In terms of the thread I believe all religions start with wisdom. The wisdom continues to accumulate till a point of crystallization is reached whereby someone determines it is important to protect what has developed.
This is where initial organization of religion happens. Just past this organization the concepts of unencumbered growth of the follower base starts to poke its head. This starts to require resources and then the gathering of monies, gifts, etc., starts to come into play.
The disconnect from the essence of wisdom starts to encroach upon the original intent. Managers get appointed, committees get formed, regulations start to be established, and so on till the baby no longer can be associated much with the origins of the wisdom.
Sadness and decline thereafter.
For sure at initial wisdom level much synergistic between various streams of wisdom. Unfortunately later stages little common stays and differences accentuate. Hence even with the recognition of one God/creator at the start of some wisdom streams, little commonality can now be found other than lip service or humanistic loose talk.
Can all the religions turn back the clock please and reset to their spirituality hour for world peace!
Dear Ambarsaria ji
I just wanted to tell you that I really
truly appreciate the insight you provide above. It really makes sense to me and in fact I share much the same belief with regards to the birth, growth, consolidation and decline of world religions in relation to the original essence of wisdom, or informed perception into the reality of things, that stands at its core. I think that you have voiced in most clear fashion something that I have tried to say on this and other forums but perhaps not expressed so well: that religions are different, they have developed in different cultural, philosophical and linguistic backgrounds; they have different structures, customs, doctrinal disagreements in areas and their unique evolutionary paths have created a rich diversity of sacred traditions or "wisdom streams" (as you put it). This diversity, this distinctness should be
embraced. We should not expect people of other faiths, or even within our own faith, to see things exactly how we see it.
The cuckoo doesn't mock the song of the dove because it sings differently; wood birds singing in the trees each have their own distinct notes yet they sing in
harmony. My own opinion is that those who seek to create one, uniform religious body, such as Christian evangelists or Islamic missionaries, on a global scale are misguided since it is diversity in creation, cultures and even in religious beliefs that is the language of God who is the unity of opposites, the oneness that embraces plurality.
While we must and should uphold the unique values of our own faiths, can we not also peel back some layers to find
wisdom, insight into human nature, creation and life in general that is shared among religious traditions and forms a kind of
common deposit of sacred knowledge that we can agree on? This does not demean the distinctiveness of our paths, it does not call for a false religious ecumenism that syncretizes religions and destroys their integrity, nor does it mean that we should not take pride in the uniqueness of our own faith and our differences, it simply means that our differences - while recognised - need not be causes for strife.
All it does is recognise some sort of unity at the heart of the very real religious plurality, that can contribute to peace in the world of faith and allow us to see each other as brothers and sisters working for a common cause, even though we go down different roads to get there.
Now it is my conviction that the wisdom that is at the heart of all religion, of whatever stripe - even some atheistic, humanistic or secular systems of belief - has its most glorious manifestation in that phenomenon common to most world faiths
mysticism. Now this word, because of its appropriation by the western New Age movement, has developed certain connotations that do not fit at all with its traditional meaning.
Traditionally and correctly defined, mysticism essentially has to do with the preparation for, experience of and effect of a transformative consciousness of the presence of God, a higher power, law, nature or simply an unconditioned reality however defined, that leads to a change of heart in a person and to a life that has true meaning or enlightenment in other words.
Scholars have detected such people in all religions, people who are more dedicated than most and more spiritually perceptive as to the wisdom in their own religious traditions. Mystical movements generally arise at a time of trouble, confusion, chaos or decline in the life of a religion and serve to re-focus and re-orient the faith back to its origins while also looking forward.
To this end I have one question:
What do you define this
wisdom "as"? What is "it"? You mention above that at the level of this basic, pure wisdom there is to use your own words, "
much synergistic between various streams of wisdom".
Is wisdom
one? Or are there many wisdoms just like there are many different perceptions of reality?
Although I have promised SPNAdmin to
quote less henceforth and provide more
reflective, analytical thought in relation to my postings, I do think that with your post above, and given the topic of the thread (not to mention it being in the interfaith section of the forum) that one big quote is of relevance here, one I should add that I have quoted before on SPN - this time just to compare with your thinking above.
It is from a man called Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, whom you will likely recall from our past discussions Ambarsaria ji.
Cusa witnessed in his lifetime, in the middle of the fifteenth century, one of the lowest points in interreligious relations. After years of crusades between the Christian and Islamic worlds, Constantinople - the holy city for Eastern Christians - was sacked and conquered by the Seljuk Turks. The Byzantine Empire fell apart and was replaced by the Ottoman Empire.
This turn of events was devastating for Christians to watch. Some called for another crusade against the invading Muslims. However Cardinal Cusa, who at the time was the most powerful cleric in the church after the pope himself and a great Renaissance intellectual, called for mutual understanding and peace between Muslims and Christians.
He wrote a book called
De Pace Fidei (The Peace of Faith) which while showing the limits of his age, also exhibits progressive tendencies and a certain openness to other religions.
He pictures a fictional council in heaven where all the world religions meet, debate and make peace with one another, accepting a unity in diversity rather than creating some false, new syncretistic blend of religions (much like the New Age is doing in our own time).
I have
bolded key parts:
"...With many groanings I beseeched the Creator of all, because of His kindness, to restrain the persecution that was raging more fiercely than usual on account of the difference of faith between the religions...We praise our God, whose mercy rules over all His works and who alone has the power to bring it about, that such a great diversity of religions would be brought together in one harmonious peace...How should we bring the manifold of religions to one unity, since our people have defended their religion with blood, and they hardly will be willing to accept a new, unified religion?
Answer: You should not introduce a new religion. But, you should yourselves comprehend, and then show to the peoples, that the true religion is presupposed before all other religions. The unity is before the separation occurs...You will find that not another faith but the one and the same faith is presupposed everywhere...Moses had described a path to God, but this path was neither taken up by everyone nor was it understood by everyone. Jesus illuminated and perfected this path; nevertheless, many even now remain unbelievers. Muhammad tried to make the same path easier, so that it might be accepted by all, even idolaters. These are the most famous of the said paths to God, although many others were presented by the wise and the prophets...Even though you acknowledge diverse religions, you all presuppose in all of this diversity the one, which you call wisdom...There can only be one wisdom. For if it were possible that there be several wisdoms, then these would have to be from one. Namely, unity is prior to all plurality. None of us doubts that it is one wisdom which we all love and because of which we are called philosophers. Through participation in it there are many wise men, although this wisdom remains in itself simple and undivided. We who have made this profession of philosophy love the sweetness of wisdom by no other way than a foretaste in wonder at the things which are subject to sense. For who would not die for the sake of reaching such wisdom from which all beauty, all sweetness of life and everything desirable emanate? What a power of wisdom shines forth in the creation of man, in his limbs, in their order, in the life infused, in the harmony of the organs, in movement, and especially in the rational spirit, which is capable of wonderful arts and is, so to speak, a sign of wisdom in which the eternal wisdom shines forth above all things in a close image, as truth in a close likeness!......Therefore, do not hide Yourself any longer, O Lord. Be propitious, and manifest Your face; and all peoples will be saved, who no longer will be able to desert the Source of life and its sweetness, once having foretasted even a little thereof. For no one departs from You except because He is ignorant of You. It is you O God who is being sought in various religions in various ways and named with various names. For you remain as you are to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it then sword jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious faiths...For infinite wisdom encompasses everything. See how you, the philosophers of the various religious traditions, agree in the religion of one God whom you all presuppose, in that which as lovers of wisdom you profess. Therefore, all human beings profess with you that there is one absolute wisdom whom they presuppose, and this is the one God. Therefore, for all who are vigorous in intellect there is one religion and worship, which is presupposed in all the diversity of rites..."
- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 –1464), De Pace Fidei, Catholic mystic
Nicholas of Cusa saw the peace of religions as being tied to recognition that there is
wisdom at the heart of each faith tradition and that this wisdom is
one - and I would add more apparent to mystics of those faiths than say the those with a more formal, ceremonial, going-through-the-motions kind of attachment to their faith.
Read:
"...[According to Cusa] God is responsible for the plurality of religions. From plurality stems diversity. Add to that the fact that the majority of human beings can afford neither leisure nor time to make use of their free will and to cognize themselves. Consequently – between all their toil and labor – they simply lack opportunity and potential to seek after "the hidden God". Kings and prophets, such continues the narrative, were put in charge of the instruction of simple people. That again backfired because people took the doctrines much too literally, a factor that reveals the true human condition (humana terrena conditio), namely, "that longstanding custom, which is regarded as having passed over into nature, is defended as the truth. In this way there arise great quarrels when each community prefers its own faith to another...The fanaticism, as just described, is some form of competition or, to use René Girard's terminology: mimesis, a mimetic circle. "For the sake of You, the only one they worship in whatever they adore, exists all this competition (aemulatio)." The Good, Truth, Life, and generally Being, those are the real objects of religious strife; for seemingly different interests converge in the object of aspiration. Only conscious return and awareness of the true object will be able to break the circle of violence..."
"...Cardinal Cusa claimed that... a variety of prophets [went] into the world in order to reveal [God] to humanity. To achieve this goal these prophets created a variety of faiths, the customs of which have, over time come to be regarded as immutable truths founded not by prophets, but by God. Since the human person has freewill, and because over time opinions, languages and interpretations undergo change....errors... inevitably develop. In this manner Cusa gives such figures as Buddha and Muhammad a similar status to that of prophets of the God of Israel whose teachings over time have been distorted...Because of this Cusa does not think that religious diversity need be a source of conflict. For Cusa since the diversity of faiths are merely different ways of articulating the same underlying truth, there is no real basis for mutual attacks over these differences."
- Ethical implications of unity and the divine in Nicholas of Cusa By David John De Leonardis
"Cusa seeks to promote the idea that diverse religious customs (the accidents of religion, if you will) conceal a true or 'ideal' religion. This 'una religio' (one religion) is the unattainable truth about God - of which all existing belief systems are but shadowy reflections. The faithful of all nations and creeds should persevere in their particular expressions of piety in the firm belief that the one true 'religion' is the basis of them all"
- 'Religion' and the religions in the English Enlightenment By Peter Harrison
Now I am sure that there are differences between Cusa and yourself above Ambarsaria ji, however I sense some kind of underlying leaning in a similar direction. Maybe I am wrong.
I just think it is an interesting comparison, between Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in the 1400s and Ambarsaria ji on SPN in 2013
