A Statement on Religion

I love interacting with such a wide variety of folks--so much stands out as apparent that can be hard to notice without diversity. As our major social institutions attempt to adjust to the new global context, we end up questioning the importance, forms, and purpose(s) of government, religion, family, etc. For a long time, I've wondered about the basic function of religion as a human phenomenon. I've rarely been interested in separatist/relativistic, ethnic-based variations of this human thing, but there are some fascinating potentials that stand out very clearly by comparing all these variations.

Adi Da (definitely a strange and fascinating cat) points out that the avoidance of unconditional relationship is the characteristic cause and condition of what he calls "egoic" activity. In comparison to this, most of us can get at least a provisional grasp on the idea, experience, and perhaps reality of unconditional connection, of always-already unqualified and primary relatedness. I first ran into the denial of this relatedness as a four or five year-old in Sunday school on the day they taught us about original sin and how Jesus took the suffering and iniquity of the entire world upon himself. Like others, something in me ran counter to accepting this statement. I felt and had felt more love in my life than what that statement or perspective seemed to allow.

DT Suzuki has said that all religions have in common the affirmation or awareness of tathata (suchness) as a certain historical base and constant refuge. While exoteric forms of religion may get away from suchness, most religions' scriptures very clearly state something along the lines of Christ's injunction to live as the lilies of the field, to be "as a child" in relation to God. For a long time, I have questioned the purpose of religion rather than wondering much about the differences between religions. Difference doesn't bother me much, but stupidity often does.

If religion has commonality in tathata, then what is its worldwide purpose? In the face of history and future changes in society, what? Tathata is so self-obvious and noncontradictory, that there is little to be said on that topic (at least from where I stand). But the nonseparation that mindful awareness of tathata makes apparent may be worth remarking. I believe that there is a difference between the basis of something and its possible purpose(s). Even when a base may be obvious or explicit, purpose in a changing environment may be occluded or may simply need to adapt. I believe the global purpose of religion (worldwide) has not really changed, but it has been obscured (or often-occluded).

While this purpose has been stated in many ways, there are rare moments when we grasp this as individuals in a very tangible sense, and there are rare individuals who grasp this continuously or nearly continuously. I believe it is and has been the purpose of religion to state an affirmation of the assumption of the basic and indisputable nonseparation of consciousness or reality or beings-as/within-tathata.

In this, I mean assumption in the same sense that we can test and affirm gravity. Once it is tested sufficiently (for one's taste or purposes), it can be assumed. Stated assumptions may always be tested again if someone raises sufficient question or challenge.

When churches--and even particular ethnic/regional/separatist religions--lose their sense of contextualization within global society and religion as a whole, they confuse a sense of purpose, leading into various corruptions, misdirections, and cultic perversions (such as an overly sentimental focus on "love" or an overly righteous/arrogant focus on laws or some perverse and petty form of "justice"). In the same way that any incorporated social group loses its cohesion and purpose and clarity when it loses its focus, many religious groups have run amok due to their loss of focus. While they often blame this loss on the changing times or other people, every supposedly external description has a corresponding internal description. In other words, they may choose to focus on external circumstances but these external circumstances have only made internal weaknesses apparent (rather than allowing these weaknesses to remain hidden).

The purpose of religion in the worldwide history and current global society of humans is to affirm the assumption of nonseparation.

Without a clear focus on this purpose, we lose a sense of connection to an unassailable basis. When we lose that sense without losing that connection which cannot actually be lost, we end up living in a very confusing world--the product of a limited mind-perspective--rather than living in a self-obviously abundant world.