Defining Spirit and Spiritual
- Thread starter dauer
- Start date
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Here's my personal idea (not my "textbook" definition):
The spirit is the part of me that is of the Divine. It is the heart of who/what I am. The essence of my being-ness, which is God.
Spirituality is activity (whether thought or action) that brings me closer to being my essence (and thus closer to the Divine), freeing me from my temporary superficial sense of "self."
The spirit is the part of me that is of the Divine. It is the heart of who/what I am. The essence of my being-ness, which is God.
Spirituality is activity (whether thought or action) that brings me closer to being my essence (and thus closer to the Divine), freeing me from my temporary superficial sense of "self."
Francis king
Well-Known Member
The spirit, for me, is the soul/consciousness, just another layer of man, yet this layer is more ephemeral... not solid matter- more like breath, or wind...
this part? this part is the part that remains when the body is gone...
this part? this is the part that stirs, and turns, and yearns for unity with its' self...
Much like path of one, I feel that this soul, spirit, consciousness, this ephemeral part is divine... yet for me, this is the the part which IS god, not OF God, or FROM God, but IS...
Spirituality then, is what comes next- the form u choose to honour that spirit part... some people choose a specific faith, others don't- to me that doesn't matter- what matters most of all, to me, in this context, is what christians call- sins against the spirit...
apparently this is the only sin that cannot be forgiven...
why is that? My theory is... whatever name you choose to give this God-part: doesn't matter- it exists... all you need to do is acknowledge it, uphold it as something worth having... u honour the divine that way...
if, hand on heart, ur spirit, u divine aspect, pales at the thought of committing an act, and yet you still commit the act, knowing it is wrong, and knowing that it is against your own spirit, and everything you supposedly stand for...you sin against the spirit...
if you deliberately go against what this ephemeral part of urself decides is the best course of action, however foolish it may appear, you have sinned against the spirit...
if you have adopted a faith, exploited it for yourself, trampled it's teachings into the metaphorical dirt, you have committed that same sin...
this part? this part is the part that remains when the body is gone...
this part? this is the part that stirs, and turns, and yearns for unity with its' self...
Much like path of one, I feel that this soul, spirit, consciousness, this ephemeral part is divine... yet for me, this is the the part which IS god, not OF God, or FROM God, but IS...
Spirituality then, is what comes next- the form u choose to honour that spirit part... some people choose a specific faith, others don't- to me that doesn't matter- what matters most of all, to me, in this context, is what christians call- sins against the spirit...
apparently this is the only sin that cannot be forgiven...
why is that? My theory is... whatever name you choose to give this God-part: doesn't matter- it exists... all you need to do is acknowledge it, uphold it as something worth having... u honour the divine that way...
if, hand on heart, ur spirit, u divine aspect, pales at the thought of committing an act, and yet you still commit the act, knowing it is wrong, and knowing that it is against your own spirit, and everything you supposedly stand for...you sin against the spirit...
if you deliberately go against what this ephemeral part of urself decides is the best course of action, however foolish it may appear, you have sinned against the spirit...
if you have adopted a faith, exploited it for yourself, trampled it's teachings into the metaphorical dirt, you have committed that same sin...
Just a quick point from the standpoint of the Abrahamic Traditions:
To identify any part of the individual self as 'divine' by nature is a complete fantasy – it is not what the traditions teach, and it is metaphysically and philosophically impossible ... within any context of an Abrahamic notion of God.
it is man trying once again to possess as his own that which he is aware of as a gift and grace ... it is pride.
+++
If it were true, it would imply we are all gods — and therefore is a polytheism, or it would require that God is parcelled out piecemeal throughout creation, and has become the hapless victim of man's actions.
If it were true, then we would necessarily possess the qualities of the divine ... such as omnipotence, omniscience, infinitude.
If it were true, then the Divine must necessarily be 'contained' than the contingent being that surrounds it ... that the Absolute is determined by the relative, the Infinite by the finite ... it requires a complete inversion to explain how man's current position could come about.
So if there is a bit of God in you, then you must be more than God, else you would not be able to resist it.
+++
In the Christian context, there is small-s spirit, and big-s spirit ...
Small-s spirit, the spirit of me, the spirit of the occasion, the spirit of a certain place ... is a description of the essential nature of a given thing, it is what that thing is like ... and it can be good or bad ... one can be the spirit of generosity, or the spirit of spite.
Big-S Spirit is, of course, the Holy Spirit.
Human nature is not divine because it is created, it is finite, it is subject to change, alteration, diversity, contingency, accidents ...
... human nature is 'open' to the Divine, and can be adopted into the Divine (this is the Union that everyone seeks) but it is not of itself divine, in any commonly-understood sense of the term.
Thomas
To identify any part of the individual self as 'divine' by nature is a complete fantasy – it is not what the traditions teach, and it is metaphysically and philosophically impossible ... within any context of an Abrahamic notion of God.
it is man trying once again to possess as his own that which he is aware of as a gift and grace ... it is pride.
+++
If it were true, it would imply we are all gods — and therefore is a polytheism, or it would require that God is parcelled out piecemeal throughout creation, and has become the hapless victim of man's actions.
If it were true, then we would necessarily possess the qualities of the divine ... such as omnipotence, omniscience, infinitude.
If it were true, then the Divine must necessarily be 'contained' than the contingent being that surrounds it ... that the Absolute is determined by the relative, the Infinite by the finite ... it requires a complete inversion to explain how man's current position could come about.
So if there is a bit of God in you, then you must be more than God, else you would not be able to resist it.
+++
In the Christian context, there is small-s spirit, and big-s spirit ...
Small-s spirit, the spirit of me, the spirit of the occasion, the spirit of a certain place ... is a description of the essential nature of a given thing, it is what that thing is like ... and it can be good or bad ... one can be the spirit of generosity, or the spirit of spite.
Big-S Spirit is, of course, the Holy Spirit.
Human nature is not divine because it is created, it is finite, it is subject to change, alteration, diversity, contingency, accidents ...
... human nature is 'open' to the Divine, and can be adopted into the Divine (this is the Union that everyone seeks) but it is not of itself divine, in any commonly-understood sense of the term.
Thomas
Thomas,
That's not entirely accurate. Panentheism exists in streams of thought within both Judaism (hasidism's memale v'sovev) and Islam (sufism's wahdat-ul-wujood) in which the individual and, in fact, all of reality can be identified as a part of G!d. The way that hasidism deals with this is to say that G!d's light is dimmed enough to allow for the awareness of the individual ego, as it were, but G!d is still fully present and there is nothing but G!d that exists.
Not in the context of panentheism. You may be able to speak on some authority for the Catholic religion, but not for all abrahamic religion. Unless you're addressing a situation where the individual is seen as uniquely Divine, other abrahamic traditions have dealt with this concept without going in the direction that you've suggested it must lead.
The way that you're saying it can be dealt with, if I understand you correctly, is by saying that the human is more than G!d. The way hasidism dealt with it is by going in the opposite direction and saying that G!d is more than humanity, more than creation itself. To say that the world was created yesh m'ayin or, creatio ex nihilo, in a Jewish context can be taken to mean that the world is created out of Ayin, out of G!dself.
If you're protesting the identification of the individual human as uniquely Divine, I agree with you. I don't think the New Age concept of I AM is very healthy because it places an emphasis on the individual as Divine and in so doing, imo, neglects the rest of the world.
-- Dauer
That's not entirely accurate. Panentheism exists in streams of thought within both Judaism (hasidism's memale v'sovev) and Islam (sufism's wahdat-ul-wujood) in which the individual and, in fact, all of reality can be identified as a part of G!d. The way that hasidism deals with this is to say that G!d's light is dimmed enough to allow for the awareness of the individual ego, as it were, but G!d is still fully present and there is nothing but G!d that exists.
Not in the context of panentheism. You may be able to speak on some authority for the Catholic religion, but not for all abrahamic religion. Unless you're addressing a situation where the individual is seen as uniquely Divine, other abrahamic traditions have dealt with this concept without going in the direction that you've suggested it must lead.
The way that you're saying it can be dealt with, if I understand you correctly, is by saying that the human is more than G!d. The way hasidism dealt with it is by going in the opposite direction and saying that G!d is more than humanity, more than creation itself. To say that the world was created yesh m'ayin or, creatio ex nihilo, in a Jewish context can be taken to mean that the world is created out of Ayin, out of G!dself.
If you're protesting the identification of the individual human as uniquely Divine, I agree with you. I don't think the New Age concept of I AM is very healthy because it places an emphasis on the individual as Divine and in so doing, imo, neglects the rest of the world.
-- Dauer
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste Dauer,
thank you for the post.
nothing, personally.
i suppose i could apply it to more subtle aspects of consciousness but then why would adding a new term have any value when the existing term, consciousness, is what i'm referring to? i don't think it would so i don't
i understand that most other beings use the term to indicate some sort of different mental or emotional state, which are one and the same, so in that context i understand other beings to mean awareness of different aspects of consciousness when they use the term spiritual.
some beings that i've dialoged with seem to mean it as a term to reference beings that may exist in a different plane of existence, like angels or devils or hungry ghosts and the like *and* as a state of mind.
metta,
~v
thank you for the post.
nothing, personally.
i suppose i could apply it to more subtle aspects of consciousness but then why would adding a new term have any value when the existing term, consciousness, is what i'm referring to? i don't think it would so i don't
i understand that most other beings use the term to indicate some sort of different mental or emotional state, which are one and the same, so in that context i understand other beings to mean awareness of different aspects of consciousness when they use the term spiritual.
some beings that i've dialoged with seem to mean it as a term to reference beings that may exist in a different plane of existence, like angels or devils or hungry ghosts and the like *and* as a state of mind.
metta,
~v
Last edited:
Dream
Well-Known Member
Non-Biblical usages:Opening Question said:
Spiritual: Occasionally use it to refer to a person, place, thing or idea that is involved in religious pursuits. "A spiritual place." "She's very spiritual." "Its a spiritual time of year for me."
Spirituality: Has rarely if ever passed my lips. Probably its a ballpark measure of how spiritual. How religiously oriented. Hasn't been a really useful term for me.
Spirit: Only in the context of spirituality? Spirit is thought. That does not include all of the ways its used in scripture, but to me it means my thoughts, attitude, or a pattern of thinking. It could refer to a profession, trade, or skill. "..spirit of a blacksmith" "...spirit of goodwill.' "...in a spirit of friendship" "...with lots of spirit"
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
To preserve the Supremacy of G-d one may be compelled to argue His immutability. This is tricky because one must then reconcile that notion of immutability to G-d's Immanence, which is reflected in the following:
G-d willingness to answer Moses' request to see evidence of G-d's glory, His willingness to provide protection as long as Moses kept the rod raised up and as long as the Israelites would overtly express their G-d dependence, His response to sacrifices and special requests, His continued availability to negotiate the terms of various deals and covenants, His willingness to suspend the usual policy of wrath when He sees evidence of repentance, His responsiveness to prayers of intercession, etc etc etc.
G-d is clearly willing to allow Himself to b swayed and controlled to some extent. A portayal of G-d as Absolute Transcendent, immutable, and unresponsive is not supported by the Scripture. In fact, the Scripture indicates quite the opposite.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Define spirit, spiritual, or spirituality? If you try to grasp it, you cannot hold it.
You are forgetting God's freedom. His 'immutability' needs to be understood in the context of He can be no other than Himself. Within that, God is Love, as John says (1 John 4:8) ... so Christian metaphysics needs to be understood in the context of a Christian epistemology.
If you stick to a fundamental reading of Scripture, then God is as subject to vice and moral fault as we are ...
Are all signs of His mercy, which is Infinite.
No, otherwise 'the unmoved mover' would be moved ... God is neither swayed nor controlled, but rather the more we know Him, the more we are aware of His goodness, His mercy and His love. God is only 'moved' in the sense that He allows us to move Him, because He is free, not because of compunction, obligation, determination ...
Actually Scripture does portray God as Absolute, but immutable and unresponsive were your terms, not mine ...
Thomas
lunamoth
Episcopalian
To me, spirituality points to that which transcends the material. I tend to organize my spirituality concepts around the idea of Love, our empathy toward others, our actions toward the best for others, toward good for the world.
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste Lunamoth,
nice to see you around again
wouldn't actions be physical and thus not spiritual?
it would seem that we agree on the surface that spiritual is related to consciousness even to particular mental states that a being may experience. i wouldn't really put love in my category though i can understand why it would be there especially if one fell in love as my spouse and i did, at first sight and all of that.
with regards to actions are you meaning to suggest that ones intention or motivation for ones actions is spiritual? if so, i would agree with such an assessment.
metta,
~v
nice to see you around again
wouldn't actions be physical and thus not spiritual?
it would seem that we agree on the surface that spiritual is related to consciousness even to particular mental states that a being may experience. i wouldn't really put love in my category though i can understand why it would be there especially if one fell in love as my spouse and i did, at first sight and all of that.
with regards to actions are you meaning to suggest that ones intention or motivation for ones actions is spiritual? if so, i would agree with such an assessment.
metta,
~v
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Hello Vajradhara, nice to see you as well. :namaste:Namaste Lunamoth,
nice to see you around again
As I am a physical being my actions can only be physical, but the choices I make in those actions are affected in part by a transcendent aspect of my being that I can only point to, not capture in words or actions.
I use 'Love' to mean more than an emotion or relationship or attachment. Probably 'loving-kindness' and 'compassion in concert with wisdom' better describe what I mean by Love. More broadly, love is feeding, healing, nurturing, supporting, forgiving, ... striving (humbly) for the best for others and the world.
Our motivation for choices and actions are never pure, but I think that a certain mindfulness can help us make decisions, choose actions, that are Christ-like (skillful?). I also believe that the source of the Will to Love is 'spiritual' and beyond the bounds of cause and effect.
2 c
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Our motivation for choices and actions are never pure, but I think that a certain mindfulness can help us make decisions, choose actions, that are Christ-like (skillful?). I also believe that the source of the Will to Love is 'spiritual' and beyond the bounds of cause and effect.
2 c
Yes! What she said!
Bravo! Bravo!
Our motivation for choices and actions are never pure, but I think that a certain mindfulness can help us make decisions, choose actions, that are Christ-like (skillful?). I also believe that the source of the Will to Love is 'spiritual' and beyond the bounds of cause and effect.
2 c
How ravishing! An admirable post. It is always joy for me to see those who comprehend beyond the fuzzy caterpillar and have grown their wings. The cocoon and the butterfly are two distinct fundamental components. Fly away in the spirit my dearest one. The caterpillar will never know.
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste lunamoth,
thank you for the post.
are you certain that your actions are not governed by your consciousness? i seem to lack this transcendent aspect of being yet am able to take actions.. perhaps you mean something other than normal actions, like reading a website and such?
ah.. given how some people love cheeseburgers it's hard to know what is actually meant by the term in many cases. to the extent that it applies, i consider Bodhichitta to be this same expression.
i'm not sure what pure motivations actually means. in my understanding of things it doesn't particularly matter if ones intention is pure, as in unadulterated in some manner, so long as it's primary focus is compassionate benevolence. i would have to say i disagree with the idea of loving having a source outside the human form, it seems to arise within the physical form as a psycho-physical experience chiefly characterized by the activation of the Heart Chakra... but then you and i have pretty different world view
metta,
~v
thank you for the post.
lunamoth said:
are you certain that your actions are not governed by your consciousness? i seem to lack this transcendent aspect of being yet am able to take actions.. perhaps you mean something other than normal actions, like reading a website and such?
ah.. given how some people love cheeseburgers it's hard to know what is actually meant by the term in many cases. to the extent that it applies, i consider Bodhichitta to be this same expression.
Our motivation for choices and actions are never pure, but I think that a certain mindfulness can help us make decisions, choose actions, that are Christ-like (skillful?). I also believe that the source of the Will to Love is 'spiritual' and beyond the bounds of cause and effect.
2 c
i'm not sure what pure motivations actually means. in my understanding of things it doesn't particularly matter if ones intention is pure, as in unadulterated in some manner, so long as it's primary focus is compassionate benevolence. i would have to say i disagree with the idea of loving having a source outside the human form, it seems to arise within the physical form as a psycho-physical experience chiefly characterized by the activation of the Heart Chakra... but then you and i have pretty different world view
metta,
~v
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Here is something from Buddhist scriptures regarding four things that "if you try to grasp them, you cannot hold them." I wouldn't call this definitive list of things that might qualify as spiritual, though.
Acintita Sutta (Unconjecturable)
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Spirit to me means its time to uncork a bottle of Ardbeg.
Spiritual, to me, means trying to apply an unseen, unprovable dimension to the human experience. While it is an apparently real and to some important aspect of self I go down the track with Vaj that it is probably just a side effect of our other higher cognitive functions. Perhaps a safety valve for what SG refers to as the 4 imponderables or more likely an evolved response to these unanswerables.
Looking at man's senses through the lens of science it quickly becomes apparent that all of our faculties are severely restricted and limited. Our brains work with very limited actual input and fill in the gaps with experiential memory. I think given the brains abilities to 'invent' and to rationalise for the psyche it would be rather naive to say that spirituality has any truth to it. It is a function of mind developed over time to give some sense of peace and meaning where in fact there is none.
tao
Spiritual, to me, means trying to apply an unseen, unprovable dimension to the human experience. While it is an apparently real and to some important aspect of self I go down the track with Vaj that it is probably just a side effect of our other higher cognitive functions. Perhaps a safety valve for what SG refers to as the 4 imponderables or more likely an evolved response to these unanswerables.
Looking at man's senses through the lens of science it quickly becomes apparent that all of our faculties are severely restricted and limited. Our brains work with very limited actual input and fill in the gaps with experiential memory. I think given the brains abilities to 'invent' and to rationalise for the psyche it would be rather naive to say that spirituality has any truth to it. It is a function of mind developed over time to give some sense of peace and meaning where in fact there is none.
tao
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
What about the instances that could not be attributed by any possible means to one's own mind?