Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Ok, so perhaps religious (in whatever context that may be), yet rejecting of organized religion. Perhaps more accurately said: Religious and Spirtual but not Organized <?>
I was going to point out earlier (but decided not to bother) that lumping all "spiritual but not religious" people together (as in Jebediah's post #2, for example) is almost exactly like lumping all atheists together. Depending on how exactly you do it, it may make sense, or it may not. What can be said with certainty, however, is that neither of these two classes constitutes "a box with a label" in the same sense as do the classes of believers in mutually exclusive religious traditions. (jeeprs will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Buddhism is exclusive of other traditions, so even what I have just said "with certainty" is not certain!)
P.S. On second thoughts, those who describe SBNR as "a box with a label", comparable to organised religions (and not comparable to atheism), may have more of a point than I at first thought.
Buddhist lay-people (i.e. non-monastic observers) observe the five precepts. These are commitments to abstain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication.Generally gambling is seen as a vice, although it has never been a problem to me, as I have never gambled (but I have had my issues with 3 & 5.:perplexed:)
In Yoga philosophy, there are 10 'restraints and observances' which cover very similar ground, albeit with a slightly different emphasis.
But if you were to do a cross-cultural study of traditional ethics, you would find a fair amount of common ground between Indian, Chinese and European 'practical ethics'.
Spirituality is concerned with the search for experiential and inner truth, while religion expects conformity to the rules and regulations of a body of believers.
But jeeprs, this contradicts what you said earlier.
There is a difference between having it imposed on you on threat of damnation, and coming to it out of your own free will.
I have taken up Buddhist meditation and endeavour to observe the ethical precepts. I believe the ethical precepts are basic sanity, but if you want to get drunk and play cards, I am not going to be sanctimonious with you.
The Dharma of the Buddha
The characteristics of Dharma (dhamma in the Pali language of the Theravada tradition) display many such characteristics. The six qualities of the Buddha Dhamma, with their Pali titles, are:
1. Svākkhāto - The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is excellent in the beginning, excellent in the middle and excellent in the end
2. Sandiṭṭhiko The Dhamma can be tested by practice and therefore he who follows it will see the result by himself through his own experience.
3. Akāliko: The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.
4. Ehipassiko - "which you can come and see" -- from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!". The Dhamma welcomes all to put it to the test and come see for themselves.
5. Opanayiko - "leading one close to" - The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.
6. "To be personally known by the wise". The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.
There are spiritual atheists, religious Buddhists, Universalists Christians, and every other possible categorization and combination you can think of in the religious life of humans. Trying to come up with an intellectual schema which accomodates all the permutations is not going to get very far. Nevertheless, I think the basic distinction between spiritual and religious is meaningful.
The key difference is the idea of 'inner experience' or 'spiritual experience'. The spiritual traditions are like maps to the inner landscape of states (and territories!) that you are likely to encounter if you are on 'the path'. There is a lexicon, a realm of shared experience, there are trailblazers and different domains of discourse, and so on. But the key point is becoming mindful, becoming aware, of the meaning of pure being.
When you label something you are just picking out a trait they have in common. It is a useful and essential thing to do. You don't move to a new house by putting everything into one big box; and you don't try and talk about the world without talking about generalized groups of people. Dismissing the attempt is an overreaction to people who don't know much about it and generalize too much.
I think then, that "spiritual but not religious" is a kind of self made religion. Many people who describe themselves that way (and actually, many westerners who have gone for buddhism) do so because of a dislike for some parts of the judeo-christian outlook.
I'm not sure we are debating whether it is meaningful. We are talking about what "spiritual but not religious" means. We are talking about in what way it is meaningful.
I'm suggesting that the biggest difference involves whether the person accepts certain parts of the Christian type tradition, or takes ideas that they like from various other sources. I think saying that is more meaningful than saying that spiritual is different from religious.
The 'box' in which they live is not a concept applied from an external point of view in order to make sense of a phenomenon from outside it,
All of that may be true, and probably is true, as far as it goes; but merely disliking some parts of some existing religion does not make a person spiritual.
If I may say so, that's just quibbling. It is meaningful, and sometimes necessary, to affirm that the distinction in question is meaningful.
So I can't see that you have defined either of the two terms which you are trying to distinguish from one another. Is this perhaps because in some important sense you do not believe the distinction to be a real one,
I think I did, in this post or an earlier one. I'm calling spirituality "self made religion" or "personal religion".