I'm struggling to understand why Jim's attempt to clarify the meaning of 'religion' has raised such opposition. It seems spot on to me. Perhaps I could quibble here and there but can't see the point. That he has been credited with inventing the term 'supramundane reality' suggest that some correspondents are relatively new to the topic.   

In an essay in the archive I partially clarify the meaning of SR as it is most commonly used in religion, and it may satisfy Derek's desire to get closer to the core of the issue.   
I suggest that the root doctrine of all major religions is metaphysically neutral. For a neutral metaphysical position 'Reality' would not be the psychophysical world of spacetime phenomena but a (normally) hidden realm accessible to us through certain psychological practices. Supramundane Reality would be Bradley's Reality, Hegel's spiritual unity, Schopenhauer's 'better consciousness' and so forth. I can see no problem with the idea that the realisation of this reality, or the search for an understanding of it or relationship with it, call it Divine Union, Enlightenment, Nibbana, the Kingdom of Heaven or whatever, is the motivation for religion. For the alchemist the wedding is the goal. Rather, I have a problem with any other idea. The alternative is to suppose that religion is all guesswork and dogma.   

Of course, this isn't to say that the search for SR motivates all those who consider themselves to be a member of a religion, anymore than the search for truth motivates all people who consider themselves philosophers, but there would be little of substance or value left in religion if we take away the idea that we do not live in a wysiwyg universe, and a meaningful generic definition would probably become impossible. 

The point about making a distinction between exoteric and esoteric religion seems a good one, however, and maybe for some people the definition would be helped if it said more about this.