It just all seems made up and arbitrary, and anyone who claims that something special has been revealed to them I tend to think is misguided or confusing a psychological process for an external communication.
Zen is the closest that I would come to participating in religion as a devotee, and actually I spent a couple months in a lay-monastic situation when I was younger, which was very intense and useful. Most other religions are too externally imposive for my tastes. I just lump all that together with other things that don't make sense unless you're in a self-referential system. It's 'Sit and figure it out for yourself' vs 'THIS IS HOLY WRIT'.
Even Zen fails me on certain key points, such as claiming to be the 'Front Gate' to enlightenment. Ugh, ugh, ugh. That statement is the one that really kills it for me whenever I go. I seriously promise to attend the first Religious/Spiritual group that does not make these sorts of claims. I am totally serious, if you can show me a religion that is not self-aggrandizing, I will sign right up. Except the Unitarians, they don't count.
Just like certain political and patriotic beliefs make sense if you're in a closed system, Religion can seam like a true thing, but it doesn't admit to change without hypocrisy. Changes in revelation seems to be a fashionable accompaniment to changes in human society, not the other way around.
I get like that with politics too, and unfortunately have been pushed into being a strident Democrat the last few years via subconscious need to cling together for safety against certain geopolitical trends. But I look forward to a more even two-party rule consisting of mostly grid-lock wherein my Independent/Libertarian/Green streaks can distract me from my current party affiliation.
With a little research, I could also point you to some social psychology readings on religion that would help explore the issue of why people claim their religion is "the way".
"Even Zen fails me on certain key points, such as claiming to be the 'Front Gate' to enlightenment."
Claiming to be "the way", I think is a very natural result of religious community coming together to figure out their religion. You've put a lot of thought and understanding in how, why and what you believe on the best understanding you have available to you. You then devote time, energy, and a lifestyle to living out those beliefs. So if you can't say, this way is "the way", then why are you in this religious community, why are you living this lifestyle? From a psychological perspective, you need the cognitive and the behavioral to line up.
I also think you can simultaneously say my belief is "the way" while accepting that other people in other religious communities have found "the way". In Vietnam, we were exposed to a way of thinking that allowed you to hold two contradictory ideas without believing them to be contradictory. It's really a tough thing for us logical westerners. It was frustrating at times, but it also made their lives so much easier to be able to accept two different ideas without the need to reconcile them in some manner.
"I am totally serious, if you can show me a religion that is not self-aggrandizing, I will sign right up. Except the Unitarians, they don't count."
Interestingly enough, there are Unitarians who believe in "the way" of being Unitarian, so they aren't immune.
"It's 'Sit and figure it out for yourself' vs 'THIS IS HOLY WRIT'."
Christianity as many practice it is a little bit of both of those concepts. You meditate on and study scripture (or sermons and books or what other people say) to reach ideas/conclusions, but you test it against scripture. You also do this as part of your faith community. This practice keeps the faith consistent and safeguards against an individuals "who claim[s] that something special has been revealed to them".
"Religion can seem like a true thing, but it doesn't admit to change without hypocrisy. Changes in revelation seems to be a fashionable accompaniment to changes in human society, not the other way around."
Christianity, Islam and Judaism has all changed. I'm not sure that all the change is the result of hypocrisy, although some probably is. I think the largest change comes with new ways of interpreting scripture, which isn't hypocritical to me. It's part of a process of constantly improving how we understand religion which is an important aspect of religion, imho. Changes in human society DO cause Christians to reconsider how they interpret scripture or whether they are forgetting some part of the scripture in favor of other scripture. I don't see that as backward. I see it as moving forward.
Have you ever read, "Elementary Religions" by Emilie Durkheim. He's a major father of sociology and takes a functionalist approach to reigion. In other words, religion exists to a purpose. I think you could appreciate this book. I have it if you have the inclinatio to read it.
Your post really has me thinking. I wanted to talk to you more about it more last night, but that didn't end up happening. Your question has me thinking about my own Buddhist faith and has me contemplating whether or not they are what you don't like about religion and are self aggrandizing. I think it would be fair to say that we believe our practice is the most direct path to enlightenment if done correctly, so I'm not so sure if it is what you are looking for. On the other hand they talk about respect for other beliefs and a realization that we are not all going to have the same practice or faith ever and that is ok, we don't all have to be the same to achieve world peace.
The situation is complicated but our organization was separated from the priesthood in the 90's because the Soka Gakkai president followed Nichiren Daishonin's teachings that we all can achieve enlightenment ourselves and that it wasn't something that could only be achieved with the help of a priest. The priests were theatened and because of that the Soka Gakkai was excommunicated. Nichiren was a 13th century Japanese priest to whom this Buddhism is named after.
Enlightenment, for those who are reading this not familiar with the term, is a higher state of being in which our compassion for others is heightened and a state in which we realize our fullest potential and innate Buddhahood. So in short we believe that by chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, we are fusing ourselves with the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni's self confessed highest teaching. The Lotus Sutra professes equality and the ability of all beings to obtain enlightenment. So our practice also involves chanting and we believe that through chanting this phrase which is also the title of the Lotus Sutra, that we can bring about this enlightened state even when we are suffering the most. We also believe that our desires are the fuel we need to reach enlightenment. All that said, I want to mention that my own practice is rather inconsistent at times. I don't always put into it what is required and therefore don't get the most out of it, so I am not the best example of a follower of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism by any means. True I am a leader (small role) within the organization, but eventually most of us are encouraged to take on leadership positions as a way to strengthen our own lives, not because we are perfect. Sorry for going on and on, but I just wanted to share that with you. Also you are welcome to come to a meeting if you want so you can draw your own conclusions as to whether we are what you fear in religion. I would also be willing to attend a Zen meeting myself if you invited me, it is something I know very little about and I am curious. Blah, sorry for being so wordy on your post.
Drew hits on a very good idea.
For years I considered myself a pagan. Not like the goat sacrificing pagans of yore, but that made up neo-paganism which is becoming so fashionable. Essentially, you make up your own shit and you do stuff with other people who make up their own shit.
There is something extremely compelling about a spiritual community even if you are worshiping a human collectivity, she is worshiping Isis, and he is worshiping Optimus Prime. It was a religion where if logically followed, there is no god and all this is just made up.
awesome.
So, now as an atheist, the spiritual community is as transcendent as a teamster meeting. And you just have to find a little spirituality where you can.
Though tonight I am worshiping Dionysus with a glass of wine.
Now I've got a whole 'nother post I want to write about this, and my reasoning, but I don't want to push this one down LOL.
sir, yes sir! I have been reminded and will not disobey commander sir!
Cult of (e:strip)
May I remind you, that if you disobey a church you get excommunicated, but if you disobey an (e:strip) Commander (ie, me), you get court-martialed in the field with a capital offense.
Despite finding gainful employment within "religion," I have to say that I am not a big fan of it. Ok, I hate it. 'cause it involves all of the rules and crap that I am trying to negotiate in my other post. I like spiritual community, but you can't have community by yourself, and when people get to together, they make religion. I guess I have a different take on religion. There are "official" religions, but also the min-everyday cultic practices and unspoken associations that create mini-religions. Steelers fans, for example, have a religion. We discuss beliefs, know each other by our speech and dress, we have our own language (it's mostly grunts and curses during a game) and rituals that have symbolic importance.
I could write about the cult (little c, mind you) of estrip, too, but we're probably just better off not thinking about it.
Anyway, Christianity is supposed to be (note I didn't say is) free of self-aggrandizement. That's what grace is all about--we see ourselves as totally depended on God and unable to do good on our own. There are, of course, problems that come with this belief, but self-aggrandizement shouldn't be one of them. But its' pretty hard to love your enemy and be full of yourself (maybe that's why we stopped loving our enemies)
If only your argument wasn't so reasonable, I could cast all ties aside and become a hermit.
So you could choose to stick it out with your zen group.
Okay, this comment might only make sense to Jim based on the discussion we were having.
Synthesis theory in sociology group theory suggests that having tension or disagreement in a group is a positive thing. Tension can bring resolution and resolution can mean solving problems and moving forward. Groups where everyone thinks the same can lead to group think or lead to stagnancy.