The ultimate comparative study?

[Operacast]

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?

They were confined to studying only one creed. They have no pertinence to a survey such as the one proposed here whatsoever.

Sort of like stating that the forefathers were spitting in the wind, when they were actually closer to "God" then than we are today.

That is a matter of opinion. IMO, the only figures that may be genuinely close to deity -- if there is really any such thing as closeness to deity -- are founders/inspirers at the outset of established creeds. All the most thoughtful, the most prayerful exegesis coming after may or may not be close, but that closeness can sometimes be second-hand, sometimes not. Only a Buddha or a Christ present manifestly original insights that come unequivocally from inside them -- or directly from the metaphysical. All the rest may be.........footnotes?

Sort of like telling "dad" he doesn't know squat, when he was around long before we were born...

v/r

Q

Again, apples and oranges, since you're referring to exegesis within one tradition only. I would share your sentiments entirely if you were referring to original founders/inspirers like Buddha or Christ.

Sincerely,

Operacast

 

[Operacast]

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

Then why don't you tell me what you think is going on in the Tevijja sutta -- unless you're against the disemination of knowledge, of course...........

you have not properly researched the ideas you want to synchronize

I never said I had.

you have not properly researched whether such a synchronization has already been attempted

Look, if you know of one -- and of one that specifically confines itself to the presumed earliest texts dealing strictly with the remarks and actions of original inspirers only -- tell us! There are plenty of comparative surveys that I've read. But none so far take the approach I outlined. -- So, tell me if I'm wrong, and tell me the name of the survey. I've already read Campbell, Jaspers, Bullfinch, etc. Tell me one I haven't read that comes closer to what I've described.

you want other people to do the synchronization

I never said I did, and I never said I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth. A project like this needs a team from as many different viewpoints as possible. One person would need at least a lifetime to complete such a project. That's the other reason it needs a team. It also needs lots of funding. People would have to be paid for their time -- and even a whole team could conceivably spend many years on this.

Now, I'm a layman; this is not my area of professional expertise -- and I never pretended otherwise. But I would be delighted to be a member of a working team like this, if invited. I do not consider myself qualified enough to do all this myself without a ton of specialists around me. I'm going to guess that that is already perfectly apparent to many readers here, including yourself, and that, like some others here, you too are just playing a cheap game to score some petty debating points. You evidently feel that -- hey -- Who cares whether or not such a survey may be beneficial to certain people? After all, they're only people, right?

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?

Because people get KILLED, that's why. Maybe you enjoy that<shrug>. Anyway, maybe not all schisms result in bloodshed, maybe not all schisms have to cause unpleasantness at all (although I'm hard-pressed to think of one that doesn't), but at the least, a survey like this hardly threatens the death of any schism. Are you somehow concerned that it might? Aw, what a shame!

What do you get out of it?

Hope?

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?

What kind of filthy lie and distortion is that? I WANT to see their original message. Nothing they say is being canceled through this survey. I'm simply designing a way by which we can view these messages in parallel with others. The notion that that somehow cancels an original message is of a piece with the notion that one should never read more than one book!

My intention is not to discourage your search,

You could have fooled me............

but encourage you to look at what is.

This is my way of looking at what is. If that doesn't please your high and mighty majesty, that's not my problem.

Operacast

 

[samabudhi]

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

Then why don't you tell me what you think is going on in the Tevijja sutta -- unless you're against the disemination of knowledge, of course...........

After Buddha attained enlightenment, he was left with only one intention, to help others achieve the same. Through his compassionate activity, he passes the Dharma to us whenever we are open to it. To do this, it is necessary to speak in the language of those listening. And not only language, but in terms that include every aspect of the culture, age, predispositions etc of each individual. This is crucial if his message is to be heard.

In this sutta he was talking to Brahmins, whose aim was to attain the state of Brahma. This is not the final destination for a Buddhist as is demonstrated by the Jataka tale Makhadeva-jataka (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1012.htm).

It is more like this. To climb Kilimanjaro, you need to fly to Nairobi. Then you take a bus to the base of the mountain. You then get a guide, traipse through the forest and finally you climb the mountain and reach the peak.
Now unless you're one of those people who like to be different, it wouldn't help you so much just knowing the GPS coordinates for the peak. You'd be better off with a list of instructions on how to get to Nairobi, take a bus etc.
In the same way, Buddha clearly felt it necessary to assuage the Brahmins' mundane obsession with Brahma as a stepping stone to complete enlightenment.

What do you get out of it?

Hope?

You know' the worst thing about hope is? You always end up being disappointed.

I WANT to see their original message.

The Internet is a wonderful resource.

 

[jiii]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiii
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.

Originally posted by OperaCast

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.

Whoa...whoa... let's not get too angry here. You have really gone out of your way, OperaCast, to condemn me. Arrogance...and thoughtlessness of all varieties...how did I so easily accumulate all of these qualities? Wow! I didn't think I could inspire so much rash attack with a simple personal insight.

By the way, if your discussion was not merely the result of temporary inflammation, I would respectfully ask that you refer to my earlier post on this thread for the totality of what I had to say. What I posted later, and that which you responded to, was an excerpt from a previous post of mine on this discussion that I thought had a renewed significance in the particular direction the discussion was going. You'll find that many of the items you mentioned were discussed in concise detail. In fact, I stated twice in my original post that I, personally, would be VERY interested in such a project.

I must say that I amazed by your insisting that I am apparently devoid of all right to judgement of ideas, when you follow up by saying that "that's for others to judge", over and over again. I didn't know that I was the only one not entitled to judgement...perhaps, I should've let everyone else judge first, and then made my judgement. LOL, you take brief contributions to this discussion far too seriously.

 

[Operacast]

Whoa...whoa... let's not get too angry here. You have really gone out of your way, OperaCast, to condemn me.

And you've gone out of your way to set up as many straw men as possible -- and to give us what reads like a wilful disregard of 101 different points I made that clearly fly in the face of the relevance of your loose use of terms like "rejects", like "inspire", like "adhere", and on and on and on.

All I got from your post was a mortal terror that a tiny, tiny minority of fundamentalists in whatever faith might just possibly go down a road of further inquiry -- not for the purpose of heading away from their faith, but just to learn. Are you scared that just a few devout believers in their own faiths might suddenly tend to regard other believers as people too? That understanding of others and their faith might just possibly dissuade a tiny, tiny handful of such devout believers from demonizing anyone who doesn't think as they do? Tell me why that's such an appalling prospect.

Arrogance...and thoughtlessness of all varieties...how did I so easily accumulate all of these qualities? Wow! I didn't think I could inspire so much rash attack with a simple personal insight.

What insight? All you did was deliberately misread my post.

By the way, if your discussion was not merely the result of temporary inflammation, I would respectfully ask that you refer to my earlier post on this thread for the totality of what I had to say. What I posted later, and that which you responded to, was an excerpt from a previous post of mine on this discussion that I thought had a renewed significance in the particular direction the discussion was going.

Whatever you said in your previous post does not detract one whit from the plain fact that you set up as many straw men as you possibly could in this one.

You'll find that many of the items you mentioned were discussed in concise detail. In fact, I stated twice in my original post that I, personally, would be VERY interested in such a project.

I reread your first post. I must say that, though there are points there in common with your last one, the tone in your first one certainly seems much more constructive than in your last one, where you show a remarkably tin ear.

As one that has spent a good deal of time learning about various world religions, I must say that such a plan for a thorough and well-organized review, summary, and comparison of religions sounds pretty exciting. If such a report were released, I would probably buy it and enjoy perusing every bit.
Though, there are some serious problems with this whole idea. It works under many shaky assumptions. For instance...

1) Terms specific to certain religions may simply not have cognates in others. ex. God may simply never be even narrowly accepted as being a cognate to Tao in any way.

God needn't necessarily be the Creator. There are many different concepts of God. It can also be "nous" (the unchanging "ur-mind" in certain Greek concepts). And applying this concept, the Tao too embraces something like that in Chapter 25 of Lao-tze's Tao-te-king:

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

Being great, it flows
It flows far away.
Having gone far, it returns.

Therefore, "Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them.

Man follows Earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural.

Now, of course, Lao-tze here is making a distinction between something called Heaven and something called the Tao. But there is a distinct set of concepts here that can be related one way or another to the metaphysical. No, they aren't the same. But in their difference lies the grist for a comparison.

3) "Now, are there, in addition, identical patterns in every brain that are either wired for A) ultimate truth or B) pure delusion?"

I don't exactly know what this means, but to be totally honest, it doesn't sound true.

You think you know a lot, don't you? I was merely bringing to mind some recent research that suggests that there is a part of the brain peculiarly susceptible to God "experiences". Now, while that recently discovered pattern reinforces the notion of universal reactions built around a sense of the metaphysical, all I'm saying is that we may not know enough yet to know if that recurring pattern is a sign of something real that each of us can sense if the right part of a brain is stimulated, or if it is an illusion to which many of us may be subject. That's all I'm saying.

With all due respect, this is why people investigate and devote themselves to specific religions. One need not reinvent all religions in a sorted amalgam to explore this.

I'm not reinventing anything. Another straw man. I'm suggesting that what has already been done (but only to an extent) in individual religions can also be brought together with similar research into all religions, bringing all such research under the same "roof". My notion of parallel columns should tell you that I'm not talking of reinvention or substitution at all, but an assemblage of individual lines of research so the reader can view at a glance what would otherwise take a lifetime or more to bring together -- nothing to do with reinvention or substitution. Can't you read?

Ultimately, what you are talking about here is making a scientific inquiry of religious behavior and philosophy. Perhaps even with the hope that it would provide mankind with a one-size-fits-all coat of religious conduct that he can put on in the morning when he leaves his house.

I'm sorry if I've given the impression that I want to invent something new. Above all, I want to present what different traditions have in common, and present each example in the precise wording in which each separate text presents it.

A comparative tabulation of religions would have little or no value to religious people that would reasonably proclaim that they could get much more out of their individual doctrine or practice alone.

Says you.

Such folks always seem decidedly opposed to adherence to a specific doctrine, yet they think that rounding up the liner notes to each will produce something better.

Liner notes hardly describes the exact and complete textual passages in which each and every tradition frames the full warp and woof of each and every idea that may have points in common with other traditions. Another straw man.

Much of this is the result of a huge misunderstanding amongst some people that to accept a particular doctrine is to lie yourself into believing that your sense of spirituality IS NOTHING ELSE but what the doctrine says it is. This is plainly wrong.

How so? Isn't it an invitation to sectarian violence?

I simply think that 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.

The notion that greater cross-creed knowledge and learning will only lead to "confusion" is of a piece with the notions at one time that the Bible should never be translated into the vernacular. Mr. Tyndale, meet jiii.

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.

Again, this is nothing to do with reinvention or substitution. There you go again. We beat down that straw man already.

I must say that I amazed by your insisting that I am apparently devoid of all right to judgement of ideas,

I said no such thing. What I said was that you have no right to pre-judge what others should read and study.

LOL, you take brief contributions to this discussion far too seriously.

What I take seriously are gross simplifications compounded by deliberate distortions.

OperaCast

 

[jiii]

OperaCast-

Clearly, you are very passionate about this idea. But, frankly, you've made some totally unfounded criticisms, both of my ideas and myself, which have been mostly fueled by your strategy of picking apart every word I say to examine it out of context with a magnifying glass. You have made absolutely no real effort to address my opinion in a way that gives it creedence as a whole perspective, instead choosing to dissect it with scalpel and tweezer. I am lead by your "line by line" approach to wonder if you even read the entire post with a single inkling of an open mind to any of the ideas I expressed. You were much more interested in obliterating whatever opinion I offered.

Honestly, if this report were to be conducted, I would hope that it would not be under your supervision...for all opposing ideas would be subjected to a barrage of snide, nit-picking, sarcastic comments...most of which don't actually address the idea, so much as seek to dispel it by insulting the assumed personality of the writer, or by reviewing it outside of its context, line by line, in an effort to exaggerate the possible meaning to its utmost ridiculousness.

I can say in your defense, at least, that you obviously have a ferocious loyalty to your ideas.

Listen, it's a great idea. Are you happy now?

I have nothing else to say in this discussion.

-jiii

 

[Operacast]

[we can always make believe I'm calm and rational]

Operacast-
As one that has spent a good deal of time learning about various world religions, I must say that such a plan for a thorough and well-organized review, summary, and comparison of religions sounds pretty exciting. If such a report were released, I would probably buy it and enjoy perusing every bit.
Though, there are some serious problems with this whole idea. It works under many shaky assumptions. For instance...

1) Terms specific to certain religions may simply not have cognates in others. ex. God may simply never be even narrowly accepted as being a cognate to Tao in any way.

2) "which tenets are universally validated by all the original inspirers/founders and which ones aren't"

Tenets for behavior are apt, though not always, to be expressions of intuitive understanding, not rigid rules to which one should conform. A compilation of various world behavioral tenets resulting in a list of the most common ones is likely to get us a list of the same old type: No killing, no stealing, no lying, etc... So far as behavior, the difficulty is not, 'What should we do?', but rather "How do we do it?". A venn diagram of ethical or moral behavior is not a very useful tool by any means (and would probably confuse many people), even though it might be interesting from a scholarly perspective.

True enough, but I think too many today underestimate the general reader in any case, let alone the ultra-orthodox believer. If every statement of a given proposition is presented in the most carefully vetted scholarly translation, the respect behind such an anthology should become apparent sooner or later to a tiny minority of readers. That alone is worthwhile, IMO, in bringing understanding a tad closer around the world, if only by 0.00000001%.

3) "Now, are there, in addition, identical patterns in every brain that are either wired for A) ultimate truth or B) pure delusion?"

I don't exactly know what this means, but to be totally honest, it doesn't sound true.

4) "instead of talking vaguely and airily of what these figures may have sensed, let's at least be rigorous in ascertaining just how closely we can come to what they themselves precisely said and did."

With all due respect, this is why people investigate and devote themselves to specific religions. One need not reinvent all religions in a sorted amalgam to explore this.

Ultimately, what you are talking about here is making a scientific inquiry of religious behavior and philosophy. Perhaps even with the hope that it would provide mankind with a one-size-fits-all coat of religious conduct that he can put on in the morning when he leaves his house. At that, you are talking about creating this marvellously enormous and unlikely work by sampling just ten religions. Unfortunately, such a thing would have only very limited value as an interesting, albeit unwieldy, piece of scholarship. A comparative tabulation of religions would have little or no value to religious people that would reasonably proclaim that they could get much more out of their individual doctrine or practice alone.

But it would also have value for other people, no?

The idea that one might use such a compilation to pacify religious terrorists or pull fundamentalists out of their dream world is plainly absurd, and frankly, there are much more effective ways of saving children. Such investigations are so easy to ignore, and so largely unasked for by the ordinary person, that little change would result from it.

Please see my point above about the general reader. Thanks.

The compilation would likely end up being "used", as opposed to "enjoyed", only by a narrow band of people that, for one reason or another, would favor a watered down, incomplete, and remarkably bland religious experience through what is essentially a statistical compilation of religious ideas and actions.

I suppose in the end I just don't see anything bland about facilitating the viewing of the exact wording of ten or so different sages throughout history one after another on the same page on one unifying concept. On this, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Such folks always seem decidedly opposed to adherence to a specific doctrine, yet they think that rounding up the liner notes to each will produce something better. Much of this is the result of a huge misunderstanding amongst some people that to accept a particular doctrine is to lie yourself into believing that your sense of spirituality IS NOTHING ELSE but what the doctrine says it is. This is plainly wrong.

I simply think that 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.

Unless you are using "sectarian" in a different way than I do, I remain puzzled, please, as to how the presentation of ten or so different presentations on the same essential concept on the same page becomes "sectarian". Isn't the multi-denominational spirit behind that precisely the opposite of "sectarian"? Thanks.

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.

All of this being said, I would STILL buy it, and enjoy it, if it were published. I just don't think it will have much significance outside of personal enjoyment and scholarship.

I would submit that it's hard to be really sure how much interest any book might give others ultimately. If you yourself actually would find such a survey worthwhile, it's arguable that that might have greater validity than any hunch either of us may have about others. My two cents.

Sincerely,

Operacast

 

[Dondi]

Hmm, seems like this thread was ripened just for someone to argue.

*quietly backs up and slowly exits, gentle closing the door behind*

 

[Quahom1]

Hmm, seems like this thread was ripened just for someone to argue.

*quietly backs up and slowly exits, gentle closing the door behind*

Wait, I'm right behind you...hold the door.

 

[flowperson]

Hey guys...don't let it hit you on the "backside" on your ways out...wait a minute...here I come too !


flow....

 

[Operacast]

Hey guys...don't let it hit you on the "backside" on your ways out...wait a minute...here I come too !


flow....

Regrettable -- and I only have myself to blame. It could have been an enlightening exchange -- but for the one who proposed it:

Operacast

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Unfortunately, people -- and especially scholars -- may be too lazy and cowardly to embark on one particularly obvious but daunting project.....

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?

I haven't read the entire thread but.....I think you've missed one very important point. You seem to presuppose that things are black and white enough to come to a consensus of these issues. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Take any three-dimensional object such as a house or tree. Place a ring of people around it. Have each person give a full report of what he/she sees directly in front of them. You should get as many answers as there are people. Why? Because no two people look at it from exactly the same angle. This can quite effectively be proven by taking photographs of such an object from a dozen different angles as you walk a circle around it.

Religions are far more complex than any three-dimensional object the size of a house. They cannot be boiled down to a set of facts like you suggest. If they could, religious scholars, theologians, and other religious specialists from all religions around the world would not be busy around the clock trying to define religion, or one part of one religion, for others. Most of this work is done for others sharing their own faith.

Also, if religions could accurately be boiled down to such a set of facts, there would not be schisms and splits and splinters and wars and other horrible abuses done in the name of any God or religion. I suspect your real question is: What should I as an individual believe? This thread addresses some aspects of this question and may be of interest to you.

 

[Operacast]

I haven't read the entire thread but.....I think you've missed one very important point. You seem to presuppose that things are black and white enough to come to a consensus of these issues. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

I hear you, and of course you're right. The thing is, I'm simply not looking for a consensus at all. That's not what this was about -- and I've only got myself and my own lack of clarity to blame that I stumble on this repeated misunderstanding time and time again. But this is still an assumption that I've experienced from many others, and I guess it's kind of worn a sore point in my psyche -- which is my problem and no one else's, of course. And I'm afraid that this repeated misunderstanding occurring once too often was one of the chief reasons why I behaved so repulsively with jiii, regardless of whether or not jiii was really misunderstanding anything I had said at all. I had simply gotten too gun-shy for my own good from the numerous occasions when others had indeed misunderstod what I was suggesting. Result: I had started to lash out even when there was the least demur or fine-tuning at the idea, even when no actual misunderstanding was really involved at all. That was inexcusable on my part.

So, if I'm not looking for a consensus, what am I looking for instead?

Parallels [see below].

I suspect your real question is: What should I as an individual believe? This thread addresses some aspects of this question and may be of interest to you.

The "Knowledge and Belief" thread you reference is certainly worthwhile, and I'm grateful you pointed me to it, but it actually is less directly related to what I'm primarily concentrating on than is another thread that I saw referenced elsewhere:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/interfaith-as-a-faith-4428.html

Here is where -- to my astonishment and delight -- another poster actually did what I'm really aiming at: select original statements and reflections from different creeds/traditions and simply place them side by side for the reader to view simultaneously. For instance, in Buddhism:

Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
Buddhism, Sutta Nipata 705

Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Buddhism, Udana-Varga 5,36

In Christianity:

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mark 12:31

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luke 6:31

In Confucianism:

Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Confucianism, Analects 12:2

Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."
Confucianism, Analects 15.23

In Hinduism:

One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire.
Hinduism, Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8

In Islam:

Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.
Islam, The Prophet Muhammad, 13th of the 40 Hadiths of Nawawi

In Judaism:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Judaism, Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:18

In Taoism:

The Sage...makes the self of the people his self.
Taoism, Tao Te Ching, Ch 49

Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Taoism, Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

And in Zoroastrianism:

Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.
Zoroastrianism, Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29

That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.
Zoroastrianism, Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

Guess what? These are but random remarks culled for the purposes of but one posting on an Internet forum in 2006..........Now imagine what a series of parallels like this might look like arranged by theme at book length!! Imagine that every parallel in the earliest texts from each tradition were mined thoroughly for the reader to view, section by section and theme by theme, at a glance!!

Now, this is not a seeking after consensus, is it? This is not some alternate "Scripture" either, is it? In fact, just in this miniature case I've provided here from someone else's posting alone, these sentiments are already not identical, really, since some speak of not doing to others that which is disagreeable to you while others speak of doing to others that which is agreeable to you. So that simple distinction alone shows that I'm not looking for perfect matches at all, let alone consensus or an alternate boiled-down statement. That couldn't be further from what I'm talking about.

Instead, I'm looking for any and all statements that seem related! And in this careful mining of parallel statements that may merely be related, I am as happy and eager to find contrasts on a similar theme as I am to find literally identical matches.

Above all, let the texts speak for themselves. I would be least interested of all in any attempt by a modern "footnoter" or commentator to substitute some "definitive assertion" from the 21st century that restates simply (YUK!) what other traditions already say in so many rich and powerful -- and sometimes different -- ways, in ways that would all be readily available to the reader now, side by side.

So there is a total transparency that I'm aiming for, where the reader would be immediately led to what the original texts say on each subject, giving her/him enlightenment on each and every facet of the diamond, so to speak, not on either the spin of ad hoc traditions in later distortions of what an original text actually says, or in boiled-down simplifications from the 21st century -- which have nothing to do with the case.

I'm sure there are one or two obvious clarifications that I've still neglected to do here, but this posting is already too long as it is.

Operacast

 

[neosnoia]

Instead, I'm looking for any and all statements that seem related!

Hi OC. I have not read the entire thread, so hopefully this hasn't been touched upon.

I think what you might be looking for is "perennial tradition." Look into the writings of Huston Smith, Fritjof Schuon, Rene Guenon, James Cutsinger or Aldous Huxley. (My website has a link to a list of Cutsinger's articles available online.)

The perennial tradition says that in every major world religion, there are common truths, and that those common truths are THE truth. The rest is just window dressing.

Hope this helps.

 

[Operacast]

Hi OC. I have not read the entire thread, so hopefully this hasn't been touched upon.

I think what you might be looking for is "perennial tradition." Look into the writings of Huston Smith, Fritjof Schuon, Rene Guenon, James Cutsinger or Aldous Huxley. (My website has a link to a list of Cutsinger's articles available online.)

The perennial tradition says that in every major world religion, there are common truths, and that those common truths are THE truth. The rest is just window dressing.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for alerting me to this site -- and the perennial tradition is something I've just started exploring. It already intrigues me.

BTW, I tried doing a Search for Cutsinger on your site, but was greeted with --


"Search Results

"Not Found

"Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here."


I'd be keen on perusing that Cutsinger archive, if it's still there.

Again, many thanks,

Operacast

 

[neosnoia]

Hi Operacast, sorry about that. I was adding and deleting links today as I organize my site. In the meantime, here it is:

http://www.cutsinger.net/articles.html

Another site that has more articles is:

http://www.religioperennis.org/

Cutsinger writes somewhat from a Christian perennialist perspective.

Schuon (I think) was Sufi officially (?), but wanted to convert to Advaita.

But like I said, the gist of perennial philosophy (in a nutshell) is the belief that all religions have, at the core, similar common truths.

Hope you find it interesting!

 

[taijasi]

Along these lines, though I've mentioned it earlier on this thread, also check out Theosophy. Modern-day exponents are quite involved in ecumenical and service-oriented work of various sorts ... while continuing to espouse the Perennial Philosophy very much in the NeoPlatonic tradition.

The Secret Doctrine is not easy reading, and Isis Unveiled is even more challenging. These two works of H.P. Blavatsky, however, treat the subject of a Perennial Philosophy from cover to cover. Science, religion and philosophy are the major disciplines that she synthesizes, while also pointing to a common origin for the `Ageless Wisdom' which all religions find at their core.

I don't think there's a single world religious tradition - which you won't find mentioned, if not highly referenced. H.P. Blavatsky was well traveled, and wrote a great deal from eyewitness testimony. You'd be hard pressed to find better documented research, too. Just have a good cup of coffee handy.

Namaskar,

andrew

 

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

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?

Seems this site and others like it have already passively begun the process.

 

[Operacast]

Seems this site and others like it have already passively begun the process.

I hear you, and to an extent, you're right. It's the value of that that makes this forum so precious, and one of the reasons why I now regret my impatience and jumping to conclusions with jiii. It remains inexcusable and self-destructive on my part along with everything else.

At the same time, what I haven't seen here -- yet -- is, say, a careful mining of strictly the J sections only in the Pentateuch, the presumed earliest sermons only in the Digha-Nikaya (some scholarship has already been started on this question in the offline world), a careful attempt to chronologize the various sections in the Rig-Veda and the earliest presumed accounts of Krishna, the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus mss. of the Gospel of Mark together with the Luke text of the "Q" sayings (generally viewed by modern non-denominational scholars as probably a more faithful repository of these sayings than Matthew), Chapters 4 through 8 of the Analects of Confucius, and a modern scholarly attempt to chronologize the different chapters of the Qur'an.

That would only be the first half of such a project. Once these texts were isolated and the earliest of these in each tradition extracted (naturally, unanimous agreement on that might not be possible, so a consensus by a number of varied scholars with usefully varied backgrounds would be required instead to come up with primary texts), then and only then could the second half of this project proceed: the mining of the chief parallels and/or contrasts on the most clearly related topics to be found in these earliest texts only.

I've encountered resistance to this in the offline world to such an extent (some of it perhaps justified, but much of it not, IMO) that, instead of having developed a thick skin, I've become shell-shocked instead, with a trigger-happy allergy to many a doubt from others, no matter how mild. This then spilled over into my inexcusable conduct with jiii. I should not assume that any and all demurs, suggested adjustements, and caveats from others are meant destructively. But sometimes I do, unjustifiably -- and don't I know it! And I'm certainly not proud of that today.

The kind of skepticism on such a project that I've encountered -- aside from reminders of its being frankly thoroughly Quixotic, and I realize that -- have come from the ultra-Orthodox and the ultra-atheist primarily. From the ultra-Orthodox has come the refrain that all our texts are sacred and how dare you turn sacred texts into a cafeteria menu where some are prioritized over others, while from the ultra-atheist has come the equally predictable refrain that all religion represents the most evil phenomenon known to humanity and how dare you waste resources and talents studying mumbo-jumbo texts in such detail.

This has made me gun-shy and exasperated. I don't have the capacity or the credentials to do such a double-barreled and two-stage task myself, and in any case the task requires a plethora of different viewpoints represented by a multitude of scholars to have any viability at all. Thus, the "project" remains a suggestion only.

Given all this, perhaps the thing that most directly set me off was jiii's remark: "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.

My first thought was "Whatever one might think of the final results, why pre-judge the initial ingredients?!" After all, jiii was calling the initial ingredients "rotten apples". Why? Sure, one might even call the final results hooey. Fine (and actually, jiii didn't quite do that). No problem with that (only with my temper.........). But the characterizing of the initial ingredients as "rotten apples"? The initial ingredients in this case would be simply the source documents like the J sections of the Pentateuch, the earliest sermons in the Digha-Nikaya, the "Q" sayings in Luke, and so on. Are those "rotten apples"?

Now, sure, if one is frankly an atheist, then all such source texts might strike one as "rotten apples" and one should feel absolutely free to say so. But jiii didn't make it clear what he was referring to in his reference to "rotten apples" partly because he didn't make it clear if he is in fact an atheist or not. And I'm afraid it was that lack of clarity that made me lose it here on this forum. I'm still not clear if he is an atheist and he candidly views these source texts as having profoundly misled humanity, or if he is pretty much a traditional believer and was inadvertently distorting the first half of the process I thought I had already outlined.

Bottom line: I was sincerely interested in how much viability such a Quixotic project might have in the opinions of others here, but I shot myself in the foot when I imagined that someone was trying to simply distort (among other things) what I was proposing. Not only did I probably do jiii an injustice, I helped abort a constructive dialogue I myself had been particularly eager to start in the first place.

So it goes.............

Operacast

 

[Quahom1]

...Bottom line: I was sincerely interested in how much viability such a Quixotic project might have in the opinions of others here, but I shot myself in the foot when I imagined that someone was trying to simply distort (among other things) what I was proposing. Not only did I probably do jiii an injustice, I helped abort a constructive dialogue I myself had been particularly eager to start in the first place.

So it goes.............

Operacast

Naw, we just don't have the time or energy to be politically correct. If that isn't a bylaw, then you might have a hot time in the town tonight...so to speak.

v/r

Q