I believe spirituality is essentially spiritual experience. One who experiences does not need a theoretical explanation, though it is helpful in interactions with others. Someone experiences and then may talk or write about it, with more or less success. Others try to explain the experiences in their own words, and then, an organisation is created, primarily to support others trying to get the same experience.
For example, Indian ṛṣis had spiritual experiences. The major Upaniṣads came out of the description and discussion of these experiences with fellow ṛṣis, or with their families and students. Consistency, or an overarching conceptual framework, was not important as the experience which came from some-thing or some-where or some-when beyond the ṛṣi, and was subject to unknown rules. An experience was generally unique and called śruti, hearing/heard (rough translation) because a ṛṣi tuned-in to the flow of a universal, dynamic consciousness in as egoless a state as possible. Words emanating from such experiences were considered sacrosanct and may have been transmitted across millenia without so much as a syllable being changed.
From the personal experiences of the Indian ṛṣis to Indian temples is an interesting conceptual journey, generally portrayed as going from intensely-inward focus and general, but simple, lifestyle to an outward or material focus and specialised, elaborately delineated, lifestyle. Thus, ṛṣis probably focused on meditation, few rituals, and farming in their ashrams, possibly bartering with other ashrams for non-local produce. By the time temples were prevalent, societies had specialised occupations, rituals conducted by priests, and currency-driven transactions.
For example, Indian ṛṣis had spiritual experiences. The major Upaniṣads came out of the description and discussion of these experiences with fellow ṛṣis, or with their families and students. Consistency, or an overarching conceptual framework, was not important as the experience which came from some-thing or some-where or some-when beyond the ṛṣi, and was subject to unknown rules. An experience was generally unique and called śruti, hearing/heard (rough translation) because a ṛṣi tuned-in to the flow of a universal, dynamic consciousness in as egoless a state as possible. Words emanating from such experiences were considered sacrosanct and may have been transmitted across millenia without so much as a syllable being changed.
From the personal experiences of the Indian ṛṣis to Indian temples is an interesting conceptual journey, generally portrayed as going from intensely-inward focus and general, but simple, lifestyle to an outward or material focus and specialised, elaborately delineated, lifestyle. Thus, ṛṣis probably focused on meditation, few rituals, and farming in their ashrams, possibly bartering with other ashrams for non-local produce. By the time temples were prevalent, societies had specialised occupations, rituals conducted by priests, and currency-driven transactions.
All religious systems are based on personal experience (stage 1), which has been codified (stage 2), and applied to a community (stage 3). When the 3 ranges become confused, or if one or other is forgotten, people imagine that the organisation is all, or that the rules are paramount, or that neither of these matters since they are seeking only personal illumination.When people agitate for personal experience, they may attack institution or dogma, imagining that these are what stand in the way. What they have in fact encountered as problems is the growth of those areas until they claim to represent, extinguish or replace personal experience. What has happened is that the balance between the 3 elements is lost, not that one or another is paramount or interchangeable with others.
[1] Section II, 3 Significant Modes of Human Organisation and Learning, The Commanding Self, Idries Shah, 1997 ed., Octagon Press, London. ISBN 0-863040-70-5
