Has spirituality lost all meaning?
It has increasingly come to my attention that spirituality is almost entirely accepted in most atheist communities as being a legitimate form of understanding oneself and, therefore, the world. Yet, this acceptance would seem to come about without an equal respect for explicitly religious spirituality. This begs the question of whether spirituality is in itself inherently religious, or if religiousness and spirituality are, in fact, separate.
I myself find it rather bizarre when I come across someone who categorizes all religious folk as being sky daddy worshiping young Earth nutcases, but will, on the other hand, see no issue when a person might label themselves "spiritual, but not religious." What exactly does that labeling even mean, especially in the modern context? In my experience, "spiritual, but not religious" usually boils down to "I don't know, and I don't really care." Is it truly favorable in this day and age for someone to be almost willfully ignorant and apathetic over some dudebro who tries fervently to believe in some religious doctrine and to live their faith out day by day? Perhaps I'm in fact generalizing these "spiritual, but not religious" people as well, but I don't think that I am. It would seem to me that spirituality as a word has been hijacked by faux egalitarians who would rather judge religious believers than soft agnostics who can't sit still, intellectually, even though both ought to be condemned for being silly, given the sentiments Western atheists often preach.
Anyhoo, thoughts? Agree, disagree? O:)
I myself find it rather bizarre when I come across someone who categorizes all religious folk as being sky daddy worshiping young Earth nutcases, but will, on the other hand, see no issue when a person might label themselves "spiritual, but not religious." What exactly does that labeling even mean, especially in the modern context? In my experience, "spiritual, but not religious" usually boils down to "I don't know, and I don't really care." Is it truly favorable in this day and age for someone to be almost willfully ignorant and apathetic over some dudebro who tries fervently to believe in some religious doctrine and to live their faith out day by day? Perhaps I'm in fact generalizing these "spiritual, but not religious" people as well, but I don't think that I am. It would seem to me that spirituality as a word has been hijacked by faux egalitarians who would rather judge religious believers than soft agnostics who can't sit still, intellectually, even though both ought to be condemned for being silly, given the sentiments Western atheists often preach.
Anyhoo, thoughts? Agree, disagree? O:)
Comments (14)
Thoughts:
Suppose that spirit is a potential state of matter, a sort of panpsychism where matter contains within itself the potential possibility to be alive, or spiritual. A subjective ontological state that can't be reduced to an objective state without loss of the causal nature we describe as life or spirit. Here spirit/life is a different level of description of a property of matter, as a realized state of matter.
I like Geertz's description of religion, it contains no mention of spirit:
The Divine Names, Pseudo-Dionysius
I think 'Jehovah' is really pretty much the same meaning as 'Jupiter'. The name 'Jupiter' is derived from an Indo-european root, namely, 'Dyaus-Pitar' - which means 'Sky Father'. And I think the idea of a 'Sky Father' is an archetypal image, which harmonises very well with (for example) the Lord's Prayer (our father in Heaven), and ancient ideas of the Heavens being in the 'super-lunerary' sphere (before science discovered its physical nature.)
The name of Jehovah is a Anglicisation of 'Yaweh'. And Yahweh, in turn, is derived from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, comprising four consonants.
Wikipedia
The esoteric significance of this word-form is that it cannot be pronounced.
The Vatican issued a statement on the significance of this fact in the not too distant past:
So the point of this is that the original intent of the tetragrammaton was to convey the unsayable (hence unthinkable) nature of God. But through cultural evolution this name has become identified with the Sky Father archetype.
There's nothing intrinsically the matter with that. People relate to religious ideas on a lot of levels, and not many of them are monks or mystics. The problem is, I think, in modern post-industrial culture, many of the myths and archetypes which traditional religion appeals to are no longer intelligible to the 'metropolitan intelligentsia'.That is what leads to the widespread dismissal and ridicule of traditional religion. It is more like a kind of cultural/cognitive dissonance. But religious themes, ideas and motifs turn up in popular culture all the time - look at Star Wars. It's only that, being presented in terms of space travel, it is something that today's urban masses can relate to. That's the way archetypes operate. (This is also related to the fact that George Lucas leaned very heavily on Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces for the original Star Wars story.)
No one is good. Growl growl.
But you're not being quite honest here, for you have said on numerous occasions that you identify with a particular Japanese school of Buddhism. The "spiritual but not religious" people don't do "organized religion," but you're clearly an adherent of an organized religion. Feel free to correct me.
Quoting Wayfarer
That isn't the issue. One could believe this and yet still be part of a particular religion, as you do in fact.
Quoting Wayfarer
So you're a relativist? Why would you let contingent cultural prejudices determine what's true for you? Just because we know more about different religions than in the past doesn't mean they all have to be transmogrified into one giant universalist system. Nor is it impolite to suggest that only one religion is true, its similarities with other religions notwithstanding. Ironically, universalism amounts to a religion for one person, the person doing the transmogrifying, in that he is not limited by any particular scriptural canon or doctrinal authority when choosing what beliefs and practices to accept and embody. But this is just narcissism pretending to be religion, which fails to take seriously the robust and mutually exclusive truth claims of different religions. I simply don't understand the paternalistic-sounding desire to "unite" the world religions based on shared characteristics.
I suppose you might be proof of Ronald Knox's quip that the study of comparative religions is the best way to become comparatively religious. I'm guilty of this as well, but I have increasingly found that the Burger King "have it your way" approach to religion is malignantly useless. It leaves one just as isolated and crestfallen as if one had done nothing at all. This is true of me at least.
Words are labels describing names, actions, concepts, etc. Each word creates a different image in each of our minds, according to our accumulated experiences of life. Within a culture the differences are small.
The word spirituality has different meanings for each of us. Spirit by definition is the essence of us. This spirit is not perceptible by senses, it can only be perceived by our mind proportionally to our self awareness. Therefore, staunch followers of doctrines of religions attribute magical properties to it, associating it with blind obedience, discarding logic.
Everything in this universe has a reason, and it becomes cause of something. To me logic permeates all. To me spirituality is logical, only of a very high tier. In this sense I believe in spirituality. It tends to save me from the pitfalls of life. But I abhor the word spirituality in the popular sense.
Why bicker about a label? let us face it; the goal of life is happiness. Let us use logic, to climb up the pyramid step by step. As I increase my self awareness, I climb further steps. I don't know, if there is an end to the journey, and if there is, I don't know that I will ever reach the pick. But I don't care. The additional fruit each step up brings me is very sweet.
I think that in general the people who do that categorisation you describe are not going to sneer any less at self-described SBNRs. That is my experience at least.
There are plenty of people that reject the dogmas of the institutional religions, but still are spiritual in temperament and practice. I think I fit into that category. I would not describe myself as SBNR because I would say I am religious but do not accept the dogmas of any institutional religion. I think we recently agreed to disagree because for you 'religion' means organised religion, whereas for me it doesn't (unless that was somebody else in which case I apologise for misidentifying you).
In talking to somebody for whom 'religious' means affiliated with a particular religious institution I would have to say I am SBNR in order to avoid misunderstanding.
But I would not suggest that all people affiliated with mainstream religions are skydaddy-worshipping simpletons. I only did that in my radical atheist phase, which was several years ago. Now I'm not really a radical anything, except greeny.
I identify with it, but I don't attend it. I conduct a solitary, self-maintained meditation practice which is guided by those principles. If I lived in San Fransisco, I think I would probably attend the SFZC. But, I realised when I started to practice meditation, it's religious in the sense that you have to adopt an attitude of unconditional commitment to it - you 'sit with no idea of gaining something' was the way it was described to me. So if you're engaged in that kind of training, then it's 'religous' in that sense.
But the difference between the Buddhist and Christian view is that the foundation of the path is not adherence to belief. You're trained to understand the dynamics of how suffering is caused by unskillful cognition and action. That discipline entails living by principles and standards, but it's different to the Nicene Creed.
(It's interesting that the hallmark of Christian faith is 'orthodoxy' meaning right belief or right worship, whereas the first step of the Buddhist path is 'samma ditthi', 'right understanding' or 'right view'. And actually it amounts to a subtly but genuinely different understanding of what 'religion' means.)
Quoting Thorongil
It certainly is. A Christian is obliged to affirm that theirs is 'the way, the truth and the light'. There are inter-faith initiatives within Christianity, but the bottom line is there is only one way, as far as the Christian church is concerned. There are Buddhists (and Hindus and Muslims) that are like that, also, but I don't think it's the way Buddhists ought to see it.
And furthermore, I honestly believe that insofar as I am able to live the Buddhist path, I don't see a contradiction between it and the spiritual principles espoused by Christianity. The bodhisattva ethos is, I think, identical in essence to the Christian path, even despite the considerable differences in the framework of belief sorrounding it. Accordingly I feel my comprehension of Christian principles has been enhanced through Buddhist practice. (I've noticed a book called Without Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian, Paul F. Knitter, although I haven't felt impelled to buy it.)
Quoting Thorongil
And I think that is patronising in the extreme.
Quoting Thorongil
Most of my extended family are Christians, as is my wife. So, do you suggest I ought to cut off contact with them? Not go to their funerals? You think we have nothing in common, because of what we believe? You think that a person who practices Buddhism should simply regard Christians as delusional? Would that be preferable in your opinion?
Quoting Thorongil
No, definitely not. But I think that the higher truth which is the subject matter of all the religions, is not something easily understood or known. It is real, but it's not a matter for the natural sciences. That is why I regard comparative religion and the 'perennialist' understanding as one way to approach these difficult questions. It doesn't mean I think that all religions are the same, but there's also a sense in which they're all part of a larger picture. I would like to see them as complementing each other, rather than (as atheists invariably argue) all 'cancelling each other out'.
Alright, fair enough. But now I would question your labeling yourself a Buddhist. You could just be a meditator, which is fine, but that's not what makes one a Buddhist.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah, maybe, but there are certain bedrock principles you have to believe in order to be a Buddhist.
Quoting Wayfarer
No to all of that, except the second to last question. You can go to a Christian funeral or marry a person of another religion or recognize that religions have some things in common all without thinking that every religion teaches one and the same truth in different ways or is fully in possession of the truth. As for the second to last question, the Buddhist would indeed regard the Christian as delusional to the extent that certain beliefs found in Christianity but not in Buddhism are hindrances to realizing nibbana.
As do I! But it's like a 'working title'. Recall 'the simile of the raft' - that the Buddha's teaching is like a raft, put together out of 'grass, twigs, branches and leaves' (sic), for the purpose of 'conveying one across the river' - but then left behind. So the 'raft' itself ought not to be carried around (i.e. idolised or worshipped). One consequence of that, is that there are no 'real Buddhists', because once it's done its job, it's left behind. It's a little like Wittgenstein's ladder.
But while you're climbing the ladder, or crossing the river (to mix metaphors), then you have to climb, or paddle, as the case may be. That's what 'being Buddhist' is about.
Quoting Thorongil
Well, it depends. I'm not personally atheist, but I recognise that 'belief in God' is certainly not part of Buddhism. But there are ways of interpreting it that lessen the apparent disparity.
Kyogen Carlson, Cosmic Buddha
(Mind you, I probably wouldn't post that quotation at DharmaWheel. ;-) )