Abstract: The question of a possible superiority of a religion becomes ridiculous as soon as we consider the bedrocks of the language. To believe in the superiority of a religion is like to affirm in medicine that the gastroenterology is more important than the immunology... But on the other hand a theology can make useful discoveries by the interreligious dialogue exactly like the performance of the medicine can be improve by a dialogue between the gastroenterology and the immunology...

Each culture cuts in its own way the spiritual sphere in various parts. Then the language lets the words crystallize around the pieces… Sometime the culture suggest to theirs religious to create new words when the syntax and the everyday vocabulary struggles to differentiate one part from another part.

In fact the scientists, the cooks, the technicians, the physicians and other workers are all doing the same in their respective spheres.

When any material is mentally cut in different parts, one cannot reassemble together the pieces as we like; there is an order imposed by the shape of the pieces and that we have to take in consideration. (For that reason, some people prefer to use the word "symbol" instead of the word "piece". Cf. the use of this word in old grec)

A child who collects the pieces of a puzzle will point out that each piece must be placed in one specific position ordered by the global set of pieces and the frame. He doesn't choose this order. He discovers it. Even if at first the cut-out of pieces was arbitrary, the pieces of the puzzle don't let themselves reassemble arbitrarily.

It is the same for the mathematician who chooses arbitrarily an axiomatic system. He will not invent the stable subtleties that his choice of axioms implicated (for instance, the relations between sides and hypotenuses...). Those subtleties, he will discover them! He is an explorer!

For the religious it is a little less clear of course. However, this fuzziness is perhaps not linked to the nature of his spirituality but to an endemic illness that rages in the world of the theologians: this lack of humility which prevents them from calling a cat "a cat".

Let's clean a little bit the thick layer of sacred that they spread on their thoughts and we will notice quickly that for each way to cut the spiritual domain, there are some invariants which emerge by themselves. The theology is not only a set of arbitrary choice and acts of faith.

The theology is not completely conventional and it is even this strange observation that, beyond our wishes and our mistrust, lets us think that there is possibly a "spiritual reality" who looks for an emancipation across all these speculations.

That all these diktats of the reality emanate in fact from our brain rather than from the topics treated by our brains, is the problem of philosophers but not our problem. I am not really interested with such approach because this kind of question is without possible answer. Here, the philosopher's question cannot guide us for any particular choice except maybe to refuse any choice. But such silence will finally let me become even more idiot than I am, due to a lack of opponent! (Beside that, many among us have a spiritual libido which is too strong and too demanding to accept the prudence that recommended some philosophers!)

Therefore, for the theologian as for any other worker, some necessities arise as soon as they start to clear the undergrowth of his territories. When, for example, a religion draws in its symbolic puzzle the border between the mystery and the enigma, the anthropology will receive stigmata; the conception of love is enriched by some nuances which are inaccessible or difficult to access in the religions that would not worry about difference between enigma and mystery. A religion that takes into account the mystery will say a nuance about love that maybe another religion will not analyse without the stimulation of a interreligious dialogue.

The Judeo-Christians, after having 'arbitrarily' draw the symbolic borders in the spiritual space to make distinction between "God" and "man", between "death" and "life", "flesh" and "identity", "mistake" and "sin", "mystery" and "enigma", "forgiveness" and "Redemption", (...), are going to try, by the work of their theologians, to put mentally all these parts in relations.

For the best theologians, the sublime and nearly shameful intention of such a work would not be to get better understanding of their religion nor to enslave more efficiently their brothers to that religion, but to discover the big principles which organize spiritual sphere before the first cut-out (more or less recognized as 'arbitrary').

- The semantic nuances that should be studied before to be able to use the word 'arbitrary' without ambiguity are abyssal, but it is not the question here.

- I wrote "shameful" because it is clear that the theologians will always have some reserves to recognize that, for instance, they had cut the concept of “God” by themselves.

The Judeo-Christian thinkers, as their researches advanced, saw appearing very progressively, in what they called posteriori a "Revelation", the importance of love, the usefulness of the forgiveness, a certain type of moral duty, the impossibility of identifying a person with the idea we have of that person, etc.

Regarding the progression of theological discoveries, it is exciting to observe in the Bible the evolution of the concept of love for instance, and consecutively the évolution of the 'justice'. As the symbolic borders of other border symbols ('community', 'responsibility', 'liberty'...), became clearer in the brain of the theologians, the wild vengeance and the declarations of anathema that one can read in the biblical narrations to paint us the primitive Judaism have given the place to the 'lex talionis' ("an eye for an eye").

When pushing farther the precision of other border symbols ('neighbor', 'liberty', 'merit', 'the paternal affection', etc.), the ‘lex talionis' became with Jesus the rule of the right cheek and left cheeks.

By analysing deeper the meaning of such borders on what we call "love", the new philosophers, by using the old vocabulary of the Evangelists and other first interpreter of Christianity ('Philia', 'Agapè' and 'Eros'), overflowing considerably the indications of the classic philology, became able to see very important nuances which characterize our loving relations and which are very useful to understand human behavior.

It is unlikely that in the mind of the Evangelists, the words 'Philea' and 'Agapè' contained already the semantic sharpness that one can read, for example, in the studies of Comte Sponville, because, at the time of Jesus, one were still waiting for some precisions about the symbolic borders dividing some areas of the spiritual flesh (mystery/enigma, alterity/identity, liberty/causality, moral/religion...).

But I think that one can easily admit that this evolution of the symbolic order in which Comte Sponville expanded his spirituality is quite indebted of a first cut-out in the spiritual space that Moïse, the author of the genesis, the author of Job, Jesus and some others were the main craftsmen.(But not Buddha! The superiority of Buddha's symbolic cut-out and that concerns also love is rather to see in these subtle borders that he drow between the desire and the "limbic sympathy" (Vedana) and thatWest didn't yet digest indeed in his own symbolic order - Cf. survey dedicated to this topic in this site)

Since the beginning of their research, the Buddhists, in their spiritual sphere, drew borders which do not overlap exactly the Christian cut-out. I challenge whoever to put what the Christians consider as the end of life in the frame of Buddhism! The death and the Karma... the death and the reincarnations... the death and the final awakening... the death and the identity... All those approaches of the death are absolutely not transposable in the Judeo-Christian puzzle whereas they are part of the daily life of the Buddhist!

 

*

 

But the day will come - and he is already now - that the Christians and the Buddhists will start to become more aware of their respective spiritual divisions which have been day after day cut and re-cut more subtly. They will admit simply that it is because the first cut-out was 'arbitrary' that the symbols of other religions are still now more 'different' than 'similar'. Opposite would be surprising since the surroundings of the main founders of religions were very different!

Christians and Buddhists, after centuries of such cut-out, are obliged to admit that from the first day they drastically disarmed the translators of spiritual texts because a good translation of such texts is less a work on the language than a work on symbols! The dictionaries are useless if they are not escorted by the studies of historians, of philologists, of hermeneutist...

For new times, a new type of interests arise of the promiscuity of the different religions. Finish the ambition to make proselytes or to demonstrate the superiority of one religion on another! That became just an idiot ambition; it would be just as to consider in medicine that the neurology is truer than the gastroenterology!

The important point is now to understand how each spiritual sphere organise cohabitation between their own parts (regardless of the differences of cut-out between religions). It is from that perspective which reveal sililitudes in the internal regulations of all religions, that some algorithms of transition between the Buddhism and Christianity can finally picture themselves without modifying the integrity of both spiritualities.

Exactly in the same way, the neurologist and the gastroentérologist can study relations between neurology and gastroenterology without having to sacrify what they gain already by their own science.

Sometimes the gastroenterologist, thanks to neurologist way of working, become able to refine a 'obviousness' of his own science and vice versa; it is all interest of interdisciplinary consultation in medicine. It is the same in theology!

By Interreligious Dialogue, Christians will discover instead of the essence of Buddhism, the essence of the spirituality! By the refinement of our approach of spiritualty, we will get a refinement of our analyse of our own religion. Is that a way to reach mystical experience more easily and more intensely? Maybe... Is that a way to find better criteria to differentiate religion and sacred, religion and superstition, religion and ethic, religion and politic, religion and culture, (...)? Maybe...

 

*

The religious able " to internalize " two symbolic spheres and having also a high-pitched ability for survey of transition algorithms and a high-pitched sense of translation are rare. Those religious do not always desire to spend their time to report about the ambiguities which block the dialogue between religions (plural) when the main point is a matter of spirituality (singular). But such men exist: Raimon Panikkar? Krisnamurti?... Personally, I am not such person - alas - and my reader will have to accommodate himself with that. The affection which I feel for Buddhism leads me to become attached to work on this section of my website. The studies are rather critical than spiritual.. My reader who will have to accept this limit will perhaps recognise that this thin contribution is nonetheless useful for the deployment of dialogue between our nice religions.

 

paul yves wery - Chiangmai, 2010

(Version 1.01 - 2006)

(Version 1.02 - Octobre 2008)

(Version 2.01 - Décembre 2008)

(Version 2.02 - Novembre 2009)

(Version 3.01 - Juillet 2010)

(Version 3.02 - Novembre 2010)

(Version 3.03 + first basic translation - Septembre 2011)

 

 

Abstract: The question of a possible superiority of a religion becomes ridiculous as soon as we consider the bedrocks of the language...To affirm such a superiority is like to affirm in medicine that the gastroenterology is more important than the immunology... But on the other hand a theology can make useful discoveries by the interreligious dialogue exactly like the performance of the medicine can be improve by a dialogue between the gastroenterology and the immunology..

Abstract: La question d'une éventuelle supériorité d'une religion sur une autre devient absurde dès qu'on prend en considération les soubassements du langage. Ce serait comme vouloir affirmer qu'en médecine la gastroentérologie est supérieure à l'immunologie... Par contre une théologie peut faire des découvertes utiles par le dialogue interreligieux tout comme la médecine peut améliorer ses performances par un dialogue entre gastroentérologues et immunologistes

Each culture cuts in its own way the spiritual sphere in various parts. Then the language lets the words crystallize around the pieces… Sometime the culture suggest to theirs religious to create new words when the syntax and the everyday vocabulary struggles to differentiate one part from another part.

Chaque culture découpe à sa manière la matière spirituel en diverses parties. Puis le langage se cristallise autour de ces parties… quitte à inviter parfois les religieux à inventer de temps en temps un nouveau mot lorsque la syntaxe et le vocabulaire de tous les jours peine à distinguer telle ou telle partie de telle ou telle autre partie.

In fact the scientists, the cooks, the technicians, the physicians and other workers are all doing the same in their respective spheres.

En fait les scientifiques, les cuisiniers, les techniciens, les médecins et autres travailleurs procèdent tous de la même façon dans leurs sphères respectives.

When any material is mentally cut in different parts, one cannot reassemble together the pieces as we like; there is an order imposed by the shape of the pieces and that we have to take in consideration. (For that reason, some people prefer to use the word "symbol" instead of the word "piece". Cf. the use of this word in old grec)

Lorsque l'on a découpé mentalement en parties distinctes une quelconque matière, on ne peut pas réassembler ensuite ces morceaux à sa guise; il y a certaines règles qui s'imposent par la forme des morceaux. (C'est à cause de cela que certains aiment parler de "symboles" plutôt que de "morceaux".. Cf. l'usage de ce mot dans l'antiquité grecque)

A child who collects the pieces of a puzzle will point out that each piece must be placed in one specific position ordered by the global set of pieces and the frame. He doesn't choose this order. He discovers it. Even if at first the cut-out of pieces was arbitrary, the pieces of the puzzle don't let themselves reassemble arbitrarily.

Un enfant qui assemble les pièces d'un puzzle remarquera que telle pièce doit être associée à telles autres en telle position par rapport au cadre. Il découvre la position adéquate, il ne la choisit pas. Même si au départ le découpage a été arbitraire, les pièces du puzzle ne se laissent pas réassembler arbitrairement.

It is the same for the mathematician who chooses arbitrarily an axiomatic system. He will not invent the stable subtleties that his choices of axioms implicated (for instance, the relations between sides and hypotenuses...). Those subtleties, he will discover them! He is an explorer!

De même un mathématicien a beau choisir arbitrairement un système axiomatique, il n'inventera pas les subtilités stables que ses choix d'axiomes impliquent dans les relations entre, par exemple, les côtés et les hypoténuses... Ces subtilités, il les découvrira!

For the religious it is a little less clear of course. However, this fuzziness is perhaps not linked to the nature of his spirituality but to an endemic illness that rages in the world of the theologians: this lack of humility which prevents them from calling a cat a cat.

Pour les religieux c'est un peu moins net évidemment. Pourtant, ce flou n'est peut-être pas tant lié à la nature de la spiritualité qu'à une maladie endémique qui sévit dans le monde des théologiens: ce manque d'humilité qui les empêche d'appeler un chat un chat.

Let's clean a little bit the thick layer of sacred that they spread on their thoughts and we will notice quickly that for each way to cut the spiritual domain, there are some invariants which emerge by themselves. The theology is not only a set of arbitrary choice and acts of faith.

Décapons un peu l'épaisse couche de sacré dont ils tartinent toutes leurs pensées et nous remarquerons vite que pour chaque type de découpage du domaine spirituel, il y aussi des invariants qui s'imposent par eux-mêmes. La théologie n'est pas qu'un ensemble de choix arbitraire et d'actes de foi.

The theology is not completely conventional and it is even this strange observation that, beyond our wishes and our mistrust, lets us think that there is possibly a "spiritual reality" who looks for an emancipation across all these speculations.

La théologie n'est pas totalement conventionnelle et c'est même cette étrange observation qui, par-delà nos désirs et nos méfiances de mécréant, nous laisse croire qu'il y a malgré tout une «réalité spirituelle» qui cherche une émancipation à travers toutes ces spéculations.

That all these diktats of the reality emanate in fact from our brain rather than from the topics treated by our brains, is the problem of philosophers but not our problem. I am not really interested with such approach because this kind of question is without possible answer. Here, the philosopher's question cannot guide us for any particular choice except maybe to refuse any choice. But such silence will finally let me become even more idiot than I am, due to a lack of opponent! (Beside that, many among us have a spiritual libido which is too strong and too demanding to accept the prudence that recommended some philosophers!)

Que tous ces diktats de la réalité émanent en fait de notre cerveau plutôt que des sujets traités par nos cerveaux est un problème de philosophe. Cela m'intéresse peu ici puisque ce questionnement est indécidable et ne me propose aucun choix particulier sinon celui d'éventuellement me taire, ce qui à la longue, faute de contradicteurs, me laisserait encore plus imbéciles que je ne le suis! (Beaucoup parmi nous ont un intérêt spirituel bien trop fort et trop exigeant que pour accepter toujours la prudence recommandée par certains philosophes!)

Therefore, for the theologian as for any other worker, some necessities arise as soon as they start to clear the undergrowth of his territories. When, for example, a religion draws in its symbolic puzzle the border between the mystery and the enigma, the anthropology will receive stigmata; the conception of love is enriched by some nuances which are inaccessible or difficult to access in the religions that would not worry about difference between enigma and mystery. A religion that takes into account the mystery will say a nuance about love that maybe another religion will not analyse without the stimulation of a interreligious dialogue.

Donc, pour le théologien comme pour n'importe quel travailleur, des nécessités pointent le nez dès qu'il commence à débroussailler son terrain. Lorsque, par exemple, une religion trace dans son puzzle symbolique la frontière entre le mystère et l'énigme, toute l'anthropologie en reçoit les stigmates et l'amour gagne des nuances difficilement accessibles aux autres religions qui ne se préoccuperaient pas de cette distinction. Une religion qui prend en compte le mystère des êtres dira de l'amour quelque chose qu'une religion qui ne ferait pas cette distinction symbolique ne pourrait jamais comprendre (ou alors avec des efforts considérables).

The Judeo-Christians, after having 'arbitrarily' draw the symbolic borders in the spiritual space to make distinction between "God" and "man", "death" and "life", "flesh" and "identity", "mistake" and "sin", "mystery" and "enigma", "forgiveness" and "Redemption", (...), are going to try, by the work of their theologians, to put mentally all these parts in relations.

Les judéo-chrétiens, après avoir ‘arbitrairement' tracé des frontières symboliques dans l'espace spirituel pour distinguer ce qu'ils appellent "Dieu" de "l'homme", la "mort" de la "vie", la "chair" de "l'identité", la "faute" du "péché", le "mystère" de "l'énigme", le "pardon" de la "Rédemption", (...), vont essayer tant bien que mal, par le chef de leurs théologiens, de mettre toutes ces parties mentalement en relations les unes avec les autres.

For the best theologians, the sublime and nearly shameful intention of such a work would not be to get better understanding of their religion nor to enslave more efficiently their brothers to that religion, but to discover the big principles which organize spiritual sphere before the first cut-out (more or less recognized as 'arbitrary').

Pour les meilleurs d'entre eux, la sublime et presque inavouable intention d'un tel travail serait non pas de comprendre mieux leur religion ou de mieux y asservir les autres, mais de découvrir les grands principes qui organisent le spirituel derrière (et avant!) les premiers découpages (plus ou moins reconnus comme ‘arbitraires').

- The semantic nuances that should be studied before to be able to use the word 'arbitrary' without ambiguity are abyssal, but it is not the question here.

- I wrote "shameful" because it is clear that the theologians will always have some reserves to recognize that, for instance, they had cut the concept of “God” by themselves.

- Les nuances sémantiques qu'il faudrait mettre en avant pour pouvoir utiliser le mot ‘arbitraire' sont abyssale, mais ce n'est pas la question ici.)

- J'ai écrit «inavouable» parce qu'il est clair qu'il y aura toujours quelques réticences à reconnaître qu'on a soi-même découpé le concept de Dieu par exemple.

The Judeo-Christian thinkers, as their researches advanced, saw appearing very progressively, in what they called posteriori a "Revelation", the importance of love, the usefulness of the forgiveness, a certain type of moral duty, the impossibility of identifying a person with the idea we have of that person, etc.

Les penseurs judéo-chrétiens, très progressivement, au fur et à mesure qu'avançaient leurs recherches, ont vu émerger, dans ce qu'ils ont appelé a posteriori une «Révélation», l'importance de l'amour, l'utilité du pardon, un certain type de devoir moral, l'impossibilité de confondre l'autre avec l'idée qu'on en a, etc.

Regarding the progression of theological discoveries, it is exciting to observe in the Bible the evolution of the concept of love for instance, and consecutively the évolution of the 'justice'. As the symbolic borders of other border symbols ('community', 'responsibility', 'liberty'...), became clearer in the brain of the theologians, the wild vengeance and the declarations of anathema that one can read in the biblical narrations to paint us the primitive Judaism have given the place to the 'lex talionis' ("an eye for an eye").

À propos de l'aspect progressif des découvertes théologiques, il est passionnant de lire dans la Bible comment a évolué par exemple le sens de l'amour et la 'justice' qui en découle. Au fur et à mesure que les frontières symboliques de concepts comme la ‘communauté', la ‘responsabilité', la ‘liberté', (...), se sont précisées dans le chef des théologiens, la vengeance sauvage et les déclarations d'anathème que l'on peut lire dans les récits sensés nous peindre le judaïsme primitif ont dû céder la place à la ‘loi du Talion'.

When pushing farther the precision of other border symbols ('neighbor', 'liberty', 'merit', 'the paternal affection', etc.), the ‘lex talionis' became with Jesus the rule of the right cheek and left cheeks.

Poussant plus loin encore la précision des autres concepts frontaliers (le 'prochain', la 'liberté', le 'mérite', 'l'affection paternelle', etc.), la loi du Talion est devenue avec Jésus règle de la joue droite contre la joue gauche.

By analysing deeper the meaning of such borders on what we call "love", the new philosophers, by using the old vocabulary of the Evangelists and other first interpreter of Christianity ('Philia', 'Agapè' and 'Eros'), overflowing considerably the indications of the classic philology, became able to see very important nuances which characterize our loving relations and which are very useful to understand human behavior.

En analysant plus profondément la signification de ces frontières sur ce que nous appelons l'amour, les philosophes contemporains, en utilisant pourtant le vieux vocabulaire utilisé par les évangélistes et les pères de l'Eglise (‘Eros', ‘Philia' et ‘Agapè'), débordant largement le cadre des indications de la philologie classique, ont pu mettre au jour des nuances très importantes caractérisent nos relations amoureuses et qui sont très utiles pour comprendre le comportement humain.

It is unlikely that in the mind of the Evangelists, the words 'Philea' and 'Agapè' contained already the semantic sharpness that one can read, for example, in the studies of Comte Sponville, because, at the time of Jesus, one were still waiting for some precisions about the symbolic borders dividing some areas of the spiritual flesh (mystery/enigma, alterity/identity, liberty/causality, moral/religion...).

Il est peu probable que dans le chef des Evangélistes, les mots ‘Philea' et ‘Agapè' aient déjà contenu toutes les finesses sémantiques que l'on peut lire, par exemple, dans les études de Comte Sponville parce que, à l'époque de Jésus, on attendait encore quelques précisions à propos du tracé de frontières symboliques divisant certaines zones de la chair spirituelle (mystère/énigme, altérité/identité, liberté/nécessité, morale/religion...).

But I think that one can easily admit that this evolution of the symbolic order in which Comte Sponville expanded his spirituality is quite indebted of a first cut-out in the spiritual space that Moïse, the author of the genesis, the author of Job, Jesus and some others were the main craftsmen.(But not Buddha! The superiority of Buddha's symbolic cut-out and that concerns also love is rather to see in these subtle borders that he drow between the desire and the "limbic sympathy" (Vedana) and thatWest didn't yet digest indeed in his own symbolic order - Cf. survey dedicated to this topic in this site).

Mais je pense qu'on peut facilement admettre que cette évolution de l'ordre symbolique dans lequel Comte Sponville a élucidé sa spiritualité est tout à fait redevable d'un pré-découpage de l'espace spirituel dont Moïse, l'auteur de la genèse, l'auteur du livre de Job, Jésus et quelques autres furent les principaux artisans (mais pas Bouddha; la supériorité de Bouddha en ce qui conserne l'amour est plutôt à chercher dans ces subtiles frontières qu'il dessine entre le désir et les "sympathies limbiques" (védana) que l'Occident n'a pas encore vraiment digéré dans son ordre symbolique) (Voir étude dédiée à ce sujet dans ce site).

Since the beginning of their research, the Buddhists, in their spiritual sphere, drew borders which do not overlap exactly the Christian cutting. I challenge whoever to put what the Christians consider as the end of life in the frame of Buddhism! The death and the Karma, the death and the reincarnations, the death and the final awakening, the death and the identity... All those approaches of the death are absolutely not transposable in the Judeo-Christian puzzle whereas they are part of the daily life of the Buddhist!

Les Bouddhistes, eux, dans l'espace spirituel, ont tracé des frontières qui ne se superposent pas exactement au découpage chrétien. Je défie quiconque de placer la fin de la vie, telle que les chrétiens la conçoivent dans le cadre bouddhiste! La mort et le Karma, la mort et les réincarnations, la mort et l'Eveil final, la mort et l'identité, ...autant d'approches de la mort qui sont absolument non transposables dans le puzzle judéo-chrétien alors qu'elles habitent le quotidien conceptuel des spirituels bouddhistes!

If only one word, "dead", can sometimes be used indifferently in these two religious spheres, it is only because two cadavers look alike. It would be probably necessary to go back up to the original common savagery of the Judeo-Christian peoples and the Buddhist peoples to find this primal culture which invented the first words when still confusing many things and particularly the flesh with identity.

 

*

But the day will come - and he is already now - that the Christians and the Buddhists will start to become more aware of their respective spiritual divisions which have been day after day cut and re-cut more subtly. They will admit simply that it is because the first cut-out was in a way 'arbitrary' that the symbols of other religions are still now more 'different' than 'similar'. Opposite would be surprising since the surroundings of the main founders of religions were very different!

Mais viendra le jour -et il est déjà là- où les Chrétiens et les Bouddhistes commenceront à prendre conscience de ce que leurs divisions spirituelles respectives ont été jour après jour découpées et redécoupées plus subtilement. Ils vont alors admettre que c'est parce que les premiers découpages furent d'une certaine manière 'arbitraires' que ces symboles sont aujourd'hui plus 'différents' que 'semblables'. Le contraire eut été étonnant puisque les milieux de vie des grands fondateurs de religions furent très différents).

Christians and Buddhists, after centuries of such cut-out, are obliged to admit that from the first day they drastically disarmed the translators of spiritual texts because a good translation of such texts is less a work on the language than a work on symbols! The dictionaries are useless if they are not escorted by the studies of historians, of philologists, of hermeneutist...

Chrétiens et Bouddhistes, après des siècles de tels découpages sont obligés d'admettre que dès les origines de leurs religions respectives, ils ont radicalement désarmé les traducteurs d'ouvrages spirituels parce qu'une bonne traduction de tels ouvrages n'est pas tant un travail sur la langue qu'un travail sur des symboles. Les dictionnaires sont inutiles s'ils ne sont escortés par les études pointues d'historiens, de philologues, d'herméneutes...

For new times, a new type of interests arise of the promiscuity of the different religions. Finish the ambition to make proselytes or to demonstrate the superiority of one religion on another! That became just an idiot ambition; it would be just as to consider in medicine that the neurology is truer than the gastroenterology!

A nouvelle époque correspond alors un tout nouveau type d'intérêt lorsque les diverses religions sont mise en contact. Finit l'ambition de faire des prosélytes ou de démontrer la supériorité d'une religion par rapport à une autre ! Cela est devenu comme par enchantement un souci d'imbécile ; il serait tout aussi crétin de considérer par exemple qu'en médecine la neurologie est plus vraie que la gastroentérologie!

The important point is now to understand how each spiritual sphere organise cohabitation between their own parts (regardless of the differences of cut-out between religions). It is from that perspective which reveal sililitudes in the internal regulations of all religions, that some algorithms of transition between the Buddhism and Christianity can finally picture themselves without modifying the integrity of both spiritualities.

Le point important maintenant, c'est de voir comment l'espace spirituel élabore des règles de cohabitation entre ses propres parties (indépendamment des différences dedécoupages entres les diverses religions). C'est à partir de cette perspective qui révèle des similitudes dans les régulations internes de toute religion que des algorithmes de passage entre les religions peuvent enfin s'imaginer qui jamais ne touche à l'intégrité des spiritualités concernées.

Exactly in the same way, the neurologist and the gastroentérologist can study relations between neurology and gastroenterology without having to sacrify what they gain already by their own science.

Exactement de la même manière, le neurologue et le gastroentérologue peuvent étudier les relations entre la neurologie et la gastroentérologie sans pour cela devoir sacrifier les acquis de leur propre science.

Sometimes the gastroenterologist, thanks to neurologist way of working, become able to refine a 'obviousness' of his own science and vice versa; it is all interest of interdisciplinary consultation in medicine. It is the same for theology!

Parfois le gastroentérologue va même pouvoir, grâce à l'observation des manières de travailler des neurologues, pourra affiner une ‘évidence' de sa science et vice versa; c'est là tout l'intérêt de la démarche interdisciplinaire en médecine. C'est la même chose en théologie!

By Interreligious Dialogue, Christians will discover instead of the essence of Buddhism, the essence of the spirituality! By the refinement of our approach of spiritualty, we will get a refinement of our analyse of our own religion. Is that a way to reach mystical experience more easily and more intensely? Maybe... Is that a way to find better criteria to differentiate religion and sacred, religion and superstition, religion and ethic, religion and politic, religion and culture, (...)? Maybe...

Par le Dialogue Interreligieux, les Chrétiens trouveront peut-être, plutôt que l'essence du Bouddhisme, l'essence du spirituel. Et par le rafinement de notre approche du spirituel, nous allons être en mesure de mieux analyser notre propre religion. Peut-être y gagnerons-nous le moyen d'accéder plus facilement et plus intensément à l'expérience mystique? Peut être y gagnerons-nous des meilleurs critères pour distinguer le religieux et le sacré, le religieux et la superstition, le religieux et la morale, le religieux et la politique, le religieux et la culture, (...)?

*

 

The religious able " to internalize " two symbolic spheres and having also a high-pitched ability for survey of transition algorithms and a high-pitched sense of translation are rare. Those religious do not always desire to spend their time to report about the ambiguities which block the dialogue between religions (plural) when the main point is a matter of spirituality (singular). But such men exist: Raimon Panikkar? Krisnamurti?... Personally, I am not such person - alas - and my reader will have to accommodate himself with that. The affection which I feel for Buddhism leads me to become attached to work on this section of my website. The studies are rather critical than spiritual.. My reader who will have to accept this limit will perhaps recognise that this thin contribution is nonetheless useful for the deployment of dialogue between our nice religions.

Les spirituels capables «d'intérioriser» deux sphères symboliques et ayant en plus un sens aigu de la recherche d'algorithmes de passage et un sens aigu de la traduction sont des hommes d'exception. Ces hommes rares n'ont pas nécessairement envie de passer du temps à dénoncer les ambiguïtés qui encombrent le dialogue entre LES religions (pluriel) lorsqu'il est question de «LA» spiritualité (singulier). Mais ces hommes existent: Raimon Panikkar? Krisnamurti?... Personnellement, je n'en suis pas -hélas- et mon lecteur devra s'en accommoder. L'amour que j'éprouve pour le Bouddhisme me conduit donc à m'attacher dans cette section de mon site à des questions plutôt critiques que spirituelles. Mon lecteur qui devra se contenter de cette sobriété admettra peut-être que ce maigre apport est malgré tout utile pour autoriser le plein déploiement du dialogue entre nos belles religions.

 

paul yves wery - Chiangmai, 2010

(Version 1.01 - 2006)

(Version 1.02 - Octobre 2008)

(Version 2.01 - Décembre 2008)

(Version 2.02 - Novembre 2009)

(Version 3.01 - Juillet 2010)

(Version 3.02 - Novembre 2010)

(Version 3.03 + first basic translation - Septembre 2011)