I'm not sure what precise meaning the term "ideological" has in your lexicon, but I think commitment to one path does not preclude tolerance and appreciation of others.  In fact, one may go beyond tolerance to make the object of one's own commitment open to change through encounter with other traditions or perspectives.   Monotheistic traditions have tended to promote binary thinking, but that is not inevitable, particularly if their aesthetic understanding is broadened to appreciate the fact that diversity is as important as unity.  Indeed, the problem you pose is specifically a problem for monotheists, a term I would apply  also to atheists who hold up a single value (such as reason) as the ultimate test of truth or value.  Alternatively, we might see any pathway that is rigid and closed to the value of others as an ego-driven pathway.   Since most spirituality aims at overcoming the limitations of ego, any truly spiritual path should lead to tolerance and greater openness.

I'm not sure what precise meaning the term "ideological" has in your lexicon, but I think commitment to one path does not preclude tolerance and appreciation of others.  In fact, one may go beyond tolerance to make the object of one's own commitment open to change through encounter with other traditions or perspectives.   Monotheistic traditions have tended to promote binary thinking, but that is not inevitable, particularly if their aesthetic understanding is broadened to appreciate the fact that diversity is as important as unity.  Indeed, the problem you pose is specifically a problem for monotheists, a term I would apply  also to atheists who hold up a single value (such as reason) as the ultimate test of truth or value.  Alternatively, we might see any pathway that is rigid and closed to the value of others as an ego-driven pathway.   Since most spirituality aims at overcoming the limitations of ego, any truly spiritual path should lead to tolerance and greater openness.

I would think so. Ideological spiritual pathway is largely determined by subconscious, therefore hardly tolerated as not understood or even alien to certain extend.

As with Clifford Cobb's reply, much depends on the form and definition of "ideological." 

I've stated in a number of other Research Gate threads on the topic of contemplative practice ("mysticism") and spirituality that, "If and when we take religious language literally, we are not taking it seriously enough." A commitment to take religious language seriously - as a literary and, especially, poetic vehicle for conveying, inculcating, and provoking mind- and heart-opening realizations and sensitivities - could potentially be considered "ideological" insofar as it can entail an active, personally engaged embrace with likely-to-be-transformative "ideals." 

But we of course more often find "ideology" associated with, and enacted as, conceptually dogmatic endorsements of (a.k.a., "attachments to") a kind of imperious set of beliefs. 

As the work of the late professor of world religion and practicing Christian, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, emphasized, a distinction can be drawn between an intellectually open, humble, and tolerant "faith" practice, on the one hand, and a closed, ultimately arrogant, and too frequently intolerantly dogmatic "belief" system, on the other.

Do have a look at:

Schmohl C (2015) Onkologische Palliativpatienten im Krankenhaus. Seelsorgliche und psychotherapeutische Begleitung. Münchner Reihe Palliative Care. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ISBN 978-3-17-026376-5.

Schmohl C (2015) Zur Bedeutung der vertieften Auseinandersetzung mit Sinnfragen bei onkologischen Palliativpatienten. Eine Einführung. Vorstand der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Logotherapie und Existenzanalyse e. V. (Hrsg.), Existenz und Logos 23, Freiburg: schwarz auf weiss: 5-27. ISSN 0942-8569, http://logotherapie-gesellschaft.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DGLE-2015_23.pdf.

Being ideological presupposes a conscious use of power, especially intellectual and political powers, to achieve a desired end. The danger in it is that it tends to be manipulative, hence abusive. That it may not be physical in its assault on people does not diminish its lethality. Does that accord with spirituality, which aims at wholeness?   

I can hold as my ideology the interdependence of all things (in some kind of One). In this case, religious practices that are not my own are viewed as part of the system. Similarly, one might hold a view, like the Hindu's, that the universe is a divine act of the Godhead who plays all the parts. Here again, otherness is viewed as an aspect of what there is. So "no". 

Not exactly. Nothing is purely objective. More often than not we interpret/approach 'reality' ... spiritual or otherwise from our own vantage points and that counts for ideology. Even though we are entitled to our own opinions and doesnt make us less spiritual.

Dr. Kiambi's reply reminds me that we cannot NOT interpret. Even "simple" sensory experience is already an interpretation -- a bumblebee's eyes can see ultraviolet, for instance, and ours cannot. Hence my own understanding is that all phenomenal experience and, especially, all conceptual constructions are to be appreciated as "poetic."

Our experience of life can be all the more richly appreciated -- and such an appreciation apt to be all the more richly shared with others -- when we embrace the poetic nature of our interpretive responses to it.

But if instead we take our ideational constructs as things literally true and fixed and universal, we risk becoming dogmatic ideologues. 

Thanks so much to Clifford, Krzysztof, David, Corinna, Kehinde, Michael, and Julius for your valuable insights!

Dear Dr. Emad

His Majesty, God created man and created him in the best calendar an mind and was close to him i mean to make the mind of human and instinct, which makes him different from the angels and animals and make love in the heart of the human But evil intervened in the delusion of human where the entry of hatred between humans and thank you.

Regards

Dr. Malik