What it means to be a spiritual person?

[Paladin]

With regards to Thomas, wil ,and Andrew, and not to be argumentative, but just sort of throw out some personal observation... I don't know that I buy the idea of a separation between natural and supernatural. I've tried to get to the minimal roots of my experience; that is, what I think I can say about how things seem to me. I think I'm pretty much down with Andrew's comment directly above. If I deduct anthropomorphism, and try the best I can to put purely conceptual constructs aside, I don't know that the thing that makes experience groovy, and seems to supply an element of Providence, isn't sort of organic to the universe, and activated by me as an aspect of intention and cooperation. I mean, aside from learned metaphysical modeling and construction, I can't find any inherent compulsion toward the idea of an over-arching, separate, supernatural Being-Force. I understand that such a concept works well to underline traditional notions, cultural mores, and institutional power structuring, but aside from rote repetition and philosophical hero worship, I don't find that sort of "spiritual" superlativism self-apparent. I don't particularly like the simplistic pan-panen theistic ordering either as it plays into a different set of religio-gurgitation, so I just don't know, but I think the truth must be much more organic and less gee-whizzy than is presented in most philosophical renderings.

The question for me is: "how do things look when I'm not invested in wanting any of the stock explanations?"

Chris

You are my hero Chris
I used to love the way Shunryu Suzuki articulated it as "things as it is"
I was never sure if the grammar was intentional or not. I like to think that it was, because as written it is quite beautiful.

 

[Saltmeister]

Paladin!!!! The knight in shining armour is back!!!!!

 

[wil]

I mean, aside from learned metaphysical modeling and construction, I can't find any inherent compulsion toward the idea of an over-arching, separate, supernatural Being-Force.

I wonder how the search for G!d differs from the search for TOE?

And I love the ram dass feel of that question...

 

[Paladin]

Paladin!!!! The knight in shining armour is back!!!!!

Hi Salty!

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, Buddhists like to toss around the term "uncreated" as well:
The Three Characteristics And The Uncreated
earl

Thanks Earl,

God bless,

Thomas

 

[luecy7]

If you think about it, the universe is exactly what it is, and when we begin a spiritual journey there is always something to get and something to leave behind.

That would be a physical journey.

Perhaps spirituality then if done correctly should bring you back to the place you started from.

Again, physical.

 

[Paladin]

That would be a physical journey.

Again, physical.

Then there's that.

 

[luecy7]

Then there's that.

... which is not spirit.

 

[Paladin]

... which is not spirit.

And your point would be...

 

[Vajradhara]

i have no idea, really, what it means to be spiritual or a spiritual person without understanding how the OP has defined this term.

on a personal note i don't find the word "spiritual" to be of any descriptive benefit in describing my interior landscape nor do i see any reflection of it in the external reality which would allow such a term to be useful in any manner.

using my own understanding of what is being asked i would say that a spiritual being is compassionate, in particular the Buddhist expression of Bodhichitta which means acting towards others from a position of a loving, caring, well intentioned mind and attitude.

 

[seattlegal]

Question: is there a Buddhist term for "greater than the sum of its parts?"

 

[Paladin]

Question: is there a Buddhist term for "greater than the sum of its parts?"

That is an awesome question! For the most part I find Buddhism focuses on things like the five aggregates. However in practice I find most Buddhists to be genuinely in love with humanity.

 

[luecy7]

And your point would be...

Made, and apparently dismissed?

From my viewpoint you described physical, materialistic qualities that you see in the universe and applied them towards 'spirit' as a 'spiritual journey'. For comparison I'd look for how they are applied towards the more tangible relationships within this universe. China_Cat_Sunflower addressed anthropomorphism and providence from his viewpoint, challenging the truth of a greater or a supernatural spirit. Rather than looking for what can animate anywhere in the entire universe, I would focus on what animates people within your own relationships, the very people from which you might apply meaning to a word like 'anthropomorphism' or 'providence'.

Substituting into your statement: 'the (relationship) is exactly what it is, and when we (at least two people), begin a spiritual journey (together I should hope), there is always something to get and something to leave behind.' Yes, you might receive from someone else, but then you might not. Giving is a matter of giving without necessarily receiving. The exact opposite of your statement. Are you able to give without receiving? If you view a relationship from a materialistic opportunity cost, then I submit you are focused on a physical quality. You are stating the ole: You can't be two places at once, you can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't have your freedom and live, you can't be married and free, etc... Those are just physical constraints. If you view a person and your relationship with them as a purely physical object, then your statement might be true. I wouldn't call it a spiritual journey. Polar opposite.

Again, substituting: 'perhaps spirituality then if done correctly should bring us back to the place (we) started from.' Applied to a relationship, done correctly, should it revert back to what it was before it began? Divorce is the correct path after a marriage? Once a sinner, always a sinner, unless you can beat it out of someone? The real question here from my perspective is whether or not people can potentially change. Change implies ending up in a place that you did NOT start from, again the exact opposite of your statement. Is a person trapped with a nature, or presumed to have an ability to NOT be natural, thus super-natural, with that ability to change. For example in the fable, The Scorpion and the Frog , could the scorpion change? If you view that people can change only momentarily, trapped with a nature, then I'd say your viewpoint of people and resulting relationships are entirely physical and non-spiritual. Physically it is dust to dust, but hopefully you can admit that a person passing on is not in the same condition they were being born? Neither is a relationship.

So then rather than question whether there is an encompassing non-natural entity in the universe, the home that we each live in, lets look closer to whether there are merely physical, materialistic relationships within our own homes. Yes of course there is always a physical relationship with the denoted physical qualities, but is there not potentially one with the polar opposite quality too? Every home here is within this universe, so if there is a spiritual aspect of a relationship somewhere in our own home then there is at least one in this universe.

 

[seattlegal]

Question: is there a Buddhist term for "greater than the sum of its parts?"

That is an awesome question! For the most part I find Buddhism focuses on things like the five aggregates. However in practice I find most Buddhists to be genuinely in love with humanity.

Emptiness?

{yeah, I know, emptiness can be such a loaded concept}

 

[Paladin]

Made, and apparently dismissed?

From my viewpoint you described physical, materialistic qualities that you see in the universe and applied them towards 'spirit' as a 'spiritual journey'. For comparison I'd look for how they are applied towards the more tangible relationships within this universe. China_Cat_Sunflower addressed anthropomorphism and providence from his viewpoint, challenging the truth of a greater or a supernatural spirit. Rather than looking for what can animate anywhere in the entire universe, I would focus on what animates people within your own relationships, the very people from which you might apply meaning to a word like 'anthropomorphism' or 'providence'.

Substituting into your statement: 'the (relationship) is exactly what it is, and when we (at least two people), begin a spiritual journey (together I should hope), there is always something to get and something to leave behind.' Yes, you might receive from someone else, but then you might not. Giving is a matter of giving without necessarily receiving. The exact opposite of your statement. Are you able to give without receiving? If you view a relationship from a materialistic opportunity cost, then I submit you are focused on a physical quality. You are stating the ole: You can't be two places at once, you can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't have your freedom and live, you can't be married and free, etc... Those are just physical constraints. If you view a person and your relationship with them as a purely physical object, then your statement might be true. I wouldn't call it a spiritual journey. Polar opposite.

Again, substituting: 'perhaps spirituality then if done correctly should bring us back to the place (we) started from.' Applied to a relationship, done correctly, should it revert back to what it was before it began? Divorce is the correct path after a marriage? Once a sinner, always a sinner, unless you can beat it out of someone? The real question here from my perspective is whether or not people can potentially change. Change implies ending up in a place that you did NOT start from, again the exact opposite of your statement. Is a person trapped with a nature, or presumed to have an ability to NOT be natural, thus super-natural, with that ability to change. For example in the fable, The Scorpion and the Frog , could the scorpion change? If you view that people can change only momentarily, trapped with a nature, then I'd say your viewpoint of people and resulting relationships are entirely physical and non-spiritual. Physically it is dust to dust, but hopefully you can admit that a person passing on is not in the same condition they were being born? Neither is a relationship.

So then rather than question whether there is an encompassing non-natural entity in the universe, the home that we each live in, lets look closer to whether there are merely physical, materialistic relationships within our own homes. Yes of course there is always a physical relationship with the denoted physical qualities, but is there not potentially one with the polar opposite quality too? Every home here is within this universe, so if there is a spiritual aspect of a relationship somewhere in our own home then there is at least one in this universe.

Actually I didn't dismiss as much as "missed" your pov. Thank goodness you were here to straighten me out!

 

[Paladin]

Emptiness?

{yeah, I know, emptiness can be such a loaded concept}

Yeah, I think emptiness would work okay because I think I understand the context you are using it in.
It occurred to me one day during meditation that if everything is empty it must also be quite full.
I mentioned this to my teacher Ven. Tenzin Kacho and she just nodded and smiled.

 

[luecy7]

Actually I didn't dismiss as much as "missed" your pov. Thank goodness you were here to straighten me out!

If you can see that point of view then it is due to your own actions in your own, more personal relationships.

 

[Paladin]

If you are straight and can see that point of view then it is due to your own actions in your own, more personal relationships.

Thanks doc, I feel much better now

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Made, and apparently dismissed?

From my viewpoint you described physical, materialistic qualities that you see in the universe and applied them towards 'spirit' as a 'spiritual journey'. For comparison I'd look for how they are applied towards the more tangible relationships within this universe. China_Cat_Sunflower addressed anthropomorphism and providence from his viewpoint, challenging the truth of a greater or a supernatural spirit. Rather than looking for what can animate anywhere in the entire universe, I would focus on what animates people within your own relationships, the very people from which you might apply meaning to a word like 'anthropomorphism' or 'providence'.

Substituting into your statement: 'the (relationship) is exactly what it is, and when we (at least two people), begin a spiritual journey (together I should hope), there is always something to get and something to leave behind.' Yes, you might receive from someone else, but then you might not. Giving is a matter of giving without necessarily receiving. The exact opposite of your statement. Are you able to give without receiving? If you view a relationship from a materialistic opportunity cost, then I submit you are focused on a physical quality. You are stating the ole: You can't be two places at once, you can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't have your freedom and live, you can't be married and free, etc... Those are just physical constraints. If you view a person and your relationship with them as a purely physical object, then your statement might be true. I wouldn't call it a spiritual journey. Polar opposite.

Again, substituting: 'perhaps spirituality then if done correctly should bring us back to the place (we) started from.' Applied to a relationship, done correctly, should it revert back to what it was before it began? Divorce is the correct path after a marriage? Once a sinner, always a sinner, unless you can beat it out of someone? The real question here from my perspective is whether or not people can potentially change. Change implies ending up in a place that you did NOT start from, again the exact opposite of your statement. Is a person trapped with a nature, or presumed to have an ability to NOT be natural, thus super-natural, with that ability to change. For example in the fable, The Scorpion and the Frog , could the scorpion change? If you view that people can change only momentarily, trapped with a nature, then I'd say your viewpoint of people and resulting relationships are entirely physical and non-spiritual. Physically it is dust to dust, but hopefully you can admit that a person passing on is not in the same condition they were being born? Neither is a relationship.

So then rather than question whether there is an encompassing non-natural entity in the universe, the home that we each live in, lets look closer to whether there are merely physical, materialistic relationships within our own homes. Yes of course there is always a physical relationship with the denoted physical qualities, but is there not potentially one with the polar opposite quality too? Every home here is within this universe, so if there is a spiritual aspect of a relationship somewhere in our own home then there is at least one in this universe.

Well, if an apple were an orange, a lemon would be a Volkswagen. I once had a Volkswagen that was a lemon, so that proves my point.

It's one thing to extrapolate and extend human experience to the rest of the universe, and quite another to reflect that construct back as self-created.

Chris

 

[Saltmeister]

Perhaps the question of what is spiritual has to do with how we see "vitality" and "liveliness" in a system and how our journey fits into that vitality and liveliness in the system.

Biological life is organic and perhaps the idea of being spiritual has to do with a belief in a distinct and separate reality that is also "organic" but that which is invisible. This invisible but organic system is something you can sense but which you cannot see.

An organic system follows non-linear laws and relationships. What sustains the vitality and liveliness of the system is a flow of energy that must fit inside finite but dynamic and variable thresholds. As long as the energy levels stay within these dynamic and variable thresholds, the system can sustain itself without much external intervention. The person who maintains this system simply has to monitor its vital signs and feed it with the right nutrients.

To be spiritual, you try to connect with this invisible but accessible system that you cannot see, using your intuition to guide your interaction with this invisible but accessible, non-linear and organic system.

You can't see it, but you know it's there. The spiritual is accessible, but not visible. That is what spirituality is about. But if this "organic system" existed, surely it must be possible to make it visible?

This is where we discover the irony of "spirituality." The organic system that I would like to call "spirituality" isn't "real" in the sense that it isn't a "physical" system that you can locate, measure or reveal. Actually, it's artificial. It doesn't really exist except in your mind.

However, having said that it isn't "real" in the sense of not being a "physical" system, that it doesn't exist except in your mind, it doesn't mean it isn't "real" in another sense. It's "real" not in the sense of being physical, but "real" in the sense of affecting your journey through life.

The more people this "reality" affects, the more powerful it is. It is real, but not in a physical sense. It isn't enough for one person to interact with this imaginary system. The more people there are interacting with this imaginary organic system, the more powerful it is. What makes it even more powerful is when they agree on what is happening inside this imaginary organic system. Disagreement weakens the "reality" of this spiritual phenomenon. Consensus strengthens and reinforces it.

But spirituality is more than just making something up. You have to believe that the system exists in its own right.