(Part 2) Best comparative religion books according to redditors

First off, a lot about what I've learned about non-duality has come from my relationship with David R. Loy, a Zen teacher and philosopher who wrote a book called "Nonduality: In Buddhism & Beyond".

I was having a coffee with David several years ago, when we were neighbors in Colorado, and asked him if he thought there were multiple types of non-dualities. I asked him this because I had a growing suspicion, having practiced and studied a number of approaches (some cursory some with more depth, like in Zen) that they were pointing at slightly different things. His reply was, "There are as many kinds of non-dualities as there are dualities." For me, this was an important recognition, of what I'd call "Pluralistic Non-Dualities" now, because it helped me to look around at various approaches and start to hone in on what kind of non-duality they were aiming for, and whether or not that strongly resonated with my own continued search & investigation. It was a way to sort through the varied signals, instead of spending a bunch of time & energy defending or attacking particular approaches, I could just find what worked (pragmatism) for what I'm working on.

As a grounded example, I used to really struggle with the seeming duality between the gradual and sudden approaches. One of my early teachers, Daniel Ingram, was sharing a very graduated approach through the stages of insight, where another of my teachers, and Daniel's close friend & early teacher, Kenneth Folk was geeking out on Advaita Vedanta style non-practice. They couldn't have been further apart, in terms of emphasis, and I felt pulled in both directions. Something about the "non-dual" approach (in quotes, because remember we're talking about the specific "gradual-and-sudden non-duality") really connected, and I loved the feeling of letting it all go, wondering if any of the thoughts mattered, and considering whether or not the whole search was a hoax. That inquiry catalyzed many moments of 'not knowing' and of opening/expanding in ways that I suspect were helpful. The failure mode of this approach seemed to be giving up the search prematurely, and lazing out in semi-spacious blissful states, confusing this state for the direct perception of emptiness (which isn't at all state-dependent).

The gradual path, and my conversations with Daniel, on the other hand, were really helping fuel my motivation for practice, getting my butt on the cushion, driving me to go on yet another retreat to explore with more refined depth of concentration, and pushing me to read & learn more, so that I can I have a broader and more encompassing view of what was happening in this process.

The flip sides, or failures modes, of both of these approaches have become more obvious to me as the years have gone by. I see that hanging out in the sudden orientation and nothing gets done. Hedonism, Lazing Out, Reifying semi-spacious blissful states, all of these things become challenges. The gradual failure mode has to do with what happens when the scales start falling hard toward striving, contracting, fear, self-doubt, and anxiety about attainments. When that's the fuel that's driving the practice (i.e. ego) it's like spewing out carbon into the atmosphere. Things move, but there are a lot of negative externalities, as we're using ego to deconstruct ego, both strengthening certain aspects of our identity (in this case, the identity of "spiritual seeker" or "practitioner" or whatever) while loosening around others.

I found that the tension between these two poles, where each side was a response to the failure modes of the other, and where each complemented the other even as it appeared to stand in stark contrast with the other. Gradually, they became a non-dual view, or dynamic, wherein I move between gradual and sudden perspectives, and I treat both as valid when they arise.

I hope this is helpful.

Yes absolutely!

Thanks for asking.

Here’s a few links:

The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521176670/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_bsxzDbT284DPQ

Everyman's Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805210326/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_VsxzDbR6AG841

Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393005348/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_RtxzDbS4V0Q07

Let This Mind Be In You: An historical study of the differences between Greek and Hebrew thought

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B017I1JE9Q/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_VxxzDbP8JXNWA

Currently: A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe: Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science

Next on my list:

• The Complete Rite of Memphis Misraim
  
• Western Esotericism: A Concise History
  
• Myths to Live By: The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell (I absolutely adore Joseph Campbell)

Well, this is a book. Better argued than my own comment. For example studied Mohamed Atta's university thesis. etc. etc. lots of historical stuff.

www.amazon.com/The-West-Rest-Globalization-Terrorist/dp/1882926811

Could all religions be talking about the same thing? Perhaps. Anything's possible. I'll give you my personal take on that question in a bit, as interfaith relations was the focus of one of my majors back in my college days and remains a hobby of mine today. If you're really interested in exploring this topic, let me offer you a few books with differing perspectives on the matter first:

• God is Not One: Eight Rival Religions that Run the World and Why Their Differences Matter, written by Stephen Prothero: This book advocates that religious differences really do matter. From my reading of various theologians from across a number of traditions, this acceptance of differences and that we're not all talking about the same thing (often called the "exclusivist" position) is probably the most common position across religious traditions (at least in my experience).
  
• The Myth of Religious Superiority: A Multifaith Exploration, edited by Paul Knitter: This book is a collection of essays by theologians across a number of world religions who argue that we really are all talking about the same thing after all. Hick (one of the essayists in this book) is a pioneer writer on this subject in particular and comes out of the Christian tradition, but I recommend this collection rather than one of his books so you can get a wider variety of perspectives.
  
• Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion, written by Mark Heim: This book takes a sort of middle ground between the other two, arguing that each religion really is distinct from the others and pursues a different spiritual path but that perhaps multiple paths can still be right, with say Buddhists working towards nirvana and detachment and Muslims drawing towards a heaven with Allah.
  
  There are plenty more books on this topic than just these three. I merely list these three as decent introductions to their particular points of view as you explore this question yourself. As for my own opinion on the matter, I don't think all religions are talking about the same thing, no. To list just a few of my reasons for thinking that:
  
  

1. Claiming we're all really talking about the same thing in the end is just as exclusive a claim as saying that only one religion is right. In either case, you're insisting a similarly large number of people have all fundamentally misunderstood reality.
   
2. Most religions are addressing fundamentally different problems, even if there are overlaps in a few places. In most strands of Buddhism, the central problem with existence is suffering, which according to Buddhism is caused by attachment: this leads Buddhists to practice meditation in order to cultivate detachment so they can escape suffering and help others. In contrast, the central problem in existence according to my Reformed Christian faith is that we humans were all created good and in the image of God Almighty but now are so infected with evil that we can't help but go awry (whether morally, intellectually, emotionally, etc). Therefore, we need an Almighty Creator to step into our story to love us despite our sins, forgive us our trespasses, reveal the truth of the gospel, save us from evil, and teach us how to live as we were originally created to live, so even when we are weak or overcome by guilt, we can have hope that God will remain faithful to us even so and save us once again. Both Buddhism and my own faith have beauty and power to them, but they're both dealing with very different understandings of the problems facing humanity, the solutions to those problems, and how to live life having experienced such a solution.
   
3. While it's nice to say that all religions are talking about the same thing, clearly we don't think every religion qualifies. It's one thing to say, "Christians, Buddhists, Wiccans, Muslims: we're really all just talking about the same in the end." But it's quite another to lump all those people in with cults like Scientology or the Mansons, with white supremacist neo-pagan groups whose religion is mostly an extension of their bigotry, with ancient religions that held the killing of others in war or human sacrifice as essential rituals, etc. If we draw dividing lines in some instances but not among the major religions, by what standard do we so divide various religions as true or false? How can we say some don't count as "in" while others do while still being philosophically consistent? This is a problem not faced by exclusivists who just assert that they are right and all other religions, while at best perhaps helpful to living well, are not ultimately true.
   
4. Just because we disagree about foundational truths of reality doesn't mean we can't respect each other, treat each other well, etc. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ--as revealed in the Bible and attested to by the creeds of my Presbyterian denomination--is Lord God and the only means of salvation. My Muslim friends in college believed quite differently, as did my Buddhist and Wiccan friends in high school, as do all my atheists and agnostic friends to this day. Our disagreements are serious, which means it's important to discuss them civilly and with compassion for each other, because we are talking about the very fabric and truths of existence. But to just hand-wave away all that tension because it's uncomfortable, rather than to dig into those differences, to see how our disagreements highlight the unique power and beliefs of our own traditions, to learn where each of us is weak in our thinking and needs to reevaluate long-held beliefs... that's a gift I wouldn't give away lightly.
   
5. So to deal with this disagreement, I treat the conflict between me and people who hold other religious beliefs as a sort of "gentlemen's bet with higher stakes" (for lack of a better term). We disagree with each other. That disagreement matters and is rather important. Whoever is wrong is likely in some trouble, depending on how everything plays out. We can't know for sure until we die, if ever. So we each claim our beliefs, and we make our wager with our lives. Until we die, it's wise to civilly talk with each other, explore these questions, etc., because the stakes really do matter. But we can do so civilly, because acting otherwise would just cause more harm and make our attempts to understand the truths of reality all the harder. I personally am a Christian in the Reformed tradition, and my evangelism to others (and listening to them evangelize to me in turn) falls under this civil disagreement, gentlemen's bet lens. After all, with the stakes so high, it's important to share what I believe is true as best I can, while at the same time listening to others share what they think is true. Why? Because first, I might be wrong. Second, if I'm right, knowing what others think will help me explain the truth even better. And third, being civil and at peace with each other provides the best setting for discussing these ideas.
   
   That's just a few of my reasons, anyways. I'm sure I have more, but I'm trying to type this quickly as I'm writing this while on a work break.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Religions-Book-Ideas-Simply-Explained/dp/1409324915/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406671057&sr=1-1&keywords=the+religions+book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Compact-Worlds-Religions-Encyclopedia-Guides/dp/0745953182/ref=pd_sim_b_13?ie=UTF8&refRID=0PN8VJTH52WYRR0GNEJK

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Religious-Ideas-Really-Need-Know/dp/1848660596/ref=pd_sim_b_36?ie=UTF8&refRID=0PN8VJTH52WYRR0GNEJK

> To me, the beauty of space exploration (or any exploration for that matter) is that we as a species are given context. That we are insanely insignificant.

I highly recommend this book. Look a the reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Inner-Reaches-Outer-Space-Metaphor/dp/1577312090

Evola is of course an excellent bit of source material, while Sedgwick is more of a documenter of the tradition. I cannot call Sedgwick new age however, perennialism (presumably the 'new age' bit) is the conclusion that traditionalists believe follows from Neo-Platonist views. I thought that made a good bit of sense myself as well.

If you are interested in other secondary sources, a look around found this which looks good.

The Saviors of Mankind -
A historical and social study of the greatest prophets of mankind, including Lao-Tze, Confucius, Gautama, Zoroaster, Aakhnaton, Moses, Isaiah of babylon, Socrates, Jesus of Nazareth, Saul of Tarsus and Mahomet.

The Saviours of Mankind https://www.amazon.com/dp/1931541051/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_A.D2CbBH0HFNP


Can Life Prevail? - With the train of civilization hurtling at ever-increasing speed towards self-destruction, the most pressing question facing humanity in the 21st century is that of the preservation of life itself. Can Life Prevail?

Can Life Prevail? https://www.amazon.com/dp/1907166637/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_CbE2CbK92X66C

Handbook of Contemporary Paganism (Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion) https://www.amazon.com/dp/9004163735/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_ZSEnybK9NBHAH

Edit: don't listen to me, though. Lauren knows more than I do about this subject.

Try "Good Without God" by Greg Epstein, the Humanist chaplain at Harvard. It's a shorter read, and presents Humanism in a positive manner that's not destructive to conversations with friends or family involved in religion.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Without-God-Billion-Nonreligious/dp/B002SR2Q9G/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1451432035&sr=8-1&keywords=good+without+god

"Habits of the Heart" by Robert Bellah, et. al. this is several pages of exactly what you want, and then a lot more that you may not care about at all.

Robert Bellah traces several different philosophies and their histories in the United States, beginning (temporally) with what he calls the "biblical tradition" of the first settlers. Most of the work is focused on a different philosophy- utilitarianism- and a few other related philosophies. These, in Bellah's view, are terrible and distort the civic nature of the US, disconnect us from our communities, remove the idea of work as a calling, cheapen marriage, etc. etc. Despite how this sounds, he's not really conservative.

Still, Bellah argues that the "biblical tradition" of community, civic engagement and patriotic nationalism is what we need to foster as a modern "civic religion." The whole thing sounds vaguely christian/theistically religious- Bellah is ambiguous on this point- but it amounts (probably) to a non-theistic religion whose major texts are the philosophies of its thinkers (John Winthrop especially), whose symbols are the symbols of state, and whose holidays are national ones: the 4th of July, Thanksgiving, Veterans Day, etc.

We didn't use this book, but a great resource for my own study of Christian mysticism was Bernard McGinn's anthology published by Modern Library. McGinn in general is highly regarded in the theological study of mysticism.
We used this small anthology from time to time. Something that bothered me a little was that the professor (very intelligent and earnest who unfortunately rambled too much) conflated mysticism and spirituality in general - I think she did so to make the class more accessible for students who were not religion majors. So we would not only discuss mysticism as a religious phenomenon, but on spirituality in general and how it could be used to motivate human beings to do incredible things (especially, in the professor's view, as a platform for social action). I am not trying to sound too critical, because there was just so much I loved about this course.

We had interesting discussions because it contained a mix of religious studies majors with students who had basically never studied religion before and were taking the class as an elective. We also had a lot of non-religious students. The professor kept encouraging us to invest ourselves personally in the material in some way, to use it to explore our own spiritual journey, but I think that proposition only appealed to the students in class who were already religious (like me, haha.) For example, we had to write a reflection paper on a religious experience we had using some of the ideas we learned over the semester. I think a lot of the non-religious students felt like they were in over their head because most of them had never really thought about how religion could ever be a force of profundity. Overall it made a good impression on everyone.

I don't know how old or how into religion she already is, but one that I recommend to people who are really into just one religion or don't know anything about where to start (and it's going to sound dumb but is still a good overview) is The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions. It's easily digestible, covers a lot of ground and gives her a basis for further rabbit holing with the religions she finds interesting. However the name can be incredibly insulting and off putting. The contents are still decent and unbiased (at least the 3rd ed. was).

That being said, if she wants to get into things like religious philosophy, chase the rabbit hole of one specific religion, or branch of religions, I've got batches of books for those and others have recommended some stellar texts.

Here's a good book on the subject if you are looking for further introductory information. I like this one because it was co-authored by an individual from each faith

I'd recommend starting with "A Beginner's Guide to the Study of Religion" by Bradley Herling, then seeing from there which path makes sense to follow.

Books are my first, and favourite, way to expand consciousness - for one thing, you can do them anywhere.

Currently reading More Than Allegory by Bernardo Kastrup.

A scientist arguing against the reductionist materialism that dominates not just science, but the whole of modern culture, that ignores consciousness because it cannot quantify it, and for a rehabilitation of the understanding of traditional mythologies that allow us to find meaning in the material world, in everyday life.

Not finished yet, might report back when I'm done.

Also Mutants and mystics: science fiction, superhero comics, and the paranormal - Jeffrey J. Kripal and Trickster and the Paranormal - George P Hansen.

Perhaps not true psychonaut literature, but stuff about how consciousness and culture interact, and how mind can affect the world at large.

I enjoyed The Atheist Manifesto by Michel Onfray. It's entertainingly, unapologetically anti-theist in its presentation but about half of it provides a nice quick introduction to the philosophical history of atheism.