• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Two kinds of religion?

Vishvavajra

Active Member
Yeah, I'm not buying the exoteric/esoteric dichotomy as defined above. Esoteric practices are ones that are only open to the initiated, which traditionally implied an organized structure of some sort, not solo mysticism, whereas exoteric practices might feature relatively little hierarchical structure. The semantics have shifted a bit in the modern day, but the inward and outwardness don't necessarily refer to the individual; Tibetan Buddhist schools, for example, are highly esoteric but also highly structured and dependent on a strict master-student relationship, whereas there are a lot of exoteric practices in popular Protestant Christianity that are fairly unstructured and non-hierarchical.

Is there a correlation between esoteric practice and the #2 definition of religion above? Probably, but it's not an equivalency. There's a lot of Mormonism that's esoteric by the strict definition, and it's entirely a type-1 affair, whereas Tantric Buddhism is also hierarchical and initiatory but firmly type-2.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yeah, I'm not buying the exoteric/esoteric dichotomy as defined above. Esoteric practices are ones that are only open to the initiated,
? Well, in part I will agree with this, in the context that within a school the master can determine whether or not a student is ready. But believe me, the esoteric itself is not confined to particular schools or disciplines. Anyone can access their own interiors, and there is certainly no restrictions on what some are in fact able to do without masters to teach them. Who taught the first masters, do you suppose? Quite a great many go it alone, are self-taught, are pioneers, explorers who are compelled beyond their teachers, if any. You do know that the best teachers are those who create students who surpass themselves? How can this be, if everyone must be instructed by a teacher to find everything they have already?

The semantics have shifted a bit in the modern day, but the inward and outwardness don't necessarily refer to the individual; Tibetan Buddhist schools, for example, are highly esoteric but also highly structured and dependent on a strict master-student relationship, whereas there are a lot of exoteric practices in popular Protestant Christianity that are fairly unstructured and non-hierarchical.
Tibetan Buddhism is both esoteric and exoteric. I have never argued for a complete separation of these. You may need to read the other posts I've made where I explain the relationship between them. But the point is, if someone is all about the rules, all about making sure that this deity is worshipped correctly, and the proper Tibetan Buddhist practice, for instance for this particular school of thought, THAT, is all exoteric. It is placing the emphasis on the form, not what it points to which is realized internally.

Is there a correlation between esoteric practice and the #2 definition of religion above? Probably, but it's not an equivalency. There's a lot of Mormonism that's esoteric by the strict definition, and it's entirely a type-1 affair, whereas Tantric Buddhism is also hierarchical and initiatory but firmly type-2.
Honestly, I'm not sure any Mormonism is esoteric. What are you referring to?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think what is helpful to understand is I am not speaking about "esoteric knowledge" or practices in the sense of "secret" for only the initiates. I am speaking of esoteric in the sense of inner meditative practices changing ones perspectives and consciousness itself. It is the inward journey, not "secret" knowledge that only the high priests share with the elite few.

This is from an article I just came across that describes what I am talking about more accurately: Esoteric and Exoteric

Central to the distinction between Esoteric and Exoteric is that of states of consciousness. An Exoteric philosophy or religion as one which is based on the normal waking state of consciousness, or a modified state of consciousness which is still pretty close to the normal waking state. Any aspiration beyond the ordinary state of existence is discouraged. For example, according to the religious person, "God created/loves you just as you are", so who are you to question what God has ordained for you by striving for some higher state of consciousness? While according to the sceptical Materialist, there is no higher state beyond the rational mind anyway (all non-rational states of consciousness being delusionary).

The problem with the view, which is common, that "esoteric" knowledge means some secret knowledge, as though once you've been initiated it can be taught to you and you then hold that esoteric knowledge. What that is in reality is just a form of secret information, and doesn't mean it is an inner knowledge at all! Esoteric knowledge is an inner realization, not a super-secret hidden book only the elite get to look at. Inner to the group, is not inner to the self. Even a high priest in a temple can be completely lacking of inner awareness, while holding in possession the "secret" teachings of the group.

What makes a teaching "secret" is simply because the unillumined mind cannot see what is plainly obvious. An esoteric practice is to help one's mind open to these "hidden truths", that are in fact hidden in plain sight! The problem is and the reason why these "realizations", which is what they are, are kept from being taught to the "uninitiated", is because frankly their minds will take what is said and interpret it to support the sort of garbage you see in American Christianity, for starts. :)

It's like if a child gets the diary of an adult. Their little minds will try to translate what is being said in their terms as a child! They simply do not have the developmental context in order to apprehend the "hidden" meaning of what is right before them. Their minds cannot received it. But here's the key, it is not a matter of education. I'll repeat, it's not a matter of schooling. It's a matter of actual, real, transformation of consciousness itself. That cannot be taught out of books. This is why the esoteric knowledge is not for the academically, or liturgically "advanced". It's for the consciously prepared. It's for those who conscious is awakening and are ready to build upon that foundation, and it is held by from those who are developmentally not ready, because it will be dangerous in the sense they will create nonsense ideas and religions out of them.

So, simply saying something is secret knowledge, does not translate into meaning those who have gone through years of advanced teachings. It must entail actual transformation of consciousness itself. And I seriously doubt many of these so-called "esoteric" clubs actually do anything in regards to that. They may simply call it that, because it sounds special, but in reality, its just a child dressed up in oversized adult clothes.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Can you describe what is being done in temple worship?
No. But considering what you said here...

I think what is helpful to understand is I am not speaking about "esoteric knowledge" or practices in the sense of "secret" for only the initiates. I am speaking of esoteric in the sense of inner meditative practices changing ones perspectives and consciousness itself. It is the inward journey, not "secret" knowledge that only the high priests share with the elite few.

...we appear to be using the word "esoteric" differently anyway.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No. But considering what you said here...



...we appear to be using the word "esoteric" differently anyway.
Thank you, as I thought, and why I asked if there is any esoteric practices in Mormonism, meaning transformational practices of consciousness. I didn't suspect so. But that is not to say there are not individuals who are able to use the symbols of the religion in the transformation of the interior spaces of their own consciousness.

I'll put what I said earlier in simple terms: Exoteric = exterior forms. Esoteric = interior landscapes.

Now you can see that exoteric is about following, or conforming to form, to the religion itself, it's beliefs, rituals, etc. Escotic is about self-knowledge, self-awakening, to higher states of consciousness. You certainly can have both operating, to be sure. But most religion we see is mainly exoteric, lacking focus on developing the interior spaces, exactly as the OP tried to point out.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
Is this dichotomy incorrect?
Well, at my church we all just call ourselves sinners saved by grace, just like anybody else. We do not elevate ourselves to some kind of religious hierarchy from the common man because Jesus was a common man. I definitely think there are people that would elevate themselves and say they are better in some ways than other people but "pride goes before a fall".
Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?
In the Bible God reveals himself over time. So we in fact we could say that religion is an evolutionary thing but it must culminate to a certain purpose. There is a method to the madness. God still reveals himself in the same way to us personally because we are apart of the story of God. I may not know everything there is to know about God today but my knowledge of God is growing day by day.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

I'm definitely in the open exploration camp, personally. I see religion as all man made entities and therefore fallible (that doesn't mean there aren't still truths, of course.)

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

I think it's fundamental that religion evolves. Religion is merely a path for us to try to get to God. But God is formless, ageless, timeless and beyond our comprehension. As we learn more and more about Science and our fellow man, so too does our comprehension of God change. This means the pathway should adjust, imo.
 
Top