# Spirituality Versus Religion



## fightingfat (Jun 19, 2006)

All throughout history, people sought some meaning for their existence, most of us here I suppose would term that the search for God, be you Taoist, Catholic, Jew, Protestant, LDS, Hindu, Buhddist, JW or Muslim. One thing is for sure- the answers people find can very different! So different in fact, that religious difference is one the major reasons (or perhaps, as I prefer it, excuses) for war & conflict in history. I think some people are definitely religious without being spiritual, do you agree? If you are spiritual do you have religion by default?

How can we define the difference between being religious and being spiritual? Is religion an outward sign of our inner spirituality?

Where do you stand? Are you _*Spiritual*_ or *Religious*?

What's more important and why?

What are the differences?

What is better and why?

How *should* things be according to you?

Some say that religion is received wisdom. It has to come to you by revelation (this is an idea that Pope Benedict expands in his work 'An Introduction to Christianity'). Spirituality could be explained as something that comes from within, sets you on a path, makes you think for yoursefl, find your *own* answers...Discuss!


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jun 19, 2006)

fightingfat said:
			
		

> How can we define the difference between being religious and being spiritual? Is religion an outward sign of our inner spirituality?


Personally (and EVRYTHING on this topic is personal), I believe that religion is a man-made device to impose some form of order on percieved chaos. Spirituality is, honestly, independant of religion and is the internal drive to find an emotional place in the order of creation. 

On the concept of connectivity between the two terms, religion provides a structure for people with similar spiritual views.



			
				fightingfat said:
			
		

> Where do you stand? Are you _*Spiritual*_ or *Religious*?


I am spiritual. Not much for dogma and structure.



			
				fightingfat said:
			
		

> What's more important and why?


I think it is far more important to be spiritual. The difficulty I have with religion is that for each individual on the planet, there is a unique view of creation and/or a Creator. Spirituality is based on the individual's perception.



			
				fightingfat said:
			
		

> What are the differences?


See above



			
				fightingfat said:
			
		

> What is better and why?


See above



			
				fightingfat said:
			
		

> How *should* things be according to you?


lol...if _I_ were God, you ask? _All would love me and despair._ Who am I, really, to even attempt to answer that question? When I look at it all...my spirituality, my religious experiences, the vastness of creation and the error-prone nature of man, the one thing I know for certain is that, as far as defining God, we're all wrong. Some, I'm sure are nearly right; but, still, not completely right.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 19, 2006)

I believe I already addressed this in the sticky at the top of the page.

My point was essentially that words like "religion" and "spirituality" are social constructions that mean different things to different people. That is why in discussions that involve these topics, one should clarify one's personal definitions at the offset, so as to avoid any confusion of the issues.

Personally, I avoid these terms altogether as I believe they are all but meaningless in today's society.

Laterz.


----------



## Carol (Jun 19, 2006)

> How can we define the difference between being religious and being spiritual? Is religion an outward sign of our inner spirituality?


 
I'm not quite sure why there has to be a difference. I'm not too anxious to start dividing my people up, personally.



> Where do you stand? Are you _*Spiritual*_ or *Religious*?


 
Both 



> What's more important and why?


 
Neither one is more important than the other. They simply...are.



> What are the differences?


 
The differences are what man chooses to make so. 



> What is better and why?


 
There is no spoon.



> How *should* things be according to you?


 
One human race. The less attachment we place in labeling other human beings, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Personally I believe that everyone is on their own spiritual path, even if they are not sure in what they believe in or if they don't believe at all. I don't want the ego or authority to tell someone else what that path is, or what the name of it is. That is one's individual journey


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 19, 2006)

If you completely ignore the very real influence of social constructs on the definitions of both Spirituality and religion and look just at the dictionary definition it would appear that they are related, but different. 

Religion 

1. 
 a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 
 b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. 

Spirituality   

1. The state, quality, manner, or fact of being spiritual. 
2. The clergy. 
3. Something, such as property or revenue, that belongs to the church or to a cleric. Often used in the plural

Spiritual    
adj. 

1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. S. 
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul. 
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific. 
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred. 
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural. 
n. 

1. 
 a. A religious folk song of African-American origin. 
 b. A work composed in imitation of such a song. 
2. Religious, spiritual, or ecclesiastical matters. Often used in the plural

If you include the social constructs I am going to have to agree with heretic888 on this one. They will mean different things to different people. 

As for what I think; you can be religious and spiritual you can be religious and non-spiritual or you can be non-religious and spiritual, I do not feel that they are dependant on each other. But this is part of my definition and as I said will be very different than someone else&#8217;s.


----------



## trueaspirer (Jun 19, 2006)

I believe that religion is the minor technical details of spirituality, in any religion. Spirituality is that feeling in  you of something else, or greater out there. Religiosity is the foolish things like what language a person prays in, how often they pray, specific details, etc.
I believe spirituality is definately superior. Most (or all) major (and minor) religions were started by crazed fanatical followers trying to hard to interperet things that weren't there. Spirituality, on the other hand, is a beautiful concept, speaking to anyone about life, about themselves, about others. It does not have a set belief system, or set of rules, it is what you are, and that is all. 
Yes, so many wars and massacres occured because of religion. The paegans butchered the christians, the christians massacred the jews, the christians slaughtered the muslems, etc.
*sighs deeply*


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

As I said before, I find the religion versus spirituality dichotomy to be less than helpful in today's society. I much prefer Ken Wilber's emphasis on translation versus transformation. From A Spirituality That Transforms:

A Spirituality that Transforms 
[FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana][SIZE=+2][/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana][SIZE=+2]*H*[/SIZE][/FONT]al Blacker, consulting editor of_ What is Enlightenment_?, has described the topic of this special issue of the magazine in the following way (although this repeats statements made elsewhere in this issue, it is nonetheless worth quoting at length, simply because of its eloquence, straightforwardness, and unerring good sense):

We intend to explore a sensitive question, but one which needs to be addressed the superficiality which pervades so much of the current spiritual exploration and discourse in the West, particularly in the United States.  All too often, in the translation of the mystical traditions from the East (and elsewhere) into the American idiom, their profound depth is flattened out, their radical demand is diluted, and their potential for revolutionary transformation is squelched.  How this occurs often seems to be subtle, since the _words_ of the teachings are often the same.  Yet through an apparent sleight of hand involving, perhaps, their context and therefore ultimately their meaning, the message of the greatest teachings often seems to become transmuted from the roar of the fire of liberation into something more closely resembling the soothing burble of a California hot tub.  While there are exceptions, the radical implications of the greatest teachings are thereby often lost.  We wish to investigate this dilution of spirituality in the West, and inquire into its causes and consequences.

I would like to take that statement and unpack its basic points, commenting on them as best I can, because taken together, those points highlight the very heart and soul of a crisis in American spirituality. 


[FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana][SIZE=-1]*Translation Versus Transformation*[/SIZE][/FONT] 
In a series of books (e.g.,_ A Sociable God_,_ Up from Eden_, and_ The Eye of Spirit_), I have tried to show that religion itself has always performed two very important, but very different, functions. One, it acts as a way of creating_ meaning_ for the separate self: it offers myths and stories and tales and narratives and rituals and revivals that, taken together, help the separate self make sense of, and endure, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. This function of religion does not usually or necessarily change the level of consciousness in a person; it does not deliver radical transformation. Nor does it deliver a shattering liberation from the separate self altogether. Rather, it consoles the self, fortifies the self, defends the self, promotes the self. As long as the separate self believes the myths, performs the rituals, mouths the prayers, or embraces the dogma, then the self, it is fervently believed, will be "saved"--either now in the glory of being God-saved or Goddess-favored, or in an after-life that insures eternal wonderment. 

But two, religion has also served--in a usually very, very small minority--the function of radical transformation and liberation. This function of religion does not fortify the separate self, but utterly shatters it--not consolation but devastation, not entrenchment but emptiness, not complacency but explosion, not comfort but revolution--in short, not a conventional bolstering of consciousness but a radical transmutation and transformation at the deepest seat of consciousness itself. 

There are several different ways that we can state these two important functions of religion. The first function--that of creating meaning for the self--is a type of_ horizontal_ movement; the second function--that of transcending the self--is a type of_ vertical_ movement (higher or deeper, depending on your metaphor). The first I have named_ translation_; the second,_ transformation_. 

With translation, the self is simply given a new way to think or feel about reality. The self is given a new belief--perhaps holistic instead of atomistic, perhaps forgiveness instead of blame, perhaps relational instead of analytic. The self then learns to translate its world and its being in the terms of this new belief or new language or new paradigm, and this new and enchanting translation acts, at least temporarily, to alleviate or diminish the terror inherent in the heart of the separate self. 

But with transformation, the very process of translation itself is challenged, witnessed, undermined, and eventually dismantled. With typical_ translation_, the self (or subject) is given a new way to think about the world (or objects); but with radical_ transformation_, the self itself is inquired into, looked into, grabbed by its throat and literally throttled to death. 

Put it one last way: with horizontal translation--which is by far the most prevalent, wide-spread, and widely-shared function of religion--the self is, at least temporarily, made happy in its grasping, made content in its enslavement, made complacent in the face of the screaming terror that is in fact its innermost condition. With translation, the self goes sleepy into the world, stumbles numbed and near-sighted into the nightmare of samsara, is given a map laced with morphine with which to face the world. And this, indeed, is the common condition of a religious humanity, precisely the condition that the radical or transformative spiritual realizers have come to challenge and to finally undo. 

For authentic transformation is not a matter of belief but of the death of the believer; not a matter of translating the world but of transforming the world; not a matter of finding solace but of finding infinity on the other side of death. The self is not made content; the self is made toast. 

Now, although I have obviously been favoring transformation and belittling translation, the fact is that, on the whole, both of these functions are incredibly important and altogether indispensable. Individuals are not, for the most part, born enlightened. They are born in a world of sin and suffering, hope and fear, desire and despair. They are born as a self ready and eager to contract; a self rife with hunger, thirst, tears and terror. And they begin, quite early on, to learn various ways to translate their world, to make sense of it, to give meaning to it, and to defend themselves against the terror and the torture never lurking far beneath the happy surface of the separate self. 

And as much as we, as you and I, might wish to transcend mere translation and find an authentic transformation, nonetheless translation itself is an absolutely necessary and crucial function for the greater part of our lives. Those who cannot translate adequately, with a fair amount of integrity and accuracy, fall quickly into severe neurosis or even psychosis: the world_ ceases to make sense_--the boundaries between the self and the world are not transcended but instead begin to crumble. This is not breakthrough but breakdown; not transcendence but disaster. 

But at some point in our maturation process, translation itself, no matter how adequate or confident, simply ceases to console. No new beliefs, no new paradigm, no new myths, no new ideas, will staunch the encroaching anguish. Not a new belief for the self, but the transcendence of the self altogether, is the only path that avails. 

Still, the number of individuals who are ready for such a path is, always has been, and likely always will be, a very small minority. For most people, any sort of religious belief will fall instead into the category of consolation: it will be a new horizontal translation that fashions some sort of meaning in the midst of the monstrous world. And religion has always served, for the most part, this first function, and served it well. 

I therefore also use the word_ legitimacy_ to describe this first function (the horizontal translation and creation of meaning for the separate self). And much of religion's important service is to_ provide legitimacy_ to the self--legitimacy to its beliefs, its paradigms, its worldviews, and its way in the world. This function of religion to provide a legitimacy for the self and its beliefs--no matter how temporary, relative, nontransformative, or illusory--has nonetheless been the single greatest and most important function of the world's religious traditions. The capacity of a religion to provide horizontal meaning, legitimacy, and sanction for the self and its beliefs--_that function of religion has historically been the single greatest "social glue" that any culture has_. 

And one does not tamper easily, or lightly, with the basic glue that holds societies together. Because more often than not, when that glue dissolves--when that translation dissolves--the result, as we were saying, is not breakthrough but breakdown, not liberation but social chaos. (We will return to this crucial point in a moment.) 

Where translative religion offers_ legitimacy_, transformative religion offers_ authenticity_. For those few individuals who are ready--that is, sick with the suffering of the separate self, and no longer able to embrace the legitimate worldview--then a transformative opening to true authenticity, true enlightenment, true liberation, calls more and more insistently. And, depending upon your capacity for suffering, you will sooner or later answer the call of authenticity, of transformation, of liberation on the lost horizon of infinity. 

Transformative spirituality does not seek to bolster or legitimate any present worldview at all, but rather to provide true authenticity by shattering what the world takes as legitimate. Legitimate consciousness is sanctioned by the consensus, adopted by the herd mentality, embraced by the culture and the counter-culture both, promoted by the separate self as_ the_ way to make sense of this world. But authentic consciousness quickly shakes all of that off of its back, and settles instead into a glance that sees only a radiant infinity in the heart of all souls, and breathes into its lungs only the atmosphere of an eternity too simple to believe. 

Transformative spirituality, authentic spirituality, is therefore revolutionary. It does not legitimate the world, it breaks the world; it does not console the world, it shatters it. And it does not render the self content, it renders it undone. 
And those facts lead to several conclusions.

[FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana][SIZE=-1]*Who Actually Wants to Transform?*[/SIZE][/FONT]

It is a fairly common belief that the East is simply awash in transformative and authentic spirituality, but that the West--both historically and in today's "new age"--has nothing much more than various types of horizontal, translative, merely legitimate and therefore tepid spirituality. And while there is some truth to that, the actual situation is much gloomier, for both the East and the West alike. 

First, although it is generally true that the East has produced a greater number of authentic realizers, nonetheless, the actual percentage of the Eastern population that is engaged in authentic transformative spirituality is, and always has been, pitifully small. I once asked Katigiri Roshi, with whom I had my first breakthrough (hopefully, not a breakdown), how many truly great Ch'an and Zen masters there have historically been. Without hesitating, he said "Maybe one thousand altogether." I asked another Zen master how many truly enlightened--deeply enlightened--Japanese Zen masters there were alive today, and he said "Not more than a dozen." 

Let us simply assume, for the sake of argument, that those are vaguely accurate answers. Run the numbers. Even if we say there were only one billion Chinese over the course of its history (an extremely low estimate), that still means that only one thousand out of one billion had graduated into an authentic, transformative spirituality. For those of you without a calculator, that's 0.0000001 of the total population. 

And that means, unmistakably, that the rest of the population were (and are) involved in, at best, various types of horizontal, translative, merely legitimate religion: they were involved in magical practices, mythical beliefs, egoic petitionary prayer, magical rituals, and so on--in other words, translative ways to give meaning to the separate self, a translative function that was, as we were saying, the major social glue of the Chinese (and all other) cultures to date. 

Thus, without in any way belittling the truly stunning contributions of the glorious Eastern traditions, the point is fairly straightforward: radical transformative spirituality is extremely rare, anywhere in history, and anywhere in the world. (The numbers for the West are even more depressing. I rest my case.) 

So, although we can very rightly lament the very few number of individuals in the West who are today involved in a truly authentic and radically transformative spiritual realization, let us not make the false argument of claiming that it has otherwise been_ dramatically_ different in earlier times or in different cultures. It has on occasion been a_ little_ better than we see here, now, in the West, but the fact remains: authentic spirituality is an incredibly rare bird, anywhere, at any time, at any place. So let us start from the unarguable fact that vertical, transformative, authentic spirituality is one of the most precious jewels in the entire human tradition--precisely because, like all precious jewels, it is incredibly rare. 

Second, even though you and I might deeply believe that the most important function we can perform is to offer authentic transformative spirituality, the fact is, much of what we have to do, in our capacity to bring decent spirituality into the world, is actually to offer more_ benign and helpful modes of translation_. In other words, even if we ourselves are practicing, or offering, authentic transformative spirituality, nonetheless much of what we must_ first_ do is provide most people with a more adequate way to translate their condition._ We must start with helpful translations, before we can effectively offer authentic transformations._ 

The reason is that if translation is too quickly, or too abruptly, or too ineptly taken away from an individual (or a culture), the result, once again, is not breakthrough but breakdown, not release but collapse. Let me give two quick examples here. 

When Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a great (though controversial) Tibetan master, first came to this country, he was renown for always saying, when asked the meaning of Vajrayana, "There is only Ati." In other words, there is only the enlightened mind wherever you look. The ego, samsara, maya and illusion--all of them do not have to be gotten rid of, because none of them actually exist: There is only Ati, there is only Spirit, there is only God, there is only nondual Consciousness anywhere in existence. 

Virtually nobody got it--nobody was ready for this radical and authentic realization of always-already truth--and so Trungpa eventually introduced a whole series of "lesser" practices leading up to this radical and ultimate "no practice." He introduced the Nine Yanas as the foundation of practice--in other words, he introduced nine stages or levels of practice, culminating in the ultimate "no practice" of always-already Ati. 

Many of these practices were simply translative, and some were what we might call "lesser transformative" practices: miniature transformations that made the bodymind more susceptible to radical, already-accomplished enlightenment. These translative and lesser practices issued forth in the "perfect practice" of no-practice--or the radical, instantaneous, authentic realization that, from the very beginning, there is only Ati. So even though ultimate transformation was the prior goal and ever-present ground, Trungpa had to introduce translative and lesser practices in order to prepare people for the obviousness of what is. 

Exactly the same thing happened with Adi Da, another influential (and equally controversial) adept (although this time, American-born). He originally taught nothing but "the path of understanding": not a way to attain enlightenment, but an inquiry into why you want to attain enlightenment in the first place. The very desire to seek enlightenment is in fact nothing but the grasping tendency of the ego itself, and thus the very search for enlightenment prevents it. The "perfect practice" is therefore not to search for enlightenment, but to inquire into the motive for seeking itself. You obviously seek in order to avoid the present, and yet the present alone holds the answer: to seek forever is to miss the point forever. You always already ARE enlightened Spirit, and therefore to_ seek_ Spirit is simply to deny Spirit. You can no more attain Spirit than you can attain your feet or acquire your lungs. 

Nobody got it. And so Adi Da, exactly like Trungpa, introduced a whole series of translative and lesser transformative practices--seven stages of practice, in fact--leading up to the point that you could dispense with seeking altogether, there to stand open to the always-already truth of your own eternal and timeless condition, which was completely and totally present from the start, but which was brutally ignored in the frenzied desire to seek. 

Now, whatever you might think of those two Adepts, the fact remains: they performed perhaps the first two great_ experiments_ in this country on how to introduce the notion that "There is only Ati"--there is only Spirit--and thus seeking Spirit is exactly that which prevents realization. And they both found that, however much we might be alive to Ati, alive to the radical_ transformative_ truth of this moment, nonetheless_ translative_ and lesser transformative practices are almost always a prerequisite for that final and ultimate transformation. 

My second point, then, is that in addition to offering authentic and radical transformation, we must still be sensitive to, and caring of, the numerous beneficial modes of lesser and translative practices. This more generous stance therefore calls for an "integral approach" to overall transformation, an approach that honors and incorporates many lesser transformative and translative practices--covering the physical, emotional, mental, cultural, and communal aspects of the human being--in preparation for, and as an expression of, the ultimate transformation into the always already present state. 

And so, even as we rightly criticize merely translative religion (and all the lesser forms of transformation), let us also realize that an integral approach to spirituality combines the best of horizontal and vertical, translative and transformative, legitimate and authentic--and thus let us focus our efforts on a balanced and sane overview of the human situation. 

[FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana][SIZE=-1]*Wisdom and Compassion*[/SIZE][/FONT]

But isn't this view of mine terribly elitist? Good heavens, I hope so. When you go to a basketball game, do you want to see me or Michael Jordan play basketball? When you listen to pop music, who are you willing to pay money in order to hear? Me or Bruce Springsteen? When you read great literature, who would you rather spend an evening reading, me or Tolstoy? When you pay sixty-four million dollars for a painting, will that be a painting by me or by Van Gogh? 

All excellence is elitist. And that includes spiritual excellence as well. But spiritual excellence is an elitism to which all are invited. We go first to the great masters--to Padmasambhava, to St. Teresa of Avila, to Gautama Buddha, to Lady Tsogyal, to Emerson, Eckhart, Maimonides, Shankara, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Bodhidharma, Garab Dorje. But their message is_ always_ the same: let this consciousness be in you which is in me. You start elitist, always; you end up egalitarian, always. 

But in between, there is the angry wisdom that shouts from the heart: we must, all of us, keep our eye on the radical and ultimate transformative goal. And so any sort of integral or authentic spirituality will also, always, involve a critical, intense, and occasionally polemical shout from the transformative camp to the merely translative camp. 

If we use the percentages of Chinese Ch'an as a simple blanket example, this means that if 0.0000001 of the population is actually involved in genuine or authentic spirituality, then .99999999 of the population is involved in nontransformative, nonauthentic, merely translative or horizontal belief systems. And that means, yes, that the vast, vast majority of "spiritual seekers" in this country (as elsewhere) are involved in much less than authentic occasions. It has always been so; it is still so now. This country is no exception. 

But in today's America, this is much more disturbing, because this vast majority of horizontal spiritual adherents often claim to be representing the leading edge of spiritual transformation, the "new paradigm" that will change the world, the "great transformation" of which they are the vanguard. But more often than not, they are not deeply transformative at all; they are merely but aggressively translative--they do not offer effective means to utterly dismantle the self, but merely ways for the self to think differently. Not ways to transform, but merely new ways to translate. In fact, what most of them offer is not a practice or a series of practices; not sadhana or satsang or shikan-taza or yoga. What most of them offer is simply the suggestion: read my book on the new paradigm. This is deeply disturbed, and deeply disturbing. 

Thus, the authentic spiritual camps have the heart and soul of the great transformative traditions, and yet they will always do two things at once: appreciate and engage the lesser and translative practices (upon which their own successes usually depend), but also issue a thundering shout from the heart that translation alone is not enough. 

And therefore, all of those for whom authentic transformation has deeply unseated their souls must, I believe, wrestle with the profound moral obligation to shout from the heart--perhaps quietly and gently, with tears of reluctance; perhaps with fierce fire and angry wisdom; perhaps with slow and careful analysis; perhaps by unshakeable public example--but_ authenticity_ always and absolutely carries a_ demand_ and_ duty_: you must speak out, to the best of your ability, and shake the spiritual tree, and shine your headlights into the eyes of the complacent. You must let that radical realization rumble through your veins and rattle those around you. 

Alas, if you fail to do so, you are betraying your own authenticity. You are hiding your true estate. You don't want to upset others because you don't want to upset your self. You are acting in bad faith, the taste of a bad infinity. 

Because, you see, the alarming fact is that any realization of depth carries a terrible burden: Those who are allowed to see are simultaneously saddled with the obligation to_ communicate_ that vision in no uncertain terms: that is the bargain. You were allowed to see the truth under the agreement that you would communicate it to others (that is the ultimate meaning of the bodhisattva vow). And therefore, if you have seen, you simply must speak out. Speak out with compassion, or speak out with angry wisdom, or speak out with skillful means, but speak out you must. 

And this is truly a terrible burden, a horrible burden, because in any case there is no room for timidity. The fact that you might be wrong is simply no excuse: You might be right in your communication, and you might be wrong, but that doesn't matter. What does matter, as Kierkegaard so rudely reminded us, is that only by investing and speaking your vision with_ passion_, can the truth, one way or another, finally penetrate the reluctance of the world. If you are right, or if you are wrong, it is only your passion that will force either to be discovered. It is your duty to promote that discovery--either way--and therefore it is your duty to speak your truth with whatever passion and courage you can find in your heart. You must shout, in whatever way you can. 

The vulgar world is already shouting, and with such a raucous rancor that truer voices can scarcely be heard at all. The materialistic world is already full of advertisements and allure, screams of enticement and cries of commerce, wails of welcome and whoops of come hither. I don't mean to be harsh here, and we must honor all lesser engagements. Nonetheless, you must have noticed that the word "soul" is now the hottest item in the title of book sales--but all "soul" really means, in most of these books, is simply the ego in drag. "Soul" has come to denote, in this feeding frenzy of translative grasping, not that which is timeless in you but that which most loudly thrashes around in time, and thus "care of the soul" incomprehensibly means nothing much more than focusing intensely on your ardently separate self. Likewise, "Spiritual" is on everybody's lips, but usually all it really means is any intense egoic feeling, just as "Heart" has come to mean any sincere sentiment of the self-contraction. 

All of this, truly, is just the same old translative game, dressed up and gone to town. And even that would be more than acceptable were it not for the alarming fact that all of that translative jockeying is aggressively called "transformation," when all it is, of course, is a new series of frisky translations. In other words, there seems to be, alas, a deep hypocrisy hidden in the game of taking any new translation and calling it the great transformation. And the world at large--East or West, North or South--is, and always has been, for the most part, perfectly deaf to this calamity. 

And so: given the measure of your own authentic realization, you were actually thinking about_ gently whispering_ into the ear of that near-deaf world? No, my friend, you must shout. Shout from the heart of what you have seen, shout however you can. 

But not indiscriminately. Let us proceed carefully with this transformative shout. Let small pockets of radically transformative spirituality, authentic spirituality, focus their efforts, and transform their students. And let these pockets slowly, carefully, responsibly, humbly, begin to spread their influence, embracing an_ absolute tolerance_ for all views, but attempting nonetheless to advocate a true and authentic and integral spirituality--by example, by radiance, by obvious release, by unmistakable liberation. Let those pockets of transformation gently persuade the world and its reluctant selves, and challenge their legitimacy, and challenge their limiting translations, and offer an awakening in the face of the numbness that haunts the world at large. 

Let it start right here, right now, with us--with you and with me--and with our commitment to breathe into infinity until infinity alone is the only statement that the world will recognize. Let a radical realization shine from our faces, and roar from our hearts, and thunder from our brains--this simple fact, this obvious fact: that you, in the very immediateness of your present awareness, are in fact the entire world, in all its frost and fever, in all its glories and its grace, in all its triumphs and its tears. You do not see the sun, you are the sun; you do not hear the rain, you are the rain; you do not feel the earth, you are the earth. And in that simple, clear, unmistakable regard, translation has ceased in all domains, and you have transformed into the very Heart of the Kosmos itself--and there, right there, very simply, very quietly, it is all undone. Wonder and remorse will then be alien to you, and self and others will be alien to you, and outside and inside will have no meaning at all. And in at obvious shock of recognition--where my Master is my Self, and that Self is the Kosmos at large, and the Kosmos is my Soul--you will walk very gently into the fog of this world, and transform it entirely by doing nothing at all. 

And then, and then, and only then--you will finally, clearly, carefully and with compassion, write on the tombstone of a self that never even existed: There is only Ati.


----------



## trav101 (Jun 23, 2006)

I would say I am spiritual over religious. 

I believe in that 'spirituality' is belief in a greater thing, perhaps divine.  I also believe that 'religion' is spirituality smeared with dogma. 

Dogma, methinks, is what wars are made of. If one looks closely at the teachings of most religions, they have the same message. It is the dogma, or way of celebrating the 'divine' that changes with the times and cultures. 

Spirituality is what you are believing. Dogma is how to believe. 

Hmm... I think I almost confused myself!! :uhyeah:


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

Yes, there's a difference between, say, Christianity and Churchianity...the two are often confused.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 23, 2006)

From the movie Keeping the Faith, in which a recently ordained priest is talking to his congregation:



> The truth is, I don't really learn that much about your faith by asking questions like that...               because those aren't really questions about faith, those are questions about religion.
> 
> And it's very important to understand the difference between religion and faith.
> 
> ...



If, in replacing the word "faith" in this quote with the word "religion", it approximates what I consider to be the difference between spirituality and religion.  Religion is only the outward trappings of spirituality, the clothing that spirituality wears to walk about in the world.  Many people are equally spiritual, but express it differently because the trappings of their religions are different; some people are just as spiritual, but express it differently because they are not members of a particular religion.

So, to go back to FightingFat's original questions:



> Where do you stand? Are you _*Spiritual*_ or *Religious*?



Spiritual



> What's more important and why?  What are the differences?



Spiritual - because that is the underlying feeling of faith; religion is the outward trappings, which may provide some solace because of the rituals and familiarity, but different religions can be equally spiritual for their believers.



> What is better and why?



Again, I would have to say spiritual; without spirituality, religion is, in my opinion, just lip service.



> How *should* things be according to you?



I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but if I'm understanding your question, spirituality should be the ultimate goal, while religion should provide the framework through which one can find spirituality.  For some people, any religion that provides a meaningful path to spirituality may be sufficient; for others, there may only be one religion that provides an appropriate path; some people may find several religions appropriate, but not all.  As far as how things *should* be, people should be free to find the religion that best suits their personal quest for spirituality.


----------



## Last Fearner (Jul 12, 2006)

My interpretation:

"Spirituality" is your individual connection to reality, if in fact the spirit is real. Lacking absolute proof, or the revelation of the "truth" beyond a shadow of a doubt, you can choose to "believe" in the "Spirit" or not. "Faith" is your personal, individual trust that what you *believe*, is accurate, and true. Your "belief" is either in line with the truth, or it is not - - regardless of how many perspectives, and personal truths exist. 

"Religion" is the doctrine by which an individual, or group of people with similar beliefs, agree to conduct themselves. "Religion" is the method in which you express, share, perform, ritualize, and worship what you "believe" to be true about the "Spirit."

In my opinion, "Spirituality" is your connection to the spirit, hence to God (whatever form God takes in reality). Thus, reality is most important, and Spirituality should be regarded as our best effort to communicate with, and be in harmony with God, and the Spirit, therefore "Spirituality" is equally important as "reality" because it is your relationship with the "True God" even if you don't know what that is yet.

Belief should be regarded as inferior in that it can be flawed, but important in the fact that, if it is right, it is *good*. Religion should be accepted as important to the relationship between the individual and their understanding of God, and God's commandments (or any wishes, desires, directives that the Creator bestows upon you), as well as a fellowship between those who see, and understand the "Spirit" in a similar way.

Religion should support one's individual belief, and foster a healthy _*relationship*_ in faith with the *true* nature of the "Spirit," whatever that may actually be. Religion should never force a belief on others, and each person's belief should never overshadow anyone else's belief in their understanding of the "Spirit." The hierarchy is Religion over apathy, and immorality, Belief over Religion, Spirituality over Belief, Truth over Spirituality, and God over everything.

Or, I could be completely wrong!  

Last Fearner


----------



## pstarr (Jul 12, 2006)

Nicely put.


----------



## Caesar (Jul 20, 2006)

I consider myself more spiritual than religious.  I was raised in a Baptist home by parents who had converted from Catholicism (Roman and Eastern) after they moved down to North Carolina.  Pretty much the rest of my family up in New Jersey and New York are Catholic.  Since I got 18, I'm 22 now, I've really been looking a lot more into stuff on my own.  I've been going to Mass a lot now.  Sometimes I'll go with my older sister to the Divine Liturgy at her Greek Orthodox church.  She converted to Eastern Orthodoxy a little while ago.  I'm reading a lot more on Christianity myself, especially Christian mysticism.  At the same time I've been reading things on Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Greco-Roman Paganism, Sufi Islam, etc.  While I may go to church on a pretty regular basis, I'm not that interested in the whole organized religion thing.  I think it has its place.  I like having my own personal spiritual path where I read about different faiths and philosophies and incorporate what I'm drawn to.


----------



## Elayna (Jul 25, 2006)

I love these kinds of topics.  Good topics. Things to get the mind and heart thinking. 

I honestly believe, that Sprituality and Religon are one in the same.  Your probably thinking..>What?? shes nuts!!!

So many people in the world today see both of those words and cant very easily tell the difference.  Either because of the way they were taught by their parents, church, friend, etc.  Or just because they think it is the same from their point of view.
I think that we should learn to have them both in our life.  A balance of Heart belief, and Mind belief.  I guess thats how i would define them.
Spritual= Heart(emotions)(freedom)
Religion=Mind(logic)(rules)
I have always said Balance is best in all things. For when you have balance you have the ultimate peace. and of course everything in moderation.   So if you only have one....then you are not balanced.  So why not have both?
True a difficult task...But what is a good life without challenges??  I say Bring it on mister Life....!! WHOOHOO bring out the crazy...LOL
Your heart is one of the most precious gifts God has given you and the rest of humans on earth.  It allows us to be compassionate, merciful, angry, sad, happy and so on.  But without the mind to give us Logic, reason and deduction everyone would have PMS every single day....and who wants that??  Especially if it was a guy.  LOL.
So...Let us be balanced....Feel our Heart(spirtuality) while our mind(religion) helps us to define, and reason out when and how to act on our heart.
Such a complex being we are.
But hey...Life would be so boring if we werent.
TTYL peeps


----------



## Kacey (Jul 25, 2006)

Elayna -

Your opinion is well-stated, but I still disagree.  I have known people who were involved in religion physically but not emotionally - that is, they attended the services, completed rituals, etc., but they did it because it was the socially correct thing to do, not because they believed in it; I have known people who were spiritual without being involved in formal religion, and I have known people who were both spiritual and involved in formal religion.  I don't see spirituality and religion as mutually exclusive, but neither do I see them as requiring each other to exist.  I see them as separate entities, which may or may not be combined, and which do not need to be combined to exist.


----------



## Elayna (Jul 25, 2006)

Hey Kacey

Thanks for the response. Youd think because Im new here you would agree with me for at least a week before saying Im wrong....I mean geeseee, the rudenesss. LOL. (tottally joking...Bring it on man...whoohooo....unleash the crazy....)

But no seriously, Im not sure i explained my point very well in my last post. For instance...When you said.. I have known people who were involved in religion physically but not emotionally - that is, they attended the services, completed rituals, etc., but they did it because it was the socially correct thing to do, not because they believed in it;
I tottaly agree with you. Just like i said in my post Religion=Mind(rules), , and to me society is rules. Society does not allow you to be free just to be you. You have to look, act, do, and talk a certain way. And if you do not conform to their &quot;way&quot; then you are ostrocized for any number of reasons, without mercy. This to me is not of the heart, but of the mind. Religion is of the Mind. If you do not go to church you are seen in some churches as a &quot;devil whorshipper&quot;. So yes, there are tons of people out there who go to church, or do whatever religous ceremony out of the fear, or belief, of being talked about badly, or even dare i say it going to &quot;hell&quot;. (yess i know i said it....very quietly mind you, LOL)
I personally grew up in a Southern Babtist household where any kind of dancing but ballroom dancing was prohibited. You were seen as a slut if you got to close or looked at a guys eyes for too long. Oh and heaven forbid if you didnt attend church at least 3 times a week. But to me, I believe that this shows of the mind. 
I also believe that without this to some degree we would have people running around naked, screaming like mad people, and not smelling to nice either. LOL. So in many ways, not only do we need religion to a certain extent, but rules also. It helps keep us in &quot;check&quot; I guess you could say.
But let me also point out, that if you have to much of religion (the mind), you can become a stuck up prude know it all!! Not good. What fun is that? I guess for some its ok, but me I like things a bit more fun.
But on the flip side, if you have to much sprituality (the heart), you have people always saying...&quot;let me in&quot; &quot;what are you feeling right now?&quot; &quot;do you love me?&quot; (ok lots of women say that already, LOL) But my point being you would have people doing what ever they wanted when they wanted without a care in the world for the future or for technilogical progress or anything like that.
So in conclusion. (<tottaly fancy phrasing).. I believe that we should have a little of both within ourselves to create a perfect balance between religion and sprituality, and in my case of believing, the heart and the mind. 
I do not believe that they require each other to exist. As we can all see presently and in the past....they definatly do not need each other to exist. But I do believe that if they existed with equality in oursleves and in society we would be much better off. Everything in moderation. (but then i guess we would be perfect ha? oh well...LOL)
Life is a challenge, and thats why I love it so much.

Oh, BTW....I tottaly love your name....has a nice ringggg to it. *smile*, I wont say more then that just in case your married or something. No need to embarass myself. Hehehe.
TTYL all.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 25, 2006)

In _A Sociable God: Toward a New Understanding of Religion_, transpersonal philosopher Ken Wilber pointed out that the word "religion",

". . . has at least a dozen different, major, largely exclusive meanings, and unfortunately these are not always, not even usually, distinguished in the literature" (p. 98).

He then goes on to highlight nine of the common usages for "religion":

1) _Religion as nonrational engagement._ To put it bluntly, if it ain't rational then it must be "religious".

2) _Religion as extremely meaningful or integrative engagement._ This refers to "the search for meaning, truth, integrity, stability, and subject-object relationship (exchange)" (p. 99), which can be both "religious" and "secular" in its actual content.

3) _Religion as an immortality project._ In this usage, religion is defined primarily as the ego's death-denial, as "fundamentally a wishful, defensive, compensatory belief, created in order to assuage insecurity/anxiety" (p. 99). Can be both "religious" and "secular" in its content.

4) _Religion as evolutionary growth._ This definition is very popular among humanistic and transpersonal psychology, in which religion is defined as a higher stage of personal development (typically involving ego-transcendence). It also has historical connotations, as in the work of Hegel, Aurobindo, and Teilhard de Chardin.

5) _Religion as fixation/regression._ This is similar to Definition 3 and is very Freudian in its outlook. This is "standard primitivization theory: religion is childish illusion, magic, myth" (p. 100).

6) _Exoteric religion._ Wilber states that this "generally refers to the lower, outward, and/or preparatory aspects of any religion that has higher, inward, and/or advanced aspects of teaching and practice" (p. 100). If a particular religion lacks an esoteric dimension, then that religion as a whole is referred to as exoteric.

7)_ Esoteric religion. _This is "the higher, inward, and/or advanced aspects of religious practice, with the proviso that such practices culminate in, or at least have as goal, mystical experience" (p. 101).

8) _Legitimate religion. _According to Wilber, this is religion "that primarily _validates translation_; usually providing 'good mana' and helping avoid taboo, that is, providing units of meaning on one hand and immortality symbols on the other" (p. 101). This incoporates elements of Definitions 2, 3, and 6.

9) _Authentic religion._ This is "religion that primarily _validates transformation_ to a particular dimension-level deemed to be most centrally religious" (p. 102). This is related to Definitions 4 and 7.

Just some things to think about. . .


----------



## Elayna (Jul 25, 2006)

Wow, that is a lot of different meanings for religion.  I bet there are lots more out there too.  I can tottaly understand why though.  Even though there are textbook definitions of certain words, if there is even the slightest opening for interpretation it will be done.And yet I again, I find myself saying, To each his own.I think it is wonderful that so many religions exist out there.  There is something for everyone.  I just believe that we should learn to listen with an open mind others beliefs, but never force them to believe our way just because its our way .  I mean come on...all the major religions say that if your not with them then your going to hell.  Ive experienced it...LOL....from babtist to catholic to LDS.  Man oh man...LOL.Ill bring the smores...LOLBut no seriously....religion and sprituality is all based on ones "feelings" and thoughts on the subject.  Whether tought and realized through life.I think we as humans just need to come to the point, where we see each other as equals no matter what we believe or know.  A very hard thing to do...and it may take millions of more years....at least we have a goal right?  LOLWell gots to go fix some diner...talk to you all later..


----------



## matt.m (Jul 26, 2006)

I am spiritual.  I firmly believe that being spiritual is better than being religious.  Here is why:  I believe in God, I believe that Jesus is my savior.  I pray daily, I do not need to go to a church to do these things.  I think that religion is little more than mans way of setting rules around believing in God.  

Religion to me is also mans way of making himself feel better.


----------

