Spiritual Practice and Social Connectedness

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, for Quakers and for other less well known groups, spirituality is a collective endeavor. But really, the reason I put those two words together is because the OP put them in the title.

I read your posts because you are articulate and give me things to think about.

Ahh ... now I'm beginning to understand. It is not "Spirituality! Woo! Woo!", it's "spirituality ... I will be a better person". Yes, it helps if other people are involved, as in a "Safe Space" for spiritual development. It's when that safe space becomes an "Echo Chamber" where only the narrowest of accepted viewpoints -- or the broadest definitions of spirituality -- are allowed, wooism sets in.Thanks again! I've been getting some flak lately for posting things that others are not interested in (or so they say ... if they're not interested, then why say so?), so thanks again!

In Buddhism the collective; the 'sangha', is considered so essential it's referred to as one of "The Three Jewels" of Buddhism; Buddha, Dharma, & Sangha. I used to sit with a sangha in Thich Nhat Hanh's tradition. They put great emphasis on collective practice and preferred to do everything communally, "flowing as a river", which was in stark contrast to a Zen Center where I sat at the time; individual meditation practice was so emphasized that we could literally gather, sit together, and disperse in almost complete silence. While I became very close to some individuals in my years at the latter, I developed some very deep interpersonal bonds relatively quickly at the former. Abraham Maslow postulated that getting "belongingness" needs met were some of the most powerful motivations and absolutely essential to self-actualization. Dismiss it as "woo" if you'd like, but I found the experience to be deeply healing and regenerative. I'm very grateful to have had the opportunity to practice with them, and I deeply regretted having to move away.

My dear Fnord, Quaker meetings are not "safe places," (although they are generally, accepting places...there is a difference.) And are in no means an echo chamber, well can be, but devotion to the practice requires Truth and not echoes. Quaker practice requires courage and continuing revelation and change, and committing to this current life, not an afterlife.

Piobaire, I have studied Buddhism as practiced by Thich Naht Hahn, engaged Buddhism. But there are no sanghas within driving distance. Also no Quaker meetings. It does reduce somewhat the level of the experience.

Back to the OP. I would certainly say that one could foster a sense of connectedness with others in a spiritual practice.

I've never known a Quaker in person; but I am in accord with their precepts.

They seem to be very practical people who love the cultivation of the mind, and do not equate intellectualism with impracticality.

I respectfully disagree about the "Safe Places" aspect of a meeting among members of the Society of Friends ("Quakers"). One of the traditional methods of holding such a meeting is for individuals to speak as they are "moved to speak by the Holy Spirit". Sometimes they quote Scripture or Gospels, sometimes they make philosophical observations, and sometimes they just sit in silence and meditate (traditional Friends meetings had no Pastor). One of the other traditions was "What is said in a meeting stays in the meeting" (I'm citing this from a few old memories from childhood, so I may be wrong.)

Religious services of the "Echo Chamber" type seem to be more fixated on Doctrine ("Thou Shalt" / "Thou Shalt Not") than on spiritual growth.

Anyway, it would seem that social connectedness may be essential for spiritual growth.

I remember a dear friend at our Zen Center who was also a Quaker. I can't recall ever meeting a Quaker who I didn't like; were I Christian, I'd possibly be one, too. One of the aspects I remember of such communities which I think was particularly helpful to my growth was their marked preference for authenticity without artifice, and their non-judgmental acceptance of pretty much everyone. While not self-improvement groups per se, their milieu did tend to encourage and facilitate interpersonal growth, at least for me. In their own way, they did provide a safe place where one could drop their façade and simply 'be' without constantly trying to "pass"; a place where someone perhaps unaccustomed to healthy interpersonal communication skills could observe them in practice, and experiment with some themselves. When I became ill (at the time, we were told terminally), we moved to be closer to family. However, our home is now about a 5-6 hour 'round trip away from from the nearest sangha (including a Zen Center in my original tradition, north of Asheville), in the most homogenous place we've ever lived; 98% white, 97% native-born, with the highest church attendance of any county in a state considered by some to be the "buckle of the Bible belt" (and the birthplace of the modern Ku Klux Klan). Even if I could drive those distances, my participation could only be sporadic; I'd always remain a stranger.
I remember something the abbot of the Rochester Zen Center once said; he suggested that everyone everywhere who embody the bodhisattvic ideal 'to liberate all beings' collectively constitute a global sangha, regardless of their faith tradition. With that in mind, we attend local kirtans, drumming circles, solstice rites, and church dinners in an effort to connect with other like-minded folk and help co-create such a community. We just heard of a monthly interfaith gathering hosted by some Bahá'í folk; I'm looking forward to meeting them in a couple of weeks.

That belongs with AA meetings, not Quakers. Quakers will discuss and write about and debate messages in meeting. Not during the meeting of course. Otherwise your description of Friends' meetings of the liberal brand is reasonably accurate, although the mechanics of the meeting are just the tip of the iceberg of the practice. Most Quakers leave off the "Holy" part and just refer to the Spirit or the Light. There are no formal paid ministers of any kind.

Quakers historically are a Christ-based religion, but the liberal wing has grown to encompass many envisionings of what the deity might be and some are frank humanists. There are other groups of Quakers, a conservative branch and a branch called Evangelical Quakers, which seem to be Baptists with a different name. My old meeting's legal name was the *** Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. Quakers are a ground up organization. The basic unit of Quakers is the Monthly Meeting (which meets weekly ) and goes up from there.. These meetings can join into a Yearly Meeting (Southeastern Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends) which meets yearly. There are others but you get the idea.

And in case you think the liberal is a political leaning, it is not. It just means that this group generally follows the ideas of Elias Hicks, who emphasized direct revelation, while the other branches tend to be more Christ-centric and have pastors and more dogma/rules. So I would be a Hicksite Quaker. But that is more that you all probably want to know.

Piobaire, I thought seriously about Buddhism, but I couldn't "feel" it in my heart, my soul, whatever you want to call the inner part we experience as self. Somehow I felt like a fraud in the practice. The Dalai Lama once said something like there were many paths, but Westerners should probably choose a spiritual practice closer to their own upbringing. I was raised Episcopal. Quakers made more sense to me. I also like their emphasis on living this life and doing good in this life, which of course engaged Buddhism also does.

Piobaire also describes better than I can some the experiential flavor of Quakers. Thank you.

"There are many paths from the foot of the mountain, but at the top, we all gaze at the same bright moon."
Ikkyu

"Do not try to use what you learn from Buddhism to be a Buddhist; use it to be a better whatever-you-already-are."
The Dalai Lama

"I’ve been a monk for 65 years, and what I have found is that there is no religion, no philosophy, no ideology higher than brotherhood and sisterhood. Not even Buddhism."
Thich Nhat Hanh

Last edited by Piobaire on 26 Feb 2019, 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you. I appreciate being edjamacated by someone who knows what they're talking about!