> My deep suspicion
> is that many/most of the hangups being expressed here about "spirituality"
> derive from the near entrapment of Western perspectives within an assumption
> that there are such things as transcendent things, causes, reasons, etc.
> For a deep cultural contrast you might consider the ancient Chinese phil-
> osophical tradition. I recommend starting with David Hall and Bruce Ames,
> Thinking Through Confucius. My perception of socalled "spiritual"
> ecofeminism is that it is seeking to recreate a spirituality of immanence
> within the Western context (or "create" if you think we never had one).
hi phil-im happy to see your perspective here...im wondering if you can
clarify something. i totally agree that the type of spirituality
westerners are looking to adopt/recreate focuses on "immanence"- the idea
that the sacred/god(ess)/spirit is inherent WITHIN all things rather than
some removed entity in the sky(transcendent)........what im hoping you
can give insight on is how eastern traditions, esp buddhism, addresses
the sacred. im tripped up by the superficial bit ive read and have a
problem going deeper..the big problem i see is the idea that what humans
should look toward is an eventual "transcending" of our bodies and the
physical world (seemingly regarded as inferior- thus reincarnation as
"lower" animals)..i feel like im reading the wrong concepts into it
though, because at the same time i hear this celebration of the immanence
of the spirit in nature and oneself etc....
the concept of "self" also trips me up cuz it seems to suggest this sort
of individualism at the expense of holism. how do you interpret the
philosophies in these contexts??
-anne dashiell
