A religion that stifles is necessarily a religion that is misunderstood.
The hardest thing to accept is that it is this way because it is the receptacle of our limiting projections: we find religion limited and stifling because we ourselves are limited and suffocating,
We see in religion what we are.
Notes & Silence 
Hmm.
I would say that a religion that stifles is a religion that is understood perfectly.
That we see it as it is.
That spirituality and religion are distinct, and that the search to find freedom in religion is a telling comment on its nature.
We may have rather different concepts of what constitutes religion, however.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
I understand your perspective.
but you are observing religion from a very stifling platform made of experiences and memories…which may not reclect a disarmed outlook on the religious phenomenon.
I am considering religion as an internalised, individualized and spiritually mature form of external manifestations, beliefs and practices.
Those, as such, are completely out of my spectrum, and fall under the tag of « group activities », alongside ‘playing bridge », « soccer clubs » …
J’aimeAimé par 2 personnes
I’m a Buddhist so how would you categorise myself and Buddhism? I enjoyed reading your post so genuinely interested in your perspective
J’aimeAimé par 2 personnes
I question whether you have reversed the horse and cart. Are not external manifestations, stated (because « beliefs, » per se, are not external) beliefs and practices, the outworking of what is internalised? Or, should be. The problem with religion is when they are imposed as an engraved surface on a vessel with no such content.
Not the internalisation of what is without.
Soccer and bridge seem to be religious activities to some.
But if what is done reflects the inner realm, are we then left with something akin to Crowley’s « Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law »?
The question being one of refining will to accomplish the internalised, mature spirituality.
My outlook on religion remains fully armed…
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
I can see that. You’re the Lucky Luke of cults.
But you’re aiming at targets behind which I m not hiding.
I’m on tjebaame side of the gun
Except that I’ve stopped caring and I’m not holding any weapon.
Instead of Crowley, pointing to the same content, I’d quote Augustine… »love and do what you will ».
Or is it someone’ else..?
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
Does not really matter who it is. Crowley stated « Love is the law. » Not that I would take him as an exemplar.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
Hello Dr B…
Isn’t that the perfect conundrum for a Buddhist to say « I am a Buddhist »
..?
At best, this would be a transitory statement and may even be so fluttering that any attempt at answering would be irrelevant… For, who would I be answering to?
More seriously, I cannot see why Buddhism should be treated any different ?
I have been practising zazen for 15 years now and would still be reluctant to calling myself a Buddhist.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
Sorry for the blunders…I corrected them.
Yes, you are right… Ashoka is good enough!
J’aimeJ’aime
Ashoka said it so it’s good enough for me. There are others but …..
J’aimeAimé par 2 personnes