Before there were any written or oral spiritual traditions, before there was any idea about the nature of God, or things spiritual, how do you think people viewed their connection with the universe, with life, with their purpose of existence? It is theorized that in such times past there was a greater consciousness, a greater connection, for one reason because of a close community with nature and the natural order of things, and also because there were no preconceived notions or acceptable methods to channel and express things spiritual.
Taking this into consideration, we know that there are many instances of children who, lacking any ideas of spirituality, seem to accept most naturally the occurrence of spiritual things--the "invisible friends" of childhood, for instance. Are they spirits? Angels? Beings we adults cannot see because we have lost that innocent connection?
What do you think? When we define our perceptions, do we also lose something of them? Your thoughts?
2007-12-20
09:55:29
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Jack B, goodbye, Yahoo!
6
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Edit: Agellius CM, I am not talking about putting things into words, that is mere description.
What I am talking about is the narrowing of perception through definition; we learn to see and accept spirituality in only certain channels, and this in and of itself limits the range of our experiences.
That is something entirely different than the mere verbal description you are talking about.
2007-12-20
10:26:24 ·
update #1
As you know, reality was forced upon me very early in life, mate. I have to think that I am no less spiritual by reason of it... but I have certainly been limited in some respects.
As a child my imagination was stifled. I remember particular kids enjoying stuff like "Sea Monkeys" and you know... imaginary friends.. making mud pie ... whatever .... and I often wonder what happened to their imagination when they confronted reality later in life. I seem to have salvaged my childhood imagination in part, as I now make a profession from it.
I think setting a concept like spirituality in stone limits it, but chipping away at that stone can reveal something magnificent about yourself.
2007-12-20 10:31:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Icy Gazpacho 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
Wow Jack, you are really making me think and I'm supposed to be on vacation...
I think what you are saying is correct in a general sense, but when looking at one individual it may or may not fit. Even without a lot of early structure some children will be very open and to them the whole world is like one big creative playground full of imagination. For others, even given that, they will crave order and structure because such open spaces aren't a correct fit for them. I think personality plays some role in that too.
Just because someone wants order and structure does not mean they are limited, it just means they focus on other areas for which they can have the best aptitude and that goes the same for those that blossom in a more creative atmosphere. Some adults never lose that creativeness in their lives and some never had it to begin with.
The nice thing about spirituality is that it is as unique as the individual - some may have more, some less, but neither is 'wrong'.
2007-12-20 18:09:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by genaddt 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
Whenever you take something in you always lose a chance at something else i believe. The innocence is lost but other things can be gained. The views of the people that were here before religion might have been somewhat similar to other similar non-religious things and things were a bit more simple and relaxed about things about this because of all of the mystery in an unknown place.
2007-12-20 18:00:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I gave your question a star....FINALLY a thought provoking and well articulated question. I have started to answer it five different times, and haven't the words to form my thoughts....actually, that is my answer, when we use words to define something, because words themselves have limits, so then we have limited that which we defined. I absolutely agree with you about childhood openness to spirit beings around us, until societal norms thrust upon us dull us to their existence. I have loads more to say, but the thoughts in my head are just so much better than anything I can put into words!!!
Your additional details duly noted, they apply to my answer as well....if you put something (an idea) in a box, then it has to fit the dimensions of that box....better to keep the lid open to let it roam free...right?
2007-12-20 18:31:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes and no. If our definition and orientation toward spirituality
become locked in a kinda "got spirituality" mode yes we have limited it. An essential element to life is growth so we have to grow. On the other hand we need to define who and where we are otherwise our purpose becomes muddled.
Good Question!!!
2007-12-20 18:06:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ahab 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Everything you pointed out in your first paragraph led humans to give a name to that connection we once had...and that coupled with superstition led to religion...
Humans by and large loose those connections at the time of development when we become more aware of the society that surrounds us...we also tend to be distracted by the ideologies our parents push on us...those distractions turn into a denial of the existence of anything we cannot see, hear, feel, touch, or smell...even through a microscope...
You posed a good question...I'll give it a star...
2007-12-20 18:10:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think that's a fallacious idea. On the contrary, I think that since we are thinking beings, we generally see things more clearly when we put them into words. Expressing things in words has the added advantage of enabling us to communicate them to others, instead of keeping them to ourselves (as you did in asking this question).
Of course words can't express every aspect of every experience. But so what? We express the parts we can express, that's better than nothing. I think it's fallacious to say that the parts we can't express are reduced or affected in any way by expressing the parts that we can express.
2007-12-20 18:15:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Agellius CM 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I wish I had the umph to respond. This is far too thought provoking this evening. I only have enough energy to read. However I will give you a delicious star for addressing Buddhism 101.
P.S. This is one of the best posts evah.
2007-12-20 18:56:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by No Chance Without Yo Mama 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Only when we let our definitions limit US. All a definition needs-be, in regards to spirituality, is a "handle", a way of describing things, in terms of our own understanding and experience. My experience has been that it is only when we try to fit into an EXTERNAL definition that we loose.
2007-12-20 18:08:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Stephen H 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
only if you define it definitively! In that "this is IT." period, end of story. Some faiths define the Divine as open ended...so remain open to new information, experiences, etc.
2007-12-20 17:59:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by eiere 6
·
1⤊
0⤋