That's quite different from the way Christians see it, isn't it?
Doctrinally, yes. In practice, depends. I have known a lot of Christians to whom God was a very personal diety, and others that did not seem to engage with God at all outside of the form of religious practice.
You are talking individual differences. Since you provide no data, I have no way of addressing those. We can talk about doctrine, though, and that's what I was talking about.
I'm interested in discussing ideas, and I think personal observation and experience counts as data in this sort of dialogue. I'm not publishing theses here on IO, I'm talking about my ideas with others. The emphasis on data and research implies a form of communication that I generally keep as "work," though it sometimes informs my ideas and opinions that I share in more informal dialogues as we find here. However, I am not singular in the way I approach knowing, certainly not within my personal life (into which IO falls), however much I may rely on particular ways of knowing (i.e., hypotheses, research, data, etc.) in my professional life.
Basically, I limit my ideas, exploration, and discussion of religion and spirituality to neither data/research nor to doctrine. If others desire such limitations, I may or may not feel interested in aligning with that, depending on how much interest I have at the moment.
If you'd like to start bringing in data, I'd welcome it and would enjoy reading. However, my findings so far are that quality data on real religious practice, experience, and so forth is rather rare. As I said, the PEW foundation report is the most thorough recent research I've seen on US religious landscapes as a whole, but from the point of view of an anthropologist it is rather thin. Lack of data does not mean lack of any sort of experience, observation, and discussion, however. At least not to me. After all, one must begin somewhere, and for social science, personal observations are often that somewhere.
I didn't say it was. I was just saying that rituals provide potentially meaningful guidelines that have a basis in tradition or Revelation. For example, the Lord's Prayer is a very well-established prayer ritual.
Sure, rituals do provide potentially meaningful guidelines... but they are also created by people. Tradition is created by people. Revelation is either created or interpreted by people, depending on your spiritual outlook. So it's a loop- rituals are created by people and then have the capacity to create religious and spiritual experience, which then feeds back into creating ritual. This might occur over a long time on a group level, or in a short time on an individual level.
I have no data on this either, but I suspect the folks who were doing human sacrifices were probably fairly sincere about it.
Yes, and generally speaking they were following single religious traditions with a long history, an established priesthood, and complex meaning.
Hence, I really don't think ritual (whether from a single tradition or syncretically developed from multiple traditions, whether old or new, whether uniformly practiced or not) is really the question in the value of a practice for spiritual development.
I suppose I should say that sincere motivation
for spiritual development (in my opinion) leads to practices that assist in this. Sincere motivations for other ends can lead to practices that do not assist in this.
Well, it could help keeping the discussion going by bringing some facts into the mix (especially with regard to factual claims for which we have no data).
That's certainly the case, and I welcome any/all research and data you wish to bring. If I knew of specific studies that would be relevant, I'd be happy to provide them, but I don't know of any recently collected data directly relevant to the propositions being addressed.
The best I can offer is that we do know the spiritual landscape of the US is changing, with a gradual decrease of mainline Protestant affiliation and an increase in syncretic and new religious movements, as well as an increase in people who consider themselves "spiritual but not religious." There must be reasons for this, but I know of no research that proves what they are- I only have a number of hypotheses that have been put forth in discussion among scholars.
I think the key word here is "seem." I wanted to explore the meaning of "interfaith practice" because I wasn't sure about the contention in the OP to the effect that the Dalai Lama was encouraging borrowing and substitutions.
Ah, I understand now. While the Dalai Lama may not be encouraging such (there seems to be some conflict between his actions, lectures, and how these might be interpreted), I believed we were moving into discussing the matter of borrowing, substitutions, syncretism, and religious change itself (apart from the DL's ideas).
I would add that all of these things undermine the possibilities for genuine dialogue and real learning. For me to mention this on an Interfaith discussion forum is not telling anyone how they should conduct themselves. It's merely exploring questions that are directly relevant to Interfaith.
I understand now and also agree that it is a good exploration. I think it is best to take care with study, translation, and so on as well... however, I also think it is not the only way to achieve wisdom, understanding, and even accuracy.
For example, with translation issues, there is a problem with the mechanics of translation (i.e., word choice, grammar, and so on) but there is also a problem with the poetry and aesthetics of translation (maintaining flow, cadence, and so forth often crucial in the spiritual message of a sacred text). I recently spoke with a long-time Confucian and Taoist scholar (out of comparative religion at a university) and she explained that one of the best translations she had ever read of a particularly difficult Taoist text was by someone who was a mystic and who translated without the sort of study and linguistic work usually performed. By doing this after a lot of meditation, he was able to maintain the real meaning of the text, which was tied to its cadence and "spirit," so to speak, essential in maintaining the essence of Taoist wisdom. By contrast, a very linguistically correct version was put out by a translator after much study and painstaking work on word choice, grammar, and so forth... but it was so dry and unappetizing that it failed to offer anything of the heart of Taoist teaching or the aesthetics of the original text.
In my own spiritual practice, I try to balance scholarship with art- this, to me, is the best approach for many human tasks, religious study among them. Of course, I cannot speak for others.
Entire journal issues have been devoted to the perils of dual religions. To my way of thinking, borrowing and substitutions are part of those perils.
Entire scholars' work have also been devoted to the perils of religion, period. When I look globally, I notice that most of the religious strife is not borne out of borrowing, substitutions, or other syncretism, but rather out of desperate clinging to single, dogmatic, and instutitionalized systems that get involved in social control, power, and politics. While folks that borrow, syncretize, and so forth may not operate with the highest accuracy in their attempts, there is often a tolerance, an openness, and a genuine love for people and ideas that I think denotes spiritual advancement over the sort of cruelty, divisiveness, and outright violence that accompanies much of religious history.
I'd much rather see someone curious but inaccurate than someone that is accurate but close-minded. There is the potential to be accurate and curious, but most people haven't the time and quite a few people don't have the skill and access to educational resources. I find hope in people's curiosity, openness, and attempts at piecing together the complex religious and spiritual puzzle, even if they make a lot of mistakes.
At any rate, in light of the Dalai Lama's reaction to Westerners who were thinking about converting to Buddhism, one might wonder: what is he is trying to accomplish by going around to interfaith gatherings? Perhaps the Dalai Lama may actually doing special wisdom blessings that will help people to respect religious differences by gaining a better perspective on their own faith tradition.
I don't know what he is trying to accomplish, outside of what he stated- that is, that people come to avoid harmful actions and attitudes toward one another, and develop compassion and love for all beings. In terms of his views on what he might be doing for his own or other religions, I have no idea.
As it turns out, Thich Nhat Hanh has the same idea. He said that interfaith dialogue has value if it can help people "return to their tradition." I for one would not tell him that he has no business suggesting that people return to their tradition. I totally agree with him on that.
I neither agree nor disagree. Returning to one's own tradition may be right for some and not for others. Not everyone is raised with a particular tradition. Some people are raised with more than one through interfaith marriage or parental conversion. Some people, despite being raised in a tradition, do not find any personal resonance in it, and I don't think it would be beneficial for someone to spend a lifetime pretending to be something they are not. Others are raised in what they think is a valid tradition, only to later find that they are considered heretical within this tradition, so are they supposed to remain in their tradition as it was taught or abandon their life's experiences and worldview to be "correct"? The complexity of the individual's integration with religion, especially in our increasingly diverse and global society, is too great for me (both as a social scientist and as a mystic) for me to say what is best for any other person.
Btw, if I may ask, do you think of this forum as a spiritual community or just a place to exchange ideas?
Both. Depends on context.
