The 'problem' of universalism

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Bandit, I see your point and while I would not phrase it exactly the same way, I agree with what you are saying. It is again the problem of making everything relative so nothing is meaningful.

peace,
lunamoth

exactly. nothing is meaningful.
just so you know, i was watching the animal planet at the same time i was studying all this. they had a special on animals that mimic, disguise themselves & take advantage of other animals.

the mimic octopus & the cuckoo bird were in the top 10...then a little voice spoke to me & made it all very clear

[seattlegal]

Hmm, this thread brings to mind this passage from "The Lord of The Rings"

Three Rings for the Elven Kings

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

-- J R R Tolkien

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew,

Universal Religion
The belief that, since all is God, then only one reality exists, and all religions are simply different paths to that ultimate reality.

Those religions are the 'ways' or as Buddhists might say 'upaya' (a providential means) to that ultmate reality.

The universal religion can be visualized as a mountain, with many spiritual paths to the summit.

This confuses the mountain with the path, and presupposes the existence of a universal religion, or path, for which we have not one shred of evidence - it is an intellectual construct, the 'visualized as a mountain' has suddenly become a reality. It conforms to a human reason and logic, but still a construct, it is an idea, it is not a reality.

Some are hard; others easy.
This supposes God says "I'll make life a doddle for you over here, but a real trial for you here." One would be obliged to allow such a God to create paths that lead nowhere, or back down to the bottom. We have started by inventing the mountain, now we're making sweeping assumptions about the nature of religion.

[i]Okay, now this is exactly what I believe. Could someone please explain why there is anything in the least bit offensive, intolerant, exclusive, or smug about such a notion? I am utterly dismayed and have obviously completely missed the argument. I will say this, however. I am practicing the utmost of patience ... as I sit and wonder, what I might have missed![i]

The point is that there are paths, but there is not a universal path - the many only become one at the peak, not all the way up the mountain.

Look at it this way. There is a mountain. There are many routes up the mountain - and the many routes have certain elements in common - because man is man.

Now we can say 'to climb the mountain requires you to go up', or that you must be fit, or have the right gear, but there is no path that is a construct of elements of all the other paths ... there are just the paths ...

... to get to the top of the mountain, you have to climb a path ...

The choice then is do you climb via one of the paths, or do you try and make your own way, where there is no path. Unfortunately we cannot take the pleasing bits of all the paths and make a pleasant path to the top, which is what universalism suggests.

The universalist path makes as much sense as trying to climb every route up a mountain simultaneously.

Thomas

[Thomas]

hi Z

"your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,"
Genesis 3:5

why is this a deception? We begin in ignorance and innocence eventually arriving at the place of 'all-knowledge' beyond the veil.

In the Scriptural Tradition that's where we originated. Humanity was created perfect, but somehow lost this primordial perfection.

For the 'eyes to be opened' signifies a gain of sight, but also a loss of the primordial vision - a vision of essence or interiority of things.

Earlier God brought the animals before man, who 'saw' them and named them, according to their essential nature. now, having lost this interior sight, the cosmos presents itself as strange, and other ...

Thomas

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The universalist path makes as much sense as trying to climb every route up a mountain simultaneously.

Thomas

i think it is because the UR is exclusive to the Jesus path & they put the Bible route on a different mountain.

[taijasi]

The mountain was a useful, three-dimensional metaphor. My understanding, as I read your first post from yesterday outloud, was first one of slight consternation, Thomas ... but then one of utter accord and agreement, when I came across these statements:

"The point is that there are paths, but there is not a universal path - the many only become one at the peak, not all the way up the mountain.

Look at it this way. There is a mountain. There are many routes up the mountain - and the many routes have certain elements in common - because man is man.

Now we can say 'to climb the mountain requires you to go up', or that you must be fit, or have the right gear, but there is no path that is a construct of elements of all the other paths ... there are just the paths ...

... to get to the top of the mountain, you have to climb a path ..."

But, my overall feeling is the metaphor broke down. It has become too concretized, which we are wont to do in our human thinking. Naturally, we say, how can a thing be in two places at once, or, how can a paradox (of which life presents an endless number and variety) ... truly exist at all? And yet, Truth is stranger than fiction, the Lord works in mysterious ways ... and to be a bit more practical about it, quantum physics increasingly reveals that the most curious nature of this world - is not at all as it seems from our human perspective. Or, in the very least, there are many other ways to slice this grape, and they are equally valid.

Emptiness, as we call it from our perspective, is MOST of what actually exists (!), as confirmed by physicists, and their scientific brothers, the astronomers. Yet, my own belief is that - amidst this emptiness, is spiritual substance itself, whose relationship to matter, is a bit like - Soul to body. As you are certainly familiar, Thomas, this is the great mistake of many Westeners, as we have traditionally misinterpreted the Eastern concept of Nirvana. Nothing, indeed, but only relative to what most of us can conceive, or have experienced, or could even imagine, regarding - (you fill in the blank).

As for the mountain metaphor, maybe another way to see it would be useful. At risk of utter confusion ... might I suggest the following revision:

My own understanding (flawed, and imperfect, certainly), with which I do not ask anyone to agree, is that ... Life itself is the Path that circles the mountain. I do not believe that there are multiple paths, only that all of Humanity shares in one, great Life, and as such, we can be viewed as a long, chain of weary pilgrims ... slowly, painstakingly, yet inevitably ascending this mountain. It is tough going sometimes, but the overall process of our spiritual evolution - no matter what religion one subscribes to - is certainly good, and though encompassing vast millions of years, we all end up at the top of the mount. The goal is not simply to reach the top, although in very simple terms, we may regard it thus. One the one hand, this has nothing to do with religion (!) ... though in many ways, it can have everything to do with it.

The error, imho, is twofold. One, is to imagine that this mountain, is the only mountain, or that it is our ultimate beginning & end. I trust that we climbed other mountains prior to our spiritual evolution as humans, believing in our traversal of the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms ... as we look in reverse. Prior to that, I trust there is additional heritage, but that's already too much, for some folks. At the other end, atop the mountain, I do believe that - once in a blue moon - or at a very gradual rate, thus far, Humanity literally Ascends - as attested by the saints & sages of various world traditions. Such I accept as the goal for all souls, and for Humanity as a whole, as a Unit, or Kingdom. What strange & curious destinies await us ... is not a matter of pure speculation, imo, though understandably, from our limited perspective, this must needs of necessity, remain so.

Now the second part of our error, as I take it, is the most curious, yet prevalent myth, that our true spiritual Goal, concerns us as individuals alone, and does not intimately involve our fellow man, especially those with whom we are closely associated, throughout life. And so, although Humanity proceeds in the fashion of a chain of pilgrims, climbing the Mountain of spiritual progress ... I believe, and have found - through my studies, sharings & experiences - that our true Purpose, conceived in a spiritual sense, is to learn about our connection with others (and with all life), and to extend ourselves ... through loving Service ... for the benefit of our fellow traveler(s). One cannot do this, while focused exclusively on self, or on material gain, or upon the pleasures of life. What is required is a life of discipline, of the sacrifice of what the personality might want to do, and instead, a reversal of the flow, such that our energy is directed outward, radiatory, rather than inward, magnetic in the lower sense. {And conceived of as a spiritual path, that is the way I would seek to walk, in my best aspirations.}

And those who answer the Call to the Heights ahead of their time, no matter where they may be found up until that point in the great procession of Life, to the top of the mountain, are disciples. Thus, despite there being a pre-carved path, as it were, these bold souls set upon their own trek, to scale the mountain more speedily, and do so not for their own sake, but for the Good of others. Those who can use their increased spiritual understanding, empowerment & abilities in the Service of others ... could be said, collectively, to be treading the Higher Way, or the Path (with a capital `P'). But such are not understood as better than anyone else. And again, reject such a proposition as you like, if it is not comfortable, or if the notion smacks of elitism to you. How one can misinterpret discipleship in this way, confuses me. Personally, I am grateful that such World Servers exist, and have known many, many such wonderful Souls already, in my time. They do not quibble, over religious belief, and outward creeds. That is a personal matter, between a wo/man and God, not something to be bandied about, and used to beat others over the head. Indeed, someone who stands up and says, I am a disciple, an enlightened one, spiritually advanced, etc. ... has indeed, said a mouthful, yet already amply demonstrated that s/he is misguided, and vain.

I do not so stand, because I know my error, and I long ago learned, that simply to believe that the above mountain metaphor is true, does not distinguish one from others in any way. If one believes in the life of service, then only by living it, might one hope to leave the sheep, and join the rank of mountain goats, who, Capricorn-like, ascend the perilous way ... of extreme personal sacrifice, and self-abnegation. It is not easy. The slow, guaranteed path ... is far, far simpler, and infinitely safer. And there are plenty of opportunities for rapid progress, if one is diligent. The goal, in my belief, is guaranteed, after all ... thus no need for fear, for scratching and clawing, and for the fierce competition that we nonetheless see, all around us. But then, there is also a great darkness that beclouds the way. And in this, I am thoroughly Eastern in my approach, and understanding.

The Fall from Grace, by the way, is something I do accept, metaphorically, and no literally. I hold that Deity spake lovingly, and instructively, when Humanity was asked to descend into Incarnation, upon this planet. This "fall," is quite necessary, imo and in my understanding, if we are to be able to return as the Prodigal, and know the Father again. Free will, it might be said, is part of the test, and the sharpening stone, which gives us the edge of understanding, or Wisdom. This, combined with the perfect Compassion of the Buddha, or the Love/agape of the Christ, is our the goal of our evolution, and allows us to Ascend, from atop the mountain, as I see it.

And why on earth should one agree with all of that, if one sees it in another light? No path leads us down, or "off" the mountain, in my understanding, in this different casting of the mountain metaphor. The only real error is one which slows our spiritual progress, however we interpret that in terms of our own particular religious tradition. The sad consequences of our own stumblings, are that those ahead of us, will feel an additional burden, for what we do, and experience, is intimately bound with, and has great influence upon, those close to us, and around us. So, also, when we stumble, do those who look up to us, and turn to us for guidance and insight, suffer more. Yet wonderfully, the inverse is also true! Our hastened progress, and spiritual triumph, is an immense boon to those around us, allowing us to move up in the ranks, as it were, and also drawing those around us forward on the path.

The error, yes, is to go about judging other, and to be stuck in the metaphor of the mountain, forgetting to relate to others where and as they are. One's own sense of self, or spiritual identity, should not center on some supposed notion of spiritual standing, especially the vanity of pride and an imagined superiority (which only proves the reverse). True humility, and the commitment to a life of loving service, will guarantee that we avoid this.

my thoughts ...

andrew

[Dondi]

Maybe some of us are too busy trying to get up that mountain when we should be simply enjoying the journey. I remember climbing up Mt. Fuji in Japan, hoping to get a glorious view from the top. It was a hard, treacherous climb, several times stopping to get my stick stamped at various elevations. it took be 3 1/2 hours to climb up. But when I got up there, I didn't so much soak in the scenery as being thankful that I was able to make the climb, that somehow I accomplished something. My legs felt like jelly, but there was a euphoria I couldn't explain, like there was a connection with the mountain, as if there was a mutual gratefulness of me climbing the mountain and the mountain being climbed, and I was one with the mountain as I climbed it. It was uncanny, actually.


Anyway, my point is that I think we often focus on the end result instead of the means to get there, and thus lose the reward of the process.

[taijasi]

What a beautiful point, Dondi!

I rather enjoyed the account of climbing Mt. Fuji, though. You reminded me of the much smaller, Mt. Pisgah, in western NC, in the Appalachians. Each & every time I've climbed it (~1 hr) ... it has certainly been - a spiritual experience, to look out across the Blue Ridge, and see the contours of the land. There is such a peace - which passeth understanding, quite - that I've sometimes simply sat and meditated for hours. It was during experiences such as this, and even motorcycling around on the Blue Ridge Parkway, that I would also meditate on Devas, or vast, angelic presences, which would surely be at home in such beauty and tranquility.


Makes me want to be there now, and when it warms up, I look very much forward to returning!

Namaskar,

andrew

[Silverbackman]

Great Thread!

I tend to agree with Thomas but at the same time I disagree. I used to be a Universalist, only about a few months ago. If any of you remember, I advocated a religion that would combine all of the religions, all the prophets and godmen, ect. But there were obvious flaws in my reasoning. And the reasoning is more logical and less philosophical IMHO.

IMO, the reason why universalism is wrong is because all religions teach totally different concepts, depending on how close they are. In other words, there are obvious contradictions between these religions. For example a particular Native American tribe believed the world was created in a thunderstorm with two giant turtle shells crashing down to the Earth and that the Earth is actually a big turtle shell. Christians believed the world was created by a God created by the image of man in 6 days. This would obviously contradict the Native American tribe's creation myth. According to a particular tribe in Africa the world was created from the excrement of ants. According to Zuesism many strange mythological beings created the world and created creatures there are no evidence of (but scientists think they created these creatures from the bones they found). I can go on and on.

Universalism cannot exist because of these clear contradictions. One might argue that regardless of the these clear differences that there is one shining pearl in all religions leading to the same God. But is there really any proof for this?

I can create a divine faith if I like (as Thomas put it, clear away a new path in the mountain) but how does that guarantee any path being a path at all? What if I created a path on the mountain that claimed that the more people I kill the more rewards I will get in heaven. Is this as valid as another more peaceful religion? Let's say I created a more peaceful religion, so then what counts as a religion then? If any path is fair game then the only difference between a non-religious person and a person who created their own path is that one didn't acknowledge their path to God and just went about their life.

Plus, there is a logical explanation for all religions. All religions maybe inspired by God, but not literally from God. Religions were created by wise men of the past to explain the world around them as well as to establish culture and order within society. It doesn't mean traditional religions are all wrong, it just means traditional religions are no more divine as if I was to create my own religion and somehow convert millions of people to it.

How many people here believe Achilles dipped in immortality by Zues? It is just as valid as saying Jesus is the son of Yahweh. However, we must remember there are things called myths. Remember though, a myth doesn't necessarily mean something isn't true. A myth is NOT the same thing as a fiction. In other words Jesus was most likely a man that lived (unless their as proof against this, then it is disputed) that probably taught a philosophy that he believed will make mankind better. He may have made a bunch of baseless un-scientific claims such as he is the son of God (that anyone can claim) but it doesn't mean he is a fictional character.

The basis of all religions are the same in their goals (although this can be disputed too). Religions cannot however be divine and from God anymore than a religion I wanted to create.

[path_of_one]

Interesting thread.

I would not agree that all religions are the same in their goals. Religion is a social phenomenon and serves certain social purposes. This is not necessarily a bad thing- particularly before the age of court systems, police, and so forth religion was the primary method of keeping a society running more or less smoothly and giving people a sense of fellowship, similarity, and comraderie. But I would argue that while most religions fulfill the same social purposes (such as having a standard of morality and allaying people's anxiety about death and the unknown), they can have very different ideas about ultimate individual goals as well as the mechanisms by which the universe works and the means to attaining these ultimate goals.

For example, while one can find elements that resonante with one's personal experiences of the spiritual as well as elements that aid the functioning of society in both Buddhism and Christianity, the concepts are fundamentally different. Nirvana is very different from heaven (at least the mainstream concepts of each). The Buddha and Jesus Christ were very different individuals, particularly in their discussions of who they themselves were and their relationship to the universe and to deity. While I find it useful for my own spiritual path to read from a variety of religions and I do find things that resonate with my own spiritual experience in most of them, I do not think that the answer is negating all the wonderful diversity among the religious traditions in an effort to make up one mega-religion composed of all the bits I like from all the different traditions. No matter how much I like meditation and the idea of non-attachment from Buddhism, that doesn't reconcile the fact that ideas of functional atheism, the necessity of monastic life to win nirvana, etc. don't sit well with my own spiritual experience or with Christianity, my own foundation.

It is one thing to claim non-judgment (or alternatively, non-condemnation), which I do. I believe all religions that have a foundational truth of loving-kindness to be inspired by God, and since I am not God and do not have omniscience, I cannot say that other religions are "wrong" paths for others, but only that my path is right for me. But it is quite another thing for me to take the bits and pieces of all kinds of religious traditions and say that this is the "correct" or "best" way for everyone. My own spiritual path is rather eclectic and it works for me; my personal method is to "bounce" other religions' practices and concepts off my own spiritual experience, as guided by the Holy Spirit and Christ's teachings. In my personal experience of God, this works for me. I feel that I grow and yet do not disintegrate into believing everything, or (just as dangerously) picking whatever is easiest or most pleasant to believe without any real spiritual experience to back it up. (I am not saying anyone in this thread does this, but I have long noticed that it is a problem with universalism, which can be quite self-serving if not done in a conscientious manner.) But for me to claim, for example, that my unique amalgam of Christianity and various other parts of other religions that mesh well with my spiritual experience is the "right" way, the most "evolved" way that all human beings will eventually reach... seems arrogant to me.

Furthermore, while a universalist approach (or something like my own, which is eclectic but not quite universalist) may work for some, this does not negate the fact that one single religion may work better for others. I know many Christians for whom the Bible alone is sufficient to satisfy their desire for spiritual knowledge, and the proof of their spiritual advancement (for lack of a better term) is in their "fruits of the spirit"- the way that they live their lives and treat others. Who am I to say that this way is not sufficient for them, or that I am more evolved because I also read the Tao te Ching or the Dhammapada? Instead, I would say that all people, if they truly seek after God/Truth, will find the path that will lead them there. I revel in the diversity of religious traditions and hope that while we do find tolerance and peace, we do not lose our uniqueness. Perhaps I am a strange sort of Christian in that regard, because just as I do not want to form some worldwide uber-religion, I do not want to convert everyone to my (or anyone else's) brand of Christianity.

I truly believe that while religion is a social phenomenon, and thus is limited and necessarily has certain social functions, spirituality and mysticism need not be. The personal experience of the divine and transcendence, the advancement towards loving-kindness, peace, and joy in life (yes, not just a focus on the "goal," but a genuine enjoyment of the journey itself), can be had in a variety of paths, from what I have seen, and I have no desire to eliminate others' paths, nor to insist my own is superior. While I would agree with Silverbackman that religions (traditions) are not literally given to us by God (though inspired by God), I would argue that personal relationships with the divine and transcendence may be given by God if we seek after Him/Her/It. Religion does not equal spiritual experience, but is rather a framework to help guide us to and interpret spiritual experience. Religion is conceptualizations of the Divine and the ways to seek after It, but underlying religion is real experience. Similarly, different cultures have different ways of conceptualizing nature and its processes and the ways to deal with it, but underlying our imperfect conceptualizations are real processes.

Rather than different paths on the same mountain, I loved a picture that Q (I believe it was Q) painted last year... there is but one true road, and it is straight and narrow. But we may hold the hand of a number of guides. It is possible that we leave the narrow road and wander off onto highways that lead us to hell (for me, a state of being, for some Christians, a literal place). (Such highways would include the "religions" that promote hatred, for example.) It is also possible that we become so tunnel-visioned on the goal or our guide that we fail to look around us and notice others on the same road we are. We think they are on different roads. We may forget to enjoy that hike, the feeling of being like a child- limited and innocent and trusting in the sureity of our guide's footsteps and the comfort of his/her/its hand. But still, we trudge (or dance, or skip, and sometimes crawl) toward the Divine, as a result of our choice to seek after It. Some of us will one day look around and say, hey! There are some interesting and surprising folks on this road! Some of us will briefly stop and ask questions of their guides and then discuss with our own. Some may "guide-hop" and walk a while with others. And some will hold tight to their own guide and be unconcerned with anything but the goal and their own guide's teachings. If we all are seeking truth and learning to love, are any of these ways of moving toward the Divine wrong? Why the need to get everyone into one big formation, led by all the guides holding hands? Or the need to condemn all those who do not hold the hand of one's own guide? Is it not enough to find the comfort of our own guide(s), love each other, and rejoice in the exhileration of the journey?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Interesting thread.

Glad to see you back...

[path_of_one]

Thanks, Q. I'm crawling back from the worst workload I have ever had. It's nice to be in good company again!

[seattlegal]

Hmm, this analogy comparing universalism to a mountain with different paths comes uncomfortably close to the Tower of Babel, in my mind.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Furthermore, while a universalist approach (or something like my own, which is eclectic but not quite universalist) may work for some, this does not negate the fact that one single religion may work better for others. I know many Christians for whom the Bible alone is sufficient to satisfy their desire for spiritual knowledge, and the proof of their spiritual advancement (for lack of a better term) is in their "fruits of the spirit"- the way that they live their lives and treat others. Who am I to say that this way is not sufficient for them, or that I am more evolved because I also read the Tao te Ching or the Dhammapada? Instead, I would say that all people, if they truly seek after God/Truth, will find the path that will lead them there. I revel in the diversity of religious traditions and hope that while we do find tolerance and peace, we do not lose our uniqueness. Perhaps I am a strange sort of Christian in that regard, because just as I do not want to form some worldwide uber-religion, I do not want to convert everyone to my (or anyone else's) brand of Christianity.

It's nice to meet another "ecclectic" Christian, Path_of_One. What do you think about this quote when applied to univeralism? {I'm not sure if this is the actual author.}

"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." RUPERTUS MELDENIUS

I'm sure there is much debate over what constitutes what is essential and what is non-essential. {Isn't that what the different religions do?} However, the concept of charity would apply to areas where we can't all agree.

[path_of_one]

Yes... I would say in all things, love.

To me it is fairly simple- those who show the fruits of the Spirit- those who love others, are peacemakers, who are humble, self-controlled, patient, and gentle... they are clearly in connection with God/the Divine. They have awakened and are cultivating the light within them. And though they may not profess that Christ is Lord, I believe that they know Him nonetheless. Those who do not show the fruits of the Spirit- those who are angry, bitter, who hate and hurt others, who are prideful and vain, and feel they are owed something by the world... they are missing the boat. They are centered on themselves and not on the Divine. And even if they profess that Christ is Lord, they do not know Him.

Bold, I know.

But it is what the scriptures say- by their fruits, we will know them. And similarly, we can know if we ourselves are in accord with the Divine by how much we are like Christ. For me, I believe Christ is outside time/space. So in one sense He came at a certain point in history and this founded a religion. But in another sense He has ever been and always will be, and can be known by any, even if they never heard of Him. If we but seek, we will find... and all our differing conceptualizations of what we find falls flat before the obvious and universal RESULTS of this finding- love.

There is therefore no need for a universal religion, for it is already in place for those who truly seek. It is love. God is love. And when we are in God, we are in love. No need for the Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, and Wiccan to all make one uniform system to understand their transformation, but rather to recognize the same transformation in one another and to rejoice in it, to encourage all who choose to reach out to a higher way of being.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

They are centered on themselves and not on the Divine. And even if they profess that Christ is Lord, they do not know Him.

this is true. Jesus said a lot of people would do that, profess him and make all these claims with the wrong agenda but not really love him. i think he made it pretty clear that this walk is more than just a profession when he said to those who did all these works in his name - "depart from me you workers of iniquity, i never knew you". & that you cant love him & the world, to love one master & love the other less... the title christian or a profession does not make us exempt.
the heart has to be centered on Jesus as well & he literally moves inside.