Gol Darned Western Religions Today

[BryonMorrigan]

And I went back in dictionaries, and confirmed it (I own a couple of these). I agree with David Hart. Traditional atheism is not about opposing religion, or even of rejecting it, and our usage has changed. I have a 1938 Websters that agrees; it is about making logic and reason the deepest and most profound things for oneself. Conversely, the atheism we seem to have today is more embroiled with religion, and the common usage has changed. Now, it is led off with being a belief that there is no God.

Interestingly enough, the word "Atheism" was originally coined by Roman Polytheists to describe Christians...who rejected the Gods of all other cultures in place of a human being...

[Sahasranama]

How did the above get appended to my last post?

This sometimes happens when you quote something.

I was confused why you would make that comment, but it makes more sense now, since someone else posted it.

[MarkMe]

...
That all religions are the same is just a terrible hoax and has nothing to do with traditional hinduism in any sense, how much one want's to believe and propagate the same.

It is completely wrong to think that tolerance have to do with believing that everything must be equally true and valid. Indian history is a point in case as is the history of the ancient world.

Tolerance itself is an inborn human quality which is to be further cultivated and cherised. It is an instinct to most people, and need not be the causal result of an (pseduo) intellectual process of univesalism. Simple villagers, or the red indians who greeted the 1st while men in america, were simply tolerant by nature. See a new thing, a few white people in a ship, didn't result in the instinct to finish it or destroy it. Hence it also didn't need this pseduo intellectual and completely false justification, that for something to be valid it must be same as mine.

If you think deeply this universalism springs from that same bigoted mind set which thinks that one religion must rule the earth...and indeed is product of that part of the world, as sahasranama has pointed.

For true tolerance to develop one must go beyond this great evil of universalism, and develop the basic intellectual honesty in our own beliefs and still being able to accept the existence which does not fit our worldview gracefully.

I do feel like I'm coming around on this, because I have endeavored to find a universalist truth. I think it may be very strongly politically driven, since billions of people share Western religious views. Primarily, though, I think it has been driven by believing in one God - one supreme, infinite, underlying reality, along with not having conducted extensive study of other religions, but to say that since this one underlying reality is true, then it is available to everyone, and so then the road to it has manifested in a variety of ways.

At this point, I'm getting ready to throw in the towel on the entertainmnet of universalism. I have known and known of others who call themselves "spiritual" to say they have a God of some kind, but that they are not interested in the religions. Part of this is coming from taking a more critical look at the arguments back-and-forth between parties. More closely, such as when someone combines Eastern views, universally, into support of Western ones, or vice versa, or when critically entertaining uncritical opposition.

Atheism is so much easier. I've hated the idea of the word for what I may have thought it meant. But those terms - theist, atheist, agnostic - they seem to me to be so problematic. Perhaps in a one-religion world they can have some value, but not when religious views vary so much.

Admittedly, theism, atheism and agnostic are problematic concepts. I also think "isms" simply seem unnessary. They are superficial, and they do not add information. They are not news - they are organizational upon the news that is already there, so they just turn into big nasty nonreality problems. Very quickly these words fly, whereas the uniqueness of the indivdual's position defies uniformity under an ideological heading. They have to be understood as superficial references, and not critical ones.

[sanjaya]

This is a wrong fact, India had wide spread buddhist culture till 11th-13th centuries and gradually disappeared with the Islamic invasions. Hindu "gurus" had no role in "eradication" of buddhism and this is a fact every buddhist also knows. The ruins of the islamic destruction of buddhist institutions are still places of tourist attraction in India.

In debates buddhism was merely debunked in "academic" circles...it may have put some sort of check on the further buddhist evangelicism, but that too will be just a speculation. It could have hardly effect the normal day to day life of ordinary citizens.

You sure about the small importance of Hindu gurus in the religion of common people? If so I would have to embarassingly stand corrected. I'm usually well-informed on these things. Well, I'll do some research and see if I can verify my claim.

[sanjaya]

I do feel like I'm coming around on this, because I have endeavored to find a universalist truth. I think it may be very strongly politically driven, since billions of people share Western religious views. Primarily, though, I think it has been driven by believing in one God - one supreme, infinite, underlying reality, along with not having conducted extensive study of other religions, but to say that since this one underlying reality is true, then it is available to everyone, and so then the road to it has manifested in a variety of ways.

At this point, I'm getting ready to throw in the towel on the entertainmnet of universalism. I have known and known of others who call themselves "spiritual" to say they have a God of some kind, but that they are not interested in the religions. Part of this is coming from taking a more critical look at the arguments back-and-forth between parties. More closely, such as when someone combines Eastern views, universally, into support of Western ones, or vice versa, or when critically entertaining uncritical opposition.

Atheism is so much easier. I've hated the idea of the word for what I may have thought it meant. But those terms - theist, atheist, agnostic - they seem to me to be so problematic. Perhaps in a one-religion world they can have some value, but not when religious views vary so much.

Admittedly, theism, atheism and agnostic are problematic concepts. I also think "isms" simply seem unnessary. They are superficial, and they do not add information. They are not news - they are organizational upon the news that is already there, so they just turn into big nasty nonreality problems. Very quickly these words fly, whereas the uniqueness of the indivdual's position defies uniformity under an ideological heading. They have to be understood as superficial references, and not critical ones.

I'll preface this by saying that I'm certainly not one to speak with authority on Hinduism. But if you're looking for a universalist truth, then Hinduism likely isn't what you're looking for. While Hindu philosophy is always being expanded upon by gurus and avatars, Hinduism itself is rooted in millenia-old traditions. People in India were praying to Hindu gods before Judaism even got started in the West. What universalism does is dilute Hinduism with other religions. A person who starts to synchretize Hinduism with Western faiths (whether it be Christianity, Islam, or whatever else) will have effectively invented his own religion. This person's children will then have an uncertain religious identity, and will find it hard to hold allegiance to such an ill-defined faith. When a Hindu does this, he is essentially throwing away the traditions of his ancestors.

Leaders of interfaith organizations sometimes say that it's a bad idea for a person to practice two religions at once. Religion is necessarily rooted in tradition. Newly made religions often seem ridiculous, see Scientology, Wicca, paganism, or any of the other fake religions that spiritually-hungry people in the West have concocted. In general I think that Hinduism tends to only be the right religion for Indians, since Hinduism is inextricably bound to Indian culture. Yes, there are Westerners who have found a home in Hinduism. I have met a few, and there are others on this board (actually these people tend to be far more knowledgable and religious than us Indian Hindus who take our faith for granted). But these people jumped in with both feet, and didn't try to create some hybrid religion out of Hinduism and their former faith.

I think you'll find this a problem no matter what religion you try to join. That's the problem with all religions, including atheism: they teach contradictory things. Again, people like the Wiccans and pagans have tried to create their own religion, but this sort of defeats the purpose of religion, since your faith is supposed to be based on some external source, such as illumination from God (as stated in Bhagavad Gita). If you create your own religion, you will know in your own mind that it is a fraud, and your religion will be meaningless. To me it seems more reasonable to be guided by dharma, rather than to try and conform a religion to your own preferences.

namaste sanjaya,



Did I miss something? A guide to convert hindus was floating around on HDF? Can you point me to it?

Satay, here's the guide I was talking about:

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archive...ter2008-09.pdf

Warning: it's archived on Hinduism Today's website, but it's a Christian guide, and is likely to leave you with a less than pleasant feeling. Various people on HDF were talking about this "friendship evangelism" tactic a lot last year.

[sm78]

You sure about the small importance of Hindu gurus in the religion of common people?

...i was talking about small/little importance of the debates between mimasakas and buddhist intellectuals on the lives of common people....not about the role of religion or religious teachers.

...kanchi paramacharya was of the opinion that buddhism was never had any significant impact on the masses and remained more or less an elite intellectual monastic tradition. but i personally am not sure about that.

[MarkMe]

I'll preface this by saying that I'm certainly not one to speak with authority on Hinduism. But if you're looking for a universalist truth, then Hinduism likely isn't what you're looking for. While Hindu philosophy is always being expanded upon by gurus and avatars, Hinduism itself is rooted in millenia-old traditions. People in India were praying to Hindu gods before Judaism even got started in the West. What universalism does is dilute Hinduism with other religions. A person who starts to synchretize Hinduism with Western faiths (whether it be Christianity, Islam, or whatever else) will have effectively invented his own religion. This person's children will then have an uncertain religious identity, and will find it hard to hold allegiance to such an ill-defined faith. When a Hindu does this, he is essentially throwing away the traditions of his ancestors.

Is that why Siddartha, from India, looked around and said that the Hindus had so many metaphysical systems, that they would get buried in it - that they were all crazy? That was 2500 years ago, and it still seems true today. How would you entitle or reference or summarize that central Hindu school, and who would agree with you?

[Sahasranama]

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Add...s.html#comment

Here is someone who is trying to blame the Abrahamitic Faiths of being exclusive. Hindu philosophy is not a matter of the shastra anymore, a mere sentence of the lyrics of a popular song "Ishvara Allah tero Nama" is good enough of an arguement. In my opinion, this is just absurd. I love the terminology of Dharmic Faiths (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh) versus Abrahamitic Faiths (Chrisitianity, Islam, Judaism). But the difference is not that the Abrahamitic Faiths teach that our God is false. If that's what they want to believe, then it's their good right. Even the Buddhists and the Jains will say that our God is false, therefore logically this cannot be the distinction between Dharmic Faith and Abrahamitic Faith. Unfortunately the terms are now being abused by Radical Universalists who are starting to bully the Jews, Christians and Muslims for not being Radical Universalist.

[BryonMorrigan]

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Add...s.html#comment

Here is someone who is trying to blame the Abrahamitic Faiths of being exclusive. Hindu philosophy is not a matter of the shastra anymore, a mere sentence of the lyrics of a popular song "Ishvara Allah tero Nama" is good enough of an arguement. In my opinion, this is just absurd. I love the terminology of Dharmic Faiths (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh) versus Abrahamitic Faiths (Chrisitianity, Islam, Judaism). But the difference is not that the Abrahamitic Faiths teach that our God is false. If that's what they want to believe, then it's their good right. Even the Buddhists and the Jains will say that our God is false, therefore logically this cannot be the distinction between Dharmic Faith and Abrahamitic Faith. Unfortunately the terms are now being abused by Radical Universalists who are starting to bully the Jews, Christians and Muslims for not being Radical Universalist.

It's not even so much that it's their belief that other religions are "false." The Buddhists and Jains don't fight wars to force people to convert to their religions, nor am I aware of them using coercive techniques to gain new converts, or killing or enslaving people of other religions based solely on this Supremacist weltanschauung.

But without that central dogma of Exclusivism, there can be no Jihad...no Holy War...no Inquisition, no forced conversions, et cetera.

[Sahasranama]

How would you define exclusivism? Would you call a Sri Vaishnava an exclusivist? In Sri Vaishnavism it is believed that moksha can only be reached by being devoteed to Vishnu. Many brahmins will not mary outside of their caste, isn't that also exclusivist?

I don't know whether Jains have fought religious wars, but Buddhist definitely have. I think that the difference between the Buddhist who fought religious war and the Christian crusaders is that the Buddhist cannot say that they have followed dharma, but the Christians can say that they acted according to their scripture.