This is really useful, Sam, and has helped me think this through myself. I do struggle endlessly with this one. Thanks. I'd like to read more on this if it comes.
Thanks for clarifying your position. It's funny, I've run into someone with this same certainty about their spiritual path, but their belief instead was that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and all the other religions are lesser revelations Krishna provided, Krishna devotion being the highest path. It was an interesting argument on why it's Krishna and not Jesus: he says Krishna was a more complete personality than Jesus (Krishna was all sorts of things, warrior, poet, philosopher, lover, etc.). Be that as it may, this comes up with theists a lot, they either think their revelation is the only true revelation or if not that, it is the highest or best revelation. It's probably best to acknowledge there is no one-size-fits-all spiritual path, and while there is probably a best path for a given individual or even group of people, that doesn't mean it's the best/truest path overall.
I don't know, asserting the primacy of a given tradition like that may be as bizarre as asserting the Amazon is superior to the Mongolian steppes. I wish I could get the various believers to just agree on one thing: your tradition is about the Infinite. Every spiritual tradition is about the Infinite, even the non-theistic ones. Then we blind men could finally start figuring out the elephant.
I think an aspect of the certainty is about an existential commitment, in other words, it's not possible to walk along a path unless you are seriously committed to it, seeing it as certain. To seek a viewpoint outside of such a commitment is - in my view - part of the wrong turn of Modernity (the 'view from nowhere'). Are you familiar with MacIntyre's stuff about competing traditions? I'm sceptical that there can be any assessment between religions 'overall', there is simply dialogue which is fruitful or not. I need to put something up about mysticism, as a response to your second para.
How I see it is that it makes sense to commit to a specific path because it does lead to the stated goal of that path, but I don't really see it as part of that commitment to assert it is the only path. No, I haven't read MacIntyre's view on all this.
As to any assessment between religions 'overall', aside from that stuff about the Infinite, I'm also rather taken with Guenon's view that the sum total of all knowledge will eventually stand revealed as a harmony. He was asserting something very strange there, because I think he really meant everything, including things like science and the views of atheists. What a crazy vision that would be...
I have read this one. I ponder the need(s) for spiritual protection, and then there is the pragamatic construction of mutual defensible ( defencible ) space. The latter is an interesting American architectural concept from years back, which gives a place to neighbours to deter and prevent threat by looking out for one another. One might consider the continuity / evolution of wisdom traditions as they hybridised historically, despite the history? The constant child?
That's really interesting. I certainly think that the faith traditions have a shared interest in contending against (what Paul above calls) the Machine.
This is really useful, Sam, and has helped me think this through myself. I do struggle endlessly with this one. Thanks. I'd like to read more on this if it comes.
This is excellent. And I hope you’ll share if you have thoughts on a possible answer to the last question…
Thank you. So clear and straightforward.
Thanks for clarifying your position. It's funny, I've run into someone with this same certainty about their spiritual path, but their belief instead was that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and all the other religions are lesser revelations Krishna provided, Krishna devotion being the highest path. It was an interesting argument on why it's Krishna and not Jesus: he says Krishna was a more complete personality than Jesus (Krishna was all sorts of things, warrior, poet, philosopher, lover, etc.). Be that as it may, this comes up with theists a lot, they either think their revelation is the only true revelation or if not that, it is the highest or best revelation. It's probably best to acknowledge there is no one-size-fits-all spiritual path, and while there is probably a best path for a given individual or even group of people, that doesn't mean it's the best/truest path overall.
I don't know, asserting the primacy of a given tradition like that may be as bizarre as asserting the Amazon is superior to the Mongolian steppes. I wish I could get the various believers to just agree on one thing: your tradition is about the Infinite. Every spiritual tradition is about the Infinite, even the non-theistic ones. Then we blind men could finally start figuring out the elephant.
I think an aspect of the certainty is about an existential commitment, in other words, it's not possible to walk along a path unless you are seriously committed to it, seeing it as certain. To seek a viewpoint outside of such a commitment is - in my view - part of the wrong turn of Modernity (the 'view from nowhere'). Are you familiar with MacIntyre's stuff about competing traditions? I'm sceptical that there can be any assessment between religions 'overall', there is simply dialogue which is fruitful or not. I need to put something up about mysticism, as a response to your second para.
How I see it is that it makes sense to commit to a specific path because it does lead to the stated goal of that path, but I don't really see it as part of that commitment to assert it is the only path. No, I haven't read MacIntyre's view on all this.
As to any assessment between religions 'overall', aside from that stuff about the Infinite, I'm also rather taken with Guenon's view that the sum total of all knowledge will eventually stand revealed as a harmony. He was asserting something very strange there, because I think he really meant everything, including things like science and the views of atheists. What a crazy vision that would be...
Oh I do like that - I need to read Guenon (I have one of his books on my shelf....)
I have read this one. I ponder the need(s) for spiritual protection, and then there is the pragamatic construction of mutual defensible ( defencible ) space. The latter is an interesting American architectural concept from years back, which gives a place to neighbours to deter and prevent threat by looking out for one another. One might consider the continuity / evolution of wisdom traditions as they hybridised historically, despite the history? The constant child?
That's really interesting. I certainly think that the faith traditions have a shared interest in contending against (what Paul above calls) the Machine.
Yes. It is a dangerous space. Puts a different complection on the idea of a servant in service?