Hindu Universalism

[satay]

No one says that religions are same.

Om Namah Shivaya

Huh?

I asked

namaskar,

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?

What do you think?

Elsewhere on this thread, you wrote that Hinduism teaches universalism meaning that Hinduism is an ideology that teaches that all religions are true.

If all religions are true then they must logically be same. Isn't? Otherwise, it doesn't hold logically.

or is it that truth is different since religions are not the same.

[satay]

Do you think that all sages who have been cited are all bluffing?

Om Namah Shivaya

Which sages have been cited as saying Koran is a revealed scripture?

[atanu]

namaskar,

---- then it doesn't make logical sense to accept that an authentic guru would term something non-indian as 'revealed' or shruti unless there was some political agenda or some other propaganda.

Satay,

Is this your idea of revelation - apauruseya. It has to be Indian?

From Kanchi Paramacharya
The Word of God

We must not distrust the belief that the Vedas are not the work of mere mortals. Followers of other religions too ascribe divine origin to their scriptures. Jesus says that he merely repeats the words of God and, according to Muslims, the prophet speaks the words of Allah. What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts.


Om

[saidevo]

I also knew what the reply would be. So, I bow out as I have to pack. Just this:

Swami Chinmayananda

-----The values seem to be different. at least in emphasis in different religions and a student who studies various religions may find that one religion emphasizes one set of ideals and another religion.a different set of ideals. Buddhism asserts one maxim, Hinduism another, Islam and Christianity yet another. But if one closely examines the maxims, one discovers that the fundamental principle is one and the same though the language and the emphasis are different. Just as two doctors would prescribe to the same patient on separate occasions two seemingly different prescriptions for the same disease, those who understand the science of medicine would know that the prescriptions are the same, only in name are they apparently different.------

I understand that the modern Hindu sages, even of the traditional Hindu institutions, need to use such pacifism and reconciliation perforce, in their addresses to the public, for reasons such as: i) the Indian society they address comprises Hindus of varied inclinations, ii) the society is mutl-cultural and multi-religious, iii) their addresses are often under the scanner of the pseudo-secular media and iv) we have a pseudo-secular government which would not hesitate to arrest a Hindu sage on the slightest pretexts while turning a blind eye to the vitriolic utterances and deeds of Christian and Muslim authorities in India.

I reiterate that if the Bible and Quran has any values on par with the Hindu concepts as revealed in the Hindu scriptures, the Hindu sages would go deeper than such superficial, sympathetic and analogical statements and give us solid quotes from the scriptures, even as they do it with the Hindu scriptures.

[satay]

So, now Chinmayananda is also not acceptable?

Om Namah Shivaya

Acceptable for what?

Look, the point is, adishankar fought with the Buddhas and defeated them. Why? Because buddhism is also a true religion?

You yourself say that some vaishnavas don't enter shiv temples. If all religions are true and same then why? Are you implying that Vaishnavas are not Hindus?

[satay]

No, sorry, i struggled to find a proper word.

Satay,

Is this your idea of revelation - apauruseya. It has to be Indian?

Om

Which authentic guru has termed Koran as revealed scripture?

adishankar, ramanuja, madva?
Kanchi Paramacharya?
Which one? So that I can studying them more.

[atanu]

Huh?

If all religions are true then they must logically be same. Isn't? Otherwise, it doesn't hold logically.

I do not understand your requirement of logic. Saivism and Vaisnavism are not same due to difference in names and forms yet they are same because both relate to OM and its substratum.

Similarly,

Swami Chinmayananda

-----The values seem to be different. at least in emphasis in different religions and a student who studies various religions may find that one religion emphasizes one set of ideals and another religion.a different set of ideals. Buddhism asserts one maxim, Hinduism another, Islam and Christianity yet another. But if one closely examines the maxims, one discovers that the fundamental principle is one and the same though the language and the emphasis are different. Just as two doctors would prescribe to the same patient on separate occasions two seemingly different prescriptions for the same disease, those who understand the science of medicine would know that the prescriptions are the same, only in name are they apparently different.------

From Saidevo
I understand that the modern Hindu sages, even of the traditional Hindu institutions, need to use such pacifism and reconciliation perforce, in their addresses to the public, for reasons such as: i--

But Frank Morale named Shri Chinmayananda as having busted the radicals. So I quoted Swami Chinmayananda. Which Hindu sage you want me to cite (except the writer of Satyartha Prakash, since then we have to reject idol worship, saivism and vaisnavism also)?

Om Namah Shivaya

[Harjas Kaur]

What is understood as Sruti is itself a part of Hindutva, meaning from within Hindu and Indic culture, heritage, religion and tradition. How could it be understood or conceptualized any other way without betraying the very definitions which it defines? That is the difference between yoga as understood within Hindu teaching and culture, and the popular "yoga" commercialized in the west for relaxation or "Christian" varieties or even yoga exercise classes as part of calisthenics.

What is defaming Hindu teaching is this continual appeasement of forces antithetical to our religion and culture. Like someone wearing colorful Krishna tee shirts on the beach drinking their beers and enjoying their meat barbecues. Divorced from CONTEXT AND HERITAGE you can render the greatest truths MEANINGLESS.

Atanu Ji, if you consider the Koran to be Sruti, then you have already accepted the teachings of Koran as God's Divine and Revealed Truth. And therefore you accept it's teaching that Mohammed is the final prophet. So you are a Muslim. You have converted. There is no other truth beyond the Koran according to the Koran, and it's teachings are the culmination of everything from the past, so now you study only Koran, since it declares itself the greatest and final revelation of God.

If this is Sruti teaching for you, you have already become a Muslim. So you are now a Maleccha. What do you care about what Hindu's think unless you are a Muslim Missionary?

Are you arguing this to manipulate other Hindu's on this forum to accept Mohammed as the final Prophet of God's revealed Koran? What in the hell are you doing?

[Eastern Mind]

I understand that the modern Hindu sages, even of the traditional Hindu institutions, need to use such pacifism and reconciliation perforce, in their addresses to the public, for reasons such as:

I'm not so sure. Once when Subramuniyaswami came here, he made it clear that he didn't want to be speaking to any Christians in the temple. At that time some members of the Sri Lankan community were somewhat upset at this. He just explained that he didn't want to upset them. He might go into some of the deplorable conversion tactics or such. Our leaders do need to speak out, expecially within the Hindu community. The Melbourne Parliament of world religions and other such events was different. That is what its for. Interfaith dialogue. Building bridges etc. So it depends on who you're talking to, and in what circumstance.

I also recall a lady (She seemed christian) who listened to a swami talk at a Hindu temple here. I was chatting with her afterwards, and mentioned that we Hindus don't proseltyse. She got upset with me, and asked, "What was He (referring to the swami) doing then? I just rolled my eyes and walked away, realising the pointlessness of cotinuing. The swami was speaking to Hindus in a Hindu temple. What did she expect? For him to glorigy Christ? That;s like us accusing the Christians of proselytising when they're just doing their normal Sunday sermon in a Christian church.

Saidevo and Satay: I reallly appreciate how you've started referring to the Hindu religions (plural) rather than Hindu religion. Amazing how one letter (s) can convey so much more meaning.


Aum namasivaya

[rahulg]

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

# 1 Even within Hinduism, there are many different schools, all differing from each other. To say that they're all the same wouldn't make sense, because even greats like Sankara and Madhva disagreed on that point. Who are we to say they're wrong and we're right?

#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.

Bottom line, all religions are different, and there's nothing wrong with it. Most Hindus who believe otherwise are suffering from an inferiority complex.