Spiritual and not Religious

[Unveiled Artist]

I found an interesting web site. It's not a debate topic; just a thought not a sermon.

http://mindvalleyacademy.com/featured/religion-spirituality-ken-wilber
Well, not too much for conversation. Eh.

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you.
Just a thought....Respectfully disagree with person.

 

[Gambrinus]

I like this.
My spirituality comes without doctrine. I find that guidance is helpful, but I don't need someone else to teach me their idea of morality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Peace be on you.
Just a thought....Respectfully disagree with person.

I was thinking that myself after I posted and re-read it. How would you define "spiritual"?

I dont feel spiritual and religious can be separated. What about you?

 

[DawudTalut]

I was thinking that myself after I posted and re-read it. How would you define "spiritual"?

I dont feel spiritual and religious can be separated. What about you?

....Without going into too much technicalities, simply saying:
When hearty connection with God is absent and good deeds with pure heart are absent, it means spiritual component of religion is missing. In such case of missing spirituality, religion merely becomes set of rituals.........That is why God sends reformers to put "soul" in a religion to make spirituality alive.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is one of those rich topics where understanding what others mean by what they say is so much more worthwhile than finding out whether there is agreement.

Between "spiritual" and "religious", both are awfully vague terms that rely almost entirely on context to even have a chance of attaining a clear meaning.

Ken Wilber is clearly proposing that "spiritual but not religious" should, barring evidence to the contrary, be assumed to describe people whose religious perspective is more interested in quality of life than with dogma.

I am not entirely satisfied by the terminology he chose, but what he means is clear enough. I find it interesting that he is defining "relative" and "absolute" truths in a somewhat counter-intuitive way. Maybe it was deliberate?

In any case, I do disagree with him as well. Matters of language aside, the group he describes does not fit my understanding of what the expression is usually meant to be. The numbers of people who he estimates to match that profile are certainly far too low to justify the popularity of the expression.

Personally, when I hear someone describe himself or herself as spiritual but not religious, the one thing I feel reasonably certain about is that that person has some sort of reservation about religions. That may be a good sign, but not always.

It is also a strong indication that the person is not all that interested in discussing doctrinary matters, perhaps because he or she finds it more useful to deal with the religious practice proper. Which is a legitimate stance, but not always a good one.

 

[Mackerni]

Some of this diagram is so filled with ****.

The ideas, myths, and stories represented in The Bible are considered "canon" by Christians. That means they are absolute truth.

Personal realizations IS subjective truth! Does everybody pray to God the same way? No! "Psycho-technologies" is regarded by most scientists as the same way a placebo works. People that advocate for "psycho-technologies" will have many different ways of doing such. Just look at the difference between holistic medicine throughout different regions of the word. Technology helps everybody, "psycho-technology" does not.

Observable objects and facts are one of the many quantifying ways which something is regarded as absolute fact. A bush caught on fire. If anybody was there, they would see with there own eyes that that bush caught on fire! End of story.

Invisible sensations. Yeah. Like when you need to itch? Everybody has different sensations from different stimuli. It's incredibly hard to tell where these "sensations" come from or why we have them. They are not regarded as absolute fact for everybody, as everybody has a different invisible sensation.

"Subject and object are split/are one." Science has proven, by the way of interpreting, that both are indeed correct. I am not a tree. That's obvious. But trees and humans are carbon-based lifeforms, something in which science has proven and (some) religions guessed correctly, without the explanation as to how.

That "fact" that 70% of people are "engaged" in relative truth is ****ing pathetic. Where did he get that number, up is ***? And 0.01% are engaged in absolute fact. Right. Not to already state the obvious: Christians and Muslims make up for half of the world's population. Plus, there's a large chunch this is "Spiritual But Not Religious". He believes both are on the side of "Absolute Fact." According to his own bull****, I would say 80% are on the side of "Absolute Fact" and 20% are on the side of "Relative Truth", i.e. 80% believe in spirituality of some kind and 20% don't.

Where he has it wrong is that spirituality is "relative truth" and "absolute fact" is science.

This Ken Wilber guy is complete nonsense. Anyone who takes him seriously needs to have their head checked. I know you said you don't want an argument, but this is pathetic.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I've read some of his works outside of this...it's interesting stuff, but as with any philosophical system for understanding the world, the result of applied logic is only as good as the assumptions going into the work. I think in some ways he's got some good ideas. His assumptions definitely drive his conclusions, but his assumptions--and sometimes what he allows as evidence or how he interprets it--is certainly debatable.

 

[wizanda]

How would you define "spiritual"?

Spirituality would define, as trying to understand ourselves in a physical, and then metaphysical realm.

I dont feel spiritual and religious can be separated. What about you?

Spirituality if defined as above, is why Yeshua challenged the Pharisees; religious people make a list of rules and practises, which often has nothing to do with understanding the mind, body and soul within its environment, and often distracts so much from it, it is almost the opposite.

As dogma leads to applying blinkers to questioning.
Ritual without intent, has no colour, and leads to dogmatic practises.

To summarize the difference, "Knowledge is found at the end of your nose, wisdom is found at the bottom of your toes; seek too much of man's knowledge, and you won’t see your toes, as your nose grows."

 

[Deidre]

I'd say I'm falling more into being spiritual than religious. I follow Christianity, but following Christ really isn't about following religion, as had been taught to me the first go around with faith. Good thread topic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Spirituality would define, as trying to understand ourselves in a physical, and then metaphysical realm.

I'd say spirituality is both. Why not the physical realm?

As dogma leads to applying blinkers to questioning.

Ritual without intent, has no colour, and leads to dogmatic practises.

Ritual is part of the physical realm. With intent to bring out our spiritual growth, it is interconnected with our spiritual (rather than metaphysical-sounds sci fi) realm.

Dogma/physical and spiritual/metaphysical are interconnected. What is wrong with dogma in the aspect that we are also physical as well as spiritual?

Do you agree with this or how do you explain the physical realm and why do you place it below the metaphysical realm?

To summarize the difference, "Knowledge is found at the end of your nose, wisdom is found at the bottom of your toes; seek too much of man's knowledge, and you won’t see your toes, as your nose grows."

Cute. I like this better than the computer analogy. Good point.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I like this.
My spirituality comes without doctrine. I find that guidance is helpful, but I don't need someone else to teach me their idea of morality.

Nice. Some of us still need training wheels.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Some of this diagram is so filled with ****.

Well...

The ideas, myths, and stories represented in The Bible are considered "canon" by Christians. That means they are absolute truth.

How is that absolute truth? Facts are absolute truth. Majority of the Bible doesn't apply to everyone and isn't considered fact. It's relative and important to those who believe it and/or hold it sacred. Maybe some ideas are absolute. Myths, no. Stories-maybe those based on true story.

Personal realizations IS subjective truth! Does everybody pray to God the same way? No! "Psycho-technologies" is regarded by most scientists as the same way a placebo works. People that advocate for "psycho-technologies" will have many different ways of doing such. Just look at the difference between holistic medicine throughout different regions of the word. Technology helps everybody, "psycho-technology" does not.

It's relative truth. Nothing wrong with that. If it's subjective, it should be my truth too not personal. Psycho-technologies was not an appropriate word to use. However, everyone can benefit from the fact meditation, yoga, etc relaxes one whether they are spiritual or not.

Personal revelations don't work that way; hence, why they are relative. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Observable objects and facts are one of the many quantifying ways which something is regarded as absolute fact. A bush caught on fire. If anybody was there, they would see with there own eyes that that bush caught on fire! End of story.

That's a bad analogy the author used. We see forest fires all the time. None I know which forest fighters say they hear god behind those fires; at least not from my uncle.

Where he has it wrong is that spirituality is "relative truth" and "absolute fact" is science.

I think that's what he was implying, very badly it seems.

This Ken Wilber guy is complete nonsense. Anyone who takes him seriously needs to have their head checked. I know you said you don't want an argument, but this is pathetic.

 

[Ralphg]

I like it when people argue you can use the psycho-technologies of religion to live a spiritual life without believing in relative truths. I think that's exactely the reason why these psycho-technologies exist. If you decide to actively practise one of the psycho-technologies it automaticaly 'forces' you to ask questions like; 'why' and 'how'.

 

[wizanda]

Why not the physical realm?

Spirituality is an ongoing experience of reality, within any form of existence.

Ritual is part of the physical realm.

Indeed life repeats in loops; yet deeming a certain loop holier than another, misses the whole point.

It is the reason for doing something, and the energy behind it that makes it matter.

What is wrong with dogma in the aspect that we are also physical as well as spiritual?

Dogma leads to limitation.

Like imagine reading the same line of one book everyday for the rest of your life, and then saying you've read a lot.

how do you explain the physical realm and why do you place it below the metaphysical realm?

A lot of religious beliefs globally place it in that aspect...The Heavens are above us, and hell below us.

The physical realm is made of dense vibration/consciousness, the metaphysical is lighter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Interesting.

Spirituality is an ongoing experience of reality, within any form of existence.

I'd say both physical and metaphysical forms interconnected, do you agree?

Indeed life repeats in loops; yet deeming a certain loop holier than another, misses the whole point.

It is the reason for doing something, and the energy behind it that makes it matter.

Ritual is not always like that. At least how I do so. We pray certain ways and have certain times we do X. However, it's not static. I don't have to practice directly on a full moon if that full moon happens on a day inconvenient of my worship. Yet, it is a ritual because of the continuous not routine observance of the high tides compared to the low.

Dogma leads to limitation.

Like imagine reading the same line of one book everyday for the rest of your life, and then saying you've read a lot.

I disagree. Dogma is reading the full book and going to the next book. It's soaking in the references that correspond with life in many ways while scripture is yourself and your environment. That's personal experience. Dogma in and of itself doesn't do anything but either limit or strengthen ones's spiritual growth depending on how one sees it, experiences it, and apply it to their life.

I get a little fuzzy when people put down Dogma.

A lot of religious beliefs globally place it in that aspect...The Heavens are above us, and hell below us.

The physical realm is made of dense vibration/consciousness, the metaphysical is lighter.

Have no clue what you mean by vibration/consciousness. I'll just nod.

 

[Ralphg]

A lot of religious beliefs globally place it in that aspect...The Heavens are above us, and hell below us.

The physical realm is made of dense vibration/consciousness, the metaphysical is lighter.

I understand where you're comming from but it's not entirely correct.
The right order is:
1) Heaven = Light, White or Weigthless (endless fast vibrating) and so metaphysically lighter than the physical realm
2) The physical realm (Middle-Earth for Lord of The Ring fans...), that's us! The Balance in between. Physical beings with metaphysical aspects.
3) Hell = Dark, Black or Massive (no vibration) and metaphysically heavier than the physical realm

Either Heaven or Hell are 'not yet consious nor unconsious' and the other one is completely 'unconsious'. I don't know which is which. Haven't been able to figure that out yet. But humans are the 'consious' ones in this equation.

edit: hmmm, maybe they meant; humans are 'both consious and unconsious or neither' and Heaven and Hell are 'completely consious' and 'completely unconsious' or vice-versa.

 

[wizanda]

I understand where you're comming from but it's not entirely correct.

You're right, when based on the beliefs within the mythologies....Yet what questioning is that matter its self is made from dense vibration (hell).

That here is a mixture between the light, and the dark; with us closer to hell, than we are to heaven.

I'd say both physical and metaphysical forms interconnected, do you agree?

The metaphysical holds up the physical, so it is on the flip side of reality; right in front of us, if we could see it.

Have no clue what you mean by vibration/consciousness.

Everything around us is vibrating strings of energy, depending on their resonance, depends on where they exist within reality.

So matter being made of dense vibration, is that the life's that lived before us, are then turned into the physical; we see this happen when we eat, as everything is recycled energy.

 

[Ralphg]

You're right, when based on the beliefs within the mythologies....Yet what questioning is that matter its self is made from dense vibration (hell).

That here is a mixture between the light, and the dark; with us closer to hell, than we are to heaven

I agree that matter is made in hell. But while matter is being created there 'spirit' also enters the matter (by using it's endless fast vibration) there without hell knowing it and matter doesn't leave hell before it is in perfect 'Balance'.

BTW you can see this 'fight' also taking place on a large scale in our Univers with Hell creating Black Holes. We still don't know if anything entering a black hole can 'survive'.

The metaphysical holds up the physical, so it is on the flip side of reality; right in front of us, if we could see it.

Here I agree with Carlita. Without physical the metaphysical would dissapear too. Again here I would use the term Balance, physical and metaphysical worlds hold eachother in 'Balance'.

 

[Gambrinus]

Nice. Some of us still need training wheels.

I'm not sure what you mean.