Regulating the Spiritual field

Spirituality
#21

Here is an example to show why we need regulation, because as unfortunate as it is to say, the kind of pseudoscientific quackery we will see in here is actually common in the spiritual community:

Excerpts:

[i]Can Agnihotra prevent the effect of nuclear radiation?

In many articles on the Internet, the ritual of Agnihotra has been promoted as a simple ritual that helps to minimise the adverse impact of nuclear radiation. The statement peaked our interest, because for modern science this is a fantastic proposition: that a simple ritual done at sunrise and sunset along with the recitation of a mantra can actually quell the harmful effects of nuclear fallout. This ritual also becomes especially relevant with some other information we have received through spiritual research about the coming times.

Most people do not know that there are measures that can be taken at a spiritual level, along with efforts at a psychological and physical level to defend oneself against a nuclear attack. This article expands on the measures we can take at a spiritual level to protect ourselves from the effects of a nuclear attack and for the prevention of it occurring.

When a nuclear device is detonated, it gives rise to raja-tama predominant vibrations of the Absolute Cosmic Fire element. Discordant subtle sounds accompany these frequencies. These subtle sounds have a subtle harmful effect on the mind and intellect of the people in the vicinity of the nuclear attack. It can range from depression, to negative thoughts, to fogging up of the intellect.

When the ritual of Agnihotra is performed, it gives rise to sattva predominant vibrations of the Absolute Cosmic Fire element. The fire created from Agnihotra disintegrates the raja-tama particles and therefore purifies the environment at a spiritual level. It also creates a subtle protective sheath around the person performing the ritual. This sheath is highly sensitive to anything related to the Absolute Cosmic Fire element and from the subtle dimension this sheath looks reddish.
The raja-tama predominant Absolute Cosmic Fire particles (emanating from a nuclear device detonating) strike in a very harsh and callous manner. The protective sheath intuitively knows in advance when they are coming near it and as a reflex action it sends the Absolute Cosmic Fire frequencies from within it towards the raja-tama predominant particles with tremendous force. This destroys the raja-tama predominant Absolute Cosmic Fire particles which give rise to the sound frequencies. As a result, the destructive Absolute Cosmic Fire from the detonated nuclear device loses its power.

The spiritual level of a person is the most important aspect.

In the case of a nuclear bomb explosion, in practical terms, only a person above the 50% spiritual level is able to access any substantial protection by performing the ritual of Agnihotra. The benefit reduces as the spiritual level of the person performing the ritual decreases. A person of average spiritual level (20-30%) will gain negligible protection benefit from performing the ritual Agnihotra.

As the spiritual level becomes more, the need for performing the ritual becomes less as the spiritual level becomes the key criteria for protection of the person.

In the case of Saints they would get a thought to move away from the area before the bomb explodes.[/i]

I can think of the perfect way of testing this: Have the author of this article stationed at a nuclear test site doing his ritual ceremony to generate the anti-radiation spiritual shield…And observe the effects :wink:

#22

[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;74321]The issues arising from regulating spirituality lie in the subjective nature of the ideology, and ideology changes with the times and the dominant culture of the times. In order to ‘regulate’ the spiritual field, there has to be a common agreement as to what is and is not included in the field.

With so ethereal a matter, that discussion is moot considering the billions of individual viewpoints. Any historical attempt at regulating spirituality has only produced disastrous results. The Spanish Inquisition is one example. There are countless others.

This particular discussion came about because one person objects to some practices being included, and accepted, as part of the spiritual field. What about the natives of Alberta, Canada, who practice many rites that would be considered bogus by that person’s standards? Are they less spiritual for it?[/QUOTE]

Hence, why I say we need to differentiate between religion and spirituality. In order to this we need to come up with a definition of what spirituality is, as we can with physics, medicine and biology.

The definition I propose is the study of the interactions between mind and body. A master science that combines the fields of physics, biology and psychology. In general this is what we understand spirituality to be anyway, we know it is about mind-body disciplines, internal observation(mental phenomenology) and personal development. It combines many areas of science.

#23

Allow me to explain by using reference to the article on Agnihotra to prevent nuclear fall out above, how it applies to many problems in the spiritual field/community.

Pseudo-scientific theories

[i]When a nuclear device is detonated, it gives rise to raja-tama predominant vibrations of the Absolute Cosmic Fire element. Discordant subtle sounds accompany these frequencies. These subtle sounds have a subtle harmful effect on the mind and intellect of the people in the vicinity of the nuclear attack. It can range from depression, to negative thoughts, to fogging up of the intellect.

When the ritual of Agnihotra is performed, it gives rise to sattva predominant vibrations of the Absolute Cosmic Fire element. The fire created from Agnihotra disintegrates the raja-tama particles and therefore purifies the environment at a spiritual level. It also creates a subtle protective sheath around the person performing the ritual. This sheath is highly sensitive to anything related to the Absolute Cosmic Fire element and from the subtle dimension this sheath looks reddish.
The raja-tama predominant Absolute Cosmic Fire particles (emanating from a nuclear device detonating) strike in a very harsh and callous manner. The protective sheath intuitively knows in advance when they are coming near it and as a reflex action it sends the Absolute Cosmic Fire frequencies from within it towards the raja-tama predominant particles with tremendous force. This destroys the raja-tama predominant Absolute Cosmic Fire particles which give rise to the sound frequencies. As a result, the destructive Absolute Cosmic Fire from the detonated nuclear device loses its power.[/i]

The spiritual community are full of highly scientific sounding theories, often borrowing terms from quantum physics and biology, but which are blatant nonsense like we see above.

In the above article we see terms taken from Samkhya like Raja, Tamas and Sattva, Tejas

In Reiki terms like the “universal energy of god consciousness” or “the universal intelligence of love and compassion” are used.

In EFT terms like ‘energy fields’

In Radionics, terms like ‘Orgone energy’, or ‘hyperdimensional oscillator’ are used.

From Wiki:

Radionics is the use of blood, hair, a signature, or other substances unique to the person as a focus to supposedly heal a patient from afar.[1] The concept behind radionics originated in the early 1900s with Albert Abrams (1864–1924), who became a millionaire by leasing radionic machines which he designed himself.[2] Radionics is not based on any scientific evidence, and contradicts the principles of physics and biology and as a result it has been classed as pseudoscience and quackery by most physicians.[3] The United States Food and Drug Administration does not recognize any legitimate medical uses for such devices.[1][2][3]

I cited the above to show how these pseudoscientific theories are used for commercial purposes. The man who founded the pseudoscience of radionics become a millionaire by selling people junk. Many people today make a decent living by selling people Reiki attunements or Reiki energy healing sessions. It is all highly unethical. People are being misguided, deceived and defrauded in broad day light with junk theories and junk practices. This is why I am saying we need regulation in the field. We should not leave this pseudoscience unchallenged and we should also set up high standards of research, practice and ethics in mind-body disciplines.

Claims to being more special, more developed, evolved or enlightened:

[i]The spiritual level of a person is the most important aspect.

In the case of a nuclear bomb explosion, in practical terms, only a person above the 50% spiritual level is able to access any substantial protection by performing the ritual of Agnihotra. The benefit reduces as the spiritual level of the person performing the ritual decreases. A person of average spiritual level (20-30%) will gain negligible protection benefit from performing the ritual Agnihotra.

As the spiritual level becomes more, the need for performing the ritual becomes less as the spiritual level becomes the key criteria for protection of the person.

In the case of Saints they would get a thought to move away from the area before the bomb explodes.[/i]

In Reiki people claim to be special by claiming to be attuned to level 1, level 2 or level 3 master. They claim special human qualities like compassion, love, wisdom just because they received an ‘attunement’ What really happened: they paid for somebody to tell them they are now special and can go around healing people.

Many people in the spiritual community self-proclaim themselves to be Buddhas(Amir is our resident example), Ascended masters, Enlightened, Indigo children/star seeds. Then they go onto start cults, defraud people of their time and money, and promote themselves through various media. Again, it is highly unethical. It is also promotes psychosis.

#24

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;74322].

Really? Hum…[/QUOTE]

I am not sure why you find it difficult to accept that there are spiritual people who are either atheists or agnostics.

There are indeed many spiritual traditions within all major religions, if this is what you are trying to say, but spirituality itself is religiously neutral/secular. It does not presuppose any beliefs in god or the supernatural. It is more of a practice and an art of living, with a huge emphasis on ones own self in relation to others, nature and the entire cosmos. It is also, what I am saying here, very open to scientific study - as we can measure the relationships today between mind and body. For example we can measure the effects of Pranayama on the nervous system.

Anything that comes under the domain of science is a scientific discipline, spirituality comes under the domain of science, therefore spirituality is a scientific discipline. It has just not been properly acknowledged yet or formally recognized and standardized.

#25

Cute SD, how you conveniently left out your quote I was referring to.

Out of discussion.

#26

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;74303]This is what I contest, spirituality, being a broad mind-body discipline is indeed tangible. The field of psychology deals with the area of the mind, and what was once thought to be intangible has now been demonstrated to be tangible as we come to understand the workings of the mind a lot better, especially the physical states such as neurological and bio-chemical states. We can now actually test whether somebody really has entered a ‘higher state of consciousness’ by testing the phenomenological, neurological and biochemical responses.

Scientific methodologies can be used to test EFT and Reiki by setting up controlled experiments to see if they work or not.

Thus many spiritual areas, which are thought to be intangible, do actually come under the domain of science. In other words they are tangible. In Yoga philosophy the entire spectrum of mind-body is a tangible object of awareness for consciousness i.e., it is open for study.

The inner is no more immaterial than the outer. Inner and outer are just arbitrary terms we use for practical purposes to distinguish ourselves from everything else. This is why in Yoga it is known as ‘Ahamkara’ literally self-construct, which is actually false and arbitrary. It divides the seamless field of mind-body into artificial distinctions that do not really exist. The entire field of reality we perceive, whether it inner or outer, is just one material reality. There are gross expressions of it like chairs and tables, and subtle expressions of it like thoughts, feelings, desires. It is all open to study.[/QUOTE]

ahh but psychology is regulating the diagnosis… not the illness. It is setting policy in order to diagnose it is not regulating a psychosis. And there is no set in stone regulation and there will always be issues that fall outside of the box

You are then attempting to what?regulate levels or types of spirituality? Or are you looking for a one size fit all. This, by the way, does not exist in Psychology either

And I am not talking inner or outer; those are terms you are applying to it. And if you?re in fact looking at it from the point of view of Yoga and

‘Ahamkara’ literally self-construct, which is actually false and arbitrary. It divides the seamless field of mind-body into artificial distinctions that do not really exist. The entire field of reality we perceive, whether it inner or outer, is just one material reality.

Then why the focus on regulating spirituality since there is no distinction at all. it is just all just one and therefore there is actually no spirituallity to regulate. And it now appears you have a bit of a dichotomy here

There are gross expressions of it like chairs and tables, and subtle expressions of it like thoughts, feelings, desires. It is all open to study

Studying spirituality is not regulating it?which sows yet another problem with what you are saying. You are mixing definitions and topics either accidentally or purposefully

Agian… good luck with that

#27

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;74327]Cute SD, how you conveniently left out your quote I was referring to.

Out of discussion.[/QUOTE]

More like run away from discussion :lol:

I did not leave your previous quote out, I only quoted your most recent post.

#28

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The APA is a SRO that regulates code of practice and ethics in psychological research and clinical practice. It regulates it by ensuring that high standards of scientific methodology and ethics are practiced by its members. For example, many psychological experiments in the past would be considered unethical by the standards of the APA, such as the famous Prison experiment. Many of the previous methodologies used in psychology would be considered inadequate by modern standards, such as those used by Freud or Jung.

You are then attempting to what…regulate levels or types of spirituality? Or are you looking for a one size fit all. This, by the way, does not exist in Psychology either

Define, “type of spirituality” ?

Then why the focus on regulating spirituality since there is no distinction at all. it is just all just one and therefore there is actually no spirituallity to regulate. And it now appears you have a bit of a dichotomy here

I think you mean something very different by the word ‘spirituality’ Spirituality to me refers to the science of mind-body interactions. It is a science as opposed to an object. While, it is true that there is no such thing as inner and outer distinctions in reality, or any distinctions for that matter, in our practical everyday reality we do have to make distinctions, otherwise we would not be able to tell apart our hands from our feet, or a planet from a star, a particle from a wave. None of these things actually exist in reality as we now understand in quantum mechanics, but from the point of view of ordinary perception i.e., the classical world, they exist for us.

My aim was to demonstrate that the inner and outer are arbitary distinctions, both can be studied, because both are available to our awareness. You can study thoughts and feelings, as much as you can study atoms and molecules. It just requires different methodologies. You cannot study thoughts and feelings with a microscope, but you can study them using MRI scanners, EEG’s and mental phenomenology.

Studying spirituality is not regulating it…which sows yet another problem with what you are saying. You are mixing definitions and topics either accidentally or purposefully

No, I don’t think I am mixing definitions at all. What can be studied can also be regulated. Medicine and psychology are studies, so the study can also be regulated to ensure high standards of practice and ethics. In like manner, we can regulate studies in spirituality, to ensure high standards of practice and ethics are maintained.

In the above example I cited of the use of Agnihotra(Vedic fire sacrifices) to counteract the effects of nuclear radiation, there is no scientific methodology used. There are no studies or experiments set up to test this idea. If there was a spiritual regulating body in place this article would be documented as quackery and warn others in the spiritual community against it. It would also deter others from engaging in such quackery.

A lot of nonsense like Reiki, Shamanic healing, Acupunture, NLP, Law of attraction would be adversely affected if we set up an SRO for spirituality. It would also send a strong message to the world that spirituality is a professional field and does not tolerate quacks and merchants selling false beliefs and practices quietly.

I am more looking for suggestions on how we could go about setting such a body up.

#29

I want to share my vision for the field of spirituality:

  1. Spirituality will be recognized as a science and will be studied as part of the education system: Spiritual Studies

  2. Spirituality will be the master science discipline which will inform all sub disciplines: Psychology, Biology and Physics.

  3. Mind-body practices will be an ordinary part of everyday life, with practices like Yoga and meditation being practiced as early as preschool.

  4. All religions in the world will bring their focus onto their spiritual traditions.

  5. Spirituality will emerge as the dominant paradigm, replacing the existing materialist paradigm.

For my vision to come true for tomorrows world, we in the spiritual community in today’s word need to work towards setting up an organization to ensure high standards of practice and ethics. We should not suffer the quackery and commercialization we see rampant in the spiritual community quietly.

Responsible, mature, sensible and rational members of the spiritual community need to join together and speak up against the commercialization and quackery. This at least will send a strong message to the professional world that not all spiritual people are quacks and merchants, gaining us credibility and respect, so that in the future spirituality may indeed become an integral part of our world and replace materialism as the dominant paradigm.

#30

Too much to read on an ipod. Friday i will put more detail.
Spirituality and religion deal with life, death, the soul “soul being mind and heart, thoughts and emotions/feelings” and the spirit. Spirit. Spirit being like energy is a force from kinetic to thermal.

THIS is what you want to regulate.
this! Is already regulated :wink: :wink:
If you wish to creat a system within a system, then ur system shall match the all encompassing system. I suggest u learn perfect balance. Perfect balance lays within the numbers 3 and 5. the balance and counter balance. creation and destruction and their interminglings. Otherwise ur system shall be just another cliche like the rest.

#31

then there is a problem right there…you don’t understand

no no no… you can’t answer a question with a question

I am asking you what are you attempting to regulate and inferring that you may be catagorizing sprituality and I cannot define something you may be catagorizing or looking at as differnt types. At best you could have said “no that is not what I am talking about” You see I am trying to figure out what you are trying to do or how you are looking at spirituality

No, I would say that you are talking about something very differnet than what the average person would call spirituallity. That or you are changing the definition in order to be correct. I think you would do better if in your first post if you stated what your definition of spirituality was since I am getting the impression that you definition is very different than what is accepted by most

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;74331]
My aim was to demonstrate that the inner and outer are arbitary distinctions, both can be studied, because both are available to our awareness. You can study thoughts and feelings, as much as you can study atoms and molecules. It just requires different methodologies. You cannot study thoughts and feelings with a microscope, but you can study them using MRI scanners, EEG’s and mental phenomenology.[/quote]

studying is very different from regulating

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;74331]
No, I don’t think I am mixing definitions at all. What can be studied can also be regulated. Medicine and psychology are studies, so the study can also be regulated to ensure high standards of practice and ethics. In like manner, we can regulate studies in spirituality, to ensure high standards of practice and ethics are maintained.[/quote]

At this point I think we need to figure out how you are defining “regulate” becuase from my perspective you can study thought but you cannot regulate it. You can study life and death but you can’t regulate it and you can study sickness and health but you cannot regulate it

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;74331]
In the above example I cited of the use of Agnihotra(Vedic fire sacrifices) to counteract the effects of nuclear radiation, there is no scientific methodology used. There are no studies or experiments set up to test this idea. If there was a spiritual regulating body in place this article would be documented as quackery and warn others in the spiritual community against it. It would also deter others from engaging in such quackery.

A lot of nonsense like Reiki, Shamanic healing, Acupunture, NLP, Law of attraction would be adversely affected if we set up an SRO for spirituality. It would also send a strong message to the world that spirituality is a professional field and does not tolerate quacks and merchants selling false beliefs and practices quietly.

I am more looking for suggestions on how we could go about setting such a body up.[/QUOTE]

And some of that is simply opinion and some of it is not but without knowing how you are defining regulating it is rather difficult to respond to anything you are saying

#32

This just hit me.

Based on the organizations you are using as examples to support regulating spirituality I think you may be either defining regulating as guidelines or you simply do not understand the English definition of regulate (I men no offense by this since I am not sure what your native language is or where you are from)

What the organizations you are using as examples do is set guidelines kind of like the pirates code… , “the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules."

#33

then there is a problem right there…you don’t understand

What is the problem, explain. I am not psychic yet :wink:

no no no… you can’t answer a question with a question

I am asking you to clarify what you mean by “types of spirituality” Again, I am not psychic yet, the meaning was not clear the first time, so it is perfectly valid for me to ask for a clarification. No offense, but I find a lot of new-agers like to hide behind confusing and vague terms, not that I am saying you are a new ager.

No, I would say that you are talking about something very differnet than what the average person would call spirituallity. That or you are changing the definition in order to be correct. I think you would do better if in your first post if you stated what your definition of spirituality was since I am getting the impression that you definition is very different than what is accepted by most

I am of course not talking about the colloquial definition of what spirituality is. As I said one of the problems in setting up an SRO for spirituality and researching it is first defining what spirituality is. We need to come up with a working definition like for other fields:

Physics: The branch of science concerned with the properties of matter and energy and the relationships between them. It is based on mathematics and traditionally includes mechanics, optics, electricity and magnetism, acoustics, and heat. Modern physics, based on quantum theory, includes atomic, nuclear, particle, and solid-state studies. It can also embrace applied fields such as geophysics and meteorology

Biology: The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.

Psychology: The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.

Likewise we need a working definition for spirituality to establish it as a professional field. Let us look at current definitions to get an understanding of what spirituality generally is defined as today:

  1. spirituality - concern with things of the spirit
    otherworldliness, spiritism, spiritualism
    internality, inwardness - preoccupation with what concerns human inner nature (especially)

Wiki:

Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality;[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his/her being; or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.”[2] Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual’s inner life; spiritual experience includes that of connectedness with a larger reality, yielding a more comprehensive self; with other individuals or the human community; with nature or the cosmos; or with the divine realm.[3] Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life.[4] It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.

Spirituality is not the best term because of how vague it is, but unfortunately it is one of those terms that has stuck and is now used to describe the wider field of mind-body research such as in the fields of transpersonal psychology, parapsychology and consciousness studies. A better term is used in the Indian tradition paravidya, atma vidya or brahma vidya, or simply put the science of consciousness and reality.

I think a good working definition of spirituality is the science of mind-body interactions. This definition is good, because this is exactly what modern scientific research in spiritual areas is based on, studying the relationship between mind and body, exploring higher states of consciousness, transcendent experiences, OBES and NDE’s, meditation etc.

While physics studies the relationship between matter, energy, space and time, biology studies organic matter and living processes, psychology studies mental processes and behavior, there is no formal discipline yet that studies the relationship between all three disciplines. This is where spirituality comes in. Spirituality promises to be the master science that all sciences will be based on.

In general we do have some understanding of what spirituality is and how it differs from religion. While, religion is based on faith and beliefs, spirituality is evidence-based, based ones own direct experience, through exploration of ones self, also known as an inner-path, Because it is evidence-based, it comes under the domain of science.

At this point I think we need to figure out how you are defining “regulate” becuase from my perspective you can study thought but you cannot regulate it. You can study life and death but you can’t regulate it and you can study sickness and health but you cannot regulate it

I really should be asking you if English is your native language :wink: It is a no-brainer, what is being regulated is the study and research in the field itself. How many times do you want me to say maintaining high standards of practice and ethics? I am proposing an SRO similar to the AMA, which is for the medical field. There should also be an SRO for the spiritual field.

What the organizations you are using as examples do is set guidelines kind of like the pirates code… , “the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules."

Again it is a no-brainer what I mean by a self-regulating organization. I have already provided examples of what SRO’s are and what they do. It is not my English which is at fault here, but it appears to be your reading and comprehension. Read about the APA and the AMA and then you will understand what an SRO does.

#34

Requoting the APA mission statement:

[i]The American Psychological Association is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA is the world’s largest association of psychologists, with more than 137,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members.
Our mission is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.

APA seeks to advance psychology as a science, a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare. We do this by:

  • Encouraging the development and application of psychology in the broadest manner.
  • Promoting research in psychology, the improvement of research methods and conditions and the application of research findings
    *Improving the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists by establishing high standards of ethics, conduct, education and achievement
    *Increasing and disseminating psychological knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions and publications[/i]

In like manner, an SRO like the APA for spirituality would aim for similar goals for the spiritual fields like meditation, energy work, introspection and contemplation, mindfulness, Yoga, past life regression, NDE’s and OBES, compassion and social transformation:

  • Encouraging the the development and application of the field of spirituality
  • Promoting research in spirituality, improving research methods and conditions and applications of findings
  • Improving the qualifications and usefulness of spiritual practitioners like Yoga teachers, healers and spiritual mentors by establishing high standards of ethics, conduct, education and achievement.
  • Increasing and disseminating spiritual knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions and publications

In short this is what a spiritual SRO would do. It would work in exactly the same way the APA or AMA works. It would be an association of professional scientists, philosophers and other academics whose subject of study is the spiritual. It would regulate by setting standards for members to adhere to, and if they do not meet standards, they will not attain membership. Having a spiritual SRO would give the spiritual field legitimacy, credibility and influence.

There is just far too much garbage in the spiritual field today for spirituality to be taken seriously in the mainstream world.

#35

You are asking me to explain to you are thinking as it applies to spirituality and that I cannot do. I was asking you to explain what you were talking about which was the reason for the question mark at the end of the sentence and since I am not a psychic I cannot tell you what you are thinking so I cannot answer your question.

Your title of the thread is suggesting regulating the study of the Spiritual field but your first post is talking about regulating spirituality

I agree that setting up a regulating body for religion is close to impossible, but I think it is definitely possible for spirituality if we treat spirituality like a professional mind-body field of science, informed by scientific research only and not religion,

There is a difference there and I am not sure you see it. You are talking about 2 things that are not the same. You can regulate or set guidelines for a study of spirituality but you cannot regulate spirituality itself. That is the issue I see with what you are posting. You see you can set guidelines for the regulation of a psychological study on Schizophrenia, in fact you have to if you want a to do a proper study but you cannot set guidelines to regulate Schizophrenia. Do you understand what I am saying as it applies to your thread which is titled “Regulating the Spiritual field” and your first post which leads me to feel that you believe that you can regulate spirituality? Those are not the same thing

#36

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;74349]There is just far too much garbage in the spiritual field today for spirituality to be taken seriously in the mainstream world.[/QUOTE]

I am not taking a stand here either way but that statement right there is more opinion than fact. Do you at least see that?

#37

There is a difference there and I am not sure you see it. You are talking about 2 things that are not the same. You can regulate or set guidelines for a study of spirituality but you cannot regulate spirituality itself. That is the issue I see with what you are posting. You see you can set guidelines for the regulation of a psychological study on Schizophrenia, in fact you have to if you want a to do a proper study but you cannot set guidelines to regulate Schizophrenia. Do you understand what I am saying as it applies to your thread which is titled “Regulating the Spiritual field” and your first post which leads me to feel that you believe that you can regulate spirituality? Those are not the same thing

I am using the word spirituality to refer to the spiritual field, if it was not already clear :wink: The definition of spirituality is that which pertains to the spiritual.

Yes I agree we cannot regulate spiritual phenomena itself through an organization, and I never actually suggested this, and why would I? :smiley: I have said over and over again the regulation of practice and ethics in the spiritual field. This means in how research is done in the field, how is it documented and presented and how it is practiced itself. Again very similar to AMA and and APA.

I am not really suggesting something radically new.

#38

Okay, thanks

#39

Surya,

That can be effective, but the problem is that there are a million and one skillful means along the path to one’s enlightenment, that it will be almost impossible to create an organized body of people who will decide what is “authentic” and what is not. If you are speaking in terms of what is “scientific” - one does not necessarily need a scientific approach to become awakened. Bhakti yogis are very unscientific in their attitude. For one who is far too identified with one’s intellect, a bhakti yogi will just look absurd. He is singing, dancing like a lunatic. Somebody, just upon hearing the name of his god or goddess, he can fall into a wild ecstasy. Somebody else is worshipping a piece of clay. Somebody else is worshiping a snake. Looking at this from the outside, it looks simply insane, and definitely their approach is not scientific. Because bhakti is not interested in science, the whole attitude is to awaken such devotion, - that your personality dissolves into the boundless.

So that is one problem, that not every approach towards one’s awakening has to be scientific. Even if something is purely based on delusion, sometimes there are useful delusions. The other problem is that is such a thing is to work - it needs to be regulated by those who have already come to their enlightenment. The kinds of people who have in positions of authority have a tremendous influence on thousands of people on the planet. Whether it has been through politics, economics, or through religion - one of our greatest problems is that people who are in positions of authority, who are in a deep unconsciousness, have out of their own unconsciousness been creating disasters on the planet. They are far more interested in nourishing their own ego rather than functioning out of any kind of authentic compassion or clarity of vision.

If such an organization is to happen, it would need to be run by enlightened beings. Otherwise, it becomes just another excuse to exploit others for the sake of one’s own greed - in the name of the spiritual. Before even thinking about helping others, one needs to settle one’s own condition. One’s priority should not be on helping others, but in becoming as conscious of oneself as possible. Otherwise, out of the desire to help another, if you are carrying a sickness, you will only transfer the same sickness.

At this point - I do not think that the vast majority of humanity is prepared to handle something like mass spirituality. The suffering that is happening on the planet is precisely what needs to happen - it is just a natural result of remaining in ignorance of oneself. Still man will have to go through the difficulties which are necessary to sharpen his intelligence, sharpen his insight into things as they are. Some effort can be done by those who are already enlightened to accelerate this process, to transmit the Buddha flame to as many people as possible, but that’s all. Otherwise, things will unfold in whatever way that they will unfold. The reason why history has continued repeating itself is simply because the mind continues repeating itself - one is repeating the same mistakes again and again, and one has to repeat them again and again, until a striking insight happens which cuts through such limitations. To me, the difficulties which man is experiencing are not unfortunate. They are necessary.

#40

That can be effective, but the problem is that there are a million and one skillful means along the path to one’s enlightenment, that it will be almost impossible to create an organized body of people who will decide what is “authentic” and what is not. If you are speaking in terms of what is “scientific” - one does not necessarily need a scientific approach to become awakened. Bhakti yogis are very unscientific in their attitude. For one who is far too identified with one’s intellect, a bhakti yogi will just look absurd. He is singing, dancing like a lunatic. Somebody, just upon hearing the name of his god or goddess, he can fall into a wild ecstasy. Somebody else is worshipping a piece of clay. Somebody else is worshiping a snake. Looking at this from the outside, it looks simply insane, and definitely their approach is not scientific. Because bhakti is not interested in science, the whole attitude is to awaken such devotion, - that your personality dissolves into the boundless.

This is basically religion and has got nothing to do with scientific spirituality. I agree we cannot regulate against religion. Scientific spirituality is informed purely by peer-reviewed research. Thus it has got no place for anything mystical, occult or religious. It is purely evidence-based. Mystical, occult and religious stuff like gods and goddesses, mythology, rituals and traditions have no place in science. These will eventually die out anyway when scientific spirituality becomes dominant, and people realize none of this fluff is necessary.

f such an organization is to happen, it would need to be run by enlightened beings. Otherwise, it becomes just another excuse to exploit others for the sake of one’s own greed - in the name of the spiritual. Before even thinking about helping others, one needs to settle one’s own condition. One’s priority should not be on helping others, but in becoming as conscious of oneself as possible. Otherwise, out of the desire to help another, if you are carrying a sickness, you will only transfer the same sickness.

An SRO is not a religious or mystical organization like an ashram or a monastery, it is a professional self-regulating body made of up of a community of professionals who through peer-review and democratic process regulate themselves. A spiritual SRO would do exactly the same thing the APA or the AMA does, except for the spiritual field.

However, one thing that an SRO could regulate is the standards of teaching of spiritual teachers. It is near impossible for scientists to prove who is enlightened and who isn’t, and we cannot measure this, there is no way of selecting enlightened people to form an organization. In principle, what you say is ideal, the ideal government would be a government run by enlightened beings, but in practice it does not work. This is proven by how religious organizations like ashrams, monasteries and churches founded and headed by gurus, spiritual leaders become corrupt over time.

What we can regulate among spiritual teachers in an SRO is ethical conduct, to prevent the formation of cults.