The word “spiritual” is thrown about a good bit these days. But what does it really mean?
This is one of those terms that we use thinking that we all have a common understanding as to what we are talking about when the truth is, we don’t. It’s like the word “God” – it means different things to different people depending upon their worldview.
Here is what Wikipedia currently says “spirituality” means: “the term spirituality lacks a definitive definition, although social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for ‘the sacred’, where the ‘the sacred’ is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration.”
Does that clear it up for you? Probably not. The reason it lacks a “definitive definition”, again, is because that “search for the sacred” varies based on how we look at life. Let’s run through the three primary worldviews at play in Western culture to put some context around this.
Those with the traditional viewpoint, represented by individuals who are socially conservative and hold strong conventional religious beliefs, typically make little distinction between being “religious” and being “spiritual”. Their search for the sacred is anchored in the teachings of their faith. For most Christians, this means a strong belief in the Bible being the inerrant word of God, that we were born into this ordinary life where we are sinners and that the Bible, and most importantly expressing faith and “accepting” Jesus so as to absolve us of our sins are all essential parts in our search for the sacred.
Those with the rational-materialistic viewpoint, represented by individuals who place their faith in science and the accumulation of wealth, also typically make little distinction being “religious” and being “spiritual”. Both words are representative of some kind of “nonmaterial” world that there is just not sufficient scientific evidence for us to establish its validity. Their “search for the sacred” is really a search for scientific understanding as to how this material universe works.
Those with the humanistic/postmodern viewpoint, represented by the so-called cultural creatives who see life as about human equality and honoring the earth, clearly make a distinction between “religious” and “spiritual”. In fact, one of the key factors of this worldview is that these individuals consider themselves “spiritual but not religious”. To them, to be religious means to follow the dogma of a traditional faith path. To be spiritual means to find your own path in your search for the sacred.
Three different worldviews – three different ways in which they “search for the sacred”.
In their book The New Universe and the Human Future, authors Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel Primack use the scientific story of the evolution of the universe as the backdrop for us to move towards a shared creation story. In their book, they offer a definition of spirituality that really resonated with me. They see it as “experiencing our true connection to all that exists.”
I like that. No matter what our worldview, that definition seems to fit.
I also like these words from 20th century mystic and spiritual teacher Ernest Holmes. He wrote, “there is no stagnation in Spirit, nor should there be any in our idea of spirituality. To be spiritual is to create! The Spirit is alive, conscious, aware and active.”
So here is the interesting interconnection that I see in regards to our investigation into the meaning of what it means to be “spiritual”. No matter what our worldview, there is some call within each of us that pushes us on a search for meaning, for the sacred, for understanding.
Depending upon our worldview, the search can take us into traditional religions, into scientific understandings, or into seeking our own path to truth. The search can take us externally into life seeking truth and the sacred “out there” or it can take us internally looking for the divine in the sacred within us. Yet no matter where we search, we are all called to an experience of our true connection to all that exists.
We should place no limits on what it means to be “spiritual” nor any idea of spirituality. The power that urges us along our search is alive and well within each of us. It’s in me. It’s in you. It’s in everyone you meet. The fact that our individual searches for the sacred appear differently to others is only an indication that there is no stagnation in Spirit. The fact that we are all on a search for the sacred binds us in oneness. We are all creative and we are all spiritual in our own beautiful and perfect way!
Mark Gilbert
—————————–
Check out all of Mark Gilbert’s books—available at Amazon. Click here to visit his Author Page. This includes his recent one Our Spiritual Rights and Responsibilities. In this book, he offers what he suggests are the 5 basic rights we all possess by virtue of our being these spiritual beings on planet Earth — and our 2 responsibilities we all hold in relation to one another! Check it out!
Mark, I find your description of spirituality very academic in that it seems to intend to satisfy everyone and be totally inclusive, to remove any awe and sense of the sacred from it. Does it just mean that we are all doing our own thing?
Thanks for the post, Jean.
The intention of the article was to point out that what “spirituality” means to you and how you define your own spiritual experience depends upon your worldview. In order to open readers to that idea, it was by necessity that some “academic” explanation of the predominate worldviews in modern culture be briefly described along with how each view point “sees” spirituality.
I agree with you that each of our own experiences of the numinous is filled with awe and wonder and a sense of love and gratitude for having this experience of life itself. We are overwhelmed with the feeling of connectedness and oneness in the Universe. In fact, when we have such experiences, we are typically left with the feeling that “words cannot describe” the feeling. However, each of our attempts to put some words out about it as well as the overall context of how we tend to define that experience is typically within a certain worldview.
You ask, “Does it mean we are doing our own thing?” Yes and no. On the one hand, we are having our own individualized sacred experiences of the Divine based upon our current level of awareness being a point of “multiplicity within the Unity”. On the other hand, we are never not a part of the overall unity.
However, I am well aware that others would answer your question differently based on their worldview. Most traditional faith viewpoints would say something like “we cannot do our own thing when it comes to spiritual experiences, we need a priest/church/sacred text/etc to serve as an intermediary and direct our spiritual experience.” A modern viewpoint would say something like “it doesn’t matter whether you do your own thing spiritually or follow some prescribed religion that tells you what to do because it is all just a myth and incorrect thinking anyway”. The post-modern viewpoint says “pick from the menu of choioes of all the spiritual options and create the one that words for you.”
Each viewpoint is “true and accurate” for that worldview. However, seeing that requires moving to a higher “integral” or “second tier viewpoint” that recognizes the evolution of our consciousness through all of the worldviews and how each has served our development. When we judge any of the ways as “wrong” that really is a statement about where we are on our spiritual development.
Thanks for the question!
Mark
I happened upon your blog through Eddyfy and have just read several of your posts. Your approach seems very positive and more importantly, inclusive. I choose to reply to this particular post because although you make many good points, I do have questions.
For example, “The fact that we are all on a search for the sacred binds us in oneness.” – Is that really a fact? Is everyone actually in search for the sacred? I can’t say that any of the world views you mentioned are “wrong” or “right”, but I believe that one can look at the world (and more importantly at one’s self) and realize that there are certain facts which, by definition, are not based on dualistic concepts, that is, opinions, belief systems or perspectives.
One fact that I see is that the world of human beings is not a world of peace or harmony. I won’t say anything about love or joy because one can then come in armed with definitions from any angle – but I do wonder whether or not “love” and “Joy”, (like “sacred”), can be placed within the confines of one of three world views?
Coming back to peace and harmony, I think it’s relatively easy to see that among human beings, conflict is a fact, not an opinion. In the ‘search for the sacred” is it irrelevant whether one explores perspective or fact? Will knowing the difference between fact and perspective not make a difference in uncovering what is sacred? Why do I ask? Because what you imply in your post is that “what is sacred” can be more than one thing. Can it?
“We are all creative and we are all spiritual in our own beautiful and perfect way!” – is this also a fact? How do you know this? Is this genuine first hand knowledge or is it an assumption based on the fact that we all share the same Source of origin? Have you ever seen a piece of ‘creative work’ which has no depth, originality or quality to it?
Quality, of course, is not quantifiable and yet most people seem to know it when they “see” it. So Quality is essential to the ‘pursuit’ of any “creative and…spiritual…way”. Quality of what? Is it quality of the external environment? Quality of the brush or pen in my hand? Or is it the quality of my own being…whatever that may mean…?
Finally, I would like to ask you about this statement: “The search can take us externally into life seeking truth and the sacred “out there” or it can take us internally looking for the divine in the sacred within us. Yet no matter where we search, we are all called to an experience of our true connection to all that exists.”
What is sacred exactly? You say – “The reason it lacks a “definitive definition”, again, is because that “search for the sacred” varies based on how we look at life” – I have to ask, in the grand scheme of creation, how many truths are possible? Is it possible to have more than one underlying Truth? If so, then you have made what is ‘sacred’ a simple matter of defining the ‘three world views”, which you have done.
But once again I would ask whether it’s possible that the reason the word “sacred” lacks a ‘definitive definition’ is because what is Sacred has a quality, and quality is not measurable…nor can one person assess quality on another persons behalf. The direct recognition of the Sacred must then be directly linked to one’s quality state of being, or quality state of consciousness. Or?
Finally, going back to your statement that the search can take us externally, I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, almost all humanity has put their faith in the external world of materialism, personal success, power, fame, fortune, position etc. This is what many people treat as ‘sacred’ (is this not a fact?) That’s fine, since you haven’t actually stated whether or not the Sacred can actually be found “out there”, but I want to ask one question – even if “we are all called to an experience of our true connection to all that exists” – does this mean that we are all listening to that call?
Thank you, I like what I see here – very positive, accessible and well presented. Kudos! 🙂
Hi, Rula, thank you for the post and the thought provoking questions…..
Are we all on a search for the sacred? Ultimately, in my opinion, yes. But there are 2 ways to look at this—one is the deeper spiritual essence that I believe is in everyone….and the other is in the world of a person’s behavior and stated motivations. You and I could both point at many people whose actions are not in any way looking like they are searching for the sacred, nor trying to develop a relationship with the divine, nor furthering their spiritual evolution. These people are doing human things, moving through life the best they can, getting caught up and distracted by all of the things we can all get mired in—but the events of these “non spiritual looking” lives are at their deepest level of understanding could also be recognized as spiritual events that are moving that person along their journey. Some times this journey leads the person to learning some deep lesson and moving them forward on their evolution, some times not.
For example, a person could be born into a life where they end up believing (due to the messages of their parents or culture) that something is lacking in them, that they are unworthy or not good enough. They end up with an emotional hole that they try to fill through drugs, sex, excelling at a career, gathering a lot of possessions, etc etc. These events have led them to an opportunity to learn an important lesson….that they are worthy and good enough just as they are, that they don’t need all of this external “stuff” to prove their worthiness. Some people will go through the journey and realize that their chasing sex, drugs, money, power, whatever did not fill the hole…..then they will delve into the underlying issue, find the erroneous belief and move forward…..the events served their search for the sacred…..However, some will stay stuck and not learn….but the underlying events had the same “soul purpose” either way….the person always has the free will choice to pursue the lesson and learn or not…..the spiritual essence within the person still set up the events for the growth of the sacred.
You are correct that there is in this context no “right” or “wrong”…..yes there can and are actions that are not in alignment with the greatest possibilities for our life and the life of everyone with whom we are a part….we can be stuck in separation and act from that sense….which can appear to be “wrong”…..and as so many people are still living in a sense of separation, fear, survival, competition—this naturally provides us an experience of a world not filled with peace or harmony…….but that doesn’t mean that such a world is our highest possible world….rather it offers us the contrast of what we are ultimately called to see is not the world we want and that contrast points us to a better, higher world.
Regarding love and joy and can they be placed in the “confines” of the three described worldviews….here is the interesting thing to consider—-when we are in the midst of seeing life through one of the worldviews (either the 3 described in the article or any of the other “lower” or “higher” ones not referenced fully here), then that worldview invisibly guides to a degree how we consider love and joy (and I would add God) from that viewpoint. But these concepts/emotions/experiences/forces of love/joy transcend the worldviews. Hence, no matter your worldview, you will experience “love” and that will call you out of yourself and into a sense of connectedness with someone/something outside of you. That’s because “love” is a divine force that has an ultimate spiritual purpose of bringing us out of our sense of separation and towards our sense of being connected with “others”. Where the worldviews come in is in relation to the story we tell about “love”….from a traditional Christian perspective, we would see “love” as a part of God’s grace, a gift to us humans from a “loving” external God and so on…..from the materialistic view, we would try to explain love from a scientific standpoint, that the emotion of “love” served an evolutionary purpose to bind us with others so as to protect our vulnerable young, to allow us to live in groups and so on….at the humanistic/cultural creative level, we shift the view of love to see it as something that serves a greater purpose than physical evolution, it serves to bring us toward a sense of our connectedness……one emotion imbedded in all us by the divine is being given different “stories” as to why it exists based on our viewpoint!
There are a lot of things in the world that are “facts” (such as conflict) based on the current status of the consciousness and awareness of the humans that are here….it is easy to point at stuff out there and label it as “true” or not…..but some “facts” and some “truths” are based on perspective or worldview…..and some truths transcend perspective. In the search for the sacred, in our moving toward enlightenment, it is not an either-or matter of discovering “relative truths” or “ultimate truths”. We need to understand both.
To this point, I like how philosopher Ken Wilber terms it…..the highest form of enlightenment is both “waking up” and “growing up” (as well as “cleaning up”–shadow work– and “showing up”–being in service). Waking up is developing our states of consciousness through meditative and other practices so that we tap into and experience/realize the underlying unity of all that transcends form and formlessness (which brings us towards the perspective free ultimate truth)…..but at the same time he says that we can only go so far with this….that we also need to develop our “stages” of consciousness which incorporates moving through or evolving through these worldviews/perspectives. At the higher perspectives, we realize that all of the viewpoints serve a useful purpose on our evolutionary journey….but when we are stuck in one of the lower levels, we have a hard time seeing that….we simply think these people are “wrong” or “crazy”….hence understanding how perspective determines what some label as “fact” is useful in moving up this evolutionary journey and growing up.
We must always keep in mind that the spiritual journey, the search for the sacred, involves both our experiencing the interconnectedness and underlying unity of all via spiritual practices……and our navigating through the experiences of our humanness……there is sacredness in our experiences on the meditation cushion and in our experiences with other humans out there in the “real” world.
Can the sacred be more than one thing? We can experience the sacred in multiple ways and from multiple perspectives on our journey….but what is ultimately behind all of that “multiplicity” is a unity—a “one thing”.
Thank you for the conversation.
Blessings.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the great response. Your approach is much clearer now and I agree with most of what you say in the first two para’s. I tend to believe that the dysfunction of the human psyche and the resulting suffering is, in the larger scope, an evolutionary tool of nature. I suppose it must be. The human species will either make the evolutionary leap to a higher state of consciousness or nature will select us out haha.
“The person always has the free will choice to pursue the lesson and learn or not…..the spiritual essence within the person still set up the events for the growth of the sacred.”
I’m not sure about the first half of that sentence as I really don’t how a man who is born blind can ever know that he’s blind unless by the grace of some light he catches a glimpse of his blindness by seeing. I think the first glimpse can’t be a “choice” as such, but after that first glimpse or doubt, one is essentially responsible for his own awakening. But yes, probably “the spiritual essence within the person still set up the events for the growth of the sacred.” At least that’s what nature will attempt.
And yes, it’s important to SEE very clearly the difference between perspective and fact. I don’t know that one is required to go through the 3 stages of world perspectives. But in any case, let’s find out 🙂
Thank you for the conversation as well.
Good moring Mark: I went to Amazon to purchase your book, Spiritual Rights and Responsiblities and they only offer the ekindle type which does not work for me. Do you sell the printed version for us folks who do not have a personal pc?