Interfaith studies
Another quote from Alan Watts, this in Comparative Religion:-
“[i]Comparative religion” or “comparative theology” has hitherto been a strictly academic pursuit, and the better authorities on the subject have been competent scholars and subtle philosophers. To date they have done such an excellent job that no one can make crass or odious comparisons between religions without making it very clear that he is an ignoramus. To say, for example, that whereas Christians believe the Ultimate Reality to be a loving, personal deity, Buddhists maintain that it is only an empty void, is to show that one understands neither Christianity nor Buddhism. For as we go into the depths of these matters, making full allowance for cultural variations, for differences of language and metaphor, and for all the semantic confusions which they engender, it appears that men’s experiences of “the ultimate” are peculiarly alike. When they get down to negative or apophatic theology — the approach to God by the sculptural method of cutting away concepts — St. Dionysius and St. Thomas are speaking the same language as Nagarjuna and Shankara. At such levels the differences between sophisticated Christian theologians and Hindu or Buddhist pandits are mere technicalities.…[/i]
Good stuff. Much like the "anti-monk" Thomas Merton, who would rarely speak in terms of doctrines, but liked to compare religions at the level of [i]lived experience.[/i]
Any thoughts?
(But please, if all anyone wants to say is that Jesus is the only way, don't bother. Just give it a break and testify among your own.
“[i]Comparative religion” or “comparative theology” has hitherto been a strictly academic pursuit, and the better authorities on the subject have been competent scholars and subtle philosophers. To date they have done such an excellent job that no one can make crass or odious comparisons between religions without making it very clear that he is an ignoramus. To say, for example, that whereas Christians believe the Ultimate Reality to be a loving, personal deity, Buddhists maintain that it is only an empty void, is to show that one understands neither Christianity nor Buddhism. For as we go into the depths of these matters, making full allowance for cultural variations, for differences of language and metaphor, and for all the semantic confusions which they engender, it appears that men’s experiences of “the ultimate” are peculiarly alike. When they get down to negative or apophatic theology — the approach to God by the sculptural method of cutting away concepts — St. Dionysius and St. Thomas are speaking the same language as Nagarjuna and Shankara. At such levels the differences between sophisticated Christian theologians and Hindu or Buddhist pandits are mere technicalities.…[/i]
Good stuff. Much like the "anti-monk" Thomas Merton, who would rarely speak in terms of doctrines, but liked to compare religions at the level of [i]lived experience.[/i]
Any thoughts?
(But please, if all anyone wants to say is that Jesus is the only way, don't bother. Just give it a break and testify among your own.
