Stephen Prothero was interviewed by C-SPAN recently, as a junket for his new book, “God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World–and Why Their Differences Matter.” (Link to Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-One-World-Differences/dp/006157127X).
Dr Prothero is a Professor of Religion at Boston University. He is certainly not a novice in this field, and is well qualified to write a book on this topic. Here is a link to the interview: http://www.booktv.org/Program/11556/After+Words+Stephen+Prothero+God+is+Not+One+interviewed+by+Sally+Quinn.aspx
The most interesting exchange came towards the end of the interview when Dr Prothero was asked how he would define his own religious persuation. He paused. It seemed this question was not expected. The interviewer (Susan Quinn) suggested, based on his writings and earlier comments during the show, if perhaps he was a Daoist. Again, he paused, and then refused to name his pick.
He declared himself a confused centrist of sorts - someone who was not a Christian, or a Muslim or a Jew, or a Daoist, or a follower of any of the hundreds of ancient beliefs. He wasn’t any of them and yet, he also wasn’t against any of them. He was, therefore, right in the middle of the debate – the place from where questions are asked. He wanted to be the one asking the questions, but seemed unwilling to accept their answers at the face value.
This seems odd, specially as it comes from the mouth of a person with an extensive knowledge about world religions even before he embarked upon this subject. Then, the writing process itself took him to explorations in various corners of the world. He met with people, heard their points of views, had discussions with them and formulated enough of an opinion to be able to represent them on his pages. (One hopes that the book contains accurate representations of his subjects’ viewpoints. Unfortunately, the scribe has not had a chance to read this book and is not qualified to comment on any specific coverage.)
The perplexing part of his response was the focus of an academic on asking questions and not on the answers. If such a person fails to find answers, then it seriously limits the book to a disconnected and superficial discourse of religious rites, and nothing more than that. This is a shame because a book on such a deep topic should instead have focused on identifying attributes that have been internalized by all religions, in an attempt to find what joins us together.
It’s possible for that quest to have found some interesting, and relevant answers.
Orthodox, institutional religions are quite different, but their mystics have much in common. A quote from the chapter “Mystic Viewpoints” in my e-book at http://www.suprarational.org on comparative mysticism:
Ritual and Symbols. The inner meanings of the scriptures, the spiritual teachings of the prophets and those personal searchings which can lead to divine union were often given lesser importance than outward rituals, symbolism and ceremony in many institutional religions. Observances, reading scriptures, prescribed acts, and following orthodox beliefs cannot replace your personal dedication, contemplation, activities, and direct experience. Preaching is too seldom teaching. For true mystics, every day is a holy day. Divine revelation is here and now, not limited to their sacred scriptures.
Conflicts in Conventional Religion. “What’s in a Word?” outlined some primary differences between religions and within each faith. The many divisions in large religions disagreed, sometimes bitterly. The succession of authority, interpretations of scriptures, doctrines, organization, terminology, and other disputes have often caused resentment. The customs, worship, practices, and behavior within the mainstream of religions frequently conflicted. Many leaders of any religion had only united when confronted by someone outside their faith, or by agnostics or atheists. Few mystics have believed divine oneness is exclusive to their religion or is restricted to any people.
Note: This is just a consensus to indicate some differences between the approaches of mystics and that of their institutional religion. These statements do not represent all schools of mysticism or every division of faith. Whether mystical experiences vary in their cultural context, or are similar for all true mystics, is less important than that they transform each one’s sense of being to a transpersonal outlook on all life.