- Time of past OR future Camino
- Various 2014-19
Via Monastica 2022
Primitivo 2024
Remove ads on the forum by becoming a donating member. More here. |
---|
Hmmm. I don't to the first part and easily do the second.And perhaps it is only someone with a belief in god that can take the broader view you suggest
Well, yes, that's true. Sacredness isn't implicit. It's a concept created by people, and applied to specific objects and places. My sacred may be someone else's tourist attraction and vice versa. But that doesn't mean that the sacred doesn't exist, or that someone else's sacred doesn't affect me. It does, because of the very fact that people relate and have related to it that way.Those that don't might acknowledge others views about the sacredness of the places on the camino and the activities of pilgrimage, but I cannot see them taking that view themselves.
Actually, I'm thinking of something a bit more subtle than that. Because we can experience the camino as be completely sacred one moment and utterly secular 10 minutes later. For example, a pilgrim's mass and the pinxos in the bar afterwards...both are completely valid and true experiences.think I would find it difficult to think of it as a little bit sacred and a little bit secular.
I love your post and the respect you have for others and the Camino itself. That is exactly what the Camino is about in my mind. I was born and raised Catholic. I am still a practicing Catholic. I learned about the Camino from the Movie “I’ll Push You.”. I always thought it would be a great thing to do for fun. Last February, my son died. Since then, I’ve felt the calliing as a way to heal, but especially to honor my Nathan. His life was tough yet he always wanted to do “something big.” My religion may help me along the way but my son is my reason.Preface:
Moderators: I absolutely respect the rules of this forum - which I consider essential - and if this post, or reactions to it, go in the wrong direction, I ask you to delete it.
I don't want to discuss religion and faith, I'm just interested to know why other "non-believers" walk a "secular Camino" and if they had any problems; but especially if there are needs and wishes to do so. But let’s keep nastiness and spitefulness out of it, p-l-e-a-s-e.
After six long Camino walks, I still wonder: is there a secular Camino?
I love to hike, and I enjoy the conversations and camaraderie as much as the days of solitude and reflection on the Camino. In doing so, however, I by no means want to be categorized as a mundane hiker. As an agnostic/atheist, it fascinates me to watch the religious rituals, they are part of an occidental culture; for example, I never fail to stop at the small chapel in Rabanal with the Gregorian chants of the monks there; and attend Mass in SdC at the end for me is a respectful reference to those who make the Camino possible. I have a lot of admiration and gratitude for the faithful pilgrims who never - or very rarely - let me feel that I do not belong.
On the other hand, it strikes me, how many of my fellow Pilgrims spontaneouslyadmitstress that they go on pilgrimage "not for religious reasons". Thus I know that I am by no means the only one, possibly I even belong to a large group; if there were one, it would be a very silent one. I hope that respectful reports of experiences and opinions on this subject will be possible in this forum.
After losing my youngest daughter to cancer two years ago, I understand your feelings so well and share in your grief.I love your post and the respect you have for others and the Camino itself. That is exactly what the Camino is about in my mind. I was born and raised Catholic. I am still a practicing Catholic. I learned about the Camino from the Movie “I’ll Push You.”. I always thought it would be a great thing to do for fun. Last February, my son died. Since then, I’ve felt the calliing as a way to heal, but especially to honor my Nathan. His life was tough yet he always wanted to do “something big.” My religion may help me along the way but my son is my reason.
So .... why do people (not pilgrims if not Catholics, for obvious reasons) walk the Camino? Why do those same people often walk it again and again? If they wanted a long walk they could walk round their nearest park each day, or go to their nearest long trail and walk that - but they don't, do they? they come to Camino ... for some year after year .. and all those returning "non religious" people will tell you over a bottle of Rioja that they are there because they like to walk, or like the scenery, or like the meeting with other pilgrims ... but, to me? they are called ... and they surrender and they go ... you may ask "called by whom?" and I would answer ... " look deep and silently and answer that for yourself". and read religious texts, of any religion, experientially, not as some sort of history.
I do understand aetheism, agnosticism, I do ... but throughout our history we can see that humans seem to be designed to seek "other", and that, I believe, is what they/we all do ... and, again, to me they/we are called and so often it is found on our Camino - I leave this there
The article offers a wide context for understanding the multi-faceted Way of Saint James. It does not try to condense in a few sentences the history and significance of the Way of Saint James. It has 21 pages, so no shortcuts, plenty of opportunities to expand on the Polysemy of the Way. I am still unsure of the way to use the word polysemy, but the article per se was well worth getting, so thank you once more for the link. I am so glad the forum offers nuggets of discovery in the sharing of knowledge and information by members such as yourself, @Kathar1na.I discovered the word polysemy in an article where it is used nearly a dozen times. It is Who Is Interested in Developing the Way of Saint James? The Pilgrimage from Faith to Tourism by Rossella Moscarelli, Lucrezia Lopez and Rubén Camilo Lois González, see link. The abstract starts with these lines:
AbstractThe Way of St. James in Spain is the main European pilgrimage route. Currently, it is a cultural, tourist, monumental, spiritual, and sports route. For this reason, the paper aims to discuss the concept of the “Polysemy of The Way”, by analysing how the new pilgrims’ motivations are creating an inclusive and complex space, which is making a shift from religious space to a multifaceted tourism reality.
I was doing some other reading this morning, and found this short description from another forum member compelling:The article offers a wide context for understanding the multi-faceted Way of Saint James. It does not try to condense in a few sentences the history and significance of the Way of Saint James.
Its post #90 at this link.Camino translates - Spanish to English - as: Way; Path; Road; Journey; Course; Trail, and a few more. So Camino is both a physical and metaphysical thing - a road and the journey along it. For me when I make my Way along the Northern and French routes to Muxia and our broken boat or to Finis Terre I am en camino and also on Pilgrimage. I am making a journey to a place sacred in my tradition.
If I walk to Santiago, if I undertake Camino de Santiago, by any of the thousand ways I am making pilgrimage to the remains of one who may have touched the divine. If I walk the "Frances" or the Vasco or any of the others that coincide I will always pause and give thanks to Santo Domingo, the road-builder, at his shrine. Not so much pilgrimage but with heartfelt thanks. I'll brush my hand through the nettles of the Montes de Oca, a nod to San Juan and another builder of "the Way".
I suppose that depends on your definition of pilgrimage.So, you can do a secular Camino but you cannot do a secular pilgrimage - obvious really - Buen Camino
As you point out, the same symbol can represent a number of meanings and concepts. A glance at my trusty OED shows me that this is frequently the case in English, even with our most commonly used words. Often, we can use context to tell which meaning is intended. It isn't that hard to tell when I am using "leaves" to mean the plural of "leaf" or someone departing. But in plenty of places it isn't clear. The cultural agreement has associated multiple concepts to the same symbol and context isn't enough to distinguish them. The fuzziness may be intentional (I want you to be aware of and consider the multiple meanings) or unintentional, leaving room for miscommunication.“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Lewis Carroll, or rather Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, was a very insightful man and you could say he anticipated most of the precepts of Applied Linguistics some 50 or more years before they were formulated. There is no essential link between a symbol and what it represents and the same symbol can represent a number of meanings or concepts. Having said that, there has to be a considerable level of agreement within a culture over what symbols represent which concepts, otherwise communication via language would break down. That still leaves a lot of fuzziness and room for a lot of miscommunication.
Not sure where I fall into this. I was raised a Lutheran, and not only is half of my family Catholic (including my father), I also married a Catholic. In fact - my husband was raised in Jesuit Catholic private schools from pre-school through university - even living in Catholic boarding schools for much of his later education years. My husband and I still consider ourselves to be "Christian", but we are definitely not "practicing" Christians. My husband and I joke that I am more Catholic than him because I have attended service and received a "blessing" from the Pope at the Vatican and I have now completed to Catholic pilgrimages and am planning the first half of the Via Francigena for this summer. (Obviously - this doesn't really make me a Catholic - it is just our musings - so please don't take that as anything more than husband and I kidding around when we say that). Our kids were baptized, but have not been raised with religion. We have introduced MANY religions to them, but have not raised them to be believers. Not necessarily a conscious choice - but in their younger years we moved a lot and didn't settle into a church and never did once we got settled in our current location. Now they are adults and can make their own choices. That said - I do not consider myself an atheist or agnostic, but I do think my kids consider themselves to be.
I'm going to suggest that ignorance and indoctrination are not the only reasons to reach conclude that a "higher entity" exists. It can also be experience. Some see the existence all around them.It can be challenging to understand why these individuals would criticize religious dogmas, illogical tales, and positions, yet still maintain a belief in a higher entity. Nevertheless, after centuries of ignorance and indoctrination, it is not easy to reach the conclusion that such a higher entity does not exist.
Agreed - if you are going to visit any region of the world it is a good idea to learn a little about the people who live within that region - and learning a little about their religion is an important part of that learning process. I know for some - it is unthinkable to attend a service/mass/temple/whatever it is called in that religion because they don't believe the same things you believe. I was fortunate enough to have a pastor growing up who encouraged us to explore other religions. He would say "You want to go to temple with your friend? You should! I hope you enjoy it and I hope you come back to our church". But yes - religion is definitely a key aspect to most cultures, and learning about it helps you understand the people in that particular culture.Yes I totally agree. I’m not religious at all but to miss the history, heritage and so on does seem sad (whilst acknowledging it’s each to their own). I find it unimaginable, to visit the Middle East, SE Asia, South Asia and so on and not visit temples, mosques, and hear the stories and traditions. Belief systems are so fundamental in many countries (admittedly not so much in the countries that populate this forum), it almost like ignoring the key part of the country’s’ culture!
You say that like mysticism (the direct experience of the Divine) is a bad thing.they [religions] can only be maintained with mysticism and stubborn dogma
I am not saying this at all!You say that like mysticism (the direct experience of the Divine) is a bad thing.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood.I am not saying this at all!
@David, I find two things about this difficult.This is all both entertaining and somewhat fascinating but ...
Spiritual vs religious is a modern concept and it comes from the cult of the ego and public education that relies only on the literal and historical rather than including the experiential.
What it really means is being the same as a member of a religion but without subscribing to any doctrine.
Spiritual simple means being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things .... but think about that - if there is no 'other' which religious name God, then this a purely random physical manifest universe that carries on purely through cause and effect ... but .. if there is no 'other' then there is no reality outside of the material .. therefore no spirit, no soul, and also no quest.... to go further, to take that 'Other' (however you may think of it) out of the equation also means that there is no good and evil, no morality, no ethics ...
it also means that there can be no sacred spaces, opposed to profane, there is only this random universe with no meaning .....
So, you can do a secular Camino but you cannot do a secular pilgrimage - obvious really - Buen Camino
@David, I find several things about this difficult.
The first is in the history of the English word 'spiritual' which the OED I use suggests was first used around 1660, and was tightly, but not exclusively coupled, to the concept of a deity. Over the next century it loses this exclusivity to develop a meaning more associated with working of the human mind. We might debate whether this was a shift in its meaning arising from 'the cult of the ego', but I think that development of its meaning well predates the development of concepts around the ego, and seems firmly settled by the mid 18th Century.
My second concern arises from your tight coupling of sprititual to being a member of a religion but without a doctrine. I am not sure what the full ramifications of such a statement are to you, but I do not see that as a necessary condition. If anything, I see the reverse, ie to be a member of a religion, it is necessary to believe in a spiritual dimension to our lives. More, the development of the word's meaning indicates that it quickly loses that link. So at least in its early usage, it seems to me that it was being used without the linkage to a deity and associated religion that you appear to be relying on here.
@David, thank you for that explanation. Unfortunately, it seems remarkably similar to the arguments for belief mounted by the priests, brothers and nuns of my childhood, founded in their own conviction that it is impossible to explain the world without a deity.Also what I was trying to say was that one cannot be 'spiritual' unless one accepts an "other", something greater than out physical universe for without that there is no soul, no spirit, no search/quest, no right or wrong, no good or evil, no morality, no ethics except that invented by individual humans (again the cult of the ego, the me me me) ... because all of these came into being through the concept of deity ... without the deity they all disappear ...
Sorry Doug but I don't understand, apologies. My point is that if there is only a physical reality, universe, that appeared randomly and is merely physical laws and cause and effect then there is no soul or spirit to be spiritual with as there is only this.@David, thank you for that explanation. Unfortunately, it seems remarkably similar to the arguments for belief mounted by the priests, brothers and nuns of my childhood, founded in their own conviction that it is impossible to explain the world without a deity.
I believe that to be spiritual one only needs to acknowledge that there is more than can be explained by rational means. Extending that to suggest there is an 'other' is, for me, to descend into mysticism and I am not interested in doing that.
"....discussions between those holding firm beliefs with non-believers tend to be unproductive."Sorry Doug but I don't understand, apologies. My point is that if there is only a physical reality, universe, that appeared randomly and is merely physical laws and cause and effect then there is no soul or spirit to be spiritual with as there is only this.
P.s. we So have to sit without time restraints somewhere on Camino with a couple of bottles of rioja. The conversation we could have!
My own beliefs about Deity aside, I don't think belief in a deity is a prerequisite for ethics and the perception of right or wrong, good or evil. It is a common assumption of theists, but not one that is borne out by my experience. We may have initially recognize these concepts in association with a belief in a deity, but correlation is not causation and I have known many atheists with powerful and effective systems of ethics and excellent judgement in recognizing right and wrong, good and evil.without that [a deity] there is no soul, no spirit, no search/quest, no right or wrong, no good or evil, no morality, no ethics except that invented by individual humans (again the cult of the ego, the me me me) ... because all of these came into being through the concept of deity ... without the deity they all disappear ...
That is at the core for me, and I think it is fundamental to the question.Sorry Doug but I don't understand, apologies. My point is that if there is only a physical reality, universe, that appeared randomly and is merely physical laws and cause and effect then there is no soul or spirit to be spiritual with as there is only this.
if there is no 'other' which religious name God, then this a purely random physical manifest universe that carries on purely through cause and effect ... but .. if there is no 'other' then there is no reality outside of the material .. therefore no spirit, no soul, and also no quest.... to go further, to take that 'Other' (however you may think of it) out of the equation also means that there is no good and evil, no morality, no ethics ...
"....discussions between those holding firm beliefs with non-believers tend to be unproductive."
My own beliefs about Deity aside, I don't think belief in a deity is a prerequisite for ethics and the perception of right or wrong, good or evil. It is a common assumption of theists, but not one that is borne out by my experience. We may have initially recognize these concepts in association with a belief in a deity, but correlation is not causation and I have known many atheists with powerful and effective systems of ethics and excellent judgement in recognizing right and wrong, good and evil.
That's just my experience. YMMV.
I don't believe it is a no brainer, because I think meaning could be a property of the universe whether or not there is a deity. You are making a binary proposition where I believe there are more than two options.David, you are talking about opinions, that people choose certain things, I am talking in the abstract, almost mathematical equations .... Plato always spent the first section of a dialogue explaining what each term meant so that the conversation could be without faults ... it is a no-brainer that if this universe is mechanical and random and has no meaning then morality, ethics, spirituality etc are non existent, just invented in a mind to make a belief system.
it is a no-brainer that if this universe is mechanical and random and has no meaning then morality, ethics, spirituality etc are non existent, just invented in a mind to make a belief system.
Not true. Think of existentialists such as Sartre and de Beauvoir. They were atheists, and held firm beliefs about good and evil, ethics and morality.
I'm reminded of Terry Prachett's novels, and the idea that gods only exist because someone believes in them. I find that an appealing approach.it is a no-brainer that if this universe is mechanical and random and has no meaning then morality, ethics, spirituality etc are non existent, just invented in a mind to make a belief system.
Good point, mathematically equations can be transposed, so what if it is the other way around??????I'm reminded of Terry Prachett's novels, and the idea that gods only exist because someone believes in them. I find that an appealing approach.
Good point, mathematically equations can be transposed, so what if it is the other way around??????
Plato always spent the first section of a dialogue explaining what each term meant so that the conversation could be without faults
Because you can have a secular Camino but not a secular Pilgrimage. The clues are in the words.If one
Aren't we straying a bit too far from the OP's question?
I believe there are as many Caminos as there are people walking them. Why not a secular camino, and pilgrimage?
As I said before, it depends on your definition of the words. I think that it's quite possible to have a secular pilgrimage.Because you can have a secular Camino but not a secular Pilgrimage. The clues are in the words.
I know, there is.As I said before, it depends on your definition of the words. I think that it's quite possible to have a secular pilgrimage.
No. You can't.As I said before, it depends on your definition of the words. I think that it's quite possible to have a secular pilgrimage.
I defer to the words of the Pilgrim Office here, which I have raised before in this thread. To get the compostela, the accreditation they provide for completing The Pilgrimage to Santiago, they say:No. You can't.
Clearly this contemplates that there are spiritual reasons that are not religious, and the possibility that there can be a non-religious, ie a secular pilgrimage.To get the “Compostela” you must:
- Make the pilgrimage for religious or spiritual reasons, or at least an attitude of search.
No. You can't.
Tell all this to millions of people who have a very well developed ethical practice without belief in any deity at all. Right and wrong need no deity to exist and be cultivated. "Thou shalt not.." from above is only one way to relate to ethics, but there are others that require none of that.Also what I was trying to say was that one cannot be 'spiritual' unless one accepts an "Other", something greater than our physical universe for without that there is no soul, no spirit, no search/quest, no right or wrong, no good or evil, no morality, no ethics except that invented by individual humans (again the cult of the ego, the me me me) ... because all of these came into being through the concept of deity ... without the deity they all disappear
Sure you can.No. You can't.
Billions of others.Tell all this to millions of people who have a very well developed ethical practice without belief in any deity at all. Right and wrong need no deity to exist and be cultivated. "Thou shalt not.." from above is only one way to relate to ethics, but there are others that require none of that.
Sure you can.
To pay homage to something and to seek connection with what one reveres is all that counts. Lots of people make pilgrimages to secular places - like Graceland, Down House, Stratford on Avon. For someone with a keen interest in European history, a camino could be a completely secular pilgrimage.
To posit that only theists have ethics or a sense of reverence is to deny my experience and that of millions of others.
Sorry, yes, you're probably right. I stand corrected.Billions of others.
ButI defer to the words of the Pilgrim Office here, which I have raised before in this thread. To get the compostela, the accreditation they provide for completing The Pilgrimage to Santiago, they say:
Clearly this contemplates that there are spiritual reasons that are not religious, and the possibility that there can be a non-religious, ie a secular pilgrimage.
Tell all this to millions of people who have a very well developed ethical practice without belief in any deity at all. Right and wrong need no deity to exist and be cultivated. "Thou shalt not.." from above is only one way to relate to ethics, but there are others that require none of that.
Sure you can.
To pay homage to something and to seek connection with what one reveres is all that counts. Lots of people make pilgrimages to secular places - like Finisterre, Yosemite, Graceland, Down House, Stratford on Avon. Just as one possibility, someone with a keen interest in European history, a camino could be a completely secular pilgrimage.
To posit that only theists have ethics or a sense of reverence is to deny my experience and that of millions of others.
I would rather not, but thank you for the offer.Is this the conversation one would have with someone over a bottle of Rioja? Sorry, but it sounds kind of dogmatic
Still: watch me go this summer!
Thank you Amiga. Thank you.Tell all this to millions of people who have a very well developed ethical practice without belief in any deity at all. Right and wrong need no deity to exist and be cultivated. "Thou shalt not.." from above is only one way to relate to ethics, but there are others that require none of that.
Sure you can.
To pay homage to something and to seek connection with what one reveres is all that counts. Lots of people make pilgrimages to secular places - like Yosemite, Graceland, Down House, Stratford on Avon. For someone with a keen interest in European history, a camino could be a completely secular pilgrimage.
To posit that only theists have ethics or a sense of reverence is to deny my experience and that of millions of others.
I defer to the words of the Pilgrim Office here, which I have raised before in this thread. To get the compostela, the accreditation they provide for completing The Pilgrimage to Santiago, they say:
Clearly this contemplates that there are spiritual reasons that are not religious, and the possibility that there can be a non-religious, ie a secular pilgrimage.
Not for those of us who are outside the box you are drawing around awe, reverence, and basic sense of right and wrong.Total nonsense.
But there can be no awe, reverence, and basic sense of right and wrong in a mechanistic random universe, how could there be?Not for those of us who are outside the box you are drawing around awe, reverence, and basic sense of right and wrong.
You made your position amply clear and this is your right. As OP, I very much regret though, that the good intentions of this thread are compromised. I'd be surprised if you get much response on pm.Look, let us not be silly on this thread
If any of you want a real discussion about the nature of reality them pm me.
You have your beliefs. Many of us obviously don't agree with your beliefs but we respect them. We have ours. If you say that there is no such thing as a secular pilgrimage, this entails the conclusion that all pilgrimages are religious, otherwise they are not pilgrimages. This depends on your definition of 'pilgrimage', Many people (e.g. VNwalking above) would say something on the lines of 'a pilgrimage is a visit to a place of special significance, often though not necessarily involving a journey'. Thus a non-religious pilgrimage is possible to places of personal, historical or cultural importance. Doug's belief system may be invented, but then so is everybody's: a belief system is a human artefact, unless you claim that a particular belief system was handed down by a supreme, supernatural being, in which case we are in serious trouble because there are a lot of different versions of belief systems supposedly handed down by different supreme, supernatural beings and they tend to get into very nasty conflicts with each other.Doug, please. They say that from within their Catholic religious belief system, not your invented external personal one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?