Do you think any one faith is the only 'way'?

[Windwalker]

Been there, done that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, in my experience. Even 'mystics' can hold onto, "I'm right, you're wrong!" although I confess it's less often with mystics.

When it's there, is just a bad habit from a previous mentality.

 

[SageTree]

Been there, done that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, in my experience. Even 'mystics' can hold onto, "I'm right, you're wrong!" although I confess it's less often with mystics.

Yeah what do they say about taking the X out of Y but you can't take the Y out of X....

I agree with you on all counts.

 

[ratikala]

Originally Posted by Vinayaka
Been there, done that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, in my experience. Even 'mystics' can hold onto, "I'm right, you're wrong!" although I confess it's less often with mystics.

When it's there, is just a bad habit from a previous mentality.

think this also depends on our definition of mystics , or the mystics definition of mystic ?

considering that mysticism relys upon direct personal experience , I canot see that there is much room for concepts of right or wrong when one is refering to individual traditions ?

 

[Vinayaka]

think this also depends on our definition of mystics , or the mystics definition of mystic ?

considering that mysticism relys upon direct personal experience , I canot see that there is much room for concepts of right or wrong when one is refering to individual traditions ?


[/i]

Very true. We should all be on the same wavelength, or at least close. I've actually had someone have the audacity to argue against and deny My personal mystical experience, and tell me that such an experience was impossible.

There is a certain 'intellectual mysticism' for lack of a better way to phrase it. BTW, my post # 34 wasn't as a response to anyone currently in this discussion, but to an earlier post. Personally, I find universalism can get overly simplistic, so I responded to that.

 

[ratikala]

namaskkaram vinayaka ji :namaste

Very true. We should all be on the same wavelength, or at least close. I've actually had someone have the audacity to argue against and deny My personal mystical experience, and tell me that such an experience was impossible.

the wavelength of humility might be a good place to start , we are wise to conscider our selves as the smallest of small , and be open to conscider all lessons and revelations . and any who have the "audacity to deny" the experience of another are to be regarded as children or fools , but we should take their scepticism as a lesson also least we acidentaly do the same .

the lesson we must learn is that mystical experiences do not realy mean much to any one but the one privy to them , they are hard to translate into words and even harder for anyone not ready to understand , even if we can verbalise the experience .
they are our private communion with god , who can or should understand that ?

There is a certain 'intellectual mysticism' for lack of a better way to phrase it. BTW, my post # 34 wasn't as a response to anyone currently in this discussion, but to an earlier post. Personally, I find universalism can get overly simplistic, so I responded to that.

'intellectual mysticism' .......for want of a better word ....ahamkara !

"universalism" .....prehaps we need to look at it as sympathetic tollerance , ... we are all striving to understand yet we do so in different ways

 

[Vinayaka]

namaskkaram vinayaka ji :namaste

'intellectual mysticism' .......for want of a better word ....ahamkara !

"universalism" .....prehaps we need to look at it as sympathetic tollerance , ... we are all striving to understand yet we do so in different ways

Wise points. Thank you. There was a thread about tolerating intolerance a while back. So I need to do that. I need to tolerate the view that simplistic universalism is the right and only way to view the world.

 

[Windwalker]

There is a certain 'intellectual mysticism' for lack of a better way to phrase it.

Are you trying to refer to metaphysics?

BTW, my post # 34 wasn't as a response to anyone currently in this discussion, but to an earlier post. Personally, I find universalism can get overly simplistic, so I responded to that.

Oh that's what you were referring to. It followed immediately after my post so I thought you were addressing what I said.

If by Universalism you mean that all views are equally valid, I would agree that is overly simplistic.

 

[Vinayaka]

Are you trying to refer to metaphysics?

No. I don't know what metaphysics is, so I suppose I couldn't be referring to it.

I just mean generally the intellectualisation of anything and everything. It's like this conversation.
A: "I think I had a mystical experience."
B: "Let's discuss it then. Let's compare and contrast, and refer to books, and find quotes about similarities, and find scriptures that support it .... "
A: "Let's not."

 

[Windwalker]

No. I don't know what metaphysics is, so I suppose I couldn't be referring to it.

I just mean generally the intellectualisation of anything and everything. It's like this conversation.
A: "I think I had a mystical experience."
B: "Let's discuss it then. Let's compare and contrast, and refer to books, and find quotes about similarities, and find scriptures that support it .... "
A: "Let's not."

Well, no that's not metaphysics. That's something else. What you mean is more just analyzing something that is in its nature transcendent, rather than just taking it in as it is and maybe talking about that in some shared experience. It would be like analyzing the gamut of your emotions and getting into technical language about the love you feel for your spouse with them, referring to this scholar or that, over a nice romantic dinner. Sort of kills it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Sort of kills it.

Yup....

 

[ratikala]

If by Universalism you mean that all views are equally valid, I would agree that is overly simplistic.

to me the idea of universalism dosent need to be overly interlectualised either , otherwise there is the tendancy to try to explain the validity of each veiw in degrees , then there comes a point that the universal realisation of one truth becomes lost in speculation about validity of the paths , .....

if we are concidering the original question ....

Do you think any one faith is the only 'way'?

.....then the universalists answer is 'no' , ....and he might say that many traditions rely upon many varied paths , but that all paths ultimately lead to one realisation .

this is simplistic but in my veiw true .

now if we go down the route of trying to accertain the validity of each path , and trying to grade them in terms of equality , we run very close to the assumption that one path is better than another therefore more valid in which case we are dangerously close to saying "this is the only way "

however if we forget any idea of analysing the validitys of doctrines and methodology , then quite simply we have more time free with which to realise god :namaste

 

[Vinayaka]

Do you think any one faith is the only 'way'?

.....then the universalists answer is 'no' , ....and he might say that many traditions rely upon many varied paths , but that all paths ultimately lead to one realisation .

I guess you haven't met some of the universalists that I have. Some I have met do indeed think that universalism is the only way. Their faith is universalist. Ask one what his faith is. Lets use colors as an analogy. If you mix several colors together you get a whole new color.

 

[SageTree]

to me the idea of universalism dosent need to be overly interlectualised either , otherwise there is the tendancy to try to explain the validity of each veiw in degrees , then there comes a point that the universal realisation of one truth becomes lost in speculation about validity of the paths , .....

if we are concidering the original question ....

Do you think any one faith is the only 'way'?

.....then the universalists answer is 'no' , ....and he might say that many traditions rely upon many varied paths , but that all paths ultimately lead to one realisation .

this is simplistic but in my veiw true .

now if we go down the route of trying to accertain the validity of each path , and trying to grade them in terms of equality , we run very close to the assumption that one path is better than another therefore more valid in which case we are dangerously close to saying "this is the only way "

however if we forget any idea of analysing the validitys of doctrines and methodology , then quite simply we have more time free with which to realise god :namaste

I think you said it well. Thanks for your thoughts.

And I agree with Vinny... there is a brand of fascist-universalism too that forget the inclusive part.
That perhaps is the most sad of all.

It's a good point, universalism, but keep it non-ironic.

 

[Windwalker]

now if we go down the route of trying to accertain the validity of each path , and trying to grade them in terms of equality , we run very close to the assumption that one path is better than another therefore more valid in which case we are dangerously close to saying "this is the only way "

That's true. I would say what is valid for one person may not be valid for another. And that can be true of the same person at different times in their lives as well. I see that case as a belief or system as being "stage appropriate". To impose something beyond where someone is ready is itself invalid, even if that view, belief, or practice is valid for them at a later stage in their development.

however if we forget any idea of analysing the validitys of doctrines and methodology , then quite simply we have more time free with which to realise god :namaste

Analyzing how these things work and their appropriateness or inappropriateness is distinct from actual practice. Having a framework of understanding to reference things, to categorize things is useful in one context, and detrimental in another. Just because someone may use a model of understanding as some static truth to beat others over the head with, does not mean that the use of such models is inherently bad. The misuse of them is what is the problem.

 

[Caladan]

A great deal of the legitimacy of World faiths is rooted in their sacred landscape and their geographical and cultural environment. The different regions of our world produced authentic cultures with authentic forms of traditions, and I think that at least as an archaeologist with some affinity to anthropology it is out task to preserve and understand the world's cultures and their distinct forms of connection to the world, their people, and their environment. At the same time as education seeking individuals it is also our task to transcend superstition, or the thought that our religious beliefs give us absolute answers to natural, geographical, or cosmological questions and of course the vain mentality that other people should conform to our limited [religious] perspective.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram vinayaka ji ,

I guess you haven't met some of the universalists that I have.

not a lot of chance of that out here , mind you here church and chapel are just about learning to get along nicely and share the anual rememberance day service once a year ! and occasionaly they do cross eachothers thresholds for funerals .
apart from that no one realy discusses faith it is not a done thing .

Some I have met do indeed think that universalism is the only way. Their faith is universalist. Ask one what his faith is. Lets use colors as an analogy. If you mix several colors together you get a whole new color.

Ah now this is where my simplistic veiw allways gets me in trouble .....

I tend to think of universalism as an acceptance and apperciation of the faiths of others without the need to neglect or change ones own tradition , and certainly without need to mix selected aspects of all religions in to one !

I am particularly fond of Mahatma Ghandi's comments on this subject , ....

"After many years of study and experience, I have come to the conclusion that ,
firstly , ...all religions are true ,
secondly , ...that all religions have some error in them "

he comented further , ....
"that all religions are almost as dear to me as is my own Hinduism , in as much as all human beings should be as dear to one as one's own close relatives .
For this reason my veneration for other faiths is the same as that for my own faith ,therefore no thought of conversion is possible."

If you mix several colors together you get a whole new color.

yes , an unatractive kaki brown !

I love the colourfullness of each tradition each is an individual celebration of understanding :namaste

 

[Vinayaka]

I tend to think of universalism as an acceptance and apperciation of the faiths of others without the need to neglect or change ones own tradition , and certainly without need to mix selected aspects of all religions in to one !

I:namaste

That's indeed how I too view interfaith relations ... mutual respect. But the radical universalist takes it one step further ... "they are all the same, ultimately say the same thing, and lead to the same goal."

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram sage ji :namaste

I think you said it well. Thanks for your thoughts.

thank you , however my thoughts are purely my personal veiw on religious tollerance ,
and I do not have your experience of the universalist church or any group that might refer to them selves as universalists ,

I would value your coments on the christian take on universalism .

And I agree with Vinny... there is a brand of fascist-universalism too that forget the inclusive part.
That perhaps is the most sad of all.

agreed from this side too , unfortunately there is an equaly sad tendancy towards faschist or fundamentalist tendancies in all faiths

I have also met some pretty controling buddhists , which is some what alarming ,

for such reasons occasionaly the idea of becoming my own nameless mystical faith seems somewhat appealing

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram windwalker ji:namaste

That's true. I would say what is valid for one person may not be valid for another. And that can be true of the same person at different times in their lives as well. I see that case as a belief or system as being "stage appropriate". To impose something beyond where someone is ready is itself invalid, even if that view, belief, or practice is valid for them at a later stage in their development.

buddha when instructing his deciples said "go forth and teach acording to the minds of the people you meet .":bow:
which is pretty self explanitory , ....and explains the need for different doctrines to occur at different points in time .

Analyzing how these things work and their appropriateness or inappropriateness is distinct from actual practice. Having a framework of understanding to reference things, to categorize things is useful in one context, and detrimental in another. Just because someone may use a model of understanding as some static truth to beat others over the head with, does not mean that the use of such models is inherently bad. The misuse of them is what is the problem.

this seems to be the problem , .... that people use doctrine to beat each other over the head with rather than using it as a measure with which to judge their own advancement , (or lack of !)

Oh dear that sounds a bit harsh , .. but unfortunately true

 

[SageTree]

namaskaram sage ji :namaste

:namaste

thank you , however my thoughts are purely my personal veiw on religious tollerance ,
and I do not have your experience of the universalist church or any group that might refer to them selves as universalists

Well, they worked for me, too.

The Unitarian-Universalist Church put humanistic principles first.
How we got to the principles was secondary, in a way....
Intertwined we'll say.....

I would value your coments on the christian take on universalism .

I'm honoured, but I don't know if I can speak for Christianity.
So as usual I'll speak for myself.

I grew up a United Methodist as you know and journeyed for 12 or so years to this point, learning.

I sort of 'came back' to Christianity, from a more Univeralist perspective, but didn't abandon the perspective,
nor do I just practice Christian method... I suppose I'm a Syncretic of sorts as well.

Go figure.

Mind you, I'm not talking about Christian Universalism. ie. 'All things will be restored'.... (Not that I have a problem with that per se)

But to be clear I'm talking about Universalism as a perspective.

I haven't had a problem bringing the heart of that Universalist language with me into the Christian-tongue.

People seem to understand me just fine.
Some say I speak beautifully.

I've been heartily welcomed into the Anglican Church of Canada, where ever I've lived.
And never in a skeptical way, always with open arms, and usually thrust into some role in the Church... willingly of course.

I find perennial expression in Christianity.... and the exclusivism doesn't jive with me, that is portrayed in the translation/transmission of it.

Granted, I also came back through the Eastern door.... The Mystic/Contemplative Door.
So what I 'see', is highly unique.

Group worship and creeds.... sometimes tough... I see a finger pointing to the moon,
or a threshold to cross, which leads to the cosmos.

That was a little rambling... so pardon me.
It's on the fly.

agreed from this side too , unfortunately there is an equaly sad tendancy towards faschist or fundamentalist tendancies in all faiths

No doubt.

I have also met some pretty controling buddhists , which is some what alarming ,

Too true... a side effective of Western converts?
Am sure this isn't the sole cause.... but 'ownership' is a big thing ya know.
(spiritual materialism)

for such reasons occasionaly the idea of becoming my own nameless mystical faith seems somewhat appealing

To a large extent, while I submit to God, as a pilgrim on my journey home....
There are many days I've felt alone on that road home.
But I've certainly had my share of journey with amazing people, like yourself, whom I hold in my heart.

Advaita Christianity?
Zen Christian?
Christian Yogi?
Christ-yana?
Bhakti Christianity?
Christian Dervish?
Christafari?
Christbbalah?
Christ-sattva?
VajraChristianity

What ought I label myself and path?

Hence my signature.
Everyone Breathes.

:namaste
Salaamaste!

SageTree