"Spirituality is very often a personal expression, and as such deserves to be reinvented individually to the extent each individual wishes to."
I've mentioned this before on HN, but I tend to take the view that spirituality isn't something vague or abstract, but rather it's something that's fairly concrete to the point of being almost measurable. My working definition is that spirituality is basically the sum total of all your relationships. That is, your relationship with yourself, with others, your work, the food you eat, your religious practices, etc. And I would define spiritual experiences as those that have implications relating to these relationships or otherwise prompt one to reevaluate them.
That's fairly similar definition to the definition that Wikipedia gives, but I think mine is a little more actionable and also more understandable to those without any sort of academic training in religious studies.
That's interesting, if also a bit antiseptic. I think trying to describe spirituality in such a bracketed, mathematical way is a smidge like trying to describe an emotion with an equation.
It doesn't describe what spirituality means to oneself -- which, from person to person, can mean many different things.
After all, isn't spirituality really all about personal meaning?
I think his version of spirituality is measuring how well one is interacting and absorbing everything in reality - and reacting to make those interactions better for themselves and everyone else.
I like it, sounds like Alan Watts/absurdism/I shouldn't have slept in philosophy class.
It goes way beyond your relationship with yourself, with others, your work, the food you eat, your religious practices, etc. It's being in the present moment and experiencing how all those other relationships fall out of it. None of those relationship matter if you chase after them, forgetting the present moment.
Academic training does not help you experience here-and-now.
For what it's worth, I see that as being one specific piece of advice with regards to your relationship with time. That is sort of the traditional spiritual path of buddhism, but others might legitimately think differently, e.g. those who find solace in the canon of western lit.
I used to think that way too. Western traditions have this teaching, it is not limited to "Buddhism". This is not a solace, this is practice. It is only in the here-and-now you can experience the spiritual teachings you've learned, so is fundamental to everything you do.
I've mentioned this before on HN, but I tend to take the view that spirituality isn't something vague or abstract, but rather it's something that's fairly concrete to the point of being almost measurable. My working definition is that spirituality is basically the sum total of all your relationships. That is, your relationship with yourself, with others, your work, the food you eat, your religious practices, etc. And I would define spiritual experiences as those that have implications relating to these relationships or otherwise prompt one to reevaluate them.
That's fairly similar definition to the definition that Wikipedia gives, but I think mine is a little more actionable and also more understandable to those without any sort of academic training in religious studies.