[Buddha-l] neuroscience: neural plasticity

[Richard Hayes]

On Wednesday 30 May 2007 16:21, Michael Paris wrote:

> I've never understood what "spiritual" means

Thank heavens I'm not the only one! A few weeks ago I heard an explanation 
that helped me get a better handle on how people are now using the word. The 
explanation was essentially along the lines of "Spirituality si, religion 
no." That is, spirituality is all the good stuff (meditation, loving thy 
neighbor--even if he is a Texan--, beating swords into ploughshares etc) and 
religion is all the bad stuff (institutions, offices, dogmas, catechisms, 
fund-raising drives, bingo, inquisitions, crusades, flying airplanes into 
tall buildings in New York, keeping women out of power etc)

> Seems easy to use "spiritual" as a tool of judgment, i.e., spiritual =
> good, or at least better than average, and certainly much better than
> non-spiritual. 

I think the term "spiritual" has always been used as a term to express 
approval. More than mere approval, it connotes radical superiority over those 
things that others may value but that one personally finds distasteful or 
threatening. As I understand it, "spirituality" was first used by Christians 
to trump "mere philosophy". Hell's bells, ANYBODY can be rational, but it 
takes a Mensch, aided by divine grace, to be spiritual.

> So, why not study meditation to learn how it could help people in need?

Careful, Monsieur Paris! Study comes dangerously close to mere knowledge, 
which is always trumped by gnosis, the special purview of spirituality.

> Speaking of spiritual materialism, the flip side might well be
> spiritual snobbery, something _all_ religions have in abundance.

As I understand the term "spiritual materialism,"  precisely what it connotes 
is worldly lusts masquerading as spirituality. Trumping someone else's 
achievements by referring to one's own is worldly and hence essentially 
materialistic. Snobbery about one's own path is therefore exactly what 
spiritual materialism consists in. But wait a minute. The essence of 
spirituality is trumping what one disdains. So I guess spiritual materialism 
is the only spiritualism in town.

> Or perhaps I've misunderstand you. If so, apologies in advance.

No need to apologize to people who can't make themselves understood. It's 
entirely their fault. Not being able to make oneself understood is, of 
course, one of the hallmarks of spirituality.

-- 
Richard P. Hayes (the P stands for Pneumismatist)
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes