"What is it that is right in the voice of concern in the 'exclusivists' that we are failing to listen to?"
It was mentioned in another place about Christians who perpetually behave as if they are "full of persecution, for some reason."
I wish to speak softly and sweetly here yet perhaps communicate my experience of the 'voice of concern' in the 'exclusivists'.
Firstly, I suspect we could look to ourselves and what gives us bliss and thrill, when we are together discussing the glories of the Lord, or earnestly discussing some aspect of his teaching. I feel that comes from mutual acceptance, mutual love for each other and joint devotion to the Lord that is being shared in any of the 9 forms of devotion that we engage in together. There is no defence, no suspicion, no entry into that satsangh with the notion that "I am right, and others are wrong' sort of headstrong opinion. Sure, there are opinions and sure, due Swami's insistence that each and every one of us is on our carefully crafted path up the mount of divinity, that our satsangh is blessed with acceptance and respect. One does not enter satsang with either/or, rather, I think, we enter satsangh with both/and ... that is, both her path and my path are equally valid divine paths, filled with divine experience and guidance. That bliss and thrill is rare, and one of the boons of being a devotee of the Avatar of the Age.
Without promoting a sai fundamentalism, or a sai elite, we are blessed that each and every one of us has "experience" of (Swami) (the Lord) (the personal Guru) (the SadGuru) (the Parameshwara) (Almighty God) (Sai Nath) (allowing for whatever honorific and experience others have of Swami) or simply 'the Master' for want of a better term. This experience is the inescapable truth of our devotion, for whatever reason and in whatever way we are devoted to Swami.
When talking to others we have to talk inclusive language, language that refers to experience of the divine and makes others feel they are both capable of having that experience and honours whatever experience they have had thus far. The language of experience will open doors to love before the language of this or that religious system, this or that philosphy of God (how dry it all is) and the language of "I am right, and you are wrong".
Consider the mysteries Swami has opened us to and shared with us. "When I was speaking to Arjuna", "When the Prophet Muhammed was listening to the Angel of the Lord", "When Adi Shankara came across the brahmin studying the rules of grammar", and more recently, "When Jesus went missing for several days". Swami shares with us the mysteries of the Lord and his continual revelation of himself to all the religions of humanity. Its almost as if we have to get the language of love right.
May I take an example from Swami speaking on Jesus? The mystery of the Christian Church is the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is often understood to be the atonement of sins. Swami has opened this up for us repeatedly and shared with us that Jesus was risen (he has given the details), he travelled to Turkey, Afghanistan, India, Madras, and onto Malaysia. Yet, the Christian scriptures record none of this, and nor do the Christian scriptures record what must have been the bilocation of Jesus when he made his well witnessed and recorded post resurrection appearances to his disciples.
That mystery of revelation and belief must be respected. I never feel it is my task to tell Christians any further about the life of Jesus after the resurrection. To do so would invite ridicule and disbelief.
The only way I can reach Christians is to speak of my own divine experiences in a language that does not make them feel excluded, and leaves the possibility present for them to have experience of Jesus themselves. Such a telling of experience would not be a telling of a ritual experience, although it may include participation in ritual. May I tell more? In my first experience at a Sai Centre, I stood up the back and watched the entire time, (there being no place to sit). Fine. I could see images of all the major teachers of the religions of humanity, Jesus, Sai, Buddha, Quan Jin, Krishna, Mecca, and Mother Mary. When the lights went off for meditation, I had an experience of holiness which I had only ever had once or twice in the Christian Church in personal moments of reflection. From that moment, I decided "these people have got it, whatever they do, they have authentic experience of the divine". I could put that against my own experience of the divine, (I called it holiness in those days) and thus I was quite happy to attend bhajans on a regular basis thereafter.
What was that experience? Perhaps this is the hardest thing to put into words.
It was firstly an emptying out, and being filled within something greater than myself that expanded beyond myself to include all others present in the room; all others were of the same substance, yet separate. It was a known, non intellectual experience, known only in the heart, which communicated this awarness, this experience to the I that was Chris. Yet, Chris was not Chris, Chris was one with all the others, one in the the divine presence.
I had a touchstone of experience which I knew to be truth, the truth of the divine, and I was able to recognise that in another ritual or spiritual event, in this instance, Sai Baba Centre Bhajans. That, I suspect, is the door we are all seeking, that common reservoir of experience of the divine, holiness, experience of God, mystical experience, sat-chit-ananda, call it what you will; therein lies the springs of bliss, bliss, bliss. Ditto the last time I was in the darshan hall; I was walking in just after being frisked, carrying a cushion and looking around for a place to sit; suddenly this pure joy of being home overwhelmed me, as I looked around the darshan hall. My mind told me I was home, here I was loved for my own self. Not for anything I was or did. That also was bliss, bliss which remained for some time. Of course, HE, came in at 2PM, nary a look at the men and trod his way up the centre of the darshan hall direct to the interview room. One is in the divine presence, even if out of sight of the divine.
In any tradition which is primarily ritual based, its practice may not first and foremost encourage personal exploration and much less, personal responsibility, but rather participation in the community of the redeemed, the community of the elect, those who have the scriptural promises of God and the direct promise that they will be with the Lord if compliance is observed. So opportunities for reflection, and experience of the divine are limited. Meditation is actively discouraged in some faiths, and scripture study is encouraged ... the sacrament of the word...
What was said in another place, "Reformation Christians and Christian fundamentalists also have a lot of trouble talking among themselves" hides a realm of division and discord among Churches that make exclusive claims and exclude participation in other communions within Christianity. Popes frequently say "Our Lord founded one church".
I can recall being a Christian apologist and roundly defending Christianity against the Mormon missionaries; I can recall feeling unsure of Presbyterians and Methodists, of fear of entering their churches; I can recall being told as a child that I could not go into another church and worship. All this, for fear that I might be lost to salvation, and my immortal soul lost to ever burning lakes of sulphur in regions lorded over by Satan. Perhaps it was a culture defending itself, perhaps it was defense of thousands of years of tradition and identity, perhaps it was fear of losing the truth communicated and understood in the gospels of the apostles and their experience of Jesus. It was always within boundaries, and one felt safe within boundaries. So perhaps it is leaving the safety of the 'caught and taught comfort zone' that some writers are picking up on. Swami does tell us, it is good to be born in a Church (read faith family) but it is not good to die in one. One has to progress from kindergarten to University and then out into the school of hard knocks with our Gods and Demons.
It is much easier to avoid all of that, and respect that ritual and tradition has elements of transcendence and elements of invitation to experience the divine, even though they say they possess the truth and none other even know the truth, let alone come to knowledge and acceptance of the traditional truth of salvation presented in the form of a personal lord and saviour, Jesus the Christ. That is why human values are so beautiful; one can show that one is "doing the truth" simply by pointing to behaviour and experience.
"What is it that is right in the voice of concern in the 'exclusivists' that we are failing to listen to?" Perhaps, what is right is the hidden presence of human values expressed in defense of the truth as they know it, the utterly valid truth that God has revealed himself within their communion or faith tradition. Swami has told that human values are present in all religions, but in many cases they have been lost sight of and buried under layers of dogma, doctrine and tradition. These things have to be respected and the olive branch of peace offered in our behaviour, founded on love which we know to be present within ourselves.
Perhaps that voice of concern is tempered by fear of proselytism, fear of betrayal of a community within which they have their spiritual roots and identity in God, perhaps its the fear of betrayal of the Koran, the Torah or even betrayal of Jesus, or Krishna, or whatever name and form of God relevant. Perhaps that voice of concern is about a truth stoutly defended and proudly claimed as their own. For example, most post Reformation churches recite the Nicene Creed on a Sunday, the "I believe in One God" ... the story of that creed and its development has was and the entire college of bishops excommunicating each other and at one point, all the bishops in Jail before the papal legates arrived and common sense was restored. Such truths, which for millennia, adherents have died for, are held close to the flame of life within. Think of Shoah, the Holocaust.
Swami is ever larger than the 'caught and taught' comfort zone. From Miracles are My visiting cards:
Swami has neither birth nor death. His body is merely, for the time being,
serving his purposes. Swami is not Swami's body. With our limitations, the
name and form are very important for us. We haven't reached the stage where we
can really know Swami. Swami is the absolute Brahman in his original form.
Because of his deva sankalpa (that is, his divine wish), he has taken this form
and this name. But actually he has neither name nor form, except for the
benefit of people. .....
.....
Ordinary human beings who attain siddhis (psychic powers) can create things.
But if they use this power that they have acquired through penance and
austerity, they will exhaust it. It is not good for them. They will try to
demonstrate it for those who go to see them, for their own publicity and for
selfish reasons. But Swami does not do one thing for himself. That is the
difference between him and the others. Whatever he does is solely for the
benefit of others. He does not call anyone to come to him, nor anyone to give
anything to him. Only Bhagavan should produce miracles, as he is omnipotent,
omniscient and omnipresent. (page 94).
The voice of concern, I believe, always has to be respected and reassurred. Perhaps we need to recall our own journey and when we stepped out of our comfort zone to come to know and believe the Sai Avatar. Then to the next experience of a life of peace and confidence, 'doing' human values.
I do suspect the easiest bridge to cross is to share experience and the values that elicit the love within.