Defining “Spirituality” Correctly!
The term has been abducted and abused by religionists, mythists, occultists, politicians, people without a clue and other assorted crackpots for too long. It’s time to take it back to its noble, more down to Earth roots!
A new Pew Research survey investigates what Americans think about spirituality. The study summarizes that, “It quickly became clear that there is no single, widely accepted definition of spirituality.”
There is much confusion, including among “experts.”
The report says, “Some experts view spirituality as a broad realm and see organized religions as a small part of it. Others view religion and spirituality as overlapping circles, often with religious traditions being the bigger circle in American life. Some define spirituality as beliefs or experiences connected with the supernatural: ‘something beyond’ humans or beyond the material world. Others think spirituality also can be about looking inward into the depths of the self, or about feeling connected with other humans, other creatures or nature.”
The survey reports an interesting finding: more Americans (22%) think of themselves as “spiritual not religious” than “religious not spiritual” (10%). 48% claim to be both spiritual and religious. While a surprising 21% say they are neither spiritual or religious.
Crunching all the numbers, 70% of U.S. adults think of themselves as spiritual people or say spirituality is very important in their lives. While only 58% say the same about religion.
Other findings:
83% of all U.S. adults believe they have a soul or spirit in addition to their physical body.
81% say there is something spiritual beyond the natural world, even if we cannot see it.
74% say there are some things that science cannot possibly explain.
45% say they have had a sudden feeling of connection with something from beyond this world.
38% say they have had a strong feeling that someone who has passed away was communicating with them from beyond this world.
30% say they have personally encountered a spirit or unseen spiritual force.
In attempting to determine the “essence” of spirituality, the survey found that “being connected with something bigger than myself” was a common theme. Presumably, this does not mean the Empire State Building or the Ohio State Marching Band. What it might mean is hotly disputed.
Religious folk are strongly insistent that it is God. But God flunks out with the non-religious, whose top answer was “connection to my true self.” I’m not certain how “my true self” can be “something bigger than myself,” but that’s par for the course amidst a stew of clumsy, ill-informed grappling.
The second favorite option as essence of spirituality for the non-religious was “connection to nature.” Hmmm. Interesting. We shall return to that angle momentarily.
Other answers to the essence of spirituality include “following religious faith,” which only shows strength among Evangelicals and the Black church. All others are…. meh! Or reject that notion flat-out. Also receiving lower approval ratings are “connection with other people,” “connection with loved ones who have passed” (a significant departure from many Eastern systems), and “family traditions.”
There are wide discrepancies within the survey’s many answers among different flavors of believers, believers and non-believers, men and women, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, Republicans and Democrats (natch) and age groups.
In short, confusion and distortion reign, and there is no authority to sort it out. We’ll have to do it ourselves.
It might be helpful to go back to the beginning to find out what the word spirit originally meant, and then extrapolate what spiritual and spirituality should mean for the modern world.
The origin of the word “spirit,” comes from the old Latin for “breath.” The breath of life. Its original meaning was entirely physical, the life force, the seemingly magical gift of the most fundamental function of the body. It had nothing to do with the “supernatural,” something beyond nature, but was focused on the very most important thing of nature. This concept, the breath of life, pinpointed the essence of being alive. All living things respire. It is the one and only thing you must do, continually, to remain alive. When you die, you expire… the breath of life is no more. As far as we know, only humans have cognitive awareness of this phenomenon, the breath of life, and interest in probing the secrets that it might reveal about not just life but everything else.
Doesn’t it seem logical, and right, that the philosophy and moral bearing of the precious and noble “breath of life” would honor and seek the good, the true? Would not that quest to connect, and know, and love represent the best and most useful “something bigger than myself?”
If only that kind of interpretation of the original meaning of spirit had been applied to human endeavor, search for meaning and higher consciousness. But that’s not what happened.
Somehow, perversely, along the way, the breath of life, spirit, mutated into the opposite: something unnatural, something that transcended the physical self, something disembodied… a “spirit” that survived death. “Breath” was discarded altogether. The dead do not breathe. So this later association actually assaults the original meaning. In this mutilation, life itself was devalued. When you think about it, that’s pretty extreme.
The terms spirit, spiritual and spirituality were hijacked by religion and also by quasi-religious philosophies such as “spiritualism” and systems of belief in “supernatural” phenomena. These traditions include the notions of “spirit” as an immortal soul, and ephemeral presences like angels, demons and ghosts, or even contained within an object such as prayer beads, pendant cross or crystal. Many of these concepts and beliefs feel good; we want to believe them… but that has zero bearing on whether or not they are true. I would argue that neither religion or “spiritualism” or any “supernatural” claims are actually spiritual in that they are based upon hope and guess work, as well as often extremely divisive dogma that not only abandons the original meaning of the terms, but also flouts scientific fact. Not commonly recognized, they also spit in the eye of the wondrous natural processes that actually invented the “breath of life” and everything else in the Universe.
Despite the abduction of “the breath of life,” the original meaning has never been completely purged from the general notion of “spirituality” in the sense of a connection to the creative force of the real world, especially the miracle of life… as exemplified by what the dead do not have…. breath. It is certainly possible — and indeed far more promising — to think of spirit, spiritual and spirituality in terms that are entirely physical and natural.
It may be that all those seekers of “connection” who are uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the myths and dogma religions offer, are sensing that there is something more real available to deeply believe in. We can work with notions of spirituality being “connection” to something “beyond our self,” even “beyond this world.” But connection to what?
Well, would not the ultimate answer to that be… everything? Our own breath for starters, that Eastern traditions claim as the portal to serenity, inspiration, even enlightenment. And thence to connection to the breath of all other humans… and thence to all other life forms. Thence to wonder and awe and gratitude for the good world that some force created for us. Thence to the entire Universe beyond, of which we are a part. And certainly to the Source of all of this. To be connected, to belong, to be inspired, to have gratitude, to be filled with wonder and joy, these perceptions and feelings all lead us directly to the highest perception and feeling…. love. Love becomes the currency of this mode of spirituality… the more you love in the Universe, the deeper your spirituality. Love for the ALL is the peak experience. This is not a new revelation. It is described in thousands of different ways by mystics, poets and teachers throughout history and in every land.
This interpretation involves spirituality with everything, the whole Universe, and entwines it with the highest knowledge and virtue. Isn’t this what spirituality should lead toward, not just inward musings or fixation on some (almost certainly fictional) deity or dogma?
If we are to make the attempt to remain true to the original meaning of spirit, and apply modern sense and sensibilities to the seeking of that understanding and connection, then we must insist that spirituality, as the pathway to being spiritual, is focused on the good and the true. Anything not good, i.e. detrimental, harmful, exploitative, oppressive, evil, is not spiritual. Anything unreal, something that does not exist, is not spiritual. Anything false is not good or true. So it cannot be spiritual. It cannot be spirituality. Connection, bonding, gratitude, hope, prayer, even “love,” for something that does not exist is, in fact, nothing more than ignorance, superstition, confusion, delusion, emptiness.
In this sense, religion is not merely not spiritual, but actually anti-spiritual. It is based upon Iron Age proclamations and prophecy, much of which is demonstrably not good or true, but that nevertheless appeals to our emotions and regularly successfully abducts not just the clonish conformist seeking to belong but also often the authentic seeker and sequesters them in a cul-de-sac of “belief,” usually never to be escaped.
Spirituality is the opposite of this. It requires no “leap of faith,” no strict dogma, no surrender to tradition, no suspension of logic, no ritual, no edifice. Instead of dictating the “truth,” it follows the truth wherever it might lead.
Confused by what the terms spirituality or spiritual legitimately should mean, particularly within the context of its false but pervasive convolution with religion, most religionists, as well as most scientists, believe science to be antipathetic to this awareness, this feeling. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science may well clash at every turn with religion, but it does not clash whatsoever with spirituality properly understood. Science is the only discipline actually systematically probing “the breath of life.” Every scientific discovery is brimming with excitement, wonder, awe, the real, truth… every kernel of knowledge “good” in itself. Properly personally processed, all of this adds up to… spirituality. Science provides the gift of knowing more about what is behind this gift of breath, how it emerges, where it comes from, what is real and what has no actual evidence or logic for belief. We are so blessed to be living in a time when we are privy to the astounding ways of this world that modern science can now explore. Why are we still relying on Bronze Age information and childish stories when we have the incredibly more interesting scientific story we could incorporate into our worldview? What if we were to wed these kindred seekers: science and spirituality?
Not recognized, by both religionists and scientists, and almost everyone else, is that science is spiritual to the core. If we think of “spiritual” as the human impulse and desire to know, to be connected to, to belong and in balance with, and love the benevolent creative force of the Universe, science is the one formal discipline dedicated to exploring the reality of that force and all that it created. Science seeks the truth — which spirituality, as well, MUST be grounded upon. Anything based upon falsity is infused with that falseness; the ground of such “belief” or “faith” is ignorance, superstition, tradition, conformity, selfishness… not truth. And thus, the “spirituality” of such believers is fundamentally hollow. Conversely, in its multitude of facts and figures, few seem to realize that science has done nothing if not prove the facticity of the greatest spiritual concept of all: Oneness.
Because of science we now know the basics of how the world, how the Universe, works. And, properly processed, that information has not diminished the rainbow, as Keats worried, or left us godless and alone in a vast, uncaring void, but has provided us with a framework for a worldview bursting with poignant majesty. This big, beautiful Universe is us, and we are it. We are made of stardust and kin to everything that has ever lived. We are not pathetic and inconsequential specks. Human consciousness is the pinnacle, so far, and perhaps the most complex and elegant achievement of some 14 billion years of universal evolution. Starting with almost nothing, just a few fundamental forces and a big bang of sub-atomic particles, not even a single complete atom or element to work with, this Universe itself eventually created elements, then stars and galaxies and planets, at least one of which provided a deep, blue sea which allowed life to create itself. Through more billions of years of blind trial and error, a species blossomed on a singular branch of the tree of life and stumbled into a journey of consciousness expansion that some millions of years later found it exploring the deepest recesses of inner and outer space. And here we are… the Universe wondering about itself.
And loving? Not so much. Yet. But could that change… if our “spirituality” evolved, and brought cultures along with it? If humans are this Universe’s crowning achievement, what would be the highest achievement of this thinking ape? Wouldn’t it be to evolve to the point where we are in love with life, and all that entails and all that allows it? Wouldn’t our highest purpose as a species be to nurture, protect and love each other and this precious jewel of a planet we inherited, rather than destroying it as fast as we can… while religions and cultures stand by, largely mute and uncaring, aiding and abetting?
Many mystics through the ages were ecstatic to report something very similar to this: an epiphany, an enlightenment, a rapture of love with the world. Yet the established religions have offered something starkly different. They tend to suggest that life is hard, cruel, suffering, something to be endured until you can be magically rescued… after you die. They build a wall between man and nature, the latter filthy, crass and cruel, something to be repulsed by, feared and/or owned and dominated. Though these same religions generally preach kindness and pray for goodwill toward all men, in centuries of not actually trying they have utterly failed to manifest this upon Earth… or even any small patch of it. Indeed, the places where religions are strongest are often the most cruel and violent of all.
Our broader cultures may not be quite so rigidly militant, but they are hardly paragons of virtue, passively accepting religion’s ultimate verdict while, in the meantime, urging individuals and families to not think or worry too much, but rather placidly become good worker bees and consumers, while being calmed and distracted by never-ending entertainment and other diversions.
What would be the lowest, stupidest achievement for this thinking ape? That would be something similar to the absurdly ignorant and selfish destruction of our own nest that we are currently pursuing. The “pinnacle of evolution so far” is flirting with ending up, soon, as a cosmic joke!
Old tales that pretend to intimately know the “Source” are not helpful; they are harmful. If you want to cling to the label “god,” suit yourself, but it’s a slippery slope upon which you’ll likely eventually go Splat! For the “god” almost everyone is referring to these days — the god of the Bible or Quran or other ancient texts — is very definitely created in man’s image, not vice-versa. This deity does not lead us toward unity, nor any love for the world. Quite the opposite. Isn’t it strange that these billions of believers in the ‘Creator” all these millennia have never seemed impressed enough by “His” Creation to care for and love it?
There is no “Father” (or “Mother”) tyrant in the sky micromanaging things. There is no ‘Supreme Being” that is going to listen to, much less answer, your prayers. You won’t find the real Source dwelling within even the most lavish and esteemed cathedral.
Where will you find it? In every mote of nature. That should not be surprising. Consider how actually began the spiritual traditions of Laozi, Rama, Buddha, Mahavira, Jesus, Muhammad. On the banks of a stream, in the forest, under a tree, in the desert, in a cave, etc.. Why does religion rarely if ever suggest that its devotees try out the very pathway that the founder took? Alone. Immersed in nature.
This is a great failure of religion. The Pew survey shows that only 23% of Evangelicals — who consider themselves the “real’ Christians — think of a connection with nature when they mull “spirituality.” For the agnostic set, that zooms to 73%. It’s quite ironic, isn’t it, that the founders of all the major religions would be closer in “spirituality” to modern agnostics than the actual followers of the institutions created in their names after their deaths?
Religion is not interested in nature. Science is. The huge difference between religion and science is that the former never changes, never admits to ignorance or error. Science freely admits to both, changing continually as new facts emerge. We have arrived at a precision in science where new facts are no longer completely refuting established understanding, as used to happen frequently, but rather serve to fill in the blanks and build upon current theory. That theory has brought us to the brink of the Big Bang, but cannot penetrate beyond that veil… yet. Astrophysicists do not claim to know the Source. They don’t even call it that. They don’t speak in “spiritual” terms, which is wise considering the confusion that currently swirls. But they may someday… if we can ground spirituality in science, and spiritualize science. A scientist is not being unscientific when they recognize the beauty, the meaning, the wonder, the sacredness of their subject.
This is not to say that we cannot know something of the Source. Turn your senses toward nature. Everything is a shard of the Source. We are shards. The flowers are shards. The clouds, the rain, the sea, the mountains, the canyons, the rainbow, all life forms are shards of the Source. The air you breathe every single minute, shards. The cool water you drink, the delicious food you eat, the eyes you behold with, all shards of the Source. The Sun, the Moon, the night sky, twinkling with planets and stars and galaxies, shards upon shards upon shards. The universe may be cold and unfeeling, but it created paradise for us. That is good. That is true.
What can we say about these shards that we are composed of and immersed within? The old Daoists lovingly called them the “Ten Thousand Things” that comprise the ALL. Now we know there are far more than ten thousand; there are teeming trillions. Some dangerous. Some grotesque. Some terrifying. But more, so many more, the vast majority, are interesting, marvelous, beautiful, majestic, wonderful. Because of its breath of life, the Source is right here for us to deeply feel, to be grateful for, and if we are halfway in our right senses… to love with all our mind and heart.
Collected by the Pew survey, among the “in your own words” explanations for what spirituality means included quotes like these:
“Respect the Earth and life of the planet.”
“One with the universe.”
“To be in touch with nature, see the beauty in everything, feel the love of Mother Nature.”
That’s it! These ideas are already out there, and have been for millennia. They have just been mostly shunted aside by religion and culture.
Nature simply has to be the conduit of spirituality. It’s the thing we all share. It’s the thing we all need. It’s our home. It’s our sustenance. It’s what created all of this. It’s the most beautiful things we can lay eyes on. Why have we so easily, for so long, been diverted from loving it? The essence of spirituality is connection with the rest of the world. It has to be. This should be the Way. And through that we connect to all other humans and our self.
Humanity will NEVER come together over a religion or national creed. None of these are wholly good or true. Might we come together over a shared, science-based spirituality? It may not be likely, but it may well be our best, and only, hope for our species to surmount and survive our own ignorance and selfishness.
