The ultimate comparative study?

[Thomas]

One might look at 'The Perennialists' aka the Sophia Perennis, the Traditionalists...

A group of metaphysicians from various faiths (by majority Sufi) who have been widely acknowledged as commentators without equal in the realm of the metaphysical and esoteric exposition of Comparative Religion. Their metaphysical rigour is very strict, which means they can be dense and difficult, and they are certainly uncompromising, which makes their works unfashionable - so I would not recommend them if you have not a philosophical leaning.

Axiomatic is the rule of the practice of religion. It matters not which, but it does matter - and by 'practice' they mean one embraces the discipline and method, which is the compliment of wisdom and insight, the harmony of which is the only real road to any meaningful realisation - and without which 'knowledge' just becomes fodder for the idle chatter of the glitterati.

Schuon's 'The Transcendant Unity of Religion' was praised by T.S Eliot among others, and the composer Thomas Taverner's 7-hour operatic marathon 'The Veil', performed recently in NY, is heavily influenced by Schuon's writings.

René Guénon, their 'founder' (perhaps more accurately the onewho rediscovered traditional metaphysics) has written a number of works that have become benchmarks in the field.

Both were Sufi masters, and Guenon was an authority on Sanskrit and once described as the only westerner to fully understand the Vedanta. Others include Marco Pallis, a Tibetan Buddhist and Leo Schaya, author of 'the Universal Symbolism of the Kabala'. There is also Martin Lings, Philip Sherrard and Jean Borella.

I might also add that some of the most significant studies happen in Europe, and are published in French but, being somewhat scholarly, do not possess pop appeal, and so rarely make it into English.

Sacredweb is a magazine to which a number of such writers subscribe.

Thomas

 

[seattlegal]

Also, too many humans still view that idea as a "mere" generalisation. Precisely because the most recent (and upcoming?) conflicts are generally built around religious differences, that's the very reason why it's among the risky minefields of those very same religious differences that the true peacemakers of today will now have to labor.

One must acknowledge that political reasons are at the heart and root of the conflicts. Wars are fought for power and control.

Anyway, why is it that there are such extremes on this planet. Your one word answer for the day: RELIGION. Sadly, that's the simple answer for the CAUSE of 2/3 of the world's evil. That is more or less an objective fact, or if you insist that it is my opinion, I think you'll find that approximately 2/3 of the world's people happen to agree with me.

Oh, you mean 66.6%?

I still stand by my thoughts that POLITICS, power, and control are at the root of conflicts. Religious differences are just a handy excuse to keep people from addressing the true issue at hand, IMHO. Smoke and mirrors.

 

[pohaikawahine]

I believe simply that if we change our minds we can change our world .... each of us one-by-one can begin the change in the way we live our lives .... unconditional love (without definition) will take us there .... he hawai'i au, pohaikawahine

 

[Ciel]

QUOTE=pohaikawahine

I believe simply that if we change our minds we can change our world .... each of us one-by-one can begin the change in the way we live our lives .... unconditional love (without definition) will take us there ....

Po, thank you for the expression of simplicity.

Change is like a new car, call it Kha if you wish.

Contemplate the neutral, allow love in the driving seat.

And see.........automatic arrival.

love and peace - c -

 

[taijasi]

One must acknowledge that political reasons are at the heart and root of the conflicts. Wars are fought for power and control.

Oh, you mean 66.6%?

I still stand by my thoughts that POLITICS, power, and control are at the root of conflicts. Religious differences are just a handy excuse to keep people from addressing the true issue at hand, IMHO. Smoke and mirrors.

Agreed, yes. But it's so much easier to assert that the United States really stands for the principles and Ideals upon which she was founded ... if, after all, as certain shrub-like individuals like to remind us, God is on our side.

Unless I might be a radical Muslim or something, and then God will still be on my side, but I have a different name for him.

Oh, and did I mention that as devout Vaishnava, Krishna is on my side?

So gimmie your land, dammit.

Namaskar,

taijasi

 

[seattlegal]

Agreed, yes. But it's so much easier to assert that the United States really stands for the principles and Ideals upon which she was founded ... if, after all, as certain shrub-like individuals like to remind us, God is on our side.

Unless I might be a radical Muslim or something, and then God will still be on my side, but I have a different name for him.

Oh, and did I mention that as devout Vaishnava, Krishna is on my side?

So gimmie your land, dammit.

Namaskar,

taijasi

I'm glad you recognize the smoke and mirrors!
You don't overcome hate with hate. You overcome hate with love.
As Po said, "unconditional love (without definition) will take us there "
As Lunamoth said, "It's really rather simple. Love one another. All the rest is commentary."

 

[flowperson]

QUOTE=pohaikawahine

I believe simply that if we change our minds we can change our world .... each of us one-by-one can begin the change in the way we live our lives .... unconditional love (without definition) will take us there ....

Po, thank you for the expression of simplicity.

Change is like a new car, call it Kha if you wish.

Contemplate the neutral, allow love in the driving seat.

And see.........automatic arrival.

love and peace - c -

When I get into my Saturn tomorrow morning to go to work, I'm going to look for an "L" on the gearshift indicator, and use that gear as often as possible.

flow....

 

[Ciel]

When I get into my Saturn tomorrow morning to go to work, I'm going to look for an "L" on the gearshift indicator, and use that gear as often as possible.


Flow you got it!

Now would that Saturn of yours be the colour of purple? Saturn being highly connected and conductive of time, and changes and swings through the indigo section of the rainbow, cleansed through the violet to be reborn. This time encompassing a little more love, compassion and understanding into life.
Maybe this time round.....white gold silver.......into saphire blue.

Flow Flow..........

 

[flowperson]

Ciel:

The technical name of the color of my Saturn is "plum", but it really looks more dark brown in the sunlight, y'know like it has lots of those metal flake specks in it. So I guess you could say it looks dark purple at some times, and at other times a "mousey" dark brown with speckles.

Are you, me, and my Saturn having some kind of transformational experience and exchange here ? If so let me know the details. I need some excitement in my life.

flow....

 

[Ciel]

Flow,

I've spent a hundred thousand lifetimes waiting for a transformation in Saturn. With time on the side of peace for this planet in a more progressive manner, as in moving forwards..........love gear...... we all flow.

- c -

 

[flowperson]

Ciel:

VROOM...VROOM...let's all go forward. Wait a minute...does that mean I have to trade my Saturn for a Toyota to "move" forward ? I like my car !

flow....

 

[samabudhi]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this sutta. Certainly not mainstream, but most interesting.

I do not pretend to know every tenet of each and every belief. I simply make an urgent plea that a systematic effort be made in that direction by a symposium of scholars. I am not intricately familiar, for instance, with all the in-depth thinking within Jainism, within Sufism, and within at least two or three others. That does not disqualify me -- or anyone -- from making the same plea that I made at the top of this thread.

It sounds like you want the icing but you're not willing to eat the puffy, bready part of the cake.

Speaking for myself, I feel I've found a rewarding and fruitful path to follow. So I'm not about to go off and try synchronize the salient aspects of man's entire history of religious endeavour. Outlandish.

 

[Operacast]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this sutta. Certainly not mainstream, but most interesting.


It sounds like you want the icing but you're not willing to eat the puffy, bready part of the cake.

I might say the same for your "interest" in the suttas of the Digha-Nikaya

Speaking for myself, I feel I've found a rewarding and fruitful path to follow. So I'm not about to go off and try synchronize the salient aspects of man's entire history of religious endeavour. Outlandish.

Fair enough. You are happy where you are. Fine.

But that does not warrant your dismissing such a yearning for synchronizing on the part of others as merely "outlandish".

Talk about thought control.

Synthesis

 

[seattlegal]

Fair enough. You are happy where you are. Fine.

But that does not warrant your dismissing such a yearning for synchronizing on the part of others as merely "outlandish".

Talk about thought control.

Synthesis

Um, Operacast, have you considered the thought that what you are calling Synthesis might be considered as abduction and rape by those being synthesized?

 

[Operacast]

Um, Operacast, have you considered the thought that what you are calling Synthesis might be considered as abduction and rape by those being synthesized?

Yes. I have. And I have spoken to thoughtful people who have suggested as much. My reply has always been that no one is obliged to adopt such a synthesis were such a thing really attempted -- and I still feel that no one has really done such a synthesis yet with properly scholarly rigor anyway.

I really feel that anyone discouraging such an effort by crying "abduction" or whatever is being more intrusive and hurtful of others than any scholarly attempt at synthesis in the first place. After all, the original texts are always there. No followers in any specific tradition are being discouraged in restricting themselves to one tradition. And anyone is still free to join such followers.

However, the yearned-for religious practice of synthesis on the part of others is being actively discouraged if cries of protest are raised against any new kind of understanding that hurts no one who is already happy in their faith and that may, in addition, afford others greater peace if what they yearn for is finally provided them in this scholarly way.

Ultimately, the idea that any kind of religious practice or understanding, modern or ancient, somehow impacts on other practices that are already well established and comfortable anyway is indeed thought control if it actually leads to active discouragement in a frankly mediaeval way.

Since I happen to have personally witnessed such discouragement first hand, I stand by my statement that any discouragement of a project that may be of value to some who are still searching does indeed constitute a regrettable form of thought control.

Sincerely,

Operacast

 

[jiii]

Outside of scholars and theologists, such an effort to compile religious characteristics will only be "used" by people that are already confused as to spirituality, and that may thus lead themselves only into further confusion. There is, for instance, no reason why a person must adhere to any particular religion, at all. If someone is quite contented with their personal spiritual sensation then it is certainly not necessary to dress it up in sectarian garb. HOWEVER, if someone is starved for a religion but, as a result of preconception, preference, or principle, refuses to adhere to any doctrine, then rounding up the similarities of all these denied doctrines will certainly not yield anything that is much more inspiring. The Zen Buddhists have a saying about this kind of sentiment: "You can't polish a tile into a mirror". If one is unable to come to terms with an individual doctrine on one hand or with unaffiliated spiritual experience on the other, then creating a "pseudo-doctrine" that compiles the whole lot of the rejects will leave the investigator just as dry of spiritual direction and sensation as he was before. You can't pour a bunch of rotten apples into a bushel and expect them to turn ripe and red in juxtaposition to each other.

 

[Quahom1]

Unfortunately, people -- and especially scholars -- may be too lazy and cowardly to embark on one particularly obvious but daunting project, which would entail layers upon layers of thrice-vetted research work and philological and linguistic analysis in which the most divergent points of view would have to be represented on the final board. That project would entail:

A) coming to a consensus on which is the earliest and most direct source text(s) on the original inspirer(s) of each of the ten or so main religions whose followers today have effectively bridged national boundaries, from the earliest text(s) on Lord Krishna for Hinduism to Bahá’u’lláh for the Bahai faith;

B) consensus as to the earliest and most authentic versions/manuscripts of the agreed-upon earliest source texts on these inspirers;

C) consensus on final carefully prepared editions of the earliest source texts;

D) shared analysis of what each of these carefully edited versions imply about each inspirer's take on questions like

1. humanity's ethical obligations,

2. humanity's proper relationship (if any) to deity,

3. deity's proper relationship (if any) to humanity and

4. deity's own nature and what makes her/him deity;

E) pooled comparison of the emerging differences among inspirers on these and other essential questions, as seen in the edited editions of the earliest source texts;

F) pooled comparison of the emerging similarities among inspirers on these and other essential questions, as seen in the edited editions of the earliest source texts; and finally

G) extraction by unanimous consensus of all the emerging similarities, to facilitate a new publication presenting the similarities, laid out in parallel columns.

If this final step proves unfeasible -- due to no emerging agreement among all ten or so inspirers on any one question -- then I might conclude that the notion of there being a deity and a normative mode of behavior via that deity is possibly a chimera. At the same time, if this final step does prove feasible after all, then there may be some way of judging through that the true worth of a deity concept and a normative mode of behavior via such a deity.

This entire project is doable, physically -- the scholarly tools and the early texts are already there -- but the finances for such a project and the necessary attitudes tending toward an open willingness on the part of everyone involved, from atheists to fundamentalists alike, to submit all mainstream faiths to the same rigorous textual scrutiny perhaps aren't -- at least to the degree needed for the longterm commitment to see such an exhaustive project through.

Thoughts?

Sounds like it was done (at least in the western world...twice). But seems to be ignored by other intelligent minds for some reason. There were two counsils. They have no merit?

Sort of like stating that the forefathers were spitting in the wind, when they were actually closer to "God" then than we are today. Sort of like telling "dad" he doesn't know squat, when he was around long before we were born...

v/r

Q

 

[samabudhi]

I might say the same for your "interest" in the suttas of the Digha-Nikaya

I'm not sure you know what my interest in the Digha-Nikaya is, nor Buddha's intention in the Tevijja sutta.

But that does not warrant your dismissing such a yearning for synchronizing on the part of others as merely "outlandish".

you have not properly researched the ideas you want to synchronize
you have not properly researched whether such a synchronization has already been attempted
you want other people to do the synchronization

Perhaps you should consider why you feel it is necessary to synchronize all the world's religions?

Just think....where do you think Methodists come from? And the Anglicans and Protestants? What about Lutherans and Cathars?
Essentially Jesus, right? But they split...for whatever reason...but that just shows there is such a force in the universe which results in schisms. So why fight with it?
What do you get out of it?

They say the kingdom of God is within. That's perfectly Buddhist, perfectly Hindu. But you look outside for answers and so overlook their original message?

My intention is not to discourage your search, but encourage you to look at what is.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Um, Operacast, have you considered the thought that what you are calling Synthesis might be considered as abduction and rape by those being synthesized?

Just wanted to put in a plug for a fantastic book (this made me think of it). It's Jihad v. McWorld by Benjamin Barber.

 

[Operacast]

Outside of scholars and theologists, such an effort to compile religious characteristics will only be "used" by people that are already confused as to spirituality, and that may thus lead themselves only into further confusion.

Shouldn't that be up to any users to decide for themselves? What confounded arrogance! If certain potential users are intrigued enough to look up such a survey in the first place, then they're possibly already at a point where no traditions -- and no spiritual practices -- have satisfied them anyway. So your point becomes moot.

There is, for instance, no reason why a person must adhere to any particular religion, at all.

Did I say there was? Straw man! This survey is primarily for a better historical understanding of what has made various concepts of the metaphysical tick. That's no crime.

If someone is quite contented with their personal spiritual sensation then it is certainly not necessary to dress it up in sectarian garb.

I already said in a previous posting that if someone is already happy where s/he is, then that's fine -- and this survey isn't being forced down anyone's throat anyway. Another straw man!

HOWEVER, if someone is starved for a religion but, as a result of preconception, preference, or principle, refuses to adhere to any doctrine, then rounding up the similarities of all these denied doctrines will certainly not yield anything that is much more inspiring.

That's for the person using it to decide, not anyone else, including you. Again, more arrogance! You're second-guessing someone else's reading! More arrogance and flagrant thought control!

Now, maybe someone might be inspired by the survey or maybe someone who's a skeptic will remain a skeptic and just find it useful without having to be "inspired" at all. Anything wrong with that? Ever thought of that? What's wrong with something useful? Got a problem with that?

In any case, odds are that the chief elements that will be extracted will cancel out the especially sectarian or distasteful aspects that cling to the byways of specific creeds. In fact, certain Buddhists have told me that it's even considered acceptable by some for a practicing Buddhist to follow some other tradition along with Buddhism! So if, for example, the kind of strictures that threaten all sorts of horrible things if one departs from a specific creed are not in all creeds (and they aren't apparently in Buddhism), then that distasteful element, at least, will not be found in the survey, since, with Buddhism not asserting that, all creeds therefore do not agree on that.

The Zen Buddhists have a saying about this kind of sentiment: "You can't polish a tile into a mirror".

Oh, come on! This isn't some either-or thing. You're making it into that just to score some cheap debating points. Instead, it's information that would otherwise take one person a lifetime to assemble. Plenty would be grateful for having this at one's finger-tips. Who are you to pre-empt such a service? Are YOU God Almighty?!

If one is unable to come to terms with an individual doctrine on one hand or with unaffiliated spiritual experience on the other, then creating a "pseudo-doctrine" that compiles the whole lot of the rejects will leave the investigator just as dry of spiritual direction and sensation as he was before.

This would not be primarily intended as some alternate creed -- and even if some individual chooses to use it that way, so what? You evidently have a bone to pick with the chief reason advanced when the drafters of the U.S. Constitution made a choice for religious freedom: "[If my neighbor chooses one set of beliefs or another,] it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg!". And again, whether or not the user finds it a dry-bones proposition or a source of comfort, that's no one else's business.

In addition, the original texts are still there. The followers of every single creed are not going away. This would be a guide that would be an addition to a certain degree of understanding. It doesn't replace anything.

And it's you who are saying that the only purpose of this "should" [in effect] be inspiration only. That's absurd. This is knowledge, pure and simple. To some that's inpirational, to some it isn't<shrug>. Ultimately, such knowledge is necessary, above all else, for any reason that is urgent in the mind of the user. That's no one else's business -- or shouldn't be

I also find ridiculous your use of the word "rejects", since the survey would be confined precisely to those aspects which all creeds accept.

You can't pour a bunch of rotten apples into a bushel and expect them to turn ripe and red in juxtaposition to each other.

Again, that's for others to judge. Who are you to arbitrarily decide that these are rotten apples? It seems to me that your whole post constitutes a frantic effort to prevent the increase of knowledge in case people start viewing each other with too much understanding for your blood.

Operacast