IS INTERFAITH VIABLE?

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

As BJ said even with this brief vision you are rich person .

Interfaith has many aspects even beyond personal growth . Many of the today's society are secular by constitution . And there is nothing wrong . All faiths treated and viewed equally before law is simply marvellous .

However in practice it degenerates into absence of spirituality and ethics . This is where problems starts . If interfaith dialogue and understandings are great, it can not only sustain integrity in public life but also promotes .

People with firm belief in interfaith have to be alert not to get into outward aspects of religions which may vary due to atmospheric , historical reasons . They need to focus on core teaching and work how to promote / teach
spirituality and ethics in religion neutral way .

A good example is inscription on US currency dollar that 'In God we trust' . Despite attempts of secularists to challenge in US courts of justice as violating religious freedom , it could stand the tests of courts scrutiny and still carry the real spirit / nature of US original law makers (it may be different thing it may not be reality ) .

All religion is or should be informed by the Rising of the Tides, the Burning of the Stars, the songs of children. Anyone should be able to move from one Religion to another and make a success of it if they should please to do so. The tents which house the framework of different faiths, namely the holy books and consequential narratives following on, should not be seen or even used as legalistic ends in themselves, which unfortunately they seem to be. As old fashioned and cliched as this phrase is, ' The Spirit above the Letter' or even ' The Spirit equal to the Letter' is a goal to be strived for and realised. Unfortunately, the Legalistic, rationalistic and adversarial thrust of 'Faiths' seems to prevail particularly it seems amongst the male dominated mind which seems intent on josting and winning arguments which to be quite frank are flotsam and jetsam on the tide of Being. That way of using ones intellect seems more suited to 'politics' and secular problem solving, but even in that regard it may be limited and perhaps contributes already to the lack of progress and eradication of world problems. But before I stray too far away about my point on Tents and narratives I will also venture to say that the words of Buddy Holly are as equally important as the words of Shakespeare and the words of both of them just as 'Revelatory' as the Bible, The Dhammapada or the Quoran, if only one is prepared to listen with an open heart and mind. On that note i'll bid you a very Happy New Year. Thank you for the opportunity.

********************
****************************

[Gem]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

To a good degree i agree with lot of observations you make . In history there have been lot of bad things has happened world wide due to religions intolerance and one-up-manship . However such kind of problems have happened even due to money or political thought (Communism/capitalism). But still we try to improve all such things and cultivate ('culture' so to say) into something better humane . Same way if through better interfaith work we can improve the life around us , we should always give it chance .

You experiences and observations definitely serve as something to guard against in such interfaith stuff .

I think we generally find that identity attachment is behind the majority of major atrocities. I just pick out religious identity because that's the context of the thread. Identity with political, national and racial constructs have also resulted equally atrocious things as you say. The commonality between them IMO is identification, and all of them are dangerous for the same underlying reason.


If we investigate critically, the religion (or other identity structure) is made important because 'I' am important. Religion is particularly curious because of its inherent obsession with 'the good' as is epitomised by God. At that level, good and evil are symbolised comparing God to the Devil and/or Heaven to Hell. The problem with symbolic meaning is that it requires such extreme contrasts to have meaning - extremes between which we can stretch a scale of degrees.

My interest is the centre from which good and evil extend in opposite directions. This centre directly correlates with the balance of ones mind. The mind shouldn't be imagined as a duality with respect to the body in this context because good and evil is directly associated with psychological reactivity, which is directly related to feelings/experiences. For example, if a painful feeling is there I don't like it, don't want it, want it to go away. At the extreme, that becomes hatred. On the other hand, if pleasurable, I like it, want it, want it to stay. At the extreme, that becomes greed. Thus, the essence of what we call evil is hatred and greed associated with our desired or undesired experiences.

The only reason we want it and don't want it is because it is happening to me. 'I' am the star of the drama, and as such, 'I' am the contrasted extreme icon at the core of the dilemma.

Hence, different religions can't coexist peacefully and although the moderates get along well enough, the extremes are inherent to the dual paradigm through which 'I' can know 'myself' innternally.

[BigJohn]

        I look at Interfaith as I do races.

                 Some people see
                   White people,
                   Black people,
                    Red people,
                   Yellow people


            but what I see is people.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think we generally find that identity attachment is behind the majority of major atrocities. I just pick out religious identity because that's the context of the thread. Identity with political, national and racial constructs have also resulted equally atrocious things as you say. The commonality between them IMO is identification, and all of them are dangerous for the same underlying reason.

I think identity and reasonable attachment to it is good so long as does not undermine or demean other identities . It may be difficult for some but human life simply is not just to do very simple things.

Originally Posted by Gem

If we investigate critically, the religion (or other identity structure) is made important because 'I' am important.

To me , Religon is important because we all (including me and all others) are important.

Originally Posted by Gem

Religion is particularly curious because of its inherent obsession with 'the good' as is epitomised by God. At that level, good and evil are symbolised comparing God to the Devil and/or Heaven to Hell. The problem with symbolic meaning is that it requires such extreme contrasts to have meaning - extremes between which we can stretch a scale of degrees.

Extremes help one understand the direction of oneself in life and it serves as light house people who have lost direction in life. Scripture writers are not always unreasonable in their expectations and are quite flexible in implementations of its recommendations .

Originally Posted by Gem

My interest is the centre from which good and evil extend in opposite directions. This centre directly correlates with the balance of ones mind. The mind shouldn't be imagined as a duality with respect to the body in this context because good and evil is directly associated with psychological reactivity, which is directly related to feelings/experiences. For example, if a painful feeling is there I don't like it, don't want it, want it to go away. At the extreme, that becomes hatred. On the other hand, if pleasurable, I like it, want it, want it to stay. At the extreme, that becomes greed. Thus, the essence of what we call evil is hatred and greed associated with our desired or undesired experiences.

Your focus and interest in centre and rationale behind it are quite commendable and u explained it well with greed and hatred .

Originally Posted by Gem

The only reason we want it and don't want it is because it is happening to me. 'I' am the star of the drama, and as such, 'I' am the contrasted extreme icon at the core of the dilemma.

Hence, different religions can't coexist peacefully and although the moderates get along well enough, the extremes are inherent to the dual paradigm through which 'I' can know 'myself' innternally.

With background you have envisaged , indeed peaceful positive co-existence of religions is not possible . And many a times in history this has been seen. But I find that not applicable in all situations . But also this is true that with monopoly of religion also there has been problem and that situation too is bad .Interfaith has tremendous potential to motivate/exhort so called religious class in religious roles to do some real constructive work for society .

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

All religion is or should be informed by the Rising of the Tides, the Burning of the Stars, the songs of children. Anyone should be able to move from one Religion to another and make a success of it if they should please to do so. The tents which house the framework of different faiths, namely the holy books and consequential narratives following on, should not be seen or even used as legalistic ends in themselves, which unfortunately they seem to be. As old fashioned and cliched as this phrase is, ' The Spirit above the Letter' or even ' The Spirit equal to the Letter' is a goal to be strived for and realised.

Spirituality or religions can survive only if they keep spirit above letter. I agree that spirit of writings should be more important.

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

Unfortunately, the Legalistic, rationalistic and adversarial thrust of 'Faiths' seems to prevail particularly it seems amongst the male dominated mind which seems intent on josting and winning arguments which to be quite frank are flotsam and jetsam on the tide of Being. That way of using ones intellect seems more suited to 'politics' and secular problem solving, but even in that regard it may be limited and perhaps contributes already to the lack of progress and eradication of world problems. But before I stray too far away about my point on Tents and narratives I will also venture to say that the words of Buddy Holly are as equally important as the words of Shakespeare and the words of both of them just as 'Revelatory' as the Bible, The Dhammapada or the Quoran, if only one is prepared to listen with an open heart and mind. On that note i'll bid you a very Happy New Year. Thank you for the opportunity.

********************
****************************

I can see you have experienced some Legalistic, rationalistic and adversarial interpretations of holy books and your are legitimately concerned with it . Religious books dont discard the other books . But we too should see the importance of books , area it contributes and validity of tenets contained therein.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

I think identity and reasonable attachment to it is good so long as does not undermine or demean other identities . It may be difficult for some but human life simply is not just to do very simple things.


To me , Religion is important because we all (including me and all others) are important.



Extremes help one understand the direction of oneself in life and it serves as light house people who have lost direction in life. Scripture writers are not always unreasonable in their expectations and are quite flexible in implementations of its recommendations .


Your focus and interest in centre and rationale behind it are quite commendable and u explained it well with greed and hatred .


With background you have envisaged , indeed peaceful positive co-existence of religions is not possible . And many a times in history this has been seen. But I find that not applicable in all situations . But also this is true that with monopoly of religion also there has been problem and that situation too is bad .Interfaith has tremendous potential to motivate/exhort so called religious class in religious roles to do some real constructive work for society .

True, some good can come of religion working together, but the bad is inevitable because the extremes are necessary ends of the symbol.


Religion is symbolism. Ritual, repetition, costume, iconography. My question has been, Is a person religious at times when he isn't thinking about it? Or, are they only religious when they undertake religious thinking? I see that people often wear a symbol to remind themselves and indicate to others that they are religious, but I also think the religion itself is nothing more than a symbolic construct. If you take away the symbolism, there is nothing there. The spiritual is there regardless of symbols, so the symbolism, and therefore the religion, is superfluous.


If we have various religions trying to interfaith, I think that signals a noble ideal, but it also implies the inherent conflict they attempt to overcome. So the real question is, What is the fundamental cause of the conflict in the first place? People will think they have the answer, intolerance and so forth, but no. If there was no religion in the first place there would be no religious conflict. However, even though that is obvious, people are not going to forsake their religions, so as much as interfaith appeals to me as an ideal, realistically, I can't see how how it is possible.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Gem

If we have various religions trying to interfaith, I think that signals a noble ideal, but it also implies the inherent conflict they attempt to overcome. So the real question is, What is the fundamental cause of the conflict in the first place? People will think they have the answer, intolerance and so forth, but no. If there was no religion in the first place there would be no religious conflict. However, even though that is obvious, people are not going to forsake their religions, so as much as interfaith appeals to me as an ideal, realistically, I can't see how how it is possible.

Does not Spiritual Forums...... mimic Interfaith?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

I can see you have experienced some Legalistic, rationalistic and adversarial interpretations of holy books and your are legitimately concerned with it . Religious books dont discard the other books . But we too should see the importance of books , area it contributes and validity of tenets contained therein.

but if you look at the various holy books, they start to say the same messages.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Does not Spiritual Forums...... mimic Interfaith?

Probably here the more extreme element would be banned, so we can mimic it here by excluding the radicals, but they are out there fer realz.


I'm not against the idea. Of course it is a great idea, but I just can't see it actually working, and unfortunately, reality isn't the same as we'd want it to be sometimes. What irks me is there has been so much harm over such an unnecessary thing, and there continues to be. People aren't going to address the root of the problem, so its not going to change any time soon. The idealists will try and good on them, I support that, though I'd sooner see and end to all religions. That's not going to happen, so I take the good with the bad much like anything else.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Gem

Probably here the more extreme element would be banned, so we can mimic it here by excluding the radicals, but they are out there fer realz.


I'm not against the idea. Of course it is a great idea, but I just can't see it actually working, and unfortunately, reality isn't the same as we'd want it to be sometimes. What irks me is there has been so much harm over such an unnecessary thing, and there continues to be. People aren't going to address the root of the problem, so its not going to change any time soon. The idealists will try and good on them, I support that, though I'd sooner see and end to all religions. That's not going to happen, so I take the good with the bad much like anything else.

You claim "there has been so much harm over such an unnecessary thing, and there continues to be." What harm?

You claim "I'd sooner see and end to all religions." Does that include Buddhism?