Religious pluralism

[Lucas Oliveira]

Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:

As the name of the worldview according to which one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.

As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This may be considered a form of either toleration (a concept that arose as a result of the European wars of religion) or moral relativism.

The understanding that the exclusive claims of different religions turn out, upon closer examination, to be variations of universal truths that have been taught since time immemorial. This is called Perennialism (based on the concept of philosophia perennis) or Traditionalism.

Sometimes as a synonym for ecumenism, i.e., the promotion of some level of unity, co-operation, and improved understanding between different religions or different denominations within a single religion.

As a term for the condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.

As a social norm and not merely a synonym for religious diversity.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism

[cappuccino]

Any concern for the afterlife is better than no concern.

[mikenz66]

Thanks for that Lucas.

I have found Bhikkhu Bodhi's article, "Tolerance and Diversity" very useful in this context.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_24.html

I have not read the whole Wikipedia article, only the introduction, and it's possible that many of the nuances are covered further down, but ,concentrating on what was quoted, I like this:

As a term for the condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.

But I can see various problems with these statements:

1. As the name of the worldview according to which one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.

2. As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This may be considered a form of either toleration (a concept that arose as a result of the European wars of religion) or moral relativism.

3. The understanding that the exclusive claims of different religions turn out, upon closer examination, to be variations of universal truths that have been taught since time immemorial. This is called Perennialism (based on the concept of philosophia perennis) or Traditionalism.

Proponents of (3) often turn out to not be practising tolerance, but, instead, redefine, or ignore aspects of, other religions in order to fit them into their world view.

The statement in (2) about moral relativism also suggests that the writer knows the correct answers, which the proponents of pluralism have overlooked.

(1) seems mostly harmless, but it does have the implication that "the others are wrong in a lot of ways, but we'll just have to put up with that."

As Bhikkhu Bodhi points out, a key aspect of tolerance is the acknowledgement that there are other views. Glossing over the differences is not tolerance. Being able to accept them is.


Mike

[Kim OHara]

Any concern for the afterlife is better than no concern.

And any concern for ethics is better than none.

I find I have more in common with most (sincere, practising) Christians in my community than with many atheist materialists.


Kim

[mikenz66]

I agree Kim. It's rather unfashionable to have any kind of religious discussion in work circles here.

Though, interestingly, the requirement for taking our bi-cultural commitments (i.e. relationship with the first inhabitants of this place) seriously actually improves the situation a little, since part of the Māori culture that must be recognised involves spirituality.

Otherwise, spirituality is OK if it's the scientific-secular-meditative sort...


Mike

[robertk]

Any concern for the afterlife is better than no concern.

And any concern for ethics is better than none.

I find I have more in common with most (sincere, practising) Christians in my community than with many atheist materialists.


Kim

yes , absolutely agree.

[phil]

Any concern for the afterlife is better than no concern.

And any concern for ethics is better than none.

I find I have more in common with most (sincere, practising) Christians in my community than with many atheist materialists.


Kim

yes , absolutely agree.

Robert, I remember your story about being impressed by Mormon missionaries you chatted with, I have had the same experience several times and I also enjoyed discussing morality (rather than ethics) with a student who was a Jehova's Witness. I feel starved for the company of people who live for something other than the satisfaction of the ego or the senses even when some unpalatable beliefs are involved.

[Lucas Oliveira]

As Bhikkhu Bodhi points out, a key aspect of tolerance is the acknowledgement that there are other views. Glossing over the differences is not tolerance. Being able to accept them is.


Mike

Yes, Mike.

At the beginning of the Winki text has this argument:

Mark Silka, in "Defining Religious Pluralism in America: A Regional Analysis," states that Religious pluralism "enables a country made up of people of different faiths to exist without sectarian warfare or the persecution of religious minorities. , it is a cultural construct that embodies some shared conception of how a country's various religious communities relate to each other and to the larger nation whole. "[1]

I like to term Religious pluralism because it reminds me that it is possible to live well in the midst of many religions.

and as Kim recalled. Ethics is much more than a word and is very good.

here in this forum and in the neighboring forums, despite so many discourses, we can see ethics, harmony and respect with various beliefs.

a space for "Connections to Other Paths" is already an example.

[robertk]

dear Phil
and the modern atheist view is especially pernicious. The average man has been indoctrinated since school into believing that science has uncovered deep truths (e.g. evolution ) and fully expect that death is the end. It is the worst type of view.

the good muslims, hindus and Christians see further, and that has impact on how they live.

[DNS]

Good topic, good posts above.

The Jains have made pluralism into a sort of pillar of their faith, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

In the modern world the move and push has been toward secularization and nihilism. I've chatted with some nihilists and asked them, "so a killer, rapist, thief has no bad karma, no bad rebirth?" They answer "no, when they die, they just die, no repercussions for any of their actions." And I ask, "how about bad feelings, bad karma in this life?" They answer "no, not even that, they can just have a clear mind and do whatever they want."

And it is no wonder there is so much immorality with attitudes like that. And it is no wonder that suicide rates have been escalating ever higher with each new generation (with increased atheism, secularization, nihilistic views).

[Lucas Oliveira]

The Jains have made pluralism into a sort of pillar of their faith, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

Hi David!

I found this concept of religious pluralism reading about Jainism.

their teaching on non-violence must have contributed much to the respect of the other religions.

"Perhaps the teaching is one, but there are various people who hear it. On account of the inconceivable merit it bestows, it shines forth in various ways".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haribhadra

[L.N.]

From the Bhikku Bodhi article:

The Buddha's restriction of final emancipation to his own dispensation does not spring from a narrow dogmatism or a lack of good will, but rests upon an utterly precise determination of the nature of the final goal and of the means that must be implemented to reach it. This goal is neither an everlasting afterlife in a heaven nor some nebulously conceived state of spiritual illumination, but the Nibbana element with no residue remaining, release from the cycle of repeated birth and death. This goal is effected by the utter destruction of the mind's defilements — greed, aversion and delusion — all the way down to their subtlest levels of latency. The eradication of the defilements can be achieved only by insight into the true nature of phenomena, which means that the attainment of Nibbana depends upon the direct experiential insight into all conditioned phenomena, internal and external, as stamped with the "three characteristics of existence": impermanence, suffering, and non-selfness. What the Buddha maintains, as the ground for his assertion that his teaching offers the sole means to final release from suffering, is that the knowledge of the true nature of phenomena, in its exactitude and completeness, is accessible only in his teaching. This is so because, theoretically, the principles that define this knowledge are unique to his teaching and contradictory in vital respects to the basic tenets of other creeds; and because, practically, this teaching alone reveals, in its perfection and purity, the means of generating this liberative knowledge as a matter of immediate personal experience. This means is the Noble Eightfold Path which, as an integrated system of spiritual training, cannot be found outside the dispensation of a Fully Enlightened One.

As Bhikkhu Bodhi points out, a key aspect of tolerance is the acknowledgement that there are other views. Glossing over the differences is not tolerance. Being able to accept them is.

I think recognizing where there sometimes are certain similarities among major world religions also is a part of tolerance, but shooting down any attempt to recognize similarities is not conducive to tolerance. Recognizing possible common ground is not the same as glossing over differences, in my opinion. I think it is unfortunate when Dhamma followers publicly put down other faith traditions (which nobody is doing here). As stated in the article:

Buddhist tolerance springs from the recognition that the dispositions and spiritual needs of human beings are too vastly diverse to be encompassed by any single teaching, and thus that these needs will naturally find expression in a wide variety of religious forms. The non-Buddhist systems will not be able to lead their adherents to the final goal of the Buddha's Dhamma, but that they never proposed to do in the first place. For Buddhism, acceptance of the idea of the beginningless round of rebirths implies that it would be utterly unrealistic to expect more than a small number of people to be drawn toward a spiritual path aimed at complete liberation. The overwhelming majority, even of those who seek deliverance from earthly woes, will aim at securing a favorable mode of existence within the round, even while misconceiving this to be the ultimate goal of the religious quest.

To the extent that a religion proposes sound ethical principles and can promote to some degree the development of wholesome qualities such as love, generosity, detachment and compassion, it will merit in this respect the approbation of Buddhists.

[Kim OHara]

... In the modern world the move and push has been toward secularization and nihilism. I've chatted with some nihilists and asked them, "so a killer, rapist, thief has no bad karma, no bad rebirth?" They answer "no, when they die, they just die, no repercussions for any of their actions." And I ask, "how about bad feelings, bad karma in this life?" They answer "no, not even that, they can just have a clear mind and do whatever they want." ...

It's difficult to encourage your average modern atheist to even consider rebirth seriously, let alone believe in it, but the "bad feelings, bad karma in this life" are directly observable by anyone willing to put a bit of time and thought into the exercise.
And the converse - good feelings, good karma - is IMO one of the greatest benefits of a morally-grounded life and, again, is directly observable (which reinforces the motivation to keep on doing the right thing).
And the most basic Buddhist guidelines - to abstain from all evil, to cultivate good, and (then) to purify one's mind - are the common ground of all religions.


Kim

[L.N.]

And the most basic Buddhist guidelines - to abstain from all evil, to cultivate good, and (then) to purify one's mind - are the common ground of all religions.

I agree.

[Lucas Oliveira]

Basic points unifying Theravāda and Mahāyāna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_poi ... 1y%C4%81na