Carolyn wrote >Spirituality is then, for me, the expression, cognisance and body felt >awareness of the essence of what " is". > >To me, the numinous, the undefinable essence of what ''is'', - is the >lifeforce, the energetic core of all things, animate and inanimate, the >organising principle of the universe (called by various tenets - >love, or God/dess(es). I like the concepts, Carolyn, the notion of an organising principle and can see congruencies with the Gaya concepts that the earth (universe) is the organism, and we and rocks and trees etc are all a part of that - that is interconnectedness in total, I suppose. In terms of an organising principle, though, could physis fill that bill? Mathematics or the music of the spheres? I feel at times that I am so torn between the mystical and the scientific, but at others find they converge so beautifully that spirituality resides there at that convergence. Is this what it means to try to know the mind of god? Is there a flip side to love or is negative emotion a 'disturbance in the force'? ( I know this is a direct knockoff from Star Wars, but I found lots profound in the concept of a 'force' being with us that if we were in tune with, we could feel being disturbed by cataclysm or violence.) The Indian religions particularly see destruction (and there are goddesses particularly of destruction) as necessary to creation. There is then no value judgement made but forces just collide or sit in 'dynamic equilibrium' (metaphor from chemistry this time). What do you think? >And to me, manifested/manifesting by/in the core >values (ie heart values) such as compassion, trust, faith, connection and >interconnection with all beings/things ie, love as all there is - anything >else is 'maya' or illusion brought about by the 'ego'. (and how easy is it >to get caught up in THAT reality!?) > The values expressed here, I'm not sure about. Is this possible? One opens oneself up to such hurt and abuse, but I certainly agree that it is easy to get caught up in ego!!!! >the 'organising principle' (whatever name or label one choses to give 'it') >is ALWAYs biased towards growth and healing, hence plants growing through >cracks in pavements, wounds repairing, bones reknitting when broken, new >shoots on burnt trees, childbirth expressing itself (often against all >odds!) with successful (in terms of reproduction of the species) outcomes - >a handy reality for us midwives to believe in :-) I love this idea and find it congruent with intuitvely held truths that many women express, but isn't it always the way that physics tells us that the universe tends towards decay!!! I guess we make sense of this in terms of connectedness? My head is now spinning with ideas about the place of the individual and the placelessness of the individual in an organising principal. > >The stamping of religion, the tenets, the rules, the exclusions, the >inclusions, the dogma, the doctrine etc upon spirituality is, for me, very >similar to the stamping of the Freidman curve upon the birthing woman's >expression of her individual experience. Useful for those that have >something to gain out of it, (patriarchs unite here) >but not very helpful to the full expression of one's own self. Dogma and doctrine overwrite spirituality, I'm sure. But for many organised religion allows for the expression of spirituality. What i find hard to grapple with (as a feminist and formative catholic) is the overlay of oppression that comes with conformity which often co-exists with the liberation of belonging to something grand outside/inside oneself. I would therefore NEVER attempt to split religion from spirituality as a defining statement, but am so interested int he intersections. It seemed, to me, that it >didn't really matter what you believed to be true, the way of the energetic >universe is to reflect back to you what you believe. If one thought the >world was a 'bad' place, that we are all inherently evil, then that is what >is experienced. If one thinks the world is beautiful, that experiences make >the person how they are and that there is nothing inherently good or bad, >but how we experience them, then that is how it is. The doctrine and dogma >creates the reality experienced. And everyone, from the Mormons, to the >Christians to the Ba'hai could give me examples of their reality being >vindicated. So for me, it became obvious that if whatever you believe >becomes true for you, why not believe that which is all embracing, all >loving? It is useful to act out of concern for the well being of others, >to, as the Dalai Lama says, learn to control negativity (a function of the >ego mind), practice compassion, aim for serenity and, as Jesus said 'follow >me', not revere me, and, as he did, act from a position of compassion, love >and integrity. I agree and to choose to be positive and embracive is a good philosophy as well as a spiritual orientation, too, I suppose. What makes these two different, do you think? Of course there is no right or wrong to this discussion, and I/we are not suggesting a challenge to anyone's cherished belief systems. But these issues are seldom raised. What does it all mean in relation to how we work with/for women, and alongside/in tension with others? Love to Carolyn and thankyou for your thoughtful discussion. Cheers, Trish -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
