'Religion'? What's That?

Popular etymology misguides our understanding of religion, as it erringly derives it from 'religare', referring to 'binding fast' or 'obligating' one. Naturally, this would find a benefit in 'binding' oneself to some deity, or in the more abstract, be a preference of organizational religion, which would desire a constituency to be 'obligated' and 'bound' to a distinctive understanding and behaviors. However, the word is more likely a derivation of 'relegre', which means 'to go through' or 'read again.' , or 'religens': 'revering the gods.' (Barnhart)

It is curious how our words construct our very thinking. My developing understanding of what it is that is religious, continues to evolve as more information and perspectives about the world (that I have been constructing with my words, with my hitherto understandings) further broaden and sharpen my awareness.

In this vein, I discover a kind of fondness for the more popular (though probably, etymologically speaking, errant) derivation of 'religion' from 'binding fast.' Yes, even though it is likely wrong, I prefer it a little, because in my developing conceptualization of what I think I 'see' when I look around me, I am starting to 'see' myself, our Earth (Gaia), and everything else becoming more and more an integrated whole. This, in contradiction with the many dichotomies that have been haunting human understanding for many thousands of years, if not into deep prehistory.

Thus the 'spiritual’ vs. 'mundane' dichotomy, the 'self' vs. 'other', the 'good' vs. 'evil', the 'me' vs. 'it'... all of these dichotomies feel as if they are actually intermediate steps to a deeper understanding, perhaps necessary in a developmental sense, but ultimately insufficient. On the other hand, the more inclusive understandings that once again (from our human perspective) 'bind together' all that we had been holding separate, is extremely appealing.

However, it is not that it is bound. It actually would, if this reasoning is valid, be in a completely unforced relationship. There would be a 'Tao' to it, a naturalism, an 'of course.'