Rationalism or Religious Pluaralism

[Brother Unity]

I am new to this forum and I would very much like some feedback about an issue that I am currently struggling with.
I have spent the past 25 years extensively studying comparative religion, sacred texts, religious history, mythology and ontology; and I have spent a good deal of my life discussing and debating the nature of Truth with people of many faiths, but increasingly I find myself in a quandry about religious dialogue.
I have always held pluralism to be one of the most important and necessary qualities of any truly spiritual person, and yet lately I find it difficult to acknowledge and afirm many of the patently absurd and sometime potentially dangerous views that people hold , sometimes in spite of, but usually as a result of their religious ideologies.
More and more, I feel like it is our duty as rational and compassionate human beings to have the courage to tell people when something is patently false or at least not readily verifiable (human beings presence on this planet being more likely the result of evolutionary biology than the result of an invisible man in the sky blowing his breath upon lumps of clay, for instance...) but this actually flys in the face of religious pluralism.
We must certainly respect people's cultural heritage and diversity, but how do we do this when they insist on holding such ridiculous, sectarian, and often socially divisive beliefs?
Thoughts, suggestions, insights?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Aren't we trying to solve that by having freedom of religion and also separating church from the state? People can think what they want, and they always will, but still have to follow the laws of society.

I don't think it is possible to make people change their views, and any effort to do so will lead down a dark path, although bricked by good intentions. The only action I can see that could have a positive, long term effect is involving as many people as possible in religious dialogue and openly discussing all subjects without fear.

I don't think we will ever live in a society we will ever be perfectly satisfied with since they are of human and humans are inherently flawed. But we can do our best to accept our own flaws and accept the world we live in.

/ranting

EDIT: Also, welcome to our little place, it has just as much as it has the bad

 

[radarmark]

Well, something that is henotheistic or monolatic may work (the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods or the worhip of one god in many ways).

I have come to the conclusion (after a WALSTIB like yours) that three problems with a religious doctrine is exclusivity (there is only one way, and I have it), hatred (all Jews are the sons of satan or Hindus who care about Jains, Buddhists, Muslims and Sikhs, like Gandhiji deserve death to purify the Sanatana Dharma), and inerrancy (of good book or guru or vision or group).

Those are my disqualifying factors (oh, and the behavior of the adherents in respect to classic liberal and republican theory--like the Southern Baptist Conference using extra-legal actions against abortion clinics and preaching politics from the pulpit). Government should revoke their tax-exempt status for any of these four violations. Why the choice is political and ethical progress versus plain ignorance.

 

[Brother Unity]

Hey guys, thanks for your responses.
Having spent a good portion of my life as a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church, I am no stranger to Henotheistic beliefs, and even though, strictly speaking I am more of a Pantheist, I must say Henotheism is certainly another way to afirm diversity and also curtail the often socially divisive elements of religion.
I also believe that exclusivity, hatred, and inerrancy are some of the greatest problems caused by religion (and some of the ones that I find myself constantly battling in my dialogues with others).
Freedom of Religion and Seperation of Church and state are indeed social ideals that I support, but they don't seem to be that effective here in the U.S. (especially when rght wing fundamentalist pawns of corporatocracy like George W. Bush get in office and impose their religious beliefs on the country in the form of faith based initiative grants and supreme court nominations that will effect us for decades to come).
I know we will probably never have a utopian society, but the one we live in seems increasingly polarized, and I am admitedly undecided about whether I should simply be patient and accept what is with an air of equanimity (thank you COT), or whether I should speak out against it in a rational and informed way (thank you Radarmark).
[oh and BTW I have been reading both of your posts in other forums, so I regard your opinions very highly at this point]
Bright Blessings...

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

US will change in time, all do things do, and I promote fighting for the change you believe in.
Thank you for your words, they are very kind and makes me glad for participating. And the hope of future compliments makes me wish you will stay with us for a while.

 

[radarmark]

Pax and thanks, Friend Brother Unity

 

[Aupmanyav]

(.. or Hindus who care about Jains, Buddhists, Muslims and Sikhs, like Gandhiji deserve death to purify the Sanatana Dharma ..)

It is obligatory for a hindu to accept plurality, 'Eko sad, vipra bahudha vadanti' (the truth is one, wise people describe it variously) or 'Munde-munde matir-bhinna' (different opinions in each head). It is a fringe among hindus who might not accept it. Many hindus will not consider Jains, buddhists, and sikhs as any different from themselves. A large percentage of gurudwara-goers is hindu. Jain is a caste name among hindus. And Buddha is accepted as the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu. Even Lord Krishna said that each person should fulfill his own dharma, rather than that of any other.

"śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ, para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt;
sva-dharme nidhanaḿ śreyaḥ, para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ."
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 3 Verse 35

(It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous.)

 

[radarmark]

I am one with you, Aupmanyav. Clearly, something like 90% (or more of all these Indic religions live a big-tent-model).

But because of the tendency of all to point out the fringe (Godse) to discredit all.

 

[luecy7]

I am new to this forum and I would very much like some feedback about an issue that I am currently struggling with.
I have spent the past 25 years extensively studying comparative religion, sacred texts, religious history, mythology and ontology; and I have spent a good deal of my life discussing and debating the nature of Truth with people of many faiths, but increasingly I find myself in a quandry about religious dialogue.

If you have merely studied without much 'Do', then you have not really studied anything at all. Sort of like a well educated student that has many PhD's, and is perhaps book smart, but has no proven hands on experience. The foundation of the thought and the mind is largely set by what we 'Do'. The heart does not offer much without the mind, and the mind does not offer much without the heart. The 'Do' without thought is errant, and the thought without the 'Do' is errant. Betweeen rationalism and empiricism, I choose neither.

 

[Brother Unity]

If you have merely studied without much 'Do', then you have not really studied anything at all. Sort of like a well educated student that has many PhD's, and is perhaps book smart, but has no proven hands on experience. The foundation of the thought and the mind is largely set by what we 'Do'. The heart does not offer much without the mind, and the mind does not offer much without the heart. The 'Do' without thought is errant, and the thought without the 'Do' is errant. Betweeen rationalism and empiricism, I choose neither.

I totally agree with you L, and, in my own defense, I'm not just a heady scholar with desires to convert people to my way of thinking, I actually spent 2 years in a Greek Orthodox monastary, and I came very close to taking robes as a Theravadan Buddhist monk after living at Wat Abayagiri for about a year, I also have been actively practicing Kudalinia and Kum Nye yoga for about 15 years; so my delimma is not simply that of an isolated scholar. But what you say does in fact get to the crux of the matter; in many ways my dilemma is a simple path of the heart/path of the mind dilemma. Rationalism is very much a path of the mind, and pluralism is very much a path of the heart. Walking on the proverbial razor's edge is a real challenge

 

[Aupmanyav]

Stop 'kundalini'. Does not lead you anywhere. It is a mirage.

 

[Brother Unity]

Stop 'kundalini'. Does not lead you anywhere. It is a mirage.

Hmmm... I'm not sure what aspect of Kudalini yoga you find objectionable, A.
There are certainly a lot of spurious claims about kudalini awakenings and other psycophysical phenomena that almost never actually happen during the practice of yoga. Or perhaps you have simply had a bad experience with self proclaimed yogis or sikhs that have rubbed you the wrong way. For me personally, yoga (and specifically kundalini yoga as taught by yogi bhajan) is an integral part of my daily practice, both as a form of exercise and as a way of calming my mind and "being present in the moment".
Just as an aside, I am also lactose intolerant, but I don't speak disparagingly about cheese because it does not agree with me

 

[Aupmanyav]

For me personally, yoga (and specifically kundalini yoga as taught by yogi bhajan) is an integral part of my daily practice, both as a form of exercise and as a way of calming my mind and "being present in the moment".

I do not know what Yogi Bhajan teaches. I wholly endorse meditation. But that I believe should not go beyond 10 minutes, morning and evening. Otherwise it can only lead to hallucinations. This is to calm the mind to think clearly (as you say 'being present in the moment'). And once to get the trick just a deep breath is all that is necessary (at least for me). Meditation is a bio-feedback exercise. You say you have been practicing it for a long time but have not experienced it. How long is it going to take? OTOH, there are people who claim to make it rise just with a touch. IMHO, all the chakras and serpents in 'kundalini' are a sham, not for the 21st century. Is there any scientific explanation?

 

[Brother Unity]

I agree with just about everything you said there, A. Meditation (and in fact, yoga with its focus on anapana during the hatha or kriya movements is very much a moving meditation) is sort of a bio feedback or entrainment exercise. I question your insistance that it "should not go beyond 10 minutes." I find that in my personal practice it takes me at least 30 min (usually) to get to a state of calm. I am rather in awe of someone like yourself who can get there with a single breath! Perhaps I will get there someday.
As an aside I participated in a entrainment study at UT of Austin and the Campaigna intsitute in Austin Tx, a few years ago that was very thought provoking. There were only 6 participants, one of them was a Cambodian Khmer monk. We were hooked up to ECG while we meditated and they mapped our brainwave frequencies while we did so. 4 of us (including myself) were able to generate brainwave frequencies of around 10 - 8 hz (lower alpha range) after 30 min (2 of the subjects fell asleep) Sampea Bhon (the monk) was able to generate brainwaves as low as 4 hz (deep thetra). I was able to go as low as 7.5 (upper Theta). The following day they did the same thing, but they read us childrens stories while we did so and then asked us to relate the stories afterwards to ascertain if we were still conscious. Both Sampea and I were able to recall the stories. So, I know that meditation can take you into very deep states of relaxation while still allowing a certain level of conscious awareness. That is where I would like to be all the time! Any advice?

 

[Ecumenist]

If you are wise, you will practice Karma Yoga gladly, joyously, passionately and RELIGIOUSLY. Once you have set foot, that is, once you have been so fortunate as to set foot upon the Path in the proper place and with & in the proper company {as we are all destined} ... we should do all in our power to continue upon that WAY. While I know those who fit the above description, I know far, far more people such as myself. Thus I find it easy to recognize the people who are passing by, if only because, or by virtue of ~ our shared, common collective {past and present} experience.

When it comes to those who have pressed on ahead, what a fool I would be to tell the man who comes walking BACK down the path ... DOWN from the Mountain, as I know Him to be [coming] ... that he is a fool, that HIS are the dreams of a lunatic rather than the visions of a Seer, or that the Amazing New World of which he tells is an impossible chimera, a Utopia and mere Fool's Gold.

What a strange lot we surround ourselves with, yet even Christ had to say, "Oh ye of little Faith."

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is where I would like to be all the time! Any advice?

IMHO, there is no need to stay there all the time. We can be our human self so to say) for the rest of time. Only that we should be able to recall that peace when we want it. It is like keeping a machine always on or switching it on when necessary. Always on is perhaps a waste of resources.

 

[luecy7]

Just as an aside, I am also lactose intolerant, but I don't speak disparagingly about cheese because it does not agree with me

So, I know that meditation can take you into very deep states of relaxation while still allowing a certain level of conscious awareness. That is where I would like to be all the time! Any advice?

I have spoken negatively of meditation (here) when faced with someone who is attracted to that solo practice as the path to enlightenment, and because they want to be there all the time. I have spoken positively of meditation when faced with someone who has difficulty with self control, trouble going to sleep, trouble shutting down their mind, or who has accidents because they were busy worrying about something else. It is not a matter of whether or not meditation agrees with me. When a person loves cheese, eats only cheese, not caring to see the source and to exchange foods with others, then I will speak a bit disparagingly about cheese.

I don't see much 'Do' or experience in the term 'Religious Pluralism'. If it involves an alleged Christian praying in a Mosque, trying to make friends with alleged enemies, or a person experienced in meditation hanging with some head bangers to practice clear meditation in a noisy and chaotic environment, then perhaps there would be some 'Do' and experience there?!

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I don't see much 'Do' or experience in the term 'Religious Pluralism'.

Is the ideal something like:

"Art of The ZEN of SERVICE"

sort of approach???

 

[Brother Unity]

Hey E. It is true that many people overlook the VERY important aspect of karma yoga in favor of all the hatha and kriya that is presented to them; and I do try and be mindful of the fact that yoga is not just a form of exercise, but a way of life that includes (among other things) selfless service.
I'm not sure if I am wise or not, but the homeless fellow that is sleeping on my couch right now is certainly a grateful recipient of my karma yoga

All this is a bit off topic though... anybody else have words of wisdom regarding the whole path of the mind/path of the heart issue?
I really want to discover a way to reconcile my desire to honor and affirm the cultural and religious path of all, and yet as a rational person I am constantly struggling with frustration (sometimes bordering on contempt) over all the superstitious and ridiculous claims that people make about their religion/god/holy texts, etc. Its not that I don't value faith, or even magic (in a metaphorical sense), I just can't stand claims of certitude about things which are obviously not true, or for which there is no evidence.
...Anybody?

 

[Brother Unity]

I have spoken negatively of meditation (here) when faced with someone who is attracted to that solo practice as the path to enlightenment, and because they want to be there all the time. I have spoken positively of meditation when faced with someone who has difficulty with self control, trouble going to sleep, trouble shutting down their mind, or who has accidents because they were busy worrying about something else. It is not a matter of whether or not meditation agrees with me. When a person loves cheese, eats only cheese, not caring to see the source and to exchange foods with others, then I will speak a bit disparagingly about cheese.

I don't see much 'Do' or experience in the term 'Religious Pluralism'. If it involves an alleged Christian praying in a Mosque, trying to make friends with alleged enemies, or a person experienced in meditation hanging with some head bangers to practice clear meditation in a noisy and chaotic environment, then perhaps there would be some 'Do' and experience there?!

OMG, I think I am having a flashback L.
As a fledgling born again christian back in the stone ages I actually used to hang out with sufi friend who was constantly trying to get me to go to his local mosque ... and when I was a punk back in the 80's I used to go to concerts and try to turn people on to religion. lol.

Incidentally the lactose intolerance comment was not for you it was for A.
(He was saying some pretty dispariging stuff about kundalini yoga, but I think we worked that out...)