The Bhagavad-gita offers an interesting perspective on world religions. It explains how the various traditions all stem from a divine source, and all offer the potential of spiritual elevation. The differences between them are primarily in culture, ritual and expression, while the central principles remain universal. Since the same message was taught in different times, places and circumstances, the externals had to be adapted – essentially, old wine in new bottles. While many can resonate with such an idea, there are also students and practitioners who would find such a stance difficult to digest. How can we reconcile fundamental differences on philosophical points? How can we overlook striking contradictions in the various historical and cultural accounts? Could this be a naive ‘new age’ attempt to avoid confrontation and create ‘peace, love and unity’? Without a more detailed explanation, some may say it’s a case of politically correct, but theologically wrong. How do we rationalise differences between paths that supposedly stem from the same source?
One but different...
One but different...
One but different...
The Bhagavad-gita offers an interesting perspective on world religions. It explains how the various traditions all stem from a divine source, and all offer the potential of spiritual elevation. The differences between them are primarily in culture, ritual and expression, while the central principles remain universal. Since the same message was taught in different times, places and circumstances, the externals had to be adapted – essentially, old wine in new bottles. While many can resonate with such an idea, there are also students and practitioners who would find such a stance difficult to digest. How can we reconcile fundamental differences on philosophical points? How can we overlook striking contradictions in the various historical and cultural accounts? Could this be a naive ‘new age’ attempt to avoid confrontation and create ‘peace, love and unity’? Without a more detailed explanation, some may say it’s a case of politically correct, but theologically wrong. How do we rationalise differences between paths that supposedly stem from the same source?