What Is Spirituality?

[RankStranger]

 

I'm saying that I think the most basic function of what we call spirituality - the reason we evolved brains that can do this - is because it's a damn effective tribal bonding mechanism. It sure works for Christians... and plenty of other groups with spiritual experiences.

Shared experience of any sort transcends the individual. Sharing a common belief, rallying around the flag and shouting we are people of the clan!, has a bonding experience. A baseball game give us that rooting for the home team. But I hesitate to call that spiritual in any sort of transcendent sense of the word. A shared spiritual experience creates bonds on a different sort of level, just like shared sex does as opposed to being on the same softball team. It's a different sort of experience, that goes to the core of our being. Sharing the core of our being with another is beyond sex, even, though sex is like that in the sense of exposing ourselves deeply to each other (I'm excluding simple humping in this context).What I don't like is to call it tribal-bonding. Tribal is simply a type of social unity. It's unity that is the central theme. And yes, spirituality is all about Unity. We unite with ourselves, we unite with each other, we unite with all that is. Unity of Being. That transcends just social orders, social unity, but includes them into itself. That's why I push back again it being a function of tribal (or social) bonding. It's much more than that. It's touches all aspects of our lives, including the social. So we don't disagree there.

So those howling sessions around the alter that I grew up with... are you saying that those aren't spiritual?

[Antlerman]

So those howling sessions around the alter that I grew up with... are you saying that those aren't spiritual?

I'm not saying that. Those are part of spiritual experiences. Recall I said there are types of experiences that are typically associated with spiritual practices. They are part of religious ecstasy.

 

What they do with it after the fact, is of course another matter.

[Ouroboros]

Lots of good points in this thread.

 

Spirituality has many aspects. There are many ways of looking at it, and one of them that I see is my own attempt to find peace and connection to the world, reality, and existence as such. Currently, I'm taking art and cooking classes, and they fulfill me with a deeper satisfaction of using my creativity and in a sense "communing" with the things I work with (drawing, food, beer, etc) and also the interaction and happiness that comes from sharing the same. It's very satisfying to create a drawing that is fairly good, or food that taste good, and someone can say they like it. For instance, I made butterscotch-raisin gelato, soft caramel sauce, and coffee-rum-chocolate sufflé the other day. I wanted to share it. People loved it and now they want me to do it for birthdays and such. It boosts my ego. But it is also a very gratifying feeling. It's a daily life spirituality, in my opinion.

[RintrahRoars]

I think spirituality is mainly a tribal bonding mechanism. No doubt some people can DO more with it than that... but I suspect that's why we evolved the function.

 

What is this function you speak of? 

[RintrahRoars]

I suppose if you presume that consciousness itself is something produced by the specific ways in which an organism is wired then you can speak of spirituality as a function. But that mindset itself is a blockage in the way of spirituality because it's assuming that the fundamentals of existence can ultimately be explained with what we can understand.

 

Spirituality is not a function because it is not about doing, but rather about being. All the seeming "functions" of spirituality, even if it's consciousness becoming aware of itself, are actually forms of non-doing that only appear as functions because of the nature of the language which we use to describe them. The behaviors associated with spirituality are only outward manifestations of the inward orientation. 

[RankStranger]

 

I think spirituality is mainly a tribal bonding mechanism. No doubt some people can DO more with it than that... but I suspect that's why we evolved the function.

 

What is this function you speak of? 

 

 

 

I suppose if you presume that consciousness itself is something produced by the specific ways in which an organism is wired then you can speak of spirituality as a function. But that mindset itself is a blockage in the way of spirituality because it's assuming that the fundamentals of existence can ultimately be explained with what we can understand.

 

Spirituality is not a function because it is not about doing, but rather about being. All the seeming "functions" of spirituality, even if it's consciousness becoming aware of itself, are actually forms of non-doing that only appear as functions because of the nature of the language which we use to describe them. The behaviors associated with spirituality are only outward manifestations of the inward orientation. 

 

I guess much of this depends on the assumptions one is starting with.  I'm assuming materialism and evolution.  I know these aren't universal even among Exchristians... but if one starts with these assumptions- and I don't think they're unreasonable- then one pretty much has to conclude that spirituality is a function of the brain.  And our brains evolved to have that function.   The only evolutionary purpose for such a function that I can wrap my narrow little mind around is that it facilitates tribal bonding- and we certainly see strong tribal bonds among religious people (you know- folks who are spiritual in groups).

 

Now I realize that a guy like me speculating about spirituality is akin to asexual speculating about sex.  But I'm throwing around ideas here, trying to get at the truth.  I mean, if ya'll aren't starting with the assumptions of materialism and evolution- then what are you starting with?  Faith?

[RintrahRoars]

No assumption. Just a lack of an assumption that reality can be explained by mind. It seems you're mixing spirituality with man's inclination toward the mystical or belief in spirits and deities. It's probably better to see those as consequence of man's psyche which is partly connected to the brain but also to culture and language. So there doesn't needs to be a purpose. It can just be a biproduct of something else or just a result of random chance like many biological traits. 

[VacuumFlux]

I guess much of this depends on the assumptions one is starting with.  I'm assuming materialism and evolution.  I know these aren't universal even among Exchristians... but if one starts with these assumptions- and I don't think they're unreasonable- then one pretty much has to conclude that spirituality is a function of the brain.  And our brains evolved to have that function.   The only evolutionary purpose for such a function that I can wrap my narrow little mind around is that it facilitates tribal bonding- and we certainly see strong tribal bonds among religious people (you know- folks who are spiritual in groups).

 

Eh, brains are complex, and probably full of weird "side effects" of useful functions that aren't problematic enough to affect natural selection. Evolution is good at weeding out particularly energy-expensive or dangerous things, but it's not always good at honing functionality. What doesn't kill us gets passed on to our kids. So I don't think it actually had to have a specific evolutionary purpose, even with materialistic assumptions. And the fact that not all of us feel a need to pursue spirituality means it's not enough of a survival advantage to have spread throughout the entire population. Maybe it's more like how we have different hair and eye colors - variety that's neutral from the point of view of natural selection.

 

If I tried to come up with a just-so evo-psych story for why we've got spirituality, I'd say it's more about providing us with happiness and peace to counteract stress on the one hand, and providing motivation for high risk, high reward behaviours on the other. My spirituality is more of a personal solitary thing, and it helps me deal with unhealthy levels of anxiety. The high risk, high reward behaviours may be more of a group thing, I dunno, but it's pretty common for humans (even in secular settings) to have a Big Formal Event right before making some big change. That's more like organized religion, but rituals can be awfully nice sometimes. Asking for blessings from the spirits is a good way to get up the nerve to, say, pick up your tribe and go explore a new land when the current one's resources are dwindling. The ritualistic side of religion is also good for providing a sense of stability during change - rituals make you feel a little more in control, a little more stable after the big change happens.

[Antlerman]

The only evolutionary purpose for such a function that I can wrap my narrow little mind around is that it facilitates tribal bonding- and we certainly see strong tribal bonds among religious people (you know- folks who are spiritual in groups).

But these tribal-bonds are not due to spiritual unity. And by no means do I consider nationalism, or even religious affiliation to be spiritual in nature. They are social in nature. Would that what you say were true! We would have peace in the world!

 

Very few people, relatively speaking actually go into the spiritual in their lives. Again, I see the spiritual as the condition upon which evolution functions. The spiritual is the nature of being itself. People don't need to explore that nature with their conscious awareness in order to function socially. So it can't be something evolution creates in order to make social bonds work.

 

These social bonds are not tribal, per se', as I pointed out before. They evolved somewhat like this, that you have a family group and extended family. You are bound through bloodlines. Kinship systems evolved. These proved too challenging as groups grew too large and bloodlines became mixed and harder to identify easily with. This becomes replaced by ethnic ties, a people of a region, a people of a particular god figure. This became too challenging when a people became mixed with other people's through cosmopolitanism in the expansion of empires. Identity with particular gods or regions becomes harder and is shifted to citizenship of a system, nation states, etc. I don't see spirituality in there.

 

Where spirituality is in there, is that it exists in all conditions of being. It is there in all states of consciousness. It is not the bonding glue in these above systems. But within those systems those individuals who explore deeply within into that condition of being, see something in all things, in all systems that connects and binds us - whether that is other people, or the grass of the field, the birds, the fishes, the air, the earth, the sky, the stars, the universe. It is the energy that runs through all. But very few people experience this. Societies are not based on this type of awareness. They are based rather on superficial similarities, such as bloodlines, religious ties, etc.

 

Actually, the more someone plumbs the depths of the spiritual, the less these bonds of social systems hold together! "All is One", flies in the face of "Only Christians go to heaven". It flies in the face of "the Jews are the true people". It flies in the face of any ideas of "us versus them", which is the bond of all these systems, with insiders and outsiders.

 

Now I realize that a guy like me speculating about spirituality is akin to asexual speculating about sex.  But I'm throwing around ideas here, trying to get at the truth.  I mean, if ya'll aren't starting with the assumptions of materialism and evolution- then what are you starting with?  Faith?

The thing is, everyone is spiritual. That is our nature. Not everyone explores that for whatever personal reasons, and that's fine for them. It really is nothing more than exploring the nature of being, our "beingness", exploring the condition of being, what is it "to be". What does someone start with? A desire to know your own being. Something 'calls' to you from within yourself to know yourself, beyond simple appearances, beyond these things, these mental objects we identify with as what defines us. It begins with a desire to know who I am before all these things, and who I am beyond all these things.

[RankStranger]

No assumption. Just a lack of an assumption that reality can be explained by mind. It seems you're mixing spirituality with man's inclination toward the mystical or belief in spirits and deities. It's probably better to see those as consequence of man's psyche which is partly connected to the brain but also to culture and language.

 

Wouldn't that still still depend on that watery mass between our ears though?  Sure culture and language affect what that watery mass does- but I can't imagine how the experience of spirituality- or anything we'd call an 'experience'- wouldn't be directly dependent on brain function.  

 

So there doesn't needs to be a purpose. It can just be a biproduct of something else or just a result of random chance like many biological traits. 

 

 

That's a damn good point- and I think there are plenty of examples of byproducts that don't necessarily serve any particular purpose.  

 

I guess the reason that I'm guessing that spirituality is related to tribal bonding is this:  if somebody says that they're spiritual/religious, I take their word for it.  While I find some forms of it interesting and others downright distasteful, I wouldn't presume to differentiate between 'real' spirituality vs. something that's less real, legitimate, developed, or whatever.

 

In my part of the world, the vast majority of 'spiritual' people out there are christians.  And I don't think it's an accident that these same people exhibit strong tribal behaviors:  cohesiveness, deference to authority, nationalism, xenophobia... it all boils down to "us" throwing feces at "them".  Now I'm not saying that I see that in ya'll buddhist types- far from it (though I don't really know how it plays out in other parts of the world).  But it sure looks to me like spirituality and tribal behavior are intertwined... makes me wonder if that's WHY most of us have this capacity for spirituality.

[RankStranger]

 

The only evolutionary purpose for such a function that I can wrap my narrow little mind around is that it facilitates tribal bonding- and we certainly see strong tribal bonds among religious people (you know- folks who are spiritual in groups).

But these tribal-bonds are not due to spiritual unity. And by no means do I consider nationalism, or even religious affiliation to be spiritual in nature. They are social in nature. Would that what you say were true! We would have peace in the world!

 

Very few people, relatively speaking actually go into the spiritual in their lives. Again, I see the spiritual as the condition upon which evolution functions. The spiritual is the nature of being itself. People don't need to explore that nature with their conscious awareness in order to function socially. So it can't be something evolution creates in order to make social bonds work.

 

These social bonds are not tribal, per se', as I pointed out before. They evolved somewhat like this, that you have a family group and extended family. You are bound through bloodlines. Kinship systems evolved. These proved too challenging as groups grew too large and bloodlines became mixed and harder to identify easily with. This becomes replaced by ethnic ties, a people of a region, a people of a particular god figure. This became too challenging when a people became mixed with other people's through cosmopolitanism in the expansion of empires. Identity with particular gods or regions becomes harder and is shifted to citizenship of a system, nation states, etc. I don't see spirituality in there.

 

Where spirituality is in there, is that it exists in all conditions of being. It is there in all states of consciousness. It is not the bonding glue in these above systems. But within those systems those individuals who explore deeply within into that condition of being, see something in all things, in all systems that connects and binds us - whether that is other people, or the grass of the field, the birds, the fishes, the air, the earth, the sky, the stars, the universe. It is the energy that runs through all. But very few people experience this. Societies are not based on this type of awareness. They are based rather on superficial similarities, such as bloodlines, religious ties, etc.

 

Actually, the more someone plumbs the depths of the spiritual, the less these bonds of social systems hold together! "All is One", flies in the face of "Only Christians go to heaven". It flies in the face of "the Jews are the true people". It flies in the face of any ideas of "us versus them", which is the bond of all these systems, with insiders and outsiders.

 

Now I realize that a guy like me speculating about spirituality is akin to asexual speculating about sex.  But I'm throwing around ideas here, trying to get at the truth.  I mean, if ya'll aren't starting with the assumptions of materialism and evolution- then what are you starting with?  Faith?

The thing is, everyone is spiritual. That is our nature. Not everyone explores that for whatever personal reasons. It really is nothing more than exploring the nature of being, our "beingness", exploring the condition of being, what is it "to be". What does someone start with? A desire to know your own being. Something 'calls' to you from within yourself to know yourself, beyond simple appearances.

 

 

I think that much of the difference in the way we see this boils down to our respective definitions of 'spirituality'.  Personally I'm not differentiating between buddhists, christians, or various aboriginal religions.  I'm not looking for True Spirituality™- and if that's what you're trying to sell me, then we've got nothing more to talk about.  I'm not denying that there's SOMETHING 'real' going on when people have a spiritual experience (something in the brain, probably)- but I'm not willing to accept that any particular discipline has The Answers™.

 

My observations are based on what I see in 'spiritual' people that I encounter daily- most of whom are christians.  And while I guess I've seen hints of this 'oneness' once in a while- I see even more exclusion and 'us' throwing feces at 'them'.  Your brand of spirituality may be far more palatable than theirs- but how am I to accept that yours is any more legitimate or representative of what humans in general would call 'spiritual'?  I mean, if this were put to a vote, the fundies would out-vote you 1000 to 1.  And while I don't particularly LIKE their form of spirituality- who are you to say that it's any less 'spiritual'?

[RintrahRoars]

 

No assumption. Just a lack of an assumption that reality can be explained by mind. It seems you're mixing spirituality with man's inclination toward the mystical or belief in spirits and deities. It's probably better to see those as consequence of man's psyche which is partly connected to the brain but also to culture and language.

 

Wouldn't that still still depend on that watery mass between our ears though?  Sure culture and language affect what that watery mass does- but I can't imagine how the experience of spirituality- or anything we'd call an 'experience'- wouldn't be directly dependent on brain function.  

 

But the brain function is in turn determined by the nature of reality itself. So why use biology to explain spirituality? Why not quantum physics? 

[RankStranger]

 

 

No assumption. Just a lack of an assumption that reality can be explained by mind. It seems you're mixing spirituality with man's inclination toward the mystical or belief in spirits and deities. It's probably better to see those as consequence of man's psyche which is partly connected to the brain but also to culture and language.

 

 

Wouldn't that still still depend on that watery mass between our ears though?  Sure culture and language affect what that watery mass does- but I can't imagine how the experience of spirituality- or anything we'd call an 'experience'- wouldn't be directly dependent on brain function.

 

But the brain function is in turn determined by the nature of reality itself. So why use biology to explain spirituality? Why not quantum physics?

I don't see why it matters which branch of science I'm referring to. My point is that ANY experience we have is directly dependent on the brain. It makes no difference whether you describe that in terms of biology, chemistry, or quantum mechanics (as if our understanding of ANY of these is adequate to describe something as complex as the brain). The fact is that when I get hit in the head, or when my brain loses blood flow - the lights go out. No more 'experience' of any kind. Been there/done that, and neither Jesus nor Buddha appeared to me. So I can only conclude that spirituality is a function of the brain. Incoming information certainly influences that - but that makes it no less a biological function.

[Antlerman]

I think that much of the difference in the way we see this boils down to our respective definitions of 'spirituality'.  Personally I'm not differentiating between buddhists, christians, or various aboriginal religions.  I'm not looking for True Spirituality™- and if that's what you're trying to sell me, then we've got nothing more to talk about.  I'm not denying that there's SOMETHING 'real' going on when people have a spiritual experience (something in the brain, probably)- but I'm not willing to accept that any particular discipline has The Answers™.

Neither do I. You should re-read everything I wrote in my last post. You'll see none of what you say here in there. I subscribe to the perennial philosophy. There is no exclusion in this.

 

My observations are based on what I see in 'spiritual' people that I encounter daily- most of whom are christians.  And while I guess I've seen hints of this 'oneness' once in a while- I see even more exclusion and 'us' throwing feces at 'them'.  Your brand of spirituality may be far more palatable than theirs- but how am I to accept that yours is any more legitimate or representative of what humans in general would call 'spiritual'?  I mean, if this were put to a vote, the fundies would out-vote you 1000 to 1.  And while I don't particularly LIKE their form of spirituality- who are you to say that it's any less 'spiritual'?

You mistake practices with spirituality itself. You should spend some more time reading what I posted. You're leaping to things in this which I don't suggest.

[RankStranger]

 

I think that much of the difference in the way we see this boils down to our respective definitions of 'spirituality'.  Personally I'm not differentiating between buddhists, christians, or various aboriginal religions.  I'm not looking for True Spirituality™- and if that's what you're trying to sell me, then we've got nothing more to talk about.  I'm not denying that there's SOMETHING 'real' going on when people have a spiritual experience (something in the brain, probably)- but I'm not willing to accept that any particular discipline has The Answers™.

Neither do I. You should re-read everything I wrote in my last post. You'll see none of what you say here in there. I subscribe to the perennial philosophy. There is no exclusion in this.

My observations are based on what I see in 'spiritual' people that I encounter daily- most of whom are christians.  And while I guess I've seen hints of this 'oneness' once in a while- I see even more exclusion and 'us' throwing feces at 'them'.  Your brand of spirituality may be far more palatable than theirs- but how am I to accept that yours is any more legitimate or representative of what humans in general would call 'spiritual'?  I mean, if this were put to a vote, the fundies would out-vote you 1000 to 1.  And while I don't particularly LIKE their form of spirituality- who are you to say that it's any less 'spiritual'?

You mistake practices with spirituality itself. You should spend some more time reading what I posted. You're leaping to things in this which I don't suggest.

You're telling me that some very common practices among certain religions are not 'spiritual'. So do you have some special 'spiritual' insight that these religious people don't have? Or are you using a different definition of 'spiritual' than they are? If it's the latter - why should I prefer your definition over theirs?

[RintrahRoars]

I don't see why it matters which branch of science I'm referring to. My point is that ANY experience we have is directly dependent on the brain. It makes no difference whether you describe that in terms of biology, chemistry, or quantum mechanics (as if our understanding of ANY of these is adequate to describe something as complex as the brain). The fact is that when I get hit in the head, or when my brain loses blood flow - the lights go out. No more 'experience' of any kind. Been there/done that, and neither Jesus nor Buddha appeared to me. So I can only conclude that spirituality is a function of the brain. Incoming information certainly influences that - but that makes it no less a biological function.

 

But again, you're understanding of spirituality is that it's an action or a tendency of people to do certain things. The types of experiences that arise are dependent on the brain as you say and are just as much dependent on the environment of the brain. Those are all in the realm of doing. I'm suggesting that true spirituality is about the being that underlies all different types of experience. It's simply about what is.

[VacuumFlux]

My observations are based on what I see in 'spiritual' people that I encounter daily- most of whom are christians.  And while I guess I've seen hints of this 'oneness' once in a while- I see even more exclusion and 'us' throwing feces at 'them'.  Your brand of spirituality may be far more palatable than theirs- but how am I to accept that yours is any more legitimate or representative of what humans in general would call 'spiritual'?  I mean, if this were put to a vote, the fundies would out-vote you 1000 to 1.  And while I don't particularly LIKE their form of spirituality- who are you to say that it's any less 'spiritual'?

 

 

The flavor of christianity I grew up with is very uncomfortable with the word "spiritual". They were anti-charismatic, to the point of being a little weirded out by people raising their hands while singing (despite the best efforts of a very small number of people to change that). Think middle class white people, where even the choir members won't sway to the beat (not even a little bit) while performing a gospel number. I was shocked when I got ahold of an approved book by A.W. Tozer and found him described as a "christian mystic". I didn't know christians were allowed to do that!

 

When they did talk about spiritual as a good thing, the people it applied to were always the ones who could win the popularity contest of acting most devout in public. Either the popular kids in the high school sense of the word, or the people who could drum up melodrama and tears when doing a fundraising speech for their latest missions trip.

 

So I'm not really sure what fundy christians think "spirituality" is. Maybe going to church on a regular basis and going through all the motions, but only if you really mean it? When I was a christian and wanted more of what seems to be what people mean by "spiritual", the word I went for was "mystic". Most fundies I know would say that most things labeled "spiritual" today are gateways to letting demons into your life.

[RankStranger]

 

I don't see why it matters which branch of science I'm referring to. My point is that ANY experience we have is directly dependent on the brain. It makes no difference whether you describe that in terms of biology, chemistry, or quantum mechanics (as if our understanding of ANY of these is adequate to describe something as complex as the brain). The fact is that when I get hit in the head, or when my brain loses blood flow - the lights go out. No more 'experience' of any kind. Been there/done that, and neither Jesus nor Buddha appeared to me. So I can only conclude that spirituality is a function of the brain. Incoming information certainly influences that - but that makes it no less a biological function.

 

 

But again, you're understanding of spirituality is that it's an action or a tendency of people to do certain things. The types of experiences that arise are dependent on the brain as you say and are just as much dependent on the environment of the brain. Those are all in the realm of doing. I'm suggesting that true spirituality is about the being that underlies all different types of experience. It's simply about what is.

"True spirituality"? Really?

[RintrahRoars]

You can take out the word "true" if you want. Or how about "spirituality to me". Better?

[RankStranger]

You can take out the word "true" if you want. Or how about "spirituality to me". Better?

Yes, that's much better.

 

And I'm sure you can see how "true spirituality" can be seen as exclusionary and even tribal. If you and I agreed on what True Spirituality means, we could team up against all these reductionist fools. What a fearsome tribe you and I would be... if only I believed.

[Antlerman]

You're telling me that some very common practices among certain religions are not 'spiritual'.

I am saying that just because someone performs a ritual, prays to some god, offers some sacrifice, does not automatically make it spiritual. Through such practices someone can access the spiritual within themselves, but not everyone does. This is where I make a distinction between religion and spirituality. Religion does many things, only one of which deals with the spiritual, if at all. The spiritual is dealing with ones sense of self in the world. It is an inner realization. If someone never looks within, if all they have is the form, belonging to the group and all it's social bonds, without ever going within, then it is not spiritual. It's only the external half of ourselves.

 

So do you have some special 'spiritual' insight that these religious people don't have?

I have an insight that is appropriate for me where I am at. Someone, who actual enters into themselves spiritually, however that occurs for them, will understand the nature of this to them within a certain framework of understanding. For some, it means they encountered their deity, that God spoke to them, etc. Others understand it differently, within the context of a different framework of understanding. I do not negate someone's experience of the spiritual, simply because they call it something differently, their particular god or whatnot. Their experience, behind and beneath whatever they call it, is not different. It's still spiritual.

 

Being religious, again, does not mean the person is going into the spiritual. Not at all.

 

Or are you using a different definition of 'spiritual' than they are? If it's the latter - why should I prefer your definition over theirs?

Because if you are trying to talk about the experience of this, then you need to find some way to try to hang your understanding upon. It doesn't mean you 'believe' these things, and that they are substance of your experience. I describe them as two-dimensional tree-like structures upon with we hang the ornaments of spirit in order to see them and talk about them. Those ornaments can be moved to other trees too. Whatever helps you to see them, is the right structure for you.

 

Throwing them in the trash because you don't like one structure and can't relate to it, is not really wise, IMO.

[Antlerman]

BTW, "True spirituality" is not a belief. It's genuine experience, no matter how you believe.

[RankStranger]

Sometimes I can get a better grasp of an idea if I look at it from several angles. So here are a few non-loaded questions for AM, RR, and whomever else wants to chime in:

 

What distinguishes 'spirituality' from emotion? Or IOW, is there some reason why you couldn't see spirituality as some subset of emotions?

 

And on a related note: We all know that animals experience emotions - at least I don't THINK that would be controversial here. I mean, we're animals and all. Do y'all think other animals can experience spirituality?

 

Somewhat related to the previous question: Do y'all think spirituality is in any way related to or correlated with intelligence? I know lots of dumb christians- but no dumb Buddhists. Or is it more likely that certain KINDS of spirituality would be more correlated with intelligence? And if it happens that intelligence isn't a factor, then might the fish in my aquarium be spiritual?

[VacuumFlux]

What distinguishes 'spirituality' from emotion? Or IOW, is there some reason why you couldn't see spirituality as some subset of emotions?

 

There is a certain set of emotions I tend to associate with spirituality, but it's also a... set of actions, I guess, or a general attitude about life. Like when I'm doing mindfulness meditation, sometimes I'll hit the "feeling spiritual" stage of emotions, but not all the time. But it is always conscious effort to change what my mind is focusing on. I tend to do a "personal development" type of spirituality, so for me, a lot of it is tied up with changing how I act, not by focusing on the act when the situation comes up, but by practicing not-freaking-out ahead of time. So instead of it being about emotions happening to me, it's about gaining more control over my emotional states (or at least my reaction to my emotional states).

 

And on a related note: We all know that animals experience emotions - at least I don't THINK that would be controversial here. I mean, we're animals and all. Do y'all think other animals can experience spirituality?

 

Somewhat related to the previous question: Do y'all think spirituality is in any way related to or correlated with intelligence? I know lots of dumb christians- but no dumb Buddhists. Or is it more likely that certain KINDS of spirituality would be more correlated with intelligence? And if it happens that intelligence isn't a factor, then might the fish in my aquarium be spiritual?

 

Yes, I do think that we are "just another animal", but I also think that spirituality is connected to a certain level of mental complexity. So I doubt your fish has the right brain wiring to be spiritual, but dolphins and elephants and apes probably do. I'd say that certain forms of spirituality are more intellectual than others, but I doubt there's any functional human being who's dumb enough to be unable to follow any spiritual path - even the smartest animals are at about the intelligence level of a human 6 yr old. And I think spirituality is different from intelligence in the same way that book smarts are totally different from street smarts, or IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is differen than EQ (Emotional Quotient). I'd actualy think spirituality would be more related to the emotional side of things, or the street smarts, because it's about experiencing things for yourself instead of memorizing data (but as happens many times, learning a buch of data can help you process, make use of, and build on your experiences faster than you would without the data).

 

For those who like to contrast religion with spirituality, I'd say that religion is like reading your text book, but spirituality is doing the homework (or religion is reading a book about woodworking or cars or art, while spirituality is actually trying to make something or working a car). That's why I don't think of many of the christians I know as particularly spiritual people - they can say all the right things about love and forgiveness, but few of them actually live that way, and worse, they don't seem to get that there's anything missing or anything more they could be doing.

[Antlerman]

What distinguishes 'spirituality' from emotion? Or IOW, is there some reason why you couldn't see spirituality as some subset of emotions?

Because it may or may not include emotions. You certainly can have an emotional response to the spiritual, but the spiritual is not emotions. It is really best described as awareness. It is being aware of something beyond our meager thoughts. It is sensed being. It is knowledge. It is awareness in all states of our being, emotions included.

 

And on a related note: We all know that animals experience emotions - at least I don't THINK that would be controversial here. I mean, we're animals and all. Do y'all think other animals can experience spirituality?

Oh yes. How consciously aware they of the world and all that is within it and themselves, goes to how deep their experience of this is. Remember, it is "being" itself. If they experience their being, they experience the spiritual. Everyone does. But it is really a matter of being much more consciousness aware of it. On a subconsciousness level, everything is aware of this, because they exist.

 

Somewhat related to the previous question: Do y'all think spirituality is in any way related to or correlated with intelligence?

No. It has to do with the depth of ones self-awareness. Not how intelligent someone is. It is accessible to everyone.