Is “The Way” Narrow or Exclusive or Unique?

What if other traditions contain some “Truth with a capital T?” What if they all describe an Ultimate Reality that is not necessarily intentional or personal or supernatural?

Many religions are NOT as doctrinal, exclusive, or evangelical as Christianity. That is, they accept more diversity in their beliefs, and they hold their beliefs more loosely. For example, in Buddhism, the Buddha reportedly said, “Don’t believe anyone, even me,” encouraging his followers to rely on evidence and experience, NOT blind faith or speculative theology.

The Way, which is the name of my book, is what their followers called most religions (including Christianity) before the priests and theologians displaced the mystics and sages.

The book describes what author Aldous Huxley and others called the “perennial philosophy,” which Huxley believed underlies all traditions. It assumes that there is a Godhead or ground behind the Universe, that the Godhead or ground of being is immanent and transcendent, and that we can commune or merge with the Godhead or ground of being by transcending our egoic selves.

As my good friend, Kevin Curnutt, an author and modern-day mystic, says, “And some believe that we are ALREADY merged with the ground of being, it’s just that most of us do not realize it.”

Is The Way Narrow or Broad?

The beginning quote in the book is from Dogen Zenji, a 13th-century Zen master:

To study the Way is to study the Self.
And to study the Self is to forget the Self.
To forget the Self is to be enlightened by all things.
And to be enlightened by all things is to remove the barrier between Self and other.

Years ago, someone reminded me of the passage in the Bible when God commanded Ezekiel to blow new life into old bones, and he encouraged me to do the same in my book. So, when I describe “The Way,” I am describing a broad way, not a narrow way, that reflects the teachings of the major spiritual traditions, including Christianity.

The perennial philosophy (or the Way) encompasses Christianity; it does not exclude Christianity. And the Way is broader than any single tradition, including Christianity.

In The Way, Jim Palmer, who wrote the foreword, explains the title of the book. “Do not mistake the title, The Way, as an arrogant claim to absolute truth. The title rightfully identifies the fact that a broad spectrum of fields of knowledge and investigation has produced a unified understanding of ultimate reality, even if different language is used to describe it.”

In the book, I ask what we are to do when our beliefs conflict with our realities. When we encounter realities that conflict with our theologies, do we conform our “reality” to match our theology?  Or do we conform our theology to match our reality? Perhaps, the Way conveys “Truth with a capital T,” a potent message that is broad, NOT narrow.

Is The Way Exclusive or Inclusive?

Similarly, some conservative Christians point to the Gospel of John (the latest Gospel) to argue that there is something exclusive about Jesus. He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” As the Gospel of Matthew (the Jewish gospel) says, “He who is not with me is against me.” Matthew sounds pretty exclusive.

On the other hand, some progressive Christians argue that there is something inclusive about Jesus. They read John 14:6 differently. They suggest that Jesus and the Father are of the same mind, NOT that they are of the same substance. We are all Sons of God. As the Gospel of Mark (the earliest gospel) says, “Whoever is not against us is for us.” Mark sounds pretty inclusive.

Did Mark change or invent the inclusive words, or did Matthew change or invent the exclusive words? This would be so much clearer if we knew what Jesus said, but, sadly, we will never know. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written many years after Jesus, that eyewitnesses did NOT write them, and that the “authors” named did NOT write them, either.

The Gospel of John is very different than the other Gospels in its focus on Jesus’ divinity, as well as its different location and style, and its varying timelines for the crucifixion and resurrection. So, did the earlier Gospels omit John’s “high Christology,” the elevated station of Jesus, or did John invent the high Christology? Again, sadly, we will never know.

Perhaps John 14:6 conveys “Truth with a capital T,” a potent message that is inclusive, NOT exclusive. Perhaps, Jesus’ way is similar to Buddha’s way, Krishna’s way, Lao Tzu’s way, and Muhammad’s way. According to the perennial philosophy, perhaps they, too, are of the same mind as God or the ground of being, whom Jesus calls the Father.

Is The Way Unique or Universal?

In Theology Without Walls, philosopher Jerry L. Martin writes, “Perhaps the Jesus who says, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me’ is the same ‘I’ who, as Krishna, says, ‘In whatever way living beings approach me, thus do I receive them; all paths lead to me.’”

There are collections of the “parallel sayings” of the great spiritual teachers. These demonstrate the similarities between Jesus’ teachings and those of Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tzu, and Muhammad. Often, followers of one tradition are surprised to learn that their sayings are so similar to those of other traditions. The Golden Rule is the best-known example, and it is one of many examples.

The “I AM” phrase shows up in other traditions. In the East, some practice self-inquiry. To ask “Who am I?” is a simple, but profound, exercise. If you say, “I am angry,” ask yourself who is angry. Emotions such as anger are ephemeral, NOT eternal. These emotions arise from fear and regret, and we can NOT locate the source of these thoughts. I am NOT this, and I am NOT that.

When we peel away everything that we are NOT, all that is left is “I AM” or pure “is-ness.” Some say that this pure “is-ness” means Brahman in Hinduism, God in Christianity, Yahweh in Judaism. In the East, the term “I AM” for Brahman appears in the Upanishads, just as, in the West, the term “I AM” for God appears in the Hebrew Bible. This is another striking similarity in the traditions.

Perhaps the “I AM” sayings convey “Truth with a capital T,” a potent message that is universal, not unique. Different traditions, like different languages, describe the same Ultimate Reality in different terms. From this perspective, the Hebrew Bible and the Upanishads agree, and “Brahman,” “God,” and “Yahweh” might be different names for the same Ultimate Reality.

What if Other Traditions Contain Some “Truth with a Capital T?”

Christianity says, “I AM God,” and Jesus is the Way. Hinduism says, “I AM Brahman,” and Krishna is the Way. Are they all trying to describe an indescribable God or ground of being that can NOT be contained within any single book or person or tradition?

What if we saw that Jesus’ teachings are broad, inclusive and universal, confirming (rather than conflicting with) other teachings? What if other traditions contain some “Truth with a capital T?”  And what do we gain (or lose) by embracing, NOT excluding, other similar teachings? Why would we need to believe that only one tradition contains the narrow, exclusive or unique truth?

Many religions are NOT as doctrinal, exclusive, or evangelical as Christianity. That is, they accept more diversity in their beliefs, and they hold their beliefs more loosely.

What if other traditions contain some “Truth with a capital T?” What if they all describe an Ultimate Reality that is not necessarily intentional or personal or supernatural?

If you want to keep up with the latest from You Might Be Right, please subscribe.

The Way received a 2024 Nautilus Book Award.

If you enjoyed this article, please leave a comment at the bottom of this page.

Thanks for reading You Might Be Right!!