Author, Adam.
Published, April 14, 2008.

An interesting question Adam, a very interesting question indeed.

I am currently completing an essay comparing similar doctrines contained in both Hinduism and Buddhism. Doctrines such as karma and reincarnation are rather central to both religions. The aim of both religions is to liberate oneself from cyclic-existence, known as samsara. Very briefly, it is due to accumulated karma that one is reincarnated. One life-time is not enough to rid oneself of this residual karma and thereby be free from life’s self-perpetuating cycle. Therefore one needs to minimise accumulating karma. The difference however is that Hinduism on one hand says that by ‘communing’ with ultimate reality (Brahman) which is found in oneself (atman) you can be liberated from what appears to be real into that which is real. Buddhism, on the other hand, does not believe in ultimate reality but in emptiness. The way a Buddhist attains liberation is by detaching oneself from everything. To a Buddhist, everything is impermanent and therefore has no essence, which is known as Emptiness.

What Hinduism and Buddhism have in common though is that there are no concrete rules about how exactly to attain this. The rules or laws they do have are generally more provisional than prescriptive. These underlying presuppositions tend to favour the evolution of pluralism in their belief and practices. Brahman is an unknown reality in many respects and Emptiness is impossible to objectify. These beliefs, due to their pluralism and adaptability are much more appealing to the average spiritual experimentalist. They are generally not offensive to the unbeliever because they offer a more ‘open-minded’ approach to other beliefs and are mostly inclusive of other religions. They can afford to be inclusive of other worldviews because they do not make any precise claims of objective truth. The exception, of course, is the assumptions that a greater reality lies hidden behind all phenomena or that reality is a mere illusion and nothing essential exists. These claims are broad concepts and are open to interpretation, which mean many beliefs can be accommodated within them.

I do not write about these beliefs disparagingly in the vain attempt to validate my own belief. However, I have observed that many people tend to favour the more inclusive worldview as if it somehow self-validating. As in, the more inclusive you are of other points of view - the closer to the truth you will be. I think that is shallow logic. Not to say that it is an impossibility but to me it is quite unconvincing.

Conversely, I do not think that being more exclusive validates a belief. Christianity is different to eastern religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism, precisely because it makes exclusive claims about itself and that it is centred on a person, namely Jesus Christ, for salvation. Buddhist’s follow Buddha’s example in reaching an ‘awakened’ state, but do not look to Buddha for salvation. Both Buddhism and Christianity are consistent with their underlying presuppositions. It is due to their consistency with their own presuppositions that makes them either inclusive or exclusive. It is not whether one is inclusive or exclusive that validates or justifies a belief but their claims. And some claims are more exclusive than others. What makes Christianity exclusive is that it makes a definite claim that there is one God and that God-incarnate came to reconcile his creation unto Himself. That is much less open to interpretation than saying nothing exists. It is also immediately less appealing to the average person who would rather make his/ her own decisions on what truth is.

I think the correlation between fundamental claims and their inherent inclusive/ exclusive nature has something to say about the claims themselves. However, those natures themselves should not be confused with the independent validity or credibility of the underlying presuppositions in question. Whether or not a worldview is exclusive or inclusive does not matter so much as the fundamental claims themselves. That is something I’m not discussing here. I’ll leave that to someone else.

Personally though, as a Christian, I tend to think that salvation has more to do with the intention and openness to ‘God’ than a head knowledge which may more or less come down to cultural context and language. Most of our head knowledge is formed by our surroundings after all. I believe God is bigger than that and can ultimately transcend our human condition and situation. Think ‘Last Battle’ by C.S. Lewis. But that’s another story.

In conclusion, I think it is a mistake categorically to think that being inclusive means one is closer to the truth.