Spiritual enlightenment

[fr0d0]

How would they know? Is there a sign that says "This is it, you've reached the end"?

I agree it's a bullshit term used by mystics. I think we can dismiss it though.

[Edwardo Piet]

The ultimate kind, certainly. As for a non-ultimate definition... I guess it doesn't necessarily have to be mystical...

"Spiritual" can, for instance, be a secular term too. I've heard of quite a few people who call themselves 'Spiritual atheists', quite similar to how Einstein called himself a deeply religious nonbeliever, I guess.

But this is why I hate the term 'Spiritual', and why it's in fact my least favourite word in the world: It's so fucking ambiguous it can mean almost anything. Whether it's spiritualist bullshit psychics, any other form of mystical bullshit, or so called 'spiritual atheists'.. which can even include pantheism!

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

How would they know? Is there a sign that says "This is it, you've reached the end"?

Since when do religions need signs? All they need is claims.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well... that and not listening to any reasonable response thrown back at them...

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

"Spiritual Enlightenment and Spiritual Awakening is the primary goal of almost all spiritual practices, traditions and religions and for any spiritual seeker. There are many names for this awakened state of Consciousness depending on what culture and tradition we belong to."

Your quote seems a religious claim to me and quite contrary to what some allegedly enlightened people say. which is something more like: all religions and all organized worldviews for that matter are bullshit. Mind you, I am a total non-expert on the subject of spiritual enlightenment (as you probably will gladly acknowledge) but this sounds really intriguing to me.

What makes it bullshit if it's organised? Not that I disagree.. and don't feel an onus upon answering as I quite understand the sentiment.

Well, I don't really know if organisation of a worldview is a necessary criterion. Bullshit may or may not be organised, don't you think?

"A higher state of consciousness in which the person seems to transcend his or her ego, and becomes aware of his/her divinity, and that he/she is one with God"

This too is quite the opposite of what I have found. According to the experts a sharp distinction has to be made between finding ultimate truth and some permanent state of cosmic orgasm you seem to describe.

Hmm ..'transcend' has that suggestion doesn't it. Generally I've got this impression from 'seekers' but I don't think it has to be seen as so beneficial. I think it could be quite the opposite - for instance obtaining the state via some form of self denial.

I agree. You can foget about any moral if you begin with self denial. I think it is odd to try to achieve such a state of indifference.

---

Why are we discussing 'ultimates' anyway? It's not in the OP.

Read carefully now, dear chap.

[theVOID]

[Edwardo Piet]

These days it seems that "Spiritual" can mean absolutely fucking anything people want it to. That's why I can't stand the word, as I explained above.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

What the fuck is supposed to be spiritual about verified truth?

Is somebody fucked? Where? Voluntarily?

My suggestion about verification/falsification was meant as a method to deal with the claim of enlightenment in a rational way. Do you think this is fair or is it possible that enlightenment may exists and still be unverifiable/unfalsifiable?

Spiritual implies the spirit or soul, a completely unfounded concept.

IMO, the word 'spiritual' is hijacked by religion and scrambled into a meaning with supernatural context. We, as proud atheists, should not allow this. ATHEISTS OF ALL NATIONS UNITE! Just joking there. The spiritual for me refers to cohesiveness and reverence for the natural world, but these words are not accurate enough to me. There is a french writer who has some interesting points on this (André Comte-Sponville).

[theVOID]

What the fuck is supposed to be spiritual about verified truth?

Is somebody fucked? Where? Voluntarily?

My suggestion about verification/falsification was meant as a method to deal with the claim of enlightenment in a rational way. Do you think this is fair or is it possible that enlightenment may exists and still be unverifiable/unfalsifiable?

Spiritual implies the spirit or soul, a completely unfounded concept.

IMO, the word 'spiritual' is hijacked by religion and scrambled into a meaning with supernatural context. We, as proud atheists, should not allow this. ATHEISTS OF ALL NATIONS UNITE! Just joking there. The spiritual for me refers to cohesiveness and reverence for the natural world, but these words are not accurate enough to me. There is a french writer who has some interesting points on this (André Comte-Sponville).

What you described as 'spiritual' i call appreciation for reality - As for 'Enlightenment', it does not exist, it is the foolish idea that one can achieve some profound understanding of the universe which is quite frankly impossible given our current situation and impossible entirely in the sense that most people try to achieve it, they believe that it is from inner contemplation alone - in reality they are deluding themselves.

[Purple Rabbit]

What you described as 'spiritual' i call appreciation for reality - As for 'Enlightenment', it does not exist, it is the foolish idea that one can achieve some profound understanding of the universe which is quite frankly impossible given our current situation and impossible entirely in the sense that most people try to achieve it, they believe that it is from inner contemplation alone - in reality they are deluding themselves.

You seem sure. One question though. How do you know they are deluded?