A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

[Sahasranama]

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.

[atanu]

In this case I'd agree more with David Frawley and Koenraad Elst. But the point in the other threads wasn't to discuss Dr. Morales as a person with all his opinions, the discussion was limited to the concept of Radical Universalism.

Namaste sahasranama

Can you kindly define the term Radical Universalism for me? What you understand by the term? Also kindly educate me (because i am not aware) as to who else other than Frank Morales has used this term to describe Hindu teachers (and to belittle them)?

In advance, I say that the following two statements are not same:

"all religions are the same ----", which is held by Dr. Frank Morales as Radical Universalism that Hindu sages have taught. Morales has created a false impression. No Hindu teacher has taught "all religions are the same ----". (If you disagree on this then show me evidence of any hindu teacher saying ""all religions are the same ----").

vs.

"God is One and His redeeming purpose is universal in scope --", this as per me is held by Veda followers. However, it is against the churchian concept that only Jesus will redeem. That God's redeeming role as teacher/guru is universal is staunchly opposed by political leaders of church.

Om Namah Shivaya

Note: Let us clarify our positions clearly.

[Sahasranama]

Namaste sahasranama

Can you kindly define the term Radical Universalism for me? What you understand by the term? Also kindly educate me (because i am not aware) as to who else other than Frank Morales has used this term to describe Hindu teachers (and to belittle them)?

The term radical universalism refers to the belief that all paths will lead to the same goal. The mountain metaphor has been given by Dr. Morales which was orignally a story from Ramana Maharshi if I am right. Radical Universalist believe that all religions are paths on the same mountain leading to the same goal.

[atanu]

Deleted

[Sahasranama]

All religions are the same should be understood in the context of the article, that all religions are worshipping the same god and everyone will also reach the same god if their effort is sincere. How that happens are just details, that's the radical universalist standpoint.

[atanu]

Deleted

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam all

I am no universalistic I feel certain so called religion in their present form or inception were born out of violence and knows no other means to talk to the world. They were the cause of misery for thousand year for the follower of Hindu dharma and continue to be, on that back we can understand why so many of us feel the way we do, why give them an inch.

But what language do the Gurus speak if not of love. After all a sadhu should see a dog, dog eater cow and brahmana with equal vision so it is no surprise if asked about other religion they would only see good in it.

The term radical universalism refers to the belief that all paths will lead to the same goal. .

How is this any difference from what lord Krishna says;

ye yatha mam prapadyante
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
mama vartmanuvartante
manusyah partha sarvasah

All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.4.11

Here is the biggest universalism, so if the guru echoes the same message we should not get perturbed.instead we should use the power of vivek.

Some paths are straight some crooked and some in complete opposite direction, only that eventually all will lead to that eternal truth.
This journey is arduous make no mistake, if I know that, the guru certainly knows if he advocate universal path he only does so for the good of all the jivas, if I am a vegetarian because of my Karuna he certainly is more compensate then I am.


Lord Krishna also says that those who worship him will go to him but those who worship devas will go to them and so on.
He further says,
urdhvam gacchanti sattva-stha
madhye tisthanti rajasah
jaghanya-guna-vrtti-stha
adho gacchanti tamasah
Those situated in the mode of goodness gradually go upward to the higher planets; those in the mode of passion live on the earthly planets; and those in the mode of ignorance go down to the hellish worlds.14.18
　
Are these facts missed on the Gurus who say all path lead to the same God? No because every destination will reveal new truth until the final destination is reached, I have not heard of gurus saying all religions are same but respect off it all, has been misread by many gullible hindus as they are all the same, that fact can not be ignored and should be corrected.

I do not know who Frank Morales is, certainly has no right to malign our traditional gurus if I read Saidevo and Atanu correctly.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Sahasranama]

Our AchAryas DO NOT teach that all religions are the same as some mischievous people try to make you believe. All they teach is that God is the same, named differently in different religions, and people of all faiths worship only one God, although the names and ways and means differ. God accepts all worship done with sincerity, and grants the material and spiritual desires of people to the extent they aspire for it.

"And the Lord, appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day. And he lift up his eyes and looked and , lo, three men stood by him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them form the tent door, and bowed himself towards the ground. And said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant . let a little water I pray you, be fetched, and washed your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on; for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, so do, as thou hast said., Make ready quickly there measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man and hasted to dress it. And he took butter and mild, and he calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat."

Here it is clearly stated in the Bible that the biblical god eats calf meat. This cannot be the same God as Krishna. One is gopala and the other is a go mamsa bhakshi. Muslims very sincerly worship Allah by sacrificing cows. According to the vedas this is mahapapam and will definitely not lead to the same result as following Dharma. They may be very sincere, but they are sincerely wrong according to the vedic view of life.

All religions are not the same, although they all say that God is One.

One of the problems of Radical Universalism is that people are imposed to follow a judeo-christian view of world religions. Not all religions say that God is one. European pagans for example believe in many gods. One might argue that such religions have become very rare, but that's only due to the violence of Islam and Christianity. It is not true that all religions say that God is one. Hinduism says that "God is One, but manifests in different forms." God manifest in different forms, but not in imaginary forms made up by the prophets of semetic religions. The semetic religions are not talking about the same entity as the Hindu concept of Ishvara when they are talking about God.

[Sahasranama]

indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān |
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ ||
If I may let me pick-out the most salient point. The key words here are ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā. It says, Truth (sad - existence , essence, Brahman) is One ( ekaṃ ), the sages (vipra - ṛṣi-s) call it variously (bahudhā).

Namaskar Yajvan ji,

Vipra the rishis, we can exclude Muhammed, Abraham or Jesus from the title rishi, yogi or vipra. They were not vedic seers, therefore Hinduism doesn't accept them as having any kind of authority on spiritual matters. Their delusions cannot define the nature of Ishvara. In my previous post I have given the example of the biblical god coming down and eating calve's meat. This imaginary figure is not a manifestation of Brahman in the same sense as Shiva or Vishnu are manifestations of Brahman.

[Big River]

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?