Are we worshiping the same God ?

[I, Brian]

Hmm:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...arable_sea.php

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Hmm:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...arable_sea.php

Oh I love it! Just like Six Wise Men of Hindustan!

Thanks for introducing me to this one, Brian!

[Thomas]

Hi all —

Originally Posted by Dondi

Yet "authentic religions" reject the notion that other "authentic religions" are true. So how can we reconcile this with what really IS true?

I'm speaking from a Roman Catholic perspective, and we do not reject the notion of the religious impulse in man, in fact in the Catechism man is described foremost as a religious being. We acknowledge the religious impulse visible in other traditions, as we also acknowledge them as shades and presentments of the Incarnation.

Originally Posted by wil

Yes, if one believes that G!d is all powerful and talks to all of his creations, and that those who heard the word interpreted it differently based on their knowledge and societal notions, this may be called a modernistic view...

Indeed it is, born of a philosophy of relativism ... but it is not the Catholic philosophical viewpoint.

Originally Posted by wil

However with the predominance of so many different religions and sects and denominations within those religions if you truly believe only one to be right...you got less than a 1% chance that it is yours

If you put all on an equal footing. I do not.

Even if one does, the point is to pick one, and give it your best shot surely?

One will never know unless one 'goes for it' as the saying goes. Sitting on the fence is not an option. It's the good heart that inherits heaven, not the feint-hearted.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

ahem. there is equality and equality. not all religions are equal. however, the notion of there being *value* in other religions is certainly pre-modern, one might even say pagan. as we would say, it's about how you act, not what you believe - "idolatry is not a matter of statues" (r. meiri, C12th) and "the righteous amongst the nations will inherit the World to Come" (mishnah, C2nd-C4th) - note the emphasis, it is not the nation that is a good thing, but the righteousness.

Agreed, this is what Catholicism believes. This is why Catholicism believes that those who never 'heard the word' are not excluded from heaven — right from the beginning the Church Fathers considered Platonism as the handmaid of Christianity, and later Aristotelianism was likewise 'baptised'.

What is not allows, it seems, is going backwards ...
matthew 12:31 "Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven."

Thomas

[AndrewX]

On Christianity, or Roman Catholicism, relative to this discussion (and relative to any other religion), I think Simon & Garfunkel said it best:

And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson,
Jesus loves you more than you will know.
God bless you, please Mrs. Robinson.
Heaven holds a place for those who pray,
Hey, hey, hey

We can replace the names, the specific terminologies, and speak of nuances till we turn blue in the face ... but I think we make a major step forward (speaking of direction) when we each recognize:

God doesn't care which religion I belong to, or even if I am religious at all! What matters most is what I do with what I know (or believe), and what I learn along the way ... including how I treat other people. This is not a race to the finish line, and the greatest reward may not go to the one(s) who finish first!

Namaskar,

Andrew

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

Originally Posted by AndrewX

[I]God doesn't care which religion I belong to, or even if I am religious at all!

I suppose that depends on where one positions one's deity and one's religion — cosmologically I think you're probably right, but then cosmological religions have an a priori limitation or ceiling, and do not necessarily require a dialogue with the Divine at all, there being a cascade of veils and symbols from high cosmology to simple humanism ...

If one is speaking metacosmically, then of course it matters absolutely. At the heart of Revelation is the Word, and the Word presupposes one who speaks, and one who listens. It also, in a strictly Christian sense, implies an unmediated dialogue between creature and Creator ... So 'no religion' in this sense would imply a disposition that precludes the reception of the Word, and the natural and obvious consequence ... One might well be 'a good person', as many are, including athiests and agnostics, but that is not the issue here.

God is everywhere, but rarely makes His presence known where He is not welcome.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

What matters most is what I do with what I know (or believe), and what I learn along the way ... including how I treat other people...

Agreed, but in the context of what? It's not what we do, it's why we do it ... and any humanist would agree with that sentiment ... in fact I have had those very words said to me, whilst laughing at my 'naive' notion that there might be something other than empirical reality ...

Christianity is not just about being good, in fact Christianity is not about the cosmological aspects of being at all — only in the sense that man finds himself in the cosmos, and that certain conditions therefore must be met if he is not to be a hypocrite — Christianity is about a dialogue with the Divine at the most profound level of being, as Eckhart and others exemplify, which transcends the cosmos, and ultimately will transform it.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

If you put all on an equal footing. I do not.

Even if one does, the point is to pick one, and give it your best shot surely?

One will never know unless one 'goes for it' as the saying goes. Sitting on the fence is not an option. It's the good heart that inherits heaven, not the feint-hearted.

Namaste Thomas,

Now of course if one is in the black/white, right/wrong, dualistic mode than of course one would think that their religion is the only one and true religion and that everyone else is wrong.

And in regards to pick one, although I have, I just don't know. Since I believe every experience that man has had with G!d has gone through the filter of what man believes, understands and thinks...what man felt suited to write down was swayed by his needing to be right and accepted by his peers...which further distorted the truth. So like the analogy Brian posted regarding the sea....all are true based on that personal and societal belief of the prophet that received....but they are only true for that prophet/viewer....hence it is a combination of which that is true.

So while the select one and run with it has its advantages, running with blinders on to what is going on around you has its disadvantages. So while yes, I chose to choose one, I still know I have much to gain by having an open mind in regards to the others....

as I believe all paths....

[AndrewX]

Beautifully put, wil!

Originally Posted by Andrew

God doesn't care which religion I belong to, or even if I am religious at all!

Originally Posted by Thomas

I suppose that depends on where one positions one's deity and one's religion — cosmologically I think you're probably right, but then cosmological religions have an a priori limitation or ceiling, and do not necessarily require a dialogue with the Divine at all, there being a cascade of veils and symbols from high cosmology to simple humanism ...

Here is where I would say you're mistaken, Thomas. What is this arbitrary distinction you're drawing between "cosmological religions" and metacosmology, anyway? Isn't it just a clever attempt at precisely the kind of elitism which you yourself claim to detest, yet which you apparently cannot even pull your own self away from?

Always, you see, there will be some effort to remove oneself to higher ground, and - however subtly - present one's own beliefs as curiously superior to those of the man standing next to you (or, the fella in the other church, the man who prays to God under a different name). For, if we really ponder it, what else can possibly be meant by using such a phrase as "an unmediated dialogue between creature and Creator"?

Claiming such, imho, says more about what is missing in our religion - than what is present. It is, in fact, no different than the televangelists who stand on stage and presume to be the mouthpiece of the Almighty God. Clearly they are not, and it does not take a rocket scientist, a divinity degree, or anything more than a moderate amount of spiritual discernment to witness the mockery that is being made of both God, and of Religion.

Truly did the Great Lord of Civilization (Christ's `Brother') speak when He said that fully 2/3rds of all the world's evils ... can be attributed to Organized Religion. So long as the elitism persists, however cleverly we may try to disguise it, this unfortunate set of circumstances will also continue.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian, but he did not feel a need to put others down to elevate himself, nor did he find it helpful or necessary to speak of Christianity as somehow greater than, superior to, other religions. He did not regard Christians as better people, or more beloved by God than people of other faiths. And while he must surely have loved Christ Jesus and the Christian example (for why else would he have been a Christian Minister!) ... he wrote at least one excellent paper on the influence of the Mystery Religions - predating Christianity - upon the early Christian Church. [It is well worth reading!]

Mother Teresa, another of the greatest Saints of the 20th Century and perhaps of all times, also showed us that in serving God, we do not need to feel superior, or look for some kind of artificial distinction between ourselves and others ... either on religious grounds, or on basis of race, skin color ... even social caste, or status, so unjustly emphasized in modern India. I dare say that a great number of the people to whom she ministered were ignorant even of their own Hindu religion, or certainly its more metaphysical aspects & subtleties. No doubt Mother Teresa spoke with them of the Christian Ideal(s), yet she saw them first, as people, and only secondly, as Hindus, Christians, etc.

So, when I say that God does not care which religion we belong to (if any), but only that we remain true to our chosen Principles & Ideal(s), I don't mean that in any kind of qualified sense, Thomas. I don't mean, "IF we are speaking of yadda, yadda type of religion," vs. some other. No, that, I'm afraid, is but a not-so-subtle attempt to evade the real point.

You can press me, on logical grounds, if you wish, by saying, "Oh, but Andrew, now you are begging the question! We are discussing whether or not there is in fact ONE GREAT GOD Whom & Which we are all worshipping, under whatever circumstances and conditions we have chosen (or which our faith dictates)!"

Quite right, Thomas, I am begging such a question. I am saying, quite simply, YES, there is One - and only One - Great & Mighty, living God ... though this Deity has the many faces of God(s), as presented by the world's great religions of ALL times (past, present AND future!), for its `masks,' or Personae. Christianity knows this God one way, and Hinduism knows Deity in another way. Buddhism, like Taoism, are perhaps in this category you speak of as more cosmological, but these are adjectives that only describe the respective religions ... in terms of belief systems.

Our task, I would humbly suggest, is to try and get beyond this business of "MY religion says X, while YOUR religion says Y." And we may do this in two very important ways:

One, try to remember that the person next to you (how is it you put that, Thomas? "In the pew beside us?") ... is a PERSON, first, just like you, and maybe a Muslim, or a Buddhist, a Christian or a Jew, only second. Being a PERSON first, means that we are all undergoing the exact same set of experiences here on Earth, with variation occurring only as a result of conditioning - be that geographic, cultural, psychological, or yes, religious. But the HUMANITY aspect ... comes FIRST.

The second way for us to avoid getting lost in semantics and in the muddled mess of mind and mental gymnastics ... is to try, even just for a moment, to imagine the Unconditional, Unlimited, Perfect LOVE of Deity. Through such a lens (or the complete lack thereof, as some would put it), God surely sees us, and knows us, exactly as we are. We are accepted, and each & every one of us loved alike, with all our human imperfections & shortcomings, such that NOTHING we can do - absolutely NOTHING - will either increase God's Love for us, nor decrease God's Love for us. The only thing that changes, is how much, and how well, we are able to accept this freely offered Gift (which Christians call `Grace') ... and in so accepting it, how much & how well we are able to pass this Gift on to others, sharing God's love between Brother & Brother (or Sister & Sister, as some would have it), even as God shares it unfailingly & ever-Perfectly with us.

~+~+~

Another discussion, if we wish to have one, might honestly and legitimately ask: To what extent does a given religion, during a given era, and relevant to a given `people' (culture, nation, ethnic group) seem to meet the goals of its Founders, and/or the NEEDS of the people in question?

Then we could certainly lay out Buddhism, relative either to the India of 2500 years ago, or the India of today, or perhaps relative to the Tibetans, the Bhutanese, or the Japanese of an appropriate & specific era ... and we could examine Buddhism on its own terms, which will still afford for an overall fit within the original question that started this thread.

We can do the same with Christianity, keeping careful attention that we do not broaden the investigation too greatly. After all, Christianity has its tens of thousands of sects, or denominations, though even a comparison of the four main divisions would be worthwhile (as also of the four Schools of Tibetan Buddhism, for example). The question would not be, do all of these types of Christianity (and Christians) worship the same God, but rather, how effective has Eastern Orthodoxy (Roman Catholicism, mainstream Protestantism, as well as Independent Christianity) been ... in leading people to God (or to Christ), or something to that effect.

This, at any rate, is what I hear you saying, Thomas, and I view this as a separate question entirely, relative to: Are we all worshipping the same Great Being?

Shakespeare said it best: A rose by any other name (is STILL A ROSE, AHEM!!!) ...

- and don't forget, "More matter, LESS ART."

Namaskar,

~Andrew

(But of course, if all one is trying to say is something like, "Oh, I'm very passionate about MY religion, I LIKE my religion, and ... it does it for ME!" ... then of course, by all means, Three Cheers! And this is plenty good cause for whatever celebration & festivity one feels appropriate! N'est pas? )

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Vrindavan

Are we worshiping the same God ?

I hope we are.

(but for cultural, historical and psychological reasons may not be able to see it, or want to.)

s.

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Originally Posted by wil

Now of course if one is in the black/white, right/wrong, dualistic mode than of course one would think that their religion is the only one and true religion and that everyone else is wrong.

"Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
No man cometh to the Father, but by me."
John 14:6

Pretty unequivocal in my book.
But then, if you and Andrew had read what I have written, I never said that anyones' religion is wrong — in fact I said they are all 'true'.

In fact I would counter that both of you are trying to make black and white what is a nuanced position.

You see I don't think it's as simple as that. I think in the prevalent mode of relativism, the solution to difference is, rather than discern and determine the relationship between the different religious tendencies and manifestations, it's easier just to paint everything white, and reduce everything to the same thing. It is this that leads to the notion that everyone is right, which is patently a nonsense.

As I have stated before, this is a misguided egalitariansism.

Originally Posted by wil

And in regards to pick one, although I have, I just don't know. Since I believe every experience that man has had with G!d has gone through the filter of what man believes, understands and thinks...what man felt suited to write down was swayed by his needing to be right and accepted by his peers...which further distorted the truth.

Then I don't see how you can claim to 'believe' in anything except fallibility and uncertainty, when you undermine the data of faith right from the outset. It's like saying, "I believe in Jesus Christ, but before that, I believe He might be wrong."

Again, you treat sacred texts under the same rules as any other text ... this is a dictum of the historical Critical Method, and has been rejected by Continental philosophy ... so your thesis is your thesis, but in my book it's not the case, by a long stretch. Based on your argument one could say Jesus was directed by His need 'to be right and accepted by his peers' yet the evidence says otherwise.

Originally Posted by wil

So like the analogy Brian posted regarding the sea....all are true based on that personal and societal belief of the prophet that received....but they are only true for that prophet/viewer....hence it is a combination of which that is true.

This is back to the 'all truth is relative' and is a product of the post-60s philosophy of 'there's no such thing as truth, only narrative'. I don't buy it ... I did for a while, but I don't anymore.

Originally Posted by wil

So while the select one and run with it has its advantages, running with blinders on to what is going on around you has its disadvantages. So while yes, I chose to choose one, I still know I have much to gain by having an open mind in regards to the others....

But I don't believe you have selected anything other than your own presuppositions. You have selected on your own terms, and filter accordingly, so I would say it is you who wears the blinders, beofre you even came to the question of religion ... you certainly cannot claim to an open mind, let alone an open heart.

I think the rest of Jesus' dialogue with Philip (John 14:8-12) refutes precisely your position.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Here is where I would say you're mistaken, Thomas. What is this arbitrary distinction you're drawing between "cosmological religions" and metacosmology, anyway? Isn't it just a clever attempt at precisely the kind of elitism which you yourself claim to detest, yet which you apparently cannot even pull your own self away from?

No ... the distinction is hardly arbitraray (I can explain in detail if you require) ... and how can Christianity be elitist? Our doors are open to anyone to wealk in on our most sacred rites, we are probably the most abused religion on earth at the moment, and are being killed in numbers from South America to China.

I cannot help but think, as a proponent of TS, that "people in glass houses ..." — as TS never ceases to inform all and sundry that it alone is in possession of the truth of their religion.

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No ... the distinction is hardly arbitraray (I can explain in detail if you require) ... and how can Christianity be elitist? Our doors are open to anyone to wealk in on our most sacred rites, we are probably the most abused religion on earth at the moment, and are being killed in numbers from South America to China.

HA HA! The Roman Catholic Church, notoriously and universally accepted as certainly being the most dogmatic religious institution in human history (!) ... with some of the STRICTEST requirements when it comes to what you may question, what you may NOT question, just what IS and what IS NOT safe (by way of proscription) for your soul's Salvation, yadda yadda - including penalty of torture and death (in an era not so far gone) to those who have DARED to courageously hold their ground as freethinkers or conscientious objectors ... and yet you are telling me there is no elitism in that? Oh good grief!

No elitism in a doctrine such as Domine Iesus which says, not just that Christianity is first above other religions, when it comes to accuracy & `validity,' but that Roman Catholicism is even ahead of the game vs. all other Christian traditions & denominations!?!

But Thomas, the real elitism to which I refer is not one which I have noticed as characteristic of most Catholics. Nor of most Christians. No, when I say elitism, I mean the attitude that there is some kind of a Member's Only Club, and that our Christian (or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Theosophical) Faith or beliefs somehow gives us VIP status in God's Kingdom (and/or upon earth) ... simply by our blind credulity, our unquestioning obedience to a dated list of commandments, or perhaps due to our intellectual prowess - gained through decades of perusal of all manner of obscure materials not normally available to the average churchgoer or Sunday-only practictioner.

It doesn't matter WHY we feel justified in wanting to lord it over others, and the saddest part is that this is really a twofold, or doubly shameful habit - no matter who happens to be giving it expression. On the one hand, there is the imposition of one's own will upon others, attempting to sway people, rather than simply educating them - and allowing them to make their own choice based on the facts that have been presented (and also based on the quality, or style of the presentation itself, notwithstanding the manipulations of the more Jesuitical sophists & casuists, who will stop at nothing to do their lord's bidding).

But this goes one, nasty step farther, when we paint the picture of the aforementioned `Member's Only Club,' and suggest (or emphasize) to the party in question that we somehow already have select status within such a club, such that the Lord's Favor shines upon us as no other (be they in the synagogue down the street, or even in the Christian church - of another denomination - right next door!) ... I mean, come on, WE are the ones who are RIGHT, and this means all others MUST BE WRONG!

Thomas, this is the kind of thing that disgusts me!

Back to my point. ONE GOD, billions of human souls. God's Love? Like Sunlight, raying forth to all alike. This is not whitewashing anything. This is a refusal to accept your presentation, or ANYONE's presentation, of a God that plays favorites, a God that refuses to Love those who do not pronounce the Divine Word a certain way, or attend Mass once a week, or pray facing Mecca five times a day. Nonsense! These are specific, and VALUED traditions, practices that MAKE SENSE to those who choose to honor them, and which CLEARLY have benefit to plenty of the practitioners concerned.

But to say that, "MY religion is better than YOUR religion, because WE have a SPECIAL, UNIQUE, TOTALLY DISTINCT formulation of the Trinity" ... or, "a SPECIAL, UNIQUE, TOTALLY DISTINCT forumation of the notion of God's Forgiveness & Compassion," etc. ... such a claim IS ELITIST!!!

It is spiritual smugness, no matter how subtle it may be in our thinking and in our philosophizing!

I cannot help but think, as a proponent of TS, that "people in glass houses ..." — as TS never ceases to inform all and sundry that it alone is in possession of the truth of their religion.

Now you see, Thomas, if I happen to make a claim regarding the Truth ... certainly as pertinent to the notion that all of us are actually worshipping the same God (whether we know it or not) ... I will be able to back that up. I find no wrong, and no proverbial bone to pick, with those who find their Spiritual Ideal in Jesus of Nazareth, just as those who wish to emulate and follow Sri Krishna, or Zoroaster, or the Buddha also impress me as potentially pious & devout. It is the folks who wish to go around telling others, that ONLY THEIR OWN religion is "the correct one," while the other person's is, of course, invariably "wrong" (or inappropriate, less accurate, etc.) ... these are the mongrels, the doers of injustice, those who blaspheme, and who make a MOCKERY of God and of Religion!!!

We can talk turkey if you like, though I suspect we are pretty much on the same page ...

~Andrew

[cyberpi]

Resurrection and reincarnation are very similar... I don't see how a believer in Jesus and the gospels can say with a straight face that reincarnation does not exist. It looks to me like another one of the very real differences between Christianity... and what Jesus said and did.

Perhaps to some it seems that the water only runs down a stream once. Or that a tree falls and never lives again. Oh well... that is their belief I guess.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Resurrection and reincarnation are very similar... I don't see how a believer in Jesus and the gospels can say with a straight face that reincarnation does not exist. It looks to me like another one of the very real differences between Christianity... and what Jesus said and did.

How so? I'd be interested in how you get reincarnation out of the gospels, let alone the rest of Scripture.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Dondi

How so? I'd be interested in how you get reincarnation out of the gospels, let alone the rest of Scripture.

The body is a temple. Maybe that is why many only worship from one temple?

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

That IS reincarnation... in Jesus' words. What attributes of reincarnation would differ from John 3:13? It is perfectly worded in my opinion.

I'd also suggest that it takes a lot more redirected energy to resurrect than it does to reincarnate, and the gospel provides not just one example, but two examples. Both Jesus and Lazareth. Take for example the multiplying of fish and bread... did Jesus have wheat fields, a bakery, and a fish pond hidden out back... or did fish and bread multiply in the baskets? If I believe in that capability who am I to disbelieve reincarnation? Reincarnation is far easier and Jesus literally spelled it out... as I read it.

Regardless, I submit that ressurection is a form of reincarnation... a return of the exact (or similar) form. If one believes in the capability of resurrection, then surely one has already accepted reincarnation. To illustrate... where was Jesus and Lazareth during the days in between?

[AndrewX]

(Here's 3 MORE passages for you, Dondi, if you look carefully ... )

Thank you, cyberpi, for pointing out the similarity between Reincarnation and the Resurrection.

We can observe, any of us, that all Life is cyclical, and this applies to the Spirit just as to the physical world. I was not familiar with the passage you mention, John 3:13, but I am well aware of the additional overwhelming evidence that Christ Jesus taught Reincarnation openly, and unequivocably ... and that it was in fact a teaching accepted by many an early Christian.

Witness, for example, the following admonition, as Jesus expresses his shock over Nicodemus' ignorance:

"Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" - John 3:10

We also know that Jesus cast light on John the Baptist's prior incarnation as Elijah, when He confirmed for the disciples that the old prophecy had already been fulfilled ... and that they had missed the connection entirely. How the Bible-wranglers do love to dispute on this point, yet how clear it is that Jesus is making the connection between two incarnations of ONE Soul.

Many esotericists are familiar with THREE of Jesus' own prior incarnations, beginning with Joshua, Son of Nun, who succeeded Moses ... and ending with Joshua from the Book of Zechariah (appearing as Jeshua, during the time of Ezra, in between). Appollonius of Tyana, a figure with striking similiarities to Jesus of Nazareth, is also believed to have been Jesus' own immediate reincarnation, following the Resurrection. This puts him into a category not unlike the Eastern tradition of Bodhisattvas, who reincarnate voluntarily to "help alleviate the sufferings of the world." And esotericists also sometimes understand Jesus as a `Lord of Compassion' in his Current incarnation (Syrian) ... whereas others Adepts are usually spoken of as `Masters of the Wisdom' (similar, but not quite the same).

The Christ Himself, the Eldest Brother of Humanity, is believed by many to have been Sri Krishna, of Hinduism, and also to have appeared in a lesser-known incarnation ... which will not likely be recorded in any history books. Several centuries after overshadowing His disciple Jesus, it can be ascertained that the Christ was able to take up the etheric body (physical vital soul, or nephesh) of St. Patrick, presumably because of the exceeding purity and careful preparation of the latter. This amounts to reincarnation of a sort, because it marks the closest degree to which Christ has been able to DIRECTLY incarnate within Humanity, as an Individuality.

A more recent effort was made to overshadow the Indian disciple Jiddu Krishnamurti, in the 1920s, but this was only partially successful. Many, many thousands of esotericists fully expect Christ's physical Reappearance ~2025AD ... and I should sure like to think that we will have moved beyond petty disputes over "whose religion" is the biggest (wait wait wait, that's penis, my bad), or "who's got the most money - err, I mean, adherents," etc. etc. etc.

And let us also not forget the very clear indication of Revelation 3:12, wherein it is written:

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out"

Now in the spirit of free inquiry, of free will, and in the nature of the type of education which Christ Jesus exemplified and embodied, we are all free - every single one of us - to ponder the doctrine of rebirth, and to accept it or reject it as we see fit.

I have utmost faith that in good time, it will be demonstrated through ordinary empirical science that there is a Soul, and that it is this Immortal Soul which does reincarnate. Certainly there have been some erroneous teachings, probably within every religion, as to the precise details and workings of Rebirth. But relative to the current discussion, even just to come to some measure of agreement, or acceptance, that Rebirth is a Universal Law ... would be a step forward. And this, of course, is a matter of individual recognition and acceptance, when & only when the overwhelming weight of evidence swings our opinion in that direction.

I wanted to stop there, but it might be worth mentioning a couple more things.

One, is that the Buddhists, Vajradhara here at C-R as a prime example, but plenty of others who express an interest in Buddhist philosophy or who have chosen Buddhism as their path, will dispute (by way of affirmation) the doctrine of anatman (or `no-soul') just as vigorously as the Christian fundamentalist will dispute (by way of contesting) the doctrine of Rebirth. Why is this so?

Is it not, when we really consider it, for the best of all possible reasons? Giving the Buddhist, or the Fundamentalist Christian the doubt, is it not precisely because each sincerely believes that His Master did NOT teach that doctrine which is being attributed to Him? While the Christ is understood, on the one hand, to have taught Resurrection ... do not most Christians dispute Rebirth just because they THINK Christ did not teach it? And will not the good Buddhist affirm the doctrine of anatman, exactly because he is certain that the Buddha taught NO Soul, while - quite naturally - the Buddha did teach Rebirth, as well as the existence of SOMEthing (Consciousness, perhaps) which must be able to experience Nirvana!

So you see, I think the hangups we have, are in most cases due primarily to a matter of tradition, and of what we have been TAUGHT to believe, and to accept as PRESUMABLY what x, y or z Great Teacher is SAID to have preached or taught. And on that grounds alone, I would affirm: You should not believe in a thing simply because some Great One tells you it is so, even if this is your life-sworn Master, and EVEN IF you know that "His or Her words are Gospel." This is the WRONG reason entirely to accept a doctrine, and if you swallow it whole, it's your own darn fault for getting the bellyache!

Let's drive the point entirely home with a good example from the Theosophical teachings. Much investigation was done, I think by Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa, Arundale, maybe Besant, and others, which eventually led to indications being made as to just how long a given Soul might spend in Devachan, or the Heaven-world - where we go between incarnations. All this is well & good, and was surely done in the spirit of science and earnest investigation ... and the hope was to show people that these things CAN be studied, and understood, if not nearly as fully as shall one day be possible (when Humanity is further enlightened).

But how accurate, and how helpful, was all this work to show just how long a given Soul would spend between births ... or even to illustrate exactly what Devachan would be like? Consider the following indication from one of the Theosophical Masters, the Tibetan, writing via Alice Bailey. The quote is lengthy, but a good point is made:

The occultists of the world, through the theosophical societies and other occult bodies, so-called, have greatly damaged the presentation of the truth anent reincarnation through the unnecessary, unimportant, inaccurate and purely speculative details which they give out as truths anent the processes of death and the circumstances of man after death. These details are largely dependent upon the clairvoyant vision of astral psychics of prominence in the Theosophical Society. Yet in the Scriptures of the world these details are not given, and H.P.B. in The Secret Doctrine gave none. An instance of this inaccurate and foolish attempt to throw light upon the theory of rebirth can be seen in the time limits imposed upon departed human souls between incarnations on the physical plane and the return to physical rebirth—so many years of absence are proclaimed, dependent upon the age of the departed soul and its place upon the ladder of evolution. If, we are told, the soul is very advanced, absence from the physical plane is prolonged, whereas the reverse is the case. Advanced souls and those whose intellectual capacity is rapidly developing come back with great rapidity, owing to their sensitive response to the pull of obligations, interests and responsibilities already established upon the physical plane. People are apt to forget that time is the sequence of events and of states of [Page 404] consciousness as registered by the physical brain. Where no physical brain exists, what humanity understands by time is nonexistent. The removal of the barriers of the form, stage by stage, brings an increasing realisation of the Eternal Now. In the case of those who have passed through the door of death and who still continue to think in terms of time, it is due to glamour and to the persistence of a powerful thoughtform. It indicates polarisation upon the astral plane; this is the plane upon which leading Theosophical writers and psychics have worked, and upon which they have based their writings. They are quite sincere in what they say, but omit to recognise the illusory nature of all findings based on astral clairvoyance. --Esoteric Healing, by Alice Bailey

namaskar,

~andrew