Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Ramakrishna wrote: > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.vivekananda.co.uk > ------ > Good for you, Jay.______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 2 > Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:10:44 -0000 > " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda > Real Interfaith issues... > > Let me share some of my experiences relating to the theme of > " Interfaith " covered at some meetings in London in the past few weeks. > > I was asked to contribute at the 'Faith and Education' meeting set > up by the Home Office and was also asked to give a series of three > talks to groups of Christian Ministers at the London Interfaith Centre > and at the North Thames Ministerial College. > > What I said seems to have touched the hearts of some of the participants. > I said the serious challenge we face this century is: Strife in the name of > religion. The challenges of last century where we had strife in the name > of political ideology caused a lot of bloodshed but the challenges we > face now are far more contentious. Religions are far more emotive subjects. > Some religions promise that 'for some finite acts we do here we gain an > infinite reward in the here-after'. The risk-reward ratio is skewed in the > extreme! How do we diffuse the situation? > I told the gatherings: The solution I offer comes from the Hindu tradition. > It is called 'Pluralism'. Put simply it says:- > " The same ultimate can be thought of an approached in a variety of ways. " > Why variety? Because the absolute is same but we are all different hence > our pathways to the absolute will reflect our different aptitudes & starting > points. > > The problem with 'Exclusivist religions' is that they mistake their > destination (which is rightfully considered to be absolute) with their paths > and their tools (which are necessarily relative and different). > As the 'absolute' is difficult to grasp due to our limitations, > we go for the next best thing -- We go for the outer form of religions > i.e. the scriptures, the doctrines and even the prophets - and give > them the same valuation and consider them to be Absolute! > > I told the meetings if ever any religion claims to have encapsulated > the absolute within its framework of doctrines, dogmas, prophets > and scriptures then by that very process that Religion has become > greater than the absolute!! How naive! > > Sounds so easy to take in and yet, many mainstream Christians at > the meetings shuddered at the idea. It appears that I am taking away the > 'absolute status of their prophet'. My response was: > There is no doubt about the greatness of not one prophet but all > prophets of all religions, they are the very foundation stones > - the only links we have with the 'spirit' and yet we have to recognise > that they could only have operated in a 'contextual manner'. > How else can they pass on spirituality to mankind? > This mature understanding is needed by all religions. Once we > recognise this 'contextual element in all religious teachings' our > interpretation of the scriptures and the prophets change. Our views > of other religions change. What is needed is not 'Tolerance of other > religions' but an 'educated acceptance of validity of other religions.' > This becomes possible. > > Two objections came up from some of my interfaith colleagues. > > (1) One suggested.. that perhaps the way we go about addressing > the issue of strife in the name of religion is to place greater emphasis > on the 'human dimension' and thus indirectly tone down the > 'religious dimension'. My response is.... that would be throwing out > the baby with the bath-water. > Religions have lost out to the secular lobby. > > (2) Second objection was: > Promoting pluralism in this manner is almost evangelical -surely > that too is dogmatic!! > My response is that I am invoking the element of my religion that > offers the best resolution to the problem we face now. It allows > religions to co-exist without compromise and with full dignity. How can > the validity of one religion be compromised if it accepts the validity of > other religions? That is pluralism. > > We have two choices in this matter: > Either the major religions incorporate pluralism within the framework of > their religions and diffuse the situation now or sadly we will be singing > the glories of pluralism only after great many catastrophes. > > jay lakhani > Vivekananda Centre London > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.