Originally Posted by
Sahasranama
What is meant with false doctrine? Even Hinduism has the discrimination to consider certain doctrines to be false, either philosophically or morally.
I don't think that the abrahamitic religions are crossing the line by saying that other religions are false. Atheism says that religions are false, by definition of atheism. Religion says that atheism is false, by definition of religion. If I believe that the flying spaghetti monster is a false God, that should not be a problem for a Pastafarian. The Pastafarian believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a real God, but he should respect my belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a false God. So far, I don't see any problem. The problem starts when the Church of Pastafarianism starts to be violent, intollerant and demeaning to members of other faiths and other people who do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. These charasteristics of violence and intolerance are inherent to the abrahamitic faiths and that's where the line is being crossed.
Yes, universalism is not an adequate cure for intolerance and violence. The inherent flaws of Islam, Christianity and Judaism need to be recognised. Universalism actually was not invented in India. It's often thought that Hinduism is syncretic of nature and that this syncretic nature led to the concept of universalism when India came in contact with the western world. This is nonsense of course. The concept of universalism started in the west. The mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz for example worked on a theory to unify all religions. He lived a century before the universalist reformers of India. Universalism is not something that originated in India, it's a western concept that has been imposed on Hinduism the last 150 years.
Along with marxism and christianity, universalism has led people to believe that Hinduism is a religion of superstition, blind faith and caste corruption. The irony is that the universalist Hindus are repeating the same demeaning words to describe authentic aspects of Hinduism like faith in murti puja, the puranas, the Hindu avataras and varnashrama dharma. All while the same universalists are equating Jesus to the Supreme Being and consider the koran to be a form of shruti. All while their gurus perform magic tricks to increase superstition, while universalist believe their guru is an avatara, increasing blind faith and while these gurus give priviliges to people with high financial status, increasing "caste" corruption.
So by covering up things with a universalist attitude, foreign concepts can easily infiltrate and corrupt Hinduism. Not nice, indeed. The absurd concept of Radical Universalism, I will openly say, is a false doctrine. But I wouldn't cross the line like the Abrahamitics, Hinduism doesn't teach physical violence against people who disagree with your religion or philosophy, but the abrahamitic scriptures do. Long story short, I have no problem with the use of the word false combined with the word God or religion, or even with words like blasphemy or heresey. In my opinion the abrahamitic faiths have thaught false, even dangerous and ignorant doctrines. The use of the word false is not where the line is being crossed from my point of view. The use of the word false is sometimes necessary to define your own faith philosophically.
Bookmarks