Does spirituality have a definition?  

I don't think at this point in time it actually does (not anything set in stone anyway).

Why is that?  There are so many theories that bring up what it 'could be' but not often do we understand what it actually is.  Is this because spirituality is entirely subjective?  Does spirituality have to do with religion or the self?  Are there levels to spirituality and who defines them?
Is the monk that spends all his time in prayer more spiritual than the man or woman who acts and stays within his moral beliefs and understanding of self?  Is the man or woman who meditates a spiritual person, what about the church goer that holds strict code to dogmas or memes?  What of the person without spirituality, are they still spiritual in a sense of ignoring it's possibilities?

Can spirituality be defined by what a person does or what a person is or is it something bigger than the person and their mind?

I'm sure everyone can come up with an opinion on what spirituality is... some don't know what it is and can only express a feeling, some can't put 'spirituality' into words either, it's just something they know.

Here's a disturbing find... I typed "What is spirituality" into Google search, and the top definition that came up was from Princeton's definition: "spirituality: property or income owned by a church"... interesting

I like what commentary Dr. Colliford had to say, that "It is not ideal to consider sprituality as a thing, an object. It does not have the nature of a specimen that can be dissected and analysed. Spirituality is better thought of as a boundary-less dimension of human experience. As such, it must be admitted, it is not open to the normal methodologies of scientific investigation. It cannot completely be defined. It cannot be pinned down. So... What are we to do?"

No need for a response if it's difficult to articulate, but it's always worth a really good think session.

I'm sure it's easier to accumulate thoughts of what isn't spirituality..

but what is spirituality to you?

Views: 582

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As stated, QM violates Counterfactual definiteness. Only allowed correlations are Real.

from wiki on Counterfactual definiteness (two excerpts, examples given):

1)  "A macroscopic example of CFD would be the assumption—without measurement—that a ball, thrown into the air, will return to the Earth due to gravity. CFD says that if a phenomenon (the return of an airborne ball to the Earth) has been reproducibly measured in the past, one can safely assume its presence in the future without having to refer to additional measurement events for proof of its existence."

and

2) "If the person has been made to stand then that person has no lap and neither of the statements "the person's lap is empty" nor "there is something on the person's lap" is true. Any statistical calculation based on values where the person is standing at some place in the room and simultaneously has a lap as if sitting would be meaningless.[CFD assumption]"

QM violates Counterfactual definiteness:

in case 1) you cannot assume the ball ever returned to earth. i.e. the assumption about reality made by you is meaningless. If QM says they are not correlated, they aren't. It says nothing else about what a ball is etc. not even if it exists/existed.

in case 2) You cannot assume anything about a "lap."  If QM says they are not correlated, then both may be true. You can have a lap despite the fact you are standing.

Only direct correlations are known. An Observation is a direct correlation of a fact (something hit an inttrument e.g.). QM deals with correlations (information) only as Reality.

I can start a discussion in Science Group if people want. I have several examples there already posted. Otherwise, the above has the right idea.

I think the Emerald Tablet says you can go either route (below or above). They end up the same.

Following received in e-mail from our esteemed member Peter O'Lalor in response to my request:

Thank you for this opportunity. As you know I look first to the etymology of  a word with the OED. British and World, rather than US English, which is more often the same, but not this time. :-0

      With that in mind, the OED states:

adjective

  • 1: Relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things:I’m responsible for his spiritual welfare
  • Having a relationship based on a profound level of mental or emotional communion:he never forgot his spiritual father
  • OR: (of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.
  • 2: Relating to religion or religious belief: the country’s spiritual leader

     In looking at the root word Spirit (Spiritus), in its Latin meaning we find: 

noun

  • 1: The non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul:we seek a harmony between body and spirit
  • The non-physical part of a person regarded as their true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation:a year after he left, his spirit is still present
  • The non-physical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost: a priest performed a rite of exorcism and the wandering spirit was ousted
  • A supernatural being:shrines to nature spirits

       However, as the root word is modified we look to understand the ACT of being spiritual. Spirituality is not a belief, rather than a condition and or quality of being spiritual. This answers the query, often asked, and often searched for, how can one be spiritual without being religious?

       We also need to understand that, while religion is exoteric, rather than esoteric, it is the very symbols, (not emblems) that speak directly to us. For example: It is my understanding that:

  • The Catholic sacraments and symbols, are actually left over from the age of initiation. By 471AD Bishop's Iraneus and Alexandrius, in an attempt to unify the scattered ancient Christian communities of Asia Minor, and northern Africa, searched the ends of the then known world for all kinds of religious manuscripts and bounty.   
  • Secondly, religion et. al., are the Remanents of Atlantis. However, we ought to understand that the world's fascination with Atlantis, comes from one conversation, as shared between Phaedrus and Plato, and recorded by Socrates.
  •  However, if we look to the worlds' religions we can find "antediluvians," or those who existed before the flood.
  • With that in mind we have the Nephalim of the the Old Testament, the Heroes of Egypts, the Titans of Greece and many more. Including but not limited to the Red Hair Monsters of both China and S. America, the Gorgons of Greece, the Sasquatch of N. America and so on. 
  • It is also, for example; psychic or the understanding of knowledge, and the reason, faith and its attendant spirituality that gives so many, that certain faith, in Mankind's ultimate and innate goodness. 

     So to me spirituality is the consciousness that arises from being an awoken one like Buddha. Buddha asked on his death bed not to be worshiped but to be remembered as the awoken one, and to me, that is spirituality. 

     Please see my posting regarding consciousness, (spirituality) and Carl Jung on Facebook.

     Please excuse me if I offer to much hyperbole

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2019   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service