- site of the week for 12-6-03 Daily Spiritual Seed -

I thought we might have some good discussions on this one. See especially the conclusions page. Good chart. His pages on reincarnation were cited in another thread on this topic.

What follows is my review from Daily Seed:

------------

Comparative Religion
http://www.comparativereligion.com/

Are all religions just different ways to arrive at the same goal?

Many today seem to think so, viewing the major world religions as naught but culturally conditioned instances of the spiritual quest with disciplines to enable realization of the same kind of unitive experience.

The author of this web site is critical of this approach and contrasts beliefs and practices of the major world religions to show that their differences are not merely semantical and cultural, but theological and spiritual as well. Last week we highlighted his treatment of the topic of reincarnation; this week we note the wider thrust of the web site.

I found the information here rock solid and am much in agreement with the conclusions drawn. If you want to skip all the discussion links and get right down to the "bottom line," hop over to
http://www.comparativereligion.com/conclusion.html

Good stuff, here, worthy of a bookmark.

Phil:

These look like rather easy, even facile distinctions from somebody doing more the work of Christian apologetics than having had at least some modest experience/contact among Buddhists and Hindus. But I didn't look closely at the author's background -just glanced at the schema he presents.

How we pay attention certaily seems to dispose us differently to the graces of God. And it is my experience, after years of Buddhist and Hindu practice, that the presence of God encountered during Lectio Divina is unique and deeply personal and transcendent of all efforts. But it isn't correct to say that Buddhism, for instance, being non-theistic, portrays "Buddha nature" as impersonal. The notion of "boddichita," while having a nondual aspect, is sometimes described as our innate goodness of heart, hardly an impersonal domain. And Hinduism is even more disposed to the Divine as a personal revelation, with different aspects of the Godhead rendered according to how they impact human awareness.

So while the theological differences are clear enough, and the personal orientations distinct, there is plenty of common ground, which I know your aware of, and which mystics seem to uncover through direct experience.

But I'm not arguing for a melting pot at all. So, even though the experience of the Holy Spirit through Lectio was unique for me after years away from the church (I'm still more a visitor than a committed member), I still don't see grace absent in the experience of Buddhists and Hindus. This bit is not in question with you, I know, but I tire just as much with those who try to render these distinctions short of the more unspeakable common ground as when New Agers smear everything down to an anaesthetic blur.

Phil,

Thank you for the link. I will go back and review the site from time to time.
I have been somewhat confused the last 7 months and perhaps longer. It seems that many who claim to be mystics and even Christian mystics must
adopt the all roads lead to Rome viewpoint or be considered bigots or religious nationalists who are
promoting intolerance and conflict.
Is the Bible reliable? Is the Holy Father wrong to say that Christ is more than a wise man like Socrates, more than a prophet like Mohammed and more than "enlightened" like the Bhuddha, that he is the One Mediator between God and man?
Four years ago Father Thomas Keating suggested that it would be desirable to give up my "overattachment" to race, country and religion, but he never said that I would have to give up Jesus...
grasshopper

w.c., so good to see you back. I'm glad your computer is up and going again.

To be fair to the author, he did recommend reading his discussions before going to the conclusions page. And I agree that some of the distinctions drawn are overly simplistic--especially given the various schools of teaching and practice found within Hinduism and Buddhism. But the distinctions drawn really do outline many of the tensions in inter-religious dialogue and so I find it helpful in that sense.

As you noted, some of these theological and doctrinal issues influence the kind of attention/receptivity we bring to spiritual practice, and so in that sense, this is not just a head thing, or a clash between conceptual systems. I have no intent of caving to Fundamentalists or narrow-minded apologists either, but all this does raise the question of whether we want what Jesus Christ came to offer, or do we want something else? Maybe that's putting the matter too simply as well; it's a helpful focusing question for me.

One thing that I think needs to be kept in mind in all of this is that, even from a Christian theological standpoint, it's just impossible to dismiss the role of Christ and the Holy Spirit in other world religions. Because our human nature is now so intimately and ontologically connected with his sacred humanity, there's just nothing that goes on in the human race that he doesn't experience and, in turn, influence. So I don't at all buy into the idea that those seeking God in Hinduism are separated from Christ; they might actually be closer to him than many practicing Christians.

quote:

. . . It seems that many who claim to be mystics and even Christian mystics must adopt the all roads lead to Rome viewpoint or be considered bigots or religious nationalists who are promoting intolerance and conflict.

grasshopper, welcome to the forum.

I'm not sure I understand your point above about bigotry and intolerance. There are an awfully large number of Christian spiritual writers today who seem quite open to the riches found in other world religions.

I agree with the point you shared concerning the Pope's view of Jesus in relation to Socrates, Mohammed, etc. That all follows our view of Jesus as the Incarnate Word, which is a different situation than what Socrates, Buddha, etc. experienced.

Can you say some more about your struggles with some of these issues?

Thankfully, existentially, all have received what Christ came to offer. He IS the Father's actual articulation. Essentialistically, we continue our search for the most perfect linguistic articulation. Existentially, we have The Word. Essentialistically, we have words, which are not trivial. Right speech being a virtue in all traditions, we care deeply about these words, for, often, they are symbols that can bring into existence what they symbolize, can sacramentally effect what they signify, can bring into reality what they bring to mind, can impart the very grace or disgrace that they gesture toward. Thus, I see the wisdom in the issues you all have raised.

Interestingly, Jesus gifted us with many words, in aphorisms, admonitions, parables, injunctions, prayers, etc --- but when it came to answering our questions about suffering, to clarifying theodicy issues, He responded by suffering with us and not at all, in this matter, with words. When asked why this or that person suffered, His replies were always cryptic and enigmatic. He did make clear, however, that God would transform the effects of evil and suffering even as He left us begging for a rational explanation.

The deepest mysteries thus seem to transcend our linguistic abilities and our rational capacities and are answered by responses that all boil down to: I am with you. I'll be there for you. Emmanuel. Even Ghandi said something to the effect that it would be cruel for the Deity to appear to humankind in any form other than bread. Wow! That requires a multilayered analysis.

pax,
jb

Great to hear from you, w.c. !

Thanks for the welcome back, Phil and JB. It's good to connect again on this Forum.

Re: the topic, the gospels suggest something about Jesus' ease with people of other traditions, as long as they were genuine in seeking/connecting from the heart. He didn't require the Roman centurion to go wash at the Temple before healing the soldier under his command, and proclaimed the grizzled old, murderous Roman as one of "great faith," which to me reveals the basic goodness of the human heart, the way its conscience and longing transcend creed. This was also the case with the woman from Samaria who practiced polygamy, and the woman saved from stoning for adultry. Jesus didn't require them to convert in any formal sense, but he revealed his divine nature to them gratis, as their conscience allowed. And, of course, Jesus was always pointing out the disciples' own arrogance, humbling them severely with a comparison to children.

Again, I'm sort of playing the couterpoint here, recognizing the value of knowing one's faith tradition, but still concerned when doing this hinges covertly on using the dialogue to shore up a stagnating bias. For instance, I was dismayed, and then eventually relieved, to find that embracing Hinduism and Buddhism fully was impossible, for cultural reasons. Ironically, however, some of those teachings brought me closer to a healthy psychology for dealing with the shadow of my psyche than what could be found at the time in Christian teachings. Hinduism and Buddhism were culturally incompatible with my western psychological background, yet offered a more direct claim to the inherent goodness of creation than Christianity seemed to, at the time. The meditation practices gave me a more friendly view of my subconscious yearnings, as aspects of longing for God, and parts needing the presence of the Self so that some integration could occur. Even so, there were cultural differences that made a full embrace of those traditions simply insincere (I felt like I was dressing up to play a role).

Incarnate Word is a term I can live with. I can read the Gospel of Thomas and sense that Jesus did not say these things. How come I see this and the Gnostics do not? I know Jesus and have a relationship with him. His sheep know His voice
I am getting over fundamentalism and literalism, and to some extent dualism and fear of freinds and loved ones in eternal torment. I tried to go too far too fast. Catholicism was new to me four years ago, and here I have been trying to understand half a dozen Eastern religions and the Orthodox as well. Cognitive dissonance and aspirin required
grasshopper

I can also say that I've benefited from studying other religions and even from some of their practices. I don't think the author of comparitivereligion.com would deny that that happens. His main interest seems to be debunking the idea that the differences between the world religions are just semantical and they all lead to the same type of union.

quote:

I am getting over fundamentalism and literalism, and to some extent dualism and fear of freinds and loved ones in eternal torment. I tried to go too far too fast. Catholicism was new to me four years ago, and here I have been trying to understand half a dozen Eastern religions and the Orthodox as well. Cognitive dissonance and aspirin required

Ha! Understood!

I think we're probably all smarting from some kind of fundamentalism; yes, Gertrude, there's even such a thing as Catholic fundamentalism. Its proponents are a mean-spirited bunch, I'll tell you that for sure.

Take your time, grasshopper. Learn the basics of Christianity before venturing into books like the Gospel of Thomas. If you need some reading recommendations, let us know.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
One thing that I think needs to be kept in mind in all of this is that, even from a Christian theological standpoint, it's just impossible to dismiss the role of Christ and the Holy Spirit in other world religions. Because our human nature is now so intimately and ontologically connected with his sacred humanity, there's just nothing that goes on in the human race that he doesn't experience and, in turn, influence. So I don't at all buy into the idea that those seeking God in Hinduism are separated from Christ; they might actually be closer to him than many practicing Christians.

Phil, good words here (among others posted on this thread).

I often wonder why people want to "compare" religions. (Ok, that's a bit rhetorical). It seems to me that the kind of one-for-one comparisons outlined in the link assume that everyone is in a static position re: their own faith. Of course many are--many go through motions without any faith at all--but IMHO "faith" is an evolving thing.

It also seems to assume a much more cohesive belief system than I think actually exists within any one religion.

I know it helps some people to investigate various forms of religious thought as part of the growth of their own faith, but I see the comparing process sometimes used to justify "not" changing. (Fundamentalism)

When I speak of comparing here, I'm not talking about people who are engaged in scholarly research because I know that in many places the term "Comparative Religion" is used for that discipline. I'm talking about people who say "We are this, you are that. Period." Some of whom then go on to say "therefore you are bad or deluded" or whatever.

This attitude seems to deny the very idea that one can get closer to God over time.

There is no way to reserve the words "comparative religion" for those who are open and dedicated to exploring spiritual knowledge. As we know on this site, many people go on wide-raning spiritual quests and eventually find an avenue for exploring, not outward differences, but their own inward yearning for union with God.

shanti

quote:

I know it helps some people to investigate various forms of religious thought as part of the growth of their own faith, but I see the comparing process sometimes used to justify "not" changing. (Fundamentalism)

Good post, shanti.

I see two extremes here, one of which you're hinting at. One is an exclusionist view, which regards Christianity as so different and at-odds with other religions that studying other religions or investigating some of their practices is considered dangerous, maybe even opening oneself to demons. The far right in Christianity seems to be of this mindset, although they would value study for purposes of being informed, and, especially, to point out the dangers in other religions.

The other extreme is a kind of pluralism or syncretism, which regards the world religions as different paths to the same goal. Our culture of political correctness favors this approach, which is also common among Christian liberals.

I think the author of the comparativereligion.com web site is responding to the liberal, pluralistic extreme, and is doing so by pointing out general emphases in eastern religions that are quite different--even opposite--from basic Christian beliefs. Is he promoting an exclusionary view in doing so? I think he tends in that direction, as evidenced by: If we can have �fullness in Christ�, what other completion can the Eastern religions bring us? Any element added to this �fullness� would only compromise its essence and efficiency. Therefore, it is absurd to combine Christianity with the �highlights� of Eastern spirituality. Any Eastern contribution that should �help� us better understand the Bible, can only alter its message.

I agree with that last quote, but don't see the value of "Eastern contributions" in helping us "better understand the Bible." The value of Eastern religions for Christians rooted in their tradition is not going to be so much in the interest of clarifying Biblical revelation as in facilitating things like a better understanding of the dynamics of attachment, promoting mindfulness, exploring the metaphysical roots of our nature, discovering how to calm the mind to pray better, and so forth. All these values are there in Christianity, but the East has investigated some of them very deeply, as they are pathways to enlightenment. Speaking of which . . . that's another whole area where we can learn from the East.