|
Return to Table of Contents
How do we evaluate
religious differences? One view is that all religions represent
different pieces of the same universal puzzle and provide a different
and contributory perspective on truth. In other words, they are simply
different paths up the same mountain. Another view is that all
religions form a unity and that only the unity provides the right
perspective on truth. Each tradition provides a piece of the truth, but
universal truth is not discovered until we bring all religions together
into a whole.
When examining the
diverse religious traditions, one is struck by the uniformity of their
beginnings and the message of their teachings – the common thread or
universal principle. The message is the same, and only the traditions
that surround the message are different. Traditions are a direct result
of the time and place in which the religion was born – the ethnic
principle. The story behind the development of most modern traditions
is similar. A mythical history develops around the birth, life, and
death of its religious founder such as Jesus, Buddha, Joseph Smith and
Muhammad, and the teachings are a product of the founder’s life
journey.
Pye (n.d.) tells us that
all religions share a basic structure or shape, and they contain four
distinct dimensions. Taken together, they give us a broad view of the
important elements of every religious teaching. Some people tend to
single out one element as essential to his or her religion; however Pye
asserts that if we do not address all four areas, we will miss important
aspects. As we examine this list, we recognize that Pye’s typology
includes personal, emotional, social, and moral components as the four
contributions that all religions provide. These elements include:
-
The conceptual or mental aspect of the religion – the beliefs (i.e.
how does one conceptualize God or Supreme Being? What are the
myths? What are the beliefs about justice and love? How do we
conceptualize the numinous?).
-
The behavioral aspect - what people do and what rituals we follow
(i.e. do we pray and meditate every day?).
-
The social aspect - the social system and how people relate to each
other (i.e. Is religion part of our entire social system, or is
religion kept separate from the rest of our
social systems as in separation of church and state? What is the
role of the clergy? How do we treat each other?).
-
The subjective or
emotional aspect - what people feel (i.e. joy, ecstasy, love,
union).
People are generally not
convinced to follow a path based on logic. Rather, religion is about
experience, and experience implies an emotional aspect. Our inner
longing and our experience of the transcendent draws us forward toward
spirituality, and it is our need to join in communion with other
like-minded individuals that eventually creates religion, the social
institution. Regardless of the religion, the questions are always the
same. Are we free to use our will to create our destiny, or is our
destiny determined? Is there life or existence after death? What is
the nature of good and evil? We will look at some of the ways that the
different traditions have tried to answer these questions in an effort
to step back and view religion from a broader perspective.
Traditions are generally
grouped into Eastern and Western. Eastern religions include Hinduism,
Jainism, and Buddhism. Western religions include Judaism,
Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam. Eastern and Western traditions
have some basic similarities and differences in their world view. The
Eastern followers tend to be unitive and introspective in their approach
to God, and the Western followers tend to be dualistic and extroverted.
Eastern traditions see God in all things and view all things as sacred.
They believe in reincarnation and the round of birth and death that
occurs until the individual has transcended all karma and achieves
perfection. Man is seen as a manifestation of the ultimate reality, and
therefore a spark of the Divine or of Ultimate Reality. Western
traditions see God as separate, living on another “plane” of existence.
Humans live only one life and thus have only one chance to live a good
life and reap the reward of Heaven instead of the punishment of Hell
(Pye, n.d.). In other words, the East believes in union with God and
the West believes in separation from God. Both views, however, look to
the perfection of humankind as the goal, and both recognize that
something within us lives beyond death.
Ultimate Reality (God,
Brahmin, Allah, etc.) is usually defined or described in one of three
ways – as a personal being or personal God, as an impersonal being such
as infinite mind, or as an eternal truth or principle. Hinduism
includes elements of all three but generally emphasizes the impersonal
God, Brahmin. Christianity favors a personal God embodied in Christ the
Son, and shares God the Father with Judaism and Islam. Eastern
traditions generally recognize an impersonal Ultimate Reality or Eternal
Truth. In Taoism, for example, the Ultimate Principle is the Tao which
is unchanging and eternal (Valea, 2005).
Smith (1991) says that
every religion has a form of God the describable (the exoteric or
ethnic) and God the infinite which exceeds description (the esoteric).
One represents the practical or traditional, and the other represents
the mystical or inner wisdom. Formlessness or the esoteric path is not
understandable for most people, and therefore individuals need the
practical tradition to give boundaries and form to their religious
experience. Thus religious traditions begin as an esoteric experience,
and over time become exoteric to relate to individuals on a more
practical level. As an example, Buddhism split into Theravada
(esoteric) and Mahayana (exoteric) traditions to satisfy the different
needs of the followers.
Three alternatives exist
when we speak of evil. One view regards evil as ultimately unreal, and
human suffering is a product of spiritual ignorance. Because of this
ignorance, the individual gathers karma and reaps what he sows. When he
changes his viewpoint, he rises above evil and recognizes its illusory
nature. These views are particular to Buddhism and Taoism. Another
view sees good and evil as two eternal rival principles that are
fighting it out on the earth plane. These views are particular to
Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism. Finally, the third view sees evil as the
result of a person with good intention who misuses his freedom of choice
and thus falls from grace. This view is particular to Christianity
(Valea, 2005). Hinduism believes that the world will always possess the
paradox of good and evil, and indeed utopia is doomed – it is a
misjudgment of the purpose of the world – because the world serves as a
school or training ground for Soul (Smith, 1991).
Good and evil can be
summed up in the law of polarity or opposites, and different traditions
handle this polarity in different ways. Something cannot be known
without its opposite. Matter cannot exist without positive and negative
energy. Without black, we could not fathom white, because we would see
no contrast. Good and evil are usually viewed as opposites, however as
one develops through stages of faith, the dividing line becomes murky,
and polarities turn into shades of gray.
Choices and decisions in
life are easier in a black and white world. It is much more difficult
to make choices when the world becomes complex, which happens as one’s
viewpoint matures. The problem with black and white views of good and
evil is that religions go to war against evil and do more harm than good
to their fellow citizens. One only needs to consider the medieval
Crusades, the Salem witch trials, and September 11, 2001 to understand
this principle.
At first glimpse, these
religious differences appear striking, however when we read the great
mystics of various traditions, differences appear to be connected to the
author’s stage of faith rather than the religious tradition itself.
Enlightened Christians express the experience of merging with the whole
and unity with the Divine just as the Eastern spiritual giants. Indeed,
Fowler notes that a person in Stage 3 faith seeks a personal
relationship with God, a person in Stage 4 faith seeks an impersonal
God, and a person in Stage 5 faith seeks a God with both qualities
(1987).
Could it be that the
different religious traditions are more the result of different stages
of faith rather than of different spiritual beliefs, and that when
individuals of any faith attain greater understanding and broader
perspective, they interpret the religious beliefs to fit their
experience? Joseph Campbell put it succinctly when speaking to Bill
Moyers about Religion and Myth. Campbell states that religion is the
ultimate barrier to the experience of God. Religion reduces the mystery
of God to a set of concepts and ideas which “short-circuit” the
transcendent. “An intense experience of mystery is what one has to
regard as the ultimate religious experience” (1988, p. 209). He states
further that “an image of one’s god becomes a final obstruction, one’s
ultimate barrier. You hold on to your own ideology, your own little
manner of thinking, and when a larger experience of God approaches [the
transcendent experience], an experience greater than you are prepared to
receive, you take flight from it by clinging to the image in your mind.
This is known as preserving your faith” (p. 209-210). We must let go of
the limitations of our own exoteric mythology to gain the true
transcendent and mystical experience of God.
Next
|