Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

  1. #31
    Join Date
    June 2010
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    809
    Rep Power
    452

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    The higher seekers will always slowly veer towards SD, wherever they are. The other religions are school level knowledge mostly meant for creating the base of bhakti and a sense of God (not God knowledge).

    Once people grow beyond that, their questions remain unanswerd. This is where the spread of SD knowledge through different means enable people to reach to the knowledge encyclopedia of TRUTH.

    SD is not limited to India. It belongs to the world. It belongs to the eternity.

    Again the TRUTH cannot be covered for long and it has been proven again and again.

    The purity of Ramakrisha (who belongs to the masses) is so high that no one can sully him. Rather the trier get sullied himself.

    Love and best wishes

  2. #32

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    Radical Universalism

    Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same? A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    By Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D. (Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya)

    http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm

    I opened this thread, because the subject is comming up in other discussion. Here's a place to discuss the subject of radical universalism.

    Please refrain from personal attacks to people participating in this discussion, don't make this a smear campaign against any acharya and please don't cloud this thread with unrelated posts about other subjects. Try to make yourself clear without belittling anyone participating in the discussion. I hope we can carry on this discussion maturely. If there was any tension between participants, please forget about it and start fresh.
    39/164/mndlm 1 rig , mantra says that vedic scripture is oldest in the earth and directly heard by Rishis therefore called shruti . These vedmantras are root for discipline of knowledge . This knowledge is obtained directly as sun rays and indirectly as moon rays and differs in properties as phosphorescence and fluorescence . Gita shlokas 24/8 and 25/8 state for these two knowledge and hint for liberation [moksha] and bondage[rebirth] .
    Any dharm transplanted on vedic root gives its own properties therefore differs radically .
    Hindu dharm is the same as vedic tree so it does not teach that all religions are same .

    The point of mountain is taken from vedmantra and hence does not tell any new idea .

  3. #33
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1904

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    namaste everyone.

    Yes, both modern Hindu sages and traditional Hindu Dharma teach:
    'All religions are the same.'

    Not in the sense
    'All religions are exactly/identically the same' which is what Frank Morales assumes and attempts to prove wrong,

    but in the sense
    'All religions are essentially the same', which is the real meaning and message of Hindu Universalism.

    The paper presented by Frank Morales and its rebuttal titled 'The Sword of KALI' by Chittaranjan Naik can be read in the links below. It is worth to save both the essays for reading and reference:

    http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/091.htm
    http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/101.htm

    Interestingly, Morales' paper which was originally prominent in the pages of the Website Dharma Central is no longer seen there. Instead, the link http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm redirects to a book published by Frank Morales, whose link is: http://www.dharmacentral.com/dharmastore.php#firstlevel

    My purpose here is to attempt a paraphrase of Naik's essay, adding my points thereto, in order that we can have right perspective of the Hindu Universalism of Hindu Dharma.

    How do you decide on the sameness and difference of two or more things?

    Suppose there are two apples, both red in color, one bigger than the other, then we won't hesitate in the least to say that both are same, that is, apples. How do we find out the sameness of these two fruits? If by its color, what about a green apple? If by its taste, what about a sour apple?

    • Yes, you got it. We ascertain the sameness of two or more things by their name, apple in this case. That's right, but how did the name arise for the fruit in the first place? We are not talking about etymology here, because an apple is an apple in all the languages, so it is futile to trace the origin of the name.

    • This is where the Hindu philosophical concept of nAma-rUpa comes about. nAma is name and rUpa is form. This mental concept is reduced to pada-artha, word and meaning, in vAk--speech. The Hindu Science of Logic, called 'NyAya shAstra', as an upAnga--subsidiary arm, of the Vedas, is the study of such padArtha.

    • So, apple is a name, and its meaning is: that fruit which has 'appleness' as its essence. It is this internal essence of appleness that decides the sameness of all the apples whatever their external attributive features.

    • In Hindu parlance, sameness is sAmAnya, and difference is visheSha. Thus, all apples are apples because of their sAmAnya and are different from each other because of their external visheSha--attributes.

    • When two things are identical, their differences are destroyed. When two things are the same, their differences can yet be preserved, because the sameness is only in their essence, and so there can be differences in their attributes. Incidentally, A ≡ B (A identical to B) is possible only in Mathematics, for, in the real world no two things are identical.

    • The sAmAnya of an apple is universal. The fundamental and inviolable truth of a thing is that it is same with itself. This means that a thing, like the apple, does not derive its identity of being an apple by the redness, roundness, sweetness, that describes it, or by a combination of these, but only by the sAmAnya, appleness in this case, that inheres in it. This means, in short, that apples can be different among themselves, yet they would be the same, united by their inherent appleness.

    • The most important thing we need to understand in this pristine logic is that sAmAnya never manifests itself as sAmAnya. The manifestation of the universal--sAmAnya, is always a particular--visheSha, an instance of itself, with external attributes added to it, such as its color, weight, appearance, etc.

    • Now, if we extend the apple analogy, we can easily understand the sAmAnya--universal, of an apple and an orange, because of their fruitness. We can include a vegetable, say a pumpkin and say that an apple and orange and pumpkin are the same in their sAmAnya of being agricultural produce.

    • Can we say that a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water are the same? What sAmAnya unites them? KRShNa ParamAtma in GItA 9.26 says that in bhakti--devotion, these varied offerings unite as the same to him.

    • In this way, even two mutually opposite things such as a square and a circle can be united when they both are attributes of tables. Suppose we say, 'He is the same Devadatta', what we mean is that he might have grown and changed, passing through differences manifested in time, but as a person he is the same man with the name Devadatta.

    • Heraclitus, the Byzantine emperor, thought you couldn't step into the same river twice, since the river was always in a state of flux, and yet the truth is that the river Ganga remains the same since her hoary descent into BhAratavarSha, because of her sacred Ganganess.

    • One God, Brahman, in the Brahmanness of Sat-Chit-Ananda is the substratum of both the sentient and insentient universe. Most if not all religions have understood that there is only One God, athough they they try to teach/reach him with differnt attributes.

    • There is only one mountain viewpoint, Brahman, in Hindu Universalism, but different religious philosophies scale its height differently, with sincere belief of having scaled to the summit. Hindu Universalism, not only scales the mountain and sits at the summit with its universal view, but also understands that the true intent of other religions is also to scale the mountain and reach the top, although their equipments and methods may be different and inadequate.

    • Naik's essay must be read in full to understand how this view of Hindu Universalism exists right from the Rg vedic statement "Reality is One, sages call it various names", through the UpaniShads, ItihAsa-PurANa and Dharma Shastras and how this universal Hinduness of our Hindu Dharma, which bears the name SanAtana Dharma, has percolated down to our modern sages, who have not only had witnessed it in their samAdhi, but cannot teach anything contrary to it, since in their sama-dRShTi of love and compassion, they are one with the Universal Consciousness. It is for us to understand our gurus' teachings in proper perspective and equip ourselves towards its realization.

    **********

    The ethical dimension of why the followers of Abrahamic religions are exhorted to be aggresive by their modern teachers in the very name of their religions is not covered in this brief paraphrase. Naik has dealt with it beautifully under the section 'Universal Dharma – The Ethical Dimension', and concludes that there is only one solution for the Hindus, which is to live their life according to one's svadharma.

    Please take time to read the essay in full for elaboration of the points in this paraphrase. Ultimately, the only thing that remains for us is to ponder the extent we Hindus measure up to Hindu Dharma in our own life. When the followers of Abrahamic religions by and large adhere to whatever concepts of dharma given in their religions, we Hindus have by and large forsaken it, so, according to Naik, this is the root cause of all our troubles.
    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

  4. #34
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    46
    Posts
    3,711
    Rep Power
    294

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    Admin Note

    Namaskar,

    Please keep the thread on topic. The topic of the thread is to discuss 'Radical Universalism'. It is not to attack the western hindus, or author of the article personally.

    Please check your ego and superiority complex at the door. If someone doesn't agree with the teachings of learned hindu gurus, it is not appropriate to attack them personally. Please report the posts that you think are breaking the forum rules.

    Please do not dump large copy and paste texts where a link would suffice. Large dumps of texts is considered spam.

    If you have been emotionally disturbed because some western author insulted your guru, then please do not feel forced to keep posting irrelevant posts. Stop your emotional bleeding by ignoring posts and posters.

    Thank you for your patience.

    PS: Please do not reply to my admin post. Replies to my admin note is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. The 'administration' is not the subject of this thread. Please keep it on topic. Please make posts only if you have something to say about the subject of the thread which in this case is 'Radical Universalism'. Thank you!
    Last edited by satay; 28 September 2010 at 02:46 PM.
    satay

  5. #35
    Join Date
    December 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    87
    Rep Power
    54

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    People speak of "Western Hindus" as though it is a new caste. I am a Hindu, no western attached.

    Universalism must be understood for what it is. Allowing room for all faith does not make one less Hindu. I, of course, love the Santana Dharma in the highest but do not try and state that it is the only truth. Since God is everything, as illustrated in The Universal Form of Krishna, no thing can be separate from the Brahma I love.

    to qoute Ramakrishna,

    "God can be realized through all paths. All religions are true. The important thing is to reach the roof. You can reach it by stone stairs or by wooden stairs or by bamboo steps or by a rope. You can also climb up by a bamboo pole."

    "Truth is one; only It is called by different names. All people are seeking the same Truth; the variance is due to climate, temperament, and name. A lake has many ghats. From one ghat the Hindus take water in jars and call it 'jal'. From another ghat the Mussalmāns take water in leather bags and call it 'pāni'. From a third the Christians take the same thing and call it 'water'. Suppose someone says that the thing is not 'jal' but 'pāni', or that it is not 'pāni' but 'water', or that it is not 'water' but 'jal', It would indeed be ridiculous. But this very thing is at the root of the friction among sects, their misunderstandings and quarrels. This is why people injure and kill one another, and shed blood, in the name of religion. But this is not good. Everyone is going toward God. They will all realize Him if they have sincerity and longing of hear"
    May the Supreme Spirit illumine us!

  6. #36

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    Lets say there is 1 all powerful god God. Would it not be fair to say that people of all the different faiths who worship God are worshiping that God? Yes, there are differences in the stories that we tell about creation and about the nature of God and everything else that gets put into all the various religions, but that is because all the religious literature out there has been written by Man. Even if a man claims to have taken dictation directly from God, how can this be verified? Have there not been different accounts of people receiving direct knowledge from God about the nature of God from the multitudes of various faiths? The explanations from each one cannot all be right can they?

    As far as I'm concerned, the Vedic God = the Abrahamic God. Men from both regions (and everywhere else religion exists) felt and saw the presence of God and thus sought out a ways to describe that presence. How does one say who got it right?

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
  •