Talk:Spirituality/Archive 1

Sentence

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.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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!

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))

I suggest we instead add to Spirituality#Relationship_to_science as the zealot followers of various Spiritual organizations here in Wikipedia would be quick to revert any changes explicitly referring to 'criticism' of spirituality (ref). - Nearfar (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Misc.

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)

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)

All I found was this rubbish:

Some excellent resources that further explain the "spiritual Christian" are found in the Bible, Gospel of John 4:24 for example, and in the works of Watchman Nee.[1] Nee probes deeply into the building blocks of mankind and derives that we are Spirit, Body and Soul.

I would almost recommend that someone take this whole article away and rewrite the lot. It is full of stuff that is just pushing one agenda or another. Most of it makes no sense. --Dean Tregenza (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

hello, why do you judge this link to be "spamlink"?

• A Wisdom Archive on Love and spirituality

Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.3 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cricisim site link

(copying our User talk discussion) Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Spirituality. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

re: your revert on Spirituality

Is there any reason why you think giving a link to nonspiritual.info, a portal for exposing the criticism of spirituality, in Spirituality is considered vandalism? While Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion, it must be understood that Wikipedia does not prohibit references to criticisms. In fact, certain articles have their own section called Criticism. There is no reason why you would revert the addiction of link to nonspiritual.info which was added in the same spirit (of providing information) of adding links like "http://www.spiritual-experiences.com/ People sharing their various spiritual experiences". Linking to a site where people share their various spiritual experiences is not considered promotional content, but a criticism site is, eh? - Nearfar (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In general, blog-like sites - and Wikis, unless widely recognized to be stable and of a high standard - are not acceptable links/sources for Wikipedia articles. hgilbert (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me out to the Wikipedia:XXX page that tells "blog-like sites - and Wikis, unless widely recognized to be stable and of a high standard - are not acceptable links (not sources) for Wikipedia articles"? I will continue my discussion based on that reference. - Nearfar (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And why did you remove an informative link like www.spiritual-experiences.com, a portal for sharing spiritual experiences, from the main article? On what basis (referring to a Wikipedia:XXX page), did you remove it? - Nearfar (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE as you are aware. WP:ASF is also relevant. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am able to locate the following passage from WP:UNDUE (which is not something I was aware of till now):

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

In that spirit, I agree with the reverts made by you and hgilbert. Now, does this mean that I can start an article titled Criticism of Spirituality and refer the link in that article?

Alas, this gives me a confirmation that Wikipedia articles need not be as comprehensive as they could be. - Nearfar (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. hgilbert (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Doctor of Ministry link

The external link to Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) Spiritual Direction Specialization Graduate Theological Foundation (GTF) seems rather specific and not quite thematically appropriate for a general article on spirituality. It might be better placed in an article on theological degrees. hgilbert (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

American Psychologist as additional resource

I did not see listed in the references any citations of the "American Psychologist" articles in January 2003, some of which discuss this subject. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding IP editor's entry and reversion 7-July-2011

Proposal (to mitigate an edit-war) that the paragraph reverted as WP:ORIG is more appropriate to be developed in article Quantum_mysticism. Interested editors could continue the discussion here. Mediation4u (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}

I've tried to include a balanced range of perspectives on the subject.hgilbert (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's probably best not to get into quantum flapdoodle on this page. The current state of the article which eschews quantum mysticism altogether is, as I see it, pretty good. Hope people liked my sources. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I think the page looks more aesthetically pleasing without lots of tags on it. I think the content is well written with an engaging style and is currently sufficiently neutral and balanced. Yes, I liked these sources. Mediation4u (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}

Local Churches / The Church in Blank Endorsment

I took the liberty of removing the sentence containing the reference to Watchman Nee and the Biblical reference. The language didn't sound proper for a wikipedia page, and it seemed like a bias towards the local churches.

Some excellent resources that further explain the "spiritual Christian" are found in the Bible, Gospel of John 4:24 for example, and in the works of Watchman Nee.[4] Nee probes deeply into the building blocks of mankind and derives that we are Spirit, Body and Soul.

If anyone disagrees with that, feel free to undo it. Mgerb (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who writes this stuff?

Section Two, Main article -- The spiritual and the religious, states -

"Some 24% of the United States population identifies itself as spiritual but not religious.[1]"

This is the reference - http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2005/08/Newsweekbeliefnet-Poll-Results.aspx

Which actually says "In early August, 2005, Newsweek and Beliefnet asked 1,004 Americans". The summery results which are used as reference refer to 24% of 1004 americans. Not the population.

For the record 24% of 300 million is 72 million people while 24% of 1004 is roughly 241 people...see my point?

I wonder if anyone reads or understand what is being said in these articles?

I honestly can not read any more for fear of what I would find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

good point. Think I'll remove that sentence.TheRingess (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The 24% is valid for the entire population, with a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Please read Statistical survey if you have trouble with the math. --Dr.enh (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that you'll believe anything...

Why is it so difficult to just say in a survey of 1004 people?

The survey was conducted by "Newsweek and Beliefnet"...how? ...if it includes asking subscribers to Beliefnet publications or internet portals then its hardly a cross section of americans since those people are either religious or spiritual by definition!

By the way nice touch calling yourself Dr...does it work?

Write what ever you want... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/213.105.223.232 (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If a scientific survey was done correctly, then it is reasonable to say that its results reflect the reality of the larger population, within the margin of error. This, in fact, is the very purpose of statistical surveys. If all they could tell you was what those sampled thought, they would be useless. Mathematically, it is as certain to say that the population has the trait measured, as it is to say what the mass of an object in space is, or the temperature of a star, or anything else measured. What you could say is, "according to survey x, y percentage of the U.S. population is z".--Daniel (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In the recent U.S. edition of Newsweek, there's an article called "We Are All Hindus Now" with similar statistics (see http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155):

According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life"—including 37 percent of white evangelicals, the group most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone. Also, the number of people who seek spiritual truth outside church is growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves "spiritual, not religious," according to a 2009 NEWSWEEK Poll, up from 24 percent in 2005.

--Trelawnie (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

When the source only claims the results of a survey of a specific number of people and does not draw the conclusion that it represents a larger whole, then any such interpretation to apply the results to a larger group is original work. The Newsweek/Beliefnet Results claim that "most believe people of other faiths can go to heaven." This obviously refers only to the people polled and does not state "Most Americans" anywhere in the interpretation. Thus the statement "24% of the United States population identifies itself as spiritual but not religious" is original work and is not encyclopedic. It would be better to state the findings as found rather than interpret them.

The margin of error refers to actual errors found in the tallying of the results that could cause a variation (of 4% in this case) in either direction for the survey results; it is not any indication of reliability that the cross section was representative of the whole, as that cannot be known without a perfect census. While the link to Statistical Survey was helpful in understanding the limitations of surveys and the motivations for using them (cost effective, cheap), it did not provide any mathematical formula, so I cannot imagine what is meant by "if you have trouble with the math."

A second survey taken with completely new people cannot show a change in beliefs of a population, but can only show different results. The survey with new people may have been taken two days later to show a similar variation. That would be like testing a whole new batch of rats to see if the cancer from the first batch had subsided or increased. It is not a scientific conclusion by any stretch of the word. The second survey is not comparable to the first as the second article did not make clear that there were any similarities. In this case it is an opinion of the article's author and not the conclusion of a study that is expressed by "up from 24 percent in 2005." Stating an opinion of an author as though it were fact would not be objective. The whole notion of what percentage of Americans believe what is rather trivial and does not contribute to the understanding of the concept of Spirituality, which is what this wiki needs to focus on. There are also many other countries than the USA. This controversial opinion poll result should be removed permanently in the best interest of the whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.86.230 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual Path

Hello. I added section Spiritual Path from the Italian Wikipedia's article on Spiritualità (English: Spirituality), see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualit%C3%A0. Text was translated from Italian to English using the "Full Text Translator" from http://dictionary.reference.com.
--Trelawnie (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section needed?

Hey folks, I just happened upon this wiki entry through sheer freedom of the will and was surpised to see that there is no criticism section to "Spirituality", though not just for representational nor materialist reasons. With no persuasive argument to the contrary, it will be done. Then again, maybe Plato was right? You see, I was in this cave and was dazzled by these images dancing before me until I realized that this phenomenon was in fact caused by a strange device called a "computer". I proceeded to type these words... Teetotaler 10 September, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Quest for impossible answers

As long as we remain ignorant of what is the purpose of our existence on this earth & what happens to me once I a "die" we will remain confused. This confusion & our own experiences usually traumatic ones will make us look for solace & explanations. God & religion the operating System through which we reach Him are easy simplistic explanations. When we start questioning the rather difficult to comphrehend aspects of life like a criminal, sinner having the best of times then there is a question mark on religion & God. Yet something has to explain our questions & may be we talk of Spirituality of a possible yet unanswered quest of meaning of life. Dr N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.232.37 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you are trying to come up with a definition for spirituality. While I don't have all the anthropological data to show that every culture, race, species, etc... has a form of spirituality, I was hoping we could get a section in this article criticizing the notion of spirituality itself. For example, such a criticism might discuss the extent to which typical forms of spirituality depend upon the Fact-Value distinction, or to what forms of spirituality are anti-political, anti-philosophical, anti-intellectual, etc... While some would like to think of spirituality as a natural kind, like say water or thought, it could very well be that it is a social construct of some sort and not a universal psychological phenomenon that we can use to exhaustively describe every sentient being. Teetotaler 30 November, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there Teet, do not thou forget the work of Gandhi who used spirituality for very political reasons, namely as a justification of vegetarianism, fasting, as well as civil disobedience. You see in this instance, spirituality is a category of ethics and politics. Is this spirituality or is spirituality subsumed by holism? Was Gandhi a holist? Hmm..., I think so, but remember, he was also an experimentalist. Perhaps, contrary to Dr N's definition of spirituality, one does not have to give up the game to skepticism to arrive at spirituality. On the contrary, it relies in Gandhi's instance on ethical objecitivism and self-sacrifice. I know its beginning to sound a bit Kantian in here but still sounds like ethics has priority. There is, however, the unholistic parable... Teetotaler 26 December, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying to critique spirituality is like trying to critique boredom. We all experience it in different ways, and in some cases they can be completely opposite experiences. What one person finds boring another may find thrilling. Spirituality as defined on http://www.the-spiritual-quest.com says, "The term spiritual … something we cannot see or touch. Words like love, joy, peace, goodness, kindness, faith, and self control are spiritual sensations. The other side of spiritual sensations are fear, anxiety, frustration, anger, stress, etc. These sensations are part of our being." And it continues, "By our focusing on these inner spiritual sensations, both good and bad, we are able to adjust our lives, conduct and actions in a way to maximize the good feelings and minimize the negative." Spirituality is an individual experience, managed from inside one's own consciousness. There is nothing supernatural in the word itself and no one has "The Truth" with respects to spirituality. Those that manage these internal spiritual conditions, like Gandhi, may appear to be supernatural to others. The critique against spirituality would be to those who try and leverage it as something mystical or tangible, as another religion. It's no more or no less than an individual managing his internal awareness which is unique and true for every individual. We all have spiritual sensations and managing these internal sensations is spirituality. Excecutive (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Excecutive

Spirituality not equal to supernaturalism

This article makes it sound like the only spirituality is supernatural. Spirit simply means 'the essence' of something, and spirituality is how you deal with the 'essential' in life. The metaphysical also includes deeper realizations about the relationships between things - it is non-physical, but not necessarily supernatural (cosmology is a part of metaphysics for example). Buddhism, Taoism, and ancient Greek Stoicism all have worldviews which need not include supernatural realms or transcendent phenomena. If you have a path that is sacred, and disciplined on the more profound things about Nature and life, has ritual, and so on, but is all based on a naturalistic understanding of the universe - that is spirituality as well. --Daniel (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited this entry into the article. Feel free to amend. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to critique spirituality is like trying to critique boredom. We all experience it in different ways, and in some cases they can be completely opposite experiences. What one person finds boring another may find thrilling. Spirituality as defined on http://www.the-spiritual-quest.com says, "The term spiritual … something we cannot see or touch. Words like love, joy, peace, goodness, kindness, faith, and self control are spiritual sensations. The other side of spiritual sensations are fear, anxiety, frustration, anger, stress, etc. These sensations are part of our being." And it continues, "By our focusing on these inner spiritual sensations, both good and bad, we are able to adjust our lives, conduct and actions in a way to maximize the good feelings and minimize the negative." Spirituality is an individual experience, managed from inside one's own consciousness. There is nothing supernatural in the word itself and no one has "The Truth" with respects to spirituality. Those that manage these internal spiritual conditions, like Gandhi, may appear to be supernatural to others. The critique against spirituality would be to those who try and leverage it as something mystical or tangible, as another religion. It's no more or no less than an individual managing his internal awareness which is unique and true for every individual. We all have spiritual sensations and managing these internal sensations is spirituality. Excecutive (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Spirituality and religion

The section Spirituality and religion begins by saying that "an important distinction exists between spirituality within religion and spirituality outside religion", but then goes on to say that, basically, there is no difference - just the path is different. If no one has any objections, I'd like to drop that sentence and reword the paragraph. Obscurasky (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Obscurasky (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem passage in opening section

The passage that has been inserted, deleted and reinserted ought to be discussed.

I've no objection to it's insertion per se, but it is a duplication of a passage in the 'Defining spirituality' section - so perhaps the question should be where is it best positioned? Obscurasky (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead certainly needs to have more content than it would have without this passage. The passage's content seems quite appropriate to an overview of the subject (and thus to the lead section), but I have no objection to modifying it - or to extending the lead in other ways. hgilbert (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of the photo?

Isn't a Wikipedia photo supposed to be of the subject at hand? It isn't a photo of spirituality, it's there for dramatic effect. "The eye of GOD..." (echo...echo...echo...echo...) Docsavage20 (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Spirituality is subjective, and no single image could encompass all the different understandings of its nature. The photo is representational and as such avoids bias towards to any one particular perspective or religion. I think it works well and would oppose its removal.Obscurasky (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's "representational" of...what? There's nothing subjective about the photo, it's a picture of an astronomical phenomenon. Why not use a photo of a marshmallow which doesn't lend bias toward any religion either and has about as much inherent connection to the subject - but of course not the Hollywood name that someone artificially attached to it because of the pareidolia value. This photo would be appropriate in an article on astronomy, not an article about some amorphous, semi-religious notion. Its very presence in the article implies bias. I say chuck it.Docsavage20 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear about how this photo introduces a bias...I am not particularly attached to this photo leading the article but don't see it as problematic, either. Docsavage: Do you have a better alternative suggestion than a marshmallow? I wasn't aware that they had particularly spiritual lives. hgilbert (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How it introduces bias is the veiled suggestion that "it's all about God". I see it as problematic for all the reasons I mentioned previously. It isn't a picture "of" spirituality. Why does there have to be an alternative suggestion? The article can survive with no photo.Docsavage20 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually don't make comments on the Talk pages I read, but I couldn't agree more with Docsavage20. The Helix Nebula (although awe-inspiring and beautiful) has nothing to do with spirituality and the photo should be removed or replaced. Adversive (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidently the Helix Nebula photo was replaced with the current one, which I find quite disturbing. The description of the photo in Commons reads: People praying at the Nijūbashi bridge, outside the Imperial Palace, following the announcement of Japan's surrender. Surely a more appropriate picture can be found? How about a picture of someone meditating? Makana Chai (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would think a picture of someone meditating would make more sense than an astronomy photo, as it has direct relevance.--Smcg8374 (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. hgilbert (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed for "no evidence" claim?!

I see a citation needed flag has been added after "no scientific evidence supports the efficacy of prayer". Can any citation provide evidence that no evidence exists? To me it seems a strange statement to demand evidence for. Tayste (talk - contrib) 04:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"No evidence" is simply wrong. There are plenty of studies that have been well performed that found a positive result. As to whether the evidence is conclusive is another matter. The sentence about quantum mysticism being pseudo-science also begs some explanation as many of the founders of quantum mechanics were quite take with the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.188.84 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction: rewrite proposed

The introduction begins with a dictionary definition that is essentially self-referential (spirituality is that which has to do with spirit). It continues with random bits of commentary. I've trimmed it a bit but would actually like to revise the whole thing, including what I've just done, with reference to decent sources. hgilbert (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it could be better worded, though 'spirituality' is subjective and any new opening would have to be worded in such a way as to encompass all the different understands of what 'spirituality' means.

There is also some text in the 'Defining spirituality' section would would be better moved to the 'Spirituality and religion' section. I have read a couple of articles in the last year on the definition of 'spirituality' - unfortunately both of them negative. One was by the NSS, and basically concluded that any definition was ultimately meaningless. I'll see if I can find it again. Alun Williamson (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

i think meditation is being in a quiet place alone with no distractments and just clearing your mind of everything not thinking of anything at all. consentatingon the silence till ur ears ring of silence - to me silence is loud. 74.130.209.30 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Restore citation

As per my remarks at User talk:Michaelhogan73, I propose restoring the citation that was added here and here, removed here, restored (by me) here, and removed again here. To deny the citation of long-uncited content, on the basis that the citing editor may have engaged in questionable behaviour on a different article, strikes me as absurd. It's like saying that, in the film Titanic, since Jack proclaimed himself "King of the World" on the bow of the ship, then he must have been just trying to inflate his ego when he rescued Rose on the stern. (So, if suspected motives on the bow invalidate an otherwise-noble action on the stern, actually removing the citation on this article is sort of analogous to forcing Jack to let Rose fall into the ocean.) For what it's worth, and for reasons that I'll gladly explain if anyone is interested, I think that the situation over at Transcendence (philosophy) was handled completely inappropriately in the first place. Regardless, that situation has no bearing on the value of citing information in this article (and adding a citation is all that he did on this one), that article, or any other article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No objections in almost a month, so I'm going to restore the citation. Of course, anyone is still at liberty to challenge the inclusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Spirituality vs Religion

I think any distinction between religion and spirituality should be removed. Religion and spirituality are the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. Religions can, for example, involve the codification into law of their understanding of a natural order. The following, for example, may be categorized as "religious", but seems a far cry from "spiritual": "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you" (KJV, Lev. 11:7). Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a very strong relationship between dirty pigs and "an experience of connectedness with a larger reality". (Okay, so there's a counterpoint: Many Jews regard the Torah as a complex guide to thorough piety. But...you get my drift.) Conversely, a person can be spiritual (e.g., can experience a sense of cosmic connectedness) without subscribing to a particular religion. (Counterpoint: Arguably, religion can be defined in very broad or inclusive terms. See Thomas Luckmann. Still, it should--I hope--be clear by now that the "religion = spirituality" equation is, in and of itself, simplistic or, at best, debatable.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Maybe its just me. But the way this article explains it, spirituality without religion seems to be unintelligible. Sewblon 05:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Spirituality Hijacked

This article has been hijacked by people with an agenda to seperate spirituality from religion, because they view religion as false. I would argue that the church, temple and mosque have all become corrupt and most will not find spirituality through these corrupt venues, but to seperate God from spirituality is in fact a demonic agenda. There is very little about demonic paths to reach spiritual stations in the unseen world. I have recently added something but it needs citations. The point is spirituality is God awareness and when it is not it is demonic awareness, an attempt to draw people away from the Creator, is commonly understood in all religions as the goal of the devil. Not mentioning that here is both irresponsible and completly false. So I vote that the article be balanced, rewritten, pretty much overhauled, as the spiritualists who want a short cut to the unseen without God are hard at work - no surpirse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). See WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:TEND, and WP:NOTBLOG. What editors personally believe does not matter, Wikipedia doesn't deal with "truth," it just summerizes what sources are out there. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See also section

I'm not sure about this section - many new entries were just added. I have removed some links as they appear clearly not to be related links (unless opposites are related) or to be too specific (e.g. Roman Catholic Church). If anyone feels strongly that any of these belong here, please do put them back in. We should agree on policy for this and clean up the section. hgilbert (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have added back Atheism since it was there before my edits, but didn't since as an opposite it's redundant with reason. Opposites are definitely appropriate for compare and contrast purposes in a See Also section. Agree that the particular spirituality of Roman Catholicism should be pulled as being at the wrong level of generality. 72.228.177.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC).

Original research

Cited information has been removed from the introduction with the explanation that it's validly referenced, but "false". Please see Wikipedia's WP:Truth and WP:Original research policies; what any of us believe is truth is not the ultimate criterion, but rather what can be cited to a valid source. The information should be restored. hgilbert (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently the information in the lead is presented as if being universally accurate. This is certainly not the case. It merely consists of opinions of individuals (regardless of their academic background) on a topic they feel strongly about. I would agree on the inclusion of cited information such as "Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life." only if the author of the notion is clearly mentioned, e.g. "Waaijman claims that spirituality is often..." Otherwise the reader gets the impression that these are are scientific or scholarly statements.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want a NPOV on this controversial topic. It actually is offensive for me to read that "prayer and meditation ... often lead to an experience of connectedness with a larger reality", as if this is somehow applicable to all individuals. A more balanced way to present the topic should be sought after. Mvaldemar (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

lead

Spirituality is a quality or a state relating to or affecting the spirit is not a good lead sentence for obvious reasons. It would be like having the lead sentence of the article on science be Science consists of those activities or writings done by scientists. The substantial content was valid and drawn from mainstream sources. Let's improve what's there.

In addition, it is not necessary or appropriate to say that "John Smith suggests"... unless John Smith is original in saying so. Widely agreed ideas, even if cited to a particular source, should be stated as widely agreed ideas. hgilbert (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Claims by theologians are not widely agreed idea. The Burkhardt and Nagai-Jacobson book seems to be a personal account, and certainly not up to Wikipedia standards. Mvaldemar (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Would the following work as new opening sentences?

Spirituality is awareness of or belief that life has some spiritual realm or realms, and statements and practices representing or intentionally consistent with such awareness or belief

Such awareness or belief and statements and practices may be considered religious or to constitute a religion, but people may also have spiritual awareness or beliefs and associated statements and practices while considering them to be quite non-religious or outside any currently existing recognisable religion

Also, I would like to see something along the following lines somewhere within the article, perhaps as or in a section headed "Terminology"

Historically, the English language terms spirituality and religion have been practically synonyms of Christianity, and are now very closely associated with monotheistic religion

"Spirituality" is not quite so associated as "religion", but finding truly objective English language with which to discuss spirituality remains very problematic

Laurel Bush (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The best thing would be to draw on widely accepted reference works to formulate a clear and comprehensive lead. Finding citations for your suggestions above would help give them weight for future inclusion, and might lead to improving their formulation as well. hgilbert (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual drug use

I note this article has no section on spiritual drug use, while Spiritual drug and Spiritual drug use redirect to Entheogen
Why is this?
To my mind, Spiritual drug and Spiritual drug use should redirect to Spirituality, which should have a drug use section linked to Entheogen
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Extensive trimming

I have been a bit Bold and trimmed uncited and apparently peripheral material extensively, as well as adding some cited and hopefully more central text. I'd like it if others would join in raising the standard of this section - in particular ensuring that material is supported by citations to high-quality, verifiable sources. This is particularly important in an area where everyone has a strong opinion! hgilbert (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality no longer disputed -

This section can discuss the neutrality box and propose removing the box, or paragraphs which need to be addressed before removal. I could not see any current part of this talk page specifically moving towards removal of the dispute box. I note that previous discussions on "Original research" disputed the wording on prayer and meditation. The article lead now appears to have found a compromise which is acceptable for the participants in the April 2011 discussion, on "Original Research" >> hist-link << Mediation4u (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to neaten up the article, I propose removing the dispute box in seven days' time. Please let me know if anyone agrees / disagrees with removing the dispute box from the head of the article. Many thanks. Mediation4u (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The issues appear to have been resolved. hgilbert (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the review of the dispute discussion; agreement to the proposal to remove the dispute box and 7 days' notice given, I will remove the neutrality dispute box from the article tomorrow. Mediation4u (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}

Consensus reached and so I have removed the POV dispute box. Mediation4u (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}

My personal view is that the article looks more aesthetically pleasing without lots of dispute boxes and tags on it. I think the content is well written with an engaging style and is currently sufficiently neutral and balanced. Mediation4u (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}

First part of intro

"Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality" is really not helpful: nobody says "I believe in spirituality" with the intention of conveying the fact that they believe in such a reality. Is there any good reason not to insert "a belief in" after "refer to"? I notice that the intro has been discussed above, and I generally don't edit topics like this, so I'd rather not damage a consensus of which I'm not aware. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mutually positive influences

The phrase "mutually positive influences" in the science section is value laden. Wikipedia shouldn't be saying that the influences were "positive" nor should Wikipedia be saying that they were "negative" only that there were influences and leave the evaluation of the effect of those influences up to opinion pieces. I suggest reverting this.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The text cited specifically describes the full range of relationships: positive, antagonistic, and complementary. The book is an excellent source, by the way; if we want more detail, it's a good place to go. hgilbert (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Complementary" in the sentence is positive enough. Author J.H. Brooke is clear that, among historians, it is an extreme position that religion had a positive effect on science, and another extreme position that it had a negative effect. The mainstream middle position is that "puritan ideals resulted in a higher value being placed on certain forms of science, notably those promising practical benefits". This is a far cry from asserting in the editorial voice that mutually positive effects are acknowledged (by mainstream observers) between science and spirituality. If further detail is placed into the article, we should follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and plainly state who is the proponent of the non-mainstream viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have rewritten this accordingly, emphasizing that the middle one is the primary effect seen. I've also included some other bits from Brooke's Science and Religion. He does repeatedly mention that many people describe hostile, and many describe positive relations between the two - these are not at all a matter of unusual positions. It's just that Brooke believes that the middle description of complementarity is most true to history, both extremes being somewhat distortions of the full picture.

I'm not sure what to do about the specify tag; when an author is cited as saying that "many" scientists consider something to be true, is it actually necessary to give specific names? I can see the need when there is no citation to back this up. I would recommend removing the tag. hgilbert (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no citation for the word "many" to any particular author that I can find. Can you provide the quote? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Many scientists

I added a specify tag to the sentence: Many scientists continue to consider science and spirituality to be complementary, not contradictory. The source does not indicate that "many" scientists think this. I think that "many" is an example of WP:WEASEL. Please come up with a better way to phrase it. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See above. The cited author says 'many' scientists think this; weasel words are normally inserted by editors. hgilbert (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Then we have to say it's the author's opinion. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I checked the cited book and I could not find it. Please give a quote. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed an incorrect sentence

I removed this:

Twentieth century developments in particle physics reopened the debate about complementarity between scientific and religious discourse and rekindled for many an interest in holistic conceptions on reality.

First of all, who is equating particle physics and quantum mechanics? They are related but different fields.

Secondly, where is this supposed "debate" happening? It's not happening in the scientific fields. No quantum physicists of any renown would argue that quantum flapdoodle has "reopened" a debate regarding "science and religion". This is a popular misconception.

Thirdly, what is the "holistic conception on reality" supposed to mean? It is a meaningless phrase as far as I can tell.

All Brooke has said on page 322 is that "for many commentators, another consequence of the revolution in physics has been a rekindling of interest in holistic conceptions of reality". Who cares about commentators? This is a section about science, not commentary.

I removed this awful sentence.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You may feel that this is a popular misconception, but there is an established author published by Cambridge University Press who said the above. The thrust of Wikipedia is to give precedence to established authors; editor's opinions should take a back seat. I suggest the sentence be restored; it is neutral in tone and well-cited.

BTW: Although it is pretty obvious that by 20th century developments in particle physics the author means quantum theory, I am happy to remove the explicit mention of the latter to avoid any appearance of WP:Original research. hgilbert (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This really isn't good enough. The fact is that no quantum physicists accept this claim and that is documented in the paragraph referenced above that was removed completely from the article. If you want to include some bit about quantum flapdoodle nonsense, we'll necessarily have to include the fact that it is considered rank pseudoscience by the scientific community. Not very relevant for an article on spirituality, if you ask me. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The following is moved from a user talk page as being more relevant here:

Please consider reverting

This edit places a value-judgment into the text of Wikipedia (that there exist influences between science and spirituality which were mutually positive). This is an opinion, and, as such, needs to be either cited to the person who holds that opinion or changed so it is not an opinion and simply a fact. I'd prefer the latter, but I would point out that the source you claims supports your revert does not, in fact, declare it to be a fact that the influences were mutually "positive". 128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the reference's placing is ambiguous; the text actually supports the whole sentence - that some influences were positive, others antagonistic, others complementary. hgilbert (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the text says that some people think that influences were positive, others think the influences were antagonistic, but most take a somewhat complementary view. Please stop misrepresenting sources. You did it again with re-inclusion of quantum flapdoodle on the same page.128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...that's exactly what the text I originally put in said. I think you changed this, didn't you? I didn't include any mention of quantum flapdoodle, however. hgilbert (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your paraphrase leaved a lot to be desired and by cherry-picking a single quote out of the tome that seems to align with your apparent spiritualist perspective, you are slanting the article. There was an entire paragraph that was removed from the article about the idiocy of quantum New Age baloney, but it was removed as it is only vaguely related to the topic at hand: spirituality. That charlatans like Deepak Chopra make hay out of misrepresenting quantum physics to match their own private beliefs is perhaps notable, but so is the fact that these quacks are roundly excoriated by scientists. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is an article about spirituality, so one would think that references to spirituality would be appropriate. By the way, the past tense of leave is left. hgilbert (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So how do you feel about including the entire paragraph here? I think we need to use either all the sources or none of the sources. The single sentence you're proposing simply doesn't cut it. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the material on the split between science and religion, partly influenced by Freud, is relevant - but I'd draw this from the following paragraph, which is clearer. hgilbert (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I included the bits about the fact that quantum flapdoodle is pseudoscience. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuller quote

The quote from Robert Fuller, which I have moved to a more appropriate place, is quite nice, but really needs a citation. Otherwise it should probably go, alas. hgilbert (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumptive, Unverified and Mispunctuated Content

"If one has such a belief and feels that relationship to such beings is the foundation of happiness then spiritual practice will be pursued on that basis: if one has no such belief spiritual practice is still essential for the management and understanding of thoughts and emotions which otherwise prevent happiness." This string of ideas defies several conventions. Use of the colon following "basis" is inappropriate; a period would be appropriate. Can the statement "...spiritual practice is still essential for the management and understanding of thoughts and emotions which otherwise prevent happiness." be verified? I'm surprised that psychiatrists, psychologists or other behavioral scientists haven't rephrased it.Determinist (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that statements claiming that spirituality is "essential" for well-being are presumptuous and strongly POV. I'm also concerned that the sources cited such as the Wilkinson book represent the author's personal opinions rather than evidence based findings. I think the article needs to have a section about well-being but more credible sources that report empirical research findings would be more appropriate. Otherwise it should be made clear when particular statements represent unverified beliefs attributable to particular individuals rather than supposed facts.--Smcg8374 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

TheSpiritual: Journal

Hi,

I am editor of an online Spiritual Journal - a quality periodical that publishes select texts on subjects relevant to spirituality. It is a non-commercial and an independent site, developed for academic and reference purposes. The link is;

http://www.thespiritual.net

If you think that this site will add value to this page (Spirituality), please add the site link as an External Link for access by the viewers.

I am an academic myself, and a great admirer of Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Vivek Sharma Editor TheSpiritual: Journal of Natural Spirituality

Thespiritual (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

importance on prayer

why do religious people play such importance on prayer as a spiritual activity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.109.141 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Religion is resurging, NOT disappearing.

At least one peer reviewed study says; "Far from disappearing, religion and religious movements appear to be resurging around the globe." --Emerson & Hartman

Quote Wiki article:

declining membership of organized religions and the growth of secularism in the western world have given rise to a broader view of spirituality.[5] The term "spiritual" is now frequently used in contexts in which the term "religious" was formerly employed; compare James' 1902 lectures on the "Varieties of Religious Experience".

A popular meme or saying (or political-religious-theocratic propaganda point) is that religion is on the decline since the time of America's founding fathers (even though "the new U.S.A." were very secular ideas of the very secular Enlightenment) or "Age of Reason."

See: Emerson, Michael O., and David Hartman "The Rise of Religious Fundamentalism." Annual Review of Sociology, 32 (2006) 127-144.
http://report.rice.edu/sir/faculty.detail?p=055ECEDA4784A7E6
also:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20269196/Emerson-MO-and-Hartman-The-Rise-of-Religious-Fundamentalism
First published online as a Review in Advance on April 5, 2006
THE RISE OF RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM
1Department of Sociology, Rice University, Houston, Texas
2Department of Sociology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556;

As Almond et al. (2003, p. 1) write in Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around the World:

Since the Iranian Revolution, purported fundamentalist movements have risen to the highest levels of power in five countries—in Iran in 1979, in the Sudan in 1993, in Turkey, Afghanistan, and India in 1996, and in India again in 1998 and 1999. There have been even more frequent penetrations by fundamentalist movements into the parliaments, assemblies, and political parties of such countries as Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and the United States.

--69.227.85.153 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Well, we know, but do you have any objection to any part of the article? I think the article doesn't claim that it is disappearing. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 02:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition

I'm not very pleased by the current definition, which might correctly refer to citations, but gives a very off-topical impression, especially by elevating "secular spirituality" as a most major concept. I would prefer a base definition more like the one is Psychology Today, which stresses the fuzziness of the concept, but connects it with human mind processes. My personal (unciteable) image of "spirituality" is that it regards behaviors that serve the purpose of supporting inner reconciliations with facts of life. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 02:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

I have added an "unreliable sources" tag to the heading of this article because many of the article's references seem to be written by people closely associated with the subject who wish to promote their own personal opinions. Scholarly sources that present an academic consensus on the subject seem to be in the minority. A number of sections in the article, such as "near death experience" and "study" appear to be written from the POV of spiritual practitioners. I note that "personal well-being" has recently been rewritten in a more neutral tone (a definite improvement) although it could still do with some better sources.--Smcg8374 (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the article, including more reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism?

Someone removed the Criticism section. It read:

Criticism

Jesus Christ, during his Sermon of the Mount according to the Gospel of Matthew, stated "blessed are the poor in spirit".

Thomas Aquinas holds that "poverty of spirit" is the beatitude corresponding to the "gift of fear".[43] He argues, that "poverty of spirit properly corresponds to fear. Because, since it belongs to filial fear to show reverence and submission to God, whatever results from this submission belongs to the gift of fear. Now from the very fact that a man submits to God, it follows that he ceases to seek greatness either in himself or in another but seeks it only in God."

Aquinas also quotes St. Augustine: "The fear of the Lord is befitting the humble of whom it is said: Blessed are the poor in spirit."

Should it be reinstalled? Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary given when this section was removed said, "wildly off topic and certainly not criticism" and I concur completely. This section was not even sensible. I believe a "criticism" section is certainly warranted but common sense suggests that it must be clear about what is actually being criticised and on what grounds, not just quote some unexplained and ambiguous religious sayings.--Smcg8374 (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar Image

Why is the image used for the "spirituality" sidebar an astronomical photograph? I'm not challenging anyone's finding some spirituality in the image, but I don't see the value in promoting a scientific image, taken by a scientific organization of a natural physical phenomenon, as Wikipedia's representation of spirituality (something which is inherently non-physical and unquantifiable.) Spirituality is a matter of subjective experience, the objective contents of the image are decidedly not spiritual and its use is misleading.

Tucyviubh (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a fair question, and one that has arisen before. Perhaps we need a small gallery of images that represent various aspects of spirituality: e.g. in the cosmos, in a single human being (perhaps a meditatant), in human interaction. hgilbert (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A gallery sounds like a good idea, as it would be helpful to provide some context to images used. The astronomy image currently lacks any context that would explain its relevance. Even a caption like "Some people experience a sense of awe they describe as 'spiritual' when contemplating natural phenomena" would provide clarification.--Smcg8374 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking Tree

A great site for spiritual articles by well known masters is Speaking Tree [3]. Some of the articles from this site should be quoted in this article.

Wkuser25 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

The article is sorely lacking input from a contemporary or even historical philosophical perspective, which seems odd given the metaphysical nature of the topic. I suggest something like this (which has been removed):

Contemporary philosophers would reject the vocabulary of spirituality, since it is generally agreed in the academic community that all that is really meant by terms like 'spiritual' is deep (philosophical) thinking or internal experience. In other words, according to philosophers, all that spirituality entails is the sort of thinking that philosophers do on a regular basis (and that any person does from time to time), and isn't necessarily tied to religion, mysticism, or any other sort of supernatural practice. Further, since the sort of thinking that people refer to as 'spiritual' is ontologically indistinguishable from other types of thinking, a claim to being spiritual is really nothing more than a claim to being a self-reflective, thinking being, which all humans are. In this sense, spiritual experiences can be described simply as regular mental experiences that we regard as significant, impactful, enlightening, powerful, paradigm-shifting, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.30.120 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And I removed the latest version again. A section presenting the viewpoint of various philosophers on spirituality might be a good idea, though the article already has such views. Your only reference on this paragraph was a book by Daniel Dennett, who is a member of the Secular Coalition for America advisory board. Perhaps the views of such people should be in this article, but not presented as the viewpoint of the entire field of philosophy and not from the writings of a single philosopher. See WP:UNDUE particularly the part paraphrased from Jimbo Wales. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass-reversion

User:208.104.180.99 undid diff my improvements of the article with the following edit-summary: "Joshua Jonathan, this page was developed as a community. Please use the talk page to discuss improvements".
That's not the way to cooperate. I've left edit-summaries for all of my edits. Wikipedia encourages WP:BOLD, and the use of Talk Pages in case of different opinions. Simply reverting all my edits without discussion is not exactly 'setting the example'. Be specific. And the use of an anonymous IP-adress to mention "community effort" is not an example of "community". use a proper account, so other editors know who's discussing.

To give a short overview of my edits:

• I changed the lead, giving a summary of the article, replacing 'esoteric' sources by a well-respected scholar on spirituality
• The definition is made more specific, (re)moving related topics to other sections
• I've added an overview of the development of the concept of spirituality, which was mostly lacking
• I've grouped several topics under the header of "Traditional and modern spirituality", adding links to relevant Wiki-articles
• I have expanded the section on "Spiritual experience", giving background information
• I've grouped the subjects realting to science

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

OriginsNet

User:208.104.180.99 added the following sentence to the lead:

The established anthropological view is that it is more probable that humankind first developed religious and spiritual beliefs during the Middle Paleolithic or Upper Paleolithic. Source: About OriginsNet by James Harrod

OriginsNet does not reflect an "established anthropological view", but gives James B. Harrod's personal view:

On the basis of recent discoveries in palaeoanthropology, protolinguistics and related sciences, OriginsNet argues for a new paradigm. We believe that the archaeological record provides evidence that art-making, religion, and language have been evolving throughout the almost 3,000,000 years of hominid evolution. The evidence indicates that there were four major stages of human physical, technological, art, and mind evolution--four diasporas out of Africa--during the three million year evolution of human consciousness.[4]

Wikipedia asks for WP:RELIABLESOURCES. A personal website promoting an unusual point of view at least raises questions about reliability, and for sure is not an "established anthropological view". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So, what is the established anthropological view on when religion and spiritual beliefs first developed? Do you have a source that contradicts this? That said the source is not WP:RS. I have removed the paragraph based on WP:SELFPUB and mentioned WP:FRINGE. It would be nice to have a paragraph like it though, properly sourced. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's a topic of debate, the so-called Paleolithic Revolution. See Behavioral modernity, The Upper Paleolithic Revolution and Google Scholar, paleolithic revolution. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this, and I agree that OriginsNet is not a WP:RS source. I also think the IP'S mass revert was not done right.

Definition of spirituality

Regarding the very definition of the term, I would comment that there is no general agreement on that in any case, and that should be clarified:

• Handbook of Religion and Health by Harold Koenig, Dana King, Verna B. Carson, Oxford UP 2012 page 36 states that "there is no widely agreed on definition of spirituality today".

• Oxford Textbook of Spirituality in Healthcare by Mark R Cobb, Christina M Puchalski and Bruce Rumbold (Oct 1, 2012) page 213 states: "The spiritual dimension is deeply subjective and there is no authoritative definition of spirituality"

So different people have different definitions, and in many cases misunderstandings come about exactly because of that, e.g. that a patient's concept is so different from that of a care giver, etc. So the topic as a whole is somewhat fluid, and that needs work. But OriginsNet is not the way to go about it. History2007 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added your citations as an introduction & note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But I don't know if I can say anything of depth here given that I have no idea how the term can be defined across cultures and disciplines. In fact, all I see is debate among scholars, and at times empty definitions, e.g.:

Andrew Wright: Spirituality is the relationship of the individual, within community and tradition, to that which is - or is perceived to be - of ultimate concern

Now what does that mean? It does not tell me anything. On Wall Street, the "ultimate community concern" is profit. So does Wall Street spirituality involve the relationship between people and the dollar? All we need now is a book on that. And there are all these televangelists types who promote success spirituality and what not... I think it is utterly shameful, but anyway it is very strange really.

Now, try this. What was Aztec spirituality like? I have no idea. It was not modern spirituality for sure. Probably not Buddhist or Jewish either. Now this says that there are 27 definitions anyway. So I am not really sure if I understand the overall definition, across cultures, let alone say something useful on it beyond bewilderment... History2007 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Great comment! I've tried to figure out the meaning of "spirituality" when I wrote the thesis for my last study, and also became bewildered. But one thing I'm very sure of: "spirituality" has acquired a different meaning in modern times. It has become some sort of broad container-term, with a meaning akin to the Dutch "zingeving". Typically, there is no English equivalent for that word. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I have restored the earlier, better, more accurate, less POV version that cites more well known and eminent authorities than those introduced by User:Joshua Jonathan. Mr Jonathan is not a native speaker of English and is unaware that there is no such thing as 'religious transformation' or 'refind'. The cited source also clearly has a less that competent command of English as well. The earlier definition was honed over a long period and is more inclusive than Mr Jonathon's. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, and contain sourced statements.

• "Esoteric spirituality" and Rupert Sheldrake reflect a modern, syncretistic understanding of spirituality
• "Spiritual practices [...] divine realm" reflect the same syncretistic understanding, and are not representative for the whole of "spirituality"
• "Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life" is a menaingless sentence; are there instances where spirituality is not "a source of inspiration or orientation in life"?
• "It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world." - That's a selective listing of what may be part of spirituality, again according to a modern, syncretistic point of view

Putting WP:UNDUE stress on a modern, syncretizing understanding is WP:POV. By mentioning a traditional and a modern point of view, a summary of the article is provided, based on solid sources.

I've changed "transformation" to "reformation", and "refind" to "recover", per [5], and removed "religious" from the paraphrasing of Waaijman in the lead. According to Waaijman, there is such thing as "reformation" and "refind".

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Conceptual background

I've removed an unsourced, essay-like addition by User:81.106.127.14 per WP:RS and WP:OR. It is close to WP:DISRUPT. Moving Waaijman to a note is WP:POV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This unsourced section has been re-inserted two times, without discussion or explanation. I've added an "unreferenced section" template. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted recent work by Joshua Jonathan (this is not his real name). He uses all sorts of pseudo-scholarly ruses to exercise his now out of hand control freakery. I know this because I am an internationally recognised scholar of religion whose work has been translated into several languages and I am well acquainted with people whose egos are out of control. Other editors are equally offended by his overbearing sophistry. Please do not hesitate to express your just indignation at his destruction of many months of painstaking work. If you examine carefully his arguments against the existing article they are entirely bogus and simply reflect his need to get his way even if means destroying the excellent work of other people. Here I refer to the careful work that a community of scholars has made over several years to this article. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP 81.106.127.14, the internationally recognised scholar, may I also ask you for an opinion on this article as well? History2007 (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan has made a lot of changes and the views expressed are not the broad views of Spirituality. However, IP 81.106.127.14, please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I quote: "When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please just point by point say what you think should be restored, in a new section. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting third opinions on lead and definition

I'll request third opinions on the lead and the definition, from User:Yworo, User:History2007 and User:Tao2911, who all three are critical (also on my edits) editors; from User:Lova Falk, who's interested in spirituality and an experienced editor; and from User:Buddhipriya, who's a specialist on Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a difficult question. I don't have access to any of the sources, so I can just say what I think. The definition preferred by 81.106.127.14 doesn't mention the word God, which I think should be part of the lead; on the other hand the definition preferred by JJ is way too short; it doesn't explain enough. So my suggestion, and this is not a very "beautiful" one, is a compromise by writing that spirituality is defined in different ways, and that JJ's sentence is merged into the definition preferred by 81.106.127.14. Lova Falk talk 08:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lova. Thanks for your balanced response! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

The lead should be a summary of the article, and contain sourced statements, per WP:LEAD. Following the article, I suggest the following points:

• The term spirituality lacks a definitve definition, although social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for "the sacred," where "the sacred" is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration.
• The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.
• In modern times spirituality has been separated from religion, and connotes a blend of (humanistic) psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.
• The notion of "spiritual experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a relatively recent origin.

I've not mentioned "spiritual practice", since the article does not offer a sourced definition of "spiritual practice". What makes a praxis a "spiritual practice"? To define that, there has first to be a definition of "spirituality" - "the sacred". But that may include any "religious practice". So, at best, I think, this section can offer a sourced overview of what different traditions regard to be "spiritual practices".

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is fine with me. I'll invite editor 81.106.127.14 to give their comments. Lova Falk talk 07:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr Jonathan is not a scholar of either religion or spirituality (he's a social worker) and he does not have the necessary knowledge to be editing many of the articles that he has made major edits to. He projects his own lack of knowledge onto the scholarly community and then says "there is no widely accepted definition of...". He has just attempted to do this to the Brahman article; has succeeded in doing this to the Zen article and now you are proposing to let him do this to the spirituality artcle. Mr Jonathans edits are highly POV and do not represent the consensus of the mainstream scholarly community. Mr Jonathan is a sceptic and an atheist who has no knowledge of theology. Lastly, his edits are crude and display a lack of understanding of the basic principles of copy-editing. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoa. I don't even know what's going on here yet, but was asked to weigh in because of my experience on other spirituality pages. Mr. Jonathan and I have not always agreed on issues, but he edits with good faith and is fair, evenhanded, and knowledgeable. it should go without saying that these kinds of ad hominim personal attacks are not only completely against the culture of Wikipedia and its rules, but in this case simply rude and furthermore ridiculous. I'd suggest this anonymous user be nominated for a block. Tao2911 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reported 81.106.127.14. Lova Falk talk 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan's proposal. One point to be kept in mind: the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Hoverfish Talk 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Copied from User talk:Dazedbythebell#Sprituality

Hi Dazedbythebell. If I understand it correctly, hatnotes should only be placed at the top of an article? I didn't know; I've so often seen hatnotes at the top of a paragraph. I guess a proper way of using "important" links is by using them in the paragraphs themselves? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I like your recent changes to Spirituality, and wish you would do more. Hat-notes over sub-sections are meant to lead to "Main Articles" by the same heading, not "See Also" which is subjective and leading. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There are actually two types of section hatnotes, template:main and template:see also. What you're describing is the former, but there is nothing inherently wrong with a "see also" hatnote as long as the appropriate template is used. - SudoGhost 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case it does appear like like some of the "see also" templates appear too soon, just under the subheaders. I am not sure I understand how Dazedbythebell means "leading" but if he means "suggestive", I find they are so, being positioned in a place before the content of the section is read. Hoverfish Talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, what a lot of responses! Very happy to see so, after the turmoil of the last days. I'll work through the article again the coming days or weeks, trying to integrate the links into the main body of text or the "See also"-section. Greetings to all of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you here, Hoverfish. As I said, Joshua, I like your recent changes and think you are doing a good job. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the Spirituality discussion page. There are a couple of things I have in mind. By leading, I meant pointing the reader to articles that might be considered subjectively (to the point of view of the editor) vitally related, as opposed to objectively so. For instance another editor might find that particular 'See also' as not exactly the same thing in all contexts, or too exact to a particular point of view. So I mean subjective or bearing an opinion. One thing I think the article suffers from is that it can come off as anti-religious, to to bypass religion too quickly or dismissively, as if the religious use of the term is no longer in current use. This would not be so. Encarta defines spiritual as

• spir·i·tu·al adj
• 1. relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things
• 2. relating to religious or sacred things rather than worldly things
• 3. connected by an affinity of the mind, spirit, or temperament
• 4. showing great refinement and concern with the higher things in life

The Free Dictionary defines spiritual as:

• 1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
• 2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
• 3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
• 4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
• 5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural

These are not outmoded or outdated uses, but current. �The article would lead one to think these are not current usage. Certainly the mystical experiences of, for instance, Teresa of Avila are considered by the Church to be 'spiritual experiences.' I simply would love to see the article have as little bias one way or the other. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think all the 'See Also's can be incorporated better, as you suggested, and that they all are valuable in the bottom See Also list. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dazedbythebell. Thanks for your input. I agree, and some other users probably too, that the article has a 'modern-spirituality'-bias. I've already tried to balance this a little bit, by re-ordering the article, and giving a historic overview of the development of the use of the term "spirituality". The term seems to be hijacked at Wikipedia by 'universalists', who annexate everything related to spirituality. It's their good right to do so - in their private lifes. But at Wikipedia this sybcretism should be properly attributed.

As for adding more info on 'religion'm I've been thinking about this today, but I'm not a specialist on that. My expertise is especially on Zen and Asian traditions, and on western modern spirituality. But maybe I'll give it a try.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all you say here, and appreciate your attempt to make it less 'modern-spiritulity-bias' by working with the order. I also am not an expert on religious use of the concept of spirituality. I would love for someone who has a more historic background to flesh out the conventional usage near the top, prior to a good talk of its modern uses, and more universalist usage that it has taken on in parlance in contemporary culture. I am not personally up to the job, so simply appreciate all you do. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hanegraaf ("New Age Religion and Western Culture", 1996, p.97) makes an interesting distinction between "New Age sensu stricto" and "New Age Sensu lato". "New Age sensu stricto"(in a strict sense) originated in the 1950's as a group of people who expected a radical change of culture. "New Age Sensu lato" (in a wide sense) emerged in the later 1970's, "when increasing numbers of people [...] began to perceive a broad similarity between a wide variety of "alternative ideas" and pursuits, and started to think of them as part of one "movement"". This perceiving of similarities is a defining characteristic of New Age, modern spirituality and Nondualism. There is a nice, neat article on this predisposition: Parallelomania. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Spritzuality

This might be a proposal for a new policy WP:SPRITZ:

The term "spiritual" is now frequently used in contexts in which the term "religious" was formerly employed. Modern spirituality is also called "post-traditional spirituality" and "New Age spirituality".

Hanegraaf makes a distinction between "New Age sensu stricto" and "New Age Sensu lato". "New Age sensu stricto"(in a strict sense) originated in the 1950's as a group of people who expected a radical change of culture. "New Age Sensu lato" (in a wide sense) emerged in the later 1970's,

...when increasing numbers of people [...] began to perceive a broad similarity between a wide variety of "alternative ideas" and pursuits, and started to think of them as part of one "movement"".

This perception of similarities is a defining characteristic of New Age, modern spirituality and Nondualism.

The perception of such similarities may lead to an over-identification of spirituality in a wide range of topics, while not being accurately grounded in reliable sources, or not being properly attributed. Such over-identifications should be avoided.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

First I have to say I am impressed by the effort Joshua Jonathan is doing to expand and improve this article. The section on Christianity can be expanded later, as there are some significant names to be mentioned, like Ignatius of Loyola and Teresa of Ávila. For your above proposal, although I agree with what you wrote, I think that "should be avoided" is not a proper expression for Wikipedia unless it is attributed to some notable source. Hoverfish Talk 09:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This "proposal" probably won't be accepted anyway. See it as an "expression of thought". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Though, a source may be found within the "theology of religions", Paul F. Knitter, who distinguishes four responses to religious plurality: Replacement, Fulfillment, Mutuality, and Acceptance. Replacement and fulfillment see one religion as superior; mutuality and acceptance see a co-existence. Interfaith-dialogue may also provide sources; I remember Ton Lathouwers quoting Masao Abe, who stated "Religions are different!" Critical sociology might also be an option, c.q. Foucault and habermas. And post-modern philosophy, cq. Derrida and his stress on "difference". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Transformation - transmutation

I've changed the translation of the Dutch word "omvorming" again. diff. The Dutch word is "omvorming". It may be translated as "transformation" or as "reformation". "Transmutation" links to esotery. I'll ask Lova Falk - she's also Dutch - for her opinion on this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I greatly prefer transformation. In Wiktionary, transformation leads to transform, and Wiktionary:transform says (amongst others) "to change the nature, condition or function of". Personally, I find the wikilink to alchemy too far-fetched. But if I read this text again, as far as I can see, "zij" refers to "hervorming" that you previously correctly translated as reformation, and therefore I think that your original translation, in which you copied the word reformation, was the best. Lova Falk talk 07:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer transformation. Transmutation connects to "mutate" and therefore some physical alteration. A change in "form" is more proper for spiritual progress IMO. Hoverfish Talk 09:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note. Thanks for the feedback! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Spirituality and positive mental health outcomes

I'm a big believer that spirituality does wonders for our health and overall well-being. I found another study that attests to the positive effects of spirituality to our health and I've added the information here.Matipop (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Saucier-definition in lead

I've moved the saucier-definition of spirituality from the lead to the definitions-section, to keep the lead short; and also because hundreds of such definitions can be found, which makes the choice of this one arbitary; and because the term "transcendental" does not cover all traditions (in concreto, Buddhism). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested lede change

That the word refers to the breath, and that that was taken to be an essence of living beings and by extension "spirits" can and shouuld I think make it into the lede if properly composed. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ordinary, mundane reason and secular

I've replaced the link from "ordinary" to "mundane reason" by a link to "secular". "Mundane reason" is about the assumption of factuality of the ordinary, not about "the ordinary itself". "Secular" fits better, though not very well either. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Word Origin

The beginning of the article states: "The term "spirituality" is derived from the Latin spiritualitas and the Biblical "roeach/pneuma".... What!? "spirituality" and "spiritualitas" are practically the same word; there's a clear derivation. Roeach/Pneuma!?!? There needs to be evidence that the term "spirituality" is somehow derived from those words. 98.176.94.115 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

See false cognate. Just because two words seem alike doesn't mean they are, and vice-versa. If you think our article can be improved, please improve it! Read WP:BOLD.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Etymology" section now reads: The term "spirituality" derives from the Latin spiritualitas, meaning to be put in motion, to be a living person, and being driven. That's not accurate. I can't check the reference (Waajman, 2000) because it's not available online, and in any case it's in Dutch. But whether or not there's any validity to Waajman's etymology as reported, it's clear that it's not the standard etymology. This article should use the standard etymology, as referenced in many sources, not a non-standard one.

I'll fix it to reference the standard etymology. I have not included a reference, because this is the standard etymology. There are many references, and they all generally agree. If anyone thinks a reference is needed in the article, here are a few:

• http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=spirituality&searchmode=none,
• http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spiritual&allowed_in_frame=0,
• http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spirit&allowed_in_frame=0, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spiritual?show=0&t=1371905138,
• http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spiritalitas#Latin,
• http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/spirit.

If anyone wants to add back the reference to the Waajman etymology, the standard etymology should be retained, and the Waajman etymology it should be referred to as an alternate etymology. If it's restored, the wording needs to be adjusted anyway: "spiritualitas" is a noun, and "to be put in motion..." is a verb form, and can't be used to define a noun.

Omc (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan: I see that you've revised the Etymology section to include a more complete etymology. Glad to see that you agree with my deletion of the Waajman reference, which seems bogus to me, at least the part about "to be put in motion...". Omc (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Omc. I don't think Waaijman is bogus; he's a highly respected scholar in the Netherlands and Flanders. Anyway, the etymology-section impoved thanks to your input. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what the Waajman reference actually said. I don't have the book, it's not online, and I don't read Dutch. I don't mean to say necessarily that Waajman is bogus; maybe it was misrepresented when transferring it to the Wikipedia article. (I didn't check the article history to see who made that edit.) But in any case it's clear that the Waajman etymology, at least as reported in the Wikipedia article, is very different from the standard etymology. So if it's not bogus, then it's at least incorrect, I think. But I don't mean to belabor the issue, or be argumentative. Omc (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern spirituality and Sikhism

Please try to develop some sensitivity to the structure of the article:

1. The section Spirituality#Development of the meaning of spirituality refers several times to modern spirituality as the developments of the last two centuries. The section Spirituality#Modern spirituality even more specific refers to "Modern spirituality" as the post-war developments, as New Age and secularisation. Putting Sikhism under the header of Spirituality#Modern spirituality is quite out of place; it fits better under Asian traditions. Only modern developments in Sikhism (secularisation? Scepticism?) would fit under the section Spirituality#Modern spirituality.
2. Regarding the timeframe of modernity: the Early modern period article says:

the timeframe spans the period after the late portion of the Middle Ages (c. 1500) through the beginning of the Age of Revolutions (c. 1800) and is variously demarcated by historians as beginning with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, with the Renaissance or the Age of Discovery and ending with the French Revolution in 1789. From a global standpoint, the most important feature of the early modern period was its globalizing character — it witnessed the exploration and colonization of the Americas and the rise of sustained contacts between previously isolated parts of the globe.

There is no cleare limit. Yet, this description takes Europe as its primary focus, and points to globalisation as one ot its main constituents. For India, "modernisation" starts with the onset of the British Raj, around 1850. So please be careful with the way you characterise and periodise Sikhism, and accustomise yourself with the notion of "modernity".

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi!,

First lets clear up the defination of Modern objectively before we go on to the structure

MODERN

Adjective

Of or relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past.

Sikhism developed in the early modern period (15th century to 18th century) and it is the newest of major religions, the second last being Islam in the 7th century.

Noun

A person who advocates or practices a departure from traditional styles or values.

Guru Nanak did exactly this he traveled the Asian subcontinent teaching people to stop their traditional ritualism which had lost its meaning.

I would like to argue on two points, one Sikhism is a modern religion because its was developed in the Early modern period.

Secondly Sikhism is a modern religion because of its modern teachings.

Modern does not necessary mean colonization nor do any of the sections in the modern spirituality reference colonization, the modern period is just the period between the late middle ages (c. 1300–1500) and age of revolution (c. 1775 to 1848) which is exactly when sikhism developed starting with Guru Nanaks birth in the late 15th century to the appointment of Guru Granth Sahib in 1708.

Secondly Sikhism is considered a contemporary religion because of its modern ideas and modern teachings which include a modern scientific outlook on the universe, evolution, and quantum mechanics.

Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

We didn't reach concensus yet, did we? See WP:CONCENSUS And please provide sources; Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on untraceable quotes. See WP:RS It's not clear what is from a source, let alone if it is reliable, and what is your personal conclusion. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I posted it originally in Modern so why did you change it without consensus and which sources are you talking about being untraceable? I can provide you 1000 others because I'm arguing wide known undeniable core objective facts, thanks. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both sides here:

1. The term modern is ambiguous here. Perhaps we are speaking of religious vs. non-religious approaches, or even postmodern spirituality. In any case, this needs rephrasing.
2. Sikhism is more appropriately classified with the other religious orientations, however.

I suggest we change the title of the section to better fit the topic at hand, and then restore the original classification sequence. hgilbert (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hgilbert here. Obviously the term "modern" when dealing with South Asian spiritual issues refers to a different time span than when dealing with Western spiritual issues. The difference in use has to be cleared out for any reader before mixing issues of both cultures in a common section. But this may need a lot of explanations that may diverge from the issue at hand. This is why I find it preferable to explain Sikhism within the content of South Asian religious orientations. If both issues must be treated in the same section, please try to avoid the word modern in the title if possible. Jujhar.pannu, I do not see any disagreement in objective facts, but only in the use of the term "modern", which can be very subjective, as it turns out. Hoverfish Talk 22:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The term Early modern period is not subjective. It is the best place to put it currently as the Sikh Spirituality doesn't fit under the traditional spirituality section nor does it fit under the African spirituality section. The 10 Sikh Gurus developed Sikhism in this period nearly perfectly in this period from the start in the 15th century to the appointment of Guru Granth Sahib in 18th century. So adding this section solves the classification problem. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Modern" as used in "Modern spirituality" applies to the period after 1800, as I've pointed out before. So following your own line of reasoning, Sikhism does not fit in this section, since you place it in the "early modern period", between 1500 and 1800.

Apart from that, the "Modern spirituality" section describes developments after 1800, resulting from globalisation and the interplay between western and Asian cultures. I guess Sikhism has also been influenced by western thought, as is Hinduism (or at least neo-Vedanta). Those are the developments that fit here. Did Sikhism take over western thought? Or respond to it with a 'Grand Narrative' like neo-Vedanta?

Regarding "subjective": are you aware that "modernisation" is a major research topic in sociology and history? There is abundant literature on it. It's not a simple matter of demarcation by years, but by developments. To place Sikhism under this heading shows a misunderstanding of the terminology.

I believe right away that Sikhism is kind of "modern", c.q. new, in the Indian context. Yet, as far as I know (that's very little, regarding Sikhism), it's an "amalgam" (I might be phrasing it wrong here) of elements from both Hindu and Islamitic cultures. The time of Islamic rule was not a time of modernisation, e.g. industrialisation etc.

Regarding a change of title: in the section "Development of the meaning of spirituality" th terms have been explained already.

As for placing Sikhism again under the header of "Early modern period":

• You're out of line here; concencus so far is clear about placing Sikhism under the asian traditions;
• The subsection on Sikhism contains no clue why Sikhism is to be considered modern;
• The source for the sentence with "early modern period" was given incorrect, and is untraceable on the web. Please provide some of the "1000 sources" you've got at your hand.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

""Modern" as used in "Modern spirituality" applies to the period after 1800" refers only to the Development of the meaning of spirituality

Based on what your wrote it shows that you know very little about Sikhism or Punjab or Punjabi. Sufism borrows elements from Islam, Greek, Hebrew, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhists. Sufis eventually came to Punjab and they were the first to speak Punjabi. This Punjabi language is what was common in the area where Guru Nanak grew up in.

Your going back to previous problems. How about "Religions in the early modern period" instead of just "early modern period" ?

Jujhar.pannu

The section on the "Development of the meaning of spirituality" contains a clear periodisation, in which "modern spirituality" is spirituality after 1800, when the British colonialisation resulted in a growing awareness of and interets in by westerners of Asian religions.

I saw in the edit-summary that you didn't place a point. Doing so made the comment clearer. Your proposal "Religions in the early modern period" makes sense an sich, but would better suite in an article on religion. Still, the relevant question would be: how has Sikhism responded to the modern period? Here are some suggestions for literature on Sikhism and modernity:

• Fundamentalism, Modernity And Sikhism: A Tertium Quid
• Sikh Nationalism and Identity In A Global Age: Giorgio Shani
• Kamala Elizabth Nayar: The Sikh Diaspora

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough that makes sense, 'Religions in the early modern' period does not fit. I would leave the early modern period reference there in the first section, ie removing the citation needed, as if something happens in 1493 for example it automatically happens in the 15th century and if something happens from the 15th century to the 18th century you can say it took up the early modern period.. my logic. What other names have you for that period? If early modern truly does not fit, im 90% sure it does though but rather.. Should we write '15th century to 18th century' instead of 'early modern period' in the first line where it says citation needed?, Thanks Jujhar.pannu (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See Template:Periodisation of Indian History. Basically two kinds of periodisation seem to be applied to Indian history; it depends on the periodisation whether Sikhism is placed in the "Islamic period" or the "Early modern period". But given the quote (from Sikhism) " "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim" (in Punjabi, "nā kōi hindū nā kōi musalmān")", "Islamic period" seems to fit better. So I'd say, keepe the link to early modern period - but also the source-tag, and provide sources! See it as a challenge: what sources can you find?

Same for Sikhism in the modern period (after 1800): how has it responded to the western world? Hinduism, or neo-Vedanta, is so massively influential: where is the Sikh-story?

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sikhism

"Let's take it to the Talk Page"...

• Sikh religion c.q. Sikh Dharma - how about "Sikh religion, also called Sikh Dharma"? Eventually a note could be added claryfying the significance of the word "dharma" instead of "religion", including links to relevant articles at Wikipedia;
• Waheguru: mention this in a note; no need to remove it;
• Lead: no need for this re-insertion.

Jujhar.pannu, you already have a remarkable track-record; I think that the "burden of evidence" is at your side. Please use the Talk Page, and first propose the changes you want to make. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This sentence was removed from the lead:

Guru Nanak traveled across continents to tell people the message of one God that dwells within every one of God's creatures[55] and constitutes the eternal Truth.[56] Guru Nanak stressed that God must be seen with 'the inward eye', or the 'heart', of a human being.[57]

Also Waheguru is unnecessary being added to a sentence in the body:

• Waheguru has nothing to do with the reference which clearly says remember god 24 hours of the day.

The reason I see that this sentence was removed was because SH does not seem to agree with the concept of Ram, (Rameshiya) one who pervades everything, but rather insists that God only dwells in humans, which is totally against whats written in the Guru Granth Sahib, the primary source of Sikh teachings and spirituality.

My only purposed change is this: 1. Include somewhere that Sikhs believe in one god who dwells within every creature, (rather than God being in Heaven or some separate force) Jujhar.pannu (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many many direct references in the Guru Granth Sahib that support that God dwells in every being and there are no direct references in the Guru Granth Sahib that say only God dwells in humans. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not presume to know what I am thinking or what I do or do not agree with. The Sikh view on on this is very clear. It see's human life as being the most precious. It states that Akal permeates through all but is ONLY conciously realised in the human form. This is exactly the same idea the George Lucas used in describing "The Force", in his Star Wars films (although he will deny it).

Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl, Second House: The herdsman comes to the pasture lands-what good are his ostentatious displays here? When your allotted time is up, you must go. Take care of your real hearth and home. O mind, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and serve the True Guru with love. Why do you take pride in trivial matters? Pause Like an overnight guest, you shall arise and depart in the morning. Why are you so attached to your household? It is all like flowers in the garden. Why do you say, "Mine, mine?" Look to God, who has given it to you. It is certain that you must arise and depart, and leave behind your hundreds of thousands and millions. Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life. O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near!

Page 50 Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji

It even describes plants (in a metaphor for those who are good being treated badly) as feeling pain.Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji :

First Mehl: Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles, and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed. What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out. And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below. Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!

Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji

The reference "Philpott, Chris (2011). Green Spirituality: One Answer to Global Environmental Problems and World Poverty. AuthorHouse. ISBN 9781467005289" is dubious to say the least and normally I would normally would WP:AGF, but in this instance given your track record in regards to WP:Competence I must insist on you posting the actual quote from the book here. Thanks SH 07:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Another point to note. I have done a "google reference search", the method Jujhar.pannu uses to find references, and these were the results. This method is not recommended by Wikipedian to be used incidently and is why I question Jujhar.pannu's WP:Competence. Anyone can be a google scholar, but it's reading, digesting and understanding information that is they key to making meaningful contributions to wikipedia. Thanks SH 07:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can edit on wikipedia they do not need to be a scholar as long as they follow rules they have the right to edit. If there are that many factual references supporting what I am saying why do you still remove it? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:Competence. That means that people have to have a basic level of understanding before they can edit. I've simply introduced better references and improved the flow of what was a bit of a "joke" section on Sikh Spirituality. If you feel you can improve on that, by all means continue, but I have tried to capture what was very clumslely intimated before in a logical and coherent manner. Thanks SH 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense to write an article of Sikh spirituality and not include meditation or the remembrance of God which is the focal point of the Guru Granth Sahib's teachings. Just because the human life is capable of having union with god (*which is not mentioned in this article but should be*), doesn't mean that God's light is not within the other creatures of the earth. Please read the WP:Competence to see that I do not violate any of those points... I am presenting factual, reliable, in a unbiased view. In the technical sense, I also have many years in programming and coding so I know how to use Wikipedia. Please stop removing referenced content it will lead to a block. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Point 1 - Wikipedia is not a computer programme. It's an encyclopedia.

Point 2 - You are using references, but whether they are WP:Reliable and being used in the correct context is debateable. That's why I raised the WP:Competence issue. I personally thing you are good at finding references but not good at using them in context. You're a classic "google reference" searcher.

Point 3 - On the question of God's light, it's mentioned that Akal Purakh permeates through all existence. Creatures is too much a narrow term and does not include plant's or rocks. All these are subject to Hukam. Also, the concept of the Gurmukh is clearly mentioned and the means of achieving this.The so called God willed.

Point 4 - Maybe your understanding of English, Grammar and advanced philisophical concepts is not that good, but part of Piri and Bhakti is Spiritual meditation. The other side is Temporal. Although the means of achieving this have been given an overview, the general principles are very clear in the article.

If you're having trouble understanding the quotations or philisophical and spiritual concepts in Sikhism, I am happy to help. Thanks SH 18:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm in no position to judge about the finesses of sikhism, but I can judge a little bit the edit-behaviour of fellow-editors. The comment "Please stop removing referenced content it will lead to a block" is not exactly convincing. Referenced content also has to have a useful place in an article; and disruptive editing is not 'following the rules'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should then say something like Sikhs believe in one God who dwells within God's creation? (Akal Purkak) Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That statement would be misleading, because that is not Sikh belief. Ok let me make this very simple. The word Akal literall mean timeless or time without end. Now time permeates everything. None of us can avoid it. Animals are subject to it, Rocks are subject to it, Plants are subject to it and finally humans are subject to it.....BUT there is only one species on this planet capable of the realisation that it is time that ages people, time is the constant of the Universe etc etc. That in a nutshell is the concept of Akal the Timeless and it's relationship with life. That is why when we say we say we see God in Sikhism we say we see it in terms of the human form, the so called God realised, or Gurmukh. The self willed or Manmukhs may as well be like the animal, rock or plant!!They think Akal will never touch them or even that it exists. Like the Manmukh the plant, rock and animal will never realise that it is time that is aging them. When we say God dwell's in all creation, that is a Vashnavite belief, and that is why they worship animals. Thanks SH 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I meant Karta Purkh not Akal Purkh. It still makes no sense to write an article of Sikh spirituality and not include meditation or the remembrance of God which is the focal point of the Guru Granth Sahib's teachings. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I go back to the point about "birha" and the Gurmukh. Anyone wishing to know how to achieve the state of a Gurmukh will read about birha, as well as the methods used. We don't need to go into the actual techniques but rather the general principles like the sections on the other religions. On Kartha Purakh , I don't quite understand what you mean. Karta Purakh is something that is "self existent", i.e. there was nothing else that created it. Thanks SH 07:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Kartapurk means God is within his creation.

The article needs to be atleast 50% about God, the remembering of God, how a human can merge with God, all that spirtual stuff, eh? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Karta Purakh - we've covered that in the line "Guru Nanak talks further about the concept of one God or Akal that permeate's throughout all life". The second point you've made is covered under Gurmukh. I thought I explained this above? Are you having trouble with some of the complex words? 100% of the article is about God. Thanks SH 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, You did a good job removing the non spiritual stuff and I think it does match more with the others sections now but still maybe we can add something about dasam dwaar too and also how the ego interferes with spirits union with God.

Since we discussed the Karta Purak part is there still a need for it to be dubious from the "Guru Nanak talks further about the concept of one God or Akal that permeate's throughout all life." line, Thanks

Look we could easily make this article over long and talk about the 5 thieves and 5 virtues etc etc, but I deliberately left that out, not to overcomplicate the entire article. Otherwise there is no flow. The centrality of the article should concerntrate on ideas around Spirituality, relationship with Temporality. I think that is captured. Thanks SH 18:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You must include all this stuff you need to prioritize, Sikhs are saints first then soldiers. There also needs to be a mention of Guru Granth Sahib. You can omit or shorten the other stuff but someone must describe these concepts. Maybe you can write it in a way that it just briefly introduces them and then if the reader is interested they can click it? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't mean to be offensive, but I really do think you have a problem with understanding English and Grammar at a more advanced level. Those concepts you mentioned ARE there. Read it.Do not put the article in a chronological order because it is not a historical one. It talks about spiritual concepts. The order is:

1. Spiritual Concepts in Sikhism - Spirituality and living in the Temporal World.
2. Spiritual Concepts developed - Miri Piri
3. Spiritual Concepts and defined - the Sikh Soldier.
4. Spirituality - How to achieve it - Gurmukh states of bliss - birha
5. Other concepts.

That is the flow. What you are doing is jumbling it into a bit os a mess. Thanks SH 11:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Hi Fellow editors, I was readin a paper on the "Oxford Group" who were the forerunner to Alcoholics Anonymous. Apparaentlty they developed a Spiritual Programme based on Eastern Spirituality, that AA have now adopted. Is it worth putting in a section under that? Thanks SH 08:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible Definition of Spirituality

Spirituality is an explanation (usually based on unfounded postulate and emotion) of the truth of consciousness. An example of this is bob views his fridge as god, this is because his fridge provides food and drinks when even he's in need. In this example the idea of the fridge (a finite space with an eventual point of failure) providing his needs indefinitely is spirituality. Spirituality can be found in religion, science, theology, fiction, non-fiction, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.23.75 (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Spirituality and Hinduism

The article has issues of balance and undue emphasis. Of particular concern is Spirituality and Hinduism. The current article focuses on the tantric school, which is a minority school. Check the cited sources to verify. For example, Gavin Flood (1996) mentions Sadhana as the name for spiritual practice on page 160, but Flood also mentions that tantric school is a recent phenomena with origins in 6th to 8th century AD on page 158.

It is widely accepted that contemporary Hinduism is a philosophy that is several millennia old, as evidenced by the Vedas, Upanishads, Epics, Gita and other scriptures. All of these predate the Tantric school (see Gavin Flood again, pages 12 through 152; or any major review/encyclopedia on Hinduism). It is also widely accepted that yoga predates tantric school, as is the fact that tantric school has made important contributions to yoga.

The Hinduism section needs a rewrite. The tantric school needs to be mentioned, but the emphasis needs to reflect spirituality in majority schools of contemporary Hinduism - what spirituality means to them, their three paths to spirituality, and a balanced presentation of the majority view along with a mention of minority tantric school. This can be done in a section that is similar in size to spirituality in other religions.

I am willing to edit it, add reliable sources to any content I contribute. However, if someone is already planning to do so, or has objections to the above comments, please let me know. It will save me unnecessary effort. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark.muesse. I'd say, go ahead! Just a few remarks:

• It's not clear to me what you mean with "The current article focuses on the tantric school". Where is it mentioend in the Hindu-section?
• "It is widely accepted that contemporary Hinduism is a philosophy that is several millennia old, as evidenced by the Vedas, Upanishads, Epics, Gita and other scriptures" - this is widely accepted by Hindus, but not by scholars. "Hinduism" is not the same as the Historical Vedic religion. What we call "Hinduism" took it's shape after the rise of Jainism and Buddhism. The present-day popular understanding of "Hinduism" is dominated by Neo-Vedanta, which is influenced by western Orientalism, the Unitarian Church and the Transcendentalists.

This being said: succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Joshua, Please see page 160 of Gavin Flood (1996). This is where we find the paragraph with persuasive support for sadhana as spiritual practice. That paragraph is part of a section that starts on page 158 in Flood (1996). The section is titled 'The tantric revelation'. Similarly, the first quote is from Bhattacharyya (1999), a publication on history of tantric religion. The content summarized in this article are from two tantric school references. In other words, the Hinduism section relies on explaining spirituality in Hinduism from tantric school references, but does not mention tantric school. The former causes undue emphasis to one school, the latter completeness and balance issues. I accept your invitation to contribute. Anything I add will include reliable scholarly references. This may take a few days, as I am busy these days. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

True and false paths

An editor has removed a citation under "Modern sprituality"[6] without explanation, which he is invited to place here, free from undue pov on that editor's part. Qexigator (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You put Steiner under "Further reading". Totally WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientific research

Could the same editor's removal of relevant content under "Scientific research"[7] in the name of unspecified "Undue" perhaps due more to pov? He is invited to explain here. Qexigator (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Qexigator. You added the following:

"While in the early part of the twentieth century, attention was called to the problem of true and false paths of spiritual investigation (Steiner) the present century has seen the publication of such academic works as Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think.(Ecklund) The 14th Dalai Lama has proposed that if a scientific analysis conclusively showed certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then the claims must be abandoned and the findings of science accepted.(Dalai Lama)"

It reads like an essay. Steiner is one of thousands of primary sources; what makes him relevant here, according to which secondary source? Same for the Dalai Lama. And regarding Ecklund: why should this specific publication be mentioned here?

What's more: what's the link between Steiner, Ecklund and the Dalai Lama,a ccording to who? You are merely suggesting a connection, without an explication, or giving a source which makes this connection. Which makes it close to WP:OR.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, now at least we can discuss. Replying to your points in turn: 1_It reads like an essay - Your problem in the context is not understood: what rewording would you propose to de-essayify to your satisfaction? 2_ what makes Steiner relevant here...? - Have you read the article? Are you unaware of Steiner's publications, particularly on science and epistemology? Your problem not understood. Are you averse to the historical perspective, from that century to this? 3_ditto Dalai Lama. 4_ what's the link between Steiner, Ecklund and the Dalai Lama?. - Your problem not understood. Given the existing content of the article, this information cannot be dismissed as anecdotal. The article begins "The term "spirituality" lacks a definitive definition" and then mentions a pov proposed by "social scientists", but that cannot be taken as prescriptive for this topic or the article content: the sections on 'Contemporary spirituality' and 'Science' make some attempt to let readers see the nature of the problem concerning scientific methods of inquiry and the intangibilities of 'spirituality' of various kinds, which, from the start, lacks a definitive definition. Please note that the links are available for readers to see for themselves. The article would not be improved by excluding this information. Perhaps your point is about the manner of presenting the information, such as whether it would be better placed under another heading? Qexigator (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the content itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of passing-by references to some books. What makes you think that these specific books need to be mentioned? To be more specific, which secondary source states that these books are specifically relevant? Regarding the The "pov proposed by "social scientists"": this is based on WP:RS.

Let's further examine your paragraph:

"While in the early part of the twentieth century, attention was called to the problem of true and false paths of spiritual investigation (Steiner)" [so what's the specific relevance of Steiner?] [what's the connection with the next aprt? Is there a contradiction? A logical development?] "the present century has seen the publication of such academic works as Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think.(Ecklund)" [Why this specific publication? And what's the relevance in connection with the Steiner-publication? This is anecdotical] "The 14th Dalai Lama has proposed that if a scientific analysis conclusively showed certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then the claims must be abandoned and the findings of science accepted.(Dalai Lama)" [So? What does this have to do with Steiner and Ecklund?]

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've copy-edited your addition, but removed Steiner, being a primary source, the relevance of which is not being made clear by either the context or a relevant secondary source. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Steiner is not "irrelevant" to the topic, and would be worth mentioning in an encyclpedic article such as this. I do not see what WP:RS has to do with my reply above, but let that pass. Qexigator (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at the boxes at the bottom of the page. Several hundreds of links. I've added Anthroposophy to the spirituality box. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and of course Anthroposophy, with Steiner as founder, is already mentioned under 'Development of the meaning of spirituality'. But 'Belief systems' is hardly more than a puff for a contemporary academic specialising in ethics, Wiktionary is tautolgous, and the boxed list is oddly eclectic: in that medley, why not throw in Theosophy or Rationalism or Deism or Atheism or Behaviourism or Scientism, to name a few? Inquiring readers could well find World view[8] more to the point. Then again, Foundations of scientific worldview, Nature/Basic statements[9], or maybe 'List of philosophies'[10]. True and false paths? Well, let enough be enough. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well,two more comments. Steiner is being mentioned in the article. And may be the "Deevelopment" section should also say something about analagous meanings, namely spiritualism and esotericism, the search for knowledge of "hidden" or "spiritual" dimensions. Maybe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you had not been aware that, for reasons touched on in my remarks above concerning revising for the improvement of the article, and already well enough known to those who have inquired into the topic - including attentive readers of Steiner-connected articles in Wikipedia - among "Important early 20th century western writers who studied the phenomenon of spirituality, and their works" there are numerous published works of Steiner, including those on Goethe, James and many other philosophers and "esotericists", ancient and modern, which are at least as well founded in epistemology and the problems of scientific method as any of the other writers mentioned under 'Theosophy, Anthroposophy, and the Perennial Philosophy'. See for instance McDermott's article[11], Whereas James emphasizes the surprising and idiosyncratic character of religious experiences, Steiner focuses on many additional ways by which religious and spiritual experience can be rendered more intelligible. You may know all this, but if not, a google websearch may help. Qexigator (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I've just printed the article, and will read it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correct, the point you're touching with Stiener is: what is spirituality, and what are true and false paths to it? Maybe it's comparable with the fundamental discussion in Zen Buddhism: is kensho the essence of Buddhism, or is it jaust one stop at the "ultimate" goal of compassion? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You may be right about certain aspects of Buddhist teaching or path. Steiner has also discussed, among much else, Buddhism, Krishna, Zoroaster, the Old and New Testaments (Jewish/Christian). Given "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spirituality article", shall we leave at that? Qexigator (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Definition

I understand it's tempting to try to "force" a "definition", but really, it's not an improvement: the term does lack a precise definition. just accept it, and leave it this way. Koenig is an authority on this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Spirituality/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs more reference citations. John Carter 20:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)