Religion Vs. Philisophy

Most Spiritual paths have both a Religious and Philosophical branch to it. Buddhism is absolutely no exception, but seems to be treated by more and more Westerners that it appeals to as ONLY a philosophy, when this is actually hardly the case. There are plenty of Buddhist temples out there and Buddhist temples wouldn't exist if Buddhism were simply a Philosophy.

Buddhism especially seems to appeal to Atheists but Buddhism is still a Religion. I don't necessarily see the harm of using what works for you but I also don't think it's a full picture to simply think of Buddhism as Philosophy.

Where do you draw the line? Immanuel Kant doesn't have temples built for him. Religion is the organization of a philosophy.

 

Socrates had plays of him

 

Yes, such as Magick is also experimentation every time, and talismans and the Tree of Life came first as a technology for peering into the truth of the Universe and the inner self, not to mention Kundalini Yoga, which is practiced by a branch of Buddhism and was also practiced prior to Buddhism. Just hilarious to me how you can be so open to calling meditation an ancient technology but certainly nothing else.

 

Spiritual... perhaps the most over-used and most vaguely defined term used in discussions of this time, in this general subject area. I think people like hiding in its vagueness.

 

Spiritual(ity) has a solid definition. A lot of people are not limited to narrow defined belief constructs, or even when they have some belief system it simply remains vague and is hard to put into words. It seems to me a lot of them don't like to be vague, their beliefs simply are that. So for those 'spiritual' people it has nothing to do with hiding methinks

 

Me neither. There is no versus between religion and philosophy on itself. When enough people make it as such though it will appear like there is by definition.
Describing religions as philosophical cults seems actually quite fitting. And i don't see a line being drawn there. On the contrary, by describing them as such the line between philosophy and religion seems only more absent.

 

Philosophy is a purely mental activity. Spirituality claims to go beyond mind as well as the physical. Spiritual truth is ultimately supra-rational truth. No idea of spirit is actually spirit, but an idea about it.

 

What does beyond mind even mean?

 

You'd have to experience it to know it.

If you say there's nothing beyond mind, that's OK, but then what is meant by spirit? If it just means mind, then as far as I can see, spirituality is the same as psychology.

 

Most likely guerilla would argue that there is no Spirit.

But I would agree with you that Spirituality is very linked with Psychology, which is where Magick steps in as well. Hermeticism is the mastery of the mind.

 

All psychology I know of treats the external world as if it actually has an independent existence, this contrasts some of the extreme notions of idealism and perhaps even dualism which do not, so that is a notable difference between the way psychology uses the term 'mind' and the way an idealist may use the term 'mind'. But the latter definition of the idealist is what I had in mind (no pun intended), where mind encompasses all perceptions, thoughts, and states of awareness and the external world is not granted. I don't see how a spirit can really transcend this in any experience we have during life.

 

Believe it or not, I have the capability to form my own responses.

 

And I was correct regarding your stance.

 

I haven't even asserted my position clown, I'm trying to figure out how a spirit is not covered by idealist philosophy.

 

"I don't see how a spirit can really transcend this in any experience we have during life."

 

I'm not an idealist

 

Ok but I was still correct on your stance and you asserted one.

 

Dude quit with the babble, let us sort it out.

 

Yes, that is true for many, I think there are many people who cannot deal with religion, but feel they want to believe in something, so they simply say they are spiritual. That is much like us hippies used to be---we read a bit of the Tao Te Ching, thought it was cool, and thus called ourselves Taoists based on very little knowledge of what it even entailed.

Then there are many others who want to experience the magic of spirituality---the deep ecstatic spiritual experiences or even what to Modern Man, is magic, or the connection to the spirits. Unfortunately, as products of the modern world, that door is still closed to them (because there is a difference in wanting to believe, and believing (or knowing)). They consider themselves spiritual and keep trying.

Then there are those like myself who have experienced things that can only be experienced to understand. I think everyone needs to find what works best for them in this regard. I did not get much from Eastern mysticism for example. It seemed to me that meditation could take many years to find that ecstatic satori, if ever.

 

Yeah, plus, Satori doesn't necessarily have to come from effort. It could also arise from the final cessation of struggle to achieve it.