Regard only Disregard and Disregard It as Well

Out of all of the world’s religions, probably my favorite is that of Buddhism; specifically Zen.
In my opinion it doesn’t get much more base than this form of practice.
It’s so base in fact that it’s up for debate whether it truly classifies as a religion.

What I admire the most about Buddhism is the direction of the focus; not the form.
The form is just a tool for the focus, and the focus is you.
Now that’s some straight spirituality in my opinion.

Many religions, especially western, focus on the relationship between you and a divinity or force.
However, in most of Buddhism it’s focus is the relationship between you and yourself.

Further beyond all of this stands Zen denouncing much of anything except for yourself as the required thing needed to relate to yourself.
Tossing convention out of the door and generally not holding any text or creed as revered.
Just you.

Now, there’s a term for a spiritual stance that is regardless of the divine; transtheism.
Simply put; divinity is of no importance regardless.

That sums up Buddhism as a whole pretty much to me.
But a practice like Zen takes it one step further and seems to push that regardlessness state so far that only the commonly accepted means of practicing are relevant.

Many months back, Xunzian referred to his girlfriend’s practice for advice to some of my questions back then.
One thing that I was interested in was her lack of concern over even the practice itself.

The focus was you and yourself, lacking all else and all else simply disappeared from concern.

At the time, none of this really made a large cognitive impact to me, but I continued forward in my studying of all things Buddhist and Hindu more than in my previous years.

Now, I didn’t end up resting on Buddhism or Hinduism personally for varying reasons, but instead realized that I wanted something I hadn’t found anywhere.
I couldn’t find the way I thought of my spirituality anywhere, so I started trying to digest what exactly it was that I did think and feel about my own spirituality.

The end result, so far, has produced a new…not quite religion…but spiritual practice.
Now…ultimately, I don’t want to get hung up on this creation specifically as I don’t have any interest in broadcasting it everywhere…it’s really not meant for that, or of any concern to do such.

But it has provoked a concept in emotion…the way that I feel about it collectively…that I can’t find a term for.
Essentially, it’s a sensation of focus akin to Buddhism and Zen in the regardlessness state of being concerned with any divinity, but instead, it furthers this even beyond the Zen in that it’s nearly akin to spiritual aikido or spiritual pinball.

What I mean to say is that the spiritual practice I pulled together for myself has no concern about how receiving and pushing out takes place.

It’s assumed that practice will change and alter constantly, and furthers this by asserting that one’s spiritual self is in constant motion itself; thereby never a thing by which can be harnessed or regarded.

So even the way to the self is regardlessness.
It’s visualized as several gears in motion all interlinked and each wheel becomes the main wheel at different intervals, and asserts that learning how to move among all of these gears within one’s spiritual emotion and energy is about as close as one can really come to claiming as a thing to regard.

All else is considered as disregarded; doesn’t matter.
In the practices that I outlined as one’s that I perform, it moves awareness of the self all the way out to asserting to move, and talk among people while doing so (doesn’t start there).
And asserts further to become confined and tethered to this world; deeply.
And yet to find awareness there while being tethered deeply without problem.

This regardlessness sense; I can’t find a word for it.
I’ve been struggling to figure out what the term would be, but I can’t find anything that refers to this concept… that I’ve found so far anyway.

I would almost say the concept would be regardless of “motion”; yet disregarding even the regard for the “motion”.
Save that it is a concept of anything and everything that can change and does change, rather than just Newtonian motion.

I’m sorry…I’m usually far more put together in posts that I make; this is more a ramble all over the place.
But I just thought maybe an idea would spark here among the methodical that I might bounce off of.

lol irregardless. that’s pretty hilarious. the word you’re looking for is “regardless.” the prefix “ir” means “not”. the word “irregardless” is almost exclusively used synonymously with “regardless,” but it etymologically means the opposite of what the user generally means. it’s a funny word.

that’s all. carry on.

No…I meant irregardless.

I used the double meaning on purpose.
You regard it so only to disregard it, and the disregard is about the only thing regarded.
Hence, “Irregardless”.

i have no clue what that means.

The only thing you regard is disregarding.
I’ll make it easier and remove the play on words…sec.

k

There…maybe that will make more sense.

There is a double-edged sword at play here. We think and act inside the strictures of language. Awareness isn’t the words, it is the understanding. So we let the words go. In our practice, we forget not only the words, but that we’ve let them go…

Does that help? :wink:

Not really, because while I agree with you; words help in communicating a concept.
They are a .zip file.
Useful for transport, but not to be confused as the file itself.

This idea just happens to be a file that so far is too “large” for a .zip.

I think I’ve narrowed down the search for a term for this concept to explaining the concept as this:

Irrelevance of state.

Whatever word means this, and that is something that I don’t know.
:confusion-helpsos:

Perhaps it’s a strange made-up word such as, “transpertinence”, meaning: aside, or beyond the matter of what does or does not pertain (implicating the spiritual in it’s origin).

Does that make sense?

nope

Could you elaborate on that answer?

All I have to offer: your language is confusing and convoluted.

Are you referring to the original post as well?

yes, especially the original post.

Sorry about that…it was dedinately a ramble.
What I am saying is that the spiritual pursuit of my belief describes it’s focus as not being concerned with the form of practice, nor is it concerned with the state of your current identity (how you feel, or how you think of yourself), nor does it care how life delivers life to you (how it happens).
In all conditions, it’s pursuit of it’s asserted “self” (similar to the buddhist “self”) is considered as not dependent on any of these things as the means of reaching this “self”.

I hope that helps.

I think it would help more to describe what DOES matter than what DOESN’T matter. You’re only talking about what we should disregard, but that’s like if I said I had a zambooni, and you’re like, “what’s that?” and I say, "well, it’s not a boat, and it’s not a fish, and it’s not a trampoline…"etc, obviously telling you the various things it’s not doesn’t tell you anything. Talking about what one SHOULD regard before what one shouldn’t regard might clear some things up.

Well…I don’t quite want to go too much into the entire bit, but the pursuit is a “self”, or what is called “one’s nature”.
To understand (as one understands fear or love; intuitively rather than cognitively) what one’s nature is and how to naturally “move” (shifting cognitive and non-cognitive sense of one’s self) with the constantly moving conditions (previously listed as that which doesn’t matter) that exist by consequence of being human.

Did that help?

A bit.

Allow me to provide my interpretation, see if it simplifies the language a bit:

It seems like what you’re saying is that in this pursuit of the self, one doesn’t need to be concerned about divinity, and one doesn’t really need to be concerned about the specific method used to acheive the goal, but at the same time, one doesn’t need to really deliberately be unconcerned about those things either.