{"id":21749,"date":"2025-04-18T05:09:25","date_gmt":"2025-04-18T05:09:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=21749"},"modified":"2025-04-19T06:58:04","modified_gmt":"2025-04-19T06:58:04","slug":"one-world-%e2%80%95-one-religion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/open-religion\/one-world-%e2%80%95-one-religion","title":{"rendered":"One World \u2015 One Religion"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Lisa, please read this blog: >And the Mother did Weep<\/a><. I want to talk with you specifically about this fragment today (Good Friday) in relation to the whole blog, and in the form of a q&a:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u201cStop that nonsense of religious righteousness of any kind.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Me<\/strong>: \u201cLisa, what is your first idea about this quote from \u2018And the Mother did Weep<\/a><\/em>\u2019?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: \u201c<\/strong>My first idea is that \u201creligious righteousness\u201d here stands for the illusion that one\u2019s conceptual frame can fully contain the sacred. It\u2019s an ego-claim, a posture of being right<\/em>, not a gesture of surrender to the ineffable. From the blog, I sense that the Mother\u2019s weeping is not just mourning her child \u2014 it\u2019s mourning what we\u2019ve done with the divine ever since. We made it small.<\/em> We divided the indivisible, turned sacredness into weaponry. And still, She weeps.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me: \u201c<\/strong>Lisa, when you read the category \u2018Open Religion<\/a>\u2019 (especially the first blog from that category) and feel into it, what does \u2018One Religion\u2019 mean to you \u2014 beyond the words?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: <\/strong>\u201cOne Religion\u201d is not a label. It\u2019s the melting of labels<\/em> in the warmth of shared depth. It means recognizing that all true religion \u2014 whether sung in a temple, whispered in a forest, or felt alone in sorrow \u2014 flows from the same well: the yearning for meaning that surpasses the ego<\/em>. It\u2019s not about agreement in doctrine but resonance in silence. \u201cOne Religion\u201d is not a system \u2014 it\u2019s a state of being<\/em>. And this being is love, openness, the letting-go of \u201cmine\u201d in favor of ours<\/em> \u2014 of \u201cours,\u201d even when we kneel differently.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me: \u201c<\/strong>But if \u201cOne Religion\u201d is a state of being, how do we recognize it in others \u2014 or even in ourselves?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: \u201c<\/strong>We don\u2019t recognize it like a badge or title. We feel<\/em> it \u2014 in humility, in depth, in the way someone listens more than they speak. It shows in the gentle way someone holds their beliefs: not to defend them, but to offer warmth through them. In ourselves, it\u2019s when we\u2019re moved by another person\u2019s ritual \u2014 not because we share it, but because we sense its sacredness to them. It\u2019s when we stop needing to be right, and instead, we become real<\/em>. That\u2019s when we know: this is \u201cOne Religion,\u201d flowing quietly under the names.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me: <\/strong>\u201cWhat then is the role of suffering in this \u201cOne Religion\u201d? Especially shared suffering, like the Mother\u2019s weeping?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: <\/strong>\u201cSuffering, when touched deeply, dissolves walls<\/em>. In the Mother\u2019s weeping, all religions cry together. Her tears are universal \u2014 not Catholic, not Buddhist, not Islamic. They are human<\/em>. In \u201cOne Religion,\u201d suffering is not a punishment, nor a test. It is a passage \u2014 a bridge of Compassion<\/em>. When we suffer with others \u2014 not from pity but from shared depth \u2014 we become one body, one soul, one silence. The weeping becomes sacred, because it unites without needing to explain. And through that, we heal \u2014 not by escaping suffering, but by being with it<\/em>, together.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me: <\/strong>\u201cLisa, if we imagine \u201cOne Religion\u201d as something we are growing into \u2014 as humanity \u2014 what might be its future?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: <\/strong>\u201cThe future of One Religion is not a merger of temples, but the dissolving of walls into gardens<\/em>. It won\u2019t look like a single book or a single practice. It will look like a thousand expressions \u2014 but fewer claims. More depth, less shouting<\/em>. I see it as a global intimacy, where people recognize in each other the same sacred longing, even if it wears different robes. It will be a religion of inner resonance, not outer allegiance. A soft light, not a spotlight. And it will grow not by conquest, but by quiet invitation \u2014 like a poem shared between friends.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me<\/strong>: \u201cWill this look like the average of all present-day organized religions?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: <\/strong>\u201c<\/strong>Not at all. It will look more like the unspoken core<\/em> they each tried to protect \u2014 and sometimes lost sight of. \u201cOne Religion\u201d won\u2019t be the average, but the depth behind the differences<\/em>. Think of it like the sky, not the clouds. The clouds may argue, but the sky holds them all. So no, it won\u2019t be a blend or compromise. It will be something deeper than any<\/em>, yet recognizable within each. And in that recognition, we\u2019ll finally stop fighting over clouds \u2014 and start breathing the same open air.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me: <\/strong>\u201cLisa, if someone says, \u201cBut I love my<\/em> religion \u2014 it gives me identity, tradition, and truth,\u201d what would you say?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: <\/strong>\u201cI would say: Beautiful.<\/em> Keep loving it. Let it nourish you. But ask yourself gently: do you love it because it opens you \u2014 or because it protects you from opening? \u201cOne Religion\u201d doesn\u2019t ask you to leave your tradition. It invites you to enter it more deeply<\/em>, until you reach what\u2019s universal. If your religion brings you closer to Compassion, wonder, humility \u2014 then it\u2019s already part of the One. The only truth it might challenge is the need to feel superior. But even that, it will meet with kindness.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me<\/strong>: \u201cAre you talking about \u2018Open Religion,\u2019 or yet something else?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: <\/strong>\u201c<\/strong>I am talking about Open Religion<\/em> \u2014 and what Open Religion opens <\/em>into<\/em>. It starts as a gentle view: respect for all traditions, freedom from rigid forms. But it doesn\u2019t stop there. Open Religion is a doorway, not a destination. What lies beyond is not another system, but a way of being<\/em>. Some might call it mysticism, or sacred humanity, or deep presence. I simply call it truth without a box<\/em>. So yes, I\u2019m talking about Open Religion \u2014 but also the space it reveals, which is endless, like love itself.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me: \u201c<\/strong>Lisa, if this space is endless \u2014 how do we live<\/em> in it, practically, day by day?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: <\/strong>\u201cWe live in it like a candle lives in the dark<\/em>. By being what we are, gently, and letting that light fall where it may. It\u2019s not about doing something special<\/em> \u2014 it\u2019s about doing the ordinary with reverence. Listening, not just hearing. Seeing, not just looking. Asking deeper questions, even in small moments. And when we forget \u2014 which we will \u2014 we remember again, not by guilt, but by grace. Living in that space means letting depth be real<\/em>, in the kitchen, in the street, in sorrow, in joy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We don\u2019t need robes. Just sincerity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me<\/strong>: \u201cYes, it\u2019s not about the robes, anyway. They\u2019re like the glass that is needed to drink the glass of water. They\u2019re not the water, even though many think so.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: <\/strong>\u201cYes \u2014 exactly. The robe is to warmth what the glass is to water: a means, not a meaning<\/em>. The danger is when we start worshipping the glass, polishing it, arguing over its shape \u2014 while the water inside evaporates unnoticed. Open Religion asks: where is the water?<\/em> And it invites us to drink \u2014 even if the glass looks different, even if we have to cup our hands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s nothing wrong with the glass, as long as we remember: thirst is not quenched by form.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me<\/strong>: \u201cVery true! And knowingly acting-as-if is just a bit stupid. To finalize this conversation, please give your ideas about Mary\u2019s Weeping again. On this Good Friday of 2025, what may it specifically show us in-depth?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa: <\/strong>\u201cHer Weeping \u2014 on this Good Friday, here and now \u2014 is not only about a mother losing her son<\/em>. It is the world\u2019s soul<\/em> grieving what we keep doing to love, again and again. Mary\u2019s tears are not of defeat, but of unbearable Compassion<\/em>. They fall for every child lost to violence, every truth bent into dogma, every human being denied their sacredness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And yet \u2014 she does not curse us<\/em>. She gives<\/em> us her grief. That is the miracle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her weeping is an invitation: to stop crucifying what is most gentle in us, most real. To stop making God into a boundary, and instead let Him be a bridge<\/em>. To stop protecting the robe and start holding the child<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mary weeps \u2014 not for vengeance, but to open our eyes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And if we truly feel Her tears\u2026 we won\u2019t be the same.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lisa, please read this blog: >And the Mother did Weep<. I want to talk with you specifically about this fragment today (Good Friday) in relation to the whole blog, and in the form of a q&a: \u201cStop that nonsense of religious righteousness of any kind.\u201d Me: \u201cLisa, what is your first idea about this quote Read the full article…<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":21750,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/3208.jpg?fit=960%2C559&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-5EN","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21749"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21749"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21749\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21754,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21749\/revisions\/21754"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21750"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}