c.1200, “state of life bound by monastic vows,” also “conduct indicating a belief in a divine power,” from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion “religious community,” from L. religionem (nom. religio) “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,” in L.L. “monastic life” (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare “go through again, read again,” from re- “again” + legere “read” (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare “to bind fast” (see rely), via notion of “place an obligation on,” or “bond between humans and gods.” Another possible origin is religiens “careful,” opposite of negligens. Meaning “particular system of faith” is recorded from c.1300.

Modern sense of “recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power” is from 1530s. Religious is first recorded early 13c. Transferred sense of “scrupulous, exact” is recorded from 1590s.
_______________________

Notice, going back to the Latin, it refers to having a recognition and reverence for the gods, or for that which is sacred. If one holds the earth as sacred( “pantheism”,) that is as much a religion as Catholicism, as some of the more fanatic environmentalists have shown us.

Given this, one can pick whatever one wants to deem as sacred,I suppose. I guess whatever you consider worthy of reverence, and your way of showing that reverence, would be your religion. For some people nature worship is a religion. For some people, sex is a religion. In today’s world, people treat all manner of thing as sacred.

The word “spirituality” has become a cop-out. People do not want to be deemed “religious” so they say they are “spiritual.” Fortunately we have our atheist brethren in the world to call them on it, and point out that they are as religious as any Bible thumper. Some of these so called “spiritualities” (and I have been around the block with most of them) are as dogmatic as any organized religion I have ever belonged to, and their proponents as dogmatic as any Christian I have known.

I think we need to stop being afraid of the word religious. All it really means is that we view something as sacred and approach with reverence, and do so in a very devoted way. Are we afraid to reveal what it is we consider sacred and so couch that fear under the umbrella of the “spiritual.” If Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism etc.) have co-opted the word “religion” it is because we have allowed them to. Buddhism can either be a religion or a philosophy, or both, depending on how you approach it. All religion really is is the philosophy of the divine.

Aren’t we all spiritual? Whether we recognize “the gods” or not, we all are composed of spirit, whether one wants to use the word “soul” or “consciousness” or “energy.” There is even a book called “Atheist Spirituality.” The word “spiritual” has been so abused and overused that it has really become meaningless.

I call myself a theosophist, and I do so “religiously.” It is the manner and method in which I approach the divine.

I have become wary of those who tell me “I am not religious, I am spiritual”, because my experience has been that they are usually neither.

We should not get too hung up on words. Those who call themselves “spiritual not religious” have only joined the so called “religious” in creating a separateness, and an additional “other” that we need to deal with. We already have too many of those “others.”

The world has changed. When Jiddu Krishnamurti started, authority was eroding already. K and Nietzsche have that in common: at the time it was the thing that needed to be said, that in matters of personal and spiritual truth, authority is not to be trusted.

Now that message has become, in the West at least, perfectly commonplace.

I’m not denying that there is a deeper level to K, just that the way to get there for Westerners is not directly to Krishnamurti. I’d advise Western youth to start with Theosophy or Buddhism first, Jiddu Krishnamurti later. I’d also not advise anybody to limit themselves to K. Then again, Krishnamurti himself would agree on that.

What the situation is in other countries, like say India, I cannot tell. My trip to India may change that. Right now I’m writing from a Western perspective.

As for the ‘intellectual understanding’ – I don’t think Jiddu Krishnamurti was in practice quite so pessimistic. He did advise Professor P. Krishna as a leader in his schools, didn’t he? This was based on the fact that the latter had at least an intellectual understanding, which was better than nothing.

Jasper Niemand was a Dutch student of Judge, wasn’t she? She wrote down Judges teachings, but was a separate person as I recall. Niemand means ‘nobody’ BTW -for the none-Dutch here.

I guess I’ll just have to go on struggling with this then. I’m too much the (math) tutor to want to confuse anybody by using KH seriously.

What I think is that there are limitations to his teachings. I don’t repudiate him. In many ways his teachings have shaped my world. However, I do think being attached to them does not work.

Meat eating is associated with great suffering in the animal kingdom. These highly organized, sentient beings are herded into slaughterhouses with the smell of death in the air, shocked with cattle prods, shackled, hoisted, and murdered. It is a cruel, sadistic, brutal process that leads to the eating of the poor creatures’ corpses by humans. As we evolve as a species, we should leave that behind along with bullfighting, bear baiting, throwing Christians to the lions, and all other relics of our barbaric past.