Criminally Spiritual

[tvaeli]

Hello!

Bunch of criminal people are lurking around our spiritual realms, and I want to describe some common types.

People, who run on binary logic - they seek good, and avoid bad. Spiritual way is a good circulation of energy, not some cramped people trying to get some good out of it, yelling about bad things. They expect that they can get their scientific discovery out of it, or that they can get bunch of money - when they learn that we actually do practices, do not hope so much, and follow higher goals: as they lose such hope to get something, like a lots of quantities, out of it, they start insulting us. This is a commonly criminal type - in medievial, the hopers could talk themselves out with low education, also people actually talked somewhat hopefully and it sounded like such things were promised. Today, as they enter our enlightenment zones and start seeking easy money - the businessman, who fears the laws of karma as he would go as mad as he is, such as working on punish and reward: is not like us, who need those laws more to understand, that dark process is not so strong. It's a criminal attempt to try to hopefully expect that when I'm working on spiritual, I am expected to give someone huge amounts of money, love, heavenly excitement or whatever is associated with traditions of religion and belief - if I promise nothing, this kind of hype is criminal. I have never promised anything more than hard work and slow income, in spirituality: people used to sit ten years behind doors of monastery, not to get rich fast.

• You can see how such people appear to Zen circles: while Zen is non-attachment, they attach to any good hope and start complaining; they come with mentality where plain discussion with them loses more than they are expected to earn, they just ruin the day - but the days earn, not nights. Attributing hopes and fears is criminal.

We can see "scientists": they behave as if they were working on some spiritual, religious heavy success of science; in reality, they do not have deep understanding or practice in anything, and with such practice nothing is promised - to "prove" something, theory based on the practice, indeed you do the practice; I do not understand what "alternative theories" they have about proving or disproving it without a practice, to make it available to common people. It's clear - mindfulness or zen brings you to relaxed state and visions of what's going on, and without the practice the picture is very different and we don't know the things they are talking about.

We also see many "supporters" - failing a spiritual goal is seen as heavy rob of money from the "poor supporters", who lose and fear ..given our times: they are not bringing food to saints or meditators in forest, they are not even understanding meditations - to bring food, one is criminal food-bringer if they do not know meditation so much to understand the life benefit, and what they are bringing; so first, bringing food is not a crime only if you know the thing, because it's not really a food for big scientific findout - it's the food to get the little, stable benefits of meditation, with rare sainthood. Second, this kind of collective tax system has not been in work for many times, and skeptics or "good, simple people" are absolutely useless for us spiritualists: it's impossible to understand, "what money they gave", and even this hallucination is criminal - as they do not understand at all our actual, modest goals, where we do something real and achievable, not the medievial alchemy in it's extremes.

This is also why I suggest talking in different manner, not hyping the good things so well - while, for us, it's what we desire, it's good and unearthly; a dissident might lurk in, and start translating this into money, fame, and women; then, they want all these things were there are none.

Notice about argumentation, similar class exists - many people run around with rights of me not telling straight truth, or arguing, or telling who is on wrong path - extremely violent, as they describe themselves, they would instantly attack someone in criminal way, for example seeing that someone is argued with. This skeptic argument rather holds for them - while they are firing people, getting them to mud and ruining the lives of debunked in any possible way; they cannot just tell us that when we are having religious argument, it's like "attacking a scientist with a hammer": when science needs to not be aggressive, it also needs not to be so paranoid. So I don't know what they went through - becoming so throughout guilty that they start accusing in advance, about certain pointouts of mistakes they fear, or are they just calling the blind masses so "cityzens" that they actually start judging everybody on "truth" and "lies", reading forums of much more neutral language?