The problem with ANY religion, philosophy or ideology is that, rather than utilize it as a guide to fuse with one's own experience and commonsense, it becomes set in stone and turns into dogma or orthodoxy. When this happens, new information or new consciousness is not allowed a foothold because it might well upset the apple cart of tradition.
Yet, if we look with fresh eyes at many of the foundational texts of a myriad of belief systems, it's not difficult to discern competing ideas that run throughout such works. The different strains of belief actually argue against a dogmatic approach.
For example, it is well understood by modern scholars that many different schools of thought permeate the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi. As we slowly explore both works, differing influences can be seen. Parts of these books feature early Chinese folk religion, shamanism and mysticism. Other parts show strong influences from Confucianism and Mohism. Other strains of thought show up as well. Taken together, they make up the generalized school of thought that today we call philosophical Taoism.
The very same kinds of patterns can be seen in the Christian Bible. There are portions of this work that emphasize an angry, warlike god. There are just as many other parts that promote a kind and loving god. Some writers view works as being an important component to faith. Others contend that works are of little importance.
Religious institutions and people land themselves in trouble when they fumble to reconcile dramatically different perspectives. They come up with laughable formulas to "prove" that light and darkness or love and hate mean roughly the same thing. They take easy to spot contradictions and errors, then try to work their magic to make them disappear.
In the end, people too often lose sight of the notion that foundational documents simply set the foundation for a way of seeing the world. While a foundation certainly will exert some impact on what the ongoing structure will look like, it does not dictate the precise floor plan, the size of the windows nor the color of the wallpaper!
Yet, if we look with fresh eyes at many of the foundational texts of a myriad of belief systems, it's not difficult to discern competing ideas that run throughout such works. The different strains of belief actually argue against a dogmatic approach.
For example, it is well understood by modern scholars that many different schools of thought permeate the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi. As we slowly explore both works, differing influences can be seen. Parts of these books feature early Chinese folk religion, shamanism and mysticism. Other parts show strong influences from Confucianism and Mohism. Other strains of thought show up as well. Taken together, they make up the generalized school of thought that today we call philosophical Taoism.
The very same kinds of patterns can be seen in the Christian Bible. There are portions of this work that emphasize an angry, warlike god. There are just as many other parts that promote a kind and loving god. Some writers view works as being an important component to faith. Others contend that works are of little importance.
Religious institutions and people land themselves in trouble when they fumble to reconcile dramatically different perspectives. They come up with laughable formulas to "prove" that light and darkness or love and hate mean roughly the same thing. They take easy to spot contradictions and errors, then try to work their magic to make them disappear.
In the end, people too often lose sight of the notion that foundational documents simply set the foundation for a way of seeing the world. While a foundation certainly will exert some impact on what the ongoing structure will look like, it does not dictate the precise floor plan, the size of the windows nor the color of the wallpaper!
I forget the quote and who said it but something like: Put all the spiritual masters in a room and there will be peace, put all their followers in a room and see a riot.
ReplyDeleteTwinkle.
ReplyDeletehere is a good one
ReplyDelete"all paths disappear at the peak"