The point though, is that there is a recognizable effect someone can point to and which reliably demonstrates a quality (heat) or thing (vibrating atoms). There is some kind of mutually accessible experience which offers a definition. If there isn't a shared experience, it's impossible to relate, isn 't it? This is the point to describing the physical experience/result; not in suggesting a seperation of the spiritual and physical, but in finding commonality with which to help verify something about the effect/affector.
Je ne sais pas; c'est la vie.
Here's to shared understanding and positive individual growth for the sake of all.
All my best,
I agree. Such is my training. Funny thing is though I can get someone to do something physically and get them to do something spiritually and spot the difference. They have recognizable effects that they can point to and reliably demonstrate something.
By knowing the difference therefor one can separate and say spiritually do 'that' and watch the effect.
Separation, clear differentiation has to be there first in order to answer questions correctly. For instance I could ask you to lets say tighten your arm and clench your fist and punch forward with a quick retraction. Then I could ask you these questions. (I just made that one up by the way so there is no significance or anything special to learn from it)
1) How did that feel physically? (How did the body like it?)
2) How did that feel mentally? (how did the mind like it?)
3) How did that feel spiritually? (How did you like it?)
Could even go further and enquire how your soul liked it or how your heart like it. but it would have to be clear first the difference between each in order to give attention to and enquire and find out.