WHAT IS SPIRITUALITY?
_________________________
It
is difficult to give a definitive definition of spirituality because it
is a feeling rather than something tangible. It may manifest as
something tangible in that it invokes a biological response but its
nature is elusive of the mind.
Let's step back a moment.
I
believe that the best analogy of the mind is that it is like a radio
receiver that is wireless; that is, that it draws something from the
aether (the medium it travels through) and can be 'tuned in', like a
radio (receiver). The biological response is the transmitter of that
which is received (however that might manifest itself).
Both the
reception and response are dependent on the characteristics of a person
at a given time and location; thus it is variable at any given instant.
It is not, therefore static (as in stationary).
We need to first
explain the universe as an electrical entity, not a gravitational one.
This is where most mistakes regarding spirituality (and cosmology)
occur. The verifiable evidence of the universe being electrical (or a
plasma) is not concurrent with the established and unverifiable
gravitational one. Check out The Electrical Universe in your browser
and see for yourself.
Everything in the universe-as-a-whole has
to move from one place to another through something. This is the
aether. Although this is an archaic term it serves us well in
contemplating the electrical nature of the universe.
Radio waves
(frequencies) travel through the 'air' (they cannot travel through the
'vacuum' of spcace). Radio waves travel at all different types of
frequencies (let's say long waves for bass and short waves for treble).
We can tune in a radio to pick up one or the other. This description is
very simplistic, of course.
Bass and treble will have a
biological effect on the receiver. Bass may make us feel a certain way
'x' and treble may make us feel 'y'. This will not be a constant; it
will depend on many, many other factors as well. The biological effect
(transmission depending on the reception) will occur as an internal
feeling and perhaps and/or an external behaviour.
The better the
radio, the better the more waves can be received. The finer the tuner,
likewise. Thus all is dependent on the receiver.
All living
organisms react to stimuli. All stimuli cause a reaction of some kind,
whatever it is. It follows that the more accurate the
receptor/filterer, the more the reaction because of the availability of
extra data (stimulus).
We must also include the filtering out of
incoming data, also dependent on the time, place and circumstances of
the receiver. This is essential for survival.
What is spiritual,
I believe (at present) is that a receiver is able to tune in to more
data coming from the universe-as-a-whole and able to filter with
greater accuracy than another receiver getting the same data. The
reaction is not so important here, at least at present.
DATA FROM THE UNIVERSE-AS-A-WHOLE
/
RECEIVER
(TIME PLACE CIRCUMSTANCE)
/
TUNING INTO THE DATA
/
FILTERING THE DATA
/
REACTING TO THE DATA
The
spiritual world, in my view is the data from the universe-as-a-whole.
It should be possible for all living organisms to receive this data.
What makes the difference is the need or the ability to filter this
information by the receiver (time, place, circumstance) by any given
living organism.
Given that there are a myriad living organisms
and a myriad of tuneable data, all at a different time, place and
circumstance, it is not surprising that not everything can tune in to
the available waves (frequencies, etc.).
I do not think that
there are certain 'waves of spirituality' that some can tune in to and
some cannot. The waves are universal; there all the time. I just
believe that for certain reasons (whatever they are) they are not
available to every living organism due to their tuning/filtering
propensities.
All the above, of course, is at a level below that
of attaching a 'name' to anything in particular. The radio is an
analogy. The method by which Man stagnates himself in discussions of
the definition of spirituality is to name the phenomenon. Thus calling
things like 'god' and so forth (although perhaps perfectly valid in
some situations). This is a pity because calling something by a name
(especially an intangible one e.g. truth, beauty, spirituality) does
not tell us what it is; rather what it is not. Further, the
connotations of calling something by a name tend to escalate into myth,
speculation, unverifiable 'facts' and nonsensical extrapolation.
In
essence, spirituality is the ability to tune in to the
universe-as-a-whole when and where required and filtering without the
constraints of verbalising and name calling.
Those people who
appear more 'spritual' than others in some people's terms are merely
those who are able to tune in to more and different frequencies than
others. They also tend towards the dynamic, rather than verbalisation.
Return
to CONTENTS page