For sure. The problem I have with words like "spiritual" is that they can mean entirely different things to different people.Laurens wrote: I used the word spiritual because it helped describe what I was getting at.
Spiny
For sure. The problem I have with words like "spiritual" is that they can mean entirely different things to different people.Laurens wrote: I used the word spiritual because it helped describe what I was getting at.
Agree. Where would the definiton /explanation of spirituality seriously collide with Buddhism?tiltbillings wrote:This question makes no sense.
Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or immaterial reality;
[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of their being; or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.”
[2] Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual's inner life; such practices often lead to an experience of connectedness with a larger reality, yielding a more comprehensive self; with other individuals or the human community; with nature or the cosmos; or with the divine realm.
[3] Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life.
[4] It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
lat. spiritus ,germ. Geist (engl. mind), breath‘ / spiro ,I breath‘ – also oldgreek. ψύχω or ψυχή, look psyche
It's the same with a lot of words unfortunately.Spiny O'Norman wrote:For sure. The problem I have with words like "spiritual" is that they can mean entirely different things to different people.Laurens wrote: I used the word spiritual because it helped describe what I was getting at.
Spiny
A definition was posted in the OP.Spiny O'Norman wrote:For sure. The problem I have with words like "spiritual" is that they can mean entirely different things to different people.Laurens wrote: I used the word spiritual because it helped describe what I was getting at.
Spiny
If there was no spiritual practice in Buddhism, then it'd just be intellectual discourse and debate about philosophical subjects.[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of their being; or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.”
[2] Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual's inner life; such practices often lead to an experience of connectedness with a larger reality, yielding a more comprehensive self; with other individuals or the human community; with nature or the cosmos; or with the divine realm.
[3] Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life.
[4] It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.
Which illustrated the many different ways "spirituality" can be thought of.Annapurna wrote:A definition was posted in the OP.Spiny O'Norman wrote:For sure. The problem I have with words like "spiritual" is that they can mean entirely different things to different people.Laurens wrote: I used the word spiritual because it helped describe what I was getting at.
Spiny
I think these statements would work better if you replaced "spiritual" with "insightful" or "liberating".Viscid wrote:Buddhism, by my (and apparently wikipedia's) definition is steeped in spirituality.
- Meditative practice is spiritual.
- Applying Insight into the nature of conditioned phenomena is spiritual.
- Stream-entry is an intensely spiritual experience.
- Realization of the Four Noble Truths is spiritual.
- Having knowledge of Karma and Past Lives is spiritual.
Why can't spiritual things be insightful or liberating?Spiny O'Norman wrote: I think these statements would work better if you replaced "spiritual" with "insightful" or "liberating".
Spiny
I don't disagree with what you say, I just think that words like "insightful" and "liberating" are more descriptive of Buddhist practice. Yes, I am reluctant to label Buddhism as "spiritual", partly for the kind of reasons you mention but mostly because it's such a vague word which people define in so many different ways.Viscid wrote:Why can't spiritual things be insightful or liberating?Spiny O'Norman wrote: I think these statements would work better if you replaced "spiritual" with "insightful" or "liberating".
Spiny
I think the reticence to label Buddhist things as 'spiritual' comes from the association 'spirituality' has with the realm of the new-age and other religions. People wish to see Buddhism strictly as a practical philosophy; philosophy is rational and possibly verifiable, while spirituality is not.
Are you practicing here that not-thinking you said characterized Buddhism?Hanzze wrote:Reestablish the meaning of words is very buddhistic and leads to quick understanding of the Buddha Dhamma I guessSpiny O'Norman wrote: I don't disagree with what you say, I just think that words like "insightful" and "liberating" are more descriptive of Buddhist practice. Yes, I am reluctant to label Buddhism as "spiritual", partly for the kind of reasons you mention but mostly because it's such a vague word which people define in so many different ways.
I do see Buddhism as very practical, concerned with verification rather than superstition.
Spiny
Well, don't hurt your head.Hanzze wrote:I guess that will lead to off topic Sometimes one needs to think to be able to let go of it Everybody his needed/favorite staza so lets look if I could stop the ball again.tiltbillings wrote:Are you practicing here that not-thinking you said characterized Buddhism?