Why No One Religion Fits All?

[Father Heathen]

Let's say that there is something we can refer to as "The Truth". I would wager that many religions have little fractions of "the truth". Some more than others, some none at all, but none come close to having all or even most of "The Truth", and all of these fractions of "The Truth" are mixed in with (and diluted/distorted/corrupted by) much, much larger portions of rubbish and kooky spooky gobbledygooky.

 

[Sunstone]

That's a fundamental belief of non-religious, no?

See the thread: "Is Truth soooo 2013?"

 

[Tumah]

See the thread: "Is Truth soooo 2013?"

I saw it. Since you didn't put it in the context of religions, I refrained from commenting.

But I definitely disagree. It's like saying, is our approach to water as a liquid passe? Should walls still be stopping us in 2013?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a fundamental flaw of many religions. That they speak of truths, rather than models.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Every model has inherent assumptions that either correspond to reality or not. Models can be examined to determine whether they're reliable or not.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Every model has inherent assumptions that either correspond to reality or not. Models can be examined to determine whether they're reliable or not.

A 1957 Chevy and a 2014 Lexus are not mutually exclusive either. Just depends on what kind of performance you want. Model dependent realism is way more sophisticated than the classical truth theories, in my opinion.

 

[Alex_G]

I don't like this type of approach to religion.
I think in general, religions are mutually exclusive to each other. To admit that someone else might have truth as well, to me indicates that one doesn't recognize one's own religious truths as actually being true.

Whilst they may be mutually exclusive in their specific theological claims they do however all share a similarity in their apparent role in human life. To note that some 'work' for some people and others for other people is just to admit to a simple observational truth.

It appears to me that the common thread in all these religious approaches is the human beings they claims to serve, which suggests that real spiritual truth lies with people, individuals, in the sparks in their eyes. All any religion could hope to be is a crude reflection of that spirit.

The day we arrive in a world were 'To admit that someone else might have truth as well, to me indicates that one doesn't recognize one's own religious truths as actually being true.' would be an incredible step forward for humankind.

 

[Sunstone]

But I definitely disagree. It's like saying, is our approach to water as a liquid passe? Should walls still be stopping us in 2013?

Water and liquids are physical objects, my friend. Truth is a mere concept. You may not have noticed this, but you can't taste, touch, or smell it. And it's a concept that, like any concept, can become outmoded.

 

[Madhuri]

I don't like this type of approach to religion.
I think in general, religions are mutually exclusive to each other. To admit that someone else might have truth as well, to me indicates that one doesn't recognize one's own religious truths as actually being true.

But this is from a Hindu perspective (its the intro to a Bhagavad Gita).
The Hindu perspective obviously sees the Vedas as the eternal, complete truth.
We also often believe that Vedas are the origin of all religions, which have developed over time (while Veda has been around since the beginning of time).
We consider every religion to hold truth- just not the complete truth. And that's why we might sometimes explain how Hinduism has similarities with every single religion on the planet.

 

[Tumah]

Whilst they may be mutually exclusive in their specific theological claims they do however all share a similarity in their apparent role in human life. To note that some 'work' for some people and others for other people is just to admit to a simple observational truth.

It appears to me that the common thread in all these religious approaches is the human beings they claims to serve, which suggests that real spiritual truth lies with people, individuals, in the sparks in their eyes. All any religion could hope to be is a crude reflection of that spirit.

The day we arrive in a world were 'To admit that someone else might have truth as well, to me indicates that one doesn't recognize one's own religious truths as actually being true.' would be an incredible step forward for humankind.

I disagree. The observation that all religions seem to play similar roles in people's lives is only to note the nature of "religion."
The observation that some seem to work for some people and others don't, could simply mean that some people would rather adapt a religion that suits their nature, rather than work at achieving something that is against their nature. In other words, laziness.

The leap from, "religions claim to serve [human beings]," to "spiritual truth lies with people," I think, could be true, but is not necessarily true. My opinion as a Jew, is that Judaism represents objective truths about the universe and that other religions are knock offs. That could also be true.

Learning from other people, is not the same as agreeing with other people.

 

[Willamena]

Source: Introduction to the Bhagavad-Gita (1944).

The link:
Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy

 

[Tumah]

Water and liquids are physical objects, my friend. Truth is a mere concept. You may not have noticed this, but you can't taste, touch, or smell it. And it's a concept that, like any concept, can become outmoded.

You may believe this to be be true. For me this is not true in the slightest with regards to the truths embodied by my religion. They are as concrete to me as, well concrete.

But this is from a Hindu perspective (its the intro to a Bhagavad Gita).
The Hindu perspective obviously sees the Vedas as the eternal, complete truth.
We also often believe that Vedas are the origin of all religions, which have developed over time (while Veda has been around since the beginning of time).
We consider every religion to hold truth- just not the complete truth. And that's why we might sometimes explain how Hinduism has similarities with every single religion on the planet.

I understand. But what is a half-truth? How far can I develop myself if I only belief in Brahma and not Brahman? The basis of my belief is wrong and it will infect every part of my devotion and service.

 

[Willamena]

But this is from a Hindu perspective (its the intro to a Bhagavad Gita).
The Hindu perspective obviously sees the Vedas as the eternal, complete truth.
We also often believe that Vedas are the origin of all religions, which have developed over time (while Veda has been around since the beginning of time).
We consider every religion to hold truth- just not the complete truth. And that's why we might sometimes explain how Hinduism has similarities with every single religion on the planet.

Just so. Huxley's Perennial Philosophy is a recognition of this.

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

• First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness--the world of things and animals and men and even gods--is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
• Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
• Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
• Fourth: man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

 

[Madhuri]

*
I understand. But what is a half-truth? How far can I develop myself if I only belief in Brahma and not Brahman? The basis of my belief is wrong and it will infect every part of my devotion and service.

Self development is a natural process and doesn't just occur through religious practice or belief. Our spiritual evolution is largely influenced by our life experiences. Religion is but a tool for those who wish to discover truth and we only reach the stage of life where we are introduced to the concept of religion after a very long journey of life after life after life.

At some point we are confronted with concepts about God or that can connect us to God. But even then only a few genuinely seek that union or knowledge.

According to Hinduism, the genuine search for knowledge of God will naturally bring you to truth. It doesn't matter which religion you follow if you have this desire. And in fact you could be a follower of Hinduism but be totally focused on the festivals and superstitions but with no actual inclination for self-realisation. That would make you less spiritually advanced that a follower of another religion who is devoted to communion with the Supreme.

A really important point is that no matter which religion we follow, one only sees the 'whole' truth when they become enlightened. So this 'half-truth' you speak of is a reality for all of us who are unenlightened. The way that we choose to follow our religion or how we lead a spiritual life has less to do with the religion we adhere to but more with how we interpret that religion and how we choose to follow it.

To tie this with the quote in the OP, our particular spiritual development will naturally attract us into certain religions/philosophies/movements etc. because something will click with us- something that connects with some realisations we have had in this lifetime or in another. And they might not be attracted to a religion or philosophy closer to the 'whole' truth because they have not had the realisations that connect them to that. But those realisations will come eventually. They do for everyone simply via the process of living.

 

[Alex_G]

I disagree. The observation that all religions seem to play similar roles in people's lives is only to note the nature of "religion."
The observation that some seem to work for some people and others don't, could simply mean that some people would rather adapt a religion that suits their nature, rather than work at achieving something that is against their nature. In other words, laziness.

The leap from, "religions claim to serve [human beings]," to "spiritual truth lies with people," I think, could be true, but is not necessarily true. My opinion as a Jew, is that Judaism represents objective truths about the universe and that other religions are knock offs. That could also be true.

Learning from other people, is not the same as agreeing with other people.

It could, but is that really the most likely explanation for all the world’s religions and spiritual beliefs? That one is right and the rest are simply the works of lazy/stubborn and the ignorant?

For one it would beg the question of which way around it is? Who is in fact right, and wrong, and lazy and even narrow minded?

Your argument seems to stem directly from the bias inherent in your fixed (and arbitrary) religious position, rather than from any real effort to describe and explain the diversity of belief. More of a defence mechanism perhaps?

My point is that if there is any truth in any of this its that human nature is one of curiosity, searching for meaning and self-discovery. That there is where you will find the spiritual truth, in that drive all humans have, no matter what their creed/background or geo-location is. That all the religions of the world likely formed around this commonality, varying from one and other in practical and arbitrary ways, ways that really dont define any truth at all. That over time they have become too obsessed and fixated over the particulars of their own scriptures and rituals to the point of discrimination of others over such banal disagreement, forgetting that at heart it all stems from a common spiritual nature that we all share.

Its a real shame that there exists this sort of stubborn tribalism that human beings seem to sadly do so easily, and is so often at the heart of so much of the world’s troubles.

 

[metis]

What's supposedly false in this arena is not in any way verifiable. I don't care which position I take in regards to God, Gods, or an atheistic approach, you simply cannot prove me wrong. You may believe I'm wrong, but whatever I may believe is sometimes referred to as being "unfalsifiable". If I say that Earth is a cosmic spit-wad from the Cosmic Godzilla, prove me wrong.

So, the vast majority of people take the "I'm right, you're wrong" position, but none of us in reality can prove ourselves or others right or wrong. Therefore, the bottom line is that people believe in "X" because they have accepted it as a belief, and they may take their beliefs to the point whereas it becomes their "absolute facts". We're really good at tricking ourselves.

Now, if we inject Joseph Campbell's "the myth became the reality", now that's a different approach that can possibly make more sense. For whatever reason, we seem to be hard-wired to believe in deities-- maybe what some call a "God gene". But because of the tremendous variability from one religion to another as far as the details are concerned, maybe we're looking at this wrong. Instead, maybe the "many paths to God" approach might actually make more sense, even though that in and of itself isn't provable either.

If we assume there's a God, for example, and this God wants us to believe and behave morally, then why is it that this God is so hidden, especially in light of all the various religions we've seen? It seems that if God wanted us to be precise in our beliefs and conduct that somehow He would make this so abundantly clear that no doubts would remain.

So, instead of supposedly "finding God", maybe it's meant that we "look for God", and the process of this looking accounts for all the variability. Maybe we're so busy looking at all the trees that we forget to take a step back and look at the panorama of the forest. Maybe instead of looking for God on the outside, we may be better off tapping into God from the inside-- the "God gene". Maybe the Truth is very simple, and maybe the Love of all of creation and responding accordingly is the real message.

Just some random thoughts from an old man.

 

[Tumah]

Self development is a natural process and doesn't just occur through religious practice or belief. Our spiritual evolution is largely influenced by our life experiences. Religion is but a tool for those who wish to discover truth and we only reach the stage of life where we are introduced to the concept of religion after a very long journey of life after life after life.

At some point we are confronted with concepts about God or that can connect us to God. But even then only a few genuinely seek that union or knowledge.

According to Hinduism, the genuine search for knowledge of God will naturally bring you to truth. It doesn't matter which religion you follow if you have this desire. And in fact you could be a follower of Hinduism but be totally focused on the festivals and superstitions but with no actual inclination for self-realisation. That would make you less spiritually advanced that a follower of another religion who is devoted to communion with the Supreme.

A really important point is that no matter which religion we follow, one only sees the 'whole' truth when they become enlightened. So this 'half-truth' you speak of is a reality for all of us who are unenlightened. The way that we choose to follow our religion or how we lead a spiritual life has less to do with the religion we adhere to but more with how we interpret that religion and how we choose to follow it.

To tie this with the quote in the OP, our particular spiritual development will naturally attract us into certain religions/philosophies/movements etc. because something will click with us- something that connects with some realisations we have had in this lifetime or in another. And they might not be attracted to a religion or philosophy closer to the 'whole' truth because they have not had the realisations that connect them to that. But those realisations will come eventually. They do for everyone simply via the process of living.

What you are saying is that a Hindu who works on him/herself 25% is less spiritually developed than a Christian who works on him/herself 50%. But those are comparisons of half-truths, people who are not putting in the effort. How spiritually developed will a Trinitarian Monk with no concept of Brahman ever actualize his full spiritual potential?

What I am saying is, since all religions do not contain all the elements of Hinduism, it doesn't work out when you apply your concepts to them. In some cases, an honest seeker following a non-Hindu path, may end up in a religion antithetical to the ideas of Hinduism. How will this be beneficial for him?

 

[Tumah]

It could, but is that really the most likely explanation for all the world’s religions and spiritual beliefs? That one is right and the rest are simply the works of lazy/stubborn and the ignorant?

For one it would beg the question of which way around it is? Who is in fact right, and wrong, and lazy and even narrow minded?

Your argument seems to stem directly from the bias inherent in your fixed (and arbitrary) religious position, rather than from any real effort to describe and explain the diversity of belief. More of a defence mechanism perhaps?

My point is that if there is any truth in any of this its that human nature is one of curiosity, searching for meaning and self-discovery. That there is where you will find the spiritual truth, in that drive all humans have, no matter what their creed/background or geo-location is. That all the religions of the world likely formed around this commonality, varying from one and other in practical and arbitrary ways, ways that really dont define any truth at all. That over time they have become too obsessed and fixated over the particulars of their own scriptures and rituals to the point of discrimination of others over such banal disagreement, forgetting that at heart it all stems from a common spiritual nature that we all share.

Its a real shame that there exists this sort of stubborn tribalism that human beings seem to sadly do so easily, and is so often at the heart of so much of the world’s troubles.

Here is an example I've given in another thread. Your 5 year old opens you to the underworld of Hello Kitty. Now, Hello Kitty is trademarked, so all the other versions try to copy Hello Kitty, with slight variations. So you see all these different versions. Do you conclude that there is no true Hello Kitty? Or do you conclude that there is a true Hello Kitty and other companies decide to cash in on a good idea?

I think that it is 100% possible to appreciate and respect others without having to consent to the voracity of their beliefs. Differences do not have to equal hate.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You may believe this to be be true. For me this is not true in the slightest with regards to the truths embodied by my religion. They are as concrete to me as, well concrete.

Would you mind listing a couple?

 

[Alex_G]

Here is an example I've given in another thread. Your 5 year old opens you to the underworld of Hello Kitty. Now, Hello Kitty is trademarked, so all the other versions try to copy Hello Kitty, with slight variations. So you see all these different versions. Do you conclude that there is no true Hello Kitty? Or do you conclude that there is a true Hello Kitty and other companies decide to cash in on a good idea?

I think that it is 100% possible to appreciate and respect others without having to consent to the voracity of their beliefs. Differences do not have to equal hate.

Well your Hello Kitty metaphor still begs the question of whether your Jewish religion is 'true' doesn’t it?

Furthermore, as your example shows, Hello Kitty is simply a brand, albeit a successful one.

What’s true in the metaphor is that of childhood imagination, play and enjoyment, which persists across any 'toy' regardless of brand. That’s my point, is that any truth in this subject relates to the core aspects of humankind, our innate curiosity and spirituality. Any one religion is simply a brand that’s 'capitalising' on said nature. The arguments between the particulars of different religious groups is just arbitrary bickering, a bickering that has caused this world little good but much harm.

I wouldn’t expect you to take on another religion's beliefs of course, as in my mind that’s simply trading in arbitrary positions, what i want you to see is that the real truth (if there is going to be any) doesn’t lie in these superficial rituals and scriptural particulars but in the human nature that underlies and forms all worldly religions, for good or bad.

 

[Jainarayan]

... How spiritually developed will a Trinitarian Monk with no concept of Brahman ever actualize his full spiritual potential?

Because there is only one God, no matter what you call Him/It. There's a verse from the Rig Veda that translates as "One Truth the wise know by many names". The monk calls his God by the name he knows.

What I am saying is, since all religions do not contain all the elements of Hinduism, it doesn't work out when you apply your concepts to them. In some cases, an honest seeker following a non-Hindu path, may end up in a religion antithetical to the ideas of Hinduism. How will this be beneficial for him?

They don't have to contain all or any elements of Hinduism. It's a common belief among Hindus that Hinduism works for Hindus, Islam works for Muslims, Christianity works for Christians, Judaism for Jews, Sikhism for Sikhs, and so on. All religions and their practices are certainly not the same, but the end goal should be.