Reliions What about the bridge between all the religions?
- Thread starter donnann
- Start date
There is comfort...but there is also need. We have something to learn from where we are. That is why we are in the religion we are in. Some of us may move on when we learn it, some of us will have more to learn.
But that doesn't simply apply to religions...(yes atheists as well) but it also applies to all of life.
Every situation we find ourcellves in has a lesson. Every situation. Death of a family member, loss of a home, scoring a goal in soccer, raising a child, getting a raise, losing a job, all of these events have lessons.
It is upto us to learn them. As they are often repeated in another way to give us as many chances as we need.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Neither do I (believe in one-world religion). However, I believe like Schuon, Fox, Huxley, Smith, Wilber and Aurobindo in the "Perennial Philosophy" or Sanatana Dharma... that at their core all religions share something.
Pax et amore, radarmark
Pax et amore, radarmark
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
One World Religion can only exist as we gradually facilitate its expression, welcoming the implications of such a Global Tradition, honoring all of the means of approach to Spirit from the past, regardless of geographical region or time period. Some of the forms of practice resonate more inherently and harmoniously with some, and these will need to be [and already are] the spokespeople/ambassadors for that culture, that era or that region {and its native or traditional form of religious expression}. In other cases, a scientific or philosophical approach will be emphasized, and it only stands to reason that - given our incredible diversity - it will be some time before a true World Faith can properly emerge.
Precursors, in my observation and experience, include: The Baha'i Faith, efforts of the Theosophical Society [and related organizations] and modern Freemasonry [which many of us may realize has accepted women for well over a century]. These are the most broad-minded organizations that I know of which nevertheless search the depths of the human spirit and experience, seeking to assist those on the Spiritual Path to embody or echo into their outer lives the behests [or Call] of the Voice Within.
Once there are certain additional discoveries made regarding the life after death [objective proof of which having existed for 150+ years] and the nature of the human Soul [again, objective information being more useful than speculation] ... it will be much easier to weigh our current value and belief systems against a new type of measuring stick, such that NEW Spiritual standards will become necessary, and apparent, for all. This will also involve the renewal and re-entrance onto the scene of certain ancient truths, in such a way that the Perennial Philosophy will no longer be regarded as hypothetical. It will become as plain and objective to behold as the astronomical observation of the revolution of satellites around a parent globe, or planets around a central Star. The analogy is actually quite exact, and one day we will see again the true Religion, Sol Invictus, take central stage. This, of course, I mean in reference to the true meaning and spiritual Heart of that pre-Christian Tradition ... and not simply a re-emergence or revitalization of an old, outdated set of Roman rituals or lip-service [onto which, along with Judaism, Roman Catholicism grafted itself before desecrating and demolishing the still-beating Heart of the Mysteries].
Precursors, in my observation and experience, include: The Baha'i Faith, efforts of the Theosophical Society [and related organizations] and modern Freemasonry [which many of us may realize has accepted women for well over a century]. These are the most broad-minded organizations that I know of which nevertheless search the depths of the human spirit and experience, seeking to assist those on the Spiritual Path to embody or echo into their outer lives the behests [or Call] of the Voice Within.
Once there are certain additional discoveries made regarding the life after death [objective proof of which having existed for 150+ years] and the nature of the human Soul [again, objective information being more useful than speculation] ... it will be much easier to weigh our current value and belief systems against a new type of measuring stick, such that NEW Spiritual standards will become necessary, and apparent, for all. This will also involve the renewal and re-entrance onto the scene of certain ancient truths, in such a way that the Perennial Philosophy will no longer be regarded as hypothetical. It will become as plain and objective to behold as the astronomical observation of the revolution of satellites around a parent globe, or planets around a central Star. The analogy is actually quite exact, and one day we will see again the true Religion, Sol Invictus, take central stage. This, of course, I mean in reference to the true meaning and spiritual Heart of that pre-Christian Tradition ... and not simply a re-emergence or revitalization of an old, outdated set of Roman rituals or lip-service [onto which, along with Judaism, Roman Catholicism grafted itself before desecrating and demolishing the still-beating Heart of the Mysteries].
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
I can only hope your optimism is warrented. Like Ken Wilber I believe that forward motion will be very slow until we answer the really big questions to science's liking and until we can find a cure for Fundamentalism.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt. Radarmark
Pax et amore omnia vincunt. Radarmark
Hurrah! Another Perennialist!
Do you accept however, as Schuon insists, that one must belong to 'a tradition', and that although one can say all religions point to God, there is not a 'one-religion' that encompasses all the others, as some set themselves up to be?
Have you read Guénon, Pallis, Lings ... any of the other 'trads'?
Of course, whilst I am a firm trad supporter, I don't buy Schuon's whole shebang ... there are arguments from Sherrard (Greek Orthodox) and Borella (Catholic), Huston Smith (catlick, again) that do rather undo his theories.
God bless,
Thomas
One world religion.... I'm just not ready to even contemplate the concept. A bridge, a respect, honoring others traditions and allowing them leeway to worship and pray in their manner (as long as it does not negatively affect others)...is what I am seeking.
As I see it it is like sports, music, book genres, hairstyles, clothes, whatever....we each gravitate to things that make us unique and things that make us belong.... the concept of one thought....makes me oogie.
As I see it it is like sports, music, book genres, hairstyles, clothes, whatever....we each gravitate to things that make us unique and things that make us belong.... the concept of one thought....makes me oogie.
ciel_perdy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I think people need a bigger vision than religion, we need to look for truth, and Truth with a captial T.
Truth exists in every religion, in every man, woman and child, and exists 'out there' beyond any of our current understanding. We can either seek truth and change accordingly, or we will reject truth and accept lies.
Truth and Lies, the two religions of the world.
How many of us are really seeking the truth, seeking the light, seeking to face the very things we don't want to see and hear, being willing to change when we meet/see these things?
People in all religions have things very much in common. Love for building, love for our bodies, holy days, rituals, rules about eating/drinking, etc. That is all religion. The Kingdom of God, is above and beyond all these things. I am sure many will react to me saying 'Kingdom of God', asocitating me with the christian 'religion', and if so, it's because you are still reacting to religion.
Truth exists in every religion, in every man, woman and child, and exists 'out there' beyond any of our current understanding. We can either seek truth and change accordingly, or we will reject truth and accept lies.
Truth and Lies, the two religions of the world.
How many of us are really seeking the truth, seeking the light, seeking to face the very things we don't want to see and hear, being willing to change when we meet/see these things?
People in all religions have things very much in common. Love for building, love for our bodies, holy days, rituals, rules about eating/drinking, etc. That is all religion. The Kingdom of God, is above and beyond all these things. I am sure many will react to me saying 'Kingdom of God', asocitating me with the christian 'religion', and if so, it's because you are still reacting to religion.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
I tend to understand two schools of religious philosophy.
There is the RHP (Right Hand Paths): those that seek to atone with the objective universe (god, nature, etc.)
And the LHP (Left Hand Paths): those that seek deification (Apotheosis).
There is the RHP (Right Hand Paths): those that seek to atone with the objective universe (god, nature, etc.)
And the LHP (Left Hand Paths): those that seek deification (Apotheosis).
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
No, no one world religion, pleeeeeeeeeeze! However, there seems to be a core in all faiths that is similar. Strip away the exoteric trappings (from the founder or the culture or the translator or the worldly situation) and something is remarkably akin within each. That is where Guénon went (Thomas, I used "Schuoun" and "Wilber" because in my short time on this site I have found some of my references--albeit more philosophical or scientific--have gone unnoted). That is what I believe Ghandiji, the Dalai Lama, Matthew Fox, Rufus Jones, Ueshiba Roshi and Sok Han were all "pointing to". Call this approach analystical--yes, I really do mean mystical analysis (something I am trying to do).
Now serious Perenialist rant. Guénon is the foundation (in terms of current Western Philosophy)... much more serious than Huxley, I believe. My only hesitation is that I ssometimes wish he had applied the criteria he used to assess Theosophy to some of the traditions he followed. My left-brain linear hero is Stace (figures, he was a philosopher) and "A Bonnet Full of Bees" makes two of his three important works in this area soooooo accessible. My right-hand heuristic-holistic brain loves Sherrard (I am a huge Modern Greek Lit buff and his eco-stance is gorgeous), but I cannot follow into the depths of the Orthodox soul the way he can and did, Jones (but then he is the 2oth century's "Mystical Quaker"), whose mystical writings erflect Stace's analysis wonderfully, and Fox (there is something about ex-MSers who go all mystical I like). Please let me know of any good threads to visit.
Pax at amor omnia vincunt, radarmark
Now serious Perenialist rant. Guénon is the foundation (in terms of current Western Philosophy)... much more serious than Huxley, I believe. My only hesitation is that I ssometimes wish he had applied the criteria he used to assess Theosophy to some of the traditions he followed. My left-brain linear hero is Stace (figures, he was a philosopher) and "A Bonnet Full of Bees" makes two of his three important works in this area soooooo accessible. My right-hand heuristic-holistic brain loves Sherrard (I am a huge Modern Greek Lit buff and his eco-stance is gorgeous), but I cannot follow into the depths of the Orthodox soul the way he can and did, Jones (but then he is the 2oth century's "Mystical Quaker"), whose mystical writings erflect Stace's analysis wonderfully, and Fox (there is something about ex-MSers who go all mystical I like). Please let me know of any good threads to visit.
Pax at amor omnia vincunt, radarmark
I thought 'science' (or fundamentalist scientism) had claimed that position?
God bless,
Thomas
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
M
mojobadshah
Guest
This is what I've been saying. I believe that the biggest mistake of most religions the Indo-European, Abrahamic, world is that their belief systems center around a concept that is based on false foundations. The existence of a God or gods according to the definition of all their scriptures is ultimately not provable. The truth is the key to winning people's trust. "Good faith" and not "blind faith."
You know people oftentimes tell me that this is the underlying message of most religions, and it's a good message, but it's not quite simplistic enough. I think do "good" in broad sense of the term is the more realistic approach. I do good for myself, and I do good for others, and though I wouldn't prevent the use of my culture by third parties, I would fee third parties for the use of my culture, and I have no problem compensating other societies for the use of their heritage. So how does do unto others as you would do unto yourself sound to you now?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
M
mojobadshah
Guest
Care to elaborate?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
dictionary.com
o·pen-source
adjective 1. Computers . pertaining to or denoting software whose source code is available free of charge to the public to use, copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute.
2. pertaining to or denoting a product or system whose origins, formula, design, etc., are freely accessible to the public.
adjective 1. Computers . pertaining to or denoting software whose source code is available free of charge to the public to use, copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute.
2. pertaining to or denoting a product or system whose origins, formula, design, etc., are freely accessible to the public.
merriam-webster.com
5a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations
b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture>
c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization <a corporate culture focused on the bottom line>
d : the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic <studying the effect of computers on print culture> <changing the culture of materialism will take time — Peggy O'Mara>
b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture>
c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization <a corporate culture focused on the bottom line>
d : the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic <studying the effect of computers on print culture> <changing the culture of materialism will take time — Peggy O'Mara>
Culture is shared and openly modified. Occult (hidden) would be closer to closed-source.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Brava SG (deja mu--the knowledge you have been through all this b______t before). And beyond "culture" (as an ethnic or geographic group) there is the still wider stance of of universalism which transcends culture to see our shared humanity. And as a counterpoint there is the extreme breakdown in Western Society where individualism (not really individualism, but the belief that "my experiences and my thoughts" are the basis for communication) in the form of post-modernism comes into play.
Yes, scientism has replaced (for many) the entire notion of shared culture or universalism. But this is another topic. Scientism assumes (1) strict materialism, (2) strict causality, and (3) strict reductionism. Quantum physics (IMHO) really disprooves (or at least provides overwheling evidence of the falseness) this conception.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
Yes, scientism has replaced (for many) the entire notion of shared culture or universalism. But this is another topic. Scientism assumes (1) strict materialism, (2) strict causality, and (3) strict reductionism. Quantum physics (IMHO) really disprooves (or at least provides overwheling evidence of the falseness) this conception.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
M
mojobadshah
Guest
I would think real hard about (1) and (2), and how what I'm talking about would lead to (3) of (2). (1) however is the American way. Open Source sounds like communism, and I'm sorry bro, but this is America. If the ideas I'm talking about were truly universal concepts in that they developed independently that would be one thing, but they did not. A gave rise to B which gave rise to C in this case. Zoroastrianism is the bridge between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Not hardly, but you are entitled to pursue this. Just do not wrap yourself in this phoney Americanism. You may be a money-grubbing matrialist, the USA is about much more than that. By the way the concept of G!d I have is ditinctly different than yours, as is just about anybody else's in my Meeting. You remind me of those gun-toting Dakotas who "recalled the teachings". Sorry, after the two chief spiritual edlers of the last three generations taught them, they are a little hard to recall (do date Dakotas=0, Spritual Elders=5). It's kinda like when the US Government tried to make Teller's 1952 Ency Brittantica article classified.
Hard to put the horses back in the barn after they got out and the barn burnt down!
Pax et amore omnia vincunt
Hard to put the horses back in the barn after they got out and the barn burnt down!
Pax et amore omnia vincunt
M
mojobadshah
Guest
What part of what I said are you referring to here?
Hey thanks for understanding, but the last part of what you said sounds very vague too me. Who's not a money-grubbing materialist?
Well if the majority has a different interpretation of God than that of the Zoroastrian/Abrahamic religion and commercial institutions including the religious institutions are not expressing concepts that are confusable with God according to the interpretation of the Zoroastrian/Abrahamic religion then I don't see why the Aryan people would have an issue. But I talk to people too, people who describe God according to the interpretation of the Zoroastrian/Abrahamic religions.