The evolution of biological species and chance ...

[Janic]

eclectronvolt wrote:

Isn't there a little internal conflict between the mental and the non-mental here?
Mind that wants to declare that everything is crap except him?

that's the least we can say! This mentality being the result of the cultural conditioning of society which imposes an exclusive type of belief (it doesn't matter which one). Rudolf Steiner (hated by some here... sorry by Izy more particularly) rightly said that we can only replace one concept with another by getting rid of the previous one, a bit like we can't replace a broken part on an object without first removing the first one. but that's very, very difficult for some who are not used to replacements.

[eclectronvolt]

eclectronvolt wrote:

Isn't there a little internal conflict between the mental and the non-mental here?
Mind that wants to declare that everything is crap except him?

that's the least we can say! This mentality being the result of the cultural conditioning of society which imposes an exclusive type of belief (it doesn't matter which one). Rudolf Steiner (hated by some here... sorry by Izy more particularly) rightly said that we can only replace one concept with another by getting rid of the previous one, a bit like we can't replace a broken part on an object without first removing the first one. but that's very, very difficult for some who are not used to replacements.

Another concern is that everyone holds some truth, which gives a person a solid foundation for their own point of view.
The difficulty is to admit that his point of view is partial in relation to the real truth.
Oh yes, I forgot, some call God: the Truth. But truth that cannot be grasped and manipulated by the individual (the mind), otherwise it becomes a point of view and therefore no longer a truth. Cf the so-called sacred books which are no longer truth but contain it.
We are points of view, thinking ourselves separate, unaware of being a single being: Life.
Life that takes different forms: tree, human, stone.
Forms that have the freedom to think themselves separate from the rest.
To think of oneself as separate is to place oneself in a position of self facing the rest of the world, necessarily in conflict one day with the rest of the world.
The lion wants to eat me, he and I are very different, the mind will say.
It's not wrong on the surface but it's not entirely true deep down.
We have Life in common, we are life.

All this to say that people like Steiner, Casasnovas, Grosjean, tell the truth but not only that.
Courtillot, Gervais, Allègre are certainly telling the truth, but not only that.
Science, or the mind, focuses only on the "not only" because it is an insecure error.
Except that security will never come from the mind, since it is the mind that creates insecurity (fear beyond the simple survival instinct) by thinking itself separate from the rest of the universe.
As long as the mind does not see itself as a hindrance to the security it seeks so much, as long as it does not cease its seething activity, fear and chaos reign.
The Truth surely not!
The beauty of it is that we are free to remain wrong.

[Janic]

All this to say that people like Steiner, Casasnovas, Grosjean, tell the truth but not only that.

and what is this not that?

[sen-no-sen]

Have you never found, or even looked for, any current spirituality that is worthwhile?

"Current spirituality" is a bit like "non-religious creationism"....how many Saints and Saintesses have produced these "current spiritualities"...
------
To catch up, it is worth remembering that the rise of these "current spiritualities" has largely contributed to the appearance of sects (the term is not at all pejorative at the origin, but postmodernity has agreed otherwise!).
It is interesting to note that during the 60s/70s, particularly within the American-Western bloc, the decline in interest in established religions (such as the Catholic Church, for example), caused by strong demographic variations (baby boom) as well as the entry into the consumer society, favored the appearance of a large number of subsystems of thought according to a principle parallel to the evolution of species (according to an evolutionary model r K).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le_%C3%A9volutif_r/K
Indeed, during periods of extinction, the history of life has largely demonstrated that it is better to be small than large. The example of felines is a perfect example these days: it is better to be a cat than a tiger!

It is the same for systems of thought. Despite an unfavorable religious terrain, they are in some way start-up of spirituality that have been established to take over from the old religion in place.
Still according to a biological principle, its systems of thought have presented relatively short lifespans, and only a few of them have succeeded in breaking through or even being recognized as a religion in certain countries (case of Scientology!)

*Consumer society encourages individualistic withdrawal, because caloric capture is easier there, it apparently requires less cooperation with others (apparently I insist!).
Outside of a religion (of religare which means to connect) aims to unify individuals within a community. This is why we say that God is love(Not that a supernatural being loves you, but that this concept is indeed capable of bringing people together, remember that love fundamentally means making one's own).
Consumerism is in this sense a somewhat acidic terrain for secular religions, which has logically given rise to spiritualities more in tune with their times...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

[eclectronvolt]

All this to say that people like Steiner, Casasnovas, Grosjean, tell the truth but not only that.

and what is this not that?

I don't know, you have to ask the detractors. I've never been deeply interested in these people.
But by simple analogy, no one is perfect, they must say some stupid things, like everyone else.
Personally, I don't focus on stupid things to progress, but rather on collecting nuggets, and everyone says that too.

[eclectronvolt]

Have you never found, or even looked for, any current spirituality that is worthwhile?

"Current spirituality" is a bit like "non-religious creationism"....how many Saints and Saintesses have produced these "current spiritualities"...

Wouldn't the problem be the personal capacity to discern what has historical validation, to recognize what has value?
You clearly demonstrate a skill in recognizing what has no value, it is a step, perhaps we should work on the personal capacity to recognize what has value?
A dead leaf teaches...and therefore has value.
In my opinion, it involves letting go of things to get out of a mental self-lock.
How would Gautama be more valuable than a current awakened person on youtube (in general they are not only on youtube but in real life too, I anticipate easy criticism...)

[eclectronvolt]

"Current spirituality" is a bit like "non-religious creationism"....how many Saints and Saintesses have produced these "current spiritualities"...
------To catch up, it is worth remembering that the rise of these "current spiritualities" has largely contributed to the emergence of sects (the term is not at all pejorative at the origin, but postmodernity has agreed otherwise!).
It is interesting to note that during the 60s/70s, particularly within the American-Western bloc, the decline in interest in established religions (such as the Catholic Church, for example), caused by strong demographic variations (baby boom) as well as the entry into the consumer society, favored the appearance of a large number of subsystems of thought according to a principle parallel to the evolution of species (according to an evolutionary model r K).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le_%C3%A9volutif_r/K
Indeed, during periods of extinction, the history of life has largely demonstrated that it is better to be small than large. The example of felines is a perfect example these days: it is better to be a cat than a tiger!

It is the same for systems of thought. Despite an unfavorable religious terrain, they are in some way start-up of spirituality that have been established to take over from the old religion in place.
Still according to a biological principle, its systems of thought have presented relatively short lifespans, and only a few of them have succeeded in breaking through or even being recognized as a religion in certain countries (case of Scientology!)

*Consumer society encourages individualistic withdrawal, because caloric capture is easier there, it apparently requires less cooperation with others (apparently I insist!).
Outside of a religion (of religare which means to connect) aims to unify individuals within a community. This is why we say that God is love(Not that a supernatural being loves you, but that this concept is indeed capable of bringing people together, remember that love fundamentally means making one's own).
Consumerism is in this sense a somewhat acidic terrain for secular religions, which has logically given rise to spiritualities more in tune with their times...

Knowledge, knowledge, criticism, criticism, mental, mental but we do not feel any appetite for true spirituality*, the desire to experience God for ourselves.
*you allow yourself to have an opinion and to be critical, only critical.
It's like the lottery, if you don't play, you have little chance of winning.
Or like swimming if you don't get a little wet.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

What does it mean to "experience God for yourself" when no one knows what it is or if it exists?

[eclectronvolt]

What does it mean to "experience God for yourself" when no one knows what it is or if it exists?

Legitimate questions, coming from the mind which will never have access to God because of incompatible natures.
The awakened ones have access to it, see with them if it really interests your mind to know everything that obstructs God in you.
Once this work of stripping is done, you will no longer ask these questions, if by chance, "That" has manifested itself.