Religious pluralism

[Guest guest]

To me all religions are partial expressions of something that is ultimately beyond any of them. They are manifested in particular cultures at particular times to guide the mass of humanity on the path of evolution through basic codes of conduct and normative morality. All religions also manifest a higher and a lower aspect: an intellectual and/or ritual base, the lower, and a mystical heart, the higher. As such, they are all just pathways - but often confused with the goal - although the paths start to blur as mysticism takes over from theology.

 

I like to use the image of world religions as a pyramid to explain this (probably plagiarised but I can't remember where from): the largest part is at the base and everything seems to pull in different directions at this level. But progress from here is oblique and as one rises up the sides of the pyramid, one can see that the separation is closing as we all rise toward a common apex. The crucial element here is that only by rising above the intellectual base can one make spiritual progress, we must grow from the head into the heart; however, what is also crucial is the need for the base in the first place. It provides the foundation for everything else and must exist in some form or another. In human terms, religious fundamentalism/literalism is absolutely necessary for our evolution: if we as individuals feel we have now gone beyond this level it is because we have been through it in past lives and recognised its limitations - as will every other human being in the fulness of evolution/time. Religions are schools, each with its own speciality and each layered to cater for the needs of students at differing levels. Kindergarten pupils will not learn much from listening to a university professor; they need a teacher able to communicate at their own level with an appropriate syllabus.

 

When Jay writes about his splendid work promoting Hinduism, I am sure that what he is actually promoting is the fine spiritual principles behind Hinduism rather than trying to inculcate Westerners into the complex mechanics of a cultural tradition that is not theirs. What humanity needs is to learn from the different cultures and traditions and not be restricted by all these silly barriers of religious difference but without giving up one's own cultural (and karmic?) imperatives.

 

A mother's womb is a great thing - for nine months - then it becomes a limitation we have to transcend. Ultimately we must leave religions behind and discover real religion, which is pure spirituality stripped of all its baggage (which sounds as though Vivekananda should have said that..........I hope I am not unconsciously misquoting him!)

 

As regards religious pluralism, surely this simply reflects the defining sources of the tradition: Hinduism is largely based on the universal vision of the Vedas (To He who is One, the sages give many a name, etc.) while the semitic religions are all based on varying notions of tribal supremacy and the need to defend against antagonists. But Hinduism has its literalists and dogmatics too, even in some Vedantic sects: not all are ready for the rarified atmosphere that Ramakrishna heralded. For this reason, I doubt Hinduism will ever present a united face in the way Brad suggested: being a collection of religions rather than one religion anyway, its uniqueness lies in its wonderful diversity and its great lesson to the world is to show how this diversity can be expressed in such (hmmm.......relative) harmony.

 

God bless,

Alan