Question by TheKitten: Why do people feel the need to imagine extraneous metaphysical realities in order to feel spiritual?
Other dimensions, entities that live on other planes, Gods, souls and spirits? Heaven, Hell or Nirvana?
Why can’t we be spiritual in the here and now? Right in the world in which we are and with the senses we are given?
I often wonder that people often call me unspiritual; people from all walks of life, new-agers, Christians and others from all walks conclude I am absolutely not spiritual because I don’t entertain the existence of Gods, energies, or other unseen entities that are supposed to compose a higher reality.
Yet, I believe in respect for self and others. I believe in harmony with nature and in a greater sense to things, even though this is not dictated by some other source, but the responsibility of eery an to create. I am a student of the word of the Buddha and certain other Oriental practrices, which I find go deeper into the meaning of things than western religions do. (Not a worshipper of the Buddha, just a big fan of his teachings). I like a lot of the stuff Jesus said as well, but feel no need to worship him.
So I always wonder at this: Why do people assume spirituality has to do with blind belief in metaphysical realities?
Best answer:
Answer by tHEgRAVEoNE
INeresting question. Perhaps, as Douglas Adams had noted, because most people are desperately unhappy and are willing to believe in anything, no matter how ridiculously improbable, to give them some kind of hope? A copout, I know, and an unwarranted one: if I can be happy with life, despite bouts of depression et al, why can’t they? Don’t know the answer to that one…
What do you think? Answer below!
You’re just unilaterally changing the meaning of the word spiritual.
To me, the very word, ‘spiritual’ refers to the soul.
I think you might be interested in this lecture.
Among other things it puts ideas of heaven and hell down to semi-schizophrenic beliefs by those in positions of power because of that same schizo-typal personality. You may not agree with it, but an interesting concept, no? See what you think.
Very interesting point and I must say I have thought about this precise topic several times and I am very much in agreement. I hate how people always need to find some explanation for the mysteries of life and they will even resort to something so irrational or supernatural. Why can’t the mystery of life just be the essence of existence?
I think lots of people could benefit from the values you talk about. The funny thing is that you need no religion or spirituality to exhibit them. And i respect your following of the Buddha since he is regarded by many as more of a philosopher than a religious idol. I wish people thought of Jesus in this same way. I think religion would benefit from being alot less dogmatic and more heavily based on the teachings rather than the moral code you must abide by.
I think most people like to believe in a supernatural realm because to them it gives evidence that life is not over once your body expires. I believe death is the scariest thing for most people since it is the ultimate unknown. So i’m guessing spirituality is equated to this supernatural component for that precise reason, people don’t want to face the fact that death is inevitable. Karl Marx said it best when he compared religion to the opiate of the masses.
I take it you are suggesting the practice of bibliolatry does not fit into the notion of being spiritual.
I believe in God, whatever “it” might be, and feel a need to understand “it” and all mysteries that might exist.
why cant we be both?
spirituality is the consideration and thoughts of ANY and ALL possible spiritual realities
not just the ones you belive in
you are spiritual, so no one shoudl say yoru not,but you do have you rown uniqe spiritualviews, and thats fine, but you cant expdct the rest of us to bleive them to
we all know and bleive what we do, we dotn have to belive the same thigns do we?
how will that help us learn anything?
Good question. It should be noted that there is plenty of evidence of an intelligent Creator in the world of living things.
For instance, a bird called the Blackpoll Warbler has been tracked flying from Alaska to New England and then out over the Atlantic, catching the Jet Stream back to South America, then flying back all the way to Alaska every year.
If somebody asked US to construct a flying machine that can fly from Alaska to New England to South America and back unaided, could we? But suppose they also asked us to make it weigh less than one ounce, like the bird. Could we? And nothing may touch it to build it–it must build itself, because that is what the Blackpoll Warbler does in its egg, doesn’t it? Feathers, dual TV cameras, flight computer and all. From a speck in an egg. Would we even try? Could the US government? The entire University system, with an impressive array of bright students, knowledgeable professors and able administrators? All those advanced human brains combined, connected together by the Internet? No? So how much sense does it make to say that blind, unthinking Chance just “accidentally” did so through blind, unthinking evolution?
My young school friend pointed out that since we have about 100 trillion cells in our body and each has about 5 feet of DNA, that makes about 100 trillion times 5 feet, or 100 billion times 5000 feet (about a mile), or 100 billion miles of perfect code that is required to make us a body that works. Since the characters (the “letters”) that that code is “printed” in are actually the size of molecules, that makes a lot of “typing” to give us a body. Could we type that much without making a mistake? Could random chance?
Another thing. Ever tried to swat a fly? Not necessarily easy, right? Know why? It has to do with the fly’s navigational system. It has a single vibrating rod in its abdomen, and as it changes direction in flight, it senses the changes in the vibrations of that rod and is able to dodge you, fly and land upside down and backwards. What would the Air Force pay to have flying and navigational systems that good?
How did the fly manage to evolve such a system? Even if it evolved a flopping rod, what good would it be without the muscles to vibrate it? And the unusual vibrating motion? And the nerves to send the signals from the rod to the brain? And the section of the brain to interpret the signals? And the correct instructions to interpret them? And the correct instructions to the part of the brain that controlled the wings as to what to DO about those signals? All AT THE SAME TIME. ALL USELESS UNTIL COMPLETE, giving natural selection no advantage to select during all the early “developmental stages”. Wouldn’t that be a remarkable coincidence? I ask people, “Could YOU sit down, right now, and write the code for such a set of instructions? And if your ten billion well trained and coordinated neurons put together can’t do it with an education and a computer, is it really sensible to think that flies did it by themselves?”
The fly has a complete navigational system that is self-constructing (in its egg), self-reproducing, self-programming, self-correcting, that can fly upside down and backwards, avoiding dangers and locating and recognizing fuel (food), that requires even MORE entire, completely developed systems that even large groups of highly educated humans cannot or are only now beginning to be able to copy (and only by intelligent design), all microminiaturized into a space smaller than the head of a pin, with the code for it in characters that are the size of molecules (I wonder how many characters per inch that works out to? Pretty hi-tech data storage).
So I ask people, “In your experience, how many complete flying and navigational systems do you know of that have happened completely by accident, with no intelligent thought or design?” “Did you ever read the story of all the thought and work needed to design and build a flying machine, as told by the Wright brothers themselves? So how scientific is it to say that it just happened by blind accidents in the case of the lowly, incredibly complex fly?”
All of the animal and plant world is full of examples like these. Your body is, too. Johns Hopkins University made the newspapers by making one enzyme. It must have been pretty hard to do. It was no accident. But your liver manufactures over nine hundred enzymes, all necessary for you to live, and no one thinks about putting THAT in the paper, or giving credit for that accomplishment to the One who deserves it. “Could have happened completely by accident” (which is what evolution equates to, isn’t it?) But if 900+ enzymes could happen so easily, simply by accidents of evolution, then why put the university in the news because it was able to produce ONE?
This isn’t defending the indefensible things done and taught supposedly in God’s name…
Best regards,
Mike
It depends on your definition of spiritual. As a nurse we talked about meeting the spiritual needs of patients, but apart from the hospital chaplin and providing TLC I never understood what was really meant.
To me the spiritual realm or part of the human being is that which does not come obviously from the physical. Since behavior, thought consciousness, imagination and emotions does come from the physical they are not spiritual. What is experienced outside that is spiritual. To many there is nothing outside that. But, as one who has experienced different aspects of the spiritual I know the human being goes beyond the physical and for me that beyond is the spiritual. I have also experienced many, many psychic experiences but consider those as part of the physical function of the universe.
I am a little confused that you say you are a student of Buddha. I know a little of Buddhism myself. One of the most astounding spiritual experiences I had remained nameless until years later I came across the term transcendence. It is the experience of a state that is beyond the normal senses and beyond the physical state. This is something I experienced. Buddhism explains reality and the nature of the human body as something other than physical. In fact, didn’t Buddha say something about “we do not really exist,” there is no real self. Considering the transcendent experience I had I would have to agree, but what reality is goes far beyond what we perceive as reality.