pluralism

PLURALISM: (n.)
taken from the Harvard Pluralism Project:

What is Pluralism?

The plurality of religious traditions and cultures has come to characterize every part of the world today. But what is pluralism? Here are four points to begin our thinking:

• First, pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. Diversity can and has meant the creation of religious ghettoes with little traffic between or among them. Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism is not a given; it is an achievement. Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies.
• Second, pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it does not require Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and ardent secularists to know anything about one another. Tolerance is too thin a foundation for a world of religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly.
• Third, pluralism is not relativism, but the encounter of commitments. The new paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our identities and our commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of commitments. It means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another.
• Fourth, pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences. Dialogue does not mean everyone at the “table” will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table -- with one’s commitments.

—Diana L. Eck "

Okay. so going forth, with this definition: my ideas about all religions existing together in the last post?
Very very very very true!
: )
I found out later that it is easier for Hinduism to accept the idea of pluralism than for Muslims and Jews to accept pluralism. I found this out at an Interfaith Council meeting, planning an event this weekend called Gandhi Remixed: Pluralism and Nonviolence in Today's World. I researched pluralism the night before, and upon finding the parallels and synchrony of my thoughts with the ideas, I felt so excited to present at this event.

When I went to the interfaith meeting, though, I feel as though no one else really had thought about pluralism before. I mean, it's not a word one hears every day...which is why I looked it up. When I tried to explain it... people jumped at the one instance I made a "value statement" when I tried to explain it. I said the word EQUAL! that's not a value statement! That's expressing the value of human equality! Then they gave their own personal explanations... those of coexistence and inclusivism. ITS BEYOND THAT! and thankfully Reverand Jim took over and explained this above definition from Harvard using the progression of coexistence/tolerance --> inclusivism ---> pluralism. Pluralism is the ideal, so it can't be a moving definition. it must be pinned down. It's the acceptance of the validity and truth of all religions.

It is the idea that allows me to enjoy hearing Christian teachings of purpose and love etc and trying to apply them to my life because they work just as well as Bhagavad Gita (there's a BGita class Oct 21!) :] It is what helps me to connect with my believing friends. It is a thread that connects us. Pluralism is what will get us to a nonviolent future where wars may not exist. The wars in the Middle East is fueled by inclusivism and intolerance. The idea that one's faith is "better" in any way does not promote a good world environment. That ego overrides ideas of connection and linking together and pluralism... causing conflicts of opinion and eventually violent wars. The idea that the board of Interfaith does not grasp that progression poses a problem.

I mean, society is not at pluralism yet. We're still stuck on inclusivism. We're still thinking hierarchically instead of a mixed salad view where we all talk to everyone else and CONNECT to everyone else. But as interfaith council at USC, we're supposed to PROMOTE pluralistic ideas! yet Sara and Sarah are both non-pluralistic in their thinking! Which may be because they are part of Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam. But then where does that leave the Christians? They have the ability to be very pluralistic: I spent a weekend with them, and no one attempted to convert me. I mean, some aren't obviously, but the ones I know well- they would never dare to strip me of my faith. They understand that I have belief as well as they do.

I don't know. I kind of wish I was head of Interfaith because I feel like I not only grasp these ideas but I also implement them. I go beyond just talking about interfaith issues. I actively have experienced a different religion's traditions, and seen the ways in which we're all similar after all. I sang the songs. I prayed. I thought about Simon-Peter plunging into deeper waters. Experiencing it helps one to see the closeness we share while talk just emphasizes the difference because of all the surface tension of race and traditions. The differences in physicality and manner and customs all mask our true purpose: a higher power.

If we could unify around that idea, and see that the higher power idea is what matters, then it wouldn't be so hard to accept each other. I feel like Hinduism is misunderstood; my mom has said it so many times. It's about Brahman! We're actually monotheistic, Maithreyi. And I now SEE that. Brahman--the supreme, is hard to relate to, so we have Ganesh. We have Parvati, and Shiva, and Murugan. We have the familial stories of these gods and goddesses. We have all these gods emanating from this super powerful being. Humanizing them makes it easy for us to relate to, which is why I feel that Christianity has Jesus: he was a living god. Same for Islam, Muhammad's life makes believing it easier. It's historical. I mean, in the same vein, we have the avatarams, but with our gods, it's just more of the relating aspect. The COOL thing is that Ramayana did happen! There's pictures from space of the bridges from Lanka to the mainland. Proof that they did have a way to get to Lanka way back when.

... this idea of pluralism is why it makes sense for Bruce Almighty to be dubbed and transferred to India to God Tussi Great Ho. I mean, we don't have that one god mentality, but we could still relate to Amitabh's character.

I just want to be able to show other, confused people at Gandhi Remixed what pluralism is all about, and it's frustrating that the interfaith council itself doesn't BELIEVE IT or understand it fully. I think to understand it, you have to be open-minded. You have to be willing to see the truths in other's views. You have to be willing to step out of your own comforting lifestyle and see what the other faiths do. And you should understand their views. It's a two-way street, information and connection. I understand the Christian faith so much better, and I can appreciate their belief all that more. I hope that Diwali has that same effect for others and Hinduism. I hope the non-Hindus feel like they understand it better... It's the festival of lights celebrating light overcoming darkness within every person. Anyone can understand that, and celebrate it. It's not like the specifics need to be expressed unless one wants to know the stories. [they are amazing stories in each faith. : p]

yeah. so good thinking.

xoxo,
maithreyi
[still missing mommy saying my name right. no one here gets it right. ever. ]

{ps: I DIDN"T KNOW THERE WAS A SOUTH ASIAN A CAPPELLA GROUP! HAD I KNOWN, I WOULD'VE TRIED OUT IN AN INSTANT. IT'S LIKE PERFECT FOR ME.
: (
multifaith choir?
gospel?

or just singing paramore in my room? : )
haha }