so a personal religion would be to be bound by my own understandings. in the end, we are bound by those no matter what we call it ; ) I totally agree that to be outside bound is a bad thing, it is a thought prison, and you can see the bars when you debate anyone inside it. they have no authority to change their mind.
I still think Buddhism, while having many different sects, has a few that teach religious freedom as we are discussing. I mean, his teaching clearly say do not take my word for it. Buddha actually tries to get people to think for themselves. I don't know of any other religion that does that. Well the Zen tradition seems to have elements of that as well. Neither of them teach morality or attempt to have such authority over your reactions in life. So I still see them as having a better form, not that all adhere to it in the true form that I would call correct.
It's the old
"If you see the Buddha on the road kill him!"
Meaning the idea that the buddha is external to yourself you cannot be the buddha.
Openness is required for balance and openness allows for the needed agility in an ever changing creation/universe. Openness allows for principles of balance to be found and used without needing to maintain patterns that feel controlling, denying or arbitrary.
The essence of what Buddha points to is often valuable and if I was somehow forced into a major religion I would probably pick Zen Buddhism - however, the value of zen buddhism to me is partially in the absence of interference from hierarchy and generally speaking it is such hierarchy that is a hallmark of religion as opposed to spirituality.
When we know that we ourselves ARE spirit - then spirituality is simply 'being who you are'!
indeed, and I am not advocating any religion. Just pondering it. Thanks for the comment.