Are You Spiritual?

[sabaijai]

Even worse form for a buddhist to deny their spirituality! Spiritual effort is the key to the spiritual path and spiritual way of life that the Buddha taught.

Please explain.

[jumnien]

If I were primarily intellectual (and effectual) I would lapse into a lengthy explanation. There is a great spiritual resource pinned on these pages already with suggested spiritual books and spiritual memoirs. I've read most of them and in general they point us towards a spiritual path and a spirtual way of life and a happier way of being. Anyway, it's sad when someone comes close to a wonderful resource like buddhism, but denies any access to their spirit. I guess if I were a Christian I'd be more interested in the passion of Christ than an intellectual understanding of the texts!

We all develop and orient our selves around our emotional, intellectual, psychological, physical and spiritual lives. There are people who would refuse to admit they are emotional or physical or spiritual or intellectual at all - but I'm not sure why. I've never met one!

Edited September 24, 2007 by sunrise07

[suegha]

Thanks for all the replies. I been hanging on to read the thoughts before posting my reply.

My thoughts on spirituality. I have to say that I adopt a biblical view as my starting point.

Firstly the word spirit (as opposed to soul, which I’ll deal with later). The word for spirit in both the OT and NT is ‘wind’ in the sense of breath and exhalation, and refers, amongst other things, to God’s power. So the spirit of God made the heavens and the earth and gives life to every living creature. This (and other things) gives us the ability to be spiritual, and to focus on the things of the spirit.

Jamesc2000 wrote:

“Most people equate being religious with being spiritual and sometimes one has nothing to do with the other.

Can you explain what you mean to be born of the spirit?”

I totally agree with James here, being religious has nothing ‘necessarily’ to do with being spiritual, although they often go hand in hand. The word ‘religion’ only occurs in the bible 5 times and refers to the ‘practice’ of religion.

Also being born of the spirit means just that. Accepting that we have already been born of the flesh, our natural birth, allows us to understand that the flesh is our human nature, about which nothing good is said in scripture. In fact it says that it’s opposed to God.

“The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17.9

“For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.” Mark 7vv 21-23

“When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. James 1 vv13-14

So being born of the spirit is to allow the spirit of God, the power of God, to move you to serve him. And I suppose, in reference to the op, being open to it.

Chownah, who always posts sensible posts, made the point about Buddhism. It can and will lead to differing views about spirituality as it’s based on our own experiences and perceptions. Buddhism is not a religion, it’s a philosophy. Granted, it allows the individual the right to believe in a God or not, to accept that you are spiritual or not. Many of its precepts apply to many religions as ‘good’ ways to lead your life.

Brucenkhamen also made a good point about perceptions about spirituality being equated with being out of touch with reality. Real spirituality is ‘totally’ in touch with reality. It teaches all the realities: those of life and death, pain and suffering, good and evil, but most of all it teaches us how to gain salvation from all of these things: By resurrection at the return of Jesus to life everlasting. And referring back to Grover’s point about ‘spiritual attainments’, everlasting life, only given at the return of Jesus, is the only spiritual attainment!

Sleepyjohn asked about the difference between soul and spirit. Quite simple Sleepyjohn, in the bible, as well as many other places, it simply refers to your body, The spirit is your life force. If my analogy works it will make sense of this. The spirit of God maintains our life (in our body), keeps us alive, when that spirit is withdrawn we die. So we are all, in effect, spiritual beings. However, ‘being spiritual’ is accepting this, and then working on it.

Canuckamuck wrote, ‘To me spiritual means in the broadest sense: accepting that there is more to this world than can be explained through the scientific method. However, I find that many treat science as a faith although they don't see it that way themselves.’

I totally agree with this. And also how many say spirituality is incompatible with religion! Hogwash! There are many scientists, past and present, who are spiritual believers. I have bookshelves full of spiritual books written by scientists. Not everything can be explained by science as we understand it currently.

So by being spiritual, I am focused on the things of God as revealed in scripture, and I use it as a force in my life for good.

One last quote to finish.

All Scripture is God-breathed (that’s the word for spirit) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3vv 16-17

Thank you all.

[Brucenkhamen]

Thanks for all the replies. ...Thank you all.

When I first read through your post what first struck me is, my that's an awful lot of Bible quotes. I can't speak for the moderaters but I think different points of view are welcome here as long as they are related back to the topic of this forum. However quoting from the bible to this degree in this context strikes me as a bit like going down to a Ford dealer and quoting from a Toyota manual... I mean why would you do that?

If something is real to you I think one can speak from the heart rather than rely on scripture quotes to back up your points. I'm not saying I think it's not real to you I'm just saying it would be better to just speak from the heart.

That aside I mulled over what interesting observations I would add to what has been an interesting thread.

On my second reading I noticed this little gem that I missed the first time "but most of all it teaches us how to gain salvation from all of these things: By resurrection at the return of Jesus to life everlasting. And referring back to Grover’s point about ‘spiritual attainments’, everlasting life, only given at the return of Jesus, is the only spiritual attainment!"

I'd have to say I think it totally inappropriate on a Buddhism forum and I've lost interest in further discussion, which is a shame as it has been interesting up to now.

[suegha]

Thanks for all the replies. ...Thank you all.

When I first read through your post what first struck me is, my that's an awful lot of Bible quotes. I can't speak for the moderaters but I think different points of view are welcome here as long as they are related back to the topic of this forum. However quoting from the bible to this degree in this context strikes me as a bit like going down to a Ford dealer and quoting from a Toyota manual... I mean why would you do that?

If something is real to you I think one can speak from the heart rather than rely on scripture quotes to back up your points. I'm not saying I think it's not real to you I'm just saying it would be better to just speak from the heart.

That aside I mulled over what interesting observations I would add to what has been an interesting thread.

On my second reading I noticed this little gem that I missed the first time "but most of all it teaches us how to gain salvation from all of these things: By resurrection at the return of Jesus to life everlasting. And referring back to Grover’s point about ‘spiritual attainments’, everlasting life, only given at the return of Jesus, is the only spiritual attainment!"

I'd have to say I think it totally inappropriate on a Buddhism forum and I've lost interest in further discussion, which is a shame as it has been interesting up to now.

Ah well, what a shame - each to his own eh? I was trying to qualify what I mean by 'spiritual'!

[jumnien]

There is the conservative Christian viewpoint that Buddhism is not a religion, merely a philosophy of life. Well, one is entitled to their opinion. However, this is a forum about Thailand and in Thailand, Buddhism is considered a religion like any other. There are certain concepts in Christianity that are rather hard to sell to the Thai people and missionaries have not historically been very successful in converting the masses. The idea that Buddhism is not a religion is especially hard to peddle in Thailand.

[canuckamuck]

There is the conservative Christian viewpoint that Buddhism is not a religion, merely a philosophy of life. Well, one is entitled to their opinion. However, this is a forum about Thailand and in Thailand, Buddhism is considered a religion like any other. There are certain concepts in Christianity that are rather hard to sell to the Thai people and missionaries have not historically been very successful in converting the masses. The idea that Buddhism is not a religion is especially hard to peddle in Thailand.

Many Buddhists say Buddhism is not a religion, I have heard it said here by Buddhists. They don't mean to say it is illegitimate, rather that it is more about interpretation than dogma. The words religion and superstition have the same root in Greek. However in Thailand I would say what passes for Buddhism is definitely a religion.

[canuckamuck]

I really appreciate the way Suegha has approached this thread. It is always difficult to discuss religion when you represent an alternate view to the majority. I would ask that others would understand that full discussions of a religion or philosophy should occasionally reflect on other world views. You should appreciate the input from someone who has a reputation of being sensitive to others.

Suegha I think it is important not to confuse the Spirit of God with the spirit of man. In my understanding the Spirit of God is one part of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) whereas man's spirit is man's connection to God. The soul is often described as the mind or consciousness; the part of you that is really you, the part that makes choices (all three parts feel). The body of man (flesh) would be the third part, the part that is left behind. This effectively makes man a three part being in the same way God is, and so it can be said we are made in His image. Being born of the Spirit in my thinking would be activating this connection to God.

I do agree that the word spirit (ruwach in Hebrew) does translate to the word breath or wind but also sometimes mind or even attitude.

[chownah]

The idea that Buddhism is not a religion is especially hard to peddle in Thailand.

I think that most people who have the view that Buddhism is not a religion realize that there is no reason to try to peddle it.

Chownah

[Grover]

thanks for the post

I totally agree with this. And also how many say spirituality is incompatible with religion! Hogwash! There are many scientists, past and present, who are spiritual believers. I have bookshelves full of spiritual books written by scientists. Not everything can be explained by science as we understand it currently.

I think you made a typo ^

[tc101]

The Dalai Lama said:

I believe there is an important distinction to be made between religion and spirituality. Religion I take to be concerned with belief in the claims to salvation of one faith tradition or another--an aspect of which is acceptance of some form of meta-physical or philosophical reality, including perhaps an idea of heaven or hel_l. Connected with this are religious teachings or dogma, ritual, prayers and so on. Spirituality I take to be concerned with those qualities of the human spirit--such as love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony, which bring happiness to both self and others.

[jumnien]

The Dalai Lama said:

I believe there is an important distinction to be made between religion and spirituality. Religion I take to be concerned with belief in the claims to salvation of one faith tradition or another--an aspect of which is acceptance of some form of meta-physical or philosophical reality, including perhaps an idea of heaven or hel_l. Connected with this are religious teachings or dogma, ritual, prayers and so on. Spirituality I take to be concerned with those qualities of the human spirit--such as love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony, which bring happiness to both self and others.

Are you spiritual? Do you try to develop within yourself and your actions love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony, which bring happiness to both self and others? The Dalai Lama always seems to put it so simply and beautifully!

[sabaijai]

In either case (the revisionist Christian or the Theravada Buddhist), can there be spirituality without spirit? I'm told that in Hebrew the term has been mistranslated in the King James Bible, that the original refers to 'breath' or 'life' and not to a separate 'soul' or 'spirit'. The New York Times today carried an article on this very controversy.

I've not yet come across anything in the pitakas or commentaries extoling the spirit. Rather than separating the spiritual from the non-spiritual, the Buddhadhamma teaches kusala vs akusala, skilful vs unskilful.

[jumnien]

The Dalai Lama said:

I believe there is an important distinction to be made between religion and spirituality. Religion I take to be concerned with belief in the claims to salvation of one faith tradition or another--an aspect of which is acceptance of some form of meta-physical or philosophical reality, including perhaps an idea of heaven or hel_l. Connected with this are religious teachings or dogma, ritual, prayers and so on. Spirituality I take to be concerned with those qualities of the human spirit--such as love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony, which bring happiness to both self and others.

Is there really nothing at all in Buddhist literature anywhere that concerns what the Dalai Lama refers to as spirituality? Nothing at all referencing love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony, which brings happiness to both self and others? I could have sworn I've read something like that.

[Grover]

I've not yet come across anything in the pitakas or commentaries extoling the spirit. Rather than separating the spiritual from the non-spiritual, the Buddhadhamma teaches kusala vs akusala, skilful vs unskilful.

Along these lines, in Buddhism the mind is given far greater emphasis than the spirit.

Thus, the question can be turned around... "Are you mindful?"

[Brucenkhamen]

Along these lines, in Buddhism the mind is given far greater emphasis than the spirit.

Thus, the question can be turned around... "Are you mindful?"

The Pali word we translate as mind is Citta, or jit or jitjai in Thai. I understand this is more accurately translated as heart-mind.

The trouble with the word "mind" in English is we tend to associate it with the head or the brain, which is not necessarily the intention of the word.

Perhaps "spirit" is closer to Citta in meaning is some ways than mind is.

Either way, I agree that a more important question is "are you mindful"?

Edited September 29, 2007 by Brucenkhamen

[chownah]

I've not yet come across anything in the pitakas or commentaries extoling the spirit. Rather than separating the spiritual from the non-spiritual, the Buddhadhamma teaches kusala vs akusala, skilful vs unskilful.

Along these lines, in Buddhism the mind is given far greater emphasis than the spirit.

Thus, the question can be turned around... "Are you mindful?"

I think that the concept of "spirit" as being some thing and having self existence is contrary to the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha taught that ALL of the things that we use to define our self are mistaken and that they do not properly comprise anything other than a delusional way of viewing phenomena....phenomena which exist and can be explained without resorting to the mythical self.

[canuckamuck]

In either case (the revisionist Christian or the Theravada Buddhist), can there be spirituality without spirit? I'm told that in Hebrew the term has been mistranslated in the King James Bible, that the original refers to 'breath' or 'life' and not to a separate 'soul' or 'spirit'. The New York Times today carried an article on this very controversy.

I've not yet come across anything in the pitakas or commentaries extoling the spirit. Rather than separating the spiritual from the non-spiritual, the Buddhadhamma teaches kusala vs akusala, skilful vs unskilful.

It is not to the King James that I was referring, rather to the Hebrew text so revisionism is not possible. In the Bible (Authorized Version) the Hebrew word ruwach is translated 232 times as spirit, 92 times as wind, 27 times as breath, 6 as side, 5 as mind, 4 as blast, 2 as vain. I am not sure that this helps; we are talking about translation to English and not seeing the individual contexts.

It is interesting that the parallel of being spiritual in Buddhism is being described as being mindful. For me it does mark a great difference in approach. Buddhism of course being man centered and Christianity being God centered. In Buddhism then does the mind of a man becomes the God of a man?

[Brucenkhamen]

In Buddhism then does the mind of a man becomes the God of a man?

No.

I think a Buddhist practitioner needs God like a Pizza needs ketchup.

At first it seems like an odd and pointless combination but as those of us who have spent a bit of time in Thailand know, some people eat ketchup on their Pizza. So if it works for them fine, it doesn't seem to me it's adding anything that was missing though, it's more likely just social conditioning and doing what others around them do.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Brucenkhamen

[sleepyjohn]

I am pleased there has been more emphasis on common use of language and posters have spent some time defining their terms.

There simply is no dialectic without it and especially with a one-size-fits-all word like spiritual that is so differently used that it's barely worth including in the lexicon.

Socrates would now be proud of you. He said that the first thing one needs to decide when thinking about something is what it is.

BTW I'm with you and some others Chownah.....I could argue that the Buddha and others say that phenomena we mistake for "spirit" or "soul" such as that of which we speak are conditioned, in other words simply depend on other things for their existence. It doesn't take much reflection to see that as self evident although our anthropocentric outlook starts deluding us before we begin.

I will instead argue that the phenomenon we are discussing is not demonstrable however so the discussion need not even begin......where's the beef? I suggest it is merely an extension of "self" and we know the Buddha and others say the self is stuff and nonsense and for what it's worth so do I. If you want to look at it from a more up to date viewpoint I posit that the experience of self on which soul is based is merely an illusion invented by Natural Selection. That is not a proclamation from above, I can offer a step by step chain of reason

Edited September 29, 2007 by sleepyjohn

[Grover]

Along these lines, in Buddhism the mind is given far greater emphasis than the spirit.

Thus, the question can be turned around... "Are you mindful?"

The Pali word we translate as mind is Citta, or jit or jitjai in Thai. I understand this is more accurately translated as heart-mind.

Def. from the buddhist dictionary:

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_c.htm

citta: 'mind', 'consciousness', 'state of consciousness'

[sleepyjohn]

Along these lines, in Buddhism the mind is given far greater emphasis than the spirit.

Thus, the question can be turned around... "Are you mindful?"

The Pali word we translate as mind is Citta, or jit or jitjai in Thai. I understand this is more accurately translated as heart-mind.

Def. from the buddhist dictionary:

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_c.htm

citta: 'mind', 'consciousness', 'state of consciousness'

Perhaps the word nama would be more useful. Mental phenomena.

I'd say the word citta is used more as an alternative to cetasika, citta being a moment of stimulation or experience, cetasika being also an experience but an internally manufactured reactive experience produced on the back of the citta. (example: experience from an external source....we see a puppy whining.... cetasika.....we react and feel sorry for it....a real experience but not from outside). Of course in truth there is no inside and outside. Perhaps I am more abhidhamma oriented.

The emphasis on citta being instantaneous is useful. The word mind is thought of as a noun whereas perhaps it would be more useful to think of it as a verb. As usual we tend to reify or "thingify" things. Actually that's the whole point about this soul business. IMO it's a reification. We are trying to thingify the unthingifiable (human minds just tend to do that, it's been useful as a framework to our reasoning mechanisms) and we're setting ourselves up for delusion.

Edited September 29, 2007 by sleepyjohn

[Brucenkhamen]

Def. from the buddhist dictionary:

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_c.htm

citta: 'mind', 'consciousness', 'state of consciousness'

Here's a rather long article http://www.budsas.org/ebud/mind/01_chap1.htm I can't say I've read more than the first couple of paragraphs but at the beginning it discusses the way Citta is sometimes translated as heart.

The way I've always heard it explained is that Westerners generally think of the mind in terms of the brain, this is not the true meaning of the word as used in Asian cultures.

[Brucenkhamen]

The word mind is thought of as a noun whereas perhaps it would be more useful to think of it as a verb. As usual we tend to reify or "thingify" things. Actually that's the whole point about this soul business. IMO it's a reification. We are trying to thingify the unthingifiable (human minds just tend to do that, it's been useful as a framework to our reasoning mechanisms) and we're setting ourselves up for delusion.

Nicely thingified!

[Grover]

Def. from the buddhist dictionary:

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_c.htm

citta: 'mind', 'consciousness', 'state of consciousness'

Here's a rather long article http://www.budsas.org/ebud/mind/01_chap1.htm I can't say I've read more than the first couple of paragraphs but at the beginning it discusses the way Citta is sometimes translated as heart.

here is a relevant quote from that article.

...the meaning of citta as given in PALI-ENGLISH DICTIONARY can be presented as the heart usually in psychological sense, and further explained as the center and focus of man's emotional nature as well as that intellectual element which inheres in and accompanies its manifestations[11]. Emotional, conative, and rational or mental as the three sides...

I recall the ancient Greeks made a sharp distinction between the emotional and rational sides of the human, I think in the west it has carried to modern times, we also distinguish between the heart and mind.

In Buddhism they are lumped together as the quote above shows.

[sleepyjohn]

Sorry I really think that citta as a definition of mind, and certainly of spirit, is off base, and I beg to differ with the compilers of the Pali dictionary.

Here's why:

The whole point about citta is they are impermanent, and by human standards very impermanent.

Even if one is not using the "soul" type definition of spirit, but more the "enduring quality of a person" aspect, citta is way off I'd say.

The whole thing about citta is that they come and go all the time. They arise and fall away by the moment.

What's more citta don't belong to anybody, they are universal. Althoguh we think they are happening to a self they simply are happenings in a universe of other happenings

So can I clarify further?

Citta and cetasika are realities, they arise and fall away.

When we use the term citta it is not a reality but a concept.

Conceptualising, although it is dealing with non-realities, can in itself however give rise to new realities which are citta. In other words we can have real experiences when thinking about things. When those citta occur more realities called cetasika automatically follow.

Edited September 30, 2007 by sleepyjohn

[Brucenkhamen]

Sorry I really think that citta as a definition of mind, and certainly of spirit, is off base, and I beg to differ with the compilers of the Pali dictionary.

Here's why:

The whole point about citta is they are impermanent, and by human standards very impermanent.

I'm not sure where you got the impression someone was saying mind is permanent.

Mind is impermanent as thoughts arise and pass away, heart is impermanent as feelings arise and pass away. So Citta is impermanent.

Concepts of soul or spirit might well be permanent but then they arise from a different world view.

[JimsKnight]

Lets just say that I'm spiritual enough to know that if you do the wrong things in life, at some point or another, you're gonna get burned!

[sleepyjohn]

Sorry I really think that citta as a definition of mind, and certainly of spirit, is off base, and I beg to differ with the compilers of the Pali dictionary.

Here's why:

The whole point about citta is they are impermanent, and by human standards very impermanent.

I'm not sure where you got the impression someone was saying mind is permanent.

Mind is impermanent as thoughts arise and pass away, heart is impermanent as feelings arise and pass away. So Citta is impermanent.

Concepts of soul or spirit might well be permanent but then they arise from a different world view.

Yes I accept that Bruce as long as one defines mind heart or heart-mind as impermanent. Again we see Socrates' point.

I guess I think mind (and heart-mind soul or spirit) are simply poor definitions of citta. Isn't mind more a collection of mental factors and citta something specific?

(probably isn't worth pursuing)

Edited September 30, 2007 by sleepyjohn

[sabaijai]

I've not yet come across anything in the pitakas or commentaries extoling the spirit. Rather than separating the spiritual from the non-spiritual, the Buddhadhamma teaches kusala vs akusala, skilful vs unskilful.

Along these lines, in Buddhism the mind is given far greater emphasis than the spirit.

Thus, the question can be turned around... "Are you mindful?"

Precisely.