Religious, But Not Spiritual?
Posted September 14th, 2007 by Corey W. deVos
Good News and Bad News from the World's Largest Religion
It takes a moment to reconcile oneself to the fact that the religious tradition of St. Francis and Mother Theresa is also the tradition of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Fr. Thomas Keating, considered one of the great contemplatives of our time, has spent a lifetime in the practice of Christianity, seeking and sharing its depths. The goal of the tradition, suggests Fr. Thomas in this week's video, is transformation—but transformation into what?
The answer depends on what stage of development you're at. Beyond becoming a better person (though your family and friends may thank you profusely), beyond even becoming a saint, Fr. Thomas suggests that the goal of the mature Christian life is to become no thing. As with any developmental sequence, the subject of one stage becomes the object of the subject of the next—in this case, until absolute Subjectivity itself. The problem—and the challenge—lie in the fact that, among its 2 billion adherents, relatively few are aware of Christianity's mystical tradition and contemplative path. Statements like "I'm spiritual, but not religious" actually come from a fairly evolved place, from which one rejects external aspects of the tradition, while still longing for its esoteric wisdom.
Integral spirituality offers an entirely new perspective on this question. From this perspective, we can see that although the stories of the world's religious traditions vary wildly, the contemplative experience is essentially similar. And from Integral, we can appreciate the stories for what they are, the first rung in a ladder of development—both our own development, and that of anyone on a similar path. In the end, no matter how profound the state in which we experience the divine, it is always interpreted from our stage of development.
Integral also points to the reality of our shadow, and points out that we might need something other than our contemplative practice to bring it into the light. Finally, Integral can help us both to transform into deeper stages of awareness and compassion, and to translate our current stage in the healthiest way possible.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
An evolved statement?
"Statements like 'I'm spiritual, but not religious' actually come from a fairly evolved place, from which one rejects external aspects of the tradition, while still longing for its esoteric wisdom" (from Corey DeVoes' article posted 9/14/2007).
As an instructor of the world's religions at the university level, I have to question DeVoes assertion that the statement "I'm spiritual, but not religious" comes from an evolved place. While his underlying message seems sound enough on the surface - that such seekers have transcended religions' external aspects while still longing for esoteric wisdom - I don't think this process has taken place at all for the general "spiritual-but-not-religious" expounder.
Early students of the world's religions are notorious for making this statement without first having any real understanding or even practice of religion and its actual aspects, external or otherwise. In fact, most are not even "recovering Catholics," etc., but rather young adults who have spent most of their life picking and choosing whatever makes them comfortable, period. They have not gone through developmental stages but have adopted instead a convenient saying without conviction.
To have a positive position on spirituality at all in our current world is certainly a quality to be appreciated, but simply making a statement of position on spirituality vs. religion cannot really be likened to having moved from one developmental stage to another, nor to the powerful process of evolution, transformation, transcendence taking place within the mystical experience. While such enlightenment can happen in a single moment and is not necessarily predetermined by length of practice, still something must first exist from which to transcend!
I believe Ken Wilber addresses this quite thoroughly and nicely in his all-quadrant integral theory. And, I believe we should be careful not to make statements which, in essence, applaud mental constructs that prevent the very transcendence we are claiming to advocate. If an early seeker with an "I'm spiritual but not religious" perspective were to read DeVoes' article, what further impetous would they have towards the type of transcendence being called for by Fr. Keating and other mystics? After all, they might posit, I'm already evolved, right?
Kerri - I believe what you
Kerri - I believe what you are pointing out is the ability for some to slip into pre/trans confusions and the need to be precise when making statements such as the one given by Corey. If Corey would have qualified the statement with phrase indicating that if someone from a post/trans-conventional stage were to say "Statements like 'I'm spiritual, but not religious' actually come from a fairly evolved place...'" then we are more likely to avoid the pre/trans issues you aptly point out and that Ken and callers address in the discussions about Boomeritis Buddhism at Integral Spiritual Center.
Spiritual not religious
The term "spiritual" is an often misused and thoroughly difficult term to define. It is possible that there are as many definitions of the term spiritual as there are persons claiming the moniker. At the end of the day, all terms: spiritual, religious, integral, 1st-tier, 2nd-tier, and all kinds of what have you's are just convient ways to get trapped--its all an addictive mind candy, enticing and distracting. Without painting too broad a brush stroke, I have found that many people who claim to be spiritual rather than religious are really laying claim to an adolescent type of rebellion against perceived authority. Its more of an assertion that lays claim to the type of self-defeating freedom a narcisist might lay claim to than dissolution into the ever present. Or at least, that is one old man's perspective.
What's wrong with being religious?
I'm sure if you were to ask Tibetan meditation masters if they are religious or not, they would (by-in-large) answer in the affirmative. This notion of "spirituality" as opposed to "religion" is flat out dumb. This definition of "spiritual advancement", whatever the heck that means, excludes the mass majority of practitioners of meditation.
Wilber's whole approach to religion is wrought methodological problems. Firstly, the whole comparative religion agenda is bogus. Believing in it requires having the arrogant stance that, even though the great masters have had massive disagreements in the past (i.e. Nagarjuna and Shankara), we know better than they do what they experienced.
Secondly, That Buddha Nature is made synonymous with Atman is wildly foolish. This should be more than obvious to anyone who has actually studied the original texts containing these doctrines.
Thirdly, Wilber displays a poor understanding of Buddhist doctrine. That nirvana, shunyata, and dharmakaya are treated as synonymous is utterly absurd. That shunyata is equated with nirguna brahman is, frankly, flat out dumb.
Finally, equating Eastern and Western terminology is a hermeneutical nightmare. Read the introduction to Huntington's "The Emptiness of Emptiness" if you need an explanation.
As a side note, what happened to Wilber? Every email I get from his Integral Institute is flakier than the next. Maximizing your integralness (not a direct quote)? Seriously?
What is Wrong With Being Religious
Religion is an argument between three shepards over who is going to eat the sheep.
religion is a dogma..spirit
religion is a dogma..spirit will go where it wills....christian is taught that god is love and then the challenge...how can you love god if you do not love your fellow man...so spirituality is a living presence....in the i...in the we...and in the they. most religion is self righteous..pontificating...there are enough silver tongued preachers....self help gurus...religion historically has an evil past. therefore to live an authentic life is to be spiritual....what about the story that jesus tells regarding the man in need of help and all so called religious types passes him by but the one who had no acceptance by the religious people was the one who acted out caring and compassion. the word religion causes shivers all over...repulsive shivers...the word spiritual is for me a verb...calming...accepting. ken wilber and his integral way has made me realize the the working...the striving towards the higher domain can only be attained when the i and the we and them understand and deal with the shadow...our dark side ............. religious institutions and its followers are separatists....a fragmented choir singing we are the truth and if you do not agree...well you know the rest of the story.interesting that jesus last speech was a prayer that the i becomes a WE.... ..a.brotherhood.... PART OF THE PRAYER WAS....THAT WE ALL MAY BE ONE. so the path is an individual one that evolves through darkness.despair...ecstasy...embrace...and then communion with all . there are fewer enlightened ones that should not stop one in the upward march...and ken wilber is one of the lights ...one can only imagine his struggling and yet it has been said that pain is the touchstone of all spiritual progress....so let us in the marketplace of absurdity becomes fools for enlightment....is it not interesting that in many of our relationshi[ps.we go from i to the it/him /her/theyand bypassing the we...hence we end up being aliienated..lonely...faceless...treating or being treated as just a piece of meat instead of a living presence
Religion versus spirituality
I think of spirituality as a gas that will spread out infinitely until it bumps into a wall, and of religion as a kind of box that might contain or shape spirituality. Religion must contain spirituality, but spirituality does not need religion.
Post new comment