Hindu Universalism

[saidevo]

namaste EM.

Beautiful! A refreshing current of breeze that drives home the truth, state and status with such coolness and clarity to the posters of this thread caught in the sultriness of their arguments and counter arguments. May God Shiva give you the best in life.

[Harjas Kaur]

"This type of propaganda does great harm to the personality of Jesus."

1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 ~Deuteronomy Chap. 13

You are derailing again. The topic isn't the personal opinions of "Baba," which are shown here devoid of context, but the topic is whether or not Hindu sages have agreed there is Divine revelation in those Abrahamic scriptures. According to the words of the Christian Bible, Abrahamics are commanded by God to destroy people of other faiths. This is NO Divine revelation but an asuric error. It has not to do with misinterpretation but with the very fact of the error within these scriptures.

Why are you defending this clear evil as Divine light and skirting all over the place to obscure it? Because it isn't Divine light and no intellectual gyrations will ever make it so. Is it Divine light for someone? Yes. But not for Hindus who have much brighter light in Sruti and commentaries on Sruti. Which are thankfully NOT the same or we would already be Muslims and Christians and Sanatana Dharma would be extinguished as a light in the world. What does great harm to the personality of these scriptures is not HINDU prejudice, but the very words and teachings themselves. Why should we accept these clearly destructive and erroneous teachings or promote them as Divine revelation for anybody else? What have Mleccha ideologies and religions to do with us? Why should we have to explain and accommodate them? That was for particular Guru's to do, for very practical purposes of maintaining communal harmony. It is not meant for extinguishing the Divine Light of Sanatana Dharma.

[saidevo]

namaste EM.

Do you need to follow Christ to go to heaven? Yes , or no?
What happens when you die? Do you go to heaven or do you reincarnate?
Is Allah the only true God, and Vishnu, Siva false? Or not?
Which do you prefer, Hindu bhajans, or Christmas carols? Maybe its Islamic chanting, of beating of drums only?
What is a woman's role in society?
Shall I prostrate, or bow, or kneel?
Why mention gays when they don't exist. But they do. They need love too. Lets eat meat. Lets not eat meat.

Little wonder children born into universalist sects drop out. By the time they reach the age of reason they are saying, "Mom and Dad don't know what they believe. Its just not worth it."

Take fresh milk. Take the best mango juice. Add some beer. Throw in coffee, and the best tea you can find. Add some yoghurt, and saki. Throw in tomato juice. Mix it all around. Give it a really good stir. Look what happened. Its now this total piece of garbage that no person in their right mind would want to drink.

Frank Morales expresses the same idea as above in a slightly different way with a similar sense of humour:

Distinguishing Salvific States

• The Christian’s sole aim in salvation is to be raised physically from the dead on the eschatological day of judgment, and to find herself with Jesus in heaven, who is to be found seated at the right hand of the anthropomorphic male Father/God of the Old and New Testament.

• Muslims aspire toward a delightfully earthy paradise in which 72 houris, or virgin youth, will be granted to them to enjoy (Qur’an, 76:19).

• Jains are seeking kevala, or "aloneness", in which they will enjoy an eternal existence of omniscience and omnipotence without the unwanted intrusion of a God, a Brahman or an Allah.

• Buddhists seek to have all the transitory elements that produce the illusion of a self melt away, and to have themselves in turn melt away into the nihilism of nirvana. To the Buddhist, Brahman also is an illusion.

Each of these different types of religion has its own categorically unique concept of salvation and of the Absolute toward which they aspire. Each concept is irreconcilable with the others.

To state the situation unequivocally, if a Christian, Muslim, Jain or Buddhist, upon achieving their distinct notion of salvation, were to find themselves instead united with Brahman, they would most likely be quite upset and confused indeed. And they would have a right to be! Conversely, the average yogi probably would be quite bewildered upon finding 72 virgins waiting for him upon achieving moksha, rather than realizing the eternal bliss of Brahman. One person’s vision of salvation is another person’s idea of hell.

[saidevo]

Divnity and Supremacy of the Vedic Dharma over all other religions

In order to establish that Hinduism does NOT teach Radical Universalism, let us collect quotes from our traditional shruti and smRti texts that speak of the divinity, uniqueness, and supremacy of our Vedic Dharma.

We start with Manu SmRti. Manu makes a clear distinction between the Vedic knowledge of light and the others of darkness:

Manu SmRti:
12.94a: pitR^idevamanushhyaaNaaM vedashchakshuH sanaatanam.h |
12.94b: ashakyaM chaaprameyaM cha vedashaastramiti sthitiH ||

12.94. The Veda is the eternal eye of the manes, gods, and men; the Veda-ordinance (is) both beyond the sphere of (human) power, and beyond the sphere of (human) comprehension; that is a certain fact.

12.95a: yaa vedabaahyaaH smR^itayo yaashcha kaashcha kudR^ishhTayaH |
12.95b: sarvaastaa nishhphalaaH pretya tamonishhThaa hi taaH smR^itaaH ||

12.95. All those traditions (smriti) and those despicable systems of philosophy, which are not based on the Veda, produce no reward after death; for they are declared to be founded on Darkness.

12.96a: utpadyante chyavante cha yaanyato.anyaani kaani chit.h |
12.96b: taanyarvaakkaalikatayaa nishhphalaanyanR^itaani cha ||

12.96. All those (doctrines), differing from the (Veda), which spring up and (soon) perish, are worthless and false, because they are of modern date.

**********

Revelation of the Vedas

• Vedas were originally revealed to the four Rishis Agni, VAyu, Aditya and Angiras.

shatapatha brAhmaNa 11.5.8[3]:
agne Rgvedo vAyoryajurvedaH sUryAtsAmavedaH

In the beginning of the creation, God revealed a Veda to the soul of each of the four sages, called Agni, VAyu, Aditya, and Angira.

manu smRti 1.23:
agni-vAyu-ravibhyas tu trayaM brahma sanAtanam |
dudoha yaj~jasiddhyartham Rug-yajur-sAma lakSaNam ||1.23||

The three Vedas, Rig, Yajur and Sama were revealed to the three rishis, Agni, VAyu and Ravi, to give a knowledge of how to accomplish the purpose of life in this world.

• Although the above quotes do not speak of the Atharva Veda, a mantra in the PuruSha sUkta speaks of divine origin of all the four Vedas:

puruSha sUkta:
tasmAdyaj~jAtsarvahuta RuchaH sAmAni jaj~jire |
ChandAMsi jaj~jire tasmAdyajustasmAdajAyata ||10.090.09||

The Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Chandas or Atharva Vedas have proceeded from that Purusha who is Yajna and Sarvahuta.

Pandit Gurudatta VidyArthi this in his book 'The Wisdom of the Rishis' as to reference of the term Chandas for the Atharva Veda:

The emanation of the four Vedas from the Divine essence is clearly pointed out under the four respective names of Rig, SAma, ChandAMsi, and Yaju, and to preclude the supposition of ChandAMsi as merely meaning metrical compositions and therefore as simply qualifying the other three Vedas, the verb 'jajnire' is distinctly coupled with ChandAMsi which clearly shows that a fourth Veda is made mention of.

• Patanjali maharshi too confirms the divine origination of the original knowledge in his Yoga Dharshana.

yoga darshanam 1.26:
sa pUrveShAm api guruH kAlena anavachChedAt ||1.26||

1.26 From that consciousness (ishvara) the ancient-most teachers were taught, since it is not limited by the constraint of time.

Explanation by SwamiJ:

purvesham = of the first, former, earlier, ancient
api = too, also
kalena = by time
anavachchhedat = not limited by (time), no break or division, continuous

This pure consciousness, being eternal in nature, is the direct teacher of all of the ancient, earlier, or even the first of the teachers within humanity. In other words, some of the original teachers of humanity have learned directly from this pure consciousness, not from a human lineage of teacher-student, etc., whereby there is just a passing of information. This direct learning from the source continues to be available at all times and places, though the help of human teachers is surely a useful, if not essential aid.

**********

Members are welcome to add to these quotes from Hindu traditional texts.

[saidevo]

Divnity and Supremacy of the Vedic Dharma over all other religions

Here is incontrovertible evidence that KAnchi ParamAchArya did NOT teach Radical Universalism--all religions are the same. I have given below only select extracts (emphasis added); I urge the members and other readers to check this link for the full text of the AchArya's speech: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap3.htm

Distinctive Features of Sanathan Dharama: KAnchi ParamAchArya
Karma and Reincarnation

• Our religion has a number of unique or distinctive features. One of them is what is called the theory of karma, though this theory is common to religions like Buddhism which are offshoots of Hinduism.

• Our religion further asserts that one is born again and again so as to experience the consequences of one's good and bad action. "Do good", "Do not do evil", such are the exhortations of all religions. But Hinduism (and its offshoots) alone lay stress on the cause-and-effect connection. No religion originating in countries outside India subscribes to the cause-and-effect connection, nor to the reincarnation theory as one of its articles of faith

• Indeed religions originating abroad hold beliefs contrary to this theory and strongly oppose the view that man is born again and again in order to exhaust his karma. They believe that a man has only one birth, that when his soul departs on his death it dwells somewhere awaiting the day of judgment. On this day God makes an assessment of his good and bad actions and, on the basis of it, rewards him with eternal paradise or sentences him to eternal damnation.

• Some years ago, a well-known writer from Europe came to see me; nowadays you see many white men coming to the Matha. This gentleman told me that the Bible stated more than once that God is love. He could not reconcile this with the belief that God condemns a sinner to eternal damnation without affording him an opportunity for redemption. On this point a padre had told him: "It is true that there is an eternal hell. But it is eternally vacant."

• The padre's statement is difficult to accept. Let us suppose that the Lord in his compassion does not condemn a sinner to hell. Where then does he send his soul? Since, according to Christianity, there is no rebirth the sinner is not made to be born again. So he too must be rewarded with heaven (as much as the virtuous man). This means that we may merrily keep sinning without any fear of punishment. After all, God will reward all of us with heaven. This belief implies that there is no need for morality and truthfulness.

• According to our religion too, Isvara who decides our fate after death on the basis of our karma is infinitely merciful. But, at the same time, he does not plunge the world in adharma, in unrighteousness- that is not how his compassion manifests itself. What does he do then? He gives us another birth, another opportunity to reap the fruits of our good and bad action.

• In His mercy the Lord gives us every time a fresh opportunity to wash away our sins. The guru, the sastras, and the temples are all his gifts to wipe away our inner impurities. That Isvara, in his compassion, places his trust even in a sinner confident that he will raise himself through his own efforts and gives him a fresh opportunity in the form of another birth to advance himself inwardly- is not such a belief better than that he should dismiss a sinner as good for nothing and yet reward him with heaven?

Strong evidence to support reincarnation

• There is strong evidence to support the reincarnation theory. A lady from the West came to see me one day and asked me if there was any proof of reincarnation. I did not have any discussion with her on the subject. Instead, I asked her to visit the local obstetric hospital and find out all about the children born there. There was a learned man who knew English where we were camping then. I asked him to accompany the lady.

• Later, on their return from the hospital, I asked the woman about her impressions of the new-born children. She said that she had found one child plump and lusty, another skinny; one beautiful and another ungainly. One child was born in a comfortable ward [that is to a well-to-do mother] and another to a poor mother.

• "Leave aside the question of God consigning a man to eternal hell after his death," I said to the foreign lady. "We are not witness to such a phenomenon. But now you have seen with your own eyes how differently the children are born in the hospital that you visited. How would you account for the differences? Why should one child be born rich and another poor? Why should one be healthy and another sickly? And why should one be good-looking and another not so good looking?

• "If you accept the doctrine that men are born only once, you cannot but from the impression that God is neither compassionate nor impartial--think of all the differences at birth--and that he functions erratically and unwisely. How are we to be devoted to such a God and have the faith that he will look on us with mercy? How are we to account for the differences between one being and another if we do not accept the doctrine that our life now is determined by the good and the bad we did in our past births." The lady from the West accepted my explanation.

• Such an explanation is not, however, good enough for people in modern times. They demand scientific proof of reincarnation. Parapsychologists have done considerable research in the subject and their findings are in favour of the theory of rebirth. During the studies conducted in various parts of the world they encountered people who remembered their past lives. The latter recalled places and people they had seen in their previous birth-places and people that have nothing to do with them now. The parapsychologists verified these facts and to their amazement found them to be true.

Ishvara avatAra

• The doctrine of the incarnations of the Lord--avataras--is another unique feature of our religion. The Reality (Sadvastu) is one. That It manifests itself as countless beings is one of our cardinal tenets.

• It follows that it is this one and only Reality that transforms itself again and again into all those beings that are subject to birth and death. Also it is the same Reality that is manifested as Ishvara to protect this world of sentient beings and insentient objects. Unlike humans he is not subject to the law of karma.

• If the Lord descends to earth again and again it is to lift up man and show him the righteous path. When unrighteousness gains the upper hand and righteousness declines, he descends to earth to destroy unrighteousness and to establish righteousness again- and to protect the virtuous and destroy the wicked. Sri Krsna Paramatman declares so in the GItA:

yadaa yadaa hi dharmasya glaanirbhavati bhaarata |
abhyutthaanamadharmasya tadaatmaanaM sR^ijaamyaham.h ||4.7||

paritraaNaaya saadhuunaa.n vinaashaaya cha dushhkR^itaam |
dharmasa.nsthaapanaarthaaya sambhavaami yuge yuge ||4.8||
--BhagavadgItA, 4.7&8.

• Ishvara is to be known in different states. That the Lord is all--that all is the Lord--is a state that we cannot easily comprehend. Then there is a state mentioned in the "vibhuti yoga" (ch.10) of GItA according to which the Lord dwells in the highest of each category, in the "most excellent" of things.

• To create the highest of excellence in human life he sends messengers to earth in the guise of preceptors (AchAryas), men of wisdom and enlightenment (jnAnins), yogins and devotees. This is another state in which God is to be known.

• Not satisfied with the previous states, he assumes yet another state: he descends to earth as an avatara. The word "avatAraNa" itself means "descent". Ihsvara is "parAtpara", that is "higher than the highest", "beyond what is beyond everything". Yet he descends to earth by being born in our midst to re-establish dharma.

Worshipping God in his images

• That the one and only Paramatman who has neither a form nor attributes is manifested as different forms with attributes is another special feature of our religion.

• We worship idols representing these forms of deities. For this reason others label us polytheists. There view is utterly wrong. Because we worship the one God, the one reality, in many different forms it does not mean that we believe in many gods.

• It is equally absurd to call us idolaters who hold that the idol we worship is God. Hindus with a proper understanding of their religion do not think that the idol alone is God. The idol is meant for the worshipper to offer one-pointed devotion and he adores it with the conviction that the Lord who is present everywhere is present in it also. We see that practitioners of other religions also have symbols for worship and meditation. So it is wholly unjust to believe that Hindus alone worship idols- to regard them with scorn as idolaters is not right.

The Hindu tolerance and interaction

• That ours is the only religion that does not proclaim that its followers have an exclusive right to salvation is a matter of pride for us Hindus. Our catholic outlook is revealed in our scriptures which declare that whatever the religious path followed by people they will finally attain the same ParamAtman. That is why there is no place for conversion in Hinduism.

• Christianity has it that, if a man does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, he shall be condemned to hell. Islam says the same about those who do not follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. We must not be angry with the adherents of either religion on that score.

• We may not approve of people being forced into a religion or of conversions carried out by temptations placed before them. But we need not for that reason doubt that those who spread their religion in this fashion really believe that their work will bring general well-being.

• We cannot, however, help asking whether their belief is right. People who do not follow either Christ or the Prophet, are they really condemned to hell?

• A little thinking should show that the belief that the followers of Christianity or Islam have an exclusive right to salvation cannot be sustained. It is only some 2,000 years since Jesus was born and only about 1,400 years or so since the birth of the Prophet. What happened to all the people born before them since creation? Are we to believe that they must have passed into hell?

• We are also compelled to infer that even the forefathers of the founders of Christianity and Islam would not have earned paradise. If, like Hindus, all those who lived before Christ or the Prophet had believed in rebirth, we could concede that they would have been saved: they would have been again and again until the arrival of Christ or the Prophet and then afforded the opportunity of following their teachings. But if we accept the logic of Christianity and Islam, according to which religions there is no rebirth, we shall have to conclude that hundreds of millions of people for countless generations must have been consigned to eternal hell.

Religions evolve according to maturity

• The question arises as to whether God is so merciless as to keep dispatching people for ages together to the hell from which there is no escape. Were he compassionate would he not have sent, during all this time, a messenger of his or a teacher to show humanity the way to liberation? Why should we worship a God who has no mercy? Or for that matter, why should there be any religion at all?

• The countries are many and they have different climates and grow different crops. Also each part of the world has evolved a different culture. But the Vedas encompassed lands all over this planet from the very beginning. Latter other religions emerged in keeping with the changing attitudes of the nations concerned. That is why aspects of the Vedic tradition are in evidence not only in the religions now in force but in what we know of those preceding them. But in India alone has Hinduism survived as a full-fledged living faith.

• It must also be added that this primeval religion has regarded- and still regards- with respect the religions that arose subsequent to it. The Hindu views is this: "Other religions must have evolved according to the degree of maturity of the people among whom they originated. They will bring well being to their adherents." "Live and let live" has been and continues to be the ideal of our religion. It has given birth to religions like Buddhism and Jainism and they [particularly Buddhism] have been propagated abroad for the Atmic advancement of the people there.

[atanu]

Oh, I see what you mean now. kanchi Paramacharya has termed the Koran as a revealed scripture for the Muslims! Ahh. Cool. Muslims would agree that their scripture is a revealed scripture.

Namaste Satay,

No. Apaurusheya does not mean specific for a person, or group or a time. The point is not that. The point is that no hindu sage has taught that Bible or Koran is barbaric.

By the way, I can't help but notice that you are seeking support from srila prabhupada to cling to your ideas. Prabhupada, the saint and scholar that you have insulted several times even here on HDF. (Just an observation).

Yes. My mind is not immutable like some other minds. But I do not like Prabhupada callng Shiva, who is denoted as Ishwara in Vedas, as a demi-god but suporting that God of Bibble or of Koran are same as Narayana. Similarly, I also do not agree that a Brahman worshipper, an Ishwara worshipper, a God worshipper, or an Allah worshipper have different aims. Bhakti is same.

There is no need for a Hindu to look elsewhere. At he same time there is no need to disparage other peoples faith.

Okay.

That is a big relief.

Why would one do that if all religions are true? Why show that Veda contained Buddha's teachings? Since as per you, Hinduism teaches all religions are true, what does it matter if Veda contains Buddha's teachings or not. Since buddhists were claiming to be a religions, all that was required from the sages of Hinduism at that time as the acceptance that yes, buddhisism is a true religion since that's what Hinduism teaches. Correct?

Why? What's the need to unite? Since all religions are true so is dvaita, visistaadvaita and advaita on their own true. Isn't it?

No that is not the point. Veda is sanatana truth, why does God then take repeated birth as Avatara? The truth of single soul origin of all the seeming variety is lost to us every morning on waking up. We need to meditate/study/listen to guru to retain the correct perspective. Religions also get muddied and require similar churning.

Shankara's aim was not argument against Buddhists but to re-establish the the truth of the immutable. Though, the Buddha had taught of an unborn immutable truth, but what most Buddhists remembered was "All this a big flux and here is nothing else".

Anyway, I see that it is pointless to continue. Only the following is my view, which I have posted again and again:

Devotion Common to all Faiths: Power that rules all worldly activities. Devotion or bhakti is a feature common to all religious schools- Advaita (non-dualism), Dvaita (dualism), Visistadvaita (qualified non-dualism), Saiva Siddhanta, Christianity, Islam and so on.
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap5.htm

The Unity of Religions
All religions have one common ideal, worship of the Lord, and all of them proclaim that there is but one God. This one God accepts your devotion irrespective of the manner of your worship, whether it is according to this or that religion. So there is no need to abandon the religion of your birth and embrace another.

The temple, the church, the mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatman who wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same.
------
One big difference between Hinduism and other faiths is that it does not proclaim that it alone shows the path to liberation. Our Vedic religion alone has not practiced conversion and the reason for it is that our forefathers were well aware that all religions are nothing but different paths to realise the one and only Paramatman.

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap6.htm

-------------------
Once we turn back from individual or group centric view to Ishwara centric view, then we will be fully content with Veda, understanding that it is the full.

I do not know who has said that all religions are same that saidevo cites again and again.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Because Koran is an exclusive scripture for the belivers of 'allah', once you accept it as a revelation, you can not at the same time hold the Vedas in your hands.

Namaste Satay,

Enough evidence has been shown that no hindu guru teaches that Lord/God/Jehovah etc. are different. The teachers are emphatic that God is one - given names are different. Paths are different suited to time or maturity of followers.

I do not understand your question as to how if name of Allah is true then Veda cannot be true? This is simply illogical. It is like saying if Bhagavatam is true then how can be Shiva Purana be true?

Veda is not the printed words but it is the body of the Lord.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Divnity and Supremacy of the Vedic Dharma over all other religions
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap3.htm

Ishvara avatAra

• The doctrine of the incarnations of the Lord--avataras--is another unique feature of our religion. The Reality (Sadvastu) is one. That It manifests itself as countless beings is one of our cardinal tenets.

• It follows that it is this one and only Reality that transforms itself again and again into all those beings that are subject to birth and death. Also it is the same Reality that is manifested as Ishvara to protect this world of sentient beings and insentient objects. Unlike humans he is not subject to the law of karma.

Namaste saidevoji,

This is good post highlighting the differences. Since Paramacharya teaches this we must accept full teaching which also says right in the beginning:

All religions have one common ideal, worship of the Lord, and all of them proclaim that there is but one God. This one God accepts your devotion irrespective of the manner of your worship, whether it is according to this or that religion. So there is no need to abandon the religion of your birth and embrace another.

The temple, the church, the mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatman who wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same.

Has any guru claimed exact sameness of all paths? Then there would be no need for different paths, even within the Hindu dharma fold. Has any guru said some paths are barbaric?

Can you support Dr. Frank Morales' contention that Bhakti of Allah and Brahman (which you cited in an earlier post) are absolutely different, in the light of Paramacharya or Ramana or any other Hindu Gurus's teaching?

And who among the Hindu Gurus have not highlighted these differences and established the supreme applicability of the Vedas? What is all comprehensive, true eternally, applicable to all -- is Universal. And Kanchi Paramacharya's book title highlights this. Almost every scripture begins with an emphatic statement of one source of all variety that we see in the jagrat, so that the variety is not taken as the sole reality.

Om Namah Shivaya

[devotee]

Namaste All,

I think we have all said what we had to say. I think we can summarise now :

a) All paths have a common factor, "Devotion", as Atanu pointed out & we all know. This "Devotion" is important & not the names & forms of God. As long as the purity and intensity of devotion is maintained, it should lead to the same result i.e. grace of God.

b) The goals of all religions are not the same. Hindus are more for liberation from the cycles of births & deaths. So, their devotion would ultimately guide towards that goal of theirs. Abrahimic religions have a different goal ... they seek eternal ( ? ) happy after life in heaven .... so the devotion should get them a happy after life. However, it is difficult to say what happens to a man who is truly devoted to Allah but being indoctrinated by Quranic teachings kills a so-called infidel Hindu because he does not believe in Quran & Muhammad. The same goes for Christianity & Judaism. All these three religions advocate that idol-worshipping is bad & Deuteronomy-13 does preach violence against idol-worshippers.

c) Though pure devotion may lead all of us to the same destiny ... our desired goal ... yet the scriptures have strong contradictions. So, all the scriptures cannot be true revelations ... either one or the other must be corrupted (even though major part may be revealed). It may be that some parts may be pure revelation but some may be manipulated by some powerful people due to their vested interests. If all are pure & non-manipulated, then God must be mad or there must be different Gods for different philosophies.

d) It is seen that irrespective of what the different scriptures say, the true saints of different saints have something common to share : "They don't hanker after for worldly things. They love all beings in the same manner." etc. Jesus Christ, Sufi Saints like Rumi, Rabia etc. showed these characteristics even though their scriptures taught hatred against the idol-worshippers etc. The only exception is Prophet Muhammad who claimed to be the prophet & indulged not only in his own sexual gratification to hilt but also indulged in merciless killing of innocent people. So, we can safely assume that true devotion to God takes one to love for all beings & non-violence equally irrespective of the differences in scriptures or the prophet(s).

e) Let's not forget that everyone doesn't reads or understands the scriptures. So, it is incumbent upon people who know to interpret the scriptures carefully so that we can avoid unnecessary sufferings in this world. The reality is that we can't do away with the differences in scriptures & the faiths. We should not close our eyes towards the faults in the scriptures wherever they teach wrong things like killing innocent people ... but highlight them so that the concerned religious leaders could interpret them in a manner which can be considered safe for the mankind. Let it be debated threadbare by people of all faiths so that people should know the flaws & try to think of required solutions. If there is some wound then it can't be cured by hiding ... it has to be noticed & then operated upon.

So, here both types of people are required ... those who highlight the flaws & the inherent danger hidden in the words of those scriptures & also those who are capable of giving the same words a meaning which can make them harmless or benefiting to the mankind. And 2nd part is not an easy task. As we have seen in this very thread ... there are only two people (Atanu & Ekanta) on this board who want to be on the 2nd part of the task ... all of us are happy being on job for the first part because that is a pretty easy task. Though I agree that the 2nd part is not in the hands of the Hindus but in the hands of the religious leaders of those religions.

OM

[saidevo]

namaste Atanu and others.

I think we are indulging in verbal calisthenics using our own ideas of the word 'same' and trying to attribute it to the words of KAnchi ParamAchArya and other Hindu gurus, without looking adequately into the context of their sayings.

Satay has spelled out the objective of this thread in the OP (post #2):

Does Hinduism teach universalism? Universalism is defined as follows elsewhere on the net: "the ideology that all religions are true"

Does Hinduism or Hindu gurus teach that all religions are true or is it a propaganda spread by the new age gurus?

• The word 'same' has three primary meanings: 1. identical; the very one; 2. similar; alike in kind, quality, amount, or degree; 3. unchanged, not different.

• Now, combined with the word 'true' that Satay has given us, the word 'same' in the context of this thread can only mean 'identical, unchanged, not different', and not 'similar', because truth is 'identical, unchanged, not different'.

• So, in this context, it can be shown that most contemporary Hindu gurus when they talk about the 'sameness' of all religions in different contexts, only mean that

•• the goal of all religions is the 'same', One God, but the paths towards that goal are different although it might appear 'same--similar', in the bhakti--devotion, aspect of all religions.

The gurus very well know (although they don't say it) that even this similarity is only in the kind and that it differs in quality, amount, and degree; but because our Hindu Dharma teaches us tolerance and our tradition has taught us peaceful co-existence, our gurus don't want us to take the differences in similarity seriously.

•• although the concepts of this 'same' One God are radically different between religions, and even between the sects of the same religion, if the path of devotion is sincere and ardent, that One God would eventually grant liberation to the followers of all religions (as KAnchi ParamAcharya has said), so there is no necessity to switch one's faith or insist another to switch over.

•• the concept of liberation is radically different between religions and sects, but that should not be the motivation for conversion or revilement of another religion.

Because our Hindu contemporary gurus either explicitly state or subtly imply ALL the above facts of the 'sameness' and essentiality among religions and sects,

• whereever KAnchi ParamAchArya talks about 'all paths leading to the same goal' and that the same One God will bless every sincere follower whatever his/her religion, he also brings in the issue of conversion and stresses the unique features of Hinduism, specially of the Vedas, earlier or later in his speeches.

• VivekAnanda appreciated the devotional discipline in Islam and wanted it to be the body with the VedAnta as the head for his new concept of a futuristic religion based on Vedanta, and at the same time took Islam and Christianity to task for their monopolistic and aggressive teachings.

• RAmakRShNa said he would like all dishes prepared of the same fish that the Mother gives a child, but since the Mother knows about her children, she prepares different varieties of dishes with the same fish.

• Sathya SAi BAbA wanted people of all religions to live in amity recognizing the essential unity of their religions and at the same time he unequivocally said that his devotees should not be part of the conversion activities.

and every other Hindu contemporary guru at one time or another spoke about the desirables and undesirables of the other religions and of the sects of our own religion.

**********

Where does that leaves us now? What are the practical implications of the explicit and implied teachings of our contemporary gurus, specially about the Abrahmaic religions, and about our own religions sects?

• Our contemporary gurus want us live in amity with the people of other religions and sects; at the same time, since they don't approve of the coercive conversion efforts of the Abrahamic religions, we have their implied sanction to safeguard our dharma by reaction and with sincere efforts of learning and appreciating more and more about the unique features of Hindu Dharma and living them out in our worldly life.

• Unless we learn, appreciate and spread the knowledge about the greatness of Vedic Hindu Dharma among our children, and youth and the religiously uneducated grass roots, we face the daily risk of our children and the youth getting easily weaned away towards the Abrahamic religions in their relentlessly coercive and inhuman conversion efforts. Thus acqusition and dispensation of the true and traditional knowledge about our Vedic Hindu Dharma must be the primary goal--and role--of every discerning Hindu.

• By and large the followers of Abrahamic religions are peaceful, despite the teachings they receive, but there are hundreds at the public level, and most at the clergy, academic, corporal and political levels, who are vociferously hostile towards the Hindu religious teachings and practices.

As true Hindus, we have a duty to denounce and debate those adharmic forces motivated by the teachings of their own scriptures. This duty requires us to identify and highlight the erroneous teachings (whatever their motivation) more, than trying to find similarity in the scriptural revelations.

After all, our gurus have not told us to read and research the Bible and the Quran and try to match their teachings with the findings of our shruti and smRti texts. They only want us to understand the similarity of the religions and sects at the devotional level.

Let us remember that all our gurus have quoted from Hindu sectoral scriptures and the common traditional scriptures far more extensively, than what they have quoted of the Abrahmic religious scriptures, so let us NOT try to give more weight than what they intended to such quotes. Our primary concern as Hindus is to find the similarities and essential unity in our own sectoral scriptures.

So let us try to bell the wild Abrahamic cat that persistently tries to maul us in the strong belief that it has only one life, not nine.

• The essential unity that our contemporary gurus teach us is more applicable to our own Hindu sects. Therefore, let us learn to appreciate the theological differences in the streams of Hinduism that we sail through, and do our best to forge and foster the unity among our own Hindu religious community, which is the most essential factor in safeguarding our Vedic Hindu Dharma.

What is more to be said in this thread?

IMO, a lot more, about the 'Divnity and Supremacy of the Vedic Dharma' about its 'Distinctive Features' so we gradually grow in our true knowledge. I request our learned members to contribute about this aspect of the thread because only this knowledge could ultimately convince everyone of us about the practical reality of the Abrahamic religions.