Is Spirituality a Crutch?

[danieldemol]

The teaching of impermanence in Buddhism and other traditions helps one to realize the eternal nature of change and enables one to be detached from transient objects, people or events, no matter how pleasurable they are.

I was under the impression that the teaching of impermanence helps one to be detached from *all* objects, people and/or events. It seems strange to add the qualifier "transient" if you are teaching that everything is transient in my view.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I was under the impression that the teaching of impermanence helps one to be detached from *all* objects, people and/or events. It seems strange to add the qualifier "transient" if you are teaching that everything is transient in my view.

In Advaita Vedanta (and Buddhism, if I understand it correctly) the only thing that is not transient/impermanent is the Self, the Atman (or in Buddhism, the non-self, anatman). Essentially the same teaching, as I understand it, just different perspectives.

 

[PearlSeeker]

God is the basis of all existence.

It's the most basic theological concept. Whether you believe nature itself is God, or you believe in a transcendent being, without either there would be no existence.

God is life.

The ground of existence doesn't have to be God. It can be an impersonal natural law, force... - existence that just is. Why God?

 

[Rival]

The ground of existence doesn't have to be God. It can be an impersonal natural law, force... - existence that just is. Why God?

.......

Because we're on a religious forum and that's what theists believe.

 

[sun rise]

The ground of existence doesn't have to be God. It can be an impersonal natural law, force... - existence that just is. Why God?

The word "God" might be subject to more concepts than any other word. You could for example write "to me God is existence that just is" That would be as acceptable as this: Kabir says: Student, tell me, what is God? He is the breath inside the breath.”

 

[PearlSeeker]

.......

Because we're on a religious forum and that's what theists believe.

Yes, and this is a religious debate subforum. And theistic belief is not the only possible explanation of existence.

 

[Rival]

Yes, and this is a religious debate subforum. And theistic belief is not the only possible explanation of existence.

No, but for those who believe in God, they tend to get that belief from seeing a source of life in xyz and naming it God. Thus to call this a crutch is the same as calling the heart's left ventricle a crutch.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The word "God" might be subject to more concepts than any other word. You could for example write "to me God is existence that just is" That would be as acceptable as this: Kabir says: Student, tell me, what is God? He is the breath inside the breath.”

There are different concepts of ultimate reality. God is the personal concept of ultimate reality. If it's an impersonal concept (Brahman, Tao, nothingness...) then it's not correct to call it God. English translations of Eastern texts often mistranslate Brahman as God.

 

[PearlSeeker]

No, but for those who believe in God, they tend to get that belief from seeing a source of life in xyz and naming it God. Thus to call this a crutch is the same as calling the heart's left ventricle a crutch.

OK. If God isn't the only possibility then one possibility is also that God is just an imaginary personalization of ultimate reality that makes life more meaningful. That said, I wouldn't call it a crutch.

 

[danieldemol]

In Advaita Vedanta (and Buddhism, if I understand it correctly) the only thing that is not transient/impermanent is the Self, the Atman (or in Buddhism, the non-self, anatman). Essentially the same teaching, as I understand it, just different perspectives.

I don't know much about Advaita Vedanta and little about Buddhism, however Encyclopedia Brittanica has this to say about Buddhism;

'anatta, (Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless”) Sanskrit anatman, in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. Instead, the individual is compounded of five factors (Pali khandha; Sanskrit skandha) that are constantly changing. The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman (“the self”). The absence of a self, anicca (the impermanence of all being), and dukkha (“suffering”) are the three characteristics of all existence (ti-lakkhana).'

Source: Anatta | No-Self, Non-Attachment & Impermanence

What I'm basically taking away from this is that anatman is a departure or difference from the belief in Atman of the Hindus (ie not essentially the same teaching) and that the "Impermanence of all being" is one of the "charectaristics of all existence". In other words there is no none transient thing if I have understood correctly.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't know much about Advaita Vedanta and little about Buddhism, however Encyclopedia Brittanica has this to say about Buddhism;

'anatta, (Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless”) Sanskrit anatman, in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. Instead, the individual is compounded of five factors (Pali khandha; Sanskrit skandha) that are constantly changing. The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman (“the self”). The absence of a self, anicca (the impermanence of all being), and dukkha (“suffering”) are the three characteristics of all existence (ti-lakkhana).'

Source: Anatta | No-Self, Non-Attachment & Impermanence

What I'm basically taking away from this is that anatman is a departure or difference from the belief in Atman of the Hindus (ie not essentially the same teaching) and that the "Impermanence of all being" is one of the "charectaristics of all existence". In other words there is no none transient thing if I have understood correctly.

Hinduism is diverse. There are varying schools of philosophy. I wasn't speaking of Hinduism in general. I specified Advaita Vedanta.

 

[danieldemol]

Hinduism is diverse. There are varying schools of philosophy. I wasn't speaking of Hinduism in general. I specified Advaita Vedanta.

I acknowledge that, however you also specified something about Buddhism which may not be true.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I acknowledge that, however you also specified something about Buddhism which may not be true.

Fair enough. Aside from reading articles and listening to lectures on the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, I have limited practical experience with the religion first hand. I guess we'll just have to wait for a Buddhist to come along and either correct what I said or corroborate it.

 

[Muffled]

For me, spirituality is what you're left with once you've thrown away your crutches.

I believe can't imagine what crutch you had. For me I didn't have a leg to stand on and I believe all of the fallen are that way for the same reason.

 

[Muffled]

But can you show a human that is not weak?

I once watched a film where a man offered more and more money until he could get a person to do something bad. However not everyone is motivated by money. Needless to say the devil has more tricks up his sleeve than that.

 

[Secret Chief]

Fair enough. Aside from reading articles and listening to lectures on the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, I have limited practical experience with the religion first hand. I guess we'll just have to wait for a Buddhist to come along and either correct what I said or corroborate it.

No pressure then. Tagging @danieldemol.
I think anatta is best described as meaning "not self" - a possibly useful adjective, rather than as "no self" as a declaration of fact. There cannot be found an independent persisting self (because of anicca). Speculating on the matter further is unhelpful; the Buddha remained silent when questioned. Beyond that, there are differences between Buddhist schools (and individuals) over this topic, beyond agreeing that there is not an unchanging "I."

 

[DNB]

I’ve heard it said before that spirituality is a crutch. Some say that the weak hold onto it whereas the strong don’t require it. Do any of you think crutch is a good metaphor for spirituality?

A crutch is a device used for support when one is incapable of walking on one’s two feet. When you see a person with a broken leg using a crutch, do you think their life would be better if they were to toss away the crutch and try walking the way everybody else walks? If spirituality is, metaphorically speaking, a crutch, the person holding onto their spirituality is obviously broken and must really need it.

Not all spiritual individuals are people with metaphorical fractures though. Many are best described as seekers. In their case, spirituality is not a crutch. Maybe it’s a vehicle, a road, or both?

What are your thoughts?

[Note: I started this thread because a similar one that I tried to reply to had vanished. Much of what I’ve written here was originally for a reply.]

Spirituality, by definition, is not a crutch or placebo in order to cope with world - it is the attainment of a higher principle, one that transcends the physical realm.
But, anyone can embrace anything for all the wrong reasons - do not some people constantly need a partner in order to feel complete or entertained - is being married or having a boy or girlfriend a crutch? ...by definition, no, it depends on the seeker's motives.

Without controversy or contention, humans are spiritual creatures, and this fact has been evidenced since the dawn of history. There is not a corner of the world where man has not prayed to a spirit, built shrines, alters, temples, worship centers for their gods, attained degrees in theology or world religions, written countless forms of literature on spiritualism, etc...

The spiritual realm is real, man is a product of it, and his innate propensity is to contemplate his existence, morality, metaphysics, the meaning of life. Obviously.

 

[Jimmy]

Life is magical. Spirituality is recognizing that. That’s all.

 

[FredVB]

Superstition is generally a crutch, religion can be used as a crutch. But spirituality involves knowing there is more than what is understood of our physical surroundings, and as there is we could possibly see there is benevolence. That does help us without it being a crutch, rather it is enboldening us to act in the things of our responsibility.