Religious impulse is born free, but shackled by words

By and large, JC Wilcox and I are moving in the same direction. However, his definition of “religion” is narrow and inflexible. Words are always the problem.

The established religions have been hijacked by words, which have been used to cripple, corrupt and repress, to manipulate, confuse and produce misunderstanding. They are the essence of dictatorial rules, theologies, creeds and dogmas that complicate peoples’ lives. Even institutional Buddhism has thousands of “scriptural directives”. Words enable religious powerbrokers to “cultivate” human beings in superficial and subservient ways. They imprison, cause conflict and guilt, create hypocrites and cowards and promote pseudo-righteousness, which serves to satisfy the ego, but little else. Words hide reality and develop barriers for human intelligence to blossom.

There are multiple definitions of “religion”. For example, Eric Fromm distinguished between “authoritarian” and “humanistic” religion. Krishnamurti said “belief is not religion, and the authority … the organised religions assume, is not religion … Religion is the sense of comprehension of the totality of existence ... Therefore a religious mind is a mind that is constantly aware, sensitive, attentive [through a deep, quiet silence]”.

For me, if God is existence (which is not the same as saying that God exists), then consciousness (awareness) must surely be religion. 

“Try to define religion and you invite an argument,” concluded Patrick MacNamara. Developing a personal understanding of religion and religiosity with a minimum of verbiage has always been mankind’s greatest challenge. We haven’t done very well so far!

John Shepherd