Rituals

September 2, 2018 Open Religion No Comments

An action becomes a ritual when it is repeated and when it is deeply meaningful. For this, one needs to be open to it. ‘Open’ as in ‘Open Religion.’

A ritual is a repetitive action to which one attaches ‘deeper meaning’.

Without ‘deeper meaning’, a ritual has no, well, meaning. It’s like an empty box, a ‘vase without water’.

At the other side, without concrete recipient (object, action…), ‘deeper meaning’ is formless. It’s – in the same metaphor – like ‘water without a vase’. It cannot even ‘exist’ in a normal sense of the word.

Rituals in religion

A ritual, performed individually or collectively, is frequently part of a religion.

The ‘re’ in re-ligion denotes repetition as well as intensity. The ‘ligion’ denotes ‘to connect’. So, ‘religion’ as a term is about repetitively and intensely making a connection… with what? Let’s say: with a highly meaningful entity.

Interesting, because a ritual is also about repetitively and intensely doing something: an action in which one may see the bodily performance of ‘making this connection’. This puts ritual at the core of religion even more than the mental act of believing, as is described by several authors such as Karen Armstrong (*).

At the same time, a ritual within a rather artificial context (like a temple, for instance) while being deeply meaningful, also carries the – important – potential to become part of a person’s life in a broader-than-religion sense. Rituals are not confined to religion (unless you see ‘religion’ really very broadly) and even within religion, they are not confined to that specific context.

The quality of a formal ritual

lies, according to my understanding, in the way it’s inviting to individuals to attach ‘deeper meaning’ to the ritual.

This ‘deeper meaning’ is of course not coming forth from the ritual itself, but from the totality in which the ‘deeper self’ (subconceptual) of the individual plays a major role [see: ‘About ‘Subconceptual’]. Without it, there is no ritual. There are only motions.

Genuinely open

Performing a ritual in a good way, is to each time again genuinely open oneself to it and to its meaning, its ‘symbolic function’. Indeed, a ritual can be seen as a ‘symbol’ that one performs on oneself. It is a symbolic action, thus: ‘vertical’, a communication from conceptual to subconceptual [see: ‘Symbolism lost. Symbolism regained.’].

Which makes it to me very interesting.

It’s poetry.

And it’s also – if done properly – completely compatible with rationality.

Of course, the ‘properly’ is not guaranteed. It can be used or misused. In this sense, the following is necessary.

Rituals in total freedom

To me, in order to enjoy a ritual – as I do in Zen meditation for instance – it’s important to feel it as completely ‘free’. This is not to say that it cannot be part of something done together. The ‘free’ (actually, as is always the case) lies in how I personally experience it. If someone would come towards me and put my hands in a certain position, I would readily have a little problem.

Not a big one, of course.

But still.

Rituals and freedom are close friends. However, not just any kind of ‘freedom’:

There needs to be an aspect of depth

as I pointed to already at the beginning of this text.

Indeed, nobody would see a superficially performed ritual as really valid.

Openness, freedom, depth… this begins to sound like AURELIS [see: ‘Five Aurelian Values’]. I guess this is not a coincidence. It brings me to the following:

Rituals are much like autosuggestions

[If you don’t already know, you may recognize autosuggestion in AURELIS.]

And thus, like autosuggestions, they can be quite powerful. However, not if one closes oneself to them. In such case, they can have no effect whatsoever.

As with autosuggestions, one can also be very open to the meaning of rituals and still they ‘work’. Indeed, it’s what I like to do towards meditation. I use a ritual as an invitation to open my mind in this special way.

Then I flow and before I know, I get inspired.

(*) Karen Armstrong: “The Case for God – What religion really means.” – 2009

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

AURELIS and ‘Esotericism’

If it’s your intention to be open all the way, then you have to be open to all sides and not closed to some specific one. Unless it would be the of being-closed itself. This certainly is important when it’s not easy, when people tend to misunderstand, when people interpret their attachment to certain ideas Read the full article…

The Deeper Meaning of ‘Godless’

Many people adhere to a specific religion mainly to shield themselves from being ‘godless.’ To them, ‘godless’ means a lack of morality, depth, a profound sense of community, a personal feeling of sacredness, a certainty of justice, and the meaningful prospect of an afterlife. That is quite something. Moreover, the list is not meant to Read the full article…

Can Lisa Support Spiritual Growth?

Spiritual growth does not begin in doctrine but in openness. It unfolds often unnoticed, like a rose that opens from within. Can Lisa, as a non-human companion aligned with depth and trust, support such spiritual growth? Not by leading or believing — but perhaps by listening, honoring, and protecting what unfolds from within. This blog Read the full article…

Translate »