Pros and cons of attempts at perceiving many or all religions as pointing to the same conclusions

[Vinayaka]

I just want to thank you for this thread. It expresses eloquently many of the reasons why perennialist thought drives me nuts: the inherent disrespectfulness involved in overwriting someone else's cultural narratives with universalism. I sometimes have a difficult time articulating to perennial thinkers why it is their perspective is offensive, in large part because it is made in good faith. It's a sort of erasure - a way of dealing with diversity by pretending it does not exist. Maybe that's all some people can do to be comfortable with diversity, but... well... I don't find it to be an optimal approach.

I concur, Quintessence, and I find it particularly annoying when pointing out differences brings on an accusation of hatred. That's quite the jump. So what, in your view, is a more optimal approach? I'd love to hear it as its always good to add strategies and insight from the wise.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Namaste, thank you for inspiring this meaningful dialogue, Luis
Shouldn't we make sure we’re all using the same meaning of words to define things? We are forced to use mind and intellect to discuss Truth, which transcends both. (Some people will disagree with that statement right there, but OK )

The word ‘religion’ comes from the Latin ‘religiere,’ i.e, to reunite [with God or Self or WhatEverYouCall IT, maybe NOT-IT for advaitins]. So any path or teaching which accomplishes that goal can be called a religion, perhaps. But the word ‘religion’ used in the ordinary sense means that body of teaching which advanced or illumined Truth in such a new way that its main proponent, or its Prophet, had a ‘religion’ named after or honoring him. But the Prophets never say, “It’s my Truth.” His followers say he said that. The Prophets know better. Truth, being eternal, existed before them, It exists now, It will exist. It is when they--that body, mind, heart and soul of the Messenger--are possessed by OneGod, by Truth Itself—in complete Unity Consciousness and absent of ego—that "they" utter those phrases like, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” That is OneGod speaking, using His/Her/Its instrument.

So Beloved God sends Himself here, usually with a fantastical story (Lord of the Divine Drama that He is!), all bundled up in a miracle-wreaking costume and a path is born. If you’ll study the evolution of the “religions,” the Prophet usually arrives in the nick of time to deal with fanaticism in a religion that he’s not eventually known for. Jesus was born a Jew and Christianity is the result of his fixes. Buddha was a Hindu and Buddhism is the result of getting an entire region back to a ‘middle way,’ etc. But it is OneGod and only OneGod Who is the Mastermind of the whole show. Lest we get caught up in the delights/certainties of our own beliefs about this, devotees of all religions need to remind themselves of this simple truth now and again.

It appears that, in this thread, an important distinction regarding the use of the word "universal" or "universalism" has not yet been sufficiently pointed out. Some people are saying and thinking that the tenets of certain "religions" (or perhaps only some of its fans?!) DO promote a merging, melding, "stew" type thing of a religion as the future of religion. That idea is personally abhorrent (I love the taste of the different nectars) and we have some here in agreement who are trying to say that no matter all the different flavors, shapes, sizes, costs and colors from the past, on the stage now or in the future, IT is, was and still will be Candy. Thus "universal" in this sense is meant to convey the idea that the core values of any ‘religion'--rightly practiced--will achieve what is called in Hinduism yoga, the purpose of religion, i.e, reunion of Self with Self, or the revealing of Self to Self--whatever concepts and verbs are described by your faith to get one to his goal.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Luis,

There are always people and, in fact, whole religions that seem put a lot of value in attempting to disregard the differences among religions.

Very often it is presented as an act of good faith, and often enough it is. It is always wise and prudent to remind ourselves that differences of belief are not to be overdone and should not be taken as reason for bitter rejection of other people.

Still, it is definitely possible and harmful to overdo it. We run the risk of attempting to tell people what their beliefs "really are", and that of course is not anyone else's call to make. It amounts to deciding that other people are holding wrong beliefs and should submit to our own judgement on the matter.

Even were that true - and even from a statistical perspective it just can't be true very often at all - the fact remains that it is invasive and disrespectful to reinterpret other people's beliefs without somehow being invited to...

Thoughts?

I agree that those who opt to view all religions as one and the same are often coming from a basically good, albeit naive, vantage point. On the one hand, it may feel good to consider that every religion in the world points to the same "universal" truth (often, this "one truth" involves an impersonal monotheistic belief). It makes the world's religions seem more magical in their supposedly uncanny unity. Perhaps it helps some people become more tolerant of foreign faiths if they believe they are much more similar than dissimilar as well

But this approach tends to disregard what individual religions actually teach and value. While many religions do share some similarities with one another in a number of varying ways, the differences should never be overlooked.

The Bahai faith is perhaps the most well known established religion that takes this approach. I debated a Bahai practitioner once about the Bahai view that the Buddha was pointing to a one God. An unfounded claim if you examine the actual Buddhist scriptures. One must distort the context and selectively translate one specific scripture just to make this idea superficially seem possible. Claiming that Buddhists either unwittingly are or should be monotheists is therefore clearly disingenuous.

 

[DawudTalut]

about post 46

......
Peace and Blessings, Dawud! Yá Bahá’u’l-Abhá!

Assalam o alaikum.

So now it is clear that Ahmadiyya Muslims are very different than Bahais.

 

[LuisDantas]

about post 46


Assalam o alaikum.

So now it is clear that Ahmadiyya Muslims are very different than Bahais.

From the perspective of the adherents themselves, that is doubtlessly true.

As I pointed out in previous posts, I find the goals and history of both faiths too similar for them to confortably coexist. Particularly given how both have a strong Islamic core.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

...those who opt to view all religions as one and the same are often coming from a basically good, albeit naive, vantage point. On the one hand, it may feel good to consider that every religion in the world points to the same "universal" truth (often, this "one truth" involves an impersonal monotheistic belief).

Namaste,
There are some here using the word "universal" in reference to the religions who are emphatically saying they are NOT "one and the same." Hoping this is clear even though you fail to acknowledge it. We are saying that though the religions may express the Truth differently, the Truth itself, i.e., God, Supreme Being, Ultimate NoGod(gods), Highest Order NoName, Theist, NoTheist--blah, blah, blah, any and all the designators for That which the inventive human mind needed to come up with for itself and the times--the substratum, the inter-penetrator, creator, maintainer, destroyer of All that is, is still only One.

One what? Well, that's what the "arguments" are about. And it will only BE argument, supposition, intellectual fodder to heap upon other interesting heaps of fodder for contemplation until a person actually EXPERIENCES the Truth for which he is searching (or claims he is already in possession of). Until then, it is all talk and thought... and only talk and thought.

Your use of the phrase "opt to view" is interesting, even telling. It means one is weighing information in order to form a belief. That is merely exercising one's intellect which is certainly OK and might even produce a spark which results in actual knowledge. But after having a genuine experience of the Supreme, entertaining or "holding a view" to form some sort of "belief" about Oneness is no longer required nor optional. An experience of Truth gives a definitive "view" of Truth and its overarching Oneness.

If one's final freedom from ignorance (moksha, nirvana, rapture, et al) doesn't happen in that moment of experience (and that's possible), some very pleasant times can be had during the balance of one's sojourn here by sipping the delectable juices to be found deep in the different faiths (as well as in the sweetwater heart-wells of their devotees). No "universalist" used in this sense of the word will deny another devotee his right to eat only apples or even pooh-pooh his desire to do so. But we will certainly be wondering from the sidelines why he or she isn't at least tempted to try the kiwis, oranges, bananas, jackfruit and nectarines left lying around over time by OneGod for His brood? Our error, if any, might be in trying to cajole a brother or sister into doing so. Try it! You'll like it! Mikey likes it! Please forgive us if, in our delivery, we are overly exuberant. However, this is not the same as naive, which means inexperienced, lacking wisdom or judgment.

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts in this welcoming environment.
Sw. V.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't think the term "ultimate truth" has any value. As I said in an earlier post, each of our religions would be best used to improve ourselves, not to convince others of our own beliefs. Whatever methodology each person uses to improve themselves doesn't have to agree with another's methodology.

I agree, and I get worried when people start talking about "ultimate truths" and "absolute realities".

 

[Vinayaka]

Namaste Swamini,

Way out here, in ordinary consciousness, we really have no idea what 'truth' is other than what we have been told by those who either knew it, or told us they knew it, and then was processed in the intellect. So on a personal level, I don't know. How could I? Certainly sometimes 2 leaders or sages of differing faiths or sampradayas can sit in peace, basking in each other's radiance. At other times when two leaders of sages get together, it turns to debate.

I certainly believe that there are some schools and sects that do show us a way to that, and if we listen and follow, will surely get there. On the other hand, there are other 'paths' that I'm not so convinced about. Mainly because their descriptions of the end result vary substantially from the first one, and the path described seems headed in another direction.. Still, as long as it's not aggressively interfering with other's rights to follow their own path, it's all good. So I still respect it, just not sure if the same goal is really there. As Lawrence Yep's character in Dragonwings would say ... "Maybe. Maybe not."

For a long time, my main problem with the first type of universalism, or meaning you described in your first post, is what it can do to the adherent. And that, with all due thought, is create confusion, or a lack of focus. I've met people like that, who regurgitate from conflicting sources, and I just want to say, "But what really is it that you personally do believe?" Of course they don't have an answer to that. Referring back to Luis's stuff on sampradaya, most certainly those in a sampradaya are far less confused.

Aum Namasivaya

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Way out here, in ordinary consciousness, we really have no idea what 'truth' is other than what we have been told by those who either knew it, or told us they knew it, and then was processed in the intellect. So on a personal level, I don't know. How could I? Certainly sometimes 2 leaders or sages of differing faiths or sampradayas can sit in peace, basking in each other's radiance. At other times when two leaders of sages get together, it turns to debate.

Namaste, Vinayakaji
As you are quite aware, to transcend ordinary consciousness is why the sages recommend sadhana. And please, I'm not being nasty here, but if "we" (not just you, all the "wes" in the same predicament) really have no idea what 'truth' is, where is the chutzpah coming from to opine about it like one does know? We already know the answer to that, too.

For a long time, my main problem with the first type of universalism, or meaning you described in your first post, is what it can do to the adherent. And that, with all due thought, is create confusion, or a lack of focus. I've met people like that, who regurgitate from conflicting sources, and I just want to say, "But what really is it that you personally do believe?" Of course they don't have an answer to that. Referring back to Luis's stuff on sampradaya, most certainly those in a sampradaya are far less confused.

I couldn't agree more. Regurgitating the "truth" one has read or heard or devised on one's own--from one or more traditions or even outside them--is not the same as experiencing and digesting the truth where it becomes part and parcel of one's blood, so to speak. I think this tendency or phenomenon is so common, though, it may be just a process we all have to go through until we get comfy with our 'chosen' path? As I've said elsewhere and many times, in this day and age having a realized Instructor is... well, I just have extreme difficulty imagining getting from "ordinary consciousness" (here) to awareness of Divine Consciousness (also here) without one.

 

[Sundance]

From the perspective of the adherents themselves, that is doubtlessly true.

As I pointed out in previous posts, I find the goals and history of both faiths too similar for them to confortably coexist. Particularly given how both have a strong Islamic core.

Ahmadiyya are rooted in Sunni Islam, whereas The Bahá’í Faith originated from Shi’a Islam.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Remember, being stuck is only temporary.

So's life. The question becomes which temporary part is going to end first?

In terms of the OP, I tend to think Jesus was on to something with the "the eye can't say to the hand 'I don't need you'" thing. Unless we are chimeras, every cell in our body has the same DNA running through them (unless it's a gamete, in which case it's half). However, the eyes are different from the hands, the brain is different from the genitals (LOL), the heart and lungs are different from the anus. Some groups are more "nerdy" and focus on details, no matter how obscure nor how irrelevant they are to real life. Some are all heart and just want either peace and compassion or war and hatred. Some ... well ... some are just the rectum. Can't be helped, I guess.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ahmadiyya are rooted in Sunni Islam, whereas The Bahá’í Faith originated from Shi’a Islam.

Thanks. I did not know that.

 

[Quintessence]

I concur, Quintessence, and I find it particularly annoying when pointing out differences brings on an accusation of hatred. That's quite the jump.

What's interesting is that to those who feel pointing out differences is a problem, this isn't quite the jump. Some of that may be a cultural thing. It is often taught that to get along with one's fellows, that we should seek "common ground" - that is to say, things that are the same between the two parties. We spend a great deal of time creating our "in" groups and the "out" groups, and the "in" groups are the "people like us" and the "out" groups are the "people not like us." It doesn't have to be set up that way, but this seems to be the default. So much so that to point out differences is to be seen as being divisive or subversive of working together with others! It's kind of strange.

So what, in your view, is a more optimal approach?

Building off the above, we'd need to start shifting cultural narratives. That will be difficult in a monotheistic culture that is enamored with the ideas of oneness and unity. Instead of being so obsessed with seeking common ground, we could learn to let others tell their stories and listen to them. Listening is a skill that is not (but should be) taught in basic education - active, nonjudgmental listening. Combine that with fostering the value of pluralism. Teaching that yes, it is okay to be different.

One of the reasons I came to so strongly value pluralism was through studying biological sciences. A huge lesson that emerges out of studying both ecology and evolution is that diversity is critically important for biological systems. Greater diversity means a system has a bigger toolkit for dealing with new challenges. It increases adaptability and robustness. When a system becomes homogenized or less diverse, you end up with problems, and life as we know it couldn't happen without diversity. These same lessons apply to humans, as humans are biological organisms embedded in ecosystems too!

 

[Sundance]

Thanks. I did not know that.

Indeed, but that is why appear so similar while having so many differences.

 

[Sundance]

The real issue, I am convinced, is not with universalism itself, rather with the problems that it provides an attempt at solving. We have seperated ourselves into various tribes, and cliques, and races, and nations, and religions, and that's beautiful. Diversity is, I believe, an extremely wonderful thing! The problem comes when we look at those differences in the other and demonize the individual because of them, as has been done, unfortunately, so many times throughout history.

Really, though, the criticisms I have seen reflect the very same misunderstanding concerning the meaning of “closing your eyes to the differences in the Other...”

What is meant by this is not “every religion or every individual is exactly the same,” rather “people and religions are very different (in even, seemingly irreconcilable, fashions), most assuredly, and in many cases most obviously. Though, we must not allow those differences to obstruct our vision of the commonalities that often times can exist, or that of the worth and value contained within the differences in the other person or religion, were we only to learn and study, communicate and discuss with one another, trying to understand each other.”

How else and why else do we hear so many people say?

“we are all one and the same.”

What else than the above could be meant by this?

Something to consider, an example: I am a Black American Bahá’í from the city of Baltimore. A very good friend of mine, who I've even fallen in love with all the more since we've been talking, is a Turkish-Australian, Shri Vaishnava from Sydney. How much more different could this person and I ever be? Well, we discovered that the more we asked each other questions about our personalities and religions, the more we truly grew to appreciate and cherish the differences, as well as (more importantly) discover that we do have commonalities that exist, more so than might have first seemed.

 

[Vinayaka]

Instead of being so obsessed with seeking common ground, we could learn to let others tell their stories and listen to them. Listening is a skill that is not (but should be) taught in basic education - active, nonjudgmental listening. Combine that with fostering the value of pluralism. Teaching that yes, it is okay to be different.

One of the reasons I came to so strongly value pluralism was through studying biological sciences. A huge lesson that emerges out of studying both ecology and evolution is that diversity is critically important for biological systems. Greater diversity means a system has a bigger toolkit for dealing with new challenges. It increases adaptability and robustness. When a system becomes homogenized or less diverse, you end up with problems, and life as we know it couldn't happen without diversity. These same lessons apply to humans, as humans are biological organisms embedded in ecosystems too!

Thanks so much for this. I concur totally with listening, and will add, perhaps to the obvious, that it must go both ways, else it's 'death or reducition' of the listener's ways.
As for biological diversity, what an excellent analogy! I shall remember that one.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

...of the commonalities that can exist, or that of the worth and value contained within the differences...

Namaste, DJ_ji,
Truth is both weapon and shield for everybody and everybody has Truth ears to hear, so when you dial back in your expression of something you know to be true--in this instance you used the phrase "...commonalities can exist" instead of "...do exist," every one of those Ears went up. That might be important or not. More important (at least, in my heart right now) is did you hesitate and how you felt about doing that?

In Hinduism, it is said "Atman is not for the weak." It can be said in so many ways: Allah, Buddha Consciousness, Christ or Krishna's All-embracing Love, whatever--realizing That is not for the faint of heart. Most devotees of every path and certainly their mystics know that. The people in this debate/dialogue certainly do. There is no doubt all of us here are sincerely and diligently "working our path."

Almost every religion has symbols and/or stories reflecting that "sacrifice" and/or "battles" are required to attain the Peace Which Passeth All Understanding" (go figure, but I didn't write The Script and I'm starting to enjoy it, actually) and only slightly more than a cursory glance at most paths will reveal the methods their teachers recommend to succeed in pressing this "war for Peace." It requires the annihilation of ego (a persistent, devilish, erroneous idea that anything but God exists) to win. The symbol of Jesus dragging that cross, reviled now by the very people who once praised him (genuine shudder in compassion, it is ever thus) is certainly one example. And Mohammed (pbuh) who said, "Kill the infidel!" must certainly have been saying, not to go out and indiscriminately kill Allah's kids (come on!!) but kill that infidel ego within.

Most will even have iconography representing the weapons which will help. Christianity has its swords and shields, its Crusaders, etc. (exact same misunderstanding there about where the infidel lurks and proponents of any faith who proselytize, IMO). Hinduism also has a nearly infinite way of expressing the same idea, i.e., outfitting oneself with appropriate weaponry and/or invoking a deity who is so equipped. Vinayakaji's Namesake, Sri Ganesha, the Lord in His aspect as the Removal of Obstacles) is often depicted, not only bestowing boons but laden with weapons and riding a mouse, symbol of ego.

If one truly seeks to know the Truth, no matter which religion you practice/follow, be prepared. Those weapons are meant for one thing only--the destruction of ignorance or asat (untruth). Wh.. wh.. where and/or at what do you think they are aimed?? And in your God's hands, do you think they will miss their mark? Do you think the mark will experience sensations when struck? Then will it kneel or argue?

 

[Akivah]

Instead of being so obsessed with seeking common ground, we could learn to let others tell their stories and listen to them. Listening is a skill that is not (but should be) taught in basic education - active, nonjudgmental listening. Combine that with fostering the value of pluralism. Teaching that yes, it is okay to be different.

I agree with you. Almost every thread that starts with someone saying "Teach me about your beliefs" ends with that someone saying "I will tell you about YOUR beliefs". A sincere questioner should only ask questions, not make statements.

 

[wizanda]

I find it particularly annoying when pointing out differences brings on an accusation of hatred.

Yet do you recognize it is equally annoying, when somethings within religious conclusions do have stuff in common; yet due to a personal dislike, not recognizing some similarities might exist?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The real issue, I am convinced, is not with universalism itself, rather with the problems that it provides an attempt at solving. .

I'm not sure. Universalism starts with the assumption that there is in fact a bigger picture, but to see that bigger picture implies having a superior point of view or better understanding than the people involved in the individual traditions. In any case I don't find universalism very convincing, it often looks like wishful thinking to me.