Many paths, all one path?

[Nevada]

There is more and more in my mind a similarity in the many traditions that I read about. Sometimes it's a more esoteric lane in a path, such as the Gnostic or contemplative paths of Christianity rather than mainstream Christianity. But more and more I think that all paths are one and the same, simply experienced differently through different traditions, perspectives, and philosophies.

So many times I've seen New Age thought derided because it attempts to tread so many paths, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I think for me the biggest problem with New Age thought I've come across is the refusal to look at the whole, the insistence on "positive" focus, which I see as entirely out of balance.

I also think that in many cases it's important for a person to follow just one path. Sometimes I even think maybe the path one thinks fits best isn't the best. We learn so much from challenges.

But in the end don't they all boil down to one path? For instance at the moment I'm looking at the ideas about Awakening in three different teachings:

1) Christ in the Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Thomas speaking of becoming fully human or Anthropos. (ETA: I'm thinking specifically of the Jean-Yves Leloup commentaries on these, especially that in his book, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, in which he also discusses the Gospel of Thomas.)

2) Buddha talking about awakening.

3) Carl Jung talking about individuation. (Yes, I think of him as a spiritual teacher.)

Aren't these three teachings talking about the same thing?

Then there's the Golden Rule. It exists in more traditions than I can count or even know about.

The idea of return, which is basically the whole point of spirituality to begin with, that we start out life with a goal that once reached helps us to return whence we came but with something new, some improvement either in experience or wisdom or growth. I see this everywhere, with special focus on techniques or visualizations in some traditions such as Kabbalah.

I think a lifelong study of comparative religion, along with awareness and learning from many other kinds of lessons in life, can be a path in itself without the need to throw a label on it because, well, which label would I choose?

I'm wondering how many others here have come to any of these same conclusions? Or do you disagree, and why?

 

[Milfoil]

I confess, I haven't read the Gnostic gospels so I can't comment on your first example but I think I know what you are asking, feel free to correct me if I am wrong though.

The religion is not as important as the general principles of spiritual growth and awakening or wholeness. It makes sense to me that, around the world, in vastly different cultures, humans came to pretty much the same conclusions but developed systems to pass on this understanding which related to their own world view and experience. How those systems became dogmatised over the centuries is another discussion entirely.

Fowler's stages of spiritual development are an interesting read but I'm not sure I understand if they fit all possibilities.

Death has always struck me as the last minute, crash course in spiritual realisation for those 99% of us who have not achieved enlightenment, awakening or rapture beforehand.

 

[Nevada]

Fowler's stages of spiritual development are an interesting read but I'm not sure I understand if they fit all possibilities.

Death has always struck me as the last minute, crash course in spiritual realisation for those 99% of us who have not achieved enlightenment, awakening or rapture beforehand.

Death, yes, I agree. Thanks for the tip about Fowler. I'll look that up.

 

[Baroli]

AT LAST!!!! Someone who has read the Gnostic gospels. They're absolutely fascinating.

I have been looking at other religions, other idea of spirituality and PBS had last weekend, the story of Bhudda, and how he came to enlightenment and how his message came about. It was truly a wonderful presentation, with commentary from various Bhuddists as well as the Dali Lama. One of the things I thought about as I watched the program was how much some of the message Bhudda put forth, sounded so much like Jesus and his message of love. So I think you might have something there Nevada.

 

[cricket]

I have commentary, but have not slept in nearly 48 hours, so will put this post up as a bookmark until thoughts are somewhat coherent. Stay tuned for further developments.

 

[Nevada]

AT LAST!!!! Someone who has read the Gnostic gospels. They're absolutely fascinating.

I have been looking at other religions, other idea of spirituality and PBS had last weekend, the story of Bhudda, and how he came to enlightenment and how his message came about. It was truly a wonderful presentation, with commentary from various Bhuddists as well as the Dali Lama. One of the things I thought about as I watched the program was how much some of the message Bhudda put forth, sounded so much like Jesus and his message of love. So I think you might have something there Nevada.

Baroli, if you decide to read the Gnostic Gospels (or maybe you already have?), you can find translations online, but I highly recommend Jean-Yves Leloup's books for those he's written about, because he interprets them just a little differently (actually the translation of the one I mentioned above is by Joseph Rowe and the commentary by Leloup). Leloup's slant on them is so different from other translations.

I haven't read all the Gnostic Gospels, just a few, but I'm continuing a bit at a time, and they have so changed my perspective on Christianity and on the New Testament. It's been quite an eye-opener. I can't say it's settled my beliefs in any way, in fact it's raised more questions, but I'm a lot more comfortable with unanswered questions than with dogma. Oh, and Elaine Pagels is wonderful for getting an idea of the history of the early church.

You might also be interested in Old Path White Clouds: Walking in the Footsteps of the Buddha by Thich Nhat Hanh. (His biography of the Buddha.)

 

[Nevada]

I have commentary, but have not slept in nearly 48 hours, so will put this post up as a bookmark until thoughts are somewhat coherent. Stay tuned for further developments.

I look forward to it.

 

[cricket]

OK, now that I'm somewhat awake-ish (though still groggy from an overdose of sleep), I'll try for something that makes sense. Even if it is rather tongue in cheek.

First, I AM one of those people who have made a path of lifelong study of comparative religions. It started when I was eight, and turned my back on the strict roman catholicism of the family household. The search for something new and different continues on even today.

Secondly, you are correct, Nevada. The vast majority of all religions I've come across are very similar at their core. Many people can not see that, however. They see the modern outer casing of the core beliefs and can't get past that. People have been indoctrinated by the religions themselves to focus on the differences, instead of the similarities. It's the "I'm right, and you're bad because you don't see it that way" mindset that causes problems.

Imagine lining up a row of (random number) 17 corpses. They are all freshly dead of natural causes. They are approximately the same size, all the same sex, but vary in age, race, and in outward appearance because of all of this. The vast majority of people will look at them and start naming obvious differences. That one's black. That one's bald. That one's wrinkly. That one has a tattoo.

Now imagine those same corpses, without their skins. No pools of blood or fluids or anything, just the muscles, bones, and inner organs, still shaped like the bodies. All lined up in a row. Most people would not see the differences in these corpses. Instead, they would see 17 very similar beings. There would be some minor differences (That one had arthritic knees. That one is missing some teeth. That one had atrophy in one arm.) but the structure and the things that made them work are basically the same.

The idea of spiritual return is one of the many similarities, yes. It's a fairly universal concept. There are a few exceptions - satanism being the first that comes to mind - but for the most part, religions teach that you get out of life what you put into it. That's a large part of why the New Age style teachings are so focused on the positive. Then again, Jesus was the new age long-haired hippie of his day, if you think about it. Everybody else was raging about warring with each other, and he was walking around living off the land and preaching peace, love, and happy things. His followers were rounded up, jailed, and sometimes executed, just like the hippies in the 60's were rounded up and thrown in jail. The early christians often lived in secret enclaves, and practiced their religion underground - like quite a few new age/pagans do currently. Who knows? Maybe the next Jesus is hiding out in a cave somewhere right now eating mushrooms and praying to a crystal.

Many of the nature based religions from around the world are similar in that they focus on happy things - not necessarily peace and love, but giving back to the world and the environment, and trying to live in harmony with the natural surroundings. Think the native americans, or the aborigines here. Take only what you need, and sacrifice something in return. If you have nothing to sacrifice, give thanks to the spirit of whatever you have taken. The thinking behind it is that if you show respect to your environment and the spirits of the things within it, it will take care of you as well.

There are even more who practice because of the "or else" syndrome. These are people who don't necessarily WANT to do what is required of their religion to gain the return, but believe it to be necessary. It wouldn't have to be for their own personal growth, either, but more for a protection aspect. If they are protected by one god, they will be freed of the worry of protecting themselves, and can concentrate on expanding their own spiritual growth. Think the religions that worship Kali - from my understanding, blood sacrifices must be made to quench Kali's thirst for blood, or else she will quit being a good mother to the earthly children and will no longer protect them. Imagine some big, scary mom telling her kids "If you clean your rooms and kill that annoying yappy dog down the street, you'll get cake for dessert. If not, I'll let the big neighbor kid come beat you up."

There are also the universal stories and morals. You touched on the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There is also the story of the great flood. Every religion I've run across has a story of gods warring (think armageddon, or something similar). Every one has at least one story of hands-on healing - with a single touch the dieing man was cured.

 

[Greywoolfe]

I began my first faltering steps along 'the path' many years ago, after reading Blavatsky's Theosophy books, and they emphasised the similarities and common roots between all the religions. My take? each religion is a particular culture's way of understanding the divine truth- it's all the same truth, just packaged differently according to how each culture understood and interpreted them. As far as choosing a path is concerned, Blavatsky pretty much summed up how I feel in Isis Unveiled: "It does not matter what one believes; the only important thing is that one believes."

 

[canid]

I've read the Gnostic Gospels also - the entire book's all marked up; underlined, hi-lited, etc. I loaned it to my neighbor last month because she voiced an interest but she admitted she hasn't cracked it yet. Another of my favorites is Christ In You published by DeVorss, author unknown because it was channeled. I may be on my 50th reading & I swear this book changes in between. It. Is. Awesome.

About the paths. Yes, they have many different names simply because of the many different individual aspects of God experiencing them, ie describing their personal experiences, but they all point in the same direction. Always remember, religion is manmade, not Godmade.

'First, I AM one of those people who have made a path of lifelong study of comparative religions. It started when I was eight, and turned my back on the strict roman catholicism of the family household. The search for something new and different continues on even today.'

Cricket, I AM too! I don't think it's as much a search for something new & different as it is a search for Truth. When a truth is revealed, it is known as such, without doubt. Lately the truths revealed to me have been escalating to the point of an actual calling. Too too cool, the things that have been happening to me lately...