![\"What](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/2190\/2025\/09\/hike-5796976_1280-300x200.jpg\")
\u00a0<\/p>\n
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<\/a>, the Buddha reportedly said, \u201cDon\u2019t believe anyone, even me,\u201d encouraging his followers to rely on evidence and experience, NOT blind faith or speculative theology.<\/p>\n The Way<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n The book describes what author Aldous Huxley and others called the \u201cperennial philosophy,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n As my good friend, Kevin Curnutt<\/a>, an author and modern-day mystic, says, \u201cAnd some believe that we are ALREADY merged with the ground of being, it\u2019s just that most of us do not realize it.\u201d<\/p>\n The beginning quote in the book is from Dogen<\/a> Zenji, a 13th-century Zen master:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n To study the Way is to study the Self. \u00a0<\/p>\n 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 \u201cThe Way,\u201d I am describing a broad<\/em> way, not a narrow<\/em> way, that reflects the teachings of the major spiritual traditions, including Christianity.<\/p>\n The perennial philosophy (or the Way) encompasses<\/em> Christianity; it does not exclude<\/em> Christianity. And the Way is broader than any single tradition, including Christianity.<\/p>\n In The Way<\/em>, Jim Palmer, who wrote the foreword, explains the title of the book. \u201cDo not mistake the title, The Way<\/em>, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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 \u201creality\u201d to match our theology?\u00a0 Or do we conform our theology to match our reality? Perhaps, the Way conveys \u201cTruth with a capital T,\u201d a potent message that is broad<\/em>, NOT narrow<\/em>.<\/p>\n Similarly, some conservative Christians point to the Gospel of John (the latest<\/em> Gospel) to argue that there is something exclusive<\/em> about Jesus. He said, \u201cI am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.\u201d As the Gospel of Matthew (the Jewish gospel) says, \u201cHe who is not with me is against me.\u201d Matthew sounds pretty exclusive.<\/p>\n On the other hand, some progressive Christians argue that there is something inclusive<\/em> about Jesus. They read John 14:6 differently. They suggest that Jesus and the Father are of the same mind<\/em>, NOT that they are of the same substance<\/em>. We are all Sons of God. As the Gospel of Mark (the earliest<\/em> gospel) says, \u201cWhoever is not against us is for us.\u201d Mark sounds pretty inclusive.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cauthors\u201d named did NOT write them, either.<\/p>\n The Gospel of John is very different than the other Gospels in its focus on Jesus\u2019 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\u2019s \u201chigh Christology,\u201d the elevated station of Jesus, or did John invent the high Christology? Again, sadly, we will never know.<\/p>\n Perhaps John 14:6 conveys \u201cTruth with a capital T,\u201d a potent message that is inclusive<\/em>, NOT exclusive<\/em>. Perhaps, Jesus\u2019 way is similar to Buddha\u2019s way, Krishna\u2019s way, Lao Tzu\u2019s way, and Muhammad\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n In Theology Without Walls<\/em>, philosopher Jerry L. Martin writes, \u201cPerhaps the Jesus who says, \u2018I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me\u2019 is the same \u2018I\u2019 who, as Krishna, says, \u2018In whatever way living beings approach me, thus do I receive them; all paths lead to me.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n There are collections of the \u201cparallel sayings\u201d of the great spiritual teachers. These demonstrate the similarities between Jesus\u2019 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.<\/p>\n The \u201cI AM\u201d phrase shows up in other traditions. In the East, some practice self-inquiry. To ask \u201cWho am I?\u201d is a simple, but profound, exercise. If you say, \u201cI am angry,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n When we peel away everything that we are NOT, all that is left is \u201cI AM\u201d or pure \u201cis-ness.\u201d Some say that this pure \u201cis-ness\u201d means Brahman in Hinduism, God in Christianity, Yahweh in Judaism. In the East, the term \u201cI AM\u201d for Brahman appears in the Upanishads, just as, in the West, the term \u201cI AM\u201d for God appears in the Hebrew Bible. This is another striking similarity in the traditions.<\/p>\n Perhaps the \u201cI AM\u201d sayings convey \u201cTruth with a capital T,\u201d a potent message that is universal<\/em>, not unique<\/em>. Different traditions, like different languages, describe the same Ultimate Reality in different terms. From this perspective, the Hebrew Bible and the Upanishads agree, and \u201cBrahman,\u201d \u201cGod,\u201d and \u201cYahweh\u201d might be different names for the same Ultimate Reality.<\/p>\n Christianity says, \u201cI AM God,\u201d and Jesus is the Way. Hinduism says, \u201cI AM Brahman,\u201d 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?<\/p>\n What if we saw that Jesus\u2019 teachings are broad<\/em>, inclusive<\/em> and universal,<\/em> confirming (rather than conflicting with) other teachings? What if other traditions contain some \u201cTruth with a capital T?\u201d\u00a0 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<\/em>, exclusive<\/em> or unique<\/em> truth?<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n What if other traditions contain some \u201cTruth with a capital T?\u201d What if they all describe an Ultimate Reality that is not necessarily intentional or personal or supernatural?<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n If you want to keep up with the latest from You Might Be Right, please\u00a0subscribe<\/a>.<\/p>\nIs The Way Narrow or Broad?<\/h2>\n
\nAnd to study the Self is to forget the Self.
\nTo forget the Self is to be enlightened by all things.
\nAnd to be enlightened by all things is to remove the barrier between Self and other.<\/p>\nIs The Way Exclusive or Inclusive?<\/h2>\n
Is The Way Unique or Universal?<\/h2>\n
What if Other Traditions Contain Some \u201cTruth with a Capital T?\u201d<\/h2>\n
\n