Talk:Secular spirituality

Class of Article

Based on the guidelines and examples available on the Grading Scheme page, I think our article is now at least a C class. It is certainly useful to a casual reader. However, I don't think it needs "considerable" editing. Maybe B class? While I don't think readers will be left "wanting," I'm not sure if we've covered a wide enough range to satisfy a "serious student or researcher." Maybe? They would certainly have names, ideas, and concepts to look up next, expanding their knowledge.--Emmaleefk (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Emma. C class seems like the most relevant description. We certainly do not provide a full picture, thus the description of being "useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture" applies. As Sharday mentioned in class, we have a emphasis on awe. That seems to be the emphasis of a lot of research we are finding, but I think our emphasis is a bit more screwed towards focusing on instances of awe, then the research suggests. For that reason alone I think the article should be a C class, because considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content. Ebanytsu (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that our article seems to most closely align with the requirements for a C class. I'm so impressed with the amount of information that we have found, but I do agree with Ebany that it may be biased towards the themes that we used in research for our presentation, like awe. I think that we certainly could provide information about secular spirituality to a casual reader but for any serious study I think the gaps in our research could change the focus entirely - especially because of the differences even between phenomena we discussed. Pizzacult (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

After considering this conversation I have changed our class to C! I agree that the article has become much more informative but is biased based on our areas of interest, thus our areas of research. I think moving the article up to C is something to be proud of, though! --Emmaleefk (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Where to go next

More on theorists! I think this is our biggest gap: we need to increase the number of scholarly opinions surrounding what 'secular spirituality' actually is. This would be my #1 suggestion for those editing this page in the future. I also wish we'd had time to consider even more places where secular spirituality occurs: nature, sport, etc. --Emmaleefk (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I feel like more information from a variety of scholarly opinions to present a greater representation of the field. As we've realized throughout the course it is difficult to pin down a clear definition and description of secular spirituality precisely because it is often very self-constructed. I feel like the article definitely needs more content on nature in facilitating instances of awe and feelings of spirituality. While secular spirituality is increasingly mediated through technology, it seems also that people see technology as a deterrent to cultivating a spiritual life. It would be interesting to discuss how certain people see technology as a feature of contemporary life that both connects us to spirituality - through uniting different voices and generating conversation, while others argue the opposite, believing that technology disconnects us from nature, others and the world - negatively effecting individuals connection to holism which seems to underline the description of secular spirituality. Ebanytsu (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think, looking at how disparate the topics we examined as secular spirituality are that it would be valuable going forward for editors to look at the discourse of secularism and spirituality between scholars, if possible, rather than individuals. This may be difficult again because of the breadth of the topic. Based on my current interest in the topic I think it would be interesting to look at secular spirituality in the context of awe as being another way to refer to enchanted belief in a contemporary context. I wonder if any scholarly work on this connection exists, and would love to see it added to this article if it did. Pizzacult (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

EDITS

Nurse and researcher Kathleen Fischer notes that nature is a common context for a secular spiritual experience. In her view, individuals' can foster a connection to the sacred through experiencing nature with an openness to joy and wonder.[1] According to Fischer, spirituality is the broader reality, the search for meaning and purpose for those who long to discover a deeper dimension to their lives.[1] She characterizes spiritual experience as being rooted in the feeling of awe in nature, which, in her words, may be inspired by sensing "the intricacy, majesty, and beauty of creation: the delicate mist that arises from the spray of a waterfall, a hummingbird hovering at a flowering bush, white beaches bordering turquoise waters."[1] Fischer's work is intended to affirm that not only that the lives of human beings, but all aspects of nature, are filled with a sacred mystery or power.[1] In Fischer's own experience, the sacred power of spirituality has deepened and extended her spiritual practices, such as meditation or deep reflection to maintain strong mental wellbeing.[1]

Through researching Aboriginal Australian groups, Vicki Grieve's has begun using research on their spiritual lives as a method for analyzing and interpreting the contemporary development of Australian Aboriginal groups.[2] Aboriginal spiritualities, while diverse seems to (vague - do you mean Australian Aboriginal spirituality? If so it's still too vague because there are than 400 distinct Australian Aboriginal peoples across Australia, distinguished by unique modes of belief and culture) attend to similar themes on the sacredness of nature as seen in Fischer's work. As Australian Aboriginal peoples were all (this can't be accurate - maybe say often) taught that life can be viewed as a' sacred hoop in which everything has its place within it. All elements of nature, whether plants, animals, or insects, should be treated with the same respect as humans. Grieves believes that Aboriginal Australian spiritualities deep connection to nature builds a strong community belief system which has the potential to unite all living beings.[2] Through researching aboriginal Australian spiritualities (or is she talking about all aboriginal spirituality now), Grieves has noted how "spirituality [stems] from a philosophy that establishes [a} wholistic notion of the interconnectedness of the elements of the earth and the universe, animate and inanimate."[2] As part of her research, Grieves conducted a focus group with a inter-city contemporary Aboriginal group in Australia to better understand the impact spirituality has on their lives (do you know the group?). For this inter-city group, spirituality was described and expressed as a feeling of interconnectedness to their people's past, of community and a connectedness with land and nature.[2] It is through spirituality that these inter-city aboriginals attained "knowledge, inner strength, and a better understanding of their cultural roots" contributing to feelings of "acceptance, balance and focus" as well as an overall sense of “deep wellbeing.”[2]Ebanytsu (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

EDITED - My suggestions for editing Kim Knott (Ebany)

Kim Knott

Kim Knott focuses specifically on the secular sacred, in her discussion of secular spirituality. More specifically, Knott focuses on the possibility of experiencing the sacred outside the context of institutionalized religion. She believes that the sacred functions both within and outside of a theological context through the beliefs of individual persons.[16] Knott deconstructs the common conceptional separation of the sacred from the profane. She argues that the concept of religion should not be conflated with the concept of the sacred, and that the concept of the secular should not be conflated with the concept of the profane.[16] Throughout history (too vague - maybe up until the enlightenment period) a separation between religion and the spiritual was commonplace, as wilderness sites, marshes, coves, and other sites have been called sacred or spiritual places, without having religious influence or belonging to a religious sect.[16] This is not just an understanding based on nature or sacred sites as it is the understanding of the sacred to an individual - (I'm confused). She prefers to describe the sacred through the individuals embodiment, spatiality, and the awareness of ones body and the spaces inside and around it.[16] As these the sacred as the basis of the sacred as it becomes an operative connection within boundary crossing situations taking place inside and outside the human body and the inhabited territory.[16]

Ebanytsu (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for editing Yoga The popularity of the 'Yoga' in the West is integrally linked to secularization.[21] This secularization began in India in the 1930s, when yoga teachers began to look for ways to make yoga accessible to the general public.[21] '(What was inaccessible? Could be more clear to casual reader with explanation/definitions of the practice secular and otherwise)' As such, yoga began to move from the realm of religion to the realm of secularity, promoting Yoga as a non-Hindu practice both within the West and East.[21] Yoga has undeniably Hindu roots, first mentioned in the Katha Upanisad.[22] Despite these roots, yoga has been secularized, and often referred to as being "ancient Indian," "Eastern," or "Sanskritic," rather than as Hindu due to a desire to avoid any religious connotations.[23] Modern Western yoga is thought to "not require adoption of religious beliefs or dogma," despite Hindu origins.[24] In the West, yoga has been "modernized, medicalized, and transformed into a system of physical culture." [25] This system of physical culture has transformed yoga "into an individualized spirituality of the self," creating an activity that is very popular within secular societies, drawing off portrayals of yoga as "mystical, experiential and individualistic." [26][27] Western yoga students cite health, fitness, and stress reduction as reasons for yogic practice, rather than traditional Hindu motivations and goals such as enlightenment.[28] However, many practice in order to reach "contemplative states of consciousness and spirituality," a goal that falls within the realm of secular spirituality.[24] In a study of Ashram residents, researchers found residents were more likely to respond they had an "experience of oneness" during or after a yoga class and felt more "in touch with divine or spiritual" after a class than control groups, leaving researchers to believe yoga practice enhances transformational processes, including spiritual states.[29]

Suggestions for editing Meditation While meditation is traditionally considered a component of Buddhism, mindfulness meditation has become a way to exercise secular spirituality, particularly in the West.[30] Meditation is considered a "spiritual alternative"[31] to conventional values and goals, such as those found in traditional Western religions.[31] Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction, while traditionally linked to the Buddhist understanding of Samadhi, has become medicalized in the secular aim of reducing illness, rather than the traditional Buddhist goal of liberation from the suffering that occurs in worldly experiences.[32] As such, this medicalized, secularized version of meditation has been allowed into secular institutions within Western society, such as hospitals and schools.[33] Research done at Bowling Green State University has shown that mindfulness practitioners who identify as spiritual, as opposed to non-spiritual, benefit more fully from mindfulness practice, and more significantly decreasing their anxiety, increasing the positivity of their moods and increasing their ability to tolerate pain.[34] The Dalai Lama has suggested exportation (to where?) of meditation as a "human practice," rather than strictly religious.[35] As such, the secular nature of meditation "for the goal of universal human benefit" is emphasized, allowing for secular, spiritual but non-religious participation.[35] An additional human benefit occurring as a result of meditative practice is a sense of community between practitioners. While meditation is entirely individual, it also relies on and creates social connection, building community through shared spirituality despite secular contexts.[31]

Pizzacult (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Cornel W Du Toit Cornel W Du Toit is a professor at the University of South Africa, who completed his studies at the Institute for Theology and Missiology.[11] Du Toit defines "secular spirituality" as a contemporary phenomenon of spirituality, (added comma) experienced in spheres separate from structured, institutionalized religion.[11] Du Toit cites Alister E. McGrath’s definition of spirituality in his discussion of the secularly spiritual, arguing that spirituality generally concerns: "the quest for a fulfilled and authentic life, involving the bringing together of the ideas distinctive of … [some] religion and the whole experience of living on the basis of and within the scope of that religion."[11] Du Toit argues that, as a contemporary phenomenon, secular spirituality is different than earlier spiritualities. A number of changes in prevailing worldviews have affected the concept of spirituality; ‘spirituality’ means something different in the current techno-scientific world than it did in a world of phantoms, magic, gods, and demons, in which humans believed they were at the mercy of forces they could not control.[11] Du Toit believes that the increase in scientific explanations for what were previously seen as spiritual, "unexplainable" instances of awe, has increased individuals' tendency to call any experience that seems special "spiritual." Du Toit argues that any realm can evoke an experience of spirituality, such as reading a novel, watching a movie or going on a hike.[11] Secular spirituality is not a new religion, but rather the potential for all experiences to assume a spiritual quality; it is not limited to any one religious or transcendent (added space) realm. Du Toit argues that industrialism has led to an increase in materialism in the West. He further argues that materialism has contributed to a more individualistic Western culture, which underpins secularism(citation?). In saying this, though Du Toit connects secularism to individualism, he maintains that secular spirituality is inherently communal. Du Toit argues that while instances of awe can be experienced individually, they ultimately contribute to the collective, as these instances of awe can motivate people to influence others and nature. Du Toit argues that if they do not meaningfully contribute to the collective, they cannot be considered secular spiritual experiences(citation?). Du Toit argues "the spiritual experiences was never an end in itself... [as] any spirituality that does not produce service is false.”(citation?)

Peter Van der Veer Peter Van der Veer suggests secular spirituality began with the emphasis on forming group identities, both national and political, and the need for these communities to share a spiritual identity. For Van der Veer, secular spirituality arose in communities through the simultaneous rise of secularism (added space) and spirituality, (added coma) as well as their interaction in the context of nineteenth century globalization.[12] He identifies spirituality, the secular, and religion as three interacting but independent concepts that create frameworks for different systems of belief. For Van der Veer, (added comma) the combination of the spiritual and the secular allows the bridging of discursive traditions in the global-historical context, which preserves the identities of communities who share spiritual beliefs across national boundaries.[13] Van der Veer suggests the phenomenon of secular spirituality develops as many different expressions of belief because of the inconsistent integration of spirituality into secular society within social, market and political spaces.[14] Secular spirituality reflects individualism and self-reflexivity through forming group identities outside of a modern geopolitical context. Secular spirituality does not imply rejecting modern ideas of liberalism, socialism or science, (added coma) but instead exists as a parallel reading of the discourse with contemporary society(citation?). For Van Der Veer, secular spirituality uses these contemporary ideas to create communities of individuals who have a shared secular interest written into their system of awesome belief. Van der Veer identifies the use of these contemporary ideas to create communities of individuals who share secular interests in a system of awesome belief as instances of secular spirituality.[15]

Techno

A defining feature of secular spirituality is that instances of secular spirituality can occur in any realm. In the present techno-scientific age, spiritual practices are increasingly mediated through technology.[1] For many religious people, technology can be seen as an alienating force - "the encapsulation of human (added space) rationality" - that competes with religion and spirituality, (added comma) as opposed to mediating or facilitating religion and spirituality.[1] The recognition of a spiritual dimension of technology represents a recent shift in the discussion of spirituality??. According to philosopher Jay Newman, (added comma) "technology’s very success is contributing to the realization of ideals such as freedom, knowledge, happiness, and peace." [20] This may lead people to believe that "technology is a proper successor to religion," but this is certainly not the case in sociological trends. General levels of religiosity in the West have barely declined since the Enlightenment period.[20] The current "attribution of spiritual meaning to the digital realm" represents a remarkable change in how spirituality has traditionally been mediated(citation?). Secular spirituality is a phenomenon that recognizes the link between technology and spirituality, as opposed to viewing technology as in competition with spirituality.[20]

Education Marisa Crawford points to the importance of including secular spirituality in the Canadian curriculum.[36] Crawford argues that a push for a secular public education system deprives students of the opportunity to explore life’s "ultimate questions of heart and soul."[36] Crawford believes that there is a way to integrate spirituality into the secular sphere without indoctrination. She advocates allowing students to investigate how individuals and cultures have addressed spiritual concerns and issues.[36] Public schools in Canada generally exclude a spiritual or transcendent dimension of human life from their explanation of religion, (added comma) and have thus bought into a brand of secularism that has excluded spirituality, giving students the false impression that spirituality has never been an important part of the human experience.[36] Crawford argues that the deflection of students’ questions about religion or spirituality is commonplace and contributes to misunderstandings and ignorance about religion and spirituality.[36] According to Crawford, knowledge about religion and spirituality is essential for understanding and living in a pluralistic society.[36] While textbooks include explanations of the rituals and practices of certain religious groups, textbooks rarely discuss religion’s role in shaping human thought and action.[36] In British Columbia, the School Act states that public schools must be conducted on "strictly secular and non-sectarian principles," thereby alienating young people from "questions that both enliven and vex the human spirit."[36] Lois Sweet argues that "public schools must begin to examine ways to include the spiritual dimension of human existence in a non-indoctrinating way," by teaching worldviews that are sensitive to religious differences and by emphasizing the features of religion and spirituality that overlap.[36] Sweet points to the fact that the requirement for secularism in Canadian public schools simply signals the need for "educational decisions and policies, whatever their motivation, to respect the multiplicity of religious and moral views that are held by families in the school community," not to ignore their discussion.[36] According to a UNESCO report on education: "It is thus education’s noble task to encourage each and every one, acting in accordance with their traditions and convictions and paying full respect to pluralism, to lift their minds and spirits to the plane of the universal and, in some measure, to transcend themselves."[36] According to Crawford, excluding religion from the curriculum endorses a passive hostility towards all religious points of view. According to Thomas Groome, by nurturing a sacramental cosmology – an awareness that each aspect of life manifests visible signs of invisible grace – educators can promote an attitude of reverence and gratitude for the world.[36] He argues that doing so can encourage students to "bring light to the thousands of wonders and transcendent signals in the ordinary things of life ...contemplating the world with a gaze of faith that encourages seeking meaning and celebrating instances of awe."[36] Through integrating a sacramental cosmology into the Canadian Public Education system, Groome argues that students will have more opportunities to understand and appreciate the web of humanity – including love, friendship, and "the intricate and consistent designs and patterns of science ... leading to contemplative wonder that is rooted in compassionate and loving relationships that embrace meaningful knowing."[36] Crawford argues that the curriculum will have to avoid promoting one particular religious or areligious point of view. The curriculum will have to introduce students to a diversity of worldviews and spiritual options, (comma added) "allowing them critical access to alternative traditions so that informed insight and wisdom may flourish through the development of spiritual literacy."[36]

Ebany, this education section was amazing and so fascinating! Wow!

--Emmaleefk (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Forms of Secular Spirituality

Would it be a good idea to include examples of secular spirituality; or more precisely secular understandings of spirituality? Could these include mainstream forms of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism etc.as well as humanism and naturalism? jrun (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very important that we discuss indept examples of the many varieties of secular spiritualities that exist as well as discuss more generally what the term means. It will be interesting because I'm guessing a lot of definable "Secular Spirituality" is a melting pot of many different traditions, so although we may be able to label different forms and discuss them through that type of categorization in will still be pretty difficult to pin down what each Secular Spirituality is really like. Ebanytsu (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant Sources

I am particularly interested in how Secular Spirituality is implemented in certain institutions, such as within the education system and in certain workplaces. I feel like a shift from focusing on a "secular spirituality" as opposed to a "secular" work/education environment can help boost morale and morality because it can connect people of different religious backgrounds, without impeding on their individual beliefs.

This article discusses the the search for a secular spirituality for state-funded education in England. The author argues that the rise of faith-based ‘free’ schools, should be replaced by a secular alternative that still has some kind of foundation for morality and spirituality (aka secular spirituality) in the interests of maintaining state- funded institutions characterized by rationality and autonomy rather than a commitment to nurturing specific religious beliefs. The specific secular spirituality that she discusses is founded on mindfulness theory and practice originating in Buddhist traditions, which is often interpreted as a spiritual tradition which can be combined with other traditions easily.

http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/pdf/17449642/v08i0003/241_bpaeeisfseie.xml

Ebanytsu (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Ebany

One on secular spirituality in youth - http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.queensu.ca/pdf/01416200/v18i0003/133_tssoyifre.xml

Heelas, P. and Woodhead, L. (2005) The spiritual revolution: why religion is giving way to spirituality. Oxford: Blackwell

I chose to look more into work as Ebany suggested. These titles all looked like good starting places

Ashmos, D. and D. Duchon: 2000, ‘Spirituality at Work: A Conceptualization and Measure’, Journal of Management Inquiry 9(2), 134–145.

Guillory, W.A. (2000) The Living Organization: Spirituality in the Workplace. Utah: Innovations International.

Emmaleefk (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for Editing the Lead Section

We can explain how we will discuss the general term. The different identifiable categories of Spiritual Secularity (if they are any concrete distinctions that we can identify and explain) The role that spiritual secularity is playing in school systems and work environments as well as any figures of secular spirituality? Also we could talk about how secular spirituality already plays an implicit role in many "secular" institutions, whether or not the faculty and staff are aware. Also we will need to discuss how these different forms of secular spirituality draw from other religious and secular traditions.

Maybe... I'm not exactly sure at all. But we have a wicked topic!

Ebanytsu (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Ebany

This sounds great to me Ebany! We should start looking for different definitions that can help us with distinctions.

Emmaleefk (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ebany and Emma! I really like the idea of incorporating institutions, especially since universities and workplaces are so affected by a Christian calendar in Canada. Would you do a topic section on accommodations for the secular?

Shelbystinnissen (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Shelby, that's a really interesting thought, I guess that could become a concern for people and would be interesting to research! Ebanytsu (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Ebany

Feedback on Lead Section

•Grammar problems – changed improper semicolon use, inserted possessive apostrophe in "one’s," and fixed sentence fragment.

•"According to Robert C. Solomon, an American Professor of Philosophy, "spirituality is coextensive with religion and it is not incompatible with or opposed to science or the scientific outlook. Naturalized spirituality is spirituality without any need for the 'other‐worldly.' Spirituality is one of the goals, perhaps the ultimate goal, of philosophy." On this view, spirituality can be experienced through a secular or non-religious world view, without the need for a concept of 'higher power' or a 'supernatural being.'" Is this the majority opinion? Is there field consensus? Readers will be looking for this in the lead and definition sections. Or are there major debates in the field? Are there two or more major, opposing viewpoints? Note these.

•"Aspects of life and human experience which go beyond a purely materialistic view of the world, without necessarily accepting belief in a supernatural reality or divine being." This is a sentence fragment

•"ones empathy" ones = plural … think back to how to make a singular possessive. Where do you place the apostrophe?

•"Mindfulness and meditation can be practiced in order to cherish, foster, and promote the development of ones empathy, and more effectively manage selfish drivers of behaviour, with solicitude and forgiveness." Comma splices! Break up sentence.

•Edited section on Dennett – added more context about what kind of scholar he is. Demonstrated how to break up run-on sentences.

MonstreDélicat (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Chicano Spirituality

Emily, do you know anything about components of the Chicano movement that make it spiritual? I see how the political implications make it a secular movement, but it would be interesting to read a sentence or two on the spirituality of such! --Emmaleefk (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dalai Lama quote

Would someone like to provide a full quote here? I don't remember that statement from his book relating specifically to secular spirituality. I could be wrong, but I would like to see exactly what that is meant to be based on. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Theorists Section

Du Toit

•"the secularly spiritual" secular spirituality? Or is this a specific term used in specific circumstances? If so, is it McGrath’s or Du Toit’s? The pronoun "he/him/his" makes the referent unclear in several parts of this section.

•"A number of changes in prevailing worldviews have affected the concept of spirituality. The concept of spirituality means something different in the current technoscientific world than it did in a world of phantoms, magic, gods, and demons, in which humans believed themselves to be at the mercy of forces they could not control" I reworded this so that it is talking about a concept, not experience, and changed tense so that the contrast between historical contexts is clearer.

•I added first part of Du Toit’s surname ("Du" was missing whole way through)

•Watch out for possessives in the singular and plural (ie. I had to change things like "individual’s → individuals’")

•"Du Toit believes that the increase in scientific explanations for what were previously seen as spiritual, "unexplainable" instances of awe, has increased individuals' tendency to call any experience that seems special "spiritual." I added "scientific" here to try to clarify what you’re getting at. This sentence is unclear. Previously it just read that an increase in explanations increased the prevalence of citing spirituality – this leaves out pretty much all of the "who, what, where, when, and why?" questions. Explanations of what? Calling what things spiritual? Who is doing this naming?

•"Secular spirituality is not a new religion, but rather the potential for all experiences to assume a spiritual quality, not limited by a religious or transcendent realm." What scholars agree is that…? What Du Toit argues is that…?

•"...not limited by a religious or transcendent realm" – how would a "realm" limit somebody’s experience? This needs rethinking and rewording to clarify what is acting upon what here.

•"While industrialism has led to increasing urbanization, creating an individualistic culture of modernism that underpins secularism in the West," too many isms in this sentence to parse its meaning. Modernism, by the way, refers to an art movement. If you need to clarify your understanding of how religious studies scholars have used the concept of modernity, refer back to some of the first readings we did.

•"Van der Veer characterizes secular spirituality as being based on the combined emphasis on group national and political identities entailed in secularization and the desire for a unifying spiritual belief" - processes of secularization globally? Whose desire for a unifying belief? Is there any geographic specificity to secular spirituality? Are scholars charting this phenomenon evenly the world over?

•"transnational identities" – what is a transnational identity? Do I personally have a transnational identity, according to Van Der Veer, if I identify with more than one nation through dual citizenship? Through family or cultural ties? Is it practices that have transnational identities, such as when yoga gets exported, adapted, and incorporated in national and cultural contexts outside of the Indian subcontinent? Are transnational identities properties of nations themselves?

•"Secular spirituality is not bound to tradition and is able to identify with the ideas of nineteenth century secularity." People who identify with secular spirituality identify with this version of secularity? Or are we talking about a certain coherent movement now? Or is it that what Van der Veer identifies as secular spirituality is conceptually related to/has intellectual origins in 19th C secularism?

•"It does not reject the ideas of liberalism, socialism, or science…" Why would it? Is this supposed to be in tacit contrast with some other form of religion or spirituality that does reject these things? Make the comparison explicit so your reader can follow.

Kim Knott

•I’m surprised to see phrases like "Kim Knott contribution into the understanding" and "her believes that" in even a rough draft, let alone after the peer review process and after moving content from the Sandbox into mainspace.

•"Knott deconstructs the common views of the sacred and profane, believing that religion should not be combined with the sacred and secular should not be combined with the profane." Whose views are these? They are common among…scholars? Self-identified religious people? Who? Also, the clause "believing that religion should not…" has an unclear referent. Are you saying Knott believes that religion should not be combined with the sacred? (Also, how? By whom? In practice? Or in the concepts used by scholarship?) Or are you saying this is one of the "common views"?

•"She believes that with the coming of modernity secularization the sacred never left the lives of people but rather religion was met by its social and historical fate but the sacred was present in an unnoticed secular way." This is totally incoherent. The sentence is run-on, either missing or having too many words ("modernity secularization the sacred"), and historically confused (modernity is a big concept…who are the social entities being discussed here? When and where?)

•The following sentences have major issues of grammar and clarity. Rethink and rewrite carefully.

MonstreDélicat (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Technology

•"secularly spiritual, in that it adapts "religion to create new forms of networked spiritual interactions." Adapts religion how? Adapts its ritual forms, for instance? I’m wondering how, in adapting religion, online-religion is secular?

•"Communitree is often associated with personal religiosity and individualized spirituality…" – you mean by scholars of religion and the Internet?

•"A defining feature of secular spirituality is that instances of secular spirituality can occur in any realm." I’ve seen this phrase "instances of [secular] spirituality" a number of times in this and other groups’ articles. What counts as an "instance"? A discrete experience of a particular emotion? What about an enduring practice? Does the literature support the idea that "spirituality" is more about discontinuous moments rather than a dimension of a life or personality or identity or community that endures across time? And doesn’t "spirituality" describe the way people categorize their experiences, rather than the experiences themselves? Eg. as a Communitree member, I would think I’d say I’m having a conversation with another member that I see as having spiritual significance or being part of my spiritual practice or an expression of the spiritual dimension of myself; not having "an instance of spirituality."

MonstreDélicat (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yoga

·This section is quite good in terms of tone, information, and clarity. One sentence that I think is very important but doesn't fit in anywhere without more contextualization is: "In 1930s India yoga teachers were beginning to look for ways to make yoga accessible to the general public. I think what this needs is some explanation of why it's relevant here. Is the point you're trying to illustrate that the secularization of yoga isn't just something that has happened in the West? Did making yoga more accessible to the general public involve Indians themselves promoting yoga within India but outside of Hindu contexts? MonstreDélicat (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Meditation

·"Meditation is considered a "spiritual alternative" to conventional values and goals found in traditional religious situations." – "traditional religious situations" meaning Christianity? Or traditional religious situations…given rise to in Hinduism or Buddhism? I’m wondering about the use of the word "situations" here. Why situations rather than "religions"?

·Samadhi – I looked up some definitions of Samadhi and offered these instead of the vague phrase "religious liberation" (liberation from a religion? And does Buddhism consider itself to be a religion?)

·"While meditation is entirely individual, it also relies on and creates social connection, building community through shared spirituality despite secular contexts." This seems like an abrupt topic change. What does individuality have to do with what you were just talking about? Add transition sentence. MonstreDélicat (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Education

•"Public schools in Canada generally exclude the spiritual or transcendent dimension of human life from their explanation of religion" – So religion is taught in public schools (elementary? High school?), but spirituality is taken out of it? How? Is it that beliefs and the purposes of practices are not discussed? MonstreDélicat (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Spirituality and Nature

·"This has shaped the modern spirituality of aboriginal groups. As they were all taught that life is a sacred hoop and everything has it’s place within it For them the elements of nature whether plants, animals or insects should be treated with the same respect of humans." Aside from the grammar issues (incorrect use of possessive, commas, unclear referents), it's impossible to deduce what you are asserting has shaped "the modern spirituality of aboriginal groups." Are you saying that research has impacted the spirituality of certain groups? If so, whose research? How? Which groups? The phrase "they were all" is so sweeping as to be unsupportable by even the sum total of research on Indigenous spirituality. How could you know that all Indigenous people in the world were taught the same thing? Carefully rethink what you're trying to communicate and reword to be specific and citable.

·Much repetition on Fischer. Lack of clarity about the structure of her arguments and research programme.

·The connection between Fischer's work and the spiritualities of various Indigenous peoples is confused and seems to homogenize what are literally thousands of distinct nations, peoples, and groups the world over. MonstreDélicat (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Secular Spirituality in Communities

This is a neat section. I tried to clean it up wherever I could, but there are a few instances where fixing the grammar requires research knowledge I don't have.

One is here: "He used conversion to Buddhism to free the Dalit from their caste to promote equality of Indian citizens in the eyes of religion to impact the way the they were treated socially and politically." - major run-on. Needs to be broken up.

One section had an editor's note-to-self, which I took out and will place here: "(would this mean they still felt connected to colonialism even with the British gone???)" MonstreDélicat (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

CBC Tapestry Podcast Episode on the Overuse of "Awesome"

Just saw this and thought of you folks! http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/tapestry_20151127_18468.mp3 MonstreDélicat (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)