What practical things can we do to facilitate interfaith harmony?

[ralis]

Yea, still goes back to humans...

 

Humans cultivated more land to produce more food for themselves. Let's not put the cart before the horse here.

 

Fact is, the human population going exponential in the last few decades is the biggest silent event in our history.

Imagine, just 50 years ago in 1960, the world population was only 3 billion!

And now it is nearly 3X that!

 

Now, do the math and figure out how much extra energy consumption, habitat loss and waste this alone has generated...and then tell me population growth has little to do with environmental damage. When it has EVERYTHING to do with it!

Anyhow, back on topic - imagine Buddha, Fu Xi, Laozi, Jesus, Mohammed, etc all sat down together at a bar... What would they say to each other? What would they agree or disagree on?

 

Thanks for providing this info.

 

What I meant was that with the advent of fertilizers, in particular nitrogen synthesis(urea), the yield per acre increased dramatically. And yes the amount of land set aside for farming was greatly increased. The downside of urea and other chemicals is that the essential microorganisms are greatly depleted, along with myriad associated problems.

 

Can religion set aside certain ideologies and come to grips with what we are discussing here? For the benefit of all? Maybe even provide solutions? Perhaps if religion returned to its pagan roots? Would there be some harmony?

 

ralis

[NeutralWire]

What I meant was that with the advent of fertilizers, in particular nitrogen synthesis(urea), the yield per acre increased dramatically. And yes the amount of land set aside for farming was greatly increased. The downside of urea and other chemicals is that the essential microorganisms are greatly depleted, along with myriad associated problems.

 

Can religion set aside certain ideologies and come to grips with what we are discussing here? For the benefit of all? Maybe even provide solutions? Perhaps if religion returned to its pagan roots? Would there be some harmony?

 

Did you miss my post above? I think I gave some answers to you on the pagan issue.

 

Answer to the nitrogen issue lies in permaculture and organic farming, probably the most important recent invention of human kind. We are looking at dramatic dieoffs but not back to prime agrarian.

 

NW

[ralis]

ralis -

Hmm... 'we', eh? Some of 'us' are not standing by! If you have any practical steps to suggest I am sure some of 'us' would welcome them.

As far as the question about survival rates post-fossil fuel, we are looking at dieoff but not back down to 10% of current levels. I've posted his blog before and will again: John Michael Greer has been tracking this since the 1970s. There are quite a few people working on this subject:

 

http://www.thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com

 

... and for those who want to get involved in initiatives towards sustainable post-oil living in their local area, check out Transitions Towns:

 

http://www.transitiontowns.org/

 

There is no need to feel powerless.

 

Owing to permaculture techniques, lower tech tech, and scavenging, we are looking at a 'stairstep decline' -- that is, a series of ever-lower equilibria punctuated by crises -- as western technological society winds down over the next several generations. If this lights a fire under anyone's goals to be healthy and well-fed in sustainable ways, they'll be thankful later. It's also a great moment to start thinking about how close the nearest farm is and asking much you have in common your neighbours, and vice-versa.

 

Spirituality has a strong role to play in the future. Prehistorically, cultures with good relations to elemental spiritual forces were the ones which prospered. That was the reason for so many small country shrines and cultural mannerisms that could well stand to be revived. What survives will not be the culture we know, so it is a good moment to start thinking what needs to be taken forward vs. what has outlived its usefulness.

 

The shakedown has begun, and the system is going to rebalance bringing difficult times -- but also, opportunities to live differently for those who time their exit well and have God's support. Perhaps we will soon see who actually enjoys divine favour, and who has been fooling their congregations!

 

Things are never as simple as a purist would have you believe, but in this case, I think that what is contrary to the Tao really isn't going to last long. Big top-down schemes of international harmony are great, but small, constructive practical steps on the ground taken by individuals will be of greater importance in my opinion. Those belief systems which foster it will make out well.

 

There are also many twists in the plot to come I suspect, and many opportunities for creativity.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

 

 

I was listening to Thom Hartmann and I thought he said 10%. I can check that again.

 

I am trying to do my part in all of this. My profession is Ornamental Horticulture B.S. and I own and operate a landscape business. I don't use any chemicals and have found a few things that really do work, such as adding a certain type of calcium to plants that actually increases the bioavailabilty of minerals. Also I use a fish waste product for my plant food. Works great!

 

 

ralis

[NeutralWire]

I was listening to Thom Hartmann and I thought he said 10%. I can check that again.

 

I am trying to do my part in all of this. My profession is Ornamental Horticulture B.S. and I own and operate a landscape business. I don't use any chemicals and have found a few things that really do work, such as adding a certain type of calcium to plants that actually increases the bioavailabilty of minerals. Also I use a fish waste product for my plant food. Works great!

 

Awesome dude.

 

On the 10%... I guess we'll all find out, but it all depends upon exactly what combo of technologies you're representing as standard. Like I say, although there's no oil alternative, there are nothing alternatives. Sorry to be OT.

 

NW

[Stigweard]

Too simple.

 

I was wondering more like:

 

Would Buddha try to enlighten Jesus and free him from reincarnation?

Would Jesus try to save Buddha and promise him eternal life in Heaven?

Would Mohammed tell Jesus that he's just a delusional prophet?

Would Laozi show Mohammed how to really become immortal on his own, without Jesus?

 

Or would they basically agree that they were all really on the same page?

 

Sometimes simple is good

 

When we remove the politico-controlling element present in certain religions aren't they all trying to provide a means or a conduit for people to become 'ideal citizens'; to be wholesome individuals?

 

Take a step back several thousand years. There was little presence of systems of control, religious or political, due to the fact that, for a large part, people were living more naturally in natural communities. Social structure was intrinsically based on the virtue of family coherence.

 

Then, as the population grew (which certainly did ride on the ever-increasing harnessing of energy resources ... i.e. agriculture, coal, oil etc.) and competitiveness accelerated to unseen proportions, people lost touch with their natural virtue. Systems of population control started to arise and certain people greedily recognised that humanity itself was an energy resource that they could harness and exploit for their own competitive gain.

 

So whilst religions have been used as such controlling systems we also have to give credence to the fact that, due to the sincere efforts of notable saints and sages, religions have also been there, however imperfectly, as custodians and as heralds of the natural virtue that is our inherent birthright.

 

So the question remains ... how can we, in the face of the overwhelming social control, competitiveness and disparate inter-religious ideology, implement practical strategies to assist in the reestablishment natural virtue as the common thread that unites all humanity?

 

[thelerner]

Karma Yoga. Shoveling the shit together.

 

Have them work together on charitable projects. Let the Churches, temples, mosques organize joint events that help the needy or clean up the environment.

 

For all the bad press that religion has gotten in these posts it is important to remember the mountain of charity that religions have done in the past and continue to do- building the hospitals, orphanages, feeding the hungry. It a part of each one's history, a proud one that they can use to get to know each other and build for the future.

 

 

 

Michael

[WhiteTiger]

Sometimes simple is good

 

When we remove the politico-controlling element present in certain religions aren't they all trying to provide a means or a conduit for people to become 'ideal citizens'; to be wholesome individuals?

 

Take a step back several thousand years. There was little presence of systems of control, religious or political, due to the fact that, for a large part, people were living more naturally in natural communities. Social structure was intrinsically based on the virtue of family coherence.

 

Then, as the population grew (which certainly did ride on the ever-increasing harnessing of energy resources ... i.e. agriculture, coal, oil etc.) and competitiveness accelerated to unseen proportions, people lost touch with their natural virtue. Systems of population control started to arise and certain people greedily recognised that humanity itself was an energy resource that they could harness and exploit for their own competitive gain.

 

So whilst religions have been used as such controlling systems we also have to give credence to the fact that, due to the sincere efforts of notable saints and sages, religions have also been there, however imperfectly, as custodians and as heralds of the natural virtue that is our inherent birthright.

 

So the question remains ... how can we, in the face of the overwhelming social control, competitiveness and disparate inter-religious ideology, implement practical strategies to assist in the reestablishment natural virtue as the common thread that unites all humanity?

 

 

Nicely and well said.

 

I'll take a step back for a second and tell you the only thing I think i really know how to successfully do.

 

So the question remains ... how can we, in the face of the overwhelming social control, competitiveness and disparate inter-religious ideology, implement practical strategies to assist in the reestablishment natural virtue as the common thread that unites all humanity?

 

I would have to answer... Just practice. I would just practice to become a better person... practice, practice and practice on myself inside until I'm done with the physical concrete aspects of practice until you reach the next stage what i call the "energetic stage", where you can start to understand things that only have form or only have substance where you can understand them at least from a conceptual level and say that it is something that exists because it either has form or substance. Once that stage is mastered I would daringly to spread Human causes.

 

I hope that this has successfully (From my experience what i would do) answered your question Stigweard.

 

Peace,

wT

 

P.S. I think I might end up taking a big brake from TTB... for a little while I might pop my head once in a while... but hopefully for intriguing conversation and not to dilly dally around, even if i found as of lately my posts are full of substance (the quality of that substance i allow you to make those opinions but hopefully with out judgments ) I plan to be a little more satisfied with my cultivation level when i come back for the dilly dally stuff.

Edited February 26, 2009 by WhiteTiger

[dwai]

Great post!

 

The environmental impact caused by the two largest countries (India and China) would be included in this discussion.

 

India to this day is heavily influenced by the caste system. Although, the Indian constitution makes it illegal to discriminate based one ones caste. The caste system was in part started by religious ideologues i.e, Brahman priesthood. The caste system is closed to any sort of upward mobility.

 

The doctrine of karma that was created by the Brahmans causes immense suffering on the streets of India. What I mean by this is that one lives ones karma out no matter what degree of suffering one finds oneself in. Being born and dying in the slums. Starvation and searching for food in garbage piles. Yet in spite of this, there is still the continuation of population growth. The same problems are perpetuated throughout generations. In part, this is a result of religious doctrine instituted by the priesthood.

 

In terms of pollution, food supply, disease, the entire region is effected. In the last few years the entire planet is feeling the effects of these problems. In particular, the demand for fossil fuels. Therefor causing increased stress on the planets ecology. Last year there were rice shortages in this entire region due to fear of increased demand for fossil fuels and price increases.

 

We live in a complex system that is effected by many variables. Physical as well as belief systems. All human behavior including doctrinal beliefs can and have been shown to have effects on the entire world.

 

How much longer can we stand by and watch all of these problems increase geometrically? Still there are those who would have us sit idly by and tolerate any doctrine no matter what the effects are on so many worldwide!

 

The solution to so called religious harmony is not one of doing whatever ones belief system dictates, no matter what the so called higher cause is.

ralis

 

You obviously don't know anything about either the "Caste System" or India. First -- Caste was an invention of the British. In India, there are two modes of identifying/categorizing people.

 

a) Varna

 

Jaati

 

Varna -- grouping people by their profession

Jaati -- the ethnic group a person belongs to.

 

And India is not "heavily influenced" by the "Caste" system -- India is very much on the way to mindless Westernization...and it is unfortunate, because India is the last bastion of Dharma today.

 

And India's population problem is unfortunately or fortunately the result of Modern Science and lower mortality rate.

[ralis]

You obviously don't know anything about either the "Caste System" or India. First -- Caste was an invention of the British. In India, there are two modes of identifying/categorizing people.

 

a) Varna

 

Jaati

 

Varna -- grouping people by their profession

Jaati -- the ethnic group a person belongs to.

 

And India is not "heavily influenced" by the "Caste" system -- India is very much on the way to mindless Westernization...and it is unfortunate, because India is the last bastion of Dharma today.

 

And India's population problem is unfortunately or fortunately the result of Modern Science and lower mortality rate.

 

 

I read and research. It is not an invention of the British.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_caste_system

 

 

ralis

[goldisheavy]

Sometimes simple is good

 

When we remove the politico-controlling element present in certain religions aren't they all trying to provide a means or a conduit for people to become 'ideal citizens'; to be wholesome individuals?

 

What do you mean "when we remove"? If you remove something crucial from your object of contemplation, aren't you then contemplation a delusion or a hallucination and not the original object?

 

How is what you are suggesting different from suggesting to people to engage in ad-hoc speculation and conjecture?

 

Take a step back several thousand years. There was little presence of systems of control, religious or political, due to the fact that, for a large part, people were living more naturally in natural communities.

 

Is there any evidence for this? If anything I think we have evidence to the contrary. The deep past had some good qualities, but I don't think it was generally a utopia. I'd say there were islands of near-utopia where conflicts were mostly local (as opposed to wars).

 

Social structure was intrinsically based on the virtue of family coherence.

 

I don't think this is true in every case. In some Native American tribes, the kids were put into a single home, where they were raised by some women. These kids would not be associated with families as much as they belonged to the entire tribe. Then when they reached adulthood, they would receive their name from the tribe and again, the family was not that important there either.

 

I don't think we can say that the family was always the nucleus of the ancient life.

 

Then, as the population grew (which certainly did ride on the ever-increasing harnessing of energy resources ... i.e. agriculture, coal, oil etc.) and competitiveness accelerated to unseen proportions, people lost touch with their natural virtue. Systems of population control started to arise and certain people greedily recognised that humanity itself was an energy resource that they could harness and exploit for their own competitive gain.

 

That's not a fair characterization of abuse. This makes it sound like dehumanization is only a recent phenomenon that came about from overpopulation. This seems to be rewriting the history a bit. After all, evidence seems to point toward there being such a thing as cannibalism in the ancient tribal cultures.

 

So whilst religions have been used as such controlling systems we also have to give credence to the fact that, due to the sincere efforts of notable saints and sages, religions have also been there, however imperfectly, as custodians and as heralds of the natural virtue that is our inherent birthright.

This seems to legitimize religion.

 

Stig, I believe you have good intentions, but I think you often like to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everything is beautiful and that you make no judgments.

[seadog]

All religions are made up of individuals.

Individual lives vary,but one thing holds true.

We are all here to learn,

Learn to love

Love our neighbours,even when their actions,the words and beliefs

make them hard to handle

Love the earth because it sustains all of us

but probably the hardest of all

learn to love ourselves.

If there is interfaith disharmony

Then there is resistance.

We don't have to agree,or like,or believe,or care.

but we have to love

Even if that love is manufactured,even if we have to cheat and say I love this person when you don't.

How much human energy has been spent,reading holy books,performing cermonies,meditating,philososphy.

Still if there is no love,what good does it serve.

The real challenge is to remain open

not to shut down our hearts in the face of pain

continuing to love in the face of outrageous circumstances.

Easier send then done,

still it is how we as individuals and collectively respond to the challenges of life

that measure the true nature of our being.

[mat black]

All religions are made up of individuals.

Individual lives vary,but one thing holds true.

We are all here to learn,

Learn to love

Love our neighbours,even when their actions,the words and beliefs

make them hard to handle

Love the earth because it sustains all of us

but probably the hardest of all

learn to love ourselves.

If there is interfaith disharmony

Then there is resistance.

We don't have to agree,or like,or believe,or care.

but we have to love

Even if that love is manufactured,even if we have to cheat and say I love this person when you don't.

How much human energy has been spent,reading holy books,performing cermonies,meditating,philososphy.

Still if there is no love,what good does it serve.

The real challenge is to remain open

not to shut down our hearts in the face of pain

continuing to love in the face of outrageous circumstances.

Easier send then done,

still it is how we as individuals and collectively respond to the challenges of life

that measure the true nature of our being.

Spot on.

This is so beautiful John. Truly wonderful.

Bowing to what you said............

Edited February 27, 2009 by mat black

[NeutralWire]

All religions are made up of individuals.

Individual lives vary,but one thing holds true.

We are all here to learn,

Learn to love

Love our neighbours,even when their actions,the words and beliefs

make them hard to handle[...]

 

The real challenge is to remain open

not to shut down our hearts in the face of pain

 

We are certainly here to learn and this is a fundamental principle. But this thread is not about how we react to religions, it's about how they can be encouraged to react better to one another.

 

The Damanhurian approach:

 

http://www.thetemples.org/

 

... is to recognize and honour all manifestations of the divine worldwide. What has been said I think before in this thread, and I must agree, is that unless that honouring is a fundamental tenet of the religion in question, then the religion doesn't accord with the principle that all paths in the web are necessary -- which is a principle certainly honoured by God/Tao.

 

Get all religions to sign a piece of paper saying that and publicize it heavily, you would be doing something: but all radical groups in the world would swell in number. So you have to go quite carefully with some of these institutions, and honour the fact that they are playing a necessary role in the story of humanity.

 

Individuals who join religions are often quite heavily shaped by them, especially if the religion does not encourage original thought. Religions are egregores that sweep people into their flow. It can be hard for some to keep their feet. All religions have an idea of virtue that is incomplete, the complete one for the person rests within them and arises as it must.

 

One other point: if a religion is based on historical-style annals, it will be harder to change in essence, because one is not allowed to change the histories once they have been made public. With other religions, which don't focus so much on a past story, there is the possibility to say 'it is a fundamental tenet of our faith that all religious paths of humanity are necessary and important to that place at that moment," which is the truth.

 

There was once a place called Harran that had a Hermetics as their public practice! Temples to the Gods, etc., although they also believed in the One. We're talking about ninth century Anatolia. The Caliph came calling and wanted to know what religion they followed. They took on a lawyer who knew the Islamic codes of law, he told them: say you believe in the One, pick Hermes as your prophet and the Hermetica as your holy book.' They did that, and the lawyer was able to pass them off as 'Sabians', a sect mentioned in the Qu'ran but ill-defined.

 

For these people, the respect accorded their path was due to nothing more than a legal loophole. Muslims, Christians, Sabians or Jews were the options. Since no-one really knew what 'Sabians' were, they got away with it. If they had not been able to pass for Sabians it would have been lawful to shed their blood -- so said the Caliph al-Ma'mum.

 

This is the problem with a system of thought which could be interpreted as: everything important has already been written. 'God' goes on writing nonetheless! Does the person in the present moment learn to listen to their own conscience or is the divine voice within overruled by legalism, rote and groupthink? Some, like Buddha, were careful to say: if you disagree with me, fine. If others perhaps were equally careful, it unfortunately hasn't been recorded.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

[Bruce]

All religions are made up of individuals.

Individual lives vary,but one thing holds true.

We are all here to learn,

Learn to love

Love our neighbours,even when their actions,the words and beliefs

make them hard to handle

Love the earth because it sustains all of us

but probably the hardest of all

learn to love ourselves.

If there is interfaith disharmony

Then there is resistance.

We don't have to agree,or like,or believe,or care.

but we have to love

Even if that love is manufactured,even if we have to cheat and say I love this person when you don't.

How much human energy has been spent,reading holy books,performing cermonies,meditating,philososphy.

Still if there is no love,what good does it serve.

The real challenge is to remain open

not to shut down our hearts in the face of pain

continuing to love in the face of outrageous circumstances.

Easier send then done,

still it is how we as individuals and collectively respond to the challenges of life

that measure the true nature of our being.

 

I second Matt's call of spot on!

 

No matter how much religious or spiritual practice one engages in, if they still have hate in their hearts they've learned nothing. Way too often, I'm one of those who has learned nothing. Thanks for reminding me to put my bodhisattva vow first. If I can't do that, all the meditation in the world will get me nowhere.

 

Gasho

[Stigweard]

[dwai]

I read and research. It is not an invention of the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_caste_system

ralis

 

Like I said -- it is an invention of the British. Wikipedia isn't always the best source to look at.

[thelerner]

Hate to pull the discussion farther from its intent, but every credible piece of literature I've seen places the caste system at 1200 BCE or older. I'd certainly defer to any Indian historian, but it seems like a slam dunk that its older then the British.

 

Here's one historian's view :

 

By the time of British rule, starting from around the seventeenth century to 1947, the caste system had evolved and expanded into some 3000 different castes. The caste system although underwent great changes throughout this period but strictly speaking, never effectively eradicated. Interestingly, the first effect that the British had on the caste system was to strengthen rather than undermine it, for the British gave the Brahmans back certain special privileges which under Muslim had been withdrawn from them. On the other hand, the British legislators did not agree that the members of the lower-caste should receive greater punishment than members of the upper-caste for committing the same offense.

 

His point of British using and strenghtening the system can be misunderstood as there propagating it, but it was already there.

 

 

Michael

[Apech]

Hate to pull the discussion farther from its intent, but every credible piece of literature I've seen places the caste system at 1200 BCE or older. I'd certainly defer to any Indian historian, but it seems like a slam dunk that its older then the British.

 

Here's one historian's view :

 

By the time of British rule, starting from around the seventeenth century to 1947, the caste system had evolved and expanded into some 3000 different castes. The caste system although underwent great changes throughout this period but strictly speaking, never effectively eradicated. Interestingly, the first effect that the British had on the caste system was to strengthen rather than undermine it, for the British gave the Brahmans back certain special privileges which under Muslim had been withdrawn from them. On the other hand, the British legislators did not agree that the members of the lower-caste should receive greater punishment than members of the upper-caste for committing the same offense.

 

His point of British using and strenghtening the system can be misunderstood as there propagating it, but it was already there.

Michael

 

Caste is from a Portuguese word - they were the first Europeans to get to India (Vasco da Gama) in the late 15th Century.

[Wayfarer64]

Caste is from a Portuguese word - they were the first Europeans to get to India (Vasco da Gama) in the late 15th Century.

 

Actually Alexander (the Great) as well as others were in what is now Iran & India back when -well at least long before the Romans who had some small contact as well...

 

Is there actual doubt that there was a pre-Europian caste system even counting such earlier and still historic contact...

 

Isn't the Hindu caste system a reality of truly ancient duration...? I think the notion of a slam-dunk pretty apt... It is very old indeed!

[hyok]

EDIT. gonna make a thread on it.

Edited February 27, 2009 by hyok

[Stigweard]

One of my early teachers shared this with me ... it is well and truly appropriate here.

 

Four steps to Unconditional Love:

 

1. Allow

2. Accept

3. Appreciate

4. Love

 

[goldisheavy]

GROUP HUGS!!! Just kidding! Excess sentimentality is the root of all evil.

 

But as for the caste system in India, it is ancient. To argue that it's something that been introduced by the West is not just ignorant, I believe it is a hostile and an aggressive act, because I don't think anyone can be accidentally ignorant to such an extent.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html

 

There, and in many other ancient Suttas the caste system has been immortalized. There is absolutely no doubt and no contention about it. The caste system is something very, very old in India.

Edited February 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[dwai]

Hate to pull the discussion farther from its intent, but every credible piece of literature I've seen places the caste system at 1200 BCE or older. I'd certainly defer to any Indian historian, but it seems like a slam dunk that its older then the British.

 

Here's one historian's view :

 

By the time of British rule, starting from around the seventeenth century to 1947, the caste system had evolved and expanded into some 3000 different castes. The caste system although underwent great changes throughout this period but strictly speaking, never effectively eradicated. Interestingly, the first effect that the British had on the caste system was to strengthen rather than undermine it, for the British gave the Brahmans back certain special privileges which under Muslim had been withdrawn from them. On the other hand, the British legislators did not agree that the members of the lower-caste should receive greater punishment than members of the upper-caste for committing the same offense.

 

His point of British using and strenghtening the system can be misunderstood as there propagating it, but it was already there.

Michael

 

Like I mentioned in my original post -- there was no such thing as Caste. There were Varna and Jati. It was mutated into caste to accomplish the following -

 

a) accomodate for British sensibilities (with their history of the Feudal system and class divide)

try and retrofit something they didn't quite understand into a framework that would (when propagated sufficiently long enough) create the grounds for a effective means to divide and rule the Indians (The British were invaders in India after all...)

 

It is very important to not parrot what "historians" with poor knowledge exacerbate (by echoing each other). Varna's role is/was to identify professions. Jaati's role was as a genealogy/anthropological system of nomenclature.

 

That aside, India was and is a very diverse country (the 7th largest by area and 2nd largest by population). Each state in India has it's own language. They have distinct cultural and food habits...it is not unusual that there would be some circumspection involved while people from different backgrounds interact.

 

How do the Hare Krishna's get treated in the West? Why do they get treated differently.

 

That aside, there are people who abused the varna/jaati system. Those were social aberrations, not religious. It is imperative to know and understand the difference. I hope I managed to elucidate this position a little further.

 

This is something who browbeat Hinduism using the "Caste" bogey must read -- http://www.amazon.com/Castes-Mind-Colonial...8509&sr=8-1

Edited February 28, 2009 by dwai

[Stigweard]

I have just come back from being the MC for the Multi-faith Thanksgiving Celebration as part of Queensland's 150th birthday celebrations. Once again it was wonderful to see all the different faiths and religions getting together to celebrate what they had in common and appreciate the collective diversity.

 

It made me reflect on the interfaith tribulations we have been having here lately.

 

Here are what I believe are the highlights of this thread:

 

---------------------

 

To facilitate interfaith harmony, we have to first ensure that there is mutual respect between the faiths. Without this, there can be no harmony.

 

---

 

I would have people of other faiths get together and meet each other. It seems a lot of disharmony is based on ignorance. Once people come to understand that most people are "good" people, regardless of racial, ethnic, religious differences, then the walls just melt away.

 

---

 

I don't think the goal is interfaith harmony. I think the goal is finding the truth underlying different faiths. Although doing that, might also accomplish the former as a side effect...

 

---

 

It must be kept in mind though that one of the root causes of conflict of any type is when people try and prove each other wrong.

 

---

 

However progress toward the ideal will not occur whilst the finger-pointing of 'you are wrong' endures.

 

These rifts will not heal whilst we stand on one side of the chasm and criticize the actions of those on 'the other side'. The truth is we are all one humanity and each and every one of us is responsible in some way for the current state of affairs.

 

---

 

When you are standing on the front line of creating fundamental social change, when you are standing shoulder to shoulder with parties that have rankled with mutual animosity for centuries then the absolute worst thing you can possibly do is to openly challenge them by even insinuating that they are "wrong". Even if they are absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt wrong, if your intent is to further the cause of harmony, then you cannot ... cannot ... create the polarity of making any declarations of who is right and wrong.

 

Now imagine those very same parties sitting around the same table opening engaging in dialogue, examining the core issues that have caused ill will between them and exploring concrete strategies to co-create an ever progressive interfaith harmony. And then, after 4 days of intensive dialogue, them all making a solemn commitment to the implementation of those strategies.

 

And why have they been able to do this?

 

Because we were able to engage each other with mutual respect, because we adopted the attitude of 'we are all in this together', because we were able to say to one another, "Your faith, your doctrine, your belief is worthy of respect and appreciation."

 

---

 

Why can't we all see the same thingg????!!!! Waahhhh!!!! laugh.gif rolleyes.gif huh.gif

 

---

 

All beliefs will ultimately be transcended by personal experience. Talk of "I believe this" or "I believe that" is all just that....talk. These "beliefs" eveyone is spouting off about here, are just ideas you have yet to have personal experience with. I suggest spending more time in silent awareness and less time talking about theory.

 

---

 

Would you rather be right or would you rather be free? I'll admit I am wrong a lot of the time, and don't know everything. It's incredibly freeing to do this because I am able to find real Truth this way. I don't have to continually asert that I am right and you are all wrong and am able learn from everyone.

 

---

 

As Taoists (or whatever we each choose to call ourselves) we have an opportunity to work to on harmony and the balance and reconciliation of 'opposites', like yin and yang perhaps.

 

---

 

We could facilitate interfaith harmony by defining those things/ideas which we hold in common. I realize this seems very liberal and wishy-washy but I am simply trying to answer the question.

 

---

 

Anyhow, back on topic - imagine Buddha, Fu Xi, Laozi, Jesus, Mohammed, etc all sat down together at a bar... What would they say to each other? What would they agree or disagree on?

 

What would they agree on?

 

My answer: That VIRTUE is the fundamental building block and primary goal of all spiritual endeavours.

[Marblehead]

My answer: That VIRTUE is the fundamental building block and primary goal of all spiritual endeavours.

 

What can I say?

 

Be well!