COMPARATIVE SPIRITUALITY
1 Definition
Comparative spirituality’ is a formalistic argument describing my methods of analysis and validation in this territory which is- not new to me in any real sense, and yet- new to me in the sense of trying to make for myself a map of uncharted and vast territory. I like maps, and GPS, and other navigational aids. Analysis is the sequence of; ‘I see. What do I see? How does it relate to what I already know? What are the rules, the pitfalls, the advantages? Am I seeing clearly and truly?
I had been using the term 'comparative spirituality' term for about 6 months, and I had believed there was a commonly understood definition. Research via several search engines convinced me this is not the case. So I felt the need to evolve my own definition.
Comparative spirituality is the study and comparison of belief systems in order to find common principles which by their universality lend credence to their relative validity.
The primary example I usually use is ‘The Golden Rule’. Almost all belief systems incorporate this principle.
The more times a principle is encountered, the more likely it is to be valid.
In classical mathematics, in order to solve for unknowns, it is required that you have as many equations as you have unknowns. To apply this principle exactly and quantitatively to the study of comparative spirituality would require that each spiritual system; 1) had a finite number of points, and 2) that there were as many belief systems as there were points, and 3) that all the belief system had the same points, which could be quantitatively expressed. This, of course, is not true (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?) However, qualitatively one can approach with a reasonable degree of certainty the relative validity of a principle which is nearly universally accepted. It is as if one reached consensus among the belief systems being examined.
******************************************************************************************************************************
2. The Seventh Day Adventists suggested a different means of arriving at a solution. What they said was; ‘If you are trying to decide whether or not a stick is straight, you can argue about it at length. Or, you can put a straight stick next to it for comparison. Christ is the straight stick’
Now, in that particular case the reasoning is different in that it assumes that the one reference system- Christianity- is de facto valid. I do not make this assumption in any absolute sense. To the degree that I have tested a principle and have lived its truth, I accept it.
******************************************************************************************************************************
3. Buddhist writings also discuss this. It is refreshing to see a belief system which encourages skepticism and testing, rather than relying on dogma.
‘...Believe nothing just because somebody said it. Believe nothing because it is in an ancient text. Believe only that which you yourself have tested and know to be true.’
(three other versions follow);
'...Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
even though they have been held in honor
for many generations and in diverse places.
Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.
After examination, believe what you yourself have tested
and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto'
'...Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.'
'...Accept my teachings only after examining them as an analyst buys gold. Accept nothing out of mere faith in me.'
As I compare, I also test. I feel I may proceed more expeditiously if I combine the two approaches. The more valid points as established by comparative study are the ones I am most likely to test first.
Comparative spirituality’ is a formalistic argument describing my methods of analysis and validation in this territory which is- not new to me in any real sense, and yet- new to me in the sense of trying to make for myself a map of uncharted and vast territory. I like maps, and GPS, and other navigational aids. Analysis is the sequence of; ‘I see. What do I see? How does it relate to what I already know? What are the rules, the pitfalls, the advantages? Am I seeing clearly and truly?
I had been using the term 'comparative spirituality' term for about 6 months, and I had believed there was a commonly understood definition. Research via several search engines convinced me this is not the case. So I felt the need to evolve my own definition.
Comparative spirituality is the study and comparison of belief systems in order to find common principles which by their universality lend credence to their relative validity.
The primary example I usually use is ‘The Golden Rule’. Almost all belief systems incorporate this principle.
The more times a principle is encountered, the more likely it is to be valid.
In classical mathematics, in order to solve for unknowns, it is required that you have as many equations as you have unknowns. To apply this principle exactly and quantitatively to the study of comparative spirituality would require that each spiritual system; 1) had a finite number of points, and 2) that there were as many belief systems as there were points, and 3) that all the belief system had the same points, which could be quantitatively expressed. This, of course, is not true (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?) However, qualitatively one can approach with a reasonable degree of certainty the relative validity of a principle which is nearly universally accepted. It is as if one reached consensus among the belief systems being examined.
******************************************************************************************************************************
2. The Seventh Day Adventists suggested a different means of arriving at a solution. What they said was; ‘If you are trying to decide whether or not a stick is straight, you can argue about it at length. Or, you can put a straight stick next to it for comparison. Christ is the straight stick’
Now, in that particular case the reasoning is different in that it assumes that the one reference system- Christianity- is de facto valid. I do not make this assumption in any absolute sense. To the degree that I have tested a principle and have lived its truth, I accept it.
******************************************************************************************************************************
3. Buddhist writings also discuss this. It is refreshing to see a belief system which encourages skepticism and testing, rather than relying on dogma.
‘...Believe nothing just because somebody said it. Believe nothing because it is in an ancient text. Believe only that which you yourself have tested and know to be true.’
(three other versions follow);
'...Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
even though they have been held in honor
for many generations and in diverse places.
Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.
After examination, believe what you yourself have tested
and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto'
'...Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.'
'...Accept my teachings only after examining them as an analyst buys gold. Accept nothing out of mere faith in me.'
As I compare, I also test. I feel I may proceed more expeditiously if I combine the two approaches. The more valid points as established by comparative study are the ones I am most likely to test first.
4. The Krishnas and ISKCON
One theme you will see frequently in these writings is the influence of 'The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), also known as 'the Krishnas'.
The first time I heard the word 'Krishna', it was in relation to the odd fellows showing up at Stapleton airport in Denver, Colorado, in the 1970s. With shaved heads and saffron robes, they would chant, hand out leaflets, and solicit contributions for 'ISKCON'; 'The International Society for Krishna Consciousness'. Their pamphlets were interesting but not a source of great significance to me at the time.
When I moved to West Virginia in 1979, I met some new friends who had visited the settlement of Krishna devotees known as 'New Vrindaban', near Moundsville, West Virginia.This community was founded in 1968, and built largely from contributions collected by the 'krishnas' soliciting funds nationwide. Their temple, the 'Palace of Gold' was constructed during the 1970s with a 'grand opening' in 1979.
By this time they had available more comprehensive publications concerning their faith. These include 'Bhagavad-gita As It Is' by the Srila Prabhupada, spiritual leader of ISKCON.
I had read their materials, but went no further with that at the time.
In 1998, my son went to the Czech Republic as an exchange student. He spent the year in Prague, growing, learning, exploring. About mid-year he sent me an email about 'sweet, succulent soup' which he had at a restaurant called 'Govinda's. It was operated by devotees of Krishna, He also read their publications.
We visited New Vrindaban in 2005. We stayed overnight, toured the palace, walked the grounds. I began to look more closely at their philosophy and ecosystem management with that visit. I returned the next year, and at that time purchased the book 'Vedic Ecology', by Ranchor Prime, published in 2002. See my discussion under 'The Forest and the Trees' in 'Learn everything You Can..' I have attached a file to a Power Point presentation on some of the principles of Vedic Ecology.
The first time I heard the word 'Krishna', it was in relation to the odd fellows showing up at Stapleton airport in Denver, Colorado, in the 1970s. With shaved heads and saffron robes, they would chant, hand out leaflets, and solicit contributions for 'ISKCON'; 'The International Society for Krishna Consciousness'. Their pamphlets were interesting but not a source of great significance to me at the time.
When I moved to West Virginia in 1979, I met some new friends who had visited the settlement of Krishna devotees known as 'New Vrindaban', near Moundsville, West Virginia.This community was founded in 1968, and built largely from contributions collected by the 'krishnas' soliciting funds nationwide. Their temple, the 'Palace of Gold' was constructed during the 1970s with a 'grand opening' in 1979.
By this time they had available more comprehensive publications concerning their faith. These include 'Bhagavad-gita As It Is' by the Srila Prabhupada, spiritual leader of ISKCON.
I had read their materials, but went no further with that at the time.
In 1998, my son went to the Czech Republic as an exchange student. He spent the year in Prague, growing, learning, exploring. About mid-year he sent me an email about 'sweet, succulent soup' which he had at a restaurant called 'Govinda's. It was operated by devotees of Krishna, He also read their publications.
We visited New Vrindaban in 2005. We stayed overnight, toured the palace, walked the grounds. I began to look more closely at their philosophy and ecosystem management with that visit. I returned the next year, and at that time purchased the book 'Vedic Ecology', by Ranchor Prime, published in 2002. See my discussion under 'The Forest and the Trees' in 'Learn everything You Can..' I have attached a file to a Power Point presentation on some of the principles of Vedic Ecology.
| vedic_ecology.ppt |
As with most all spiritual belief systems (or perhaps one could call them in actuality, operating systems); this one has parts i can accept, parts I do not. But in my interaction with my own ecosystem, I have to say that many of their points seem vital. I let you judge for yourself. See further discussion under 'The forest and the Trees'.
5. Other References
Comparative spirituality and non ordinary reality; http://www.eaglespiritministry.com/
(6. (See further material on page 2.))
(6. (See further material on page 2.))