Aldous Huxley said:
Source: Introduction to the Bhagavad-Gita (1944).
What do you make of Huxley's point? Why?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why No One Religion Fits All?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Source: Introduction to the Bhagavad-Gita (1944).
What do you make of Huxley's point? Why?
The "human" being composed of "temperaments and constitutions," divided into classifications; forms of spiritual discipline that each is malleable to. It's basic astrology.
I think it has some merit, but only to a certain point.
If religion is rooted in truth, then we should be able to say that there are "correct" and "incorrect" religions, and the correct religions should have quite a bit in common with each other.
As an analogy, the definition of "exercise" includes diverse activities like cycling, swimming, and aerobics, and they're all legitimate ways to reach the same goal of physical fitness. However, even with this diversity across the spectrum of exercise, we can still say that watching TV isn't exercise.
As each individual is unique, I don't understand why this should be the case.
I think he is right, but using a weak and perhaps misleading argument. The insistence on using language that implies that there is a clear, unambiguous direction of development is dangerous and perhaps harmful.
Instead, it seems to me that religion is much too tied to the perpetual human conflict between the needs for individual expression and wider acceptance.
There will never be an actual static resolution to that conflict, and likewise there will never be a true universal religious practice except to the extent that such practice accepts itself the need for a dynamic, inherently unstable handling of those coupled needs.
Instead, it seems to me that religion is much too tied to the perpetual human conflict between the needs for individual expression and wider acceptance.
There will never be an actual static resolution to that conflict, and likewise there will never be a true universal religious practice except to the extent that such practice accepts itself the need for a dynamic, inherently unstable handling of those coupled needs.
What do you think "spiritual development" means?
If it has a real meaning, then we should see commonalities of approach flow out of that commonality of purpose.
If "spiritual development" means whatever you want, then sure: we wouldn't necessarily expect to see any commonalities at all.
Edit: consider my analogy of exercise. Even though cycling and swimming are very different, they still share common aspects that make them "exercise", like increased heart rate and calorie burning.
Last edited:
Why can't spiritual development--while still being of fixed meaning and not "meaning whatever you want"--be as unique as the individual?
seeking4truth
Active Member
Religion is a path, a way to know our creator and a way to develop our own situations. All religions have one source but begin in different historical and cultural places.
Through personal differences we have divided the route into many paths and are at different points on those paths.
Some people have got off the path, some are on it but going backwards and others forwards.
Some people travel harmoniously along their path others do not but we will all reach our destination.
Heaven is to find the smooth route. Hell the difficult one.
The Earth develops and evolves in its place in the cosmos but it has to obey the Laws which control the universe. We also.
Through personal differences we have divided the route into many paths and are at different points on those paths.
Some people have got off the path, some are on it but going backwards and others forwards.
Some people travel harmoniously along their path others do not but we will all reach our destination.
Heaven is to find the smooth route. Hell the difficult one.
The Earth develops and evolves in its place in the cosmos but it has to obey the Laws which control the universe. We also.
That entirely depends on what "spiritual development" is. What is it? What does the term mean?
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
I think its interesting he should focus on the birth of humans as it relates to this subject. When i picture a new-born baby one of the last things i think about is the reigio-spiritual endeavours of man.
The trials and the experiences of life fashion ones individuality like a sculpture from a piece of stone. During this process some acquire the desire for spirituality, their yearning for meaning in life often directs them towards religion, which unfortunately appear to many to be the only game in town that will engage in such a dialogue.
What always strikes me as a deep corruption in many of the world’s religions is the double standard of on the one side claiming some authentic and personal role in the spiritual life of an individual, and on the other claiming universal truth and authority. There’s a profound arrogance in that.
When i think back to the new-born baby i almost envy its utter innocence from all these broken and manipulative conventions of the world. The fact all people are born free of such shackles is the only real thing that gives hope to the future.
I think he's on to something. There's prisca theologia, which says that
There's the saying (I don't know if it's Hindi or Sanskrit) that loosely translates as "everyone sees God in his own way":
Jāki rahi bhāvanā jaisi
prabhu mūrat dekhi tin taisi.
It may be hard to find the thread, having had fluff added by theologians, folk beliefs and opinions of every stripe over millennia, but I believe it is there. Teachers, prophets, saints and others may have been enlightened enough to recognize this, and basically say the same things in the context of their times and places.
There's the saying (I don't know if it's Hindi or Sanskrit) that loosely translates as "everyone sees God in his own way":
Jāki rahi bhāvanā jaisi
prabhu mūrat dekhi tin taisi.
Last edited:
"Spirit" in man is that which comes to life in thought. Development is towards the goal of understanding the place of a life in relation to everything.
But you could answer my question without this answer.
No, I couldn't.
As for your question: based on that definition, there could be significant variation, but with certain commonalities:
- each person would need a way to discern the "place of their life in relation to everything"
- people with similar "places" would likely have similar approaches, since they have similar goals.
Also, even individual approaches can be right or wrong based on the stated goals and the facts at hand: if my goal is to drive from New York to LA as quickly as possible, then if my route includes Miami, I'm doing something wrong. If it includes Lisbon, then I'm REALLY wrong. This is still true even if I'm the only person on the planet who wants to drive from New York to LA.
I think Huxley makes a good point here.
We all have different heredity, environment and are at different spiritual level. A spiritual path that is best for one individual may not be the best for another.
As this was from an introduction to the Bhagavad Gita, he was probably referring to the fact that the Gita discusses different paths to enlightenment based on the uniqueness of the individual. The four basic paths are Karma yoga (good works), Bhakti yoga (love, devotion to a diety), Jnana yoga (knowledge of what is real and unreal) and Raja yoga (direct meditative insight).
We all have different heredity, environment and are at different spiritual level. A spiritual path that is best for one individual may not be the best for another.
As this was from an introduction to the Bhagavad Gita, he was probably referring to the fact that the Gita discusses different paths to enlightenment based on the uniqueness of the individual. The four basic paths are Karma yoga (good works), Bhakti yoga (love, devotion to a diety), Jnana yoga (knowledge of what is real and unreal) and Raja yoga (direct meditative insight).
That's pretty much my take on it too, though allowing for the possibility that the same truths may lead to different approaches for different people. For instance, I think you'd agree that even if your religion is entirely true, I as a non-Jew wouldn't have to follow the mitzvot that you do, and that even among observant Jews, what it means to be "observant" is different for men and women, or for adults and children, etc.
That's a fundamental flaw of many religions. That they speak of truths, rather than models. I suspect "Truth" is a relatively primitive concept, outside of certain very specific contexts.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Right. Originally I wrote, "religions, or at least the truths they represent..." but I forgot to put that line back in when I was editing.
That's a fundamental belief of non-religious, no?