Indian Spirituality and Life (1919)
Context: Differences of credal belief are to the Indian mind nothing more than various ways of seeing the one Self and Godhead in all. Self-realisation is the one thing needful; to open to the inner Spirit, to live in the Infinite, to seek after and discover the Eternal, to be in union with God, that is the common idea and aim of religion, that is the sense of spiritual salvation, that is the living Truth that fulfils and releases. This dynamic following after the highest spiritual truth and the highest spiritual aim are the uniting bond of Indian religion and, behind all its thousand forms, its one common essence.
“Perhaps there was too much of religion in one sense; the word is English, smacks too much of things external such as creeds, rites, an external piety; there is no one Indian equivalent. But if we give rather to religion the sense of the following of the spiritual impulse in its fullness and define spirituality as the attempt to know and live in the highest self, the divine, the all-embracing unity and to raise life in all its parts to the divinest possible values, then it is evident that there was not too much of religion, but rather too little of it — and in what there was, a too one-sided and therefore an insufficiently ample tendency. The right remedy is, not to belittle still farther the agelong ideal of India, but to return to its old amplitude and give it a still wider scope, to make in very truth all the life of the nation a religion in this high spiritual sense. This is the direction in which the philosophy, poetry, art of the West is, still more or less obscurely, but with an increasing light, beginning to turn, and even some faint glints of the truth are beginning now to fall across political and sociological ideals.”
The Renaissance in India (1918)
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Sri Aurobindo 224
Indian nationalist, freedom fighter, philosopher, yogi, gur… 1872–1950Related quotes
The Renaissance in India (1918)
Books, Islam and the West: A Conversation with Bernard Lewis (2006)
"Christianity and Common Sense" http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/flowers/114commonsense.htm, p. 114
Flowers of Freethought (1893)
"The Truth of Orthodoxy" as translated in Vestnik of the Russian West European Patriarchal Exarchate (1952) http://www.kosovo.net/ortruth.html
Context: The Christian world doesn't know Orthodoxy too well. It only knows the external and for the most part, the negative features of the Orthodox Church and not the inner spiritual treasure. Orthodoxy was locked inside itself, it did not have the spirit of proselytism and did not reveal itself to the world. For the longest time, Orthodoxy did not have such world-wide significance as did Catholicism and Protestantism. It remained apart form passionate religious battles for hundreds of years, for centuries it lived under the protection of large empires (Byzantium and Russia), and preserved its eternal truth from the destructive processes of world history. It is characteristic of Orthodoxy's religious nature that it was not sufficiently actualized nor exposed externally, it was not militant, and precisely because of this the heavenly truth of Christian revelation was not distorted so much. Orthodoxy is that form of Christianity which suffered the least distortion in its substance as a result of human history. The Orthodox Church had its moments of historical sin, for the most part in connection with its external dependence on the State, but the Church's teaching, her inner spiritual path was not subject to distortion. The Orthodox Church is primarily the Church of tradition, in contrast to the Catholic Church, which is the Church of authority, and to the Protestant Churches which are essentially churches of individual faith. The Orthodox Church was never subject to a single externally authoritarian organization and it unshakenly was held together by the strength of internal tradition and not by any external authority. Out of all forms of Christianity it is the Orthodox Church which remained more closely tied to early Christianity.
“As we all know, too much of any divine thing is destruction”
These two statements are very similar, widely quoted, and seem to paraphrase some ideas in the essay "Religion and Science" (see below), but neither of the two specific quotes above been properly sourced. Notable Einstein scholars such as John Stachel and Thomas J. McFarlane (author of Buddha and Einstein: The Parallel Sayings) know of this statement but have not found any source for it. Any information on any definite original sources for these is welcome.
This quote does not actually appear in Albert Einstein: The Human Side as is sometimes claimed.
Only two sources from before 1970 can be found on Google Books. The first is The Theosophist: Volume 86 which seems to cover the years 1964 http://books.google.com/books?id=7pLjAAAAMAAJ&q=1964#search_anchor and 1965 http://books.google.com/books?id=7pLjAAAAMAAJ&q=1965#search_anchor. The quote appears attributed to Einstein on p. 255 http://books.google.com/books?id=7pLjAAAAMAAJ&q=%22natural+and+spiritual%22#search_anchor, with the wording given as "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description." An identical quote appears on p. 284 http://books.google.com/books?id=YpsfAQAAIAAJ&q=%22dogmas+and+theology%22#search_anchor of The Maha Bodhi: Volume 72 published by the Maha Bodhi Society of India, which seems to contain issues from throughout 1964 http://books.google.com/books?id=YpsfAQAAIAAJ&q=%22volume+72%22#search_anchor.
A number of phrases in the quote are similar to phrases in Einstein's "Religion and Science". Comparing the version of the quote in The Theosophist to the version of "Religion and Science" published in 1930, "a cosmic religion" in the first resembles "the cosmic religious sense" in the second; "transcend a personal God" resembles "does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God"; "covering both the natural and the spiritual" resembles "revealed in nature and in the world of thought"; "the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" resembles "experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance"; and "Buddhism answers this description" resembles "The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism". These phrases appear in the same order in both cases, and the ones from "Religion and Science" are all from a single paragraph of the essay.
Misattributed
Variant: The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.
Alan Moore on Anarchism (2009)
Indian Spirituality and Life (1919)