Why Spirituality?

[Paulclem]

I attended a Buddhist teaching today on the Four Noble Truths, and we were all asked to consider this question:

Why Spirituality?

This was a question for us all to consider before taking refuge in The Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

The Teacher, Geshe Tashi Tsering, explained that he was brought up in a Tibetan household in Tibet, and became a monk before considering this question. He said that it was a good thing to question "why a spiritual path?" in order to find out what - if anything - it gives you that the normal course of life doesn't. He also said it was a good thing to continue to do in order to give clarity to your spiritual path/ development.

My question is not about Buddhism, but about why you chose spirituality, and what it gives you that ordinary life doesn't.

[Charles Darnay]

I like that question - it is so basic, but spirituality can get lost in the mire of everything else surrounding any religion (politics, history, laws....).

For me, spirituality is encapsulated in the question "why spirituality?" It is the question itself, or the ability to question. If life is all we see and nothing more, there are no questions. Spirituality in any form is searching for a question. In this - is not philosophy spirituality? Is not science spirituality? To search for an answer and knowing that in doing so you are really searching for more questions...isn't this spirituality? Call it God, call it Logos, call it Truth....spirituality is searching for someone/something we do not expect to find.

Such is why, PERSONALLY, I tend to shy away from the doctrines that tell rather than ask you to ask.

[JamCrackers]

My answer is you don't spirituality. I see the two kinds of thought as applied philosophy and non-applied philosophy. I call non-applied philosophy spirituality. If we debated if the moon is happy, the answer is not that the moon has no feelings. The answer is who gives a crap. I don't care if the moon is happy. There is no none application of all answers. A true intellectual must understand everything, since even the study of enemies is essential for survival. Generally spiritual people are trapped in the idea that the MOST ENLIGHTENED HUMAN is found on a stage in a costume. The elite human wears a uniform and has a temple. The perfect tiger does not fly. The perfect man does not reject life. The perfect man is living life, not putting on a side show for the kiddies. This problem causes many people to chase robes rather than life. Church is for companionship and social needs, not happiness. You can only heal yourself and the cure isn't hidden under robes in a temple.

[Paulclem]

My answer is you don't spirituality. I see the two kinds of thought as applied philosophy and non-applied philosophy. I call non-applied philosophy spirituality. If we debated if the moon is happy, the answer is not that the moon has no feelings. The answer is who gives a crap. I don't care if the moon is happy. There is no none application of all answers. A true intellectual must understand everything, since even the study of enemies is essential for survival. Generally spiritual people are trapped in the idea that the MOST ENLIGHTENED HUMAN is found on a stage in a costume. The elite human wears a uniform and has a temple. The perfect tiger does not fly. The perfect man does not reject life. The perfect man is living life, not putting on a side show for the kiddies. This problem causes many people to chase robes rather than life. Church is for companionship and social needs, not happiness. You can only heal yourself and the cure isn't hidden under robes in a temple.

You're right. You can only heal yourself. Who will tell you how to do that though?

[JamCrackers]

I am a big fan of the mentor school of thought. You said yourself, WHO. A person to guide you is what you are looking for. Many stories of the old blues music man being the mentor of a young kid. His path was drinking, drugs, honkytonks, and loose women - but he had open eyes about life. Who knows what the wise one knows but the wise one himself. We each have our own story our own ghosts to cure. Can't be one answer.

[Paulclem]

Is a teacher like that to be trusted in terms of your path? They may be experienced, but that is not necessarily wisdom, and there are many paths - not all are ones you want to follow.

The test is easy. In knowing a mentor teacher, are people better off in terms of their own development, or do they fall into negative ways and suffer more?

In Buddhism, finding your own Teacher is a very serious matter, and not to be stinted. Is the teaching consistent? Does your practice improve? Do you become a better person? That could be applied to anyone. It could be applied to friends. Do the friends I hang around with have a positive effect?

[NikolaiI]

For me spirituality is about the cultivation of the mind, and the cultivation of attributes like compassion and insight, peace and happiness. One of the main tools is meditation, and practicing awareness of breathing, and the reason? The reason is even a little meditation, a little mindfulness practice, makes the hugest difference. It's kind of hard to put into words but it transforms everything. It gives me peace, in that afflictive emotions arise less and less frequently until not at all, and happiness arises more and more frequently, and when something troubling arises, I view it with less attachment, and it doesn't create reactions nearly as much. Meditation and spirituality (which I define as including all kinds of small things, like eating healthy, etc.) also just help me have a deeper and more settled sense of well-being; give my body more energy. As Thay (Thich Nhat Hanh) mentioned in a dharma talk, you feel lighter. One famous quote about enlightenment, someone asked D.T. Suzuki what life after enlightenment was, and he replied, “Much like ordinary every day experience, only about a quarter of an inch off the ground.”

[YesNo]

Is the question whether one should become a monk or live a regular life? I assume the monk would live a spiritual life.

A regular life might include spiritual practices or not. Does living a regular life (family, work, etc) count as a spiritual life if one follows spiritual practices such as meditation, mantras, mindfulness, reading, discussion with others, rituals, etc?

[Whifflingpin]

"Does living a regular life (family, work, etc) count as a spiritual life? "

As this is a literature forum, can I offer George Herbert's answer to that question?

"Teach me my God and King
In all things thee to see,
And what I do in anything
To do it as for thee
.
.
All may of thee partake;
Nothing can be so mean
Which with this Tincture (for Thy sake)
Will not grow bright and clean.

A servant with this clause
Makes drudgery divine;
Who sweeps a room, as for thy Laws,
Makes that and th'Action fine."

[Paulclem]

Is the question whether one should become a monk or live a regular life? I assume the monk would live a spiritual life.

A regular life might include spiritual practices or not. Does living a regular life (family, work, etc) count as a spiritual life if one follows spiritual practices such as meditation, mantras, mindfulness, reading, discussion with others, rituals, etc?

No - it's not intended to be about a particular religion, but why choose any kind of spirituality as opposed to an atheistic view. What is it about spirituality that ordinary life doean't give you?

[YesNo]

The George Herbert poem gives a good reason to pick a spiritual life rather than a non-spiritual one since it "makes the drudgery divine".

I would probably then ask myself if the "divine" part were an illusion. However, I think the non-divine has a greater change of being an illusion than the divine does.

[cafolini]

People cope with reality by counterfeiting it. Not intentionally at first but, as illusions endure, resignedly and justifiably at last.
Science offers an alternative, but never the sense of completeness bargained through private postulations of the unknown as fully known.
What is known is always an infinitesimal of what's unknown, and what's unknown always immaterial and inconsequential to what is known, except as a means to sanctuary, respite from the constant and umpredictable changes of ordinary life.

[NikolaiI]

I've begun reading a book called Virus of the Mind, by Richard Brodie. It's a great work that's opened my eyes to a lot of things. There are many ideas that infect people, and a lot of them cause anxiety, fear, depression, but they can be deprogrammed.. to me an important part of life is about that. By dismantling ideas that create undue stress and suffering, and replacing them with ones more conducive to happiness and growth, we're able to grow. If we don't do this, we just suffer.

This idea - in his book Brodie is talking about the new science of memetics - is there in other things; in Buddhism, a lot is talked about cultivating the mind like a garden, planting and nourishing good seeds, etc., which would be quite similar; and in psychology I'm reminded of M. Scott Peck's ideas about life, specifically how he describes dealing with problems.

[YesNo]

I remember looking at memetics based on another thread. My problem with this is that it postulates the existence of an unconscious meme that nonetheless in some wierd way wants to replicate. The idea is based on the "selfish gene" metaphor that Dawkins promotes.

Since the selfish gene has been criticized by paleontologists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge, I have pretty much dismissed it along with the derived ideas of the meme.

[Varenne Rodin]

I wish I could find some sort of spirituality. Right now I feel like my consciousness is completely trapped in something it will likely never understand. If I have a spirit, it's waiting for something else. I hope it will go away entirely in the end. I'm not a willing participant in this universe. :)

[Paulclem]

I chose spirituality because:

It explained the seemingly random events that cause suffering.
It gives me an ethical measure that goes beyond social constructions such as the law and Governemnt policy.
It offers me the possibility of self development beyond what is normally considered possible in life.
It develops an understanding of my mind and also the actions and motivations of others.
It makes me responsible for my own development and offers
It gives me methods by which I can benefit others and help myself.
It presents the possibility of understanding the nature of reality.
It gives me a reasonable perspective from which to critically evaluate.

I'll have to think and add any more that come to mind.

[Charles Darnay]

If I have a spirit, it's waiting for something else. I hope it will go away entirely in the end. I'm not a willing participant in this universe. :)

This is beautifully depressing.

[cafolini]

This is beautifully depressing.

I don't see what's depressing about this if you were minding your own welfare. She's minding her own and stating it very clearly. She's not telling you how to think. Cheer up. If you found a better, less depressing way (according to you), you can keep it.

[cafolini]

I chose spirituality because:

It explained the seemingly random events that cause suffering.
It gives me an ethical measure that goes beyond social constructions such as the law and Governemnt policy.
It offers me the possibility of self development beyond what is normally considered possible in life.
It develops an understanding of my mind and also the actions and motivations of others.
It makes me responsible for my own development and offers
It gives me methods by which I can benefit others and help myself.
It presents the possibility of understanding the nature of reality.
It gives me a reasonable perspective from which to critically evaluate.

I'll have to think and add any more that come to mind.

Regardless of what you say or add, and in particular regarding the law and government policy, you might challenge them in court if you want to change them. I can guarantee you that you will otherwise go to spend a contract behind bars; deservedly. Spirituality has nothing to do with placing a person beyond the law.

[YesNo]

I chose spirituality because:

It explained the seemingly random events that cause suffering.
It gives me an ethical measure that goes beyond social constructions such as the law and Governemnt policy.
It offers me the possibility of self development beyond what is normally considered possible in life.
It develops an understanding of my mind and also the actions and motivations of others.
It makes me responsible for my own development and offers
It gives me methods by which I can benefit others and help myself.
It presents the possibility of understanding the nature of reality.
It gives me a reasonable perspective from which to critically evaluate.

I'll have to think and add any more that come to mind.
Well put. I agree.

[JamCrackers]

One should compromise. Man has a path while the universe has a goal of killing you. A man should have less path and more goal. Teenage girls master Olympic gymnastics. Spirituality to me is a conformity. It is one of those team sports. Crystal vibration people, ghost people, Tai Chi people, Vegetarian people.... we think, we don't think. When you were a small child, toys were fantastic, life was all fun. Spiritualism is denial. The truth is too painful. You don't have any more soul than did a dinosaur. You get one life. You wasted it or you made it sing. Life is not fair. This ridiculous headless self-destructive farce around us is all there is. No magical other sides of mirrors that makes this all make sense.

[NikolaiI]

I remember looking at memetics based on another thread. My problem with this is that it postulates the existence of an unconscious meme that nonetheless in some wierd way wants to replicate. The idea is based on the "selfish gene" metaphor that Dawkins promotes.

Since the selfish gene has been criticized by paleontologists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge, I have pretty much dismissed it along with the derived ideas of the meme.

Yes, I don't believe that memes are anything other than infectious ideas. However, the idea explains a lot of things.. Why people have weird ideas that won't go away and prevent them from growing. I can see how a lot of internalized negativity can create that kind of a personality, yet the idea that there are many specific memes kind of elaborates on it.

[NikolaiI]

One should compromise. Man has a path while the universe has a goal of killing you. A man should have less path and more goal. Teenage girls master Olympic gymnastics. Spirituality to me is a conformity. It is one of those team sports. Crystal vibration people, ghost people, Tai Chi people, Vegetarian people.... we think, we don't think. When you were a small child, toys were fantastic, life was all fun. Spiritualism is denial. The truth is too painful. You don't have any more soul than did a dinosaur. You get one life. You wasted it or you made it sing. Life is not fair. This ridiculous headless self-destructive farce around us is all there is. No magical other sides of mirrors that makes this all make sense.

Au contraire, mon frere. The universe is a hologram, a beautiful, infinite fractal, and it's not trying to kill you. Life is fair - you create your world, your reality. The universe is an infinite fractal, and you know what? You are too. The destructive forces are there, yes, but there are many constructive forces too. You know, death and life are not equivalent to evil and good. Death and life are two sides of one coin.

Also, the "heedless self-destructive farce" is only one tiny, infinitesimal part of nature. Don't over-grandize humanity, we're a small part of nature. We can't kill it or destroy it, and it'll be here long after we're gone.

[miyako73]

If I only could, I would give up everything, fly to Nepal, and follow Dharma Sangha. My life is a series of models, moulds, expectations, and routines. I so want to get away from it. I want to give up on the world that gives up on me. I want to renounce connections and relationships, comfort and wealth, and family and security for the path of spirituality where my suffering will make sense. Currently, I don't have any idea why I suffer.

[Paulclem]

Regardless of what you say or add, and in particular regarding the law and government policy, you might challenge them in court if you want to change them. I can guarantee you that you will otherwise go to spend a contract behind bars; deservedly. Spirituality has nothing to do with placing a person beyond the law.

I just need to elaborate on

It gives me an ethical measure that goes beyond social constructions such as the law and Governemnt policy.

The intention in this is not to justify breaking the law, but to evaluate the law from another perspective. The laws as they stand here in the UK are fine. Who knows what could happen in the future? You only have to look back a few years to see the law being wielded by states - Soviet Russia, Germany Pre Apartheid South Africa - to see that the laws were criminal and used by the state for repression of one kind and another.

Taking a common ethic like "Don't kill others", you can then oppose or disagree with any law that goes against this basic in tenet, such as the death penalty, or racist laws.

Regardless of what you say or add, and in particular regarding the law and government policy, you might challenge them in court if you want to change them.

Yes - exactly for this reason, or to judge the fitness of the state, whether to leave etc.

I can guarantee you that you will otherwise go to spend a contract behind bars; deservedly.

Have you found me out so soon? :biggrin5:

Spirituality has nothing to do with placing a person beyond the law.

Agreed. My intention was to evaluate the law, and through that the fitness of the state/ society. We may not need it at the moment, but who knows what will happen.

[YesNo]

Yes, I don't believe that memes are anything other than infectious ideas. However, the idea explains a lot of things.. Why people have weird ideas that won't go away and prevent them from growing. I can see how a lot of internalized negativity can create that kind of a personality, yet the idea that there are many specific memes kind of elaborates on it.
I don't know that an idea is infectious, but I would be interested in any techniques you come up with that help one get control over the mind. I have tried meditation, specifically upon memorized texts, but I get distracted and wonder if I'm getting any control at all. I guess that's normal, however.

[NikolaiI]

I don't know that an idea is infectious, but I would be interested in any techniques you come up with that help one get control over the mind. I have tried meditation, specifically upon memorized texts, but I get distracted and wonder if I'm getting any control at all. I guess that's normal, however.

The meditation I recommend is awareness of breathing, named in Buddhism Vipassana meditation. The idea is to focus on one's breathing, to practice bringing my attention back to the present. Thinking is wonderful, it can do so many things, including predict the future, reflect on the past, all of which are necessary. However, never stopping thinking can lead to losing awareness and other problems.

So, meditation is about stopping thinking. This is what I've been doing and it seems so important.. even a little practice really produces such a wonderful change, it's hard to describe. My goal in meditation is to be fully present in the here and the now. When thoughts arise, I don't push them away, or attach to them either, just let them come and go, because they will naturally do so without my effort.

There is one tool that I use that is very helpful.. when I begin meditation, I light a candle and sit a few feet from it, and just watch it. I stare at it for about 3 minutes, and then I close my eyes and practice meditation, or awareness of my breathing. I do this before I go to sleep and several times throughout the day. It's really worth it. :)

[Varenne Rodin]

This is beautifully depressing.

Thank you, Charles. I like your name.

[YesNo]

The meditation I recommend is awareness of breathing, named in Buddhism Vipassana meditation.

Thanks. I try something similar to that when I take daily walks although I let the vegetation along the sidewalk distract me from my thoughts. Hopefully my thoughts don't distract me from seeing the vegetation, but they often do. I figure if I haven't seen the things I've passed by, I'm probably too trapped in my own head.

[NikolaiI]

Thanks. I try something similar to that when I take daily walks although I let the vegetation along the sidewalk distract me from my thoughts. Hopefully my thoughts don't distract me from seeing the vegetation, but they often do. I figure if I haven't seen the things I've passed by, I'm probably too trapped in my own head.

I do the same, there's a cross country trail very near my house.. and a lake nearby in the other direction. I especially love the trails, though; and meditation is something you can do walking, standing, sitting, and lying down. Anytime you are consciously mindful of your breathing, in other words bring your focus on your in breath and out breath, it's meditation. But though walking meditation in nature is so healthful, sitting meditation, even for 5 or 10 minutes a day, can have a really big impact. I would go so far to say that the two complement each other.

[NikolaiI]

In addition, I'd like to share a link.. http://tommyangelo.com/meditation-101/ it's Tommy Angelo's page. He is a poker player but also a Buddhist, he is one of my favorite writers and persons. It has links to a few articles and info on meditation and yoga, and a good list of books. I don't think I've read any of them except the one by Kapleau! So I'll have to get on them. I just downloaded the two articles.. here's an excerpt, the first three paragraphs, from the first one, by Sakyong Miphan Rinpoche. I hope anyone finds it useful.


The practice of mindfulness/awareness meditation is common to all Buddhist traditions. Beyond that, it is common to, inherent in, all human beings.

In meditation we are continuously discovering who and what we are. That could be quite frightening or quite boring, but after a while, all that slips away. We get into some kind of natural rhythm and begin to discover our basic mind and heart.

Often we think about meditation as some kind of unusual, holy or spiritual activity. As we practice that is one of the basic beliefs we try to overcome. The point is that meditation is completely normal: it is the mindful quality present in everything we do. ...

[asterias]

Hi all,

My first post in these forums !

I really like the question, why spirituality. But should we not define 'what spirituality is', before going into 'why spirituality'?

[osho]

Spirituality is not a thing that can be contained in your sentences and you can have shelves of books on spirituality. But going after theories you never come to the acme of it. Seek it within. Though you can stuff yourself with bulky books on it but at the end of the day your own understanding or realization of it will matter though you cannot find worlds to fill it even in a page

[JuniperWoolf]

Most people that I know say the same thing, I've heard this sentence over and over: "I'm not religious, but I am a spiritual person."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Most people that I know say the same thing, I've heard this sentence over and over: "I'm not religious, but I am a spiritual person."

It's such a cliche. I have to try not to roll my eyes every time I hear it.

[Easter]

It's such a cliche. I have to try not to roll my eyes every time I hear it.

I think it's a coy way of saying "I don't go to church... but I'm not going to rule out anything... just in case!"

:D

[YesNo]

Hi all,

My first post in these forums !

I really like the question, why spirituality. But should we not define 'what spirituality is', before going into 'why spirituality'?
I see spirituality as synonymous with human consciousness. Other species would have this also but their physical bodies would make them experience it differently.

So, if you are conscious you are spiritual. If you are human then you express that consciousness in various ways: science, art, religion, interactions with others.

That we can suffer and make mistakes implies that spirituality contains a component of freedom, at least enough freedom to mess things up.

Based on this definition the question of "why" does not make much sense. There is no alternative to consciousness or spirituality. Maybe the why should be "why choose this way of expressing spirituality over some other way" considering the empirical evidence that we are free to mess things up--or get them right.

[blazeofglory]

Why spirituality after all? Spirituality is man’s elevation and man’s salvation. Man rises a little over and above everyday reality and tried to discover his real nature. Man is not just blood and bones and he is more than that, a material object that has a certain amount of weight and is measurable.

[Paulclem]

It's such a cliche. I have to try not to roll my eyes every time I hear it.

The original intention was to ask those who chose a spiritual worldview why they chose that rather than a political or scientific worldview. It could also be phrased as why people choose spirituality as well as another worldview. I see science and spirituality as complementary, for example.

[usman.khawar]

Hi all,

My first post in these forums !

I really like the question, why spirituality. But should we not define 'what spirituality is', before going into 'why spirituality'?

its just chit chat, no one answered ur question that how u define spirituality? except yes no who tried to explain his view about what is spirtuality..but everyone is trying to answer why spiritulaity :)

[Paulclem]

Hi all,

My first post in these forums !

I really like the question, why spirituality. But should we not define 'what spirituality is', before going into 'why spirituality'?

Usman's right. Do you want to suggest something?

[ShoutGrace]

Such is why, PERSONALLY, I tend to shy away from the doctrines that tell rather than ask you to ask.

Which doctrines would you place in either of these two categories? I'm especially interested in the "ask you to ask" ones.

[osho]

So many ideas surrounding spirituality and of course the real meaning of it got distorted and people liken it to an eclectic idea , a kind of exotic domain to land on for all of us. The world has so many spiritual masters ritualizing spiritual professions. Everybody wants to be a guru, but in fact spirituality if do not go by words is to be nothing. This has been a kind of luxury or pastime and it gets nowhere. They have their gods, gurus, rituals and a borderline since out of it you are a materialist. Exoticism is spirituality and it is close to religiosity. People bask in the idea of spirituality. It indeed widens our perception, mental domain and it is kind of fantasy. It is an asylum where people can arrive to secure their existential angst

[Paulclem]

So many ideas surrounding spirituality and of course the real meaning of it got distorted and people liken it to an eclectic idea , a kind of exotic domain to land on for all of us. The world has so many spiritual masters ritualizing spiritual professions. Everybody wants to be a guru, but in fact spirituality if do not go by words is to be nothing. This has been a kind of luxury or pastime and it gets nowhere. They have their gods, gurus, rituals and a borderline since out of it you are a materialist. Exoticism is spirituality and it is close to religiosity. People bask in the idea of spirituality. It indeed widens our perception, mental domain and it is kind of fantasy. It is an asylum where people can arrive to secure their existential angst

In asking the question why spirituality, rather than "why you chose your religion?", I was asking what makes a person look for something beyong the worldy and scientific, the social and familial. Spirituality, which may or may not involve an organised religion, deals with those other aspects of life where worldly guidance may not be enough: death, life's purpose, improving yourself, how we should relate to each other.

People's personal stories are usually fascinating.

[JuniperWoolf]

It's such a cliche. I have to try not to roll my eyes every time I hear it.

Me too, but it's a telling trend, eh? Like, people might dislike the very idea of the "Big Three," but they still need something spiritual. I think spirituality will change over the next couple centuries, we're already starting to become more nature-based; there's all this modern hippy-ish "green" stuff in which people practically worship the earth without doing so directly, there's the explosion in neo-paganism, ect. That's what religion was like before the Big Three, it seems that's what it's returning to.

Also, nature-based religions doesn't automatically exist at-odds with science because there's no set-in-stone mythology (although some of the "green" movements don't actually have much to do with improving the environment, but it's really hard to convince hippies of that, so in that aspect they sometimes contradict science).

[YesNo]

I think spirituality will change over the next couple centuries, we're already starting to become more nature-based; there's all this modern hippy-ish "green" stuff in which people practically worship the earth without doing so directly, there's the explosion in neo-paganism, ect. That's what religion was like before the Big Three, it seems that's what it's returning to.
I agree, but I am unclear about what that is.

However, there's an exchange between Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow, War of the Worldviews, that seems to draw the lines more clearly on what is at stake and what a modern spirituality might look like.

[Paulclem]

Me too, but it's a telling trend, eh? Like, people might dislike the very idea of the "Big Three," but they still need something spiritual. I think spirituality will change over the next couple centuries, we're already starting to become more nature-based; there's all this modern hippy-ish "green" stuff in which people practically worship the earth without doing so directly, there's the explosion in neo-paganism, ect. That's what religion was like before the Big Three, it seems that's what it's returning to.

Also, nature-based religions doesn't automatically exist at-odds with science because there's no set-in-stone mythology (although some of the "green" movements don't actually have much to do with improving the environment, but it's really hard to convince hippies of that, so in that aspect they sometimes contradict science).

I think you'll be correct about religions changing, as they have most certainly changed in the last 200 and the 200 before.

I'm not sure about the nature based aspect though. I don't see mny hippies now, and they certainly weren't in my late forties generation. I think green issues are sensible, without any religious aspect.

It looks as though there will be a split in the Anglican church, over homosexuality and women's ordination due to the influence of African churches.

[JuniperWoolf]

I agree, but I am unclear about what that is.

A nature-based religion? Doesn't the title explain it? It's a religion which worships nature. It's usually either nature worship in a pantheistic context (the idea that nature is god) which doesn't actually require a belief in any sort of "God" as we think of it, but that god is a process of the natural world, that which most obviously sustains us. People who worship nature might also appoint various natural aspects to various dieties who hold sway over those aspects (you have a god(ess) of agriculture, a god(ess) of reproduction, a god(ess) of conflict, ect.). This latter can be simply symbolic, and indeed is often openly referred to as such.


I think you'll be correct about religions changing, as they have most certainly changed in the last 200 and the 200 before.

I'm not sure about the nature based aspect though. I don't see mny hippies now, and they certainly weren't in my late forties generation. I think green issues are sensible, without any religious aspect.

It looks as though there will be a split in the Anglican church, over homosexuality and women's ordination due to the influence of African churches.

I think there'll be a split in the church too, you can already see it. I watched something a few months ago in which a gay priest was criticising the pope, I doubt he'd get much press in the villiage square 200 years ago (or whatever).

re. Nature based religions: really? I see more neo-pagans every year, it's the fastest growing religion in North America apparently (you can pick up "Wiccan" books at any local chain bookstore), and a general reverence for nature is the basis of the green movement. I don't know, I'm obviously no religion expert, I've just heard a few specials on CBC radio in the last couple years exploring the trend.

[Paulclem]

re. Nature based religions: really? I see more neo-pagans every year, it's the fastest growing religion in North America apparently (you can pick up "Wiccan" books at any local chain bookstore), and a general reverence for nature is the basis of the green movement. I don't know, I'm obviously no religion expert, I've just heard a few specials on CBC radio in the last couple years exploring the trend.

I may well be out of touch, I'm merely speculating, but I did see a rise in New Age theories and methods in the 80s and 90s. You see and hear little about them now, though there are still things like crystal healing etc around. I think there may well be a relationship with Wiccan ideas, but the problem with it is that there are no, and haven't been any leaders/ founders etc or a consistent doctrine developed. This probably appeals to modern people, but without a defining set of ideas it's difficult to define the religion beyond a loose category.

Then again technology may help bring different and thinly spread religions together. Wicca is at least a bottom up religion being defined by individuals. I can see the appeal. It may be true that there is a thriving online Wiccan community that i haven't heard of, or groups developing. It'll be interesting.

[cafolini]

A nature-based religion? Doesn't the title explain it? It's a religion which worships nature. It's usually either nature worship in a pantheistic context (the idea that nature is god) which doesn't actually require a belief in any sort of "God" as we think of it, but that god is a process of the natural world, that which most obviously sustains us. People who worship nature might also appoint various natural aspects to various dieties who hold sway over those aspects (you have a god(ess) of agriculture, a god(ess) of reproduction, a god(ess) of conflict, ect.). This latter can be simply symbolic, and indeed is often openly referred to as such.



I think there'll be a split in the church too, you can already see it. I watched something a few months ago in which a gay priest was criticising the pope, I doubt he'd get much press in the villiage square 200 years ago (or whatever).

re. Nature based religions: really? I see more neo-pagans every year, it's the fastest growing religion in North America apparently (you can pick up "Wiccan" books at any local chain bookstore), and a general reverence for nature is the basis of the green movement. I don't know, I'm obviously no religion expert, I've just heard a few specials on CBC radio in the last couple years exploring the trend.

Religion will linger, with more and more sects, and then will go away to strict history. Where the actions that actually move the world are, religion already is limited to historical studies. We already have thousands of sects. There will be tens of thousands before the frenzy of the ignorant is stopped by that realization, that is, stop from thinking that his sect is THE CHURCH.

[Paulclem]

Religion will linger, with more and more sects, and then will go away to strict history. Where the actions that actually move the world are, religion already is limited to historical studies. We already have thousands of sects. There will be tens of thousands before the frenzy of the ignorant is stopped by that realization, that is, stop from thinking that his sect is THE CHURCH.

What about spirituality?

[JuniperWoolf]

I may well be out of touch.

Maybe not, they are hard to spot if you don't know what you're looking for. On litnet, I've noticed three pagans for certain.


I think there may well be a relationship with Wiccan ideas, but the problem with it is that there are no, and haven't been any leaders/ founders etc or a consistent doctrine developed.

There was a founder of the modern branch of paganism that is "wicca," in the fifties or so, but he died. The thing with these sort of semi-esoteric religions is they're supposed to be non-invasive, they don't go to you, you go to them. Most of them seem to share a general "don't hurt others, nature is good" philosophy but beyond that, it's freedom to practice as you choose. The only requirement to be a pagan is to identify yourself as such, and there's usually a lot of reading and autodidactism. Then you can connect to others who identify themselves similarly if you want to, clusters of people who share similar ideals and styles of practice formulate, and that's all there is to it "structure" wise. It's a very free sort of spirituality, there are countless variations. Some worship nature in a pantheistic capacity, some worship ancient gods as "symbols" of natural aspects, some genuinely worship ancient African or Greek or Roman ect. ect. ect. gods, some don't worship any sort of deity but consider paganism as a sort beneficial intro-spection that is reflected in the external universe (and this is where it gets complicated, you'd have to do a lot of study to understand). You don't even have to believe in anything, I think it was Charles who said that agnosticism is compatable with paganism and that's true - actually, it's entirely common to find "agnostic pagans." Ideas and concepts are shared via books, essays and online writing, and they just sort of spread until everyone's read about the new concept and then they choose for themselves to either embrace it or reject it.


Then again technology may help bring different and thinly spread religions together. Wicca is at least a bottom up religion being defined by individuals. I can see the appeal. It may be true that there is a thriving online Wiccan community that i haven't heard of, or groups developing. It'll be interesting.

That's so, there are online pagan communities with hundreds of thousands of members.

[Alexander III]

Religion will linger, with more and more sects, and then will go away to strict history. Where the actions that actually move the world are, religion already is limited to historical studies. We already have thousands of sects. There will be tens of thousands before the frenzy of the ignorant is stopped by that realization, that is, stop from thinking that his sect is THE CHURCH.

This brings up a point, personal to think of a future world devoid of relligon sadens me, how do you guys feel, do you wish religion to disappear or to contonioue to exist.

[JuniperWoolf]

I want religion to stay, I think it benefits individuals greatly and we seem to have a need for it, but it must change. No more gay bashing, no more "hey guys, it's cool to beat/rape/kill your wife," no more telling AIDs riddled Africa not to use condoms, no more suicide bombing and killing in the name religion. Can religion be seperated from these things?

It's worth a try. Maybe heavily structured, organized religion is the problem. If religion loosened up a bit and everyone started thinking for themselves rather than following the leader, I doubt this hatered and violence would continue.

[YesNo]

This brings up a point, personal to think of a future world devoid of relligon sadens me, how do you guys feel, do you wish religion to disappear or to contonioue to exist.
Specific religions could disappear if people stop practicing the religion. These religions could also change to a point that the original members don't recognize them.

I think the experiences that form the basis of spirituality which turn into religions can be traced to a part of our brains and so spirituality of some sort will always be re-appearing even if it gets suppressed. That means, that our species has a physical "eye" or "ear" for spiritual experiences. Some people will call these delusions because they doubt there is any objective reality to these spiritual experiences, but the fact that they are experiences and not ideas means that to completely eliminate them would require eliminating our species.

[Paulclem]

Spirituality and religion have a lot to offer. They can provide an ethical measure which can be your own, or a shared view which can oppose negative political or scientific views. It's no co-incidence that the great despotic governments such as Mao's China, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia - let alone North Korea - suppress religion and tried and replace it with leader cults. Religious thought can be very challenging to oppressive regimes that seek to justify the humanly indefensible. A simple ethic like Do not harm anyone subverts a whole political system with its ethical simplicity and shows corrupt and oppressive governments for what they are - murderous, exploitative, uncaring, inhumane, vicious, indifferent.

I'm so lucky to live in a society, for all its faults, that doesn't tolerate or advocate such inhumanity. If things changed, then, by having ethical standards, i would be able to evaluate how things are going. (Hopefully)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Spirituality and religion have a lot to offer. They can provide an ethical measure which can be your own, or a shared view which can oppose negative political or scientific views. It's no co-incidence that the great despotic governments such as Mao's China, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia - let alone North Korea - suppress religion and tried and replace it with leader cults. Religious thought can be very challenging to oppressive regimes that seek to justify the humanly indefensible. A simple ethic like Do not harm anyone subverts a whole political system with its ethical simplicity and shows corrupt and oppressive governments for what they are - murderous, exploitative, uncaring, inhumane, vicious, indifferent.

I'm so lucky to live in a society, for all its faults, that doesn't tolerate or advocate such inhumanity. If things changed, then, by having ethical standards, i would be able to evaluate how things are going. (Hopefully)

Not to mention the enormous amount of wonderful art inspired directly from religion.

[OrphanPip]

Religious groups can also be very accommodating to despotic regimes. The heads of the Eastern Orthodox church were very closely tied with the government of the Byzantine Empire, and the Russian Orthodox church had the same sort of relationship with the tsars, and then subsequently with the soviets. The Puritans under Cromwell banned everything from dancing to Christmas. The theocratic authority of the Ayatollah in Iran today.

We shouldn't forget that theocracies have been at least as common as any other form of despotism.

Religion certainly offers a kind of appeal to a grander authority which can be marshalled for any sort of political goal. That goal could be a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

[Paulclem]

Religious groups can also be very accommodating to despotic regimes. The heads of the Eastern Orthodox church were very closely tied with the government of the Byzantine Empire, and the Russian Orthodox church had the same sort of relationship with the tsars, and then subsequently with the soviets. The Puritans under Cromwell banned everything from dancing to Christmas. The theocratic authority of the Ayatollah in Iran today.

We shouldn't forget that theocracies have been at least as common as any other form of despotism.

Religion certainly offers a kind of appeal to a grander authority which can be marshalled for any sort of political goal. That goal could be a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

I agree. By the same token your own religion, or religious structure/organisation can also be measured. Ethics are often compromised in large organisations such as the just war idea, which is a justification of defence and killing. The question is, was that taken too far and used by govts backed by religious organisations to justify going well beyond the remit?

Also, a personal ethical stance might be based on humanism, for example.

[YesNo]

I suppose even non-religious groups can be very accommodating to despotic regimes as well.

When I think of examples of atheistic regimes behaving badly, the Killing Fields movie comes to mind which described the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. I can still see that young female placing the plastic bag in cold blood over her victim's head as a form of execution.

This is probably wrong, but I wonder if spirituality is perversely related to the experience of righteousness that justifies murder. Is it a form of distorted or damaged 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? :D

[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.

[Paulclem]

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.

I'm not trying to convert you , but it is not nihilistic - The Buddha taught the Middle way between extinction and a permanent soul, and some of the main teachings - depending upon which school - relate to developing compassion. Selfishness is also negated with teachings on non-self, emptiness and compassion. Anyway - no worries.