religion of spirit

Whatever happened to just exploring how to be?
Not how to think.
Where is the inquirey for how to feel?
Not how to act.
Where is the religion of the spirit?
Not the mind and soul.

Isn’t that the “meaning of life” question?
The question asked so as to give direction and authority toward efforts - “spirit”.

Did you want a new one or just a reiteration of the old ones? :mrgreen:

As to “what happened to them”; I think you pretty much know that (more or less). :confused:

No, it is not the same as the meaning of life.
How did I get here and what was the purpose of that taking place does not refer to learning how to be.
Not ‘how to be’, but how ‘to be’.

I understand art, particularly music, to be this religion of spirit. Though it is only a religion insofar as it is a religious experience. And I think that this is, quite precisely, the point.

You already are, you don’t have to explore how to be. You already feel, you don’t have to explore how to feel. Religion (as well as many other human activities) is for those who have some kind of goal in mind. And once you have a goal in mind, you become concerned with how to think, how to act, etc.

Anon, quite, almost but good enough.
I just wonder why it lacks in mass.
I can point to nearly every other movement, but this I can only point to very few.
The reason I wrote religion was to this point.
Where is the mass movement to this?

I’m not sure what you mean, exactly. Are you saying why aren’t more people interested in overcoming goal-orientation?

Somewhat music holds a captured evocation, but that is a different tangent, while still quite useful.

Anon…the reason I said almost before is how ‘to feel’ doesn’t refer to simply feeling, but also digesting (best word for it).

It is in the end indeed a ‘no goal’ concept, but is not such always.
It is akin to the philosophy of Akido (not the practice, but the perspective).
There is a goal, but eventually that leads to no goal.

It isn’t so much that I’m asking where the interest in absenting goal orientation is.
But where is the interest in how ‘to feel’, so to learn how ‘to be’.
Even if every incarnation did something off tangent from this, I could at least point to it and say, “there it is”.
But it is no where that I see.
The closest that I see are ‘walking zen’ related concepts that aim ‘to exist’.
But passive acceptance of the water’s current isn’t the interest here.
How to feel the current (how ‘to feel’) so that you may leverage your motion in the current (how ‘to be’).

Where is that interest in the mass?

If I understand you correctly, I’d say Buddhism in general has this aim (i.e. not just Zen).

For instance, I was looking up some stuff to help me to write something here and found this:

The author goes on to say:

For instance, see Tilopa’s Ganges Mahamudra.

See also Milarepa’s Song to Lady Paldarboom and Chogyam Trungpa’s teachings on Basic Goodness.

True, Buddhism does hold to the same general construct, but it differs in one respect: it wishes to see what is.
Which is good. But what I’m discussing goes a step beyond that to creating what you will after clearly seeing what is unto you.
I know that Buddhism does go into this in form, but it does not hit it head on pragmatically.
It is more a taste that such would be consequent of seeing, however I don’t quite see it that way.
Specifically, our sensation is within our control and it requires a sort of spiritual listening and speaking to ones self to do this. I would write emotions, but that fails to encompass the totality of the idea.

Buddhism is more flowing with purpose clearly derived.
I’m more speaking of direct action with direct purpose.
Yes, like Akido in listening, but like Boxing in action.

Explain more? Just trying to clarify what you’re getting at.

What we want to sense, perceive, and conceive (and all other versions of intake) are within our capacity to manipulate.
This includes output, action, as that recursively becomes intake.

At the foot of many of our problems is the fact that too many of us let our feelings dictate our actions. Feelings and emotions are vital, but they must be guided by reason. Of course, the answer to your question, “where is the inquiry for how to feel?”, could be that we need to teach our feelings to follow that guidance.

TPT, that is exactly the point.
I’m not saying to let what is felt reactively fly.
I’m referring to concepts which entail rationally selecting which emotional experience is to be selected for the interaction by consequence of assessing what comes in.

That’s also what I’m questioning.
Where is the mass interest in teaching our feelings to follow that guidance?
Where is that religion?
As in, where is the religion that counts this as spiritual and the pursuit?

There’s a religion for pursuing persistence, there’s a religion for pursuing transcendence, there’s a religion for pursuing power and control, there’s a religion for pursuing the unification of humanity, there’s a religion for pursuing balance here, and so many more aspects of life.

But there’s no religion that I can find that pursues how to teach our feelings to follow rational guidance after listening distinctly to the irrational input.

Levant rooted religions are the interest in still being around after the current of the river is expended.
Native American religions are the interest in moving with the current of the river and taking what is given to you by the current.
“Paganism” (using the title broadly) is the interest in determining what the current will be, either by discernment or by determination.
Unitarianism and Bahai are the interest in uniting all currents.
Buddhism is the interest in being aside all of these and selecting where to join the current.
Where is the religion that is interested in how to be the current?

Let’s flip that.
Levant rooted religions are the interest in active community preservation.
Native American religions are the interest in passive community preservation.
“Paganism” (using the title broadly) is the interest in predicting and/or controlling the community.
Unitarianism and Bahai are the interest in uniting the community.
Buddhism is the interest in finding clarity in the confusion of the community.
Where is the religion that is interested in how to be the community?

I think maybe you haven’t explored Buddhism enough to be justified in saying this. For instance, see this extract from the book Benevolent Mind, by Traleg Kyabgon. It superficially touches on everything you just mentioned. Some kinds of feelings can be nurtured because they are more valuable with respect to the problem of overcoming suffering, this is supported rationally through correct philosophy, and the fuel for the whole thing comes from mindfulness and intelligent understanding of suffering.

For a much more in-depth explication, see this long exerpt from what is essentially the same book (the former was published in Australia, the latter in the U.S.)

Well, it doesn’t exactly pursue it in those terms, but deism’s prime tenet is philosophy through reason. There is a contingent of underminers being herded into deism sites and groups who attempt to divert such reasoned efforts back into what in most places is called blind faith. The main weapon of course is universal subjectivity, the last resort of the demagogue. It’s the front lines of the war on reason, in the philosophical arena anyway.

Has this really stopped? Can you give an example of this from the past, when you think it was happening, so I understand more what you mean.

I’ve mentioned previously that Buddhism comes close, but misses the mark of the point.
Here again, I can suggest that a miss has taken place as I am not interested in nurturing feelings to overcome suffering.
Though I am referencing emotions, I am not interested in using them for the same ends as Buddhism.
Buddhism does good work on creating peace.
However, this isn’t about peace or avoiding suffering.
This is about every emotion being directly useful; not some.
A solution does not need to exist for sadness for sadness to have a use.

I understand that Buddhism does a tremendous amount of flexible good for you, and this is good. I would greatly enjoy you keeping that.
However, I’m not looking at the same goals in which Buddhism does.

The Dali Lama won’t be shown in furious anger and outrage.
In what I am discussing, a person would still be in furious anger and outrage.
What changes is the selection to be in a furious anger and outrage.

I believe deism fails at being as intuitively spiritual in trade for being more rational.
It is not exactly focused on being, but learning what the truth of being is.
This concept isn’t about discerning what the truth of being is, as rational as that approach may be.
It is about that pursuit of being.

As I’ve said before.
Listening like Akido, action like Boxing.

Well, I can’t actually think of an example.
I just assume that humans at some point probably did pursue direct use of emotions through selection after intuitive sensing/listening.
A sort of conjuring.
It seems something that early humans would explore.

That being said, I have not once bumped into a culture in anthropology that has displayed any such interest, so … perhaps there hasn’t been. :confusion-shrug:

For an example to get into your visual mind,
Like this, but with emotions.
And because of that, it would also lack a “voice of thought” on the matter.