Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by acinteyyo »

David N. Snyder wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:At one point, wouldn't it be better to make a choice?
Hi David,

why?
To be on a set-path, not just picking and choosing the palatable parts and leaving behind the "harder" stuff like precepts, commandments, etc. To master a path, to make progress, rather than getting lost in a thicket of views. Just some ideas for that side, I personally don't have a problem with not choosing a specific religion, especially when first embarking on a search.
I believe if one is genuinely searching and is eager to make spiritual progress one is able to find the "right path" on its own and does not need a given set-path. Not choosing a religion does not necessarily mean that one just picks out the palatable parts and neglects the "harder" stuff. It might just be the case that one, after earnest consideration picks up only what is wholesome and beneficial and leaves out what is unwholesome and rather a hinderance. I think its nearly impossible for someone else to recognize who's the one neglecting important stuff (the "hard" stuff doesn't always need to be "important" stuff) and who's is the one leaving out the useless stuff. In addition to that it is not certain that a particular religion with its terms, commandments and concepts as a whole represents a "true path" or a "right path". Even if many parts of a given religious set appear to be "true" one can't doubtlessly infer from that that everything else of it must also be "true". So in my eyes a wise person will most likely not accept an entire given set of beliefs only to justify a "membership" to a certain religion.
On the other hand there are people who are just picking and choosing the palatable parts and leaving behind the "harder" stuff out of ignorance and just to satisfy their cravings.
The Ghosa Sutta comes to my mind:
"Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of wrong view. Which two? The voice of another[1] and inappropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of wrong view."
"Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of right view. Which two? The voice of another and appropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view."
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
Hanzze
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:47 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by Hanzze »

David N. Snyder wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:At one point, wouldn't it be better to make a choice?
Hi David,
why?
To be on a set-path, not just picking and choosing the palatable parts and leaving behind the "harder" stuff like precepts, commandments, etc. To master a path, to make progress, rather than getting lost in a thicket of views. Just some ideas for that side, I personally don't have a problem with not choosing a specific religion, especially when first embarking on a search.
There are some good points in what Acinteyyo had quoted before and to struggle with the tratitions has its learn and giving up effects, but one thing that is maybe more important is, that one is not able to walk the path alone as long as he has not entered the stream, I am not sure if the first fruit of path attainemt is enought already.

Such a put away the rits and precepts thing comes by it self, if that is a forced thing, it is mostly leaded by the deluded mind. How ever, if one come to the place where this things are no more relevant one leaves religion automatical and will 100% relay only on the Sangha (in its real meaning) and will no more care about religion.

Religion and all around it to maintain it is for sure not only a thicket but a jungle of views. We can start to cut of the jungle with our personal religion, our relicts and the ways we defend and try to maintain it and that is what is meant by leaving the home. Give up all promisies and responsibilities and focus as you sad simply only on the path.

Whether one is caught in a frame of religion or not, I wish everybody the bravery and courageousness to put virtue and the path at least higher as any view.

May you be well as all others and my you make your self an island with Dhamma as soon as it is yours. Don't make your self an island with your views, it simply hurts and you need to fight on and on that the flood will not drown the artifactal self raft.

Thanks for sharing the stanzas from Ghosa Sutta, Acinteyyo.

In regard of the "hard stuff" here:
Making Tables & Chairs

It's good to make the mind pure and at peace, but it's hard. You have to start with the externals — your bodily actions and words — and work your way in. The path that leads to purity, to being a contemplative, is a path that can wash away greed, anger, and delusion. You have to exercise restraint and self-control, which is why it's hard — but so what if it's hard?

It's like taking wood to make a table or make a chair. It's hard, but so what if it's hard? The wood has to go through that process. Before it can become a table or a chair, we have to go through the coarse and heavy stages.

It's the same with us. We have to become skillful where we aren't yet skillful, admirable where we aren't yet admirable, competent where we aren't yet competent.
And as Devarupa below states, here some stanzas from the honoroale Stutta Honor:
"Even some devas, Nagita, cannot obtain at will — without difficulty, without trouble — as I do, the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of self-awakening. When you all live together, assemble together, and live committed to dwelling with a group, the thought occurs: 'Surely these venerable ones cannot obtain at will — without difficulty, without trouble — as I do, the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of self-awakening, which is why they live together, assemble together, and live committed to dwelling with a group.'

[1] "There is the case, Nagita, where I see monks laughing out loud, sporting around, tickling one another with their fingers. The thought occurs to me, 'Surely these venerable ones cannot obtain at will — without difficulty, without trouble — as I do, the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of self-awakening, which is why they are laughing out loud, sporting around, tickling one another with their fingers.'

[2] "Then there is the case where I see monks — having eaten as much as they want, filling their bellies — live committed to the pleasure of lying down, the pleasure of sensory contacts, the pleasure of torpor. The thought occurs to me, 'Surely these venerable ones cannot obtain at will — without difficulty, without trouble — as I do, the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of self-awakening, which is why they — having eaten as much as they want, filling their bellies — live committed to the pleasure of lying down, the pleasure of sensory contacts, the pleasure of torpor.

[3] "Then there is the case where I see a monk sitting in concentration in a village dwelling. The thought occurs to me, 'Soon a monastery attendant will disturb this venerable one in some way, or a novice will, and rouse him from his concentration.' And so I am not pleased with that monk's village-dwelling.

[4] "But then there is the case where I see a monk sitting, nodding, in the wilderness. The thought occurs to me, 'Soon this venerable one will dispel his drowsiness & fatigue and attend to the wilderness-perception, [1] [his mind] unified.' And so I am pleased with that monk's wilderness-dwelling.

[5] "Then there is the case where I see a wilderness monk sitting unconcentrated in the wilderness. The thought occurs to me, 'Soon this venerable one will center his unconcentrated mind, or protect his concentrated mind.' And so I am pleased with that monk's wilderness-dwelling.

[6] "Then there is the case where I see a wilderness monk sitting in concentration in the wilderness. The thought occurs to me, 'Soon this venerable one will release his unreleased mind, or protect his released mind.' And so I am pleased with that monk's wilderness-dwelling.

[7] "Then there is the case where I see a village-dwelling monk who receives robes, alms food, shelter, & medicinal requisites for curing the sick. Receiving, as he likes, those gains, offerings, & fame, he neglects seclusion, he neglects isolated forest & wilderness dwellings. He makes his living by visiting villages, towns, & cities. And so I am not pleased with that monk's village-dwelling.[2]

[8] "Then there is the case where I see a wilderness monk who receives robes, alms food, shelter, & medicinal requisites for curing the sick. Fending off those gains, offerings, & fame, he doesn't neglect seclusion, doesn't neglect isolated forest & wilderness dwellings. And so I am pleased with that monk's wilderness-dwelling.[3]

"But when I am traveling along a road and see no one in front or behind me, at that time I have my ease, even when urinating & defecating."
Last edited by Hanzze on Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Just that! *smile*
...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by daverupa »

It seems as though the article would argue for the value of consistency in ones metaphysical/mystical views, while the Dhamma advises us to set that whole albatross aside.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by DNS »

daverupa wrote:It seems as though the article would argue for the value of consistency in ones metaphysical/mystical views, while the Dhamma advises us to set that whole albatross aside.
True, but then is the Dhamma a consistent path of metaphysical/mystical views?

A sotāpanna is incapable of creating a schism and incapable of going to other teachers, i.e., mixing traditions to suit his desires. (Bahudhatuka Sutta MN. 115)
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by daverupa »

David N. Snyder wrote:is the Dhamma a consistent path
Yes.
of metaphysical/mystical views?
No.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by DNS »

daverupa wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:is the Dhamma a consistent path
Yes.
of metaphysical/mystical views?
No.
Those were your words. I was just quoting them. Okay, then it is a consistent path of some kind of spiritual/religious journey (for example from samsara to nibbana) which makes it a religion in the traditional definition of religion with beliefs in some kind of after-life / rebirth and a set path on how to do the journey (8-fold path).
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by Jason »

David N. Snyder wrote:
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.
It could also be a willingness to admit the possibility that no single religious institution has everything right combined with an attitude that it's beneficial to take the bits and pieces that are, or at least seem to be, and utilize them to make one's life better, happier, and more meaningful. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that, especially considering Buddhism itself isn't about taking positions, but about utilizing certain ideas and practices in order to end suffering. I say if things work, use them (you know, the whole raft analogy and all).

Jesus said a lot of awesome things, and I live by some of those things even though I'm not Christian and don't believe Jesus himself was God. But even if that weren't the case, I don't see why I should have to take a position about his divinity in order to practice his teachings on forgiveness, generosity, renunciation, etc. anyway. And if someone adopts Buddhist ideas and practices without taking a position on his enlightenment or the reality of postmortem rebirth, so what? It'd probably be far more beneficial for them than giving them the choice of fully accepting everything or nothing at all.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by daverupa »

David N. Snyder wrote:Those were your words. I was just quoting them.
I used those words to describe a dichotomy which was worth tossing out; it's personality aggrandizement, and worthless per MN 2, it seems to me. The Dhamma isn't built on this sort of thing.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
JeffR
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Minnesota, Lakota Nation (Occupier)

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by JeffR »

I think religion is the cop out.

Based on observation, it's just an excuse to judge, hate, kill and claim oneself righteous in the process; justified by blindly following a belief system that doesn't jive with reality. Buddhism doesn't really fit the western definition of religion. Religion is a concept that didn't even exist in Eastern Asia until westerners forced the idea. Religion has nothing to do with following Sila. More often than not it's an excuse to violate Sila. I avoid religion because I follow Sila.
Therein what are 'six (types of) disrespect'? One dwells without respect, without deference for the Teacher; one dwells without respect, without deference for the Teaching; one dwells without respect, without deference for the Order; one dwells without respect, without deference for the precepts; one dwells without respect, without deference for heedfulness; one dwells without respect, without deference for hospitality. These are six (types of) disrespect.
:Vibh 945
User avatar
Viscid
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by Viscid »

David N. Snyder wrote:A sotāpanna is incapable of creating a schism and incapable of going to other teachers, i.e., mixing traditions to suit his desires. (Bahudhatuka Sutta MN. 115)
Someone who mixes traditions doesn't necessarily go and create a schism. A sotāpanna wouldn't have much need to cause a schism because they aren't passionate about ideological differences.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by DNS »

I can understand a lot of people's reservations and perhaps disdain for organized religion. Institutional religions probably deserve a lot of the flak they receive considering the dogmatism, fundamentalism, and sometimes the violence and wars they spawn. However, the syncretic movements could also lead to and even become an institutional religion on their own. There have been some syncretic philosophies that became institutional religions of their own, for example, the Druze, Shinto, Bahai, Sikhism, Voodoo, Santeria, Rastafarianism, etc.

And the spiritual but not religious crowd could just as easily become attached to their views too as the religionists do, although they usually do not until such a view becomes an organized religion such as the above. There was a similar debate to this over at our sister site Dharma Wheel and interestingly both the religionists and those advocating against organized religion appeared to be holding firm to their views (and the thread had to be locked).
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=10211" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe the bigger problem of organized religion vs. spiritual is rather the holding dogmatically to one's views. Admittedly this appears to occur more among religionists than the spiritual crowd. The solution would be for the religionists to not take a fundamentalist, dogmatic approach and develop a more tolerant, accepting and flexible view with a non-literal reading of their scriptures.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by Ben »

Interesting discussion David.
It reminds me of some of the content of "Burma's Mass Lay Meditation Movement", "Strong Roots: liberation teachings of mindfulness in North America", and various articles and book reviews here regarding whether what the Buddha taught was a religion and how closely it resembled what is considered Theravada today in its multifarious manifestations.
kind regards,

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Mal
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by Mal »

Alan Miller wrote: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.
This is in danger of being a straw man argument. Can you point to some examples of leading "spiritual-but-not-religious" people who have this kind of attitude? I can think of some who don't have this "I know better" attitude. For instance, Kabat-Zinn has a commitment to Insight Meditation, is a declared non-Buddhist, and I've never seen him even hint that he has a "deeper, more profound relationship" to Insight Meditation or "reality" than Buddhist monks.
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.
Kabat-Zinn gives a "positive exposition or understanding or explanation" of Insight meditation.
At the heart of the spiritual but not religious attitude is an unwillingness to take a real position.
"Real" according to who? I take a position of neither belief nor non-belief in rebirth. That, to me, is the most realistic position I can take at this moment, without kidding myself. Some religious Buddhist seem to me to have a dogmatic belief in rebirth, in the same way as Christians believe in the divinity of Christ. Are they being more "real" than the spiritual person waiting to have a personal experience, or to see incontrovertible evidence?
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.
Again, a straw man argument. There are spiritual people who hold truth and logic in the highest esteem. There are religious people who ignore truth and logic because it is more palatable to go along with the dogma of their church
Last edited by DNS on Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: corrected quote
Mal
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by Mal »

David N. Snyder wrote: Following precepts, sila I imagine is on the back-burner or not existent for many on the "spiritual but not religious side." This is not to say they are bad in any way, but according to many Buddhist teachers sila is necessary to make progress.
I'm sure many spiritual people follow the five precepts. If you stretch the prohibition against intoxicants, to allow drinking alcohol within healthy guidelines, or to "non-intoxicating" levels, then that might even be "most".
pegembara
Posts: 3453
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Being spiritual but not religious is a cop-out

Post by pegembara »

David N. Snyder wrote:
Religious: following a specific institutional religion in one of its forms, i.e., Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.
Looking at Bahiya's example [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html] he was not even a practising Buddhist before he attained nibbana although he was obviously spiritual. He had was intense urgency and humility with willingness to accept the Buddha's instructions. He did not "follow" the Vinaya before that but that doesn't mean he "broke" them.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Post Reply