The ultimate comparative study?

[Operacast]

Unfortunately, people -- and especially scholars -- may be too lazy and cowardly to embark on one particularly obvious but daunting project, which would entail layers upon layers of thrice-vetted research work and philological and linguistic analysis in which the most divergent points of view would have to be represented on the final board. That project would entail:

A) coming to a consensus on which is the earliest and most direct source text(s) on the original inspirer(s) of each of the ten or so main religions whose followers today have effectively bridged national boundaries, from the earliest text(s) on Lord Krishna for Hinduism to Bahá’u’lláh for the Bahai faith;

B) consensus as to the earliest and most authentic versions/manuscripts of the agreed-upon earliest source texts on these inspirers;

C) consensus on final carefully prepared editions of the earliest source texts;

D) shared analysis of what each of these carefully edited versions imply about each inspirer's take on questions like

1. humanity's ethical obligations,

2. humanity's proper relationship (if any) to deity,

3. deity's proper relationship (if any) to humanity and

4. deity's own nature and what makes her/him deity;

E) pooled comparison of the emerging differences among inspirers on these and other essential questions, as seen in the edited editions of the earliest source texts;

F) pooled comparison of the emerging similarities among inspirers on these and other essential questions, as seen in the edited editions of the earliest source texts; and finally

G) extraction by unanimous consensus of all the emerging similarities, to facilitate a new publication presenting the similarities, laid out in parallel columns.

If this final step proves unfeasible -- due to no emerging agreement among all ten or so inspirers on any one question -- then I might conclude that the notion of there being a deity and a normative mode of behavior via that deity is possibly a chimera. At the same time, if this final step does prove feasible after all, then there may be some way of judging through that the true worth of a deity concept and a normative mode of behavior via such a deity.

This entire project is doable, physically -- the scholarly tools and the early texts are already there -- but the finances for such a project and the necessary attitudes tending toward an open willingness on the part of everyone involved, from atheists to fundamentalists alike, to submit all mainstream faiths to the same rigorous textual scrutiny perhaps aren't -- at least to the degree needed for the longterm commitment to see such an exhaustive project through.

Thoughts?

[arthra]

I think most of the scholarship is already there...just not in convenient places. But probably more convenient than say fifty years ago or so.

The work of Arnold Toynbee probably came close to what you are talking about.

I was thinkling also there could be a comparison model of messianic figures.

I think there are some Baha'i scholars that might be interested in this. I'm a little worn out and old myself.

- Art

[taijasi]

If Theosophical resources, references, projects, ideas and ideals haven't been considered or tapped, they should be. There, too, much progress has already been made. I would suggest that even if one dismisses certain conclusions as premature or worthy of additional question & scholarship, much time can still be saved from just scraping together raw data.

taijasi

[flowperson]

At my age it tires me just to think of such things. For my purposes. to love G-d and to love my neighbor work well enough as a basis for universal truth.

flow....

[samabudhi]

For what end would this untenably monstrous task take as it's inspiration?

[arthra]

Maybe it could encourage people to reflect on how similar inspirations have influenced mankind?

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

For what end would this untenably monstrous task take as it's inspiration?

To start with, simply the goal of ascertaining, once and for all, which tenets are universally validated by all the original inspirers/founders and which ones aren't. That prospect may not excite some, but I'd wager it would excite enough people who are not entirely committed to any one faith today, but who still sense something intangible and tantalizing out there possibly worth exploring.

Look, somehow generations upon generations of humans have generated this "worship"/"deity" concept, the notion of this elusive "Other" immanent in the cosmos. Why? Can that simply be coincidence? Is that a simple inheritance from the thoughts of one fanciful caveman thousands of years ago that then spread like wildfire in a vacuum where there were no competing ideas (like, say, quantum mechanics;-)? Or does the recurrence of the same essential deity concept in culture after culture, and its frequent accompaniment to other strikingly similar concepts like the Golden Rule, riches aren't everything, service to others, and so on, point to something external and tangible?

Now, are there, in addition, identical patterns in every brain that are either wired for A) ultimate truth or B) pure delusion?

At the end of the day, most of us can't be sure on any of that.

However, even though a Task force project like this one can not answer all these questions definitively, it will at least analyze this concept more rigorously via its earliest extant sources through the resources of modern scholarship than this concept has ever been analyzed before. Even theosophy did not involve analyzing different texts of a given set of beliefs with a view to determining which one(s) _probably_ went back earliest. Today, other scholars have just started the process of doing that instead in a few instances, although often without a real context. But such a determination is still critical, since in scrutinizing these texts, one should really get to the heart of what the inspirer/founder her/himself evidently sensed. Thus, a necessarily phenomenological approach to deity concepts can only really begin with the closest approximation to what those who each introduced deity concepts to their culture themselves thought. They may have experienced deity personally; those coming after them simply haven't -- and that includes the writers of other "sacred writings' in a given tradition who may come immediately after the founder/inspirer but who bring unavoidably personal spins on what they've ingested.

Such founders/inspirers as Buddha/Confucius/Jesus, whether they talk of closeness to Brahma, heaven ("Tian"), or a loving Father, seem to be referring to something deeply visceral and personal in all cases. So, for us today, instead of talking vaguely and airily of what these figures may have sensed, let's at least be rigorous in ascertaining just how closely we can come to what they themselves precisely said and did.

Now, maybe they knew something we don't. Or maybe they're just spouting hot air. But at the least, let's first bring some rigor to approximating what it was they actually said in the first place, before going off half-cocked ourselves! Of course, it may be impossible to ever be entirely certain of "what it was they actually said", but an approximation when it comes to ten or so different figures, plus the rigour of trumping that by isolating those instances where the earliest texts show all ten figures in agreement, would certainly put us many steps ahead of where we are now! Today, I'm just too familiar with too many people who baldly say, "Of course, God exists", or "Of course, God doesn't exist", when they're still stuck with an entirely vague picture of what these preeminent messengers of ........ something ............... actually said!

W A R S have been fought over these concepts! And now that a new World War seems to be threatening today, partly spurred on by religious differences in a planet faaaaar smaller than it ever was in the past (i.e., today's global village), some concrete notion of those actual philosophical components that tie these various founders/inspirers together was never so urgent. The survival of our species is suddenly at stake. It's suddenly no longer fanciful to conceive of a World War that could practically destroy humanity utterly.

Now I'm not fanciful enough to suppose that a rigorous and highly visible sifting of all the similarities among these great figures will suddenly cancel out all animosities throughout the world. But if that can just take the impetus out of just one conflict and save the life of just one child caught in just one skirmish, then isn't that alone worth it?!

Operacast

[lunamoth]

Personally I don't think we need to go to all that work, as interesting as it might be. It's really rather simple. Love one another. All the rest is commentary.

2 c,
lunamoth

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Personally I don't think we need to go to all that work, as interesting as it might be. It's really rather simple. Love one another. All the rest is commentary.

2 c,
lunamoth

Very nice. My sentiments exactly.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Personally I don't think we need to go to all that work, as interesting as it might be. It's really rather simple. Love one another. All the rest is commentary.

2 c,
lunamoth

Unfortunately, too many people today still don't accept that idea, especially when it comes to the "outsider" -- and ironically, some of those who violate the call to care for even the stranger/the outsider among us the most callously are frequently practicers of a certain religious faith (vide the Middle East).

Also, too many humans still view that idea as a "mere" generalisation. Precisely because the most recent (and upcoming?) conflicts are generally built around religious differences, that's the very reason why it's among the risky minefields of those very same religious differences that the true peacemakers of today will now have to labor.

I no longer see any other practical or effective way of making bridges other than by this task force, daunting as this project may well be.

Truly,

Operacast

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Very nice. My sentiments exactly.

I also really like what Stephen King said to Vassar graduates a few years ago at Commencement, "The important thing in life is what you pass on... everything else is smoke and mirrors.".

While such an undertaking might have merit in some respects, I'm really afraid that much of what was generated would turn out to be "smoke and mirrors". I plan to stick with the basics stated above.

flow....

[jiii]

Operacast-
As one that has spent a good deal of time learning about various world religions, I must say that such a plan for a thorough and well-organized review, summary, and comparison of religions sounds pretty exciting. If such a report were released, I would probably buy it and enjoy perusing every bit.
Though, there are some serious problems with this whole idea. It works under many shaky assumptions. For instance...

1) Terms specific to certain religions may simply not have cognates in others. ex. God may simply never be even narrowly accepted as being a cognate to Tao in any way.

2) "which tenets are universally validated by all the original inspirers/founders and which ones aren't"

Tenets for behavior are apt, though not always, to be expressions of intuitive understanding, not rigid rules to which one should conform. A compilation of various world behavioral tenets resulting in a list of the most common ones is likely to get us a list of the same old type: No killing, no stealing, no lying, etc... So far as behavior, the difficulty is not, 'What should we do?', but rather "How do we do it?". A venn diagram of ethical or moral behavior is not a very useful tool by any means (and would probably confuse many people), even though it might be interesting from a scholarly perspective.

3) "Now, are there, in addition, identical patterns in every brain that are either wired for A) ultimate truth or B) pure delusion?"

I don't exactly know what this means, but to be totally honest, it doesn't sound true.

4) "instead of talking vaguely and airily of what these figures may have sensed, let's at least be rigorous in ascertaining just how closely we can come to what they themselves precisely said and did."

With all due respect, this is why people investigate and devote themselves to specific religions. One need not reinvent all religions in a sorted amalgam to explore this.

Ultimately, what you are talking about here is making a scientific inquiry of religious behavior and philosophy. Perhaps even with the hope that it would provide mankind with a one-size-fits-all coat of religious conduct that he can put on in the morning when he leaves his house. At that, you are talking about creating this marvellously enormous and unlikely work by sampling just ten religions. Unfortunately, such a thing would have only very limited value as an interesting, albeit unwieldy, piece of scholarship. A comparative tabulation of religions would have little or no value to religious people that would reasonably proclaim that they could get much more out of their individual doctrine or practice alone. The idea that one might use such a compilation to pacify religious terrorists or pull fundamentalists out of their dream world is plainly absurd, and frankly, there are much more effective ways of saving children. Such investigations are so easy to ignore, and so largely unasked for by the ordinary person, that little change would result from it.

The compilation would likely end up being "used", as opposed to "enjoyed", only by a narrow band of people that, for one reason or another, would favor a watered down, incomplete, and remarkably bland religious experience through what is essentially a statistical compilation of religious ideas and actions. Such folks always seem decidedly opposed to adherence to a specific doctrine, yet they think that rounding up the liner notes to each will produce something better. Much of this is the result of a huge misunderstanding amongst some people that to accept a particular doctrine is to lie yourself into believing that your sense of spirituality IS NOTHING ELSE but what the doctrine says it is. This is plainly wrong.

I simply think that such an effort to compile religious characteristics will only be "used" by people that are already confused as to spirituality, and that may thus lead themselves only into further confusion. There is, for instance, no reason why a person must adhere to any particular religion, at all. If someone is quite contented with their personal spiritual sensation then it is certainly not necessary to dress it up in sectarian garb. HOWEVER, if someone is starved for a religion but, as a result of preconception, preference, or principle, refuses to adhere to any doctrine, then rounding up the similarities of all these denied doctrines will certainly not yield anything that is much more inspiring. The Zen Buddhists have a saying about this kind of sentiment: "You can't polish a tile into a mirror". If one is unable to come to terms with an individual doctrine on one hand or with unaffiliated spiritual experience on the other, then creating a "pseudo-doctrine" that compiles the whole lot of the rejects will leave the investigator just as dry of spiritual direction and sensation as he was before. You can't pour a bunch of rotten apples into a bushel and expect them to turn ripe and red in juxtaposition to each other.

All of this being said, I would STILL buy it, and enjoy it, if it were published. I just don't think it will have much significance outside of personal enjoyment and scholarship.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Personally I don't think we need to go to all that work, as interesting as it might be. It's really rather simple. Love one another. All the rest is commentary.

2 c,
lunamoth

Seems to me the problem, lunamoth, or at least part of it, is that we can put a million people of like mind, sentiment, or intention as you on the White House lawn ... okay, wait, into a free speech zone ... and let you smile, and chant, and wave signs, and sing Kum Ba Yah ....

... and meanwhile, the US troops have just killed and tortured a few more people over there near where Jesus walked, and a couple bombs have also gone off not far from where Muhammad himself lived out his life.

Now does either bunch of these adherents to Western religious traditions, as many of the soldiers or forces of both "sides" of this particular conflict happen to be, want to be killing each other, per se? No? Then why are they?

I will gladly chant and sing, and wave signs with you, or come sit down on a pew in your church, and offer my (silent) prayers to the unseen God, and I would be the first to affirm the efficacy of prayer, while I would also gladly extol the virtues of non-violence/ahimsa, and argue, as did G.K. Chesterton, that the Christian Ideals (or those of damn near any of the world's major religions) would indeed be wonderful IF they were ever put into practice on a large scale.

But let's face it, when all is said and done, after our little demonstration/protest/peace rally is over, have any of the major news networks even bothered to air it this time? Have two, or ten, or two hundred people chosen not to quickly flip the channel when they see soemthing they don't agree with? Is the ostrich syndrome disappearing yet?

I notice on another thread, folks are talking about science, and the scientific method. I would love for there to be a growing consensus - something spreading with all the contagiousness of the bird flu (HA HA HA, how about just a common cold, folks) - as to a better sense of perspective and understanding of Humanity's place, role and purpose in spiritual Evolution upon this planet, at this time, in this System, under present conditions.

To me, it is as objective as the bent, cold sidewalk ... and although I can feel the very fiber of my being struggling sometimes against the truth of the existence and reality of AIR, I know in other moments that the Divine Life literally inhabits the smallest particle of substance, whatever the science of the day has opted to call it (charm, quark, huey, duey, louie, you-name-it ).

One person can stand and silently affirm Christ, Buddha or Krishna in the heart & sub/super-consciousness of his Brother human, while the next man will reach out his hand and insert a dagger, twist, and spit on the lifeless corpse. Both these people live on the same planet. They may even be walking around that same city with the free speech zone, although by god let's hope it's not after curfew.

Anyway, why is it that there are such extremes on this planet. Your one word answer for the day: RELIGION. Sadly, that's the simple answer for the CAUSE of 2/3 of the world's evil. That is more or less an objective fact, or if you insist that it is my opinion, I think you'll find that approximately 2/3 of the world's people happen to agree with me.

And then, of course, why is it that some of the most wonderful things this world has ever seen, accomplished, or experienced ... have occurred? Ahhh, again the same answer: RELIGION - but this time it's the other 1/3 speaking, the degree to which Humanity really has been `bound back' or yoked to God. Again, about 1/3 of the world's people will cheer triumphantly in recognition ...

If all we have to do is "love one another" ... then why are things still the way they are? Is it just a matter of time? Has the 2000-year old message simply not sunk in yet? Oh my bad, 4000 years, 6000 years, no wait - Holy Man Great Wonka Woozle taught this stuff fifty billion years ago, when there was nothing sitting around to hear Him except a couple o' treefrogs and a colony of ferns.

You see, there IS something to be gained from such a comparative study, IF it is conducted properly ... as this great experiment/science project called Earth, communication, the Internet, or human dialogue will demonstrate. And even if the end result of our endeavor really is just to come back 'round and SHOW that indeed, since the dawn of time, there has been a RELATIONSHIP between Humanity and Her Divine (non-gendered, Transcendent) Parent - or SOURCE - then at least we will have, hopefully, managed to reduce the conflict between the warring members of this one body ... such that we can get on with the Loving One Another which is the modus operandi and a required operating parameter prior to us taking the NEXT STEP in our raison d'etre, and getting that much closer to fulfilling our PURPOSE in being here!

Have I assumed (that there is) a purpose? I find that no more presumptuous than to say that we should "just love one another." We cannot exist (for long, forever) if we don't observe the Law of Love, yet Life is merely a closed circle - endless repetition - if we do not admit of Purpose. A circle appears to be a circle only for so long, and while viewed from a certain perspective. Begin to turn it, and as it stretches out before us, it may take on the appearance, or shape, of a spiral. It has not ceased to be a circle, but it has become something more.

So yes, there is something to be gained from the ultimate comparative study, since with objectivity we may learn to glimpse several previous turns of this common Human spiral (heritage) ... as well as glimpse, or predict, or even better yet - help determine - the safe, purposeful, and collective passage along (or through) the next, impending cycle. It makes all the difference in the world, if we are increasingly on the same page regarding the metaphysics, logic, epistemology, ethics and even aesthetics ... as to the nature of the human/Divine experience, and relationship. Indeed, there is a reason why I'm not out there waving my banner in the annual free speech zone demonstration/protest/rally - but it doesn't mean I don't believe in the Law of Love, the need for change, God, or the value and crucial importance of speaking out for what one believes in.

That's as organized as I can make my thought at the moment ... hope it strikes a positive chord somewhere, but then, that's only 50% up to me, at best.

Namaskar,

taijsi

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Seems to me the problem, lunamoth, or at least part of it, is that we can put a million people of like mind, sentiment, or intention as you on the White House lawn ... okay, wait, into a free speech zone ... and let you smile, and chant, and wave signs, and sing Kum Ba Yah ....

... and meanwhile, the US troops have just killed and tortured a few more people over there near where Jesus walked, and a couple bombs have also gone off not far from where Muhammad himself lived out his life.

Now does either bunch of these adherents to Western religious traditions, as many of the soldiers or forces of both "sides" of this particular conflict happen to be, want to be killing each other, per se? No? Then why are they?

I will gladly chant and sing, and wave signs with you, or come sit down on a pew in your church, and offer my (silent) prayers to the unseen God, and I would be the first to affirm the efficacy of prayer, while I would also gladly extol the virtues of non-violence/ahimsa, and argue, as did G.K. Chesterton, that the Christian Ideals (or those of damn near any of the world's major religions) would indeed be wonderful IF they were ever put into practice on a large scale.

But let's face it, when all is said and done, after our little demonstration/protest/peace rally is over, have any of the major news networks even bothered to air it this time? Have two, or ten, or two hundred people chosen not to quickly flip the channel when they see soemthing they don't agree with? Is the ostrich syndrome disappearing yet?

I notice on another thread, folks are talking about science, and the scientific method. I would love for there to be a growing consensus - something spreading with all the contagiousness of the bird flu (HA HA HA, how about just a common cold, folks) - as to a better sense of perspective and understanding of Humanity's place, role and purpose in spiritual Evolution upon this planet, at this time, in this System, under present conditions.

To me, it is as objective as the bent, cold sidewalk ... and although I can feel the very fiber of my being struggling sometimes against the truth of the existence and reality of AIR, I know in other moments that the Divine Life literally inhabits the smallest particle of substance, whatever the science of the day has opted to call it (charm, quark, huey, duey, louie, you-name-it ).

One person can stand and silently affirm Christ, Buddha or Krishna in the heart & sub/super-consciousness of his Brother human, while the next man will reach out his hand and insert a dagger, twist, and spit on the lifeless corpse. Both these people live on the same planet. They may even be walking around that same city with the free speech zone, although by god let's hope it's not after curfew.

Anyway, why is it that there are such extremes on this planet. Your one word answer for the day: RELIGION. Sadly, that's the simple answer for the CAUSE of 2/3 of the world's evil. That is more or less an objective fact, or if you insist that it is my opinion, I think you'll find that approximately 2/3 of the world's people happen to agree with me.

And then, of course, why is it that some of the most wonderful things this world has ever seen, accomplished, or experienced ... have occurred? Ahhh, again the same answer: RELIGION - but this time it's the other 1/3 speaking, the degree to which Humanity really has been `bound back' or yoked to God. Again, about 1/3 of the world's people will cheer triumphantly in recognition ...

If all we have to do is "love one another" ... then why are things still the way they are? Is it just a matter of time? Has the 2000-year old message simply not sunk in yet? Oh my bad, 4000 years, 6000 years, no wait - Holy Man Great Wonka Woozle taught this stuff fifty billion years ago, when there was nothing sitting around to hear Him except a couple o' treefrogs and a colony of ferns.

You see, there IS something to be gained from such a comparative study, IF it is conducted properly ... as this great experiment/science project called Earth, communication, the Internet, or human dialogue will demonstrate. And even if the end result of our endeavor really is just to come back 'round and SHOW that indeed, since the dawn of time, there has been a RELATIONSHIP between Humanity and Her Divine (non-gendered, Transcendent) Parent - or SOURCE - then at least we will have, hopefully, managed to reduce the conflict between the warring members of this one body ... such that we can get on with the Loving One Another which is the modus operandi and a required operating parameter prior to us taking the NEXT STEP in our raison d'etre, and getting that much closer to fulfilling our PURPOSE in being here!

Have I assumed (that there is) a purpose? I find that no more presumptuous than to say that we should "just love one another." We cannot exist (for long, forever) if we don't observe the Law of Love, yet Life is merely a closed circle - endless repetition - if we do not admit of Purpose. A circle appears to be a circle only for so long, and while viewed from a certain perspective. Begin to turn it, and as it stretches out before us, it may take on the appearance, or shape, of a spiral. It has not ceased to be a circle, but it has become something more.

So yes, there is something to be gained from the ultimate comparative study, since with objectivity we may learn to glimpse several previous turns of this common Human spiral (heritage) ... as well as glimpse, or predict, or even better yet - help determine - the safe, purposeful, and collective passage along (or through) the next, impending cycle. It makes all the difference in the world, if we are increasingly on the same page regarding the metaphysics, logic, epistemology, ethics and even aesthetics ... as to the nature of the human/Divine experience, and relationship. Indeed, there is a reason why I'm not out there waving my banner in the annual free speech zone demonstration/protest/rally - but it doesn't mean I don't believe in the Law of Love, the need for change, God, or the value and crucial importance of speaking out for what one believes in.

That's as organized as I can make my thought at the moment ... hope it strikes a positive chord somewhere, but then, that's only 50% up to me, at best.

Namaskar,

taijsi

WOW! You said it better than I could! Many, many thanks! I very rarely retain an entire posting to which I'm responding in my own post. But I think it's important to keep all your words in front of the reader in this case.

The only aspect you don't highlight in the same way that I would (but maybe what you wrote is the better without it) is my distinct impression that we're at the deadliest crossroads that humanity has ever faced: with the possible ingredients for a World War engulfing not just the Middle East but ultimately the whole globe(?), I sometimes think our whole species is plainly running out of time. But perhaps your more upbeat angle is exactly what's needed instead. Who knows?

Best regards,

Operacast

[earl]

Originally Posted by Operacast

Unfortunately, too many people today still don't accept that idea, especially when it comes to the "outsider" -- and ironically, some of those who violate the call to care for even the stranger/the outsider among us the most callously are frequently practicers of a certain religious faith (vide the Middle East).

Also, too many humans still view that idea as a "mere" generalisation. Precisely because the most recent (and upcoming?) conflicts are generally built around religious differences, that's the very reason why it's among the risky minefields of those very same religious differences that the true peacemakers of today will now have to labor.

I no longer see any other practical or effective way of making bridges other than by this task force, daunting as this project may well be.

Truly,

Operacast

Hi Operacast and welcome. I, too, love to look for the commonalities, particularly the mystical core of religions. But frankly, I'm with Lunamoth here. To quote the old quote or words to that effect: "the heart crosses the gap the mind creates." We could have all the wonderful mystical insights of the universe but it's that old "could speak with the tongues of angels but have not love" thing. I'm with the modern religion writer, Karen Armstrong on this one when she said that to her religion is not about what you believe, but how you're changed. have a good one, earl