Hindu Universalism

[atanu]

Acceptable for what?
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?

I asked which one is true? Vaisnavism or Saivism? God underlying both the paths is true. And thus Kanchi Pramacharya says:

"-----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."

and

"It is this spirit of catholicism that Englishmen exclaim: "Jevhovah, Jove or Lord!". Jehovah is the Semitic God of the region of Israel, the home of the Bible. Jove is another name of Jupiter. The word "Lord" applies to the God of any faith; it is common to all religions. Realised people in the West also speak that the one Being is the same, call him by any name you like."
---------------

Satay, revelatation is not prerogative of a nation and your question shown below is meaningless.

From Satay
"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".

Please do not make the sayings of Hindu sages as propaganda.

Bye.

Om Namah Shivaya

[saidevo]

namaste Atanu.

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)?

Although I wanted us to discuss Radical Universalism on the points given by Frank Morales, I never said that I agree with all his views or assessment of the Hindu sages. I also think that Swami Dayananda missed the bhakti aspect of Hinduism which is perhaps the most important element in sAdhana, athough his intention is noble and he has some valid points. He was like RamaNa maharshi minus the latter's inclination towards bhakti.

As for your query, you can cite me any Hindu sage who gives us solid quotes from the Bible and Quran (just as you and some other members do here) and establish that those statements are on par with the Hindu mahAvAkyas. This does not mean that the Hindu sages have not studied the Abrahamic scriptures; only that they don't find it worthwhile to quote them on par with the UpaniShadic concepts. Since most if not all of them don't find it worthwhile, why should we try to extrapolate those scriptures and waste our time. After all Hindus don't need the Abrahamic scriptures to learn about Advaita--or any other spiritual concept for that matter.

Christian Gnosticism and Islamic Sufism are not accepted by their established religious authorities, nor have much influence over the followers.

[Harjas Kaur]

Please do not make the sayings of Hindu sages as propaganda.

Satay has not. But you have. Moreover, all over India this is happening. We have to analyze in context of "WHAT IS THE PURPOSE" of blindly promoting unity efforts. Because the end result will often be the destruction and betrayal of our Dharmic teachings. Abrahamic religions teach intolerance. You either accept their teaching as revelation of God, and if you do, you accept what they teach as ONLY revelation of God. The moment you do this, you have repudiated everything else.

That is the danger and the TRAP of such stupid intellectualizations of radical universalism, to force conversions of Hindus by accepting what is renouncing everything we believe.

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.

I can see your point, as a Sikh who believes that Sikhism is part of Sanatana Dharma, I am in that category of "other religions or sects." It's remains an ackward grammatical construction. For simplicity I call myself a Hindu. But I equally call myself a Sikh. I realize Sanatana Dharma includes all the Dharmic faiths and sects, so it is properly a plural.

I asked which one is true? Vaisnavism or Saivism? God underlying both the paths is true.

Advaita is entirely misrepresented when made out to be some kind of compunction to deny differences or to scold that we are under delusion of Maya and should try to be a sort of radical sameness. Ultimately Sanatana Dharma accepts without prejudice. This is not the same as accepting without wise discrimination. And the purpose behind your comparison is to assert that Islam is equally true, and it is not. Vaishnavism and Shaivism are sects within the body of beliefs of Sanatana Dharma teaching and based on Sruti.

Islam is a meleccha teaching utterly opposed to the Sruti of the Vedas and to Vedic religions.

It really is not requiring any rationalization unless you intend to propagandize this radical toleration of intolerant teachings. The sole intent of Abrahamic faiths in any Unity with Hinduism is conversion and destruction of Hindu religion(s). So why be idiotic and persist in demanding full equality with those who assert domination? It is to allow yourself to be dominated and converted. Is this what pretends to be spiritual wisdom?

[saidevo]

namaste EM.

The situation in India under the rule of the pseudo-secular and anti-Hindu central and state governments, is very different. A Christian evangelist can distribute pamphlets abusing Hindu gods and make their Hindu children distribute it among the public; a Zakir Naik can fake a ShankarAchArya and make him sing praises about Islam; a Muslim painter can paint the Hindu gods in the nude; and the governments would take no action. If a Hindu sage talks strongly about the Christian aggressions or Islamic terrorism or a common Hindu distributes pamphlets that are antagonistic to the Abrahamic religions, the state would immediately resort to action, foist a case on him/her and harass the Hindu member. Where they can't do it, the ruling party would employ goons to terrorise the 'offending' Hindus.

The BJP, which was the only political hope of the Hindus, have failed miserably and deserted the Hindus both while they were in office and now out of it.

Although the total lack of Hindu unity and the utter inertia and selfishness the Hindus are complacent are the factors that have brought in such a situation, the State in India has never been proud of their Hindu ancestry and initiated steps to nourish it.

[atanu]

namaste Atanu.

--- I also think that Swami Dayananda missed the bhakti aspect of Hinduism which is perhaps the most important element in sAdhana, athough his intention is noble and he has some valid points. He was like RamaNa maharshi minus the latter's inclination towards bhakti.

namaste saidevoji,

Shri Ramana rejected nothing and accepted nothing but God as true.

As for your query, you can cite me any Hindu sage who gives us solid quotes from the Bible and Quran

If i quote anything, i do it from those teachers only. But as said earlier i do not wish it now for the reason told to you.

Om namah Shivaya

[Eastern Mind]

namaste EM.

The situation in India under the rule of the pseudo-secular and anti-Hindu central and state governments, is very different. A Christian evangelist can distribute pamphlets abusing Hindu gods and make their Hindu children distribute it among the public; a Zakir Naik can fake a ShankarAchArya and make him sing praises about Islam; a Muslim painter can paint the Hindu gods in the nude; and the governments would take no action. If a Hindu sage talks strongly about the Christian aggressions or Islamic terrorism or a common Hindu distributes pamphlets that are antagonistic to the Abrahamic religions, the state would immediately resort to action, foist a case on him/her and harass the Hindu member. Where they can't do it, the ruling party would employ goons to terrorise the 'offending' Hindus.

The BJP, which was the only political hope of the Hindus, have failed miserably and deserted the Hindus both while they were in office and now out of it.

Although the total lack of Hindu unity and the utter inertia and selfishness the Hindus are complacent are the factors that have brought in such a situation, the State in India has never been proud of their Hindu ancestry and initiated steps to nourish it.

Thank you. I think I already understood this, but I also think eventually it will change, as per the conversion story posted here today. A ton more has to be done convince the uneducated the path of Sanatana dharma is all they will ever need. The politicians really need to take a harder look at where all their taxes are coming from.

Aum Namasivaya

[Harjas Kaur]

"As for your query, you can cite me any Hindu sage who gives us solid quotes from the Bible and Quran?"

"If i quote anything, i do it from those teachers only. But as said earlier i do not wish it now for the reason told to you."

Because he can't. All his wordiness is a cop out that he has failed to establish the 2 original principle statements.

1. That Koran is Sruti, as proved by famous Hindu sages and scriptures.
2. That Mohammed was "enlightened."

Both are ridiculously and obviously wrong and can never be proven true.

[satay]

I asked which one is true? Vaisnavism or Saivism? God underlying both the paths is true. And thus Kanchi Pramacharya says:

Is Buddhism true?
Is Islam true?
Is Christianity true?

You are saying that they are. Are they? Is that what Hinduism teaches?

Hindus argue among each other for their sects and philosophical systems. You have done the same here on HDF. If all religions are true...what's the point and why bother?

"-----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."

and

"It is this spirit of catholicism that Englishmen exclaim: "Jevhovah, Jove or Lord!". Jehovah is the Semitic God of the region of Israel, the home of the Bible. Jove is another name of Jupiter. The word "Lord" applies to the God of any faith; it is common to all religions. Realised people in the West also speak that the one Being is the same, call him by any name you like."
---------------

Could you please provide a source (the name of the book, link if it exists)?

I am interested in knowing if after terming Koran as a revealed scripture, did kanchi parmacarya accept its authority. do you know if he did or not?

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. You must by default burn the Vedas. This is why no authentic Hindu sage has accepted Koran as a revelation. Because by doing so they would accepting its authority. Once you accept the authority of Koran, you cannot at the same time be accpeting the authority of Vedas.

Satay, revelatation is not prerogative of a nation and your question shown below is meaningless.

I agree with this.

Please do not make the sayings of Hindu sages as propaganda.

Bye.

So I am making sayings of Hindu sages as propaganda?

[satay]

namaste,

Christian Gnosticism and Islamic Sufism are not accepted by their established religious authorities, nor have much influence over the followers.

Thanks for that. I thought I had been sleeping too long. I suppose atanu's point is that even though Christians themselves don't accept Gnosticism that Hindus should accept it as valid and true religion.

From what I deduced of this discussion:

• Hinduism is just a hodge podge of every religion and everything is valid and true.
• Hinduism has not or does not deserve its own identity. It has nothing distinct in it.
• Advaita is no more true than Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion that claims to be true.
• Shankara's interpertation of the shurti is of no more value than a mullah shouting his lungs out at the top of a masjid because after all Koran is a revealed and accepted scripture of the Hindus.

Let's reject the Gita because that's just a smiriti text, and let's reject the puranas because definitely they are not the authority compared to the Vedas but let's accept the barbaric, maleccha scriptures as being apurshaya and revealed.

Wha re universalism...

[atanu]

namaste,

Thanks for that. I thought I had been sleeping too long. I suppose atanu's point is that even though Christians themselves don't accept Gnosticism that Hindus should accept it as valid and true religion.

From I deduced of this discussion:
Hinduism is just a hodge podge of every religion and everything is valid and true. Hinduism has not or does not deserve its own identity. It has nothing distinct in it. Advaita is no more true than Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion that claims to be true. Shankara's interpertation of the shurti is of no more value than a mullah shouting his lungs out at the top of a masjid because after all Koran is a revealed and accepted scripture of the Hindus.

Let's reject the Gita because that's just a smiriti text, and let's reject the puranas because definitely they are not the authority compared to the Vedas but let's accept the barbaric, maleccha scriptures as being apurshaya and revealed.

Wha re universalism...

namaste satay,

Don't do that. You will break your head. Nothing of what you claim above has been deduced by any of the citations (provided by me) which consistently say that the goal for all religions is God and only God - by whatever name.

That the main goal is passed over in favour of power and control is another issue. Without any reason or proof you are clinging to 'Barbaric and Mleccha' theme.

Dvaita guru, Shri Chaitnaya, Kanchi Paramachaya, Shirdi Sai, Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, Chinmayananda, Vivekananda, Sathya Sai, Shri Prabhupada have been cited but you have rejected all of them. They have all said that sincere progress along any path will lead to God (since that only is God's will). That would not be possible had the other scriptures been asat.

You are misinterpreting regarding Gita, though nothing has been said of Gita in this thread. Is it in your mind from some other thread? What has been said is that sharia or smriti/purana in isolation to the original revealed scripture is not meaningful. As Hindu we should accept that, else what are you arguing for? Hindus do accord infallible status only to shruti.

It has been shown that Frank Morale has not spoken correctly about the Vedic shruti: The Truth is One; sages give it different names. Frank Morales has named Chinmayananda as one who has busted Radical Universalism. But we have seen what Chinmayananda has spoken. Frank Morales has also included Maharishi Dayanand in his favorite's list. Now if we follow Maharshi Dayanand, all will be well but we have to denounce murti puja, vaisnavism and saivism. Will that suit us?

Who else? There are other names. You can find out what they say about whether God is universal or not? And if each sect is claiming that its way is the only way then where the fault lies?

Read all the citations calmly and decide whom you want to include as a representative of Hindu thought? Once you decide on one or two names we can discuss as to what universalism means from Veda point of view without reference to Mleccha ideas.

Not a single Guru has however said that anything taught by Buddha, Christ, or Mohammad falls outside of Veda, which is the eternal and full word of God. Yet God is not in the Veda but in living heart. So your frustation and beating your head on the wall is unwarranted.

Om Namah Shivaya