Hello everyone! Please go into the Spirituality site to read my second featured article:

"Spirituality and Religion - Is there a difference?"

Paying attention to what lies within will bring a realization that there are differences between spirituality and religion, even if aspects of each can be intertwined.

When I am done with training I will be able to link my articles to the forum so all you will have to do is click on the link to read them. In the meantime the site can be accessed from the Religion and Spirituality page here. Just click the link to the Spirituality site directly under the forum topic of Spirituality. The link to the site is also directly above the threads here on the Spirituality forum.

I appreciate any feedback you have. Thanks for reading!

Hi Debbie,

I love this article. Many wonder about the differences between spirituality and religion. Your expression of "free will" says it all.

Here is the link to Spirituality And Religion - Is There A Difference?

To all,
Spirituality has no dogmas, religions,do!

loong

Thanks for sharing this wonderful article Debbie. You have beautifully explained the difference between spirituality and religion.

Thank you for reading my article, and you are welcome

To Debbie ,

Just wikied Spirituality and here is part of what was written:

Those who speak of spirituality outside of religion often define themselves as "spiritual but not religious" and generally believe in the existence of different "spiritual paths," emphasizing the importance of finding one's own individual path to spirituality. According to one poll, about 24% of the United States population identifies itself as spiritual but not religious

In another part of the text it refers to some spiritualities
as asearch for a higher power/God.

So then Buddhism is not a spirituality,because ,we have no gods and not searching for one. Also no soul !

A different view!

loong

It is indeed a different view. Thank you for sharing it.

On a side note, the definition of Wikipedia is: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

I personally choose to look into other sources besides this one to learn more about whatever it is I am interested in, only because Wiki can change at any time with anyone's view. It does not mean the content it contains is always truth or fact, but it is the view of the writer.

As a matter of fact, my 14 year old nephew is told in school not to use Wikipedia as a source for any research projects he is doing because Wiki in a lot of cases is not necessarily factual, and it is contantly changing. Just an interesting bit of information I wanted to share.

Very well said, Debbie. When I first started using Wikipedia a few years ago, I thought everything written there was fact -- until I realized, as you say, that anyone can edit the articles. Now that is rather disconcerting, I think.

If I use Wikipedia now, I verify my interests by consulting other sources that are reliable.

Thanks for sharing this. I am sure many people did not realize the point you made here.

Dear Debbie and Phyllis.

I am more than surprised that 2 editors,are destroying the first
source of info on the web.This is a family oriented group ,always being positive.Google always refer them first!

If it was not for Wikipedia 90 % of my knowledge would be absent.
Debbie writes; it is I am interested in, only because Wiki can change at any time with anyone's view. It does not mean the content it contains is always truth or fact, but it is the view of the writer.

I being very polite,ask you to try to change one comma on Wikipedia.
I beleive you have not read the bottom of Wiki, to write that.

As far as being truthfull,everybook ever written,being written ,that will be written is supposed to contain the truth.

Well if I follow what you wrote none contain the truth ,because they were all written ,by MEN.
So there is no truth ,except the one you want to beleive.

With Compassion


loong

Dear Loong -

Wikipedia is notorious for having people change content. Students have been known to go in, edit an article to hold their point of view, then submit a paper referring to the Wikipedia page which now holds their content.

Yes certainly other people then will often catch the change and go in and fix it. But Wikipedia is HUGE. It would be impossible for people to watch every page every second of every day.

And yes I have made changes on Wikipedia. It's not hard at all.

Wikipedia is a good starting point. But it should never be the final word. One should always go to more directly written sources to get the final word.

To Lisa,

Then if you have done that, tell me who owns the truth?
Oh and what should be the final word?What sources are you talking about? All human written.
I myself have written 2 books ,does that mean that my books
would be a better reference,since you cannot change the content?
Mein Kamf was written by a man ,yet is it good reference?

Like I wrote in my other post,you take the truth where you consider it to be.Even if it does not exist in itself,but only in the beleiver's mind.

With respect
loong

Dear Loong -

First, I would posit that there is no one truth.

However, if I am searching for a more accurate answer, I would not use a group-source, unverifiable entity like Wikipedia.

If I wanted to learn more about how wine is made I would go to a winery. I would sit with the winemaker, watch him make the wine, and learn from him.

If I only had access to a book, I would research to find a winemaker I trusted, and I would read what he had written.

But in addition I would never go with just one source. I would then read other books, by other trusted, respected winemakers, and learn from the consensus of their views.

Dear Lisa ,

You write:First, I would posit that there is no one truth.

I beleive you are redirecting the subject here. The affirmation of
your 2 editors was that Wiki cannot be trusted and does not possess the truth .Other books do. What other books?
You speak of a winemaker,how many wineries say they have the best wines? Which one would you choose,knowing what I have just written?
With respect

loong

Dear Loong -

I apologize if you feel the subject was changed. From my point of view it is the exact same subject, with the same issue at hand. That is, the topic is how we judge who to trust when learning new information.

The editors said they do not trust Wikipedia as having accurate information and that a book written by a respected author can be better trusted. I do agree with them.

So then you are now asking how to know WHICH books to trust, and that is exactly what I was presenting. I have many ways to determine which winemakers I would trust more than others. Every person will have their own criteria in making that decision.

So for my particular point of view on how to choose books on winemaking, first I would make sure the winemaker had been making wine for at least twenty years. I would make sure the wines he had created had received world-wide attention and had been praised for their high quality by a variety of reviewers. I would make sure that he or she personally wrote the book and did not entrust that to a ghost-writer. There would be other criteria as well. And then I would choose at least four books that met these criteria, from people in different regions, from different backgrounds, to make sure that any individual bias was accounted for. That is how I would begin my quest.

Great information, Lisa. Thank you.

The point I was making is that not everything on Wikipedia is true or 100% accurate, and details can be changed by anyone at any time, so I usually check other sources "besides" Wikipedia for information that I seek. I want various views from several well thought out sources in order to make up my mind about how true some information is. It has nothing to do with whether an author is male or female. Evidently others feel the same about Wikipedia because teachers are telling kids not to use it as a resource these days.

At one time that may have been all we had for online resources, and a lot of what is found on Wikipedia is still very good. But now we do have other options and it is always good to check other sources.

I think we have really gone off topic here, but some good points have been made.

To Debbie,no one else,please,

In your last post,you wrote :

Wikipedia is still very good. But now we do have other options and it is always good to check other sources.

So Spiritually speaking name me ,if you please 3 to5 sure sources on spirituality.

This being the spirituality corner.

Respecting you

loong

Spirituality is personal to each individual. There are many books, online articles, blogs, even videos on the subject. I have written articles on what I believe spirituality is, but again, these are my views, which may or may not be what you believe. Many others have written their views down in books, blogs, and articles. Some things I agree with, some things I do not.

Spirituality can be drawn from holy books as well such as the Bible and the Koran, but it may mean nothing to you as a Buddhist. The point is, there are resources abundant, but each person has to decide for themselves what makes sense to them and what it is they believe.

On the Spirituality site there is a section on reviews where several books have already been reviewed by a previous editor. Perhaps that would be a good place to start if you are looking for some reading material. If a book seems interesting to you then perhaps it would be a worthwhile read.

Hi Debbie, great article. I know these words 'religious' and 'spiritual' can mean very different things to different people. For some people, spirituality has to exist within an organized religion, while for others it most definitely does not. I have been on both sides of that fence, and no longer associate myself solely with one religion, including Buddhism, mostly because I found so many common truths and practices across different religions, when I dove into studying the mystic arms of each. I draw on many different practices and resources in my own journey, and so even though I would say Buddhism is still my primary reference point, I don't choose to label myself as 'Buddhist' any longer. So in that sense, you could say I am spiritual but not religious.

Looong - just a side note on Wikipedia. For Buddhism, I often find it a very good resource, but there are sometimes 'gaps' int what is covered, because it is all volunteer. So I always check other sites like Buddhanet or AccesstoInsight, as well as my library of books, etc. for other views. So I don't think anyone is saying Wikipedia is bad, just that it's slippery as a sole resource, because of the volunteer editing thing. Usually, problems are caught pretty quickly, but sometimes it can be a few days.

Just for my own benefit, are you Lisa S/Loong arguing, or are enjoying debate? I never know the difference and I am hoping this discussion is enjoyable for you both. Hoping.

Where i grew up, in my household, this would be a pretty unpleasant conversation with everyone feeling uncomfortable and that they have to defend their POV.

I hate thinking of conversations where there are winners and losers.

So I would feel a lot better if i know this was just enjoyable sparring.

Oh goodness no, Jilly. We are not arguing, but sharing points of view. We can all do that here and it is quite ok! Thanks for joining us

I like your explanation, Lisa-Buddhism. Thanks for joining us and for sharing your view.

OKay, lol, this is what it sounds like to me:

1 - it's on the wikipedia.
2 - don't look there!
3 - don't look there!
1 - okay, you don't like that, where should i look?
2 - look it up somewhere else.
1 - but where should i look it up?
3 - i can't tell you where to look it up, you must find it within.
2 - just don't look it up on wikipedia! You need to embark on a major research project with four writers who don't live near each other and have different skin color.
1 - I just want to know where you think I should look it up?
2 & 3 - look it up look it up look it up!
4 - well, the wikipedia is sometimes ok to look it up.

heh. I should write the next screenplay of Waiting for Godot!

To Jilly,

Lisa and I are not arguying ,she is my editor.If she thinks ,I am off a little ,she tells me. As for myself ,I listen and try to go in the mold of this group.Everyone seems to think ,I want to win.Win what?I ask questions,give my side and that is it.

By the way ,It is not sparring.Lisa knows where I come from !

We each live our lives differently,to me Spirituality and Buddhism are my main reasons to be alive.

friend to friend
loong

Jilly, you crack me up.

Jilly has a great sense of humor....LOL. Thanks Jilly for that cute little rant.

The only point I was trying to make and I think a few others here as well, is that Wikipedia is not the answer to everything and it is not a complete and factual view of everything. People are free to go in and say that the common orange is a blue fruit, and that would not be a fact, but it is out there until someone else changes it. It is always good if looking for information about anything to check several sources including Wikipedia if you like, to see what common points stick out among the various sources. That to me would be more factual than to just accept one author's view.

Spirituality is a personal thing that is a subjective issue. No one resource will cover all the beliefs of one person. There are many resources out there, and an individual should avail themselves of what has meaning to them. If someone believes in angels then they should read various books on angels to see what others have experienced or researched. Some other people may not believe in angels, so to tell them that they "must" read a certain writing or see a certain film because that is where the truth lies, is a bit selfish. It is quite a simple concept, really.

Spirituality is not a cut and dried subject like a needed recipe, or when trying to fix something. In that case all you need is a good cookbook or a recipe online and you are all set, or a how-to manual for common handy man jobs around the house. Even then, you may not like the recipe once you cook it! What one person likes to eat may not be of the same taste as another person.

LOVE you Jilly!

Spirituality, in my humble opinion, is when one is striving to find within themselves the right path in life that makes them feel good about themselves and all else in their life. To grow spiritually, is to grasp hold of one's own truths and stand strong in them.

Religious is adhering to a specific religion and following the written rules of that religion.

One can be spiritual and religious if they do both (above).

One can be only spiritual if they follow their own belief system and adhere to no specific religion.

One can be only religious if they simply follow a set system of rules for living in their chosen religion and do not feel the truths of that religion in their heart.

For me, walking the talk (religious dogma) is spirituality - moment to moment, day to day.

Great comments, ladies.