🔎 View Tweet
Let me give you a bit of where I'm coming from in regard to my perspective. Consider this passage from Christian mystic Simone Weil: "Greece, Egypt, ancient India, the beauty of the world, the pure and authentic reflection of this beauty in art and science...these things have done as much as the visibly Christian ones to deliver me into Christ's hands as his captive. I think I might even say more... Each religion is alone true, that is to say, that at the moment we are thinking of it we must bring as much attention to bear on it as if there were nothing else ... A "synthesis" of religion implies a lower quality of attention." It is important, in my estimation, to understand exactly what we are talking about and to give the religion we are analyzing our full attention. As an anthropologist as well, this is a key facet of the practice. While one can make comparisons - for the truth is universal - we must first try to understand precisely what it is that each religion claims (i.e., their respective theologies). In doing so, we are better able to understand the spiritual truth that underlays them. For example, the conception of Hell is a "place without God - an absence from His presence". So not necessarily everybody in Hell is in the lake of torture, but it is Hell because you are separated from God's love. It is also, theologically, eternal. And when we speak of Naraka - which iteration are we speaking of? The Hindu, Jain, or Buddhist iteration? Each have their own respective theological understanding. Unlike in the Abraham conception of Hell, Naraka is not eternal. It is a process of purification. A more apt comparison would be the Christian Purgatory - a temporal place in which one's sins are cleansed before entering Heaven - although Purgatory is neutral while Naraka is more negative (but also, it is ultimately positive, for the end result is purification; in Hell, you never leave - it is eternal). Each religion has a specific claim, and in order to properly understand their spiritual truths we must understand them on their level. Calling them all the same thing is reducing them to an archetype, and as C.G. Jung notes, archetypes are quite two-dimensional. Viewing them this way "implies a lower quality of attention", as Weil stated. In giving them their full attention, we are more able to grasp the immense beauty and complexity of each religions respective theological claims. Once we understand this, then comparisons can be made and we can bridge gaps between the religions - but we must first analyze their foundations before any construction can begin. (Super happy to hear you welcome discussion - sometimes I would like to write more but don't wanna be "that guy", but I'm beginning to learn it's the way I like to use Twitter)