<p>I am an Indian who believed in God and followed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduismn" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hinduism</a>.</p>

<p>Later, I went to college and became enlightened and ruled out the idea of third party creation or the existence of a creator. That said, during the time I believed in God, when I entered the temples I had a different feeling (I can't explain it, but it felt good) by hearing the chanting of mantras, the glow of lamps, the smoked smell of camphor, etc.</p>

<p>I think this is a spiritual feeling. </p>

<p>As I have lived my childhood as a theist and later as an atheist I can't differentiate if the spiritual feeling is because of <strong>childhood memories</strong> or is <strong>genetically embedded</strong>.</p>

<p>I ask this question to understand how people like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh" rel="nofollow noreferrer">OSHO</a> and thousands of his variants in India could glue millions of followers without giving any material things.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-18T08:13:16.747Z
Meta discussion: [Are questions about cognitive aspect of spirituality on-topic?](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2451/12937)
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-24T17:10:17.150Z
Also [If restructuring question's body can set a new expectation on the readers, and thus making it clearer to be on-topic, should this be done?](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2466/12937)
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-26T16:06:22.067Z
To say that ‘spiritual feeling’ equates with ‘fear of the unknown’ tells you all you need to know about the moderators on this board who really seem to love the sound of their own whistle.
Nick H
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-26T16:28:24.400Z
@NickH 'praise or fear of the unknown' _is_ a 'spiritual feeling' and as a result, likely, the answer on the duplicate post was relevant. Regardless, As [can be seen in the discussion surrounding this post](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2451/12937), putting the question on hold as duplicate is likely the best outcome. I don't see how the latter part of your comment is relevant. If you keep trolling/posting ad hominem attacks like this, you will get suspended. Try to stick to constructive comments, please.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-26T16:49:51.327Z
It would help if you could follow the guidelines yourself. For example, you say that fear IS a spiritual feeling, yet fail to reference your source. Here’s my source for why it is not and why it is a nonconscious, primal feeling: https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2014/february/understanding-fear-means-correctly-defining-fear-itself-ledoux-concludes-.html
Nick H
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-26T16:54:08.070Z
The impression I get is that if a comment challenges a Moderator’s world view or opinion, you take refuge in throwing the rule book, down voting or other defensive and frankly negative behaviour, and then when the person defends their point of view resort to further threats (like calling it trolling). But it’s ok if the moderators state their own opinions or make arbitrary judgements that contradict the guidelines they demand of non-moderators. Is this really healthy discussion?
Nick H
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-26T17:20:46.247Z
@NickH - The other mods on this site are about the most neutral and fair people I've come across. You shouldn't take critiques too personally. The mods are only trying to keep this site up to standards and they are quite frankly doing a pretty good job as we have just graduated to being a full site!
AliceD
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-26T17:28:48.437Z
@NickH Link me to one comment/post where I closed down a discussion, supposedly because it does not align with my viewpoint. It can be hard in discussions to separate feedback on one point from the other. I welcome your constructive feedback, e.g., pointing out that 'fear of the unknown' is not the same as spirituality (is _praise_ of the unknown, though?). I do not welcome comments such as "who really seem to love the sound of their own whistle" which is what I called trolling, and is exactly our job to moderate. No, this is not healthy discussion, mostly due to ad hominem attacks.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-11T18:18:18.940Z
@StevenJeuris it seems that we have [a legit answer](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2482/12937) for this question. Together with the objection that "spirituality" ≠ "fear of the unknown" (which I agree with), do you think this question is worth to be reopened? // (On the other hand, I'm afraid that it will be perceived as **the** answer.)
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-12T09:02:02.157Z
@Ooker I still feel such an answer could be posted on the question marked as duplicate. If you read the whole question text, there is no real reason why Always Confused's answer wouldn't apply. That question showed sufficient initial research and is not about the one particular individual. Therefore, it is better and preferred over this one. But if you feel this question is different, you can edit it to eliminate the concerns raised in comments and on Meta. Or, you could simply post your own.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-12T09:51:45.280Z
@StevenJeuris I honestly feel that it's vividly crystal clear that this question is clear and on-topic and not a duplicate of that one. The concern of others raised on the meta makes me confused, because I already address that and they still don't see it
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-12T10:42:57.323Z
@Ooker, could you quote the part which is unclear? Maybe in chat ... :)
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-29T17:58:36.847Z
Why is this put on hold,  this is not about myself.  Millions of people irrespective of faith.  If happiness is an emotion, sadness is also emotion then what is spiritual feeling what are it's binding with evolution. This has to be discussed
Arun Killu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-30T05:14:24.190Z
Perhaps, you’d better ask this question in the philosophy forum. Anyway, from the neuroscientific point of view, your answer can be shortly answered like this: every feeling (including spiritual feeling), every emotion, every thought, and every other activity of the mind are the results of neural  processes. Evident is that all of these mental activities  (including spiritual feeling) are altered, stopped, or destroyed permanently by anything that affect the involved neural processes, such as  sedatives/psychotropic drugs, head injury, encephalitis, and dementing diseases.
user287279
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-30T05:16:08.060Z
But, where did the believing in god/gods, in spirits, in supernatural power, etc. come from? From the psychological point of views, IMO, these beliefs came from the psychological need of ancient people to explain natural phenomena that they encountered. Without the current scientific knowledge, it is natural that ancient people invented something to account for these phenomena.
user287279
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-30T05:24:49.970Z
And, IMO, that  OSHO and thousands of his variant in India could glue millions of followers without giving any material things is because they had charismatic abilities. Other people have these charismatic abilities too, such as some other religious leaders, some cult leaders, some national leaders, and some politicians. Finally, please understand that I've tried to give you neuroscientific and psychologic answers frankly, and I hope that they did not insult your feelings and beliefs.
user287279
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-01T04:24:51.157Z
Related: [How to measure the correlation between "spirituality" and the susceptibility to false memories?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/21816/12937)
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-03T13:07:00.700Z
This might be of interest: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14594742
monocell
<emotion><cognitive-science-of-religion><spirituality>
Cognitively, where does spiritual feeling come from?
Arun Killu
# Cognitively, where does spiritual feeling come from?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-07-29)

I am an Indian who believed in God and followed [Hinduism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduismn).

Later, I went to college and became enlightened and ruled out the idea of third party creation or the existence of a creator. That said, during the time I believed in God, when I entered the temples I had a different feeling (I can't explain it, but it felt good) by hearing the chanting of mantras, the glow of lamps, the smoked smell of camphor, etc.

I think this is a spiritual feeling.

As I have lived my childhood as a theist and later as an atheist I can't differentiate if the spiritual feeling is because of **childhood memories** or is **genetically embedded**.

I ask this question to understand how people like [OSHO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh) and thousands of his variants in India could glue millions of followers without giving any material things.

**Tags:** emotion, cognitive-science-of-religion, spirituality

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Why is this put on hold,  this is not about myself.  Millions of people irrespective of faith.  If happiness is an emotion, sadness is also emotion then what is spiritual feeling what are it's binding with evolution. This has to be discussed  
> **username_5**: Perhaps, you’d better ask this question in the philosophy forum. Anyway, from the neuroscientific point of view, your answer can be shortly answered like this: every feeling (including spiritual feeling), every emotion, every thought, and every other activity of the mind are the results of neural  processes. Evident is that all of these mental activities  (including spiritual feeling) are altered, stopped, or destroyed permanently by anything that affect the involved neural processes, such as  sedatives/psychotropic drugs, head injury, encephalitis, and dementing diseases.  
> **username_5**: But, where did the believing in god/gods, in spirits, in supernatural power, etc. come from? From the psychological point of views, IMO, these beliefs came from the psychological need of ancient people to explain natural phenomena that they encountered. Without the current scientific knowledge, it is natural that ancient people invented something to account for these phenomena.  
> **username_5**: And, IMO, that  OSHO and thousands of his variant in India could glue millions of followers without giving any material things is because they had charismatic abilities. Other people have these charismatic abilities too, such as some other religious leaders, some cult leaders, some national leaders, and some politicians. Finally, please understand that I've tried to give you neuroscientific and psychologic answers frankly, and I hope that they did not insult your feelings and beliefs.  
> **username_1**: Related: [How to measure the correlation between "spirituality" and the susceptibility to false memories?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/21816/12937)  
> **username_6**: This might be of interest: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14594742  
> **username_1**: Meta discussion: [Are questions about cognitive aspect of spirituality on-topic?](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2451/12937)  
> **username_1**: Also [If restructuring question's body can set a new expectation on the readers, and thus making it clearer to be on-topic, should this be done?](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2466/12937)  
> **username_2**: To say that ‘spiritual feeling’ equates with ‘fear of the unknown’ tells you all you need to know about the moderators on this board who really seem to love the sound of their own whistle.  
> **username_3**: @NickH 'praise or fear of the unknown' _is_ a 'spiritual feeling' and as a result, likely, the answer on the duplicate post was relevant. Regardless, As [can be seen in the discussion surrounding this post](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2451/12937), putting the question on hold as duplicate is likely the best outcome. I don't see how the latter part of your comment is relevant. If you keep trolling/posting ad hominem attacks like this, you will get suspended. Try to stick to constructive comments, please.  
> **username_2**: It would help if you could follow the guidelines yourself. For example, you say that fear IS a spiritual feeling, yet fail to reference your source. Here’s my source for why it is not and why it is a nonconscious, primal feeling: https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2014/february/understanding-fear-means-correctly-defining-fear-itself-ledoux-concludes-.html  
> **username_2**: The impression I get is that if a comment challenges a Moderator’s world view or opinion, you take refuge in throwing the rule book, down voting or other defensive and frankly negative behaviour, and then when the person defends their point of view resort to further threats (like calling it trolling). But it’s ok if the moderators state their own opinions or make arbitrary judgements that contradict the guidelines they demand of non-moderators. Is this really healthy discussion?  
> **username_4**: @NickH - The other mods on this site are about the most neutral and fair people I've come across. You shouldn't take critiques too personally. The mods are only trying to keep this site up to standards and they are quite frankly doing a pretty good job as we have just graduated to being a full site!  
> **username_3**: @NickH Link me to one comment/post where I closed down a discussion, supposedly because it does not align with my viewpoint. It can be hard in discussions to separate feedback on one point from the other. I welcome your constructive feedback, e.g., pointing out that 'fear of the unknown' is not the same as spirituality (is _praise_ of the unknown, though?). I do not welcome comments such as "who really seem to love the sound of their own whistle" which is what I called trolling, and is exactly our job to moderate. No, this is not healthy discussion, mostly due to ad hominem attacks.  
> **username_1**: @StevenJeuris it seems that we have [a legit answer](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2482/12937) for this question. Together with the objection that "spirituality" ≠ "fear of the unknown" (which I agree with), do you think this question is worth to be reopened? // (On the other hand, I'm afraid that it will be perceived as **the** answer.)  
> **username_3**: @username_1 I still feel such an answer could be posted on the question marked as duplicate. If you read the whole question text, there is no real reason why Always Confused's answer wouldn't apply. That question showed sufficient initial research and is not about the one particular individual. Therefore, it is better and preferred over this one. But if you feel this question is different, you can edit it to eliminate the concerns raised in comments and on Meta. Or, you could simply post your own.  
> **username_1**: @StevenJeuris I honestly feel that it's vividly crystal clear that this question is clear and on-topic and not a duplicate of that one. The concern of others raised on the meta makes me confused, because I already address that and they still don't see it  
> **username_3**: @username_1, could you quote the part which is unclear? Maybe in chat ... :)  

---

## 0 answers

