PDA

View Full Version : Gol Darned Western Religions Today



MarkMe
03 October 2010, 08:21 PM
I watch, as folks like Bill Maher and the atheist Richard Dawkins, and so many others, wage war upon all religion. It's no wonder. We've regressed as a society over the past decade. I remember in the 2004 elections, when the pundits would say, "wedge issue" when referring to things like abortion, stem cell research, Terry Schiavo and gay marriage. Like it was something to jam in between the two parties, and get religious with politics, but not to address the really important matters we should have been screaming about, like wars and the destruction of the financial system, or the loss the civil rights and the considerable consolidation of power the US government has gained. They're much bigger now. I also have not heard the term "wedge issue" in the past five years. It seems that we've gone backwards, and we've been swimming in religious politics, and we've lost all sense of our contrast with it.

Speaking of slow, steady transitions... For an 18-year-old today, technically the PATRIOT Act is now their parent's legislation. In another 10 years on the same path, the freedoms that we presently have may have slipped as much more again. It's like sticking a frog in a pot of cold water and bringing it to a boil. (FYI, The frog doesn't notice the gradual change and just sits there and boils to death) The FBI has started conducting arrests in 4 Midwestern states - they are arresting anti-war activists, which is a federal violation, and which they say constitutes terrorism. One theory is that they're just dipping their toes in the water to see how this one rolls out over time.

Meanwhile, religious war abounds. It's the crazy Muslims. It's a Christian holy war upon the crazy Muslims. It's the fate of the Jewish people. That and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. How about traditional government tactics? How about crowd control?


"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." - Thomas Jefferson
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Also Thomas JeffersonThere is one other religious war we are now experiencing, and that is the rising atheist movement shaking it's fist at religion. Check it - science is agnostic and atheism is a belief. Frankly, I don't blame them for how they must feel, but from what I've seen, even actual agnostics are shifting to atheist - sounds to me like war. We've regressed as a society at the hands of our leaders. It's all polarized, it's all warring parties now.


Question... Is religion the cause of the problem?
Answer... Try this for an illustration. The New Testament is directly contradicted, and I would have to guess in the loudest possible way, with waging war. It appears that Christ wouldn't stand for it. How is it possible that Christians are calling for these wars? I have an explanation. I think it's ignorance. We have a large enough ignorant population today to perhaps combine with, say, the core of one of our political parties, to gain political power. I would say that first and foremost it is ignorant masses that go for this sort of thing.

Now, if you take the religion away, will people be smarter? Will they know more about how their world works? I suppose it may be possible, but I think more likely that what we're really talking about is ignorant people, and the government taking them for a ride. Or the government taking any (blacked out) uninformed population and rousing them and telling them lies and nonsense, which ignorant people can be led to believe. I think it is ignorance, not unlike our media blackout, that makes all of this possible. My answer, then, is that this is not religion. Besides, millions of peaceful Christians never make the news. They didn't do anything.

Without polarization and radicalization, people of all faiths coexist peacefully. In the Ottoman Empire (Middle East), Muslims and Jews coexisted side-by-side in peace for centuries, up until 1916. And people don't tend to want to kill this and that without radicalized mobs at play. As for the root cause of the violence, I'll go with consolidation of power, crowd control and a total information blackout. Like history.

Namaste,
Mark

kallol
03 October 2010, 10:59 PM
God made Human and Human made religions and divided themselves.


Come back to spirituality - the mother of all religions.


Love and best wishes

sm78
04 October 2010, 01:39 AM
Question... Is religion the cause of the problem?

You are partially right, its not exactly just the religions. Combined ignorance of people and the ability of a few others to use portions of the so called revealed scripture (or some in-fashion present day ideology) to their advantage in propagating their agenda.

However lack of religions would certainly make things better, since it removes a means to an end. Just believing in an old book and a gone era's superstitions literally or with interpretations can never serve any good for the present era.

In other words God and religion are certainly not the cause of misery, which is a combination of ignorance and the "evil" in human nature, but they are certainly a excellent means to spread the misery.

MarkMe
04 October 2010, 09:11 AM
I had an interesting exchange on this last night. In it, this Pew survey came up. I didn't see it coming.

U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey
http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx

In it, it was found that atheists and agnostics scored the highest on religious knowledge (for their questions). 3rd and 4th go to Jews and Mormoms.

Putting the four groups together, it occurs to me that, after looking at a religious breakdown of the US, that these are very small groups.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

And putting that together, that perhaps the most generally shared beliefe are the least questioned.

In my (limited) experience with (karma) Hindus, such as the ones I have worked with, proud of India but very few were at all versed in Indian philosophy. In the case of Americans, proud of the forefathers and the constitution, but have never read it. This survey shows 28%.
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2010/sep/16/survey-us-admires-hasnt-read-constitution-ar-510096/

BryonMorrigan
04 October 2010, 11:46 AM
Read the book "God Against the Gods: A History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism," by Jonathan Kirsch.

The REAL problem is Exclusivism. Look at history before Christianity and Islam. Back then, the Jews were the only people waging "Holy War," and they eventually grew up. But the other religions of the world? Sure, there were conflicts between nations/tribes/peoples...but they weren't based on religion.

When a Roman met a Celt, or a Greek met a Persian, or a Norseman met an Egyptian...they certainly might have some national or ethnic animosity...but as far as religion went, they knew that they were all basically worshiping the same deities, albeit under different names and with different practices. The ancient cities of the Romans and Greeks had temples to Egyptian and Persian deities. Greek philosophers studied Hindu philosophy.

There was no concept of "false religion," nor any need for anyone to "convert" or be proselytized to...

And it is that very concept..."false religion"...which is the real problem. (Google "The Mosaic Distinction" or read the works of Dr. Jan Assmann) Throwing out all religion, when the problem is actually this horrible philosophical concept...is like throwing out Democracy because you disagree with who was elected.

Sahasranama
04 October 2010, 12:05 PM
It's not really believing that other religions are false, it's the intollerance for other people to believe in religions that are false from your own point of view. From a vedic point of view even Buddhism and Jainism are false religions, but the vedic people respect others free choice of religion.

BryonMorrigan
04 October 2010, 02:27 PM
"These new religions can therefore perhaps be characterized most adequately by the term 'counterreligion.' For these religions, and for these religions alone, the truth to be proclaimed comes with an enemy to be fought. Only they know of heretics and pagans, false doctrine, sects, superstition, idolatry, magic, ignorance, unbelief, heresy, and whatever other terms have been coined to designate what they denounce, persecute and proscribe as manifestations of untruth." -- Jan Assmann, "The Price of Monotheism," Stanford University Press, p. 4

Adhvagat
04 October 2010, 03:53 PM
It's not really believing that other religions are false, it's the intollerance for other people to believe in religions that are false from your own point of view. From a vedic point of view even Buddhism and Jainism are false religions, but the vedic people respect others free choice of religion.

And instead of curing intolerance and violence they try to ignore it with Universalism... Not nice.

Sahasranama
04 October 2010, 04:09 PM
What is meant with false doctrine? Even Hinduism has the discrimination to consider certain doctrines to be false, either philosophically or morally.

I don't think that the abrahamitic religions are crossing the line by saying that other religions are false. Atheism says that religions are false, by definition of atheism. Religion says that atheism is false, by definition of religion. If I believe that the flying spaghetti monster is a false God, that should not be a problem for a Pastafarian. The Pastafarian believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a real God, but he should respect my belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a false God. So far, I don't see any problem. The problem starts when the Church of Pastafarianism starts to be violent, intollerant and demeaning to members of other faiths and other people who do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. These charasteristics of violence and intolerance are inherent to the abrahamitic faiths and that's where the line is being crossed.


And instead of curing intolerance and violence they try to ignore it with Universalism... Not nice. Yes, universalism is not an adequate cure for intolerance and violence. The inherent flaws of Islam, Christianity and Judaism need to be recognised. Universalism actually was not invented in India. It's often thought that Hinduism is syncretic of nature and that this syncretic nature led to the concept of universalism when India came in contact with the western world. This is nonsense of course. The concept of universalism started in the west. The mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz for example worked on a theory to unify all religions. He lived a century before the universalist reformers of India. Universalism is not something that originated in India, it's a western concept that has been imposed on Hinduism the last 150 years.

Along with marxism and christianity, universalism has led people to believe that Hinduism is a religion of superstition, blind faith and caste corruption. The irony is that the universalist Hindus are repeating the same demeaning words to describe authentic aspects of Hinduism like faith in murti puja, the puranas, the Hindu avataras and varnashrama dharma. All while the same universalists are equating Jesus to the Supreme Being and consider the koran to be a form of shruti. All while their gurus perform magic tricks to increase superstition, while universalist believe their guru is an avatara, increasing blind faith and while these gurus give priviliges to people with high financial status, increasing "caste" corruption.

So by covering up things with a universalist attitude, foreign concepts can easily infiltrate and corrupt Hinduism. Not nice, indeed. The absurd concept of Radical Universalism, I will openly say, is a false doctrine. But I wouldn't cross the line like the Abrahamitics, Hinduism doesn't teach physical violence against people who disagree with your religion or philosophy, but the abrahamitic scriptures do. Long story short, I have no problem with the use of the word false combined with the word God or religion, or even with words like blasphemy or heresey. In my opinion the abrahamitic faiths have thaught false, even dangerous and ignorant doctrines. The use of the word false is not where the line is being crossed from my point of view. The use of the word false is sometimes necessary to define your own faith philosophically.

MarkMe
04 October 2010, 06:35 PM
I'm really thankful for all the interesting comments and suggestions, bryon - thx.

In having some discussion elsewhere, I got hit with some information that I find very interesting regarding the atheism and agnosticism. I'll provide a link here from an atheist, David Hart, and so much better than the rest.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/believe-it-or-not

And I went back in dictionaries, and confirmed it (I own a couple of these). I agree with David Hart. Traditional atheism is not about opposing religion, or even of rejecting it, and our usage has changed. I have a 1938 Websters that agrees; it is about making logic and reason the deepest and most profound things for oneself. Conversely, the atheism we seem to have today is more embroiled with religion, and the common usage has changed. Now, it is led off with being a belief that there is no God.

I also double-checked agnosticism, and found it (to my surprise) to be more doctrinal in nature than the old atheism. It appears to formally be defined (consistently) as a belief that God is unknown and unknowable.

sanjaya
04 October 2010, 06:46 PM
What is meant with false doctrine? Even Hinduism has the discrimination to consider certain doctrines to be false, either philosophically or morally.

I don't think that the abrahamitic religions are crossing the line by saying that other religions are false. Atheism says that religions are false, by definition of atheism. Religion says that atheism is false, by definition of religion. If I believe that the flying spaghetti monster is a false God, that should not be a problem for a Pastafarian. The Pastafarian believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a real God, but he should respect my belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a false God. So far, I don't see any problem. The problem starts when the Church of Pastafarianism starts to be violent, intollerant and demeaning to members of other faiths and other people who do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. These charasteristics of violence and intolerance are inherent to the abrahamitic faiths and that's where the line is being crossed.

Yes, universalism is not an adequate cure for intolerance and violence. The inherent flaws of Islam, Christianity and Judaism need to be recognised. Universalism actually was not invented in India. It's often thought that Hinduism is syncretic of nature and that this syncretic nature led to the concept of universalism when India came in contact with the western world. This is nonsense of course. The concept of universalism started in the west. The mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz for example worked on a theory to unify all religions. He lived a century before the universalist reformers of India. Universalism is not something that originated in India, it's a western concept that has been imposed on Hinduism the last 150 years.

Along with marxism and christianity, universalism has led people to believe that Hinduism is a religion of superstition, blind faith and caste corruption. The irony is that the universalist Hindus are repeating the same demeaning words to describe authentic aspects of Hinduism like faith in murti puja, the puranas, the Hindu avataras and varnashrama dharma. All while the same universalists are equating Jesus to the Supreme Being and consider the koran to be a form of shruti. All while their gurus perform magic tricks to increase superstition, while universalist believe their guru is an avatara, increasing blind faith and while these gurus give priviliges to people with high financial status, increasing "caste" corruption.

So by covering up things with a universalist attitude, foreign concepts can easily infiltrate and corrupt Hinduism. Not nice, indeed. The absurd concept of Radical Universalism, I will openly say, is a false doctrine. But I wouldn't cross the line like the Abrahamitics, Hinduism doesn't teach physical violence against people who disagree with your religion or philosophy, but the abrahamitic scriptures do. Long story short, I have no problem with the use of the word false combined with the word God or religion, or even with words like blasphemy or heresey. In my opinion the abrahamitic faiths have thaught false, even dangerous and ignorant doctrines. The use of the word false is not where the line is being crossed from my point of view. The use of the word false is sometimes necessary to define your own faith philosophically.

Yes, I think this is a good point. The problem isn't necessarily the "false religion" language. Even in India centuries ago, gurus worked to virtually eradicate Buddhism from the land of its own birth. But the key is that they did it by debate, not by violence. The problem isn't belief in objective truth (which necessitates the existence of falsehood). The problem, I think, is the Christians' belief in an eternal hell reserved for non-Christians. When you believe that people who disagree with you will suffer the eternal wrath of God, you start to believe that the hell-bound are deserving of their faith. And it becomes that much easier to demonize and mistreat them. We Hindus don't believe that Buddhists are going to hell for not being Hindus, and so we don't go out on Buddhist witch hunts. Jews likewise don't have any hell doctrine, and maybe that's why their religion was never terribly oppressive in spite of their vehement belief that non-Jewish religions are false.

The doctrine of eternal condemnation for non-Christians is, I believe, responsible for Christian intolerance, as well as intolerance's cousin: missionary work. Christians send missionaries because they believe that we are all going to hell unless they convert. I have noticed how missionaries and domestic evangelists will usually have a sincere desire for the well-being and salvation of Hindus and other non-Christians. They'll play Indian dress up, watch Bollywood, and even practice vegetarianism in the company of Christians (just look up that guide to converting Hindus which was floating around HDF a few months ago). And then, when they realize that we're not going to convert, they become violent and disdainful of Hindus. All of this, because of a misguided belief that God has prepared some hell for people who don't convert to Christianity.

satay
04 October 2010, 10:44 PM
namaste sanjaya,


They'll play Indian dress up, watch Bollywood, and even practice vegetarianism in the company of Christians (just look up that guide to converting Hindus which was floating around HDF a few months ago).

Did I miss something? A guide to convert hindus was floating around on HDF? Can you point me to it?

sanjaya
04 October 2010, 11:30 PM
namaste sanjaya,



Did I miss something? A guide to convert hindus was floating around on HDF? Can you point me to it?

Sorry Satay, I meant to say that they practice vegetarianism in the company of Hindus.

Do you remember the guide that was talked about on HDF about steps Christians can take to try and convert us? I'll try to dig it up tomorrow.

TatTvamAsi
05 October 2010, 01:10 AM
It's not really believing that other religions are false, it's the intollerance for other people to believe in religions that are false from your own point of view. From a vedic point of view even Buddhism and Jainism are false religions, but the vedic people respect others free choice of religion.

I don't think those two are mutually exclusive. If one starts to believe "their" path is the only (true) one, and that other paths are "false", we are no different from the abrahamic vermin (jews/christians/muslims).

In fact, as Hindus, when we say other paths are "valid", what we mean is that the path that one chooses (born into for example), is the "true" path for that person in this lifetime. We believe that through many lifetimes, hopefully of progress, one would be born into Hinduism.

Of course, this doesn't mean that if one were to follow another "religion", one would not be able to attain moksha. That is dependent on the level of the person. It is of course quite obvious that once the soul is evolved, one is born a Hindu.

By saying others are following a "false" path, we become exclusivist, much like the stupid abrahamics, and thus drag ourselves down to their level (very low).

TatTvamAsi
05 October 2010, 01:21 AM
I had an interesting exchange on this last night. In it, this Pew survey came up. I didn't see it coming.

U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey
http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx

In it, it was found that atheists and agnostics scored the highest on religious knowledge (for their questions). 3rd and 4th go to Jews and Mormoms.

Putting the four groups together, it occurs to me that, after looking at a religious breakdown of the US, that these are very small groups.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

And putting that together, that perhaps the most generally shared beliefe are the least questioned.

In my (limited) experience with (karma) Hindus, such as the ones I have worked with, proud of India but very few were at all versed in Indian philosophy. In the case of Americans, proud of the forefathers and the constitution, but have never read it. This survey shows 28%.
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2010/sep/16/survey-us-admires-hasnt-read-constitution-ar-510096/

You should point out that the quiz was taken mostly by Americans. Americans are woefully ignorant in all matters that concern other traditions, countries, and cultures. I suppose their reasoning for why christians are so stupid (that they don't bother reading about other traditions or even reading their own for that matter) is somewhat accurate.

kallol
05 October 2010, 01:31 AM
I am bit confused.

Are there many paths to Moksha ?

As per SD - NO. It is a single path. But people are at different time, space and material. That is why they are unique.

The path is difficult uphill in the begining till the niskama karma /bhakti is reached. Thereafter it is a fast / accelerating downhill of gyana phase.

This uphill part is the non-bhakti, bhakti and sakama karma/bhakti part.

How that is packaged - it varies from religion to religion with a mix of the culture, compulsion, time, space, society, understanding of TRUTH, philosophy, etc.

Thus the religions out of Middle East has similar flavour and the religions out of India has similar flavour. All of them have same ingrediants but in different proportions.

It is these proportions that differentiates the religions from each other.

Path is same - but teachers, perception, understanding, teaching methods, etc varies. Again at the religion level, the vision is mostly the bhakti development part. So the knowledge of SD or the TRUTH remains invisible (the other side of the hill). Though smell out of it might be available to the devotees to keep them motivated.

Love and best wishes

sm78
05 October 2010, 01:51 AM
Yes, Even in India centuries ago, gurus worked to virtually eradicate Buddhism from the land of its own birth.

This is a wrong fact, India had wide spread buddhist culture till 11th-13th centuries and gradually disappeared with the Islamic invasions. Hindu "gurus" had no role in "eradication" of buddhism and this is a fact every buddhist also knows. The ruins of the islamic destruction of buddhist institutions are still places of tourist attraction in India.

In debates buddhism was merely debunked in "academic" circles...it may have put some sort of check on the further buddhist evangelicism, but that too will be just a speculation. It could have hardly effect the normal day to day life of ordinary citizens.

sm78
05 October 2010, 02:52 AM
In fact, as Hindus, when we say other paths are "valid", what we mean is that the path that one chooses (born into for example), is the "true" path for that person in this lifetime. We believe that through many lifetimes, hopefully of progress, one would be born into Hinduism.

This is specifically a smarta viewpoint and other hindu sects particularly saiva have historically been evangelical, but in a sober manner. The lost saiva civilizations in far east (only surviving as tourist attraction in bali) are the point in case.

The orthodox smartas who believe one must be born in the dharma to be a valid practioners are the least universalist of all. This belief is not driven, by a belief in religious oneness but rather on an almost fanatical belief in purity, which is driven by birth and samaskaras.

That all religions are the same is just a terrible hoax and has nothing to do with traditional hinduism in any sense, how much one want's to believe and propagate the same.

It is completely wrong to think that tolerance have to do with believing that everything must be equally true and valid. Indian history is a point in case as is the history of the ancient world.

Tolerance itself is an inborn human quality which is to be further cultivated and cherised. It is an instinct to most people, and need not be the causal result of an (pseduo) intellectual process of univesalism. Simple villagers, or the red indians who greeted the 1st while men in america, were simply tolerant by nature. See a new thing, a few white people in a ship, didn't result in the instinct to finish it or destroy it. Hence it also didn't need this pseduo intellectual and completely false justification, that for something to be valid it must be same as mine.

If you think deeply this universalism springs from that same bigoted mind set which thinks that one religion must rule the earth...and indeed is product of that part of the world, as sahasranama has pointed.

For true tolerance to develop one must go beyond this great evil of universalism, and develop the basic intellectual honesty in our own beliefs and still being able to accept the existence which does not fit our worldview gracefully.

Sahasranama
05 October 2010, 03:22 AM
I don't think those two are mutually exclusive. If one starts to believe "their" path is the only (true) one, and that other paths are "false", we are no different from the abrahamic vermin (jews/christians/muslims).

In fact, as Hindus, when we say other paths are "valid", what we mean is that the path that one chooses (born into for example), is the "true" path for that person in this lifetime. We believe that through many lifetimes, hopefully of progress, one would be born into Hinduism.

Of course, this doesn't mean that if one were to follow another "religion", one would not be able to attain moksha. That is dependent on the level of the person. It is of course quite obvious that once the soul is evolved, one is born a Hindu.

By saying others are following a "false" path, we become exclusivist, much like the stupid abrahamics, and thus drag ourselves down to their level (very low).

I didn't say they are mutually exclusive. In the grand scheme of things, you are right. A Christian may eventually reach the highest goal of human life. Christianity may be the right path for a person, if Christianity helps someone to be a better person in this world by making better karmic choices. But the mere acceptence of Jesus Christ or his worship will not lead to anything. It will not save a person from taking chaurasi lakha births, before being born as a human being again. Mere devotion for mother Mary is not any better than devotion for Jessica Alba or Aishwarya Rai, from a shastric perspective. In contrast mere devotion to a real god, like Durga Mata, does save a person from horror, like fire burns anyone even if the person isn't aware of the charasteristics of fire. Worshipping Durga Mata is like taking real medicine, worshipping mother Mary is like taking a placebo. Any effect from taking a placebo is purely psychological. If that psychology makes someone a better person, then maybe taking the placebo is the right path for that person. But unfortunately, in the bottle of placebo pills some poisonous pills got mixed. Some Christians or Muslims can recognise the poisonous pills and throw them away, but other Christians or Muslims take all the pills indiscriminately.

BryonMorrigan
05 October 2010, 07:10 AM
And instead of curing intolerance and violence they try to ignore it with Universalism... Not nice.

How did the above get appended to my last post?

BryonMorrigan
05 October 2010, 07:17 AM
And I went back in dictionaries, and confirmed it (I own a couple of these). I agree with David Hart. Traditional atheism is not about opposing religion, or even of rejecting it, and our usage has changed. I have a 1938 Websters that agrees; it is about making logic and reason the deepest and most profound things for oneself. Conversely, the atheism we seem to have today is more embroiled with religion, and the common usage has changed. Now, it is led off with being a belief that there is no God.

Interestingly enough, the word "Atheism" was originally coined by Roman Polytheists to describe Christians...who rejected the Gods of all other cultures in place of a human being...

Sahasranama
05 October 2010, 04:51 PM
How did the above get appended to my last post?

This sometimes happens when you quote something.

I was confused why you would make that comment, but it makes more sense now, since someone else posted it.

MarkMe
05 October 2010, 09:53 PM
...
That all religions are the same is just a terrible hoax and has nothing to do with traditional hinduism in any sense, how much one want's to believe and propagate the same.

It is completely wrong to think that tolerance have to do with believing that everything must be equally true and valid. Indian history is a point in case as is the history of the ancient world.

Tolerance itself is an inborn human quality which is to be further cultivated and cherised. It is an instinct to most people, and need not be the causal result of an (pseduo) intellectual process of univesalism. Simple villagers, or the red indians who greeted the 1st while men in america, were simply tolerant by nature. See a new thing, a few white people in a ship, didn't result in the instinct to finish it or destroy it. Hence it also didn't need this pseduo intellectual and completely false justification, that for something to be valid it must be same as mine.

If you think deeply this universalism springs from that same bigoted mind set which thinks that one religion must rule the earth...and indeed is product of that part of the world, as sahasranama has pointed.

For true tolerance to develop one must go beyond this great evil of universalism, and develop the basic intellectual honesty in our own beliefs and still being able to accept the existence which does not fit our worldview gracefully.

I do feel like I'm coming around on this, because I have endeavored to find a universalist truth. I think it may be very strongly politically driven, since billions of people share Western religious views. Primarily, though, I think it has been driven by believing in one God - one supreme, infinite, underlying reality, along with not having conducted extensive study of other religions, but to say that since this one underlying reality is true, then it is available to everyone, and so then the road to it has manifested in a variety of ways.

At this point, I'm getting ready to throw in the towel on the entertainmnet of universalism. I have known and known of others who call themselves "spiritual" to say they have a God of some kind, but that they are not interested in the religions. Part of this is coming from taking a more critical look at the arguments back-and-forth between parties. More closely, such as when someone combines Eastern views, universally, into support of Western ones, or vice versa, or when critically entertaining uncritical opposition.

Atheism is so much easier. I've hated the idea of the word for what I may have thought it meant. But those terms - theist, atheist, agnostic - they seem to me to be so problematic. Perhaps in a one-religion world they can have some value, but not when religious views vary so much.

Admittedly, theism, atheism and agnostic are problematic concepts. I also think "isms" simply seem unnessary. They are superficial, and they do not add information. They are not news - they are organizational upon the news that is already there, so they just turn into big nasty nonreality problems. Very quickly these words fly, whereas the uniqueness of the indivdual's position defies uniformity under an ideological heading. They have to be understood as superficial references, and not critical ones.

sanjaya
05 October 2010, 11:17 PM
This is a wrong fact, India had wide spread buddhist culture till 11th-13th centuries and gradually disappeared with the Islamic invasions. Hindu "gurus" had no role in "eradication" of buddhism and this is a fact every buddhist also knows. The ruins of the islamic destruction of buddhist institutions are still places of tourist attraction in India.

In debates buddhism was merely debunked in "academic" circles...it may have put some sort of check on the further buddhist evangelicism, but that too will be just a speculation. It could have hardly effect the normal day to day life of ordinary citizens.

You sure about the small importance of Hindu gurus in the religion of common people? If so I would have to embarassingly stand corrected. I'm usually well-informed on these things. Well, I'll do some research and see if I can verify my claim.

sanjaya
05 October 2010, 11:43 PM
I do feel like I'm coming around on this, because I have endeavored to find a universalist truth. I think it may be very strongly politically driven, since billions of people share Western religious views. Primarily, though, I think it has been driven by believing in one God - one supreme, infinite, underlying reality, along with not having conducted extensive study of other religions, but to say that since this one underlying reality is true, then it is available to everyone, and so then the road to it has manifested in a variety of ways.

At this point, I'm getting ready to throw in the towel on the entertainmnet of universalism. I have known and known of others who call themselves "spiritual" to say they have a God of some kind, but that they are not interested in the religions. Part of this is coming from taking a more critical look at the arguments back-and-forth between parties. More closely, such as when someone combines Eastern views, universally, into support of Western ones, or vice versa, or when critically entertaining uncritical opposition.

Atheism is so much easier. I've hated the idea of the word for what I may have thought it meant. But those terms - theist, atheist, agnostic - they seem to me to be so problematic. Perhaps in a one-religion world they can have some value, but not when religious views vary so much.

Admittedly, theism, atheism and agnostic are problematic concepts. I also think "isms" simply seem unnessary. They are superficial, and they do not add information. They are not news - they are organizational upon the news that is already there, so they just turn into big nasty nonreality problems. Very quickly these words fly, whereas the uniqueness of the indivdual's position defies uniformity under an ideological heading. They have to be understood as superficial references, and not critical ones.

I'll preface this by saying that I'm certainly not one to speak with authority on Hinduism. But if you're looking for a universalist truth, then Hinduism likely isn't what you're looking for. While Hindu philosophy is always being expanded upon by gurus and avatars, Hinduism itself is rooted in millenia-old traditions. People in India were praying to Hindu gods before Judaism even got started in the West. What universalism does is dilute Hinduism with other religions. A person who starts to synchretize Hinduism with Western faiths (whether it be Christianity, Islam, or whatever else) will have effectively invented his own religion. This person's children will then have an uncertain religious identity, and will find it hard to hold allegiance to such an ill-defined faith. When a Hindu does this, he is essentially throwing away the traditions of his ancestors.

Leaders of interfaith organizations sometimes say that it's a bad idea for a person to practice two religions at once. Religion is necessarily rooted in tradition. Newly made religions often seem ridiculous, see Scientology, Wicca, paganism, or any of the other fake religions that spiritually-hungry people in the West have concocted. In general I think that Hinduism tends to only be the right religion for Indians, since Hinduism is inextricably bound to Indian culture. Yes, there are Westerners who have found a home in Hinduism. I have met a few, and there are others on this board (actually these people tend to be far more knowledgable and religious than us Indian Hindus who take our faith for granted). But these people jumped in with both feet, and didn't try to create some hybrid religion out of Hinduism and their former faith.

I think you'll find this a problem no matter what religion you try to join. That's the problem with all religions, including atheism: they teach contradictory things. Again, people like the Wiccans and pagans have tried to create their own religion, but this sort of defeats the purpose of religion, since your faith is supposed to be based on some external source, such as illumination from God (as stated in Bhagavad Gita). If you create your own religion, you will know in your own mind that it is a fraud, and your religion will be meaningless. To me it seems more reasonable to be guided by dharma, rather than to try and conform a religion to your own preferences.


namaste sanjaya,



Did I miss something? A guide to convert hindus was floating around on HDF? Can you point me to it?

Satay, here's the guide I was talking about:

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2009/10-12/resources/InternationalsonCampusWinter2008-09.pdf

Warning: it's archived on Hinduism Today's website, but it's a Christian guide, and is likely to leave you with a less than pleasant feeling. Various people on HDF were talking about this "friendship evangelism" tactic a lot last year.

sm78
06 October 2010, 12:43 AM
You sure about the small importance of Hindu gurus in the religion of common people?
...i was talking about small/little importance of the debates between mimasakas and buddhist intellectuals on the lives of common people....not about the role of religion or religious teachers.

...kanchi paramacharya was of the opinion that buddhism was never had any significant impact on the masses and remained more or less an elite intellectual monastic tradition. but i personally am not sure about that.

MarkMe
06 October 2010, 08:59 AM
I'll preface this by saying that I'm certainly not one to speak with authority on Hinduism. But if you're looking for a universalist truth, then Hinduism likely isn't what you're looking for. While Hindu philosophy is always being expanded upon by gurus and avatars, Hinduism itself is rooted in millenia-old traditions. People in India were praying to Hindu gods before Judaism even got started in the West. What universalism does is dilute Hinduism with other religions. A person who starts to synchretize Hinduism with Western faiths (whether it be Christianity, Islam, or whatever else) will have effectively invented his own religion. This person's children will then have an uncertain religious identity, and will find it hard to hold allegiance to such an ill-defined faith. When a Hindu does this, he is essentially throwing away the traditions of his ancestors.


Is that why Siddartha, from India, looked around and said that the Hindus had so many metaphysical systems, that they would get buried in it - that they were all crazy? That was 2500 years ago, and it still seems true today. How would you entitle or reference or summarize that central Hindu school, and who would agree with you?

Sahasranama
08 October 2010, 11:30 AM
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Hindus-Abrahamics-and-Intolerants.html#comment

Here is someone who is trying to blame the Abrahamitic Faiths of being exclusive. Hindu philosophy is not a matter of the shastra anymore, a mere sentence of the lyrics of a popular song "Ishvara Allah tero Nama" is good enough of an arguement. In my opinion, this is just absurd. I love the terminology of Dharmic Faiths (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh) versus Abrahamitic Faiths (Chrisitianity, Islam, Judaism). But the difference is not that the Abrahamitic Faiths teach that our God is false. If that's what they want to believe, then it's their good right. Even the Buddhists and the Jains will say that our God is false, therefore logically this cannot be the distinction between Dharmic Faith and Abrahamitic Faith. Unfortunately the terms are now being abused by Radical Universalists who are starting to bully the Jews, Christians and Muslims for not being Radical Universalist.

BryonMorrigan
08 October 2010, 12:59 PM
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Hindus-Abrahamics-and-Intolerants.html#comment

Here is someone who is trying to blame the Abrahamitic Faiths of being exclusive. Hindu philosophy is not a matter of the shastra anymore, a mere sentence of the lyrics of a popular song "Ishvara Allah tero Nama" is good enough of an arguement. In my opinion, this is just absurd. I love the terminology of Dharmic Faiths (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh) versus Abrahamitic Faiths (Chrisitianity, Islam, Judaism). But the difference is not that the Abrahamitic Faiths teach that our God is false. If that's what they want to believe, then it's their good right. Even the Buddhists and the Jains will say that our God is false, therefore logically this cannot be the distinction between Dharmic Faith and Abrahamitic Faith. Unfortunately the terms are now being abused by Radical Universalists who are starting to bully the Jews, Christians and Muslims for not being Radical Universalist.

It's not even so much that it's their belief that other religions are "false." The Buddhists and Jains don't fight wars to force people to convert to their religions, nor am I aware of them using coercive techniques to gain new converts, or killing or enslaving people of other religions based solely on this Supremacist weltanschauung.

But without that central dogma of Exclusivism, there can be no Jihad...no Holy War...no Inquisition, no forced conversions, et cetera.

Sahasranama
08 October 2010, 02:07 PM
How would you define exclusivism? Would you call a Sri Vaishnava an exclusivist? In Sri Vaishnavism it is believed that moksha can only be reached by being devoteed to Vishnu. Many brahmins will not mary outside of their caste, isn't that also exclusivist?

I don't know whether Jains have fought religious wars, but Buddhist definitely have. I think that the difference between the Buddhist who fought religious war and the Christian crusaders is that the Buddhist cannot say that they have followed dharma, but the Christians can say that they acted according to their scripture.

BryonMorrigan
08 October 2010, 08:27 PM
How would you define exclusivism? Would you call a Sri Vaishnava an exclusivist? In Sri Vaishnavism it is believed that moksha can only be reached by being devoteed to Vishnu. Many brahmins will not mary outside of their caste, isn't that also exclusivist?

But those people can still attain moksha, albeit in a different life, correct? And they don't assume that all worshipers of other deities are worshiping "evil", do they? Or that they will be forever tormented by Vishnu for not following their particular rules?

Hinduism cannot, essentially, be Exclusivist...because everyone DOES essentially end up in the same place. It might not be for many lives...but it should eventually happen.

sm78
09 October 2010, 01:12 AM
But those people can still attain moksha, albeit in a different life, correct? And they don't assume that all worshipers of other deities are worshiping "evil", do they? Or that they will be forever tormented by Vishnu for not following their particular rules?

Hinduism cannot, essentially, be Exclusivist...because everyone DOES essentially end up in the same place. It might not be for many lives...but it should eventually happen.

Exclusivism in the sense of christianity or islam we are discussing is not a question of one single simple belief of whether 'one religion is true' or 'one path' etc. As I said pluralism is a deeper strain than an outcome of a simplistic belief. Sri Vaishnavas might also believe that final salvation at the feet of the lord can only be obtained by vishnu's grace only. Yet this will not lead to holy wars (most of the time ;)) or make a vaishnava twich with hatred at the sight of another hindu. The reason is embedded in the culture and all the remaining things one must believe and follow in order to be a Sri Vaishnava.

In simple words exclusivism is denying the right to someone else's existence simple because it does not tie up with your beliefs, or submits to your own. It is not just the simple belief in that one's own path is superior or only true. One can believe in the later but still have have respect for other cultures and paths. I would say that is more healthy, and intellectually honest.

From the very inception it was human greed of territorial expansion and dominance which have played the central part in shaping up the christian and islamic religion - the later more directly. They were not results of fundamental enquiry into the issues of human existence like all spiritual paths must be. It was in the destruction of human tolerance that they had been founded on, and no doubt the true adherants of these religions look for every oppertunity to trample the nobel human qualities like tolerance & plurality (NOT universalism) that are the essense of sanatana dharma.

Please understand the issue is much deeper than simplistic beliefs or one single theological position - its the combination of all the beliefs, practices ,the culture and the invisible force behind the religion** - the very core these systems which I think could not possibly be classified just by theological terms.

** Esoterically our beliefs are lot influenced by subtle forces beyond the physical releam. Simply classifying ourselves in one of the groups (be it sri vaishnava, christian or smarta) opens us up to the influence of the subtle forces which shaped up these groups in the physical world. This is understood as kula, but not directly referred to outside esoteric circles. For Islam and Christianity, intolerance, fanatism and brutality must be fundamental to thier kulas. The stories indicate that Muhammad was very much under possession of a spirit when he splet out most verses of Koran, whether the most spiteful or more the more copy-paste type from the jeweish-christian traditions.