[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: [email protected]
Category: Category 1
Date: 18 Aug 1999
Time: 15:08:45
Remote Name: ip105.atlanta14.ga.pub-ip.psi.net
Dear Gene,
Here is a quick, not thought out response. Working on the Basic Text, I was not only fresh from the mountain of hopelessness and dispair, I was educated to an unusual degree about how we not only had no hope here in the states, but no where else on earth I could hear about at the time. So.
The way we unfolded our inclusive vision of the real worldwide Fellowship, was to avoid trapping ourselves and our reader in absolute statements. We would sort of think things through from several aspects, like would this work for someone who was deeply in love with a prominent religion as opposed to someone who was only sure of their uncertainty. Personally, I have read and studied a little oriental religion, philosophy, etc, like Hindu, Buddhism, Zen, Jain, Shinto and Daoism. I understand there are something like 300 religions in India alone.
Consider also, part of our message is to identify 'in'. We can always find differences. Some of the problems inherent in your perspective are built into our language and people would only follow the implications so far. Like, if you technically said that a proposition led to a conclusion logically, the member is free to repeat the proposition without meaning or following logic. Many spiritual statements only point to God. God, to be infinite, divine and omnipresent, surely is beyond human language.
We Americans have biases, predjudices and limitations to get over. But we are also extremely variable and seem to have an appetite for adjustment and change. I think it is going to work out fine.
One of our hopes for this book is to get some input at depth from members all around the world with plenty of opportunity to ask questions to bring some of the items into the realm of discussion without predetermined outcomes. So, we'll see. Thoughtful article!
In Loving Service,
Bo S.