Early on in even considering blending beliefs, I personally needed reason to assist me. It was logical for me to think one world view was right—whether atheism or pantheism—but not that contradictory beliefs were equally true or believable. In high school, I came up with the idea of “the thread of truth,” that there existed a core common ground in all beliefs and this limited universalism helped my thinking. Years later I came across Aldous Huxely’s book The Perennial Philosophy, which elaborated this idea.
The story of the blind men and the elephant is sometimes used to further this idea as the poster child of religious relativism and tolerance: Blind Men and the Elephant – A Poem by John Godfrey Saxe Here is John Godfrey Saxe’s (1816-1887) version of Blind Men and the Elephant: It was six men of Indostan, To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. The First approach'd the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!" The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried, -"Ho! what have we here So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear, This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!" The Third approach'd the animal, And happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: "I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant Is very like a snake!" The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee: "What most this wondrous beast is like Is mighty plain," -quoth he,- "'Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!" The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said- "E'en the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!" The Sixth no sooner had begun About the beast to grope, Then, seizing on the swinging tail That fell within his scope, "I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant Is very like a rope!" And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! MORAL, So, oft in theologic wars The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean; And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen! The analogy is to me a good one, but I feel the author of this version has stopped thinking too soon. Here are the three principles I see arising from the story:
Perhaps all three of these principles need to work together for the best possible although not perfect understanding. No group or person has the whole truth or probably even most of it; we see mysteries as in a dark mirror. At the same time we can confirm some things as certain and for the unceratin things can benefit from each other. We need one another. If so, blended paths offer an important part of putting the puzzle together. The rigid interpretations may have unique contributions to make as they engage aspects of the whole, yet the shared common ground of both doubt and certainty should not be denied in facing the mystery.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Alan>Performing magician, >English teacher, Archives
March 2021
Categories |