On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 11:18:00 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Springboarding from: > >>"The Metaphysics of Interfaith Dialogue: A Qur'anic Perspective"<< http://www.iis.ac.uk/research/academic_papers/interfaith_dialogue/interfaith_dialogue.htm > "Before substantiating this conception of essential religion or religion as > such by citing > particular Qur'anic verses, it is important to mention very > briefly the Qur'anic encounter > between Moses and the mysterious personage > al-Khidr, not mentioned by name in the > Qur'an. Even in its literal aspect, > the story alludes to the distinction between the form > of religion and its > transcendent essence, between exoteric and esoteric knowledge." Mark: > IMO, that "transcendental essence" is God, as manifested in His Will, not an > ontological perennialism. Gilberto: Especially given the other kinds of differences which Bahais seek to try to reconcile, could it be the distinction you are trying to make here is more along the lines of Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to? Gilberto: > >>Instead of one religious dispensation replacing another through time, I > >>think the Quran has more a sense of the communities co-existing > >>simultaneously.<< Mark: > That may be an accurate picture of the Baha'i "Golden Age," as well (or at > least a certain stage of it). However, since this subject is not, to my > knowledge, clearly discussed in the Baha'i primary sources, I try not to > limit my speculations. Gilberto: When I said "co-existing" I didn't mean to imply anything about the quality or nature of the relation between them. Crusades and witchhunts are also included in "co-existing". I just meant to suggest the possibility that God let's us see according to our own paradigms. That religious diversity is ordained in some sense. There is an interesting hadith where God says "I am as My servant thinks I am". I think there is a level where I think all religions (except for maybe the Hale-Bopp followin'-poison-kool-aid-drinking-gun-stockpilin' death cults) are all positve in that they all tend to reinforce and affirm the basic minimal standards of Earthling morality. And then in some narrower sense, the Abrahamic religions have alot more common ground. And then there is a sense in which I would say Islam is true and other religions are less true, but I would be willing to concede that I'm operating from a particular paradigm and that at the end of things when we hopefully can see things more clearly we'll all be able to laugh and say "Oh, so THAT's what an elephant looks like" Unto God ye will all return, and He will inform you of that wherein ye differed." (5:48). GIlberto: > >>So during what you might call a single dispensation, there are different > >>groups of human beings each following paths which are meaningful to them. > >>I'm not a big fan of the whole clash of civilizations hypothesis (at least > >>not the political implications) but I think that the gulf between > >>civilizations can often be bigger than the gulf across ages, within the > >>same civilization.<< Mark: > Often? I am not sure. I would say sometimes. Gilberto: I'm talking about religious matters now. Spirituality, theology. > >>And a good example would be Sino-Japanese civilizations where Some mix of > >>Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism have been a big part of the spiritual > >>foundation in that part of the world for about 2600 years, and there is a > >>real timeless quality to those principles, and those traditions are still > >>meaningful to them, but I'm not sure most Westerners can hear the sound of > >>one hand clapping, if that made any sense.<< Mark: > Zen koans are a good example of why many people, myself included, have always > found the Sino-Japanese versions of Buddhism (which are also syncretistic as > you imply), to be unnerving. I find the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist traditions much > more intelligible. Yes, so that would be a decent example of what I"m talking about. The civilizational/cultural split seems is rather salient even in the "same" religion. Peace Gilberto [nice story] A while back, someone wrote the following to me: > > "The Sino-Japanese tradition has the habit of 'collapsing' all things into > one thing. Therefore in Zen, for example, meditation is all .... This same > trend is seen in the idea that all that is necessary is to recite the Lotus > sutra, Nicheren, or in, Pure Land, to recite the Nambutsu or even dispense > with that for total surrender in faith to Amida Buddha. This sort of thing > does not amuse the Indo-Tibetan Tradition, nor do they understand it because > it is contrary to what Sakyamunibuddha taught, and contrary to the long > unbroken tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism that is an uninterrupted > continuation of the Buddhasakyamuni's awakening. In this tradition, Buddhism > is a path that begins witf elementary insights and practices at a basic level, > then, having done that, one proceeds to the next level. Nothing is neglected > and in this tradition the intellect is understood to be a major > component/tool of the path and so the, apparently, anti-intellectual attitude > of Sino-Japanese Buddhism is looked upon as > muddle headed, anti-intellectual and just plain ridiculous. This mutual > incomprehensibility is exemplified by a rather amusing and true story. In > America Dingo Chentse Rimpoche, one of the great masters of the Tibetan > Buddhist tradition met a Korea Zen master. The Zen master picked up an apple > and in typical Zen fashion yelled at Dingo Chentse: 'What is it, what is > it?'. This was duly translated into Tibetan. After a pause, Dingo Chentse, > turned to the translator and said: 'What's the matter with the poor man, > doesn't he know it's an apple?' Thus it goes with the two traditions, they > may as well be on different planets." > > The writer continues: > > "One observes here, in fact, a perfect example of how disagreement on the > plane of dogma can co-exist with a deep respect on the superior plane of > religious devotion." > > On one level, I *want* to agree with that statement. However, I fear that the > writer is, because of his "perennialism," collapsing all religions into one > on the level of a hypothetical "essence." There is no such *thing* as > "religions devotion. There are only the branches of different religious > traditions which may or may not encourage devotion to various presumed > entities or ideas. > > > > Mark A. Foster * http://markfoster.net > "Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger" > -- Abbie Hoffman > > __________________________________________________ > You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Baha'i Studies is available through the following: > Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st > News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st > Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist > Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net > New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu > -- "My people are hydroponic" __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
