A Basic Definition of Spirituality (of True Faith)

[Leonardo17]

Angrboda:
 

“I see you've drunk the koolaid. The frontal cortex performs multiple functions. Saying meditation supports development of it isn't linking it to anything specific.
 
Those who get to experience samadhi claim that it is such and so. That doesn't make the claim true. Meditation and mindfulness have effects on consciousness' phenomenology, what the specific nature of those changes signifies is not clear. Since it's a part of the claim that it is some kind of super conscious state, and not something in the evidence, this makes the evidentiary value nil.
 
You're simply putting the cart before the horse. Assuming the claims are true in determining what counts as evidewnce. That's not how it works.”

 
- I have used a complicated terminology. Forget about Samadhi. The basic practice of meditation is to experience yourself as pure consciousness. It’s about experiencing something that is still present even when your body, your personality, your mind (intellect) is gone. That’s pure consciousness. And that is present inside the ant, inside your pet, inside your best-friend (or worse enemy), inside plants and even within rocks that were brought back to earth from the moon.
 
So there is some sort of direct experience here. And this is not based on religious indoctrination.
 

“This is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You pick out spiritual practices that have a universal appeal and draw a circle around it and label it true spirituality. The circle you drew has no objective reason for having been drawn thus, thus your "true spirituality" is an artifact caused by you doing the selecting with that end in mind.”

 
/ No. Spiritual principles do not care about geographical or cultural identities. That is why Morihei Ueshiba's principles are very similar to the principles of Yoga, or to some basic approaches in Mystical Christianity or even Islam.
 
Paraselene:
 

“I'm always wary of the claim that a practice is special, because its application isn't necessarily helpful for everyone.”

 
That is absolutely correct. I’m an intellectual person and I love all sorts of intellectualism. So my way of finding God comes from the realization that my mind is a limited tool and can only understand a fraction of this universe even if I was a vampire who could devote 5-6 lifetimes to the study of philosophy and science. It simply would not work.
 
/ Artists and movie makers get to this understanding through their artistic endeavors. Others may reach it by simply being present in their own life situation. So you may have found some other method (that you understand and I don’t) that brings you to experience this larger transandental reality.  
 
GrandNudger:
 

“Have you spent much time assessing whether your own ideas about "spirituality" have crossed that same rubicon...degenerating into your "religion"....? Completely useless in spiritual terms......”
 

- That’s what I am trying to tell. All and any of my mind-based convictions are actually useless. That’s what the Aristotle story means
 

“.....this wasn't addressed to me, but it's just a perfect prompt.  So, when I say that your "spirituality" sounds more like "religion" and you respond to others about the universality of the subjective experience of spirituality I see an opening for agreement.  I would consider spirituality a universal phenomena as well.  However, it's universality in the specifics is exactly the dividing line between religion and spirituality.  Spirituality being the subjective apprehension of a sense of the numinous, of connectedness, of meaning-as-such, and the awe..the altered perception... that it inspires within us.  A fundamentally subjective experience.  Religion, in contrast, is a method devised by a community meant to constrain and give structure to the raw experience, to unify it with history and (expectations, hopes, demands of) future... to utilitarian ends. 
 
So, when you say as you said above that all spirituality devolves(d) into religion I'm left with a very amusing picture.  That of this raw but impenetrable (???) experience being made less somehow by any attempt to make a world more concordant with the same. To give it a theological interpretation that expresses my amusement...maybe god is love...but even if that were true trying to make the world love is degenerate, and completely useless.
 
In spiritual terms, ofc.”

 
So my approach on that is this: When someone is having a bad dream, your first instinct is to wake up that person right? Even if the dream is completely unreal, it is real for that person in that moment. So (normal people) will wake up another person when he or she is having a bad dream.
 
+ If we are to evolve into a more civilized civilization that reaches toward the stars, that civilization will have to be better than ours. Stone-age people of the amazon have this “connection to the universe” we have lost our “connection to the universe”. And it is not realistic to hope that we will be able to move forward if (for instance) we cannot (once again) be in harmony with both nature and other fellow humans. Atheist people say the very same thing. But I am repeating that idea as a believer in spirituality
 
Bellaqua:

 
“I think you're defining spirituality, and the goals of spirituality, in ways that are still unclear to me.
 
First, you say that spirituality requires a method of attaining knowledge. It would help me understand if you could give me an example of such a method. Is it meditation? Mindfulness? Some sort of introspection? I don't see it yet.
 
Secondly, you say that the knowledge one gains from spiritual practice is "everything that's worth knowing." Here too, an example would help me understand. I assume that practical knowledge like how to pay one's taxes properly isn't included in this spiritual gain.
 
Could you give me an example of what's included in the "everything that's worth knowing"?”

 
1) There is no method actually. I know it seems like I'm contradicting myself, but the main thing that happens is you becoming aware of what has already been present there since the very beginning. The methods are basically the same in every tradition. Basically it is “the ability to sit still alone inside a room”
 
2) I’m talking about knowledge about existence itself. An AI can learn about the best way to manage your money and give you tips on these issues. So the philosophers “Who am I?” question is probably not included either. This is more like knowing the answer of the “What am I?” and “What’s going on here?”
 
/Or at least this is how I understand this
 
BrianSoddingBoru:
 

“He’s also implying that the non-spiritual isn’t worth knowing, or that non-spiritual people can’t know anything worthwhile. That’s problematic, to put it mildly.”
 

- No. This is still a personal definition of what I see as true or basic spirituality which is different from both all types of mind-based methods of studying reality and indoctrination based approaches which are not so bad but can end up badly if they are completely disconnected from our inner urge to become more aware of this Inner Reality I have been talking about.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

“He’s also implying that the non-spiritual isn’t worth knowing, or that non-spiritual people can’t know anything worthwhile. That’s problematic, to put it mildly.”
 

- No. This is still a personal definition of what I see as true or basic spirituality which is different from both all types of mind-based methods of studying reality and indoctrination based approaches which are not so bad but can end up badly if they are completely disconnected from our inner urge to become more aware of this Inner Reality I have been talking about.

But you said, ‘Of everything that’s worth knowing. That’s what happens when you are spiritually enlightnened.’

This plainly exclude non-enlightened people from knowing things that are worth knowing. Non-enlightened people may know how to build a boat, write a sonnet, prepare a tasty meal, repair a damaged heart, and so on. You’re clearly stating (your gibberish above notwithstanding) that these things are not worth knowing.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^I wonder when the word ‘dogma’ became a perjorative.

Boru

Perjorative?

Here is an MRI scan of my brain, every time i read the word "dogma". 

And for the poor, deprived souls who don’t know,





Boru

[Angrboda]

While there are multiple ways to define truth, the most common is that something is true if it corresponds to something in the real world. So far you haven't established that this spirituality of yours corresponds to anything in the real world. Knowledge itself? Improvements of the frontal lobe? What are you actually tying all this nonsense to? Moreover the things you have tied it to, consciousness, are approachable via reason. Edmund Husserl did ground-breaking work on the structure of consciousness. He revealed things that centuries of navel gazing had failed to clarify. This is because these spiritual approaches ply their trade through intuition, which, besides not being transparent, and having no way to verify it, is well-known to be unreliable as a path to knowledge. It sounds to me like you're just vaguely describing unfounded ideas as if they corresponded to something real. Though despite being prodded to do so in this and other threads, you continue to fail to produce anything substantive.

[The Grand Nudger]

 
GrandNudger:
 

“Have you spent much time assessing whether your own ideas about "spirituality" have crossed that same rubicon...degenerating into your "religion"....? Completely useless in spiritual terms......”
 

- That’s what I am trying to tell. All and any of my mind-based convictions are actually useless. That’s what the Aristotle story means

Awesome, so, we can all disregard anything you say about spirituality because none of it can be true or accurate?

So my approach on that is this: When someone is having a bad dream, your first instinct is to wake up that person right? Even if the dream is completely unreal, it is real for that person in that moment. So (normal people) will wake up another person when he or she is having a bad dream.
 
+ If we are to evolve into a more civilized civilization that reaches toward the stars, that civilization will have to be better than ours. Stone-age people of the amazon have this “connection to the universe” we have lost our “connection to the universe”. And it is not realistic to hope that we will be able to move forward if (for instance) we cannot (once again) be in harmony with both nature and other fellow humans. Atheist people say the very same thing. But I am repeating that idea as a believer in spirituality
 

Stone age people of the amazon had no special connection to the universe that we lack.  Human beings have never been in harmony with nature or each other.

[Paleophyte]

How worried should I be that Leo's babbling makes less sense to me than a random conversation with ChatGPT? Pure consciousness is what you experience when your mind and personality are gone? That's called a lobotomy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How worried should I be that Leo's babbling makes less sense to me than a random conversation with ChatGPT? Pure consciousness is what you experience when your mind and personality are gone? That's called a lobotomy.

‘I’d rather have a free bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.’ - Steve Allen (probably)

Boru

[Leonardo17]

BrianSoddingBoru:
 

“But you said, ‘Of everything that’s worth knowing. That’s what happens when you are spiritually enlightened.’

 
This plainly exclude non-enlightened people from knowing things that are worth knowing. Non-enlightened people may know how to build a boat, write a sonnet, prepare a tasty meal, repair a damaged heart, and so on. You’re clearly stating (your gibberish above notwithstanding) that these things are not worth knowing.”
 
- By this I meant the most fundamental questions like “What do we do once we are here? Where the user’s manual? What’s going on here? Why are we even here?”
 
/No philosopher truly aborts these questions. Spirituality on the other hand, gradually provides answers to that.
 
Angrboda:
 

“While there are multiple ways to define truth, the most common is that something is true if it corresponds to something in the real world. So far you haven't established that this spirituality of yours corresponds to anything in the real world. Knowledge itself? Improvements of the frontal lobe? What are you actually tying all this nonsense to? Moreover the things you have tied it to, consciousness, are approachable via reason. Edmund Husserl did ground-breaking work on the structure of consciousness. He revealed things that centuries of navel gazing had failed to clarify. This is because these spiritual approaches ply their trade through intuition, which, besides not being transparent, and having no way to verify it, is well-known to be unreliable as a path to knowledge. It sounds to me like you're just vaguely describing unfounded ideas as if they corresponded to something real. Though despite being prodded to do so in this and other threads, you continue to fail to produce anything substantive.”
 

- I’m not claiming that spirituality’s goal is to replace science here. I’ve just being watching an interview on recent advances in post-partum depression among women and on the latest discoveries in this field during the last 10 years.

   Besides me not understanding anything at this point does not mean that the sum of knowledge of our specie will not keep increasing in the coming decades and centuries.

   I’m not claiming I found some replacement to philosophy either.

   Still this “Inner Knowledge” I’m talking about has been of great support for me. I’ve come to terms with the fact that (despite being a great tool) the mind is not a goal in itself. As I become more and more established in this “Self-knowledge” I’m talking about these mind-based approaches are becoming like tools that are available for me to use in the service of the only possible “Knowledge” that is available to us humans. (And that’s the closest to how I can express this at this point
)
 
Grandnudger:
 

“Stone age people of the amazon had no special connection to the universe that we lack.  Human beings have never been in harmony with nature or each other.”

 
- I disagree. I think we have in many ways lost our connection to nature. I believe humans have always been conscious of the fact that they are just a small part of a larger reality. I also believe that this connection has been lost in our modern society. I even believe that if we let it, this modern world will turn us into robots. We will become simple consumers who have this illusion of freedom but are (in reality) complete slaves of a capitalist system almost like the people who were turned into mere batteries in the matrix movie.
 
/Yet, if we re-establish this inner connection, this social model will start to evolve with us and we will be able to create a more “human” and dignified way of living for ourselves and our descendants.
 
/And true spirituality will probably play a big role in us achieving that (that’s how I see it)
 
Paleophyte:
 

“How worried should I be that Leo's babbling makes less sense to me than a random conversation with ChatGPT? Pure consciousness is what you experience when your mind and personality are gone? That's called a lobotomy.”

 
- If somebody took half of our brains, everything would be fine right? No need for Marijuana or alcohol, we would just be lying there without a worry in the world?
 
- Chat GPT is not conscious (yet). But it’s still a good example. It’s a tool that does stuff that our mind does too. So if we are not the mind, then what are we?
 
- We are what we experience in most serious meditation practice. That is pure presence. Or pure bliss if you like. And this is something we get to experience for ourselves. It’s not just some prophet having told us about it many centuries ago. There is this active procedure and the result of this procedure is also being experienced by the practitioner directly. And there are studies on meditation now. We can see that changes occur in the brain in people who meditate regularly. We also know that regular meditation has a very positive effect on our general wellbeing. These are observations. Not religious dogmas.
 
Brian-Boru:
 

“‘I’d rather have a free bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.’ - Steve Allen (probably)”

 
- This is an important point. But you can look at it this way:
 
I would not want to be in your car if you are driving after drinking to bottle of scotch or if you have had pills / magic mushrooms of anything like that. But would you be afraid of being in my car if I have meditated for 20 minutes before driving the car?
 
/ So there are some useful stuff there.



 
Personally: It keeps me from becoming a nihilist in this world. Sometimes I look at what the masses do and the only thing that keeps me from adopting as Gustave Le Bon type of attitude toward other humans is the (for me) knowledge that they too are connected to this inner reality I’ve been talking about. So it keeps me from adopting a completely stoic attitude. And I sort of love this idea of “Let go and let God”.
 
/ Of course there are situations in which we need to act decisively and quickly. But what do you do when masses of people are mobilized to destroy the very fabric of our reason-based / free societies?
 
So there is this “Individual support” element here too. I don’t know if I sound like a crazy person. But that’s the core of my belief system I’ve been talking about

[The Grand Nudger]

Modern people frequently report the sense of the numinous. You're just flat out wrong about this. I see a number of your political convictions being used to explain why you feel the way you do. The irony here is that you're talking to very receptive audience if the subject matter was a religion of nature - but I've gotta be honest, my eyes roll all the way back into my head whenever it's clear to me that the sort of "connection to nature" a person is talking about is an effect of the need to sell pulp paperbacks. This is a marketing technique. Mythologizing and romanticizing early peoples and in the process erasing their own fully equal modernity...all so you can be convinced that you're sick and sold the cure. There is no cure, there never was. Those early peoples were extraction and exploitation specialists just as we continue to be. Their gods and goddesses and spirits and rituals and superstitions were already a layer of cognitive insulation between themselves and the natural world they lived in and depended on.

What if spirituality supplies no answer to any such questions? What if true faith is nothing more or less than the state in which our convictions are disproportionate to the evidence upon which they're founded?

[Angrboda]

Angrboda:
 

“While there are multiple ways to define truth, the most common is that something is true if it corresponds to something in the real world. So far you haven't established that this spirituality of yours corresponds to anything in the real world. Knowledge itself? Improvements of the frontal lobe? What are you actually tying all this nonsense to? Moreover the things you have tied it to, consciousness, are approachable via reason. Edmund Husserl did ground-breaking work on the structure of consciousness. He revealed things that centuries of navel gazing had failed to clarify. This is because these spiritual approaches ply their trade through intuition, which, besides not being transparent, and having no way to verify it, is well-known to be unreliable as a path to knowledge. It sounds to me like you're just vaguely describing unfounded ideas as if they corresponded to something real. Though despite being prodded to do so in this and other threads, you continue to fail to produce anything substantive.”
 

- I’m not claiming that spirituality’s goal is to replace science here. I’ve just being watching an interview on recent advances in post-partum depression among women and on the latest discoveries in this field during the last 10 years.

   Besides me not understanding anything at this point does not mean that the sum of knowledge of our specie will not keep increasing in the coming decades and centuries.

   I’m not claiming I found some replacement to philosophy either.

   Still this “Inner Knowledge” I’m talking about has been of great support for me. I’ve come to terms with the fact that (despite being a great tool) the mind is not a goal in itself. As I become more and more established in this “Self-knowledge” I’m talking about these mind-based approaches are becoming like tools that are available for me to use in the service of the only possible “Knowledge” that is available to us humans. (And that’s the closest to how I can express this at this point
)

Aside from the fact that your subjective appreciation of this "Inner Knowledge" isn't really evidence, you haven't really answered the question. What does this so-call inner knowledge and knowledge itself that you subjectively perceive correspond to such that it should be appreciated as something valuable and what makes you believe that our access to this inner knowledge is not possible using the tools of reason or mind?

When you say inner knowledge or knowledge itself, these are just meaningless labels until you connect them to something real. Until then you might as well say that these spiritual practices bring you face to face with surfumdigious or flumox -- that's just as meaningless. The word knowledge refers to something we have good reason to believe is true, which, again, refers to something that corresponds to something in the real world. What is this inner thing that you are claiming is true, and what in the real world does it correspond to?

Perhaps a simpler way of putting this is to ask what is true about inner knowledge, what does it correspond to in the real world, and why is that thing useful or valuable? What evidence do you have for it being true and useful? And what evidence leads to the conclusion that spiritual practices provide access to it, while reasoning through mind does not?