You are referring to her Beyond Belief, I gather. A very interesting work.
Sometimes the "outer church" has prohibited or denied that the "inner chuch" can or should exist. That a person should have no direct connection in worship but only through a controlled experience through the presence of a priest, for example, as part of the outer church. That is my understanding of the difference. But I've read the inner church had to be acknowledged when the mystic nuns and monks of the Catholic church would pray and begin to levitate in their cells even during the Middle Ages and the Church just kept that very private, given the Inquisition and such. And that was the point, you can't divorce the inner church which will always exist, as it is in the nature of the humanness of existence.
Perhaps Western writers use Christianity as a familiar example rather than a template, Phyllis.
I think the shamanistic religions (as in faith or belief system) and lamaism (that preceding Buddhism) might fall out of the "organized" religion category (and therefore have in the past been seen as not being religions, which would be defined in part for their organization). The shamans/lamas have techniques which it seems would alter in approach depending on the circumstances or need, but the practitioners seem to operate as individuals (though they have apprentices) and the classic works on Shamanism say they are "called" to their role much as priests speak of their "calling."
I think you were right to hesitate on the word "organized" regarding religion as its meaning in that context can be fluid, to say the least.
Updated On: 8/6/09 at 04:18 PM
