What is the ultimate of going your own way? This seems to fit:

Probably. But I don’t agree with this fella’s interpretation of the Tao Te Ching.

I don’t think the sage prefers the lack of order. The sage does not interfere and so the natural order arises.

Or something like that. I heart Taoism.

@H.R. Pufnstuf;
I also heart Taoism. It seems like every translation of the original text comes out differently. The web has many translations, too many to list; however, the price is right.

My favorite book version is: Tao Te Ching by Lao Tsu. Translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English. Vintage Books, 1972
The text has a poetic flow, and each page of text is faced by black & white photos.

They are religions that are focused more on peace and inner-harmony, rather than killing and war.

This may seem like a matter of semantics to some of you but I would say there is an important distinction between religion and philosophy here.

When I think of religion, I think of Judeo-Christian monotheism whereas the typically Eastern poly or pantheistic systems I see as philosophies. To my mind, the difference is between agrarian cultures on the one hand and shepherding cultures on the other.

In cultures where farming was the dominant system of sustenance production, it was paramount for people to understand the forces of nature… to mark the passage of time and know the cycles of birth, growth, death, decay and rebirth which enabled successful working of the land. These cultures developed belief systems wherein values were ascribed personality and people treated the forces of nature with spiritual reverence but where understanding and balance were required for things to work.

Shepherding cultures, on the other hand, valued the leadership of an individual (the shepherd) and the loyalty and cohesion of the flock to weather adversities as they trek about in search of the “promised land” which is a place of safety and good grazing.

Agrarian cultures produce value (food and community) through understanding of nature and balanced, cooperative effort, whereas shepherding cultures regard strong individual leadership and mass obedience in order to secure resources before they are claimed by others.

The former tends to produce philosophies and colectivist societies whereas the latter tends to produce demagogues and competitive societies. Of course, all cultures engage in war over resources (farmland, coastlines, water rights, mineral deposits, etc) but I believe that shepherding cultures believe more deeply in the fundamental scarcity of natural resources (due to the environments in which they developed) than do agrarian cultures.

So my point is that eastern “religions” aren’t just not religions in the same way that shepherd/book religions are, but that there is nothing particularly special about them save for the natural environments out which they grew.

You can adopt a belief system that came from another time and situation if you like but to me that seems dogmatic and superficial… better to evolve a system of beliefs on your own that suit the time and conditions in which you live. If you think the concept of DIY philosophy is absurd, talk to any student of Jeet Kune Do and see what they have to say about it.

I think your point is close to being true but off by a little.

People seem to adopt beliefs due to economic circumstances.  I have seen statistics where religions with an after life are adopted more amongst the lower rungs of society, while those on the uppermiddle/upper rungs seem to favor reincarnation.

In regards to the shepherd vs farming,  Geo-political Judeo-Christianity has applied both at one point or another.  Farming and shepherding were both used historically in one respect or another.

The plethora of religions points to the creative nature of humans.
But ultimately, whether they will admit it or not, they are all polytheistic.

I think philosophy is about how to think. A philosopher doesn’t ask, is there a god? According to
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm he asks “what are my pre-judgments”

Then there are ethics/morals. Morals imply a good and evil. I believe in ethics not morals.
Those 12 rules Moses found in those rocks seem like a pretty good list.

People seem to adopt beliefs due to economic circumstances.

This is an interesting perspective which I have never considered. Do people whose lives are going well believe they will be renewed at a higher plane of existence whereas people whose lives suck by comparison are waiting for their eternal reward in heaven? I’d be curious to see some writings where these points are asserted.

As for agrarian versus herding, I don’t mean to say that any culture uses one or the other exclusively… but rather to point out the primary mode of sustenance in these cultures during the period of time when their respective religions coalesced. Of course, I’m not a cultural anthropologist so I’m just going on my own observations here, but I do think when you’re talking about the apparent differences between “eastern” and “western” religions, it’s hard to not take geography and cultural origin stories into account.

The plethora of religions points to the creative nature of humans.

I think philosophy is about how to think. A philosopher doesn’t ask, is there a god?

Religion and philosophy can go hand in hand.  It was Socrates, if I am correct, that credited the Athenians for the acknowledgement of the “mysteries”.  When dealing with religion, one has to deal with mystery.  Mystery is a natural part of not only being human, but also the reasoning process of philosophy.   To acknowledge mystery is just as important as acknowledging concrete and absolute truths.  Mystery can be a driving and ending force in a philosophical discussion.

Dealing with the “paradox” is also an important part of philosophy.  The observation of the “mystery” and the “paradox” are important parts in philosophical discussion because in them we observe abstractness.  Abstract thought is pure in the fact that it exists on its own terms, but is difficult for the scientifically minded because it cannot be observed through the senses or measured.

Religion can be creative yes, but men create.  To create a building is one thing, but to create an idea or belief, that is divine.  A building can be built and may last for a few hundred years at most.  A few structure, such as the pyramids, will last a few thousand.  However all these things decay.  An idea can exist for multiple millenia without decay.  The ability to construct through abstract thought is probably the highest form of architecture there is.

I use the word “morals” to refer to how an individual treats themselves. In this context, eating healthy, exercising, reading and working toward ones dreams and values is moral whereas indulging in self destructive behaviors or being lazy and letting yourself go to s~~~ is immoral. There’s no objective standard here aside from self preservation and improvement. Only you can judge your own morality.

“Ethics”, on the other hand, is how you treat other people with regard to your own survival. If you are fair, trustworthy, kind and positive, you are ethical and you will prosper just as those around you do. Again, nobody can judge your ethics… your outcomes will be the judge.

Anyone echo claims to be able to judge you morally OR ethically is just trying to sell you something. Reality is the final arbiter of our behavior. Just my humble opinion.