Truth is One; Paths are Many

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: I was reflecting on this oft stated simplification. I don't know who it is that supposedly said it, but I know it is oft used as justification for universalism.

But have a closer look. What is it really saying? It does not say: Truth is One; Paths to the Truth are Many. It just says Paths are Many. Is that not just saying that humanity is diverse, and we should celebrate that diversity.

There are many paths ... the path of greed, the path of intolerance, the path of materialism, dead-end roads, paths that lead part way up the mountain, paths that lead down the mountain, and more. Some lead only part way up the mountain. I need not go on.

This metaphor of life being a path is all over in everyday common culture:

He took a wrong turn in the road.
Took a turn for the worse.
His friends are leading him a long a dangerous route.

We (Hindus) don't need to think all paths (religions, if you will) are legitimate to have respect for our fellow humans. Some other basic concepts pretty much cover that. Ahimsa, a love for all life, covers it. So does reincarnation, karma, and the belief that everyone will attain moksha.

Just some thoughts on a sunny day.

Aum Namasivaya

[wundermonk]

Good points.

The simplistic interpretation as pointed out by you works only if those following non-Hindu paths accept the validity of Hindu paths. Democracy works only if there are a few basic set of morals and ethics in the population. If not, you will have a theocracy voted in every time.

When non-Hindus feel free to call Yoga demonic, Hindu souls need saving, Hindus worship false Gods, etc. universalism breaks down. Universalism without basic ethics and morals soon leads to theocracy.

It is always funny to notice that universalists operate within secular tolerant societies. Where are the universalists in the Bible Belt in the US or Saudi Arabia? Universalists swarm Hindu message boards, but are absent from Christian/Muslim message boards. Why?

Another oft-repeated line is "Vasudaiva Kutumbakam" - The whole world is one family.

OK. But in a family there are theives, scoundrels, noble folks, boring folks, interesting folks, RIGHT folks and WRONG folks.

[Eastern Mind]

Another oft-repeated line is "Vasudaiva Kutumbakam" - The whole world is one family.

OK. But in a family there are theives, scoundrels, noble folks, boring folks, interesting folks, RIGHT folks and WRONG folks.

Vannakkam wundermonk: Nice. I'll remember this one.

Aum Namasivaya

[c.smith]

Hari Om!

EM, how profound and enlightening! Answers some deep-seated issues I have with universalism and acceptance of all religions.

You state:
We (Hindus) don't need to think all paths (religions, if you will) are legitimate to have respect for our fellow humans.

Don't want to open a can of worms so will leave it at that.

Jai Jai Hanuman!

[kallol]

I think we are getting it wrong.

Hinduism or the scriptures lay dow the theory of life and creation. It gives the total understanding of the ways of life, design of life, why birth, etc.

It gives explanation of the whole space of existence and non existence. As a theory it encompasses all facets.

It also defines how and why to work towards good life or dharmic life.

Now this does not me the adharmic are outside this theory or by definition non hindu. If that is so hardly there will be hindu.

The TRUTH is one but paths are many. All humans are unique. Ther have their way of understanding, interpretation, ability, etc. The path they will follow will also be unique. No rivers are parallel but all reaches the sea.

No paths treaded by humans will be similar but they are moving towards the same objective. Now some movements are more positive, some less positive, some static, some negative. But the journey is on by design. The cycles of birth rebirth does not stop because one is negative, it goes on.

As hinduism is more about the state of mind, it is more universal.

There different religions and sects of hinduism, are only different options available for choosing. Let people choose which ever suits them.

Having said so, inducing and coercing might bring in reactions which are not conducive for social stability.

Neither we should be defensive nor too offensive. The universality is a magnet which will bring in more "sane" people.

[JaiMaaDurga]

Namaste,

Good points; I have never been a fan of any school of thought which
promotes either "buffet-style" religion, or fierce zealotry.

Often the "buffet" people have led comfortable lives; if there are never any
serious material consequences for bad investments of time or resources,
why would such a one feel any real sense of urgency or import regarding
spiritual matters? There may be "universalists" who have arrived at their
view after a long hard life's journey, but the ones I've met tend to be
looking for something that avoids discomfort above all else.

Zealots cannot bear disturbance, either; I am grateful my faith is not
so fragile or flimsy, that the existence of others who do not believe as I
do would demand they either be converted, or seen as less than human.

While it is curious to note how often "the smaller the differences between
two schools of thought are, the more vehement and virulent the
expression of disagreement becomes", where else but in the history of
Sanatana Dharma can be found so many different schools, all valuing
intellectual rigor, philosophical depth, and beauty of expression- and none
valuing the absolute extermination of any competing beliefs as a major goal!

Yet- if some "New-Age-Life-Coach-Let's-Mix-n-Match-Religions-for-$$"
pseudoguru does not care for a frank and blunt assessment of what they
actually have to offer others (as opposed to what they are selling), than
such a one can pitch their tent elsewhere, and should never try chatting
me up

JAI MATA DI

[devotee]

Namaste EM,

I don't think you are taking out the correct meaning. Hindu Dharma believes that All Paths lead to the same Ultimate Truth.

Yes, there are some paths which go direct to the Truth ... some take longer route and some will be taking a very very long route .... some will be able to make it within this lifetime some will be able to make it in one hundred lifetimes and some in millions of lifetimes ... but they are sure to reach the destination.

There is no being which is not boundby the gati of KAAl (the action of Time). This "gati of Kaal" will make sure that ultimately everyone reaches the same destiny.

OM

[Necromancer]

Vannakkam: I was reflecting on this oft stated simplification. I don't know who it is that supposedly said it, but I know it is oft used as justification for universalism.

But have a closer look. What is it really saying? It does not say: Truth is One; Paths to the Truth are Many. It just says Paths are Many. Is that not just saying that humanity is diverse, and we should celebrate that diversity.

There are many paths ... the path of greed, the path of intolerance, the path of materialism, dead-end roads, paths that lead part way up the mountain, paths that lead down the mountain, and more. Some lead only part way up the mountain. I need not go on.

This metaphor of life being a path is all over in everyday common culture:

He took a wrong turn in the road.
Took a turn for the worse.
His friends are leading him a long a dangerous route.

We (Hindus) don't need to think all paths (religions, if you will) are legitimate to have respect for our fellow humans. Some other basic concepts pretty much cover that. Ahimsa, a love for all life, covers it. So does reincarnation, karma, and the belief that everyone will attain moksha.

Just some thoughts on a sunny day.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste. Very nicely said.

I was never a great Sai Baba devotee, but I had a lot of time and respect for those who were because of three simple words: "Sabka Malik Ek".

At heart, I am a 'Universalist' not because 'all paths lead to the Source', but because 'all paths emanate from the Source'. There's a subtle difference there and there has to be a total opposite of Empiric Rationalism and Solipsism once one has totally exhausted that 'Path'.

Even in the Upanishads, it states that ultimately, the many Gods of Hinduism are all 'One' and even if that is called "Ishwara" it is still 'One'. The Abrahamic Religions believe in a 'Nameless God' whom, if you actually heard that Name, you'd either become enlightened, go insane, die (or all three). Hindus believe that Name to be 'Aum'. Christians believe it to be 'The Word' whilst Taoists believe whatever it is, it's just definitely not the Tao:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

- Lao Tsu

So, I believe in whatever all these people believe in, no matter what religion that is. I just call it 'Lord Shiva' and go...

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Twilightdance]

One thing may be said in various ways, but various sayings may not be talking about the same one thing. Not sure why this sloka causes so much confusion and justification of universalism.

[devotee]

Namaste Jai,

I think this is a pretty good take on it, especially the commentaries: http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-04-11.html

Yes, I too see the verse in the same way. However, people may refuse to accept it.

When you read Vedas/PurANa, you find that one deva is praised as a partuclar characteristics of that deva i.e. not as Brahman in one place but in other places the same deva is praised as the Supreme i.e. Brahman. For an example, Sun is worshiped as one of the many gods i.e. as one of the sons of Aditi but the same Sun has also been praised as Brahman. Similarly, Vishnu has been praised as one of the gods in some places and also as Brahman in other places.

So, it becomes evident that bhAvanA of devotee is what matters. It matters how he sees his chosen deity. If he sees the deity as one of the devatas (gods) then it acts as that ... however, when the devotee wholeheartedly sees the same deity as Brahman, the deity "becomes" Brahman, the Supreme. We should remember that VAlmiki (who wrote RAmAyaNa) attained RAmA by doing japa of MArA. So, RAmA became MArA for Valmiki.

OM