Unitarian Univeralist Meta-Theology?

            As I engage in class discussions and readings for my UU polity class, I am developing an idea of what might be useful as a tool for discussing UU unity. I’m sure the idea needs much refinement, and that the specific terms in which I personally am thinking about it are surely going to prove problematic in some situations, but here is an attempt anyway. I also make no claims to originality, as my idea is likely just how I put into words what someone else has already thought of and published (and if you know of which direction to point me, please do!)

Perhaps what holds Unitarian Universalists together is not a theology, but a meta-theology. The topic for this week’s polity class is membership, and a question to prompt our responses is “Who belongs in our congregations?” While my first impulse is that ideally everyone belongs, I know this is not the case. No one church can be all things to all people, and as pluralist as Unitarian Universalism may be or become, it will never meet everyone’s needs. But where most churches can be said to be the place for people of a certain creed or theology to congregation (Catholic, Buddhist, Sikh temples, etc), we try to hold space for many theologies. But we are also holding space or religious liberals and liberalism. So to describe what religious opinions (or meta-opinions) we share in common may be more useful.

By meta-theology I mean general principles that would apply to various cosmologies and theologies that constitute the parameters for how we engage or build our individual theologies. So for instance, growing up as a Unitarian Universalist, it was entirely up to my own discernment to articulate my own theology. But I was taught in RE, worship, and family conversations general principles of a UU meta-theology (Of course, always implicitly rather than explicitly). I would even argue that some of our principles and sources constitute principles for meta-theology. As examples, our first principle affirms individual integrity and worth, and our seventh affirms that we are all interconnected in a great web of life or existence. So while my theology or cosmology may be theistic, Buddhist, humanist, or set up in any number of different ways, it will unlikely be one which says that people are unequally valuable, or that humanity has no obligation to the natural world. Likewise given our sources of teachings of love from the Judeochristian tradition and of reason from the Humanist tradition, in figuring out what my specific theology looks like I will use love, reason, and logic as guides. If my theology implies things that are contrary to reason or to love, I will be (or I will feel) obligated to rethink it.

            Now, there are two options here. One would be to call for a prescriptive statement of Unitarian Universalist meta-theology, perhaps as a strengthening of the principles and sources. But that brings with it the dangers of creedalism, and indeed the posts for what constitutes Unitarian Universalist meta-theology is likely to change over time just as much as individual theologies are. So the other option would be to attempt a descriptive project of meta-theology. Such a project could not be exhaustive or perfect, but it might be a useful endeavor as it could describe to new comers or religious allies how we are able to maintain such theological diversity, yet still have a kind of unity of thought in matters religious. It would be not unlike the page on the Church of the LargerFellowship’s website which describes beliefs which, if you hold them, you might not like religious community with them. Indeed, I basically interpret this web page as outlining part of a meta-theology, though it may skew towards the negative (“this is what UU meta-theology isn’t”). I’d be very interested to see an attempted descriptive, positive outline of UU meta-theology.

            Perhaps in another post I’ll jot down some ideas of what specific points on such an outline would be. Please comment if you have any suggestions of your own, or alternatively if you think this is a terrible idea, and why!

Attempting to Read the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad

Of the classes I am taking this semester, the only one which is not Unitarian Universalist related, besides my language requirement, is a course on the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. We are reading it through along with Sankara's commentary from around the 8th century CE.

I have always enjoyed what I have learned about Hinduism and the non-dualist school of philosophy that he exemplifies (Advaita Vedanta), so I am very excited to starting an in depth study of a central text in this tradition. As a lover of the Transcendentalists, too, I'm interested in seeing where it has influenced them, and generally I hope it can inform my own philosophy and understanding of religion, if not reality. A lofty goal, so we'll see if I get far at all.

And, of course, it is a goal that should be tempered with the academic pursuit of trying to simply understand the text on its own, or at least as the tradition has interpreted it. I am an outsider to the tradition, so I can't pretend that I'll be able to just sit down and read a sacred text in translation (or even in the original, if I could) and expect to glean the proper meaning. But on the other hand, my basic religious sensibilities and understanding of language tell me that to a certain extent, my own interpretation and understanding is all I have anyway.

I'm trying to draw out a theoretical distinction here, which is likely never so clear in practice. On the one hand, I am reading this Upanisad as an academic, attempting to learn facts about it and its interpretation, as it is and as (some) adherents interpret it. On the other hand, I am also a human being reading a sacred text that has inspired and supported laypeople, religious professionals, and philosophers throughout time. In both pursuits, I have an obligation to avoid anything that would lead to the oppression of others or the exoticization of another culture, as well as an obligation to avoid untruth generally.

It might be clearer to explain in a more broad context, since what I am trying to describe is not limited to any particular text. I wish to be a student of all religions and their texts, or at least as many as is reasonably possible. We might say that in order to truly read a sacred text we need to be part of, or educated enough in that tradition (whether as an academic or more strictly as a practitioner/member). But from another point of view, we might say that all religious texts are open to all human beings (or at least insofar as that is how they are addressed), and that although cultural and cross-cultural contexts and language translations may make some things change a little or a lot, the heart is essentially communicated.

I definitely tend toward the latter interpretation, but want to take seriously the concerns of the former. If any of you reading have thoughts or contributions, please share! What are some good practices for reading the sacred texts of another culture as a religious pluralist? Are there any tricky examples that might be fruitful to discuss? Or more specifically to this Upanisad, is there anything you would suggest to a westerner first delving into it?