Do you consider yourself religious/spiritual?

[disgracian]

I love it when my posts magically get deleted.

Yes, there's a lot of that going around lately.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Kamille]

You may hold that Spirituality is a 'belief in a soul separate from the self.'

I don't.

 

 

I have but popular notions of Buddhism - meaning my bf was a buddhist for years, I read 'eat prey love' and practice yoga and pilates (with a Buddhist instructor) on a regular basis. These practices are not so much to keep in shape as to center myself.

 

But I'm always struck between the similarities between Buddhism and poststructuralism (in the social sciences). And yes, as is fashionable amongst us social researcher types, I am a humanist, agnostic and spiritual. Even though a lot of my colleagues are jewish, muslim, buddhist, catholic, anglican, atheist friends (That covers the people who's religious belonging I know).

 

So I have a question for Taramaiden and Eve and please bear with me! I's been reading way too much poststructuralist theory.

 

Eve, would you link the belief in the soul as separate from the self to 'what we as humans share in common?' In this scenario, what we share in common is everything from the planet, to conversation, to beliefs?

 

See, that is how I would reconcile Buddhism with a belief separate from the soul: we find balance in the self by letting go of the fear of others.

[TaraMaiden]

I love it when my posts magically get deleted.

 

 

Well, when your posts are 'magically off-topic' expect it.

I get it all the time.

 

(Watch this one go too....! )

[TaraMaiden]

 

Well, I was wondering how spirituality would be defined if one takes the stance that humans are purely an organism

 

First of all, I have no idea what you mean by that,

Secondly, it's a redundant question, because we're not, so it's unanswerable, thirdly - I am not offended, and I never thought that was your intention.

 

Why is this not "real Life"?

 

It's just an extension of communication.

 

I love this - referring to anything OFF the internet as 'real' life.

Like we're all just imaginary automatons, churning out random blurb that sometimes makes sense....!

(I do know what you mean - I just find it an odd term....! It's quite amusing!)

 

Besides.... we might be flying off at a tangent, but what "Real" is, is furthger debatable......

[Simon Attwood]

On another forum, while discussing a similar theme, I was once asked;

 

"What's your spiritual affiliation?"

 

I considered it for a while and responded;

 

"Affiliation, any affiliation, is against the nature of true spirit. Affiliation is a division, spirit is oneness. An affiliation is a belonging to something, true spirit belongs to itself. The desire to belong to something stems from the need for a security outside of one's self, true spirit is secure in itself."

 

So, yes, I consider myself both spiritual and religious, but without any affiliation.

[TaraMaiden]

I have but popular notions of Buddhism - meaning my bf was a buddhist for years, I read 'eat prey love' and practice yoga and pilates (with a Buddhist instructor) on a regular basis. These practices are not so much to keep in shape as to center myself.

 

But I'm always struck between the similarities between Buddhism and poststructuralism (in the social sciences). And yes, as is fashionable amongst us social researcher types, I am a humanist, agnostic and spiritual. Even though a lot of my colleagues are jewish, muslim, buddhist, catholic, anglican, atheist friends (That covers the people who's religious belonging I know).

 

So I have a question for Taramaiden and Eve and please bear with me! I's been reading way too much poststructuralist theory.

 

Eve, would you link the belief in the soul as separate from the self to 'what we as humans share in common?' In this scenario, what we share in common is everything from the planet, to conversation, to beliefs?

 

See, that is how I would reconcile Buddhism with a belief separate from the soul: we find balance in the self by letting go of the fear of others.

 

I would go further:

we find balance in the Self, by letting go of the fear of 'Nothing'.

The Buddha came to teach but one thing:

The Cause of Suffering, and the Cessation of Suffering.

And the way to release that suffering, is to release, and Let go.

Of everything.

 

This is not nihilism, though many believe it is.

 

Simple as it sounds, that's it, in a nutshell.

[Eve]

I have but popular notions of Buddhism - meaning my bf was a buddhist for years, I read 'eat prey love' and practice yoga and pilates (with a Buddhist instructor) on a regular basis. These practices are not so much to keep in shape as to center myself.

 

But I'm always struck between the similarities between Buddhism and poststructuralism (in the social sciences). And yes, as is fashionable amongst us social researcher types, I am a humanist, agnostic and spiritual. Even though a lot of my colleagues are jewish, muslim, buddhist, catholic, anglican, atheist friends (That covers the people who's religious belonging I know).

 

So I have a question for Taramaiden and Eve and please bear with me! I's been reading way too much poststructuralist theory.

 

Eve, would you link the belief in the soul as separate from the self to 'what we as humans share in common?' In this scenario, what we share in common is everything from the planet, to conversation, to beliefs?

 

See, that is how I would reconcile Buddhism with a belief separate from the soul: we find balance in the self by letting go of the fear of others.

 

Well put. However, I suppose the key difference to what I am reporting is that as well as spirituality being 'something we all share in common', I see it as having an intrinsic purpose. Hence spirituality does not belong to us, it has an origin.. like a code. So, although I have nothing against Buddhism, I would say that its usefulness is circled only within the practise of doing nothing! .. which goes against what I consider to be the actuality and purpose of spirituality.

 

In therapy for example people are often wanting to unwind from being bombarded with various conflicts and the aim really in truth is to get them to do nothing for a while. I know this is a very basic description but this is the limit of therapy. In doing nothing we can try and share what our base emotion and behaviour is telling us... but I still think there is an overall issue that has a code to it that is unlocked by something beyond our biology. What I am referring to is original sin. So I consider the unlocking of fear etc to be done by something which is spiritual in origin that is there even if we are not. Hence, the self not being tied to an originator .. or anything .. leaves me with the conflict that if a person believes we are only what our brain tells us we are, how is that spiritual?

 

In essence, the inividual cannot be a crowd and a crowd cannot be an individual.

 

So, when I look at the individual Buddist I sometimes see a culture, not a religion, faith or spirituality. Rather, I see a means of being in amongt others and not doing anything. This does not (in my opinion) effectively deal with the actual spirit of the person at all, rather the person is considering/highlighlighting their fear reflex above all else. In saying all of this, a person can consider themself religious and be doing the same thing! Mainly because they have not asked the originator what is their purpose.

 

So although we have the mechanism to be spiritual, I do not consider that mechanism to be activated by the self, rather it is activated for a divine purpose that is able to actually feed the soul, not the self. The feeding of the soul is what instructs the self.

 

.. but what do I know?

 

All in all, I find the simularities of Hinduism and Buddhism interesting and I consider them to be a path to enlightenment which can effect the soul... but only because of reverence being shared. Mostly I am almost protective of how the religious practices of the East have come to be seen Western eyes. In their original settings, such as Vietnam etc I do not find the same tone to the practises as what is said by Western scholars at all. Mainly because I find that mostly the practise/s are turned into a middle classed bullet against Christianity, when in reality the essence of their practise/s are often borne of being poor and without a champion for the soul beyond whatever governmental construct is there/not there.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[Kamille]

Thanks Eve. I had a paragraph yesterday that I ended up deleting (for the sake of clarity) about how I'm sometimes troubled by the ways in which I see the West taking up Buddhism. To me, it seems like a way to 'manage the self' in a society of hyper-productivity and little social welfare. The focus on the self only mirrors neoliberal ideologies of autonomous, flexible, hardworking workers capable of handling the insecurities of the job market and balance themselves in times of stress. The people around me (in Canada) who are Buddhist are usually upwardly mobile individuals with highly demanding careers (for example, bf's parents were economically marginalized because of race and now bf is a university lecturer).

 

Poststructuralist theory pays a lot of attention to the 'construction' of the self. There, however, the self is not a biological emanation (of our brains), but socially constructed, through our interactions with nature and others, and the systems of beliefs we navigate. As such, there might be no higher compendium that provokes a quest for social justice but the belief systems themselves: morality is how you construct yourself as inhabiting a world you share with other beings.

 

Most poststructuralist theorists are therefore usually socially engaged in some ways (be it in filmmaking, academic work, social activism, etc.). If the self is the result of our interactions in the world, then it makes sense that better selves come from a more just, 'better' world. Only we each come to the table with different ideas about what a 'better' world would be. Here, for me, morality is that dialogue that allows me to question the ways in which my understanding of myself either structure or transforms unequal relations of power.

 

So, in short, for me there is a third level, between biology (the brain) and spirituality (an outside code) which is human interaction. I will have to think further about questions of a higher code... I do find that striving to do what is best for the whole and not just the self, however, is a source of inspiration and enlightenments - enough for me to consider it spiritual.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Kamille

[Kamille]

I would go further:

we find balance in the Self, by letting go of the fear of 'Nothing'.

The Buddha came to teach but one thing:

The Cause of Suffering, and the Cessation of Suffering.

And the way to release that suffering, is to release, and Let go.

Of everything.

 

This is not nihilism, though many believe it is.

 

Simple as it sounds, that's it, in a nutshell.

 

Interesting and thank you TaraMaiden.

 

This raises another question: how do the individual practice of letting go of the fear of Nothing ensure justice and well-being at a community, nation-wide or global level?

[TaraMaiden]

This is the Concept of Duality:

Understanding that Unconditional Loving Kindness, equanimity, inner Joy and Compassion are qualities to be strived for, without being an Idiot about it.

 

Social Justice, Community ethics, and abiding by the strictures of Cultural society are still necessary, and we should work to conform to required social behaviour and practice.

Criminals should still be punished according to the letter of the Law.

And Justice cannot be discounted simply because we wish to cultivate forgiveness.

Those who should be held accountable, must be held accountable.

But Buddhism means practising certain qualities and seeing that those who break the law are still human, and still deserve compassion.

Forgiveness doesn't let people off the hook. Far from it.

Forgiveness nurtures the humanity within ourselves, whilst determining that those who perpetrate the deed still merit our loving kindness.

It's not about expecting them to change, improve or reform. Many do; many don't.

Being Buddhist doesn't mean letting others off the hook.

it lets us off the hook from harbouring hatred, resentment, animosity and anger.

 

to give a basic example:

His Holiness practises Loving Kindness and Compassion for the Chinese - but he won't be taking tea with them, any time soon....as an unguarded act.

 

Duality means understanding that life unfolds, and we are part of that life, and must act, react and respond appropriately.

But Duality also means transcending the ordinary, and striving to be as good as person as we can be, inside. Regardless of what goes on outside.

[TaraMaiden]

(. . .) So, although I have nothing against Buddhism, I would say that its usefulness is circled only within the practise of doing nothing! .. which goes against what I consider to be the actuality and purpose of spirituality.

 

In therapy for example people are often wanting to unwind from being bombarded with various conflicts and the aim really in truth is to get them to do nothing for a while.

 

 

 

So, when I look at the individual Buddist I sometimes see a culture, not a religion, faith or spirituality. Rather, I see a means of being in amongt others and not doing anything.

 

Could you clarify and define what it is you intend by "doing Nothing"....?

Before being able to respond appropriately, I think I need you to explain more what you mean by this........?

 

In saying all of this, a person can consider themself religious and be doing the same thing! Mainly because they have not asked the originator what is their purpose.

Religion doesn't not have to have an 'Originator'. Even in Buddhism, we do not rely upon the Buddha.....

 

So although we have the mechanism to be spiritual, I do not consider that mechanism to be activated by the self, rather it is activated for a divine purpose that is able to actually feed the soul, not the self. The feeding of the soul is what instructs the self.

I disagree with this.

Surely you are not asserting that because Buddhists do not ascribe to a transmigratory Soul, they cannot be spiritual?

 

 

.. but what do I know?

 

Know, or believe? the two are somewhat different.

 

All in all, I find the simularities of Hinduism and Buddhism interesting and I consider them to be a path to enlightenment which can effect the soul... but only because of reverence being shared.

The similarities end when you speak of a soul. Hindusim may well consider it. Buddhism doesn't. Yet the Buddha was enlightened without the reliance upon having a soul....

 

Mostly I am almost protective of how the religious practices of the East have come to be seen Western eyes.

Everything undergoes a certain amount of adaptation and transformation, when it travels across cultures. Some prominent Eastern Buddhists have declared that the Western orders practice Buddhism better than in the country of origin, if you wish, because in locations like India, Nepal, Thailand and other Eastern countries, Buddhism has become embroiled with and invaded by local superstitions like the occult, shamanism, and spiritualism. Indeed, Buddhism is not the primary religion in India, although the Buddha was born there.... So it's actually a question of the West having been transformed into the Guardians of the original practice, because the original practice is no longer recognised in it's original location.

The West, for example, is entirely accepting of the ordination of Buddhist nuns, as approved by the Buddha, whereas in the East, this practice is condemned and frowned upon in some parts, because the original teachings of the Buddha have been altered and amended.

 

In their original settings, such as Vietnam etc I do not find the same tone to the practises as what is said by Western scholars at all. Mainly because I find that mostly the practise/s are turned into a middle classed bullet against Christianity,

This is dangerously inaccurate.

Please give me an instance of where Buddhism has been used in this way.

In the East, Buddhism is fighting to remain intact and untouched by Christianity and Islam, for much the same reasons....

 

when in reality the essence of their practise/s are often borne of being poor and without a champion for the soul beyond whatever governmental construct is there/not there.

Again, I have no idea what precisely you are saying here.

Please clarify....?

 

Many thanks.

Be well.

[deux ex machina]

I'm spiritual.

 

The church I go to is Unity, which is a metaphysical church. I don't subscribe to all of their beliefs, but they don't mind if you do or not.

 

The philosophy I have been studying for the past year or more has been Taoism. I bring it up here because it's tied into my spirituality in a way that really "fits". I adore learning about it.

 

I only wish I had more time to learn about everything I'm curious about sometimes.

[Simon Attwood]

This is the Concept of Duality:

Understanding that Unconditional Loving Kindness, equanimity, inner Joy and Compassion are qualities to be strived for, without being an Idiot about it.

 

Social Justice, Community ethics, and abiding by the strictures of Cultural society are still necessary, and we should work to conform to required social behaviour and practice.

Criminals should still be punished according to the letter of the Law.

And Justice cannot be discounted simply because we wish to cultivate forgiveness.

Those who should be held accountable, must be held accountable.

But Buddhism means practising certain qualities and seeing that those who break the law are still human, and still deserve compassion.

Forgiveness doesn't let people off the hook. Far from it.

Forgiveness nurtures the humanity within ourselves, whilst determining that those who perpetrate the deed still merit our loving kindness.

It's not about expecting them to change, improve or reform. Many do; many don't.

Being Buddhist doesn't mean letting others off the hook.

it lets us off the hook from harbouring hatred, resentment, animosity and anger.

 

to give a basic example:

His Holiness practises Loving Kindness and Compassion for the Chinese - but he won't be taking tea with them, any time soon....as an unguarded act.

 

Duality means understanding that life unfolds, and we are part of that life, and must act, react and respond appropriately.

But Duality also means transcending the ordinary, and striving to be as good as person as we can be, inside. Regardless of what goes on outside.

 

 

Have you got any reference for this interpretation of "Duality", Tara? It's a new one on me ..

[TaraMaiden]

I sent you a PM.

 

It's a general overview, with loose addition.... it's not quite the central definition of Duality as the Buddha taught... but I hope my PM helps.....

[Eve]

So, in short, for me there is a third level, between biology (the brain) and spirituality (an outside code) which is human interaction. I will have to think further about questions of a higher code... I do find that striving to do what is best for the whole and not just the self, however, is a source of inspiration and enlightenments - enough for me to consider it spiritual.

 

After much thought the only link that this 'third element' could possibly, universally be is probably our emotional interactions...? I cannot argue that there is not a spiritual dimension to our emotions.

 

.... Then again, emotions are tied to brain activity too so maybe not.. though emotional ecstacy has been present in examples where persons have gone past what we typically know within various accounts of the 'spiritual'.. but I think you mean everyday existance rather than stand alone moments when describing the spiritual.

 

I am not sure about that but do like the saying, 'we are spiritual beings having human experiences' a lot. Overall I remain committed to the idea that it is for the individual to grow and redefine meaning, not the observer of the individual... but I can be quite suspicious nowadays..

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[pureinheart]

I am not religious as religion is man made. I believe in a spiritual realm, and if being spiritual is loving the Lord thy God with all of my heart, mind and soul, then yes I am spiritual.

[TaraMaiden]

No, I would say you are definitely Religious.

You just don't affiliate yourself to any specific format of worship.

You don't go to church, and you don't read the Bible...(these are some forms of conventional behaviour adhered to by those who purport to be religio-specifically oriented....)

 

But I posted a definition of Religion, dictionary-wise, earlier in the thread.

I think it covers both of us......

 

And I don't believe in God, personally, because he's man-made too, in my opinion.

But I'm still Religious.....

[TaraMaiden]

And EVE, if you wouldn't mind addressing the points I made in post #36, I'd be grateful, and pleased to continue the discussion....

 

Thanks!

 

 

[Simon Attwood]

.... Then again, emotions are tied to brain activity too so maybe not..

This statement appears to make the assumption that spirituality, is not, in anyway, tied to brain activity.

 

Perhaps, indicative of the brain/mind duality

 

Mind, as we are most familiar with it, is an ego construct and part of the concept of self and identity. We're simple, so mind is simple and cannot therefore be an accomplice to the mystery of spirit. We understand ourselves, at least we think we do, because we understand mind.

 

The brain on the other hand is still very much a mystery; to look at, it’s just a grey, pink spongy mess. Take it out of its vessel and it’s nothing. But while in its vessel, the vast majority of its workings are far too complex for us to fathom with mind. Mind is vastly inadequate at being able to comprehend the complexity of brain. Mind has limits that we know; we don’t know what the limits of the brain are, but we do know that they are way beyond the comprehension of mind.

 

In truth, mind is an illusion; it’s an image we give ourselves. Mind is limited because it is based upon our conscious comprehension. Conscious comprehension has been measured; it calculates upon average, between 16 & 32 bps. That’s 16 to 32 pieces of information per second. This is the source of why mankind tends to like to create dichotomies and taxonomies in order to aid our understanding. Putting things in boxes or categories simplifies our understanding and allows us to better cope with complexities. But it also severely limits our understanding to only what can be comprehended with mind, and not what can be comprehended with brain.

 

While consciousness can cope with 16 to 32 bits of information per second, our brains, at the same time, are making calculations in the 100s of millions of bps, even while mind sleeps.

 

To conclude my point, and to come back on track, I very much consider spirit to be a symptom and consequence of the mystery of the human brain.

[TaraMaiden]

This might interest you.....

 

As might this, too....

 

You see...some things are just unconjecturable, and best left aside.....

[Simon Attwood]

This might interest you.....

 

As might this, too....

 

You see...some things are just unconjecturable, and best left aside.....

 

Nice links, Tara

 

As an aside, may I suggest you check out Daniel Goleman's; "Destructive Emotions; a dialogue with the Dalai Lama". It discusses how recent findings and directions of the mind sciences fit in with many of the core doctrines of Buddhist teaching.

 

If you haven't already, that is

[TaraMaiden]

I have known for some time that HH the Dalai Lama is a keenly scientific man, and has worked closely with many experts in the study of the Mind, with regard to specific practises, such as meditation.

He has always said that if scientists and experts associated with such studies, actually come up with something factual and indisputable, that disproves any matters pertaining to Buddhist practice, learning, thinking, teaching and philosophy, he would have to obviously alter his entire Buddhist approach.....

 

In all his years of close involvement, so far, nothing has......

[Simon Attwood]

He has always said that if scientists and experts associated with such studies, actually come up with something factual and indisputable, that disproves any matters pertaining to Buddhist practice, learning, thinking, teaching and philosophy, he would have to obviously alter his entire Buddhist approach......

 

 

That's not exactly how he put it

[TaraMaiden]

Close enough.

Oh great pedant.

 

BTW... Just ordered the book on Amazon.

Good stuff.

[Simon Attwood]

The actual quote below

 

"... the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught... held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light. But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently. If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

 

What has always interested me about Buddhism, is that, unlike the classic religions, which are rigid and immovable in their doctrines, Buddhism flows, it does change and it's got an inbuilt adaptability to change. Like water, it can be strong and smash, yet it can also flow around obstacles and adapt it's shape without changing it's essential nature.