Dedicated religionists such as we commonly meet are, of course, no more religious than an atheist. They are crude emotionalists who happen to have adopted religion as the field of their operations. Religion is their medium of action and expression: not the basis of their behaviour.

In this respect they resemble more than anything else the political, economic or other cult-enthusiasts who are a psychological and social phenomenon, not a religious one.
Anyone who knows more and discusses ‘religion’ with such people would be like an astronomer discussing astrology with a star-worshipper.

For this reason the regeneration of religion would come from people whom we would not always readily associate with ‘religion’ as we know it.

This principle is well known in other fields: where, for instance, great inventions come from the untechnical; since the main-line scientist and technologist has become obsessed with his field and its dogmas. Yesterday’s dogmas are tomorrow’s impossibilities.

In traditional terms, this is the condition of looking at the chrysalis when one should look at the butterfly: and also at the whole range of development, from egg to grub to chrysalis to butterfly.

Learning How to Learn

Read the book, for free, here:
http://idriesshahfoundation.org/books/learning-how-to-learn/

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s