What is spirituality?

Originally posted by DeepThought
This question has erupted in my mind due to a couple of other threads. I cannot answer it for myself, so tell me, what does it mean to have a spiritual life or to describe oneself as spiritual? What is spirituality?

Spirituality is simply the understanding of our spiritual self and God............and acting on the platform of an eternal spiritual being.

Human life is simply awarded to a living entity so that he can realize his spiritual identity and his permanent source of happiness."

Teachings

Of all his various contributions, Srila Prabhupada considered his books most important. In fact, he would often describe his work of translating and explaining the ancient Vedic texts as his very life and soul. In 1970, Srila Prabhupada founded the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT), now the world's largest publisher of Vedic literature. Over seventy titles of his books are published in seventy-six languages, from Arabic to Zulu. Through its work over the last quarter century, millions of people have read at least one of Srila Prabhupada's books and have felt their lives genuinely enriched. These books constitute the real basis of the Hare Krsna Movement. Here is a brief introduction to the spiritual knowledge you will find within those books.

Srila Prabhupada's Books Highlight the Importance of the Human Form of Life

There are many forms of life on this planet. There are immovable forms such as trees and plants, and a vast array of aquatic, insect, bird, beast, and mammalian forms as well. Our human form is also one among these varied forms of life, yet even a casual observer would have to agree that we human beings are endowed with unique capacities that distinguish us from all other forms of life. What exactly are those unique capacities?

We can begin answering this question with another. What is it that distinguishes a living form from a nonliving form? The answer is consciousness, or awareness. All living forms display this symptom of consciousness to one degree or another. That is why we call them living rather than dead. Even the small microbial germ or the common houseplant show signs of consciousness, whereas our dining table and chairs do not.

It is also evident that different forms of life display different degrees and levels of consciousness, and the human form represents the highest development of consciousness that we know. It is this greater development of consciousness, then, that distinguishes the human being from all other forms of life on the planet.

But what is it about our consciousness that makes it so different from that of the insect, the bird, the beast, or even the monkey? These creatures eat and we also eat; they sleep and we also sleep; they reproduce and we reproduce; they defend themselves and so do we. That we can perform these functions with greater sophistication may be one indicator that we possess higher consciousness, but it does not fully explain our excellence above all other forms of life.

A more satisfactory explanation is found in our ability to question our existence, reflect upon our selves, and inquire into our own nature and the nature of God. We can create languages, ponder the meaning of life, and puzzle in wonderment over the nighttime sky. Such an endowment is not present in any other form of life.

The Vedas therefore advise that in this human form of life we should be inquisitive to know who we are, what the universe is, what God is, and what the relationship is between ourselves, the universe, and God. We should inquire about the solution to the ultimate problems of life, namely birth, death, old age, and disease. Such questions cannot be asked by the cats and dogs, but they must arise in the heart of a real human being.

Srila Prabhupada's Books Reveal the Perfect Knowledge of the Vedas

If we can accept the importance of this type of inquiry, our next consideration will naturally be where to find authoritative answers to such questions. Clearly, if perfect knowledge concerning questions of the self, the universe, and God, exists at all, it would have to be of a standard higher than just your opinion or my opinion, or for that matter Freud's or Einstein's or anyone else's opinion.

Because all of us have imperfect senses and because we are all prone to make mistakes, our relative opinions about matters beyond our experience can supply neither valid nor reliable information.

Thus our attempt to approach such matters empirically will be fraught with various imperfections and ultimately fail. Therefore, so-called truths established exclusively on the basis of mental speculation cannot help us understand the Absolute Truth, which is beyond the reach of the imperfect senses and mind.

The Vedas explain that if we want to know about things beyond the jurisdiction of our experience - beyond the limitations of human perception and cognition - the process is to hear from one who knows. The transcendental knowledge of the Vedas was first uttered by the Supreme Lord Himself. The Lord, the supremely powerful being, cannot fall under the influence of any other force. As a logical consequence, His knowledge must be perfect. And anyone who transmits that knowledge without change gives the same perfect knowledge. We need only accept this proposition theoretically to progress in our understanding of Vedic thought.

The idea is that the perfect knowledge of the Vedas has been preserved over time by transmission through an unbroken chain of spiritual masters. Srila Prabhupada represents one such disciplic chain or succession. That succession goes back thousands of years to Lord Krsna Himself. Thus the knowledge found within Srila Prabhupada's books is nondifferent from that which was originally imparted by the Supreme Lord. Srila Prabhupada did not manufacture "truths." He merely delivered the timeless teachings of the original Vedas without addition, deletion, or change.

The writings of Srila Prabhupada are represented mainly by three Vedic texts - the Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, and Caitanya-caritam‚ta. Together these works of literature comprise more than 25 volumes of detailed information constituting the original Vedic science of God realization, or bhagavata-dharma. Their translation into the English language, along with elaborate explanations, constitutes Srila Prabhupada's most significant contribution to the spiritual, intellectual, and cultural life of the world.

Srila Prabhupada's Books Present a Universal Science of God Realization

The Vedic teachings presented in Srila Prabhupada's books can be summarized under three general headings, known in Sanskrit as sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana. Sambandha means our relationship with God, abhidheya means acting in that relationship, and prayojana means the ultimate goal or perfection. These three divisions of understanding represent universal principles common to all religious teachings of the world.

The knowledge described in Srila Prabhupada's books enables anyone to advance in his or her understanding of God without having to change current religious, national, or cultural affiliations. The science of how to understand God, how to understand one's relationship with God, and how to develop love for God has nothing to do with sectarian faiths. These are objectives no religion in the world could deny. They are, in other words, the essence of religion - universal features by which all religions may be understood.

Preferences regarding God's holy name may differ from one religion to another, modes of worship may differ, and details of ritual and doctrine may differ as well. But the test is how much the practitioner actually develops knowledge of God and love for God. Real religion means to learn to love God. And how to love God is the sum and substance of the teachings found in Srila Prabhupada's books.

Srila Prabhupada's Books Explain the Difference Between the Self and the Body

Without exception, all material phenomena have a beginning and an end. A most prominent idea of modern culture is that consciousness is another such material phenomenon. Thus it is believed that consciousness (or the self) also ends with the death of the material body. This point of view, however, remains only an assumption. It has not been proven true by any scientific observation or experiment.

Nonetheless, the idea that the self ends with the body remains one of the great articles of faith of modern materialistic thought, and most of us have been educated from early childhood to think of ourselves in terms of such beliefs. Few of us, however, have thought through the philosophical implications of this type of thinking, which draw us unconsciously toward voidistic and nihilistic styles of life.

The most basic of the Vedic teachings stands in direct opposition to the modern scientific view of consciousness and life. According to that teaching, individual consciousness is not at all dependent upon neurobiological functions but permanently exists as an independent reality.

The presence within the material body of a conscious observer who remains ever present throughout changing bodily and mental states indicates the existence of two energies - the spiritual energy (represented by the conscious self) and the material energy (represented by the temporary body). The Vedas explain that this spiritual energy, symptomized by consciousness, continues to exist even after the material body is finished.

If each of us is an eternal soul covered only by different temporary bodily dresses, we can reasonably conclude that the highest welfare activity for all of human society is that which awakens us to our true spiritual identity and our dormant relationship with God. That activity is called Krsna consciousness.

Just as there is neither glory nor profit in saving the dress of a drowning man, there is neither glory nor profit in humanitarian efforts aimed exclusively at improving conditions for the temporary material body, which in the end is destined to grow old, become diseased, and die.

As Srila Prabhupada himself notes in Srimad-Bhagavatam: "The actual self is beyond the gross body and subtle m...

Originally posted by DeepThought
The problem with philosophy as a description for this is that it is impersonal.

So you are saying that a necessary component of spirituality is that it's personal?

Originally posted by googlefudge
So you are saying that a necessary component of spirituality is that it's personal?

Yes, I think that that is true. After all, the first part is self-discovery - so who else? The second to establish one's relationship with others - breaking the access problem. So one's route to the former, being an internal thing, cannot possibly be anything but personal. The route to the latter is when we share. Sharing is a personal thing.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes, I think that that is true. After all, the first part is self-discovery - so who else? The second to establish one's relationship with others - breaking the access problem. So one's route to the former, being an internal thing, cannot possibly be anything but personal. The route to the latter is when we share. Sharing is a personal thing.

So far I am not buying this at all.

And I am not convinced that philosophy is necessarily impersonal, in fact I think it can be very personal.


I am going to add something to the mix though.

Whatever meaning you come up with it cannot apply to me. Or you have invented a word that truly is meaningless.
For these purposes, I am definitionally not spiritual.

Originally posted by googlefudge
So far I am not buying this at all.

And I am not convinced that philosophy is necessarily impersonal, in fact I think it can be very personal.


I am going to add something to the mix though.

Whatever meaning you come up with it cannot apply to me. Or you have invented a word that truly is meaningless.
For these purposes, I am definitionally not spiritual.

So, why are you here, again?

Originally posted by FMF
Philosophy and religiosity/theology have something in common: the human spirit. Both represent endeavour to understand. This endeavour ~ whilst participated in to differing degrees and with very different results by human ~ lies at the heart of human "spirituality".

Surrendering the word "spirituality" to those who end up believing in supernatural beings jus ...[text shortened]... spiritual faculties and capacities as those who have taken endeavour-ending refuge in religion.

Spirituality is not banal, it is not mundane.

If spirituality originates with man, then it is banal, it is mundane -- but it is not these things. Man cannot be spiritual on his own, without connection to higher power. Spirituality does not originate with man. It originates, it begins, with Spirit.

You cannot reject spirituality and still have spirituality. The degree to which a man becomes "spiritual" is bound up in his connection to Spirit. And I'm not talking about a banal or mundane "human" spirit. Spirituality neither begins nor ends with the "human" spirit.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So, why are you here, again?

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

Didn't I say "again"?

I just want to include it in the current conversation. You have already said that whatever meaning one wants to apply to "spirituality", then that doesn't apply to you.

So why are you here, again?

Originally posted by Suzianne
You cannot reject spirituality and still have spirituality. The degree to which a man becomes "spiritual" is bound up in his connection to Spirit. And I'm not talking about a banal or mundane "human" spirit. Spirituality neither begins nor ends with the "human" spirit.

I say the "human" spirit is the only "spirit" we have. What I "reject", I suppose, is what is manifested by religionists when they pick up the "human" spirit ball and run with it in the direction of conjecture and hope regarding the supernatural.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Didn't I say "again"?

I just want to include it in the current conversation. You have already said that whatever meaning one wants to apply to "spirituality", then that doesn't apply to you.

So why are you here, again?

Again, why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

Originally posted by DeepThought
This question has erupted in my mind due to a couple of other threads. I cannot answer it for myself, so tell me, what does it mean to have a spiritual life or to describe oneself as spiritual? What is spirituality?

It might be useful to consider the distinction between spirituality and philosophy. The distinction is unclear at best, but it is probably instructive to consider different approaches toward explicating it.

For instance, there is an idea that whereas it is a primary goal of philosophizing to understand the nature of reality, it is a primary goal of spiritualizing to understand one's place within the nature of reality. Or, said differently, whereas philosophy aims at understanding the way things are, spirituality aims at understanding one's relation to the way things are. Relatedly – something at which moonbus already hinted on page 1 – some would tend to think that spirituality picks up at some locations where philosophy drops off. Consider the notion of "personal meaning", which many would agree is a topic with spiritual dimensions. I would tend to argue that it involves a process whereby one weaves together more atomistic facts of the world (as they are taken or imagined) until a broader picture emerges. It typifies spirituality in that it is an interpretive process aimed at a higher-order understanding of how more basic things interrelate. In this analogy, perhaps philosophy and science are more aimed at understanding the nature of the fibers; whereas spirituality is more aimed at interpretation of emergent patterns.

For many, the distinction between philosophy and spirituality becomes most muddled in the realms of, say, ethics. But consider for example, the distinction between an "ethical theory" and an "ethical teaching". Which is more philosophical, which more spiritual? There must be some aspect of the distinction here where spiritual activity is more aimed at integration into one’s own use and practice for some larger purpose, in alignment with one's broader interpretive bearing. This is also why philosophy could at least be conceived as a cold, cerebral enterprise; whereas spirituality not so much. This is also why many would say philosophy could be motivated by more objective, dispassionate concerns; whereas spirituality only by concerns deeply held (that is why I have heard it said that curiosity begets philosophy, while suffering begets spirituality). I would guess that existential confusion begets spirituality, as well.

Narratives about some supernatural spirits that dictate human purpose seem like just some gross caricature of spirituality born of existential bewilderment; so it's sad that the term is sometimes hijacked by the religious side. On a more fundamental level, I would say that it is generally related to contemplation of one's place in the grand scheme of things and to activity aligned with one's interpretations thereof. This is not something made explicit by a reading of cold facts and must be something highly interpretive; there is also probably something important to add about the nature of its motivational connection to concerns more deeply rooted than just, say, simple curiosity about the world and oneself.

I wouldn't have a clear definition for the term, but those would be some of my thoughts on it.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Narratives about some supernatural spirits that dictate human purpose seem like just some gross caricature of spirituality born of existential bewilderment; so it's sad that the term is sometimes hijacked by the religious side. On a more fundamental level, I would say that it is generally related to contemplation of one's place in the grand scheme of thi ...[text shortened]... ion to concerns more deeply rooted than just, say, simple curiosity about the world and oneself.

This is part of what I have been trying to express on this thread ~ and at various times in the past ~ but my attempts have not been as clear and as cogent as this.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Again, why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

Why are you afraid to answer the question?

Originally posted by FMF
This is part of what I have been trying to express on this thread ~ and at various times in the past ~ but my attempts have not been as clear and as cogent as this.

Reading back through this thread, a point that struck me forcefully was one you raised. You presented a particularly outstanding analogical image of a prism. Your point, as I understand it, is that just as a prism might take a ray of white light and refract into a multitude of different colors and angles, our spiritual functioning acts similarly: it takes something very common and fundamental to the human experience and spits out a very wide multitude of expressions. This seems to me exactly right. The multitude of expressions can be very wide indeed, when we consider that spirituality transcends vast ideological differences and encompasses a mind-boggling array of diverse activities. It is also not limited to just cognition or just conation, but can fully employ both. But, at the same time, as you pointed out it all seems to be rooted in something common.

Perhaps we cannot fully explicate what this unifying aspect is, but I think we can identify things that typify it, as done in this thread. For one, it involves consciousness and, more specifically, reflective energy involving a higher-order form: self-consciousness. For two, it involves a certain amount of existential perplexity, perhaps in the vein of the question identified by DeepThought as “Who am I?” This question could of course be put more collectively, rather than individually. But there is an additional important point in that it goes beyond a simple dispassionate inquisitiveness. So for three, it involves some resonation from within, such that there is at least some level of urgency that it is not just a question of interest but one that carries further importance, perhaps even demanding some answer. I would tend to argue that the most paradigmatic expressions of spirituality are often born of deeply personal states of experience, such as suffering and existential angst; but in no way do I think it is limited to these.

From these unifying aspects, the wide variance in spiritual expressions makes sense, in view of the fact that these are introspective activities with no explicit paths, open to interpretation. Of course, various factors related to environment, culture, etc, will help make sense of the evolution of quasi-explicit paths that do form, as spiritual traditions.