Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: exoteric versus esoteric religions
Message-ID: <405@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-84 09:54:42 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.405
Posted: Tue Jan 10 09:54:42 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jan-84 05:24:36 EST
References: <1617@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: Central Services Org., Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 47

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