Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00155)

April 27th 2003


Re: POINTS OF AGREEMENT IN ALL RELIGIONS



Dear Friends:

This important article indicates the areas of agreement in most
religions.

If we use these as a basis for further study, we will be able to
see how all religions grew out of a single code.

Just like a Tree grows branches out from the central trunk, so do
religions, age after age emerge.

Best wishes,

Dallas



====================================





POINTS OF AGREEMENT IN ALL RELIGIONS





[An address delivered April 17th, 1894, before the Parliament of
Religions at San Francisco, Calif., by William Q. Judge.]







Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Let me read you a few verses
from some of the ancient Scriptures of the world, from the old
Indian books held sacred by the Brahmans of Hindustan. (1)
<http://www.blavatsky.net/theosophy/judge/articles/#FN1>

What room for doubt and what room for sorrow is there in him who
knows that all spiritual beings are the same in kind and only
differ from each other in degree?

The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor
these lightnings and much less this fire. When He shines,
everything shines after Him; by His light all this is lighted.

Lead me from the unreal to the real!

Lead me from darkness to light!

Lead me from death to immortality!

Seeking for refuge, I go to that God who is the light of His own
thoughts; He who first creates Brahman and delivers the Vedas to
him; who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without
fault, the highest bridge to immortality, like a fire that has
consumed its fuel. - Mundaka Upanishad.


Such are some of the verses, out of many thousands, which are
enshrined in the ancient Hindu Vedas beloved by those we have
called "heathen"; those are the sentiments of the people we have
called idolaters only.

As the representative of the Theosophical movement I am glad to
be here, and to be assigned to speak on what are the points of
agreement in all religions. I am glad because Theosophy is to be
found in all religions and all sciences.

We, as members of the Theosophical Society, endorse to the
fullest extent those remarks of your chairman in opening, when he
said, in effect, that a theology which stayed in one spot without
advancing was not a true theology, but that we had advanced to
where theology should include a study of man. Such a study must
embrace his various religions, both dead and living.

And pushing that study into those regions we must conclude that
man is greatly his own reveler, has revealed religion to himself,
and therefore that all religions must include and contain truth;
that no one religion is entitled to a patent or exclusive claim
upon truth or revelation, or is the only one that God has given
to man, or the only road along which man can walk to salvation.

If this be not true, then your Religious Parliament is no
Parliament, but only a body of men admiring themselves and their
religion. But the very existence of this Parliament proclaims the
truth of what I have said, and shows the need which the
Theosophical Society has for nineteen years been asserting, of a
dutiful, careful, and brotherly inquiry into all the religions of
the world, for the purpose of discovering what the central truths
are upon which each and every religion rests, and what the
original fountain from which they have come. This careful and
tolerant inquiry is what we are here for today; for that the
Theosophical Society stands and has stood: for toleration, for
unity, for the final and irrevocable death of all dogmatism.

But if you say that religion must have been revealed, then surely
God did not wait for several millions of years before giving it
to those poor beings called men. He did not, surely, wait until
He found one poor Semitic tribe to whom He might give it late in
the life of the race?

Hence He must have given it in the very beginning, and therefore
all present religions must arise from one fount.


What are the great religions of the world and from whence have
they come? They are Christianity, Brahmanism, Buddhism,
Confucianism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Mohammedanism. The
first named is the youngest, with all its warring sects, with
Mormonism as an offshoot and with Roman Catholicism boldly
claiming sole precedence and truth.

Brahmanism is the old and hoary religion of India, a grown-up,
fully-developed system long before either Buddhism or
Christianity was born. It extends back to the night of time, and
throws the history of religion far, far beyond any place where
modern investigators were once willing to place even the
beginning of religious thought. Almost the ancient of ancients,
it stands in far-off India, holding its holy Vedas in its hands,
calmly waiting until the newer West shall find time out of the
pursuit of material wealth to examine the treasures it contains.

Buddhism, the religion of Ceylon, of parts of China, of Burmah
and Japan and Tibet, comes after its parent Brahmanism. It is
historically older than Christianity and contains the same ethics
as the latter, the same laws and the same examples, similar
saints and identical fables and tales relating to Lord Buddha,
the Saviour of Men. It embraces today, after some twenty-five
hundred years of life, more people than any other religion, for
two-thirds of the human family profess it.

Zoroastrianism also fades into the darkness of the past. It too
teaches ethics such as we know. Much of its ritual and philosophy
is not understood, but the law of brotherly love is not absent
from it; it teaches justice and truth, charity and faith in God,
together with immortality. In these it agrees with all, but it
differs from Christianity in not admitting a vicarious salvation,
which it says is not possible.

Christianity of today is modern Judaism, but the Christianity of
Jesus is something different. He taught forgiveness, Moses taught
retaliation, and that is the law today in Christian State and
Church. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is still the
recognized rule, but Jesus taught the opposite. He fully agreed
with Buddha, who, preaching 500 years before the birth of the
Jewish reformer, said we must love one another and forgive our
enemies.

So modern Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, but Buddhism
and the religion of Jesus accord with one another in calling for
charity, complete tolerance, perfect non-resistance, absolute
self-abnegation.

If we compare Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism together on
the points of ritual, dogmas, and doctrines, we find not only
agreement but a marvellous similarity as well, which looks like
an imitation on the part of the younger Christianity. Did the
more modern copy the ancient? It would seem probable. And some of
the early Christian Fathers were in the habit of saying, as we
find in their writings, that Christianity brought nothing new
into the world, that it existed from all time.

If we turn to ritual, so fully exemplified in the Roman Catholic
Church, we find the same practices and even similar clothing and
altar arrangements in Buddhism, while many of the prescribed
rules for the altar and approaching or leaving it are mentioned
very plainly in far more ancient directions governing the Brahman
when acting as priest.

This similarity was so wonderful in the truthful account given by
the Catholic priest Abbé Huc that the alarmed Church first
explained that the devil, knowing that Christianity was coming,
went ahead and invented the whole thing for the Buddhists by a
species of ante facto copying, so as to confound innocent
Catholics therewith; and then they burned poor Abbé Huc's book.

As to stations of the cross, now well known to us, or the rosary,
confession, convents, and the like, all these are in the older
religion. The rosary was long and anciently used in Japan, where
they had over one hundred and seventy-two sorts. And an
examination of the mummies of old Egypt reveals rosaries placed
with them in the grave, many varieties being used. Some of these
I have seen. Could we call up the shades of Babylon's priests, we
should doubtless find the same rituals there.

Turning to doctrines, that of salvation by faith is well known in
Christianity. It was the cause of a stormy controversy in the
time of St. James. But very strangely, perhaps, for many
Christians, the doctrine is a very old Brahmanical one. They call
it "The Bridge Doctrine," as it is the great Bridge. But with
them it does not mean a faith in some particular emanation of
God, but God is its aim. God is the means and the way, and God
the end of the faith; by complete faith in God, without an
intermediary, God will save you.

They also have a doctrine of salvation by faith in those great
sons of God, Krishna, Rama, and others; complete faith in either
of those is for them a way to heaven, a bridge for the crossing
over all sins. Even those who were killed by Krishna, in the
great war detailed in the Ramayana, went straight to heaven
because they looked at him, as the thief on the cross looking at
Jesus went to Paradise. In Buddhism is the same doctrine of
faith.

The twelve great sects of Buddhism in Japan have one called the
Sect of the Pure Land. This teaches that Amitabha vowed that any
one who calls three times on his name would be born into his pure
Land of Bliss. He held that some men may be strong enough to
prevail against the enemy, but that most men are not, and need
some help from another. This help is found in the power of the
vow of Amita Buddha, who will help all those who call on his
name. The doctrine is a modified form of vicarious atonement, but
it does not exclude the salvation by works which the Christian
St. James gives out.

Heaven and Hell are also common to Christianity, Buddhism, and
Brahmanism. The Brahman calls it Swarga; the Buddhist, Devachan;
and we, Heaven. Its opposite is Naraka and Avitchi. But names
apart, the descriptions are the same. Indeed, the hells of the
Buddhists are very terrible, long in duration and awful in
effect.

The difference is that the heaven and hell of the Christian are
eternal, while the others are not. The others come to an end when
the forces which cause them are exhausted.

In teaching of more than one heaven there is the same likeness,
for St. Paul spoke of more than a single heaven to one of which
he was rapt away, and the Buddhist tells of many, each being a
grade above or below some other. Brahman and Buddhist agree in
saying that when heaven or hell is ended for the soul, it
descends again to rebirth. And that was taught by the Jews. They
held that the soul was originally pure, but sinned and had to
wander through rebirth until purified and fit to return to its
source.

In priesthood and priestcraft there is a perfect agreement among
all religions, save that the Brahman instead of being ordained a
priest is so by birth. Buddha's priesthood began with those who
were his friends and disciples. After his death they met in
council, and subsequently many councils were held, all being
attended by priests. Similar questions arose among them as with
the Christians, and identical splits occurred, so that now there
are Northern and Southern Buddhism and the twelve sects of Japan.
During the life of Buddha the old query of admitting women arose
and caused much discussion. The power of the Brahman and Buddhist
priests is considerable, and they demand as great privileges and
rights as the Christian ones.

Hence we are bound to conclude that dogmatically and
theologically these religions all agree.

Christianity stands out, however, as peculiarly intolerant - and
in using the word "intolerant" I but quote from some priestly
utterances regarding the World's Fair parliament - for it claims
to be the only true religion that God has seen fit to reveal to
man.

The great doctrine of a Savior who is the son of God -- God
himself -- is not an original one with Christianity. It is the
same as the extremely ancient one of the Hindus called the
doctrine of the Avatar. An Avatar is one who comes down to earth
to save man. He is God incarnate. Such was Krishna, and such even
the Hindus admit was Buddha, for he is one of the great ten
Avatars.

The similarity between Krishna or Cristna and Christ has been
very often remarked. He came 5,000 years ago to save and benefit
man, and his birth was in India, his teaching being Brahmanical.
He, like Jesus, was hated by the ruler, Kansa, who desired to
destroy him in advance, and who destroyed many sons of families
in order to accomplish his end, but failed.

Krishna [as Rama-chandra] warred with the powers of darkness in
his battles with Ravana, whom he finally killed. The belief about
him was that he was the incarnation of God. This is in accord
with the ancient doctrine that periodically the Great Being
assumes the form of man for the preservation of the just, the
establishment of virtue and order, and the punishment of the
wicked.

Millions of man and women read every day of Krishna in the
[Mahabharata] of Tulsi Das. His praises are sung each day and
reiterated at their festivals. Certainly it seems rather narrow
and bigoted to assume that but one tribe and one people are
favored by the appearance among them of an incarnation in greater
measure of God.

Jesus taught a secret doctrine to his disciples. He said to them
that he taught the common people in stories of a simple sort, but
that the disciples could learn of the mysteries. And in the early
age of Christianity that secret teaching was known.

In Buddhism is the same thing, for Buddha began with one vehicle
or doctrine, proceeded after to two, and then to a third. He also
taught a secret doctrine that doubtless agreed with the Brahmans
who had taught him at his father's court. He gave up the world,
and later gave up eternal peace in Nirvana, so that he might save
men. In this the story agrees with that of Jesus. And Buddha also
resisted Mara, or the Devil, in the wilderness.

Jesus teaches that we must be as perfect as the Father, and that
the kingdom of heaven is within each. To be perfect as the Father
we must be equal with him, and hence here we have the ancient
doctrine taught of old by the Brahmins that each man is God and a
part of God. This supports the unity of humanity as a spiritual
whole, one of the greatest doctrines of the time prior to
Christianity, and now also believed in Brahmanism.

That the universe is spiritual in essence, that man is a spirit
and immortal, and that man may rise to perfection, are universal
doctrines.

Even particular doctrines are common to all the religions.

Reincarnation is not alone in Hinduism or Buddhism. It was
believed by the Jews, and not only believed by Jesus but he also
taught it. For he said that John the Baptist was the
reincarnation of Elias "who was for to come." Being a Jew he must
have had the doctrines of the Jews, and this was one of them. And
in Revelations we find the writer says: "Him that overcometh I
will make a pillar in the house of my God, and he shall go out no
more."

The words "no more" infer a prior time of going out.

The perfectibility of man destroys the doctrine of original sin,
and it was taught by Jesus, as I said. Reincarnation is a
necessity for the evolution of this perfection, and through it at
last are produced those Saviors of the race of whom Jesus was
one. He did not deny similar privileges to others, but said to
his disciples that they could do even greater works than he did.

So we find these great Sages and Saviors in all religions. There
are Moses and Abraham and Solomon, all Sages. And we are bound to
accept the Jewish idea that Moses and the rest were the
reincarnations of former persons. Moses was in their opinion Abel
the son of Adam; and their Messiah was to be a reincarnation of
Adam himself who had already come the second time in the person
of David. We take the Messiah and trace him up to David, but
refuse, improperly, to accept the remainder of their theory.

Descending to every-day-life doctrines, we find that of Karma, or
that we must account and receive for every act. This is the great
explainer of human life. It was taught by Jesus and Matthew and
St. Paul. The latter explicitly said:

"Brethren, be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a
man soweth, that also shall he reap."

This is Karma of the Brahman and Buddhist, which teaches that
each life is the outcome of a former life or lives, and that
every man in his rebirths will have to account for every thought
and receive measure for the measure given by him before.

In ethics all these religions are the same, and no new ethic is
given by any. Jesus was the same as his predecessor, Buddha, and
both taught the law of love and forgiveness. A consideration of
the religions of the past and today from a Theosophical
standpoint will support and confirm ethics. We therefore cannot
introduce a new code, but we strive by looking into all religions
to find a firm basis, not due to fear, favor, or injustice, for
the ethics common to all. This is what Theosophy is for and what
it will do. It is the reformer of religion, the unifier of
diverse systems, the restorer of justice to our theory of the
universe. It is our past, our present, and our future; it is our
life, our death, and our immortality.

--W Q Judge

Path, July, 1894

_____


An address delivered April 17th, 1894, before the Parliament of
Religions at San Francisco, Calif., by William Q. Judge.

The Midwinter Fair at San Francisco had annexed to it a Religious
parliament modeled after the first great one of 1893 at Chicago.
Dr. J. D. Buck and William Q. Judge, the latter as General
Secretary American Section, were officially invited to address
the Parliament at one of its sessions as representatives of the
Theosophical movement. Time was so short that all speakers were
limited to thirty minutes each; for that reason the address is
not as full as it would be had more time been granted. But the
occasion once more showed the strength of the T.S. movement.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]