How God is not One...but really is. :)

[rltruthseeker]

God-is-Not-One.jpg

 

(Diversity of religions)

In the book How God is not One: the eight rival religions that run the world, and why their differences matter, Professor of Religion at Boston University  Stephen Prothero argues that religions are more dissimilar than alike. He argues that different religions have different” goals” and that each can be understood in terms of these different goals.  He outlines a fourfold way of understanding different religions, and the means by which their achieve this.

 

For example,

A problem;

A solution to this problem, which also serves as the religious goal;

A technique (or techniques) for moving from this problem to this solution; and

An exemplar (or exemplars) who chard this path from problem from solution

 

For example, in Christianity…

The problem is sin;

The solution (or goal) is salvation;

The technique for achieving salvation is some combination of faith and good works; and

The exemplars who chart this path, namely Jesus, saints, mystics, etc.

 

Or in Buddhism

The problem is suffering;

The solution (or goal) is nirvana;

The technique for achieving nirvana is the Noble Eight fold path, meditation, etc.

The exemplars are The Buddha, bodhisattvas, etc.       

 

“This four-step approach is admittedly simplistic. You cannot sum up thousands of years of Christian faith or Buddhist practice in four sentences. So this model is just a starting point and must be nuanced along the way. For example, Roman Catholics and Protestants are divided about how to achieve salvation, just as Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists are divided about how to achieve nirvana (or whether nirvana is an “achievement” at all). One of the virtues of this simple scheme is that it helps to make plain the differences across and inside the religious traditions. Are Buddhists trying to achieve salvation? Of course not, since they don’t even believe in sin. Are Christians trying to achieve nirvana? No, since for them suffering isn’t something that must be overcome…”

 

Prothero argues that to claim all religions are the same is to misunderstand that each attempts to solve a different human problem. He outlines it like this.

Islam: the problem is pride/the solution is submission

Christianity: the problem is sin/ the solution is salvation

Confucianism: the problem is chaos/ the solution is social order

Hinduism: the problem is samsara/ the solution is moksha

Buddhism: the problem is suffering/ the solution is awakening

Taoism: the problem is disharmony/ the solution is harmony

Judaism: the problem is exile/ the solution is to return to God

 

Prothero argues against seeing all of the world’s religions as one. He would, I guess, be termed “post-pluralist” and argues against the perennial philosophy. He gives the example of a game analogy.

“A sports analogy may be in order here. Which of the following-baseball, basketball, tennis or golf-is best at scoring runs? The answer of course is baseball, because runs  is a term foreign to basketball, tennis and golf alike. Different sports have different goals: basketball players shoot baskets, tennis players win points; golfers sink puts. So if you ask which sport is best at scoring runs; you have privileged baseball from the start. To criticize a basketball team for failing to score runs is not to besmirch them. It is simply to misunderstand the game of basketball. So here is another problem with the pretend pluralism of the perennial philosophy sort. Just as hitting home runs is the monopoly of one sport, salvation is the monopoly of one religion. If you see sin as the human predicament and salvation as the solution, then it makes sense to come to Christ. But that will not settle as much as you might think, because the real question is not which religion is best at carrying us into end zone of salvation but which of the many religious goals should we be seeking. Should we be trudging toward the end zone of salvation, or trying to reach the finish line of social harmony? Should our goal be reincarnation? Or escape from the vicious cycle of life, death and rebirth?”

I respectfully disagree with Prothero. Different sports do not have different goals. They have the same goal. The goal is to win (with the secondary goal is to have fun).

 In a similar way religions can be understood (although the followers of religions still see different goals.) The many different religions can be understood in terms of consciousness. Wilber has hit upon this idea, and then makes the analogy that the world’s religions can act as “conveyer belt” for consciousness. If religions dismiss the subjective dimension of consciousness, then they are dismissing the subjective realization of their founders.

“The 10,000 ways to God” are operationally only one way because they are expressions of the same intention: to relinquish the dualistic ego and its illusions to the ultimate nonlinear Reality by whatever name it is designated.”  -Hawkins

I agree with Prothero’s distinction between Christianity and Buddhism, but I think Christianity and Buddhism are more similar than they realize…and that these respective traditions can learn a lot from each other, especially as Buddhism grows more and more in the west. For example Christianity can learn and emphasize a lot more of the contemplative and meditative tradition that Buddhism brings with it and. Buddhism can learn about the teaching of Jesus on forgiveness and the emphasis on love and devotion in Christian thought.

The book A Course in Miracles says that “ A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary.”

As far as the term salvation goes, it says this-- “Salvation is nothing more than ‘right-mindedness,’ which is not the One-mindedness of the Holy Spirit, but which must be achieved before One-mindedness is restored. Right-mindedness leads to the next step automatically, because right perception is uniformly without attack, and therefore wrong-mindedness is obliterated. The ego cannot survive without judgment, and is laid aside accordingly. The mind then has only one direction in which it can move. Its direction is always automatic, because it cannot but be dictated by the thought system to which it adheres.

It cannot be emphasized too often that correcting perception is merely a temporary expedient. It is necessary only because misperception is a block to knowledge, while accurate perception is a stepping stone towards it. The whole value of right perception lies in the inevitable realization that all perception is unnecessary.  This removes the block entirely. You may ask how this is possible as long as you appear to be living in the world. That is a reasonable question. You must be careful, however, that you really understand it. Who is the “you” who are living in this world? Spirit is immortal, and immortality is a constant state. It is as true now as it ever was or ever will be, because it implies no change at all. It is not a continuum, nor is it understood by being compared to an opposite. Knowledge never involves comparisons. That is its main difference from everything else the mind can grasp. “ -ACIM

Anyway, while I disagree with the conclusion of Prothero, I like the way he outlines the different ways of understanding religions, and present it here as a way for Integral to understand the differences of different religions.

He neither argues for or against religious affiliations, and is respectful of different traditions, but he understands that religions can be at their best and their worst, and that these differences matter a lot to their followers. In effect he argues for religious literacy.

 He says, “ we must admit that there are situations where a lack of understanding about the differences between, say, Sunni and Shia ,Islam produces more rather than less violence. Unfortunately, we live in a world where religion seems as likely to detonate a bomb as to defuse one. So while we need idealism, we need realism even more. We need to understand religious people as they are—not just at their best but also at their worst. We need to look at not only their awe-inspiring architecture and gentle mystics, but also their bigots and suicide bombers.”

 

[Christophe]

Ah! The Seven Dragonballs. Yes, I used to study them quite a lot. Nowadays I am mucho occupied with worldy duties, but its still a fascinating topic to me.

Hey RL! I found one mistake in your list. Confucianism and Taoism are literally the same thing. Thus there is still one Ball missing: Oops! Don't worry, almost everybody gets this wrong. I'll give you a hint: Look for pyramidal shapes, Pharaos and eternal Sun Gods. ahaha

xo

[rltruthseeker]

Lol. Your right. Confucianism and Taoism are very similar, and their traditions have been been intermingling in the east for centuries. :) Taoism refers to Confucianism as the "yang" or active aspect, while it sees taoism as more of the "yin" aspect. I'm glad you shared your belief about pyramidal shapes, pharos and sun gods, lol. :)

[andrew]

this topic has frustrated me for years..but i think prothero is on the right track. i've often joked that religious believers can't read because not only can't they see the obvious internal contradictions within their own scriptures, the new age ecumenical movement seems to deny the obvious contradictions between the traditions, notwithstanding the mystical consciousness ideas of wilber et al that i tend to agree with. this forum has been pretty helpful in this regard as there have been a lot of posts on this topic through the years that have been much more honest and sophisticated than the usual drivel........which isn't to say that it's not all krishna!lol

[rltruthseeker]

Thanks andrew. I tend to see more of the mystical side myself, seeing what I believe should be obvious to religious believers, but because they don't want to go outside their tradition, they miss some important cross references between other traditions...as well as seeing things from a scientific, social and psychological perspectives. I tend to reinterpret scriptures pretty liberally, because I believe that what someone said orally could have been distorted over the years, and thus doesn't make sense internally. I think it's important to be as honest as we can...whether or not we understand reality or not...and I think not understanding, but just willing to suspend judgments, either for or against something we're not sure of...until we get more clues...is fine too.

Religion's aren't "all good" or "all bad" ...they have a mixture of both, but I think as Integralists, we can look at the different traditions and take ideas from them, without having to identify with any particular one, in defining our own spirituality...and what it means for us.

I recommend his book...but there are a lot of other books I would recommend too, depending on which tradition people are curious about. :)

[125ohqq5ixuhp]

Personally, I like the "dragon ball" metaphor thingie lol,

Christophe said:

Ah! The Seven Dragonballs. Yes, I used to study them quite a lot. Nowadays I am mucho occupied with worldy duties, but its still a fascinating topic to me.

Hey RL! I found one mistake in your list. Confucianism and Taoism are literally the same thing. Thus there is still one Ball missing: Oops! Don't worry, almost everybody gets this wrong. I'll give you a hint: Look for pyramidal shapes, Pharaos and eternal Sun Gods. ahaha

xo

[125ohqq5ixuhp]

accuratepsychic said:

Personally, I like the "dragon ball" metaphor thingie lol,

Christophe said:

Ah! The Seven Dragonballs. Yes, I used to study them quite a lot. Nowadays I am mucho occupied with worldy duties, but its still a fascinating topic to me.

Hey RL! I found one mistake in your list. Confucianism and Taoism are literally the same thing. Thus there is still one Ball missing: Oops! Don't worry, almost everybody gets this wrong. I'll give you a hint: Look for pyramidal shapes, Pharaos and eternal Sun Gods. ahaha

xo

hey, i found this eternal sun gods article. says here,"Every process in the universe can be symbolized with a word. The analysis of words are leading toward the understanding of natural forces." is this it?