[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Oh wizard of earthsea, first, I don't wish to take your words out of their original context and good intent. Although the posts from page 3 & 4 have lost themselves in the vacuum, you were right on in suggesting non-traditional sources of spiritual inspiration to someone who clearly didn't enjoy the traditional.

With all due respect to both yourself and Khalil Gibran, as far as distilling Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam into one, it isn't philosophically possible. That is what I meant by "misrespresenting" Buddhism (probably too strong a word), though it can be fairly said all four are misconstrued in your original statement.

This is not be sectarian and a spiritual elitist, there can be distinction between religions without dispute.

The only way the condense these religions is to ignore their core philosophies. The only way that can be done is to superficially skim the froth, assemble their similarities (the external aspects such as generousity or good conduct) and forget the meaning, the depth and purpose of the religions.

In a previous post in this thread I pointed out that religions are similar on the surface, in ethics and conduct, but radically different in their philosophy, the reasons why.

Case in point, while Buddhism and Hinduism came from the same continent, many Hindu schools believe the Atman, or individual's soul, is permanent. Buddhism asserts nothing is permanent, if it had a beginning, it must have an end. While both Hindus and Buddhists may practice generousity, the goals are very different, so also the intent, and therefore the spiritual methods for practicing generousity must be different as well.

Does this sound like splitting hairs? It isn't. A religion that believes in multiple dieties is very different from one that believes in only One omnipotent God. A religion that believes there is no permanence, therefore believes that there is no permanent heaven or hell. Radically different from one that makes its entire purpose the attainment of heaven.

Does this make any one right, and the others wrong? No.

One must engage in spiritual practice according to ones disposition, so you will be attracted to what is appropriate for you.

Ah, you may say, then distilling the essence of these religions may be appropriate for someone!

Yes, but then it's not any of those religions anymore, is it? And it's misrepresenting them to say so.

- Maril

This by the way, is why most serious religious students have abandoned college programs which have unfortunately veered to a populist "comparative religions" approach. Too superficial. It takes a lifetime to understand even one religion well.

* A side note, if you're interested: the various sects of Buddhism fit together, one within another like a set of Russian dolls. They all reference the same original teachings of the Buddha. The philosophy is the same, but there is just a different course of study.

Theravada reference only the Sutras, the Buddha's actual literal words.
(within that there are schools that draw distinctions based on the nature of the universe, whether its made up of atomic particles and how).

Mahayanists reference both the Sutras and the teachings of the Prajnaparamita (and most the third major cycle of teachings on all having intrinsic Buddhanature, the Uttaratantra).
(within that there are schools that draw distinctions based on the nature of the emptiness of atomic particles and mind).

Vajrayanists reference the Sutras, the Prajnaparamita, the Uttaratantra (teachings on Buddhanature) and other Tantric texts many of which came from the Mahasiddhas in India.
(within that are schools or families that follow specific tantric texts handed down throughout generations; the main texts are the Guyagarbhatantra, the Guhyasamajatantra, the Hevajratantra and the Naro-cho-drug).

Zen references the Sutras, the Prajnaparamita, I believe Uttaratantra, and other teachings of later accomplished Buddhist masters, Bodhidharma. There are some who claim Bodhidharma was really the Mahasiddha Saraha, who was known by different names in different countries. I don't see how anyone can prove at this point.

Pureland Buddhism is part of Vajrayana, though it focuses primarily on the tantric practice of Amitabha.