Sunmaster

3 hours ago, ravip said:

People are better imho, if they have something higher to look up to,....

 

Kind of a 'slave mentality' isn't it? 

I think it's the other way around.

Right now we are slaves of our emotions and thoughts. They rise up uncontrolled, form storms, rattle our boats and drift it wherever they want to go.

On the other hand there is control and surrender. It looks like the two are irreconcilable opposites, but they are not.

You gain control over your thoughts and feelings and at the same time surrender to your higher Self. The higher Self is your true identity and has all the answers you'll ever need. 

By opening and surrendering to it, you become truly free from all slavery. 

No religion, no science, no intermediary needed.

Sometimes we get so caught up with logic, rationality, mental concepts and best way to convey ideas in our dealings with others, that we forget to engage the heart. 
There is no real communication without the heart. 

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Thank you, its part of the journey to put words to your self realization, and without your response, the way you responded, it would maybe never ever  been written at all. Think about that ????

That's trippy.

Need to put that in my pipe and smoke it for a while. ????

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I'm happy where I am, because I have stopped searching, and maybe because of that I have found a inner peace and more open to sense my own life rather than everyone's else's life and the things I can not do anything about. Everyone is chasing something, except those who have accepted the true terms of life, and surprisingly I have found those to be most happy right here right now. And I mean true presence and interested in life, and the people around them. There is a lot of self realm conscious selfism egoism in most of the search for the truth and even narcissism, and maybe it is just a phase until you just realize that's part of the journey itself. Then what happen when you discover if you discover where you are heading? 

 

I have been so sure about truths and the road but it never gave me what I searched for, except the urge for pushing further until I one day stopped, and realized what happiness was to me. 

 

I still want answers, It doesn't mean you stop wondering, but you stop doing what everyone else tells you to do, and what you teach your self you have to do. 

 

I have a garden, small farm, animals, trees, plants and a wife, my attention and focus is on us, not me, and that's my journey serving the universe which is me and my ego. That is what I truly have searched for my whole life, and why I mentioned wife last? I have her attention when I care for something that means something to her, and that makes her happy. 

What a beautiful post. Thank you 

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

You know as much as I do, scientist's methods do not allow them to practice the same way as a guru does, and therefor as scientists can not confirm realities they can not prove. 

 

However me who had experiences led by people who practiced for a long time, confirm there is other realities than what we see and experience without practicing or taken a given stimuli. What I can not confirm, is the real reality of my experiences, but I could easily do, If I wanted to make them my reality and continue to cultivate them. But there is a realm in me that will not let that happen, because I also studied as said many times marketing and also psychology and as said many times, I know how easily manipulated we are on quite simple things and the mechanisms behind it can be explained as your own creation in your own universe, your brain. Of course we are also easily manipulated by mass suggestions because we have a unike way to react the same way by the same mechanisms. 

 

Thats my view on it, but still I do not say others is wrong, or they are easily manipulated and so on as sone few others here often do. 

 

I respect all of your personal experiences, and will not tell you you are wrong. I can only relate to my own experiences that both felt real and was real in the moment and it was exceptionally strong experiences. Out of this world experiences and supernatural 

I think a scientist could practice meditation just like any other human being. But yes, if they then tried to provide scientific proof of their findings, then they would have trouble. Not because their findings are wrong or illusions, but because science doesn't have a framework to incorporate and examine such findings. 

Take yoga for example. Science goes as far as validating yoga when it comes to physical benefits and more tentatively, even for the mental benefits. This, because the benefits fit in the framework and can be analytically observed.

So, at this point one would reasonably deduce that yoga is right in its claims and can be regarded as a trusted source. 

Yet, here is where the trust ends.

Yoga is ALSO, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY a tool to access the inner world (the spiritual dimension of a human being) . This aspect is not recognised (or ignored) by science. Herein lies the problem.

The main question for you then is: if science is not a trusted source of information when it comes to the inner world....why don't you rather trust the info YOU got from the inner world?

31 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

You're stating 300 years as if it's a long time. A long time in comparison to what?

 

The existence of man? 0.15%

The existence of planet Earth? 0.00000625%

 

Science has taught us that, from the perspective of a photon, 300 years is an instant. Some clever stuff in that explanation, so far from a bunch of knuckleheads.

 

If the soul is eternal then the current caretakers of those souls have had an eternity to rid the universe of doubt. Not doing to well from that point of view, but I still wouldn't label them as knuckleheads.

Who knows..., judging by the speed they are going, in 1000 years maybe scientists will discover the true nature of consciousness....and validate what we already knew for the past 5000 years. 
I don't know about you, but I can't wait that long. ????

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Lemme see.  After 300+ years of science the only consensus amongst scientists regarding consciousness is that it exists.  And you want me to learn from these knuckleheads?

How about you share some of your wisdom with us?  Or aren't you an expert?

And at the same time there are sources where people have studied consciousness for 1000s of years from the inside and described it in great detail. 

But "unfortunately " they are not scientists, so let's just ignore all that. Too messy anyway. ????

8 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

For me, there seems to be a direct correlation between the actual relationship one has with the creator, and the need to talk about it. The lack of any real spiritual practice, (or relationship with whatever notion one has of a God) seems to compel people to discuss religion endlessly, and attempt to convert others, whereas, those with a real inner life and spiritual practice, seem content to just live their lives, set an example for others, and let their lifestyle do the speaking. 

 

In other words, you would not feel comfortable discussing your intimate life with your loved one with others, so why talk about your inner life with others, unless they ask? 

The topic is literally "Do you believe in God and why?" Someone did ask....

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one." "

I realize this is not your quote....just wanted to add this quickly.

As long as you realize that any of the gods are expressions of the one divine, then you can chose to worship any one of them and the result will be the same.

If however you believe that you are separate from them and they are separate from each other, then you can just as well worship your teapot or your nose. The result will be the same.

I once went to a supermarket to buy a jar of strawberry jam. There were many brands on display and I went for an American brand. I chose that because it said "Number 1 in USA". Yes, I fell for this little bit of false advertising and it was the worst thing I tasted in a long time. Highly processed with seemingly no trace of real fruit. 

According to some people's "logic", I should have deduced that all jams are as bad and that all jam manufacturers lie about their product. I should have also deduced that strawberries (the actual berries) taste like <deleted> and I should make it my mission to warn everybody not to eat strawberries.

I prefer to go to the farmer myself, pick the best strawberries and make my own delicious jam. I KNOW where the fruit comes from, I KNOW that the fruit will be of the highest quality and I KNOW all the ingredients in that jam. 

Now, if it wasn't clear enough, the American jam represents (a) religion. Some people might like it that way, but it's not my taste. Different brands are different religions, some are better than others. The farmer represents the Source. Why settle for some foul tasting artificial product, when you can cut out the middleman (who's in it for financial profit) and go to the Source directly?

Stop complaining about the low quality products and make your own jam!

7 hours ago, Purdey said:

Just to be clear, the onus is never on someone proving something doesn't exist! The onus is always on the person who claims it exists. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Science cannot prove that which is not there. Therefore, I cannot prove purple elephants exist.

Anyway, I don't intend to convince you to change your mind. Please continue to believe in gods if you will. I will explain what I know and believe (or not). The topic is 'do you believe in god and why.' I am just going to show why i don't believe in god(s) with evidence for why I don't believe.

First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one." 

A Perfect Abrahamic God? 

if god is perfect, why did he create us and many other living creatures so poorly? For instance, so many diseases, our bones break easily, and as we get older our bodies and minds break down. Poorly-made spines, inflexible knees, and pelvic bones that make childbirth difficult and painful for women. Thus perfect design is nonsense. We can't live our lives hoping that one day an explanation for why our eyes or shoulders were designed so poorly will arise. The eye is often used as an example of intelligent design, which doesn't explain shortsightedness or kids born blind.

History is proving that religions are wrong about several things.

The Bible claims the world was created 6,000 years ago. Actually, the Bible never specifically states 6,000 years. Some Christians insist it is true though. We know through science it is 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Forms of absolute dating exist such as thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, etc. We find rocks all the time that are dated as millions or even billions of years old. Doesn't this conflict with the belief that the universe was recently created by a god? We now know also that the universe doesn't move around the Earth (Copernicus et al) .

Religion has often been used to explain the inexplicable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happen, which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates to relieve pressure. God didn't cause the recent Turkish earthquakes and - and to me this is strange as most religions believe disasters are god's punishment for something - yet no Muslim suggests he did.

Abortion

Christian fundamentalists argue that abortion is against god, yet Jews vehemently do not agree and argue you cannot ban abortion because there is nothing about fetuses being people in the Torah. Just water. The same god but opposing views. Furthermore, god aborted millions of fetuses during the Great Flood by killing all pregnant women, if you believe ancient scripture. 

Everyone agrees with you

You could state that the millions of religious people proves that there is a consensus that god exists. But which god? Yahweh (was married to Asteroth, but not now), Kwaku Ananse, Altjira, Quetzalcoatl, Ahura Mazda, Thor, Zoroaster, Anubis, Zeus? Do you believe in Quetzalcoatl or is it the place of your birth that governs your religion? And no, you don't have genetic memory of a whole religion.

So, if god exists, which god? Are you afraid of following the wrong god and going to Hades?

The Bible was written by god, or by people following god's will

It comes from a mishmash of older sources (Google is your friend, find out). Ideas were taken wholesale from older religions. The original sin was knowledge, given in the account of the Fall of mankind (Genesis 3). There is an older Greek legend, Pandora’s Box, that appears to attest to the same historical event. Both stories tell how the first woman unleashed sin, sickness, and suffering upon the world which had been, up to that point, a paradise. Both stories end with the emergence of hope, hope in a promised Redeemer in the case of Genesis.

Contradictions

A book essentially written by god or through his guidance cannot contradict itself. I cannot believe in a god of contradictions. Yet contradictions start in the opening chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent creation stories are told. Genesis chapter 1 says the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 gives a different order of creation: man, then the animals, and then woman.

Genesis 1:2-3 claims that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day; but Genesis 1:14-19 tells us the sun, moon, and stars weren’t made until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.

Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos. There are many other problems in the Old Testament.

Matthew 2:13-15 said Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought gifts. But Luke 2:22-40 claims that after the birth of Jesus, his parents remained in Bethlehem 40 days, then went to Jerusalem “to present him to the Lord,” and then returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke mentions no journey into Egypt or visit by wise men from the east.

John 19:17 recounts that Jesus carried his own cross. But Mark 15:21-23 disagrees by saying a man called Simon carried the cross.

Who created evil?

Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

Is Satan evil?

In the whole Bible, Satan killed just 10 people while god killed millions. Satan killed the seven sons and three daughters of Job, and God only allowed it as part of a bet. (Job 1:12–19)

Also, Satan's job is to torture (only) bad people in hell. Doesn't that make him a good guy?

Omniscience

If God knows everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it, your future is a foregone conclusion. What happened to free will?

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. If God can do anything, he should be able to, for instance, draw a square circle. He cannot  know and not know something simultaneously. Why does a loving god know and yet allow natural disasters, massacres, and wars?

Afterlife

This is very subjective. Spiritual entities such as gods, devils, heaven, hell, angels, demons, and so on have never been (and cannot be) scientifically examined or observed. These spiritual features cannot be proven to exist if they are not observable and measurable.

What happens after death? Catholics get individual judgement, sometimes called particular judgement, at the moment of death when each individual will be judged on how they have lived their life. Hindus believe in reincarnation, with souls receiving a new body and life, depending on Karma, good and bad actions in a previous life. As in Buddhism, the goal is to be liberated from the cycle and to attain reunion with Brahman (Hindu) or Nirvana (Buddhist). Muslim beliefs are similar to many Christians. After physical death, the soul lives on to await Judgement Day and whether it will go to Paradise or Hell. Hey! Wait a minute - why are some judged immediately but others wait for judgement day? The Bible says there will be a judgement day so why are some people getting judged upon death? It is as if no one agrees on the same ideas. So, scratch that. We die, we are dead.

Is god good?

I agree with the outrage of Stephen Fry on this topic so I suggest you listen to him. He is talking in Catholic Ireland.

 

I do have several copies of the Bible and appreciate the poetry of the King James version.

 

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Corinthians 13

 

Aaaaand still talking about religion. The only thing missing is a quote from Richard Dawkins and a video from Ricky Gervais. ????

29 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, the law of cause and effect works on all planes of reality, that's imho one of the basic laws of the nature and the supernatural. 

I would disagree. The idea of cause and effect needs a linear timeline to work....a beginning (cause), a period of change and a resulting effect. This can only make sense on a plane that is restricted by time, such as ours.
If you take out time from the equation, then "cause and effect" become just floating moments in an eternal NOW.
For this reason, cause and effect seem to me the exception rather than the rule, when it comes to planes of reality.
 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

you would need to expand on that definition.

soul implies that the death of the body is not the absolute death of the person? 

the soul lives on after death? 

The way I understand it, is that the "soul" (I prefer to call it "self" due to the heavy religious associations with the word soul), is our true identity. Our present incarnation/individual personality is just one part of that soul. The soul is also the connecting link between us as an apparent individual and the divine consciousness (some call it God). The soul is not bound by space or time as we are and consciousness on the soul level is not so heavily restricted the way it is squeezed in the material form.
For example, we are bound by forces that seem very deeply ingrained our day to day life: time, space, the apparent disconnection between our ego-identity and the true self. But the connection is always there, always present. 
There seems to be a sort of membrane in place, or a veil of ignorance between the Ego-self and the self. This membrane functions as a safety valve and only lets a tiny bit of data come through from the self. The individual would not be ready or strong enough to receive the full force (knowledge, consciousness) of the self, and the self only provides the individual with the right amount of data as the individual can handle. There is a lot more to say about this here, especially free will, but let's try to keep it short.

Now, these are not static, unchangeable circumstances. We can train ourselves to lessen the grip of the ego and open ourselves more towards the inside. We can make ourselves stronger and thus manipulate the membrane, with the result that more consciousness/knowledge/intuition can be accessed by the individual. At the most basic: the weaker the identification with the ego, the stronger the connection with the soul/self.

To answer your question then....the soul/self, not being restricted by time and space, has no concepts of birth and death, beginning and end, cause and effect. They only make sense in our material 3D world. We, the apparently disconnected ego-individuals walking around in a perishable flesh coat, eventually will shed this coat and realize that our lives were just a blink in the ocean of eternity that is the soul/self's existence. 
Just like a smaller electromagnetic field can exist in and be part of a bigger field, the individual's memories will not be lost, but are stored as an integral part in the bigger field that is the self, which itself is a small field in the ultimate field called God.

This is some pretty heavy stuff for 9am. ????

Regarding cell memory. I had to mull it over for a few days, and the question(s) that popped up in my mind was....

A fetus in a womb, developing into a baby. Where or how does it learn to make the heart work? When it is born, how does it know how to breathe?

Obviously nobody is teaching it how to do it. So, where does this knowledge come from? Is it stored in our genes? Cells? Atoms? Or is it stored in some psychic database to which the baby has access? Or is it data carried by a cosmic field to which we have all and always access?

57 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Okay!!  Shall we begin with a headbanger? 

 

I've watched the Sheldrake video and can now put him to bed.  Here are my comments and observations.  My apologies for another long read but I simply cannot find a way to shorten it up.

 

I vigorously applaud Sheldrake for realizing that the world is not mechanistic, according to the view of physicalism, which is sometimes known as materialism.  He subscribes instead to the idea of panpsychism, which ascribes a primitive form of mentality to entities at the fundamental level of physics but does not ascribe mentality to most aggregate things, such as rocks or buildings. the truth that everything is conscious.  Overall, though, it is my view that he's missing much.

 

From the video description:

 

The sciences are pointing toward a new sense of a living world.  The cosmos is like a developing organism, and so is our planet, Gaia. The laws of Nature may be more like habits.  Partly as a result of the ‘hard problem’ of finding space for human consciousness in the materialist worldview, there is a renewed interest in panpsychist philosophies, according to which some form of mind, experience or consciousness is associated with all self-organizing systems, including atoms, molecules and plants.  Maybe the sun is conscious, and so are other stars, and entire galaxies. If so, what about the mind of the universe as a whole? Rupert Sheldrake will explore some of the implications of this idea.

 

The entire talk basically revolves around the attempt to explain the working model of the world and universe based on panpsychist theory.  Since so much is yet unknown then any proposed working model must therefore make assumptions to fill in the gaps.  And the assumptions made are precisely what needs to be the focus of anyone considering the overall validity of the model being constructed.  For wherever those assumptions are erroneous that is where you will find the flaws in the model.  Or where the model is faulty either in whole or in part.  I would caution anyone to first examine the assumptions made as to their validity and not just assume that the assumptions are correct lest you end up believing in a faulty model.

 

What I found oddly missing from his talk was any direct mention of objective and subjective reality.  Perhaps because panpsychism ultimately recognizes only the objective world?  Subjectivity appears to be nothing more than an aspect of consciousness per the article I read on panpsychism.

 

All in all panpsychism is simply one scientific theory, as opposed to materialism/physicalism, which is meant to explain our reality and provide us with a working model.  My assessment is that it is inaccurate in many respects and falls short for many reasons.

 

For one, consciousness is not an attribute of mind.  Consciousness is what we are.  The mind is that portion of consciousness which deals with physical reality.  Consciousness creates the mind.  The reverse of what panpsychism assumes.

 

For another, they are stuck on the idea that there exists only one reality, the only one which they have any awareness of . . . the physical one.

 

And since they think only in terms of an objective universe then subjectivity is stripped of it's reality.  As per panpsychism's relegation of subjectivity to be no more than an appendage of consciousness.

 

I find within panpsychism no firm definition as to what consciousness is, other than consciousness being an attribute of mind.  And neither is there a definition or explanation of what mind is.  Or mentality, for that matter.  These seem to be words which have no meaning, no definition, and no explanation of what they are.  And so I come away thinking that these scientists don't quite know what they're talking about.

 

From where I come from there is a definite and very real objective reality.  There is also a definite and very real subjective reality.  The source of objective reality is subjective reality.  It's the other way around from the accepted view.  Subjective reality creates objective reality.  Without subjective reality objective reality would not exist.  Consciousness creates form.  Again, not the other way around as is supposed.

 

With any philosophy or any world view here is what I look for above all else.  Cohesion.  When the individual components of most all world views, scientific or otherwise, are put together you will find that they are extremely ill fitting.  For instance, the conclusions of one branch of science are contradictory to the conclusions of another branch of science.  Here's a quote from the source of information that I've adopted:

 

"The sciences still keep secrets from each other. The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after the other, while the physicists realize that time is not only relative to the perceiver, but that all events are simultaneous. The archeologists merrily continue to date the remains of “past” civilizations, never asking themselves what the past means - or saying: “This is the past relative (underlined) to my point of perception.”"
—NotP Chapter 1: Session 752, July 28, 1975

 

What I find humorous and ironic is that I often get laughed at and derided for the unconventional ideas I express for they fly in the face of conventional thought.  I am told that my ideas are so far out in left field, run counter to mass accepted ideas, and thus can't be true.  And then I am assailed by all of the conventional ideas of how the world works, all of which I am thoroughly familiar with since they've all been taught to me throughout my life as well.  Yet when I drill down on their beliefs and ask them to explain how their world views actually work in practical detail not a one can provide even a partial rational explanation.  The devil is always in the details and ultimately they have none.

 

A true explanation of who we are and what this world is must account for every aspect of reality, every phenomenon, and be able to rationally and logically explain every experience.  And every aspect, phenomenon and explanation must fit together seamlessly.  I've come across only one source which has thus far been capable of fulfilling that very tall order.  And that source is not of this world.  At least no longer.  But only in our terms.

Kudos to anyone who is able to stay awake for the entirety of the talk.  Get ready to reference Wiki so you can understand the jargon. 

 

 

I agree with what you say about a model of reality that must include and make sense of every aspect of reality. Both objective and subjective. 

I'm not so versed in panpsychism to comment on that, and regarding Sheldrake, I think it would be interesting to hear what he thinks about your criticism. 

Still, with all the faults his model may have, I think he's doing a good job at shaking things up. It's a step in the right direction and makes people think that there is more than what conventional science tells us.

The world is not quite ready for Seth. I wish it were.

34 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I've been on sabbatical these past months.  Would someone quickly fill me in on what I've missed? 

Welcome back!

We found all the answers to the mystery of life. Apart from that, not much. ????

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Thats my point, but there is no control mechanisms or quality control or standard of who should be allowed to guide people like other critical institutions where harm and exploiting is a risk.

 

Im sure we can agree there is a jungle out there of charlatans who benefits of peoples trust in their practice. Abuse is a common problem when it comes to belief systems no matter what it is.

 

Anyway this is a roundabout discussion with no end and no answers except it is a norm, and we are manipulated to believe what we want to believe and make that as our truth. 

 

We make our own Illusions, and thats why everyone of us should be careful to say we know the truth. 

Agree 100%

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

In matter to spread religion and spiritualism to inspire others, and  let other people know there is a way, it is necessary to take ownership and capitalize it. 

There is nothing wrong if wealth comes as a result from spreading beneficial ideas. It is only wrong if you misuse those ideas for the sole purpose of making money. 

11 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I didn't say it's all nonsense.

 

Good. Its a starting point.

In any case, it is no great mystery that meditation can alleviate physical illnesses. Just think how many physical problems arise from unhealthy mental states...depression, anxiety, stress....they all have negative physical manifestations. 

Meditation can help bring the mental side back to health, and then the physical will follow suit. No anxiety = no high blood pressure (for example).

7 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Ok, lets talk about Eckhart Tolle then.

I haven't read his work, just a few quotes.

He claims in his book that meditation can cure illnesses. 

I don't believe it. This appears to be nonsense to me, possibly deliberate on his part. 

 

So the guy with the most charisma and eloquence comes off as the most 'enlightened', even though many of the things these people are saying are factually inaccurate and/or useless. 

 

You can't trust everything anyone says. 

Except Snoopy.

 

I'm not going to try to convince you of the contrary, but my suggestion is that if you want to criticise someone's work, the least you should do is know what you're criticising.

"I haven't read anything he wrote, but I think it's all nonsense " is simply not good enough. 

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Rhats exactly what Dawkins and Fry is calling out, not individuals who believe in something!?

That may be so, but when they are quoted here, it is always in an attempt at disproving or ridiculing spirituality as a whole.

In other words, people here use legitimate criticism of organized religion to discredit spirituality altogether, when they are in fact 2 very different things.

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Spirituality is not just spirituality, it is also control, money driven, exploiting of confused mental ill needed people who have totally lost direction in life, promises given, money taken, and execute both mentally abuse and sexual abuse. 

 

As well capitalistic driven hence book, membership, volunteer work for the organisation/temple, be it work for free, collect or missionary work. There is alot of brainwashing and control involved by using simple mass succession methods to convince and give people socalled true experiences.

 

A dirty business same as organized religion with same goal. 

 

I say this as a picture of many organizations who run spiritualistic camps and organisations not individuals who manage themselves without exploiting others. 

Even if you call them spiritual organisations instead of religious organisations, they remain organisations. They can fall in the same pitfalls.

Spirituality in its true meaning, is the personal connection one has with his inner self. 

52 minutes ago, bangon04 said:

His views on the potential evils of (organised) religion are both impressively intellectual and easy for the average non-intellectual to understand.

His arguments, although presented in a coherent and eloquent manner, are nonetheless very simplistic. They refer to organized religion and say nothing about spirituality. 

I don't understand why people like him or Richard Dawkins are regarded as authorities about spirituality, when they obviously don't have a clue about it. All they do is criticise religious dogma, which is a completely different pair of shoes.

I guess they are quoted so often here by people who also confuse religion with spirituality.