Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

  1. #11
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    66
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    I have read this article by by Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D, but did not study it. I found there where some interesting points offered that were tangential to the conversation but will leave them for another time.


    Overall I have opinions on these various matters given by Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D but have not formed conclusions except one
    that continued in my head while reading this article: A hymn from ṛg (rig) veda I.164.46, and ṛṣi dīrghatamas. He informs us:

    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 ( eka ), the sages (vipra - ṛṣi-s) call it variously (bahudhā).

    The Supreme is so great so encompassing there is no thing that It is not; Hence It is śiva, kṛṣṇa, pārvatī, śakti, maha-viṣṇu, bharava, bharavi, etc. - all of the most high, most adored devatā , Divine and īśvara ( Great Lord) that resides within our community. This Supreme is not exhausted, never constrained, no limits what so ever - perfectly Supreme and independent.
    For this you will see multiple views and opinions of one's most adored Lord form many views and religions.

    For us humans that wish to parse out this or that, it seems so trifling. How so?
    All religions are the same is like saying all cars are the same. When one looks through the lense of 'transportation' then cars are the same , no?
    Yet when looks from a different angle, at the individual level, a BMW is not a Toto nor is a Hummer a Volkswagen.
    Hence this Radical Universalism perhaps may be a good academic argument , yet IMHO it adds little spiritual value to my understanding.

    praṇām
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #12
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2536

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    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.
    Last edited by Sahasranama; 26 September 2010 at 01:40 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2536

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    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 ( eka ), 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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    66
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namast sahastanama,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post

    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.
    I am in hopes that you did not see my grouping these people in with our ṛṣi-s correct?

    praṇām
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #15
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2536

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    Namaskar Yajvan ji,

    That's correct. What I was saying is that if we accepted Allah or Jahweh as manifestations of Brahman, next to Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Agni etc who were revealed by vedic seers, we would be accepting Muhammed, Jesus and Abraham as rishis. They supposedly were the people who propheted this semetic God. But we cannot accept these people as rishis. Therefore this mantra from the rig veda cannot prove that the God from Islam, Christianity or Judaism is the same as the Vedic god.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    357

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    Here ends the critique of Frank Morales critique of so-called Radical Universalism from

    The Sword of Kali
    Reply to "A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism"
    by Chittaranjan Naik

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

    The series is a long one. The interested readers may read it at leisure or it may just be here for record. Shri Naik, IMO, is Masterly.

    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. #17
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    66
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namasté sahasranama,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    What I was saying is that if we accepted Allah or Jahweh as manifestations of Brahman, next to Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Agni etc who were revealed by vedic seers, we would be accepting Muhammed, Jesus and Abraham as rishis.
    This is a finer point and I am hopes it does not cause angst or confusion - all this is indeed brahman, say the wise.

    It does not discriminate between hindu, christian, jew, etc. Everything seen and unseen , finite and infinite is brahman.
    So what is different is how other regions view the truth, their POV, their orientation. What am I to do about this?

    I must take my lead from Kṛṣṇa ( some prefer Kṛṣṇ) as he mentions in the bhāgavad gītā - let not the wise create division in the minds of the ignorant, do not find faults, better is death in one's own dharma then in the dharma of another. All these items are part of chapter 3.

    What does this say to me ? How am I to try and change the outlook of another who chooses a different religion other then sanātana dharma? How may I convince them of brahman? Even within sanātana dharma there are those that see duality, some see unity, others see a combination of both ( dual-non-dual) views of the Supreme.
    One can only be there when asked to explain the truth as one knows to the best of thier ability or as one was taught.
    I cannot fault another religion - I also do not have to follow their lead.

    praṇām
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  8. #18
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2536

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    It does not discriminate between hindu, christian, jew, etc. Everything seen and unseen , finite and infinite is brahman.
    So what is different is how other regions view the truth, their POV, their orientation. What am I to do about this?
    We have to respect their free choice of religion. The question is "do the vedas teach about the same God as the bible and the koran and will the sadhana from Christianity and Islam lead to the same goal as following Sanatana Dharma?" Is sacrificing a cow to Allah equal to doing a yajna for example, looking at the results if the work is done with sincerity?

    I must take my lead from Kṛṣṇa ( some prefer Kṛṣṇ) as he mentions in the bhāgavad gītā - let not the wise create division in the minds of the ignorant, do not find faults, better is death in one's own dharma then in the dharma of another. All these items are part of chapter 3.
    But who is wise and who is ignorant? If someone uses that as an argument in a discussion for not being open about the truth to someone, that would mean that the person assumes that he is wise and the other person is ignorant. If I am correct, the shloka you are talking about refers to the performance of karma, rather than philosophical discussion.

    Let not the wise disrupt the minds of the ignorant who are attached to fruitive action, they should not be encouraged to refrain from work, but to engage in work in the spirit of devotion.
    (3,26)
    Last edited by Sahasranama; 26 September 2010 at 07:06 PM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    66
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namast sahasranama,

    Let see if I can answer your responses in a reasonable manner.
    We have to respect their free choice of religion. The question is "do the vedas teach about the same God as the bible and the koran and will the sadhana from Christianity and Islam lead to the same goal as following Sanatana Dharma?" Is sacrificing a cow to Allah equal to doing a yajna for example, looking at the results if the work is done with sincerity?
    Yes, I agree - respect their choices. I can only offer conjecture about suggesting or comparing if the biblical Lord = the vedic Lord. Why do I say this ? Because of the acts one does based upon the scriptures they read. I am no expert on the Islamic or Christian faith so I cannot answer in a comfortable or confident way.

    you offer,
    But who is wise and who is ignorant? If someone uses that as an argument in a discussion for not being open about the truth to someone, that would mean that the person assumes that he is wise and the other person is ignorant. If I am correct, the shloka you are talking about refers to the performance of karma, rather than philosophical discussion.
    We are always open about the truth. I do not comprehend the second part of your point that you make so I will need to think it though.

    Let me say this about the offer of kṛṣṇa's words in the bhāgavad gītā.
    My point or orientation was that of dharma and actions. Lets say you have a higher sense of the truth, your comprehension and hence your actions are different. Your views of reality may be more advanced then another. This 'other' person is best suited in following his/her dharma says kṛṣṇa. So when it comes to the notion of religion it is best we ( I ) let the Christians follow their path even if we think it's 'lesser in merit'. That was my point.

    Now if a conversation comes up between you and a Christian do we speak the truth? Of this there is no doubt. Yet one has to find common ground for the conversation to be fruitful as I see it.
    There are many different points , 'what if' and caveats to this conversation. I am sure they can be addressed if there's interest - I can think of 2:
    1. What if the other person's way is just wrong?
    2. What is my obligation to sanātana dharma to change another's POV?

    I think this can be left for another time as I choose not to derail ( any more then I have done already) the discussion at hand of radical universalism.

    I think your questions have merit and you are thinking clearly about this whole matter - thank you for the rational questions and the time you have spent in this string.

    praṇām
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Augustine, FL, USA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    254
    Rep Power
    348

    Re: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

    A few points:

    1. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are not "Western religions." They all come from the Middle East, and specifically the alleged "Holy Land." The only religions that could realistically be called "Western," were largely destroyed by these Middle Eastern religions during the "Dark Ages." (i.e., the Religio Romana and Celtic/Norse/etc. Polytheism...)

    2. I ascribe to a kind of "selective" Universalism. See, one statement that I often espouse is "The only false religions are those which believe in the existence of false religions." Therefore, any religion which espouses the idea that only followers of that specific religion are capable of Enlightenment...is therefore promoting a "false" ideology. I think that one can be, say...a Christian or Muslim and avoid that aspect of that ideology, and therefore not be promoting such wickedness. (I know some very nice Christians, for example, who have a much more "intelligent" view of "salvation"...)

    In addition, because of my belief in reincarnation...I look at people of other religions as being merely further behind on a path. Perhaps, in this life their faith in Jesus or Allah will lead them to enough understanding in this life that in their next one they become Hindu...or at least begin to seek. In such a way, their path does indeed lead...albeit by a more winding road...to the same place. Essentially, while following Jesus will not lead directly to Moksha...maybe it might prepare you for the journey forward in your next life. Either way, it's your journey--not mine--and I have no business interfering in it.

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
  •