Are you spiritual, religious, or irreligious?

[Gambit]

I'd say spiritual because I don't really follow one religion, but rather what I find meaningful in all of them. I pray in a non-structured way, simply saying what I feel. Sometimes I like to feel ritualistic, so I borrow from many traditions like Hindu mantra or the Islamic salat, and do my own structured service.

I also like positive music and meditation.

Why does your profile say "Unitarian Universalist?"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Does that count as spiritual, religious, both, neither, or depends on other factors?

What I said? I normally say its cultural or customs rather than religious or spiritual practices. However, most people I know from the states who are native of other countries say the culture customs and religion or spirituality are interconnected. Religious to me is practicing one's spirituality. And spirituality is following or living a set of morals that make you feel you have a purpose in life and can live that purpose.

I have something of a personal stake in the answer. I went through Catholic Eucharisty because no one saw fit to ask whether I felt like it.

Catholic Eucharisty? Eucharist Adoration? Mass? Communion? Please rephrase.

It seems to me that it is misguided to call that either spiritual or religious. There are better, more direct words for such a state.

If you mean taking the Eucharist or Mass, I'd definitely say its both. I don't know of a better term to use though, if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hmm, it looks like there was some "noise" in the communication. The main line of what I was saying is that here in Brazil people are often assumed to be Catholics until and unless they go through a lot of trouble to protest. Mainly for that reason, I ended up going through Catholic Eucharisty, despite never having been nor desired to become a Catholic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

People get hyped by the word 'consciousness'. But as I said consciousness could also be taken as the property of something. Like creating virtual particles according to its own ways at its preferred times. Human consciousness is a completely different thing. Ways of humans and the ways of wave/particles. The two are not comparable.

Much is made of Prajna, or 'universal consciousness' both in Hinduism and in Buddhism. The supposedly oldest Upanishad, the Aitareya, says 'Prajnanam Brahma'. (Consciousness is Brahman). Buddhist have their 'Prajnaparamita Sutta'. Science has its 'Spooky action at a distance', 'Quantum entanglement' or the double-slit experiment. People say that it is only because of the act of our observation. There is nothing magical about it. I cannot explain it to you in detail because of the limitation of my knowledge of Physics, but I get the hint, and 'see the finger pointing at the moon'.

 

[Gambit]

People get hyped by the word 'consciousness'. But as I said consciousness could also be taken as the property of something. Like creating virtual particles according to its own ways at its preferred times. Human consciousness is a completely different thing. The two are not comparable. Ways of humans and the ways of wave/particles.

Much is made of Prajna, or 'universal consciousness' both in Hinduism and in Buddhism. The supposedly oldest Upanishad, the Aitareya, says 'Prajnanam Brahma'. (Consciousness is Brahman). Buddhist have their 'Prajnaparamita Sutta'. Science has its 'Spooky action at a distance', 'Quantum entanglement' or the double-slit experiment. People say that it is only because of the act of our observation. There is nothing magical about it. I cannot explain it to you in detail because of the limitation of my knowledge of Physics, but I get the hint, and 'see the finger pointing at the moon'.

I consider "universal consciousness" to be a God-concept. That quantum mechanics might support such a view doesn't change it.

 

[YmirGF]

Irreligious here.

Religions have their crumbs, but their loaves have long since turned to dust.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I consider "universal consciousness" to be a God-concept.

Hinduism knows that very well, therefore it said "Tunde-tunde Matirbhinna" or "Munde-munde Matirbhinna" (both same, say 'each head will have its own views'). You are welcome.

 

[Gambit]

Hinduism knows that very well, therefore it said "Tunde-tunde Matirbhinna" or "Munde-munde Matirbhinna" (both same, say 'each head will have its own views'). You are welcome.

To be fair, I consider identification of Atman with Brahman to be a pantheistic concept. This was address in my thread entitled "Is pantheism theistic or atheistic?"

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm all three so I cannot pick one.

I believe that the majority of world's population is both religious and irreligious, as in following some parts of a religion and ignore or disagree with some.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To be fair, I consider identification of Atman with Brahman to be a pantheistic concept. This was address in my thread entitled "Is pantheism theistic or atheistic?"

The problem is that, being from an Abrahamic background, you make Brahman into a God. I do not see any such compulsion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

you make Brahman into a God.

From other posts you've made I have the impression that you're a confirmed materialist. But if that's the case I wonder why you bother with terms like "Brahman" at all? It's like an atheist referring to the universe as "God".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To be fair, I consider identification of Atman with Brahman to be a pantheistic concept.

It certainly doesn't sound like a materialistic concept.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But as I said consciousness could also be taken as the property of something.

I think a materialist would argue that consciousness is an emergent property of life, and a purely individual experience. Is that how you see it?

 

[Gambit]

The problem is that, being from an Abrahamic background, you make Brahman into a God. I do not see any such compulsion.

Advaita is only one school of Vedanta.

 

[Gambit]

It certainly doesn't sound like a materialistic concept.

It's pantheistic idealism, not atheistic materialism. (Idealism and materialism are complete opposites.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think a materialist would argue that consciousness is an emergent property of life, and a purely individual experience. Is that how you see it?

Yes.

But if that's the case I wonder why you bother with terms like "Brahman" at all?

That is my cultural background. It is 'physical energy'.

Advaita is only one school of Vedanta.

Even in 'advaita', there are so many variations. I am with one without a God. If I borrow a term from 'Samkhya', it will be 'nireeshwaravada' (no-God hypothesis).

 

[Gambit]

Yes.That is my cultural background. It is 'physical energy'.Even in 'advaita', there are so many variations. I am with one without a God. If I borrow a term from 'Samkhya', it will be 'nireeshwaravada' (no-God hypothesis).

You're simply making my point. I'm not superimposing a foreign conception upon Vedanta. The disagreement as to whether it is theistic or atheistic is internal within the schools themselves.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Why does your profile say "Unitarian Universalist?"

That's my worship community currently. UU isn't necessarily religious, and doesn't require one to adhere to specific dogmas. As a group we affirm all religions contain truths.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're simply making my point. I'm not superimposing a foreign conception upon Vedanta. The disagreement as to whether it is theistic or atheistic is internal within the schools themselves.

Which is yet another piece of evidence for how little meaning the concept of deity has.

 

[Gambit]

That's my worship community currently. UU isn't necessarily religious, and doesn't require one to adhere to specific dogmas. As a group we affirm all religions contain truths.

What exactly does your community worship?