Remain in Consciousness Intelligence
Following a line of "lay spirituality", we can define the Spirit as a synthesis between consciousness and intelligence, it is not a thought, even if, in analytical descriptive terms, we cannot help but use thoughts in an attempt (for other futile ) to evoke its nature. This is because the descriptive process makes "spirit" an object of the mind. Even calling it “spirit” it remains a concept, an image.
And we know that the image can never replace or really represent and agree with what the "substance" is. Everything that is within consciousness is an object of Consciousness. Perhaps it is better to specify that the term Conscience, although it represents what I mean, is here replaced by "Awareness" since we Westerners and above all "Christians" tend to consider conscience as a moral quality.
It is said to "do the analysis of consciousness" as if this consciousness were an aspect of the soul. Let's also leave aside the materialist consideration according to which consciousness is the result of cerebral processes, which is a "scientific" explanation assumed as it is believed that our ability to analyze (intelligence) is subsequent to the chemical process of the cells that communicate data . All this is the consequence of our considering ourselves the body, therefore this consideration does not allow us to go "beyond" to perceive the spirit, as a substrate and matrix. Here too the term "perceive" is not exactly correct, since who is it that perceives and what is perceived?
It is evident that everything takes place within the Consciousness, the Consciousness observes itself and understands itself. Intelligence and conscience are one and the same and are indeed our true nature. However we consider ourselves, a soul a body, a mind… we are not that since the I cannot be an object of knowledge.
The Ego is knowledge itself which in the cognitive process takes the form of subject, object and knowledge. However, let's stop at the internal "feeling", that feeling defined as "I" and which is in truth pure consciousness. Before thinking “I am this or that” if you stop at the naked I… you realize that this absolute identity is devoid of any attribute… It is simple awareness.
Any opinion or description of this "entity", belongs to the ego, can initially be accepted as a basis for comparison of ideas, but if we observe with the eyes of the "spirit", which unites us all, we discover that the opinion is only a attachment, a conditioned reflex, which we could also get rid of if we want to advance in awareness. Opinion is a mental projection, a projective mechanism of one's identification with a set of thoughts and beliefs.
From the point of view of "lay spirituality" it is not important to make an effort to sanction the supremacy of one's own opinion. An opinion is expressed as a gesture, as a natural and spontaneous affirmation of the person we "embody". That person is a character in the comedy of life, it is right for him to express himself but it is not necessary for him to prevail. When you understand the complementarity of every aspect and form of existence, you limit yourself to carrying out your function, in the most accurate way, without feeling either responsible or the bearer of a superior message.
"Opinion" is carried forward as if it were a job to be done but without feeling that the results of this work belong to us. In short, a “duty” is fulfilled with detachment…. According to the great sages, opinion is an automatism of individual perception. In short, the opinion is always and in any case partial and incapable of reporting an entirety. But if at least we were able to interpret each opinion as a piece of universal thought, trying to integrate it into the whole of what is known, perhaps in this way we are putting into practice that "spiritual syncretism" desirable for overcoming pre-established ideologies and religions. The only discriminating factor should be the quality of sincerity and selfish detachment in which the opinion is expressed.
And after all, why get attached to or be conditioned by any opinion? Once we understand that all opinions are only external aspects of our feelings, our education, our genetic baggage, etc. etc. How can we believe that any opinion, even if well expressed or motivated, can influence our behavior or beliefs, in antithesis with ourselves? If we recognize ourselves in the opinion expressed by someone else, it simply means that that thing was already inside us, we have rediscovered it. If, on the other hand, she doesn't touch us.. let her go as we met her.
A small similarity: when I was a teenager, perhaps at the age of 13, I confessed to the priest of my parish that I could not accept the fact that there is hell, heaven, limbo ... which are considered "eternal" at the same time as the eternal reality of god himself. If God is eternal and infinite, how can multiple separate and opposing eternities coexist? The priest told me that I had to believe what the scriptures said because that is the word of God and it is a "mystery of faith". Obviously I didn't listen to him and continued to meditate and reflect on things according to my research criteria and not based on the priest's opinion or on the dictates of the scriptures.
In fact, if a religious dogma is only "instrumental" then it is not even worth considering, it cannot even be labeled as an "opinion" (which in itself is already a "reductive" term) but we can define it as a "speculative imbroglio" to the propagation and justification of a "creed". This happens when you lie knowing you are lying and when you think in terms of affirming your thoughts, as often happens in religious "sermons" (of any religion)!
And even moral and ethical teaching has no meaning until one is centered in the Spirit, or in oneself. When "spirituality" (i.e. Consciousness and Intelligence) is recognized as one's own nature, there is no danger of committing evil, since oneself and everything that surrounds and permeates us coincide. Others aren't really "other" than us, they're just different forms of the same substance, so how could we harm them?
In Consciousness - Intelligence each of our actions is performed for the purpose of the common good. This happens even if to the external observer it may appear that there is a personal intentionality in the action of the lay sage. But this "thought" (positive or negative) does not affect honesty, sincerity and perseverance in practicing the common good, which is the characteristic of "lay spirituality", which must also include leaving others the freedom to think in their own way . In fact, we cannot use secularism to continually argue about points that seem to us to harm this principle… In short, we should be secular even in relation to secularism.
And in harmony with this predicate, each of us should take care of our own self-knowledge and leave it to other beings (human or non-human) to do the part that belongs to everyone! We all strive for perfection, following our innate propensities and tendencies, in an apparently very long process, which has no beginning or end. In empirical observation this process manifests itself as single frames that we declare separate, because they are observed in the context of space-time and with a sense of otherness and consequentiality. But the film is the same, contemporary, and we are all in it…
As some philosophers say, we can call it a dream or a game (lila) which takes place entirely in Consciousness. The dreamer becomes all the characters and events of the dream. It happens like this, without purpose and in joy. At the same time this dream is unreal because it is only a process of becoming. However, it becomes real as soon as we are "aware" that we are "that" in all its immanent aspects and that we are also beyond "that" as pure transcendent Awareness.
Paul D'Arpini
And we know that the image can never replace or really represent and agree with what the "substance" is. Everything that is within consciousness is an object of Consciousness. Perhaps it is better to specify that the term Conscience, although it represents what I mean, is here replaced by "Awareness" since we Westerners and above all "Christians" tend to consider conscience as a moral quality.
It is said to "do the analysis of consciousness" as if this consciousness were an aspect of the soul. Let's also leave aside the materialist consideration according to which consciousness is the result of cerebral processes, which is a "scientific" explanation assumed as it is believed that our ability to analyze (intelligence) is subsequent to the chemical process of the cells that communicate data . All this is the consequence of our considering ourselves the body, therefore this consideration does not allow us to go "beyond" to perceive the spirit, as a substrate and matrix. Here too the term "perceive" is not exactly correct, since who is it that perceives and what is perceived?
It is evident that everything takes place within the Consciousness, the Consciousness observes itself and understands itself. Intelligence and conscience are one and the same and are indeed our true nature. However we consider ourselves, a soul a body, a mind… we are not that since the I cannot be an object of knowledge.
The Ego is knowledge itself which in the cognitive process takes the form of subject, object and knowledge. However, let's stop at the internal "feeling", that feeling defined as "I" and which is in truth pure consciousness. Before thinking “I am this or that” if you stop at the naked I… you realize that this absolute identity is devoid of any attribute… It is simple awareness.
Any opinion or description of this "entity", belongs to the ego, can initially be accepted as a basis for comparison of ideas, but if we observe with the eyes of the "spirit", which unites us all, we discover that the opinion is only a attachment, a conditioned reflex, which we could also get rid of if we want to advance in awareness. Opinion is a mental projection, a projective mechanism of one's identification with a set of thoughts and beliefs.
From the point of view of "lay spirituality" it is not important to make an effort to sanction the supremacy of one's own opinion. An opinion is expressed as a gesture, as a natural and spontaneous affirmation of the person we "embody". That person is a character in the comedy of life, it is right for him to express himself but it is not necessary for him to prevail. When you understand the complementarity of every aspect and form of existence, you limit yourself to carrying out your function, in the most accurate way, without feeling either responsible or the bearer of a superior message.
"Opinion" is carried forward as if it were a job to be done but without feeling that the results of this work belong to us. In short, a “duty” is fulfilled with detachment…. According to the great sages, opinion is an automatism of individual perception. In short, the opinion is always and in any case partial and incapable of reporting an entirety. But if at least we were able to interpret each opinion as a piece of universal thought, trying to integrate it into the whole of what is known, perhaps in this way we are putting into practice that "spiritual syncretism" desirable for overcoming pre-established ideologies and religions. The only discriminating factor should be the quality of sincerity and selfish detachment in which the opinion is expressed.
And after all, why get attached to or be conditioned by any opinion? Once we understand that all opinions are only external aspects of our feelings, our education, our genetic baggage, etc. etc. How can we believe that any opinion, even if well expressed or motivated, can influence our behavior or beliefs, in antithesis with ourselves? If we recognize ourselves in the opinion expressed by someone else, it simply means that that thing was already inside us, we have rediscovered it. If, on the other hand, she doesn't touch us.. let her go as we met her.
A small similarity: when I was a teenager, perhaps at the age of 13, I confessed to the priest of my parish that I could not accept the fact that there is hell, heaven, limbo ... which are considered "eternal" at the same time as the eternal reality of god himself. If God is eternal and infinite, how can multiple separate and opposing eternities coexist? The priest told me that I had to believe what the scriptures said because that is the word of God and it is a "mystery of faith". Obviously I didn't listen to him and continued to meditate and reflect on things according to my research criteria and not based on the priest's opinion or on the dictates of the scriptures.
In fact, if a religious dogma is only "instrumental" then it is not even worth considering, it cannot even be labeled as an "opinion" (which in itself is already a "reductive" term) but we can define it as a "speculative imbroglio" to the propagation and justification of a "creed". This happens when you lie knowing you are lying and when you think in terms of affirming your thoughts, as often happens in religious "sermons" (of any religion)!
And even moral and ethical teaching has no meaning until one is centered in the Spirit, or in oneself. When "spirituality" (i.e. Consciousness and Intelligence) is recognized as one's own nature, there is no danger of committing evil, since oneself and everything that surrounds and permeates us coincide. Others aren't really "other" than us, they're just different forms of the same substance, so how could we harm them?
In Consciousness - Intelligence each of our actions is performed for the purpose of the common good. This happens even if to the external observer it may appear that there is a personal intentionality in the action of the lay sage. But this "thought" (positive or negative) does not affect honesty, sincerity and perseverance in practicing the common good, which is the characteristic of "lay spirituality", which must also include leaving others the freedom to think in their own way . In fact, we cannot use secularism to continually argue about points that seem to us to harm this principle… In short, we should be secular even in relation to secularism.
And in harmony with this predicate, each of us should take care of our own self-knowledge and leave it to other beings (human or non-human) to do the part that belongs to everyone! We all strive for perfection, following our innate propensities and tendencies, in an apparently very long process, which has no beginning or end. In empirical observation this process manifests itself as single frames that we declare separate, because they are observed in the context of space-time and with a sense of otherness and consequentiality. But the film is the same, contemporary, and we are all in it…
As some philosophers say, we can call it a dream or a game (lila) which takes place entirely in Consciousness. The dreamer becomes all the characters and events of the dream. It happens like this, without purpose and in joy. At the same time this dream is unreal because it is only a process of becoming. However, it becomes real as soon as we are "aware" that we are "that" in all its immanent aspects and that we are also beyond "that" as pure transcendent Awareness.
Paul D'Arpini