Reflections on a Non-Theistic Spirituality

[GliderGuider]

I just posted the following article and thought it might interest some people here. I know it won't resonate with others, and will turn still others right off. Such is the nature of the game.

Reflections on a Non-Theistic Spirituality

Throughout my life I’ve identified myself strongly as an atheist and until quite recently I’ve devoted very little time or energy to my inner life or thoughts of the sacred.

As I mature, however, I find I become less concerned about what the world thinks of me and more concerned with what I feel about the world. In the process I've realized something important: I harbor a very deep thirst for a direct experience of the sacred.

As I’ve explored various ways of slaking this thirst I’ve had to ask myself some fundamental questions. Among them are, “What does it mean to be a non-theist on a spiritual path?”, “How can a non-theist pursue spirituality?” and “Why would they want to?”

The last question is the easiest to answer. The desire to pursue spiritual exploration is always deeply personal and arises ineluctably from within the seeker. For me it came as a feeling that some necessary expression of an essential, transcendent value was missing from my life and that I was incomplete, even suffering, without it. The ensuing search has been fueled by a deep desire to know the whole truth about myself and my relationship with the world in which I live.

The answers to the first two questions have been gradually revealed through the trial and error of my explorations. This article is an attempt to describe some of the answers I have found along the way.

More at the link...

Happy New Year,
Bodhisantra

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. Wow, I really enjoyed that. I personally love this kind of thing.

Anybody willing to stand up to the crazy mysteries of science and spirit without attempting to shove it into a reductionist box really makes me happy.

I think we've lost a lot of what drove the original philosophers and scientists in their searches, it really was an extremely spiritual - sometimes even theistic - pursuit. These people were looking for not only material truths, but for the nature of the greater order and our place in it. That's the adventure of science, the romantic narrative that gets lost when it gets reduced down to white lab coats and beakers. Great scientists are seekers of truth, just as shamans or old magicians before.

On the science front, I personally am really drawn to Bohms implicate order ideas as well. The information age has led us to embrace new things as being real, things which can be in many places at once like an email or digital photograph. This gives us the opportunity to ask some deep questions about what IS the difference between identical things in two different places, which invites us to contemplate a world of non-locality, where 3d space is an illusion and an unseen implicate order actually describes what's going on. Its an idea with so many possibilities I just can't help but to be drawn to it.

On the spirituality front, I hadn't heard of the Seth material, but I just read about it and if you liked it you may want to look at hermetic Qabalah. This also teaches the 4 planes perspective, but it takes a lot of contemplation. There are some interesting eastern paths which advance other models of planes, usually more than 4, but often subdividing into 4 of the form physical, astral/subtle, mental, transcendence/nirvana.

and then of course synergy. When we take into account our material experiences as being representations in our brains, it strikes me that our most direct experiences of reality come not from our mental projections of names and past and future, but just being here now. This allows us to move from the concept of universe as "it", (wherein we see ourselves as something separate from "me") and into the experience of universe as "you", wherein its fundamentally the same stuff as "me". This transition of consciousness is always really beautiful and enjoyable for me, but its a big shift of awareness into something entirely new. Maybe if there is an implicate order, that's the way we can actually experience it.

Anyway, thanks for sharing!

[Speck Tater]

2. Excellent article.

Quote:

"Atheists themselves subdivide that position into “weak” or “implicit” atheism (“I do not believe there is a God”) and “strong” or “explicit” atheism (“I believe there is no God”). It’s a subtle but significant distinction, at least to atheists."

Every time I bring up this distinction I get jumped all over and told I'm an idiot. I'm glad to see there is somebody else in the world that didn't flunk out of freshman logic, and understands the difference between those two very different positions.

[rrneck]

3. Interesting read.

A refreshing change from what I usually see here.

It may be that the Enlightenment will advance our understanding of spirituality forward to some point about twenty thousand years ago when each individual had his or her own path to the divine and there wasn't a need for some guy with a special hat.

[patrice]

5. !! ". . . some guy with a special hat" ROFL! I think I love you rrneck!

:rofl: Thanks for that line! :rofl:

[patrice]

4. Thanks VERY much for this!

I have shared it with my tribe and I want to discuss it with anyone in this thread, but I will have to return to that experience later, when I have more time to do this justice.

Until then, . . . :hi:

[juno jones]

6. Very cool.

In my experience, spirituality can be theistic, non-theistic or both under varied circumstances.

Happy New Year Bohdisantra! :hi:

[struggle4progress]

7. A few reactions:

(1) The notion "sacred" is a complicated and culturally-dependent one, that may carry other notions like "danger" or "contamination" -- one may regard something as "sacred" because it is "powerful" or because it is "fragile," because it has the possibility of having different effects depending on the use made of it, because it can "purify" or because it can contaminate," and so on. Thus, when one says something like "life is sacred," one means that is deserves great respect and care, because it is easy for us to destroy it and we do not know how to restore it if it is destroyed; similarly, when people express a belief (say) that sex ought to be treated with religious care, they may actually be saving something like "This is a powerful elemental force, which can be put to various uses, some harmful, some benign, some positive, and so one ought to be careful with it"

(2) Many spiritual traditions involve a curious combination of intellectual and anti-intellectual features. Zen Buddhism, for example, appears on first blush to completely scorn intellectualism, but a number of the famous stories can also be understood as describing Buddhist philosophy in terms of ordinary events: one could scarcely accuse the Zen Buddhists, with their emphasis on every-day-mind, of believing in "woo" -- and yet, perhaps, in another sense, even a simple flowering weed is miraculous woo to the Zen Buddhist. Similarly, the incredibly unbelievable Christian gospels seem to invite one to set aside preconceptions and see the world with different eyes, suggesting that one might then see things completely unexpected: virgins giving birth, the dead rising from their tombs, children of G-d executed as common criminals, or who knows what

(3) The real spiritual questions, of course, concern the foundations of our being: what we hold as real and essential and what we abandon as illusory or unimportant. To me, the most interesting aspect of your essay is the part concerning "interdependence" and "connection" -- because this seems the root of a spiritual crisis in this country, where one no longer knows who milked the cow or who grew the corn for breakfast, where one often seeks entertainment alone in front of a TV rather than going downtown with the crowd, where one's coworkers live in distant neighborhoods and one does not sit out on the porch on the summer evenings to greet the passersby ...

[GliderGuider]

12. Thanks

You've helped clarify my understanding of the word "sacred".

I first entered the realm of spirituality through my realization of the fundamental significance of interconnection and interdependence. Everything else seems to be built on that cornerstone.

[tinrobot]

8. Great essay...

Thank you for presenting something that intelligently discusses spirituality rather than blindly dismissing it as 'woo.'

[Odin2005]

9. Interesting link. I consider myself a "spiritual atheist"

I'm an avowed Materialist, I do not believe in an afterlife, I do not believe in a supernatural realm or a deity. I consider the Cosmos itself as sacred. The forests and the prairie under the night sky are my cathedrals We are all part of a greater connected whole, intimately connected to the rest of the universe. Our brains operate by natural laws, there is no soul, no "unmoved mover" that operates outside of causality. The notion of "self" is an evolutionarily convenient illusion; as Heraclitus said, you never step into the same river twice because it is not the same river and you are not the same man.

Why invent a superman in the sky when the actual Cosmos is so much more wonderful and awe-inspiring? IMO it merely debases spirituality, putting a unhelpful, constricting label on the ineffable, trying to force it into our human social reality, trying to personify the cosmos the same way somebody cursing a malfunctioning device accuses it of having sinister motivations, personifying the object.

[GliderGuider]

11. The nice thing about religion-free spirituality

is that it's so deeply personal. In a sense our spirituality provides a framework for our wonder, and the nature of both the wonder and the framework depend on our own individual nature. Because of the infinite variety of human experience we all turn out different, so there is no realistic possibility of a "one-size-fits-all" spirituality. We can tease out common threads, but in the end what is spiritually satisfying to you is yours alone and can't be transferred intact to anyone else.

Here's a thought. The form and substance of even a healthy spirituality are shaped by our neuroses.

[Goldstein1984]

10. I once argued that there is fundamentally no difference between

A Catholic priest leading a mass and a shaman dancing naked around a fire with a dead chicken. When I realized that this statement would be equally offensive to both the priest and the shaman, I felt I understood the essence of all religion.

I've been an "Atheist" as long as I can remember, and even in my youth I only went through the motions of believing in god. The universe just makes far more sense to me without gods and goddesses than with them.

Being educated as a biologist and engineer, I like to keep up with biology, astronomy, and cosmology, at least what I can understand. What I find is a universe so amazing that the pathetic little gods we humans have created in our own image don't do the universe justice. But neither does the simple materialism and reductionism of science.

I advocate a mythology free spiritualism with a basis in awe of the universe. As much as I love science, I believe the complexity of the universe will be out of reach from some time.

If I have one firm belief where religion is concerned, it is that the Pope and people like Jerry Falwell have got it all wrong.

On open-mindedness and acceptance of unanswered questions of Eastern religions are attractive.

Nice article. Thank you.

[54anickel]

13. Thank you for this, Bodhisantra. It definitely resonates with my "soul", especially at this

particular time in my life.

I grew up surrounded by mysticism in my family. My mother and maternal grandmother were extremely "plugged in" to something similar to what you have labeled "Essence". I use to share those experiences of "being" of "connectedness" when I was young. I tossed it all out along with any notion of god when I became a grown-up and thought I knew it all. It's been a long struggle to return to those matriarchal roots, but I'm getting there.

I learned a lot about my own "reactivity" in an enneagram workshop. Perhaps it was mentioned in "The Diamond Approach" as I know A.H. Almaas wrote a book called "Facets of Unity: The Enneagram of Holy Ideas". I believe it helped me much more than some of the psych counseling from years ago. Maybe I was just more receptive at this time in my life or perhaps it gave me a "hook" to place that family systems psych work on. My goal isn't as difficult as your “to live without reactivity”. I'm just hoping to be a "non-anxious presence" for others in times of crisis.

Thanks again, and a Happy 2010.

[GliderGuider]

14. The enneagram is a remarkable tool!

I learned about it from my teacher who uses the teachings of both Almaas' "Diamond Approach" and Faisal Muquaddam's "Diamond Logos". Almaas and Faisal were co-creators of the basic approach, but separated so each could pursue a different emphasis (Almaas tends to be more head-centered while Faisal is more heart-centered).

Yes, "Facets" is a wonderful book. I found it tough to read at the beginning of my path, but it's much more accessible now. I liked the concept and structure of the Enneagram right from the start, though. It's a lot more sophisticated than other tools like Myers-Briggs, not to mention that M-B doesn't have a spiritual dimension. I had a lot of trouble figuring out my enneatype at the beginning, but I discovered that was because I was still wearing my father's face and had a lot of unresolved issues that were distorting my personality. I started out thinking I was a 5, then thought for a while I might be a 4, but now realize I'm a 9.

My partner has been on the same path for almost ten years. It has enabled her to recover from the sort of early childhood that would leave most people life-long basket cases. She says that three years of this path with a good teacher can do as much good as thirty years of talk therapy, and maybe even more because there are barriers talk therapy can't cross.

Satcitananda,
Bodhi

[Odin2005]

17. I'm a 6w5 sx/sp/so INFJ

:)

[GliderGuider]

19. 9w1 sx/so/sp INFP...

:hi:

[ashling]

15. Reverence

First of all, thanks for posting this.

Have you read Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue
by Paul Woodruff I haven't read the whole thing, though it is a relatively short book. It has a lot to do with virtue, community, ethics, and, I think, spirituality - though it is not directed in that vein, necessarily.

Here is an excerpt from the first chapter (with some highlites and comments by me

Reverence is an ancient virtue that survives among us in half forgotten patterns of civility, in moments of inarticulate awe, and in nostalgia for the lost ways of traditional cultures. We have the word “reverence” in our language, but we scarcely know how to use it. Right now it has no place in secular discussions of ethics or political theory. Even more surprisingly, reverence is missing from modern discussions of the ancient cultures that prized it.

Reverence begins in a deep understanding of human limitations; from this grows the capacity to be in awe of whatever we believe lies outside our control – God, truth, justice, nature, even death. (emphasis by me) The capacity for awe, as it grows, brings with it the capacity for respecting fellow human beings, flaws and all. This in turn fosters the ability to be ashamed when we show moral flaws exceeding the normal human allotment. (emphasis by me)The Greeks before Plato saw reverence as one of the bulwarks of society, and the immediate followers of Confucius in China thought much the same. Both groups wanted to see reverence in their leaders, because reverence is the virtue that keeps leaders from trying to take tight control of other people’s lives.(emphasis by me) Simply put, reverence is the virtue that keeps human beings from trying to act like gods.

To forget that you are only human, to think you can act like a god—this is the opposite of reverence. Ancient Greeks thought that tyranny was the height of irreverence, and they gave the famous name of hubris to the crimes of tyrants. An irreverent soul is arrogant and shameless, unable to feel awe in the face of things higher than itself. As a result, an irreverent soul is unable to feel respect for people lower than itself—ordinary people, prisoners, children.(emphasis by me) The two failures go together, in both Greek and Chinese traditions. If an emperor has a sense of awe, this will remind him that Heaven is his superior—that he is, as they said in ancient China, the Son of Heaven. And any of us is better for remembering that there is someone, or Someone, to whom we are children; in this frame of mind we are more likely to treat all children with respect. And vice versa: If you cannot bring yourself to respect children, you are probably deficient in the ability to feel that anyone or anything is higher than you.(yeah, me again)

Reverence has more to do with politics than religion. We can easily imagine religion without reverence; we see it, for example, whenever religion leads people into an aggressive war or violence. But power without reverence—that is a catastrophe for all concerned. Power without reverence is aflame with arrogance, while service without reverence is blind to the general good and deaf to advice from people who are powerless. And life without reverence? Entirely without reverence? That would be brutish and selfish, and it had best be lived alone. (sort of like Hobbes's state of nature)

anyway, I think it has some application here

[GliderGuider]

16. Yes, reverence is inextricably bound up with the sacred.

It might possible to have a religion without reverence, I guess, but it's pretty much impossible to be spiritual without it. To the extent that a religion has become alienated from its spiritual core it loses the need for reverence. Then as it loses that need it becomes further alienated, in a vicious negative feedback loop that ends up with a bunch of rules and not much else. Luckily for the hierarchy it's easier to enforce rules than to foster reverence...

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll pick it up.

[Odin2005]

18. Great post!

[54anickel]

20. Thank you for this. I'll check out the book. I did find the transcript to his interview with Moyers

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_woodruff.html

[deutsey]

21. This looks really good. I'm looking forward to reading it! n/t

[DeSwiss]

22. Seth Speaks. n/t

[GliderGuider]

25. Oh yes he does!

Even forty years later Seth is still one of the pieces in my spiritual jigsaw puzzle.

[deutsey]

23. Thank you very much for this.

Your spiritual experience is very much in harmony with mine, only you are much, much farther along in your ability to articulate it coherently. :-)

I also plan to read the Almaas link you provided.

[GliderGuider]

24. I'm glad it resonated for you.

Almaas' teachings are remarkable. For someone with a western mindset, regardless of their spiritual orientation, they are an easily-opened door to a new understanding of both the Self and the Absolute.

His teachings don't denigrate the personality as most other non-dual teachings do, but instead see it as an essential aspect of both our humanity and our spirituality. That for me was the biggest opening. I had spent a long time trying to come to terms with various Buddhist approaches, all of which viewed the personality and especially the ego as an impediment to spirituality. Finally finding someone who could place it seamlessly within the domain of spiritual growth was a huge AHA! According to Almaas, a fully realized personality and a fully realized spirit are the same thing. That works for me :-)

[YankeyMCC]

26. This is very generous of you

to share with us Bodhisantra.

Do you study or practice with a teacher in Buddhism or Taoism?

[GliderGuider]

27. My teacher draws from a number of sources

He combines elements of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sufi, a bit of Christian mysticism, the teachings of Osho, depth psychology (mainly Jung and Freud), ego development and object relations theory, some transactional analysis and especially the Diamond Approach of A.H. Almaas. It's a very broad-based teaching, easily accessible to someone as secular as I am.

[GliderGuider]

28. Kicking because of some interest in the "On Respect" thread /nt