i'm just really really tired of it all

You're focused too much on trying to change the dream and you're using that as your measure of "success" on this path. You haven't given any details on what else you've been doing so I can't really give you much direction there.

But, if you can't change things through doing nothing, or witnessing, then try something else. Change your thoughts, change your beliefs, let go of the limiting beliefs and change your mind about who you are and what your "life" or "reality" is about. Remember that everyone is only sharing their version or interpretation of truth but it might not entirely click with you because your path is uniquely yours alone, it's not going to be the same as others. Find what works for you. And how do you do that? By being your own scientist, practice, experiment, figure it out through your experiences, follow what resonates and trust in yourself.

I get the sense you've overconsumed information due to your confusion and I totally get it because I have fallen into this trap myself. Imo overconsumption of information and always looking for answers externally indicates a lack of trust in oneself. Try discarding everything you learned (except some core basics of whatever truly resonates with your heart) and then just practice and live through that for a while and whenever you have questions, go within and ask yourself them.

If you look through my asks, I've addressed the "there's nothing to do" idea before so I won't repeat it here. I recommend getting clear on what exact idealogy you trust in and are wanting to follow & live because "nothing to do" is not Advaita Vedanta/non-duality but Neo Advaita Vedanta. It's your choice but get clear on what school of thought you're in (and obviously stop following any sources of info that don't align with that) as it will reduce your confusion.

Also if you're going to consume information, then consider reading teachings from realized masters like Lester Levenson, Siddharameshwar Maharaj, Paul Brunton, Robert Adams instead of getting all your information from Tumblr. The resources are there in the Google drives if you're interested.

I'll end with this quote I read earlier today:

Whatever is for you will bring clarity, not confusion

Trust in what gives you clarity and resonates with the heart.

#asks

16 notes · View notes

theloobrush · 4 years

Text

The Sea of Faith

In Matthew Arnold’s poem ‘Dover Beach’, one verse opines sadly::

“The Sea of Faith Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled. But now I only hear Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, Retreating, to the breath Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear And naked shingles of the world.”

Arnold’s poem is said to be about his own loss of faith and the decline of religion generally. But when he wrote this back in the 19th Century most people were, outwardly at least, very religious, except perhaps the intellectual classes*. During our current social crisis, the like of which we have not seen since World War 2, and perhaps facing my own, imminent demise, I sometimes wish I could still cling to the buoyancy aid of religion. By that I mean, a full bodied, robust faith in a real, personal objective God, a deity that is provident, benevolent and wishes the salvation of all mankind. A faith like my father had, and my mother still has. They had a very active faith and my childhood revolved around religion to an unusual degree. Their faith gave a very clear set of values and goals and moulded how you lived in a way best expressed by the Evangelical dictum: “God First, Other’s Second, Self Last”. This didn’t prevent me growing up as egoistic and self obsessed as the next person but it did thickly spread a layer of guilt, shame and existential sense of personal inadequacy into my mental make up.

Over 30 plus years the traditional religious faith into which I was birthed and, in no uncertain terms, indoctrinated (albeit lovingly, rather than harshly) has been whittled away in my mind by numerous educative and social influences and my own reasoning. There have been instances, even recently, when my faith in the Big G, has appeared to revive somewhat. Looking back I seem to follow a regular cycle over a period of a few years, to apply Matthew Arnold’s metaphor, my faith has certainly ebbed and flowed over three decades. From time to time something spurs me to build theological castle in the air that I’m momentarily intellectually satisfied with, then some idea, argument or painful newstory or circumstance causes my new fangle set of beliefs to crash into pieces again.. And after some weeks or months of dry atheism, something entices me to go all mystical again. Some song, some movie, the beauty of some flower in the garden, and I try to find ways to be spiritual without being religious. Then my intellect demands that I justify my mystical feelings with some proper propositions. The theological castles get built again. But they are always sand castles.

Currently I’m definitely in an ‘ebb’ period, with the tide having gone out as far as it goes out at Whitmore Bay, leaving a flat expanse of wet mud, some seaweed intermixed with plastic litter. For nigh on 15 years I have been pretty much convinced Christian orthodoxy is not true. Lately I feel even more convinced. Down to my bones. I’m entirely convinced that the Bible is largely mythology and reflection upon mythological stories, and only a lack of knowledge of other world traditions and literature, would make anyone think it is uniquely profound. I also believe the unbelief that Jesus, was not as portrayed in the gospels, if he existed at all. The acute issue for me at the moment is that theism doesn’t explain why there is a God rather than nothing at all. God, at least as understood by Christian tradition is too complex an entity to be a brute fact of necessary being. The theologians final answer to an endless string of ‘why?’ questions about life and the universe is extremely unsatisfying, indeed incredible. There is nil evidence of divine intervention.There is zilch evidence of divine providence. The multi-verse concept and the sheer size of the universe means even extremely improbable possible things happen, our existence is one such. These facts cut the feet from under the theist’s best modern argument - the strong anthropomorphic principle.

Despite the above, I am currently in one of my ‘mystical’ periods. To the non-mystically inclined, to those who don’t rely on intuition as much as I do, and who think the notion of personal gnosis is hookum, there is no way to convey that woo-woo mystical feeling. However I can trace the roots of my intellectual justifications. For instance I’ve been a convinced monist ever since my University Professor John Drane (an erstwhile Evangelical and New Testament scholar of some repute) introduced me, almost accidentally, to a certain Mr Plotinus of late antiquity and his theories of Neo-Platonism. But I was attracted to the more arcane, non theistic aspects of Hindu philosophy even before that, probably because I read some dodgy New Age stuff as a teenager at a time when my reading habits should have been on evangelical lock down. It would have made a far simpler life journey if I’d just given up on religion in my youth - like most people. However my mind seems to abhor the atheist vacuum. Or, if you like, spiritually seems to be my emotional crutch (along with snacking and my snack demi deity, cheese).

How to make this mystical ‘tick’ of mine intelligible? I can’t really. However, I would try to explain that despite my loss of faith, I don’t have a problem with the ‘mono’ part of monotheism. The universe is self evidently a unity, and, obviously, began in a singular singularity. Most people leave it there, and really, really don’t care to look any further. But I blur logic, and extrapolate hard scientific concepts like quantum non locality into forbidden territory. I’m one of those snake oil consumers who are prone to take basic scientific datum in a semi New Age direction. That said, I have read a lot, albeit variations on a theme. My other heavy weight intellectual influences are in historical succession Plotinus, Spinoza Schleiermacher, Hegel, and,especially, Jung. I have been marinaded in the arguments presented in Dummies Guides to Taoism, Advaita Vedanta, and followed other minds who bang on about a ‘perennial philosophy’ or versions thereof. My recent indoctrination has come from the writings of Ken Wilber and Eckhart Tolle, and recordings of Alan Watts and Jordan Peterson.

So you see, I used to play, with bucket and spade by the Sea of Faith, now I swim in an ocean of woo-woo. However is woo-woo a suitable substitute for a heavenly father we can pray to in times of trouble? A loving personal God who offers us a ticket to heaven. However incredulous the idea, however ‘deluded’, I’m talking here about the efficacy and utility of belief. For instance my woo-woo doesn’t provide a personal afterlife. I’m not woo because I fear death, but neither does dialectical monism provide any solid hope. Actually my evangelical forebears would be horrified with the whole ‘Sea of Faith’ metaphor. For them, their faith was a ‘rock’, a ‘sure foundation’, an ‘anchor’ and a port in all life’s storms. Actually the maritime metaphors were endless. I have weak tea spirituality, I embrace the nonpersonal cosmic flux, but I don’t (more’s the pity?) have faith like that.

Athlete’s Foot Note

* The cultural rot always begins with intellectuals

2 notes · View notes

wisdomrays · 4 years

Text

REINCARNATION UNDRESSING THE FALLACIES: Part 2

Belief in reincarnation in Egypt, India and Greece, developed as a result of distortion of once sound beliefs in the Hereafter, and from a longing for the immortality of the soul. Neither in Ahen-Aten’s Egypt nor in Pythagoras’ Greece did anyone know of the reincarnation which these distorted beliefs brought about. To Ahen-Aten, when man’s life ends in this world, a different one starts in heaven. As soon as one dies, one’s soul sets off on its journey to reach ‘the Greatest Court’ in heaven, It goes so high that it reaches to the presence of Osiris, and hopes to give an account of itself in words like these: ‘I have come to Your presence as I was free from sins, and throughout my life, I did do everything I could that would make devout men pleased. I did not shed blood nor did I steal. Neither did I make mischief nor did I mean any. I did not commit any adultery nor fornication whatever’. Those who can speak so join Orisis’ congregation, those who cannot, whose evil deeds outweigh their good, are hurled into hell and tortured by demons.

Such sound belief is witnessed also in epitaphs relating to Ahen-Aten’s religion as follows: ‘What You have done is too much and our eyes cannot perceive most of them. 0 One, Only God No one possesses such might as You have. It is You who has created this universe’ as You wish and You alone. It is You who decree the world suitable for human beings, for all animals, whether big or small, whether they walk on the earth on their legs or they fly up in the sky on their wings. And it is You alone who sustain and nourish them. Thanks to You, all beauties come into existence. All eyes see You by means of those. Verily, my heart belongs to You (You are in my heart).’ The ideas quoted verbatim above were the things which were believed as truth in Egypt some four thousand years ago.

Likewise, in Ancient Greece, the belief in resurrection and the immortality of the soul was quite sound. The great philosopher Pythagoras, for example, believed that the soul on leaving the body has a life peculiar to itself; in fact any soul has this same kind of life even before it quits the earth. It is commissioned with some responsibilities on earth; if it commits any evil, it will be punished, thrown into hell and tormented by demons. On the other hand, in return for the good that it does, it will be given high rank and blessed with a happy life. Allowing for the changes that might have been made in the views of Pythagoras over time, we can certainly still see that there are fundamental similarities with the Islamic creed of resurrection. Plato’s account is not so different either. In his famous treatise The Republic, he says that the soul on leaving the body forgets the material life totally; it ascends into an appropriate realm, a spiritual one, saturated with wisdom and immortality; the soul is free from all scarcity, deficiency, error, fear, and from the passion and love which afflicted it while it lived on earth; and then, being free from all the evil consequences of human nature, it is blessed with eternal bliss.

In essence, the doctrine of reincarnation is, in its different forms within different creeds, if we look carefully, a distorted version of a sound belief. Every creed, with the exception of Islam, has suffered such distortions. Christianity, for example, once a divinely revealed religion, has been distorted and Prophet Jesus deified. Had it not been for the luminous and clarifying verses of the Qur’an, and the influence of Islam, Christianity’s formal position on this matter may not have been different. If Christianity teaches the unity of the soul and body, it owes this to the Andalusian Muslim savants. One of the most famous Christian philosophers is St Thomas Aquinas. The great part of his new ideas and synthesis were adapted from Islamic teachings. He says in his distinguished book Summa Theologica (Part I, Question 90, Art. 4) that the key concept of man is that the soul and body are united in an apt composite. He adds that animal souls develop with animal bodies, but that human souls are especially created at some time during early development (Art. 3), and he therefore rejects the abstract speculations of the Neo-Platonist school.

In a comparable way, no doubt also through unscrupulous translation away from the original language and subsequent further distinctions, the Ancient Egyptian, Indian and Greek religions became unrecognizable. The doctrine of reincarnation may well be one such alteration from an originally sound conception of the immortality of the soul and its return to the Divine Judgement.

After reincarnation was inscribed into the beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians, it became one of the central themes of songs and legends throughout the vicinity of the Nile region. Elaborated further with the eloquent expressions of Greek philosophers, it became, with the expansion of Greek influence, a widespread phenomenon.

Reincarnation and Hinduism

The Hindus consider matter as the lowest manifestation of Brahma, and deem that the convergence of body and soul is a demeaning of the soul, a decline into evil. However, death is believed to be salvation, a separation from human defects, a possible chance to achieve an ecstatic union with the truth. The Hindus are polytheistic in practice. Their greatest god is ‘Krishna’, who is believed to have come in a human figure in order to eradicate evil.

Their second greatest god is ‘Vishnu’, which means that which can penetrate the human body. According to Hinduism, Vishnu has descended into this world nine times in different shapes (human, animal, or flower). He is also expected to descend for the tenth time. Since they believe that Vishnu will next come to this world in the shape of an animal, killing any animal is absolutely prohibited. Killing animals is only allowed during war; and the zealots of that religion do not normally eat meat. According to the Vedanta, the most important religious book of the Hindus, the soul is a part, a fragment, of Brahma; it will never be able to get rid of suffering and distress until it returns to its origin. Soul achieves gnosis by isolating itself from the ego and all wickedness pertaining to the ego, and by running towards Brahma, just as a river flows down into a sea. When the soul reaches and unites with Brahma, it acquires absolute peace, tranquillity and stillness, another version of which is Nirvana in Buddhism:there is an abatement of active seeking, a passivity of soul in the latter, whereas the soul is dynamic in Hinduism.

1 note · View note

paicristiandebara · 2 years

Photo

QUERIDO HUMANO: ESTÁ BIEN SER TANTO 'SAGRADO COMO SALVAJE' ▌│█║▌║▌║ ║▌║▌║█│▌ 🇱 🇺 🇸 🇸 🇨 🇮 🇦 🇳 del sitio web LonerWolf algo así como un extraño, un lobo solitario olfateando mi propio camino guiado por la luz de mi propia luna interior tratando de encontrar un hogar, tratando de encontrar la verdad. Espiritualidad moderna es un lugar que pensé que lo encontraría. Pero incluso en este dominio, No he encontrado un lugar sólido recostar mi cabeza... La verdad es: Estoy profundamente insatisfecho con el 90% de la espiritualidad que existe... Toda esta charla sobre la ascensión espiritual, la iluminación, la autorrealización y "vibrar más alto" de alguna manera parece faltante, incompleta. Todo este enfoque en otras dimensiones, planos de existencia, seres astrales y dicha nirvánica se siente como evasión, escapismo: huir de lo que está aquí ahora mismo. En lugar de ser algo que nos ayude a experimentar la integración, el equilibrio y la totalidad, la espiritualidad moderna parece estar tremendamente desequilibrada: se ha convertido en un lugar para adormecer, pasar por alto o pasar por alto los problemas en lugar de enfrentarlos. Mientras que la religión fue una vez el opio de las masas, ahora lo es la espiritualidad. Por supuesto, no hay nada de malo en usar la espiritualidad como una especie de droga feliz, un pasatiempo para sentirse bien o una fuente de esperanza. Esto es normal y (a menudo) saludable. No todo el mundo es capaz de enfrentarse a la realidad, y eso está bien. Todos estamos en diferentes etapas de crecimiento. Sin embargo, el problema principal surge cuando el objetivo general de la espiritualidad moderna es pasar por alto nuestra humanidad : enfocarse solo en el "amor y la luz" sin ensuciarse y ensuciarse, sin hacer el verdadero trabajo interno ... Eludir Espiritualmente y el Rechazo de Nuestra Humanidad La negación y la evitación de nuestra humanidad ocurren en casi todos los caminos espirituales: neo-Vedanta, New Age, budismo, esoterismo, ocultismo, hinduismo, taoísmo, misticismo oriental y occidental, incluso caminos yóguicos y chamánicos … Dondequiera que miro, parece que hay un rechazo, un rechazo, https://www.instagram.com/p/CcqBi_dLnZO/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

0 notes

lati-will · 6 years

Text

Spiritual Clichés & New Age Spirituality

A cliché is “an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating” (Wikipedia). So a spiritual cliché is a teaching that has been repeated so many times that its meaning is weakened, or even distorted.

The more popular a certain spiritual teaching becomes, the greater is the possibility of it being misunderstood or misapplied. In this article, I will explore 12 common clichés, the truth behind them, and their hidden dark side. These clichés are not necessarily false, but they only tell half of the story and are easy to be misread.

My approach to spirituality is pragmatic (rather than metaphysical), non-sectarian (rather than dogmatic), and grounded (rather than idealistic)—so be prepared that the “warning label” that I add to these clichés strongly carries those perspectives.

Once we understand the caveat that comes with each of these clichés, we are in a better position to discern when and how to use it.

Spiritual Clichés About the Practice

1. “You are perfect as you are”

Most spiritual traditions teach that, in essence, we are “perfect” (or at least “perfect in our imperfections”). Vedanta, for instance, teaches that we “are already the Self here and now”. You will find similar ideas in Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, and some Tantric lineages.

Although in some level this idea is true, it overlooks the fact that, from a pragmatic point of view, we are far from being the perfect manifestation of that innate perfection. If everything is already great as it is, there is no room for growth, no scope for a spiritual path, and no fuel for any type of self-transformation.

“Everything is perfect and yet everything can improve”

This, “nothing to do, nowhere to go” approach is also prevalent in some meditation circles, where people cringe at the idea of practicing meditation with a specific goal/purpose in mind. They are also against wanting to progress in the practice. (I’ve explored the problem with that approach in depth in my post on neo-advaita.)

The better way to read this teaching is that it refers to the “absolute” or “essential” level of reality, and thus needs to be balanced with the relative and pragmatic level of reality.

Similarly, at the psychological level, we need to balance self-acceptance with self-improvement. Too much of self-acceptance and we become stale, or we become entitled narcissists (“This is how I am!”). Too much of the self-improvement approach we go into a “I’m never good enough” mindset.

Balance is the key.

2. “Be positive!”

There is nothing wrong with the idea of being positive. Positivity is great. Indeed, in my article on the gunas I argued that the whole spiritual path can be defined as a journey towards sattva(purity, goodness, truth, balance).

What is unwholesome about this concept is the underlying idea that negativity is “unspiritual”. When interpreted like that, this concept works like a psychological virus with great potential to create feelings of shame, guilt, remorse, self-loathing, self-denial, spiritual bypassing, and split personality. Now that’s not really positive, is it?

Being positive is not about sugar coating the negatives or pretending that they are not there. It’s about recognizing them, integrating them, and then transforming or releasing them.

The more integral approach is to start from a point of recognition and self-acceptance. You first accept that certain unwholesome thoughts/feelings/intentions are arising within you. Then you work on them, according to your capacity, to transform those energies into something positive, or to express them in a healthier way.

This is a very different approach than refusing to see, or just superficially replacing the negative thought with a positive one, while pushing the negativity underneath the carpet of your subconscious mind. That doesn’t work so well.

I like this idea, explored in the book How to Cook Your Life, that everything you bring into the “kitchen” of spirituality is an ingredient and needs to be prepared properly so it can be consumed. That includes the negative stuff.

3. “Be nice!”

“Be nice” is an expression, in social interactions, of the “be positive” principle. It’s also related to the Christian ideals of “loving everyone unconditionally” and “turning the other cheek”. In the path of Yoga and in Buddhism, this principle is called ahimsa (non-violence).

This teaching is essential, but it needs to be practiced differently by different people, according to where they are in life. Examples:

For people who are in abusive relationships, the teaching of “be nice” is exactly what they don’t need to hear. They are often “too nice” and caring by nature – and that is partly why they are in trouble.

A monk may need to apply this teaching in its most literal sense, never using violence even for self-defense.

For people living in society, some amount of self-assertion is absolutely needed, otherwise that niceness may lead to one experiencing suffering—which will further lead to feelings of self-loathing (self-violence) and anger/remorse (violence). Even in this case, however, one can set boundaries without having the desire to harm; in other words, we hiss but don’t bite. Our niceness should also be applied to ourselves.

In the Bhagavad Gita (the most famous holy book of India), the prophet Krishna insists that the warrior-prince Arjuna needs to go to war. Arjuna’s kingdom was being attacked, and he refused to fight back because of the principle of ahimsa. Krishna basically brought to his attention that if his kingdom is conquered by the enemy, their non-violent way of life would disappear, and all his people would suffer immensely. In that case, fighting was the most spiritual thing Arjuna could choose to do.

We also see the element of divine anger in the mythology of many traditions—such as the goddess Durga fighting the demons, and the “guardians of the Dharma” in Buddhism (1, 2, 3).

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. — Edmund Burke

At the essential level, we are all connected, all one. So “being nice” is a good idea. Ahimsa is a great principle. Kindness is a great virtue.

But sometimes being tough is the best thing to do, even from the spiritual point of view—like when Jesus turned the tables in the temple, in anger because people were being disrespectful in a holy place. Sometimes truth and authenticity need to speak louder than kindness and harmlessness.

The balanced approach seems to be: wish no harm, do no harm, but protect yourself from harm by keeping your boundaries. Sometimes you may need violence to stop unjust harm, and that can also be spiritual.

4. “Be here now”

Being present is a great teaching. It’s what most people take as the key point in the teachings of Zen, Taoism, Allan Watts, and Eckhart Tolle. And yet, the idea that spirituality is all about living in the moment is reductionist and naive.

The reason why we are told to live in the present is because 90% of all our suffering and problems are in the “past” (memories) or “future” (imagination, desires, projections). And yet, as Sadhguru explores in this talk, spirituality is not a disability. We should be able to use our mental faculties freely, but not be used by them.

“There is nothing unspiritual about thinking about the past or planning for the future. These are important mental faculties. The problem is when the mind is in control of you, rather than you being in control of your mind.”

By all means, live in the present. Be connected to your body. Reduce the tendencies to compulsively live in the past or future. But when you need to think about the past or the future, do so with clarity and purpose.

5. “Your mind is a trap”

In some spiritual paths the mind is spoken of as the obstacle. The obstacle to what? To the spiritual goal, however you may define it—realizing the Self, connecting with God, living in harmony with the Tao, etc.

There is a deep truth about that statement. The mind is the house of all our misconceptions, illusions, impurities. And the spiritual ideal is so sublime that it transcends the mind. So in a way, the mind is what needs to be overcome or transcended; and attachment to it as the sole source of knowledge is indeed a trap.

But seeing the mind as “the enemy” is only half of the story. Your mind—just like your body and your heart—is a part of who you are. An integral approach to spirituality is about the whole individual (body, mind, and heart). An integral spiritual practice needs to involve all aspects of your being—so that it can evolve all aspects of your being.

“Truth transcends the grasp of the mind. But we won’t realize it unless we work on the mind—polishing, purifying, and mastering it.”

Often, to say that “the mind cannot understand it” is to ask you to shut up, to just believe and trust—rather than to take the trouble and develop your power of discernment (Viveka), your wisdom (Prajna). “Be a light unto yourself”, said the Buddha.

“The truth is, many things transcend the reach of our intellect; and yet there is a lot of space for the intellect to be of service in the spiritual path. It’s again about finding that balance: use the mind, master the mind, but don’t rely only on the mind. Body, heart, and mind are all vehicles of knowing.”

Spiritual Clichés About Life

6. “If you believe it, the universe will make it happen!”

Do your thoughts and beliefs, by themselves, influence the outcome of external events?

This is a highly controversial topic.

Some spiritual philosophies will say it does.

Others will say “Sometimes it does, but within the limitations of your karma and some other factors” (that’s what I personally believe in).

Still others will tell you that it doesn’t.

Regardless of your position about this, the dark side of this cliché is thinking that you can just believe and it will happen. Being realistic about it is seeing that we need to take action. If we believe in something, then let us act on it.

“Don’t just believe and hope. Act! Action is the ultimate confirmation of belief.”

Otherwise, it’s just wishful thinking, daydreaming. Unless, perhaps, if your mind is super-powerful like that of a Yogi in Samadhi (which is not the case with 99.99% of the people applying the Law of Attraction philosophy). Until then, the best approach is to believe and use that as fuel to take positive action in achieving what you are seeking.

7. “There are no coincidences…”

Another controversial one.

If you live by this belief, you are constantly trying to “read the signs” in everything that happens—from a random comment a person says to you, to a flat tire you had in the traffic, to the time it rained this morning and you had to cancel an appointment.

In all my years of studying spiritual philosophy (especially Eastern), I don’t recall coming by any master that says that absolutely everything that happens in your life happens for a reason.

Well, there is definitely a reason behind everything. Every effect has its cause. But are all the millions of events that happen in your life, on a daily basis, orchestrated by God or “the Universe” for the purpose of showing you something? I don’t think so.

“There is a lot of randomness in life. Sometimes there is some sense to it—at other times there isn’t. Learn a lesson if you can, but don’t be fanatical about “reading signs” everywhere.”

Still, regardless of this cliché being true or not, it seems that the belief that life is happening for me rather than to me is an empowering worldview. It is helpful and useful, as it creates many opportunities for learning. The problem only arises when we are a bit too fanatical about this view.

There are two other clichés that fall in this category:

“It was all meant to be”

“God doesn’t give you more than you can handle.”

Both of them have the positive effect of giving you the motivation to go on, and the openness to accept things as they are.

The dark side of the first one, however, is that it can create the impression that our actions and decisions don’t matter. Thinking like that weakens our willpower and can lead to us evading responsibility for our actions (and there is nothing spiritual in that). It can also create a mindset where we continuously accept things that we don’t need to passively accept (things that we could change with some effort).

Similarly, “God doesn’t give you more than you can handle” has the dark side of serving as an excuse for avoidance. It is built on the assumption that God or “the Universe” is putting us through an ordeal, rather than that challenge being the result of our own actions and choices.

Like most of the other spiritual clichés, these ideas do carry some truth in them. They can be deeply empowering and useful. When they are not, however, it’s time to stop and reflect on whether we are reading them properly in the first place.

8. “It’s your karma!”

The teaching of karma is empowering. It says you are in control. It says that your actions matter and the universe is ultimately fair—even though the results of actions may be delayed.

In my own life and spiritual quest, I can see how the idea of karma has helped me immensely. In several circumstances, it prevented me from making bad choices, encouraged me to persevere in what I believed to be right (despite not getting the results as soon as I expected), and removed the tendency to brood over the perceived “injustices of life”.

“The teaching of karma is great when we use it to understand our lives, and improve our choices—but not when used as a tool to judge other people.”

The problem is when we try to use the idea of karma to judge other people. This leads to the “it serves you well”, and “you get what you deserve” type of attitude—which is the opposite of the ideals of kindness and compassion that spiritual teachings promote.

We may live by the idea of karma—but let us apply that understanding to our own lives, rather than judging others. Otherwise we would just be promoting a culture of victim blaming and indifference.

Life is too complex, and we can never really know the reason behind something happening (if karmic or otherwise). We can never know the true reasons behind the adversities or the boons that others experience in life (if karmic or otherwise).

9. “What you see in others, you have it in yourself.”

Another version of this one is “What you hate/fear in others, you hate/fear in yourself”.

Honestly, if this sentence would disappear from the face of the earth, I wouldn’t miss it.

This idea is promulgated in many circles without being ever fully explained why it is so. A lighter version of this is “Everyone is your mirror.” I like this a bit better, because it leaves it open for you to decide what that means, case by case.

From my understanding, this idea is more of a pop-psychology cliché than a spiritual cliché. And it’s the perfect conversation stopper, also known as a thought-terminating cliché. Many people use it as an alibi when their flaws are pointed out: “Well, if you think I’m arrogant, that only shows that you are arrogant yourself.” (Are you serious?)

The truth portion of this is that we will indeed dislike in others what we dislike in ourselves. We often also love in others what we love in ourselves—even if we have it to a lesser degree. But that’s as far as this saying can go. It’s not applicable to everything.

“The idea that the world is a reflection of ourselves is a useful teaching. But does that mean that all the problems that I see outside of me I have in me also?”

In order to see something in another person—for example, narcissism—we need to have a mental model of what that thing looks like. There are many ways of having a mental model of what narcissism is. Being narcissistic is certainly one of these ways. But so is having observed that behavior in friends or family members. Or even having studied about it in psychology books.

I can only identify that two people are speaking Chinese if I have an idea of what Chinese sounds like. Does that mean that I, therefore, must know Chinese? Obviously not.

Personally, I can say I dislike seeing arrogance in others, and I’ll agree I also have some of it in me (still); but I also hate laziness, and I’m probably one of the least lazy people you will ever meet.

Overcoming our own weakness is part of the spiritual path; being able to recognize the negative traits of others is just a useful skill for living in this world. Evaluating and discerning does not necessarily mean judging.

Otherwise you end up with the disastreous combo of “goodness + naiveness”, and then trouble will surely come your way.

Conclusion: although sometimes there is a correlation, it’s not right to say that whatever virtue/shortcoming you see in others you also have in yourself.

Spiritual Clichés About Living

10. “Just let it go”

There is no doubt that letting go is one of the essentials skills/qualities we develop in the spiritual path. It’s a natural expression of living in tune with the impermanent nature of reality, and it saves us from much needless suffering.

Yet there two things that we need to watch out for in this.

The first one is knowing that letting go does not necessarily mean giving up. It doesn’t mean that we don’t care. It’s not synonymous with “whatever…”.

We need both skills. We need the ability to persevere in what is meaningful, in what feels right—and at the same time be lighthearted about the outcomes. We need to put our best foot forward, do what needs to be done, and accept with equanimity whatever comes. That’s what the Bhagavad Gita teaches; that is karma yoga.

“Letting go is not synonymous with giving up or not caring. It should not be used as an excuse to be irresponsible, lazy, or to live in a shell of fear.”

If you are a parent seeing your child going astray into drugs and crime, and you think to yourself, “Whatever. Let it be. It’s not under my control, there is nothing I can do about it.” That is not detachment; it’s not what the masters meant by letting go. Doing everything in your power to fulfill your duties, your dharma, in the best possible way, while understanding the nature of things and accepting 100% the results that come—that is a true detachment. That is balanced.

As a rule of thumb, you can get clarity on these differences by asking yourself: “Is letting go coming from a place of fear and confusion, or is it coming from a place of wisdom and clarity?”

11. “Go with the flow”

The idea of being sensitive to the flow of things, both internally and externally, is wonderful. It can help us move about more smoothly in life, and waste less energy fighting the wrong battles.

On its dark side, however, this idea seems to suggest that we should have no plans, no goals, no will. I can’t think of many spiritual masters who achieved enlightenment with that attitude. Nor can I think of many people who achieved something great in any area of their lives by following that mode of thinking.

“It’s beautiful to go with the flow. It’s also beautiful to be able to sometimes direct the flow….”

Spirituality promotes acceptance, letting go, and contentment here and now. But it is not against having a goal, actively transforming circumstances, or putting in an effort. If spirituality is to be pragmatic and have a worldwide relevance in the 21st century, we must find a way to embrace this paradox.

12. “Money is evil”

Money is not unspiritual—it is something we need to survive in this world. If anything is “unspiritual”, it would be attachment and materiality—being too obsessed with money, or too greedy about it.

When we are really hungry, a big part of our thoughts and energy goes to finding food. We are less available to anything else. Thinking is less clear, and our focus is less stable.

Likewise, when we don’t have a sufficient flow of money in our life, a lot of time and mental energy is wasted on either getting money or doing trivial tasks that could otherwise be solved with money. As a result, we have less space and energy to focus on our spiritual practice.

“Money is a tool. It’s your obsession with it that makes it a problem.”

Having one million dollars in the bank and focusing on how to get the second million is as unhelpful for spiritual development as having no money and constantly worrying about how to make ends meet. The same goes with health—obsessing over being leaner/stronger is a distraction from the spiritual path just as much as being physically weak and sick is.

Ken Wilber has some interesting thoughts on why the money, the body and sex are seen as enemies in spirituality in some traditional teachings. You can read his article on the topic here.

An Unspoken Cliché

“My path is better than yours…”

I can’t finalize this article without mentioning another widespread idea in spiritual circles that is almost a cliché, although it’s rarely verbalized. It’s the idea that “My path is superior and more direct”; or, in other words, “My guru is better than yours”.

This sort of dogmatism is, unfortunately, common to many spiritual approaches I have studied. And it’s not only in spirituality—you will find it in the realm of politics, health, finances, sports, everywhere. It seems this is how the human mind works: if I am in a group, that must be the best group!

I have been so much exposed to this type of thinking that I became almost numb to it. Everyone has good arguments to say why their technique is more effective, their approach more thorough, or their path superior. They are all partially right, and all partially wrong.

Reality is wider than any sectarianism. There is no superior path; it’s only about finding what path matches your needs at any particular moment in your life. Once you find it, walk in it with the conviction that this is the best path for you. And be ready to move on from it if you feel the calling.

Seeing Beneath the Surface

Every spiritual teaching has the power to become a cliché; and, usually, every cliché has some basis in truth. In this article I’ve dissected 12 common spiritual clichés, reflecting on the truths they contain, and the often overlooked dark sides that come with them.

At the end, when being exposed to any sort of teaching or philosophy, we must exercise our own discernment. Especially when a teaching becomes very popular and widespread, that is a great opportunity to ask oneself: “What is the original meaning of the teaching? Is there a dark side to this idea?” If possible, get clarification from different teachers, or exchange ideas with more experienced practitioners.

Spirituality needs to be pragmatic. It’s about finding the best way to live, and practicing that. It’s about exploring our human potential beyond the clutches of what is currently considered “proven” by mainstream science. And it’s also different things for different people.

May this piece serve as an invitation to think more deeply about what spirituality truly is about.

(For a more comical exploration of spiritual clichés and some laughs, check out the UltraSpiritual channel in YouTube.)

Which of these clichés do you think is the most misunderstood? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

By: Giovanni Dienstmann

#spiritual #spirituality #spiritual life #life #consciousness #subconscious #soul #teachers #humanity #humanity articles #articles

343 notes · View notes