PeteJ wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:53 pm
]Interesting. I am aware that Sufism, as I said earlier, is regarded as inferior or non-authentic by what you call the "institutional" Muslims. Why is that?
For the same reason all the monotheistic churches denigrate mysticism. It removes the reasons for having an institution and deprives the priests of
their power and influence.
That's plausible. The same could be said of Protestantism relative to Catholicism. The Reformation shattered Catholic power and priestly power, and was resented for that.
Even just a century ago Schrodinger ran into trouble with his Christian publisher for suggesting we are all God.
He probably should perhaps have run into trouble with his logician instead.
That's the part I don't find hard to agree with. And that's what I mean when I say "each of us has to choose a path": the starting point, not the end.
But there are still more problems with the idea that the "paths" remain individual and different from one another. If that is true, they are not a "path" at all, since only one person every walks one. And since they are said to converge at the end, and "lead to Rome," so to speak, none of them is a "wrong" path, and neither is the choice of any of them of any importance at all. For then, all the "paths" differ only in the beginning and middle, but all are the "right" path, so to speak.
Hmm. I see what you mean but disagree. One may wander about for all ones life without ever finding a path.[/quote]
Ah. So there are bad or misleading "paths" too. Not every path goes to Rome. And we get away from that problem by claiming that a wandering or errant "path" isn't allowed to be a "path" at all, even if somebody chooses it and walks it?
I should have used the usual phrase 'authentic path' to avoid confusion.
That would be better. Because if there are no "inauthetic paths," then as I suggested, no "path" is to be preferred over another...and I have never yet met one inclusively-minded person who did not simultaneously insist that the "best path" was to be inclusive. So that means exclusive paths, paths that deny other paths, would be bad.
But here's the logical problem with that: that even that allegedly "inclusive" path excludes the exclusivists. So it's not really "inclusive" at all.
And, of course, there's a second problem: that in order to include other "paths," the inclusivist has to deny that when those paths say exclusive things, that they can be right. So when, say, a inclusivists claims his religion gets the truth about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. right, and the exclusivists in those religions get their own religion wrong, then he's excluding their religion.
So again, it's not actually inclusive: it's imperialistic, instead. It denies and reconstructs other religions, in order to absorb them into its own meta-narrative. It does not at all accept Judaism as Conservative or Hassidic Judaism, or Islam as Radical Islam, or Christianity's claim that Jesus is THE Way, THE Truth and THE Life." All those sorts of religion, the inclusivist actually rejects.
Not so
inclusive, once again.
If that's so, then "institutional" Muslims are on something every bit as good "path wise" as Sufis...and so are Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Atheists, pagans, and people who have no thought of God at all.
I agree.
But you shouldn't. Not if you really believe in Sufism, that is.
Why would you believe in a variation of a religion that you don't think is in some way "better" than the alternatives?
That would make no sense.
The point is that the path has to start somewhere
Well, yes; and we've agreed about that. It can
start anywhere.
But can it
continue and
finish anywhere? No, you say: it all has to "lead to Rome," i.e. get everybody to the right place. So the finish is fixed, too. But what about the middle? Isn't the best middle of a path the straightest line (or at least a functional line) between the start and the finish?
So the start is fixed by where a person begins. The finish is fixed. But for some reason, we are to think the middle can be infinitely variable? I think you'd need to explain how that works. A line tethered at two ends has very little flexibility in the middle, without simply being off-course.
So then, on what basis do you find Sufism recommendable? Its "path" would be of no particular merit.
The practices of Sufism, Middle Way Buddhism, Taoism, advaita Vedanta and more generally the Perennial philosophy are interchangeable, It is only that some will suit us more than others. Al-Hallaj says only what is said my Master Eckhart, Lao Tsu, Sadhguru or the Buddha, albeit they have different focusses and angles of attack etc. I would include Jesus and Mohammed. [/quote]
But
they would reject that. Almost any religion actually would, and even allegedly inclusivist ones do, by implication of refusing exclusivists. So what you've really done there, it seems, is simply to reconstruct other people's religions in the image of what you prefer to see, and then claim that is the deep truth about them.
Or is there some sense in which you still propose to
accept their actual claims...like the claims of those many Muslims who insist, as per the
shahadah or confession of 'faith,' that Mohammed is the final 'prophet,' or those Christians who accept Jesus's claims that He is the exclusive way to God? Do you simply dismiss all such claims, or what do you make from them?
The problem is only that every question deserves an essay.
Well, let's simplify: how do you avoid excluding
exclusivists? And what do you do with the
exclusive claims of some religions? Let those be the next questions.
If all roads lead to Rome, that will make Catholics very happy.
But it may not quite delight you or me.
Ha. Luckily they have no idea where the road leads.
Oh. So Catholics are out. They're on the wrong "path"? Just gotta ask.
...there is no important difference between Christianity and Taoism,
I would definitely say that's not true. I can list significant differences. So could any knowledgeable Taoist, I'm sure. And he might well be quite insulted if I told him, "Your Taoism has nothing to offer that all other religions don't also offer." And why shouldn't he be insulted? I'd essentially have said to him, "Your religion is nothing special."
Wouldn't I actually be more respectful to say to him, "Your religion is different from mine. I see that. It has different values, precepts, ethics and purposes. And I see the difference. I am not going to try to pretend you are just another variety of Christian,' but rather note the differences and say that I hope you change your mind"? For in that case, I might be telling him, "I don't believe in your way," but at least I'm not telling him, "Your way is nothing special." That seems
ultimately insulting.
I'm very thankful for my Christian upbringing
May I ask what kind it was? Obviously not Pentecostal, and I'm guessing not Catholic...so what was the tradition from which you came at age 12? And what observation made you abandon it?
Only when I studied Buddhism forty tears later did Christianity start to make sense to me, and studying Taoism shed much light on Buddhism. It's known as the 'Perennial' philosophy because it appears all over the world in all times and never varies.
I've read the
Tao te Ching and the
Dhammapada. I confess I find that they are nothing like Christianity. At least, they are like no kind of Christianity that most Christians would ever call "Christian." I find them quite different, quite distinct. And I could point to many specifics that show they are, I would say.
It seems to me, if you''ll pardon me saying so, that what you're suggesting is not the
inclusion of Christianity within a more inclusive, global religiosity, but rather the
denial, dilution and
absorption of Christianity INTO somebody else's meta-narrative. Buddhism wins; Christianity loses. That seems to me to be the bottom line...particularly if you consider the majority of forms of Christianity, which are all committed to exclusive claims to the singular value of Christ.
Bu please, feel free to push back on that impression if you think I've missed your point.