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.

[stasis]

The biggest threat to spirituality is the Judeo-Christian anthropomorphic notion of God.
A strange statement to make, given the fact that the Judeo-Christian anthropomorphism is still maintained by billions of people. I think you make a good argument for a sort of spiritual nominalism, where emphasis is placed on the referential nature of fable and symbol and literalism is avoided in exchange for a deep exegesis of some kind. But if that's at all what you're arguing here, how accessible do you think such a thing is? How practical? The thing about anthropomorphizing is it's familiar, basic, and suited to be immediately internalized. The unbound abstract can on the other hand hardly be conveyed. Do you mean to say that everyone should carve out a block of their lives to be their own prophet?

[SolitaryWalker]

The unbound abstract can on the other hand hardly be conveyed. Do you mean to say that everyone should carve out a block of their lives to be their own prophet?


Religious transformation can be attained only through direct access to intuitions.

So, yes, absolutely. You can accept the teaching, but you must make sure you focus on ideas behind it, to ensure they lead you to experience the transforming vision, and not the concrete, physical aspects on the surface.

[stasis]

Religious transformation can be attained only through direct access to intuitions.
I don't know anything about religious experiences, so I'll take your word on that.


So, yes, absolutely. You can accept the teaching, but you must make sure you focus on ideas behind it, to ensure they lead you to experience the transforming vision, and not the concrete, physical aspects on the surface.
Arguably though, the currently prevailing religious dialogue should lead a contemplative person to contemplate those ideas. To extrapolate the essence from study of the objects seems like it would necessarily follow from those objects being shallow. No? Does nobody immersed in contemporary religion come to focus on the underlying ideas, in your opinion?

And if in general our religious dialogue does not prompt people to such focus, what of the possibility that this is because people are not contemplative? The argument that one shouldn't attribute a lack of contemplation to the ossifying anthropomorphism of the dialogue, but instead attribute that tendency towards the rote-dogmatic to a lack of contemplation? How would we overcome this, if it were the case? For example: I myself would presume the lack of contemplation not to be the consequence of a lack of ability, but rather a product of lifestyle. We specialize, in life, and do increasingly so. Basically, I'm not convinced people tend to have the time / resources to be their own prophets.

[SolitaryWalker]

I don't know anything about religious experiences, so I'll take your word on that.



Arguably though, the currently prevailing religious dialogue should lead a contemplative person to contemplate those ideas. To extrapolate the essence from study of the objects seems like it would necessarily follow from those objects being shallow. No? Does nobody immersed in contemporary religion come to focus on the underlying ideas, in your opinion?

And if in general our religious dialogue does not prompt people to such focus, what of the possibility that this is because people are not contemplative? That one shouldn't attribute the lack of contemplation to the ossifying anthropomorphism of the dialogue, but instead attribute that tendency towards the rote-dogmatic to a lack of contemplation? How would we overcome that, if it were the case? I myself would presume the lack of contemplation not to be the product of a lack of ability, but rather a product of lifestyle. We specialize in life, and do increasingly so. Basically, I'm not convinced people tend to have the time to be their own prophet.


No, people dont have the time to be their own prophets. However, when they follow a religion, they must make sure that they follow the ideas propouned in scripture. That they worship God and not ink and paper. When we do our rituals for 'glory of god' we are falling short of ideas that have transforming power in favor of merely vehicles for such ideas. This is idolatry.

[stasis]

No, people dont have the time to be their own prophets. However, when they follow a religion, they must make sure that they follow the ideas propouned in scripture. That they worship God and not ink and paper. When we do our rituals for 'glory of god' we are falling short of ideas that have transforming power in favor of merely vehicles for such ideas. This is idolatry.
What you're saying makes sense, but I guess what I'm trying to get across is that I don't see a practical solution in the dilemma you raise. Outsourcing that kind of thought to trusted peers or clergy is symptomatic of our specialization-oriented way of life. The ink and paper is what those trusted specialists have to say about the will and nature of god, and so people will tend to imbue it with the same reverence and act accordingly. That people will also tend to conflate the intermediary objects with the essence itself probably says more about them than it does the intermediary objects. And so critiquing the intermediary, arguing that the literal personification of god is spiritually impoverished and damaging to the practice of spirituality in general, seems misplaced because it does not appear to address why that anthropomorphism is so prevalent. The why of it would be the real problem, in my opinion, because presumably it'll continue to happen unless that's addressed.

But it's possible that I'm not making much sense.

[SolitaryWalker]

What you're saying makes sense, but I guess what I'm trying to get across is that I don't see a practical solution in the dilemma you raise. Outsourcing that kind of thought to trusted peers or clergy is symptomatic of our specialization-oriented way of life. The ink and paper is what those trusted specialists have to say about the will and nature of god, and so people will tend to imbue it with the same reverence and act accordingly. That people will also tend to conflate the intermediary objects with the essence itself probably says more about them than it does the intermediary objects. And so critiquing the intermediary, arguing that the literal personification of god is spiritually impoverished and damaging to the practice of spirituality in general, seems misplaced because it does not appear to address why that anthropomorphism is so prevalent. The why of it would be the real problem, in my opinion, because presumably it'll continue to happen unless that's addressed.

But it's possible that I'm not making much sense.


People embraced anthropomorphism because of the poverty of their imagination. They adapted a literal interpretation to messages that ought to have been interpreted figuratively,thefore missed the point.

[stasis]

People embraced anthropomorphism because of the poverty of their imagination.
Are they less impoverished in that regard today, in your opinion?

[SolitaryWalker]

Are they less impoverished in that regard today, in your opinion?

More impoverished because we have more anthropomorphic germs on our teachings infused in prejudices of those by whom they were passed down to us. In the past, the vision of the prophet was more easily discernable because the message we got was more akin to what they initially said. Now, we have even more emphasis on the concrete aspects of those ideas that made us miss the point even more. Religious teaching have lost most of their meaning by now. As we have moved far away from the cues that could have connected us to similar intuitions the prophets wished to bequeathe to us.

[chocky]

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.

And that is exactly why the spiritual path is a solitary one, with so few folk upon it, while religion is simply crowd control.

[Ijz]

@Solitary

I must honestly say I'm biased when it comes to spirituality. When I read the topic my first thought was "Oh god, another mumbo jumbo thread about spirituality". You have definitely proven me wrong as I find your explanation very enlightening and the best one I've ever read (although haven't read many).

I consider myself a logical thinker and don't believe in divine beings of any sort. I do have certain ideas of how our brains work and the role that abstraction plays in it. Basically our brains are big pattern matching boxes and certain parts are specialized. Like you said, the N types are the more abstract thinkers of society while the S types keep it more shallow. Deeply abstracted thoughts are the most difficult to communicate because they require a certain basis to understand. Metaphors are a good way but only get you so far.

I must say I found the discussion between you and stasis quite confusing. Where did you learn all those fancy words?

One more thing I'm curious about, what is your view on god? Do you see it as merely an idea/thought with hidden knowledge and wisdom?

Edit: Typos

[stasis]

I must say I found the discussion between you and stasis quite confusing. Where did you learn all those fancy words?
My fault. I don't really know anything about this topic and was just probing for more information. The replies weren't meant to be particularly incisive or direct.

[Danellian]

I agree that we should focus on the intuitions of our own spiritual experiences over the literalisms that are passed down by those who seek to explain their experiences within the limitations of linguistic-cultural frameworks. If we do not do this, if we do not think for ourselves and follow our own spiritual intutions, then we are not really being spiritual at all, we are merely being religious. Spirituality is not about following rules, or doing everything just a certain way.

This does not mean, however, that the Incarnation was a mere myth. This does not necesserily follow, there is some additional premise required for this. The thing is, the Incarnation is a literal occurance that points to a profound mystical reality behind it. There is a lot of evidence for the Incarnation, though such is beside the point. It's not my forte, but some measure of faith is required. If you don't have faith, you won't believe the evidence anyway.

[SolitaryWalker]

If you don't have faith, you won't believe the evidence anyway.

Not exactly. You can say that since we do not know anything for certain, it takes faith to believe in a proposition we deem highly likely to be true. Yet again, when we do this, we are not taking a leap of faith but merely electing what we deem most likely to be true as our belief.

[SolitaryWalker]

One more thing I'm curious about, what is your view on god? Do you see it as merely an idea/thought with hidden knowledge and wisdom?

Edit: Typos

God is the greatest possible essence of the universe, or infinity itself. The universe must be infinite because finitude cannot be self-created. If our finite world was created, it was created by some other finite entity, say--anthropomorphic/personal god. Than the question is who made god? Must be some other finite entity. This way we would just keep on going ad infinitum without ever finding the original essence.

If we say that god is self-created, we maintain that it is infinite. Yet god could not have created us, because to be infinite and to be everywhere mean the same thing. Thus we know that god exists, and god by definition is infinite or all. Though our minds are finite, therefore we cannot grasp infinity for what it is. If we were able to we would see everything as one. As the infinite essence is all that exists. It is clear that we see more than one kind of material in our universe, thus it follows that because we cannot grasp the infinite realm, we translate it into what we can understand. Hence god or the infinite essence exists outside of our grasp. Thus it is the essence that underlies the manifold of worldly entities that we perceive. Therefore both thought and material are part of the infinite essence.

Thus, from this it follows that it is not that case that neurons in our brains fire and cause thoughts, but actually thoughts and this material action happen simultaneously. As thought and action are one. We have difficulty imagining how through the material world we can access the infinite realm, therefore our only viable option is through the realm of thought. I equate spirituality with the infinite realm ("the other world"). Thus through certain depth of thought, feeling or flight of imagination we can perceive states of mind that may transform us from within. Hence, but we are not aware of this due to the finitude of our perception. To know god is to become aware of our inherence within his essence through closer attunement with the infinite realm.

[Danellian]

Not exactly. You can say that since we do not know anything for certain, it takes faith to believe in a proposition we deem highly likely to be true. Yet again, when we do this, we are not taking a leap of faith but merely electing what we deem most likely to be true as our belief.

Think of the scientific method. By definition, any observed phenomena originated from sensory perception. This means that all conlcusions drawn are the most probable conclusions based upon said data, which is limited to the physical senses. The result is that the scientific method negates the very possibility of supernatural causation within the physical universe, because it would never be the most likely conclusion that any given phenomena (like the raising of Christ) would have a supernatural cause, in fact, such would be an impossibility, according to the scientific method. The only way out of this is to admit that the scientific method only applies to physical phenomena, which means that, in the end, it really does come down to faith, not any type of evidence or most probable conclusions. What a strict follower of the scientific method lacks is faith.

[SolitaryWalker]

Think of the scientific method. By definition, any observed phenomena originated from sensory perception. This means that all conlcusions drawn are the most probable conclusions based upon said data, which is limited to the physical senses. The result is that the scientific method negates the very possibility of supernatural causation within the physical universe, because it would never be the most likely conclusion that any given phenomena (like the raising of Christ) would have a supernatural cause, in fact, such would be an impossibility, according to the scientific method. The only way out of this is to admit that the scientific method only applies to physical phenomena, which means that, in the end, it really does come down to faith, not any type of evidence or most probable conclusions. What a strict follower of the scientific method lacks is faith.

Scientific method is not all that there is. We can figure things out by virtue of abstract reasoning. Hence in philosophy we have the famous epistemic discrepancy of a rationalist school of thought and the empiricist. Former maintaining all things can be discovered by unaided reason (apriori-prior to experience)--that is the radical rationalist position, conversely, the radical empiricist position would maintain that all things can be discovered only by virtue of concrete observations.

We need both. As essentially we cannot think about what blue is, or how to add or subtract, unless we have seen a blue or have observed the idea of subtraction or multiplication and so on. Afterwards, we could manipulate those ideas in our hands and make discoveries prior to experience.

Moreover, you know that for example if you concoct an architectural design that is nothing like you've ever experienced. Yet, based on your reasoning alone, you will be able to see if such a building is possible.

Moreover, the empiricist method without the rationalist epistemology is not possible. Or concrete observations without our own due reasoning are meaningless. You saw a brick fall from the roof, so you know there is law of gravity. If you're without the rationalist epistemic method--means you dont believe any reasoning is valid at all. You'd just have to say that you saw a brick fall. Then I can just ask--so what? But you then, to defend your claim would have to explain that by virtue of concrete observations you've discovered a law of nature. Now, without experience here, you could go on and apply this same idea to other things where you will see how law of gravity works in other situations.

Therefore, because we are able to discover things by virtue of reason, we dont need to accept things uncritically. Moreover, we always use 'reasoning' whether we like it or not. If we accept things on faith, as you say without a proper justification--as for example, "I believe everything in the Koran is true because Koran says it", your reasoning or argument is as follows.

Truth is a property of being in the Koran. Therefore Koran does not merely show what is true, but by some metamorphosis makes things true. Thus, we can evince the falsehood of any claim we have embraced on faith by applying 'reasoning' to. Or in other words, when the Muslim fundamentalist brings up a claim in the Koran that is false, we can trace the formula of his thinking to discover that what he had resembled the argument above. We know that such an argument is false because it commits the error in reasong of an appeal to authority.

[Danellian]

SolitaryWalker, I agree that we need both empiricism and rationalism. Better put, we need the virtues of both, and the vices of neither, and by using them in the right places, we are neither empiricists or rationalists. In any case, the world's religions would agree with you on this, though disagreeing about where each methodology belongs in their respective frameworks. For example, Buddhism relies more on empirical methods than Christianity, though both use both to some degree. So, with the acceptance of rationalistic methods into our discussion, this opens up a huge arena for personal perspectives that are in disagreement since in rationalistic methods, there is no *proof*, so to speak. You might argue that there are still most probable conclusions based on rules of logic, based on inferences and associations of ideas, etc. Well, this might be the case, but again, there is going to be disagreement this, as such asnwers depend upon our own rationalistic frameworks, and disagreements of just how and where rationalistic and empiricist methods should and should not be used, where they intersect and don't intersect, etc. The discussion would become so complicated that it would become ridiculous. What we need to do is return to reality, to our own spiritual experiences, as you mention, and base our lives upon that, not some vastly complicated framework that is more of an interpretation of said experiences than something based on the experiences themselves. Now, I admit that interpretation is necessary when we are to explain our experiences to others or even to create further understanding for our own understaning and application, but we need to understand things for what they are, and not replace our original experiences with theoretical explanations.

[chocky]

I have enjoyed reading this thread, and reflecting on the topic - and remembering my own conviction that the only authentic spirituality arises internally as the finite and infinite draw sparks.

I have heard it said that the spiritual is found in the present. I take this to mean the bringing of one's full attention, consciousness and deliberateness into every though and action - that the intersection of finite and infinite lies entirely within the moment, and so the experience of, or intuitive insight into, the other is only accessible via complete awareness of what is.

I would define the quest for the other as a motivating force, but awareness (whether invested in thought, action or both), as equivalent in essence to spirituality.

Hence my definition: spirituality is awareness (of self-other congruence).

[SolitaryWalker]

Hence my definition: spirituality is awareness (of self-other congruence).

You seem to be using spirituality in a very different fashion that I envisaged it. The notion I was getting at was the one that religions rely on as a salient source of support, which they later twisted into a set of rituals and arbitrary dogmas. The quest for the other world. However, the awareness, no doubt often follows as an entailment of an intuitive attunement with the other world. (spirituality) Albeit is not spirituality itself.

[stasis]

The OP provides a great argument for establishing a contradiction between the necessary 'otherness' of another world and the 'non-otherness' of the quanta of this one. Beyond this, though, it does not in my opinion do much to establish what the substance or nature of spirituality is, and therefore does not really answer the question posed in the subject line.

In my own personal experience the "spirit" does not seem to exist, which of course makes "spirituality" difficult for me to understand in the first place. How is it that we necessarily conclude that it exists, let alone ascertain what its basic qualities are before launching into an argument about what is and is not detrimental to it? From the descriptions that are often given of what spiritual experiences are like, it sounds to me like the spirit is more of an anthropomorphizing of personality itself - and that spirituality or spiritual exploration is a combination of reflecting upon one's own psychology and undirected patternfinding. Doesn't seem particularly otherworldly to me.

[SolitaryWalker]

The OP provides a great argument for establishing a contradiction between the necessary 'otherness' of another world and the 'non-otherness' of the quanta of this one. Beyond this, though, it does not in my opinion do much to establish what the substance or nature of spirituality is, and therefore does not really answer the question posed in the subject line.

In my own personal experience the "spirit" does not seem to exist, which of course makes "spirituality" difficult for me to understand in the first place. How is it that we necessarily conclude that it exists, let alone ascertain what its basic qualities are before launching into an argument about what is and is not detrimental to it? From the descriptions that are often given of what spiritual experiences are like, it sounds to me like the spirit is more of an anthropomorphizing of personality itself - and that spirituality or spiritual exploration is a combination of reflecting upon one's own psychology and undirected patternfinding. Doesn't seem particularly otherworldly to me.

The paradox that we are dealing with is that we know that the infinite world exists because this is the only way the existence of the universe could be explained.

There could not be creator, because if there was, we could go ad infinitum down the line seeking the original creator without finding one. Therefore we have to maintain that the universe is infinite. (This means that there was no creation, as an infinite substance is ubiquitous.)

We know that our minds cannot grasp the infinite because if they were able to do so, we would see everything as a single substance.

We know that memory can only deal with this world, as everything in our memory was inspired by concrete observations of the finite world. However, there is a reason to hope that we may be able to grasp the infinite. As St.Anselm argues soundly: we know that God exists because God is the greatest idea possible, as we can conjure such an idea, it follows that he must exist in the mind.

Hence, because of this the infinite realm could be experienced through the mind. Since God is the greatest possible idea, infinite, it appears to be that the deeper we think,the more likely we are to come in tune with such an essence. We would still be in the finite realm, though fueled by the infinite. This was the famous Spinoza's Intellectual love of God doctrine.

Spirituality is attunement with the infinite realm through the mind.


like, it sounds to me like the spirit is more of an anthropomorphizing of personality itself - and that spirituality or spiritual exploration is a combination of reflecting upon one's own psychology and undirected patternfinding. Doesn't seem particularly otherworldly to me.

We can avoid the problem of anthropomorphism by refraining from depicting our visions in concrete terms.

[chocky]

You seem to be using spirituality in a very different fashion that I envisaged it. The notion I was getting at was the one that religions rely on as a salient source of support, which they later twisted into a set of rituals and arbitrary dogmas. The quest for the other world. However, the awareness, no doubt often follows as an entailment of an intuitive attunement with the other world. (spirituality) Albeit is not spirituality itself.

Yes. I realise I wasn't following the script.:)

But not to detract from the point you make, and with which I agree - religious dogma is not authentic spirituality. It actually amounts to a barrier to authenticity. But it is not alone in this role. Many human experiences are taken from the realm of the individual - "out-sourced" as Stasis says - and put at great remove. This allows the substitution of the empty form for the content that we crave. Not only crave, but need, in orderfor our lives to have substance.

We have out-sourced vast portions of our lives, and wonder why we feel hollow. It is the endemic plight of civilised man.

[stasis]

The paradox that we are dealing with is that we know that the infinite world exists because this is the only way the existence of the universe could be explained.
A blind spot in our understanding of the universe does not force a conclusion about the contents or non-contents of that spot. That is not a paradox.