If you become a religion of one, your worship will be effortless

Whenever I'm reading a spiritual or philosophical book and am generally enjoying its message, then come across a passage that I heartily disagree with, I remind myself of one of my early blog posts from 2005, "Become a religion of one." 

(I'll copy it in below, I like it so much.)

For the way I've come to view spirituality is as an intensely independent pursuit. After all, our search for meaning and purpose in life necessarily is personal, not collective. There's zero chance that any other person in the world is going to have exactly the same goals, values, and such as we do.

So while it can make sense to explore ready-made religions, philosophies, mystical teachings, and other approaches that promise to be a foundation for a satisfying life, my advice is to pick and choose what you most like about them and fashion your own unique "religion of one" from those pieces, along with what springs from your own imagination/intuition.

One advantage of this is that it enables you to more easily belong to a spiritual organization without feeling like it's stifling what you truly believe and care about. Accept the rules and dogmas that make sense to you while paying little or no attention to the rest. Don't expect the organization to perfectly meet your needs, because this is impossible.

This is akin to people eating at a restaurant with an extensive menu. Each person should order what they like to eat. Nobody should worry that their selections don't match those of anyone else in the restaurant. Spirituality is subjective. There's no objective truth here, unlike in science. 

Well, generally. My own personal philosophy of life includes a belief that free will is an illusion, along with the illusory notion of a separate unchanging self or soul. I consider that these are scientific truths, but I admit that there is room for debate with those who see things differently. 

Thus when I read a book by a scientist who I generally admire, yet who contends that free will is part of our human repertoire, something I'm doing now, I do my best to be open-minded about his arguments in favor of free will even though I'm virtually certain that he isn't going to markedly alter my basic perspective. But I might do this on my own.

Such is another benefit of a religion of one: it is exceedingly easy to modify the tenets of your unique belief system, just as it's equally easy to worship within that religion. Just be yourself.

Here's what I wrote in that 2005 blog post.

Most people belong to a religion with many members. There are about two billion Christians in the world, over a billion Muslims, and nearly a billion Hindus. Sure, company is nice, but here are some reasons to become a religion of one:

--You can hold a worship service whenever and wherever you want. Your church just needs to be as big as you are.

--No contentious arguments about leadership. Any jockeying for power in your religious organization will be between you and you.

--Doctrinal disputes are easily resolved. What you say, goes.

--If you’ve ever wanted to be known as “Most eminently enlightened great being” or “Her highly esteemed holiness,” within your own mind at least, this is your chance.

--Beer and tortilla chips can be your holy sacraments. Or, cake and chocolate.

--Sex between clergy and parishioners is absolutely fine. Encouraged even. It’s all in your own hands. Literally.

--Finding a name for your religion is easy: just look at your driver’s license. The hard part is deciding between “ism,” “ity,” or whatever. In my case, Hinesism sounds OK, Hinesity terrible. Hinesiosity, maybe. I need to schedule a meeting with myself on this.

--No worries about declining membership. You’re already as low as you can go (death will take your religion down to zero devotees, but that’ll be the least of your worries).

--Salvation is assured. All you need to do is write “salvation is assured” on a holy post-it note and then have faith in your divine revelation Heck, if it works for Christians, Jews, and Muslims, it’ll work for you.

--The next time someone says, “Who died and made you the pope?” you can reply with a straight face, “What do you mean? Nobody had to die, I’ve always held that office.”

But seriously…I’ve got shelves of books from each of the world’s great mystical traditions—Christian, Sufi, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu—that support the contention, “Become a religion of one.”

Science seeks universal material truths through a collaborative process of rigorous investigation. Mysticism seeks universal spiritual truths through an individual process of rigorous investigation.

Don’t believe it when you hear, “When two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I” in reference to spiritual presence. In truth, that’s when God is not present—in a group.

Believe it: the best religion has a membership of one.

Comments

[sant64]

One of the spiritual groups I used to visit was a Sai Baba center. One of the members used to be a professor of religion in India. Now that he was in America he was selling insurance. Anyway, he gave a talk on the history of the yoga schools of India. He had a big whiteboard, and he began rattling off the names of yoga schools I'd never heard of before or since, drawing diagrams of how one school was formed from these two schools, which formed 5 other schools, 2 of which died out but these 2 joined with a different school of another lineage, and these formed these 7 schools, which branched off into this, this and that school, half of which ceased to be, but the other half formed with several other schools, and these formed this new lines of schools...

The professor went on like this for a good half hour, stopping every 5 minutes or so to remind us, "Please understand, I'm only giving you a thumbnail sketch; there were many other yoga schools I don't have time to mention."

This lecture left a deep impression on me on how any and every religious school or sect is the product of syncretism and evolution. Every "revealed teaching" is actually a repackaging of someone else's ideas. And this has happened millions of times. And so I can agree that the general public perception is false that any religion has a distinct "self" or identity. All religions are fluid.

Moreover, I get a kick out of how professional religious apologists contradict themselves on this matter. This is particularly evident in today's Catholicism, with their apologists arguing that authentic Catholicism is about obedience to the church's teachings, while they spend just as much time arguing that the present pope (which Catholic teaching says is the last authority on this religion's beliefs and practices) is a heretic. It turns out that every Catholic is a Cafeteria Catholic. In other words, even the most conservative and orthodox believers pick and choose what to believe.

You see this kind of thing in the Sant Mat world as well. Satsangis initiated by Charan who can't stand Gurinder because of cell phones and rennet. We're only Gurumukhs (abjectly obedient to the shabd in human form) when it suits us.

That being said, and paradoxically as it may seem, I don't completely agree with the membership of one idea. To put it briefly if a bit tritely, there is a magnifying effect of good vibes when one is part of a fellowship of like believers. Even if we're mainly all Chiefs with ideas that don't precisely match, we do better in a group. This is something that both Muhammed and Dogen fully believed.

[Ron E.]

@Brian “Don't expect the organization to perfectly meet your needs, because this is impossible.”

I vaguely remember a couple of Sufi stories that emphasized the different approach needed for different people. One was about a man who spied on the behaviour of a well-known teacher and copied his humble, non-argumentative manner. The imitator applied this behaviour to his own life, including his bad tempered and neurotic wife. Becoming exasperated by his newly (and falsely) adopted humility, in a fit of rage, she killed him.

Another teacher who taught from books and the written word was asked how he would teach people in a different land if they had resources and practices other than reading and writing. His reply was that he would have a different set of students.

The gist of such stories being that they point out the Sufi way of teaching through prescription and is similar in this respect to Buddhism (Zen and Chan in particular).

Interestingly, although such practitioners each have diverse minds, experiences and expectations, the realisation of the elements of no-mind, impermanence and emptiness find a common unity – also amongst the modern sciences.

[BuyerBeware]

Brilliant insight. “Ready-made religion” is akin to UPFs. Ultra processed foods are designed to line the pockets of their designers and founders. But all they end up doing is poisoning the gullible buyers.

Think for yourself. Never be afraid to question because the truth has to be tested to be accepted.

Humans were born with the faculty of discernment for this very reason. Test what you believe to be true.