Inter-Religious, Deep Down
… instead of an inter-religious ‘dialogue’ that conglomerates only at the surface, while depth is safely kept out of the picture.
Because that is of course no dialogue in the first place.
It’s rubbing-each-other in order to elicit good feelings and putting a nice image to outside. Hidden agendas remain unchanged.
Sorry. No dialogue. Even less than true dialogue.
And what’s the use of that, in the end?
Would any volitional ‘God’ be pleased with that?
No.
God Himself, whether as material or metaphorical reality, asks for depth. This, to me, is completely evident.
So, what does Deep Dialogue need?
Evidently, it needs true depth of all partners.
Dear religious reader, this depth is an ongoing effort. It never stops.
And of course, I know what I’m talking about. I’m a human being, valuing depth very much.
True: I don’t need any specific religion for this. I repeat:
I do not need any specific religion to attain ‘depth’ which I feel to be very re-ligious.
This ‘depth’ is to me extremely valuable.
So, am I an atheist? Is any talking about ‘God’ completely irrelevant to me?
In any case, I think that religious terms are used too superficially by many. Additionally, while thinking to talk about the same things (concepts), each is in fact using them quite differently.
Superficially, they agree.
Deep down? For instance:
< ‘I’ – ‘believe in’ – ‘God’. >
Three seemingly simple elements, at least as they are most frequently used. Yet all three are mind-bogglingly fuzzy.
What do they mean in depth? How can they be used in any communication or dialogue, for instance, between specific religions?
You might say this is just very subtle. Indeed: subtleness means that even small differences are very important. [see: ‘Subtlety’] Especially in a self-declared religious context in which conceptuality is deemed to be of primordial importance:
Is this true or is that true?
Is it such or such (conceptually)?
Such questions are scientific ones and should be answered as such.
They’re not deeply religious ones.
Religion = depth.
Other questions.
Un-answerable questions (conceptually).
Deep questions.
Poetry.
Depth: formless content. [see: ‘Depth is Formless Meaning’]
True inter-religious dialogue
… is an exercise in finding out that this formless content is, well, content.
It’s about feeling (kind of). It’s about religiosity. It’s, for instance, my being-religious.
It may be yours.
It’s Open.
Related Posts
Superficial Symbolism
There’s a lot of superficial symbolism around, especially in alternative medicines and New-Age spirituality, but also in old traditions such as freemasonry. Is ‘superficial symbolism’ possible? Not literally since symbolism itself is about depth. [see: “Symbolism: How-To”] But one can feign depth, or one can think to reach it by just putting stuff together that Read the full article…
The Gentle Slope between Closed and Open Religion
People tend to be trapped at either side of ‘closed religion’. Getting un-trapped may thus be hard and hurtful. Before reading this, [see: ‘Triangle of Religion’]. With ‘closed religion’, I mean: where within the core itself, the inside and the outside of a specific system of belief are mutually exclusive. To the adherents, the main Read the full article…
Buddha and Jesus
They lived centuries apart, spoke different languages, and walked very different roads. Yet in their silence, gestures, and metaphors, something unmistakable resonates. This blog brings Buddha and Jesus into proximity — not to compare them, but to listen. What happens when two lives reflect one depth? Not to compare, but to listen Buddha and Jesus Read the full article…