Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:40 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:15 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Posts: 2107
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/2 ... ?hpt=hp_c2

Quote:
Those in the spiritual-but-not-religious camp are peddling the notion that by being independent - by choosing an "individual relationship" to some concept of "higher power", energy, oneness or something-or-other - they are in a deeper, more profound relationship than one that is coerced via a large institution like a church.


Quote:
The trouble is that “spiritual but not religious” offers no positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind.


Quote:
At the heart of the spiritual but not religious attitude is an unwillingness to take a real position.


I'm inclined to agree with this guy. The pick-and-choose smorgasbord of spirituality allows one to not take a real position or to choose only those things most palatable, if it is logical or true or not. On the other hand, the smorgasbord might allow some to discover the Dharma or at least be more tolerant and peaceful to the rest of the world.

_________________
Image
www.TheDhamma.com/
Dhamma Wiki encyclopedia
Dhamma Wheel forum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:06 pm
Posts: 952
Some atheists . . . mentioning no Buddhists . . . have no need of religion
and are spiritual. :soapbox:

New Agers are often toe dipping before more mature alignment. :yinyang:

Being religious does not make one spiritual. That is the
task of ones integrity. :namaste:

We of the true dharma (where available)
are not dissuaded or persuaded by religion, spirituality
or other half built rafts . . .

time for my jedi training :jedi:

_________________
YinYana Buddhism


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
You also lose the distilled wisdom from a given established tradition.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am
Posts: 2776
Well David, perhaps terms like 'spiritual' and 'religious' needs their proper definition and context whenever they are raised or otherwise, one is looking at another futile debate of 'til the cows come home' thingy and IMHO, the article has not really addressed it but just ranting on generalities based on falliable human behaviour rather than the actual philosophy?

And the second issue is that what's 'spiritual' for one may be regarded as 'religious' and vice versa for another and the whole dynamics...so where is the line drawn or should a line even be drawn in the first place?

Recently, an interesting thought as I raised here, where the Dalai Lama was musing over 'secular ethics'...even suggesting that 'religion' is no longer adequate, something that both religionists and non religionists can mutually agree on rather than the usual insistence that religion is necessary to formulate ethics and sidelining the nons in the process? Similarly, would that idea work in the 'spirituality vs religion' debate?

_________________
TWTB BIES OCB DDM BWF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Posts: 819
Location: USA
If we go back to the Latin origin of the English word "religion" (most accepted root is "religare" - "to bind fast"), it has to do with 'binding fast' to the traditions and practices of a household, including worship of the god held by the householder. Often, rather than being born to a house, one came to the house through being a member of a conquered nation taken as slaves. Too keep "order" in the house, it was essential that all living in the household follow the same practices.

Given that history, and the additional baggage that goes along with "organizationalized" religion today, I must say that I largely disagree with Alan Miller (author of that article). In organizations of all types, today, persons have feelings of powerlessness that threaten the orderly psyches of individuals.

That said, in almost all spiritual traditions, some degree of "relinquishing self" to a power or process greater than the "self" is a central idea. If one is unable to accomplish this to some extent, than the beliefs and practices are rather useless whether one calls them 'spiritual' or 'religious'.

:namaste:

_________________
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:56 pm
Posts: 74
Location: Port Townsend, WA U.S.A.
My understanding of being spiritual but not religious is that you believe in metaphysics, but refuse to have your metaphysics dictated to you by anyone who claims a special revelation. To say that someone cannot be spiritual without subscribing to a faith like Islam or Buddhism seems no different from saying that someone cannot be ethical without embracing a particular moral code such as utilitiarianism or humanism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:06 pm
Posts: 952
well said guys :twothumbsup:
those Sith had better watch out . . .
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Yoda

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
:popcorn:

_________________
YinYana Buddhism


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm
Posts: 2755
David N. Snyder wrote:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/29/my-take-im-spiritual-not-religious-is-a-cop-out/?hpt=hp_c2

Quote:
Those in the spiritual-but-not-religious camp are peddling the notion that by being independent - by choosing an "individual relationship" to some concept of "higher power", energy, oneness or something-or-other - they are in a deeper, more profound relationship than one that is coerced via a large institution like a church.


Quote:
The trouble is that “spiritual but not religious” offers no positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind.


Quote:
At the heart of the spiritual but not religious attitude is an unwillingness to take a real position.


I'm inclined to agree with this guy. The pick-and-choose smorgasbord of spirituality allows one to not take a real position or to choose only those things most palatable, if it is logical or true or not. On the other hand, the smorgasbord might allow some to discover the Dharma or at least be more tolerant and peaceful to the rest of the world.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive positions. One may be religious to a point, but more prone to solitary practice (perhaps called spirituality).
Others may prefer the social aspect of religion and don't practice at all. There are many nuances in between. In the least the author oversimplifies things.
I think there might be an agenda of sorts behind such statments. Perhaps gaining converts to a cause?
Taking a position may be exactly what one should avoid, especially if such position is based on ignorance. But being a syncretic gatherer, picking and choosing what pleases one's ego is the also the wrong way to go. Both seem positions rooted in ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:44 pm
Posts: 220
Location: UK
I'm not sure that, strictly speaking, it's possible to be spiritual but not religious to at least some degree. But one can be religious and not follow one particular creed.

So...

Can you separate spirituality from the practice of religion?

What 'spirit' is implied in 'spirituality'?

Is the term 'spirituality' actually of any use when discussing Buddhadarma?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Posts: 732
Location: South Florida, USA
Is it not just their karma that causes one to be "spiritual but not religious"? Can you really blame someone for having the karma that they have?

_________________
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm
Posts: 2755
That's the real cop-out: blaming it on karma. :lol:

Karma is not a fixed thing. Usually we can always do something. The extent to which we can change the result of our karma varies a lot and depends of many factors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Posts: 732
Location: South Florida, USA
Dechen Norbu wrote:
That's the real cop-out: blaming it on karma. :lol:

Karma is not a fixed thing. Usually we can always do something. The extent to which we can change the result of our karma varies a lot and depends of many factors.


Seems to me that the one who says "spiritual but not religious is a cop out" is the one who is doing the blaming! So what if someone is "spiritual but not religious". As long as they are not out there robbing banks or killing people, they why would it matter to someone else? If a person is not causing harm to others, then why is their spirituality anyone elses business to begin with? I don't see any "new agers" out there robbing banks and such!

_________________
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:04 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
How do you define "spiritual"? If one must be a practioner of Highest Yogic Tantra to be called "spiritual" then a ot of people are excluded. On the other hand, there are tons of people seeking the deeper meaning of life, who are concerned with right and wrong, who wonder how to deal the the uncertainty about how a well-intentioned action will work out, and more. And they are not associated with any religion at all.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:43 pm
Posts: 65
Location: India
Religions in general encourage superstition, mindless worship of deities or gurus, blind following of traditions, and rituals. Plus they're usually politically motivated. No wonder people want to be spiritual without the baggage of religion. Why can't I just practice meditation without calling myself a buddhist? Is that wrong? Must I sign a written confession or something? :shrug:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group