Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 289101112131415 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 142

Thread: Hindu Universalism

  1. #111
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    70
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5038

    Re: Hindu Universalism

    Vanakkam all: Just for the record, this is how I actually see it. There is only one religion. It is Sanatana Dharma. The Abrahamic religions are kindergarten classes. The followers are in the kindergarten class. There is only one school, many grades. Everybody reincarnates, whether they believe in it this lifetime, or not. Souls currently in Abrahamic faiths will also slowly move up in their evolution. The first step beyond kindergarten is a more liberal view within Abrahamic faith. The second step up is to atheism, or agnosticism, the great realisation that perhaps there are other ways. Doubt. Get out of that first little box. This was put so lovely in Herman Hesse's Damien. Escaping from the shell into a new world.

    So in the grand scheme of things there is nothing to worry about. The world and its people are evolving as they should. You cannot get rid of Sanatana Dharma. There would always be some individual somewhere who could sit down in a cave, by his own choice or otherwise, and get a flash of insight, and ponder,"Where did that come from?" He would then go in and in and in and find the true Self. This might happen 10 000 years from now. He might be the only being on the planet that has this knowledge. Then if he were killed, some great soul who had realised this truth before would decide to take on a body again, and the whole thing would repeat itself.

    So no matter what happens, these eternal truths cannot be destroyed. They existed forever, and will continue to exist forever. If, at this point in the Kaliyuga it seems to be dark, and nigh impossible to get anywhere, or stop suffering, so be it. It is the Kali yuga, after all. These are just bodies, not souls. These are just minds, not souls. And these souls are identical to God in vibration.

    Yes, it's frustrating to see 'lower' forces from the mind. But its just the mind, not the Self.

    Aum Namasivaya

  2. #112

    Re: Hindu Universalism

    Quote Originally Posted by satay View Post
    namaskar Ekanta,


    The purpose of the thread (once again) has been outlined in my last post.

    Thanks.
    However, the original purpose of the thread was to find out:
    a) which authentic hindu guru has termed Koran as a revealed scripture
    and,
    b) if Hinduism teaches universalism; universalism as defined as 'the ideology that all religions are equal'


    Authentic Hindu guru means Rishis , and no scripture eg. 3Vedas , 18 Puranas and 6 Shashtras at that time TELL , what this bala is .

    All these scriptures tell of universalism , the ideology that sanatan dharm is only ONE .

    Now this I feel stops the heads collision .

  3. #113
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Hindu Universalism

    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo View Post
    namaste Atanu and others.
    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo View Post
    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.
    Namaste saidevo, Jai murugan, Satay,

    I wish to dispel a doubt before I begin. Sanatana dharma, understood as one truth is universal and is anadimat - without beginning and end, complete, stand alone and does not require any other knowledge. Just as Swami Vivekananda believed and taught: Hinduism is the Salvation for the all.

    Conversion etc. is most evil tendency, which we can only counter by God's grace and by wisdom. By knowing our dharma in full.

    I agree with saidevo as above. But we cannot forget that Bhagwan while teaching to stand upright against evil also taught Arjuna to be a yogi. A yogi sees the same Brahman in a Brahmana, in a chandala, and in a Dog. He ses Brahman in oblation, in the oblation holder, etc. He sees Brahman in action in all things and in all processes. A yogi sees all in self, sees self in Lord and Lord in self.

    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.


    I see great value in above view of EM. But some thing has remained unsaid. Milk and Mango juice are both irreplaceable. One cannot replace one with another. One can always pay attention to what is good and what is common to all these. Sanatana dharma teaches that the auspicious one pervades all this just as butter pervades Milk.

    A henpecked husband may hold lifelong anger against women. A tortured woman may hold lifelong grudge against menfolk. But the fact is that the world is half female and half male. The fact, whether we like or not, is that the world is 1/3rd Hindu-Buddhist, 1/3rd Christian-Jew, and 1/3rd Muslim (approximately). This is the body of the Lord. Hindu Dharma is universal since Hindu Dharma has the wherewithal to transcend the apparent differences.

    Lasty, there has been a general view as below:

    #2 Most swamis who say all religions are the same...this is due to political compulsions. Why? Because Christian countries (read west) are rich; so are Arab/Muslim nations in the Middle East. Hindus, being poor in comparison, find it awkward to challenge them. So the only way is the way of compromise: we won't attack you, provided you won't attack us.


    It is surprising as to why no one says anything to counter such ideas. Have Hindu teachers taught that all religions are same? Who has taught so? Have all Hindu teachers taught from a stand of weakness or are the Self Realised sages fearless and teach nothing but the Truth? Is is OK to denounce andweaken the roots in this way?

    atanu may be abominable but please speak impartially.

    Every teacher or every scripture begins with: OM, the akshara is All This, before going on to the variegated teaching.

    Isha
    1.All this is covered by the lord, whatsoever is individual universe of movement in the universal motion. By that renounced thou shouldst enjoy; lust not after any man´s possession.

    It cannot be over-emphasized that all the world is universal motion of the Lord, called Vishnu, whether one sees rAma or rAvanA.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by atanu; 24 December 2009 at 10:53 PM. Reason: sp.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Hindu Universalism

    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo View Post
    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"
    Namaste saidevoji,

    There is no doubt. Whatsoever or in howsoever fashion the tern 'Universal' is defined in net, it primarily means:

    –adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience. 2.applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
    –noun 13.something that may be applied throughout the universe to many things, usually thought of as an entity that can be in many places at the same time.
    Wherever the teaching is of one immutable pervading all phenomena, that is Universal teaching. Whomsoever knows the one immutable akshara beneath all phenomena knows the Universal. IMO, Paramacharya's teaching has no scope for verbal calisthenics, if seen only from the motive of knowledge of Brahman/dharma.

    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.


    The centre is not the individual or any group; but Paramatman - the sanatana, the universal.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by atanu; 24 December 2009 at 10:48 PM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Hindu Universalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ekanta View Post
    For those interested:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ekanta View Post

    The Sword of Kali
    Reply to "A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism"
    http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/101.htm

    A few quotes:
    "Dr. Morales seems to believe that the statement ‘all religions are the same’ is identical to the statement ‘all religions are exactly the same’. But Hinduism does not say that all religions are exactly the same. Hinduism says that all religions speak of the same Reality though they may call this Reality by different names or conceive of It differently. "

    By placing Universalism in opposition to Absolutism, Dr. Morales tries to create the impression that Universalism is a kind of Relativism. But this opposition has no basis to stand on. Universalism is based on absolutes…
    Namaste Ekanta,

    I bring this to surface once again just that 'Radical Universalism' may be better understood, without malice and without bias. I do not feel OK that Dr. Frank Morales creates a definition and picks only certain sages as correct teachers. IMO, That is solely his view and implies (as if) that he indirectly attributes motive to sages who are not on his list. He creates an idea exactly opposite of Vedantic knowledge that a knower of Brahman is Brahman.

    Even though Krishna and Bhisma pitAmaha fought, but both being Brahma jnanis were not different in essence. Yet they were different and on the opposite side in the physical plane.

    Dr. Frank Morales propounds a naive theory as if Swamy Chinmayananda and Swami Vivekananda are not aware of this. Unfortunately (IMO), such criticism and naivety, in general, arise in west or in hindu converts who were christian priests.

    The simple is :

    There is in reality no such thing as Radical Universalism. The idea that ‘all religions are exactly the same’ is devoid of meaning like the sentence ‘he is the son of a barren woman’ because the multiplicity of religions indicated by the sentential-subject ‘all religions’ is negated by the predicate ‘are exactly the same’ to present a mere word-combination devoid of meaning.
    Sanatana cannot be Neo. Or rather Sanatana is ever the NEO.


    Om Namaha Shivaya
    Last edited by atanu; 24 December 2009 at 10:59 PM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Hindu Universalism

    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo View Post
    namaste Atanu and others.

    • 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.
    Namaste saidevoji,

    Though atanu has been rebuked by many and you extolled by many in this thread, but it appears that we must come to the similar conclusion eventualy. Based on above in quote, I query "Who is this 'Radical Universalist Guru' that Dr. Morales talks about and creates two classes of gurus?" Are not the Self realised gurus, the brahma jnanis, the brahma itself?

    Om Namah Shivaya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Hindu Universalism

    namaste Atanu.

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    There is no doubt. Whatsoever or in howsoever fashion the tern 'Universal' is defined in net, it primarily means:

    –adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience. 2.applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.

    –noun 13.something that may be applied throughout the universe to many things, usually thought of as an entity that can be in many places at the same time.
    You have given the definition for the term 'universal', but this thread is about 'universalism'. Whenever an 'ism' is suffixed to universal concepts, it limits and even corrupts them in some cases: universal--universalism, capital--capitalism, commune--communism, creation--creationism, future--futurism, hindu--hinduism, method--methodism, spirit--spiritism and so on. (Incidentally, here is a list of 887 words ending with 'ism': http://www.morewords.com/ends-with/ism/)

    In the context of this thread, the definition of 'universalism' as given by Satay is "the ideology that all religions are true". This definition is an extension of the dictionary definition of the word 'universalism': "the theological doctrine that all souls will eventually find salvation in the grace of God."

    IMHO, what KAnchi ParamAchArya has taught us is that 'The One Universal God', who is the 'goal' of devotion and is the essential 'core' of all religions, will certainly grant salvation to all souls who are sincere in their devotion, by his grace but only eventually, despite the 'paths' of devotion and the 'concepts' of salvation being radically different amongst religions.

    This is the teaching of contemporary Hinduism for this Kali Yuga. In the traditional teaching of KrShNa ParamAtma and the Vedic Rishis, mokSha can be obtained by following the Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga or Jnana Yoga paths either exclusively or in combination.

    Although contemporary Hinduism in general teaches this concept of eventual salvation by God's grace, as you are aware, we have had long and tedious discussions about a seeker's efforts vis-a-vis God's grace, without coming to a conclusion such as "the salvation can be obtained just by the grace of God without any effort on the part of the seeker, once he surrenders completely to God", which is the philosophy of vishiShtadvaita.

    As a human being endowed with identical spiritual faculties, every one of us, irrespective of our gender, country, creed and religion, is eligible for salvation and will get it, but only eventually. The 'eventually' is a very big condition which is based on the maturity of the theology and practice of religions and sects.

    In the Indian religions that don't preach monopolistic exclusivity, this eventually is bound to be far shorter than in the case of Abrahmic religions. Thus this condition of eventuality dilutes the application of universality in the concept of universalism. This is the reason Vivekananda said 'Hinduism is the Salvation for all.'
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

  8. #118
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Hindu Universalism

    namaste Atanu.

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    I agree with saidevo as above. But we cannot forget that Bhagwan while teaching to stand upright against evil also taught Arjuna to be a yogi.
    BhagavAn KrShNa taught Arjuna to be a yogi alright, but you don't need me to remind you that he wanted Arjuna to first do his duty as a kShatriya rather than stay away from the war as a yogi.

    Bhagavat GItA 2.31:
    Further, having regard to thy own duty, thou shouldst not waver, for there is nothing higher for a kShatriya than a righteous war.

    Bhagavat GItA 2.32:
    Happy are the kShatriyas, O Arjuna, who are called upon to fight in such a battle that comes of itself as an open door to heaven.

    When as Sarabhanga would say, Arjuna and KRShNa embody the nara-nArAyaNa principle, and KRShNa reminds Arjuna the great warrior with the potentiality of a yogi of his first duty--svadharma, as a kShatriya, what would be shrI KrShNa's advise to the common Hindus that everyone of us are? In the messy mixup of varNas in the Kali Yuga, every Hindu has the duty of a kShatriya when it comes to dharma-rakShaNam--safeguarding his/her dharma.

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    The fact, whether we like or not, is that the world is 1/3rd Hindu-Buddhist, 1/3rd Christian-Jew, and 1/3rd Muslim (approximately). This is the body of the Lord. Hindu Dharma is universal since Hindu Dharma has the wherewithal to transcend the apparent differences.
    This also means that the Lord's body needs to be balanced with the three guNas--sattva of the Hindu-Buddhist, rajas--of the Christian-Jew and tamas--of the Muslim. What will the Lord do when the rajas and tamas try to dominate the sattvic? Would He want the sattvic to be subverted or react to regain and establish its equal share?

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    It is surprising as to why no one says anything to counter such ideas. Have Hindu teachers taught that all religions are same? Who has taught so? Have all Hindu teachers taught from a stand of weakness or are the Self Realised sages fearless and teach nothing but the Truth? Is is OK to denounce andweaken the roots in this way?
    I have not tried to counter the post of 'rahulg' because he is only a newcomer here and would eventually learn. Perhaps the other members have desisted for the same reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    It cannot be over-emphasized that all the world is universal motion of the Lord, called Vishnu, whether one sees rAma or rAvanA.
    When RAmA himself saw RAvaNa as RAvANa who needed to be destroyed, and destroyed the asura, remaining in the form of a nara--man, it is the same RAmA who, after reminding us of our svadharma as KrShNa in the GItA, wants us to identify and fight the RAvaNa in reaction (if not in proaction), so ViShNu's body of sattvic nature remains in a balanced state in the Hindu-Christian-Muslim equation you have given above.

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu;
    atanu may be abominable but please speak impartially. (post #113)
    It is surprising as to why no one says anything to counter such ideas. (post #113)
    Though atanu has been rebuked by many and you extolled by many in this thread, but it appears that we must come to the similar conclusion eventualy. (post #116)
    I am at a loss to understand this kind of personal expressions coming from an Advaitin like you who needs to emphasize with everyone, frankly.

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    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.
    You are repeating this quote for the third time (posts 106,108,114). I don't understand your purpose in disregarding the overall POV of ParamAchara's speech about 'The Unity of Religions' in part, chapter 6: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap6.htm

    Leaving aside the fact that the AchArya in the immediately following chapter 7 talks about the 'Qualities of Religious Teachers', even in the present chapter the text that immediately follows the quote you have given above is this (emphasis added):

    "The different religions have taken shape according to the customs peculiar to the countries in which they originated and according to the differences in the mental outlook of the people inhabiting them. The goal of all religions is to lead people to the same Paramatman according to the different attributes of the devotees concerned. So there is no need for people to change over to another faith. Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God."

    Three things are indicated here: 1) guNas determine the nature of religions; 2)even where some religions attribute those guNas to their God, they don't affect Ishvara, who remains the same; 3) Since Ishvara is the same, one should stay in the religion of his/her birth.

    These three aspects in themselves merit a long discussion in a separate thread. The most important of these three aspects is that Ishvara is the same in all religions (despite their concepts about Him). But the AchArya is also equally concerned the other two aspects or else he would not have juxtaposed them in his speech. Not only that, the chapter closes with a telling concluding remark:

    "That the beliefs and customs of the various religions are different cannot be a cause for complaint. Nor is there any need to make all of them similar. The important thing is for the followers of the various faiths to live in harmony with one another. The goal must be unity, not uniformity."

    Given this context, why do you quote only the portion dealing with the second aspect repeatedly, ignoring the others?

    I shall readily concede this POV which is the only one you see in the AchAryA's words: that Ishvara is above all the guNas that religions seek to attribute to him and that he remains universal, identical and the same in all religions.

    But the AchArya emphatically says "Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God." How can God, who is above all guNas be demeaned? So what is the real purpose of speech in this chapter? Think over, Atanu.

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Based on above in quote, I query "Who is this 'Radical Universalist Guru' that Dr. Morales talks about and creates two classes of gurus?" Are not the Self realised gurus, the brahma jnanis, the brahma itself?
    Let me make it very clear here that I don't consider the opinions of Frank Morales--or those of any other western guru for that matter--as superior to those of our Hindu gurus--contemporary and traditional. I am not bothered with his idiosyncratic classification of them as Neo and Traditional. At the same time, I share his concern of us Hindu parents remaining ignorant of the distinctive features of our religion as taught by our traditional gurus; and our failure to teach our children properly which only makes them easy conversion targets for the missionaries of Abrahamic religions.
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

  9. #119
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Re: Hindu Universalism

    namaskar,

    Please focus.

    Are all religions true?
    Is that what sanatana dharma teaches?
    satay

  10. #120

    Cool Re: Hindu Universalism

    Namaste All,

    Satya G, I agree with you

    Even Rajah Ram Mohun Roy and Mahrshi Dayanand promoted hinduism
    there is a tale made my fools that both of them were impressed by christianity but when I studed them I discovered some facts that both rejected christ's claims, and supported Dharm Prachar

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •