THE CONCEPT OF CHURCH

 

THE CONCEPT OF CHURCH, by Paul Brunton

 

Religion, which in ancient times instructed men in truth and gave them vital spiritual sustenance, broke down before developing intellect of man and could not meet his reasonable criticisms. If the doctrines which in their mixture pass as religion today had been one hundred per cent true, religious leaders would have had nothing to fear from the progress of science.

 

I am not a member of any religious faith, in the conventional sense, not a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu. And I will frankly confess here that I was born with no particular leaning towards religion - while the splitting of theological hairs aroused my amusement. But I am a believer in most of the great faiths according to the interpretation which, I hold, their own founders gave to them.

 

I am a Christian to the extent that I concur with Saint Paul in saying: "And if I have the gift of prophecy, and known all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not love, I am nothing."

 

I am a Buddhist to the extent that I realize, with Gautama, that only when a man forsakes all his desires is he really free.

 

I am a Jew to the extent that I believe profoundly in the saying: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one."

 

I am a Hindu to the extent of believing and practising the kingly science of yoga, the science of union with the spiritual Self.

 

I am a Muhammedan to the extent that I rely on Allah above all else.

 

And finally, I am a follower of Lao-Tse to the extent that I accept his perception of the strange paradox of life.

 

But I will go no further into these faiths than the points indicated; they are the boundary-posts at which I turn back.

 

I will not walk with Christians into an exaltation of Jesus - whom I love more deeply than many of them - over the other messengers of God.

 

I will not walk with Buddhist into a denial of the beauty and pleasure which existence holds for me.

 

I will not walk with Jews into a narrow shackling of the mind to superficial observances.

 

I will not walk with the Hindu into a supine fatalism which denies the innate divine strength in man.

 

I will not walk with the Muhammedans into the prison house of a single book, no matter how sacred it be.

 

And finally, I will not walk with the Chinese Tao-ists into a system of superstitious mummery which mocks the great man it is suppose to honour.

 

I do not believe that God has given a monopoly of Truth to any of us; the sun is for all alike. No land or race can claim a monopoly of Truth, and the divine inspiration may descend on man everywhere.

 

No creed has the power to copyright Truth. Therefore I can take a detached and impartial view of them all. I can perceive why they rose to greatness, and why they are, in some case, in their decline or fall.