Inquiry

For me the spiritual arises out of the mystical, out of a response to a mystical experience. And, at its core, religious is the same.

What then happens after the initial mystical experience seems to be one of two movements. The first, in terms of a religious sense, seems to arise out of a need to classify and codify (concretize) the experience, which quickly becomes 'a truth', and which, I suspect comes from those who haven't had a similar experience and thus probably either misinterpret it or cannot comprehend it, or both. This ultimately (over a very long period of time) gives rise to dogma, and an institutionalized version of 'what is'.

The second, in terms of the spiritual, seems to be more aware of the mystery inherent in the experience, probably within those who either have had similar experiences themselves or who have some 'intuition' (inner movement) about the experience (and are therefore, at some level, sensitive to the experience and/or its source), and they continue to move within the context of the mystery of 'what is', and thus have no need for the creation of dogma, etc., as a means of comprehension and understanding.

Spirituality concerns ones direct experience - or state of consciousness, religion refers to the value-system - or stage of consciousness... Even though religion has got a bad rap in the modern and post-modern world, nothing ever gets done without some form of organization.... so religion is just spirituality that has been handed down and codified in some determinate form. In other words, Spirituality is the ocean and religion is the raft (man-made, to be sure)...

Wisdom traditions are valuable and compelling because they have endured though the centuries and are therefore more trust-worthy than my own subjective fantasies and interpretations - our capacity to deceive ourselves without the grounding of some kind of faith community (tradition) should not be overlooked... And yet there is a tendency is all wisdom traditions to act as a final arbiter of Truth, they elevate historically contingent constructions into the final Answer, they claim privileged access to the Mystery and they outlaw certain questions...

As Einstein might have said spirituality without religion is lame, religion without spirituality is blind...

-- "Become passers-by" (Jesus of Nazareth)

 There are many beliefs, but faith is faith, it is spirit. There are many paths, but only one way, or Tao. Yet the "Tao" that can be defined is not the Tao. There are many truths, and though truth itself is absolute, each truth or, concept of it, is partial, relative to the absolute. We like to think that we can access the spiritual without the exoteric, yet when are we really free of the 5 senses and thought or emotion or of those who came before us? It seems to me that our senses and our beliefs are either an impediment, a veil, and an idol of the ego (ethnocentric) or it is a mirror that reflects, a finger that points, and icon that translates us into the realms that we cannot go except through these exoteric paths (transrational), whether through our own ideas and practices or through those we have inherited from generations of prior mystics. I rather think we stand on the shoulders of many giants, and not even a Buddha or a Ramana Maharshi developed in a vacuum. Is it even desirable to be spiritual without the benefit of many masters, and some form of spiritual practice inherited from others, i.e. religion?

 There is an interesting article here, wondering if the whole SBNR movement is just a big cop out:

http://talkingskull.com/article/spiritual-but-not-religious-big-cop-out

     I have heard many people speak about being spiritual, but not religious. There are, of course, problems with this. My own viewpoint is that many are not rejecting religions, as much as they are rejecting limited perspectives of religion, and/or religions. Many seem to be rejecting the linear, rule based interpretations. I don't think that it is a cop out, but it does seem to be a denial of reality.

   The reality is that no matter what your mystical experiences are, you are still adhering to a religious ideal.(To appropriate Hazrat Inayat Khan's terminology.) But that  ideal solidifies and becomes personal religion. That religion may be historically based, such as in the various wisdom traditions, or that religion may be, the so-called, "cafeteria theology" where you pick and choose elements that fit you. In either case, unless your methodology is absolutely free-form and is communicated to no one else- you are still in the field of religion.

    For myself~ spirituality, mysticism and religion are all dimensions of the same thing. Is my practice and worldview spirituality? Yes. Is it religion? Yes, my practice is strongly based in historical religious forms. Is it mystical? At times of peak experiences, I would say yes. But it is exceedingly hard for me to fragment these into compartments. Spiritual, religious, mystical- all these overlap into what I would term "Religion."

  This should not be thought of as discounting those who ahere to the "Spiritual, not religious" mode of thinking. Many of us have been burned one way or another by limited religions. Whether it is a hardline literal interpretation of the Bible, Islamic fundamentalism, or Ultra-Orthodox Judaism doesn't really matter. Many have very valid reasons to shy away from the "Religious" label. Although it is not my preferred path, I understand why many may prefer the "Spiritual" label. While it may not be literally true, I tend to think of it as poetic license.

--

"I drank WHAT??" -Socrates