Difference Between Religious And Spiritual?

[Spirit Seeker]

Where do you draw the line? I mostly post on New Age Forums, so there perspectives are widly different on how they conceive of reality as it is more "scientific" approach as well as the terminology/semantics.

Is Religion necessary on the spiritual path? Can one be "spiritual" without religion? How do you define spiritual? Most people I talked with feel, Materialism And Religion Are "traps"... I think this is the wrong way to go about it, because I feel this very mindset opposess mostly Mainstream Abrahamic Faiths..

We should oppose FUNDEMENTALISM..Not the core teachings of the faith itself...Aside from that I think most religions are more or less the same

I Was agnostic for most of my life when turning away from christianity.. I found a New Faith and I embrace it... New age Spiritual Thinkers think I'm going "Backwards" so to speak..

What do you guys think though?

[c.smith]

Hari Om!

My belief is that religions are like colleges. Some go with the aim of attaining a degree. The degree is the same (attaining moksha in Hinduism, similar definition using other words for other religions, same ultimate concept). Some need college to learn , lets say, advanced concepts, while others may already be advanced in the same field through life experience.

So no, I don't feel that religion is necessary to be spiritual. Not for all at least.

Jai Jai Gurudev!

[Sahasranama]

We should oppose FUNDEMENTALISM..Not the core teachings of the faith itself...Aside from that I think most religions are more or less the same

I like to call myself a Hindu Fundamentalist.

Religious fundamentalism is only wrong when there's something fundamentally wrong with the religion.

The word fundamentalism has gotten a negative connotation, because of the Abrahamic religions.

Is Religion necessary on the spiritual path? Can one be "spiritual" without religion? How do you define spiritual?

I don't worry about defining spiritual, that word has little meaning. A word that everyone can define in their own way is in a sense quite meaningless.

I Was agnostic for most of my life when turning away from christianity.. I found a New Faith and I embrace it... New age Spiritual Thinkers think I'm going "Backwards" so to speak..

New age has appropriated a lot from Hinduism, but is heavily modified to suit a narcissistic Americanised culture and it is mixed with elements from everywhere and nowhere. New age is merely wishful thinking and is based on false promises to lure people in. New agers are easily attracted to people who promise them good health, a better sex life, financial success or peace of mind. Religious practices for them are only tool to achieve material benefits and they don't even practice them how they are supposed to be done.

[orlando]

Namaste all.

I will answer from my gaudiya-vaishnava point of view.

Where do you draw the line?

You practice religion when you don't have a guru.

You practice spirituality when you are devoted and take instructions from a true living enlighted-guru,that is someone who knows the truth and so he can show you the truth.

Lord Krishna says:
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.(Bhagavad-Gita 4.34)

Perhaps you may be interested to read the purport at http://vedabase.net/bg/4/34/en

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Sahasranama

This is a term that I am tempted to adopt as well, "Hindu Fundamentalist".

But I need some clarification. For example from observation of Islamic Fundamentalist or Christian Fundamentalist, the fundamental part of the equation usually has to do wih accepting the literal word of the Bible or Koran.

But I do not have "one scripture" per say. For example, I read or am connected to Hinduism through many "sacred books", from Saints such as Tamil mystics, to Ramayana, I am connected to the Yajur Ved, but even though we understand that the Vedas are foundational and living yet perhaps other than Rig I don't really read the Vedas but read books by saints, guru, yogis, Puranas, and so on. And the "literal word" of some doesn't always "fit" in that a given line in a sacred text can be literal but also hold powerful secrets or purport. It depends... for example I take the Ramayana literally, that Hanuman is real and so on, and He has a monkey form (e.g. not a metaphor but actual). But a given saying of Ram or even Ravana for that matter can have many truthful meanings and not just one literal meaning.

I am sort of "modern Hindu" which actually means old school Hindu in that I do not spend a lot of time in philosophy or heavy Veda quotation and such as some younger Hindus like to, but focus on day to day living Hindu and relations with Devas and Devi, Their histories, in relations with other Hindus, interests in things such as pilgimages to tirthas, or temples, doing activities such as worship, meditation, bhajans and so on.

Yes I see Mother India as our Mother, and I like organizations such as VHP. But I am not a Vedantist per say, but a Bhakta.

So am I a "Hindu Fundamentalist"?

Om Namah Sivaya

[Sahasranama]

So am I a "Hindu Fundamentalist"?

Of course you are, welcome to the club.

[devotee]

Namaste Spirit,

Being religious is about adopting one of the popular ways to God and sticking to it. However, this may lead to fundamentalism. Being more attached to the way than to the destination. Being religious is not bad but becoming a fundamentalist certainly is.

You must be spiritual whether or not you are religious. What is like being spiritual ? You must know your spirit ... you must know who you really are and why you are here in this world at all. I would say that a seeker who is trying to find his/her way back to the essence of his being i.e. to the Source, is spiritual. Here the most important point to note is that the importance is on the destination ... the goal is defined. This is not so when you become ONLY religious and least when you become religious fundamentalist ... because then the path is more important than the goal/destination === Such people would proclaim : My Path is better than yours. My God alone is true God. Only my religion teaches the Truth ... etc.

Sadly, it is absurd ! How can path be more important than destination ? If destination is not important then what for we need a path at all ? I have seen people spending hours in front of worshiping God in temples ... that is perfectly ok but when they fail to see God in fellow human beings around them ... in their parents, spouses, their siblings, their friends, their children, their neighbors etc. are they really spiritual ?

OM

[Omkara]

This is not so when you become ONLY religious and least when you become religious fundamentalist ... because then the path is more important than the goal/destination === Such people would proclaim : My Path is better than yours. My God alone is true God. Only my religion teaches the Truth ... etc.
OM

This of post makes the needless and unsupported assumption that all relegions or 'paths' can bestow liberation.

[devotee]

This of post makes the needless and unsupported assumption that all relegions or 'paths' can bestow liberation.

Why do you think it is "needless" and why do you think that your claim i.e. "only your path can lead to liberation" is "supported" ?

You just want to pick fights, right ?

OM

[Omkara]

Why don't you go through Shankara's Bhasyas and see what he has to say on the matter?