Interfaith and the Transcendent unity of Religions

Nick_A

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Hi All

I see there is a thread here on the Transcendent Unity of Religions so rather then hijack it with my question, I'll begin a separate thread. I'd like to get your opinion about this growing question of mine concerning the connection between the Transcendental Unity of Religions and Interfaith.

I've learned by experience that many people that espouse tolerance as a core value of Interfaith are themselves extremely intolerant. My experiences with this intolerance suggests it has one primary cause: the natural results of celebrating the human condition. Interfaith seems to suggest that we are all wonderful beings but have gone wrong and have adopted some misconceptions that can be cleared up logically and through group participation validating the assertion of how wonderful we are. This is the essence of Humanism. Given the chance, the human condition will become other than what it is.

However, I take the Transcendent unity of religions seriously. It accepts my belief that we are asleep to reality as suggested by Plato's cave analogy, The Buddhist Parable of the burning House, and by Jesus saying that the World must hate the teaching of awakening to re-birth.

I have learned that there is nothing more hated then expressing this opinion within secular interfaith. Instead of asserting how wonderful everyone is, this point of view asserts our nothingness in relation to the human potential for awakening to reality. Defending this concept of our collective nothingness is considered having a bad attitude.

Where secular Interfaith seems to begin with how wonderful we are, Transcendent Interfaith begins with the humility of admitting the human condition of being psychologically asleep and in opposition to ourselves. St. Paul described this condition in himself as the "Wretched Man."

I've found that this attitude suggesting everyone's psychological impotence is just not acceptable to fundamentalist secular Interfaith.

Here is a good diagram describing the Transcendent Unity of Religions:

On The Transcendent Unity of Religions

Religious conflict and secular Humanism are all on the exoteric level. Because of the divided nature of human "being." Regardless of all the fine speeches and platitudes we will continue to be collectively expressions of what we ARE. This means we are capable of both the greatest compassion and the greatest atrocities.

The problem is that it is too insulting to admit the human condition for secular fundamentalist Interfaith so it becomes intolerant of it while considering it the results of a bad attitude.

Next year is the centennial year of Simone Weil's birth and I hope to be involved in discussions on the depth of her life and thought. One such question I hope to explore are these two quotations. They suggest that secular Interfaith by itself doesn't lead to its desired goals. What is required is Transcendent Interfaith that begins with admitting the human condition and respecting and sharing on the esoteric paths that lead towards the same transcendent realities:

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

"The combination of these two facts – the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it – constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality. Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect. This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings." Simone Weil​

“Draft for A Statement of Human Obligations” SIMONE WEIL, AN ANTHOLOGY ed. Sian Miles​



It is a natural tendency for secular Interfaith which glorifies our imagined self importance to be intolerant of Transcendent Interfaith which begins with the realization of the above mentioned human condition.​

I've had first had experience with the nastiness secular Interfaith is capable of towards this necessarily ego deflating concept. I also know that it is essential that more people come to consider this question as an alternative in the light of a materialistic society.

How then to proceed without getting shot, boiled in oil, or falling victim to similar delights of those suffering righteous indignation? It seems that being truthful is essential but simultaneously, the worst thing a person can do.​

How then to proceed? Any thoughts?​
 
Namaste Nick_A,

thank you for the post.

Nick_A said:
It seems that being truthful is essential but simultaneously, the worst thing a person can do.​

How then to proceed? Any thoughts?​

be tactful.

metta,

~v
 
Namaste Nick_A,

thank you for the post.



be tactful.

metta,

~v

Hello Vajradhara

I agree but it is not so easy. Tact is often nothing but the hypocrisy of politeness and then becomes void of meaning:

Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911


That is why the human search for "meaning" often demands expression that often doesn't appear polite assuming of course this person has something worthwhile to contribute more then a self serving complaint. Tact as an expression of empty politeness denies "meaning". It can also serve as "skillful means" to enable what is necessary.

I first learned of the lie of kama in this most thought provoking Interview with Jacob Needleman


Conversations.org: Interviews With Social Artists


What does he mean by a "numinous experience"? In Plato's Republic there is the famous Allegory of The Cave. Socrates says that the person who finally comes out of the cave and sees the Truth-the reality of the sun-is obliged to go back down into the cave and try to help the cave dwellers. He is obliged. That doesn't mean it's nice to do that, it means it's part of the law. You don't keep it for yourself, you must share it. Then that touches on the question of skillful means, which is another root of this question-a big root out there, having to do with the transmission from one person more attained to one less attained. This is matter of communicating in a way that actually helps you feel something, touch something, glimpse something in your heart and your intuition. It troubles you in a right way, intentionally. So skillful means. I'm just trying to expose the roots of this question.

RW: Yes. It is helpful.

JN: The Buddha goes to help people who are suffering in hell, and in order to communicate to those who are living in hell, he has to speak in the form of a lie. He speaks the truth in the form of a lie because they would never understand the truth as it is. A famous example of that is called "the lie of kama" which is love. "The Kamatic lie" which is how you communicate the truth. People are asleep. People are deluded. If you tell them really straight out what the situation is... He likens it to a house being on fire where there are children in the house on the second or third floor. You've got to get them out but they don't know the house is burning. You might try to scare them, you could try to plead with them, but they might not listen to you. You have to say something that will really make them listen. You tell them there are toys in the street. Jump! They would be afraid to jump, that you might not catch them. There are many toys down here! And so they jump and you catch them. They see then that there are no toys, but their lives have been saved. So you have to communicate knowing the levers that you have to press. Skillful means could be called, aesthetic communication. That could be part of the roots of this whole big question. Do you know Kierkegaard's thought at all?
Any person like me asserting the value of awakening has this problem of when and how to discuss it since by its nature of disturbing psychological sleep, it must be considered a bad attitude.to forms of secularism including fundamentalist secular interfaith that celebrates the effects of psychological sleep.

"Skillful means" rather then politeness, negative reaction. or being truthful in the presence of a mindset of denial IMO is what is necessary but how to be capable of it? Can it ever serve to bridge the enormous gap between secular fundamentalist Interfaith and Transcendent Interfaith? I don't know.
 
I can't conceive of secular interfaith, I guess that is why UU doesn't resonate with me?

I'm more religious interfaith, honoring all our connection to source.

Honoring that each has a path, and that folks on different paths are not wrong, just that there path is different than mine.

Like languages. Until I learn theirs I don't understand them and communication is lacking. Despite my inabilities with theirs and their inability with mine we each communicate fine amongst our own.
 
I can't conceive of secular interfaith, I guess that is why UU doesn't resonate with me?

I'm more religious interfaith, honoring all our connection to source.

Honoring that each has a path, and that folks on different paths are not wrong, just that there path is different than mine.

Like languages. Until I learn theirs I don't understand them and communication is lacking. Despite my inabilities with theirs and their inability with mine we each communicate fine amongst our own.

Hi Wil

I agree with a lot of what you wrote

The goal of secular Interfaith is limited to the earth, to society. Many people only see the value of the essence of religion as serving moral guidelines.

Others like me see the essence of religion devolving into the many paths that lead back to the "Way" as the beginning of conscious evolution towards the transcendent awareness that reveals Man's objective meaning and purpose. The paths should respect each other as considering differing human types and societal conditioning but our egotism denies this understanding or mutual respect. IMO it is a difficult problem,
 
"There is only one religion, and that religion is G-d-realisation."
~Sri Chinmoy
 
"There is only one religion, and that religion is G-d-realisation."
~Sri Chinmoy

This may be true but the whole idea of this thread is to suggest that on the exoteric level it is egoistic fantasy which is why it produces its opposite. Why do people espousing the importance of Interfaith become so insulted at St. Paul's observations in Romans 7?

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

If this is true, we are hypocrites and the results of secular Interfaith must include the normal lawful results of interactive hypocrisy.
A person, if they are sincere, can look inwardly and verify the truth of it within themselves. But instead, it is considered a bad attitude. We should instead concentrate on thinking and exchanging wonderful thoughts and platitudes. I call this the mayonnaise effect. No matter how bad the meat, you won't notice it if you spread enough mayonnaise on it.
I've come to see that much of secular Interfaith is reliant on the Mayonnaise Effect, while Transcendent Interfaith begins with the recognition of our collective inner reality described so well by St. Paul. Where secular Interfaith likes to look at everyone as the same, Transcendent interfaith respects differences knowing that they are necessary parts or fractions of a higher whole.

Fantasy God Realization often makes people into gods and puts God on our level. Transcendent God realization recognizes God realization as a quality human being has the POTENTIAL for. Where secular interfaith opposes the assertion of our collective insignificance, transcendent interfaith accepts it as the necessary foundation for the growth of human conscious potential.

So while "There is only one religion, and that religion is G-d-realisation," there are many paths that lead to the "Way" and within them there is much fantasy. Transcendent Interfaith is free to admit it rather then proceed through the now all to common expressions of secular Interfaith and its ability to spread the mayo on thick through its fine platitudes. Woe to him that wishes to penetrate the mayo within secular Interfaith
 
.... the results of secular Interfaith must include the normal lawful results of interactive hypocrisy.

To me the term "secular Interfaith" is logically and semantically incoherent.

If religion is G-d-realisation, then that would exclude secular views by definition since there is no place for G-d in a secular world view. Secular means separate and distinct from religion, right? We are talking about philosophies and world views, right?
 
To me the term "secular Interfaith" is logically and semantically incoherent.

If religion is G-d-realisation, then that would exclude secular views by definition since there is no place for G-d in a secular world view. Secular means separate and distinct from religion, right? We are talking about philosophies and world views, right?

Jesus said that we must give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's. He also said in Luke 16:

13"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

To me secularism is simply the priority of serving mammon or "money" and everything associated with attachment to possessions and earthly security. In contrast the transcendent uses life and money as a teacher of our reactions for obtaining objective self knowledge of ourselves in the world and our connection to the source of higher consciousness beyond the limitations of the world.

Objective self knowledge reveals the "pearl of great price" and those that truly experience it become capable of sacrificing their secular attachments, lesser pearls, for the sake of experiencing the greater "good."

"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams." Simone Weil

Sacrificing attachment is hard and rough but the Eastern traditions are aware of its advantages.

The idolatry of God is natural for secularism and secular interfaith at the exoteric level of reality while the ineffable God that we feel an inner connection to can only be realized at the transcendent level of reality. This is why in secular Interfaiuth it is acceptable to create our own reality. Imagination is equal as fantasy.
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Hello Vajradhara

I agree but it is not so easy.


if you agree then you should have no worries, the solution was there all along :)

Tact is often nothing but the hypocrisy of politeness and then becomes void of meaning

i would suggest being tactful rather than polite and then this problem is avoided as well.

metta,

~v
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.



if you agree then you should have no worries, the solution was there all along :)



i would suggest being tactful rather than polite and then this problem is avoided as well.

metta,

~v
[/size][/font]

I think you underestimate the difficulty as it pertains to the internet.

Transcendent Interfaith which begins with the premise of man's nothingness is insulting to dominant egotism. Tact is defined as:


1.a keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offense; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations.

2.a keen sense of what is appropriate, tasteful, or aesthetically pleasing; taste; discrimination.

How to insist upon the validity of an insulting premise to a group on the Internet without people being insulted? This is why secular Interfaith is so acceptable. It is aesthetically pleasing to exchange platitudes.


One on one it is much easier but on the Internet we deal with groups.


If this is the case it would seem logical that if we value honesty, people have the obligation not to wallow in insult. But this doesn't happen. I've learned by experience that people proclaiming tolerance are often the most intolerant because they are so easily insulted.


Tact can only take one so far if the goal is to exchange truthful perception. Unfortunately if St. Paul is right and we are the "Wretched Man," it immediately reveals the limitations of secular Interfaith. Collectively we say one thing for affect and do another


I've grown in my path to appreciate honesty. I can read from the greats on my path and outsiders like Simone Weil and they say it as it is. Many would be insulted. I've come to appreciate it since my path says that the cause of all insult is in me. It arouses an initial grumble but it is worth it. It is impossible for me to defend personal insult so I rather focus on content. Simone is not easy to take but I appreciate her absolute sincerity. When Albert Camus can admire what he called her "lucid madness for truth," I feel in good company to do the same.


But that is my path. There is still this basic question about introducing egotistically offensive ideas when the majority prefer to exchange acceptable commonalities. Socrates suggested one could be killed doing it. Not so easy.


Prof Needleman refers to skillful means but I believe it is far more difficult over the Internet to be tactful without sacrificing necessary honesty then IRL where intent is easier to communicate.
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

I think you underestimate the difficulty as it pertains to the internet.


i'm fairly sure that is the case, nevertheless difficulty isn't really something which should put us off the only solution to the problem.

Transcendent Interfaith which begins with the premise of man's nothingness is insulting to dominant egotism.


i understand but i would say it's an affront rather than insulting, a semantic quibble.

How to insist upon the validity of an insulting premise to a group on the Internet without people being insulted?


intersubjective evidence seems to work well, insistence isn't going to get anyone to agree. moreover, the particulars that would compel one being to accept a premise may be very different than for another.

One on one it is much easier but on the Internet we deal with groups.


mostly we deal with individuals, as you and i are dialogging with each other. it is true that other beings read our responses but i am not sure that trying to speak to them is of any value in a one on one discussion anyway.

If this is the case it would seem logical that if we value honesty, people have the obligation not to wallow in insult. But this doesn't happen. I've learned by experience that people proclaiming tolerance are often the most intolerant because they are so easily insulted.


i don't see there to be an obligation not to do so.. beings are free to adopt any particular attitudes with regards to someone elses posts as they may like, as far as i'm concerned. it may lead to a great deal of hurt feelings when none were intended but then each being is the author of their own emotional response.

Tact can only take one so far if the goal is to exchange truthful perception. Unfortunately if St. Paul is right and we are the "Wretched Man," it immediately reveals the limitations of secular Interfaith. Collectively we say one thing for affect and do another


you and i would disagree on this point. tact is the way. in any case the idea of truthful perception is problematic at best since most beings are not persuaded through subjective evidence. by and large beings are persuaded through intersubjective evidence though we both know that a particularly charismatic being can convince other beings of seemingly bizzare things.

I've grown in my path to appreciate honesty. I can read from the greats on my path and outsiders like Simone Weil and they say it as it is. Many would be insulted. I've come to appreciate it since my path says that the cause of all insult is in me. It arouses an initial grumble but it is worth it. It is impossible for me to defend personal insult so I rather focus on content. Simone is not easy to take but I appreciate her absolute sincerity. When Albert Camus can admire what he called her "lucid madness for truth," I feel in good company to do the same.


i don't know who any of those beings are, sorry. are they famous? i think that i appreciate sincerity more than honesty though very often the two go hand in hand, so to speak.

But that is my path. There is still this basic question about introducing egotistically offensive ideas when the majority prefer to exchange acceptable commonalities. Socrates suggested one could be killed doing it. Not so easy.


indeed this is an issue that we Buddhists deal with continually. as you have your own tradition i would suggest that the answer lies therein, Buddhist teachers have employed a variety of methods for introducing such ideas but the all revolve around a central teaching called "Upaya" or "skillful means". this means that it's a one on one sort of thing and not a group thing.. unless the group happens to share some similar dispositions. in any case whatever it is that we want to communicate we do a great service to the dialog to try to gain the perspective of the being with whom we are dialogging so that we can effectively communicate.

metta,

~v
 
Parabola Magazine is a good example of what I believe to be an expression of Transcendent Interfaith. Rather than pulling the deeper ideas down to justify secular imagination, the idea is to explore the ways in which the great traditions have pursued "meaning" itself.

In the current issue there is an article by Rabbi David Cooper:

Parabola Magazine - Featured Selection


Both secular Judasim and Christendom concern itself with the personal God. Yet Judaism and Christianity do not. I believe it is the devolution of understanding into beliefs that all the friction begins. He writes

Belief in the biblical God has benefited many people with great comfort, good deeds, charity, loving-kindness, ethics, compassion, devotion, and so forth. It has also led to inquisitions, wars, intolerance, hypocrisy, triumphalism, witch hunts, terrorism, and holocausts. We must be circumspect when engaging any belief systems, especially concerning thoughts that are rooted in fear, greed, self-aggrandizement, and any other identities that tend to lock us in a sense of separation and isolation.
These days a great deal of controversy has been stimulated by writers and teachers who are generally classified as neo-atheists. Their arguments are along those of philosophers over many centuries, with the implications that inner contradictions of the biblical God lead to conclusions that are nonsensical. As a result, these writers emphasize that the belief in such a God has brought enormous pain and suffering to the world. However, as one of my teachers, Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi has said to the proponents of neo-atheistic arguments: “I don’t believe in the same God that you don’t believe in!” Not believing in the biblical stories of a many faceted Godhead does not necessarily lead to atheism.
Belief systems, by definition, are limited ideas, constructs of human consciousness. Ein Sof, on the other hand is not something that lends itself to conjecture; it is not something that can be described. We are inevitably uncertain about Boundlessness, we cannot know from one moment to the next how it will express itself. We discover it only in the context of how each moment unfolds, but can never predict what the next moment will bring. This uncertainty leads to a wisdom teaching offered by Zen master Alan Watts over a half century ago in his book The Wisdom of Insecurity, which sums up a basic truth of yielding to the inevitability of each arising moment. This ability to transcend all belief systems is what the Godding process is all about.

Ein Sof is something we must rise to. Instead we pull an imagined personal God down to our level so as to justify select behavior.

Where secular Interfaith concentrates on finding the right justified behavior according to secular standards, transcendent Interfaith concentrates on the inner changes that must be made to acquire "understanding" in the real meaning of the wholeness of the word.

It is a minority view but it is good that certain publications like Parabola are open to it for the sake of those that have the need for objective "meaning'
 
Hi Nick —

I'd like to get your opinion about this growing question of mine concerning the connection between the Transcendental Unity of Religions and Interfaith.
The Transcendental Unity of Religion is a misnomer ... to say that such is the case would require one to have fully realised every possibility within every paradigm ... as no-one has, it's a statement without foundation. It sound lovely, but there's no evidence to suggest that it's true.

I've learned by experience that many people that espouse tolerance as a core value of Interfaith are themselves extremely intolerant.
So have I.

However, I take the Transcendent unity of religions seriously.
I think with reference to man there is a lot of commonality, but even here there are fundamental differences ... but one cannot say that the 'object' of Buddhism is the same as Christianity ... there is no unity there at all.

Here is a good diagram describing the Transcendent Unity of Religions:
I admire Schuon tremendously, I have his corpus ... but he was himself a Muslim and regarded Islam as superior to other traditions.

Careful reading wil lshow that all religions point to the same (essentially Abrahamic) goal, and that all are more or less in error ... according to Islam.

Religious conflict and secular Humanism are all on the exoteric level.
So is interfaith, for the most part.

Thomas
 
The Transcendental Unity of Religion is a misnomer ... to say that such is the case would require one to have fully realised every possibility within every paradigm ... as no-one has, it's a statement without foundation. It sound lovely, but there's no evidence to suggest that it's true.
This strikes me as an attempt to define criteria so broad that they cannot be met, thus in effect discouraging all interfaith inquiry by nullifying the presupposition of worthwhileness. Implication: if it's not doable everyone should seek refuge in their usual dogmas.

I would say it's perfectly legitimate to ascertain unity between two traditions. The literature linking Buddhism and Christianity, for example, is quite large.
 
Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

Netti-Nett said:
I would say it's perfectly legitimate to ascertain unity between two traditions. The literature linking Buddhism and Christianity, for example, is quite large.

i think that Thomas is referring to the aims or goals, insofar as such exists, of the two traditions rather than making the claim that the two traditions have little in common with one another. indeed, the two traditions share a great commonality regarding a variety of moral and ethical concerns but it would be a mistake to conclude that they were the same religion expressed through a different cultural lense....but then i never understood the problem with there being a variety of religions anyways.

metta,

~v
 
Hi Thomas

The Transcendental Unity of Religion is a misnomer ... to say that such is the case would require one to have fully realised every possibility within every paradigm ... as no-one has, it's a statement without foundation. It sound lovely, but there's no evidence to suggest that it's true.


If we are on the exoteric level or perhaps even at the beginning of the esoteric level, we feel the existence of the transcendent but we are not there. The transcendent level is an evolutionary conscious potential for man on earth. I say it is evolutionary because it is the literal change in ones being. It is not just new wine but the gradual conscious creation of new wineskins.

The Great traditions Schuon refers to initiate with a transcendent conscious source. It enters our world as a conscious influence. The Great Traditions have to be separate because a conscious influence connects with different cultures normal to arise from different parts of our planet.

Then the "experts" get a hold of it and interpret the teaching into secularism acceptable on the exoteric level. The esoteric level begins with dissatisfaction with the exoteric as it pertains to the needs of the heart for objective "meaning" and pursuit of the esoteric can lead to the transcendent actualization.

We simply cannot take our secular teaching and build on it to understand transcendent unity. We have to develop the ability to understand.

Take your Catholicism for example. I believe as Simone Weil that the church lost its way and become the opposite of its intent.

Simone Weil (Bauer) - CESNUR 2002

5. In Simone Weil's life, religion played a dominant role in the years following the mystical epiphanies she experienced in 1938. Long before, however, her wish to partake in the suffering of the distressed led her to a life-style of extreme austerity. It was under these circumstances that, in 1937, Simone Weil became increasingly attracted to Christianity, a religion she considered to be in its true essence a religion of slaves, and therefore in utter contradiction to the actual form it had taken in history. On this assumption, Simone Weil objected against Catholicism -- the denomination she knew best and respected the most --[21] that it had ended by perverting itself for the sake of power. The historical "double stain" on the Church that Simone Weil denounces originates in the fact that Israel imposed on Christian believers the acceptance of the Old Testament and its almighty God, and that Rome chose Christianity as the religion of the Empire.[22] Despite its universal redemptive mission, the Church became from its very beginnings heir of Jewish nationalism and of the totalitarianism inherent in Imperial Rome. As the spiritual locus in which both traditions of power displaced the religion of powerless slaves, Christianity became the actual negation of its own foundational leitmotiv: the self-annulment of divine omnipotence by the godly act of kenosis or self-abasement.
Secular religion of societal power cannot lead to a realistic understanding of transcendence since transcendence is sacrificing the power of the "beast" for the power "to be."

However, Simone is now the "patron saint of outsiders." Outsiders are those that feel the worth of the initial conscious intent of the church but aware of its secular corruption.

The point is that the transcendent unity is objective truth. It enters into our world and devolves into paths that can lead to the Way towards transcendence. Objective reality is the same for all. If it is not the same it is subjective.

The trouble is it takes a great deal of humility and experiential dissatisfaction to begin to appreciate the value of the esoteric level which accepts our nothingness on the exoteric level for the sake of aspiring to the experience of "meaning" and the pearl of great price..
 
This strikes me as an attempt to define criteria so broad that they cannot be met, thus in effect discouraging all interfaith inquiry by nullifying the presupposition of worthwhileness. Implication: if it's not doable everyone should seek refuge in their usual dogmas.
Hey, I resolve this in this manner: Christ is my Lord and Savior, Buddha is one of my therapists.

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.
I would say it's perfectly legitimate to ascertain unity between two traditions. The literature linking Buddhism and Christianity, for example, is quite large.

i think that Thomas is referring to the aims or goals, insofar as such exists, of the two traditions rather than making the claim that the two traditions have little in common with one another. indeed, the two traditions share a great commonality regarding a variety of moral and ethical concerns but it would be a mistake to conclude that they were the same religion expressed through a different cultural lense....but then i never understood the problem with there being a variety of religions anyways.

metta,

~v
I agree that they are different. I also believe that it doesn't mean that they can't be complimentary.
 
Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

seattlegal said:
I agree that they are different. I also believe that it doesn't mean that they can't be complimentary.

what do you mean by complimentary?

metta,

~v
 
Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.



what do you mean by complimentary?

metta,

~v
Sorry, I should have written complementary instead of complimentary. :eek:

I meant that each might have something beneficial to offer the other. For instance, some Christians might benefit from the Buddhist emphasis and techniques relating to mindfulness, whereas some Buddhists might benefit from the Christian emphasis on the hope that there might be a safety net outside of our minds/consciousness as we understand it.
 
Back
Top