Semantics in Interfaith Ministry and Peace-Working
Introduction
Having faith in the power of semantics in context with all
religions is not an easy task for many reasons, particularly for me.
The most fundamental reason is the difference in ‘ideology’. It is
the ideology that depends on the compatibility between the
evaluations it conveys and the system of values on which it is
formulated. Ideology I believe is a dual purpose tool for not only
it serves as the obstruction between two-way beliefs; it hinders in
between and plays a significant role in creating barriers between
religions and semantics. On the other end, it is the ideology that
patches up the relations between two different notions, thereby
bridging up the gaps between two religions. Ideology when
positive permits us to reinstate semantics, with all its shades of
grey, at the centre of this relation. Therefore I would say that
religion is, but a by-product of ideology and semantics.
In order to put this hypothesis to work and thereby assess its
validity, I will attempt to estimate what are the ways to examine
different ideologies in context with the major world religions so
that semantics would be evaluated. My attempt in this dissertation
would be to adopt all those methods and techniques that are
significant with producing more commonalities in different
religions that do the differences. I would evaluate all the major
reasons that start up with the conflict of ‘semantics’ and ends up
in splitting up all the religions.
Even I have observed in many cases that there are religions in
religions. Why this happens? What can one do to alleviate all the
differences? To do so, one must possess a theory of value
judgements, and, more generally, a theory of evaluation in
semantics. After all, my objective as a candidate in interfaith
ministry is to restore peace and harmony through a
comprehensive understanding of religion, cognition and
semantics based on social and cognitive foundations.
The Problem Statement
Since the creation, mankind has always been in various ways so
that he can define and identify the God or the creator. Searching
God has led man in two directions, religious and spiritual.
Understanding religion is for those individuals who believe in
rationality while spirituality is mostly preferred by those who
uphold truth deep within them, so they don’t really feel the need
to seek peace as peace resides in their heart and souls.
Before discussing the problem statement, I would like to
elucidate ‘semantics’. Semantics according to Garfield & Kiteley
(1991) is a discipline which when used informally deals with
certain relations between expressions of a language and the
objects that are ‘referred to’ by those expressions. Garfield &
Kitely (1991) have highlighted the concept of semantics by using
the words “designation”, “satisfaction”, and “definition”
(Garfield & Kiteley, 1991). I would perceive the notion as an
Interface minister to that extent where I would be designated to
convey some religious quote to a group of people. Of course it is
me who would interpret the quote. Elucidating my philosophy or
belief to the people would provide me with some level of
satisfaction which would be measured against the notion
whatever I have defined my belief to the people.
With semantics arises the problem of defining truth. Formulations
that are generated in order to explain the meanings of the words
turns out that the simplest and the most natural way of obtaining
outright truth is one which involves the use of other semantic
notions, e.g., the notion of satisfaction. The problem is that we
are divided into two groups: those who are rational and those who
are not. Of course it is difficult for rationalism to accept
spirituality without being religious while those who accept
irrationality are the true spiritual persons, as they don’t feel the
need to find any reason for finding themselves or their God.
For rational believers, the problem remains with understanding
‘God’ as the concept of God is so varyingly conceived according
to different cultures and religions of the world that it dearths an
unambiguous definition. This is the reason for why ‘God’ is
considered as supernatural in every religion and is named by
various terms like God, Jehovah, Allah, Ishwar, Bhagwan,
Brahma etc.
Religions are divided into four types:
Semitic religions or Prophetic religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam)
Non-Semitic religions,
Aryan religions (Vedic, Non-Vedic like Hinduism,
Brahmanism, Buddhism, Jainism etc)
Non-Aryan religions (Confucianism, Taoism, Chinese)
With so many different religions, come different perspectives
about God. Semitic religions are governed by the Holy books
which take us towards the righteous path, guide us as to what is
right and what is wrong. Spiritual persons according to my
observation are those scholars who don’t feel the need of some
external source to guide them. They prefer spirituality over
religion or religious values and that is the main reason for why
they are internally stronger than a normal religious man.
A religious individual put boundaries across him in order to
differentiate between right and wrong while a spiritual believer
has not boundaries, or we can say that such individual has high
morals which are not limited by boundaries. Therefore it is no
hard and fast rule that a spiritual person is a true believer or
follower of any particular religion. He could have faith in more
than one religion or all religions.
Literature Review
As an epic concept, the term ‘supernatural’ has as many
definitions as there are many religions but there is no confined or
recognized agreed-upon definition to unlock the mystery of God.
What history tells us is that though semantics have played an
important role right from the antiquity to the present day in
evolving man’s ideology and philosophy but one cannot deny that
it is the semantics that when viewed in religious perspective,
created problems for the world. Semantics whenever utilized by
interface ministers or religious personalities created a chaotic
condition with a certain amount of suspicion. Even religion
founders like prophets and noble priests are not considered aloof
from this.
Researchers and authors work justify that although the meaning
of semantic concepts as they are used in everyday language
seems to be rather clear and understandable, still all attempts to
characterize this meaning in a general and exact way miscarried.
Using the work of Garfield & Kitely, I noticed that they have
considered it worse that the manner in which various arguments
in which these concepts were involved, and which seemed
otherwise quite correct and based upon apparently obvious
premises, led frequently according to them towards paradoxes
and antinomies (Garfield & Kiteley, 1991).
Here is where the problem arises. Every philosopher and
interfaith minister has perceived and translated semantics in his
own manner. In this way he has always been able to create a
chaos, intentionally or unintentionally by playing with the words
and interpreting with their meanings. Why so happens that an
interfaith minister easily moulds the semantics in the way he
wants? I think illiteracy is one of the reasons behind.
Multiple kinds of semantics have been proposed since scientists
from various disciplines first tried to formalize the notion of
‘meaning’. These semantics compete with each other on the basis
of different convictions about what needs to be accounted for in
Natural Language. Ultimately, these differences amount to
different presuppositions about the nature of ‘meaning’ itself. The
inspiration of semantic research remains useful guidelines for
semantic modelling. Truth-conditional semantics provide more
formal instruments than any other type of semantics.
In his study of the linguistification of the sacred, Habermas has
questioned the respective contribution of pragmatic and assertoric
components to the efficiency of discourse. It appears that, from a
sociological perspective, these classes of components cannot be
studied separately: According to Habermas (1984),
“As we have seen, in grammatical speech, propositional
components are joined with illocutionary and expressive
components in such a way that semantic contents can fluctuate
among them. Whatever can be said at all, can also be expressed in
assertoric form. With this basic feature of language in mind, we
can make clear what it means for religious worldviews to connect
up with communicative actions. Background knowledge enters
into the situation definition of goal-oriented actors who regulate
their cooperation in a consensual manner; the result of such
interpretative accomplishments are stored in worldviews.
As semantic contents of sacred and profane origin fluctuate freely
in the medium of language, there is a fusion of meanings; moral
practical and expressive contents are combined with cognitive
instrumental contents in the form of cultural knowledge”
(Habermas, 1984: 88).
If I interpret this passage aright, Habermas regards as
fundamental the capacity of language to express illocutionary and
expressive components in assertoric form. Indeed, sacred speech
seems to be characterized by the strength of its illocutionary and
expressive components, that is, by the components that build up
the semantic contents in relation to the ritualistic situation and to
the speaker. Malrieu (1999) while explaining the ‘linguistification
of the sacred’ defines the survival of the normative contents if
only change occurs from a ritual situation to a cooperative
situation. In the second type of situation, normative contents can
no longer be conveyed by illocutionary and expressive
components alone.
Therefore, the capacity of transferring the illocutionary to the
assertoric enables the reintroduction of normative elements as
background knowledge within non-normative situations (Malrieu,
1999) According to her “A part of this background knowledge is
embodied within the semantics of the language, and is activated
by semantic triggers” (Malrieu, 1999: 107). Finally, the
illocutionary components of profane grammatical speech, which
are in theory reduced, as far as their binding force is concerned,
to consensus, can inherit, via the ‘fluctuations’ above mentioned,
a part of the normative power of sacred speech.
This literature would have been incomplete without the study of
religion; therefore I studied, analyzed and visualized the word
religion in various aspects. When I read Seager’s work I went
satisfy for I got the answer. The power, the baneful power of
superstition lies in the very fact that man is religious and that his
religious nature, inherent in him, has been too often played upon
by evil or ignorant men for base or selfish purposes. But this does
not counterpart the truth that religion itself is an essential integral
part of his own inherent nature. Religion is not a something or a
somewhat which has been conferred upon him by any cult, by
any hierarchy, by any set of religious teachers.
Religion cannot be considered as the exceptional gift of
exceptional geniuses. It is not what men have sometimes thought
poetry or art or music to be, a thing that belongs to a favoured
few great men. Religion is the universal characteristic of
humanity understandable by semantics. Religion is not a
somewhat that has been conferred upon him by any supernatural
act of irresistible grace either upon an elect few or an elect many.
Still less is it a somewhat that has been conferred upon a few, so
that the many, strive never so hard to conform their lives to the
light of nature, unless aided by some supernatural or
extraordinary acts of grace, can never attain to it. This is what
Seager (1993) explains as “Religion belongs to man and is
inherent in man” (Seager, 1993: 53).
I have utilized Seager’s proposition who believe that in every
man there is an inherent capacity so to perceive the infinite, and
to every man on this round globe of our God has so manifested
himself in nature and in inward experience, as that, taking that
manifestation on the one hand and a power of perception on the
other, the moral character and the conduct of man, if he follows
the light that he receives, will be steadily improved and enlarged
and enriched in his upward progress to the infinite and the
eternal. Seager (1993) further proposes his unique notion that
“Man is conscious of himself and he is conscious of the world
within himself.
The following results were developed from the interviewers’
analysis:
1. True religion is embedded in those more frequently who
show respect to every religion and semantics, rather than
those who do not believe in all theologies.
2. This indicates that such people who possess true heart and
possess an open minded attitude to welcome every religion
are more spiritual.
3.
However in order to consider commonalities in all the religions
we must see the religions in the light of those factors that
represent commonalities. The God of the Hebrew Scriptures, the
New Testament, and the Qur’an exercises his divine mercy and
judgment in history. In recent years, however, the comparative
study of religion, which in its early days served all too frequently
as a means of establishing the superiority of Western
monotheism, has begun to approach the study of Western
traditions. In terms both of matter and of method, this turn of
events has led many scholars to moderate their preoccupation
with the temporal dimension of the Religions of the Book.
Instead of enquiring about the spatial dimension of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam, there is a need to modernize the central
object of critical inquiry.
Judaism
Judaism – a religion which always asserted monotheism believes
in the oneness of God Jewish religion revolves around Torah and
a number of commandments, which reveal God’s monotheism
(Menuhin, 1994). The Jewish Halakhic (religious-legal)
literature, commencing with the Mishnah, and continuing with
the Talmud, the decisions of Maimonides, the Codes of Jewish
Law, and the Responsa literature cover many topics with a spatial
bearing.
This derives from the fact that halakhic literature addresses all
spheres of life, since the Jewish religion which is governed by
Halakha demands from its believers not only faith but concrete
actions, including many actions with a spatial expression. Scott &
Housley (1991) describes the commandments on the basis of
geographic significance in the following words: “those connected
with Sabbath observance such as the prohibition on journeying or
riding on the Sabbath or walking over a thousand meters outside
a settled region” (Scott & Housley, 1991: 3).
The book of Deuteronomy contains an exhortation from Moses:
“Shema Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adna Ikhad” (Hebrew
quotation)
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”(The Bible,
Deuteronomy 6:4)
“I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none
like me.”(The Bible, Isaiah 46:9)
Judaism is based upon the ‘Divine sovereignty’ of the most
ancient monotheism and believes that God’s universal love leads
all of mankind to know that the Lord is One. Though it is
interesting that, either in Judaism or in Christianity or in Islam,
the sacred texts don’t reveal much about what evil actually is.
What the Bible, Quran or Torah emphasizes in upon performing
good deeds and actions, thereby believing in monotheism.
Has Monotheism remained an issue?
Religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam believes in
monotheistic Gods i.e., there is only One source of creator, but
what about Hinduism? Let us evaluate some of the sacred texts of
Hinduism:
Gita
The Holy sacred text book of Hindus which is considered to be
‘word of God’ presents a spiritual or ‘Vedic’ religion before us.
Considered to be the most spiritual religion, what original Gita
tell us is “Those people whose intelligence is robbed by the
material desires surrender them to demigods, thereby following
the particular rules and regulations of worship that satisfy their
own natures” (Bhagavad-Gita, 7:20). That clearly indicates the
two categories of people, those who worship the true God and
those who worship other than the true God.
Other Hindu sacred texts reveal “Ekam evadvitiyam”.
Translation: “He is One only without a second.” (Chandogya
Upanishad 6:2:1) Further, according to Upanishads: “Na casya
kascij janita na cadhipah.” Translation: “Of Him there are neither
parents nor lord.” (Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9) “He who knows
Me as the unborn, as the beginning-less, as the Supreme Lord of
all the worlds…” (Bhagavad-Gita 10:3) Brahma Sutra of
Hinduism clearly states: “Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste
kinchan”. Translation: “There is only one God, not the second;
not at all, not at all, not in the least bit”. (Badarayan, 192:555)
History tells us that a Hindu class “Brahmans’ are responsible for
changing their original sacred text and from there the concept of
polytheism evolved. Now, the question that arises is that what
monotheism or polytheism has to do with spirituality issues or
how does it affects the universal platform? There is no doubt that
we have uncovered the facts from sacred semantics that
Hinduism basically is a monotheistic religion. So is the Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. Now, in order to bring all the religions on
to a single universal platform we have to believe in
commonalities rather than the differences and the original
unchanged ‘Gita’ tells us that Hinduism like other religions is
based upon One God. There come similarities:
Christianity
Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah. A monotheistic and
evangelistic religion based on the life and teachings of Christ. An
Abrahamic religion which is often considered to be split from
Judaism Christians believe God made a new covenant with them
and that they then became the sole interpreters of God’s will. But
Christians retain important elements of Judaism such as the
Mosaic Decalogue (Ten Commandments); a day of rest each
week, baptism, the sanctity of marriage and the order of burial are
Christian beliefs and practices derived from Judaic legacy.
The book of Isaiah
Following are some of the verses that depict monotheism in
Christianity:
“I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.”(The
Bible, Isaiah 43:11)
“I am Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides
me.”(The Bible, Isaiah 45:5)
“I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none
like me.”(The Bible, Isaiah 46:9)
In the Old Testament it is clearly stated:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I
the Lord thy God am a jealous God.”(The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5)
The book of Deuteronomy states:
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for
I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.”(The Bible, Deuteronomy
5:7-9)
Islam
Muslims are the followers of Islam who believe in one God what
they name as “Allah”. Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet and
Quran is the holy book they believe in. Islam presents concise
definitions of God like other religions given in the four verses of
Surah Ikhlas which is Chapter 112 of the Qur’an:
“Say: He is Allah, The One and only”.
“Allah, the Eternal, Absolute”.
“He begets not, nor is He begotten”.
“And there is none like unto Him.”(Al-Qur’an 112:1-4)
Spirituality In the Light of Religions
Spirituality in the light of universal religious terminology can be
defined as a term which is inherently elusive and mysterious.
Upon encountering charismatic individuals we have often noticed
those who seem to have a unique depth to their being, a spiritual
‘something’ which we are able to recognise, but find almost
impossible to pin down. Spirituality among the Hebrew and the
Greek is named as ‘spirit’, ruah and pneuma respectively. It is
mentioned in the John’s Gospel, that it is the Spirit of God that is
just like the wind that blows where it pleases; that means God is
everywhere and cannot be bound by any restrictions.
According to Wright (2001) “The more we involve ourselves in
order to discover the realms of philosophy, theology and
psychology the greater we are indulged into the complex nature
of spirituality” (Wright, 2001: 47). However I do not believe in
the notion. Spirituality is something which has no vague
boundaries, as it accepts all theologies and philosophies open
heartedly. The reason behind is that a spiritual person is always
concerned by his own heart purity that seeks the same light which
the rest of humanity follows. This is evident from every religion
that has reached us. From Christianity to Islam and from Sikhism
to Hinduism every religion believes in the truth of mankind,
every religion is concerned with the good and evil of heart and
soul.
Bruce (1996) argues that since nineteenth century, the culture of
‘serial dogmatism’ propagated which is held responsible for the
warring scenarios inside religions (Bruce, 1996). By the term
‘dogmatism’, it is meant that a battle was going on for the
religious hearts and minds of the nation and was played out by
those who never wanted peace and harmony within the confines
of the various religious denominations. Religious allegiances
shifted towards debates, discussions, negations and unacceptable
attitudes leaving no free room for other religions to follow.
Sects were started, people slowly started realizing that religious
or holy books are nothing in front of their created traditions,
therefore commitments were followed from one Christian
tradition to another, with Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Baptists,
Methodists, Presbyterians and a host of other independent
Protestant churches and sects battling amongst themselves for the
spiritual allegiance of the population.
When conflicts over religious matters initiated, that was the
beginning of quarrels within religious sects. The problem is that
we are so much used to see our ‘God’ in a box that our mind is
unable to accept the other side of it. That happens when
according to Bruce the twin forces of individualism and
rationalism conflicts, the resultant appears in the form of a shift
from ‘serial dogmatism’ to ‘promiscuous liberalism’.
Whenever conflicts arise, spirituality is gone because a spiritual
person never indulges in any kind of conflicts or quarrels. He
takes life as it comes to him and thanks God for whatever he has
been gifted. A spiritual person accepts each and every deity;
every religion is respectable for him. According to Bruce’s
opinion, “spirituality does not depends upon to shift or religious
allegiance to convert itself towards the philosophies or believes
of atheism, agnosticism, non-Christian religious traditions, a
variety of new religious movements, and private forms of piety
and spirituality” (Bruce, 1996: 233).
Non spiritual are those individuals who though stick to their
religion consider every other philosophy, deity or religion false
and at the same time they try to cross those religious boundaries
that they have themselves set for them. That means the
boundaries that they have set for themselves later become
problem for them, because they want the world to see through
their eyes, accept their opinions and negate all those perceptions
that they negate.
Discussion
It is important to note that being rational or irrational in religious
ontology is not the only way to access God or God’s will.
Bhaskar (2000) has elucidated the concept by highlighting the
consistency of realism in the following words: “Realism with
entailing experiential diversity allows that God, or the absolute,
or the transcendent (or transcendent beings or phenomena
generally) can, like nature (or ordinary material things), be
accessed or experienced in a multiplicity of different ways”
(Bhaskar, 2000: 34).
I am very much impressed by Bhaskar (2000) notion; the way he
explains that a spiritual being is well aware of the two facts and
can be put in either of the two conditions: Either his soul is
subject to God’s grace, or not subject to God’s grace. There is no
condition that resides in between the two and if a person simply is
unaware of his status and thinks that he lies somewhere in
between these two scenarios that means he is not spiritual at all.
The different ways to access God are no other than the different
religions practiced according to the Holy books, as they all have
access to God but in different directions. That means all are
genuine, all teachers. It is not difficult to specify that even in the
boundaries of sacred places like churches, temples or mosques,
rabbis, priests and scholars have failed to improve and modernize
people’s perception about spirituality and religion. There are
many reasons to it.
In the first place the sacred places which are considered to be the
house of God are used to sent ministers and religious scholars
who themselves uphold too rigid opinion about religion.
Therefore they are reluctant to produce the desirable response and
outcome that is expected from them. They are unable to grasp the
notion that religion is modernized and God is not the property of
any single religion. Therefore they remain divided over the
question of the general accessibility of the believer’s reasons.
They differ and contradict in various believes over how far faith
is a necessary condition for the appreciation of the rationality of
any belief. This is not simply a dispute over the possibility of
natural theology of rational arguments, as rationality to some
extent does not hinder spirituality.
Spirituality does not require being religious or I would say that
religion has not to do anything with being spiritual or not being
spiritual. Spirituality requires inner strength, moral and ethics to
accept any other belief or religion. That means in order to bring
peace and harmony to this world we have to think spiritually
regardless of race and religion. Human brotherhood is what
required of our new ministers, less declamation and more
common sense and love for truth, must be the qualifications of
the new ministry that shall yet save the race from the evils of
false teachings.
The problems created by established ecclesiastical authority, has
no doubt hardly left any room for us to preach the modernized
religious ecstasy which has always exerted within and on the
fringe of universal brotherhood. We can appreciate how modern
Spiritualism has moulded the belief and thoughts of so many of
us, those who believed in religious conflicts and those who don’t.
Therefore spirituality must be promoted in order to avoid war and
restore national calamity. In other words spirituality must be used
as a weapon against terrorism, which means it should work in
training people consciously and unconsciously to set their God
free from their boxes.
There should be more spiritual healing centres other than
churches and mosques to replace and to some extent supplants
those minds who spread war and terror in the name of religion.
They should be taught the morals that religion is not for sale to be
used in the name of terror or to spread hatred and war. Religion is
the name of love, peace and mutual understanding which has
been misused for centuries in the name of God. If God had
favoured only one religion there would have no second religion
on earth, but so many religions, so many races and so many
traditions have let us know that God is all about love and
maintaining peace and harmony on earth. Differences, castes,
racism is the other name of evil or Satan. Those who preach
rigidly only promote their thoughts as they accompany evil.
Today there is a need to purify our souls so that we would be able
to make the home and social life of those people around us a
better and peaceful place to live, so that they follow us and
realize the need of purifying power of religion. It is the heart of
every social evil that creates the environment of disorder and war
among us, because the social evil is well aware of the fact that
God is kept inside the boxes within us, we feel no need of letting
Him out the box. Because if we let our God free, peace would be
our destiny which evil don’t want us to be in.
It is this evil that Seager (1993) has defined as innocent and it is
us who by lacking all inherent moral potencies of home and
family that are the well-springs of all the good in human society
(Seager, 1993) welcomes and appreciates him. That means we
encourage evil to disrupt our morals. The dilemma is that religion
is bounded by those preachers and teachers that tell us that
preaching from the pulpit and teaching in the schoolhouse are but
half done so long as the homes are uninstructed in that practical
religion that can make pure and sacred every relationship it
touches of man, woman, and child.
Religion should not leave these people alone to learn from birds
and beasts those blessed meanings of marriage, motherhood, and
family. Religion should not utter itself only once or twice a week
through a minister from a pulpit, but should open every cabin
door and get immediate contact with those who have not yet
learned to translate into terms of conduct the promptings of
religion.
Summary and Conclusion
Spirituality cannot be kept in a box. For those who do not believe
in spirituality or for those who are rational and do not take
religion as it comes to them, commonalities in all the religious
sectors explain and provide adequate answers to believe. If sin is
not permitted in Semitic religion like Judaism, Christianity or
Islam, it is also not encouraged in non-Semitic religion. Therefore
those ‘religious’ individuals or groups who are used to consider
their point of view and rejects the other are neither religious nor
spiritual, because being religious and spiritual in true sense are
two ends of God’s will that when combines forms a triangle.
Those who understand the triangular view are spiritual and those
who don’t remain unable to fill even the religious aspect.
Religious or fundamentalist sects that believe in one religious
quest are those who wish to see universal brotherhood disrupted
by the ‘religion’ issue. There is a need to understand what we
were expected to present our God, and what we are up to? All we
have given our religions is the defame in the name of ‘pleasing
God’. If God had to be pleased this way, he would have not felt
this way about us, he would have not distributed into different
casts, races and religions. The main purpose of dividing us into so
many differences is to maintain a colourful world, like a colourful
rainbow. Every religion and theology has its own unique
significance. Truth lies in the notion that to maintain and restore
the truthful blessings so that our God remains please with us
which means that our inner selves remain satisfy. In other words
that is to restore our spiritual existence. After all it is a matter of
pleasing oneself – pleasing God!
References
Badarayan (Vyasa) Brahma Sutra, 192:555. Translated by Swami
Gambhirananda: Advaita Ashram, Kolkatta.
Bhagavad-Gita multimedia book: translated in English.
International Sanskrit Research Academy.
Bhaskar Roy, (2004) From East to West: Odyssey of a Soul:
Routledge: London.
Bruce Steve, (1996) Religion in the Modern World: From
Cathedrals to Cults: Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1. The Principal Upanishad by S.
Radhakrishnan page 447 and 448.
Sacred Books of the East, volume 1 ‘The Upanishads part I’ page
93.
Garfield Jay, L. & Kiteley Murray, (1991) Meaning and Truth:
Essential Readings in Modern Semantics: Paragon Press: New
York.
Good News Bible (1979) (with the Apocryphal /
Dueterocanonical books): Today’s English Version.
Habermas J. (1984) Theory of Communicative Action. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Holy Quran Ver. 2.1, CD- Rom. English/ French/ Malaya/
German/ Persian/ Spanish/ Turkish.
Malrieu Pierre Jean, (1999) Evaluative Semantics: Cognition,
Language, and Ideology: Routledge: London.
Menuhin Joel Ryce, (1994) Jung and the Monotheisms: Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam: Routledge: New York.
Scott Jamie & Housley Paul Simpson, (1991) Sacred Places and
Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam: Greenwood Press: New York.
Seager Richard Hughes, (1993) The Dawn of Religious
Pluralism: Voices from the World’s Parliament of Religions:
Open Court: La Salle, IL.
Strange Michael, J. (2002) Common Spirit Common Ground: A
loving comparison of World religions. Canada.
Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9. The Principal Upanishad by S.
Radhakrishnan page 745.
Sacred Books of the East, volume 15, ‘The Upanishads part II’
page 263.
Tacey David, (2004) The Spirituality Revolution: The Emergence
of Contemporary Spirituality: Brunner-Routledge: New York.
The Bible, (1971) Revised Standard Version.
The Bible, (1611) Authorised King James version.
Upanishads, The Sacred book of the East Translation by: Max
Muller: Vol 1 and 15.
Wright Andrew, (2001) Spirituality and Education:
RoutledgeFalmer: New York.
