Comments on: She Seems Happy Enough…

By: alistair

alistair — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:52:46 +0000

i tend to agree about all of us coming from and back to one thing, and in that it shouldn`t matter so much where the happiness is generated. i`m an egotist but because i generate happiness i thrill myself internally and choose to be good at what i do,ethically and morally. we can only do that internally. if everyone does then the world improves to the precise degree that we all do it. when we set out to do good things for others then it quite quickly becomes political. and we`ve all seen how that works.

By: J. Puma

J. Puma — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:35:53 +0000

i’m still pondering this one, but it seems to me that happiness is definitely less important than the freedom to pursue it.

overall, tho’, i don’t think it’s my place to evaluate someone elses’s spiritual progress on an individual level. sure, i’ll talk all kinds of shit about scientology *as a body*, ’cause i’ve studied philosophy and religion and spirituality for a long time and can look at it based in those terms. for the individual in question, though, i wouldn’t feel comfortable making that judgement.

personally, i tend to believe that signs of ’spiritual progress’ include compassion and humility. in other words, it’s not about making one’s self happy, it’s about making others happy. not in some kind of sentimentalized way or patronizing way where you have an ulterior motive and want to convert them or force them to be happy, but in a simple day-to-day way. of course, this stems from my wacky conclusions about the nature of the universe, that we’re all subjective manifestations of a single universal consciousness and are *literally* one another. compassion is treating others well not only because it’s the ‘right thing to do,’ but because by being compassionate to people, you’re being compassionate to yourself in another space/time moment. s’why i’m a big pacifist– imho, murder is suicide, cause you were/are/will be the person who you killed. also explains reincarnation– we can all remember past lives if we want to, ’cause we’ve all been/are/will be everyone else!

oop, gotten off track . . . .

By: alistair

alistair — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:03:21 +0000

from a sesame street standpoint, the pissed off activist is the one thing that doesn`t belong. like bill hicks says, if everyone takes care of thier own shit the world would be a better place.
the word “spiritual” has to be put into some context before any meaning can be dirived from it. we all have our own idea of what it means. if we don`t agree about what it means then we can`t work towards answering questions about “it”.
there are those who feed thier cows dog.
the planet eats babies too. it just waits until they get older, for the most part.
i think spirituality is a personal thing. not a social sorting mechanism for estalishing morals and ethics, although the result of getting your own ducks lined up will be of some benifit to the greater good. you are less likely to steal,cheat and drive dangerously.
a read a great thesis once where a sociology type showed that a stupid person does more damage to self and society that an intellegent criminal. i won`t try to fudge it here but i will try to find it.

By: slomo

slomo — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 02:34:54 +0000

I personally agree most with Ran:

Iâ€™ll attempt a serious answer: The test of the value of anything is how it affects the wider world.

But I don’t think this comment goes quite far enough. It’s hard to know how to measure collective benefit. It’s hard enough even to know collective cost. A well known problem in health policy: a program that nets a very large utility for a very small number of people but at great cost to a large number of other people may in fact have larger average utility than another program that has moderate utility for everybody. Which program is better? [If you don't understand what a utility is, just compare the average (not median) income for an extremely wealthy oil caliphate with the corresponding index for a moderately wealthy socialist European country, and then ask yourself which system is more just.]

This is not a criticism of Ran’s statement, but rather a springboard to mentioning an additional criterion I would apply. A spiritual person is a person who has empathy and compassion for other living beings. Other humans, beasts, and for fuck sake even insects. My dog is a test case I grapple with every day. On the one hand, she requires meat for health and happiness, but on the other hand the meat she requires causes suffering for cows and sheep. Who benefits at whose expense? I don’t have any answers, but I know that I love my dog and I also feel really terrible about the cows.

Who is more spiritual? An evangelical who has found Jesus and lives a happy comfortable life in the suburbs of Houston? A new-age Kabbalist bestowing pearls of wisdom from a mansion in California? A pissed off activist trying to work for social justice? An atheist medical volunteer trying to help Africans with AIDS? You tell me.

By: hf

hf — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:38:01 +0000

See, I don’t care if eating babies gives someone enlightenment. Since I’d try to stop the practice in any case, the answer doesn’t interest me. I evaluate paths by whether or not they’d help me or my goals (e.g. spiritual/magical progress) and otherwise ignore them. I likely lack the qualifications to judge another’s path, and I don’t think the attempt would advance my own goals.

By: alistair

alistair — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:35:47 +0000

“my personal criteria for the value of something is partly based on how happy it makes you, but moreso on how open, how free of restriction and tension, how flexible in the face of new experiences it makes you. life is growth and learning. what is good for growth and learning is good for life.”
i think that`s what scientology was after(clear) and what psychology is promising and what we all want so badly(though we don`t recognise it).
i ask people,in my seminars,what they would ask for if i was able to grant them one wish.people say things like money,pay off the mortgage,new car,etc and every now and then someone says,happiness.that`s the right answer.the fun begins when people realise it`s a matter of choice.i think thats the key to spiritual practice.choosing good feelings,for no reason.it`s quietly and effectively the right place to begin.

By: Haeresis

Haeresis — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:19:41 +0000

Reminds me of the ubiquitous “she says she’s spiritual, but she’s so angry/bitter/etc.” posts all over beliefnet and the Wiccan boards. Yes, folks, seeking communion with God invariably makes one suffer fools gladly- just like Jesus did. (not)

By: zacharius

zacharius — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:38:34 +0000

my personal criteria for the value of something is partly based on how happy it makes you, but moreso on how open, how free of restriction and tension, how flexible in the face of new experiences it makes you. life is growth and learning. what is good for growth and learning is good for life.

even the buddha said not to take him on face value. there are in fact passages in the pali cannon where he gives his disciples hell for just smiling and nodding when he spoke. anything automatic is the enemy of wakefullness

By: Occult Investigator

Occult Investigator — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:27:20 +0000

yeah i really like the changing landscape myself. anyway, your response sounds a lot like the 8 dynamics of scientology, which is a “greatest good for the greatest number” philosophy using some fancy lingo. maybe there’s more to your answer than that, i’m just interested in scientology lately…

By: Ran

Ran — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:11:10 +0000

I’ll attempt a serious answer: The test of the value of anything is how it affects the wider world. Eating a baby makes you feel happy but makes the baby and its parents feel really bad. Eating a deer makes the deer feel bad but it might benefit the biosphere (or it might not). We judge value by looking beyond, and looking beyond again. So you can determine the value of a religion this way, and even a fundamentalist religion might turn out to be valuable. But a spiritual system of continually looking beyond is much more likely to be valuable, and following such a path yourself is the only way to take responsibility for your own actions.

By the way, I don’t understand why “grappling” with a changing landscape is supposed to be bad. People in physical prisons want to get out and see a changing landscape instead of the same cell wall every day. I’m completely baffled as to why so many people feel the opposite about their mental landscape.