Religious pluralism

[earl]

Thought some views expressed by a Jungian in a 2000 book chapter from a Jungian higher education institute, (Patrick Mahaffey's "Religious Pluralism in the Service of the Psyche") raises interesting points-not to mention pretty well describes where I personally am coming from. So, thought I'd start a thread re it.

In it he quotes Raimundo Panikkar, a Catholic theologian & historian of religions as saying: "It is not that this reality has many names as if there were a reality outside the name. This reality is many names and each name is a new aspect, a new manifestation and revelation of it. Yet each name teaches or expresses, as it were, the undivided Mystery...The different religious traditions...are like the almost infinite number of colors that appear once the divine or simply white light of reality falls on the prism of human experience: it refracts into innumerable traditions, doctrines, and religions. Green is not yellow, Hinduism is not Buddhism, and yet at the fringes one cannot know, except by postulating it artificially, where yellow ends and green begins. Even more, through any particular color-through any particular religion-one can reach the source of the white light..."

Instead of "relative" truths perhaps it is better to speak of "relational truths." He alos quotes another Christian theologian, Paul Knitter: "Truth is defined not by exclusion but by relation...What is true will reveal itself mainly by its ability to be related to other expressions of truth and to grow through these relationships."

Also like the quote in here from Wilfred Smith: "Our solidarity precedes our particularity, and is part of our self-transcendence. The truth of all of us is part of the truth of each of us."
Take care, Earl

 

[path_of_one]

Yes, that's how I personally see it. I put it as- the Divine is Infinite, but we are finite. When the finite experiences the Infinite, and then seeks to express this to other finite creatures, we run into the "refraction" process, as Panikkar puts it. Then we also have second level issues of other finite creatures trying to understand our expressions of the incomprehensible, each with their own personality and cultural baggage. No wonder we end up with such variety of traditions, and such diversity of folks within each tradition.

I do not think that Christianity is the same as Judaism is the same as Buddhism, etc. But I do think that all traditions are based on the expression of experience of the Divine One. How we experience the Divine, and interpret that experience, has a lot to do with our personality (do we have a mystic/shamanic bent or not? are we more rational or intuitive? are we extroverted or introverted? are we question or answer oriented?) and our culture/language/historical context. Religion is our attempt to frame these experiences in a social context, and it serves many practical social functions- to get us to obey rules that we all agree to, to give us a feeling of communal solidarity, to reduce group tension and stress. Underneath all the religions, though, runs our spirituality- our experience of the Divine. My own experience agrees with Smith- that part of transcendence is a sense of deep unity, of a recognition of the All.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


a snippett from a Hindu website sounds like it would fit in the thread quite well....


"The asthikas (believers) and the nasthikas (non-believers) at the end of their debate prove the same point : that any conclusions we draw about the Absolute Truth, with our semi-evolved consciousness is incomplete and imperfect. When Truth in all its full glory stands in front us, we are as helpless, as imperfect, as ignorant , as innocent or as wicked as an insect in front of man!

Such a reconciliation of divergent truths into one harmonious whole, which is difficult for a novice to understand, aptly summarizes and concludes what Hinduism in essence actually declares to us: that the One (Truth) manifests itself into many (truths) at the time of creation and that the many (truths) slowly in the end resolve themselves into One Truth again!"

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduindex.htm

 

[earl]

Thank you Vajradhara & Path. I'd like to add a brief snippet from the Sufi, Kabir that also speaks to my "zen" nature:

"If I say one, it is not.
If I say two, it will be a viloation.
Let 'It' be what 'It' is
says Kabir upon contemplation."

Take care, Earl

 

[Vimalakirti]

In it he quotes Raimundo Panikkar, a Catholic theologian & historian of religions as saying: Take care, Earl

Hi Earl. Just did a quick search for Raimundo Panikkar - this famous Catholic theolgian - on the Catholic Web site. No hits. No surprise. But this is the paradox, isn't it? Solo artists like you and I can make use of pluralist voices like Panikkar, but inside his own tradition it's a different and sadder story. The official position of the Church is just a tad less pluralist, and as for the majority of Chistians, well, evidence for a decided lack of pluralism is not hard to find and is unfortunately (ahem!) also pretty near at hand.

It's my biased opinion that a deeply authentic spirtuality may find a refuge within a tradition but it's always a tortured one. St. Francis, Meister Eckhart, Thomas Merton - these and like personalities are generally in trouble as much as out of it. Their adoption/rejection depends more on political/ideological realities than on the realities of truth.

Cheers, and thank you for your pluralist spirit.

 

[dayaa]

Hi Earl. Just did a quick search for Raimundo Panikkar - this famous Catholic theolgian - on the Catholic Web site. No hits. No surprise. But this is the paradox, isn't it? Solo artists like you and I can make use of pluralist voices like Panikkar, but inside his own tradition it's a different and sadder story. The official position of the Church is just a tad less pluralist, and as for the majority of Chistians, well, evidence for a decided lack of pluralism is not hard to find and is unfortunately (ahem!) also pretty near at hand.

hello everyone
i have an online friend that i met on a forum similar to this one and he explained it to me in simple terms as follows:
if someone has an experience of the divine in which a blue cow tells him to "love thy neighbour" all too quickly his followers will forget all about "love thy neighbour" and start killing people because they don't believe God is a blue cow!

It's my biased opinion that a deeply authentic spirtuality may find a refuge within a tradition but it's always a tortured one.

oh no! did you have to say that? i don't want to be tortured you've just confirmed my suspicions that this journey is going to get worse not better.
i set out to find the "right path" hoping that educating myself would make it all clear....but i am finding that the more i learn the more unclear it becomes.
i would really like to settle comfortably into a religion....but the more i learn, the more i think, the less comfortable i become within the constraints of one religion. i don't want to "go it alone".....i want to fit in....but somehow i don't think that's going to happen

 

[Dor]

[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif]Many of the well meaning people of the world want to put aside their views on "god" for the sake of unity ... as if unity is a greater prize than even salvation itself. What do they hope to gain by this quest? A temporary, (false) peace now ... but what later ... what about eternity? [/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]
[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif]The problem this poses to any one who believes in the Bible is that;
Christianity - TRUE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY - cancels out all other "ways to heaven"! [/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]
[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif]The Bible clearly states there is only ONE WAY, ONE TRUTH, ONE LIFE and that is found in Jesus Christ and Him alone! [/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. :12 He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

As stated by a Christian theologin [font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif]"A conviction that there is a definite way to heaven is not tolerated in this day of professed tolerance because it assumes that all roads don't lead to the same place, that truth does exist, and that there is a distinction between what is right and what is wrong. Instead of such old-fashioned convictions, ecumenical broad-mindedness is the new wave for the new millennium. We are expected to set aside the rational necessity of being certain about our eternal destiny in favor of a mindless tolerance that promises only to avoid religious arguments in this life but offers no sensible assurance for the next." (An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith, pg. 39 - Dave Hunt) [/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

Of course this is just ramblings from one "Bible Thumper"

 

[dayaa]

i am in awe too it sends shivers down my spine when i think about the balance mechanism in the middle ear. i love my God and revere my God and respect my God and think about him constantly. unfortunately when i think about the middle ear, i say "sobhan allah". does this mean i am going straight to hell?

tolerance is not mindless. tolerance is mindful of a merciful God but doubts if such a God is intent on torturing millions of decent people. sure, these days "political correctness" seems to have gone a bit over the top.....but genuine tolerance and willingness to learn about other beliefs before you condemn, is to my mind at least a virtue.

can someone please explain to me why some people feel so cheerful at the prospect of damnation of others?

sorry....i am getting out of line here?

 

[path_of_one]

[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif]Many of the well meaning people of the world want to put aside their views on "god" for the sake of unity ... as if unity is a greater prize than even salvation itself. What do they hope to gain by this quest? A temporary, (false) peace now ... but what later ... what about eternity?

[/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

Some of us "well meaning people" have experienced God in ways that made us conclude that unity and salvation go hand in hand. I am not seeking "false" peace now, but rather authentic experience of God outside the boundaries of time itself. Some of us don't do doctrine or organized religion, we just seek God directly, and it is indeed true that, as the Bible states, those who seek will find.

It does not bother me that others do not share my views, and prefer to hold to a certain doctrine or religion, but I will let no one's condemnation or judgment budge me from my position, because they are founded on none other than my own experiences of God, and my sincere desire to love God and all Creation with all my heart.

I do not believe we all necessarily go to the same place at the same time. But I do know that it isn't about doctrine or whether you call God "God" or "Allah" or "the Tao". It isn't about what box you check on the U.S. census or where you show up every Friday, Saturday, or Sunday... or if you show up to any religious institution at all. It's about a personal relationship with the Divine. In the embrace of the Divine, the self fades away, and all earthly identification with it. All that is left is a created spirit merging with the Creative Spirit, and in this is salvation and freedom, as well as ultimate unity, because there is no longer distinction between ourself and any other.
[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]
[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif]

The problem this poses to any one who believes in the Bible is that;
Christianity - TRUE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY - cancels out all other "ways to heaven"!

[/font]

[/font]

[/font]

[/font]

[/font]
[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif]The Bible clearly states there is only ONE WAY, ONE TRUTH, ONE LIFE and that is found in Jesus Christ and Him alone!

[/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]
[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]
No offense, but I get thoroughly tired of some Christians deciding they get to determine what is "true Biblical Christianity" for the rest of us. Have it your way, I don't identify as Christian anyway. I do, however, follow Christ. The Bible does not insist that the Judaic way was necessary for Gentiles, and Jesus said to share the Good News with all the nations, not determine a set doctrine and condemn everyone else on earth to hell. The Good News of the gospel, for me, has always been Jesus' teachings and the perfect example of his life- a life in which it is evident that God fully manifested on earth.

As for the verse, I first would like to propose that the gospels were not written as eyewitness accounts (especially John, this is fairly well accepted among Biblical scholars, as this gospel was written some 70 years or so after Jesus' crucifixtion), and thus the gosepls were written not to record history, but rather to put forth a statement about how people encountered God in Jesus Christ, and their attempted expression of this. I recognize that people who consider themselves "true Biblical Christians" don't like to look at the Bible as anything but an infallible text, but it is respectful to at least acknowledge that there are many self-professed Christians who study the Bible differently. We may not agree on how to study the Bible, but it seems little can be gained from our judgment of each other as being outside the fold. That said, I need only say that I see the gospels as having deep symbolic significance, and that being in Christ ("the Annointed One") is far more than saying a prayer and joining a church, in my opinion. In other gospels, Jesus himself supposedly said that Gentile people will enter the Kingdom of Heaven by caring for other people, for those that care for the least of these, care for Christ and thus for God. When one studies all the relevant passages concerning the Kingdom of God/Heaven, it is apparent that salvation is much more than what many churches make it out to be, and much more open-ended as well.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Vimalakirti]

oh no! did you have to say that? i don't want to be tortured you've just confirmed my suspicions that this journey is going to get worse not better.
i set out to find the "right path" hoping that educating myself would make it all clear....but i am finding that the more i learn the more unclear it becomes.
i would really like to settle comfortably into a religion....but the more i learn, the more i think, the less comfortable i become within the constraints of one religion. i don't want to "go it alone".....i want to fit in....but somehow i don't think that's going to happen

Oops! I didn't mean to be such a downer. And to be fair we should add that any seriously spiritual life - say, joining a monastery - is a challenging and complicated undertaking, even for the orthodox.

But I'd like to come at this from another angle. I think that most of us in the West are in effect culturally "Christian" no matter how we live or practice, or what other traditions we draw on. We're soaking in ethics, attitudes and emotional tones that ultimately derive from Christianity. In the same way, we're all still sons and daughters of Abraham in that our culture is unthinkable without reference to our biblical roots. (This is commonly called "Judeo-Christian" culture, but I think our cultural roots are more accurately described as Judeo-Hellenic with the X factor of Jesus.)

This means that to be dissident with institutional forms of Christianity and traditional theology can in a manner of speaking set up a schism in the soul, and put us at war with ourselves. It can create a gap that's easily exploited by certain unscrupulous specialists in conversion, and conversion on the basis of this kind of fear (of the loss of one's roots) easily leads to inauthenticity and intolerance. We become unfortunately sold on the false identity between specific traditions of (often self-proclaimed) authority, and the broader cultural tradition including Jesus, his disciples or admirers and the many forms and practices that followed.

This is where interesting characters like, say, Meister Eckhart, can be so beneficial. Their spiritual depth allows us to reconnect with what we see as positive and important in the tradition - and in our own culture - without necessarily involving any sort of sectarian conversion at all, and helps us develop more positive attitudes toward others in the tradition whose views are more orthodox than our own - even when they don't always return the favour!

To be at war with oneself and one's roots, and from that to develop negative feelings toward orthodox believers and institutions that feel oppressive to us is just a hindrance to practice, no matter what tradition(s) we follow. Removing that hindrance is a great benefit to ourselves, and to others.

 

[Vimalakirti]

sorry....i am getting out of line here?

Well, I don't think so. But it's curious. I appreciate these fora, but so far it's been my experience that one is less likely to be called out for putting out absolutist metaphysical positions that more than border on intolerance, than for criticizing such positions. This may not be a fair judgement on my part, since I haven't been around here that long, but I would strongly urge our moderators to more seriously question such thunderous hellfire. It may be that it's so much a part of our tradition that we think it's somehow normal. You can find many like statements on these fora, which while couched in more diplomatic language make the same points. One can condemn millions to hell with impunity. But if one should take liberties with the history of Abraham and Canaan, or in any way seriously interrogate traditional dogma, or the place of power in religious institutions, or use unorthodox language, all of which I've been silly enough to do in these fora - one is immediately in a firefight!

Anyway, now that I've gone further out of line than you have, you may be out of the line of fire.

With metta & cheers.

 

[Vimalakirti]

[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]
Jesus said to share the Good News with all the nations, not determine a set doctrine and condemn everyone else on earth to hell.

Very well put. So why all this hellfire stuff? Here's my theory, for what it's worth. I think to the extent it has roots in the Gospel it's best seen as a wake-up call. You have a precious human life, use it! Rightly used, it's only negative in the sense that a Zen master uses a stick to whack a monk awake. There are a few prouncements by Jesus I think that can be read that way - and they may even be authentic. But this whole ideology of hellfire is really another game, as much or more to with the building and defense of the early church and the political needs of its survival over history than any theological concern as such. Now this hellfire is so embeded in the tradition that many if not most Christians can scarcely imagine Christianity without it.

Cheers & metta.

 

[Vimalakirti]

[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif]Many of the well meaning people of the world want to put aside their views on "god" for the sake of unity ... as if unity is a greater prize than even salvation itself. What do they hope to gain by this quest? A temporary, (false) peace now ... but what later ... what about eternity? [/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]
[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif]The problem this poses to any one who believes in the Bible is that;
Christianity - TRUE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY - cancels out all other "ways to heaven"! [/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]
[font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif][font=verdana, Arial, MS Sans Serif]The Bible clearly states there is only ONE WAY, ONE TRUTH, ONE LIFE and that is found in Jesus Christ and Him alone![/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

I can't agree with your analysis here, or your theology. But I hope that whatever the import of your words may be that they lead to the benefit and not the detriment of yourself and others.

Metta & cheers.

 

[earl]

Hi Earl. Just did a quick search for Raimundo Panikkar - this famous Catholic theolgian - on the Catholic Web site. No hits. No surprise. But this is the paradox, isn't it? Solo artists like you and I can make use of pluralist voices like Panikkar, but inside his own tradition it's a different and sadder story. The official position of the Church is just a tad less pluralist, and as for the majority of Chistians, well, evidence for a decided lack of pluralism is not hard to find and is unfortunately (ahem!) also pretty near at hand.

It's my biased opinion that a deeply authentic spirtuality may find a refuge within a tradition but it's always a tortured one. St. Francis, Meister Eckhart, Thomas Merton - these and like personalities are generally in trouble as much as out of it. Their adoption/rejection depends more on political/ideological realities than on the realities of truth.

Cheers, and thank you for your pluralist spirit.

Hi V. As for R. Panikkar, probably not too much re him on the web, but check out this recent piece re him at http://www.emptybell.org/pannikar.html.
In fact the empty bell site is in itself a good example of pluralism/interreligious practice as Robert Jonas is both a Christian and zen practitioner and has some good writings of his related to that posted here.

Take care, Earl

 

[Vimalakirti]

Hi V. As for R. Panikkar, probably not too much re him on the web, but check out this recent piece re him at http://www.emptybell.org/pannikar.html.
In fact the empty bell site is in itself a good example of pluralism/interreligious practice as Robert Jonas is both a Christian and zen practitioner and has some good writings of his related to that posted here.

Take care, Earl

Thanks for the link, Earl - but didn't work! I did find this http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=914. I'll have a more leisured look when I have time - simple things intevene, like day-to-day survival!

 

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

can someone please explain to me why some people feel so cheerful at the prospect of damnation of others?

sorry....i am getting out of line here?

I feel that they (the ones who feel so cheerful at the prospect of the damnation of others) are so "cheerful" because they are unwilling/unable to see past their own artificially induced doctrine (please correct me here if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus say that he died for everybody, that he "paid" for everybody's salvation?) The "artificially induced doctrine" I'm talking about is the one where a person has to accept Jesus as his/her savior.

I know what you're talking about concerning people feeling "cheerful" about the prospect of someone else's prospective damnation. There's a woman who "helps" me with my apartment, and she claims that Muslims are idolators because they call upon Allah (which is, if I'm not mistaken, just another way of refering to G!d.) She blew her stack when she saw a copy of a translation of the Koran I'm in the midst of reading (curiosity//*meow*) and she had the audacity to say that I'm damning myself for just bloody reading the text! I wanted to do something radical to her anatomy to the point that her physiology would be quite , but I ended up baking bread products (anybody interested in some vegetarian pizzas, French bread, pretzels, Parmasan breadsticks, rolls [both filled and plain] and cinnamon struesel coffeecake? I have quite a lot of them and not that much room in my freezer...)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

 

[earl]

Thanks for the link, Earl - but didn't work! I did find this http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=914. I'll have a more leisured look when I have time - simple things intevene, like day-to-day survival!

Sorry about that V & everybody else! I've joked/apologized here @ this forum before about my "typing dsylexia." Unfortunately, it's quite real. I can look at how something is spelled and still type it differently when I post, (one of the reasons i think twice about posting links-half the time I type them wrong) Should actually have been http://www.emptybell.org/panikkar.html.

Have a good one, Earl

 

[Bandit]

I feel that they (the ones who feel so cheerful at the prospect of the damnation of others) are so "cheerful" because they are unwilling/unable to see past their own artificially induced doctrine (please correct me here if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus say that he died for everybody, that he "paid" for everybody's salvation?) The "artificially induced doctrine" I'm talking about is the one where a person has to accept Jesus as his/her savior.

I know what you're talking about concerning people feeling "cheerful" about the prospect of someone else's prospective damnation. There's a woman who "helps" me with my apartment, and she claims that Muslims are idolators because they call upon Allah (which is, if I'm not mistaken, just another way of refering to G!d.) She blew her stack when she saw a copy of a translation of the Koran I'm in the midst of reading (curiosity//*meow*) and she had the audacity to say that I'm damning myself for just bloody reading the text! I wanted to do something radical to her anatomy to the point that her physiology would be quite , but I ended up baking bread products (anybody interested in some vegetarian pizzas, French bread, pretzels, Parmasan breadsticks, rolls [both filled and plain] and cinnamon struesel coffeecake? I have quite a lot of them and not that much room in my freezer...)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

YAH! that baking food you mention sounds real good to me. Hey, i have been sent down that cheerful damnation road with people & seen it done to others.

it is best not even to discuss with people who do that. there are lots of people who do that, tell others they CANNOT read certain material.

 

[earl]

Just for the heck of it, thought I'd post some excerpts from chapter 25 of the Lotus Sutra, which, though perhaps somewhat uncharacteristic for a Buddhist sutra, has a lovely "pluralistic" tone and, to me, relates back to panikkar's metaphor re the Divine "white light" refracting through humanity's experience of it, (the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara is, of course, the bohisattva of compassion):

"The Buddha declared to the Bodhisattva Aksayamati, "Good man, if there are beings in the land who can be conveyed to deliverance by the body of a Buddha, then the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara preaches the Truth by displaying the body of a Buddha...To those who can be conveyed to deliverance by the Brahma (God the Creator)he preaches the Truth by displaying the body of Brahma. To those who can be conveyed to deliverance by the body of Shakra he preaches the Truth by displaying the body of the god Shakra. To those who can be conveyed to deliverance by the body of the god Ishvara (personal God) he preaches the Truth by displaying the body of the god Ishvara...To those who can be conveyed to deliverance by the body of an elder...a householder...an official...a woman...a boy or girl...a god, dragon, spirit, angel, demon, Garuda bird, centaur, serpent, human or non-human, he preaches Dharma by displaying the appropriate body...The Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, by resort to a variety of forms travels the world conveying beings to salvation."

truly different strokes for different folks it seems Have a good One or Many, Earl

 

[Vimalakirti]

Just for the heck of it, thought I'd post some excerpts from chapter 25 of the Lotus Sutra, which, though perhaps somewhat uncharacteristic for a Buddhist sutra, has a lovely "pluralistic" tone and, to me, relates back to panikkar's metaphor re the Divine "white light" refracting through humanity's experience of it, (the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara is, of course, the bohisattva of compassion):

"The Buddha declared to the Bodhisattva Aksayamati, "Good man, if there are beings in the land who can be conveyed to deliverance by the body of a Buddha, then the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara preaches the Truth by displaying the body of a Buddha...To those who can be conveyed to deliverance by the Brahma (God the Creator)he preaches the Truth by displaying the body of Brahma. To those who can be conveyed to deliverance by the body of Shakra he preaches the Truth by displaying the body of the god Shakra. To those who can be conveyed to deliverance by the body of the god Ishvara (personal God) he preaches the Truth by displaying the body of the god Ishvara...To those who can be conveyed to deliverance by the body of an elder...a householder...an official...a woman...a boy or girl...a god, dragon, spirit, angel, demon, Garuda bird, centaur, serpent, human or non-human, he preaches Dharma by displaying the appropriate body...The Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, by resort to a variety of forms travels the world conveying beings to salvation."

truly different strokes for different folks it seems Have a good One or Many, Earl

Thanks, Earl. I've always thought this an attractive passage as well, and one that isn't mentioned all that much (while the chapter following, with its notion of magical rescue, gets way too much mention, to my taste).