Talk:Spirituality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Spirituality Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.

This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Spirituality may involve perceiving or wishing to perceive life as more important ("higher"), more complex or more integrated with one's world view; as contrasted with the merely sensual.

I believe the above sentence, which is already in the article, should be modified slightly and moved to become the first sentence in the article. This would present spirituality in more general terms, at the same time as exposing it's controversial nature. As it stands right now, the first sentence contains the phrase "matters of the spirit" which is not only displaying POV, but is akin to defining a word using that word. --131.191.106.81 12:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)



"Osho, a controversial Indian teacher, comments of spiritual teachers that "[o]ut of one hundred masters, there is only one Master, ninety-nine are only teachers. The teacher is necessarily learned, the Master ... it is not a necessity... The Master is a rebel. he lives out of his own being, he is spontaneous, not traditional..."[2]

What does this statement tell us about spirituality?

sandy 16:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Although not the in the "common" parlance, spirituality infers a fundmental quality of life based on current experience. Also out of the common parlance is the concept of spirituality as an outgrowth of common consciousness and therefore redefineable by common dint as to the quality of life. Also, the list of belief systems examining spirituality misses the Society of Friends (Quakers) whose basic belief is in the spirit in all and respect in the quality of that experience (and the concommitent community inherent in the practice of mutual respect of spirit in others as self) BC

One of the comments is 'Those given to describing of their spiritual beliefs in terms of "spirituality" rather than "religion" are apt to believe that there are many "spiritual paths" and that there is no objective truth about which is the best path to follow. ' This deceptive statement occludes an important point: if you have specificly defined spiritual goals then some paths will be more effective than others in catalyzing you to attain those goals. The factors relate to the seeker, the goals and the path, path leader and path environment. Moral relativism is not the same as the 'objectivity' and 'being real' taught by spiritual traditions. M.T.

Contents

[edit] Western views vs. Eastern, with regard to spirituality and religion

I'm not quite sure how to word this, but can we possibly edit in something about how in the East, practices are rarely classified in terms of religion and spirituality? For instance, Taoism, how would you classify that? You simply cannot (unless you want to get into Taoist religion that was inspired by the ancient Taoists texts, yet came long after the existence of Taoist practices). What I'm trying to point out is that there is somewhat of a continuum in the East between philosophy, spirituality, and religion. As you can see, I'm having trouble putting this into words. Any suggestions on how (if at all) this can be worked into the page?


I am an Atheist, I nither believe in God nor religion. I certainly do not believe in spirituality -- I see spirituality as a means to condition people. It is a dramatic myth as far as I am concerned. I wish to hear responses from individuals who share my point of view.

I don't really think this is the right place to look for people "who share your point of view". You've got an opinion about the subject, and that's nice, but it definitely can't be the theorical orientation of this article. Arges 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a problem with "Spirituality" being "incomprehensible"?

User:duncharris said: "Although an atheist may well be able to follow Subud, I have never heard of [t]he term, and it appears to be religious/spiritual, and uses the same incomprehensible gobledegook [sic]."

Duncharris’ sentence is a bit ambiguous, but I'll assume that he is saying that words used to describe spiritual matters are incomprehensible. Indeed, they may be! But, most worthwhile endeavors are difficult or impossible to comprehend:

The singularity (of the Big Bang) is incomprehensible because the curvature of spacetime was infinite, so physical law and time as we know it did not exist; Infinity is incomprehensible, a fortiori different types of infinities are incomprehensible; Infinity can be demonstrated in a proof, but it still makes no sense to our understanding; The proof that the number of natural numbers is equal to the number of EVEN natural numbers is incomprehensible. Again, we can demonstrate the proof but it’s not satisfying to the understanding; Time dilation, many ramifications of E=mc(2), some behavior of muons, and the notion of electrons “traveling around” a nucleus (related to Heisenberg uncertainty)--it’s all incomprehensible. It is possible for a “tear” to open up in our space time in the vicinity of our Local Group, and “another” Big Bang would happen—an entirely different universe (likely with different physical laws) would spread destroying spacetime as it goes (not “replacing” space, but actually destroying spacetime itself). This means another dimension would “open up” within our dimension, at least temporarily. Of course, by “temporarily” is meant thousands of years, until our spacetime and everything associated with it was destroyed when the explosion reached us. Currently physics says that communication with this new universe would be “impossible” but most of quantum theory is “impossible” from Aristotelian/Newtonian principles). "Non-locality" is currently incomprehensible (classical physics assumes change/effect only by direct physical contact, yet non-locality denies this stricture). Varying c (speed of light)(or VSL theory) makes little sense in terms of relativity theory. Matter is mostly space rather than “solid” as common sense would have it. Chaos theory, inflationary theory, the Lambda problem, Inflation’s so-called solution to the Lambda problem, Bohm’s implicate order, quantum states “jumping” up to the atomic level (this has already been used to explain behavior in some bacteria), etc., etc.,—all this stuff makes little sense to our understanding. Yet it is either currently actual, or has strong theoretical grounds. While humanity currently has the most amazing bank of knowledge in human history, it’s also true that “incomprehensibility” is a cornerstone of the universe, and given the scope of Epistemology it will remain so.

Regarding Spirituality, some people have access to more subtle forms of physical energy, but it’s only physical energy nonetheless—it’s not some mysterious “supernatural mystic vision.” Some people claim it’s that out of ignorance. But that doesn’t mean that some persons cannot sense outside normal boundaries. I don’t want to get too reductionist, but for sake of explanation I’ll say that what we now call spiritual experience will someday be explained. Maybe not completely explained, but explained enough to give it credence to most thinking people (many accepted theories in physics are only partly explained—theories have “lives,”—big bang cosmology, inflation, etc.). Maybe spiritual experience is a bleed-over from other (physical) dimensions, or from an implicate order, or maybe it’s direct prehension from quantum states (although it’s true that quantum theory currently says that useful information can’t travel non-locally). Or, spiritual experience may be enhanced sense perception. (That is, the five senses don’t open the world to us, rather they may cut us off from reality. Those with enhanced senses would have been quickly selected out of the population by evolution—how can you hunt and gather with continual influxes of irrelevant data coming into your consciousness, even if that data is actual states of affairs in the world? Some of that ability, or vestiges of it, was retained, however, because some people have the ability that animals do, to sense barometric pressure, etc.). Our knowledge of human sense perception and neurology, which is bound up with the issue of “spirituality,” is in it’s infancy.

Energy and matter are the same thing but just in a different states. Everything may be reduced to energy or experience (“experience” as used here is not to be confused with “consciousness,” as the latter is something very different). At the quantum level there is a continual exchange of energy—photonic energy. On some level every interaction of one object with another object is “recorded.” Interaction between objects leaves some kind of energy-impression (call it “data”), either locally or non-locally or both, in one or both affected objects. True, we can only access a fraction of that data in the 21st century (e.g., the object's color, a mark left on it from a collision with another object in the past, evidence that it has sat in the sun or weather for years, radioactive properties, etc.), but given enough time and development we’ll be able to prehend or access much more of this data. Some people claim to have a more developed intuitive sense and claim that they can access it, but they really cannot. In other words, yes, there are charlatans in the world. But, other people claim they are able to access this energy, and they are correct. Energy may be sensed by human beings—human beings may receive data and if they have trouble classifying this data in common or worldly terms, then they resort to a “spiritual” explanation. Spirituality may be defined as real experience that doesn’t fit into neat and easy categories.

The universe is a complex place. I wish the universe were nice and neat—well-defined, easily, clearly, and completely referenced. I wish I could close my mind to what we’re calling “spiritual” today, and relegate it all “gobbledygook.” Tossing a label on something and denying it wholesale is the work of radicals (at both ends of the spectrum) and it’s the easy way out. (Of course, this doesn’t mean we accept everything either—astrology and many things “metaphysical,” in the non-academic sense, are probably best classified as nonsense, or at least as very dubious.) The radical Evolutionists will continue to fight the radical Creationists, and since they both only have a tiny picture of the whole, they’ll fight to no avail, and continue to close themselves off from the larger picture. The most difficult and treacherous path, but the most rewarding one, is to tread in the middle between the Creationists and the Evolutionists, taking ALL evidence seriously (i.e., if you’re going to be radical, then be a “radical” empiricist, and take all experience seriously, even “spiritual” experience). There’s plenty of room in (what we today call) “material science” for (what we today call) “spirituality.” It’s all the same: supernaturalism is nonsense—there’s only nature. The more of nature you study, the more open and synoptic you become. Socrates’ attitude (from the oracle) sums it up best, after all. Aliman 11:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. A quote from The Princess Bride, but true here nonetheless. What is, in fact, the line between comprehension and incomprehension? In fact, the argument could be made that it is only by the existance of spirit that comprehension can even exist as a concept. Hackwrench 03:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)



maybe I'm just being dense, but it seems this article doesn't actually define what spirituality is. It says it relates to issues that aren't to do with the material world, "beyond both time and the material world", a "metaphysical reality greater than oneself" without actually saying anything about the supposed "spiritual" world. If it isn't physical, what is it?

Perhaps this is simply indicative of how spirituality is just a shoe-in word used to describe a range of things that people don't currently understand? I think maybe the main problem is we all experience what we call consciousness or awareness, but science has yet to define what this is and what causes it

[edit] Esotericism & New Age

Spirituality is a broad topic, with many applications of the word. It is an aspect of just about any religious or meditative pursuit that doesn't involve having illicit sex with or making piles of money off of the parishioners. It doesn't have to be esotericised into an occult pursuit. This article had a too rarefied approach to the word, IMO, which I hope to have remedied with my modest additions. You'll notice that I didn't take anything out. New Agers and Jesuits can argue all day about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but spiritual experience is an everyday occurence for many and therefore common to almost every traditional religious group's worldview. Fire Star 20:44, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Everyday usage of the word "spiritual"

Can someone comment on everyday usage of the word spiritual, e.g.

"3. (of the mind etc.) refined, sensitive; not concerned with the material."

as defined in Oxford English Dictionary, or

"4. refined: showing great refinement and concern with the higher things in life"

as defined in MSN Encarta.

These have nothing to do with religion (or with spirituality as defined here) - e.g. I could say I am both spiritual (in the sense "refined") and an atheist. Btw, I am not a native English speaker, so I don't know if the usage of the word in this context is much common in English as it is in some European languages. Thanks.

The dictionary definition of "spiritual" belongs in a different wiki, Wiktionary, a sister project of Wikipedia. — Dan | Talk 23:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Spirituality

"Tossing a label on something and denying it wholesale is the work of radicals (at both ends of the spectrum) and it’s the easy way out... The most difficult and treacherous path, but the most rewarding one, is to tread in the middle between [beliefs]."

I concur. It is always more difficult to deny people their truth, to keep an open mind, to walk a path that is neither black nor white. Spirituality is based in personal experience. Use the scientific method: experiment. Try someone's theory. If it does not work after repeated attempts, perhaps their beliefs are wrong, or at least wrong for you.

Sprirtuality is concerned with this world and not the next. It requires results for the experimenter. That is one of the main differences between spirituality and religion. However, spirtuality is not magic. Magic grants control over the universe. Spirituality grants understanding and acceptance--serenity amid chaos. --Franketh 01:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the infobox?

It doens't seem to add anything to the article and the layout is pretty bad. Please consider removing it.

Peter Isotalo 08:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blatently POV

Much of this article is blatently POV, so I've placed the NPOV template.

Either several parts should be removed or caveats should follow them.

The first sentence sets the tone:

"Spirituality, in a broad sense a concern with matters of the spirit, is a wide term with many available readings."

What are matters of the spirit? What is a spirit and who says it exists. This tacitly endorses a controversial metaphysical position.


"Being spiritual' is often discussed as goal-directed, with aims such as: to simultaneously improve one's wisdom, willpower and communion with God/universe, which necessitates the removal of illusions at the sensory, feeling and thinking aspects of a person."

You can only go so far with the Fox News style POV ("is often often discussed as" in place of blatently saying it). When the author says "communion with God/universe," that follows with the Fox News style caveat, but then it goes on "which necessitates" which sounds authoritative, as if factual. Thus when it says the illusions of the sensory, it is making another controversial metaphysical position.


"Spirituality is often viewed as an essential part of an individual's holistic health and well-being, which is developed by an awareness of a transcendent dimension to life."

Often viewed? By whom? These are clearly fringe beliefs. It ought to say "Proponents claim."


Plus, what is a spiritual community? It sounds like new age nonsense. Regardless, why is Humanism listed among them? Humanism marked a change in thinking, away from spirituality.


Also, there are no other sides presented in the article. It is a fringe, esoteric topic and should be treated as such. Maprovonsha172 6 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

Not only do I heartily disagree, I feel you're letting your bias get in the way. Your points are minor, mainly related to use of weasel words (which is a debated policy in the first place). Bringing up "fox news style" further brings your credibility into question, as that's not even close to an accurate description.
...in a broad sense a concern with matters of the spirit...
This doesn't endorse a viewpoint. It would be more controversial and point of view to say "so-called spirit", which is the alternative.
As for the supposed "controversial metaphysical positions", that's irrelevant. We cannot talk about Spirituality in any meaningful context unless we assume that physicalism (materialism) is wrong. Whether or not it is doesn't matter. In the context of the article, we must assume that it is.
As for being a fringe topic, nothing could be further from the truth. Based on the amount of religious people in the world, this article eaisily makes the test for being a topic worthy of serious analysis based on the definition of the word in religion. That's not even counting the discussion of "spiritual rather than religious", the adherants of which subject seem to be growing.
In short, for the points listed above, and since you seem to be the only one with any points on the subject, I'm removing the NPOV template. --Vaergoth 08:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


That an article needs cleaning up and clarifying does not rate a dispute sticker. Personal prejudices notwithstanding, spirituality is a serious philosophical topic and rates as much consideration as, say, existentialism or Emersonian thought. I am therefore removing the dispute sticker and putting a "this needs cleaning up" sticker instead. --Bluejay Young 08:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contents of external links

A number of the external links lead to particular organisations or retreats. I think some discussion is required on which of these are legitimate content and which are simply adverts! See Wikipedia: External links --Vincej 11:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Spirituality category is also under target!

[edit] Criticisms of Spirituality

I think this article needs a section called Criticisms of Spirituality.

No, it doesn't, and we know you're Baphomet. freestylefrappe 21:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree with the first statement - we need a balanced argument here. The wikipedia is not a tool for promoting a belief. "Spirituality" doesn't hold up to experiment. It cannot be observed, let alone proved. --Beachy 08:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No idea who Baphomet is but there is no reason not to have a page on criticisms of Spirituality - there are certainly many criticisms available. My point would be that some religionists feel that atheists haveno right to coin words like spirit, spiritualityor soul if they don't believe in God, but some secular minded people will use the words as they are rooted in our creative language. They will see spirituality and wonderment in the natural cosmos, - an atheistic poet can be as moved by a flower as a religious one - spirituality is a human sense of wonder. Spirituality is not the exclusive personal property of someone who believes in God(s). (User:arthurchappell

No you don't know that I am Baphomet, because I'm not and you don't have super special psychic powers. You seem a tad over protective of this topic, you know they all have to grow up and have topics of their own someday. Quite frankly I think there are probably many criticisms of the term spirituality and they should be part of the article. I think that should be a given. It is after all an encyclopedia, not a book of only ideas that you like. barkmoss 06:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The most obvious criticism, imo, is that the term implies a belief in a soul and spirit world. If the world is looking for a term that is truly inclusive of all beliefs then we need one that includes folks who believe in a strictly physical universe. barkmoss 19:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be "physicalism," although, by definition, it excludes a belief in soul and a spirit world. The truly inclusive term would be "belief." Plenty of people don't believe in spirituality, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have a criticism of the term. All anyone who wants to compare and contrast spirituality with any other type of belief has to do is start typing. — RDF talk 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it is possible to feel some kind of "connection" to trees and stuff (commune with nature); I'm sure some people worship the Earth, Moon, stars and Universe. This, I think, could be considered a kind of "sprituality." However, regardless of my beliefs, I think the term is used in ways that are offensive to probably everyone. So, I think it needs a big criticism section. Otherwise, folks will feel stifled. (Barkmoss 07:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Ockham's Razor

I cant see how Ockham's Razor could have anything to do with chosing between "spirutual paths".

King Mob 10:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Everybody starts in a different given spiritual state, That spiritual state yields certain tools. Application of those tools results in structures of varying complexity. Different tools result in different simplified structures. Thus choosing the least complex structure that are created of the toolsets of varied individuals results in different paths. Hackwrench 04:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual research and a computer analogy

A person is running 16-bit real mode software on a computer capable of running in 32-bit protected mode. He denies the existance of 32-bit mode and protected mode. He claims that all evidence of 32-bit mode is subjective and anecdotal. He has tried running software that requires a 32-bit protected mode OS on his system, and of course it doesn't work. He points to this and says "See, 32-bit protected mode doesn't exist, because if it did, this software would have worked". There is plenty of documentation of what has to be done to install freely available 32-bit protected mode OS's, however they are fairly technical and require understanding of certain concepts for them to make sense. This is further complicated by the fact that the various OS's explore different capabilities available under 32-bit protected mode, making them appear to the uninformed to be disjointed and unrelated. To make matters worse, some 32-bit environments do not run 16-bit code, others run 16-bit code in it's own sandbox, and a handful support exchanges between 16-bit and 32-bit code, but no one knows which is which. This has led some 32-bit protected mode proponents to falsely believe that the 32-bit protected mode world is invisible to the 16-bit real mode world, a claim that the 16-bit real mode user is happy to accept as evidence that the 32-bit protected mode world does not exist. Furthermore, there are some implementations where running a 16-bit real mode program causes the 32-bit protected mode environment to shut down, and switch into a 16-bit environment. Hackwrench 17:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A question...

"Analysis of spiritual qualities in science is 'bedeviled' by the imprecision of spiritual concepts, the subjectivity of spiritual experience, and the amount of work required to translate and map observable components of a spiritual system into empirical evidence."

Since when was Science predictable? Who said Science was predictable?

-- JFB

[edit] Spirituality and connectedness

An idea that hasn't been explored here is that of the spiritual experience. Such an experience is characterised by a sudden insight and intuitive understanding of the interconnectedness of all things. Irrevenant 00:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I may attempt to draft a section on this. Do you think it's worth a separate article? Knowledge for All 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to other web-sites

I am trying to ensure that the links on this page are accurately named. To label a site exclusively devoted to a particular person, Swami Krishnananda, "Ebooks and articles on spirituality", is misleading. Holy Ganga is presently reverting edits here; I'd appreciate support for a truth in labeling policy. Hgilbert 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sign your statements on talk pages for meaningful discussions. - Holy Ganga talk 09:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for signing. I have not reverted anything but only added description of Hindu spiritual sites. As far as Krishnananda site is concerned , plz open that site. That site is basically a site for Ebooks and articles. Some description of site is better than blank. Present description is also fine, I have no problem with that. - Holy Ganga talk 10:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to pirate site removed

The external link for "Krishna Spirituality" led to a site, Krishna.org, that knowingly and persistently bootlegs copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text.

Examples appear at "books.krishna.org" (not preceded by "www"). There you will find stories for which the content is bootlegged material, hosted on "krsnabook.com" and "asitis.com." All three sites are run by the same webmaster.

I have kept the link but changed the URL to that of the legitimate copyright holder, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT).

Further information is available from the BBT's rights and permissions department, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."


Cordially,

J. Swami

Trustee, The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

17 April 2006


PS: The painting at the top of the page is also BBT copyrighted material. The BBT allows the use of its art on Wikipedia when the material is properly tagged (which this is not). Could someone please do what's needed for the image on this page? Thank you.


[edit] Adidam is a genuine spiritual practice please do not remove link

user Hgilbert please do not remove this link without a very reasoned discussion , it certainly fits the criteria listed and may be of interest to the people reading this article , thanks again --Scribe5 09:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am making a second list of contemporary individuals. Hgilbert 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your effort and that is ok as it stands but just for the record Adidam refers to both the community of spiritual practioners and the spiritual practice itself ( not an individual) , Adi Da is the name of Guru / Spiritual Teacher who teaches this "Way"( mentioned this in case it was not clear ) Thanks --Scribe5 07:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spirituality as a feeling

Some of our emotions have immediate benefits. Feelings of anger, hatred, fear, jealousy may all be related to self protection.

Other emotions do not show there benefits directly. Most animals are not having sex because they think they need to bear offspring. I am not sure about smaller forms of lives like fishes, but I would bet that mammals do it for the pleasure of sex. If an animal species loses interest in sex, it will surely go extinct (like a panda in captivity). The continuation of a species is related to a remote act of pleasureful activity of sex. If one were to attach intent to nature, one could say: nature makes sex a rewarding activity so that an animal can have sex for pleasure without thinking about the end result.

Another such feeling available to humans is spirituality. It is an overwhelmingly human feeling, but other animals probably have it too. It allows us to disconnect our animal feelings and needs.

How is it useful to us? We have a unique ability to think about the consequences of our behavior before actually doing it. We do this by mentally modelling scenarios. For example, certain behaviors at an inappropriate time may lead us to trouble. We play out what we are going to do in our mind and decide whether that would get us kicked on our butts. This is something that happens to us day in and day out. We just don't go around urinating anywhere we wish.

Extending this policy further, we can spend time innovating/planning/advising/questioning, if we can divert our attention from strong animal feelings. That is helpful in evolutionary terms too. Helps human groups become more technologically powerful and competing against others, thereby increasing the probability of success of their lineage.

Thus it is helpful from an evolutionary point of view to attach a reward for an action (once again, an action that does not serve a direct benefit), that helps the mind disconnect from the physical needs of hunger, sex, anger, etc. One can focus on intelligent activities then. That reward is the feeling of well-being, a feeling of sublime happiness. The spiritual feeling.

In other words, spirituality is really that wonderful feeling one gets from disconnecting oneself from the noise that surrounds us. You can use that for brainy activities of thinking and communicating. Or you can have fun and just enjoy that feeling by meditating or listening to the ocean waves.

Really, you ask? You say, people turn to religion when they seek spirituality, not science! The basic feeling of disconnectedness from animal feelings is what most religions teach. This disconnectedness gives peace of mind, something many a tormented soul would gladly spend all their money on. If one realizes that what one is unhappy about is so petty in the grand scale of things and stops worrying about it, they can easily spend their time in the pursuit of science. There is true spiritual happiness in it. --Satish.murthy 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

Scientology has just been added to the list of links. I am somewhat uncomfortable about this because of its reputation for coercive behavior. I'd like other editors to express their thoughts about its place here. Hgilbert 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spirituality and humanism

Some time ago humanism was removed from the list of spiritual traditions and communities. Although many humanists are strict rationalists, there are many who hold to the belief that humanism is compatible with and/or forms part of spirituality. I have therefore added religious humanism to the list of communities. I have noted that ethical culture (a ethical/humanist movement) has been added. There are also more specific movements such as spiritual humanism, humanistic Judaism etc but I have not added these in order to keep the list brief. --Vince 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quakers (Religious Society of Friends)

I have noted the comment at the top of this page regarding the addition of Quakers to the list of spiritual communities. I presume the reason that Quakerism has not been added, is that the list will be too long if all of the denominations of Christianity are added to this list. However, I am wondering if there is a case for making an exception and adding Quakerism as it does focus much more on the spirit of the individual and is quite distinct to other denominations of Christianity. What do others think? --Vince 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Quakerism does contain a distinct group of beliefs that have relevance to a broader definition of spirituality. Their focus on a non-hierarchical and non-violent or pacifist ideology are good examples. They are also highly involved in multi-faith initiatives. - Solar 13:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If I do not hear any objections in the next few weeks I will go ahead and add it. --Vince 09:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Submission external website

The Jesuit sacred space website provides a good non-profit spirituality page of a particular and significant perspective. I think the external links of this page can be improved and in accordance with the guidelines submit Liturgy, worship, and spirituality website for consideration as an external link. It provides a complementary Christian spirituality site, again non-profit, which picks up the spirituality connection with the worship and liturgical traditions followed by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and many other Christian groups. Alcuinz 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "appeal to the unseen...a psuedoscience"

From the Spirituality and Science section:[[1]]:

Science takes as its basis empirical, repeatable observations of the natural world, and thus generally regards any appeal to the unseen, unmeasurable spirit as either beyond the purview of science, "

I'm skeptical of the claim that "Science...generally regards any appeal to the unseen, unmeasurable spirit...as a psuedoscience". "Beyond the purview of science", OK, but who in the scientific community says that any appeal to the "unmeasurable spirit" is a psuedoscience? Many scientists are religious; I don't think they would characterize their beliefs as a psuedoscience. Jimtron 07:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. Pseudo-science doesn't apply to spirituality per se, it kicks in when something is incorrectly claimed to be a science. For example history or mathematics don't claim to be sciences, and do not get the label "pseudo-science", although they don't fit the definition of science. Similarly for religion or spirituality, they only get labelled "pseudo-science" when they incorrectly claim a scientific basis.

I agree with rewriting this paragraph to remove the unwarranted "scientists are atheists" and "religion vs science" feeling that it has.Trishm 07:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

While I was editing in line with the above comments I also made another change:

Rudolf Steiner and others in the anthroposophic tradition have attempted to apply scientific methodology to the study of spiritual phenomena in order to shape a spiritual science. This enterprise does not attempt to redefine natural science, but to explore inner experience — especially our thinking — with the same rigor that we apply to outer (sensory) experience.
Such investigations, however, rarely meet the scientific criteria of intersubjectivity and repeatability.

I have removed this paragraph, on the basis that Steiner himself does not consider his work science. It was put here in good faith, it's just that the translation from German to English has gone astray. "Gewissenshaft" translates to knowledge, or study, not science. He calls his work "Spiritual Study" (my translation) not "Natur Gewissenshaft" which would be "nature study", or science.Trishm 07:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One more comment, it is a good paragraph, it just doesn't belong under a science heading.Trishm 07:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Contemporary Spiritual Figures

I've noted that some of the links about contemporary spiritual figures are being deleted from the section consistently. If there is a reason for the same, please discuss here why it has been removed. Otherwise, i will be re-inserting the links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.22.241.130 (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

The link you provide is to the self-promotional site of a figure whose notability isn't clear. Read the external links and SPAM guidelines. I have no idea if you are affiliated or not but this general entry on "spirituality" should not contain official websites of non-notable religious figures. It is questionable if other links shouldn't also be deleted, but the two that are left under this subheading are both notable. By the way we cannot link every contemporary spiritual figure here because then the entry would be 99% links to such figures and organizations and 1% information. That's why the heading says Notable to make this more clear. Also I would appreciate some support for this from other editors here so I don't get blamed for being the big bad link deleting wolf. Cheers.PelleSmith 12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:External links (especially #1, 3 and 13 under "Links Normally to be Avoided"), Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links and Wikipedia:Spam. Cheers.PelleSmith 13:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I will concede that perhaps in India this figure is more notable, however this leads me to think that we should get rid of the link section to spiritual figures completely since we 1) don't want this entry to devolve into a directory of links and 2) who wants to argue about notability? I still say the two on there are much more notable world wide, but maybe we just ought to get rid of this section. It just attracts promotional websites constantly.PelleSmith 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] =

1. Well, i wouldn't like to comment on the notability of Sathya Sai Baba, because that will misidirect the discussion, and the debate will never end, especially considering that you have already reached a conclusion. However, i would like add that the link that i have provided is the official website of the Sathya Sai Trust. And Wikipedia do not restrict posting of official links. 2. I have also noted the deletion of external link of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Now am sure that you will question the notability of Sri Sri Ravishankar too... 3. Of course, there is nothing that can stop you from question the notability of Swami Vivekanada too saying that he was born almost 100 years earlier and hence is not "contemporary". 4. We need to revomve HH Dalai Lama too because China - the state with the largest populace in the world - do not recognise him. 5. All these takes me to the Mark Twain's quote which goes likes this: If the only tool we have is a hammer, everything in the world looks like a nail. Hence, finding reasons, for all deleting lists to which we do not affiliate to.

Now, to the conclusion:

Instead of removing out that link section on spiritual figures, i believe that we should improve on it. We can even make a concise paragraph on contemporary spiritual figures.

You're missing the entire point and obviously now that I have directed you to the relevant policies and guidelines you have chosen to ignore them. Official websites are to be avoided when the entries are not about the people or organizations behind those official websites. Even non-official informative sites on specific people who may be related to a very general subject matter like "spirituality" should be avoided because they too specific but promotional sites should clearly be avoided. I am going to delete your links again.PelleSmith 14:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PelleSmith, I support the comment made by the other person. It is good to put those links in a section like Spirituality. If we do not speak about spiritual figures, what else we will speak about. I request you to put those links back. And i believe that those links are not self promotional. You have requested mediation. That would be a good idea. Till a consenus arrives, you can put those links back. Otherwise (as a person who has shown proactiveness in maintaining the site clean), you can start a sub section about contemporary figures where we can mention about them. I think instead of taking into consideration the suggestion given by the other person, you've chosen to rebuff the idea. Let us take up that idea. We should not miss the essence of spirituality. I wish that you do not miss this point.

No one is or is not "speaking about" spiritual figures here. The issue is about linking to official websites of various spiritual figures. Maybe you should add content about these figures if it is appropriate to the entry itself instead of just wishing to link to their official websites. I have shown the relevant policy and guideline issues and offered explanations as to why I have removed these types of links. Just like the other anonymous IP from the same region of India, you have decided not to comment on these policies and guidelines instead offering your opinion that we should link to this site. Why? Because "it is good to talk about spiritual figures"? This entry is not a list of links to the official websites of every self-professed "spiritual leader" in the world. I have already explained why that would be a problem in practical terms, and again I have pointed to the relevant guidelines. Official websites are only appropriate if they relate directly to the subject matter -- hence in the entry about Sai Baba. This entry is about "spirituality" and not about Sai Baba. In this entry is constitutes SPAM because it promotes the official version of a specific spiritual leaders teachings.PelleSmith 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And christian spirituality?

I didn't find too much about christian spirituality. It didn't exist? Tell me if I am wrong. Georges42 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) To be a product of your envirorment or be a product of spirituality,The truth within and without.sactown33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sactown33 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction is much TOO narrow

"Spirituality, in a narrow sense, concerns itself with matters of the spirit. Spiritual matters are those involving humankind's ultimate nature, not only as material biological organisms, but as beings with a unique relationship to that which is beyond both time and the material world. As such the spiritual is traditionally contrasted with the material, the temporal and the worldly."

This definition right away excludes all forms of immanent spirituality, such as pantheism and animism. I think that a definition that equates spirituality with transcendence is a serious cultural bias that needs to be rectified.

The parts that I marked out in bold are in direct opposition with various spiritual traditions, including some parts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Neopaganism and various indigenous belief systems, to mention but a few.

A more encompassing definition could be "having to do with deep, often religious, feelings and beliefs, including a person’s sense of peace, purpose, connection to others and beliefs about the meaning of life"[2], which isn't as Western-biased. The introduction could then mention the divide between immanence and transcendence within spirituality. Any comments? IronChris | (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] definitions

How about referring to pneumatology, monadology, and logic, which refer to pneuma, monad, Logos (plain, holy, and deity spirit, respectively,) when defining spirituality (it is not ill-defined) or saying what it is concerned with? I am not sure how people would want these in the article.--Dchmelik (talk • contribs) 05:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have come up with more explaination of the definition of spiritualiy - What is the definition of spirituality? i like this definition: predominantly spiritual character as shown in thought, life, etc.; spiritual tendency or tone. you need to add to that what this "spiritual" character is, however. I would say that it is the same attitude that a religious person would have about being religious, that is, by "spritual character" they mean someone who is likely to be religious. Spirit is someone's soul, so spirituality would be focused on the self, but focused on the self in a manner in which they can understand it more deeply than just standard cognitive thinking about it, so religion might help you understand yourself in that "higher" manner. that is, it is almost like faith to believe in yourself like that, so it is like religion. The relationship between faith/religion and spirituality then is that both are "higher" methods of understanding the world. spirituality is just focused on the self, while religion is focused on god. So there is an inner peace that spirituality brings because spirituality is about yourself. You can also say it is about your soul, not just your state of being, because soul is who you really are, the core of yourself, and if you are more connected to the core of yourself you are going to be more at peace, and therefore have more of that spiritual connection, which is one that is a "higher" connection to yourself, like how religion is a "high" connection to god. this "high" connection is higher because it is connected to who you really are, which is the spirit part of spirituality which implies a soul, because when you imagine someone as being a spirit or a ghost you take away their physical form and focus more on who they are mentally, or the core of their being or soul. - i have posted this definition online here http://cnx.org/content/m15871/latest/ under a creative commons liscense so it is free to reprint —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiornik (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You said "spirit is someone's soul," but spirit is individual and divine spirit--the part of consciousness where that individuality and divinity overlap. Spirit is Logos, monad, pneuma, studied in the sciences I mentioned above, but soul is psyche, studied by psychology. Spirituality and religion are synonyms, and spirituality does not focus on self, but also divine spirit ('god' as you say--deity) Soul is part of being; spirit is higher parts of being. The dictionary definition is okay, but I think the article should reference the sciences of spirit.--Dchmelik (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid first paragraph

This sentence was inherently biased on the supposition that there IS something beyond time, not the mention the material world: "but as beings with a unique relationship to that which is beyond both time and the material world."

I changed it, two simple words to remove the pre-implanted bullshit. Chicopac (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)