Ops... Mistaking a guy for a girl is one thing, but this is just embarrasing. I must have sprained one of my antennaes..
Yeh, and osso is a longtime a2k member who occasionally gets ridiculously churlish: especially ridiculous here in this thread because I appreciate cyracuz and his posts. I did react to Cyracuz' comment on mine being irrelevant.
I still see nothing at all wrong with combining the two subjects into one forum in the a2k forum organization, even though I see a qualitative difference in what I understand as religion, and what I understand as spirituality. Amusing to me, I shouldn't be posting here at all, since I've little interest in either subject, except to the extent other people's concepts of them affect my daily life.
Sorry about that.
Anyway, to me, talking and thinking about spirituality is about creating a conceptual framework for the experience I am having, with the purpose of enrichening it.
"Mind" is not a tangible thing. Neither is "self" or "ego". Both are concepts we apply freely, but we seldom think about their context and quality. I like to think of these concepts, and all other abstract concepts we retain as spiritual. They appear to be real, but we cannot sense them, only their effects.
Interesting stuff! Spirituality to me seems deeply connected with subjective experience, the eternal now.
I think religion grew out of this in various ways because we tried to project, out into the world, the ineffable and therefore the unprojectable (?). This is one reason why the mystical elements of some of the major religions seem to have more authenticity to them, spiritually speaking. Those that recognised the poignance of momentary experience but importantly, those that were then able to exchange that perception in meaningful and powerful ways seem to be few and far between, at least in the times before and during the major religions birth/growth. The organisation and systemisation of these experiences and perceptions to provide social systems and rules with that ever lofty goal of controlling the "animalistic" masses created the religion but I think the propensity we have for adopting pre-thought out rules, ideas and regulations without the weighty baggage of having to think too much for ourselves appeals greatly. Like a pre-packaged, ready to go identity and guide book for the chaotic nature of life. So then, already, you have this great chasm developing between the experiences and possibilities a specific religion is based upon and the conception of that religion that Joe Bloggs has which forms the appeal for him.
You'll get few religiously devout people who claim no spirituality though, I guess because whether with conviction or as some throw-away comment, people do instinctively relate spirituality, the spirit, with something higher and mightier than ourselves. So again, even if it is said without much thought or feeling behind it, being religious but not spiritual would be to go against the essence/bedrock of the system they adhere to, even if you lack a real appreciation of that essence. I suppose many religious hierarchies of influence would even suggest the congregation to steer clear of too much analysis in this area so as to keep personal deviation to a minimum and question-less submission to the maximum.
I read a bit lately about the religions of pre-written word communities. A part of it was explained in contrast to the major religions of today and the different focuses involved. One interesting element to many of them is the lack of division made for things like Heaven/Hell, Samsara/Nirvana etc. I also remember that the focus of these kinds of religions, being without the written word, were based more on experience and re-enactment and the here and now rather than the speculatory past/future. This made me wonder about a) why would they lack these divisions and b) what would they make of the contrast between spirituality and religion.
Basically if you see heaven and nirvana as being immortal, endless and formless i.e. wholly beyond those relative categorisations that make up so much of daily life, it's obvious to see why the sources of many of the major religions offered an alternative to contrast against rather than eliminating the existing perception entirely. Wordy contrast is a classic way in which we consider things and develop theories/ideas. Interestingly I agree with the idea that in fact Nirvana=Samsara but it seems we have to see a contrast (if all we see is samsara) before we see the unity. Now, if these much earlier religions were based more on the present, the experiential and the participation/reverence of all things around them, is there current mode of thinking not in some way, already pointing towards Nirvana instead...hence the lack of need for such distinctions? I think this would blur the line between spirituality and religion almost entirely if not completely.
I didn't mean to write so much but got distracted from typing it out and when I came back I had some more stuff to say!
Interesting. I think that the religions of pre-word community bear the mark of a community less entangled with the concept of dualism. After all, words are dualistic in nature, and knowledge of writing places a higher emphasis on the words themselves rather than their meanings. So perhaps these pre-writing communities had a worldview that was generally more holistic.
But in many ways, come to think, the difference between religion and spirituality is perhaps not more than this; written words.
A predominately religious person will relate more to the written words, and seek to adjust his experience according to them.
A predominately spiritually oriented person will relate more to his personal experience, and any texts that might be of interest will be those that reflect the wisdom learned from that experience.
Yes exactly and holistic is a good word. I remember ages back reading about two different types of religion, the historically based (events in history and their importance) and the eternal religions that emphasised the nature of things beyond history. Facts, like those regarding history, have an unfortunate way of being mis-used.
Mis-used and misunderstood.
I have often thought about it. When Jesus, for instance, wanted to explain abstract concepts to people who had no conceptual framework to fit his thoughts into, he would have to create such a framework for them. One way to do such a thing is to personify energies and events, since a personality is something everyone can relate to...
Yep exactly. There was a name highly praised on this forum a while back that I hadn't come across before, Joseph Campbell, an expert in comparative mythology and religion. Anyway, after thinking about this some more I found a whole set of talks he gave on all manner of topics regarding the use of myth and metaphor in human culture to express the transcendent. He's a really very inspirational and likeable figure in the talks anyway. Some of the topic titles: Psyche and Symbol, On being Human, Our eternal selves, The mystical Life etc.
They are all held on youtube, here are 2 parts that contain a recitation from Campbell of an old Indian expressing his perspective. Particularly pertinent with regards to:
Quote:One way to do such a thing is to personify energies and events, since a personality is something everyone can relate to...
The recitation starts towards the end of part 4 and onto part 5. Very inspiring.
Mythos - 02 - The Spirit Land 4/15
Mythos - 02 - The Spirit Land 5/15
I haven't watched them all yet, just a few, but they are very interesting, I highly recommend them.
