Are you kidding me?

What is the point of this forum topic? I mean, on this website... Then again I saw some wierd horoscope / new age crap links on the jeremy silman site, I would think chess players would be LESS suseptible to this stuff but then again maybe not.

Originally posted by chessGosu
What is the point of this forum topic? I mean, on this website... Then again I saw some wierd horoscope / new age crap links on the jeremy silman site, I would think chess players would be LESS suseptible to this stuff but then again maybe not.

Christian evangelists were spamming the Debates forum. This was the solution.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Christian evangelists were spamming the Debates forum. This was the solution.

And thus, the site was initiated for all of the atheists (currently seven-to-one in terms of postings).

And years later theists still don't understand how someone can be spiritual and yet not believe in god.

Originally posted by Starrman
And years later theists still don't understand how someone can be spiritual and yet not believe in god.

or how they can be spiritual, and jewish, muslim,buddist, etc...

Originally posted by Starrman
And years later theists still don't understand how someone can be spiritual and yet not believe in god.

So how are you spiritual without God?

Now we’re going to argue about this word “spirituality”? Who can claim it, who can’t?

It’s become one of those words like—well, "soul" for example, or “worship”—that I’m not sure is useful. I’m not sure what people mean when they use it; I’m not sure they know what they mean.

Are Buddhists “spiritual”? Are Taoists? Are Hindu Vedantists? Are those “religions”? Is spirituality synonymous with theism? Is religion?

Who are the “spirituality police”?

______________________________

I read a nice vignette about Shunryu Suzuki Roshi today:

The monks at a Japanese training temple had questioned a student of Suzuki Roshi’s about the validity of the student’s ordination. They said that it wasn’t real, because he hadn’t gone through the proper ceremony, hadn’t done any monk’s begging, and hadn’t had his head shaved or received robes until he arrived in Japan.

“So, am I a monk or not a monk?” he asked Suzuki.

“Things go the way the mind goes,” Suzuki told him. “If you think you’re a monk, you’re a monk. If you don’t think so, you’re not a monk.”

—To Shine One Corner of the World, edited by David Chadwick

__________________________________

So, who gives permission for someone to say they are “spiritual”? Who gives permission for someone to say they are a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu?

Well, there are religious authorities who set themselves up to define such things, so that fakery can be rooted out. I guess the seal of approval for a Christian is a baptismal certificate. I have one of those; but I was an infant, and some say only adult baptism counts. Oh my, oh my. I probably have a catechetical certificate somewhere, too (two of them, as a matter of fact).

When Ikkyu burned his “official Zen master teaching certificate” (inka) did that mean he was no longer a Zen master?

I don’t have a “Zen certificate”—uh oh: maybe I’m not really a Zen Buddhist. Maybe I’m really a Christian, no matter what I say. Then there is my distant Jewish heritage, but I don’t think that counts... Maybe the authority for telling me what I am is not mine...

om namo butsu-shin, oy vey!

____________________________________

What silliness! If someone says they’re spiritual, by all means ask them what they mean, how they understand that. The word certainly has broad usage. Personally, I am letting it pretty much fade from my vocabulary. Nevertheless, I think I have some idea what Starrman means, as a kind of shorthand; but I also think he gets to define that for himself.

By the way, anyone who wants to declare status as the spirituality police: be prepared to flash your badge. Otherwise, how do I know who you are?

Originally posted by chessGosu
What is the point of this forum topic? I mean, on this website... Then again I saw some wierd horoscope / new age crap links on the jeremy silman site, I would think chess players would be LESS suseptible to this stuff but then again maybe not.

Hmmm, what about Monopoly players? Or quarterbacks? Goalies? What's the connection between playing a game and having a religion or none?

Originally posted by duecer
or how they can be spiritual, and jewish, muslim,buddist, etc...

This is just to say—


—man, I have taken delight in reading your posts recently.

(Be careful: you may be declared a heretic anytime now...)

Originally posted by vistesd
Now we’re going to argue about this word “spirituality”? Who can claim it, who can’t?

It’s become one of those words like—well, "soul" for example, or “worship”—that I’m not sure is useful. I’m not sure what people mean when they use it; I’m not sure they know what they mean.

Are Buddhists “spiritual”? Are Taoists? Are Hindu Vedantists? Are thos ...[text shortened]... spirituality police: be prepared to flash your badge. Otherwise, how do I know who you are?

OK visted, there is only room for one sheriff in this one horse town! I'll be the spiritual police. So tell me, how are you spiritual?

Edit: "No body ever expects the whodey inquisition!!" 😛

Originally posted by whodey
OK visted, there is only room for one sheriff in this one horse town! I'll be the spiritual police. So tell me, how are you spiritual?

Edit: "No body ever expects the whodey inquisition!!" 😛

LOL!!! 🙂

As I said, I am pretty much letting that word go because I no longer know what it means. As a shorthand—for people that are non-theistic—I think that it has something to do with a sensed connection to the whole, the Tao, etc. For the Stoics, for example, pneuma (spirit) had to do with how the logos of nature manifested itself—without any god outside nature; for the stoics, theos was nature.

We once had a brief debate here about that word, in which Bosse DeNage and I were arguing for just dropping it. Bbarr said something like, “I have no objection to the word, as long as it refers to seeking connection with the Real.” (Something like that.) So there you go: depends on how broadly or narrowly you want to define the word.

I’m satisfied saying that I am a Zennist/Taoist/Vedantist, etc.—and more, very recently, a Zen Buddhist perhaps, than I thought of myself formerly. If that is “spiritual” fine. If not, fine. If someone can come up with a better word, fine.

However—

I insist on seeing proper ID before I believe you are the official inquisitorial spirituality police... 🙂

And that is really my point. Your question is fair—as a question. However, I do not give you authority to define my terms for me.

Originally posted by vistesd
Now we’re going to argue about this word “spirituality”? Who can claim it, who can’t?

It’s become one of those words like—well, "soul" for example, or “worship”—that I’m not sure is useful. I’m not sure what people mean when they use it; I’m not sure they know what they mean.

Are Buddhists “spiritual”? Are Taoists? Are Hindu Vedantists? Are thos ...[text shortened]... spirituality police: be prepared to flash your badge. Otherwise, how do I know who you are?

Bbarr's assessment is accurate (in line with my abandonment of 'supernatural'😉, I'd add only that we have a normative state which demands we question and pursue the human spirit in whichever form it might take.

In the words of the Bad Zen™ master, Socrates; "The unexamined life is not worth living for man."

Originally posted by vistesd
LOL!!! 🙂

As I said, I am pretty much letting that word go because I no longer know what it means. As a shorthand—for people that are non-theistic—I think that it has something to do with a sensed connection to the whole, the Tao, etc. For the Stoics, for example, pneuma (spirit) had to do with how the logos of nature manifested it ...[text shortened]... question is fair—as a question. However, I do not give you authority to define my terms for me.

Proper ID? I don't need no stinking proper ID. 😛


Anyhew, to follow up with "what is real", I kind of like that definition, however, I would say that the supernatural is what is real to me. Therefore, I must include it in my definition of what it means to be "spiritual". The question then becomes, how does one define the "supernatural".......


Edit: You do realize that debating like this could go on for hours.

Originally posted by Starrman

In the words of the Bad Zen™ master, Socrates; "The unexamined life is not worth living for man."[/b]

A bad Zen Master? Wait just a second, he's my boy. What makes him a bad Zen Master and the others "good" Zen Masters? In fact, many of his conclusions mirror Christian theology. Oh, now I get it. That's why he is a "bad" Zen Master. I guess one must embrace Christian theology to say that such theology is "good". Never mind.

Edit: It was nice having this conversation with you even though I left you out of it entirely. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
A bad Zen Master? Wait just a second, he's my boy. What makes him a bad Zen Master and the others "good" Zen Masters? In fact, many of his conclusions mirror Christian theology. Oh, now I get it. That's why he is a "bad" Zen Master. I guess one must embrace Christian theology to say that such theology is "good". Never mind.

Edit: It was nice having this conversation with you even though I left you out of it entirely. 😛

I was just about to say it was nice not talking to you about it...

You've got it all wrong, but in the words of that other Bad Zen™ master Anthony Keidis; "If you have to ask, you'll never know".