Salvation. noun. In the West, rescuing few. In the East, rescuing all.
Any religion that assigns to humans one lifetime and also insists that belief in ideas is a criterion of salvation will only ever save a few people. That's the Western way.
In the West, a person must believe in (depending upon the religion) the Torah, the laws of Moses, the Talmud, the efficacy of Jesus' death, the divinity of Jesus, the inerrancy of the Bible, the prophethood of Muhammad, the infallibility of the Quran. Perhaps there are even more required beliefs than this.
And yet in one lifetime, in any given past epoch and probably the future too, the majority of people will not be exposed to those necessary ideas in order to believe in them. Even nowadays with our far-reaching instruments of communication, a typical Japanese person walking the Ginza of Tokyo could not string six sentences together describing Moses or Jesus or Muhammad.
It would take a series of lifetimes for a soul to be certain of coming across requisite ideas. And even then, the essential ideas might be mangled and made incredible in the telling of them and therefore rejected. Western salvation too often relies upon un-artful human ministrations.
So, LUCK is the general rule of Western salvation. If you are lucky enough to become exposed to requisite ideas (delivered credibly by a capable orator or writer) you get saved. Jesus did not die for all sinners. He died for those lucky ones who became acquainted with his story and believed it. In other words, he died for the salvation of the few, the squad, the fragment of humanity called Christian.
In the East, tens of thousands of reincarnations (multiple lives) insure that salvation touches everyone--eventually. At some future point everyone will be saved because everyone will have been given enough time to become aware of saving ideas and practices. Salvation may approach at a petty pace, but it's certain for everyone.
So, TIME is the general rule of Eastern salvation and luck has little to do with it. Given abundant time, you get saved.
Which is a better idea--West or East? Is taking a test once and, pass or fail, getting no other try at the test a better idea? Or is taking a test as many times as needed in order to get an A+ a better idea?
Let's pursue the test metaphor further.
Of the Western model it could be said against it that the majority of people are never given the information that would have allowed them to pass the test: thus they take the test and fail. But of the Western model it could be said in its favor that one chance at a test lends considerable value to that test: the one lifetime is of immense importance.
Of the Eastern model it could be said that the test is humane and generous in that it lets people proceed at their own speed and desires that everyone possess the wherewithal to ace the test. But the Eastern model could devalue any one taking of the test, leading the student to a cavalier attitude about any one test because, after all, another chance at the test will arrive in due course: any one lifetime may be diminished in worth because there are tens of thousands of lifetimes to go.
West and East are nowadays rivaled by a humanistic this-worldly redemption and hereafter, measured by increased quality of life over decades, centuries, millennia and eons of continual human evolution. This salvation entails a rescue from nature-danger and human stupidity. It is a salvation without karma, without heavenly gavel, without beatific choirs, without doe-eyed houris, without souls and divinities. It is a salvation that will never rescue all, but if the Earth spins another million years with humanoids and other animals upon it, it may rescue most.
uponreligion.com