Hi everyone,
I'm new on this forum and in order to get to know you folks better, I would like to ask what "spirituality" means to you , forum members.
That I am
Spirituality
This topic shoud be called "Spirituality" and not "That I am"; that was a mistake of mine...
Welcome!
I Am That, welcome to Open Forum at The Zoo Fence. We are glad to have you join in the discussions.
You ask a good question. My guess is that there are probably as many answers as there are seekers, and that even within each seeker the answer undoubtedly changes over the full course of his or her life. Certainly, it has in my case.
When I as a boy, "being spiritual" pretty much meant going to church once a week, and never mind the other six days. That definition changed bit by bit over the decades, until now, I am unable to distinguish between "being spiritual" and "being alive".
Briefly stated, "being spiritual" now means to me to seek to perceive and to welcome the Divine in everyone and everything I encounter -- every person, every animal, every plant, every rock, every day, every event, every relationship, every idea, every action, every dream, every meal, every whatever.
Sometimes, it is not easy; in fact, sometimes it is almost impossible. But doing so as fully and as consistently and as enthusiastically as I am able, feels right and has wondrous results.
I would be interested in how you define "spirituality".
And, again, welcome.
You ask a good question. My guess is that there are probably as many answers as there are seekers, and that even within each seeker the answer undoubtedly changes over the full course of his or her life. Certainly, it has in my case.
When I as a boy, "being spiritual" pretty much meant going to church once a week, and never mind the other six days. That definition changed bit by bit over the decades, until now, I am unable to distinguish between "being spiritual" and "being alive".
Briefly stated, "being spiritual" now means to me to seek to perceive and to welcome the Divine in everyone and everything I encounter -- every person, every animal, every plant, every rock, every day, every event, every relationship, every idea, every action, every dream, every meal, every whatever.
Sometimes, it is not easy; in fact, sometimes it is almost impossible. But doing so as fully and as consistently and as enthusiastically as I am able, feels right and has wondrous results.
I would be interested in how you define "spirituality".
And, again, welcome.
Last edited by zoofence on February 5th, 2005, 4:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Hmmmmm, significant question, I think.
Essentially, when you get right down to it, I would suggest that spirituality is something that is actually NOT distinct from, or opposed to, "non-spirituality". In other words, everything is spiritual, because everything is essentially God, or perhaps, Reality, and it is only we creatures that insist upon dividing up things into good and bad, spiritual, and non-spiritual, and thereby allow us the distraction and entertainment of discussing what is and what isn't good and bad, spiritual and non spiritual. I suspect, indeed am certain, that this is basically why we persist in defining states, and categorizing everything.
Still - without this entertainment, we would simply cease speaking and all that implies, because there would simply be nothing to speak about. Perhaps that is why we generally refuse to take the last step necessary, and surrender to this fact, because then, what would we do?
Truly, the dance and the world in which we do it, depends upon our continuing to dance the dance. It is very orderly, and very beautiful, and we are extremely cooperative in prolonging it. And truly, I think, it is only when we tire of the dance, truly tire of it, that we cease discussing it and give it up and surrender to its inevitability.
Essentially, when you get right down to it, I would suggest that spirituality is something that is actually NOT distinct from, or opposed to, "non-spirituality". In other words, everything is spiritual, because everything is essentially God, or perhaps, Reality, and it is only we creatures that insist upon dividing up things into good and bad, spiritual, and non-spiritual, and thereby allow us the distraction and entertainment of discussing what is and what isn't good and bad, spiritual and non spiritual. I suspect, indeed am certain, that this is basically why we persist in defining states, and categorizing everything.
Still - without this entertainment, we would simply cease speaking and all that implies, because there would simply be nothing to speak about. Perhaps that is why we generally refuse to take the last step necessary, and surrender to this fact, because then, what would we do?
Truly, the dance and the world in which we do it, depends upon our continuing to dance the dance. It is very orderly, and very beautiful, and we are extremely cooperative in prolonging it. And truly, I think, it is only when we tire of the dance, truly tire of it, that we cease discussing it and give it up and surrender to its inevitability.
From my present point on the pathway, I perceive "spirituality" to be the opposite of "religion" in much the same sense that love is the opposite of fear.
If spirituality comes first, it may lead to a response that can be classified as "religious" -- or not. Usually it does. Religion is ideally a set of principles, perhaps laws, and actions (rituals) that outwardly manifest an inner reality.
Unfortunately, most folks try to swim against the stream and go the oposite way: to develop religion and expect spirituality to grow out of it. The main outgrowth of such religion is more likely to be self-delusion, arrogance, self-righteousness and, sometimes, anger. It is very frustrating and anger-producing to be "righteous" when people around you are not righteous and are not approriately appreciative of your righteousness!
Spirituality, on the other hand, is simply a word used to describe the state of one's relationship to God. Everyone is spiritual. Some are oriented towards God, some away from God. Either condition is spiritual.
I suspect, from the overall witness of the New Testament, that the human spirit is is in a state of suspended animation, called by Paul "death," until such time as the Spirit of God is able to rattle the ego (soul) loudly enough to get its attention, and can then enter into the life and give life to the spirit (this transaction is called "being born again"). "Spirituality" as such would commence at that point: prior to that time everthing takes place upon the soul level.
Since I hear you saying, "whaa?" Let me note that I am defining "soul" as the faculty of thought, reason, interrelationship with other souls, and see it as a companion of and tied for its existence to the body. "Spirit" is the faculty of communicating with God, of receiving communications from God, and of offering worship and loyalty to God. "We who were dead in trespasses and sins He made alive in Christ Jesus."
Jesus obviously regarded spirituality as paramount. He was less than impressed with the "religious" peiople of the day -- the scribes and pharisees. "Seek first the Kingdom of God," He said, "and all these things shall be added unto you." And see where He leads you when He is in control of the reins. I can guarantee you it's an exciting, unpredictable journey.
Shalom
Art
If spirituality comes first, it may lead to a response that can be classified as "religious" -- or not. Usually it does. Religion is ideally a set of principles, perhaps laws, and actions (rituals) that outwardly manifest an inner reality.
Unfortunately, most folks try to swim against the stream and go the oposite way: to develop religion and expect spirituality to grow out of it. The main outgrowth of such religion is more likely to be self-delusion, arrogance, self-righteousness and, sometimes, anger. It is very frustrating and anger-producing to be "righteous" when people around you are not righteous and are not approriately appreciative of your righteousness!
Spirituality, on the other hand, is simply a word used to describe the state of one's relationship to God. Everyone is spiritual. Some are oriented towards God, some away from God. Either condition is spiritual.
I suspect, from the overall witness of the New Testament, that the human spirit is is in a state of suspended animation, called by Paul "death," until such time as the Spirit of God is able to rattle the ego (soul) loudly enough to get its attention, and can then enter into the life and give life to the spirit (this transaction is called "being born again"). "Spirituality" as such would commence at that point: prior to that time everthing takes place upon the soul level.
Since I hear you saying, "whaa?" Let me note that I am defining "soul" as the faculty of thought, reason, interrelationship with other souls, and see it as a companion of and tied for its existence to the body. "Spirit" is the faculty of communicating with God, of receiving communications from God, and of offering worship and loyalty to God. "We who were dead in trespasses and sins He made alive in Christ Jesus."
Jesus obviously regarded spirituality as paramount. He was less than impressed with the "religious" peiople of the day -- the scribes and pharisees. "Seek first the Kingdom of God," He said, "and all these things shall be added unto you." And see where He leads you when He is in control of the reins. I can guarantee you it's an exciting, unpredictable journey.
Shalom
Art
"I can at best report only from my own wilderness. The important thing is that each man possess such a wilderness and that he consider what marvels are to be observed there." -- Loren Eiseley
Spirituality
Thanks for the welcome, Zoofence. You're quite right when you say that there must be many definitions of "spirituality". Whatever description we try to give to "spirituality", none of them is "good" nor "wrong"! I guess it says more about the one who gives the definition than about the word itself.
To me, spirituality means, forgetting all I have been told on matters of belief, on who we are etc. and find out for myself WHO I REALLY AM.
That "search" for the "I" for me is "spirituality".
And during that "search" you will (re) discover so many amazing things!
To me, spirituality means, forgetting all I have been told on matters of belief, on who we are etc. and find out for myself WHO I REALLY AM.
That "search" for the "I" for me is "spirituality".
And during that "search" you will (re) discover so many amazing things!
Nicely put, That!
Indeed, forgetting is the way out of the maze, I think. Interesting, you know, that the more you forget, or release, or give up, the clearer and more precise vision becomes. There was a time in my own life when I knew so many things. I look back and see how cluttered it was - but boy, I felt powerful because of all the supposed knowledge I had.
Now I know less and less, and find I am annoyed by what remains to still clutter it up! Odd, how we accumulate, and then find, to our consternation, that it obstructs, rather than clarifies. I suppose that is one reason that babies are so endearing - they know virtually nothing, but they just grin and coo!
Indeed, forgetting is the way out of the maze, I think. Interesting, you know, that the more you forget, or release, or give up, the clearer and more precise vision becomes. There was a time in my own life when I knew so many things. I look back and see how cluttered it was - but boy, I felt powerful because of all the supposed knowledge I had.
Now I know less and less, and find I am annoyed by what remains to still clutter it up! Odd, how we accumulate, and then find, to our consternation, that it obstructs, rather than clarifies. I suppose that is one reason that babies are so endearing - they know virtually nothing, but they just grin and coo!spirituality
You hit the nail on the head, Anna !!
Religion and scripture ...
w4tvq raises a nice point in distinguishing between religion and spirituality (in fact, he’s written a book on the subject, about which please click here – and while I’m on the subject of who’s written what, another Open Forum member, windabove, is a poet who has submitted some of his work to TZF’s Open Space; and there's some of ihavesayso's prose here).
As I have previously noted, I am currently taking a university course about the Tanakh (the Jewish bible, which is more or less the same as the Christian Old Testament), and w4tvq’s comment brought to mind the following paragraph from one of the course textbooks (which I am told is a classic in this field):
“To regard (scripture) as sacred is reasonable, but its sanctity ought to be impressed on us by study, rather than assumed beforehand. Too easily the vocabulary of religion -- words like righteousness and sin – tend to become mere slogans, devoid of meaning. To call the biblical writings Sacred Scripture is to put over them a curtain which can conceal their form and meaning. Such unthinking attribution of sanctity compounds the obscurity of the (writing). Any ancient library is hard to read and understand. Because the contents of biblical life and thought are already blurred through antiquity and distance, an unconsidered attitude that the writings are “sacred” can move the onlooker even beyond haziness into blindness itself.”
And speaking of scripture, here’s something interesting that I learned in class last week concerning the incident in the first chapter of Matthew, where an angel appears to Joseph, and tells him that the child which Mary is carrying was fathered by the Holy Spirit. The text (in the Revised Standard Version) continues, “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son”. The reference to “the prophet” is Isaiah 7:14.
Clear enough, right? Except. It seems that the author of Matthew drew that line (“Behold, a virgin …”) from a version of Isaiah that had been translated into Greek from the original Hebrew. But in the original Hebrew, there is no reference to “a virgin”; in the original Hebrew, the reference is to “a young woman”.
What is particularly interesting about this for me is 1) if the foregoing is correct, one of the fundamental pillars of the Christian religion (the virgin birth) may be based on a glitch in translation, but 2) my own sense of the spiritual process suggests that the “virgin birth” metaphor makes a lot of sense when applied to the “re-birth” that all seekers must go through and which virtually all spiritual traditions speak of in one way or another. That is, it is “the Holy Spirit” (however considered) that awakens a seeker from within and ultimately enables Self-Realization (however considered). Which raises the question: Did the translator make a mistake, or is the reference to "virgin birth" an intentional metaphor for what the translator had come himself to believe, experience, witness? (I say himself because chances are, at that time in that culture, that he was a he.)
I am also reading Eats, Shoots & Leaves, a charming and interesting book about punctuation (Yea, I know, how could I possibly find a book about punctuation either charming or interesting, much less both!), wherein is noted that some of the ancient biblical languages had no punctuation. Now, that bit of trivia may seem inconsequential, except that a comma here and a comma there can make a lot of difference, and over the centuries has apparently been the cause of much spilled ink and blood. Consider this example from Luke 23:43:
Protestant bibles read, “Verily, I say unto thee, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise”.
Roman Catholic bibles read, “Verily I say unto thee this day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise”.
In the first, Jesus promises the fellow who was crucified beside him that he will be in Paradise “this day” (today). In the second, the fellow is promised Paradise, but not told just when, which allows for the Roman Catholic concept of Purgatory.
Here are a couple of other examples where again the placement of punctuation by translators and editors, not by the original scribes, makes a difference:
“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord” and “The voice of him that crieth: In the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord”.
“Comfort ye my people” and “Comfort ye, my people”.
All of which reminds me of a tired old joke:
There were two priests representing two different religions who argued incessantly over whose religion was the better. Finally, one of them suggested to the other that the time had come for them to make peace. “After all,” he said, “when you come down to it, our differences are few. Virtually all of our beliefs and practices are really very similar.”
“That’s true,” the other agreed. “What’s more, we celebrate the same holy days, and we both read from the same scripture.”
“Exactly,” the first confirmed. “And most importantly, we both worship the same God.”
“Quite right,” the other concluded. “We do worship the very same God … You in your way, and I in His.”
Postscript, a few days later: We just watched A Love Divided, a true story set in Ireland in 1957 in which a happily married couple and their quiet village are torn apart by religion (not spirituality, religion). In the end, love prevails (more or less), but it's hard to believe that this stuff is still going on in an otherwise apparently civilized country. Has mankind learned nothing?
In the timeless words of Sonny and Cher, "And the beat goes on".
As I have previously noted, I am currently taking a university course about the Tanakh (the Jewish bible, which is more or less the same as the Christian Old Testament), and w4tvq’s comment brought to mind the following paragraph from one of the course textbooks (which I am told is a classic in this field):
“To regard (scripture) as sacred is reasonable, but its sanctity ought to be impressed on us by study, rather than assumed beforehand. Too easily the vocabulary of religion -- words like righteousness and sin – tend to become mere slogans, devoid of meaning. To call the biblical writings Sacred Scripture is to put over them a curtain which can conceal their form and meaning. Such unthinking attribution of sanctity compounds the obscurity of the (writing). Any ancient library is hard to read and understand. Because the contents of biblical life and thought are already blurred through antiquity and distance, an unconsidered attitude that the writings are “sacred” can move the onlooker even beyond haziness into blindness itself.”
And speaking of scripture, here’s something interesting that I learned in class last week concerning the incident in the first chapter of Matthew, where an angel appears to Joseph, and tells him that the child which Mary is carrying was fathered by the Holy Spirit. The text (in the Revised Standard Version) continues, “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son”. The reference to “the prophet” is Isaiah 7:14.
Clear enough, right? Except. It seems that the author of Matthew drew that line (“Behold, a virgin …”) from a version of Isaiah that had been translated into Greek from the original Hebrew. But in the original Hebrew, there is no reference to “a virgin”; in the original Hebrew, the reference is to “a young woman”.
What is particularly interesting about this for me is 1) if the foregoing is correct, one of the fundamental pillars of the Christian religion (the virgin birth) may be based on a glitch in translation, but 2) my own sense of the spiritual process suggests that the “virgin birth” metaphor makes a lot of sense when applied to the “re-birth” that all seekers must go through and which virtually all spiritual traditions speak of in one way or another. That is, it is “the Holy Spirit” (however considered) that awakens a seeker from within and ultimately enables Self-Realization (however considered). Which raises the question: Did the translator make a mistake, or is the reference to "virgin birth" an intentional metaphor for what the translator had come himself to believe, experience, witness? (I say himself because chances are, at that time in that culture, that he was a he.)
I am also reading Eats, Shoots & Leaves, a charming and interesting book about punctuation (Yea, I know, how could I possibly find a book about punctuation either charming or interesting, much less both!), wherein is noted that some of the ancient biblical languages had no punctuation. Now, that bit of trivia may seem inconsequential, except that a comma here and a comma there can make a lot of difference, and over the centuries has apparently been the cause of much spilled ink and blood. Consider this example from Luke 23:43:
Protestant bibles read, “Verily, I say unto thee, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise”.
Roman Catholic bibles read, “Verily I say unto thee this day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise”.
In the first, Jesus promises the fellow who was crucified beside him that he will be in Paradise “this day” (today). In the second, the fellow is promised Paradise, but not told just when, which allows for the Roman Catholic concept of Purgatory.
Here are a couple of other examples where again the placement of punctuation by translators and editors, not by the original scribes, makes a difference:
“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord” and “The voice of him that crieth: In the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord”.
“Comfort ye my people” and “Comfort ye, my people”.
All of which reminds me of a tired old joke:
There were two priests representing two different religions who argued incessantly over whose religion was the better. Finally, one of them suggested to the other that the time had come for them to make peace. “After all,” he said, “when you come down to it, our differences are few. Virtually all of our beliefs and practices are really very similar.”
“That’s true,” the other agreed. “What’s more, we celebrate the same holy days, and we both read from the same scripture.”
“Exactly,” the first confirmed. “And most importantly, we both worship the same God.”
“Quite right,” the other concluded. “We do worship the very same God … You in your way, and I in His.”
Postscript, a few days later: We just watched A Love Divided, a true story set in Ireland in 1957 in which a happily married couple and their quiet village are torn apart by religion (not spirituality, religion). In the end, love prevails (more or less), but it's hard to believe that this stuff is still going on in an otherwise apparently civilized country. Has mankind learned nothing?
In the timeless words of Sonny and Cher, "And the beat goes on".