(no subject)

[serene]

[Note: if you think the person I'm talking about is you, it probably is, but I am using your post as a springboard to talk about something I've been talking about in my own circles lately -- my response to your post was sincere, and this is where I'm putting the stuff I thought was not kind to put in your LJ.]

An LJ friend posted about zir feelings about taking communion. Zie wanted some input about the purpose of communion, and zie shared zir bad feelings about deciding whether or not to take communion. I declined to offer an opinion about the purpose of communion, and expressed sympathy for zir pain. That was sincere. What I would have said, though, had it been the time or place?

That's the purpose of communion, or at least one purpose. To make you feel bad about yourself. To remind you that god is looking inside your heart at all times, and the likelihood that you'll measure up is nearly nil. To make you look at the people around you, taking communion, and assume they're further along their walk with god than you are.

I totally respect the power of ritual, and if the ritual of communion is having the effect of reminding you to resolve your issues with your fellow humans, cool, but I don't see it having that effect in most people's lives. I see it having the effect that I believe most organized religion has on most people's lives -- that of making them feel bad about themselves, and making sure they know they don't measure up to god's standards.

I'm not convinced that people *want* religion to make them feel good about themselves, so I'm all for people using it however it works for them, and it's really not for me to decide what you get out of your religion. That said, I see so many people saying, basically, "I want to do X, which I understand I need to do to be right with god, and when I don't do X, I feel like shit," that I think it's valuable to examine whether or not X is healthy in the first place.

Comments

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Herm. I don't like that, though, like serenejournal, I'm not saying it's bad for you. It'd be a bad philosophy for me to follow, and it'd be downright toxic for some other folks.

One of the stories from Buddhism that was most inspirational to me (keep in mind I don't know a lot about Buddhism) was a story about the Buddha meeting a powerful person... a king, an emperor, whatever. The king asked what it was that the Buddha had that the king did not. The Buddha asked if the king could simply sit still for a day, and be happy and content. The king responded that, yes, he could. Could he then sit still for a week and be happy? No, that was beyond his powers. The Buddha responded that he could sit still for as long as he wanted, and be content.

The story teller pointed out that the Buddha did not sit still and be content; he was very active in going from place to place to help other people. Nevertheless, he considered that a crucial part of what made Guatama the Buddha... that he'd reached completion within himself.

So, for me, my path could never be defined by incompleteness or being not-good-enough. I know that I'll never be good enough, and that my work will never be complete... but I strive to make those statements mean the same as "water is wet". In fact, I think if I had truly achieved enlightenment, if you asked "if you don't care that your work is not done, if you don't care that you have not maximized your potential, why do you work so hard?" my answer might well be "because the water is wet"... i.e. "that is simply the way of things".

Herm. But, then again, I'm weird. (Professionally, I mean. Well... amatuerly, but with Olympic-grade talent. Except that joke doesn't work any more, does it? Sigh.)