Spirituality Undefined - Theosophy.Net2024-03-28T16:20:33Zhttps://theosophy.net/forum/topics/3055387:Topic:132210?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A132132&feed=yes&xn_auth=noFollowing received in e-mail…tag:theosophy.net,2014-01-09:3055387:Comment:1323552014-01-09T01:19:23.132ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
<p>Following received in e-mail from our esteemed member Peter O'Lalor in response to my request:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><div>Thank you for this opportunity. As you know I look first to the etymology of a word with the OED. British and World, rather than US English, which is more often the same, but not this time. :-0<br></br><br></br></div>
<p> With that in mind, the OED states:</p>
<h3><span>adjective</span></h3>
<ul>
<li><div><a id="spiritual__3" name="spiritual__3"></a><span>1:…</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Following received in e-mail from our esteemed member Peter O'Lalor in response to my request:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><div>Thank you for this opportunity. As you know I look first to the etymology of a word with the OED. British and World, rather than US English, which is more often the same, but not this time. :-0<br/><br/></div>
<p> With that in mind, the OED states:</p>
<h3><span>adjective</span></h3>
<ul>
<li><div><a name="spiritual__3" id="spiritual__3"></a><span>1: R</span><span>elating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things:</span><span><em>I’m responsible for his spiritual welfare</em></span></div>
</li>
<li><div><a name="spiritual__5" id="spiritual__5"></a><span>Having a relationship based on a profound level of mental or emotional communion:</span><span><em>he never forgot his spiritual father</em></span></div>
</li>
<li><div><a name="spiritual__6" id="spiritual__6"></a><span>OR: (of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div><span>2: R</span><span>elating to religion or religious belief:</span> <span><em>the country’s spiritual leader</em></span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<p> In looking at the root word Spirit (Spiritus), in its Latin meaning we find: </p>
<h3><span>noun</span></h3>
<ul>
<li><div><a name="spirit__2" id="spirit__2"></a><span>1: T</span><span>he non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul:</span><span><em>we seek a harmony between body and spirit</em></span></div>
</li>
<li><div><a name="spirit__5" id="spirit__5"></a><span>The non-physical part of a person regarded as their true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation:</span><span><em>a year after he left, his spirit is still present</em></span></div>
</li>
<li><div><a name="spirit__6" id="spirit__6"></a><span>The non-physical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost:</span> <span><em>a priest performed a rite of exorcism and the wandering spirit was ousted</em></span></div>
</li>
<li><div><a name="spirit__7" id="spirit__7"></a><span>A supernatural being:</span><span><em>shrines to nature spirits</em></span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<p><em> </em> However, as the root word is modified we look to understand the ACT of being spiritual. Spirituality is not a belief, rather than a condition and or quality of being spiritual. This answers the query, often asked, and often searched for, how can one be spiritual without being religious?</p>
<p><em> </em> We also need to understand that, while religion is exoteric, rather than esoteric, it is the very symbols, (not emblems) that speak directly to us. For example: It is my understanding that:</p>
<ul>
<li>The Catholic sacraments and symbols, are actually left over from the age of initiation. By 471AD Bishop's Iraneus and Alexandrius, in an attempt to unify the scattered ancient Christian communities of Asia Minor, and northern Africa, searched the ends of the then known world for all kinds of religious manuscripts and bounty. <em> </em></li>
<li>Secondly, religion et. al., are the Remanents of Atlantis. However, we ought to understand that the world's fascination with Atlantis, comes from one conversation, as shared between Phaedrus and Plato, and recorded by Socrates.</li>
<li> However, if we look to the worlds' religions we can find "antediluvians," or those who existed before the flood.</li>
<li>With that in mind we have the Nephalim of the the Old Testament, the Heroes of Egypts, the Titans of Greece and many more. Including but not limited to the Red Hair Monsters of both China and S. America, the Gorgons of Greece, the Sasquatch of N. America and so on. </li>
<li>It is also, for example; psychic or the understanding of knowledge, and the reason, faith and its attendant spirituality that gives so many, that certain faith, in Mankind's ultimate and innate goodness. </li>
</ul>
<p> So to me spirituality is the consciousness that arises from being an awoken one like Buddha. Buddha asked on his death bed not to be worshiped but to be remembered as the awoken one, and to me, that is spirituality. </p>
<p> Please see my posting regarding consciousness, (spirituality) and Carl Jung on Facebook.</p>
<p> Please excuse me if I offer to much hyperbole</p>
</blockquote> They are at opposite ends of…tag:theosophy.net,2014-01-05:3055387:Comment:1326252014-01-05T02:10:38.910ZAlfred V.https://theosophy.net/profile/AlfredV
<p>They are at opposite ends of the spectrum like pasta and tomato sauce. LOL. One explains the other and they both explain each other IMHO. I think this is a twentieth century dichotomy that began with the Scopes trial. Before that even Fundamentalist Christians believed Science supported the Bible. They were not right, in my opinion, in their interpretation of that, and that interpretation is really what Scopes was about, but they saw no war between the two.Today even the Catholic Church,…</p>
<p>They are at opposite ends of the spectrum like pasta and tomato sauce. LOL. One explains the other and they both explain each other IMHO. I think this is a twentieth century dichotomy that began with the Scopes trial. Before that even Fundamentalist Christians believed Science supported the Bible. They were not right, in my opinion, in their interpretation of that, and that interpretation is really what Scopes was about, but they saw no war between the two.Today even the Catholic Church, the persecutors of Galileo, see the two as explaining each other.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> This TMer told me that Mahari…tag:theosophy.net,2014-01-05:3055387:Comment:1324452014-01-05T02:05:15.207ZAlfred V.https://theosophy.net/profile/AlfredV
<p>This TMer told me that Maharishi Yogi's was the best, so I read it. Not all that impressed.I preferred Swami Prabhahanda (sp.). Never heard of this one you are talking about. So happy, found a beautiful copy with commentary by no-one for my third read.</p>
<p>This TMer told me that Maharishi Yogi's was the best, so I read it. Not all that impressed.I preferred Swami Prabhahanda (sp.). Never heard of this one you are talking about. So happy, found a beautiful copy with commentary by no-one for my third read.</p> As stated, QM violates Counte…tag:theosophy.net,2013-12-16:3055387:Comment:1319782013-12-16T08:25:17.281ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>As stated, QM violates Counterfactual definiteness. Only allowed correlations are Real.</p>
<p>from wiki on Counterfactual definiteness (two excerpts, examples given):</p>
<p>1) "A macroscopic example of CFD would be the assumption—without measurement—that a ball, thrown into the air, will return to the Earth due to gravity. CFD says that if a phenomenon (the return of an airborne ball to the Earth) has been reproducibly measured in the past, one can safely assume its presence in the future…</p>
<p>As stated, QM violates Counterfactual definiteness. Only allowed correlations are Real.</p>
<p>from wiki on Counterfactual definiteness (two excerpts, examples given):</p>
<p>1) "A macroscopic example of CFD would be the assumption—without measurement—that a ball, thrown into the air, will return to the Earth due to gravity. CFD says that if a phenomenon (the return of an airborne ball to the Earth) has been reproducibly measured in the past, one can safely assume its presence in the future without having to refer to additional measurement events for proof of its existence."</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>2) "If the person has been made to stand then that person has no lap and neither of the statements "the person's lap is empty" nor "there is something on the person's lap" is true. Any statistical calculation based on values where the person is standing at some place in the room and simultaneously has a lap as if sitting would be meaningless.[CFD assumption]"</p>
<p></p>
<p>QM violates Counterfactual definiteness:</p>
<p>in case 1) you cannot assume the ball ever returned to earth. i.e. the assumption about reality made by you is meaningless. If QM says they are not correlated, they aren't. It says nothing else about what a ball is etc. not even if it exists/existed.</p>
<p>in case 2) You cannot assume anything about a "lap." If QM says they are not correlated, then both may be true. You can have a lap despite the fact you are standing.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Only direct correlations are known. An Observation is a direct correlation of a fact (something hit an inttrument e.g.). QM deals with correlations (information) only as Reality.</p>
<p>I can start a discussion in Science Group if people want. I have several examples there already posted. Otherwise, the above has the right idea.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I think the Emerald Tablet says you can go either route (below or above). They end up the same.</p> Thanks! much appreciated!tag:theosophy.net,2013-12-16:3055387:Comment:1322502013-12-16T07:57:41.995ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>Thanks! much appreciated!</p>
<p>Thanks! much appreciated!</p> Amongst the finest commentary…tag:theosophy.net,2013-12-16:3055387:Comment:1319772013-12-16T05:01:27.088ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
<p>Amongst the finest commentary on Bhagvad Gita is from the Adi Shankaracharya. A good English translation can be downloaded from <a href="https://archive.org/details/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.Shankaracharya">https://archive.org/details/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.Shankaracharya</a></p>
<p>Amongst the finest commentary on Bhagvad Gita is from the Adi Shankaracharya. A good English translation can be downloaded from <a href="https://archive.org/details/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.Shankaracharya">https://archive.org/details/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.Shankaracharya</a></p> Amazing find! Thank You John.…tag:theosophy.net,2013-12-16:3055387:Comment:1320592013-12-16T03:06:56.047ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
<p>Amazing find! Thank You John.</p>
<p>Perhaps you will consider a separate discussion to explain the terms like 'universal wave function', 'counterfactual' etc. The wiki references are a little complicated for us.</p>
<p>The reason I find this amazing that while thinking about post-spirituality a couple of months ago the terms like potentialities, actualities etc. came to my mind too. I used the term virtualities as well and tried to make a super set containing all. Events then overtook and I…</p>
<p>Amazing find! Thank You John.</p>
<p>Perhaps you will consider a separate discussion to explain the terms like 'universal wave function', 'counterfactual' etc. The wiki references are a little complicated for us.</p>
<p>The reason I find this amazing that while thinking about post-spirituality a couple of months ago the terms like potentialities, actualities etc. came to my mind too. I used the term virtualities as well and tried to make a super set containing all. Events then overtook and I have not been able to think along those lines for a while. </p>
<p>Perhaps it is not possible to figure out the true spirituality without a good background in Physics and Mathematics.</p> Wow! Thanks for the referenc…tag:theosophy.net,2013-12-15:3055387:Comment:1322482013-12-15T15:09:09.518ZDebhttps://theosophy.net/profile/Deb
<p>Wow! Thanks for the references. It may take me a while to digest that Pondicherry article, but I'm excited to see it. </p>
<p>Even as a child, I think internally I rebelled at the idea that science and spirituality were at opposite ends of the spectrum. I was too young to articulate it, and nobody listens much to a kid anyway, but as much as I loved science, science-y types often irked me, as did the religious types who demanded blind faith in things, things that sometimes defied logic.…</p>
<p>Wow! Thanks for the references. It may take me a while to digest that Pondicherry article, but I'm excited to see it. </p>
<p>Even as a child, I think internally I rebelled at the idea that science and spirituality were at opposite ends of the spectrum. I was too young to articulate it, and nobody listens much to a kid anyway, but as much as I loved science, science-y types often irked me, as did the religious types who demanded blind faith in things, things that sometimes defied logic. I never believed they were impossible, but I darn well wanted to know HOW that worked! I used to think both sides were just being pig-headed stubborn. </p>
<p></p> hi -
You did an excellent syn…tag:theosophy.net,2013-12-15:3055387:Comment:1321492013-12-15T08:40:21.544ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>hi -</p>
<p>You did an excellent synthesis/summary sentence.<br></br>I need to reread Chapter 7 of the Gita.</p>
<p>Dr. Mermin never said it either <g> He has argued that QM talks about correlations (information between things) and can say nothing about what is being correlated (what particles are). So information is real, but particles we canot say anything about (from QM alone).<br></br>He said "Correlations are real, the Correlata are not"<br></br>i.e. the information is Known, and that is what…</p>
<p>hi -</p>
<p>You did an excellent synthesis/summary sentence.<br/>I need to reread Chapter 7 of the Gita.</p>
<p>Dr. Mermin never said it either <g> He has argued that QM talks about correlations (information between things) and can say nothing about what is being correlated (what particles are). So information is real, but particles we canot say anything about (from QM alone).<br/>He said "Correlations are real, the Correlata are not"<br/>i.e. the information is Known, and that is what the deeper study/interpretation of QM is really about.</p>
<p>In searching for Mermin's original quote I stumbled upon this paper:<br/>"The Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics,<br/>Ulrich Mohrhoff, Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry 605002, India"</p>
<p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903051" target="_blank">The Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics</a></p>
<p><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903051v3.pdf" target="_blank">(PDF) The Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics</a></p>
<p>the author published the ideas in the American Journal of Physics (peer-reviewed). see</p>
<p><a href="http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/68/8/10.1119/1.19535" target="_blank">here</a></p>
<p>and</p>
<p><a href="http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/69/8/10.1119/1.1371918" target="_blank">here</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>The whole discussions of these types of statements has been officially buried under the term "Counterfactual Definiteness." Scientists do this so they know exactly what a fuzzy idea covers. The idea itself is still fuzzy, kind of.</p>
<p>Wikipedia is a good place to start.</p>
<p>see:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics" target="_blank">Wiki Interpretations of quantum mechanics</a></p>
<p>For Counterfactual Definiteness see:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness" target="_blank">Wiki Counterfactual Definiteness</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>NOTE:</p>
<p>I have been accused of throwing these things out for dubious reasons. I explained to some people I put them in because I am trying to cover a wide range of possible readers for both now and in the future, It is supposed to cover people in various audiences:</p>
<p>1) The simplified gist of the article(s) exists in the first couple sentences/abstract and the last couple of sentences/conclusion. (for the major audience). The stuff I mention in posts is also mainstream physics.</p>
<p>2) the Intro Physics, or college Senior as well, may get interested in the topic and study some more physics.</p>
<p>3) the Intro Physics, or college senior as well, may understand better the subtleties in the article. It maintains the rigor of the post.</p>
<p>4) the reference for my thinking are well-documented for people down the road who stumble on the topic in Theosophy Network.</p>
<p>5) it may slowly permeate thinking and "offset" some of the junk-science thinking out there.</p>
<p>6) various other people whom I haven't realized exist or covered in the above.</p>
<p>just fyi</p>
<p></p> Thanks John. I am glad you li…tag:theosophy.net,2013-12-15:3055387:Comment:1321422013-12-15T02:23:40.500ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
<p>Thanks John. I am glad you liked it.</p>
<p>I had never heard of Dr. Mermin. So I did not borrow the quote from him. But the words came after a re-reading of all the responses yesterday.</p>
<p>However, it is difficult to claim ownership of a thought and the words that communicate those thoughts.</p>
<p>Due to cultural differences, western mind is generally conditioned to make a distinction between science and spirituality. But Indian thought system never made such distinction and considered…</p>
<p>Thanks John. I am glad you liked it.</p>
<p>I had never heard of Dr. Mermin. So I did not borrow the quote from him. But the words came after a re-reading of all the responses yesterday.</p>
<p>However, it is difficult to claim ownership of a thought and the words that communicate those thoughts.</p>
<p>Due to cultural differences, western mind is generally conditioned to make a distinction between science and spirituality. But Indian thought system never made such distinction and considered science as a valid means to acquire knowledge. Chapter 7 of the most popular spiritual text, the Bhagvad Gita, deals with Vigyan Yoga (Vigyan being Sanskrit word for science).</p>