Author: Bruce Schuman
Date: Monday, July 7, 2008
Subject: Unity / Diversity

Years ago, when we first started doing inter-religious discussion online (on Leonard Swidler's "Interrel" listserv, for example), we were experimenting with a form of "online dialogue". Of course, this written approach lacks many elements of an in-person discussion, and requires a sensitivity to context and intent -- but writing has some advantages. I thought I would try our little method here. We have sent literally hundreds, if not thousands, of email messages in this format. Maybe it can fit in here...

**

Susan S: I have been wondering for some time about the role of tradition. Paul wrote: "Each tradition comes to the table bearing unique theologies, philosophical questions, spiritual practice, and cultural assumptions and values."

But, while, some people in the interfaith movement insist that one must be grounded in one's own religious tradition, others say that is either not necessary or not possible (some have left a tradition or have never had one).

Bruce S: Yes, I find myself in exactly that position. Was it Deborah Moldow who created that concept at the 1997 URI conference, "The Religion that is to Come"? I think that's my category, my "tradition".

Susan S: More people seem to be self-identifying as "interfaith" or "interspiritual." What does this mean - to them, to us? What are the implications as we try to talk about our "traditions"?

Bruce S: I've been experimenting in this area for a long time. For me, "interspiritual" is becoming less about ideas and concepts and doctrines and "beliefs" -- and more about attitudes and practices and "virtues". I tend to feel that religion is a kind of cultural shell that points towards and teaches a spirituality appropriate for that culture. These "shells" do vary widely -- just like languages and geographies -- but their spiritual teachings and practices (love one another, be humble, treat others with respect, see the divine in others) are found in most if not all.

Theodore: I have also found a perplexing difference between interfaith dialogue and questions of universal truth. Many teachers have said that all religions lead to the same goal. Many other teachers would disagree!

Bruce S: It was an eye-opening experience for me when I read the first words of the 1988 book, "The Future of the Body", by Essalen founder Michael Murphy:

We live only part of the life we are given. Growing acquaintance with once-foreign cultures, new discoveries about our subliminal depths, and the dawning recognition that each social group reinforces just some human attributes while neglecting or suppressing others, have stimulated a worldwide understanding that all of us have great potentials for growth.

The evidence assembled here [in this book] suggests that we harbor a range of capacities that no single philosophy or psychology has fully embraced, and that these can be developed by practicing certain virtues and disciplines and building institutions to support them. Though every enduring religion has affirmed something analogous to Judeo-Christian doctrines of grace, none has acknowledged the larger spectrum of grace that a collection of this kind begins to reveal.

Murphy is pointing towards a kind of universal meta-understanding -- that outlines the full range of human potential -- as illustrated by the diverse examples from around the world -- and then takes up the challenge of attempting to outline this emerging understanding.

Seeing the diversity in the world in this way, we don't have to see religious cultures in an "either/or" way -- but can simply see them as choosing to "reinforce just some human attributes while neglecting or suppressing others". Our concern today -- is to understand the full range of these attributes, rather than continue in the pattern of reinforcing some and suppressing others.

Theodore: I think people who are ready and willing to perceive unity among religions must have learned to see their own path as metaphorical, pointing beyond itself to something larger. Meanwhile other people remain divided, insisting on the particular truth of their own path, exclusive of others.

Bruce S: An idea that began to appear for me years ago -- is that we cannot say in an empirical way that there IS a "unity among religions" in a factual sense. The fact is, religions are diverse. But on the other hand, we can choose to see a unity -- or can strive towards conceptualizing a path towards unity. Understood this way, if there is any sort of unity among religions, it is a "synthetic" unity -- something we consciously and intentionally create. I think the outlines of this potential unity can be seen in a comprehensive overview of human potential, that studies and connects into a single model the full range of religious and mystical experience, taking into account the widely diverse reports from cultures everywhere.

Theodore: What's interesting to me is how much all of these attitudes depend less on one's religion and more on one's inner sense of reality. Is our fate governed by love or by cruel indifference? Does justice require punishment? Am I basically the same as you, or fundamentally estranged? I don't think dialogue can really resolve these questions, although it can demonstrate a lot of goodwill.

Bruce S: Yes -- perhaps a dialogue from multiple points of view, if conducted in a spirit that is guided by these kinds of (more or less) universal spiritual principles -- can lead to wise decisions on these issues. Maybe appropriate punishment is always context-dependent -- what was the situation, who was involved, etc. Are we "One" -- or "Many"? I think the "answer" is -- this question is a "holon" -- we are both a One AND a Many. We are the same -- AND different. This complementarity is part of the emerging new meta-perspective, it seems to me.

Paul C: Thanks for your interesting discussion, Theodore.

For me and many others, the issue of universal truth, or the definition of absolutes, feels like a futile task. One can say, with the Hindus, God is neither this nor that. But giving up a meta-unity doesn't leave us all claiming that our particular truth is one and only truth. Unity versus exclusivism is a false dichotomy, seems to me.

Bruce S: As my own experience has continued, I have become more comfortable with the idea of absolutes. In some of our network projects, we have been gathering up quotes and references materials -- and have found literally thousands of quotations that point towards the concept of Oneness -- suggesting how everything proceeds out of oneness in some way. It seems to me that most any world religious tradition does affirm the concept of Oneness in some way -- even if not monotheistic. The diversity -- comes from somewhere -- from a singular context that interconnects everything. That context, it seems to me -- takes a form very much akin to this emerging meta-view.

Paul C: The reluctance to go create a faith that includes all faiths actually has to do with epistemological humility and having seen how much theological attempts at defining the truth for us all have been misguided and even destructive.

Bruce S: I agree with this. History gives us many failed examples. And yet -- there seems to be a fundamental and universal human drive towards doing exactly this. Is it some human weakness or innate tendency to prejudice or narrowness? I see the drive towards "syncretism" as an inherent and positive aspect of the human instinct to create solutions, to create answers. It should not be repressed, but instead, be seen as a vital and healthy and probably essential part of cultural and religious evolution.

A lot of vital creativity in religion is driven by dissatisfaction and ferment. People feel that the existing traditions and cultures are not quite good enough. Something new is needed -- something that preserves what is valuable while discarding that which is misleading or destructive. It's a fine art, that perhaps should be informed by a wide range of perspectives. But for some of us -- this perspective is emerging -- and its essential characteristics are very simple.

Paul C: And if such a unity were to take hold, a million details and understandings and stories would be lost, to all our detriment.

Bruce S: Well -- depending on how this "taking hold" would occur -- I don't think I agree. Is the United States a "unified" place? Does the state of West Virginia lose its cultural uniqueness simply by being "one of fifty states"? This, too, is a "holon" -- a form that is both part and whole. Unity does not mean uniformity. Oneness is not monolithic. Intercultural bonds are formed, just as you suggest, by mutual respect, by love, by "sacred listening" -- by "co-creativity".

Paul C: An alternative is to depend on our own experience and tradition as a primary but not exclusive source of meaning and understanding, I can hold on to what makes most sense to me without making others wrong. I can practice within the boundaries of my own faith and still be open and engaged in the wisdom, truth, and beauty that is manifold in other traditions.

Bruce S: It seems that we are finding a real core unity among the diverse traditions -- but this unity is not conceptual or doctrinal. It's a spiritual unity, perhaps a "wordless" spiritual unity -- something that happens just beyond the grasp of words. It seems to me that this "Beyond Theology" project mentioned in the Pre-workshops features of the conference is pointing in the right direction: http://beyondtheology.tv -- or the workshop -- http://nain.org/2008/workshop.cfm?wks=100053

I am reminded of the NAIN logo -- the handshake extending across borders. A handshake is a wordless understanding, but it can also be a deep and important bond of understanding. Maybe this emerging new spirituality can interconnect people across boundaries in much the same way.

Please sign in to participate!