What is spirituality?

[SolitaryWalker]

Spirituality is most properly defined as a quest for another world. This suggests, as a reasonable man would think, that the prophets experienced intuitions which transformed them from within.

Then they went about to pass down their teachings to others. They translated their ideas into concrete symbols, something that could be more easily related to our world. Yet, the common-place folk figured that it is not the intuitions that hold transforming power, but the concrete objects and symbols the prophets allude to. Deification of scripture is the case in point. That is, how we think that every single word in the bible is divinely inspired. Or how we think there is something sacred about the wine and bread that we eat. Or how Jesus literally rose from the dead.

This is where our spirituality turns into superstition, we worship not God but our ink and paper, and whatever notions befitted the prejudices of the prophets who taught us our religion. The biggest threat to spirituality is the Judeo-Christian anthropomorphic notion of God. God is best thought of as the greatest possible good. Yet with the Judeo-Christian religious tradition it has been reduced to no more than a powerful person. As we see in our Old Testament, such a person is far from all good, and therefore the original notion of 'God' has been lost. What is abstract to the point of ineffability, which is exactly what our great prophets experienced cannot be instantiated--it cannot be made concrete as easily as they'd have us believe. Therefore the very idea of the greatest possible good in the world becoming a person is absurd.

This is another example of our spirituality degenerating into fables.

 

[vince]

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said except with your initial definition of spirituality. I don't think it's a quest for other worlds, but rather an exploration of one's own mind and the deeper layers of THIS world.

If you look up its' definition on wikipedia you get a whole range of definition.

a few examples:

-Having to do with deep, often religious, feelings and beliefs, including a person’s sense of peace, purpose, connection to others and beliefs ...

-An inner sense of something greater than oneself. Recognition of a meaning to existence that transcends one's immediate circumstances.

I already disagree with the above, but some other definitions take it one step further into the absurd.
a few examples :

-property or income owned by a church

-A specific way of living some particular aspect of the Gospel

No wonder many people dismiss spirituality as nonsense, or associate it with new age.

The only decent definition imho is :
Spirituality concerns itself with matters of the mind.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said except with your initial definition of spirituality. I don't think it's a quest for other worlds, but rather an exploration of one's own mind and the deeper layers of THIS world.

If you look up its' definition on wikipedia you get a whole range of definition.

a few examples:

-Having to do with deep, often religious, feelings and beliefs, including a person

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The only decent definition imho is :
Spirituality concerns itself with matters of the mind.

I think this is too general. One can be a materialist philosopher, and by that definition be spiritual. We could even say that every person who has a sound inner life, is spiritual. Therefore the requirement for spirituality is being non-philistine.

Seems to me that there needs to be a close affinity between your thought and the 'other-world'. Religions often tend not to be spiritual because the 'other-world' can be accessed only through intuitions, yet they insist on scrupulous observance of concrete symbols that were supposed to represent those intuitions and therefore fail to see past them.

 

[vince]

I think this is too general. One can be a materialist philosopher, and by that definition be spiritual. We could even say that every person who has a sound inner life, is spiritual. Therefore the requirement for spirituality is being non-philistine.

Well, that's basically how I see it. A person's spirituality can however be cultivated further & further, through intellectual pursuit and other means. Every human being has a bodily aspect but also a spiritual aspect, unless they're braindead, in my perspective. It just varies from person to person how well they've developed their spiritual side.
I don't really make a distinction between spirit and mind, if that clarifies anything.

It's difficult to pinpoint this matter, basically because it's not part of the material world. Very much in the same sense as psychology is an odd branch of science.

Seems to me that there needs to be a close affinity between your thought and the 'other-world'. Religions often tend not to be spiritual because the 'other-world' can be accessed only through intuitions, yet they insist on scrupulous observance of concrete symbols that were supposed to represent those intuitions and therefore fail to see past them.

Now that I come to think about it, it's probably true that religion works through intuition. I never saw it like that. In that sense I understand your way of defining spirituality.

For most people, religion is indeed a dogmatic experience rather than anything else.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

For most people, religion is indeed a dogmatic experience rather than anything else.

That, also is too narrow of a definition. One can have a dogmatic adherence to a set of baseball playing rules. Does this make such a person religious?

I wouldnt think so. A religion tends to have a comprehensive worldview, an outline of ethics and an inquiry into cosmology. Of course with some axioms acceped as incontrovertible. Or on authority.

The last is certainly the salient aspect of religiosity, though far from the only one. As otherwise too many things would be religious, because we make many decisions dogmatically and feel them justified by authority. In such an event, the way you brush your teeth or the way you drive your car would also have to be called religious.

Well, that's basically how I see it. A person's spirituality can however be cultivated further & further, through intellectual pursuit and other means. Every human being has a bodily aspect but also a spiritual aspect, unless they're braindead, in my perspective. It just varies from person to person how well they've developed their spiritual side.
I don't really make a distinction between spirit and mind, if that clarifies anything..

In this regard everyone is spiritual to the extent that they use their mind. We all do to some extent, so we are all spiritual. In this regard even thinking about how to cook the best meal, or how to park your car would also be spiritual because you exercise your mind whilst doing that. Again, too many things would be spiritual by that definition. Much like your definition of religiosity, this one depicts only one, though far from essential quality of religiosity. Because of this it could apply to many other things as well. Spirituality cannot claim proprietorship of that definition.

 

[vince]

That, also is too narrow of a definition. One can have a dogmatic adherence to a set of baseball playing rules. Does this make such a person religious?

I wouldnt think so. A religion tends to have a comprehensive worldview, an outline of ethics and an inquiry into cosmology. Of course with some axioms acceped as incontrovertible. Or on authority.

The last is certainly the salient aspect of religiosity, though far from the only one. As otherwise too many things would be religious, because we make many decisions dogmatically and feel them justified by authority. In such an event, the way you brush your teeth or the way you drive your car would also have to be called religious.

In your previous post, you said people follow text rather than intuition. That makes it a dogmatic experience, for those people, doesn't it ? I was actually agreeing with you, rather than defining anything.

In this regard everyone is spiritual to the extent that they use their mind. We all do to some extent, so we are all spiritual. In this regard even thinking about how to cook the best meal, or how to park your car would also be spiritual because you exercise your mind whilst doing that. Again, too many things would be spiritual by that definition. Much like your definition of religiosity, this one depicts only one, though far from essential quality of religiosity. Because of this it could apply to many other things as well. Spirituality cannot claim proprietorship of that definition.

The way we think about cooking our meal is indeed a spiritual affair, to me. Like I said before, I make no distinction between spirit & mind. Every single person however has different ways of doing things, like cooking for instance. Some have more refined ways or sometimes more creative ways of doing it, etcetera.
I don't quite understand what's wrong with a broad definition. I don't want to narrow it down, just for practical purposes, or for easier labeling. Things outside the physical reality happen to be abstract, or open for broad interpretation.
So that's what it is for me.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

In your previous post, you said people follow text rather than intuition. That makes it a dogmatic experience, for those people, doesn't it ? I was actually agreeing with you, rather than defining anything.



The way we think about cooking our meal is indeed a spiritual affair, to me. Like I said before, I make no distinction between spirit & mind. Every single person however has different ways of doing things, like cooking for instance. Some have more refined ways or sometimes more creative ways of doing it, etcetera.
I don't quite understand what's wrong with a broad definition. I don't want to narrow it down, just for practical purposes, or for easier labeling. Things outside the physical reality happen to be abstract, or open for broad interpretation.
So that's what it is for me.

Than we are not talking about the same thing when we use the word spirituality.

 

[Kiddo]

Whoa...deja vu. Bluewing, didn't we have a discussion like this in another thread not too long ago? It seems to be ending the same way. Spirituality means such different things to different people. Asking "what is spirituality?" invites so many different subjective answers.

 

[vince]

Than we are not talking about the same thing when we use the word spirituality.

Then why for the love of god do you start a thread "what is spirituality?" when apparently you only tolerate of people to come up with your defintion of it.

I was trying to discuss something, you know like exchanging & evolving ideas... but all you seem to care about is arguing.



Pathetic. I'm out.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Whoa...deja vu. Bluewing, didn't we have a discussion like this in another thread not too long ago? It seems to be ending the same way. Spirituality means such different things to different people. Asking "what is spirituality?" invites so many different subjective answers.

I am talking about the idea that I have defined as spirituality. Nevermind that word, think about the idea behind it. You can label it however, you want, though the essence of the notion will not change.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Then why for the love of god do you start a thread "what is spirituality?" when apparently you only tolerate of people to come up with your defintion of it..

The more you argue (show me your Ti), the more patience with your ideas I'll have.

I never implied that there was something wrong with your idea, only that is not relevant to this thread. I dont want to talk about all the things we could possibly mean by 'spirituality', I want to talk about the thing that I had in mind when I used that word in my OP. Now, you can use a different word to depict that, I could care less, so long as you keep the idea intact.

I was trying to discuss something, you know like exchanging & evolving ideas[/B]... but all you seem to care about is arguing.I was trying to discuss something, you know like exchanging & evolving ideas[/B]... but all you seem to care about is arguing..

Arguing is the most efficient way to ensure an evolution of ideas as through critical examination we will purge our thinking of erroneous notions. Thats the distinction between truth-seeking inquiry and mere fantasy. In the former only ideas that are likely to be true are good, yet anything goes in the latter.

 

[wildcat]

Spirituality is most properly defined as a quest for another world. This suggests, as a reasonable man would think, that the prophets experienced intuitions which transformed them from within.

Then they went about to pass down their teachings to others. They translated their ideas into concrete symbols, something that could be more easily related to our world. Yet, the common-place folk figured that it is not the intuitions that hold transforming power, but the concrete objects and symbols the prophets allude to. Deification of scripture is the case in point. That is, how we think that every single word in the bible is divinely inspired. Or how we think there is something sacred about the wine and bread that we eat. Or how Jesus literally rose from the dead.

This is where our spirituality turns into superstition, we worship not God but our ink and paper, and whatever notions befitted the prejudices of the prophets who taught us our religion. The biggest threat to spirituality is the Judeo-Christian anthropomorphic notion of God. God is best thought of as the greatest possible good. Yet with the Judeo-Christian religious tradition it has been reduced to no more than a powerful person. As we see in our Old Testament, such a person is far from all good, and therefore the original notion of 'God' has been lost. What is abstract to the point of ineffability, which is exactly what our great prophets experienced cannot be instantiated--it cannot be made concrete as easily as they'd have us believe. Therefore the very idea of the greatest possible good in the world becoming a person is absurd.

This is another example of our spirituality degenerating into fables.

A paradox.
The other is in the house.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

A paradox.
The other is in the house.

Very well thought out, as usual.

 

[Kiddo]

Spirituality is most properly defined as a quest for another world.

My idea of spirituality isn't "otherworldly". I've always found it strange that since man's earliest days we have contemplated the idea of an afterlife, more than likely because of our fear of the unknown. Is it really that horrifying; the idea that once we die we cease to exist? Or maybe we just need some sort of judgment on the end of our days in order to justify how we lived our lives.

The essence of spirituality as defined comes in three parts.

1. There exist some essence of each individual beyond their physical form.
2. There exist some supreme essence over all living things.
3. There is some form of life or existence beyond the here and now.

We tend to define the existence beyond our mortal coils as eternal and even though it can't be killed, it can be sullied. The choices we make in life somehow have an impact upon our soul, spirit, etc. The supreme being is usually defined as the great judge of how sullied our souls have become. So the supreme being determines whether we are worthy of transcending into the existence beyond or the consequence associated with sullying our souls. So life becomes the stage for transcendence.

Spirituality therefore becomes the governing factor over our behavior. Why should I not kill to get what I want? Because it would sully my soul and keep God from granting me the reward of heaven. Just as a parent would be the judge of whether or not a child deserves a treat or spanking for their behavior, spirituality becomes the idea of reward or punishment for every reasonable adult's behavior.

In that essence, spirituality plays into humanity's psychology. As animals we can be conditioned, and as humans even just the threat of harm or the promise of reward is enough for us to change how we would normally behave.

 

[LIND]

Spirituality is contemplating about whether our physical nature is the whole, or whether our physical nature is only a part of the whole. Most people refuse to believe that the mere palpable matter is all that there is to us, and as evidence they will use the examples of power of abstraction, our imagination, our Reason, our ability to meditate upon things that are much higher than our limited nature. Apostle Paul (New Test.) says "He has instilled in us the thought of eternity", while philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach asserts that the end in our ability to contemplate is the thought of God; the idea of God is an end in itself, therefore that is the highest we can climb. Whether God is in fact real we don't know, but the fact does remain that unconsciously we sort of seek an end in which we can say "I can not rise above this, therefore this exists and this is the highest".
For those that are not ready to just simply accept the idea of God, and therefore to just call it "an end in itself" which for them would mean 'call it quits in seeking..", well those people seek whether there is more than what appears at sensorial level. In order to do so, they will attempt to analyze whether senses are in fact deceiving, and if they will arive at the conclusion that senses are in fact deceiving, that in itself will serve as some sort of evidence that perhaps there is something higher than what we merely have access to through our sensorial apparatus.
Perhaps Reason, though flawed, yet more trustful than the senses, is more reliable and might reveal to us a reality which lies beyond the physical, a world unknown to us. On the other hand, perhaps Reason might deny that which is equivocal, and it will not declare it as being valid unless cogent arguments are offered in support of it!
Thus you have a dichotomy in which some people "have found the answer" while others are still seeking the answer. Sadly I used to think that I am sure of the answer, until not to long ago when as Immanuel Kant says that 'when Reason gets stired in the subject, the subject realizes that he posseses the ability to speculate', and so I am still seeking....
Can we truly find the truth about whether that other spiritual world does exist? Perhaps not while living....

 

[sundowning]

Spirituality to me largely seems about connecting to something greater than yourself. Most associate it with the supernatural, I associate it with nature, and perhaps even to bend the definition a bit, aspects of humankind (social aspects of the collective).

 

[Athenian200]

Spirituality is most properly defined as a quest for another world. This suggests, as a reasonable man would think, that the prophets experienced intuitions which transformed them from within.

Then they went about to pass down their teachings to others. They translated their ideas into concrete symbols, something that could be more easily related to our world. Yet, the common-place folk figured that it is not the intuitions that hold transforming power, but the concrete objects and symbols the prophets allude to. Deification of scripture is the case in point. That is, how we think that every single word in the bible is divinely inspired. Or how we think there is something sacred about the wine and bread that we eat. Or how Jesus literally rose from the dead.

This is where our spirituality turns into superstition, we worship not God but our ink and paper, and whatever notions befitted the prejudices of the prophets who taught us our religion. The biggest threat to spirituality is the Judeo-Christian anthropomorphic notion of God. God is best thought of as the greatest possible good. Yet with the Judeo-Christian religious tradition it has been reduced to no more than a powerful person. As we see in our Old Testament, such a person is far from all good, and therefore the original notion of 'God' has been lost. What is abstract to the point of ineffability, which is exactly what our great prophets experienced cannot be instantiated--it cannot be made concrete as easily as they'd have us believe. Therefore the very idea of the greatest possible good in the world becoming a person is absurd.

This is another example of our spirituality degenerating into fables.

So your complaint is that people tend to reduce the deeper understanding/meaning of something into more literal notions? Is this similar to some of the complaints of Martin Luther about the Catholic Church?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Since I argued with you on INTPc about your OP on one point, I'll choose another to argue with you here, since, truly speaking, you're my favorite person to debate, Seahorse.

You define spirituality as a quest for another world. That's an immature understanding, whether it's yours or not. Spirituality is not a quest for ANOTHER world, it's a way of returning to this world. "Spiritual techniques" are ways for people to shed the bullshit they accumulate over their day and over the years on account of stress, social programming, and constantly chasing something, whether that be understanding, sex, or spirituality itself, which is a fun paradox. The bullshit puts them out of touch with themselves and their surroundings as they get too caught up in perceiving their judgments of reality (this is good for me, this is bad for me) and thoughts about it (which is why I am weary of philosophy) rather than simply perceiving it as it truly is, within character of value, as it unfolds in the present moment. That's what TRULY exists in this world, not in some other world. Indeed, thinking that there's somewhere else to be ("another world") is the same thing that severs the connection to the real world, which is, simply put, constant and interminable chasing.

 

[Totenkindly]

...Apostle Paul (New Test.) says "He has instilled in us the thought of eternity"

Didn't you mean this? Ecclesiastes 3:11 -- He has (A)made everything [a]appropriate in its time He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man (B)will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

Perhaps Reason, though flawed, yet more trustful than the senses, is more reliable and might reveal to us a reality which lies beyond the physical, a world unknown to us. On the other hand, perhaps Reason might deny that which is equivocal, and it will not declare it as being valid unless cogent arguments are offered in support of it!

That is the rub.

Reason can suggest things, through inductive reasoning, but it cannot prove anything because it has to make certain assumptions in order to frame its case, doesn't it?

Can we truly find the truth about whether that other spiritual world does exist? Perhaps not while living....

We can only "prove" something that can be observed, because proving is being able to show something is reliable/predictable. Internal experience is useful to convince an individual but cannot be transferred to anyone else wholemeal, and much of what is passed off as spiritual 'truth' cannot be shown or proven, it's a matter of choice (and thus faith).

You define spirituality as a quest for another world. That's an immature understanding, whether it's yours or not. Spirituality is not a quest for ANOTHER world, it's a way of returning to this world...

That was a great point, Edahn. Thank you for reframing the question.