Spirit in its conventional meaning relates to an animating energy. There is an iterative relationship between language and this energy. Negative messaging, often from parents, causes emotional pain (trauma)which is buried in the sub conscious as we deal with daily life. But that emotional pain also forms our responses to daily life and we create or adhere to concepts in order to guide ourselves through events, animated by that energy, whatever its character. So the words one uses expressing beliefs of all kinds are driven by the emotional energy formed in our unconscious. IMO it is for this reason that words alone are a poor tool for spiritual development. One needs to allow those emotions to manifest themselves in the conscious mind and then name them. Naming them is the beginning of them losing their power, assuming that is, we wish to change the energy they produce. It may be however that the energy they produce delivers some kind of benefit, serving a personality function in which case we may just reinforce them.
Unfortunately western "belief systems" rely almost wholly on ideology which is why they fail to address the need for energy work in the unconscious that many seek.
So much to unpack! Thank you. But what stood out and unfortunately is not understood by many, is your quote,”The point was never to worship Jesus but to turn ourselves into a Jesus; not to worship Buddha but to turn ourselves into a Buddha.”
My outside is the inside of something else. The growth of something else depends on the growth of the outside of me. Which is the inside or the outside of source?
In the modern world Spirituality is being treated as a science. The reason Spiritually is a conscious emotion is so it is accessible to even the simplest Soul. You say the Ego wants to be right. The Ego of the unenlightened doesn't care about right and wrong, their Ego is only concerned with fighting to be better than the next Soul. The Ego of the Enlightened is only used for the care and protection of oneself and those around.
Your discussion of spirituality is the best I've seen, heard, or read. I wanted to read your story, offered through the link published in this issue, but couldn't access it. I'm a paid subscriber and would appreciate your suggesting an alternate access to your story. Thanks. (I held a non-ordained leadership position in a very conservative church and almost choked on the horrific theology. Makes me weep just thinking about the harm done in the name of Jesus.)
o wow, Jim, this is so very interesting. I will need much more time to mull on it. I have been always confused about the American use of "spirituality," as I was not sure I ever understood what it truly means. But apparently that is the point :-)
So does the word refer to the realm of transcendence or does it rather refer to the belief we hold about it, I found myself wondering reading the beginning of your essay. Surely, Kierkegaard's work of "deconstruction" popped in my mind. I think SK really offers us a very post religious definition of spirituality if you will. Namely embedding spirituality into the relational, the existential. According to his understanding and Tillich's reformulations spirituality could then be understood as HOW WE RELATE to what concerns us ultimately. Does that make any sense to you?
Spirit in its conventional meaning relates to an animating energy. There is an iterative relationship between language and this energy. Negative messaging, often from parents, causes emotional pain (trauma)which is buried in the sub conscious as we deal with daily life. But that emotional pain also forms our responses to daily life and we create or adhere to concepts in order to guide ourselves through events, animated by that energy, whatever its character. So the words one uses expressing beliefs of all kinds are driven by the emotional energy formed in our unconscious. IMO it is for this reason that words alone are a poor tool for spiritual development. One needs to allow those emotions to manifest themselves in the conscious mind and then name them. Naming them is the beginning of them losing their power, assuming that is, we wish to change the energy they produce. It may be however that the energy they produce delivers some kind of benefit, serving a personality function in which case we may just reinforce them.
Unfortunately western "belief systems" rely almost wholly on ideology which is why they fail to address the need for energy work in the unconscious that many seek.
So much to unpack! Thank you. But what stood out and unfortunately is not understood by many, is your quote,”The point was never to worship Jesus but to turn ourselves into a Jesus; not to worship Buddha but to turn ourselves into a Buddha.”
My outside is the inside of something else. The growth of something else depends on the growth of the outside of me. Which is the inside or the outside of source?
Very thought provoking read thank you Jim.
In the modern world Spirituality is being treated as a science. The reason Spiritually is a conscious emotion is so it is accessible to even the simplest Soul. You say the Ego wants to be right. The Ego of the unenlightened doesn't care about right and wrong, their Ego is only concerned with fighting to be better than the next Soul. The Ego of the Enlightened is only used for the care and protection of oneself and those around.
Your discussion of spirituality is the best I've seen, heard, or read. I wanted to read your story, offered through the link published in this issue, but couldn't access it. I'm a paid subscriber and would appreciate your suggesting an alternate access to your story. Thanks. (I held a non-ordained leadership position in a very conservative church and almost choked on the horrific theology. Makes me weep just thinking about the harm done in the name of Jesus.)
I love your writings!
o wow, Jim, this is so very interesting. I will need much more time to mull on it. I have been always confused about the American use of "spirituality," as I was not sure I ever understood what it truly means. But apparently that is the point :-)
So does the word refer to the realm of transcendence or does it rather refer to the belief we hold about it, I found myself wondering reading the beginning of your essay. Surely, Kierkegaard's work of "deconstruction" popped in my mind. I think SK really offers us a very post religious definition of spirituality if you will. Namely embedding spirituality into the relational, the existential. According to his understanding and Tillich's reformulations spirituality could then be understood as HOW WE RELATE to what concerns us ultimately. Does that make any sense to you?
I like the Action Playset!