Spiritual v. Religious?

[Martin]

I also see it generally as another difference between Abrahamic and Dharmic thought or paradigms. 'Religious' in this context generally refers to Abrahamic religions. Eastern faiths, by their very nature, are spiritual. When you look at it from that POV, it does make some sense. It's just difficult for me to look at it from that POV.

Actually many Hindus and Buddhists sound quite "religious" to me, in the sense that they have a strong faith in their scripture, guru or teacher. And both of these are organised religions.

But again, the distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" is often unclear, and people have different ideas about what these words mean.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Sure, but why do you say "spiritual truth", rather than "religious truth"? What's the difference in your view?

Good point.

I think people who call themselves spiritual instead of religious don’t want to be thought of as being associated with organised religion because not only has it become unpopular but sometimes involved in violence and criminal activity. But calling oneself spiritual means you just like things like virtues and inner peace.

I agree that organised religion has let down humanity and can understand fully why people would rather not be called religious.

But I believe, however much we may not wish to admit it, that all the spiritual truth came initially from a Prophet or Founder of a religion. In that sense religious truth and spiritual truth are one.

But another very good argument I feel, and which is why I’m proud to call myself religious has to do with what I believe to be true religion. My definition of religion is for example Krishna and the Gita, Buddha and the Dhamapadda, Jesus and the Gospels. In other words, once I cut out the middle men, the clergy and priests, I end up with religion in its pure form which is virtues, upright character and leading a noble life.

So I’m believing in the Founder and the Holy Book. Not the added doctrines and interpretations which have divided each religion into thousands of sects.

So when I look at the foundation beliefs of the religions I accept them all because they all teach truth and do not contradict one another.

It’s to me, the ultimate of spiritual states and freedoms to be able to accept all religions and all religionists as brothers and sisters. Because of this spiritual or religious freedom, I can pray in a Hindu Temple, a Buddhist Pagoda, a Christian Church and a Jewish Synagogue feeling at one with everyone. Atheist or agnostic it doesn’t matter as we all are human.

So I understand when looking at how religious leaders have let down humanity, one does not wish to be any longer associated with organised religion and just takes the best parts and calls it spirituality.

 

[Colt]

What's the practical difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"?

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

I think it's a distinction between belief and faith-action. One can have certain theological beliefs but not actually seek and live the will of their God.

 

[Vinayaka]

Actually many Hindus and Buddhists sound quite "religious" to me, in the sense that they have a strong faith in their scripture, guru or teacher. And both of these are organised religions.

But again, the distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" is often unclear, and people have different ideas about what these words mean.

Hinduism isn't all that organised. The average Hindu just goes along, not belonging to any sect, or sampradaya. Temples operate outside of teachers. Upon reflection, I also think for those who see 'religious' as a bad thing, they're referring to dogma. Eastern faiths generally have less dogma.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, the freedom to hold personalised beliefs does seem to be a common theme with those who prefer the "spiritual" label.

And that group is growing and organized religion declining. I think with the universal increase in education and exposure to the world and various thinking, people naturally form their own positions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What's the practical difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"?

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

As one who spend years identifying as spiritual, but not religious, I meant that I knew there was more than what is typically experienced in pragmatic reality, but did not identify with any religion in particular. I didn't consider myself to be religious at the time. I'm not even sure if I do now.

 

[1213]

...The original reason for religion was to uplift people spiritually,...

Interesting, maybe it is so. But, I would like to hear why do you think so? Did someone really at some point found a religion in attempt to uplift people?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Interesting, maybe it is so. But, I would like to hear why do you think so? Did someone really at some point found a religion in attempt to uplift people?

That to me is every faith given by God was to uplift people into the Spiritual Reality.

In Christianity it was recorded as being 'Born Again', born from flesh into the Spiritual worlds of God.

It is the fundamental purpose of religions for people to be Spiritual.

It is the guiding light of the Baha'i Faith to becone a spiritual being, to become more than the flesh.

Regards Tony

 

[Windwalker]

I don’t think one can be spiritual without accepting the Manifestations.

I accept everything as a manifestation of the Divine. "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." One does not need to single out certain religious individuals as above others in order to be accepting the manifestation of God. Jesus himself considered flowers in the field to be more an expression of God than Solomon himself.

To me it’s like accepting the light of a candle while at the same time denying the light of the sun.

Or worshipping the sun and ignoring the earth? Aren't both missing the point?

Just as all light really comes from the sun, so too does all spiritual truth emanate from the Suns of Truth such as Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad, Christ, Moses and Baha’u’llah.

As well as every living creature in the universe, for, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament showeth his handiwork, say unto day uttereth speech, night unto night sheweth knowledge". The "spiritual but not religious", finds God everywhere, both within and beyond religion. Whereas it seems the religious need a religion to see God. For me, the world is my church, I like to say.

Spirituality is not based upon accepting this or that prophet as the real deal or not. No one's spirituality should be based upon beliefs or opinions such as that. Those are just ideas of the mind.

 

[lukethethird]

Spiritual v. Religious?
Woo woo v. organized woo?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But again, the distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" is often unclear, and people have different ideas about what these words mean.

I find Jesus' idea was to: worship. Worship his God with spirit and truth.
Have a spiritual life style as Jesus was the example.
Worship in connection with 'religious truth' as Jesus taught; worship made Jesus both a spiritual person and a religious person.

 

[rational experiences]

I reviewed men as brother to brother was first a human scientific agreement. Self idolated. Themselves as brother. Brother taught and idolised his brother.

Men invented wrong..destruction themselves yet blamed God. As God owned it first and last.

So men built bombs and said let me pretend I am the God. As God hurt them as irrational theists. Brothers.

Is Human's reality religious theism creation...science. By men theist.

I didn't self idolate female. I was told I am not any idol. By my brother's.

Yet they idolised their mothers as the man baby was born from her human body.

Too bad about his sister life equal or a daughter. My reality.

So I said who am I in life as a human the same as any human ever had as a thinker. I asked questions as just one self. Seeing humans are all each just one self.

Asking where did I come from. I was given an answer by my first deceased human parents. Not self idolators either.

I was taught. I never ever said I just knew.

Spiritual versus religion as science human thesis.

 

[Truthseeker]

Doesn’t belonging to a religion mean a)accepting certain specific doctrines, underpinned by articles of faith, and b) engaging in shared ritual and/or worship with co-religionists?

I don't quite see it that way. Religion is believing in a Prophet or whatever you want to call that. It is believing in what that Prophet says, not believing in man-made doctrines. It is up to the individual to interpret what the Prophet says for himself.

 

[Truthseeker]

I accept everything as a manifestation of the Divine. "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." One does not need to single out certain religious individuals as above others in order to be accepting the manifestation of God. Jesus himself considered flowers in the field to be more an expression of God than Solomon himself.


Or worshipping the sun and ignoring the earth? Aren't both missing the point?


As well as every living creature in the universe, for, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament showeth his handiwork, say unto day uttereth speech, night unto night sheweth knowledge". The "spiritual but not religious", finds God everywhere, both within and beyond religion. Whereas it seems the religious need a religion to see God. For me, the world is my church, I like to say.

Spirituality is not based upon accepting this or that prophet as the real deal or not. No one's spirituality should be based upon beliefs or opinions such as that. Those are just ideas of the mind.

See the following from the same person:

Spiritual v. Religious?

 

[Martin]

Thanks everyone, some interesting responses. It seems to be a matter of semantics. Broadly speaking, "religious" is taken to mean being involved in organised religion, while "spiritual" is taken to mean being other-worldly but not involved in an organised religion. Sort of!

 

[Lekatt]

What's the practical difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"?

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

There is a vast difference between the two. Religion is man-made rules, rites, and ceremonies usually conducted at a church or public place of worship. Spiritual is understanding the spiritual nature of life and our place in it. Believing and knowing your own spiritual source and following the teachings of spirit which is Forgiving and Loving all people.

 

[Windwalker]

Broadly speaking, "religious" is taken to mean being involved in organised religion, while "spiritual" is taken to mean being other-worldly but not involved in an organised religion. Sort of!

I would not call spirituality "other-worldly". In fact it is very much this world, except without all the distractions of the mind preventing us from being fully present in this reality. Spirituality is a condition of living life here and now, fully present, connected, and grounded, as opposed to disoriented, confused, and disconnected.

If I were to try to summarize it, religion is exoteric, and spirituality is esoteric. Religion is externalized. Spirituality is internalized. Religion is form. Spirituality is formless. Religion is in the head. Spirituality is in the heart.

And so forth.

 

[Windwalker]

See the following from the same person:

Spiritual v. Religious?

While that is a good post, I disagree with this point she made:

"But I believe, however much we may not wish to admit it, that all the spiritual truth came initially from a Prophet or Founder of a religion. In that sense religious truth and spiritual truth are one."​

Spirituality has existed in the world, many ages long before any teachers or prophets came along. It's part of the nature of reality itself, of which all human beings are connected. It is within all of us by virtue of existence itself. The teachers, saints, sages, or prophets, emerged from that as much as anyone else. They are not the source of it in the world.

Therefore, religion is not what gives us spirituality. Rather it is a 'schoolhouse', a collection of the insights of others in order to teach others about this condition of human reality, in order to help them grow and develop what is innately theirs already.

And the reason some leave religion, is not solely because of its abuses, but because of its failure to perform that role which it was created for by humans to perform. It fails to translate spiritual reality anymore for a modern world. When it gets stuck in its own religious dogmas and trappings of prophets and holy books, it becomes about justifying itself, and no longer provides a service for humanity for its spiritual needs and growth.

I like to consider religion to be about fingers pointing to the moon. But when we confuse the fingers pointing as the moon itself, then it's no longer functioning properly.

 

[Martin]

I would not call spirituality "other-worldly". In fact it is very much this world, except without all the distractions of the mind preventing us from being fully present in this reality. Spirituality is a condition of living life here and now, fully present, connected, and grounded, as opposed to disoriented, confused, and disconnected.

If I were to try to summarize it, religion is exoteric, and spirituality is esoteric. Religion is externalized. Spirituality is internalized. Religion is form. Spirituality is formless. Religion is in the head. Spirituality is in the heart.

And so forth.

I don't think these terms are mutually exclusive and in my view religion includes the esoteric and internal stuff. So you could argue that being religious includes being spiritual.

But again, it comes down to semantics, how you choose to define these terms.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't think these terms are mutually exclusive and in my view religion includes the esoteric and internal stuff. So you could argue that being religious includes being spiritual.

Yes, of course religion can include the spiritual, but often times does not. I think the problem here is the use of the word religion itself.

To clarify, I made a brief summary a while back of the ways the word religion is used by people from the work of the philosopher Ken Wilber in his book A Sociable God. The designations of R1, R2, R3, etc., is helpful to know more clearly of how we are speaking of religion:

1. Religion as non-rational engagement:

- Deals with the non-rational aspects of existence such as faith, grace, etc.

2. Religion as meaningful or integrative engagement:

- A functional activity of seeking meaning, truth, integration, stability, etc.

3. Religion as an immortality project:

- A wishful, defensive, compensatory belief in order to assuage anxiety and fear

4. Religion as evolutionary growth:

- A more sophisticated concept that views history and evolution as a process towards self-realization, finding not so much an integration of current levels, but higher structures of truth towards a God-Realized Adaptation.

5. Religion as fixation and regression:

- A standard primitivization theory: religion is childish, illusion, myth.

6. Exoteric religion

- The outward aspects, belief systems to support faith. A non-esoteric religion. A potential predecessor to esoteric religion.

7. Esoteric religion

- The inward aspects of religious practices, either culminating in, or having a goal of mystical experience.

8. Legitimate religion:

- A system which provides meaningful integration of any given worldview or level. A legitimate supporting structure which allows productive functionality on that level, horizontally. The myth systems of the past can be called "legitimate" for their abilities to integrate. A crisis of legitimacy occurs when the symbols fail to integrate. This describes the failure of a myth's legitimacy we saw occur with the emergence of a new level of our conscious minds in the Enlightenment. Civil religion is one example of an attempt to provide legitimacy to this level, following the failure of the old legitimate system.

9. Authentic religion

- The relative degree of actual transformation delivered by a religion or worldview. This is on a vertical scale providing a means of reaching a higher level, as opposed to integrating the present level on a horizontal scale. It provides a means to transformation to higher levels, as opposed to integration of a present one.
​

When I was saying religion is external, I was pointing to R6, exoteric religion, which I believe is why SBNR is a thing. Because religion in the West, has predominantly become R6, with very little to no R7, esoteric or spirituality to it. If you are talking of religion in the East, those tend to be much more R7 oriented. SBNRs are IMO, trying to find the esoteric on the menu of religion, but are finding only R6.

In reality, when one moves into the esoteric aspects of religion, the spirituality part of it, eventually religion itself becomes a hindrance to it. As the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart prayed in paradoxical language, "I pray God make me free of God that I may know God is his unconditioned being".

As you see, the form, is like scaffolding on the building to help support the work being done on it. But at some point, the scaffolding is not the building itself. Religion that is predominantly exoteric, misses its core function. It's about establishing external forms, not about developing internal spiritual growth which leads to self-actualization.

SBNR is a response to that, like a plant pushing its way up through concrete. "Life finds a way"



Is that a good thing? I suppose, since suffocation is not an option. But would a good structure be helpful? Yes, ideally so. But in the absence of that....