Talk:Spiritual practice

Hi, I think we should remove the 2 externals links which are not relevant because they are pointing on some obscur organizations. What do you think ?

Hi, actually I've only started the article, and, sorry, for first saving it with many-many mistakes...

As for mentioned links -- the one http://swami-center.org/en/text/Practices.html#Toc2 I've added personally, 'cause of personal examination of the content both intellectually and practically ;-).

Another one wasn't investigated yet, that's why I prefer not to delete it "just because" before studying...

The same is with every other materials, 'cause my field of interests is situated unfortunately exactly where the most "thin ice" is...

Anyway any more detailed argument about mentioned links has to be taken into account.

Anatoliy Kostrzhytskyy 15:36, 3 November 2006 (CST)

Hi Anatoliy, i am Raphaël(>not an expert<),

First I would like to say that I am quite impressed by the article that you are writing theses days.

Also, I have some points to mention to you :

1. "Spiritual practices meet same effect. The only problem, that spiritual practices (especially psychoenergetic ones) deal with systems organ-function which are impossible to monitor or result which is hard to measure on the material plane(in physical world) using correspondent instrument. It’s because of immaterial nature of any esoteric practices"

I think we should say any spiritual practices or we should includ the exoteric paractices.

2. We might add the fast in the christian spiritual practices

3. Your plan to present some specific methods should be included in an other entry of CZ under their names.

4. I gonna study the two links and deliver you my opinion

Please do not hesitate to ask any further question if my points are not clear

--Raphaël Walther 07:37, 4 November 2006 (CST)

Peace to You, Raphaël!

Thanks for your kind appreciation of my work! Actually I've started not from the correct point. From the very beggining it seems to be rather to create good complete structure of the article than try to completely feel any chapter , and only than proceed with content. That's why I'd propose soon for kondsideration recompiled complete TOC, than I'll be happy to see Your edits at this page.

1. Here, I think, little bit more complicated point: when we speak about thin (immaterial energetic structures of human being the analogy with physical training of system organ-function is complete. It's also similar, when we deal with intellect development (e.g. solving different intellectual tasks). But what's about etics? It's a substantial part of great majority of practices (exoteric ones)... But here are again problems -- there is hard to find absolutely clear boundary between exo and esoterics... From the other point of view You could be completely right if we'll define spiritual practice as a matter of spirit (soul, consciousness) work around own perfection... It seems to be good idea, we'll just need to rewrite completely last clause.

2. OK, agree, this chapter seems to be not very good.

3. Yes and no. I've really planned to present in the body of article the concept called "Straight path", just because inside every step of it we'll link to the practices from the many different traditions. You're right, this article should be more comfortable set as an individual one. As well I think that we can insert common methods of different practices inside 1.4.

4. Thanks!

Thanks again, and please also, feel free to receive more details from me on any points.

Anatoliy Kostrzhytskyy 09:28, 4 November 2006 (CST)

The concept of "spiritual practice"

I am nothing like an expert about whatever might go under the title "spiritual practices," although I have taught philosophy of religion before. I do want to ask an important question, and maybe I'll simply learn something as a result!

I have never seen the phrase "spiritual practice" used as a catch-all term used by scholars of religion for a phenomenon found in many different religions. But it seems to me that if you are going to have a well-defined topic for an article, you do need to use some term that is used as a label by scholars of many world religions. Can you provide some evidence, or merely some assurance (if you are an editor), that the term is used by scholars of religion as that sort of term to describe a general, cross-religion phenomenon?

It seems to me there are many concepts that are shared by many religions, in this same general space. For example, "mysticism," "mystical experience," "rite," "worship," etc. These are all concepts that are used for many different religions by scholars of religion. But there are many other phrases that you could come up with in English that do not clearly name a concept that is employed for many different religions by scholars of religion. For example, "mystical rite," "numinous practice," etc. So, to explain again what I mean, I'm worried that you are defining an uncommon and largely "made-up" concept in the latter sense. One can find a sense for all such phrases, but we won't agree on what sense to give it, because the phrase is not in common use in English.

I really have no idea, but perhaps, you are translating a word that is used by Russian scholars of religion. Of course, again, I could simply be ignorant of the area. I also wonder whether "worship" or "rite" is a more common English term for what you are after. It's also possible (again, I may simply be showing my ignorance) that you are using a term used especially in one specific religion for part of its religious practices--namely, Hinduism--and then finding similarities between those practices and practices of other religions.

Anyway, I hope that we can get some (other) religion editors involved here.

Finally, as a separate point, I'd like to point out that the "Stages" listed could not possibly be a neutral statement of what "spiritual practices" under any common understanding of the term could involve.

--Larry Sanger 11:20, 4 November 2006 (CST)

Peace to You, Larry!

You're right with point, that spiritual practices or spiritual exersise is not a cross-religion term (is not used by adherents of religion) widely. It's also not a matter of translation from Russian. Yeah, You're right again, that known origin of term is from Hinduism. But it's definitely not a part of religious practice of it. On the whole the term could be treated similar to religion(yoga). So, worship or rite are for shure not a case... Actually we can call them examples of forms of spiritual practices'.

As a term which is not in common use in English I can say only, that after starting with SZ I've just found on the CZ:High priority articles for pilot all positions I can define myself to be competent enough and I've started with very difficult article spiritual practice when found it's completely poor comparing to the others as well as it is right in the field of my interests and knowledge. Moreover exactly this term(both in Russian and in English) is used in the methodology of scientific school I deeply investigate. I'd prefer to start from less general article, but it's not in list :)

I'm not making an excuse ;).

Actually good clear definition of this term is still #1 problem (hundreds of sources has been searched for a moment), but I hope to solve it soon. The scope and meaning of the term have to become much more clear than.

As for "Stages", completely agree, it's neccesary to mark this point as view of contemporary scientific approach to spirituality (religion) and Theology, proposed by Dr.Vladimir Antonov.

Anatoliy Kostrzhytskyy 17:48, 4 November 2006 (CST)

P.S. Please, forgive my yet non-academic English, 'cause it's was big enough pause in scientific writings, and I hope to improve it quickly.

P.P.S. Please, also, feel free to point my attention at any violations of rules/etics of CZ as much as possible, to let me quickly stay correct here. You can simply drop any link following the highlited text where my problem is. Thanks in advance!

Step back

Dear friends, sorry for such a shame result for a moment. After verification of article by some experts in the field they were astonished with both horrible quality of my English as well as with principal deformation of the subject's sense. I've copied back the most current WP article for now. I'm sorry for stupid hurrying with writing which led me to so bad result. Hope to correct this mistake.

--Anatoliy Kostrzhytskyy 15:11, 6 November 2006 (CST)