Spirituality
09 Nov 15
25 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbus
LemonJello: “For instance, there is an idea that whereas it is a primary goal of philosophizing to understand the nature of reality, it is a primary goal of spiritualizing to understand one's place within the nature of reality. Or, said differently, whereas philosophy aims at understanding the way things are, spirituality aims at understanding one's relation ...[text shortened]... dividual case; a true friend is one who notices when you are on track and smiles quietly.
Spirituality is the attempt actually to live life informed by some principle other than sheer egotism.I'm not sure that this works. There is a dialogue where Socrates questions someone known for his piety, asking him what piety is. The interlocutee suggests that one who does what pleases the gods is pious. Socrates points out that the gods are so capricious that it is impossible to please them and so the other party is forced to admit he doesn't know what piety is. Basically with religions centred around some divine entity there is no principle, the purpose is to keep the god happy for reasons of self-preservation or some such. So your definition of spirituality appears to exclude theists, which seems a little problematic.
Philosophy is the attempt to formulate such a principle in the abstract.
Religion (when it is doing what it ought to be doing) is the attempt to propagate such a principle and support like-minded people who are trying to implement it in their lives.
25 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbusAlthough it is fine to create definitions for the purpose of a specific discussion or for a specific field of study, but in general redefining words in nonstandard ways tends to lead to confusion. Why not simply come up with a new set of words for the concepts you wish to express rather than hijacking existing ones?
How about this as a working disambiguation: spirituality is the attempt actually to live life informed by some principle other than sheer egotism; philosophy is the attempt to formulate such a principle in the abstract; religion (when it is doing what it ought to be doing) is the attempt to propagate such a principle and support like-min ...[text shortened]... dividual case; a true friend is one who notices when you are on track and smiles quietly.
And who gets to say what religion 'ought to be doing'?
Originally posted by moonbus
LemonJello: “For instance, there is an idea that whereas it is a primary goal of philosophizing to understand the nature of reality, it is a primary goal of spiritualizing to understand one's place within the nature of reality. Or, said differently, whereas philosophy aims at understanding the way things are, spirituality aims at understanding one's relation ...[text shortened]... dividual case; a true friend is one who notices when you are on track and smiles quietly.
spirituality is the attempt actually to live life informed by some principle other than sheer egotism
But I am not sure why we should delimit the content of spiritual experiences to practices that are in principle ego-dissolving. I have a similar problem with Doward's characterization; the question there being why should we delimit spirituality to practices that benefit communities and societies? Consider, for example, one who introspects deeply and thereby comes to think of himself or herself as the darling of the cosmic order and strives to implement practices that exhibit sheer egotism. Or consider one who introspects deeply and somehow comes around to striving towards practices that fail to benefit communities or societies, or harm them. According to your and Doward's characterizations, respectively, these examples fail to get by as spirituality. But I would tend to include them as spiritual (or at least not yet exclude them in principle as such), but argue that they are probably lacking in important areas of qualitative assessment. Sheer egotism is ugly and counterproductive in many ways. But I do not see why spirituality cannot be both ugly and counterproductive in some expressions. Similarly to Doward: I do not see why spirituality cannot fail to benefit communities and societies, or even harm them, in some expressions.
What I see in practice is a broad spectrum of spiritual expressions that are difficult in principle to delimit in terms of content or their net effects. I have seen some that seem beautiful and profound, others that seem ugly and petty; some that precipitate ego-dissolution, others that seem profoundly ego-sustaining; some that probably bring net benefit to society, others that do not as far as I can tell. The unifying aspects I do see are a springboard related to existential questioning & introspection and an impetus to align one's efforts and practices. However, the expressions that issue from this seem hard to characterize in terms of content or effects.
25 Nov 15
I agree that narrative or mythological contents diverge, as do individual's responses to specific narratives or myths. Nonetheless, there are commonalities.
My concern was to try to press on from "the facts are not the end of the matter" without necessarily getting entangled in questions of whether or not a God or gods exist, hence my non-theistic definition of what it is to lead a spiritual life or to pursue a spiritual path. A theistic definition of spirituality, which presupposes the existence of a God or gods, necessarily excludes Buddhism, which certainly deserves to be called a spiritual discipline.
Every mystical tradition, whether Christian or pagan, admonishes the novitiate to first separate from the community, in order to find the necessary tranquility to transcend petty personal desires (which is what sheer egotism is); and then to return to the community to render service. One must go inwards, yes; but one must also return outwards, because the life of pure contemplation is ineffectual.
Buddha said: "Your task is to discover your task and then devote your entire life to it." Prima facie, that sounds like pure egotism. But the deeper one goes into it, the more one comes to realize that if everyone else were to devote himself to his own task, instead of meddling in other things (distractions), then everyone would discover that the Law of Karma is such that, in the total cosmic economy, egotism as such would disappear and the communal weal would be maximized.
A similar insight is expressed by all mystical traditions: namely, that the individual ego is ultimately identical with something common throughout the cosmos (sometimes called a World Soul or whatever), and that enlightenment or grace or whatever you want to call it is simply this very realization. Christian mystics have expressed this thought as having become one with God (which, of course, cannot be taken to mean that the mystic is God (which would be heresy)).
Who gets to say what religion ought to be doing? Religions themselves. Every religion maintains that it offers a path of enlightenment or salvation or ataraxia or whatever each one wants to call it -- in any case, something beyond living life as nothing but a sequence consisting of meaningless episodes of transient desires either thwarted or sated.
26 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtFrom what I can tell, all of "spirituality" ultimately stems from a non-understanding of the unconscious and internal biological incentives used to control behavior.
This question has erupted in my mind due to a couple of other threads. I cannot answer it for myself, so tell me, what does it mean to have a spiritual life or to describe oneself as spiritual? What is spirituality?
26 Nov 15
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes, one can take it that way. That is like saying there is no symphony -- there is just a bunch of frequencies hitting the eardrum.
From what I can tell, all of "spirituality" ultimately stems from a non-understanding of the unconscious and internal biological incentives used to control behavior.
26 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbusThat is not so. Many traditions do not require any return to the community. I think you are confusing the practice of spirituality with the most common outcomes of such practice. Humans who contemplate for long periods tend to become more empathetic, but that does not mean that we should equate contemplation with empathy.
Every mystical tradition, whether Christian or pagan, admonishes the novitiate to first separate from the community, in order to find the necessary tranquility to transcend petty personal desires (which is what sheer egotism is); and then to return to the community to render service.
Originally posted by moonbusNot necessarily. It could be saying that we understand why a symphony is pleasant to hear and attribute it to the way our brain works rather than to God or some other divine presence in the music.
Yes, one can take it that way. That is like saying there is no symphony -- there is just a bunch of frequencies hitting the eardrum.
26 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhitehead"Requirement" is too strong a word. A contemplative who chooses not to render any service to humanity has simply not completed his spiritual journey. He has gotten stuck at one particularly subtle stage of his journey.
That is not so. Many traditions do not require any return to the community. I think you are confusing the practice of spirituality with the most common outcomes of such practice. Humans who contemplate for long periods tend to become more empathetic, but that does not mean that we should equate contemplation with empathy.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think what ToO was saying is that what passes for spirituality is nothing but a political tool for manipulating the masses and keeping them docile, or sometimes a scheme for cheating them out of their money (e.g., Scientology), devoid of any higher or nobler purpose. I could be wrong; he may have meant something else.
Not necessarily. It could be saying that we understand why a symphony is pleasant to hear and attribute it to the way our brain works rather than to God or some other divine presence in the music.
Let me ask you and ThinkOfOne a question: is love just evolution's way of tricking us into passing on our genes, or is there something about love which transcends hormones and cannot be understood in terms of hormones?
26 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbusThat appears to be your own opinion whereas your earlier statement was about "mystical tradition". There are many mystical traditions in which there is no requirement to ever render any service to humanity (including some Christian traditions).
"Requirement" is too strong a word. A contemplative who chooses not to render any service to humanity has simply not completed his spiritual journey. He has gotten stuck at one particularly subtle stage of his journey.
26 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere are two possibilities, either there is a creator God or there is not. If there is a creator God then we are the way we are because of him and have the "unconscious and internal biological incentives" to cause us to be spiritual animals as part of some divine plan. If there is not a God then we still have this instrinct, only it evolved.
From what I can tell, all of "spirituality" ultimately stems from a non-understanding of the unconscious and internal biological incentives used to control behavior.
It strikes me that you are attempting to describe it at the wrong level. Knowing about dopamine and drug pathways doesn't tell a medical expert what it is like to be under the influcence of LSD. Similarly, theories about hormones and evolutionary psychology do not get us much further than understanding that it may have some biological function. But see my reply to moonbus below.
26 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusAlthough I wonder if ThinkofOne is onto something. We've been talking about spirituality being connected with finding oneself as well as relating to others. The fundamental concept of other is connected with having a theory of mind - we are not all solipsists (although as an agnostic, I can't be sure anyone else exists and is ever going to read this), we attribute the qualia associated with our own consciousnesses to other people. Our paleolithic ancestors went further and seem to have attributed mind to animals, plants and even places (c.f. genius in Ancient Roman mythology), which is the basis for animism, and would seem to give some sort of account of where spirituality comes from assuming an atheistic cosmology (if there is a God then where spirituality comes from requires no additional explanation).
Yes, one can take it that way. That is like saying there is no symphony -- there is just a bunch of frequencies hitting the eardrum.
This leads me to tend to agree with you about the community point you were disputing with twhitehead earlier on this page. A religion of permanent personal isolation seens flawed somehow.
26 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe're getting sidetracked by the word "requirement," which, after all, wasn't mine. It is not as though anyone is ordering you to serve others; it doesn't work like that (and I didn't say it does).
That appears to be your own opinion whereas your earlier statement was about "mystical tradition". There are many mystical traditions in which there is no requirement to ever render any service to humanity (including some Christian traditions).
This is not merely my personal opinion. I have spent time in a monastery. I have observed genuine Tibetan masters at close range and seen how they live.
26 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtFinding one's place in the scheme of things and relating to others are not fundamentally opposed.
Although I wonder if ThinkofOne is onto something. We've been talking about spirituality being connected with finding oneself as well as relating to others. The fundamental concept of other is connected with having a theory of mind - we are not all solipsists (although as an agnostic, I can't be sure anyone else exists and is ever going to read this), ...[text shortened]... hitehead earlier on this page. A religion of permanent personal isolation seens flawed somehow.
One who has attained a high level of spiritual mastery comes to see various things as intrinsically pertaining to the spiritual vocation, not as effects and not as requirements laid upon him externally. Among these are:
a) the recognition that humanity is pivotal;
b) the recognition that the individual is minute;
and c) the recognition that service to others is called for (which is not to say that anyone "requires" it); it is called for because mankind is pivotal whereas the individual ego is not.
Buddhism expresses this by saying, on the one hand, that a human incarnation is special--a human life is the only form of incarnation from which the blessed state (nirvana) can be reached; that is the sense in which human life is pivotal. But, on the other hand, reaching the blessed state consists in dropping all that is personal and specific to the individual: what it is that reaches nirvana is nothing to do with one's own personality or moment-to-moment desires and ambitions. That is the sense in which an individual is minute; merely a drop in a vast ocean.
Christianity expresses these two aspects by saying that only man has a soul and freewill, which is the pivotal aspect; the minuteness of man is expressed, for example, by Jesus' praying in the Garden of Gethsemene, "Not my will be done, but Thy will be done" (i.e., humility).
This is not fundamentally different from saying that spirituality consists in man's striving to understand his relatedness to (or place within) the scheme of things, because as soon as one recognizes that other people also have some relation to (or place within) the scheme of things--and therefore that they stand in some spiritual relation to oneself--, one is already beginning to transcend egotism and reaching out towards other existential seekers.
I agree that a religion of permanent retreat is incomplete.