Spiritual is Religious?

adam, i'm curious about your thoughts on some things. i remember at the evolver convergence you shared an insight which had prior resonated with me and does increasingly. i like your concise wording there: "the shadow side of aquarius is disassociation."

"The global industrial movement and emerging global economy has been intensely focused on creating "higher" or "better" ways of life, elevating man above his lower "animal" nature."

especially being that aquarius rules the digital age, neon signs, metal machines etc., is this undoubtedly uranian idealism about creating something higher and better not at least as characteristic of this long cusp into the aquarian age, as it is of piscean transcendentalism? i do think the at times shadowy zealousness of the latter carries over..

there is of course a gradation between signs of the year and the overlapping transference of qualities around cusps (i know, even just in terms of sun signs tho that isn't the whole picture). is there not a cusp between the ages that has been well in the works? i know that as i look back on the last several decades at least, i see the forging of aquarius with recognizable shadow.

eric francis wrote in his core descriptions of the signs that aquarians are "discriminating embracers of innovation that works." is the unsustainability of all these modern machinations not characteristic of the shadow of aquarian fixed thought, which prompts humans in power to abstract a profit at the expense of the environment, as well as prompt us to be complacent with it? jung said "every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism." the former two have a bit more to do with waters of neptune, it seems; the latter, more so uranus.

across hundreds of people i've observed, in await of the apocalyptic 'unveiling,' it was mainly aquarius folks and those with strong aquarian influence in their charts who either literally awaited an event of us leaving our bodies or 'animal nature,' or at least fervently emphasized some kind of dualistic separation. without personal emphasis on or loyalty to either major archetype, i don't see piscean dissolution of the ego in its shadow necessarily demonizing animal nature anymore than aquarius disassociates from it.

such is the problem i have with other astrology which pays less attention to the decans of each sign, sees no fractal gradation between signs, decans, quinaries, dwadashamshas.. it can all be broken down infinitely. quite revealing to pay attention to in people, with sun signs and any planet's position (usually the more 'personal' planets).

'the four global truths' seems promising, but i found just a couple aspects of darren drda's article 'planets on the playa' irresponsible, especially being that the language leans toward anthropomorphizing each planet in a way that kind of suggests a person is entirely the one which rules their sign. i quote:

"If not for Saturn and all his lists of things to do and buy and pack, none of us would ever even get to Burning Man, let alone be able to set up our tents and shade structures and kitchens and greywater systems. [...]  Is it not just a colossal hassle, a horrifically hot hell-hole full of hippies and hedonists? The beauty and magic are eclipsed by Saturnian doubt, fear, and judgment."

really? i mean, of course beauty and magic get eclipsed by saturnian doubt and fear, but said description of beauty and magic sounds absolutely just as characteristic of saturnalia as it does of.. whatever other archetypes drda would associate beauty and magic with. i'll quote another basic description from eric francis again.

"The sign of reserve is the one associated with the impressive debauchery of the Roman festival of Saturnalia. Saturn, your ruling planet, is considered the very stalwart of stuck, but is in reality the most dependable agent of change."

it's as if despite any brilliance, we forget about the nondual dualism practically written across the forehead of the consciousness movement. having read your writings about solar and lunar philosophies, adam, i appreciate your understanding of this. but i see the same self-containing interaction apply with the piscean and aquarian ages, as any cusp in life.

aleister crowley, who understood the daimon of each decan perhaps better than most, and so named each for the shadow (he sought to use astrology as a weapon), called aquarius I 'defeat, aquarius II 'science,' and aquarius III 'futility.'

to use as complement the popular 'secret language' books, goldschneider called 'defeat' instead 'genius.' sounds a lot like what crowley had to say about genius thwarting itself:

"[People] are always stricken with the panic fear when genius blazes on them. Always they mistake it for madness until it justifies itself by its effects. And often indeed this never takes place. Unless genius be buttressed by a thousand virtues, it is truly madness. But why is this? Because genius is easily thwarted; it even tends to thwart itself. It is so absolute (by the purity of its truth and logic) that in a relative world, a world of compromises, there seems no place for it. Genius may break; it will not bend. So it rushes forth, hits its mark standing, is diverted from that high aim into desperate courses. It enters the dark paths, pursues them to some dreadful goal."

"All genius is equally 'good', but unless it be accompanied with utmost breadth of sanity, with moral strength as of a god, and above all with humour, it thickens, it ferments, it turns to deadly poison."

"The dream of the Uranian is universal dominion by and for his Idea. This Idea may obsess him, blind him to all else, ruin him by narrowness. He rarely understands that Being must take Form before it can be perceived, and he misses his opportunities. He does not know how many veils must be thrown over the splendour of his Virgin before men can bear to gaze upon her without going mad."

as you said, "Salvation and enlightenment in some "final" sense are perhaps unrealizable destinations." I see any belief to the contrary as being highly Uranian, Aquarian, fixed in one's own thinking.  Subverting Piscean religiosity to human language-based ego will indeed produce similar results.

though crowley called aquarius II 'science,' goldschneider calls it 'youth and ease.' anyhow, in descriptions of a couple days in this decan, goldschneider remarks that those born on them must "make sure that their work stands up to scrutiny." the connection between those words, crowley' having named the decan 'science,' and eric francis' remark about aquarians being "discriminating embracers of innovation that works" is more than telling.

moving backwards from the first decan of pisces to the last of aquarius, we move into what crowley called 'futility' and goldschneider called 'acceptance.' the innovation that does not work, which continues to abstract a profit "by and for his Idea," must be integrated if we are to evolve.

i feel if the age of aquarius isn't already somewhat underway, we're at least well through the 'cusp' between it and the piscean..

what are your thoughts?

i really like integrating different decan names.. also coming up with my own where i feel i can add or update. i feel it's a cool intuitive exercise, almost like painting one's own tarot deck.

Thanks, Adam, for sharing your thoughts on this timely topic. I would argue that the phrase "spiritual but not religious" is not a 'solid descriptor for the New Age,' as you suggest, since the phrase is quite often used by folks who have no New Age inclinations whatsoever. Usually, it simply means "I don't go to church but I believe in God (or gods and goddesses, or some higher power, or perceive everything as sacred)." In our culture at least, "religion" clearly implies organized religion and all its trappings and established rituals, whereas "spirituality" is more abstract and all-embracing. Furthermore, being "religious" strongly implies privileging a particular set of beliefs as true while dismissing others as false, which is not a very "spiritual" *or* New Age thing to do.

 

If any single phrase can be applied to the New Age, it's the one coined by Frederic Spiegelberg and popularized by Alan Watts: "the religion of no religion." This implies a religion of *all* religions, or rather all religious doctrines as containing a certain amount of truth, with none of them capturing the whole Truth. As I see it, there's an underlying appreciation of human nature as richly complex, thus the need for multiple perspectives and a wide variety of practices. As in the natural world, diversity is strength.

 

It strikes me as quite Neptunian to conflate spirituality and religion. Similarly, I see you conflating a number of particular religious doctrines as "fundamental religious assumptions" as you do in the paragraph(s) below the subhead "Spiritual and Religious." Most notable is the presentation of the idea that "humanity is evolving toward higher and higher states of consciousness" as one such fundamental assumption. Actually, this is not a belief of any organized religion. Both evolution and higher states of consciousness are both explicitly modern concepts that have been embraced by the New Age.

 

I would say that as we make the transition into the Age of Aquarius, we need to be sensitive to the fact that even if there are fundamental religious assumptions (which I believe there are), there are also very critical and even irreconcilable differences. The practice as I see it is to be both discerning and accepting, to see unity while respecting diversity, to balance the One and the Many, to celebrate both transcendence and immanence, embrace paradox and uncertainty, and, as you wisely suggest, to cultivate the "don't know" mind.

I still maintain that spirituality is more all-encompassing and less structured than religion, almost by definition. I understand the latter as a subset of the former. More accurately, spirituality is the underling, archetypal impulse that manifests in different ways, one of them being religion (as you know, the same Neptunian energy can also find its expression as alcoholism).

 

I'm not sure I understand your meaning when you say that SBNR folks can be "more dogmatic because they are unconscious of the degree to which their beliefs are the exact same as most, if not all, the major world religions." I would argue that what actually defines a SBNR person is this precise intuition (made more explicit or conscious in New Age circles) that all religions share a set of core truths (known as Perennialism), whereas a traditionally religious person would be less open to this idea or might overlook its significance. Obviously, people can be dogmatic about nearly anything, but when was the last time someone started a holy war to assert the fundamental unity of all religions, or the idea that everything is sacred?

 

Please note that I did not say that spirituality is the religion of no religion. This is my suggested descriptor for the New Age, which I do not equate with SBNR.

 

Even before I got into Buddhism or heard of Aristotle or saw the Taoist taiji (yin-yang) symbol, balance has always seemed intuitively right to me. (Maybe because my Sun and Moon are both in the same sign, with Venus right between them!) We are all one, yet we are wonderfully unique. I'm the same as I was last year, yet I'm undeniably different... Even astrologically, as you know, it's not healthy to have too much of a given energy. Too much Mars, for example, leads to violence and aggression, while not enough leads to timidity and lack of energy. And so on through the pantheon. I'm guessing that you have a prominence of Neptune in your chart!

 

RE evolution: It's a complex and fascinating topic that would take awhile to has out. We'll save that for another time ;)

One could easily understand that the simple parables of Jesus {his actual teachings/words being few/sparse yet concise} are universal truths, hence spiritual and not religious, yet how many various "religious factions" have evolved in relation to them ... all of the various rituals and dogma.

Same with teachings of the Buddha, his actual few recorded sayings are always directly spiritual, and yet again so many various religious rituals and dogma have evolved

Same with Lao Tsu in relation to Taoism etc etc. So one can easily conclude that spirituality only becomes religion at the point of trying to contain it's infinite premise within ritual and dogma.

So it is with everything. So the initial spiritual sensibility that one becomes aware of as one tunes into the cosmic transition of cycles {all age is new age} can easily become like a religion as on tries to contain it's course within ritual and dogma.

Even Science, or Humanism/Atheism etc all can become "religious like" at the point of attempted containment ... where as truth {the spirit of truth - or the truth of spirit} itself is forever of infinite potential, able to be consciously connected with from virtually any angle, yet as soon as one tries to make that unique angle or perspective universal the spirt leaves and naught but the dogma remains.

Like in music the do-re-mi / A chords G chords, the universal, principles that make up the spirit of all music become "religious like" as they become "apparently" contained within a particular "style" of music, like Classical, Country, Jazz, Blues, Rock etc ... all with their devotees who favor that particular brand even to the point of discounting others.

The more spiritual the audience the greater awareness of finding "spirit" in all music ... the more religious the more the awareness is focused on only this or that version.

Virtually any concept that we attempt to contain truth within, from virtually any perspective becomes religious like to the degree it overrides the infinite potential of other perspectives.

One can argue from virtually any perspective with a passionate religious fervor, or one can simply allow the spirit to express itself from other perspectives as well, as there is no religion without this attempt at exclusive containment ... and no spirituality that tries.

It is just the indiviidual consciousness in it's attempts to either contain omniscience {nescience} or be contained within omniscience that determines the difference.

"That is why religions are always mistaken—always—because they want to standardise the expression of an experience and impose it on everyone as an irrefutable truth. The experience was true, complete in itself, convincing—for the one who had it. The formulation he made of it was excellent—for himself. But to want to impose it on others is a fundamental error which has altogether disastrous consequences, always, which always leads far, very far from the Truth.

That is why all the religions, however beautiful they may be, have always led man to the worst excesses. All the crimes, the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion are among the darkest stains on human history, and simply because of this little initial error: wanting what is true for one individual to be true for the mass or collectivity. Religions are based on creeds which are spiritual experiences brought down to a level where they become more easy to grasp, but at the cost of their integral purity and truth. The time of religions is over. We have entered the age of universal spirituality, of spiritual experience in its initial purity.

—From a talk by the Mother (Mirra Alfassa)

All religions have some truth in them, but none has the whole truth; all are created in time and finally decline and perish....God and Truth outlast these religions and manifest themselves anew in whatever way or form the Divine Wisdom chooses.

***

All religions have saved a number of souls but none yet has been able to spiritualize mankind. For that there is needed not cult and creed, but a sustained and all-comprehending effort at spiritual self-evolution.

- Sri Aurobindo

 

The Universal Heretic, Embracing, Yet free of All

No sacred cows survive the realization of the nonconceptual, and one's realization becomes independent from any belief or teaching. He recognizes that who and what he is is ultimately beyond any category, including all the spiritual categories. He realizes that Reality is not a description, and that any description, any teaching or belief system regardless how useful and accurate, falls short of Reality as it is. He recognizes the uniqueness of his realization without having to compare it with others, and appreciates the differences between the various teachings without having to rate them. His realization has gone beyond conceptual categories and, hence beyond comparisons and ratings. He believes in nothing, and adheres to no teaching or religion as final and ultimate. He has become a universal heretic, embracing all, yet free of all.

- A. H. Almaas

 

 

 

Love is contrary to conscious common sense because love involves the total systemic mind.

- Gregory Bateson 

This dialectical problem of words has struck me throughout my association with the study of life. I cannot say what the right answer is, and I do not hold faith in the zodiac as a system. I was a deeply religious young man. I have found religion as a concept is an organizing system developed for maintaining social norms and conditioning. The framework of passing on traditions, repetitions of behavior, values, social standards etc. Through repetition of ceremonies and seasonal holidays, societies come together and have cohesion. Answers to existential questions are often simple and initially shallow, like "if you do good things you will go to heaven." and so forth.

Yet any religion has within its ranks leaders and mystics to say nothing of founders, saints, yogis etc who have pushed the boundaries of the norms, taken the heros journey and returned with adjustments to the religion. These become incorporated into the system and then shared down the line.

For millennia, it was the rare individual who stretched the boundaries and sought independent confirmation or questioned the fundamental structures and concepts of religions - often because there was a strong political and tribal identification to the religion. The overwhelming majority of humans survive and do what is necessary to maintain their perceptual framework.
From out of the early 1800s and one could claim earlier, America religious movements have struggled to separate themselves from the roots of the old ways (religio acutally means to trace back to the source)... and thus we have been a rather independent culture with a highly creative bent and a desire for the new. Whether it was the home grown philosophers like Emerson, or the upstart religious movements which interpreted the bible in their own way like the 7th day adventists to creation of totally unique ways of religion like the Mormons... we have a history of rather independent thought and ideas. And followers abound eh!

The new age was no different... calling on the resources of eastern philosophy, esoteric ideas, concepts at the fringe and even ensophiagens and entheogens, the new age (see David Spangler for a great root source in Revelations)... the new age has erred on the side of being all inclusive and thus overrun the traditional discipline that the classical religions with their unique histories and answers held sacred.

Any religion if it is worth its salt is founded on the spiritual search of the few and is maintained by the spiritual practice of the leaders for the many. This is what we expect of our leaders, that they seek out the personal heroic journey and then return to serve those of us who don't take or have the time to question the answers.... But we have come into a time when all religions are available, all philosophies available and all ideas available to the personal interpretation of the individual. Very similar to the reformation when the printing press brought the bible into the home of the intellegencia, the computer and the internet has brought religious ideas to the masses.... thus many have chosen to interpret these things and then like a cookbook, use all the spices rather than those just those of our local cornucopia to answer personal existential questions. Add to that the downfall of our leadership with conspiracies and immoral behavior and the spread of history (Historie means to question)... we have all become our own little religious leaders..and all the pitfall of that...

Thus many now separate themselves from their upbringing by saying they are spiritual rather than religious. They are saying, "I have my own answers, I follow my own way"… and it is often a plethora of mixed ingredients to make a unique soup of ego. Its like everyone is a shaman, everyone a priest, everyone a prophet…. Makes for a rather tough mélange of magical thinking. But the term spiritual has its tradition too… it is the quest to find the self within the greater mystery we call life. Religious must include some spiritual tradition and spark but spiritual is a connection to the infinite. The two are not mutually exclusive, though there is a tough start to the modern process of becoming spiritual.

In fact many of us have left, run, danced away from our religious upbringing for all the right reasons, it just does not fit the need… but where do we go that we do not take ourselves along with us and that spoils things. I have seen spiritual people who are just Catholics wrapped up in feathers and bones. I have experienced the spiritual traditions get mixed up with all these recovering religious people and just end up down the same merry path. What is essential is the practice of silence, and religions have always provided a practice of repetitious words and ceremony. What is also essential, though many would disagree, is to honor elders who have walked before us on a similar path. This allows for depth and perspective. All paths have pitfalls. All paths can wander into dangerous territory. The elder is not perfect nor should the spiritual journey expect perfection…rather it should expect a relationship with the mysterious.

And I think this is what makes the spiritual path different. If we can recapitulate the stories of our upbringing and truly let them go and our ego diminishes, wander away from the village far enough, we come to understand the value of the village, the religious leaders…even the real shaman (not everyone is a shaman though many would profess to be, the dark side of the new age is everyone can be everything.) We become if we are persistent with our practice of silence, of reflection, spiritual where any religion is all religion. We become one with the ineffable…the mystery is manifest everywhere, and this mystery is why many of us are very clear that we are spiritual, not religious. Though I see clearly from the mountain top, the necessity of our religions and our religious experience. As my elder noted, take responsibility for your death every day and in silence something will become much more clear.

Thanks for continuing to search Adam… it is always a pleasure to read your words, and even more so to have a place to respond with thoughts like these. The Bear.

Religious people think if you don't do ten things you go to heaven. These are the people of the Book, i.e. Jewish Christian and Islamic. Spiritual people view life as participatory, humans as designed and created to participate, and morality as a verb. I hope this difference doesn't get glossed over by a misplaced sense of new age ecumenicism.

Otherworldly philosophies end up doing more damage to the planet (and human psyches) than the pain and suffering that is in the existential conditions they seek to transcend.

- Gary Snyder, "The Practice of the Wild"

 

I'm sitting with my dog on a quiet hill overlooking my small hometown and all of its insignificant busyness. I'm 12 years old, and I'm thinking about some big questions that fascinate me: "Why are we here? What's the purpose of life? What happens after death? What should I do  with my life? Why is there so much suffering in the world? How can I be truly happy? How can I really help others?"
I'm convinced that I've been born on the wrong planet because I clearly don't belong here. Being alive is so profoundly strange, yet the grown-ups around me seem to just take everything for granted. It's as if they've fallen into some sort of coma and don't notice that they're alive. Or perhaps they've secretly agreed never to talk about the big questions of life, but to anesthetize themselves with trivia.
Everyone goes about their daily business as if they know exactly what life is all about. But I can see that no one's really got a clue as to what's going on. Most people just go along with whatever ideas are currently in vogue, wether they're about makeup, music, or the nature of reality. Something inside of me rages against their inane, unquestioning, "commonsense" approach to life. I refuse to believe that my purpose in this extravagant universe could be to climb a career ladder, buy a house, and get a pension plan. Life is too important to waste just making money and acquiring things. Life is like an enormous question that demands an answer.

And then, unexpectedly and inexplicably, it happens...

My train of thoughts jolts to a halt, and the whole world starts vibrating, sending seismic shudders through my soul. I feel as if the top of my head has just come off and the sky has poured in. I'm overwhelmed by awesome, unfathomable, breathtaking mystery. I don't know anything. Nobody knows anything. Life is a miracle of such enormous proportions that the mind can't possibly comprehend it.
I seem to have inexplicably slipped into another reality in which the colors are brighter and the birds sing symphonies. I'm immersed in wonder. I feel a bizarre sense of oneness with everything around me, as if I'm the universe looking at itself, amazed by its own beauty. I'm utterly happy for no reason at all. I feel certain beyond doubt of the goodness of all that is.
The humdrum world has peeled away like a superficial veneer, revealing a secret garden that I've always suspected was close by. I know this place. It feels like home. But how can it be so familiar when it's unlike anything I've ever experienced? I have no idea what is happening to me. But I know that my life will never be the same again. And I know that the answer I'm searching for so desperately is not a clever theory about life. It's this experience of wonder in which all of my questions dissolve.

And then there is sudden, deep silence. I'm consumed by the sensation of sinking, as if I'm being engulfed by an ocean of bliss. Spasms of relaxation ripple through my young body, and I feel embraced by such a love that tears of relief spring spontaneously to my eyes. The entire vast universe is pulsating with limitless love. It is held together by love. And I am that love. There is only love. I've been born to experience this moment.

~Tim Freke, "How long is now?"

One could also say that the very spirit of science, of American political liberty and justice, of the true freedom of an open marketing economy {marketplace} ... so so, many examples of how the very original inspired virtue has become compromised all across the board, {even the spirit of atheism can leave and become mere inertial argumentation}

... that the very spirit of previous time, all previous time, comes and goes, leaving much to be desired as compromises begin to take place in attempts to make up for the loss of the quantum flux of which all things are subject to. {Both the spirit of religion and the spirit of the state come and go equally leaving much to be desired, or much to be inspired by}

... from truly inspired to perpetuation for it's own sake. {all views are subject to this and it is this and this alone that allows for new inspiration to awaken}

That like the eternal Tao, as one tries to exemplfy any aspect of smaller and or greater truths, the spirit can leave as others points of possible focus awaken. "Inspiration" is always "of the spirit" ... as consciousness itself is the very qualitative expression of such in spite of any/all so-called evolution.

Well all passions come and go as it is naught but the individual or the group "going through it's own progessive motions" that one witnesses no matter what the perspective ... all subject to moments of quantum revelation ... or lost to inertial relativity, no longer relevant beyond it's own self perpetuation.

Spirit within all things, yet beyond all things, hence the mystery, hence the myth.

"Acting as the world does" {the underlying, default cultural ineritial backdrop} also constantly changes, as much as religious ritual and dogma does, and is itself  equally subject to all of the same arguments ... a religion all, unto itself ... subject to just as many moments of clarity and revelation {inspiration -of spirit etc} and just as many moments of monotony, lost unto inertia. {not inspiring etc}

In other words even scientists and atheists "act as the world does" to different degress above and beyond the limitation of those views which are also not exclusive

How none of these views exlusively capture the very nature of conscious inspiration from any external viewpoint, as all are subject to the same quantum flux of inspiration and the same inertial momentums of default ongoings... All, All, All ...

From All to each, any, every, ... spirit plays, dances, fights, and sleeps through all of our perspectives and then returns from whence it came leaving each unique passion to dry and wither while the next perspective becomes momentarily enhanced .. just a question of degree it seems.

There is likely naught a one perspective that does not have believers and disbelievers ... those who find at least minor inspiration, and those who find none. {each unto their own conscious passion alone ... spiritual only to the degree actually consciously inspired}

The only truth ... the every truth ... the consciousness itself but playing the eternal game of lost and found inspiration, unto itself, and/or shared to different degrees among various quantitative collectives ...

... but alas only for the moment{s}, however large or small ... as every inidividual, group, or societies at large are all subject to the same conscious limitations, inspite of those rare moments of transitional transcendence, as the spirit ... as conscious inspiration ... goes in and out of hiding 

... as God plays with us all ... making no distinction to any of our dualistic folly ... absolutely making no distinction between any good or evil fruits {the ones we forever try to make exclusive in the name of all of our 'tree-of-knowledge"  appetites in comparison to one another} ... beyond all of the worship and condemnation ... he plays {divine "Lila" - Sanskrit} with all ...

... and none the wiser ... so it would seem.

I wonder if it would be a fair assumption to say that in the age of Aquarius we'd be more likely to want to define spirituality for ourselves in our own way, and be more likely to be flexible and change that defintion as we change, and be more allowing of others to follow their own ideas of what it means to them as well.

I think the inclination to surrender, or disslove boundaries as you described in neptune could be likened to the path of bhakti or devotion to God, the other path of jnana or knowledge seems more mind based, like piercing through unexamined assumptions rather than dissolving or surrendering, which seems more in the realm of mercury or pluto? The path of karma or service to others seems more earthy, but all seem legitimate paths to self-realization.

I liked what you said about the last few thousand years being the "Transcendent era." and ' The global industrial movement and emerging global economy has been intensely focused on creating "higher" or "better" ways of life, elevating man above his lower "animal" nature.' This does seem like a poisonous inclination, especially if we devalue our own health and that which supports us, the ecosystem. A more healthy spirituality would seem to value the sacred within the ordinary which I don't necesarily think goes against the essential teachings of religion.

You said 'Do we believe that it takes atonement, purging, or healing of "lower" things in order to reach higher things? If so then we share in the assumptions of all our planet's major religions. Do we yearn to be rid of the suffering and misery of this body and this world? Do we feel as though we don't belong here? Do we feel as though the ego is an illusion or something that needs to serve a higher self or be done away with all together? If so then we share a fundamental assumption with all world religions.'

I tend to disagree (or maybe being Libran I just want to look at both sides). For instance Buddhism talks of 'the ground of being' as something imminent within all manifestation, so there is no sense of 'not belonging' or having to 'purge' or 'heal' in order to live in the midst of that presence. And Zen seems very much about finding satisfaction from the simplicity and minimalism of ordinary life. I don't think advaita vendanta a branch of Hinduism really means the ego or personality needs to be done away with, just not seen as one's only identity.

I do actually like the idea of trying to distill the essential principles or spiritual or mystical core of all religions, like what was done with the 'perennial philosophy' after all we may not be able to put our finger on 'truth' yet we are all human and all are essentially seeking happiness, so it seems logical that there are principles common to us all that can be laid out to some extent.

My own feeling (or bias) is that 'oneness' or 'ground of being', 'Self' isn't emphasized enough! I'd like it if people discussed their 'at one' experiences more, so we didn't feel like we were being in some way 'grandious' by talking about it. Maybe if that happened it could be invoked more easily in ordinary life because we'd be more open to the possibility? ( then again maybe not).

A part of me ( again probably just my bias) feels like a lot of new age type spiritual practises are somewhat shallow and narcisstic - a fashion statement almost, but then I'm sure many of those practising them are more kind and generous and do more good in the world than those spending their lives obsessively attempting to uncover some mystery ...

We're talking about spirituality when in fact I'm not quite sure what is meant by it here but if we mean 'ways of connecting to the world in a meaningful way' I still maintain or believe (and I could be wrong) that if taken deeply enough connecting to the world with love and attention will lead to a sense of 'oneness'. And if by chance I am possessed by the Neptune daemon I honestly don't think I can help it, nor particularly mind!

It is not really like any planetary influence actually "causes" any such behavior, as conscious choice is forever it's own cause. Planets may line up with ones intent but they never really cause anything. Astrology never really gets the underlying spiritual truth in these regards {no offense} to the degree they fall victim to this immature premise.

No conscious decision making {choice of behavior} is ever truly mechanical or based on external influence alone, so to try and match up behavior strictly to such is but pseudo science at best {again no offense intended}

This is why no matter what the birth time or planetary alignment, or cycle of time one is in, there can always be multifarious outcomes of character assesment.  

It is certainly true that since all things are "of spirit" {including the alignment of planets} that the alignment of planets can certainly be read as a map as to how the underlying transcendent spirit is working in relation to individual and group consciousness, it is just never soley the position of any of the planets themselves that exist as actual cause ... Neptune dosen't cause anything, but is itself and all of it'so-called influence caused by the same spirit that causes ones own consciousness, hence the sometimes apparent syncronicities.

The relationship between all things is alway reciprocal, and all can always be transcended. There is always life/spirit beyond any inertial influence, and as we begin to awaken more and more to the underlying quantum principles behind all of the illusory relativity of force in relation to matter {becoming spiritual etc} such is more easily seen and likely toone day m aybe dominate the lost world view of present times in relation to centuries of our mechanistic and deterministic past.

I wrote a piece of philosophical poetry some time ago as a friend and I were discussing the in's and out's of astrology. Many other related points of relativity in relation to spirit are weaved in and out as well


“Minding the Manors of Moon”


Oh mind of moon … ‘pathetic and fickle
‘predictions of the fortune ... my belief now in a pickle
To do or to but die … ‘choices to but follow
‘in stars of all design … lost in all the wallow

Heroes of the hurry … ‘as wealthy as was poor
‘earning but bread and but butter … in a cosmos demanding much more
Cancer and the Taurus … ‘of raging bull … and crab
as if ruled by any / all notion … ‘lest taking only a stab

Hopeful as heartache … ‘greedy as smut
 {as if } … blinded by the fire … ‘grooving until rut
Sleeping ‘til wake … ‘wakeful ‘til dead …
reborn to the borrow … ‘of chances ever-fed

Suggestive as the sorrow … ‘though no meaning to the joy
‘of loves ‘but only forsaken … human race to ‘but employ
Godlessness hells of all heaven … ‘a grace beyond all of the prayers
karma of dues paid in parcel … ‘amidst the buy-selling of wares

Climbing to top and to bottom … ‘as if clinging to waves of the sea
‘charts for all of the chores … ‘as if space - as if timed to the “T”
From working hard … to prance … ‘til busted by the favor
scoring of goals ever-costing … ‘the wonder of moments to savor

Tortured by the timing … ‘though courted by the pause
‘soar from each-every story … unto fictions of the any ‘ole cause
Lost to all of the findings … ‘informed to the brink … on-a-roll
‘hoodwinked by each every faithful … banking on all that one stole

Consoling of the faith … ‘before chaos of the dream … {nightmare}
warriors fighting folly … ‘merely swimming up the stream
Caught up in the “catch up” … ‘of horrors sometimes shown
‘of laughter-solving solvent … tempered by tears ever known

Living care-free ... ‘life ‘but a gas
‘lest hoarding all treasure … ‘finesse up-the-ass
Gluttons for glory … ‘saints on the sly.
mothers of worry … ‘from child … to die

The crux of the flux … ‘the bait of the charm
‘though potions of poison … no cause for alarm
From “cool” unto chill … ‘hot unto the hatred
burdens of the banquet … ‘forever over-rated

Seizing sense … ‘uncertain … ‘a moment to but ponder
crazed into a daze … ‘in markets over yonder
Impassioned by the spree … of havens, hearth and swallow
Adams apple chewy … ‘as if bellies ever hollow

Of Eve … ‘but up-the-sleeve … gamblers of the stake
serpents of the seething … ‘before all who are on the take
Dragons of the desert … ‘turtles in the sky … {mythology}
under the dome of soul-searching yearning … ‘but the myth of each-every “why”

Laid at the feet of redemption … ‘offered to gods of delight
mystic as Moses … ‘unshaven … rough as the karma of plight
Timeless as taught … ‘walking plank … volcanoes of voice ‘but unspoken
‘pilgrims of only denial … with merited pledges of token

Sunk to the top … ‘of the heap of survival
from wall-to-wall freedom … ‘to warring in style
Policy … ‘and pity … peasants of the right … {privilege}
slaves of tax … and of vote …. ‘though governed by two-bitted slight … {of hand}

Celestial choir of calling … ‘all souls from the hearing of hiss
‘guided by planets of motion … nebula, quasars ... that – this
Fairies and Angels … ‘asunder … subtle as clouds … ‘softly feather
winks of the guardians … ‘lest joking … predicting the dictates of weather

Pitchforks of points made in person … ‘a devil for each-every sire
desires inspiring the rush … ‘sinking deeper and deeper in mire
Penance-of-peace … ‘anger stifled … as message of mercy endures
demons … ‘and plead … storing measure … ‘crisis … and craft … ‘on all shores.

Charting the zig-zags of spheres … ‘claiming the prize of the prophet
mortal … ‘hence all of the mischief … sick until up one must cough it
Stuck in the muck of desire … ‘freedom uncovered … as shown
bosses of bitching … ‘reprisal … into the coffin of each-every “own”

Pippalayana