Usman's right. Do you want to suggest something?Quote:
Originally Posted by asterias
Printable View
Usman's right. Do you want to suggest something?Quote:
Originally Posted by asterias
Which doctrines would you place in either of these two categories? I'm especially interested in the "ask you to ask" ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
People's personal stories are usually fascinating.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
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 agree, but I am unclear about what that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
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.
I think you'll be correct about religions changing, as they have most certainly changed in the last 200 and the 200 before.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
What about spirituality?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
That's so, there are online pagan communities with hundreds of thousands of members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Also, a personal ethical stance might be based on humanism, for example.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theunderground
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theunderground
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!)
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
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'...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theunderground
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theunderground
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
im sure everybody aspires to be happy anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by Theunderground
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theunderground