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

[Sunstone]

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

 

[Vouthon]

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 (spiritual) from the Greek pneuma. This was subsequently translated into Latin as spiritualitas and ultimately English as "spiritual" and "spirituality".

Since Paul effectively came up with the idea, I feel obliged to accept his interpretation.

Here's how he used it:

“The natural (psychikos) man does not accept the things of the Spirit (Pneuma) of God: they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, for they must be judged spiritually. But the spiritual (pneumatikos) man judges all things and is judged by no one"

(1 Corinthians 2:14-15)​

The adjective psychikos in the New Testament refers to the psyche that is, the sensual life and the natural, physical body subject to perishableness, death and decay. Pneumatikos by contrast refers to a new, spiritual life that is immaterial in origin, imperishable and not subject to death or decay.

Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul uses pneumatikos in the sense of the spiritually mature in this world (2:15; 3:1; 14:37; cf. Gal. 6:1). The person who is not pneumatikos is described as being 'fleshly' (sarkinos).

 

[sun rise]

“The natural (psychikos) man does not accept the things of the Spirit (Pneuma) of God: they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, for they must be judged spiritually. But the spiritual (pneumatikos) man judges all things and is judged by no one"

Substitute "lower self" or "ego" for natural man and it's very very close to how I would define spiritual.

Spirituality would to me be a life oriented toward the spiritual. And by extension this would be a life focused on processes designed to go beyond the superficial levels to the depths of life where God (or Truth/Beauty/Joy/Reality if the word God is a problem) is experienced as a continual and living reality.

 

[YmirGF]

I tend not to use either terms, as a rule, as each implies a supposed moral superiority. I simply refer to my inner experiences and let the reader take what they will from that. 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 or rough areas of understanding.

 

[Vinayaka]

I tend not to use either terms, as a rule, as each implies a supposed moral superiority. I simply refer to my inner experiences and let the reader take what they will from that. 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 areas or rough areas of understanding.

Same goes for 'Spiritual but not Religious'. I just shake my head, "What the heck is that supposed to mean?"

 

[YmirGF]

Same goes for 'Spiritual but not Religious'. I just shake my head, "What the heck is that supposed to mean?"

*shrugs*

Aside from I'm superior? I'm not sure.

 

[crossfire]

If you put the ineffable into words, is it still ineffable?

What about the process of continually communicating the ineffable? Now that's Spirituality! {Your mileage may vary.}

 

[sun rise]

Same goes for 'Spiritual but not Religious'. I just shake my head, "What the heck is that supposed to mean?"

To me it's not following the rites, rituals and ceremonies and often the doctrine of a religion but concentrating on the inner world.

 

[siti]

If you put the ineffable into words, is it still ineffable?

What about the process of continually communicating the ineffable? Now that's Spirituality! {Your mileage may vary.}

So spirituality is a process of 'effing' the ineffable? Not so sure about that - I think that is mystic poetry or art - a result (evidence perhaps) of spirituality - but not spirituality itself. I honestly don't know how to define spirituality - somewhere between being 'in touch' with the 'inner self' and being 'in touch' with the 'greater reality' of existence and completely 'out of touch' with the 'self'. Somewhere in there between right here in the present moment and eternity. I guess each one finds their own level - or not, as the case may be.

 

[crossfire]

If you put the ineffable into words, is it still ineffable?
What about the process of continually communicating the ineffable? Now that's Spirituality! {Your mileage may vary.}

So spirituality is a process of 'effing' the ineffable?

If you can describe the indescribable, was it really indescribable in the first place? It might have been mysterious, but describing it goes a long way towards "demystifying" it.

Not so sure about that - I think that is mystic poetry or art - a result (evidence perhaps) of spirituality - but not spirituality itself. I honestly don't know how to define spirituality - somewhere between being 'in touch' with the 'inner self' and being 'in touch' with the 'greater reality' of existence and completely 'out of touch' with the 'self'. Somewhere in there between right here in the present moment and eternity. I guess each one finds their own level - or not, as the case may be.

If you can define spirituality, is it really spiritual? (Just as describing the ineffable somewhat demystifies it?) If you want to retain the ineffability of spirituality and also define it, then you have to describe it by what it is not. In other words, you do your best to describe the indescribable, narrowing down the realm of the formerly indescribable, further refining the indescribable by what it is not. (See apophatic theology.)

 

[crossfire]

If you can describe the indescribable, was it really indescribable in the first place? It might have been mysterious, but describing it goes a long way towards "demystifying" it.

If you can define spirituality, is it really spiritual? (Just as describing the ineffable somewhat demystifies it?) If you want to retain the ineffability of spirituality and also define it, then you have to describe it by what it is not. In other words, you do your best to describe the indescribable, narrowing down the realm of the formerly indescribable, further refining the indescribable by what it is not. (See apophatic theology.)

Tao Te Ching 1

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery. ​

 

[siti]

If you can describe the indescribable, was it really indescribable in the first place? It might have been mysterious, but describing it goes a long way towards "demystifying" it.

If you can define spirituality, is it really spiritual? (Just as describing the ineffable somewhat demystifies it?) If you want to retain the ineffability of spirituality and also define it, then you have to describe it by what it is not. In other words, you do your best to describe the indescribable, narrowing down the realm of the formerly indescribable, further refining the indescribable by what it is not. (See apophatic theology.)

Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomèd mine—
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person'd Lamia melt into a shade.

~Keats

It is the duty of all human beings to think God out of existence. Then we have a future. Because then — and only then — do we take full responsibility for who we are.

~ line from the Australian movie "Bad Boy Bubby"

But when we have finished 'apophatizing' God out of existence by comprehensively describing what "he" is not - is there really nothing 'divine' or 'spiritual' left? Is it not possible that scientific discovery itself might be a 'spiritual' or 'mystical' experience? Even if it means that the 'spiritual' and the 'mystical' turns out to be nothing more than occasional particular arrangements of the 'physical' and the 'mundane'? Like a sudden appreciation of the "symphony" of nature as opposed to the analysis of its dissected details? Is that a spiritual experience?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

I use spiritual as a vague term for the idea and mystical experience behind the act and meat of religion (spirit behind the act)

Spirituality, nowadays, is used as a politically correct term for religion since people dont want to be "religious" anymore, just spiritual.

 

[crossfire]

Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomèd mine—
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person'd Lamia melt into a shade.

~Keats

It is the duty of all human beings to think God out of existence. Then we have a future. Because then — and only then — do we take full responsibility for who we are.

~ line from the Australian movie "Bad Boy Bubby"

But when we have finished 'apophatizing' God out of existence by comprehensively describing what "he" is not - is there really nothing 'divine' or 'spiritual' left?

Emptiness--sunyata

Is it not possible that scientific discovery itself might be a 'spiritual' or 'mystical' experience? Even if it means that the 'spiritual' and the 'mystical' turns out to be nothing more than occasional particular arrangements of the 'physical' and the 'mundane'? Like a sudden appreciation of the "symphony" of nature as opposed to the analysis of its dissected details? Is that a spiritual experience?

Yep. Scientific discovery is a spiritual thing, as it is bringing the mysterious into understanding. The last lines of Tao Te Ching 1:

These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.​

As you bring the mysterious into conscious understanding, how do you change and transform? What is this creative drive and transformational force? If we learn all there is to learn, what then? Is that the end of transformation and evolution? Does entropy take over from there?

 

[Vinayaka]

To me it's not following the rites, rituals and ceremonies and often the doctrine of a religion but concentrating on the inner world.

In my religion we do both. So I guess I'm not spiritual.

 

[sun rise]

In my religion we do both. So I guess I'm not spiritual.

That makes you spiritual and religious. That is a very old tradition especially in the East with many famous figures associated with that stream of life. I would class Ramakrishna and Sri Aurobindo as two of the more recent figures. Perhaps someone like Kabir who is claimed by both Muslims and Hindus as one who apparently did not follow exoteric religious practices.

 

[Vinayaka]

That makes you spiritual and religious. That is a very old tradition especially in the East with many famous figures associated with that stream of life. I would class Ramakrishna and Sri Aurobindo as two of the more recent figures. Perhaps someone like Kabir who is claimed by both Muslims and Hindus as one who apparently did not follow exoteric religious practices.

I don't really see how either term has a lot of consistent meaning amongst the diversity known as mankind. Are fundamentalists truly 'religious'? They would say they are, and others would say they definitely aren't. Some 'spiritual' people are just saying that cause it's cool to say that, or as Ymer said it makes them feel superiour.

Vague terms to me. much like someone saying, "I went out last night and had a 'good' time. We have no idea what 'good' means to that person.

I think actions say a lot more than vague adjectives.

I don't feel religious or spiritual.

 

[siti]

OK - I'm changing tack (slightly). In pursuit of a 'definition' of 'spiritual' and 'spirituality' would it not be useful to define what we mean by 'spirit'? For many (spiritual/religious) people, I guess spirit is everything that is not 'flesh' (i.e. physical/sensual) - yes? And when (for example) the Apostle Paul wrote about the 'spiritual man' as opposed to the 'natural man', that distinction made sense to those people in that time since there was obviously (to them) some mysterious 'force' animating the natural body of a human - and - for all they knew - this force was not subject to the same change and decay as the 'natural' flesh but more 'God-like'. Indeed, it was (they surmised) the very pneuma that God breathed into the nostrils of the first man - how else could a lump of molded clay be 'alive' - and that returned to God once the animated lump of clay returned to the ground when its 70 or 80 years were up. To be 'pneumatikos' (aka 'spiritual') was to be aware of the greater reality in which this pneuma - this breath of God - wafted eternally, rather than being bound by the physical, sensual nature of the natural animal that was destined to decadence and death. The problem with this account is that it is almost certainly wrong. There is almost certainly no 'eternal' realm in which the breath of God 'spiritates' a greater unseen reality.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a 'greater reality' of some kind. The universe itself is vastly bigger than the one Paul was vaguely aware of. The intricacies of the molded lumps of animated clay that we are, are vastly more complex and unpredictably creative than any first century mystic could possibly have imagined.

The 21st century natural man has a natural world that is almost infinitely bigger than even the one his own grandparents knew of to 'get in touch with'. The 21st century 'natural man' has more reason to be 'in touch' with his 'spiritual' side because it is (or should be) the 'spirit' of a 'natural man'. The 21st century 'natural man' knows very well he has but a few years and that's that. He knows there is no 'spirit realm' in which his disembodied portion of God's 'pneuma' will waft blissfully around eternally. He knows that if his 'spirit' is to 'live on' in some way, it will be through his progeny - his natural children perhaps, or the thoughts and ideas he leaves behind to germinate and grow and produce fruit after him.

I think if I were trying to do the Apostle Paul's job of contrasting the spiritual man vs the non-spiritual man today, I would have to coin a new Greek work - something like 'chaosmotikos' to denote someone who felt a deep connection to the astoundingly unpredictable and fundamentally evolutionary 'chaosmos' that is the mindbogglingly vast, wonderfully creative and deeply mysterious (no matter how much we learn about it) universe that we are privileged to live in for a minuscule and fundamentally irrelevant little while - and then we pass the torch to the next generation...

The 'spiritual man' is someone who knows how to make the most of their situation as an infinitesimal link in an infinite 'chain of becoming' without either making themselves disappear altogether or imagining they are anything more than that.

 

[sayak83]

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

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.

 

[74x12]

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

I guess I have a broad definition. It's anything having to do with spirits or spiritual things. I prefer that definition because it seems to me to be exact.