Why does religion exist?

[Windwalker]

I think religions are formed for a number of different reasons, and fear of death seems to be only one of many factors behind what motivates individuals to turn to them, not the core reason. That's too reductionist of a view for me. We're much too complex as individuals and societies and cultures to reduce it to that one simple variable, even though that is certainly there for many.

The formation of religions many times, though not all times, begins with someone who has had a mystical experience, an awakening moment. They find liberation of spirit and mind and their new perspectives on the world offer insights and hope to their contemporaries, who are looking for a way through whatever struggles and hindrances their current circumstances are creating for them. The simplicity of their founder's vision symbolizes their hopes, and certain realizations are imparted to them which inspire and offer relief on their path as seekers of that Light their Master has discovered. And as this spreads as a movement of students, or devotees, it snowballs collecting more and more people coming with all sorts of expectations and hopes, further and further out from the core inspirations of the center of the snowball. It now becomes this mass full of grass and leaves and sticks and dirt from the ground as it grows in size picking up everything in its path. (I live in a Northern area with lots of snow, hence the metaphor).

I tend to think the fear of death part in those who become a part of a larger religion formed around a mystic center is operating much more at the level of those picked up out of society into it due to its mass. Such a religion is less in touch with its mystical core now and is seen and known as this big dirty snowball. But it nonetheless serves its function in society now as this glue that holds all this debris together with the stickiness of the clean snow. And so despite its inclusion of those coming to it to with all manner of social and existential anxieties, looking for a quick fix to their problems, looking for a shortcut to Nirvana, a shortcut to Salvation, this does not define what that core of the mass is, which is a mystical realization and freedom from that fear.

Of course there are other reasons religions are formed, around political movements, a strong charismatic personality who sees themselves as the savior of mankind driven by an enormous ego, and so forth. None of these are really "spiritual" at its core, but rather social and political, or ideological, cultural, military as well. I won't go into those here.

 

[`mud]

hey Windwalker,
Really excellent post !!
~
'mud

 

[CEMB]

I think religions are formed for a number of different reasons, and fear of death seems to be only one of many factors behind what motivates individuals to turn to them, not the core reason. That's too reductionist of a view for me. We're much too complex as individuals and societies and cultures to reduce it to that one simple variable, even though that is certainly there for many.

The formation of religions many times, though not all times, begins with someone who has had a mystical experience, an awakening moment. They find liberation of spirit and mind and their new perspectives on the world offer insights and hope to their contemporaries, who are looking for a way through whatever struggles and hindrances their current circumstances are creating for them. The simplicity of their founder's vision symbolizes their hopes, and certain realizations are imparted to them which inspire and offer relief on their path as seekers of that Light their Master has discovered. And as this spreads as a movement of students, or devotees, it snowballs collecting more and more people coming with all sorts of expectations and hopes, further and further out from the core inspirations of the center of the snowball. It now becomes this mass full of grass and leaves and sticks and dirt from the ground as it grows in size picking up everything in its path. (I live in a Northern area with lots of snow, hence the metaphor).

I tend to think the fear of death part in those who become a part of a larger religion formed around a mystic center is operating much more at the level of those picked up out of society into it due to its mass. Such a religion is less in touch with its mystical core now and is seen and known as this big dirty snowball. But it nonetheless serves its function in society now as this glue that holds all this debris together with the stickiness of the clean snow. And so despite its inclusion of those coming to it to with all manner of social and existential anxieties, looking for a quick fix to their problems, looking for a shortcut to Nirvana, a shortcut to Salvation, this does not define what that core of the mass is, which is a mystical realization and freedom from that fear.

Of course there are other reasons religions are formed, around political movements, a strong charismatic personality who sees themselves as the savior of mankind driven by an enormous ego, and so forth. None of these are really "spiritual" at its core, but rather social and political, or ideological, cultural, military as well. I won't go into those here.

I agree that a religion is often founded by an individual who has a vision or a mystical experience. Yet the founder of a religion is no better or worse than others. Many people have visions. What sets the visionary apart is that he acts upon his vision. He receives a message containing truth about the human condition, which he tries to share with others. For some, the attainment of a personal mystical experience is the goal, for others this experience is only a first step – the first step towards the realisation that real fulfilment comes from helping others to better themselves and thus contributing to the strengthening of humanity.

The message is the key. It is more important than the bearer of the message. The truth contained in the message sustains a religion even if/or when some of its members err because this truth draws new members to the religion. And these new members, inspired by the truth of the message, act to right the wrongs committed by others. This enables the religion to pursue its purpose once again. I believe a religion’s spiritual purpose is to strengthen humanity and in order to do this, to influence humanity, it must have some political, social and cultural aspects.

 

[Windwalker]

I agree that a religion is often founded by an individual who has a vision or a mystical experience. Yet the founder of a religion is no better or worse than others. Many people have visions. What sets the visionary apart is that he acts upon his vision. He receives a message containing truth about the human condition, which he tries to share with others. For some, the attainment of a personal mystical experience is the goal, for others this experience is only a first step – the first step towards the realisation that real fulfilment comes from helping others to better themselves and thus contributing to the strengthening of humanity.

This is true. I always say Enlightenment is not the end, but just the beginning. There becomes a huge responsibility that one bears with that level of realization. And furthermore, it becomes a natural response to the world as that Light is part of you. In other words you act as That in the world.

The message is the key. It is more important than the bearer of the message.

Oh most definitely, but I would add to clarify it's more than the message in terms of a belief, but it's also a message of the heart, one that draws people to itself, regardless of what words are used. I always have a problem with those who stress "correct belief" on a doctrinal level, as that is focused not on the spirit of the words, but their letters.

The truth contained in the message sustains a religion even if/or when some of its members err because this truth draws new members to the religion.

That's true, but often time that message of the heart is obscured if not entirely covered by the bad-faith actions of those who claim to be the upholders of it.

And these new members, inspired by the truth of the message, act to right the wrongs committed by others.

But bear in mind, it can be a very difficult uphill climb, like a salmon swimming upstream of the current to see the solution. That takes a very deeply inspired and committed soul, willing to be rejected by their peers, persecuted, cast out, etc. A new soul need support of the community, and without it, the survival rate is few, very few.

This enables the religion to pursue its purpose once again.

Now here's the interesting part! Yes, it often happens not as a reformation of the current system, that giant snowball, but a new fresh clean snowball at the beginning. It's cyclical. It starts off pure and free, and then accumulates into a bureaucratic mess that has lost its own sense of Self. And the cycle starts over again. It's the nature of the evolution at work in human systems.

I believe a religion’s spiritual purpose is to strengthen humanity and in order to do this, to influence humanity, it must have some political, social and cultural aspects.

I have some issues with the last part of it. We see what has happened to Christianity as it becomes "the Christian right". What the hell does this have to do with Christianity, as there are valid, sincere followers who hold other political views? It's completely divisive.

My answer to that is simple. An inner transformation of the person helps to inform them of their soul. That will lead to a naturally compassionate approach no matter what one's political leanings are. It informs them, not conforms them to some external idea of some political camp, formed by the manipulative political machinery. Love takes many forms, and expresses itself through many views and beliefs. The Truth is not something external, but internal. It can express itself through politically opposite views.

 

[roger1440]

Judging from what you believe “religion should have” you would have been a candidate for execution in ancient Rome. You would have been found guilty of treason.

 

[CEMB]

Now here's the interesting part! Yes, it often happens not as a reformation of the current system, that giant snowball, but a new fresh clean snowball at the beginning. It's cyclical. It starts off pure and free, and then accumulates into a bureaucratic mess that has lost its own sense of Self. And the cycle starts over again. It's the nature of the evolution at work in human systems.

I have some issues with the last part of it. We see what has happened to Christianity as it becomes "the Christian right". What the hell does this have to do with Christianity, as there are valid, sincere followers who hold other political views? It's completely divisive.

My answer to that is simple. An inner transformation of the person helps to inform them of their soul. That will lead to a naturally compassionate approach no matter what one's political leanings are. It informs them, not conforms them to some external idea of some political camp, formed by the manipulative political machinery. Love takes many forms, and expresses itself through many views and beliefs. The Truth is not something external, but internal. It can express itself through politically opposite views.

I agree with much of what you say, particularly about enlightenment, truth and the soul. However, I have an issue with the giant snow ball.

I believe a clean giant snowball can get dirty but then it can get clean again. Corruption and decay of a religion is not necessarily inevitable. A religion can get corrupted, but if its message is strong, it can rid itself of this corruption and act virtuously again and benefit humanity. Many of the major religions have gone through this cycle, Catholicism, Islam etc. Even at their lowest point they still have provided food and shelter for the poor, funded schools etc. The pope can be corrupt at the same time as a nun is virtuous.
In reference to the political, social, cultural aspect of a religion, my view is that if a religion is to grow, gain more members and gain greater influence then it needs to be organised in some way. If it wishes to influence a society then it needs to be conscious of a political position - not supporting a particular political party - but a political position in relation to what it believes a government should do to improve the society which it governs. An organised religion will need to have a clear position on for example education or gambling, workers rights etc. If a religion wishes to change a society for the better it cannot avoid this.
If a religion (its leaders) choose to live apart from the rest of humanity in some isolated region of the world and contemplate the universe and God, and their have been these, then the religion still needs to be organised and have a set of rules to regulate and order the daily lives of its members.

 

[Windwalker]

I agree with much of what you say, particularly about enlightenment, truth and the soul. However, I have an issue with the giant snow ball.

I believe a clean giant snowball can get dirty but then it can get clean again. Corruption and decay of a religion is not necessarily inevitable. A religion can get corrupted, but if its message is strong, it can rid itself of this corruption and act virtuously again and benefit humanity. Many of the major religions have gone through this cycle, Catholicism, Islam etc.

Okay, yes reformation can and does happen. But I'll add the message itself is only as strong as the individuals who embody it and bring change from within the system. Sometimes however the system just simply isn't capable to adapt itself quickly enough to changes in the world, and then something new is born, something new emerges, a new system, a new more enlightened message comes forth, even though at its heart its the same message that has been there all along but has become stymied under the weight of the system.

Think of it like someone who sees a problem in their city government and they believe they can make a difference so they run for office. 15 years later they are stuck in the bureaucracy and little to nothing has changed. Their vision of a better future fading. They've become part of the system. The only way for real change to happen is to allow a new system to emerge to replace the old. Systems are self-preserving, and not without good reason. But sometimes the system become destructive once the world it exists within has changed and it not longer functions to meet the new needs.

Even at their lowest point they still have provided food and shelter for the poor, funded schools etc.

Sure, even at the worst in any system some good can be found. That doesn't mean a better system can't replace it and do that and much more.

In reference to the political, social, cultural aspect of a religion, my view is that if a religion is to grow, gain more members and gain greater influence then it needs to be organised in some way.

Any group of people centered around a set of beliefs and practices will need to become organized in some manner. That is natural, and necessary, but also prone to eventual corruption because any group of people gathered together will attract those attracted to power. Leaders emerge and take control, even in well-meaning groups who don't want power hierarchies. It still happens.

But I question why its motivations should be as you described above. Why is it to seek to gain more members and grow? Why is it to seek influence over others? This is walking a fine line between being their for the internal growth of it members, as a support community for their individual transformation, and a threshing machine seeking to convert others to its own self-image. That is no longer the "Light of the world," a beacon in the night at that point, but a devouring beast. It becomes about itself, not the message.

If it wishes to influence a society then it needs to be conscious of a political position - not supporting a particular political party - but a political position in relation to what it believes a government should do to improve the society which it governs. An organised religion will need to have a clear position on for example education or gambling, workers rights etc. If a religion wishes to change a society for the better it cannot avoid this.

I do not believe it as a body should insert itself into politics. I do not believe it should use its position as an organization to influence its members voting patterns. There are plenty of churches out there who tell their members how they should vote on issues. I believe that is a core violation of its right to exist as a spiritual body. I believe it diminishes itself and the benefit others derive from it by blending its message with political and social issues.

To me its very simple. Compassion. If you teach an individual the value of loving one another, if you guide them to experience love within their heart and to touch others through that love, that can and should translate into their society, naturally. As an organized body, it sets of social programs to help each other because its what it sees the need is and acts accordingly to its own values. If the members of the body involved in the political system outside of their religious organization will then vote into place things that they see reflect and support a better more compassionate society, influenced not by some group mind, but by their transformed heart.

The Church or Sanga, or whatever community of believers exists is to nourish and feed one another spiritually. It doesn't exist to tell them how to vote. If they have derived benefit spiritually, then as a body it is influencing the world by helping awaken individuals.

The core difference of approach here is that one presents a set of beliefs outside the individuals that they are to all conform to, and the other is to teach people how to be the light of the world from within their own unique selves. Not to preach the "church's message", but to be the Message themselves and speak Truth through themselves, not speak another's truth. And that will take many forms, and all is well. All will be as it should be.

If a religion (its leaders) choose to live apart from the rest of humanity in some isolated region of the world and contemplate the universe and God, and their have been these, then the religion still needs to be organised and have a set of rules to regulate and order the daily lives of its members.

It's rules should be about the path, or the discipline, or basically its own organizational structure. If someone is part of that discipline, then they follow the rules to derive the benefit of that tradition. In other words there are proven methods that you agree to practice in order to benefit from them. This again does not translate into telling them how they should vote on issues.

But even those who live apart from the rest of society, a monk in the mountains, I believe they still are influencing the world in deeply subtle ways. Even if there is no face to face interaction, there is influence happening. And to me, that is where the real work is done. In the hearts of the individuals, not in their heads, not in their ideas, not in their beliefs. So again, if you open that energy of the heart, the rest will take care of itself naturally. It cannot help but do so. Love is a creative force. It is adaptive and dynamic and writes Truth in everything it touches. It's not something outside of the individual they "believe in". Their goal should not be "Tell you what to believe and how to act (or vote)", but rather to teach them how to "Let it be and let it become" through them as it will.

The church should teach love. That's it.

 

[Windwalker]

But I want to add a caveat to what I said at the end of my last post today. What about in the meantime until someone develops spiritually to that point? Do they need to be told right and wrong, taught values and whatnot? Yes. It shows them the way, the outcome to strive for, but it has to move from an awareness to a realization.

The danger is that as people look for truth in their lives, they rely on external resources to guide them. This prone to abuse of power, and someone who is not a spiritual teacher, who themselves are lacking any realization of their own, are operating at the ego level. And so their political views become "spiritual truths" as they speak as a spiritual authority. So the crowds are guided not by spirit, but by ideologies influenced by society and culture in the undeveloped psyches of the leaders.

The hard thing about this is that those who are the most gifted spiritually, are typically not the administrators, which is what the role of pastor mostly is. There is something amiss in this structure, where what is truly spiritual does not get down to the flock to guide them into awakening. It becomes conforming to the lower level as spiritual. So what somehow has to happen is that the voice that is heard is that of the mystic, the saint, the sage, not just the unenlightened opinions of the administrator speaking as spiritual authority.

Yes, have Sunday School, teach the rudiments of the faith tradition. But don't mistake those as awakening.

 

[CEMB]

But I want to add a caveat to what I said at the end of my last post today. What about in the meantime until someone develops spiritually to that point? Do they need to be told right and wrong, taught values and whatnot? Yes. It shows them the way, the outcome to strive for, but it has to move from an awareness to a realization.

The danger is that as people look for truth in their lives, they rely on external resources to guide them. This prone to abuse of power, and someone who is not a spiritual teacher, who themselves are lacking any realization of their own, are operating at the ego level. And so their political views become "spiritual truths" as they speak as a spiritual authority. So the crowds are guided not by spirit, but by ideologies influenced by society and culture in the undeveloped psyches of the leaders.

The hard thing about this is that those who are the most gifted spiritually, are typically not the administrators, which is what the role of pastor mostly is. There is something amiss in this structure, where what is truly spiritual does not get down to the flock to guide them into awakening. It becomes conforming to the lower level as spiritual. So what somehow has to happen is that the voice that is heard is that of the mystic, the saint, the sage, not just the unenlightened opinions of the administrator speaking as spiritual authority.

Yes, have Sunday School, teach the rudiments of the faith tradition. But don't mistake those as awakening.

When I was stating that a religion should have a political aspect to it, I didn’t mean to imply that a religion should tell its members who to vote for or which political party its members should support.

I think, however, that I envisage a religion’s purpose slightly different to you. My view of religion is based upon my view of spirituality. Virtuous action, e.g helping others, is the foundation of spirituality, although practices such as meditation and pray contribute to spirituality as well. Thus, in my view, the purpose of religion is primarily to help others. Religion can benefit and improve a society socially as well as spiritually. And when the members of a religion act to help others in need within a society they improve their own ‘spiritual’ health.

A religion does not fully achieve its purpose if it focusses only upon the ‘spiritual’ health of its members without considering the beneficial role it can play in benefitting humanity as a whole. Independent of a government or a corporation or other groups, a religion has the advantage of being able to strengthen humanity by implementing Love, Compassion, Equality – God’s Truth – within society without the limitations other groups have. A religion does not need to worry about votes, or about making a profit. All a religion needs to worry about is doing the right thing: providing superior education for all children, teaching about virtue and vice, opposing those who addict others for profit either through drugs or gambling etc. A religion can do these things and this is religion’s purpose. But for a religion to do this it must be organised and be prepared to interact with society.

I agree groups/organisations are prone to corruption, but rules for governing a group, and which are applicable to all within the group, based upon respect, equality and fairness, and which prohibit bribery, nepotism etc. can reduce the influence of corrupt members. Also the actual organisation and structure of the group, for example the establishment of sub-groups and dispersal of authority within these sub-groups, can limit the influence of an individual to do harm. Furthermore, a religion can have its own independent judiciary to reduce corruption and promote justice.

Finally a leader/founder of a religion can be spiritual and virtuous, but also have or develop administrative or management abilities to effectively run an organised religion and help it achieve its purpose. Any individual who leads others must have these skills.