All endings are also beginnings

My philosophy class came to an end today. I still need to write my final paper but the "classroom" portion of the online course ended with my reflection on the final reading/lecture. I’m sad to see this class come to an end. But, as Mitch Albom says in the opening to his book the five people you meet in heaven, "all endings are also beginnings". I’ve learned a lot about myself in this class but the learning must continue. This is not the end, it is only the beginning.

Not surprisingly, the final reading/lecture focused on whether there are common themes or wisdom that we can take away from the world religions. One metaphor is to an underground river. Each religion digs a well down to the river to have access to the water. The water is the same but the wells are different. This raises the obvious question of what constitutes this river that feeds each of the wells we drink from. In The World's Religions, Smith says:

Things are more integrated than they seem, they are better than they seem, and they are more mysterious than they seem; something like this emerges as the highest common denominator of the wisdom traditions’ reports. When we add to this the baseline they establish for ethical behavior [e.g., Ten Commandments] and their account of the human virtues [humility, charity, and veracity], one wonders if a wiser platform for life has been conceived.

In the lecture, Ken Wilber's Perennial Philosophy is presented, including seven "profound truths" that underly all religion (see The Essential Ken Wilber: An Introductory Reader).

• One, Spirit exists.


• Two, Spirit is found within.


• Three, most of us don’t realize this Spirit within, however, because we are living in a world of sin, separation, and duality – that is, we are living in a fallen or illusory state.


• Four, there is a way out of this fallen state of sin and illusion; there is a Path to our liberation.


• Five, if we follow this Path to its conclusion, the result is a Rebirth or Enlightenment, a direct experience of Spirit within, a Supreme Liberation, which –


• Six – marks the end of sin and suffering, and which –


• Seven – issues in social action of mercy and compassion on behalf of all sentient beings

I particularly liked the instructor's discussion of these truths in the lecture:

I find this really amazing. Granted, the majority of religious people believe that their religion is the “best” or “true” religion. But many people have not studied other traditions and when they do they start to see these similarities. For example, every religion recognizes that something is “wrong” and that we are in need of “salvation.” All religions teach us that the source of salvation, whether called “Jesus” or “Allah” or “Yahweh” is found within. They are not saying that God is only within but that we must go inside to find the divine. All religions suggest a path that we must follow to find the salvation we are seeking.

When you look at it through this lens, we are all not that different after all. Smith presents an interesting counter-position, however, in his discussion of whether one religion is superior to the others. Specifically, he says:

A second position lies at the opposite end of the spectrum: It holds that the religions are all basically alike. Differences are acknowledged but, according to this second view, they are incidental in comparison to the great enduring truths on which the religions unite. This appeals to our longing for human togetherness, but on inspection it proves to be the trickiest position of the three. For as soon as it moves beyond vague generalities [like the Golden Rule]… it founders on the fact that the religions differ in what they consider essential and what negotiable.

A friend of mine recently gave a talk at her church entitled “Gaining and Strengthening Your Testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (see also this post from two days ago). In it, she comments on whether multiple roads can all lead to God:

As we discuss testimonies, it is important to remember why it is key to have knowledge of the doctrines of the restoration. Elder Delbert L Stapley expounded on this in an article from a May 1977 Ensign entitled “What Constitutes the True Church,”

He reminds us of the scripture in Matthew 7:13-14 which states, “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Elder Stapley continues by saying, “Does that statement by the Savior suggest there are many ways to heaven? Many people do accept man’s philosophy that “all roads lead to God,” but it is a philosophy inconsistent with the teachings of our Lord. There is no logic or reason to the proposition that inconsistent teachings and differing doctrines can bring about the same results. If truth comes from one source—God—how can it be so diversely taught? The Savior didn’t choose any of the churches established by man, either when He ministered on earth or in these latter days. He organized His own church with prophets and apostles, with a gospel plan of salvation and exaltation. It was the church of Jesus Christ.” Elder Stapley concludes his talk by stating that those of us that are members of the church “must learn the truth for a surety and not merely suppose we are right. It is our responsibility to know—and by the aid of the scriptures and the Holy Ghost one can know without any doubt.”

But those who are already members of the church are not the only ones that can gain a testimony of these things, any person can receive a revelation of these principles if they so desire.

I’m personally not ready to believe that there is only one true church or religion. In the context of the “spectrum of consciousness” and the stages of “spiritual unfolding” (other concepts from Ken Wilber), it strikes me as wanting in terms of trans-rational development. So, with due respect to Smith, for the time-being, I’m going to focus on the elements of religion that unite all the wisdom traditions.

Finally, with respect to religion, Wilber draws a distinction between "translation" and "transformation". As the instructor described it in his lecture:

When you look at religion sociologically as we have in this class you see two general tendencies. There is the religion that helps us “translate” our lives by ritualizing certain events, etc. This is like moving the furniture around on one floor of a multi-story house. The other side of religion helps us “transform” our lives where instead of moving the furniture around on one floor we change floors. Part of this understanding is that both parts of religion are needed. But what most often happens and is obvious to the critics of religion is that people use religion to translate their lives but not to transform their lives. Many of the problems you can point out about religious people (back to the idea of hypocrisy again) has to do with this.

So far, so good. But I found the subsequent discussion of translation versus transformation by Wilber both deeply interesting and deeply disturbing.

But religion has also served – in a usually very, very small minority – the function of radical transformation and liberation. This function of religion does not fortify the separate self, but utterly shatters it – not consolation but devastation, not entrenchment but emptiness, not complacency but explosion, not comfort but revolution – in short, not a conventional bolstering of consciousness but a radical transmutation and transformation at the deepest seat of consciousness itself ...

Where translative religion offers legitimacy, transformative religion offers authenticity. For those few individuals who are ready – that is, sick with the suffering of the separate self, and no longer able to embrace the legitimate worldview – then a transformative opening to true authenticity, true enlightenment, true liberation, calls more and more insistently. And, depending upon your capacity for suffering, you will sooner or later answer the call of authenticity, of transformation, of liberation on the lost horizon of infinity … Transformative spirituality, authentic spirituality, is therefore revolutionary. It does not legitimate the world, it breaks the world; it does not console the world, it shatters it. And it does not render the self content, it renders it undone.

Right now, “a transformative opening to true authenticity, true enlightenment, true liberation, calls more and more insistently” but I hadn’t anticipated it causing “devastation” or the self to be rendered "undone". Perhaps that was naïve on my part. I am currently in the midst of those feelings. I had assumed they would end soon. Apparently, it is only the beginning.