ONE® Reader Question to Gregg Zegarelli, Author of ONE®:
I was on your ONE® Blog website and I read your “Vehicle of Light Analogy,” which I cut and paste below. You said:
Light comes from many sources. From the sun, from a bulb, from a candle. But, those are particular vehicles that express the light, they are not the light. Light is found in the result, not the cause. In result, we see or we do not see. The light is expressed through different vehicles, as the context may require. But, its essence is always the same.
Truth is light. Likewise, truth is expressed through different vehicles for different contexts. But, truth is the same irrespective of how contained or expressed. Institutional religions are not the light, but vehicles for the light.
We should not judge the vehicles of light by which our brothers and sisters see the truth. We should merely rejoice in the resultant light that we share. How can I debate whether my candle is better than your bulb? I am too overtaken with the joy of knowing that we both can see the truth.
However, the light is our Lord, Jesus Christ, our Savior. Would you please explain the Vehicle of Light Analogy in more detail so I understand your point?
Gregg Zegarelli Response: Thank you for your question.
The key to understanding my point is to focus on the term, “vehicle,” which I intend to mean the manner from which the light (truth) is conveyed. I will deepen the analogy, or, possibly explain with the use of another analogy.
Let us say that you are in a room. The room is completely dark. Pitch black. You are in miserable confusion and bump into things. You are in pain from the continued injury that you endure from being in the dark. You desire a light so badly.
Suddenly, your desire is satisfied because a light bulb comes on. Light fills the room. Now, you can see. You do not bump into things, and, so, your injuries heal. You are so thankful for the light bulb. Without that light bulb, there is no light for you. To you, that bulb is the light, the savior of your pain.
To you, completely understandably, the light bulb and the light are one and the same. You love that bulb, because it gives you the pleasure of light.
Now, meanwhile, there is a man is in the next room who has the same experience; however, his darkness is saved by a lantern. That is, the man was in a dark room, desired to see, and, suddenly, a lantern became lit and, now, he sees. Light filled his room, as well. Now, that man does not bump into things in his room, and, so, his injuries heal. He is so thankful for the flame of the lantern. Without that lantern, there is no light. To him, the lantern is the light, the savior of his pain.
To the man in the next room, completely understandably, the lantern and the light are one and the same. He loves that lantern, because it gives him the pleasure of light.
Now, I ask you: Is the light the bulb or the lantern? Is the light either, neither or both?
I believe that the light is either, neither or both, equally. I am inclined to say that the nature of both things, if perfect in form and function, is to supply or to carry the light. Both are vehicles, or even causes, of light. But, they are not actually the light itself.
They cannot be the light itself, since they are different things, and the resultant nature of light is indivisibly absolute irrespective of the cause. However, they produce the same goodness: that people can find comfort in their respective realities by or through the light that both vehicles produce.
Now, in my analogy, such as might be in Socrates’ Allegory of the Cave, consider the following:
You and the man leave your respective rooms and meet. You are both filled with respective joy, since you have been enlightened. You for your bulb, which is your light, and the man for his lantern, which is his light. You now mention to each other that you have been enlightened.
But, now the debate: you explain that your enlightenment is from your bulb, and the man explains that his enlightenment is from his lantern.
You love your bulb and take pride in your enlightenment, and you are loyal to it. He loves his lantern and takes pride in his enlightenment, and he is loyal to it. The debate becomes heated. You claim your bulb is better than his lantern—thus, your light better than his light—and, of course, he disagrees.
Your bulb saved you; his lantern saved him. You argue the many benefits of your bulb; he argues the many benefits of the flame of his lantern. In futility, you compare the incomparable. And, so resentment develops, hate results and then war.
Do not both persons miss the point? Both persons are healed of their pain through the light which takes them from their respective darkness. If light floods a room by a bulb, by a lantern, or by the sun, then the people see. It matters not the source or vehicle of that light.
So, as for me, I am simply happy that my fellow human beings are saved from the continued pain of bumping into things in the darkness of their respective rooms. I do not judge the source of the light from which they see. Jesus taught to love. To love as a child. That was the new commandment. Jesus did not intend the millstone of human dogma to weigh down the perfect lightness of his commandment.
I have heard many persons say, “I love my neighbor, but the enlightenment in which I revel is perfect and their enlightenment is wrong.” Then, the thinking continues, “So, I need to convert my neighbor to my enlightenment.“
My response to that thinking is rather simple. I am careful not to let the simple commandment of Jesus to love evolve like the animals of Orwell’s Farm. If my neighbors of firm belief are doing acts of goodness, then this world is a better place. I will not proudly presume my revelation is better then their own, as the Kingdom of God is within them.
All conversion is to goodness, and they are already there. Academic rationalizations aside, in reality, there is an insulting and presumptuous despise in trying to convert your neighbors’ abstract point of faith that begs resentfulness, then hate and then war. This is particularly true when the subject-matter is regarding an unprovable abstract point.
To me, a cup of goodness quenches my thirst just the same whether presented to me in the name of, for example, Allah, Buddha, Confucius, Gandhi, Jesus, Mohammed, Moses or Yahweh.
Thank you for the question.
______________________________
#GreggZegarelli #ONE #ONE_UnifiedGospel #UnifiedGospel #MyOneBible #Allah #Buddha #Dekalogue #Decalogue #Christianity #Catholicism #Judaism #Confucius #ComparativeReligion #Gandhi #Jesus #Mohammed #Moses #Hinduism #Yahweh #Wisdom #Tatian, #Diatessaron, #Zegarelli #VehicleOfLight #VehicleOfLightAnalogy #AnalogyOfCave #GRZ_97