What is a "religion"?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Considering the tremendous stake involved in religion or the choice thereof, for it determines the eternal lot of the adherents, whether they land in weal or in ill after this life and for the rest of their existence, it is amazing that from talks about the merits or one or the other religion, people here are not apparently alarmed in any degree over the search for and embrace of the true one.

Maybe they do not know exactly what is truth, much less the true religion.

For my part, I have some opinions about truth and the true religion.

First, truth is divided into that outside the mind and that inside the mind.

Truth outside the mind is what will enable me to arrive at where I want to get to outside the mind, or get done what I set out to get done outside the mind.

Truth in the mind is what makes for a consistent system in the mind.

For example, outside the mind truth in advertising is what enables you to buy what you set out to buy; truth in a cooking recipe is what enables you to whip up a dish which you want to prepare for dinner; truth in the travel brochure is what enables you to get to your tourist destination with the least expense and trouble and with utmost safety.

Truth in the mind, is there such a thing as truth in the mind, namely which enables you to construct a system where everything fits in consistently, perfectly?

You can keep constructing your system in the mind, following the injunction of consistency, founded upon logic and mathematics, provided you start out also with first principles which are concordant with the dictates of logic and mathematics.

Now if you tell someone about your system, then both of your can dialogue about the truth in your mind, that system founded on logic and mathematics, and built up consistently observing the constraints of logic and mathematics.

These two kinds of truths, one in the world outside the mind and one in the mind, are exemplified in college texts where you have titles like theory and practice of statistics, theory and practice of economics, theory and practice of computer engineering.


There is also that kind of truth in the mind that starts off without logic and mathematics, but merely on the gut feeling of it must be right or it is necessary.

Now we are in the sphere of religion. If you can succeed in convincing others to adopt your mental system; then you and they can dialogue together, but only among yourselves; others who are used to logic and mathematics will not understand you. And it’s all their fault: They don’t have faith, the kind that will accept mysteries.

The danger with this kind of truths is that it can lead to suicide bombing or end of the world behavior or self-immolation on the altar of some isolated self-enclosed camp life, also called religious community – unless the truth advocates make compromises with the facts of actual physiological life.

If the truth advocates here don’t make compromises with the facts of physiological life, it is very likely that sooner than later they would land in jail or in the psychopathic asylum; or they exterminate themselves in pursuit of their religious destiny.


In other words, the true religion is that where you can convince others by persuasive eloquence and other external indicators that your mental system about the origin of the cosmos and the purpose of human life works for the attainment of a purpose which you also propound that is realized in the post-death realm.

The more people you can convince to join you, the more true your religion; so brush up on your oratorical skills and look for miraculous occurrences that can be appropriated as proofs of the truth value of your religion.

But remember, when you get so many converts to your religion, make sure that you adopt a method of voting when there are differences over beliefs and practices. Those who will not follow the majority’s will as established from the ballot, can leave and establish their own new splinter true religion.

So at the end of the day, what determines a true religion? Number, more specifically, the ballot.

In which case, since the Roman Catholic Church has the biggest number of members, it must be the true church or religion(?).


Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

My definition of religion is based upon my own observations of religious peoples, things, places, times, and human thinking and acting which all such items speaking people put in the big basket called religion.

For the purpose of the present post, here is again my definition of religion:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

There seems to be some kind of circularity in this definition. One day I like to work out the problem of circularity in my definition of religion. Let us now see whether my way of choosing a religion is in accordance with this kind of a definition of religion.


How should I choose the religion that I would enjoy belonging to and acting on? Enjoying: that is the keyword. The first criterion then for me is that the religion I choose must be enjoyable. So, founders of religion and proselytizers who advocate un-enjoyable religions, you will have no business from me.

Religion enjoyable is that which at least poses no objections against your exercising all your physiological functions: eating, drinking, sex -- all very important for enjoying life; but not to excess, lest you get jaded, then it’s no longer fun.

On that criterion any religion that proscribes certain foods and drinks, all such religions are anathema to me. Islam and Judaism are out, both are meticulous about unacceptable foods like pork. Islam is even more stringent, it forbids alcoholic drinks.

I drink with friends and family members who bring drinks to my home in their visits; but I myself don’t buy drinks to keep in my home, not even for friends and family members who come bringing no drinks with them. On record I enjoy alcoholic beverages.

I understand that some schools of Buddhism abstain from meats and alcoholic drinks also. Isn’t that the general and also basic diet observance of Buddhists? Anyway, those schools of Buddhism with that verboten are not for me.

Next, and still more serious, any religion that makes religion itself more important than life, one’s own life and others’, is to be avoided like the plague.

So religion that requires the ultimate price of martyrdom or demands suicide bombing for a testimony of genuine commitment; no, such a religion is not for me. Islam today is still obsessed with martyrdom and suicide bombing; Christianity however is rather more into killing others in its wars against Muslims, whom they label to be terrorists or enemy combatants.


The most critical criterion for which to shun a religion is its opposition to free inquiry and its imposition of blind discipline. For not showing that kind of opposition I would consider Baha’i and Buddhism to be the most attractive to myself.

Baha’i advocates the compatibility of science and religion; Buddhism does not appear to be in the habit to telling people how to live their daily life, except its inculcation of common sense observances and abstinences on do’s and don’ts which physical fitness and mental health are all about.


To make a long story short, I think the religion that I would choose to be my own is that which is made up of the most enjoyable ingredients in extant religions, and also of components which I myself would cook up.

If I were a rich man, I would choose the four wives allowed in Islam and the unlimited number of concubines in addition. For drinks, Judaism and Christianity, because they maintain that wine gladdens the heart of man. For unlimited variety of foods, Catholicism among Christian factions. For free inquiry, Baha’i; and for physical fitness and mental health, Buddhism. Martial arts exercises like Kung-fu in Buddhism coupled with meditation are truly to be recommended in these our hectic times.

What about the components I myself would conjure up in devising my own religion, one that for me would be most enjoyable?

My components are more in the negative, like no costumes, no special rituals except those to which I have become familiar with, like church wedding and religious burial, no sporting of a specific label connoting the founder’s name, for example identifying oneself as Catholic or Lutheran or Buddhist or Baha’i or Muslim. My religion would be more of the generic kind than the branded kind.


I have defined religion as:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

Now, for myself and all others who share my sentiment in regard to religion, it should be rephrased thus:

My own behavior founded upon my own belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by me to influence the power to react favorably to myself.

In brief, the religion I choose is the one which I find in my own judgment and feeling to be most enjoyable to myself, on the physiological level, the emotional level, and most importantly on the mind and will level.


Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

...when does a personal philosophy actually become religious belief? What is actually required to define the differences between each? Are there actually key distinct differences? Or is there a muddy realm in meta-physics when personal belief cannot be defined wholly in terms of either a "religion" or as a "philosophy"?

Perhaps my understanding is a bit simple, but it works for me.

Religion is a system of belief.

With such guidance I view science, atheism, philosophy all as a form or type of religion.

Just my two cents.

[juantoo3]

Susma,
On the issue of context, I find it crucial when discussing matters with those of other cultures to figure out where they are coming from. It is one thing to be very knowledgeable in a matter, it is quite another to be able to convey that knowledge. For instance, I see you are quite knowledgeable in Latin. This is well and good. I am familiar with medical terminology, so the concept is not foreign to me. I am not, however, fluent in Latin, and have only managed to pull out a few words here and there from what you have posted. Not enough to make any sense to me. The end result is that in those instances you have said nothing to me, and likely the majority of those who have read your posts. You may as well have been writing in Greek or Senegalese. So you understand, or even know, a great deal of Latin. But if you have not conveyed your message, what have you achieved? All you show in that instance is that you can talk over other people's heads, which only makes you appear arrogant. I want to believe you are not arrogant, and that you have a message to share, but you have missed the context. You are not speaking to your audience, you are speaking at them. You are not listening to your audience, so you are not relating to their understanding, and you are not framing your responses to their needs. You haven't learned yet to translate to your students at a level they can relate to. Effective communication is a two-way street.

I suspect a part of your initial concern relates to my choice of avatar, the coyote. So allow me to clarify a few things. I am Christian, by birth and indoctrination. My mother was nominally Catholic, so I have a clue where you are coming from. I am an independent Protestant by culture and choice. I have read the bulk of the King James, and refer often to the Companion, Interlinear and Pe****ta versions of the Bible. Frankly, I have no use for the Septuagint or Douay Bibles. My familiarity with Latin stems only from a required need in my profession. I have known many people in my life who were good, decent people, who just happened to be Catholic. I have also known good, decent people of other faiths. I take issue with the Catholic institution.

I am Native American by heritage. My paternal great-great grandfather was either half or full blood Cherokee, and from him I get my family name. There are things in my heart since my childhood that are not Christian teaching, but I know are "right". Like "dominion" granted Adam in the garden does not mean "dominance", but rather "caretaker", "tender", "gardener" or "husbandman". I do not worship nature, yet I understand God created a man to tend the garden. In that sense, nature is sacred.

There are so many similarities between faiths to those who seek. Since everyone here believes they are on the "right" path, some of us believe it is our imperative to demonstrate how our particular ways are superior to others. Is it not more conducive to peaceable discussion, to discover our common ground?

The Holy trinity (or unity, as some prefer) of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit) is represented in Native American tradition by Great-Grandfather (Wakan-Tonka), Grandfather (Tunkashila), and Earth Mother. Likewise the 4 archangels are represented as the 4 winds (supported by the Bible as the angels of the 4 corners of the earth, that hold the 4 winds). God created all in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim tradition, God created all in the Native American tradition and imbued that creation with a piece of himself, "god" (spirit/chi/pneuma/prana) is in all creation in many Eastern traditions.

I don't believe the purpose of this forum is to unify every faith, such in my view is not desirable. The purpose is not a free-for-all match to see who comes out on top. Religion in its grossest sense is a form of political control. Religion in its purest sense is a means to discover the unknowable. Uniting under the influence of one religious faith is disastrous, I need only point to the Dark Ages when Catholism "ruled", or the Spanish Inquisition. The Catholic Institution is not interested in saving human souls, it is interested in political dominance. Historically, when it could not control by brute force, it infiltrated and subverted, usurping from inside. I am curious though, did they learn such tactics from the Chinese, or did the Chinese learn from them?

I feel I must reiterate. I appreciate your inputs, you have a great deal of insight to offer. My suggestion, as a friend, would be to tone down the rhetoric, listen to the others here in an effort to understand where they are coming from, and translate the important things you have to say into words that communicate what it is you mean. And be patient, translation is an inexact art at best.

Shalom, Peace.

[juantoo3]

After having read a few more of your posts, I may have been a little hasty in my assessment. No offense was intended, and I hope that none was taken. Kindest regards.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dear Juan, you are wondering: "I suspect a part of your initial concern relates to my choice of avatar, the coyote."Absolutely not.

I have used the avatars of posters here to write posts for the sheer joy of writing, like talkativeness in oral speech.

Once I observed for Vaj that his then new avatar was the Chinese Goddess of Mercy, asking whether he does pray to her; because Vaj tells me that Buddhists -- and he is one -- do not pray to gods nor to saints.

Otherwise my observations about avatars have no critical overtones, certainly not in a negative vein whatever. It is all pure postal talkativeness. At most flippant impertinences.

Susma Rio Sep

[neoxenos]

Does not religion come from the latin, "Religare," meaning "to reunite again?"

So, religion means, "to reunite again." It is "yug" or "yoga," a union with God.

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by neoxenos

Does not religion come from the latin, "Religare," meaning "to reunite again?"

So, religion means, "to reunite again." It is "yug" or "yoga," a union with God.

Namaskar,

Yes, that's the etymological explanation which is often cited. It's the ideal as I see it. But in reality religions are not that or no longer that, because dogmas, superstitions and other irrational aspects have crept in over time.

[neoxenos]

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar,

Yes, that's the etymological explanation which is often cited. It's the ideal as I see it. But in reality religions are not that or no longer that, because dogmas, superstitions and other irrational aspects have crept in over time.

Of course.

There are many types of people who follow religion, they are related with the three centers of the human being: 1) instinctual-sexual-motor, 2) emotional, and 3) intellectual, 4) The Unconfused

The First Type follows the religion that they are born into. They never question it. They attend ritual/church in a mechanical and conditioned way, and feels completely superior to the other groups mentioned here.

The Second Type follows the religion that feels the best, the one that makes them feel good. Perhaps this is the one that says, "Believe, and you shall saved!" This one does not need to get into the gritty details about the religion, just that one gets emotional stability from it. They feel superior to the other groups.

The Third Type is the intellectual who wishes to prove/disprove god, faith, religion, etc., through the study of scripture. This type feels completely superior to the others and likes to prove it through civilized argument. They want to reach God through the intellect.

The first three types constitute more than 99% of all people in the world, they exist within the Confusion of Tongues. When the emotional man speaks to the intellectual man, they do not understand each other. No one can understand or accept what the others have to say because they each within their own sphere of understanding. They constitute the Tower of Babel.

The fourth type is the radical individual who has removed the Mechanical Center of Gravity and created a Conscious Center of Gravity within, who understands the world's religions not just superficially but with complete understanding and within completely and absolute harmony.

Until humanity has become the Fourth Man, then true religion does not exist.

[I, Brian]

It sounds like a system of claiming psychological and intellectual superiority over other people, little more - spiritual faschism again.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It sounds like a system of claiming psychological and intellectual superiority over other people, little more - spiritual faschism again.

Brian,

this is a perfect example of how reputation would work on this forum... not too subtle hint

[Thomas]

Well, I've been absent for a while, but I thought I'd pop in on this one, with a few comments (and hello to all).

Religions are founded on revelation - and revelation (in whatever form) are delivered to all men for their salvation/deliverance - but the emphasis is on 'all men' - not an elite, be it secular or spiritual. There is a requirement upon those with given gifts/graces to help those less enabled, but no religion sets out to save a given number only.

In a certain sense a religion comprises a world unto itself, and as much as one might comment on another world, unless one is of that world, one has no authority to speak - all one can do is assume. Zen, particularly but not exclusively, says - start now, question later - and as ever, many of the questions resolve themselves along the way.

No man is beyond error - in reference I might cite the case of René Guénon - widely regarded East and West as the most gifted metaphysician of the 20th century (acknowledged as the only Westerner to have understood the Vedanta) - who held that Buddhism was a 'Hindu heresy' until doctrine was properly explained to him.

Someone once said man does not choose the tradition - the tradition chooses the man.

The man who stands outside religion, claiming the virtues of all, in fact has none - it's like standing in a station knowing all the trains - this may be so, but you're not going anywhere.

Conversion - the call from one tradition to another - is very, very rare.

Spiritual advancement outside of a 'religious cover' invariably means one seeks for self-advancement without subjecting the self to the necessary discipline. In short it implies that man knows better than God.

Huston Smith called religions 'the distilled wisdom of the human race'

Thomas

[Avinash]

Namaskar,

A religion is not the same thing as a tradition. I would argue that some traditions or spiritual paths are not religions in that they consider themselves as part of a larger continuum or network of traditions.

Spiritual practices and their accompanying spiritual philosophy are based on "revelation" if you like. Those who discovered how these practices worked were graced with the ability to transfer their knowledge to others. Not everything in religion however is part of this type of revelation. A lot of it is creative writing.

It is not easy to understand another tradition if you have not been part of it but to say that the other traditions are a "world of their own" goes too far IMHO. There are far too many overlaps in practices and the spiritual philosophies to suggest they are that hard to understand if you are an "outsider", even if those practices at first sight seem a bit strange or unfamiliar.

I don't believe in the whole idea of conversion. Conversion suggests that if you change your tradition, you leave one world behind you and enter (are "reborn") into another world leaving all your progress of the past behind you.
Trying to follow a spiritual path without joining a tradition is indeed unwise because the interaction with and stimulation from other practitioners will help you greatly in keeping inspired and following the necessary discipline.

I know quite a number of people (friends, acquaintances) who have changed their tradition and especially many western people who haven't been raised with a religion are finding a tradition that suits their needs.

Andrew

[I, Brian]

Very nice to see you back, Thomas - you have been missed.

[Phil Alexander]

Buddhism is considered by some to be a religion and by others a philosophy. Personally I call Buddhism a way of life as it teaches as much about conduct in life as it does about spiritiuality.