Religious But NOT Spiritual...

​From what I’ve heard and sensed from the many people I know who self-identify as “spiritual but not religious” (including what seems like most, if not all, Western contemporary yoga practitioners) it seems to come down to one of the following three positions:

---

“We define spirituality as an active identification with things greater than one’s self that give meaning and purpose. In this context, friendship, trust, loyalty, affirmation, and respect are spiritual values.” --- Glenn & Nelson, Raising Self-Reliant Children in a Self-Indulgent World

Glenn and Nelson’s definition of spirituality succinctly summarizes what most of those who consider themselves “spiritual but not religious” seem to mean when they assert this about themselves. From a little survey of friends and students who identify themselves in this way, I have also received statements such as:

It means that I am beyond myself in this world. I have no vision of a higher being; it is the universe of beings that explains spirituality.
 
One correspondent wrote:
Spirituality is the pursuit of Truth. Religion is the organization of Truth. Spiritual but not religious is the pursuit of Truth outside of organization.
 
Noticing that he had capitalized “Truth” I asked why he had done so. “What is the “Truth” that spirituality is engaged with?” In his response he wrote:
“I capitalize Truth because ‘truth’ is somewhat subjective and contextual… I’m not referring to relative truth but that ineffable, absolute… you could call it ‘Tao’ or ‘the Divine’ but anything you call it will carry baggage… it has countless names but they all point to the same thing, the so-called ‘Golden Thread’”
 
Interestingly, he added: “Truth is just a placeholder word for that which is beyond intellectualism and is entirely experiential.” I find this an interesting comment, as well as being somewhat contradictory, in light of his previously distinguishing “Truth” from “truth” by calling the latter “subjective and contextual.” Contradictory because, by definition, if something is “experiential” it IS subjective! SomeONE is experiencing it, after all. And doing so "contextually" in some place and time and in relation to some specific circumstances.

Finally, one correspondent wrote in to me:
“…since reading his book, Spirituality for the Skeptic, I love Robert C. Solomon’s definition of a naturalistic spirituality as ‘The thoughtful love of life.’ Can it really be said any better and more succinctly than that? No bullshit. Just, ‘the thoughtful love of life!’ Imagine if all beings could live up to this kind of creed.”

In researching this topic, I found this from Wikipedia:
"Spiritual but not religious" (SBNR), also known as "Spiritual but not affiliated" (SBNA), is a popular phrase and initialism used to self-identify a life-stance of spirituality that does not regard organized religion as the sole or most valuable means of furthering spiritual growth. Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used synonymously to describe all the various aspects of the concept of religion, but in contemporary usage spirituality has often become associated with the interior life of the individual, placing an emphasis upon the well-being of the ‘mind-body-spirit’ while religion refers to organizational or communal dimensions.”
 
The article goes on to mention that although:
“Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used synonymously to describe all the various aspects of the concept of religion, religion is a highly contested term with scholars such as Russell McCutheon arguing that the term "religion" is used as a way to name a "seemingly distinct domain of diverse items of human activity and production". The field of religious studies cannot even agree on one definition for religion and since spirituality overlaps with it in many ways it is difficult to reach a consensus for a definition for spirituality as well.”
 
I think in many ways, this last statement truly gets to the heart of the matter. Maybe as “terms” so broadly defined and described, we have no fucking idea what we’re talking about!
 
And that certainly isn’t going to stop me from entering into the breach!

---

​From what I’ve heard and sensed from the many people I know who self-identify as “spiritual but not religious” (including what seems like most, if not all, Western contemporary yoga practitioners) it seems to come down to one of the following three positions:

1. As in the definition from Glenn & Nelson that opened this essay, what is being referred to as “spiritual” could just as well be referred to as secular ethical/moral values. Qualities such as “friendship, trust, loyalty, affirmation, and respect” are simply human values and as such, are purely naturalistic. To my mind, there’s no real justification to label such qualities as “spiritual.” Key to their definition is also the notion that one experience “an active identification with things greater than one’s self that give meaning and purpose.” For them, there is nothing inherently supernatural about this as “things greater than one’s self that give meaning and purpose” can be anything from parenting and teaching to political activism.

2. As my correspondent above who referred to some “ineffable absolute” there are those who, in speaking of “the spiritual” are referring to a felt sense of some “force transcendent.” For some, this is equated with the supernatural, but it need not be conceptualized as such. That is to say, the Tao can, and is often thought of as simply being of a “natural” order, but still an “absolute Truth” beyond the relative understanding of humanity. From this position, identification with something “greater than one’s self” most likely carries a supernatural – or at the very least – extraordinary transcendent connotation. 

3. Finally, I believe the Wiki article points to a very important aspect of this self-identity: “in contemporary usage spirituality has often become associated with the interior life of the individual, placing an emphasis upon the well-being of the ‘mind-body-spirit’ while religion refers to organizational or communal dimensions.” Notice there’s no mention of “identification with something greater than one’s self” and “well-being” seems to be the raison d'être of spirituality, the locus of meaning and purpose!  

This last point helps make clear why so many contemporary Westerners have moved to such an identification: it perfectly colludes with the neo-liberal ideology that hypervalorizes the individual over community that has so permeated the contemporary yoga and wellness communities. We’ve seen it in the proliferation of conspirituality throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, with so many yogis and wellness practitioners spouting Q-Anon dogma about “individual sovereignty” and “subjective truth” over scientific evidence in a similar way we also see “lived experience” overemphasized and centered over and against data.
 
A typical response when you Google “the difference between religion and spirituality” is something like: “Religion is a specific set of organized beliefs and practices, usually shared by a community or group. Spirituality is more of an individual practice and has to do with having a sense of peace and purpose.” I’ve noticed that many in the yoga and wellness communities avow some belief in “Oneness” that transcends the self, but identification with such an abstraction rarely is seen to carry over into actual human relationship or any communitarianism. Of course, when it does, it often takes on a cultish, in-group/out-group orientation; something else we’ve seen during the pandemic.

When we look at the etymology of the words “religion” and “religious” we see that the Latin religio is an action, a discipline. It comes from the word ligare which means “to join, or link” which to my ears sounds a lot like what the Sanskrit word yoga means! The word “yoga” comes from yuj, meaning “to join,” “to unite” or “to yoke”. Yoking is specifically the action of restraint, a binding. A typical simile of the binding of mind to body (or the individual to divinity) was the ox yoked to the cart. In yoga, it is often the breath that is the yoke, yoking mind and body. Interestingly, religio was often used agriculturally to describe binding a branch of a tree or bush to shape it to a specific form. That “religion” became associated with creeds and organizations is understandable, but it’s helpful to remember that the religious act is one of self-directed action.
 
When one actually looks up the definition of “spirituality” the first definition that comes up is: “the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.” And, when you look up the definition of the word “spirit” we find: “the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.”
 
It is for all these reasons:

1. That the word “spirit” literally refers to some alleged “nonphysical part of a person” such as a “soul”
2. That the word “religion” refers to the act of uniting, binding, and containing… basically disciplined action toward a communal sense of wholeness
3. That qualities such as friendship, trust, loyalty, affirmation, and respect are simply human values and as such, are purely naturalistic; AND that the search and creation of meaning and purpose are also human concerns and thus completely naturalistic

that I identify as RELIGIOUS BUT NOT SPIRITUAL.

The ONLY spirits I KNOW to exist....

---

T
I am not a “Secular Buddhist” as generally understood because the Secular Buddhist movement has, for the most part, jettisoned ceremony and ritual, as well as most expressions of community. I am certainly not a “Traditionalist” either because I am firmly rooted in philosophical naturalism and rather than grounding my understanding in dogma and doctrine, I base my positions upon a naturalistic, scientific, rational, and empirical search for “truth”. I fully accept that we can only have truths in a provisional sense and welcome the ever-evolving understanding such truths bring. I call this approach, which embraces traditional forms of practice (including prostrations, chanting, meditation, ceremony, and ritual etc.) while remaining fully rooted in naturalism, Zen Naturalism.

Zen Naturalism is a form of practice and understanding that rejects dependence on the ‘supernatural’ and, as a path of inquiry, emphasizes the orientation of non-attachment from dogmatic fundamentalist views through the practice of meditation, as well as through the techniques of science and the scientific method, embodying the expression of appropriate and skillful means.
 
Zen Naturalism does not accept the systematic, and often hierarchical, polemical arrangements of the Buddhist teachings proposed or endorsed by any school of Buddhism. Zen Naturalism sees itself as a 'new' form of Buddhism reflective of a contemporary understanding of the world, the cosmos, and life itself. Zen Naturalism is open to truths garnered through study and practice of Buddhist texts from the various schools, as well as from texts written by non-Buddhist philosophers and  scientists. It recognizes that it too will change as new understandings replace old understandings. Keeping the "Don't Know Mind" is essential in keeping this open-ended inquiry from solidifying into a rigid, dogmatic creed of beliefs.
 
This spirit* of inquiry, this spirit* of commitment to all forms of action that can sustain questioning, insight, and compassion, is considered to be more important that any Buddhist institution or tradition.
 
Zen Naturalism is, and can be considered to be, a kind of ‘secular religion;’ a form or method of yoga (disciplined action and inquiry) as its aim is freedom and the awakening life. As a naturalistic-based practice, freedom is understood not supernaturally, but as the progressive liberation from our conditioned reactivity and false identifications. It is not the world-wary attempt to leave the world altogether that is found in early traditional Buddhism. But also, as a contemporary movement, and one that does not reject the world, it is a ‘communal religion’ that celebrates life in community and society. As such, it calls for active engagement to better life and the world for all beings. Rituals of celebration are designed to create meaningful relations among the various beings and experiences of the world. They make visible the more subtle and invisible relations that exist amongst all beings.
 
In conclusion, Zen Naturalism does not need to seek meaning and validity in any transcendent realm. While rooted in certain forms of traditional zen practice, it is this naturalist perspective that is guiding orientation of the Empty Mountain Sangha.  At present, most of our sangha's activities are online via Facebook and Zoom. Feel free to look us up!

* Hopefully, from the context it is clear I have no issue with the secondary definitions of the word "spirit" and it is in this way that I use the word here.

​Those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period.
"the university is a symbol of the nation's egalitarian spirit"
Similar:
ethos, prevailing tendency, motivating force, animating principle, dominating characteristic, mood, feeling, temper, tenor, attitudes, principles, standards

• a person identified with their most prominent mental or moral characteristics or with their role in a group or movement.
  "he was a leading spirit in the conference"
• a specified emotion or mood, especially one prevailing at a particular time.
  "I hope the team will build on this spirit of confidence"
• a person's mood.
  "as I sat alone in that corridor my spirits were low"
• the attitude or intentions with which someone undertakes or regards something.
  "he confessed in a spirit of self-respect, not defiance"
  Similar:
  point of view, outlook
  
• the quality of courage, energy, and determination or assertiveness.
  "his visitors admired his spirit and good temper"
  Similar:
  firmness of purpose, resolution, resoluteness, resolve
  
• the real meaning or the intention behind something as opposed to its strict verbal interpretation.
  "the rule had been broken in spirit if not in letter"