Two kinds of religion?

[Windwalker]

Fair enough, but that is not at all what I understand the OP to be asking about.

It is not about esoterism vs exoterism, but rather about obedience and fear vs seeking.

Exoteric is about conformity (obedience and fear), and escotic is about the internal, personal seeking approaches. Those are just the technical terms that are used to describe the different approaches to religion which he was bringing up in the OP. Exoteric covers all of that which is exterior to oneself. Esoteric covers all that internal to oneself.

 

[LuisDantas]

I will have to think about that for a while, for I just don't think I agree with such a reading right now.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing.
Is this dichotomy incorrect?

I'm not sure. If we view spiritual life as a journey, then perhaps it's about the path that we take. Do we want the security of being told which path is the correct one, or are we prepared to find our own way based on some more general principles?

 

[Riverwolf]

Exoteric is about conformity (obedience and fear), and escotic is about the internal, personal seeking approaches.

Not really.

Exoteric in this context means "on the outside"; i.e., a religion wherein a practitioner focuses on external behavior and worldly matters. Esoteric is the opposite: focusing more on insight and meditation. Basically a physical/mental dichotomoy. Either one can involve obediance or exploring.

What I think the OP is going for, based on what @LuisDantas has been saying, is what I'd describe loosely as a sliding scale of agency: how much personal agency does a given practitioner have in their religious context? On the one extreme you have the Borg, and on the other extreme you have the Cowboy.

 

[LuisDantas]

How so, Disciple?

 

[Windwalker]

Not really.

Exoteric in this context means "on the outside"; i.e., a religion wherein a practitioner focuses on external behavior and worldly matters.

You don't think conformity, rule/role based religion is "on the outside"? What are they conforming to if it's not something outside themselves?

Esoteric is the opposite: focusing more on insight and meditation. Basically a physical/mental dichotomoy.

I certainly agree with this.

Either one can involve obediance or exploring.

Obedience in the esoteric sense is conformity to the inner voice, the higher truth within. I don't see conformity to religious rules so much of an exploration of the self. How do you?

What I think the OP is going for, based on what @LuisDantas has been saying, is what I'd describe loosely as a sliding scale of agency: how much personal agency does a given practitioner have in their religious context? On the one extreme you have the Borg, and on the other extreme you have the Cowboy.

If we revisit what the OP said, "However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing," it's pretty clear the dichotomy is between external authority (exoteric), and personal journey (esoteric). His dichotomy are those two, external authority versus personal journey. I'm not sure where agency is the separating line here. Help me out a little.

 

[Curious George]

It has occurred to me in a profound way, almost an epiphany, that there are two kinds of religions persons. I do not mean to generalize and am completely aware that there are those who think there are two kinds of people; those that think there are two kinds of people and those that know better. However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing.

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

Dichotomy is correct, (opposing terms can represent a dichotomy) but if you are using it to categorize people in a mutually exclusive manner- it is a false dichotomy (logic term of art meaning the two are not mutually exclusive). However if you set up your concept as continuum and place people somewhere along it, I think you have it.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Windwalker: it may help to refresh the basic descriptions of the red and blue levels as applied to beliefs.

I truly think the OP is addressing those almost exactly.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

My religious thoughts have refined themselves down to a set of basic may or may not be.Things I know I know and the things I think I know.
Drifted away from mainstream religion when I realized this can't possibly be the way things are .

 

[illykitty]

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

1- Not exactly, but I think of it more like a scale than two boxes. Many people are at various points along that scale. Within the same religion, there can be people who are at opposite points. But it's great that you realised that there is a difference.

2- I'm very much on the side of self-exploration. I do draw inspiration and ideas from others, but only under some conditions. It depends on if it feels right, if it makes sense and if it's useful. Then I might expand upon those ideas or they might spark my own ideas. I can easily discard them if they're no longer relevant. All of this, while being under the umbrella of Paganism, with a humanistic and naturalistic slant, because this is what I felt was the most natural for me.

3- You sound like a clever person, so I think you can guess which it is from what I wrote above.

 

[JoStories]

Can you expand on your thoughts here?

You didn't ask me but my two cents are that some accept blindly and never question. To me, that is not what faith is about. It's about exploring the realm of the mystical and belief itself. If one cannot question, what is the point of that journey? I personally could,never just accept that one book holds all truths. It's not logical to me. Rather, a spiritual journey should explore all avenues and all parts of truth, however that fits the persons mindset.

 

[JoStories]

1. Yes. (If im understanding corret) A lot of folk, abrahamic, and some eastern faiths are set in stone. Modern, reconstructionists mutt religions not so much. Id say on a pie chart, the former, the bigger portion is structures, authoritative, and smaller half room to grow. The latter, the structured part is pretty small compared to wanting freedom of expression.

2. Second. Religion or how you live your spirituality should be, imo, free and spontaneous. As a modern pagan, I value holistic living and natural expression of faith. I admire rituals but there should be leg room to grow. As a Buddhist by faith, I value how Buddhist define life through cause and effect, which paganism, by strict definition pagan is also polytheistic, so doesnt see life outside of that view. (pagan, not neopagan)

3. something that evolves

I am curious what eastern faiths you think are set in stone? Could you explain what you think they are and why?
I totally concur with your second statement about fsith being free and spontaneous.

 

[JoStories]

Actually, the red, amber, orange, green, etc levels have both exoteric and esoteric aspects of themselves. So it's not really a matter of red itself being the esoteric path. It was not. The red level on the esoteric side would be the Shaman, whereas the exoteric would be the tribal religions themselves. You can certainly have modern religion being nothing but exoteric. And you can have those at the modern level practice the esoteric aspects of it. It's not a matter of the level itself.

As a Native American, I cannot agree here. Speaking only for my own tribe, all parts of the path involve all members of the tribe. Nothing is truly exoteric in that. The shaman may lead, although that is not always set in stone either but all members are part of the spiritual practices and path.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For some religious dogma is a comfort, for others it's a limitation.

 

[Bunyip]

It has occurred to me in a profound way, almost an epiphany, that there are two kinds of religions persons. I do not mean to generalize and am completely aware that there are those who think there are two kinds of people; those that think there are two kinds of people and those that know better. However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing.

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

I think that dichotomy is fundamental. It is critical. Religions evolve. Even what is written in the stones.

 

[JoStories]

I think that dichotomy is fundamental. It is critical. Religions evolve. Even what is written in the stones.

Incredibly true. Look just at how christianty has changed over the centuries, particularly, the RCC. But even Protestantism has changed dramatically.

 

[JoStories]

For some religious dogma is a comfort, for others it's a limitation.

Also true. It was the dogma that turned me off to most organized religions. That made no sense to me. Things like funerals have never made sense but I suppose that is my NA upbringing. But other things like confessing ones sins? No thank you.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Incredibly true. Look just at how christianty has changed over the centuries, particularly, the RCC.

I suppose we should be grateful the inquisition isn't burning witches these days.

 

[Windwalker]

@Windwalker: it may help to refresh the basic descriptions of the red and blue levels as applied to beliefs.

I truly think the OP is addressing those almost exactly.

I'm very familiar with the basic descriptions of these levels applied to beliefs, and I am at a loss as to how you apply them to what the OP said, "I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing." Where does the latter fit into the red level? You mean the magic level, where the world is attached to one's self through invisible threads and controlled through will and intention? That's the only connection I can seem to make here, so I'd like to hear your thoughts explained in a little more detail.

But regarding that "connection" I just cited, that actually doesn't fit what the OP said at all. The authoritative revealed type of thing would fit the blue (or amber) stage, yes. Mythic gods replaced magic systems. But the magic systems (red) are not personal journey things, interior explorations. They are power-seeking, to control the world. They are not self-exploration at all. They are an attempt to conquer the world through magic for self-power. They are narcissistic in nature.

Here's where I think the disconnect lays. When the OP speaks of "authoritative revealed" religion as a type, he is in fact referring to the Amber level (blue meme). But in his mind, and the mind of pretty much all modern atheists, that religion is defined by and as what is seen in the amber stage. It's your traditional, mythic religion. So in practice of "religion", what you see is in fact the vast majority looking outside themselves for an external authority. So that equals one hand of religion, and the other hand is the inward-seeking hand. Red religion doesn't have anything to do with that, really (except maybe in the minds of green retro-romantics in their myths of the noble savage, of paradise lost). If religion, according to the OP is "external authority", or "Personal exploration", he is solely pointing to what he sees as religion, which is the blue, or amber, meme. And within that level, you have the basic two divisions of exoteric and esoteric. Exoteric and esoteric exist at ALL levels, red, blue, orange, green, etc.

Make sense? You can have personal exploration at any levels, and he is defining religion in seen in the amber stage, which is authority driven. There is no indication the red level being addressed here, as for one thing it really isn't all that prevalent here as much. But I welcome your laying out your case otherwise.

 

[Windwalker]

As a Native American, I cannot agree here. Speaking only for my own tribe, all parts of the path involve all members of the tribe. Nothing is truly exoteric in that.

Of course this is exoteric. Exoteric religion is the outer forms, the practices, the rituals, the rules, the rites of passage, etc. That all members are involved in this means it is in fact the external forms, the exoteric aspects of religion they are engaged with. There's nothing "wrong" with that, of course. All religions have this aspect, legitimately.

The shaman may lead, although that is not always set in stone either but all members are part of the spiritual practices and path.

It might help if you define what you mean by the spiritual path in this context. When I was citing the shaman specifically in regards to the esoteric aspects of religion, I was referring to where they will enter into mystical states and go on a spirit journey. That specifically is what is the personal exploration.

Now I am not saying that exoteric aspects are 100% divorced from esoteric aspects. They certainly are not. Drumming and dance, sweat lodges, chant, ritual sacrifice, and so forth all play an important role that aid in opening one to the inner paths. But not necessarily. Many can practice all the forms, and become quite insistent upon them being just so, and never have any sort of interior experiences, let alone actual explorations (like the shaman or a mystic will in various higher states of consciousness). The hope of exoteric forms, is that they will lead to esoteric awakenings. And when the latter occur, it can in fact better inform the exoteric forms, opening practitioners to the possibility of their own awakening.

But Christianity, which is what the OP is referring to is not a shamanic religion, but a mythic God religion. The power of the shaman, is replaced by God as authority, elevated from shaman as leader, to an Absolute Authority. Those that follow the extoric forms: the beliefs, the doctrines, the creeds, the practices, the traditions, etc, are in most cases not having any sort of inner awakening themselves. They are not entering into the sweat lodges, sitting on the meditation mat, going inward, looking within, etc. They are "Christians", because they self-identify with the forms. Therefore that practice is in fact wholly an exoteric religion.

Does this help clarify my thoughts?