What if you have no religion?

[Heron]

Here's a question for everyone. The basis is this: I lack spiritual definition. I'm not religious. I grew up Catholic. I went through phases of studying and practicing pagan religions. I still relate to the ideas represented by the deities from several pantheons. But I've come to feel that no particular religion is exactly "right."

Having said that, I am not content to call myself an atheist. The only philosophy I've seen that sortof describes my attitude toward life is Taoism.

There are so many approaches to yoga. Some see it just as exercise. Some find their practice inextricably entwined with Hindu beliefs and practices. Some practice yoga in conjunction with other religions and philosophies. I've come to think there's no right way in that regard. What do you think? How do your yoga and your spiritual/religious beliefs interact?

[Pandara]

Heron,

I think I have said this somewhere before on this forum, but there is no right or wrong, only appropriate. The truth is each person has to find his/her Truth and ultimately what is inside will be reflected on the outside as well.

Yoga has helped me to understand Christainity better, to see the life of the Christ not as the person whose blood saves me, but rather as an example of a great yogi. Many of the teachings of the Christ makes more sense to me if I read it in conjunction with eastern religious philosophies.

For me personally yoga has opened my eyes and hears to really hear and see the message Christianity has for me personally and to integrate it in such a way in my life to support that which I belief is my own inner Truth.

[Hubert]

What do I think ? Come on, I invite you to think along. Be prepared that you might be hindered by my inability to put it simply, because my english is far from perfect, and I am also a terrible typer.

Subjects:
- nature of reason, and thought, thinking as a tool in descripting and understanding the world
- evolution of human consciusness and the capacity to reason (to think properly)
- distortions resulting from projecting our present consciusness based on our present abilities, to the past, resulting in a biased, dismissive attitude towards religious traditions


We believe many things. Your assertion about that there is no generally right way is apparently correct.
In these matters, "right" si relative, and it depends on so many factors that it would be apparently silly to stubbornly stick to just one way.
This can lead us to the conclusion that there is really little we can really know, and we should give up the idea of having "one ring to rule them all".

This does not mean though that for a given person, in a given cultural, social environment, in a given civilization, and in a given time, there is no "right way". No, we just admitted that a generallly accepted "Way" is perhaps too much to ask for, having the existing variety of ways.

So we touched the question from two sides: from a general point of view, and from a relative, personal point of view. Apparently, they are two ends, "extremes", what seem to exclude each other. This is a dualist way of thinking. We say, either there is a general way, truth, than all personal ways, truths are relative, and thus, less true, or, there are as many truths as human beings, and a general truth, common denominator is non-existing. One view reduces variety, the other one reduces objectivity. Thus, if we pay good attention to this reasoning, we must say: if we are unable to think past true and not true, black and white, me and the world, we are left in this state of division. Our very thinking is built on distinctions like this, and clearly, the ability to make distinctions is one of the building blocks of a healthy thinking. In having these distinctions, thoughts, we must realize that they are helpers, assumptions, and in a way, arbitrary.
We need to be careful, for example when we say such things as: if A is true, and B is not A, than B is not true. This might be so in a binary system where only 1 and 0 is possible, true and not true, but in a non binary system, between true and not true, there are degrees, other values. Our very thinking works by trying to segment reality to bits of information where the relations of bits to each other are clearly determined. We try to comprehend the complexity of our world experience by disecting it to pieces, thoughts, what are no longer divisible - unquestionable truths - constants, or if not, variables for what the validity is easy to come upon to. Shortly, we believe that the world is descriptible, and deschiperable, comprehensible.

What all this tells about us, human beings ? That we are intelligent beings capable of clear thinking where the flow from on thought to another is determined by strict rules. No thoughts are accepted what cannot be reasonably arrived to. Now who decides what is reasonable ? Our thinking. What is our thinking built on ? On our thinking expereinces. We must realize that what we call reasonable thinking is of linear fashion, and it is developed in time, it is carried out from thought to thought.

For such a mind, traditions, philosophies, religions often appear unreasonable. Thy operate with terms what are seemingly meaningless, unjustified, and usually we do not witness any thought processes what we could call reasonable. At best we allow them to be myths, tales, artistic creations.

Reasonable thinking, or what would it mean, is most visible in Artifical Intelligence experiments. These show, that reasonable thinking alone can start somewhere, on some premises, than arrive reasonably to thoughts what do not make sense at all. Why do we not realize the limitations of thinking, is because we rarely use this process exclusively, (so many times we accept things and thoughts as facts) and when we do, we always apply it to segments of reality, where the direction of thinking is clearly ruled and determined by facts what need no explanation. The more we leave the ground of facts (axioms in science), the more hard is to apply this kind of thinking. And usually, what we call facts, are unquestionable, repeatable sensorial expereinces. Reasonable thinking belongs to the sensorial world, we learn to focus our attention on various impressions, and realize the laws of their interaction. In a way, human thinking, and science what is built on it, is to create coherent, cohesive thought systems. What do we mean by that ? That the world is descriptable, presentable, explainable through thoughts where we start from "the facts", than we witness, create, comprehend certain laws, determined relationships and other "truths" what are not immediatly experiencable truths.

The ability to think is not the same for anybody, it is something we learn to perform, and this ability was gained throughout history. The more we exercise it, the better we become at it. It is an illusion to think, that ancient people were able to think the way we do, and even today we posess the ability to think faultlessly. Our perception is based on the few exceptions of famous individuals whose thoughts have passed unto us. Aristotle was a great thinker, and his ability to think surpasses greatly that of the average human being today. He was not the norm. The norm were the average people, who were far behind Aristotle ... or other thinkers of the past. If we really look back based on hystorical evidence, what we will see there is is another consciusness. First, people were much more determind by familial and national bonds, and their consciousness is seemingly permeated by religious, spiritual thoughts. Even that of Aristoteles and other great thinkers. What we do today, is that we look back, and because today the average thinking capacity has grown to the level, that we are able to comprehend Aristotle (what was not true for the people of his age) we project our existing clear consciusness based on our versatile thinking to the people of the past. And based on this projection, we are not able to understand correctly the ancient human beings. We say, they really were silly. We do not realize, that their religious thoughts, were the vestiges of a once existing clairvoyance. Those people were not naive, or victims of blind fate, or religious manipulation. When we think this, we just project our clear consciounsess to the past. Today, if we meet someone who fully, wholeheartedly believes in the dogmas of some religion, we say: he clearly is unable to apply his own clear consciusness, and thinking ability, otherwise he would realize what nonsense those dogmas are. He must be brainwashed, manipulated, or brain damaged, something is clearly wrong with him. This is the general attitude towards religion of many people today. I wanted to show, what the real causes of such perception are: the assumption that ancient people had this same clear consciunsess and ability to think, that we have. No, they did not have that. What they had, was another kind of consciusness, not clear as ours, not linked to ones's individuality, as that too was yet weak, a kind of consciousness ruled by intuitions, imaginations, a kind of dream like consciusness, where people were not entirely left to the outer expereinces, but where such facts as telepathy, cairvoyance were much more common occurences. The soul life of those people was not permeated by "religious thoughts" based on an external causes, as we would think today, those religious thoughts were living thought expereinces. Reminiscence of these abilities can be found even in todays people. Why these are discarded today, is mostly because they happen unconsciusly, and a healthy mind will reject any unconscious expereince as unreliable. They were more reliabale back than, but evolution of consciounsess followed the route towards what we have today, and the old consciousness "died" out. Evolution is carried out in steps. The future will extend the rule our clear consciousness and self awarness, to those areas of our being what are yet unconscious, or with another expression, suprasensible.
In light of the wisdom of those who, while arriving to our present day clear consciousness, and ability to think, went as far that they aquired the ability to extend their clear consciusness to the realm what for most of us is still sub- and unconscious, we need to give the benefit of reasonable doubt to religious traditions. They might appear foggy, or fantastic, yet, once we will be able to asess the sub- and unconscious realities of our beings, we will be able to interpret them better. The study of religions, myths works on our beings because the higher wisdom and truth in them acts on our unconscious nature. If they did not work, people had given up their religious activities for long, yet, as we see, some stubbornly cling to them. If we see it this way, we can say: as free people with strong individuality, and great ability to reason, having a clear consciounsess, we arrive to a point where we can at least accept that there is more to religions, anceint traditions, and philosphies than meets the eye. I can even have a religious practice, because I have arrived to the understanding that it might work in ways I am not aware of. Surely, I am not content with this, so I will try my best to extend the light of my consciusness to these unknown areas of my being, but for now, I'll accept the fact that I am how I am, a being not yet complete, but with great capacity for growth.
Thus, we carry on what we have brought with us, and in time we will grow to it's full comprehension.

[Bentinho Massaro]

Dear Heron,

I think you have a healthy attitude just the way you are now. Free from being anything and free from being nothing also. There are as many ways as there are human beings and I think it is most effective to not belong to one single religion, nor to reject any of them. Just to remain in the middle, as we are, will give us most clarity in my opinion. Sometimes using a bit of this, other times using a bit of that, some times using nothing at all. I would encourage none to go and seek a single path to belong to.

As for Hubert's message, I must admit that I have too little time to read it totally at this moment, but I smiled when I read your phrase that said something like: "There is not one ring to rule them all." - Good phrase!

However, I think there is such a ring! Not a ring as in a path, a religion or a godma, but this one ring to rule them all is our very own awareness. All paths are dependent on this one ring, no one can deny this truth. Without awareness there is no path, there is no fantasy, there are no rules to be made, there are no religions to be formed, there are no pitfalls to fall in, there are no structures beliefs to belief in in the first place.

That's why I am pro-awareness and not necessarily pro or anti- any one particular ring. I am pro-awareness because it is the only thing we can know for sure we are/have. Awareness is the most essential element of our being and thus it is not so difficult to attain Self Realization as religions and paths make us belief. I am anti-deception and I am pro-clarity. With everything else I try to remain in the middle, BUT! with this single ring steadily around my finger! As not to be fooled by any of these paths but to see the essence at all times.

For example: I would never encourage someone to go and explore the astral plane, or to meditate on an object or state of mind, I would never encourage someone to exclude all thoughts and replace them by one thought-form, in fact, I would never encourage someone to discover any form whatsoever. On the other hand, I would gladly encourage anyone to find out what tawareness is. When thinking too much, find out what awareness is, when working physically, find out what awareness is, when being depressed, find out what awareness is, when meditating, find out what awareness is. In that very moment, discover awareness. What one does it utterly irrelevant to see awareness, it is there always and it is always as bright and apparent as it has always been. To condition oneself by saying: I will no longer do this, but I will change my life and do only that and meditate for 2 hours daily, does not increases ones ability to Realize Self (Awareness) any bit.

So whatever we do, let's discover what awareness is, without waiting for future liberation as a result of our modified actions and way of life, but as an immediate occurence that happens by being aware and by discovering what exactly this awareness is, right now, with or without thoughts, emotions and disturbance. Awareness is free from all of that. So is our ability to recognize awareness. I am just as much awareness in pain and disturbance as I am in purity and ananda. In that very realization immediately lies true freedom, independence and transcendence.

Love,
B.

[jlg]

smile, you are free!

[TheGnomez]

Honestly, I believe that when it comes to spirituality, follow your heart/intuition. That's what I'm doing now, and I have finally felt the most at home with myself.

My religious and spiritual views are rather eclectic. There's so much out there that I can't say that one way is the only way. Hence why I started my forum, and am now surrounded by people who feel that your spirituality is always a work in progress. It's great!

Just trust in your own judgment.

[Hubert]

Originally Posted by jlg

smile, you are free!

Nevermind.

[Mirjana]

Originally Posted by Heron

How do your yoga and your spiritual/religious beliefs interact?

The practice itself I see as educating and showing my mind different choices and possibilities. Keeping the priciple of Abhyasa & Vairagya as a guideline. You know that it is said that behind a strong man there is always a great woman. I see this subtle principle of Vairagya (letting go, acceptance, non-attachement) as this woman .

While I like to nourish my inspiration, it can come from all different backgrounds, because the essence is the same.


What is the attitude toward life in Taoism that ressonate with you Heron?

[Heron]

Originally Posted by Mirjana

What is the attitude toward life in Taoism that ressonate with you Heron?

I feel like the attitude I relate to in Taoism is similar to the idea of non-grasping. The idea of flow and allowing things to be what they are. And yet, I often wish things had more definition. I wish that there were answers to things, but I don't think there really are any answers. Or at least I don't see any from where I stand right now.

[Bentinho Massaro]

What if you have no religion?

You then have a headstart at being a free man.

[Mirjana]

Originally Posted by Heron

I feel like the attitude I relate to in Taoism is similar to the idea of non-grasping. The idea of flow and allowing things to be what they are. And yet, I often wish things had more definition. I wish that there were answers to things, but I don't think there really are any answers. Or at least I don't see any from where I stand right now.

Currently I'm studying from books of Donna Farhi, here are some quotes:

"Return. This is the purpose of all spiritual practices. To what do we return? If you look at the sky what you tend to notice is the objects in it - the passing birds or the changing clouds. The ordinary or habitual mind has a tendency to fixate and follow these transient forms without noticing the unchanging and ever present canvas of the sky. When we bring our awareness to rest upon this canvas, we find that it is still, luminous, and silent. A mind filled with such awareness has become awakened to its true nature."

"Does Yoga practice make life easier? Most assuredly, all that is onerous and cumbersome does not go away. Yet our once implacable desire for certainty wavers in the face of something better: living in awe, wonder, and delight. Life does not become easier, we become easier with life just as it is, without conclusions, fail-safe securities, or the promise of happily-ever-after endings. If our practice fails to offer us such sureties it is a necessary failure, for the soul does not flourish in such conditions. It is just this openness of the body, mind, and heart that makes available to us the largest possible life. We become less hindered by our past and less invested in our fantasies. Instead we begin to live with a sense of immediacy and lucidity that makes everything we encounter - good, bad, and indifferent - illumined through awareness."

[Hubert]

Originally Posted by Bentinho Massaro

You then have a headstart at being a free man.

Except if you are not aware that you have in fact a religion.
All people are religious, except those who really know. But the latter are so few, that we safely can state that all people believe in something, and have some world view. Atheism, agnosticism, materialism, these are religions too. Even your way, Bentinho.

Even gods are religious. I'd say only God does not need religion.

PS. On the other hand, on a shorter scale, you are of course, right. An earnest, convicted, dedicated atheist is might be indeed closer to freedom than a fundamenatlist who's just going with the flow.

[Bentinho Massaro]

these are religions too. Even your way, Bentinho.

What I might say about it; yes. The way itself, that presence; no.

I agree with you that everything is a religion, in a way. But truly, there is something that is not a religion. As soon as I try to explain it, it does become a religion yes. But only because of interpretation and because we use it as a conceptual framework.

It just leaves for a little less room for dogma, In my opinion, because I do my best not to add any additional belief systems to my 'instructions'.

It's like the Zen master and the interviewer. The interviewer asked the Zen master: "What is the first principle of Zen?" to which the Master replied: "If I told you, it would be the second principle."

But still, the second principle can lead one to the first (the actual experience/realization). So I choose to keep talking.

Love.

[VestnikRA]

I am not religious myself. But I know some people for whom religion has become their path and that is for their benefit.

[oak333]

Question: If you believe in God and obey his commandments but you do not adhere to
any official religion (Catholic, Muslim, Hindu etc) are you religious ?

[jlg]

if you do not not adhere to any official religion how will you know what his commandments are?

[oak333]

Originally Posted by jlg

if you do not not adhere to any official religion how will you know what his commandments are?

You can learn the commandments in many ways, eg TV, the movie 10
commandments, newspapers, talking with friends etc,

[FlexPenguin]

It is very possible to be spiritual and hold no religion. Secular religion is an exosystem in which many people plug into. Some people are able to create their own exosystems and sustain their spirituality.

This is much like being an entrepreneur and working for company. Either way, it brings in the bacon and that is what counts.

[Techne]

oak333 -- what's the difference between 'learning in many ways' and making it up yourself without external reference (if that were possible)?
Or, what's the difference between 'learning in many ways', which must include personal discernment on which ways to learn from and which to ignore, and using that same discernment to choose one "official" religion?

Just curious.

[Hubert]

The world religion is used today only for the exoteric, organised forms. This is different from ones personal believes, what usually is not fully conscious, or not very deep.

For example: one might say, I don't beleive in God. But to say that, one would have to know what God is, or what He might be. One should think about it. But the majority who negate God, they only negate an idea what they really do not care about, something outside their main fields of interest. While they say, I do not beleive in God, they really say: I am not that interested in this subject, and I chose not to be interested in, because for me it seems unimportant, or silly. I cannot relate to something so alien to my mind, especiallu because I also have a world view what works without the need for a God. But with this last statement, we arive to something very important - the existence of a personal, although probably not personally developed than rather accepted view of the world.

I think for example that atheism is a sickness of a materialist-sensorial intellect. It is representetative for those people who only live in their heads - meaning that the clarity of their consciousness, their awareness lights only this area of their being. Indeed, in the sensorial world, outside, and having a superficial attitude of rushing from one sensation to another, following only the thoughts what are induced by them, characteristic to the western extraverted civilization, we are unable to find God, or anything what we might call spirit as opposed to matter. But this is just because the described approach, a more or less consciously adopted behaviour.

For a healthy human being who manages to light the other areas of his being with the light of ones awareness - think of balancing yoga practices - it is imposible to be a deeply convinced atheist. On the level of the intellect, or mind one might think one is such, but when the harmony of balanced practice will raise in one's soul, one will realize the wisdom and wonderful construction of oen's being, and it's place in the universe, and this will grant one a certain conviction that all is well, just as it should be. It is not necessary to mentally identify this feeling with the God of some religion, nevertheless, it is there, and if one pays good attention to people, one will realize that this belief is there even for those who might not accept a mental image of God.

[jlg]

Originally Posted by oak333

You can learn the commandments in many ways, eg TV, the movie 10
commandments, newspapers, talking with friends etc,

and where do you think these other means got the commandments from?

[oak333]

Originally Posted by jlg

and where do you think these other means got the commandments from?

Obviously the other means got the commandments from the Bible or other religious writings, based on the Bible.

What I meant though was simply that you do not have to read religious books to learn the 10 commandments. No further meanings.

[oak333]

Originally Posted by Techne

oak333 -- what's the difference between 'learning in many ways' and making it up yourself without external reference (if that were possible)?
Or, what's the difference between 'learning in many ways', which must include personal discernment on which ways to learn from and which to ignore, and using that same discernment to choose one "official" religion?

Just curious.

My message was quite simple actually: you do not have to read the Bible or other religious books to learn the 10 commandments. They are all over the place: movies, friends, TV, etc.

[Hubert]

The ten commandments of the judeo-christian tradition are very interesting.

To know about their existence, to know their text, and permeating ithem just superficially can create the illusion that we know them. But as for anything in life, there is almost a measurless depth we can dig, if we give them the proper attention.

Let's give them some:

1. I am the Lord your God - this targets a constant remembrence of God. "I am who brought you out of Egypt" says: I am not a theoretic God, an imagination, a man created image - I am the very one whose actions you and your fathers have witnessed and what you remember. This formulation is not arbitrary. The memory running in the blood through generations was much stronger among people who were living in close blood relationships, like the hebrews. Today few realize that memory, ego and blood are related, because today we have a materialistic perception of this faculty. Nevertheless, this is true, so the first commandment for a hebrew did not require any proof, because it was a reminder of a fact he already knew.
Today it is hard to imagine that memory can go back through the bloodline, but this was the case. When it is said that Noah lived 950 years, it is actually true ... but not in his physical vehicle, but his memory was a living expereince in the souls of his descendants for this long. Not like when we remember someone dear, no, but in a more peculiar way. Think of a man's persona as the sum of his expereinces. These experiences were carried through the unmixed blood, through that many generations. Thus, Noah was actually living on in his descendents, and when this living presence has ended, than they said, that he died. Of course today we remember Noah, too but only in our minds. But when he was "alive", he was not a simple memory, but as a guiding presence in one's soul, because the very expereinces Noah had, were percieved-remebered trhough the same blood, like their own. His descendents did not need stories about Noah ... because he was a living presence in them.

In the light of this, we can understand that the first commandment what might appear a gratuitous statement today, was actually calling upon the living memory as inner factual expereince of the actions of God.

2. You shall have no other gods before me

Now, this again is very interesting. God does not say that there are no other gods, no, but he says: you should not have them before me. Why ? it follows in the next one.

3. You shall not make for yourself an idol

Why not to have idols ? Because God is not of this world, he cannot be pictured, imagined and described, and this is exactly what happens when we create idols. God wants to make sure that we realize that He is not Whom we can take lightly, know, and have deals with. You cannot please Me by making an idol representing Me and paying your respects.

This would shortcircuit the path to Him, losing the real God for His image.
Also this explains why we should not have other gods before Him. There are other gods, but they are only gods with a little g. What does this mean ? That there is only one supreme being, originator of everything, and that is called God. Among His creation there are beings higher than humans, angels, archangels, archai, kyriotetes, dynamis, thrones, and any of these, even an angel might appear as God to us. Isn't it true that any time an angel appears in the Bible, the human being who meets it, falls to the ground trembling, to worship the angel ? It is because when you have the expereince of a higher being, it is clear that you are smaller, lesser, weaker, less knowledgable, less wise, less powerful. And what are the angles saying in these cases ? Do not worship me, but worship God.
The God of commandments says directly, that while you might expereince and picture these beings, do not mistake them for Me. I am not them, but more.

4. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

Because you cannot picture Me, imagine Me, know Me, all you have is this name for me, God. Thus, do not slender it because for you it represents the holy of holies, do not use it in inappropriate ways. This can be today percieved as exigency in our spiritual path. One must believe in God, spirit, what/Who transcends this world, and keep this belief pure, free from all the machinations possible through human language and mind.

5. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

This again is connected to those before. Because I am not of this world, says God, you cannot meet Me in this world, and if you only live in this world, than we can never meet. Thus, have a day, when you cease to live in this world, apart from it's many tasks, and spend it searching for me.

I have presented the firts few, what are not actually the first five, for example, in the catholic church, the first three of this list are treated as one. I tried to show that indeed the commandments are organically linked on many levels, and the more deeper we dig into them and know about hebrews, their tradition, the more we come closer to an understanding what is not that alien to eastern philospohies, traditions, or from any reasonable man.


I think even Bentinho would agree that this interpretation of the firts commandments is not that different from what he's teaching. If we just have the patience to listen to everybody, and refuse to see in others ignorants, fools, simpletons, if instead of sperataing us from others, we embrace all, than there is great room for growth in our soul's richness. Yoga means also union, uniting. If we just apply this principle everywhere, if we try to see how apparently conflicting things, facts, thoughts can be reconciled, than we are true yogis. It is not easy ... but is it realistic to expect it to be ?

[Bentinho Massaro]

Hey Hubert,

Yes I think you did a good job explaining them. Great post altogether. I would say I agree with you on most points, though perhaps with some differences in accents. But I deffinately think you are seeing things clearly. Not that I am to determine that necessarily, but in my eyes you are seeing through most of the nonsense. And nonsense is always the part created or added by humans.

Let me give you another version of these first 4, which will probably sound similar to yours, but perhaps not. I do not know yet what I will write 10 seconds from now, so we'll see. Note that I am not in any way familiar with these commandmends so I will just read them and share what I feel is the purest meaning:


1. I am the Lord your God

I feel this is the most significant one. Since it is the first, it often means it outlines the very essence. The rest of spiritual scriptures is mostly for comforting purposes or to outline a path towards that first statement. Think about the sutra's: The first one states what we are about to read: 1: Now yoga starts, then no. 2 explains what yoga is: Yoga is ... and 3 explains the experience of yoga. All the rest of the sutra's, in my opinion, are additional in nature. They are to further outline the way to the essence.

This first commandment to me says simply "I am." It uses I Am for a reason. Even within this one sentence the essence comes first, followed by further explanation. This is god saying: I am presence, beingness, You are me, I am yours. Nothing else.

Like supposedly god said to Moses: "I Am that I Am" which tells him not so much the name of god, but the very practice of being god. He does not tell him his name, for he has no name. He simply tells him what he is. He is I am ness. I am that I am. I am everything, and again the sentence starts with I am. We know this in yoga as Asmita. But it goes beyond asmita Samadhi. It is the beginning and the end. "I am" is all there is and as a practice it is all we need. If we just stick to this one, no other gods, no idols, no names can be abused and misinterpreted. Basically: no religion would arise.


2. You shall have no other gods before me

Simple and pure. Don't make me into something. people have all kinds of gods. I do not belief god says here that there are other gods that actually exist. The angels and such you spoke about are not other gods. They are mostly our projection. Our projection, our minds, is what creates all the gods. Even a statue or a ritual becomes our god if we are not careful.

Thus god says simply this: "Don't create gods, don't follow your gods, I am all there is." Or in other words: 'I am' is all there is.

The gods in our minds, our mental concept of god is a poor god. It is a fictional god. But that is the only way most of us think to know him. Thus they create traditions, rituals, worshipping etc. These projections is what god means by 'other gods'.

Then there is another significant point in this sentence. The word 'before.'
Basically he says Know me before allowing your mind to wander anywhere else. Do not seek treasures and gods first and then me, nor try to find me through these steps, paths or gods. Do not worship and perform traditions for god first, but have me first, know me first, and the rest is just the rest. Much like Jesus said: "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and everything else will be added unto you."

This commandment simply prioritizes 'I Am' before anything else. To avoid confusion, attachment and false ideology. A zen equivalent: "When you meet the buddha on your path, kill him immediately." Because, like you yourself said, we create all kinds of gods and start worshipping the image instead of the real thing.

3. You shall not make for yourself an idol

I pretty much explained this above. God tells us not to subject ourselves to anything. Note that anything can become an idol. A person, a statue, a religion, yoga, the sutra's, books, teachings, the ten commandments etc. Idolizing does not depend on the object, it is a state of being. All that we touch turns into a copy, a concept. Simply because we do not know our I Am; God.

Before, beyond anything else: "I Am." Period. Do not stray, do not waver.

4. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

If one gets to the stage of using his name wrongly, one has already forgot the second and third commandment. Or not understood them correctly.

You see, you can only start a war with someone, start a fight, a conflict, speak and share delusions etc. if you have a name for god. If you have been fooled by your mind's god, which is the poor god, you can use that in the wrong ways. You can start to fight for it because you have start to idolize a concept in your head. A religion was born out of your mind's copy of god. Now you use his name in the wrong ways.


Summary:

Basically these first four phrases of god tell us:
1: 'I Am' God
2: Do not turn 'I AM' into a concept
3: Do not subject yourself to, or be fooled by such concepts
4: Do not use your subjectivity towards such concepts (in progressive ways)

Always stick to the first, most basic expression of unity, without conceptualizing it. All the rest just keep you stuck.

B.

[sendacow]

In my opinion, art, music, yoga, charity work can be religious in every sense of the word, a meaningful alternative to traditional religion that generates moral perspectives.

[Techne]

A practice that generates moral perspectives. That's the best broad definition of 'religion' I have ever seen. Thank you.

[sendacow]

Thanks Maranatha,

I think the main function of a religion is giving meaning and purpose to people’s lives, comfort people in difficult times... Art , music, yoga,... works in similar way...

Ah, also shared religion binds people closely together