Kartari
Active Member
Hi paarsurrey... and everyone else here, actually,
I agree with the sentiment that the world's religions demonstrate our common humanity. We're all human beings in the world, with the same basic desires and the capacity to dream. Though they differ widely on the details, we find notions of deities, life after death, and other supernatural ideas in probably all religions. We also find some strong similarities in how human societies have basically defined morality via religion. For instance, four of the Five Precepts for laypeople in Buddhism are similar to four of the Ten Commandments (the precepts concerning abstaining from murder, theft, sexual misconduct, and deceit). All religions have rituals for common human desires as well, such as funerary and wedding rituals, as well as rituals for a variety of other purposes.
Where I disagree is in the notion that this "Oneness of the human spirit" coincides with a Oneness of purpose or goals for all the world's religions. Each religion truly does identify the perceived fundamental problems and solutions, first with respect to each's formative society and, next, to those societies' in which each migrates and adapts to over time. But they nonetheless differ (and rather widely) in not only which specific problems are thought to be the most fundamental, but perhaps most profoundly differ in how to best solve those problems.
Take a (very quickie) comparison between Christianity and Buddhism for instance (two religions I happen to know very well). Christianity deems sin as the most fundamental problem, defined as the deviation from God's will. The Buddha identified sickness, old age, and death, or in a word suffering (or existential dissatisfaction) as the most fundamental problem in life instead. Right off the bat, we have two very different ideas about what's most problematic in life. Christians view evil as that which deviates from their ultimate authority's laws, while Buddhists view evil as merely that which causes suffering.
Their solutions, naturally, differ even more widely. For the Christian, professing belief or faith in Jesus Christ as their only possible means of salvation from death, or from eternal hellfire (depending on the sect), is the provided solution. In traditional Buddhism, however, the solution is to diligently meditate and detach from the three poisons of greed, hate, and delusion. Christianity is entirely dependent on a supernatural being for salvation, therefore, whereas Buddhism is entirely independent of external saviors, viewing the self as one's only possible savior. Even the very concept of salvation differs in definition between the two.
Even amongst two very similar religions, such as Daoism and Buddhism, there are important differences. Daoists and Buddhists are very agreeable on many things: from the 6th century CE on in China, the average person could not even distinguish Daoist and Buddhist clergy, practices, or temples from one another they were so similar. While Daoists and Buddhists performed similar meditation techniques, the same rituals, and had other similarities, the Daoists' solution (as traditionally expressed) to sickness, old age, and death was to use those techniques to attain greater health and longevity by being one with the dao and, ultimately, to gain immortality. The Buddha instead took the approach of accepting life as it is, to release attachments to the fleeting nature of existence.
So while all religions identify and provide solutions to what are perceived to be the most fundamental problems of human existence, those identified problems and solutions actually vary. Hence, it's hard to simply paint a broad brushstroke over them all and claim they all basically teach the same thing... when, in fact, they do not.
So how do the world's religions nonetheless show the Oneness of the human spirit? Because each is a particular expression of certain human desires and ultimate ideals. We don't all need to be Buddhists to recognize that sickness, old age, and death are not desirable. We don't all need to be Christians to recognize that people usually don't want to die. Christianity expresses the desire for immortality in an afterlife. Daoism expresses the desire for immortality in this life. Buddhism expresses the desire to detach from desires whatsoever in order to attain equanimity come what may. I think all of humanity can understand on some level the appeal of each of these end goals, even if they find one particular goal more appealing than the others.
So I see no reason to recognize our common humanity, our common desires, and also live in a world where different religions identify different basic issues and solutions. We are all human, regardless of whether we agree with each other or not. This holds true of religion as well as other facets of life. Why would it indicate we're not one in spirit if our religions actually point to different end goals? Having a difference of opinion need not lead to conflict; we can have our unique ideas, religious or otherwise, and still get along well if we're simply all being mature adults about it. Diversity breeds creativity and a more interesting and thought-provoking experience of life than uniformity ever could.
I agree with the sentiment that the world's religions demonstrate our common humanity. We're all human beings in the world, with the same basic desires and the capacity to dream. Though they differ widely on the details, we find notions of deities, life after death, and other supernatural ideas in probably all religions. We also find some strong similarities in how human societies have basically defined morality via religion. For instance, four of the Five Precepts for laypeople in Buddhism are similar to four of the Ten Commandments (the precepts concerning abstaining from murder, theft, sexual misconduct, and deceit). All religions have rituals for common human desires as well, such as funerary and wedding rituals, as well as rituals for a variety of other purposes.
Where I disagree is in the notion that this "Oneness of the human spirit" coincides with a Oneness of purpose or goals for all the world's religions. Each religion truly does identify the perceived fundamental problems and solutions, first with respect to each's formative society and, next, to those societies' in which each migrates and adapts to over time. But they nonetheless differ (and rather widely) in not only which specific problems are thought to be the most fundamental, but perhaps most profoundly differ in how to best solve those problems.
Take a (very quickie) comparison between Christianity and Buddhism for instance (two religions I happen to know very well). Christianity deems sin as the most fundamental problem, defined as the deviation from God's will. The Buddha identified sickness, old age, and death, or in a word suffering (or existential dissatisfaction) as the most fundamental problem in life instead. Right off the bat, we have two very different ideas about what's most problematic in life. Christians view evil as that which deviates from their ultimate authority's laws, while Buddhists view evil as merely that which causes suffering.
Their solutions, naturally, differ even more widely. For the Christian, professing belief or faith in Jesus Christ as their only possible means of salvation from death, or from eternal hellfire (depending on the sect), is the provided solution. In traditional Buddhism, however, the solution is to diligently meditate and detach from the three poisons of greed, hate, and delusion. Christianity is entirely dependent on a supernatural being for salvation, therefore, whereas Buddhism is entirely independent of external saviors, viewing the self as one's only possible savior. Even the very concept of salvation differs in definition between the two.
Even amongst two very similar religions, such as Daoism and Buddhism, there are important differences. Daoists and Buddhists are very agreeable on many things: from the 6th century CE on in China, the average person could not even distinguish Daoist and Buddhist clergy, practices, or temples from one another they were so similar. While Daoists and Buddhists performed similar meditation techniques, the same rituals, and had other similarities, the Daoists' solution (as traditionally expressed) to sickness, old age, and death was to use those techniques to attain greater health and longevity by being one with the dao and, ultimately, to gain immortality. The Buddha instead took the approach of accepting life as it is, to release attachments to the fleeting nature of existence.
So while all religions identify and provide solutions to what are perceived to be the most fundamental problems of human existence, those identified problems and solutions actually vary. Hence, it's hard to simply paint a broad brushstroke over them all and claim they all basically teach the same thing... when, in fact, they do not.
So how do the world's religions nonetheless show the Oneness of the human spirit? Because each is a particular expression of certain human desires and ultimate ideals. We don't all need to be Buddhists to recognize that sickness, old age, and death are not desirable. We don't all need to be Christians to recognize that people usually don't want to die. Christianity expresses the desire for immortality in an afterlife. Daoism expresses the desire for immortality in this life. Buddhism expresses the desire to detach from desires whatsoever in order to attain equanimity come what may. I think all of humanity can understand on some level the appeal of each of these end goals, even if they find one particular goal more appealing than the others.
So I see no reason to recognize our common humanity, our common desires, and also live in a world where different religions identify different basic issues and solutions. We are all human, regardless of whether we agree with each other or not. This holds true of religion as well as other facets of life. Why would it indicate we're not one in spirit if our religions actually point to different end goals? Having a difference of opinion need not lead to conflict; we can have our unique ideas, religious or otherwise, and still get along well if we're simply all being mature adults about it. Diversity breeds creativity and a more interesting and thought-provoking experience of life than uniformity ever could.
