6 Reasons you will see more of Spiritual Naturalism in the future
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Why Spiritual Naturalism is the future
6 Reasons you will see more of Spiritual Naturalism in the future
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Friday, May 4, 2012
May the 4th be with you!
 |
| The little, green (but powerful) Jedi Master Yoda, meditating. |
Today is May 4th, a fan-created holiday to celebrate all things Star Wars. Aside from the play on words "May the force be with you", May was the month the original Star Wars movie and several others came out in the theaters.
Star Wars is such an integrated part of our popular culture in many nations that this hardly needs to be said, but it is this science fiction franchise that has brought us the Jedi Order, a religious order of knights who guarded peace and justice in the galaxy. The Jedi were able to tap into 'the Force' - the central phenomenon around which their practice was based. This allowed them to have many magical powers.
At first glance, this doesn't seem very naturalist, but rather supernatural. However, as any good science fiction fan will tell you, the best science fiction isn't about the spaceships, lasers, and explosions (or, in this case, magical powers), but about the message behind those trappings.
Stylistically, the Jedi seem to be an amalgamation of many different religious elements of our world - East and West, combined into one and given a generic kind of gloss. This fulfilled the needs of creator George Lucas' story in having the feel of some kind of universal wisdom to it. As such, the Jedi in the Star Wars films can be seen behaving and speaking in ways that exemplify ideas, perspectives, and philosophies many people may have been unfamiliar with otherwise.
Of course, in a film series, you don't have time to go into the depths of a philosophy and you only really need a few lines dropped here and there, some costume and architectural references, and so on to give the feel that there is something deeper there. Therefore, the Jedi religion, as such, is not really deep or rich enough to constitute a real practice strictly on its own - and was never intended to be. But what Star Wars has done for the exposure of these philosophies is similar to what Star Trek has done for fields like engineering and science. Fans growing up enjoying these films have been intrigued by the ideas they reference, and have been inspired to investigate them further, in their real life traditions here on planet earth.
In Star Wars and Philosophy, Kevin Decker and Jason Eberl take us on just such an exploration. While many people will recognize the obvious Buddhism, or even Taoist themes in the Jedi, they point out the equally rich connections of Western Stoicism underlying the characters' thoughts and behaviors in the films. They also explore Star Wars' approach to moral ambiguity, determinism, and more.
In The Dharma of Star Wars, Matthew Bortolin gets into even more detail regarding the real Buddhist perspectives and practices the Jedi can be seen referencing in the films. Here the Jedi approach to mindfulness and focus, the roots and causes of suffering, and 'the ways of the Force' (i.e., the ways of nature).
Not only has Star Wars been a gateway for many in exploring these ideas, but in its eclectic mix of inspirations, Star Wars engages in just the kind of exploration many spiritual naturalists pursue, and reflects the kind of 'take what works' approach we will take here at the Spiritual Naturalist Society. The 'powers' of the Jedi thus serve as a metaphor for the empowering nature of these sources of wisdom - the power to lead more mindful, happier, lives of virtue and contentment.
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Humanistic Paganism interview on new spiritual naturalist community
 |
| (cc) Photo by J.F. Sabastian |
http://humanisticpaganism.com/2012/04/15/the-spiritual-naturalist-society-an-interview-with-dt-strain
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Thursday, April 12, 2012
What life practices have you found helpful?
All of the people present had excellent things to offer. I spoke about how I have found meditation and journaling helpful, as well as what I like to call 'demeanor practice' whereby we simply try to smile more and be mindful of how we are carrying ourselves, our expressions, body language, and how we are acting toward others.
Another person present talked about how much she loves people and children; how much she finds doing good for others to be replenishing and how refreshing children's perspectives can be, helping to remind us of all the nonsense that can come to cloud our way of thinking which we learn later.
The next person spoke about how important planning was to him. He and his wife planned out their major activities each month together, to ensure they aren't doing too much, aren't missing things they'd like to do, and aren't doing things they really wouldn't rather do. This is a mindfulness in how we spend our time. He noted that his wife sometimes went off the plan and was more spontaneous than him, but that they have both grown to be more appreciative of the benefits of one another's ways.
Another attendee spoke about his interest in science, reason, and logic and that understanding things rationally was helpful to a person when facing tough times. A love of learning and continued growth, and a strong curiosity - these things can be considered a spiritual practice in their importance to a good life as well.
Another attendee also benefited from meditation, both alone and in various communities around town. But he added that other things like hiking was a beneficial practice to him; not only in that it put him out in nature, but it was a reminder that every goal is reached one step at a time. This is not unlike the idea of 'living in appreciation of the present'. Another habit that he found very helpful was to keep dollars ready under his overhead visor in his car, and giving them to the needy people on the street corners. More importantly than the mere act of giving, however, was maintaining his inner motivation of kindness and generosity and trying to refrain from being judgmental.
Then a man spoke about how important silence had become to him. He made a regular habit of taking some time to just sit in silence, not only vocally but mentally. His practice of silence was not too dissimilar to some forms of meditation, yet he had found a particular process that worked for him.
Lastly, a woman talked about how journaling had also helped her, how she liked meditation but was still trying to be more regular in it, and some Stoic books which had helped her to focus on what she can control.
Overall, there was a shared sense of something more than merely waking up each day, living out the day, and going back to bed. Rather, in all of these practices and habits there was a sense of progression; a sense that we are walking a path, making improvements, and growing in our practice. As always, there was much more to share and discuss than we had time for, which is all the more reason we have to look forward to our future gatherings. For those local to Houston, we invite you to join us at our monthly Humanist Contemplatives group, and for those outside the area, we wish you the best and hope you can find (or start!) a like-minded group in your area which can begin to explore naturalistic spirituality - helpful life practices, perspectives, and philosophies that don't require acceptance of supernatural claims.
So, to the reader, what are some of the things you practice in your life that you've found helpful, or that you'd like to learn more about? Your comments are welcome!
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Why Detroit could use RoboCop
Movies are a part of our culture, and often movie heroes fill the same role as mythological figures once filled for the ancient Greeks, for example. The famed comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell, whose research inspired Star Wars and countless tales since, focused on the power of myth and would agree that the works of our popular culture today can have a mythical function in society.
While this project has been privately and charitably funded, would anyone scoff at a statue of Odysseus placed in the center of an ancient Greek town by its government? He was a character out of a poem and play; the movie-equivalent big entertainments of their day (not to expunge the still-current importance of poetry and plays, of course). These public stories refer to events and themes we all know and their mythical characters embody virtues and values we hope to inspire in each other and in our communities. This embodiment and encouragement works the same, whether the heroic figure be someone from religion, politics, social movements, or fiction. And, sometimes, the fun of sharing in the joy of a fictional character can add much-needed color to our world.
Critics have said this would not reflect well on a city that already has many problems. At first I thought it an odd choice myself, since the Detroit portrayed in RoboCop was a crime-ridden corrupt wasteland. However, Robocop's directives had been to protect and clean up the streets so it could undergo a rebirth into a flourishing new city; or so that was the line given by the greedy executives and officials that created him. But ultimately, Robocop turned against those corrupt forces and eventually gave hope that the promise for Detroit might one day be true. Even the birth and physical nature of RoboCop is a symbol of the dream of technological innovation so needed to revitalize Detroit.
It's important to face problems in order to solve them, and perhaps admitting that the Detroit in the film might be closer to the real Detroit than we are comfortable with may be a first step. RoboCop is a dark story, but it's protagonist is not. He was a beacon of light in the darkness - and maybe that's what Detroit is looking for today.
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
__________
Thanks to my wife, Julie, and to the Houston Chronicle for making me aware of the article referred to.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Top 10 misguided responses to calls for compassion
 |
| Karen Armstrong |
Here is a situation that comes up often: groups A and B have some kind of issue with one another. By ‘group’ I could mean family, community, culture, race, nation, religion, etc. By ‘issue’ I could mean anything from some persistent gripes to major threats, violence, and hostilities. These issues could be on one or both sides, and to varying degrees of balance. In both of these groups you have individuals who are very hateful, suspicious, distrusting, or otherwise disfavor members of the other group for things they may have done. The actions could have been done by the group ‘officially’ as a group, or some individuals could have taken the actions without it officially being a ‘group’ action.
Also, within each of these groups, you have
individuals who, when they were taught as a child about things like
forgiveness, tolerance, not stereotyping, and having compassion even for
enemies – actually believed it! And – worse – it wasn’t just a naive phase they
went through. All that stuff really stuck, and they actually try to be that way
in real-world situations – not just
in church, in songs, in word, or when teaching children. Those poor fools didn’t
get the memo that everyone else was just bullshitting when they say things like
that.
So, inevitably people in both groups will start to
overdo things. They’ll over-generalize, hold the other group to a standard they
themselves don’t meet, become consumed with hatred or fear, make up things or
get ideas about the other group that aren’t true, or just plain make some
logical mistakes. Or, perhaps they haven’t done much wrong themselves, but
haven’t really taken the steps they could to make things better. Inevitably,
those individuals who believe in all that compassion stuff will tend to point
these kinds of things out to their fellow group members. This doesn’t typically
go very well, as you might imagine.
Recently Karen Armstrong, former nun, religious
historian, and founder of the Charter forCompassion, wrote an article in The
Globe and Mail called, Islamophobia:We need to accept the ‘other’. In it, she called for less prejudice against
moderate Muslims living in the Western world and a return to greater tolerance
and egalitarianism. The responses and comments to Ms. Armstrong’s article were
very similar to responses I have experienced when writing on the belief page of
the Houston Chronicle, making similar calls for compassion, understanding, or
forgiveness regarding some ‘other’ group. The similarities were so striking
that I decided to write the following summary to point out some common fallacies
and misguided responses many of us may have when hearing or reading of someone
in our group doing the same. I hope this may be helpful.
10) Pointing out bad behaviors of those on the other side*
One of the most common responses to someone
pointing out ‘areas for improvement’ amongst their own side, is to retort with
a litany of all the bad things the other side has done (correct or not,
distorted or not). However, it is typical that an author is speaking to ‘their
own’. The other side is not typically the readership of an author’s article.
So, pointing out what the other side has done, as though it were a matter of
some kind of scoreboard, proceeds from a false assumption that we can control
the actions of others. When speaking to our own group, the aim is to get us
thinking about other groups as an individual should think about the outside
world – with the knowledge that we need to get our own house in order, morally
and ethically, because we all have control over what kind of family, community,
society we are going to be.
9) Pointing
out the other side’s lack of
similar tolerance, forgiveness, etc.
similar tolerance, forgiveness, etc.
As I have explained in previous articles, if we
decide that our formula for tolerance and forgiveness will be to require it of
others first, this will create a downward spiral of empathy and compassion in
our world if that standard is taken as universal. Some of us mistakenly think
that if our own wrongdoings are less in number or severity than the other side’s,
that we are absolved of the responsibility to be the best and most noble we can
be. Our aim should be to be better than our enemies, not let their actions
determine the kind of people we are going to be.
8) Nitpicking
factual details that don’t negate
the point, and proceeding as though they do
the point, and proceeding as though they do
This is a common logical fallacy in more general
cases than just our topic here. Many respond to calls for compassion with
nitpicky criticisms of small factoid mentioned in passing or as examples or
even analogies to the deeper point and in support of the call to action. While
it is helpful to point out inaccuracies, these corrections are sometimes biased
themselves, and often leave the impression that the point of the article has
been negated when, in fact, the corrections were immaterial. Sometimes, the
correction may be to support some other error listed here. For example, if the
correction of a point of fact is to add to the guilt of the other side, the
commenter may be doing so in order to commit error #9 or #10. Meaning, the
correction is still immaterial to the point.
7) Charging
hypocrisy for lack of similar calls to the other side
As mentioned, it is typical that the author of an
article takes note of their likely audience, given the paper, magazine, site,
or other form. As such, the author is specifically talking to their own
readership and, most often, their own group. It doesn’t make much sense to call
on group A to do x, when speaking to group B. So, why not go write another
article in some other venue that reaches group A? Often this isn’t very
effective, either because of language barriers, cultural barriers, or because
people tend to listen more to those from their own group. In fact, this is the
reason why calling for better ways from our own groups is so important –
because we can reach our own much more effectively. Often, writers of this kind
form ambassadorial-like relationships with compassion-callers in the other
groups, who write to their own on the other side. Even so, it’s a good idea for
authors to include caveats acknowledging the other side’s need to do the same,
of course. But, in fact, even though many authors do include these caveats, they are typically ignored by people
posting this kind of response. When reading an article by an author that is
obviously focused on compassion or any other virtue, it is most reasonable to
grant the author the benefit of the doubt and assume that they value this
virtue in all places by all people in similar conditions.
6) Charging
treason or cowardice for
lack of loyalty to the ‘home team’
lack of loyalty to the ‘home team’
The faulty nature of this response is so obvious
that it should hardly need to be stated. Even those who have posted responses
like this probably know what I’m about to write here, but this response is most
common in emotionally-charged topics where those who know better aren’t
necessarily thinking straight. Sadly, some may have deeper misconceptions and
think this response is valid even after giving it some thought. The key error
in this response is a misguided value system by which we pursue arguments,
policies, and actions primarily for the purposes of bolstering ‘our side’
rather than an honest pursuit of truth and fairness. This kind of loyalty-based
pseudo-ethics is the same system employed by mobsters, who need some kind of substitute
structure to maintain operations despite the lack of real ethics.
5) Charging
ignorance or naivety
when the point doesn’t demand it
when the point doesn’t demand it
Another common response to calls for compassion
toward others is to assume the author is ignorant of all the bad things the
other side has done, or that they are naive and presume that such compassion
will have some kind of unrealistic, concrete, immediate response from people of
ill will. This is a common criticism levied against those who say we should at
least try to negotiate with enemies. One source of this error is simply
misunderstanding what the author is saying, perhaps assuming the purpose behind
the call for compassion – as though compassion is merely a tactic, a means to
some external end. They imagine that, if the author knew of the bad things the
other side had done, or if the author understood the other side wasn’t likely
to reciprocate, that this would somehow undermine the point or change their
position on what we ought to do. They believe this because they have an
insufficient comprehension of what compassion and forgiveness are about, and
why they are important. The differences between the author and the commenter in
this case are not typically one of understanding the issue, but in their
respective value systems as applied to the issue.
4) Not
appreciating ‘proportion distortion’
caused by filtering of information
caused by filtering of information
Many of those who criticize these calls for
compassion sometimes have a distorted view of the overall weight of different
factors concerning the issue. This can often come from getting all of one’s
information from a narrow channel of sources, which may limit their exposure to
other points of view and even limit their awareness of facts that might enable
them to see some of the other side’s perspective or any kind of equity between
the two groups. Critics should take care to read about an issue from a number
of different perspectives and sources. I often say that, if we disagree with another
position, we should know enough about it to (in theory) pass as a proponent of
that position in a debate, making even others of that position think we were on
their side.
3) Assuming
all or most people on the other side
accept all of that side’s worst doctrines or positions
accept all of that side’s worst doctrines or positions
This kind of generalization is far more common
than should be, given even average intelligence, and underscores how much
emotion can distort our thinking. Often a few trouble-makers, or even a lot of
trouble-makers (yet still in the minority) can give a bad name to an entire
group. This isn’t to say that is always the case, but it often is. Even where
blatant generalization of this kind isn’t happening, critics can often assume
that the rest of the people in that group aren’t opposed to what the others on
their side are doing. They may ignore their efforts to stop it, hold them to
unrealistic expectations to do so, and so on. Ironically, when responding
critically to calls from their own to be better, critics may not realize that
the author is the very kind of person they are calling for more of in the other
group. Consistently, they should be proud of such individuals on their own
side.
2) Equating
acknowledgment of innocents among the other side with acceptance of other side’s
doctrines or positions
Sometimes calls for consideration of the innocents among the other side can be
taken as the author’s acceptance or agreement with the other side’s doctrines
or positions. This lack of nuance can lead to a lot of misguided or irrelevant
criticisms of such calls. Often, this is a short step away from error #6.
However, it is often the case that there are many innocent people in a group
with which we may have a problem. By being tolerant of them, and even reaching
out to them, we may find many more effective ways of working with that group
than we could without their understanding.
1) Assuming
tolerance and kindness toward innocents on the other side, or forgiveness of
anyone, includes condoning or allowing evil-doers unrestrained or uncontested
action
This is perhaps the most pervasive and common
response to any call for compassion or forgiveness of wrong-doers, on both an
individual and social scale. Those who make this criticism do so because they
misunderstand what forgiveness or tolerance entails, and why it is employed.
First, they imagine that tolerance means ‘tolerating the acts’ in the sense of
not working against them. They don’t realize that one can act vigorously
against others, even while maintaining compassion for them. This is the
distinction between an inner hatred that harms the hater, and a pure internal motivation. Or, they may think
that forgiveness means condoning the thing being forgiven, as though
forgiveness was some kind of reprieve. However, forgiveness means – precisely –
that a wrongdoing has been forgiven;
not that the wrongdoing has been redefined. Unless a wrongdoing happened and it
was really a wrongdoing, then no
forgiveness could have taken place. More importantly, forgiveness is a gift we
give to ourselves.
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
__________
*Note: for
purposes of referencing the very issue at hand, I use the terminology of “the
other side” as a semi-paraphrase of the position against which I am arguing. Yet,
in many ways, this terminology itself encourages an us/them mentality which may
do us a disservice.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Jimmy Carter and "cherry picking"
This is exactly the kind of thing more religiously conservative Christians fear as opening the floodgates to chaos. One commenter on the article said, "...after that, religion has no credibility since you can pick and choose what you want to follow." and another said, "...so we all do our own cherry picking". "Cherry picking" is most often a negative phrase intended as a criticism, but I would like to offer a defense of cherry picking.
The first commenter thinks picking and choosing what we will follow harms the credibility of religion because they have a different understanding of the purpose or function of religion than Jimmy Carter. To them, the purpose of religion is to provide solid, unquestionable, absolute answers to life, meaning, and morality. Any subjectivity is then perceived as undermining the legitimacy of that source and letting everyone do whatever they like. But the problem with this approach to religion is that it locks us in to intolerant and inflexible ideologies which create extremism and just plain kooky ways of thinking and acting. Yet, Carter certainly doesn't advocate discarding religion and doing whatever we happen to feel like, so what's the solution?
A Christian of this variety might say that God speaks to us in many ways, and the Bible is one of them. He also gave us a heart and a mind. To place the Bible above all else as absolute is bibliolatry - or making the bible into an idol, with an even higher place than God himself. Cherry picking is exactly how we navigate a complex world in order to 'listen to God' and separate His will from our own chatter. Carter says that it is the general principles of humility, service to others, alleviation of suffering, forgiveness, etc. which should guide us in that earnest deliberation.
While I am not a Christian, I can identify with Carter's approach. The chief difference between Carter and myself on this matter is that my commitment to humility means I cannot know that something was inspired by God, or even if such a being exists. But I do share Carter's commitment to those general principles of humility, love, forgiveness, etc. As such, 'cherry picking' is precisely what I have been doing in my research and use of ancient philosophy as an augment to life wisdom consistent with a scientific understanding of our natural universe. Surely, in reading of Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, Socrates, Heraclitus, Chuang-Tzu, and yes, the Bible, I have come across many things I viewed as more relevant to the culture of the times while other things 'spoke to me' in that they rang true with regard to my current understanding and those general principles.
Many of my non-theistic colleagues might recommend ignoring it all and simply starting from scratch. But my experience has shown me that there are treasure troves of wisdom and practice which we have forgotten and have yet to approach today through other means. Not only that, but along with these streams of wisdom come a wealth of historic experimentation over the centuries. Cherry picking is exactly what we must do, within every faith, tradition, and philosophy - but we must do it earnestly and honestly, with pure motivation. Our reason, our experience, and our compassion will tell us whether we are on the right path and help humble and good people who try, to reach consensus.
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Monday, March 12, 2012
Humanism on Secular Buddhist Association podcast
Episode 107: DT Strain: Humanist Contemplative in Texas
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Stoicism on "Open Air Atheist"
Open Air Atheist Podcast, Episode #20: Stoicism
In the conversation at least three things got by me before our time was up. I should have also mentioned the International Stoic Forum, which has been instrumental in helping me understand Stoicism better (or, rather, the good people there have helped me with their participation, both the professors and the students, and the people which both agreed and challenged me). Along with reading, there is no substitute for having meaningful dialogs on these things.
The second thing I should have mentioned is the excellent work of Pamela and Michel Daw, in spreading knowledge of practical Stoicism and teaching others. Their site is TheStoicLife.org. And, lastly, the New Stoa is an excellent group promoting the Stoic life.
On a side note, at 25:50 a sound blip silences the word "not" in my sentence, making it seem I'm saying Stoicism is like the emotionless Mr. Spock's way, and in fact I was saying Stoicism is not like the manner of Mr. Spock - in other words, it's not about being emotionless or suppressing all emotion.
Previous Episodes
As I mentioned, I've appeared on this podcast previously, where we talked about Buddhism. There are some sound issues early on, but they get better. That episode can be listened to here:
Open Air Atheist Podcast, Episode #6: Buddhism
Back to Stoicism, if you'd like to learn more, I have several articles on my site at www.humanistcontemplative.org, which also link further to other resources.
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Monday, January 23, 2012
Top 10 signs of good spirituality
 |
| (cc) tiltti (flickr.com). |
10) Aim of True Happiness
Good spirituality will have as its aim the happiness of the practitioner. Of course, deep understanding of what this entails is essential. By 'True Happiness' we mean something more than mere pleasure associated with one's conditions. Rather, the kind of happiness a good spirituality will pursue will be a deeper sense of contentment that transcends circumstance. It will be a source of inner strength in the face of adversity and humble appreciation in the face of fortune. Such a happiness is also not selfish in the shallow sense of the word, in that the practitioner will come to see that mere self interest is not always a path to it.
9) Humble approach to knowledge
A good spirituality will engender humility in the practitioner when it comes to beliefs. It will produce a practitioner that is careful about making claims that cannot be substantiated. The practitioner will appreciate their limitations as a human being, not assuming they have more ability to 'know' things than they do. They would learn to be comfortable with a state of 'not knowing' all things. Such an approach will guide the practitioner in their own assumptions, as well as in accepting the claims of others without good reason. A good spiritual path will encourage doubt, asking questions, etc. It will not encourage the practitioner to accept claims on the basis of authority, or tradition, or faith, or any other means than good sense and self experience. But at the same time, this principle will not be one that encourages the practitioner to spend their time telling others what they should or shouldn't believe. Rather, its focus will be on helping the practitioner in their own walk.
8) Holistic, not dualistic
A good spirituality will inspire appreciation of the interconnectedness of all things. Dualistic thinking, whether it comes to nature, ourselves, us/them mentalities, and so on, will be anathema to a sound spirituality. Such a spiritual path will, in part, help to guide the practitioner to operate more effectively in an interconnected universe; appreciating subtle cause and effect, and acting more wisely in such a system. This 'skillful means' will be a way for the practitioner to see the big picture - to handle the complexities of life more like a surfer on ever-changing waves, moving in a dance with the universe, rather than stubbornly trying to move against the grain.
7) Acceptance of impermanence
The ever-changing flux of the universe, and the impermanence in which that results, has always been obvious to any observer. Nearly all worldviews, philosophies, traditions, or religions can be grouped into two categories regarding how they handle impermanence. One group will try to claim that there really is some permanent phenomenon to which we can attach our hopes and secure our philosophy (an afterlife, a deity, a 'salvation', magic powers, etc). While this may or may not be true, #9 (a humble approach to knowledge) suggests that we cannot know for certain whether it is. For that reason, a good spirituality will belong to the second category, which instead helps the practitioner to come to terms with impermanence; to accept it and learn to live effectively and happily in an impermanent universe. Spirituality, at its best, even helps to grow a sense of awe and wonder at such a grand flux, as we come to realize that impermanence means not merely death, but birth as well, and makes possible everything we love and experience.
6) Motivation-focused, not consequentialism
While much philosophy is often concerned with elaborate logical models to define the ethical, based on actions, consequences, and outward results, a good spirituality will know the limitations of these approaches. In the face of highly complex situations we rarely know all the variables, let alone their values and the results of our actions. But a good spirituality will emphasize the importance of good motivation on behalf of the practitioner. It will direct the practitioner to that inner motivation in all actions. Surely, it is important to use our reason as best we can to take responsible action, but in the end, if we have good motivation and take that due diligence, outcomes are not entirely within our say, as the rest of the universe will play its part as well. A good spirituality engenders a deep appreciation and intuitive-level knowledge of that truth. In this way, our deeper happiness in life begins to divorce itself from circumstantial outcomes.
5) Practice-centered
A good spirituality will be more than merely intellectual teachings or academic philosophy or a 'world view'. It will not be merely centered on intellectual assent to a certain set of beliefs. Rather, its true power will be in its practice. That is, it will be a system of disciplines one can apply and become more skillful at over time. Its wisdom and its practices will be integrated and support one another. In this way, one's spirituality will not merely be a label - it will be an activity; and the practitioner will have a sense of making continual progress, day by day, as they walk that path.
4) Changing self instead of others or the world
A legitimately spiritual person will certainly be found taking positive action to help others and help make positive change in the world, but these are merely symptoms of the spiritual life. A good spirituality will help the practitioner always to focus on changing what they have the most capacity to change: the person in the mirror. Understanding that we live in an impermanent and interconnected world, the practitioner will understand that all of their efforts may or may not come to fruition. Therefore, a good spirituality will help us to change our focus from "I must change the world" to, "I must be the kind of person that seeks positive change in the world". Thus, when we adopt this focus we have already succeeded, regardless of outcomes. This focus not only helps against 'burn out' in activist efforts, but it helps us avoid the pitfalls of focusing too much on how others ought to be acting without tending to our own shortcomings.
3) Transcending the ego
A sign of a poor spirituality will be that it coddles the practitioner and makes all things about them. Perhaps it promises wish fulfillment and certain externals such as wealth, health, reputation, etc. It fools us into thinking we have more control than we do. These claims to empower the practitioner appeal to the practitioner's shallow and mundane self interests and reinforce the ego. A good spirituality will be ego-busting. It will help to free the practitioner from the prison of the ego, expanding one's sense of self and concern outward to include others. Only through such a liberation from the ego can we begin to see what had been consuming distress for what it is, and begin to know a larger world. Healthy spiritual paths will help us in this process.
2) Wisdom, not -ism
Good spirituality will not be about labels, or a particular people or culture, or particular brands, or personalities. It will inspire the practitioner to seek out and respect wise notions and practices wherever they can be found. It will not inspire the practitioner to defend their 'ism' as though holding a flag, but rather to seek truth first with an open mind. Such a practitioner will not care too much whether this or that is considered a religion by some or a philosophy by others, or what titles by which they may or may not be called. They will be adept at exchanging lexicons to suit the context and the conversant, keeping in mind the meaning behind that language as what is important. They will not turn away from certain sources because of bias, ignorance, or reactionary tendencies. Good spirituality encourages the practitioner not to form attachments to the trappings of its own form.
1) Compassion as foundation
Most importantly, a good spirituality will have compassion at its core. Even the pursuit of truth is only worthwhile because of the good it makes possible for all people and is thus secondary to compassion. Good spirituality will help to expand one's sense of empathy and compassion, ultimately toward all beings. It will teach forgiveness and reject retributive approaches toward dealing with human conflict. Even when action against others is necessary, it will help the practitioner maintain compassion even for enemies. A good spirituality will reject the notion that compassion and pragmatism are at odds - that the virtuous and the advantageous can be exclusive to one another. Ultimately, the practitioner of a good spiritual path will come toward greater perception that virtue (including compassion) and wisdom are synonymous.
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)