IS INTERFAITH VIABLE?

[winter light]

Originally Posted by Gem

A religious sect relies on conformity of belief and behaviour, so there is always an authority figure where the power is cited to influence those who subscribe to the religion's narrative. When the belief system is instilled, the narrative and its authority is internalised to an identity that reflects the identity of the sect. The issue then becomes, a person whose identity relies on the internalised externality of the narrative cannot let go of the dogma, and they are adversely affected when the fallacy of the identity structure is exposed. Being affected thus, there are very strong reactions that compel people to do things, just about anything, to preserve the whole identity structure including its internal and external facets.

What I see differently is that I don't believe religion causes dogma. It is a symptom of a mode of being. There are many authority power structures that have nothing to do with religion. The worst actively eliminate all existing religion and replace it with controlling or destructive patterns.

Some of it comes down to whether we trust individuals with the choice whether and how they follow dogma. With acceptance of how they choose in the end. In some people it is required for their stability until they can grow beyond it. Others take dogma to the grave and they require external authority. But I think we must allow an individual to choose what is right for them. And it is up to us to demonstrate and prove a system that is worthy of their acceptance. There is an old saying: "A man convinced against is will is of the same opinion still". Nature hates a vacuum. If we are demanding or expecting change we need to fill it with something or face consequences.

Agreed, the names do not matter. My fundamental point is just that. There is no religion observable in nature and we can examine every nuance of the manifest universe and find no religion to notice.

Maybe the old "man vs nature" seems to be rearing it's head. I don't expect tigers to be people and I don't expect people to be tigers. We are both part of nature. Just different expressions of it. And with humans we can further subdivide into infinite categories of being. Some with religion or some without it. And Taoism is nothing if not devotion to following the ways of nature.

Furthermore, the investigation of phenomena reveals no entity to be regarded as me, so there is no entity, I, apart from the self-referential thought, and therefore, no being who can be a Buddhist or a Christian or a Jew apart from the imagined entity that forms concurrently with the name.

This means the truth itself appears destructive because the real lived observation reveals the symbolic structure of the identity which has no foundational entity.

The dilemma is not the ideas in themselves. For example, up and down are just ideas. You point up on the north pole and that direction is down to me on the south, but since we are not identified with the symbolic structure, neither of us are right nor wrong because up and down is inherently untrue. The symbol is a statement without a truth value. Religion is also a symbolic system without a truth value. There is no entity at its core and therefore no foundation to the religious identity, there is nothing there; it is only an internally self-defining system of symbols, and that nature of it is a dire undermining to one who has internalised the essentially empty identity structure. You can imagine how important it becomes when it is myself and what lengths people will go to enforce it externally so as to preserve themselves internally. If any less important than life and death, the religion would pass momentarily just like any other thought.

I understand these concerns very well and deeply. The dilemma is when ideas become more important than people. Take a look around you at the secular corporate systems filled with dogma of money makes right, with no religion, and look at the harm they cause. To nature as well as us.

Though I don't let religions off the hook here. I agree each of them plays these issues out in their own way. And Science, supposedly our treasure of truth, is really quite a mess of blind dogma. But for the most part I've kept quiet about it because I don't even know where to begin. And it was such a betrayal and ongoing heartbreak for me and I don't wish to share that experience.

This is nothing to do with an authority stopping the thing (though in cases of institutional abuse they should be shut down, which would leave very few standing), it's about letting the thought be free to come along and pass away as all thought is wont to do, and not creating these structures that divide people into I am and I am not. Just today I was asked if I was Buddhist. Actually it was presumed that I am not a Buddhist... and I had to explain how I didn't say anything in the first place. Other people created that identity while I did nothing at all, yet I am now impelled to self-classify in the not category so that the identified can preserve their identity in contrast against the 'others' (who are not). Do you see then how they created the us and them, and why that in itself creates the conditions for violence to arise?

Yes I was sorry to see that dilemma play out. I think you are on to something important there and hope to discuss later.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by winter light

What I see differently is that I don't believe religion causes dogma. It is a symptom of a mode of being. There are many authority power structures that have nothing to do with religion. The worst actively eliminate all existing religion and replace it with controlling or destructive patterns.

Religion necessitates a dogma, and has to have core tenets to foster collective belief and ritualistic conformity. There are extremes of any religion and I would argue that these are necessart. The extremes are endemic to the dichotomy of the symbolic structure which needs the extremes of yin and yang.

Some of it comes down to whether we trust individuals with the choice whether and how they follow dogma. With acceptance of how they choose in the end. In some people it is required for their stability until they can grow beyond it. Others take dogma to the grave and they require external authority. But I think we must allow an individual to choose what is right for them. And it is up to us to demonstrate and prove a system that is worthy of their acceptance. There is an old saying: "A man convinced against is will is of the same opinion still". Nature hates a vacuum. If we are demanding or expecting change we need to fill it with something or face consequences.

I agree, but from the exact opposite perspective, which makes my agreement very ironic. I accept it because no one has a choice. People didn't choose it and they can't choose to not believe it. People like to believe they are choosing, but they really are quite compelled.

Maybe the old "man vs nature" seems to be rearing it's head. I don't expect tigers to be people and I don't expect people to be tigers. We are both part of nature. Just different expressions of it. And with humans we can further subdivide into infinite categories of being. Some with religion or some without it. And Taoism is nothing if not devotion to following the ways of nature.

Um, not sure what Taoists are into. Just an old friend gave me the Tao Te Ching as a gift many years ago... so I quote it sometimes... but couldn't go past the contrast of yin and yang and know anything about Taoism, but personally, I am a follower of natures way, remain with what I can observe and give little importance to belief structure be they mine or other people's. I often think of human nature as a divided thing, and violent tendencies are just part of human expression along with kindness and love. It doesn;t have to be perpetrated by everyone, so it's a human expression in the global sense.

I understand these concerns very well and deeply. The dilemma is when ideas become more important than people. Take a look around you at the secular corporate systems filled with dogma of money makes right, with no religion, and look at the harm they cause. To nature as well as us.

Yes. That is problematic too... and not altogether a different subject. It's still a symbolic construct as an entity with the identity, 'legal person'... but probably the religious context is more on topic.

Though I don't let religions off the hook here. I agree each of them plays these issues out in their own way. And Science, supposedly our treasure of truth, is really quite a mess of blind dogma. But for the most part I've kept quiet about it because I don't even know where to begin. And it was such a betrayal and ongoing heartbreak for me and I don't wish to share that experience.


Yes I was sorry to see that dilemma play out. I think you are on to something important there and hope to discuss later.

Not to worry, I'm not affected by the 'what and what isn't Buddhist' rhetoric and the associated assertions. I understand that there is no 'correct understanding' and the subtle flows occur subjectively for individuals. I like to listen to individuals' descriptions, perspectives and understandings and I don;t think that could be reduced to and particular singular narrative.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Lets discuss ways we can bring about peace without conversions and ways we can get along with each other.

Religious/spiritual paths evolved differently across the world, and are uniquely 'suitable' to particular societies and the issues they had/have to deal with, be that wars, inequalities, environmental issues. Due to this unavoidable variety it appears difficult to find ''common ground''.

I would say it is about emphasizing very base and general stuff, such as mankind's quest to search for meaning, to understand what happens after death, to understand whether there are gods and what and who they are. Once we give answers to this we get into detail and culture, so emphasis should stay general, without answering the questions. Simply acknowledge that we all have questions..

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Altair

Religious/spiritual paths evolved differently across the world, and are uniquely 'suitable' to particular societies and the issues they had/have to deal with, be that wars, inequalities, environmental issues. Due to this unavoidable variety it appears difficult to find ''common ground''.

I would say it is about emphasizing very base and general stuff, such as mankind's quest to search for meaning, to understand what happens after death, to understand whether there are gods and what and who they are. Once we give answers to this we get into detail and culture, so emphasis should stay general, without answering the questions. Simply acknowledge that we all have questions..

I ENJOYED YOUR COMMENTS

especially the last point "Simply acknowledge that we all have questions.." which is common in all religions. Some claim they have the answers but when you look at their 'facts', their 'facts' fall short.

Originally Posted by Altair

Religious/spiritual paths evolved differently across the world, and are uniquely 'suitable' to particular societies and the issues they had/have to deal with, be that wars, inequalities, environmental issues. Due to this unavoidable variety it appears difficult to find ''common ground''.

I would say it is about emphasizing very base and general stuff, such as mankind's quest to search for meaning, to understand what happens after death, to understand whether there are gods and what and who they are. Once we give answers to this we get into detail and culture, so emphasis should stay general, without answering the questions. Simply acknowledge that we all have questions..

I'd say you served a really good dish, but you forgot to put it on a plate. Don't get me wrong, your comment makes sense. At the very core of any religion/spirituality, there is faith. Faith is pure, and sees only what is presented.

Faith is the foundation of spirituality/religion.

From this foundation that is not man made, humanity started building, hence the load of questions that go with it and the facts that fall short, because humans don't have the answers. All we can do is have faith in humanity and love ! In a way, that's an answer to all the questions, whatever they may be. Everything that comes after is acceptance, and acknowledgment that indeed we all have questions, all looking for the answers, each in our own unique ways.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Lets discuss ways we can bring about peace without conversions and ways we can get along with each other.

Bringing up the topic is a very good start. Love your neighbor as yourself is of course the way to go. People that refuse it and say it doesn't work because not complicated enough or that there are different types of love are just clinging to what they have. But faith cannot be taken away from you, and you can't have love if you're not ready to let it go to begin with. If people want complicated it's because they want to mess with it, manipulate in a way. When people want love they just want harmony. If you just want harmony then you don't care how it is called, where it comes from and it is also okay to not have the answers. But that's probably too simple to be true, because otherwise "humanity would already have found the answer".

Peace

[Altair]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

I ENJOYED YOUR COMMENTS

especially the last point "Simply acknowledge that we all have questions.." which is common in all religions. Some claim they have the answers but when you look at their 'facts', their 'facts' fall short.

Yes, I believe it is best to keep it simple and reduce it to basic questions surrounding life and meaning.

Coming back to the title of the thread, I'm skeptical to the notion that ''interfaith'' would be a viable practice, because it tries to find ''common ground'' when in actuality religions developed differently. I fundamentally appreciate the variety in the world. When I see how Australia has such different native fauna from Eurasia I appreciate this. It allows for study and understanding. Similarly, I enjoy how Asian spirituality is different from Ancient or modern European spirituality.

We do not have to find ''common ground'' on any deeper level than the basic questions because too easily it will lead us to practising cultural vandalism. I have pointed this out many times on SF across different threads, it is illustrative of New Age and general Hinduism. They want things to be the same because of the personality/nature of their philosophy, they have a distaste for reason and are relativist.

Originally Posted by Altair

... it is illustrative of New Age and general Hinduism. They want things to be the same because of the personality/nature of their philosophy, they have a distaste for reason and are relativist.

Ummm...

First off, just what is 'New Age' to you? I have my own idea, but I would really like to know yours.

Secondly - 'New Age' and 'Hinduism' in the same category? Aren't they thousands of years apart, etc etc etc, and more differences?

Thirdly - so you know of a religion that appeals to 'reason'?

Lastly, just what does 'relativist' mean to you? I've never heard that applied to religion before - especially an established religion.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Kioma

Ummm...

First off, just what is 'New Age' to you? I have my own idea, but I would really like to know yours.

Secondly - 'New Age' and 'Hinduism' in the same category? Aren't they thousands of years apart, etc etc etc, and more differences?

Thirdly - so you know of a religion that appeals to 'reason'?

Lastly, just what does 'relativist' mean to you? I've never heard that applied to religion before - especially an established religion.

New Age and Hinduism are not the same, but the New Age is definitely largely a Hindu-inspired movement and, I would say, a spiritual zeitgeist. Not really a thing by itself but more an approach. The early 20th century Hindu philosophers and guru's in the 1960s/70s have had a huge impact on the movement, along with non-Hindu topics such as Western astrology, tarot cards, and figures such as Helena Blavatsky.

Those figures came with questions that were appropriate for their time, such as Blavatsky speculating about ''root races'' and ''lost continents'', and we've known now for quite a while that her ideas about it are wrong. The spiritual zeitgeist provides ''spiritual answers'' to questions that most definitely are formed by a people's place in history. These days, many spiritual questions deal with the individual and his/her 'self-actualization', which I suspect, would not have been very popular in the Middle Ages, in 5th century B.C. Persia, or among Inuit people or any rainforest tribe. It is however very popular in a highly individualized and industrial context, where people live individualist, consumerist lives and now Buddhism enters the picture and provides ''answers'' for questions that are raised in today's context.

This does not make Buddhism ''right'', only perhaps 'right' insofar it is able to fulfil the spiritual niche. In the future that may all change again. Have civilization crumble and have small communities becoming central again and we will need different 'answers' to different questions.

The New Age has a specific approach of dealing with spiritual questions and is characterized by a high degree of relativism and subjectivity, and one of religious syncretism (''pick and choose'', emphasize similarities and ignore where you may be wrong about them). Relativist in the sense that ''everyone has their own truth'' and that you can't say or are specifically told not to argue about it. Consequently, I notice a lot of silence and conflict avoidance in these spiritual paths. There's a fear of having an argument. I have participated in retreats and yoga and meditation groups, and the people coming there I would not call ''New Agers'' or ''Hindus'', but by and large many are ''New Age'' in how they approach spirituality. This is my experience.

Some religions try to establish objectivity (which is not to say they literally do, as in scientifically), at least from a theological perspective and that makes them more rational in a sense. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism do not try to, for instance accommodate many different interpretations of Jesus and core Biblical teachings. The differences are often rather arcane if you ask me. It is not surprising to me that modern science has developed in the context of a Judeo-Christian civilization. The drive for finding 'one truth' makes people accept the reality that there are falsehoods and teachings or studies that ought to be discarded, which by itself has made it easier for modern science to develop out of a civilization that emphasized a higher degree of rationalism and a lower degree of relativism. Ironically though, that same drive has also placed the religion itself in a vulnerable position.

So you feel the difference between new religion and old religion is subjectivity and objectivity, respectively?

How is a religion 'objective' if not actually objective? Do you feel there is anything in-between subjectivity and objectivity?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Tim here

Faith is the foundation of spirituality/religion.

From this foundation that is not man made, humanity started building, hence the load of questions that go with it and the facts that fall short, because humans don't have the answers. All we can do is have faith in humanity and love ! In a way, that's an answer to all the questions, whatever they may be. Everything that comes after is acceptance, and acknowledgment that indeed we all have questions, all looking for the answers, each in our own unique ways.



Bringing up the topic is a very good start. Love your neighbor as yourself is of course the way to go. People that refuse it and say it doesn't work because not complicated enough or that there are different types of love are just clinging to what they have. But faith cannot be taken away from you, and you can't have love if you're not ready to let it go to begin with. If people want complicated it's because they want to mess with it, manipulate in a way. When people want love they just want harmony. If you just want harmony then you don't care how it is called, where it comes from and it is also okay to not have the answers. But that's probably too simple to be true, because otherwise "humanity would already have found the answer".

Peace

Interfaith can look at common beliefs such as Love.

From there, we can look at other issues such as War.