The division between the secular and 'spirituality' is complex. Numinousity may involves the arts rather than what is perceived as 'religious experience'. Art may be the way in which the numinous is often expressed and experienced.

The issue of 'freedom' may be about the consciousness of 'freedom' conceptually.Recently, I read ' Freedom Evolves'; by Daniel Dennett. The idea of free choice may be bound up with the emergence of human consciousness. I was a little confused though by his thinking as he is associated with the idea of consciousness as an 'illusion'

I am inclined to think that the evolution of ''consciousness' is about the experience of reflection as a basis for the development of consciousness on an 'inner' level.

Yes, I agree that there can be a lack of understanding of 'spirituality' amongst both religious people and atheists. The ancient thinkers, including Plato and Plotinus may have understood the value of inner experience, including spirituality, as a basis for human meaning and understanding.

It may also involve 'feeling', which may be a little different from the perspective of 'reason' and cognitive processes in the brain. Philosophy may come with the side-effect of 'overthinking' and some resultant imbalance of understanding.

The division between the secular and 'spirituality' is complex. Numinousity may involves the arts rather than what is perceived as 'religious experience'. Art may be the way in which the numinous is often expressed and experienced. — Jack Cummins

Sounds a little tangled. Can you pick one thread so there is something to get ohld of in amongst this. It is a very complex area with many nebulous concepts. Maybe start by substantiating what division there is between the secular and the spiritual? Expanding form Eliade maybe?

I was just referring to plain old freedom - to do as one wishes.

I am not sure that the issues which I raise can be pinned down to one thread. It involves so much thinking about 'reality' and the questions arising in the inner life. There is also the issue of freedom and individualism. Spirituality may involve both an individual quest or be about a basis for understanding connectivity and moral responsibility. The two aspects may be juxtaposed or 'spirituality' my involve the balance between inner and outer aspects of living. Spirituality may be questionable when it is about one's own self alone, as if one is trying to rocket into 'heaven' on an individual quest.

Pick one then. I see no issues raised atm just a vague gesturing towards something. If that is all you can do then there isn't much more to be said on my part.

It does seem likely that religious believers may be devoid of spirituality, just as similar to atheists. This was the area of criticism of the Pharisees which Jesus identified. The inner quest for truth may be the quest of Socrates, Jesus, the Buddha, Nietzsche's Zarathustra and many others who sought the idea of 'truth within' oneself as an essential starting point for understanding and living.

Just as you are asking about my purpose of writing, I am wondering about yours too. It is so easy to get caught up in tangents of thinking, both about inner and outer aspects of philosophy. To a large extent, I would argue that the value of 'spiritual truths' is not about rational arguments per se, but what works as wisdom for living.

The inner quest for truth may be the quest of Socrates, Jesus, the Buddha, Nietzsche's Zarathustra and many others who sought the idea of 'truth within' oneself as an essential starting point for understanding and living. — Jack Cummins

I don't know how much good can come out of looking for the "truth within" until we have lived long enough to know much of anything. I think until recently, all people turned to their elders to know about life.

An inner quest for truth would be a mental thing. I have read that the benefits of spirituality depend on the heart, not the thought. So, if a person prays for something from the position of not having that thing and being needy, this person is creating the neediness, not the fulfillment of the need. To fulfill the need, one must come from the position of gratefulness. Being grateful is a heart thing that manifests the fulfillment of what is desired. This is a more interactive relationship with the universe than modern Western thinking, which begins with separation from the spirit, God, and forces.

To be spiritual is to understand that we are co-creators with the universe. Googling the "Core principles for co-creation" will result in a fuller explanation.

The idea of the 'truth within' may be problematic if followed through for its own sake. The idea of being 'co-creators with the universe' may enable a connection between the inner and outer aspects of evolution and the evolution of consciousness. Even the separation between inner and outer may be a problem if taken too concretely. Spirituality is a complex interface of human existence, consciousness and understanding, of which religious thinking is a mere shadow of possibilities.

I am VERY interested in this kind of area. If you are still struggling to define what it is (in part or full) you wish to discuss then come back to me when you have found a way.

One aspect which I wonder about is whether suffering may be a pathway to greater consciousness or awareness. Of course, suffering can lead people to break down but if worked with may lead to greater understanding and insight. That is because suffering may lead a person to deeper searching than they would have pursued otherwise. That may seem a bit theoretical and I am not saying that it always does, but I have often found those who have been through harsh experiences have quality understanding or wisdom.

Altered states of consciousness are induced by stress on teh body for sure. The actual 'harsh' experiences induced can either leave someone whole or shattered. I am not sure that path is a good idea for everyone. I was lucky.

Such things are not really of much use and most people woudl not go there willingly; nor woudl I recommend doing so.

The idea of the 'truth within' may be problematic if followed through for its own sake. The idea of being 'co-creators with the universe' may enable a connection between the inner and outer aspects of evolution and the evolution of consciousness. Even the separation between inner and outer may be a problem if taken too concretely. Spirituality is a complex interface of human existence, consciousness and understanding, of which religious thinking is a mere shadow of possibilities. — Jack Cummins

I think our cultural biases are interfering with a different understanding of our spirituality? We consider the assumed spirituality of others to be primitive and lacking in the correct knowledge of our material existence.

There is no separation between ourselves and spirit. If we are negative, that is what we create in our lives. If we are positive, that is what we create in our lives. If we destroy ecosystems, we pay the consequences, and a god is not going to save us from ourselves, no matter how much we pray. The great apes, buffalo, and elephants have as much right to this planet as we do, and how do our hearts feel about this? We are part of the creation, not separate from it.

A hidden argument, is to accuse people of thinking they are God if they do not believe in a separate god.

Spirituality is energy, not matter. Nothing is separate from it.

I am not suggesting that one should seek suffering but it comes to so many. Throughout the world there is so much suffering and it may lead to some raised consciousness. But, I do say 'may', because it may have detrimental effects. Also, the awareness of those who are not suffering themselves is a challenge, in terms of responsibility and the development of compassion for others.

Yes, there is the danger of cultural bias as a form of chauvinism. Negatively is a problem too because it is hard to keep positive in certain circumstances. It may come down to the idea of, 'As you sow, so shall you reap' but the negative side of this is to 'blame' those in the worst circumstances, when cause and effect is not straightforward as punishment, or in the sense of divine providence.

'As you sow, so shall you reap' — Jack Cummins

That is perfect, and I spent a couple of years lost in Hades, so I know trying to force positive thoughts can make matters worse.

Looking for information for your thread led me to finding an explanation that the spirit isn't about thinking, it is about feeling. Getting a good result is kind of like going to sleep. We can not force ourselves to sleep. We have to surrender to sleep. Lying to ourselves with positive thoughts, trying to force a different future, is like trying to force ourselves to sleep. However, conjuring up in ourselves a feeling of appreciation is like surrendering to sleep. If we appreciate what we have, it opens the door to having more. Feeling appreciation for what we have and what we want puts us in harmony with that reality on an energy level.

Because I am focusing on appreciation, I am happy, and that happiness does not depend on having what I want. In the past, I thought I couldn't be happy until I got what I wanted. That does not work. Also, I have found that doing things for others seems to make me happy. Self-help magazines say that it is true.

It kind of goes together, feeling appreciation and feeling appreciated. I think I am getting better at creating a feel-good reality for myself, and because I am happy now, I am not desperate to have something that makes me happy. But I am not going to lie to myself. If I were homeless, I am quite sure I would not be a happy camper. What is happening right now has some of us fearful. That makes me appreciate what I have.

:ok: :clap:

I will bow out here. This is too wishy washy for me. Not surprising given the subject matter. If you manage to hone in on something in particular rather than merely gesturing at this or that maybe I will have something of real substance to say.

As a starting point it would be worthwhile outlining what is meant by 'spirituality' as concisely as possible, as well as how so-called non-secular experiences of spirituality may differ from secular ones and how this can in any way be useful in looking at the sociological and biological evolution of humanity.

I will keep an eye on this thread in the meantime though. Hope it goes well for you.

In a sentence, it's a phenomena of the mind, chiefly pattern recognition or seeing the cohesion (similarity) that all machinations of this world (biotic and abiotic) have in common, typically followed by allowing desire, ambition, and imagination (and above all, ego) to supersede logic, truth, and reality (humbleness) that somehow since we are able to see (what we assume to be all) similarities between these things, it elevates us above all that is around us, to the level of a god (or god-infused being). Ordinarily a simple, natural background process of the mind or ego that some instead choose to embrace or elevate as something above the stresses, conditions, predicaments, traumas, conniptions, and strife that are commonplace in the average daily life as it were a "higher" or "truer" reality of it's own merit. And if it works for them, why not let it.

The problem is this is based on a relative non-fixed "idea" versus a solid, absolute entity (a "god") and so is inevitably less reliable (ie. "effective") as far as mental homeostasis and the resulting peace and purpose of actual theistic religion. I've found many people who are "spiritual" without believing in any sort of higher power (theism) are usually ticking time bombs as far as implosion of self-grandeur and.delusion when rubber meets the road. A false mental sanctuary that often leads not to resolution and acceptance of issues and the ills in this world and one's life but repression of them. Which is never good. No, not for very long. For those who believe in neither and simply seek an "end result" analysis as to which is more "effective" as far as observable and measurable purpose.

At least, that's how it is for most people I've come across and especially observed for a given period who proclaim fellowship in such. And I'm a staunch theist, just for context.

As a starting point it would be worthwhile outlining what is meant by 'spirituality' as concisely as possible, as well as how so-called non-secular experiences of spirituality may differ from secular ones and how this can in any way be useful in looking at the sociological and biological evolution of humanity. — I like sushi

I came to the forum this morning with something I want to say, and replying to what you said with my thought might work.

My thought begins with looking at unique pictures on things made of wood. The crafter used a laser beam to burn pieces of a tree into the wood objects he made. The pictures were obviously fractals made by nature.

Looking at the fractals on the object that I bought caused me to recall when I was young and did not have my own identity, but tried to be pleasing to everyone. So how I dressed and behaved would depend on what I thought others wanted of me. And here I am, in this forum questioning, who I am, how do I want to be remembered, if I have life after death, what do I want that life to be like? Looking at the fractal pictures made by nature, I see each version of me is a little different from all the others, but all being one fractal.

For me, that is a spiritual notion of who I am and where I belong. I am energy and the same, but not the same, because nature is fractals.

I think that is different from believing we are one and only one person with traits that are recognizable by everyone, and there is no other reality. We are either good or we are evil, and our justice system is just (?).

I am not sure that the issues which I raise can be pinned down to one thread. It involves so much thinking about 'reality' and the questions arising in the inner life. There is also the issue of freedom and individualism. Spirituality may involve both an individual quest or be about a basis for understanding connectivity and moral responsibility. The two aspects may be juxtaposed or 'spirituality' my involve the balance between inner and outer aspects of living. Spirituality may be questionable when it is about one's own self alone, as if one is trying to rocket into 'heaven' on an individual quest. — Jack Cummins

I hope you read my reply to @I like sushi because I think my thinking and yours is more like mirror reflections than opposing thoughts. I wish I knew the technology for putting a picture of the fractals into a post. Sometimes art and poetry express meaning, but not all observers can see it. Even for religious people, our thinking can be very materialistic and restricted, rather than spiritual and fractally aware.

That is looking like a really weird thought, which makes me think of Carl Young, a psychologist who allowed himself to experience the dark side of our psyche. He experienced what those declared insane experience. He is best known for making us aware of universal mythology symbolism.

For me, that is a spiritual notion of who I am and where I belong. I am energy and the same, but not the same, because nature is fractals. — Athena

Spirituality in the context of Religious Studies and Philosophy are fairly distinct. In religious studies it does cover secular and non-secular variants.

Religious definition deals with conscious connection to God, Reality, or more generally The Divine. The Buddhist tradition pivots more toward Reality with a capital R than The Divine.

Philosophical definitions vary, but usually refer to some meaning beyond individual experience that focuses on the larger picture--more anthropological in nature.

My criticism toward the OP being we can only talk about something complex constructively by picking and choosing where and how to explicate what it is we wish think and wish to express. Only from such points can a constructive discussion flow. Otherwise we are just spilling water on the floor rather than using it to turn a wheel and get some traction.

I have only read the thread a little in the last few days because I have become unwell. I think that I may have another chest infection. However, you mentioned Carl Jung's idea of the shadow. His book, 'Answer to Job' is significant because it looks at suffering and potential for war. It is more relevant than when he wrote it a year ago. It is involves greater understanding of potential destruction. Confronting the shadow is a spiritual quest which is hard work and definitely far more than 'chocolate box' pictures of spirituality.

.

atheists, who oppose spirituality. — Athena

So what do you make of The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by André Comte-Sponville or nontheistic religions such as Advaita Vedantism, Jainism, (early) Buddhism, (early) Daoism ...?

The connection is made with the heart.

the position of gratefulness. Being grateful is a heart thing — Athena

:up: :up:

The division between the secular and 'spirituality' is complex. — Jack Cummins

What "division"?

Is consciousness still evolving and to what extent is this bound up with development of the inner life? — Jack Cummins

à la "advaita vedanta" (nonduality) ... expansion of self, higher bandwidth, hivemind (human-AI hybrid) ... "atman = brahman" :fire:

I am wondering if spirituality will be significant in the future of consciousness.

As long as we're mortal, or fear death, I suspect we will have 'the spiritual need' (re: ... belonging to something greater than oneself).

Spirituality in the context of Religious Studies and Philosophy are fairly distinct. In religious studies it does cover secular and non-secular variants.

Religious definition deals with conscious connection to God, Reality, or more generally The Divine. The Buddhist tradition pivots more toward Reality with a capital R than The Divine.

Philosophical definitions vary, but usually refer to some meaning beyond individual experience that focuses on the larger picture--more anthropological in nature.

My criticism toward the OP being we can only talk about something complex constructively by picking and choosing where and how to explicate what it is we wish think and wish to express. Only from such points can a constructive discussion flow. Otherwise we are just spilling water on the floor rather than using it to turn a wheel and get some traction. — I like sushi

What does reality with a capital R mean? I could be wrong, but I think you are being culturally biased.
Maybe there is no voiding that bias if we play by the rules of philosophy, which are about thinking, not about personal spiritual experience. Religion requires a myth, and spirituality does not. Spirituality is a completely different connection with the universe.

So what do you make of The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by André Comte-Sponville or nontheistic religions such as Advaita Vedantism, Jainism, (early) Buddhism, (early) Daoism ...? — 180 Proof

I do not know enough of any of those things to comment on them. I know my spiritual experience, and I am working on understanding quantum physics so I can better judge what is or is not possible.

I have only read the thread a little in the last few days because I have become unwell. I think that I may have another chest infection. However, you mentioned Carl Jung's idea of the shadow. His book, 'Answer to Job' is significant because it looks at suffering and potential for war. It is more relevant than when he wrote it a year ago. It is involves greater understanding of potential destruction. Confronting the shadow is a spiritual quest which is hard work and definitely far more than 'chocolate box' pictures of spirituality. — Jack Cummins

I am far from having a good understanding of Carl Jung, but I gather he thought we must unite our opposites if we are going to have peace. I learned of him because of Joseph Campbell, the man who studied all the mythology he found. Snakes and trees and things like these come up in myths around the world. They are symbols with a shared meaning around the world. Joseph Campbell said God spoke to everyone. Their stories may be different because their environments were different, but primitive humans shared much in common. This fact is partly responsible for Christianity's success in converting people. As the Christians spread, they tweaked the pagan stories so the common solstice celebrations had a Christian meaning, and like it or not, everyone became a Christian. But we may want to go back and look at the shared spiritual beliefs.

Well, you had claimed "atheism opposes spirituality" and the examples I've provided show that your claim is not true. I also don't see what quantum physics has to do with any "spiritual experience".

I think you are being culturally biased. — Athena

No, I was being techincal:

Spirituality in the context of Religious Studies and Philosophy are fairly distinct. In religious studies it does cover secular and non-secular variants. — I like sushi

Here is a snippet of the kind of things 'spirituality' covers:

I am using the term "spirituality" to describe the everyday ways ordinary
people attend to their spiritual lives. Some people describe themselves as deeply
spiritual, and some devote considerable energy and discipline to their spiritual
development. Others consider themselves not very spiritual or religious, or not
interested in having a spiritual life. Some find spiritual development and sup
port as committed members of a congregation; others see no connection be
tween their spiritual lives and any organized religious group. Some consciously
choose practices to enhance their spirituality; others notice their spiritual prac
tices only retrospectively or when asked to think consciously of them (for
instance, in response to a sociologist-interviewer).

Lived religion is constituted by the practices people use to remember, share,
enact, adapt, create, and combine the stories out of which they live. And it
comes into being through the often-mundane practices people use to trans
form these meaningful interpretations into everyday action.1 Human bodies
matter, because those practices—even interior ones, such as contemplation—
involve people's bodies, as well as their minds and spirits — Lived Religion Faith and Practice in Everyday Life MEREDITH B. McGUIRE (p. 98)

What does reality with a capital R mean? — Athena

Looking at it as 'The Universe/Totality' rather than 'A Deity' (in terms of some Buddhist views).

As you can probably tell, this is not a subject matter I pass over in a trivial manner. I have actually but a fair bit of study into this from various different perspectives. It is a very tricky topci to discuss due to the nature of the subjective feelings and experiences involved. I am more interested in objective uses.

Spirituality, just like Religion, means different thigns to different people. If we are all using different meanings without knowing it, then the chances of a productive discussion are likely reduced.