Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on April 11, 2017, 07:57:44 AM
-
Hi everyone,
I have written about this many times....so one more time will not harm. :)
What is the difference between Spirituality and Religion?
Spirituality can be practiced without religion. It is a form of Self Development. An inner seeking. A method of self discipline and mind control. Many ascetics and hermits are spiritualists. People who practice Yoga and meditations are spiritualists.
Spirituality is a way of reducing the animal instincts within ourselves and increasing our human/divine characteristics. Less of selfishness, competition, anger, sexual urges, impulsive behavior etc. More of love, tolerance, patience, cooperation, altruism and so on.
The problem is that for Spirituality to be practiced consciously and with clear intent, it requires a certain level of mental and intellectual development and a certain control over ones emotions to begin with. Most people in the past centuries and even today for that matter, may not be able to take it up.
Such people need some form of authority and leadership that they can follow. They also need some form of mythology and legend that will induce them to behave in certain ways, follow certain rules and practice certain devotional rituals. This gives rise to Religion.
Certain individuals who have reached a certain level of spiritual development will come forward to teach others and to promote certain habits, norms and practices in their community which will help the people to develop spiritually even without any direct knowledge of it. Religions are born that way.
Religions also serve another purpose of social control and moral discipline. In the absence of civil courts and secular police system, in earlier centuries, it is religions that enforced discipline and control.
So...people can practice Self Development and spirituality in a secular environment without religion or they can follow any religion of their choice that resonates with them and follow the spiritual path in an indirect manner. It all works out to the same eventually.
Just some thoughts.
If anyone wants a more elaborate article on this, please follow the link....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/
Cheers.
Sriram
-
For many pagans celebrating sexuality is a part of spiritual practice. It's not something to be denied, but to be embraced.
-
For many pagans celebrating sexuality is a part of spiritual practice. It's not something to be denied, but to be embraced.
Yes...I agree. Even we Hindus have what is called Tantra (a branch of Yoga) which largely focuses on sexual energies and how to use it for spiritual progress. We also have a branch of Krishna worshipers who focus on the Rasaleela (Krishna's dance with his girlfriends) as part of their devotional practice. There was one swamy Osho (Rajneesh) who was very popular with westerners because he advocated free sexual activity in groups as part of his spiritual teaching.
In my above post I was referring to the eventual goal. Depending on ones nature the immediate goal of different people could be different. Emotional people focus on devotion, people with high sexual energies focus on sex, other focus on service and celibacy, others meditate.
The point is to regulate and get a grip over our present abilities and needs to progress further. There are as many paths as individuals. One rule will not work for all.
-
So why do you keep trying to formulate a "one rule", "eventual goal" and so on.
Is someone, living how they want, not on their own spiritual path? Why insist on making them conform to yours?
-
What is the difference between Spirituality and Religion?
Spirituality is not a belief, it is an aspect of human personalities.
Spirituality can be practiced without religion. It is a form of Self Development. An inner seeking. A method of self discipline and mind control. Many ascetics and hermits are spiritualists. People who practice Yoga and meditations are spiritualists.
There is a huge difference between spiritualists and spirituality You cannot *practise* spirituality. All humans have a spiritual aspect to their make-up.
Spirituality is a way of reducing the animal instincts within ourselves and increasing our human/divine characteristics. Less of selfishness, competition, anger, sexual urges, impulsive behavior etc. More of love, tolerance, patience, cooperation, altruism and so on.
We ARE animals.
The problem is that for Spirituality to be practiced consciously and with clear intent, …
first you need to define what you think the tenets of spirituality are
an then how do people ‘practise ‘ it, and how do they know if they are ‘practising’ spirituality even when it is defined?
-
All humans have a spiritual aspect to their make-up.
Do we? What does 'spirituality' mean then? It always seems to me so vague as to be meaningless.
-
Do we? What does 'spirituality' mean then? It always seems to me so vague as to be meaningless.
Yes, it is definitely a vague word and I believe firmly that it should not be allowed to be monopolised by any religious belief.
-
If you don't mind my saying so, Sriram, your take on this does come across as a little dogmatic. I don't think there's a generally accepted definition of religion, let alone spirituality. I'm sure there are people who would agree with your understanding of spirituality but there are plenty who would not. Are they wrong?
As I understand it, Hinduism is very broadminded about paths but the assumption is that different paths lead to one goal. The trouble is that not everyone will accept that there is one goal, or if they do they will differ as to what this is. Others may reject the idea of a goal altogether or consider the abandonment of all goals to be the final realisation. Perhaps a goal is helpful in the first instance but is later to be discarded. And then of course, people change their minds along the way. This might be considered spiritual progress, failure or even apostasy, according to taste.
'Seek and you will find,' wrote Matthew. 'You will not find it by seeking,' warns a Sufi proverb, 'but those who do not seek will not find.' 'In truth,' counselled the first Zen Patriarch, 'there is nothing to find.' Take your pick.
-
Yes, it is definitely a vague word and I believe firmly that it should not be allowed to be monopolised by any religious belief.
why use a word that appears meaningless?
-
why use a word that appears meaningless?
What do you think would be a good alternative word which would convey a similar variety of meanings?
-
What do you think would be a good alternative word which would convey a similar variety of meanings?
Since I don't think it has any sensible meaning, why would I want an alternative word? What useful meaning do you think it has?
-
Since I don't think it has any sensible meaning, why would I want an alternative word? What useful meaning do you think it has?
I suppose I agree, but the word is used and bandied about regularly by religious believers as if they have some special quality that those poor atheists lack! :) Therefore, it needs to be challenged and its users questioned.
-
Is there such a thing as a meaningless word?
If a sequence of letters is a word, I expect whoever uses it to be trying to convey some information - ie. it means something to them even if everyone else has a hard time receiving the message.
With "spirituality" the problem is that it means different things to different people and is not something that can be demonstrated.
-
Is there such a thing as a meaningless word?
If a sequence of letters is a word, I expect whoever uses it to be trying to convey some information - ie. it means something to them even if everyone else has a hard time receiving the message.
With "spirituality" the problem is that it means different things to different people and is not something that can be demonstrated.
Essentially that makes it meaningless to me, if something is such that it can be both a and non a, which is what seems to me is true of 'god' as well, it lisre the value of meaning.
-
If you don't mind my saying so, Sriram, your take on this does come across as a little dogmatic. I don't think there's a generally accepted definition of religion, let alone spirituality. I'm sure there are people who would agree with your understanding of spirituality but there are plenty who would not. Are they wrong?
As I understand it, Hinduism is very broadminded about paths but the assumption is that different paths lead to one goal. The trouble is that not everyone will accept that there is one goal, or if they do they will differ as to what this is. Others may reject the idea of a goal altogether or consider the abandonment of all goals to be the final realisation. Perhaps a goal is helpful in the first instance but is later to be discarded. And then of course, people change their minds along the way. This might be considered spiritual progress, failure or even apostasy, according to taste.
'Seek and you will find,' wrote Matthew. 'You will not find it by seeking,' warns a Sufi proverb, 'but those who do not seek will not find.' 'In truth,' counselled the first Zen Patriarch, 'there is nothing to find.' Take your pick.
Bramble,
It is just an attempt to find a common meaning and a common Philosophy of Life for all humans. Many people may not agree but does not make it a pursuit without value. There are lots of things we are discovering through science that people do not agree with or even sometimes rebel against...until they get used to the idea. That takes time.
The idea of evolution for example is now a well accepted one....almost a common sense idea. But many people have objected and even today rebel against it. Does not mean it is not a meaningful idea.
It is important that we arrive at a common philosophical base for life in general. I am not saying it should be what I am proposing...but whatever it is, it can be done and should be done. This is why it is important that we take as many teachings from different regions and different cultures to see how different experiences and thoughts of different people all fit in together.
The quotes you have given appear to be different only because they relate to different stages of development. This is a common confusion in many religious and mystical teachings. How these different views fit in will become apparent once the total philosophy is understood.
It is like different people climbing Mount Everest from different directions and in different seasons. Their experiences at different stages of the climb will be different as compared to others. People reading about it would get confused and assume that they are referring to different mountains....which is not true. Once we take the climb ourselves, we will understand what exactly each one of them meant.
Spirituality does not have to mean different things to different people even though it might presently. That is the whole point....to arrive at a common understanding.
-
I think what you are suggesting, Sriram, is what used to be called The Perennial Philosophy ( and maybe still is). This article in Wikipedia gives a description of it :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
-
I think what you are suggesting, Sriram, is what used to be called The Perennial Philosophy ( and maybe still is). This article in Wikipedia gives a description of it :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
Ah...that's an excellent link, ekim! Thanks. Yes...I know that the Theosophical Society and many others have argued for a common base for all world religions. In the 19th and early 20th centuries it may have been a very complex task to put together all religions and find a common base. Getting relevant information itself would have been very difficult. It's much easier today because of the internet and also because of the findings at Nag Hammadi and the rise of the New agers.
But there are lot of big words in the article and I will take some time to read it.
I am approaching this from the simple Hindu stand of a common base for all religions...because that is the way it really is in all Indian religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. Hinduism itself is in fact a collection of different 'religions' with a common base. So....taking a common view is easy for me.
-
Good luck with your venture Sriram. It is possible to associate some of the words of Christian, Jewish and Islamic mystics with what you are suggesting but I think you will have great difficulty when it comes to the organised religions of those persuasions. The distinction between a mystic and a heretic was probably a fine line that some had to tread with care. Schools of thought in India seemed to have been allowed to proliferate without the fear of persecution.
-
Good luck with your venture Sriram. It is possible to associate some of the words of Christian, Jewish and Islamic mystics with what you are suggesting but I think you will have great difficulty when it comes to the organised religions of those persuasions. The distinction between a mystic and a heretic was probably a fine line that some had to tread with care. Schools of thought in India seemed to have been allowed to proliferate without the fear of persecution.
Thanks, ekim! I think the fear factor is significantly less these days compared to the past and is likely to get even lesser in the future.
In any case I think a common philosophy will automatically arise with greater knowledge and understanding of other cultures. Its building bridges with Science that is another big challenge. But I am confident that will happen too!
-
I'm failing to see why having a common philosophy is at all important.
In fact it is probably a big mistake, especially if it involves creating religion and mythology in order to "induce them to behave in certain ways, follow certain rules and practice certain devotional rituals".
You may as well bring peace to the world by force conversion to Islam.
Our common base are our animal bodies and human-animal nature that will always insist on seeking its own path to freedom.
-
Yes, i agree with Udayana. It seems simplistic and restrictive to think that we would gain from uniformity. That's even if we are really capable of holding a consistent 'philosophy' as individuals.
-
S p t u a y
;)
-
It is important that we arrive at a common philosophical base for life in general. I am not saying it should be what I am proposing...but whatever it is, it can be done and should be done.
Spirituality does not have to mean different things to different people even though it might presently. That is the whole point....to arrive at a common understanding.
I think it might help the discussion if you explained why you would like to replace spiritual and philosophical diversity with a monoculture.
It strikes me that the word 'spirituality' is useful precisely because it allows for different interpretations. If, for instance, we were to restrict its use to something like your definition then it would simply exclude a great many people, who would find it irrelevant or alienating. I would be one of them. This is what has happened with the word 'God'. Once such words become captive to rigid belief then they ossify in a particular form and function as a means for dividing people, which is perhaps what you are hoping to avoid by establishing a common understanding.
I think your faith that peoples' very real differences can be explained as mere stages of development is wishful thinking. It requires the entire paraphernalia of your belief system, including reincarnation, karma and all the rest to work itself out, and I fail to see why anyone might consider it something to be wished for.
-
It strikes me that the word 'spirituality' is useful precisely because it allows for different interpretations.
Can't see how having a word with no clear definition is helpful.
If, for instance, we were to restrict its use to something like your definition then it would simply exclude a great many people, who would find it irrelevant or alienating. I would be one of them.
Then a different word can be used for different things. Isn't that how language is supposed to work? Its about communication and if you use a word to mean one thing but the person you say it to doesn't really know what you mean by that that doesn't seem a good idea to me.
-
Can't see how having a word with no clear definition is helpful.
Then a different word can be used for different things. Isn't that how language is supposed to work? Its about communication and if you use a word to mean one thing but the person you say it to doesn't really know what you mean by that that doesn't seem a good idea to me.
My take on this is that spirituality can be seen either as something exclusive and meaningful only to certain people, which strikes me as not very helpful or interesting, or it is relevant to everyone, in which case it must be a 'stretchy' word because people are different and also change. Sure, there's no universally agreed definition and you're free to take any version you like, as is Sriram.
-
My take on this is that spirituality can be seen either as something exclusive and meaningful only to certain people, which strikes me as not very helpful or interesting, or it is relevant to everyone, in which case it must be a 'stretchy' word because people are different and also change. Sure, there's no universally agreed definition and you're free to take any version you like, as is Sriram.
Which means as Maeght points out that it is essentially useless for communication.
-
So does that apply to love? My experience is that 'love' is equally as 'stretchy' a term.
-
My take on this is that spirituality can be seen either as something exclusive and meaningful only to certain people, which strikes me as not very helpful or interesting, or it is relevant to everyone, in which case it must be a 'stretchy' word because people are different and also change. Sure, there's no universally agreed definition and you're free to take any version you like, as is Sriram.
So a meaningless and therefore pointless word.
-
So a meaningless and therefore pointless word.
But it has meaning for me, and I have friends for whom it has meaning too. I get that not everyone agrees with it, and that's fine, I've no interest to insist that everyone should agree with the notion of 'spiritual'. But it does get old when I'm told that something that I do find meaning in and share with others is 'pointless'.
-
So does that apply to love? My experience is that 'love' is equally as 'stretchy' a term.
As with most words there is more than one meaning for the word love but I wouldn't consider it as stretchy as the word spirituality seems to be. It does often need another word to clarify it though - for example when someone told me they loved me ...... like a brother!
-
But it has meaning for me, and I have friends for whom it has meaning too. I get that not everyone agrees with it, and that's fine, I've no interest to insist that everyone should agree with the notion of 'spiritual'. But it does get old when I'm told that something that I do find meaning in and share with others is 'pointless'.
I said the word is pointless if the meaning is not clear to others. I didn't say what you find meaning in itself is pointless.
-
Which means as Maeght points out that it is essentially useless for communication.
Well, yes and no. As it is, the word might be considered useless for communication (without further clarification) because people disagree as to its meaning. My stretchy version isn't any worse in this respect. You might just add it to the long list of possible meanings, though perhaps you could argue it is especially egregious because it's intrinsically slippery and won't yield upon investigation something tidy with clear margins. But that's really my point.
You can say language fails when clarity goes out of the window and to this end words must have agreed definitions, and for the most part I'd agree with you. The problem comes when we imagine that this kind of language can always adequately represent our experienced lives, which are fluid and slippery and often mysterious and replete with paradox and contradiction. I can already hear someone objecting that theirs isn't but hey, we're different and I can only speak for myself.
For me, if spirituality is to mean anything I can work with then it must refer to the fullness of my experienced life. Now I don't suppose I actually need a word to do this job and often I will avoid using the word precisely because people can mean different things by it. But there's also a sense in which it is used that people do seem to understand and which can be useful. It's hard to pin down what this meaning is simply because it refers to the ungraspable nature of being alive and all that entails, and to that extent I find the word can be helpful. It seems to me that there's a place for such a word and our language doesn't appear to have another one so spirituality will have to do. I see no reason why the word must be out of bounds to me because other people use it in ways that mean little to me. Why should they have all the fun?
Does the word have to remain 'essentially useless for communication'? I don't think so. Sure it can be problematical but I'm guessing even those who loathe it sometimes find themselves resorting to it on occasion. There don't seem to be many words like this in our language because for the most part what we seek is clarity, but I don't find that makes them useless. Perhaps the greatest 'offender' here is the word God, which can be just as slippery as spirituality. These words reach out beyond what we can grasp and tie up in neat linguistic packages. Their existence is an acknowledgement that our life is to a large extent mysterious, much as we might sometimes like to pretend otherwise. It is perhaps a measure of how much we desire to control things that even those who are most attracted to these words so often want to pin them down in some rigid belief (maybe that's what Jung was getting at when he said religion is a defence against the experience of God), and of course this also suits those who dislike the words because then they have something they can get their teeth into.
-
Well, yes and no. As it is, the word might be considered useless for communication (without further clarification) because people disagree as to its meaning. My stretchy version isn't any worse in this respect. You might just add it to the long list of possible meanings, though perhaps you could argue it is especially egregious because it's intrinsically slippery and won't yield upon investigation something tidy with clear margins. But that's really my point.
You can say language fails when clarity goes out of the window and to this end words must have agreed definitions, and for the most part I'd agree with you. The problem comes when we imagine that this kind of language can always adequately represent our experienced lives, which are fluid and slippery and often mysterious and replete with paradox and contradiction. I can already hear someone objecting that theirs isn't but hey, we're different and I can only speak for myself.
For me, if spirituality is to mean anything I can work with then it must refer to the fullness of my experienced life. Now I don't suppose I actually need a word to do this job and often I will avoid using the word precisely because people can mean different things by it. But there's also a sense in which it is used that people do seem to understand and which can be useful. It's hard to pin down what this meaning is simply because it refers to the ungraspable nature of being alive and all that entails, and to that extent I find the word can be helpful. It seems to me that there's a place for such a word and our language doesn't appear to have another one so spirituality will have to do. I see no reason why the word must be out of bounds to me because other people use it in ways that mean little to me. Why should they have all the fun?
Does the word have to remain 'essentially useless for communication'? I don't think so. Sure it can be problematical but I'm guessing even those who loathe it sometimes find themselves resorting to it on occasion. There don't seem to be many words like this in our language because for the most part what we seek is clarity, but I don't find that makes them useless. Perhaps the greatest 'offender' here is the word God, which can be just as slippery as spirituality. These words reach out beyond what we can grasp and tie up in neat linguistic packages. Their existence is an acknowledgement that our life is to a large extent mysterious, much as we might sometimes like to pretend otherwise. It is perhaps a measure of how much we desire to control things that even those who are most attracted to these words so often want to pin them down in some rigid belief (maybe that's what Jung was getting at when he said religion is a defence against the experience of God), and of course this also suits those who dislike the words because then they have something they can get their teeth into.
Thanks for taking the time over that answer. I can totally see how someone who sees them self as a spiritual person can have their own understanding of what that means, but I can have no understanding of that meaning from the simple use of the word spiritual. What you talk about above seems far too big a thing to be summed up in one word anyway. Within groups of likeminded individuals the word can have meaning but outside that group it can have a totally different meaning or none at all, hence my comments (I know you understand that).
-
Hi everyone,
You people are talking about two different things.....
1. Do we need or can we have a common philosophical base for all humans?
2. What does the word 'Spirituality'' mean?
1. It is not that we 'need' a common base. It is not a personal wish of anyone. It is that we in all probability, HAVE a common base.
We have a common anatomy, a common physiology, a common evolutionary history, a common genetic history....and so on. We also have a common psychological and mental pattern. People of different cultures and regions even have common NDE's.
Even with several cultural and historical differences we all today share a common moral and ethical system. Most people around the world have largely uniform ideas of right and wrong and it is converging more and more every day.
So there should also be a common future and a common purpose and pattern to our spirituality and our life goals. It is true that different religions seem to have different teachings but the similarities are obvious and many more. This is why it is important that we try to find commonalities in religious teachings and see if a uniform base philosophy emerges.
And from even rudimentary efforts we can see that there indeed are commonalities among the secret teachings. We have already discussed them many times.
2. As to what the word 'spirituality' means... I think too much is being made of it. Words evolve and are used differently in different generations. Don't get stuck on that.
Try this ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I said the word is pointless if the meaning is not clear to others. I didn't say what you find meaning in itself is pointless.
But surely you can look at people doing 'spirituality' and see that there is something that isn't pointless, even if it doesn't have meaning for you?
-
As with most words there is more than one meaning for the word love but I wouldn't consider it as stretchy as the word spirituality seems to be. It does often need another word to clarify it though - for example when someone told me they loved me ...... like a brother!
Oh, bless you... in my experience something like that usually gets followed with, 'it's not you, it's me'...
-
But surely you can look at people doing 'spirituality' and see that there is something that isn't pointless, even if it doesn't have meaning for you?
Yes, but I'm not talking about what people do, which they describe as spirituality, but purely about the usefulness of the word if it has different meanings to different people and can be streched to mean virtually anything. I am not questioning the point of your spiritual activities/beliefs.
-
Oh, bless you... in my experience something like that usually gets followed with, 'it's not you, it's me'...
Thanks, and yes I've had that said too ....
-
Words evolve and are used differently in different generations. Don't get stuck on that.
They may be use differently in different generations but we are surely talking about how it is used now and if different groups or people have a different understanding on what it means the word, on its own, is of little use regarding communications between those groups.
-
Yes, but I'm not talking about what people do, which they describe as spirituality, but purely about the usefulness of the word if it has different meanings to different people and can be streched to mean virtually anything. I am not questioning the point of your spiritual activities/beliefs.
No, I get that. I think what I am saying is that if you see people doing something that they find meaning in then the word that applies to it has a point, even if it is irrelevant to you personally and is something of an umbrella term for varying ideas.
I feel the same about the word 'golf'.
-
No, I get that. I think what I am saying is that if you see people doing something that they find meaning in then the word that applies to it has a point, even if it is irrelevant to you personally and is something of an umbrella term for varying ideas.
I feel the same about the word 'golf'.
Not in terms of communication if it can mean different things to different people or groups. Everyone understands what golf is if the word is used. You may not see any point in the game but the word has a point. Spirituality isn't the same.
-
But surely you can look at people doing 'spirituality' and see that there is something that isn't pointless, even if it doesn't have meaning for you?
How do you 'do' spirituality an how do you know if someone is 'doing ' it?
-
Not in terms of communication if it can mean different things to different people or groups. Everyone understands what golf is if the word is used. You may not see any point in the game but the word has a point. Spirituality isn't the same.
Golf is a good walk spoiled, it is televised sky.
-
How do you 'do' spirituality an how do you know if someone is 'doing ' it?
I was using the term 'doing' loosely. You'll have noticed I put some writing that comes from my spirituality on this forum. That's me doing my spiritual thing.
-
Golf is a good walk spoiled, it is televised sky.
Maybe, but you know what it is from the word, unlike spirituality.
Like many sports on TV it is alot about the 'situation' - who is winning, who you want to win etc rather than watching the play as you don't really get the best idea of how difficult the shots are.
-
Maybe, but you know what it is from the word, unlike spirituality.
Like many sports on TV it is alot about the 'situation' - who is winning, who you want to win etc rather than watching the play as you don't really get the best idea of how difficult the shots are.
My views on golf are shaped by the golfers I've known and my limited experience of attending a golf club once a year for several years for a corporate thing. It is fair to say that my views are therefore not favourable. I guess you could say the same thing of religion and the religious, and indeed spirituality and the spiritual - there's good, there's bad, depends which kind you encounter as you go through life.
-
My views on golf are shaped by the golfers I've known and my limited experience of attending a golf club once a year for several years for a corporate thing. It is fair to say that my views are therefore not favourable. I guess you could say the same thing of religion and the religious, and indeed spirituality and the spiritual - there's good, there's bad, depends which kind you encounter as you go through life.
Indeed. Golf clubs can be funny places - and I never enjoyed playing golf when I tried as I wasn't any good (not flexible enough) but I did watch a lot of the Masters recently as I wanted Rose or Garcia to win and usually watch the Ryder Cup but not much other golf.
-
Indeed. Golf clubs can be funny places - and I never enjoyed playing golf when I tried as I wasn't any good (not flexible enough) but I did watch a lot of the Masters recently as I wanted Rose or Garcia to win and usually watch the Ryder Cup but not much other golf.
I've never tried golf, mainly on the basis of golf taking place at golf clubs. I try to watch the Ryder Cup as I like match play, but watching any of the Majors is forbidden by my kids, and I kind of get their point.
-
Hi everyone,
To come back to the subject of the thread....
Spirituality (I think I have explained sufficiently about what I mean by spirituality)....is not the same as religion and there can be secular spirituality independent of any religion. Religion is a means to spirituality ..but it need not be the only way.....and no religion can claim to be the only way to spiritual growth.
If we try to look into the secret teachings of all religions we would find many common characteristics that point the way to a common philosophy of Life for all humans (and perhaps other life forms too).
We should avoid exoteric religious differences from affecting our emotions in such a way that they prevent us formulating a common philosophy. Similarly we should also avoid extreme scientific materialism from preventing us formulating such a philosophy.
IMO a common philosophy (the real Theory of Everything!) is unavoidable and will surely happen in coming generations....even if some of us are kicking and screaming all the way!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I know your thread has moved on from the title sriam but someone asked me what i meant by 'spirituality' a few weeks ago and when i came back I couldn't find the thread or remember who asked it.
Another word is 'otherwordly' and I subscribe to that. Don't expect anyone else to believe in it but it is true for me.
-
I know your thread has moved on from the title sriam but someone asked me what i meant by 'spirituality' a few weeks ago and when i came back I couldn't find the thread or remember who asked it.
Another word is 'otherwordly' and I subscribe to that. Don't expect anyone else to believe in it but it is true for me.
it's not about being believed, it's about whether it's meaningful. What does 'otherwordly' mean to you, nevermind someone else?
-
I've given my definition before, but spirituality for me is the pursuit of things that feed my 'spirit' - the meaning that I bring to the party I guess. It's drinking hot chocolate in front of a fire and looking at the stars and feeling wet earth and sloppy kisses from kids and dogs. It's art galleries and bookshops, beaches and my duvet when it's just been cleaned. In other words, being present.
-
In my view 'spirit' is a symbolic word that comes from Latin spiritus which means breath, breeze or air, a symbol of life.
If you try to look at the nature of air through the eyes of people of the distant past I would suggest it would have these qualities - it is invisible but you can see its effect when it animates something, it is intangible but you can feel it when it moves towards you, if you try to grasp it you lose it, its source is unknown and yet it seems to be ever present, if you don't get it into you, you die. 'Spirituality' could then be seen as an inner quest to discover the essence of life and remain ever conscious (of it). To some mystics, words like 'quest', 'seek and you shall find' and 'philosophy' will agitate the reasoning rationalising mind and so they suggest methods to promote inner stillness (which is not the same as inner suppression).
-
Nicely put, ekim. One might add that whilst the breath is invisible to us, except on a very cold day, it is actually entirely physical/material (reminding us that things that appear subtle and intangible do not necessarily imply otherworldliness) and is a point of vital contact and interchange with our environment. When this relationship with the outside world stops we die. So although spirituality is often linked to 'seeking' it might more fundamentally be a word that refers to our essential relationship and connection with all that is without, and thus about the experience of being a self in a world of other and all the issues and implications that arise from this. Perhaps the most significant issue that arises is that of the experience of lack, which leads to searching for whatever it might be that appears to be missing. Because people are generally confused about what is missing they seek for different things in different ways, resulting in a wide variety of spiritual practices and beliefs, which is why the word spiritual can be so slippery and imprecise. And, of course, those who do not think of themselves as spiritual will equally be engaged in this process, even if their seeking is restricted to retail therapy or new and entertaining experiences. That's why I think we need to be careful of defining spirituality too narrowly and I'd suggest that it makes no more sense to think of only certain people as spiritual than it would to think of only certain people as having bodies. Spiritual life (whether we acknowledge it or not) is as innate to us as mental life or physical embodiment and the three are merely aspects of one thing.
-
Bramble,
Your point that spirit and body are connected...therefore anyone with a body would also be spiritual....is valid only partly.
All animals have bodies...how are they spiritual? Hitler had a body...how is he spiritual?
I agree that merely existing in a body itself automatically takes us forward spiritually because of the living experiences that we have. But this kind of automatic progression is like nursery/primary school children who progress almost automatically to higher classes without consciously relating to their progression. At lower levels it works.
But it doesn't work at higher levels.
At high school level one needs to be consciously aware and also consciously work towards ones progression, otherwise we will not progress. Similarly human spiritual progress for most people, will not happen without conscious intent and effort. That is why conscious awareness and intellectual capabilities develop during this stage.
-
Nicely put, ekim. One might add that whilst the breath is invisible to us, except on a very cold day, it is actually entirely physical/material (reminding us that things that appear subtle and intangible do not necessarily imply otherworldliness) and is a point of vital contact and interchange with our environment. When this relationship with the outside world stops we die. So although spirituality is often linked to 'seeking' it might more fundamentally be a word that refers to our essential relationship and connection with all that is without, and thus about the experience of being a self in a world of other and all the issues and implications that arise from this. Perhaps the most significant issue that arises is that of the experience of lack, which leads to searching for whatever it might be that appears to be missing. Because people are generally confused about what is missing they seek for different things in different ways, resulting in a wide variety of spiritual practices and beliefs, which is why the word spiritual can be so slippery and imprecise. And, of course, those who do not think of themselves as spiritual will equally be engaged in this process, even if their seeking is restricted to retail therapy or new and entertaining experiences. That's why I think we need to be careful of defining spirituality too narrowly and I'd suggest that it makes no more sense to think of only certain people as spiritual than it would to think of only certain people as having bodies. Spiritual life (whether we acknowledge it or not) is as innate to us as mental life or physical embodiment and the three are merely aspects of one thing.
Nice post.
I think we are diverse creatures so the pursuit of whatever it is that is missing is going to take in an almost infinite range of expression. And my personal take is that the meaning we seek is within ourselves and not something external, and it is about relationship. I guess I'm with the existentialists in that life has no meaning except that which we bring to the party, and so when I'm looking at art, or listening to music, or gazing at a sunset, or holding my kids, the thing that I am seeking is my relationship to those things, how I connect with them, what meaning I give them.
-
Nicely put, ekim. One might add that whilst the breath is invisible to us, except on a very cold day, it is actually entirely physical/material (reminding us that things that appear subtle and intangible do not necessarily imply otherworldliness) and is a point of vital contact and interchange with our environment. When this relationship with the outside world stops we die. So although spirituality is often linked to 'seeking' it might more fundamentally be a word that refers to our essential relationship and connection with all that is without, and thus about the experience of being a self in a world of other and all the issues and implications that arise from this. Perhaps the most significant issue that arises is that of the experience of lack, which leads to searching for whatever it might be that appears to be missing. Because people are generally confused about what is missing they seek for different things in different ways, resulting in a wide variety of spiritual practices and beliefs, which is why the word spiritual can be so slippery and imprecise. And, of course, those who do not think of themselves as spiritual will equally be engaged in this process, even if their seeking is restricted to retail therapy or new and entertaining experiences. That's why I think we need to be careful of defining spirituality too narrowly and I'd suggest that it makes no more sense to think of only certain people as spiritual than it would to think of only certain people as having bodies. Spiritual life (whether we acknowledge it or not) is as innate to us as mental life or physical embodiment and the three are merely aspects of one thing.
Good post. You've reminded me of the writings of Jacques Lacan, the French psychoanalyst. Amongst various incomprehensible stuff, he did say many times that humans are actually constituted by lack, or identified with it, or haunted by it. Of course, normally we try to fill it with stuff, but there is an interesting experience in meditation or contemplation, whereby one becomes the lack. People often talk about it as the desert experience, or just barrenness, emptiness. But as I said, it's interesting to stay in it, and not try to cure it. Of course, the emptiness tends to fill anyway, quite naturally. Zen talks about nothing and everything being two sides of the same coin. Well, so do most religions, cf. the theme of the desert in Christianity. But Western people seem to have a huge need/greed to fill the lack, don't know why, except that it's uncomfortable to be lacking.
-
Nice post.
I think we are diverse creatures so the pursuit of whatever it is that is missing is going to take in an almost infinite range of expression. And my personal take is that the meaning we seek is within ourselves and not something external, and it is about relationship. I guess I'm with the existentialists in that life has no meaning except that which we bring to the party, and so when I'm looking at art, or listening to music, or gazing at a sunset, or holding my kids, the thing that I am seeking is my relationship to those things, how I connect with them, what meaning I give them.
Yes, and sometimes we notice that nothing is actually missing and then, as T S Eliot put it, we return home and find we know the place for the first time.
-
Good post. You've reminded me of the writings of Jacques Lacan, the French psychoanalyst. Amongst various incomprehensible stuff, he did say many times that humans are actually constituted by lack, or identified with it, or haunted by it. Of course, normally we try to fill it with stuff, but there is an interesting experience in meditation or contemplation, whereby one becomes the lack. People often talk about it as the desert experience, or just barrenness, emptiness. But as I said, it's interesting to stay in it, and not try to cure it. Of course, the emptiness tends to fill anyway, quite naturally. Zen talks about nothing and everything being two sides of the same coin. Well, so do most religions, cf. the theme of the desert in Christianity. But Western people seem to have a huge need/greed to fill the lack, don't know why, except that it's uncomfortable to be lacking.
Hence the human preoccupation with identity, I suppose. I sometimes think we're a bit like those curious caddis fly larvae that cover themselves in small twigs and stones, except that in our case there's nothing inside the debris of attachments we make our home.
-
Hence the human preoccupation with identity, I suppose. I sometimes think we're a bit like those curious caddis fly larvae that cover themselves in small twigs and stones, except that in our case there's nothing inside the debris of attachments we make our home.
That's a nice image. Into the heart of darkness! The old cry in Zen is 'I am nothing and everything'.
-
'I am not the stars in the sky, I am the space between the stars.'
I think there is something in the west about our need to tell stories about ourselves and each other. We like labels and tribes and figuring out where we fit and where we don't. And all we do is flag up differences and feel we don't fit where we should or don't like those who don't fit. And all because of a load of stories that were never true to begin with.
-
'I am not the stars in the sky, I am the space between the stars.'
I think there is something in the west about our need to tell stories about ourselves and each other. We like labels and tribes and figuring out where we fit and where we don't. And all we do is flag up differences and feel we don't fit where we should or don't like those who don't fit. And all because of a load of stories that were never true to begin with.
I used to be obsessed with the space between things, words, stories, ideas. When I started doing Zen, I found it ideal, as there is plenty of nothingness going on! But now I'm too old and tired to do stuff like that, but I can still rustle up a whole pile of emptiness at times! Well, it can feel really bad, of course, but that's not space.
-
'I am not the stars in the sky, I am the space between the stars.'
I think there is something in the west about our need to tell stories about ourselves and each other. We like labels and tribes and figuring out where we fit and where we don't. And all we do is flag up differences and feel we don't fit where we should or don't like those who don't fit. And all because of a load of stories that were never true to begin with.
That could be at least partly because of the Zoom-In and Zoom -Out mind that I have talked about earlier. Westerners tend to have a Zoom-In mind ...that separates, dissects, labels and differentiates. This is good for Science...because that's what science does. This type of mind has lots of boxes and hedges in the mind with very fixed channels.
For philosophy, spirituality and mysticism on the other hand....we need a Zoom-Out mind that integrates, puts together and looks at the whole instead of the parts. This kind of mind has very few hedges. Everything is like a open field....and you can run anywhere to anywhere.
-
'I am not the stars in the sky, I am the space between the stars.'
Reminds me of a verse from the Tao Te Ching:
Many spokes are needed to create a wheel
But it is the space at the centre that makes it functional.
Create a pot from clay,
But it is the space within that makes it useable.
A house may have many windows and doors,
But it is the open space that allows them to be used.
Therefore, although we favour what is in Existence
We need to see the spacious value of inner Being.
-
I think some people get quite impressed with the 'emptiness', 'nothingness' ideas because it is intriguing and adds to the mystery.
Actually emptiness only means that our mind is unable to interact with what ever is there. It is like empty space in outer space....there is no such thing. 'Nothingness' doesn't exist. It is vibrant and full of potential.
-
........ 'Nothingness' doesn't exist. It is vibrant and full of potential.
Sriram.... and that is it in one.. The Kingdom of Heaven is within.. alive within us all..
-
Sriram.... and that is it in one.. The Kingdom of Heaven is within.. alive within us all..
I agree SweetPea. Realizing that is enough, IMO!
-
it's not about being believed, it's about whether it's meaningful. What does 'otherwordly' mean to you, nevermind someone else?
;D Feeling dreamy & being vague!