Spiritualism and Allen Kardec

Last summer I began to read up on Spiritualism. It seems to be one of the more popular religions of the time, so I wanted to give a look. To make a long story short, I read most of Allen Kardec's books and found them to be quite negative. Kardec seems to spout about the love of God often, yet repeadedly whacks us over the head on what a cruel mistress karma can be. His idea talks about the ultimate redemption of every soul, and he did have some thoughts that I agreed with. But it all just seemed so dark and tedious to me as he explained the reasons why some people die, and the lessons we must learn. I cannot see why anyone would be drawn to Kardec's philosophy... I am a very positive person, but everytime I read one of his books, I felt very heavy and even a little morbid. I did not like the energy I got from it at all.

As far as I can remember Kardec was a Spiritist not a Spiritualist which is different.

I have two of his books and Iv tried to read them, but I found them to be from the point of view of a sceptic and not that interesting to me. Iv still got them as they are necessary reading in some areas but Im not sure I will make it through to the end.

Originally Posted by Serenity Bear

As far as I can remember Kardec was a Spiritist not a Spiritualist which is different.

I have two of his books and Iv tried to read them, but I found them to be from the point of view of a sceptic and not that interesting to me. Iv still got them as they are necessary reading in some areas but Im not sure I will make it through to the end.

How is spiritualism and spiritists different? Kardec refers to spiritualism also as spiritism.... Isn't it all part of the same school of thought? If not, how do they differ?

From the great god Wiki...

"Although there are many similarities between the two, they differ in some fundamental aspects, particularly regarding man's quest toward spiritual perfection and the manner by which the followers of each practice their beliefs.

Spiritism teaches reincarnation or rebirth into human life after death. This basically distinguishes Spiritism from Spiritualism. According to the Spiritist doctrine, reincarnation explains the moral and intellectual differences among men. It also provides the path to man's moral and intellectual perfection by amending for his mistakes and increasing his knowledge in successive lives. For this reason Spiritism does not accept rebirth in animals as this would be retrogressive.

Finally, unlike Spiritualism, Spiritism is not a religious sect but a philosophy or a way of life by which its followers live by. Its followers have no priests or ministers and do not follow any religious rituals in their meetings. They also do not call their places of meetings as churches, and instead call them by various names such as centers, society or association. Their activities consist mainly of studying the Spiritist doctrine, applying spiritual healing to the sick and organizing charitable missions."

Very similar to Spiritualism I agree, but splitting off from the same tree, just as Christianity and Islam split from Judaism.

Originally Posted by Mind's Eye

Last summer I began to read up on Spiritualism. It seems to be one of the more popular religions of the time, so I wanted to give a look. To make a long story short, I read most of Allen Kardec's books and found them to be quite negative. Kardec seems to spout about the love of God often, yet repeadedly whacks us over the head on what a cruel mistress karma can be. His idea talks about the ultimate redemption of every soul, and he did have some thoughts that I agreed with. But it all just seemed so dark and tedious to me as he explained the reasons why some people die, and the lessons we must learn. I cannot see why anyone would be drawn to Kardec's philosophy... I am a very positive person, but everytime I read one of his books, I felt very heavy and even a little morbid. I did not like the energy I got from it at all.

Kardec wrote about Spiritism (as others here have remarked) It's accurate to say there are similarities between that and 'Modern Spiritualism'. The language of that time, along with the nature of the communications, sounds very old-fashioned in this modern world - I studied 'The Spirits' Book' in depth before moving on to what more recent teachers have to say. Returning to reading it again recently I found it 'stiff' and prescriptive.

Spiritism is - I've been told - alive and well in South America but here in the UK Spiritualism is more popular. This is the 'Spiritualism' forum and Spiritism should not be confused with it.

As you began this piece by saying "Last summer I began to read up on Spiritualism." I think you got things chronologically correct. But I hope that after reading Kardec you moved on to the teachings now widely associated with Modern Spiritualism - Silver Birch and White Eagle for examples.

It would be wrong to conclude that Spiritualism reflects only the ideas found in the book compiled by Kardec.

Originally Posted by Serenity Bear

As far as I can remember Kardec was a Spiritist not a Spiritualist which is different.

I have two of his books and Iv tried to read them, but I found them to be from the point of view of a sceptic and not that interesting to me. Iv still got them as they are necessary reading in some areas but Im not sure I will make it through to the end.

If you'll forgive my impertinence, why study something about which you're an admitted skeptic? At best you'll feel negative to what you find, at worst you'll have prejudices which constrain any understanding of what you read.

Is the "...necessary reading in some areas" to enable you to challenge what's said elsewhere? If so you may be misled by what you've been finding.


Better sources of information about the philosophy of Modern Spiritualism are readily available.... Using those will give you a much better chance of challenging what Spiritualism has to offer - good luck!

[Left Behind]

I agree with Mac: it's difficult to glean anything from Spiritualism / Spiritism if you approach it from the perspective of a skeptic. You should at least try to be open-minded about the subject. Skepticism to me indicates that you're inclined from the start NOT to believe it.

So far as I've been able to learn - I'm new to Spiritualism myself - the biggest difference between Spiritualism and Spiritism is the latter's belief in reincarnation.

Jim

[Left Behind]

I just last night finished reading Kardec's Book on Mediums. Though I regard myself as a Spiritualist rather than a Spiritist - to a large extent, because I DON'T belief in reincarnation - I must admit that Kardec is quite a profound thinker.

We also have to keep in mind that he goes way back to the earliest days of Modern Spiritualism / Spiritism (his earthly life span was circa 1805 - 1869, if I remember correctly).

Spiritualists, like everyone else, do or should learn more as time goes by. So he shouldn't be faulted unduly if someone finds his teachings a bit dated. He was a trailblazer: he isn't state of the art.

Jim

Originally Posted by Left Behind

I just last night finished reading Kardec's Book on Mediums. Though I regard myself as a Spiritualist rather than a Spiritist - to a large extent, because I DON'T belief in reincarnation - I must admit that Kardec is quite a profound thinker.

We also have to keep in mind that he goes way back to the earliest days of Modern Spiritualism / Spiritism (his earthly life span was circa 1805 - 1869, if I remember correctly).

Spiritualists, like everyone else, do or should learn more as time goes by. So he shouldn't be faulted unduly if someone finds his teachings a bit dated. He was a trailblazer: he isn't state of the art.

Jim

great review, Jim - I agree with every observation about his trail-blazing. I've only read 'The Spirits' Book' but that was many years ago.

[Left Behind]

Originally Posted by mac

great review, Jim - I agree with every observation about his trail-blazing. I've only read 'The Spirits' Book' but that was many years ago.

I haven't read that one, Mac, but I intend to.


Jim