Darkness is a part of spirituality, yet there is a trend to censor it in some spiritual groups. No one really likes to talk about the bad side of things, and part of the reason they don’t is either an idea that it somehow makes their efforts impure, or just simply the tendency to label darkness in ones life as bad. Some are seeking a transcendent enlightenment, and to talk about bad things is to “fail.”

Like the philosophical era, but less empirical? Yes, the new age movement is heavy with it. I’m not bashing their attraction to enlightenment, but let’s be honest, it tends to degenerate into a lot of posturing and drama so they get and become what they themselves criticize. Many of the old mystery traditions of ancient Greece, and even the modern Christian baptismal ceremony if the person actually looks into it, are symbolic trips through hell, and acknowledgment that darkness teaches wisdom, even if it’s only to back up the authority of their religious leader.

But is it darkness as a means to an end? Ah, that raises a question of definition, and means to an end, well… I haven’t myself seen that sort of thinking backed up in daily reality. Darkness occurs without any attention to means or ends, does it not? And in fact, because it does it often seems to invalidate many spiritual traditions. “Seems to” being the operative word. I believe that any spiritual tradition, that has had any power to endure, had it because it held some truth. It strengthened us somehow, but we degenerate into an awareness of rituals, and doctrines, and actually lose the spiritual life that the faith promised us. We mistake the tool for the goal. This is why many loose their faith, and it arises from a distortion of the view of the original spirituality, and even the community they would claim for themselves.

So what’s the goal again? Not transcendental enlightenment? Ultimately the goal is ill defined. At least in English it’s ill defined, but we all on some level intuit that there is a meaning to life, and a way we can live better in this life.

42? And yes, maybe it’s just humour, and we are to enjoy the joke. Sounds fine to me.

We have a facade we put up to avoid seeking within, but within we have a dark, sick, deluded soul? Yes, possibly, or maybe what we consider a dark, sick, deluded soul is actually the very font of enlightenment, and our espoused ideal, and much vaunted reason, are the actually sickness.

But that’s relative is it not? It all depends on what the individual is truly seeking. What about masochists? The terms are often implied judgements that prevent us from scrutinizing something that just seems weird and scary to our “thinking” mind. People are very fond of their individualism, even praised for it, but there are some things that are still very much fact. We are biologically compatible. Our nervous systems, though variable, are still largely the same on a functional level. Our biological needs are basically the same, and like it or not this does impact our psychology.

We all respond to orgasm in largely similar ways. Although some people believe that that’s evil and unfortunately avoid the experience. Indeed, some people do. I think this notion very strange, and thus I embrace discussion of darkness. Let’s bottom line perhaps. What we have now is life. What we have now is bodies.

Is Humanism the worship of bodies then? I would say not entirely. It has observations on the potential of the mind.

Welcome Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Regrettably there are no pirates here, but there maybe are some in spirit. They say there is a fine line between humour and horror, and this is maybe why other groups forbid the discussion of darkness. If they don’t, then they have to take their holiness far less seriously. But in my view, I would rather take something as I experience it, and take it into my reality. I don’t care much for holiness.

What is holiness? Holding something as privileged. Holiness is the quality of being holy, sacred. Held above everything else in kind of an executive position. Why must we see the spiritual, the sacred, as being removed?

The sacred is sacred only if it knows how funny it is? And many traditions have held this view. The Heyoka Shaman or “sacred clown” was no less in touch with the spirits. He just had a different message.

The western “jester“? If the jester had adhered to the original pagan faith yes, and some did. He drew inspiration from the Bardic traditions. The one who mocks you might be doing you a favour. The person who vexes you might not be your enemy. Often the person you blame for your upsets wasn’t thinking about you anyway.

The origins of Halloween mock death. Indeed, and is death above mockery? Should it be taken so very seriously? It just is.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~