My take on religion, spiritual cult, tantra and humanism.

[Marcion]

People differ in their notions of the concepts of religion, spirituality, humanism, tantra and cult.
This is my own sketchy take on these concepts, which is loosely based on the teachings of my spiritual Master, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (1921-1990).

In my view there can be no question of calling a path a religion unless there is the presence of irrationality such as a combination of superstitions and/or ritualism and/or dogmatically accepted ideas in that path.
If these are absent, if irrationality, dogma, ritualism and superstition are rejected, it is just another spiritual cult or path and not a religion.

Original Buddhism in that sense, is not a religion but a spiritual cult, a humanistic spiritual path.
A spiritual cult is a set or coherent system of spiritual practices and such a system may also be called tantra, the sustained practical effort to free or liberate the 'self' (individual consciousness) from darkness or ignorance.
Jesus started a spiritual or tantric cult and some of his followers then created the Christian religion which side-tracked this cult and made it less tantric and more religious.

Of course a certain amount of spiritual cult or tantra is also part of all religious systems as well. Some religious sects are more tantric than others, some tantric elements in religions may be more and others may be less well developed.
So religions should never be condemned, as there are also tantric aspects or elements in religions.

Rather it is the divisive aspects of religions that should be criticised, the dogma’s, the superstitious beliefs (often expressed in ritualism) and other irrational aspects.
By making the religions more humanistic in that sense, they will loose their divisiveness and allow humanity to feel more harmony.

If all irrationality and dogma can be removed from religions, the (irrational) concept of religion will disappear and only different spiritual cults will remain and (spiritual or neo-) humanism will have become the global norm.

Do you agree with me that religions should preferably become less irrational and more humanistic, so more like Buddhism and other similar spiritual paths?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Do you agree with me that religions should preferably become less irrational and more humanistic, so more like Buddhism and other similar spiritual paths?

Yes I do.

 

[PureX]

Irrationality is fundamental to honest human thought and experience. I think it's the attempts by organized religion to turn irrationality into a delusion of rationality that dooms them in the end to blind (obedience-driven) cultism. Religions should stop pretending that they are rational, and instead, focus on their being functional, in a positive way, for humans living in an often very irrational world. We NEED to recognize, and learn to deal with the irrationality that we experience constantly in our lives. And we especially need to jettison the delusion that we can, have, and do 'understand our purely rational environment' through our philosophical conceptualizations of "God", science, sociology, and whatever other of these kinds of rationalizations we create for ourselves.

Existence as we experience it is not rational. And we need a means for dealing with this fact of our reality. Religion can be that means for a great many of us, but only if we're being honest about it, and recognizing that it is all about irrationality. It is not the resolution of irrationality, to rationality, through blind presumption.

 

[Jim]

@Marcion With possibly some disagreements about side issues, I like your idea.

 

[Marcion]

Irrationality is fundamental to honest human thought and experience.

I agree that no spiritual realisation can come about by using only the rational mind, because our minds are too small to fathom the ocean of spiritual reality beneath the sensual world.

But that was not my point. If e.g. someone tells you that God can or should only be worshipped by pointing your nose in the direction of one certain holy place on our globe or that you can only get salvation by visiting certain holy spots, or that God spoke only through the texts of one specific holy book, then you can rationally analyse that such irrational or superstitious beliefs must be faulty and will never lead you to your spiritual salvation.

It is the fears and ignorance of simple people that allows such religious dogma's and superstitions to survive, which is the cause of divisiveness in our human society.
Such people will e.g never practise yoga exercises if their religious leaders warn them against it, eventhough everyone can experience for themselves (rationally) that they can bring physical and emotional relaxation and even cure certain ailments.

 

[PureX]

I agree that no spiritual realisation can come about by using only the rational mind, because our minds are too small to fathom the ocean of spiritual reality beneath the sensual world.

But that was not my point. If e.g. someone tells you that God can or should only be worshipped by pointing your nose in the direction of one certain holy place on our globe or that you can only get salvation by visiting certain holy spots, or that God spoke only through the texts of one specific holy book, then you can rationally analyze that such irrational or superstitious beliefs must be faulty and will never lead you to your spiritual salvation.

"Faulty" by what criteria? Such religious practices are not intended to be 'rationalized'. They are intended to help the practitioner function better/more fully in a spiritual paradigm. This was my point: to stop pretending that the purpose of religion is to 'rationalize' our experience of reality when in fact it's purpose is to give us some means of facing and interacting with an experience of reality that is NOT rational. Because reality is NOT rational. Not from the limited human perspective through which we must navigate it.

It is the fears and ignorance of simple people that allows such religious dogma's and superstitions to survive, which is the cause of divisiveness in our human society.

These dogmas and superstitions survive because they work for people. Not rationally, but that was never their point or their purpose. They work spiritually. And that's why people continue to use them. If they didn't function, they would have been discarded long ago.

Such people will e.g never practice yoga exercises if their religious leaders warn them against it, even though everyone can experience for themselves (rationally) that they can bring physical and emotional relaxation and even cure certain ailments.

This is a different issue. People tend to fear the unknown, and so do not readily try new things unless they are pushed to do so by circumstance. The main circumstance being that their old way isn't working for them anymore, or satisfactorily. But if it is, they will stay with it. That's just human nature.

 

[Twilight Hue]

People differ in their notions of the concepts of religion, spirituality, humanism, tantra and cult.
This is my own sketchy take on these concepts, which is loosely based on the teachings of my spiritual Master, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (1921-1990).

In my view there can be no question of calling a path a religion unless there is the presence of irrationality such as a combination of superstitions and/or ritualism and/or dogmatically accepted ideas in that path.
If these are absent, if irrationality, dogma, ritualism and superstition are rejected, it is just another spiritual cult or path and not a religion.

Original Buddhism in that sense, is not a religion but a spiritual cult, a humanistic spiritual path.
A spiritual cult is a set or coherent system of spiritual practices and such a system may also be called tantra, the sustained practical effort to free or liberate the 'self' (individual consciousness) from darkness or ignorance.
Jesus started a spiritual or tantric cult and some of his followers then created the Christian religion which side-tracked this cult and made it less tantric and more religious.

Of course a certain amount of spiritual cult or tantra is also part of all religious systems as well. Some religious sects are more tantric than others, some tantric elements in religions may be more and others may be less well developed.
So religions should never be condemned, as there are also tantric aspects or elements in religions.

Rather it is the divisive aspects of religions that should be criticised, the dogma’s, the superstitious beliefs (often expressed in ritualism) and other irrational aspects.
By making the religions more humanistic in that sense, they will loose their divisiveness and allow humanity to feel more harmony.

If all irrationality and dogma can be removed from religions, the (irrational) concept of religion will disappear and only different spiritual cults will remain and (spiritual or neo-) humanism will have become the global norm.

Do you agree with me that religions should preferably become less irrational and more humanistic, so more like Buddhism and other similar spiritual paths?

While I think Buddhism is woefully ineffective as a religion in terms of theistic spirituality, there can still be a holistic benefit derived from practicing Buddhism by which a person may hold onto irrationality and flights of fantasy.

I think the humanistic approach is certainly recommended, by which the practice of Buddhism can help a person with "Keeping the feet on the ground" which greatly helps in the prevention of embellishments and fabrications that we pretty much all have time to time, and keeping things realistic and direct.