Update jeudi 14 juillet 2005 15:33
Waht is Spirituality ?
Copyright © Sâdhana
spiritual values are strictly independent from the religious "
summarize Marie-Madeleine Davy following the example of the big mystic.
Then, especially do not
confuse Spirituality with Religion, nor
religiosity!!! of whom(which)
the demonstrations some fervour, devotion and worship are profoundly respectable in themselves, by authenticity and sincerity of the major part of their followers
The first - Spirituality - concerns only the Spirit in its essential, particular individuality to each / e and aims at the mastery of that in the serenity of at him(her) Here and Now; " one thousand men(people), one thousand the truths... " The currency(slogan) of a convent Buddhist is. She(it) is synonymic of step(method) aiming at understanding(including) the mechanisms of the spirit to terminate a latent state of dissatisfaction of which she(it) investigue the origin, the causes, the development and the outcome by leaving their inherent, consequent and disruptive effects.
The second - Religion - corresponds to an ancestral and social fundamental need at the human being, to meet with, to be connected among his fellow men to beg(avert) the fear in front of the solitude and of the Death, while defining moral rules(rulers) stemming from the unique(only) Truth, governing reports(connections) with her(it) (the) divinity (ies) and among the human beings. The big religions, whatever inspiration they are, have never resolved any problem, in particular those of the suffering and the violence, which they sublimate " repentatoirement " and darken with a "auto-generative" hypocrisy. On the other hand, it is these same religions which generated the quasi-totality of the conflicts and the wars which shook and shake still the world.
One is not spiritual because one is born in some religious environment(middle), one becomes him by itself and only by itself, by learning to go beyond the mentally dogmatic and physically social conditioning(packaging) of the religion (almost imposed in the middle in which one was born); do not forget that him(it,her) Me Jesus made baptized in 30 years (the first one of the three cycles of the Life: growth - maturation - harvest)... Really to understand(include) the appropriate nature of things and beings, as well as phenomena and mechanisms governing the Whole and the human beings in their interactive reports(connections). It is it whom(that) it(he) had taught just like the Buddha, by no means having wanted to base a new religion, but to instiguer the return in authentic one internal knowledge, liberator and not culpabilisatrice, this " Return in the Main part " which describes Jean Biès. A joke would make say in the Me Jesus if he returned now: " God, that the sect which I have never wanted to base badly turned!! "
the Me Jesus (been born on May 29 of the year - 6 and died late in life, at about 80 years, in the city from Srinagar where he is buried) did not say the other thing(matter), but one did not listen him of the good ear to pass on exactly the " Good Word " as he had come to distribute, that allowing to reach the Realm, more internal than outside... How explains it so indeed Thomas's gospel, as J-L Maisonneuve described him, with an exemplary rigorous concern, in the book " Jésus sans église " (Top Ten of the millennium!) Jean Paul Sara with " Jesus before the Church ", as well as Eric Edelmann in his book " Jésus parlait araméen ". He did not want to base a religion with all the hierarchy superfecially inherent (" Vatican put in bare ") which totally distorted in its profit the real initial word: " You are Pierre and Pierre you are as tel. On the fulfillment director of this anséité (some people will prefer selfness), the message rests(bases) that I came to deliver you ". This one ensues simply in the vertical continuance of " Tat twam asi " védique and of " I am the one that is " mosaic (word derived of Moses) of the Former(ancient) Will. It had made(done) well the difference between Have who engenders the dependancies and Be who refers to the essence.
The man has an innate inclination to conform to a tradition, to follow the tracks which the others left him(her) in one " ready to think " who, besides consolidating him in a lazy security, avoids him the most possible to think by himself except all the conditionings of a correspondence to which its education, its social, political and religious life enfeoffed him with all the inherent conflicts and the tensions. It is by going beyond this conditionnante fragmentation, as says it Krishnamurti, that the man will find his unity.
The real spiritual is on no account, the subjection blinds(fills) in faiths all " ready of consuming ", but much rather the free exercise of a difference analytical and reflected about their respect, as for their equivalence with and in the life of each / e. It is what Buddha has sensibly and violently exposed in Kalama soûtra
The coverage, in spirito-confessional understood end, excludes at once any personal investigation freely begun, it is only a mandate which one grants(tunes) to the other one, under and in certain conditions, to evolve according to pre-established plans. The mechanism consists in preventing from thinking by itself. It is the reflection either of a mental laziness, by preferring to hug in a way drawn beforehand and without surprises, or of an abdication of his(her) personality among whom the cause and the outcome are this aforesaid laziness.
The " ideological highways of the collective thought " are the " express mental ways " for plethorae of Panurge's sheeps, bêlants to whom better better in the total unconsciousness of the danger dépersonnalisateur which watches for them. The powers, of however sorts they are, always dreaded as black plague, people who managed to educate themselves and then to think by themselves, becoming dangerous by their glances enlightened and warned on the paradoxes of these said powers....
Then, this coverage, how much developing by the auto-justification which she(it) generates, it is really an act of love, so so much is that one still knows really what to like means (except for the expensive small ego...) ? One can really and authentically help its fellow man only until the moment when one begins thinking what would indeed be for him; because, in that case, one substitutes himself for sound " free to think " and one does not respect any more its otherness, by the simple fact that(than) one reduces him, often with the best of the good intentions ..., to the status of "clone - thought" or " confessional zombie ", without knowing the full will.
It is also really in mind of the message of Enseigneurs, such Me Jesus, Buddha... and, by proxy humanely divine, in the one what one attributes God, to bless men(people) and weapons which will kill, without proper judgment, count the fellow men, the similar human beings, in the name of the Love and of Its Mercy?
Finally, he can not there have of real spirituality that if there is total separation between the Religion and the Political power. Otherwise it is reduced to the coercive, purely conventional "religiosity" and conditionnante according to " rules(rulers) of morality " worsening too often the ethics to which they refer. It, with fights and skids that the personal exercise implies the collection and (by too often disguised on behalf of(under the cover of) "Spiritual", of "crowned("sworn"), for lack of jolly spiritual...) of a "divine" power reduced in its expressiveness to the dimension limitativement human, with all the inherent exactions due to the "illicit" recovery of "divine" energies which, supernaturally and magnificently, are buried in every creature. (" My body, the first wonder of the world " cries out Pr. Giordan in its book of the same title.)
The 21-th century, joining the linearity of time, will be any manners ..., after the 20è and before the 22-nd... Referring to a famous too much kept repeating sentence, he can be really and really spiritual only by the intelligent, personal step(method) at first joint then, that you will begin, each / e, to allow him(her) to be SUCH, by asking you the question:
" What spiritual inheritance, are we going to pass on to our future generations? "
The Way of the Heart or in the Heart,
of one " attended religio-confessionnalised "
which(who) restricts to believe blindly, by hoping so to be able to change
That vertical line of really " responsible for its Life " who learns to understand things such as they are and to act as a consequence.