When explaining Spirituality in words, we may need to be aware of the issues related with language.
In this blog it has been shared 3 different levels of consciousness. The great majority of individuals will “understand” spirituality at the first level; the thought level: The reasonable, analytical, logical level. Most societies in the “modern” world have been trained at this level.
Nevertheless, this first level is the furthest away from the experience of Spiritual “reality.” It relies heavily in language.
A spiritual teachings such as: “There is no-self” cannot be understood rationally when our thoughts are occupied in asking the question of “who am I?”
“Doing nothing doing, you get things done.”
This will baffle a rational, logical mind.
Logic and reason can be “unreasonable” if we are just led by language alone.
Let us say that I don’t know what the word “intelligent” means. I have not experienced “intelligence.” 🙂
Then I hear a “spiritual” belief:
“Man is the intelligent creation of God.”
Without having experienced what “intelligence” is, someone may assume the representation of that word.
Then I hear, “ The Devil is very intelligent. Be careful.”
The word “Intelligence,” still remains a puzzle.
How do we know what “is” intelligence?
Perhaps when we define the word by using more words, such as a looking the word up in the dictionary?
No. Knowing is different than having a concept, a meaning. We “think” we know “intelligence” when there is the experience of comparing ourselves with another based on a belief.
“She is beautiful, but dumb.”
“He is handsome, but stupid.”
The point of reference is “Me” the “Judge” believing things.
There is comparison.
What is the difference between “dumb” and “stupid”?
Still the word “intelligence” is not understood and that is why, its “opposite” is brought to the “rescue.” We think that by denying its opposite, we will know what “intelligence” is.
Nothing could be more delusional than being trapped in words when dealing with Spirituality.
Please see that words are completely empty and just depend on the significance that we may assume based on our own experience and perception.
Now, let us try the same exercise with the word “love.”
“Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated It is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”
The above belongs to St. Paul. Notice how he pretends to “define” love by saying “what is not.”
If love is patience and kindness then why not call patience and kindness, love? 🙂
See the problem with language?
The concept of love is not related with what actually love is.
Spirituality is not a concept. A religion is conceptual. It is based on beliefs.
As we peel off all the layers of ideas and words from our minds, there is the chance to know something different, which otherwise will be covered with the lame world of concepts and definitions.
Can you practice love? Can you “make effort” to love?
Then, that is not love. It is just an “idea” of it.
The word “love” cannot be defined, for if we do; we are not covering its totality; its fullness. This is the issue with Spirituality. Words cannot fully express it.
Spirituality is not a study, a subject matter. It is a journey. It is a discovery.