Why Spirituality?

[Theunderground]

Spirituality is just another word for 'making sense' of your personal experience. Religion,philosophy,science,art,drugs,power,sensua lity have traditionally filled these roles. Nowadays with less dogmatism,more information and new personalities there seems to be a more eclectic and personalised response to 'making sense' of the world. This said,there are still large amounts of fundamentalists on the religious,secular and interpersonal side. I think spirituality is an inherent inescapable part of man,but as said above is expressed differently by different people.
It seems a lot of 'dogmatists' are really just imposing their 'personality' on the world,hence some of the strife.
I think a lot of the reason why science and religion are losing their 'narrative' power is that they dont adress adequately the issues that people feel are important,or dont cater for certain psychological tastes.

[cafolini]

Spirituality is just another word for 'making sense' of your personal experience. Religion,philosophy,science,art,drugs,power,sensua lity have traditionally filled these roles. Nowadays with less dogmatism,more information and new personalities there seems to be a more eclectic and personalised response to 'making sense' of the world. This said,there are still large amounts of fundamentalists on the religious,secular and interpersonal side. I think spirituality is an inherent inescapable part of man,but as said above is expressed differently by different people.
It seems a lot of 'dogmatists' are really just imposing their 'personality' on the world,hence some of the strife.
I think a lot of the reason why science and religion are losing their 'narrative' power is that they dont adress adequately the issues that people feel are important,or dont cater for certain psychological tastes.

From now on they will never be able to cater. Too many tastes. It's a good thing.

[dark desire]

Spirituality is just another word for 'making sense' of your personal experience. Religion,philosophy,science,art,drugs,power,sensua lity have traditionally filled these roles. Nowadays with less dogmatism,more information and new personalities there seems to be a more eclectic and personalised response to 'making sense' of the world. This said,there are still large amounts of fundamentalists on the religious,secular and interpersonal side. I think spirituality is an inherent inescapable part of man,but as said above is expressed differently by different people.
It seems a lot of 'dogmatists' are really just imposing their 'personality' on the world,hence some of the strife.
I think a lot of the reason why science and religion are losing their 'narrative' power is that they dont adress adequately the issues that people feel are important,or dont cater for certain psychological tastes.

What do you mean by science losing narrative power? The way science today is very few people on the planet understand it. If you are talking about narrative of reason then call it narrative of enlightenment. I don't see why it should not be obsolete given that it is 300 years old now.

As for spirituality, I think it is a new market opportunity for capitalists to fill with a lot of garbage the existential void that people experience. On the other hand if you talk about personal experience, I don't understand the need of labeling personal experience as anything?

[Paulclem]

Spirituality is just another word for 'making sense' of your personal experience. Religion,philosophy,science,art,drugs,power,sensua lity have traditionally filled these roles. Nowadays with less dogmatism,more information and new personalities there seems to be a more eclectic and personalised response to 'making sense' of the world. This said,there are still large amounts of fundamentalists on the religious,secular and interpersonal side. I think spirituality is an inherent inescapable part of man,but as said above is expressed differently by different people.
It seems a lot of 'dogmatists' are really just imposing their 'personality' on the world,hence some of the strife.
I think a lot of the reason why science and religion are losing their 'narrative' power is that they dont adress adequately the issues that people feel are important,or dont cater for certain psychological tastes.

The question about spirituality implies a choice about what worldview, set of ethics, practice, beleifs, relationship and response to others and a perceived role in society. I was interested to know why some people choose these sets of ideas and beliefs rather than an ordinary view. So I disagree that spirituality can be defined as making sense of your personal experience, as this could clearly include many non or unspiritual ideas.

[Theunderground]

There are some people that need 'pre-packaged' ideas to make sense of certain issues,some invent their own and the 'lucky few' may have it pretty automatically or maybe dont fell the need to conceptualise their feelings. Others may live with uncertainty or as they see fit day to day or unreflectingly. obviously if people make a choice as to a certain sprituality it either suits them or they are trying it out.
A lot of folks in the post modern age dont follow the 'enlightenment' narrative. Science doesnt really say much about personal ethics at the existential level. (neither does philosophical ethics,but thats an whole other story!)

[Paulclem]

People aren't born into an ideas vacuum, but are surrounded by pre-packaged ideas that influence them. Religion, atheism, agnosticism, a scientific worldview etc etc are all pre-packaged and can influence someone in many different ways.

What do you mean by the 'lucky few' may have it pretty automatically

and

dont feel the need to conceptualise their feelings

Can you elucidate a bit more?

[Theunderground]

I feel that some people who have a solid personal life and a very confident self esteem (which has also been helped by having understanding people in their lives and not too much early exposure to 'dogmas'.) do not require conceptualisations or vast periods of 'theorising' to make sense of the world and/or 'create values'. A huge amount of people do not require either a religion,a world view or any kind of spirituality,and do not seem any the worse for it....
I think the most predominant need is for good solid personal relationships,and this suffices for most. I suggest sometimes 'spirituality' et al are substitutes for inadequate relationships.( I should know!!! )
Give a person a genuine relationship with another and see how they can blossom a thousand times better than any teacher of spirituality can give them.
'In the begining was the relation'...

[Paulclem]

I feel that some people who have a solid personal life and a very confident self esteem (which has also been helped by having understanding people in their lives and not too much early exposure to 'dogmas'.) do not require conceptualisations or vast periods of 'theorising' to make sense of the world and/or 'create values'. A huge amount of people do not require either a religion,a world view or any kind of spirituality,and do not seem any the worse for it....
I think the most predominant need is for good solid personal relationships,and this suffices for most. I suggest sometimes 'spirituality' et al are substitutes for inadequate relationships.( I should know!!! )
Give a person a genuine relationship with another and see how they can blossom a thousand times better than any teacher of spirituality can give them.
'In the begining was the relation'...

This:

I feel that some people who have a solid personal life and a very confident self esteem

and this:

which has also been helped by having understanding people in their lives and not too much early exposure to 'dogmas'

seem to me to be a great generalisation. It seems to suggest that religious or spiritually orientated people have no self esteem and/ or a not very solid personal life. This is such a genenralisation when speaking of millions of people -how many christians, muslims, buddhists etc are there in the world? A recent poll I heard quoted said there were 300 million Buddhists in China alone. I'm afraid it does nothing to explain peoples choice of a spiritual outlook, and completely ignores factors like culture, tradition, family influence etc.

vast periods of 'theorising' to make sense of the world and/or 'create values'.

The same is true of the above. Do spiritual people do vast periods of theorising? I doubt it, rather they probably base their view upon a combinaion of personal experience, the influence of books and people.

A huge amount of people do not require either a religion,a world view or any kind of spirituality,and do not seem any the worse for it....

This is the view of people in secularised western societies, and whilst it may be true for them , the opposite is also true that a huge amount of people want a spiritual worldview and are better for it - otherwise they wouldn't bother.

I think the most predominant need is for good solid personal relationships,and this suffices for most.

I think this is certainly a great generalisation and ignores those that have a spiritual view and also good solid relationships. Remember the maor religions number hundreds of millions of followers. It does nothing to explain that.

Give a person a genuine relationship with another and see how they can blossom a thousand times better than any teacher of spirituality can give them.

I think this represents a very narrow view, which, whilst true in some cases of your own experience, cannot possibly explain the phenomena of spirituality in the the world. No generalisation could. I think the important point is that a very substantial part of hunmanity follow a spiritual view of one kind or another, and that has to be factored into our own view of them. No one explanation is going to suffice.

[Theunderground]

Of course no one explanation will suffice for everybody. Problems of subjectivity and different understandings will be present. How could there be ONE explanation? That is the fault of all dogmatic creeds. That one grand story caters for all.
Of course i made generalisations,how else can humans speak? Note how i qualified with 'some','most' etc... Futhermore, i gave my own personal opinion which makes sense to me. If you dont fall under the rubric of what i said then good for you. The most laughable thing about MANY religious or so called spiritual people is that they think that their own understandings of the world are universally valid. I know my own thoughts are valid primarily for myself, and those that have their own minds will have their own equally valid (or not,as the case may be.) thoughts. And only rarely will the twain meet.
It seems bizarre that one can meet so many people that know everybody elses feelings and how they should live before they have even met them !!!

[Paulclem]

Of course no one explanation will suffice for everybody. Problems of subjectivity and different understandings will be present. How could there be ONE explanation? That is the fault of all dogmatic creeds. That one grand story caters for all.
Of course i made generalisations,how else can humans speak? Note how i qualified with 'some','most' etc... Futhermore, i gave my own personal opinion which makes sense to me. If you dont fall under the rubric of what i said then good for you. The most laughable thing about MANY religious or so called spiritual people is that they think that their own understandings of the world are universally valid. I know my own thoughts are valid primarily for myself, and those that have their own minds will have their own equally valid (or not,as the case may be.) thoughts. And only rarely will the twain meet.
It seems bizarre that one can meet so many people that know everybody elses feelings and how they should live before they have even met them !!!

Futhermore, i gave my own personal opinion which makes sense to me.

Of course - as do we all. We can only begin with what we know. I suppose what I would question is an attempt to encompass an explanation as to why spirituality is chosen just based upon personal experience.

It seems bizarre that one can meet so many people that know everybody elses feelings and how they should live before they have even met them

I haven't had this, and I probably come into contact with more non - christians such as Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus through my work. I just felt what you said - whilst being valid for yourself, does not fairly represent the many reasons why a spiritual path is chosen. Perhaps - given the numbers involved, we can't say anything of significance about the perceived why's and wherefore's.

I don't come under the relationship theory you propounded, though I, with many, look for meaning and explanations. Buddhism's message - which I follow - is to find out for yourself with the tools available.

[Theunderground]

I dont disagree with Buddhas maxim of being a light unto yourself. But different people are satisfied with different meanings in life. I instinctively follow The aformentioned maxim but it means i reject the rest of Buddhas Buddhism.
I would also add one reson why peole may search for meanings other than that 'given' by the society in which they live is that it doesnt satisfy them. But i wonder whether this is an intellectual yearning or a yearning for something else? Spirituality stems from dissatisfaction,otherwise why search for it?

[Paulclem]

I dont disagree with Buddhas maxim of being a light unto yourself. But different people are satisfied with different meanings in life. I instinctively follow The aformentioned maxim but it means i reject the rest of Buddhas Buddhism.
I would also add one reson why peole may search for meanings other than that 'given' by the society in which they live is that it doesnt satisfy them. But i wonder whether this is an intellectual yearning or a yearning for something else? Spirituality stems from dissatisfaction,otherwise why search for it?

That's the key to The Buddha's teachings - embodied in the Four Noble Truths. A dissatisfaction with the state of things that permeates beyond what are considered happy conditions. Basically it's the quest to be happy.

[Theunderground]

Allegedly so,but im sure everybody aspires to be happy anyway? Budhhas four principles are not needed to be happy. Evidence? All the happy non buddhists. (not to speak of the unhappy buddhists that also exist!)
Why happiness? Is this not self explanatory? Spirituality is one potential means to happiness,but the proof is in the pudding.

[Paulclem]

Allegedly so,but im sure everybody aspires to be happy anyway? Budhhas four principles are not needed to be happy. Evidence? All the happy non buddhists. (not to speak of the unhappy buddhists that also exist!)
Why happiness? Is this not self explanatory? Spirituality is one potential means to happiness,but the proof is in the pudding.

im sure everybody aspires to be happy anyway

All beings aspire to this, but the Buddha's point is that lasting happiness is impossible due to things like impermanence.

Budhhas four principles are not needed to be happy.

They explain why lasting happiness is unattainable, and the teachings provide a toolkit to aspire to lasting happiness. They are not there to believe in, but to use to investigate the nature of life and reality.

[Theunderground]

Investigated it,not for me,too passive,nihilistic and selfish. (excuse my french.) Even as a tool i find it faulty because of its theoretical background asuumptions . (impermanaence et al.) However,i know it appeals to a lot of folks,so each to their own.