Second-Order Religious Pluralism

Sparked on by a short conversation with a friend the other day, I've been thinking about forms of religious pluralism, and what could possibly ground them. Now, the problems with a straight-forward approach (such as by Hick) are well-known; if nothing else, Hick et al. are really creating an alternative religion. So, is there any way of discussing religious pluralism which gets around this? Also, what is entailed by religious pluralism?

I've mentioned in other posts about attempts to explain Buddhism from within Christianity. Also, I think that Christianity could be explained by Buddhists from within a Buddhist framework. So, could it be that each religion could explain others from within its own framework? If this is so, than the pluralism which results would not end up as yet another religion, and there would be reason to continue dialogue. Statements such as "All religions are at root one" would be meaningful to all participants and commonalities could be established on this point, even though the reason why they are one would differ according to different views.

This seems to be analogous to morality amongst different cultures. There at least appears to be some (strong) family resemblance between moral codes, even though the reasons why one should be moral differ sometimes drastically (following the will of God, to attain enlightenment, developing virtue, heeding the categorical imperative, doing what creates the society with the most happy, fulfilled people, etc.). Despite the different causes of morality (and sometimes different prescriptions), all of these different views have enough in common to talk about the subject.

Given this, there still remain different types of religious pluralism; the two that seem to me to be the most important are referential and soteriological pluralism. I see no reason why relatively conservative members of religious traditions must deny referential pluralism (though accidentally to their orthodoxy there may be reasons); that is, that the different Realities spoken of within traditions all refer to the same Real (which, unlike Hick, is always refined within a tradition to that tradition's own Real). So, Christians can say that Muslims are referring to the same God as themselves, though inaccurately. Further, Buddhists even in their own views are really in some way (confusedly) referring to God, even if they deny such (as nirvana, or buddha-nature, or suchness, or perhaps something less well-defined). On the flip side, Buddhists can say that Christians, Muslims, et al. all are approaching the the Buddhist view of the Real, although perhaps with extra layers of symbolism and myth (which may need to be removed to truly attain enlightenment).

Soteriological pluralism is the more hotly contested topic. This would entail that the salvific efficacy of different religions are all at root one (and so, by implication, that many people in other religions can also be saved through their own practices). So, Christians can say that God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is actively working in the world (in all three persons). However, as actively working, there should be some actual workings, and so these can be referenced by Christians and non-Christians alike (otherwise, there seems little reason to assign more that psychological benefit to Christianity). From this, it could be (without assessing further information) that other religions have noticed the divine workings, and working follow alongside, though they do not have the proper names and categories to rationally process this. Similarly, Buddhists could see the point of Christianity to be anatta by subjecting one's will to the will of some God; even though this is merely mythical, it could supply what is necessary for Buddhist "salvation."