What\u2019s in a name?<\/p>\n
Nothing. In some cases, even much less than nothing.<\/p>\n
\u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n
In this world, many things are called \u2018religion\u2019 that clearly have nothing to do with what it can<\/em> mean. Obvious: religion is not about believing that it will rain tomorrow (Is there a 20% chance? 60%?). Likewise, religion is not about believing that, one never knows, there is a life after this life (Is there a 20% chance? 60%? From which % is it worth all the effort?). It\u2019s not about: \u201cI believe what you try to make me believe, just because you say so\u201d. OK, this is generally no problem if the make-believer is a chemical science teacher, but it is<\/em> a problem in the case of religion, because here the believing is central itself. So in the case of religion, much more is needed, namely: you, completely.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n Religion is about contact with the nameless.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n In a religious sense, \u2018to believe\u2019 is a verb with no object. To say \u2018I believe in God\u2019 is the same as to say \u2018I believe\u2019. The \u2018in God\u2019 is there as long as an ego is filling the \u2018I\u2019. If the supremacy of the ego in this is dropped, \u2018in God\u2019 is dropped too. It seems to me that in any organized religion, there are many people who feel it this way. I think they should come out much more. Doing so, they will shape worldwide religion of time to come.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n It will be open.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n Of course one can still say \u2018I believe in God\u2019 in a weather-forecast-sense. But then it\u2019s not an affirmation of a religious feeling. To \u2018believe in God\u2019 this way is not a religious act. It\u2019s playing a lottery.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n In its core, \u2018to believe\u2019 is not an act. To \u2018be in the state of believing\u2019 is something like to \u2018be in the state of being happy or sad\u2019. It\u2019s a state. It\u2019s a feeling. It\u2019s a being. It\u2019s a being convinced, and a doubting, and both of these and none of them at the same time. It starts with going beyond the ego, but beyond the ego, there is no \u2018in God\u2019.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n This also means that an \u2018atheist\u2019 can be a very religious person. A \u2018religious person\u2019 is in many cases the opposite.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n So what are we to do with earth\u2019s organized ways of so-called-religions? I truly think it is extremely obvious: dismantle them as such. Take their clothes off. Turn them naked again<\/em>, as most of them have started very naked. Take the \u2018in God\u2019 out, because with the \u2018in God\u2019 in place just like that, something cannot even be a religion to start with. If it still pretends to be so, then it\u2019s the opposite of religion. Afterwards, and only with the \u2018in God\u2019 out, one can at the same time<\/em> bring it back from the other<\/em> side. By then, we will live in a world of poetry, in which we don\u2019t make the mistake between \u2018the eyes of the beloved\u2019 and two lakes in which one can physically drown.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n Really good poetry is very important. It\u2019s also very real, but its reality is, one can say, of another dimension. If one makes a dimensional mistake, then nothing remains. It lives here, not there. Now, the religious dimension is the dimension of poetry, all the way through. It\u2019s very important and very real. With the dimensional mistake however, something may be called \u2018poetry\u2019 (or \u2018religion\u2019) and may look like it while not being so at all. This is the biggest confusion. It decapitates real poetry (or religion) and puts an artificial head in place.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n Let\u2019s not take this.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n