1. secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
spir·it·u·al·i·ty?[spir-i-choo-al-i-tee] noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or quality of being dedicated to God, religion, or spiritual things or values, esp as contrasted with material or temporal ones.
2. incorporeal or immaterial nature.
The contrast between these two concepts will be either harmonizing or schismatic. The binding of these two concepts, as “Spiritual Secularism,” could then prove to be quite the hilarious pairing, what with their contrasting and conflicting notions. The suggestion that two such words (just words) with largely opposite interpretations of “the” world view, being brought together into a singular construct is perhaps laughable. I have come to believe, however, that such a harmonizing of contrasts is important…essential. That for either extreme without the light of the other breaks the whole. That if either is deficient in the expression of the other, neither effectively tell the entire Truth.
Such is my thinking.
All things, from interpretation to realization, reflect all things. That which is of the earth and the ground and the calculated reflect that which is of the unseen and the questionable and that which dwells within One, felt and seldom accurately expressed by that One. The spiritual or religious mind with no connection to the earthly and the man and the physical nature around him is as devastating (and in many a case, proven more so) as the idea that no such connection to the divine and the ethereal and the mystical breeds no notion of a true Love and wholeness/Oneness.
To tend to the (worldly) ego/form and ignore the (universal) Self/God is as foolhardy as it is to look to a belief system that denies what happens before our very physical eyes. No God will save us from ourselves, if we (as gods, ourselves) affect no such salvation. There is no hope (ignore the flowery interpretations of that word, and See it in as worldly a sense as you can imagine) for us as a species if there is no connection to something more absolute and abundant than the concrete. If we cannot see a connection between us, we will continue to divide, devolve, and then fall. I consider this a reflection of our Oneness denying an Absolute Truth for the delusion of perceived falsehoods. See, “The System”, or “Nationalism”, or “Racial Division”.
For the spiritualist to acknowledge that One’s name and Presence is written in the stars/celestial bodies ~ that one’s “destiny” can be read on a chart that reflects the moment and position of one’s birth ~ and not think, “well, maybe this is so because of the gravitational or otherwise physical influence of such heavy masses upon one’s physical form..” just seems like a huge oversight and disconnect, to me. For a man of intellectual prestige to know the nature of our chemical make up, and our molecular make up, and the atoms therein and in all things/beings, and the sparks of energy that which compose those atoms, and thence, All things, and not realize that there is a Oneness, if only on the the subatomic level of All Creation ~ just seems to me to be a willful division and denial of a fuller Truth he claims to seek.
A good friend once explained to me, a long time ago, “the thing about Life is, should the conditions permit, it will happen.” The magic of carbon. But what does the extremely spiritual/religious do? Externalize the brilliance and divinity that is the molecular and evolutionary and otherwise wonderfully worldly/physical process, and praise a God or a Creator or a Source. I suppose the inclination to praise a Source for how the molecules react is not a terrible thing – but if you are denying the very physical and scientifically appreciable aspects to this All, then are we not in some sense missing the full point? The denier of spiritual sensibilities will, too, seek to deny the fullest bounty of that which has become – cheapen it as an event that is simply of formula. And in the same breath, deny the blessing that is Oxygen.
These things are synchronous and ever reflective. They are as the same. As are All things ~ it seems to be a fool’s game to separate such Truth per perspectives and interest in what One wants to see, show, and prove.
Quantum physics has suggested that it may, in fact, be possible to connect with and relate to energies/particles at any distance, at any instance – a Being half way across 25 billion universes may feel the resonance of my being, the shift of my charged particles. We have seen many a politician utilize the power and energy of the people to further their own worldly ambitions. Most have felt their intuition tell them not to do something, did it anyway, and realized the negative ramifications (now the kicker here, gods, is this: did he realize/Create those negative reactions with his decision/Action, or his Mind? Did he intuitively Know or Create his future? Are these things, divided by logic and label, ever really separate?). Who, then, could tell me that my third eye and my outlandish connection to All is impossible? Who could tell me that my influence isn’t infinite? And who could tell me that some day these unfathomable natures won’t be explained to futuristic children in the form of math equations?
I think I have wandered. Simply, my point is, that the spiritual (‘religion’ *shudders*, or whatever connection to the divine) must be paired with the pragmatic nature of the secular so that the harmony and balance to build further/Higher can exist. Both aspects of the same Oneness must be explored and furthered for us to fully explore and further ourselves.
You Are Divine and You Are Here. Such Is Truth, not to be made separate or distinct.