How do you Define "Spiritual" and "Spirituality"?

Sunstone said:

How do you define "spiritual" and/or "spirituality"? Any particular reason you prefer that definition?

Click to expand...

Sunstone,
I am a Biblist, a person that believes that only the Bible should be place where we get Trur Spiritual Knowledge, so I will show why I believe or define Spiritual. Spiritual has to do with something deeply religious, something that comes from God, or His Spirit.
The Bible tells us that we MUST worship God in Spirit and truth. To worship God in spirit means that we must do the things that come from God’s spirit, and not from the tendencies of the flesh, Galatians 5:19-25, tells us exactly what the thingsof the spirit are and also what the things of the flesh are.
Romans ,chapter 8:1-14, tells us why we should do the things of the Spirit, and not of the flesh. Meditate on these Scriptures, and you will understand that, even though we live in the flesh, we must do predominately, the things of the flesh, because if you do the things of the flesh, on purpose you are sure to die, but if you try to do the things of the Spirit, you will live. If you pray to God for help in doing the things of the Spirit, He will help you to understand His word, even the deep things of His word, 1Corinthians 2:10.
God’s Spirit is what causes everything to exist and keep living, Psalms 104:29,30, Job 34:14-16. You see, man does not have a spirit that lives after He dies, the spirit God gave to a man, while he lives, goes back to God, Who gave it, Ecclesiastes 12:7. The Spirit is the way that God causes things to happen. God is not material as we are so He does things by His Spirit, just as we do things with our Hands. Consider 1Corinthians Chapters 12-14, when you have time, nd you will understand just how God uses His Spirit. Even though many, many things are accomplished, it is all by the same Spirit, 1Corinthians 12:4-11.

Spiritual has to do with life and attitude.

Sunstone said:

How do you define "spiritual" and/or "spirituality"? Any particular reason you prefer that definition?

Click to expand...

I don’t define words, words are defined by common usage. Like many words though, these ones are used in widely different and inconsistent ways so any useful application requires strong context to be established. It’s often more effective not to use words like this at all but just describe what you actually mean in proper detail. Unless, of course, you want to be unclear or evasive.

Sunstone said:

How do you define "spiritual" and/or "spirituality"? Any particular reason you prefer that definition?

Click to expand...

They are simply a part of living life.
The unseen is everywhere.

Sunstone said:

How do you define "spiritual" and/or "spirituality"? Any particular reason you prefer that definition?

Click to expand...

Spirituality is the speculation about the essence of our personality (spirit, soul) that exists on "another plane" and survives our death in some way. And that's not my preference, it just is what it is.

BTW, religion is just spirituality being controlled by demagogues.

Sunstone said:

How do you define "spiritual" and/or "spirituality"? Any particular reason you prefer that definition?

Click to expand...

Like all words, meaning depends on context, but, generally speaking, I use 'spiritual' to mean 'of or relating to spirit' and I take 'spirit' to refer to 'the inner quality or character of a thing'.

Thus, the letter of the law is contrasted with the spirit of the law.
The soul is the essential nature of a man and his spirit the inner qualities.
Thus, courage, hope, love, despair, are all spiritual qualities.
I use spirit to refer to the apparent animating energy of life associated with the breath, the breath being expressive of the inner quality or spirit.
The Holy Spirit or Spirit of God refers to the quality of God. The most common experience of God is a difficult to describe internal experience of the sacred nature of God (hence the use of the adjective 'holy' in describing it) which, while intense, is distinct from passion or religious fervor (passion being an uncontrollable emotion and religious fervor being an intense uncontrollable emotion) in that a person is not only cognizant, but opts in as opposed to being controlled or manipulated by. Fervor is akin to rage in terms of loss of rationality, where as the Holy Spirit is akin to guiding or illuminating light, hence reveals, rather than obscures.

Why do I prefer my definitions? 'Spiritual' and 'Spirituality', if not given particular definition, obscure rather than reveal.

Spirituality is the immaterial existence of a mental nature, and a heart and will nature. Eternally existing, with memory being eternal.

I dont see any evidence for its existing, but if you infer that life is intelligibly created, than perhaps it does exist.

Otherwise current brain science indicates that memory has physical causation and is fleeting. Havent seen any evidence to the contrary. But i, myself, have not totally ruled out spirituality. It could be that the brain imposes upon memory ability because of its close connection to consciousness. The brain may just be a conduit to the spiritual that animates the spiritual.

So here we are born at random, and the body is just a coccoon into a larger reality.

But of course no one has ever met anyone from the afterlife. So spirituality remains a total long shot miracle possibility. Perhaps life eternal is a one way street outta here.

Sometimes i wonder what exists outside of space and time. Sometimes im amazed that empty space could be infinite. If we exist, than why not an existence infinite, and eternal. And our universe is inside a much grander reality.

If there is an end length to our universe what would lie just beyond that? Spiritual?

I define spiritual, as it currently means for me- that I find motivation, inspiration, and purpose in seeking something higher than myself. Albeit, I do so outside of an organized framework at present. I am starting to become more fluid. I'm not sure any concept I have of the Supreme Reality is likely to be entirely correct. It also isn't wrong, so maybe Spiritual= non-dogmaticism too?

I always did like the Jain concept of Anekantavada. It was central to Mahavira's teachings and informs Jain pluralism and tolerance. It's the idea that the Supreme Reality is open-ended. It's attributes span infinity. Everyone is saying something true and false about it.

Sunstone said:

How do you define "spiritual" and/or "spirituality"? Any particular reason you prefer that definition?

Click to expand...

I start suspecting that spirituality is a deepity.

Ciao

- viole

Sunstone said:

How do you define "spiritual" and/or "spirituality"? Any particular reason you prefer that definition?

Click to expand...

'Spiritual' has more than one meaning.

It can be a substitute adjective for 'religious'.

It can refer to particular emotional states, ways of feeling (let's try 'feeling agreeably integrated and impressed') whether through meditation, prayer, music, &c, or from awe at nature, art, the atmosphere of a place (church, rainforest, lake, canyon &c).

And it can refer to thoughts and subjective experiences perceived as supernatural aka holy, divine, &c. The tendency to confuse this last one with the others blurs a lot of lines, not always accidentally.

Vouthon said:

I tend to use the word "spiritual" in the same way St. Paul employed it in his epistles, since he was the first person to coin the term pneumatikos ...

Click to expand...

Wrong.
According to the Bauer lexicon, the word pneumatikos was used by Strabo 64/3BC – c.24CE and Philo 20BC – c.50CE.

Sunstone said:

How do you define "spiritual" and/or "spirituality"? Any particular reason you prefer that definition?

Click to expand...

The term presupposes that humans have a spirit. I can't prove that, but I buy it. There appears to be something other than emotion that causes me to want to keep living, despite my emotions screaming that it's not worth the hassle. Assuming that this thing exists, making an adjective of it would denote a tendency to find a justification for living other than emotional and sensual gratification.

But then those who consider spirituality to be nothing more than a pretense of moral superiority may be right. I am a truly superior maufau.

Cary Cook said:

Wrong.
According to the Bauer lexicon, the word pneumatikos was used by Strabo 64/3BC – c.24CE and Philo 20BC – c.50CE.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info!

I hadn't been aware of this prior usage.

YmirGF said:

I tend not to use either terms, as a rule, as each implies a supposed moral superiority.

Click to expand...

It does? Are you sure you're not confusing religiosity with spirituality? I've always taken spiritual to be beyond questions like that. Morality is a matter of "fleshly" concerns. It deals with dualistic concepts of good vs. bad. Spirituality on the other hand is defined by unconditional love, so "morally superior" is only the perception of the one stuck in those dualistic frameworks, not one who comes from a place of unconditional love where others are not seen in the context of good vs. evil, lesser or greater, better or worse, etc., but rather as equally valuable regardless of the contents of their particular narratives. The context is what matters, not the content.

YmirGF said:

Overall, whenever I hear people waxing on about spirituality, my brain simply tunes them out as I understand they are not very advanced souls.

Click to expand...

Isn't this itself a statement of superiority? To me, if spirituality is not expressed through humility, it's not spirituality, but ego instead. I have to be as aware of that in myself as any other does. Am I viewing myself as superior to another? Then that is not spiritual, but egoic. I am speaking from a place of recognizing boths sides of that in myself. One in genuine, the other insincere.

YmirGF said:

In common parlance I find the word is often ill-defined and meant as a stop-gap {or wallpaper effect} to fill in blank or rough areas of understanding.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. It is a very open word as it is by its very usage, metaphoric. It's not defining something that cannot be defined, but rather an expression of its nature being "beyond the ego". It's like the word God. It's a perfectly fine word to use, as what other word really points to something that expresses Ultimate Reality? Obviously, it needs to be a open word, rather than a closed, defined word, like horse, or dog, or car, or house.

How do you speak of everything that is in everything, radiant love that permeates all of existence, and is itself not an it, or a thing, or anything that can be called an object? I think "spirit" or "breath" as a metaphoric expression is a darned good word. Just because you have those that have no experience of this imagining some 'ghosty' thingy 'out there' somewhere, does not mean the word has no value to those who have some actual experiential context they use it from.

YmirGF said:

Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen his videos. It's like a 5th grader making fun of 3rd graders. Good for him. Not everyone is still in elementary school looking at things in these boxes. What he is doing is just another version of what he makes fun of. Ironically, in laughing at others as silly, he shows himself just a silly in his presumptions he has found the truth. "Look how superior I am to these fools", is being just as much the fool, but probably actually worse since those he mocks probably aren't mocking him. "I'm not a stupid child anymore," seems his boast to us in these.

I won't use the words superior or inferior here. Mature and immature are more accurate ways to observe these things. Mature people don't mock children. But immature children do do that with other kids they see themselves as "superior" to. "Ha ha!," laughing at someone else like the brat on the Simpsons comes to mind.

Windwalker said:

It does? Are you sure you're not confusing religiosity with spirituality? I've always taken spiritual to be beyond questions like that. Morality is a matter of "fleshly" concerns. It deals with dualistic concepts of good vs. bad. Spirituality on the other hand is defined by unconditional love, so "morally superior" is only the perception of the one stuck in those dualistic frameworks, not one who comes from a place of unconditional love where others are not seen in the context of good vs. evil, lesser or greater, better or worse, etc., but rather as equally valuable regardless of the contents of their particular narratives. The context is what matters, not the content.


Isn't this itself a statement of superiority? To me, if spirituality is not expressed through humility, it's not spirituality, but ego instead. I have to be as aware of that in myself as any other does. Am I viewing myself as superior to another? Then that is not spiritual, but egoic. I am speaking from a place of recognizing boths sides of that in myself. One in genuine, the other insincere.


I don't think so. It is a very open word as it is by its very usage, metaphoric. It's not defining something that cannot be defined, but rather an expression of its nature being "beyond the ego". It's like the word God. It's a perfectly fine word to use, as what other word really points to something that expresses Ultimate Reality? Obviously, it needs to be a open word, rather than a closed, defined word, like horse, or dog, or car, or house.

How do you speak of everything that is in everything, radiant love that permeates all of existence, and is itself not an it, or a thing, or anything that can be called an object? I think "spirit" or "breath" as a metaphoric expression is a darned good word. Just because you have those that have no experience of this imagining some 'ghosty' thingy 'out there' somewhere, does not mean the word has no value to those who have some actual experiential context they use it from.


Yes, I've seen his videos. It's like a 5th grader making fun of 3rd graders. Good for him. Not everyone is still in elementary school looking at things in these boxes. What he is doing is just another version of what he makes fun of. Ironically, in laughing at others as silly, he shows himself just a silly in his presumptions he has found the truth. "Look how superior I am to these fools", is being just as much the fool, but probably actually worse since those he mocks probably aren't mocking him. "I'm not a stupid child anymore," seems his boast to us in these.

I won't use the words superior or inferior here. Mature and immature are more accurate ways to observe these things. Mature people don't mock children. But immature children do do that with other kids they see themselves as "superior" to. "Ha ha!," laughing at someone else like the brat on the Simpsons comes to mind.

Click to expand...

I like you too much to quibble about such a minor topic. We might agree to disagree.

In a sense though, I agree, but only in the respect that "true spirituality" is demonstrated by actions and only rarely via words.

YmirGF said:

I like you too much to quibble about such a minor topic.

Click to expand...

Debating a topic is actually something friends can enjoy together, rather than cowering in the corner chicken to face a good fight. It helps to keep minds sharp and share perspectives. I could learn something, as well as you.....

YmirGF said:

We might agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

There's a meme going around on Facebook right now asking to share a word or a phrase you hate. I posted two of them. One was "do the needful". The second was, "We agree to disagree".

YmirGF said:

In a sense though, I agree, but only in the respect that "true spirituality" is demonstrated by actions and only rarely via words.

Click to expand...

Well, that is true. I have no dispute with that. However, that said, as a topic, you do have to say something about it, and words are necessary. That's why I qualified my use and understanding of such words as spiritual, as metaphors, not descriptors. There is a reality to what the words point to, and it is beyond the typical mundane stuff. It is categorically a different domain of investigation.

The foo-foo, woo-woo stuff is not included. That's just magical thinking co-opting a valid term, like people calling someone who has special knots in his underwear and uses esotic language systems a "mystic". As I've said many times, I'm not going to quit using words like love just because some people don't understand it beyond sex or cute fuzzy bunny rabitts.

Sunstone said:

How do you define "spiritual" and/or "spirituality"? Any particular reason you prefer that definition?

Click to expand...

"Spirit" is synonymous with "essence," so to me spiritual means essential. It refers to core bits that are necessary for something to be what it is, however in the case of spirit it is personhood that is represented, so the core bits are 'thought' in form. Spirituality is thought, behavior or practice that allows that the essential bit or bits shine through.

Examples of basic spirituality are kindness, ethics, integrity, and honesty.

Overall, whenever I hear people waxing on about spirituality, my brain simply tunes them out as I understand they are not very advanced souls.

In common parlance I find the word is often ill-defined and meant as a stop-gap {or wallpaper effect} to fill in blank

Click to expand...

Sorry Y. Actually what is advanced souls? Is this any better than using a word ‘spiritual‘?

In Hinduism, the Sanskrit equivalent of spiritualism is ‘adhyatmic’ — which means ‘pertaining to the ‘Primal Self’, Paramatma, Brahman’.

I see no superiority in use of the word spiritual. It denotes a situation where a person acknowledges intelligence/consciousness as primary over the material.

Similarly, a religious person who is not ‘adhyatmic’, is not a good sign. I think that most fundamentalists or terrorists may belong to such a class.

Vinayaka said:

.....
I think actions say a lot more than vague adjectives.
I don't feel religious or spiritual.

Click to expand...

What you 'feel'?

sayak83 said:

Hinduism believes that we humans have three psychological tendencies.

Tamasic :- These are delusive tendencies that move us away from truth and actions guided by truth. Delusion, superstition, cynicism, idleness etc. These never lead to good.

Rajasic :- These are tendencies born from egoism and craving for personal gain. Seeking for wealth, power, possession, competing for success, possessive passions and love etc. They sometimes lead to good and sometimes to evil.

Satvik :- These are tendencies that are derived from wanting peace, knowledge and truth without selfish consideration. Knowing oneself truly without egoistic assumptions, knowing others through love and compassion, creativity for aesthetics and giving joy, knowing about the world and its foundations to gain wisdom. These lead to goodness, truth, expansion of consciousness and eventually enlightenment.

I roughly translate satvik activities as being spiritual as they are activities that nourish the human spirit, heart and mind.

Click to expand...

Thank you Sayak. This gives me an opening to point out further. I agree that Sattwik activities lead to that which is beyond the gunas. However.

As I understand 'adyatmic' is 'spiritual'. And 'adhyatmic' -- that which pertains tp Paramatman-Brahman is beyond mind. Gunas (qualities) are qualities of mind (nature-prakriti). The goal, however, is to transcend or be seer of the gunas of the mind. As an example, I quote from Gita, wherein Shri Krishna advises Arjuna to go beyond the gunas of the mind.

The Bhagavad Gita – Chapter 14 – Transcending The Gunas | Carl Klemme Yoga

Translation by Parmahansa Yogananda

O Mighty-armed (Arjuna)! The gunas inherent Prakriti – sattva,
Rajas, and tamas – imprison in the body the Imperishable Dweller.

When the seer perceives (in creation) no agent except the three
modes, and cognizes That which is higher than the gunas, he
enters My Being.

Unaffected by joy and sorrow, praise and blame – secure
in his divine nature; regarding with and equal eye a clod of clay,
a stone, and gold; the same in his attitude toward pleasant or
unpleasant (men and experiences); firm-minded;

Uninfluenced by respect or insult; treating friend and enemy
alike; abandoning all delusions of personal doership – he it is
who has transcended the triple qualities

He who serves Me with undeviating devotion transcends the
gunas and is qualified to become Brahman.

Translation by Eknath Easwaran

It is the three gunas born of Prakriti – sattva,
Rajas, and tamas – that bind the immortal Self
to the body.

The wise see clearly that all action is the work
of the gunas. Knowing that which is above
the gunas, they enter into union with me.

Established within themselves, they are equal
in pleasure and pain, praise and blame, kind-
ness and unkindness. Clay, a rock, and gold
are the same to them.

Alike in honor and dishonor, alike to friend and foe,
they have given up every selfish pursuit. Such are
those who have gone beyond the gunas.

Click to expand...

Excellent discussion on this subject from Chapter 14 of Gita can be found in:

Rising Above the Three Gunas - Commentary on the Bhagavadgita - Discourse 41