laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/07/84)
... or "Hey Rich Rosen! I think that I got it!". Remeber a while back when i proposed that Rich Rosen use the mega-mouthful: "Authority centered religions founded on a belief in a Supreme Being" or something like that? I believe that i can better this. the final definition may require more work, but what I believe Rich Rosen is objecting to is Exoteric religions. I figure that the Esoteric ones don't bother him. (( But he may tell me I am wrong... )) I was looking through OPEN SECRETS by Walt Anderson, looking for something else when I came across this. Since this book does not have in its copyright notice "cannot copy part or whole", but merely says that you can't put your own cover on the whole deal (or copy the whole deal) an sell it I do not feel that I am violating the copyright by quoting from it. Tibetan Buddhism has a great tradition of esoteric lore, of knowledge kept secret from the general public and passed on from teacher to student. [...] The existence of an esoteric tradition in a religion implies that it functions on different levels of meaning -- that it has outer forms, exoteric material for people who are not able or ready to take in its secret content, and inner meanings for those who have been initiated. The exoteric material in a religion usually serves social or political purposes: It provides codes of morality to regulate behaviour, rituals to sacralize the transitions of individual life and the events of the year, a common store of beliefs that help people sense their connectedness to one another and their culture. The esoteric material is concerned with personal growth and the evolution of the mind. [...] (discussion of revivals in Gnosticism, Hasidism and an interest in the occult as symptoms of a society that is in search of an esoteric tradition) [...] (discussion of how even if you reveal the secrets of an esoteric tratdition, you have not really *revealed* them since they only work if you are ready for them -- thus an initiate, though perhaps not an "official" one.) The esoteric-exoteric distinction also involves morality. Every religion has its rules about how people are supposed to behave. Such codes of morality are usually exoteric, handed out as the word of God, meant to be obeyed (whether one understands their purpose or not) because they make society work. In the esoteric traditions, codes of morality are less important for the simple reason that the ultimate purpose of the spiritual effort is to attain a level of personal development at which morality is natural. It is discovered within oneself, and external authority is no longer necessary or meaningful. [...] (discussion of how this relates to Western psychology.) So. Does it sound like what it was you were objecting to was exoterica? i think so. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/10/84)
Very interesting article from Laura. But I think that the author of the book she referred to (OPEN SECRETS) was discussing the difference between the *content* of a religion's 'exoterica' and the *content* of a religion's 'esoterica'. It sounds like we are talking about the difference between a moral code for society (authoritarian and enforced) and a personal development code (self-enforced or voluntary). The adjectives I include in parentheses could be switched to the opposite facet of the discussion; e.g., authoritarian personal code with voluntary societal moral code. It is again the authoritarianism that is repugnant, not the notion of a personal versus a universal code. I think Walt Anderson (the author of OPEN SECRETS) hit the nail squarely on the head when he wrote: ________The esoteric-exoteric distinction also involves morality. | Every religion has its rules about how people are supposed | to behave. Such codes of morality are usually exoteric, | HANDED OUT AS THE WORD OF GOD, MEANT TO BE OBEYED (WHETHER | ONE UNDERSTANDS THEIR PURPOSE OR NOT) BECAUSE THEY MAKE |_______SOCIETY WORK... ________ | ...In the esoteric traditions, codes of morality | are less important for the simple reason that the ultimate | purpose of the spiritual effort is to attain a level of | personal development AT WHICH MORALITY IS NATURAL. It is | discovered WITHIN ONESELF, and EXTERNAL AUTHORITY IS NO LONGER |_______NECESSARY OR MEANINGFUL. [...] (discussion of how this relates to Western psychology.) In the first set of brackets (CAPS mine), Anderson described the CONtent and INtent of such a moral code: one obeys whether one understands or not. And one obeys that particular set of laws as described by one's religion because THEY MAKE SOCIETY WORK. I always thought that society was supposed to be a means to accommodate the needs of each individual within a group of clustered individuals, and not that individuals were put on this earth to adhere to the laws of a society already in place. In the second set of brackets, Anderson discussed what, to me, is a more intelligent means to spiritual development, involving a personal voluntary commitment to a moral code and an understanding of the reasons behind it. But Laura, if you continue to call life-philosophies that don't adhere to the dictionary definition of 'religion' (with all the trappings therein about worship and god) by the name 'religion', you are disenchanting those like me who find the notion of 'religion' repugnant. ("When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.") -- Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr