In a discussion with an old friend recently, a couple of ideas were mentioned that I thought were intriguing. One was that there comes a time (or did, for her) when one gets past (graduates?) being religious and becomes spiritual. Ive been thinking about that. My online dictionary defines religious thusly:
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity (a religious person) (religious attitudes)
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: FERVENT, ZEALOUS
Hmmm, thinks I. This seems to be about dogma and specifics. I have certainly been religious in my life. As a younger fellow I was quite fervent in my devotion to Gakkai Buddhism (which I differentiate from Nichiren Buddhism in its purer form - see below), and zealous would not be an inaccurate description, either. Certainly I was devoted to the strict observance of daily Gongyo, to the point that missing it was seen as an awful thing. Body parts might shrivel and drop off if that occurred too often. (Yes, thats an exaggeration, but not by much.)
The dictionary offers this for spiritual:
1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit: INCORPOREAL (mans spiritual needs)
2 a: of or relating to sacred matters (spiritual songs) b: ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal (spiritual authority) (lords spiritual)
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit (our spiritual home) (his spiritual heir)
5 a: of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b: of, relating to, or involving spiritualism
Okay, this seems to be a better description of where I find myself today: not so concerned with the minutia, but rather with substance and meaning. I find that the broader study of Nichiren Buddhism (outside the box of Gakkai Buddhism) and religion and spirituality in general is fascinating and rewarding, which was not so much the case years ago. I find myself concerned with the spiritual or religious values found in a deeper study of Buddhism, rather than simply practicing it by rote. I dont think much of supernatural critters, but I do find myself desirous of seeking a spiritual connection with others, both generally and specifically, and I find that I am not nearly so worried about the strict regimen of a daily practice (although I continue to chant fairly regularly). I also see myself being a lot more conscious of my behavior as a human being than I ever was in the past.
So, I think that my friend is definitely on to something, and that there is value in moving past being religious, and seeking to become more spiritual. It almost seems as though thats not so much a necessary goal as it is a simple recognition of what happens to folks.
On the other hand, I know people who remain dogmatically religious, even after a lifetime of practice, and seem to be not in the least spiritual, in the broader sense that my friend spoke of, so maybe this idea does need to be presented, and thought about, by a lot of us. Maybe the conscious effort is important. So, there it is.
I dont think there needs to be an either/or demarcation, though. I can be religiously spiritual, or maybe spiritually religious. We can play some silly word games, but you get the idea. It does seem that an expanded view - one with which I would prefer to be identified - is that I would rather be a spiritual individual than a strictly religious one.
Cheers!
Andy
p.s. The other thing she was on about was the so-called independent movement in Nichiren Buddhism. She said that eventually it will (may?) become a sect itself, and that what it currently lacks is leadership. Im thinking about that, too. Stay tuned.
Comments
Dunno why it's all underlined. I can't figure out how to change that. Sorry.
Andy
Hey Andy,
Ive heard it said that religion is for people who are trying to stay out of hell and spirituality is for people who have been there.
In terms of the Independent Movement becoming a sect, I disagree with your friend on two points;
1) The movement does have leadership. Don Ross posting downloadable gohonzons is the example that leaps to mind as leading the independent movement, but there are many others. You are a leader, Lisa Jones is, in fact at times, we all are. Just because we dont set ourselves apart doesnt mean we dont lead.
2) The Indie movement may have sects spin off of it, but by its very nature, if it organizes into having a power structure or hierarchy, it will cease to actually be the Indie movement.
Be well,
P.
Andy:
Another superb article. Your description of spirituality and religiosity strikes a resonant chord. I was a religious Gakkai warrior, now I have transformed into a spiritually mature person. There's a difference. Religious people seem stiff and at times narrow. Spirituality minded people seem more light, yet have a tendancy to lack focus. Perhaps the great hybrid walks the true middle way.
Will the Indie movement ever congeal and become its own movement? Will a leader emerge? If so will it naturally fracture into even more splinter groups and affiliations? All of this seems possible to me because there are realized beings outside the mainstream of the Soka Gakkai and the universe is huge, and the Buddha's true will is to create a Buddha land. In other words, all things are possible. This will be interesting.
Thanks for the great articles, Andy.
Charles
Spritual? It's a load of crap. "Spiritual" doesn't mean anything except, "Hey, I'm, like, really cool and sensitive." Don't try to be spiritual; don't try to be religious. Just try to grasp the truth and be alive to reality. - Brian
Whoa, Brian!
Is it me or are you getting a little edgier? Not saying I disagree, mind you. I think it's beautiful.
P.
Just having one of my Mencken moments. - Brian
Not to worry, Brian. We're all entitled!
Actually, you make an interesting point, and there was a time when, if anyone suggested that I might have a spiritual side, I'd have cussed them out for suggesting such a thing.
But hey, it's just words. I am helped by thinking about it in the way my friend suggested, and if I'm helped, what else matters? It is, after all, MY blog.
Cheers!
Andy
You know Andy, I don't think Brian was saying that there IS no spirituality, just that most people confuse spirituality with something other than THIS life right here, right now.
IMO, a lotta people think all sots of gushie, gooey stuff is "spiritual" while at the same time, hurt or judge others in the name of their "spirtuality." That's what I get from Brian's posts. I just like that they're edgy.
P.
Hi Andy,
Although the word spiritual has put on more than a bit of flab around the middle due to over- & disingenuous use by the New Age movement, your esteem for the spiritual over the religious mirrors my feelings exactly; the only difference is I havent had to step outside of the SGI box to live that. As Greg Dilley put it in a very recent blog, my SGI may not be your SGI. From the beginning I vowed that my practice was to be gift to myself, not some other means to beat myself up because I didnt live up to yet another arbitrary standard. Fortunately, I have found others to practice with here in Montreal who share a similar point of view. Horray. Good for me.
Funny how those who seek conspicuous benefits are so often the most religious (devoted to dogma and specifics, as you put it), and those who seek what we call inconspicuous benefits are the most spiritual. Its downright disturbing how prevalent people of the former description are in SGI. I guess that reflects their prevalence in the world. It all comes down to that age-old inside/outside mind/body confusion; and the notion of never seeking enlightenment outside of oneself, a notion as radical now as when the Diashonin so emphatically expounded it so many years ago.
Ive enjoyed your blogs a lot.
Cheers,
Brian Campbell
OK, If the word "spiritual" actually means something more "Look at what a sensitive soul I am," I would be pleased to know what it is. As a student of analytic philosopy, I have deeply absorbed Wittgenstein's advice: "Don't look for the meaning, look for the use." And so far as I can tell, the use of "spiritual" is primarily to get doe-eyed twentyl-something New Age chicks into bed. And so my dislike of the term is largely dependent on the fact that I'm a married man. - Brian
Brian (Holly), I understand your reaction to the term "spiritual," which is similar to my own, the way most folks use it. Still, in the context that my friend suggested and the way I've presented it here, I think there is something to be said for going beyond such a visceral response. You can do it! Think: "I CAN!"
Yes, I used to watch the "spiritual" types and wish they would go away (remember, I AM a recovering hippy myself), but that's not (as you damn well know, Mr. Mencken) what I intended in this context. Following your own Wittgensteinian advice, look at my use.
Or, give me a better one-word term to describe what I am trying to say. I'm open.
And it never worked with those doe-eyed chicks, anyway. I think you made that up.
Cheers!
Andy Hanlen, spiritual person
Andy, I'm sure you did mean something substantive, and I'm confident that you weren't just trying to impress the chicks. But frankly, all my attempts to formulate a substantive definition of the term have failed. I'd be happy to hear you give it a go. (BTW - uh, actually it DID work with the doe-eyed chicks, I must guiltily report.) - Brian
Hi Andy --
I'm a chick and quite happily lesbian. But when you say "spiritual," suddenly I'm hot for you! Crazed!! Lustful!!!
Naw, just kidding. Where does one meet these chicks who fall into bed at the merest whiff of feigned sensitivity? Bring 'em on!
For me, the label "spiritual" means that one acknowledges that much is unseen and, possibly, unknowable about life and the universe.
"Religious" suggests that one has a metaphysical explanation for the whys and the whats of existence. If one is religious, one employs a kind of logic which operates very reasonably within a body of beliefs that are "known" or deeply believed to be true.
"Spiritual," on the other hand, also includes what is unknown, unquantifiable, unexplainable. The "spiritual" is found in religion -- but in religion the spiritual is referred to as "faith."
Maybe.
Lisa J.
Lisa said: "Where does one meet these chicks who fall into bed at the merest whiff of feigned sensitivity? Bring 'em on!"
My question is: Where does one meet chicks who fall into bed at the merest whiff of deep insecurity? Bring 'em on!
P.
Yeesh, I've become a lonely hearts club! Maybe I could charge a fee? >8^)
Andy
Religious and spiritual, hmm, that really takes me back.
This discussion is based on the comment that there comes a time ... when one gets past
... being religious and becomes spiritual, followed by an on-line dictionary definition of
religious and spiritual. Aye, theres the rub (IMO). I think Andrew would have been
better off defining those terms himself than to accept and use a typical and one-ply
internet downsize of English. I happen to think that many of us occasionally think of
spirit as used in the expression, spirit of the law -- with no supernatural or
metaphysical meaning but rather as the essential or defining principle of a concept -- and I
think the original comment might have been better expressed as getting through the
religious creeds we all ingest in early years and to the spirit or essence of those principles,
as we grow.
I was taught that Sidhartha did this: He sampled this religion, that belief, this asceticism,
that self-immolation, everything he could find in his day and within his reach. Eventually
he came up with a simple and distilled essence. Almost two millennia later, Buddhism
was divided into four major divisions and some dude named Nichiren did much the same
thing. Id bet that every major religious, every human being who has become a basis of
any religion or sect, did the same thing. Kinda a forty days in the desert thing.
They were brought up as children to mouth the words and perform the rites taught by
their parents and religious leaders. Most in their societies accepted the words and rites, a
few learned the history and accepted meanings, a very few questioned, and in recorded
history perhaps a dozen, among the billions of humans who have existed, have plunged
through and seen the distilled essence, the spirit that underlies all of our religions, and
communicated this essence to others. Then the cycle begins again, and the essence is
improperly taught as religion to the next generation, until it needs a prophet or a Buddha
to cut through the muck of dogma.
Most of you who read this are at least willing to question the absolutes of religion, or you
wouldnt be reading this. But I bet many of you look down on others who dont happen
to have achieved your particular level of understanding of the universe. Like my brother
before me, I was brought up in a religion, and dabbled in many religions. Its almost
certainly unimportant to you, but Ill mention that my favorite religion is what I call
pure Buddhism, of all the religions Ive tried to study or emulate. Unlike my brother
before me, Ive also made a major effort to go as far as I can in science, physics and
mathematics. I think its a right-handed/left-handed thing. What Ive learned is that the
universe is too big to concern itself whether a mountain lion kills a jogger in Loma Linda
or a beggar in Bangladesh is drowned in a monsoon. Only humans concern themselves
with such trivia, and only humans who see through religion to its essence manage to
reduce such human tragedy and suffering to a minimum.
Arrgggh, thats enough! Time for bed! I think religion can exist without spirituality, but
only with an increase in human suffering. I dont believe true spirituality requires any
nonsense that could be titled religion, but might be termed sharing.
--
don
Lisa, the answer to your question is: Pittsburgh. I guess that that girls on the left coast are so jaded it doesn't work. - Brian
Brian.
I can give personal testimony that your assesment of Pittsburgh is a false teaching.
--
don