Attempt at criteria for truth in a spiritual science

Traditional science relies on objective, interpersonal proof of its hypotheses, as the objective, interpersonal reality is its area of study. If knowledge of the spiritual is the opposite of knowledge of the physical, it follows that if the last need objective proof, the former needs subjective proof. We are, however, used to thinking that objective proof is the only form of proof. That without empirical evidence, knowledge is not truly possible. I will attempt to show that within the science of the spirit, such proof is possible, and indeed the only possible form of evidence.
Now, all of this presupposes the excistence of some sort of spiritual substance. I will hold that such a substance does indeed excist, but I will not argue this point here, as the genre of the blog lends itself to shorter texts. I might return to this problem at a later date, even though it is my belief that it is actually impossible to prove such a thing; it is for the individual to accept or reject at his or her own whim. I do, however, have some arguments in favor of my position on this issue, and thus may return to this in future posts.
Anyway, the excistence of some kind of spiritual substance accepted (if for nothing else, only for the sake of argument), we can move on to trying to establish a base on which to build the knowledge we seek. The first tool we have at our disposal on this quest for knowledge is logic. Any argument in support of a particular truth must be logically consistent. I do see that there are problems with this approach. First, it must be admitted that logic is a tool of traditional science, which we have just defined as the opposite of the doctrine we are trying to establish. Second, as we can not directly observe the spiritual substance, we actually have no proof that this realm is governed by logic at all; it might be entirely irrational, inaccessible to logic.
At this point, I need to formulate a second postulate to be accepted by the reader. In addition to assuming that there is such a thing as a spiritual substance, we must also assume that we have access to this substance in some way. Without such access, everything we are trying to achieve here will be meaningless. The only way I can think of that such access could be possible is through the soul, which idea is the basis for the idea of a spiritual substance in the first place. The theory must be, that in some way (I will get back to this later), our souls are the part of us that belongs to the spiritual realm. The part of our consciousness that lies one level above our thoughts. We have access to this world through such excercises as meditation or other techniques for achieving what is called altered states of consciousness. In these states, where normal consciousness and the mind are removed from our being, we experience pure excistence within our own souls, and thus observe its nature. It is also what we catch a glimpse of when we experience epiphanies, short feelings of complete knowledge that evaporates as quickly as it materialised.
I stated earlier that evidence of spiritual truth must be subjective. What is meant by this is that such knowledge can only be valid for the subject, that is, you can never prove to someone else that your vision of the spirit is true or valid. It can only be proven within the confines of the self. Such knowledge can still be communicated, though, but each individual, when exposed to something claimed as a spiritual truth, must decide for himself whether it is valid or not. Keep in mind, however, that I am still not claiming that each and everyone is entitled to his or her own version of the truth, and that all religious-dogmatic superstitions can be valid as spiritual truths as long as the individual decides for him or herself that this is what he or she believes in because it is written.
No, this is where I arrive at my main point: What must be devised, is a method. A method through which the individual can test any claim to spiritual truth he or she is confronted with. Now, the method itself must be interpersonal, but it is of such a nature that it can only be applied subjectively. My first proposition for an element in such a guide is the principle of irreversability, as it might be called. Certain ideas, once scrutinized thouroughly, can not be rejected. A most obvious example of this kind of thruth is mathematics. Once you have learned a mathematical axiom, it can not be unlearned. It is an inescapable truth once accepted. This also presupposes an open mind, and a sincere willingness and perpetual readyness to abandon your convictions.
A cuple of issues must be addressed. First (indeed for this post, I think it must be the last, I must continue on this later), philosophical, ethical or metaphysical claims are not the same as mathematical truths. They are much more complex, and thus a lot harder to judge according to the method I describe above. In fact, any metaphysical claim, such as "God is red", can not be absolutely proven or disproven through this method, but in fact, this is not the point here. It is not the point of this method to enable one to do such a thing. It may seem that this invalidates the whole system, but I will try to explain why I believe that it does not.
Take the afforementioned epiphany as an example. If indeed this is an experience of the pure spirit (it may not be, though, but it still serves as a useful example). When you "come to your senses" after such an experience, you feel at a loss to explain the truth you feel you have grasped. I have stated in an earlier blog that I believe our thoughts to be the products of our physical brains and not our souls. Our brain operates logically (not necessarily in a strict, scientific sense), and our language even more so. Logic is dependent on categorizing, while the spiritual truth is a truth of the whole. Our logical brains can not fully comprehend the concepts of complete oneness or eternity, and our logical language can not explain them, for language is dependent on duality for its operation. Thus, the absolute truth can not be spoken, but words may lead you in the right direction, and it is on this higher level that the method must be utilized; as an overall judge of your complete body of knowledge rather than at the level of individual claims.
(To be continued...)

Body and soul

God attempts to create a perfect universe. This perfect universe is purely spiritual in nature, it has no physical aspect, and it is identical to God itself. God, in creating the universe, is actually creating itself. The physical dimension of the universe is a result of resistance. Resistance splits the essence of God, life and existence into pluralities and dualities. The origin of everything is oneness, unity. The core of everything the same.
It follows that the spiritual dimension in which our souls, our consciousness and will, lives, is in fact part of God. Our souls are part of God. However, it must be noted that the mind is not analogous to the soul. The soul is our basic life force, our will to act and to exist. Our thoughts and emotions are physical manifestations of our souls, as are our bodies.
Certain psychological experiments have come up with evidence hinting that the movement of our limbs occurs before activity in the areas of the brain controlling these movements can be seen. This seems to suggest that we are not in control of our bodies, and that there is no free will. It could just as well be evidence that will is something that occurs before thought, and that thoughts are physical manifestations of the self on the exact same level as the body.
One might say that the body, thoughts and emotions included, is an anchor for the soul, holding it together and in place. The soul lives in the entire body, not just in the mind. The impression that our mind contains our consciousness is an illusion caused by the fact that this is where our senses and the interpretive organ, the brain, are. The soul receives its information about the physical world through these objects, and so gets the impression that this is where it is. In reality, it is just as much present in our limbs, causing them to move, as it is in our brains, causing them to think.

Evil

Immanuel!
In christian theology the existence of evil is usually explained as a consequence of free will. In other words, man creates evil, not God. God´s omnipotence and moral perfection are seemingly preserved. But could not God have created free will as a choice between several kinds of good? What I mean is that, even if man is responsible for evil in its manifest form, God is still responsible for evil as a possibility.
So, in my opinion, something must be sacrificed, either God´s purity or his omnipotence. The only thing that makes sense, is sacrificing omnipotence (I might argue for this later). God attempts to create the perfect universe, but there exists some inherent resistance in the basis for the universe. Everything in existence is created by God, in battle with this resistance, which is not an active agent or a force. It simply IS. It has no agenda or will, it does not seek the end of existence, rather it hinders it´s creation, passively.
It is this resistance that is responsible for all kinds of evil in the world. Every evil action, every emotion that triggers this action, is a consequence of a resistance to God´s energy within oneself. The struggle inside each individual to flow free with the positive energies of God is analogous to God´s own struggle to overcome resistance and create the perfect universe.
Everything in the universe is a manifestation of God´s power, but the inner world of the mind is a more direct manifestation of it than the physical. Our minds, our consciousness, floats in an ether which is a part of God´s own consciousness. If knowledge of the physical world can be gained by observing it, then knowledge of God can be gained by observing consciousness.

Art

Art must be defined, not by what it is in the physical universe, but by the effect it has on the observer. Great piece of art, regardless of genre, takes you on a spiritual journey. It creates a world inside each consumers individual mind. This world or journey is hard to describe precisely because it is in its nature spiritual and as such imprecise. It is a mass of emotions and images produced by the mind from the raw material of the artwork itself.

Any descriptions of an artwork whether it be attempts to place it within a tradition, analysing its message, describing the techniques used etc. are nothing but incomplete attempts at describing this world, and can never do justice to the piece itself or the world it creates within each of us.

Plato states that art is inferior to philosophy since art is an attempt at making a copy of the physical world which again is a copy of the world of ideas which is where true reality is found, while philosophy describes the world of ideas directly. Using this terminology, my view is that true art never refers to the physical world at all. Even for paintings in the figurative tradition this is true. The artwork creates a world of ideas of its own, which is only relevant in relation to the work itself and the one experiencing it.

It is primarily the depth and complexity of this inner world that grants any work of art it´s quality, the wealth of inner experiences it has to offer. Certain musical pieces for example, when listened to can assail the mind with images it´s eyes has never seen and emotions it´s heart has never felt. It is in the uniqueness of these experiences the work´s originality lies, and though of no value in itself, originality coupled with great depth can set in motion such inner happenings as can completely numb the brain with it´s force, or tear it´s owner away from reality immersing her completely in the world of it´s making. Indeed, the perfect work of art would render anyone exposed to it completely insane!

There are many types of art that do not have the creation of inner worlds as their goal, but rather points to the outside world. I deem them completely worthless.

Morality is easy

I think there is an unspoken attitude in the protestant tradition that living a moral life is essentially easy. This may sound strange, but what I mean by it is that a protestant assumes there is no skill, no learned aspect to leading a moral existence. All that is needed is that you make the choice to live morally, and then stick by that decision, mainly through strength of character or self-oppression.
This attitude leads to some unfortunate effects in north european moral life. Firstly, it fosters arrogance on the part of the morally enlightened individual. There will be a tendency to look down upon those who live less morally conscious life, as all that would be needed to turn this practise around would be the choice to do so. Sometimes this could also lead to erroneous moral prerogatives as one would be inclined to think that ones life is eminently moral and can get no better.
Another consequence of this way of thinking is that it may result in the fear and thus loathing of morally superiour ways of life. In stead of admiring those that are capable following a better moral path, one hates him or her to guard off ones own guilty conscience. Since most people like to view themselves as moral individuals, any morality that does not concur with the way they are living must be seen as wrong, or their own life would be wrong.
This could be a way of explaining why many people in this part of the world despises vegetarians for example. There is no room for thinking that what you do yourself is wrong without it incurring guilt. The perspective of moral skill makes this way of thinking possible. Living a morally perfect life takes large amounts of positive energy, not just self-restraint. It demands that you set aside part of your life for this purpose. Morals, thinking about them and working with your personality to approach them, must be prioritized alongside such things as your job for example. This is how Jesus and Buddha became great, they devoted their entire life to morality and thought.
In other words; when you live your life in a way that is wrong according to what you see as morally good, it means that you are unable to, in this point in time, live morally better. You should still aspire to get better, thinking that shifting to a morally conscious way of life is like turning a switch is dangerous, not only in the ways described above, but also to yourself. It may lead to depression or even madness or suicide.
One can and should allways strive to get better, but this should be done in a constructive and positive manner, much like practising on an instrument for example, not through self-punishment and self-hate.

Good and evil in nature

Of all the views concerning nature and morality I have come across, the view that nature as a whole is morally neutral seems to be the most common. Some thinkers have held that nature is either good or bad. These last two views seems to antiquated today.
When it comes to individuals in nature, the dominating opinion also seems to be that animals and plants cannot be subjected to moral judgements. The argument is usually that these animals or plants are simply following their nature and thus can not be said to be either good nor evil.
I can agree with this to a certain point. As a species, you can not say that wolves are evil because they kill sheep. That makes wolves an enemy of sheep and the sheepfarmer, but not objectively evil. The wolf must kill to survive. Killing is natural to a wolf. So when a wolf kills, it is not an act of murder, but an act of necessity.
But, this does not account for individual differences between animals within the same species. For example, we have heard tales of man killing tigers in India. Tigers as a species does not hunt humans as a rule, they generally keep away from humans as most predators do. Still sometimes, for reasons unknown single tigers go amok and turn into veritable serial killers. All killings of humans performed by tigers can be ascribed to just a few individuals each killing many.
I would state that such tigers are evil, as opposed to a normal tiger that kills only to eat, and only it's natural game. These few tigers are partly responsible for the emnity between man and those beasts. Explanations abound as to why these killings may be seen as justified, like men killing tiger cubs and the like. That may well be, but such explanations are to be found about human serial killers as well, and accepting their actions on these grounds would be absurd. Having a good reason generally does not excuse murder.

"Emotions are alien to me; I am a scientist" -Mr. Spock