We Are All Hindus Now?

[prady]

Hi Rosie!

I don't know a whole heap about Hinduism, but I think that article shows the religion to be a lot more flexible than the culture it lives in has played out.

 

By my first post, i had intended to convey something to the effect what you stated above. Hinduism is one religion that has welcomed persecuted people from all over the world for ages. Where did the Zorastrians go when Persia was being consumed by radical Islam? They found a home in India. Even the Jews escaped persecution and came to India and several thousand still reside there. Han persecution of Buddhists in Tibet again led to India plaingg host to persecuted minorities. No other religion possibly offers a scriptural base so wide as Hinduism, take Dvait, advait, Nyaya, Sankha the list is so exhaustive that these thoughts and related philosophies could not have entered mainstream India without massive debate. However only a climate of tolerance and pluralism would have produced these literatures. So i am not so sure that cultural inflexibility is at odds with religious flexibility..

What have the Hindus done to court everyone's attention, anyway?

 

Actually nothing much. Proselytization is not very encouraged in Hinduism, unlike Islam and Christianity. The reason is not maintaining some esotericity, but the very basis of why this article in Newsweek makes sense.

[prady]

I picked this again up on the net, some points may be debatable to groups, but by an enlarge there are points here people would acknowledge no differences with.

 

Message of Hindu Scriptures for Mankind

During their spiritual quest, the ancient rishis experienced sparks of divinity in all things and beings of the world. The vision of the Hindu scriptures is thus a vision of the unity of all existence, summarized as follows:

 

 

• There are many ways of conceiving the Supreme Reality (Brahma) and numerous ways of approaching It. To insist that one's own way is the only way is thus wrong and harmful
  
• God is the source of goodness and truth. Man's goal in life is to seek union with Him. This union can be sought in many ways, all requiring sincerity of purpose, self-sacrifice and discipline.
  
• The highest religious experience is the one in which an individual transcends the intellect and realizes God immediately.
  
• The concept of "survival-of-the-fittest" is God's law for the animals. Harmlessness to all creatures is His law for humans.
  
• There is natural order (rita) inherent in the natural world. There must be moral order (dharma) inherent in human life. Everyone must be responsible for his (or her) actions and their conse-quences (karma). We cannot blame God for our ills.
  
• Individual responsibility and one's ethics are a foundation for individual happiness and social stability.
  

 

 

[prady]

I imagine the area of India where Buddha lived, he would not have been exposed to the belief in the one God.

 

The concept of THE ONE GOD is so prominent in Hindu scriptures, i can sense the source of confusion when people from cultures that had auhoritarian spiritual tradition entered India faced. Seeing many different paths of worship to the ONE God and no single path being enforced in an authoritarian way must have been confusing to those used to

 

By Me the whole vast Universe of things

Is spread abroad;- by Me, the Unmanifest!

In Me are all existences contained;

Not I in them!

Yet they are not contained,

Those visible things! Receive and strive to embrace

The mystery majestical! My Being-

Creating all, sustaining all- still dwells

Outside of all!

 

Arjuna: Who is that BRAHMA? What that Soul of Souls,

The ADHYATMAN? What, Thou Best of All!

Thy work, the KARMA? Tell me what it is

Thou namest ADHIBHUTA? What again

Means ADHIDAIVA? Yea, and how it comes

Thou canst be ADHIYAJNA in thy flesh?

Slayer of Madhu! Further, make me know

How good men find thee in the hour of death?

Krishna: I BRAHMA am! the One Eternal GOD,

And ADHYATMAN is My Being's name,

The Soul of Souls! What goeth forth from Me,

Causing all life to live, is KARMA called:

And, Manifested in divided forms,

I am the ADHIBHUTA, Lord of Lives;

And ADHIDAIVA, Lord of all the Gods,

Because I am PURUSHA, who who begets.

And ADHIYAJNA, Lord of Sacrifice,

I- speaking with thee in this body here-

Am, thou embodied one! (for all the shrines

Flame unto Me!) And, at the hour of death,

He that hath meditated Me alone,

In putting off his flesh, comes forth to Me,

Enters into My Being- doubt thou not!

But, if he meditated otherwise

At hour of death, in putting off the flesh,

He goes to what he looked for, Kunti's Son!

Because the Soul is fashioned to its like.

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gita/bg08.htm

 

Brahman (ब्रह्मन्, brahman, nominative brahma, ब्रह्म) is a concept of Hinduism. Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe in the Hindu religion.[1] The nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal by different philosophical schools. In the Rig Veda, Brahman gives rise to the primordial being Hiranyagarbha that is equated with the creator God Brahmā. The trimurti can thus be considered a personification of Hiranyagarbha as the active principle behind the phenomena of the universe.

The word "Brahman" is derived from the verb brh (Sanskrit: to grow), and connotes greatness. The Mundaka Upanishad says:

 

 

Om- That supreme

Brahman

is infinite, and this conditioned

Brahman

is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. Then through knowledge, realizing the infinitude of the infinite, it remains as infinite alone.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

 

These concepts were very well ingrained in society millenia before Buddha himself was born. Hindu scriptures including Buddhism, Jainism arose due to a process of deep search, meditation. Yoga itself means Union (with the Absolute Truth/ Supreme Brahman) in Sanskrit. The English 'Yoke' originates from the Sanskrit word root.

 

No offense intended. Just clarifying a post a few pages back.

[prady]

But to clarify further on the very core concept in Hinduism that of Brahman is as follows:

 

Brahman is the Absolute Reality or universal substrate (not to be confused with the Creator god Brahmā.) It is said to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and ultimately indescribable in human language. The sage-seers of the Upanishads had fully realized Brahman as the reality behind their own being and of everything else in this universe. They were thus Brahmins in the true sense of the word. These rishis described Brahman as infinite Being, infinite Consciousness, and infinite Bliss (saccidananda). Brahman is regarded as the source and essence of the material universe. The Rig Veda says that by the desire of the Supreme Being (RV 10.129.4), the initial manifestation of the material universe came into being from Hiranyagarbha (literally "golden womb"), out of which all worlds, organisms and divine beings (devas) arise:

 

 

"Great indeed are the

devas

who have sprung out of Brahman." — Atharva Veda

 

Para Brahman corresponds to the concept of Godhead and Saguna Brahman to God as the Primordial Being.

It is said that Brahman cannot be known by material means, that we cannot be made conscious of it, because Brahman is our very consciousness. Brahman is also not restricted to the usual dimensional perspectives of being, and thus enlightenment, moksha, yoga, samādhi, nirvana, etc. do not merely mean to know Brahman, but to realise one's "brahman-hood", to actually realise that one is and always was Brahman. Indeed, closely related to the Self concept of Brahman is the idea that it is synonymous with jiva-atma, or individual souls, our atman (or soul) being readily identifiable with the greater soul (paramatma) of Brahman.

 

 

When one puts forward an abstract concept like Brahman as the supreme realit it yields multiple question and answer sessions, multiple debates. Tha basic premise is the basic root of questioning, reason and tolerance.

 

Common folks could only have respect for the seekers of the absolute Truth. That itself built in inherent tolerance amongst Hind's for multiple paths.

Among Hindu sects, Advaita Vedanta is the first instance of monism in organized religion and Hinduism is the only religion with this concept. To call this concept 'God' could be imprecise. The closest interpretation of the term can be found in the Taittariya Upanishad (II.1) where Brahman is described as satyam jnanam anantam brahman ("Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity"). Thus, Brahman is the origin and end of all things, material or otherwise. Brahman is the root source and Divine Ground of everything that exists, and is the only thing that exists according to Shankara. It is defined as unknowable and Satchitananda ("Truth-Consciousness-Bliss"). Since it is eternal and infinite, it comprises the only truth. The goal of Vedanta is to realize that the soul (Atman) is actually nothing but Brahman. The Hindu pantheon of gods is said, in the Vedas and Upanishads, to be only higher manifestations of (souls in the path to) Brahman. For this reason, "ekam sat" ("Truth is one"), and all is Brahman. This explains the Hindu view that "All paths lead to the one Truth, though many sages [and religions] call upon it by different names."

 

These concepts are at the core of Hinduism. These do not conflict with approaching the Absolute through mediation, going into he forest or mountain and meditating on him, doing ones work and being steadfast or just plain giving God a name and devoting oneself to that truth. Thus multiple paths are acceptable depending on a persons individual nature.

 

The US as a society in general is becoming tolerant and realizing that multiple paths to the supreme reality are acceptable and welcomed. This is something that has always existed in India from the beginning.

[Peela]

Lovely to have you here, Prady. Thankyou for going to the effort of sharing that information. For me, it adds a nice breath of clarity to the whole discussion.

[prady]

Peela, thanks for your kind words! I just wanted to give the core doctrinal basics why Hinduism and other religions brancing from it have been tolerant and pluralistic.

 

For example the English word 'Wisdom' itself has it's roots in Sanskrit 'Ved' (from te Veda). Questioning, debate and introspection have been key qualities in seekers of truth anywhere in the world. This applied to the spiritual thinkers in India's past too. Thus pluralism had it's doctrinal roots well laid out right from the outstart.

 

My perception of Lisa Millers Newsweek article was that pluralism has become inherently acceptable in the West/ US to the extent it does not mind taking the best from wherever. The scope intended IMO of he article is broader than some authoritarian value systems being imposed on an unaccepting population.

 

It is not surprising to see in the political sphere also calls and statements on 'shared value systems' between the US and India. While there may be some way to go, what no one denies is that Western pluralist practises and tendencies are increasingly being reflected in Indian society.

 

An example, the President of the ruling parliamentary party in India is Catholic (Italian origin), the PM is a Sikh, a year or so back the President was a Muslim..the Air Force Chief of Parsi (Zorastrian) descent. Not many countries would be comfortable with such a dispensation at the helm of as large a democracy as India.

 

Despite it's man problems, a society that is basically culturally and religiousl tolerant and flexible would such a dispensation raise little to no eyebrows.

 

JMT/ And thanks once again.

 

Regards

Prady

[Kate in Arabia]

 

Despite it's man problems, a society that is basically culturally and religiousl tolerant and flexible would such a dispensation raise little to no eyebrows.

With all due respect, these are not the adjectives that leap to mind when I think of India. It has had, and continues to have, inter-religious conflicts that are substantially more intense in size and violence than anything I have heard of in the US.

[Peela]

With all due respect, these are not the adjectives that leap to mind when I think of India. It has had, and continues to have, inter-religious conflicts that are substantially more intense in size and violence than anything I have heard of in the US.

 

Um, yes, but it also has something like 1 billion people crowded into quite a small space, most of whom live in poverty. Overall, it is peaceful, but it has its hot spots, just like any country, and there are some major problems on its borders and with religious groups for sure. The U.S. is in righteous and, according to what we hear at times, religious wars outside its own country so its easy to feel it is more peaceful than it actually is.

[Kate in Arabia]

 

It has its hot spots, just like any country, and there are some major problems on its borders and with religious groups for sure. The U.S. is in righteous and, according to what we hear at times, religious wars outside its own country so its easy to feel it is more peaceful than it actually is.

Yes. I don't think any country or religious community has a monopoly on -- or perhaps even predisposition towards -- good or bad behavior.

[HRAAB]

I imagine the area of India where Buddha lived, he would not have been exposed to the belief in the one God.

 

I'm so glad you posted that. Thank you. However, I meant the God of the Old Testament, the Hebrew God. I think the discussion was about whether or not Buddha could be in heaven (Christian heaven), and my point was that I didn't know if Buddha would have had any knowledge of the Hebrew God.

 

Thanks,

Janet

[prady]

With all due respect, these are not the adjectives that leap to mind when I think of India. It has had, and continues to have, inter-religious conflicts that are substantially more intense in size and violence than anything I have heard of in the US.

 

Consider the neighborhood: Northern neighbor documented persecution of minorities in Tibet. Nations fear giving a visa to the Dalai Lama for fear of offending China, India boldly hosts the Tibetan Govt in exile and the Dalai Lama along with hundreds of thousands of refugees, much to the chagrin of China. To the West we have a nation whose minorities have declined from 15% to less that 3% in 60 years, under a Sharia that discriminates against minorities blatantly. Both nations are proliferators of Nuclear and missile technology. Both nations openly talk about playing one ethnicity/ religious group in India against another and have significant inroads to cause nuisance. Both neighbours are basically run on totalitarian fundamentals with little regard to democratic procedure.

 

Meanwhile all minorities in India not only have multiplied, they have risen as a percentage of the majority population. India has never attacked another nation in it’s known recorded history over 7 millenia. It has been attacked consistently over millennia though. Yet it has harbored little ill will or revenge against those who have plundered it. It has never conducted a genocide on ANY minority group ever in it’s entire history. Do you know of any other nation on this planet with that record? On the contrary it has welcomed persecuted religious groups from Bahai, Jews, Armenians, Zorastrians, Tibetans and allowed them to open their own townships and maintain their traditions and religons witot interference.

 

Having said that, it is not that there are no fundamentalists in the Hindu fold that feel very exremely uncomfortable with proselytizing religions like Islam and Evangelists moving in tribal areas. Afghanistan and Pakistan were a part of Hindu/ Buddhist heritage for millennia before Islam came in. How many Hindu’s or Buddhists are left there now? How much are other religions and their practices tolerated in Saudi Arabia, or Iran or the Middle East? Even in China the authorities have sleepless nights about sects that carry out breathing exercises.

 

Exceptions to the rule don’t blemish the rule. The propagandists will take the exceptions and try portray that as rule. It may fool some people for some time, but it cannot fool everyone forever. For that reason I concentrated on doctrine. My first post quoted an explanation in 3 contexts why spiritual freedom in India has always flourished and it's similarity to the principles of Political freedom in the US, using simple analogies. And that certainly has been because of it’s inherent plurality and tolerance.

[prady]

I'm so glad you posted that. Thank you. However, I meant the God of the Old Testament, the Hebrew God. I think the discussion was about whether or not Buddha could be in heaven (Christian heaven), and my point was that I didn't know if Buddha would have had any knowledge of the Hebrew God.

 

Thanks for clarifying. When you mentioned the ONE God, i did'nt assume it was THE Hebrew ONE God. :)

 

But heaven in Hinduism/ Buddism has a different connotation than what is used in Chrisianity and Islam. Moksha for example is escaping the cycle of birth and rebirth in the material universe. 'Heavens' in the material universe are given to people who are not comfortable seeking Moksha in this life.

 

So good deeds supposedly earn 'heaven'/ planets that have little illness, very long lives, extremely high standards of living, intelligence, long lives compared to planet Earth..ofcourse like in Hindu mythology and doctrine there is mention of Indras heavens where residents live lives of millions of years and there are extremely beautiful women, handsome men..but that too is considered 'ephemeral'/ temporary.

 

Moksha/ Nirvana is supposed to be beyond the material heavens..and supposedly easier to achieve from planets like Earth than he comforting environs of Indralok..

 

Writing that maybe i think i too am not ready for Moksha just as yet..;)

[sleepymommy]

Lovely to have you here, Prady. Thankyou for going to the effort of sharing that information. For me, it adds a nice breath of clarity to the whole discussion.

 

:iagree:

 

Welcome Prady!

[lionfamily1999]

Really? Since a Christian is supposed to be a good witness, wouldn't you think a Christian would want to know when they are coming across heavy handed? What if I wasn't the only one that heavy-handed approach turned away instead of drawing near? If I'm wrong, then I'm very sorry. It's just that continued harsh treatment that makes me go farther and farther away from something I want so bad. I suppose I should take the advice of one well-meaning woman who told me that perhaps God intends for me to be alone and miserable to bring me closer to Him. After a few years, literally, of accepting that truth and praying, I felt no closer. Instead, I felt totally abandoned. I just really don't understand why I can't meet someone who is willing to be kind to me, answer my questions or at least sympathize with my questions, and hold my hand along my journey. It's simply much too difficult to do alone. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly for me. I hate being a lost cause but I believe it's how I'm viewed and therefore I'm unworthy of the Christian family's attentions.

Coming in late, skimmed some responses and zeroed in on yours, don't you feel special :lol:

 

I just wanted to send you big hugs.

 

If you want to find God, your best bet is to cry out to him. We're people, no matter how many times we read the Bible, no matter how many church services we might've officiated or participated in, we're still people.

 

Try reading the NT. That's the Gospel (harharhar, sorry bad joke).

 

Really, God wants you to be happy, He loves you. Miseries, trials, tribulations, they can strengthen you, they have their places.

 

You don't have to go it alone, as a matter of fact, even without you knowing it, you've never had to go it alone, God's always been there. You're not a lost cause, you're the greatest cause :)

 

Hugs hugs hugs hugs and if it's alright with you, I'm not great at prayer, but I'm getting better and I would be happy to include you.

[hornblower]

Proselytization is not very encouraged in Hinduism, unlike Islam and Christianity.

 

I think there is no proselytization in Hinduism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

 

In general, Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytize, but the right to retain one’s religion and not be subject to proselyzation. Hindu leaders are advocating for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it favors religions which proselytize

 

[Dirtroad]

You didn't answer my question. It required a yes or no. If you have time to type out that great long reply below, you have time to say yes or no.

Rosie

 

Rosie, I misunderstood & thought you wanted me to site examples.

 

Yes, different relegions have made contributions. But isnt' that common sense..... I said their are good people in every society... that also means smart, helpful, and compassionate. They may be devout or just live in that society.... but they create, distribute, and may even stand up for the most vulnerable. It is a no brainer.

 

I also think some of the relegions had "golden ages" but they have lost ground since due to the more extreme factions taking control over that last 1000 or so years. However, there are a few that I see NO positive contributions to their society & especially the world. They are just evil.

 

Do you really think I would be so careful to NOT POINT out the actrocities of others if I werent' trying to respect the feelings & history of those same groups?

[prady]

Sleepymom, thanks for the welcome indeed.

 

I think there is no proselytization in Hinduism.

 

There has been a lot of concerted propaganda against Hinduism over the years and it is indeed a hard religion to explain for the common Hindu not very familiar with doctrine and thus misunderstood or easily ridiculed by some of those keen on attracting converts. This has raised angst in certain sections. Negative Literature by evangelists spreading Hinduism that it is about worshipping monkeys, elephants, snakes and cows doesn’t exactly gel well with those who are familiar with it. Hinduism absorbed/ created Animists, Polytheists, atheists, Dvaita, Nyaya (logic), many different traditions within it’s charter of evolution to the supreme (so for many who understand only organized religion it can be confusing). Over time many of these groups have turned into mainstream Hinduism pretty near to it's core doctrines. But it has been largely a voluntary and self effort by members and not induced. The core doctrine in Hindism as i mentioned in some posts above is very clear. But it's only the seekers who delve into these doctrines. But concepts like Dharma, Karma, Moksha are pretty well ingranied and undersood by the general population.

 

Moreover monetary inducements are also used to convert and they create friction among populations which have otherwise existed peacefully over centuries.

Conversion through inducement/ coercion is banned in some Indian states. Voluntary conversion is allowed and is a provision within the constitution of India. Doctrinally Hinduism encourages seekers of truth, and revealing verses to only those who seek it in sincerity. While it’s common to see Muslims and Christians quoting verses from the Bible and Koran on the net, you’ll find Hindu’s rarely doing so unless it is very pertinent, despite the fact that fundamental doctrinal scriptures are much more voluminous than those of other religions. Because when one does that, in a way one is saying look my scripture is better than yours. And that act itself negates the fact that Hinduism does allow for many paths and intrinsically Hindu’s don’t tend to say/ think my ONE God is superior to yours.

What hurts them is forced or induced conversions, and belittling the religion without understanding it’s tenets. But there are Hindu missions/ sects like the Hare Krishna which do try and create awareness and take on converts. I doubt however there’s any formal ‘baptizing’ ceremony in Hinduism in general. (Brahmin do have a thread ceremony of sorts), but thats about it.

 

Hope that clarifies on the conversion bit.

Edited August 20, 2009 by prady

[Guest Jayde_Mennon]

To add to Prady's explanations, or rather to supplement it, I should point out that Hinduism - which should rightly be called Sanatana Dharma as someone pointed out in an earlier page of this thread - does not explicitly call for "conversion" of non-Hindus to Hinduism.

 

There are exceptions to the rule, like Prady pointed out, like the Hare Krishna, etc. But these are really miniscule sects within the Hindu community - although they may seem rather prevalent given their visibility. You are not likely to find many "Hare Krishnas" in India, for instance. As a matter of basic principle, the idea of "conversion" is rather a redundant one from the Hindu worldview because if you really believe and respect other faiths/religions/whatever, why would you want to "convert" them? They will find their way to god, if there is one (yes, you can choose not to believe god and remain a Hindu), through one path or another.

 

Allow me to add that I'm pleased to find a reasonable discussion which does not start by dissing Hinduism and trashing its many manifestations. Although most of us are quite used to it and tend to disregard it, it is quite refreshing to find people willing to simply discuss without acrimony or ridicule. :bigear:

[MyFourSons]

I don't think the fact that cremation has become more popular proves there's been much of a conversion.

 

It is also interesting to note that the hindus don't have a monopoly on cremation. It has been used in Europe since the dawn of civilization. Christians preferred burial, and so when that became the dominant force in culture the trend shifted. But cremation was not an "Eastern" practice by any means.

 

This lack of historical persepctive is something that startles me when I read Newsweek nowadays, and I've been reading it since I was 10 years old. It seems that the journalists in my generation (I'm 28 years old) have a very shallow understanding of world events, and it seems to stem from a shallow understanding of history. The fruits of public education in America!

[Peek a Boo]

I think one of the issue we all have- Christians and non Christians alike- is that none of us are so extremely and unbiasedly educated as to really know the truth on a world wide basis over the last 2000 years, as to whether Christianity has done more good than harm in terms of it's invading other cultures, as to whether other cultures have been better or worse for it (on all levels), as to how it's conversions or influence compares to other religions in the good/suffering they have caused in the name of its religion or vaguely related to it.

 

 

 

You realise you invite that type of response in being so quick to deny, or dismiss as less, the positives of any religion except Christianity. I suspect it is not your religion that invites argument. I think people here might well be trying to acertain whether you can agree that other religions have contributed positive things to the world without tacking on 'but Christianity is waaaaaayyyy better so that stuff the other guys have done doesn't really count.' I understand that you think Christianity is the superior path to follow, because you wouldn't be doing it otherwise. Are you able to agree that other religions have positive elements? You understand that it is not denying your faith in any way to say "Yeah, those other guys have some good points." Some of us here would find it easier to have respect for your views if the answer to my above question is yes. Of course if the answer is no, you're still entitled to your opinion. :001_smile:

 

 

people seem to keep missing a couple of pretty basic facts:

Christianity's purpose is not in how it influences other people and cultures.

Christianity is good and perfect not because of how it is used, but because of what it is.

 

because of that, it is absolutely "the religion" --God's Word-- that doesn't invite argument, but makes definitive statements with which many disagree.

 

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the Bible is The Source of anything positive and good.

The only positive elements that other religions could have would be worldly, and thus less perfect than that offered by Christianity. So yeah, in a way, it could easily be a matter of denying the faith, depending on what positive elements you're talkin' about. If those "positive elements" are "any paths to god" then no, those simply can't BE positive. If those positive elements happen to be a merely practical way to do something that doesn't conflict with what is in scripture, then we can talk ;)

[Peek a Boo]

What about the families we know, and hear on boards like this one, that are 100% dominant in making their children adhere to the family faith or attend church? They insist the child believe because there is no other truth. I don't see that as teaching or modeling. In other words, how can a child truly embrace the faith if the only reason they are living it is because their parents are? And what about the Christians who admit they haven't read the entire Bible but believe because they were brought up to believe and they would never dare to question the belief?

 

And maybe the term 'passed down' isn't being used correctly in my wording. I am thinking passed down is equal to making the kids believe in the same ideas as the parents without allowing the child to explore the concept on their own.

 

You say "dominant" but that is EXACTLY what Christian parents are told to do: "Train up a child in the way they should go" --not "let them explore other religions as a possible way to go" It's the same sort of perception issues as submission, actually.

 

Faith can be embraced without needing to be exposed to other religions. When the Holy Spirit works, it does a great job. ;)

 

I do hope you find a group that can answer any questions. I'd be happy to answer any legitimate questions and provide a snark-free response. ok, maybe not COMPLETELY snark free, but i promise not to bite your head off. :D

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Faith can be embraced without needing to be exposed to other religions. When the Holy Spirit works, it does a great job. ;)

I don't disagree, but exposure to other religions can do a lot of good. It can build up ones faith as they see the differences and decide that theirs is the way to go and it can also help one to understand other people in those religions. I think that learning about other religions is a good idea. How and when to do so would depend on a child's majurity, along with careful study of God's word to be sure that we are not practicing interfaith, which is a condemned practice.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't disagree, but exposure to other religions can do a lot of good. It can build up ones faith as they see the differences and decide that theirs is the way to go and it can also help one to understand other people in those religions. I think that learning about other religions is a good idea. How and when to do so would depend on a child's majurity, along with careful study of God's word to be sure that we are not practicing interfaith, which is a condemned practice.

 

I absolutely agree. i don't think that's what she meant by "exploring other religions" tho. I think the typical response would be "but how can they REALLY explore it if you are stifling it and putting it down as less than Godly??"

[Kate in Arabia]

Exceptions to the rule don’t blemish the rule. The propagandists will take the exceptions and try portray that as rule. It may fool some people for some time, but it cannot fool everyone forever. For that reason I concentrated on doctrine. My first post quoted an explanation in 3 contexts why spiritual freedom in India has always flourished and it's similarity to the principles of Political freedom in the US, using simple analogies. And that certainly has been because of it’s inherent plurality and tolerance.

Thanks for your comments. I agree with some of your statements, but disagree with some of your conclusions.

 

I would like to clarify that I mean absolutely no disrespect to Hinduism, nor to the country of India which has given (and continues to give) so much to civilization (the greatest product, in my biased opinion, being my dh :) )

[prady]

Allow me to add that I'm pleased to find a reasonable discussion which does not start by dissing Hinduism and trashing its many manifestations. Although most of us are quite used to it and tend to disregard it, it is quite refreshing to find people willing to simply discuss without acrimony or ridicule.

 

I certainly second that and would like our opinion if my posts are reflecting the correct perspectives.

 

As a matter of basic principle, the idea of "conversion" is rather a redundant one from the Hindu worldview because if you really believe and respect other faiths/religions/whatever, why would you want to "convert" them? They will find their way to god, if there is one (yes, you can choose not to believe god and remain a Hindu), through one path or another.

 

Very well put. Conversions do imply in a way that the person converting holds the potential convertees present faith/ dogma in low regard. Thats specially applicable when dealing with cultures with little access to knowledge/ verification of claims and chances of being induced with material goodies.

[prady]

Kate, thanks for your fine words and disagreements are absolutely fine with me. I think if everyone agreed with everyone else on everything, we'd have one really dull planet..:)

[Reya]

It's a nonsense article by someone who don't understand Hinduism.

 

EVERY SINGLE MAJOR RELIGION IS EXCLUSIVE. No exceptions. EACH has a different soteriology, anthropology, and cosmology, and they are not inclusive. Anyone who tells you otherwise either wants you to be a "really nice (whatever)" so you'll move up the ladder of reincarnation and eventually become one of them or they don't understand what they're talking about.

 

My reply to "Isn't it arrogant to say that only Christians go to heaven?" has been, for a while, "Not half so arrogant as to tell Buddhists that's where they'll go."

[prady]

EACH has a different soteriology, anthropology, and cosmology, and they are not inclusive.

 

Will deal with only the cosmology part..

 

Oldest theory:

 

Brahmanda Hindu Rigveda (1500-1200 B.C.) Cyclical or oscillating, Infinite in time The universe is a cosmic egg that cycles between expansion and total collapse. It expanded from a concentrated form —a point called a Bindu. The universe, as a living entity, is bound to the perpetual cycle of birth, death, and rebirth--

---Different models and theories in the interim---

 

latest theory:

 

Cyclic model Paul Steinhardt; Neil Turok 2002 Expanding and contracting in cycles; M theory. Two parallel orbifold planes or M-branes collide periodically in a higher dimensional space. With quintessence or dark energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

 

 

Do you find any similarities between what modern science believes now and what the Rig Veda said more than 4 millenia ago? So people are indeed believing in a way more in Hindu cosmology (maybe without knowing it or acknowledging it) than the cosmology of other religions. Would you believe the Christian or Islamic given cosmology is more similar to our belief than the Hindu one?

 

One necesarily does not realize that one is changing, one need not be conscious of that change, but it does happen.

 

Also check up on the Hindu cosmological timescales..i would say more Americans are believing Hindu cosmology more than Christian or Islamic or Bahai..thats the sort of thing the article wanted to convey, so indeed it is relevent.

Edited August 21, 2009 by prady

[Rosie_0801]

I also think some of the relegions had "golden ages" but they have lost ground since due to the more extreme factions taking control over that last 1000 or so years.

Too right. Now you've made me think it'd be fun to read about some of those golden ages. Anyone got any favourites?

 

However, there are a few that I see NO positive contributions to their society & especially the world. They are just evil.

I'm not sure about this. Partly because the word "evil" doesn't play as much of a role in my vocab and world view than it would in yours (not a criticism, we just come from different directions,) partly because when I've put in research into the origins of some of the nastier groups I've found something to sympathise with, and partly because I don't know enough. Voodoo, for example, doesn't sound like it has any redeeming feature from what I've read, but I haven't read much.

 

Ok, so you do think other religions have contributed positive things to the world. (And Peek, I'm talking practicalities, not spirituality) Thanks for answering my question. If I feel any more need to analyse your character, I'll come back and ask some more ;)

 

Rosie

Edited August 21, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[Reya]

Do you find any similarities between what modern science believes now and what the Rig Veda said more than 4 millenia ago? So people are indeed believing in a way more in Hindu cosmology (maybe without knowing it or acknowledging it) than the cosmology of other religions. Would you believe the Christian or Islamic given cosmology is more similar to our belief than the Hindu one?

 

I was speaking of philosophical cosmology, just as I was speaking of a philosophical anthropology, not the cosmology in physics or the anthropology of comparative human cultures. So, no, I wouldn't say that the Hindu cosmology is "more similar to our belief" at all. :-)

 

I'm not going to go into why the current theories in physics are significantly different from Hindu cosmology right now because it would give all involved a headache, but let me just say that we are speaking different languages here! (I'm also not going to go into why a cyclical physics cosmology has been largely discarded or why the result is extremely uncomfortable to monist, materialist scientific philosophy and so scientists are constantly, pathetically trying to resuscitate the idea. Needless to say, this is NOT the "newest," most widely accepted idea.)

Edited August 21, 2009 by Reya

[prady]

I was speaking of philosophical cosmology, just as I was speaking of a philosophical anthropology, not the cosmology in physics or the anthropology of comparative human cultures. So, no, I wouldn't say that the Hindu cosmology is "more similar to our belief" at all. :-)

 

I agree, and it is a fact that Hindu cosmology is not at all related to Christian or Islamic. But that is not the point. The point is whether the author's point in the article is relevent or not.

 

Tell me if more people in the US/ West seriously believe in the Biblical version of cosmology or the scientific one? If indeed more people in the West believe in the scientific one they are coming pretty close to the Hindu version, at least by default..if not you are right the author makes a mute point.

 

Meanwile this is what Carl Sagan says..

 

 

But the main reason that we oriented this episode of COSMOS towards India is because of that wonderful aspect of Hindu cosmology which first of all gives a time-scale for the Earth and the universe -- a time-scale which is consonant with that of modern scientific cosmology. We know that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and the cosmos, or at least its present incarnation, is something like 10 or 20 billion years old. The Hindu tradition has a day and night of Brahma in this range, somewhere in the region of 8.4 billion years.

As far as I know. It is the only ancient religious tradition on the Earth which talks about the right time-scale. We want to get across the concept of the right time-scale, and to show that it is not unnatural. In the West, people have the sense that what is natural is for the universe to be a few thousand years old, and that billions is indwelling, and no one can understand it.

 

This is another comparison..

 

Many modern historians have documented that according to some ancient Hindu scriptures, the Sun is 108 Sun-diameters and the moon is 108 Moon-diameters away from the earth. The modern values for these figures are 107.6 and 110.6 respectively. My own calculations based on published literature have revealed that the age of the Universe according to Hindu Cosmology is 19.252 billion years. Compare this with the still uncertain value of 12 to 19 billion years according to modern astronomy. According to Vedic Cosmology, the Sun revolves around the center of our galaxy once in 325.5 million years. The modern figure for this is in the range of 225 to 270 million years.

http://www.rediff.com/news/jan/29sagan.htm

 

A discussion on metaphysicotheologicocosminology i agree is meaningless..:001_smile:

[prady]

The only positive elements that other religions could have would be worldly, and thus less perfect than that offered by Christianity

 

How do you come to that conclusion? I don't think most people in the West would agree to that. :confused:

[Nissi]

I met a Hindu man some years ago who told me that he became a follower of Christ as a result of his study of the Vedas! He told me that there were verses in the Vedas alluding to Christ as the God-man bringing salvation to the world. It was a fascinating.

[prady]

I met a Hindu man some years ago who told me that he became a follower of Christ as a result of his study of the Vedas! He told me that there were verses in the Vedas alluding to Christ as the God-man bringing salvation to the world. It was a fascinating.

 

I've met lots of Christians who became Hindu's after reading the Vedas..;)

[lionfamily1999]

The only positive elements that other religions could have would be worldly, and thus less perfect than that offered by Christianity

 

How do you come to that conclusion? I don't think most people in the West would agree to that. :confused:

Coming from a Christian standpoint, the only perfect positive ways to be, would be through Christ.

 

Some would, others wouldn't. I do.

[prady]

Coming from a Christian standpoint, the only perfect positive ways to be, would be through Christ.

 

Fair enough, looking from a Hindu point of view you'd be practising Bhakti Yoga..:001_smile:

 

 

Bhakti (Devanāgarī: भक्ति, Sanskrit: devotion, or portion)[1] in practice signifies an active involvement by the devotee in divine worship. The term is often translated as "devotion", though it has been suggested that a better rendering would be "participation".[2] One who practices bhakti is called a bhakta,[3] while bhakti as a spiritual path is referred to as bhakti marga, or the bhakti way.[4][5] Bhakti is an important component of many branches of Hinduism, defined differently by various sects and schools.[6]

The practice of bhakti emphasises devotion above ritual. Bhakti is commonly represented in terms of human relationships, most importantly beloved-lover, friend-friend, parent-child, and master-servant.[7] It may refer to devotion to a spiritual teacher (Guru) as guru-bhakti,[8][9] or to a personal form of God,[10] or a divinity without form (nirguna).[11

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti

 

So in reality you are not philosophically exclusive in your form of worship from Hinduism really..

 

However it's only when you claim 'My path is best for ALL mankind' you wander away from Hinduisms core flexible tenets. Most Americans i doubt today believe in the latter.

[/url]

[lionfamily1999]

Coming from a Christian standpoint, the only perfect positive ways to be, would be through Christ.

 

Fair enough, looking from a Hindu point of view you'd be practising Bhakti Yoga..:001_smile:

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti

 

So in reality you are not philosophically exclusive in your form of worship from Hinduism really..

 

However it's only when you claim 'My path is best for ALL mankind' you wander away from Hinduisms core flexible tenets. Most Americans i doubt today believe in the latter.

 

I would have to say, though, that it does read that way in the NT. Jesus does not make exceptions for other ways and when other ways are mentioned it's as a warning, not to fall for it, basically.

 

Sure, most Americans probably DO believe everything is great and wonderful and it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're nice. That's not what it says, but that is what plenty of people believe.

 

It doesn't surprise me that this article was printed, and I'm not arguing its merits. I do, however, question the belief of the "Christians" that believe everyone has a right path.

 

All good is from God, so everything that people do that is good is to the glory of God. I don't know who's going to heaven and I'm not in a place to judge. All I can say is, the Bible disagrees, the words of Jesus disagree. So, how much of a follower of someone are you, if you do not believe their words?

[Nissi]

I met a Hindu man some years ago who told me that he became a follower of Christ as a result of his study of the Vedas! He told me that there were verses in the Vedas alluding to Christ as the God-man bringing salvation to the world. It was a fascinating.

 

I've met lots of Christians who became Hindu's after reading the

Vedas..;)

 

"If you seek Me, you will find Me if you seek me with all your heart." This is the promise of God in the Scriptures. For those who are truly seeking God, you will find Him. Let us all live in peace as children of God.

 

Blessings to all.

[TXMomof4]

No one answered me in a clear way about this. Surely it is a very simple question with a straightforward answer? Or does faith in the Bible mean no one ever asks this simple question?

Abstract answers mean you give your power up to the scholars and trust. Fair enough. But someone should be able to say "the Book of such and such was written by such and such who was with Jesus".

I am pretty sure no book exists that was written by anyone in the same generation as Jesus, who was living while he was and who talks about him. They were all written long after he died by people who didnt actually know him. But I just wanted to find out if anyone could give me any specifics. Apparently not.

Im not trying to undermine anyone's faith. Its a fairly academic question and I am genuinely curious about it since my dh watched a documentary about it on Discovery Channel or History Channel or somesuch. He was very surprised himself at the information.

 

I know I'm way behind on this thread, but studies of the actual manuscripts is fascinating. The first copies of Paul's writings date to withing 30 years of the original writing and we have fragments of the book of John within 30 years of the death of Christ. That is unheard of with ancient documents.

 

The number of copies of the manuscripts is in the thousands. I always find it amazing that we teach Aristotle as a valid ancient source with only 49 ancient texts remaining - the closest is 1400 years after Aristotle lived, compared to over 5000 partial and total manuscripts dating within 1000 years after Christ.

 

This link has some good information. It isn't a 'religious' source and the information can be verified all over the place.

 

Enjoy!

[Reya]

Tell me if more people in the US/ West seriously believe in the Biblical version of cosmology or the scientific one? If indeed more people in the West believe in the scientific one they are coming pretty close to the Hindu version, at least by default..if not you are right the author makes a mute point.

 

 

Argh.

 

Again, a cyclical universe has been disproven again and again by the very strong evidence of a universe that is expanding at an INCREASING rate. The attempts to rescue of cyclical universe are disingenuous and motivated by those who have philosophical fears that should be "unscientific" themselves. THAT is the currently most accepted "scientific" cosmology. But a materialist/monist cosmology is not compatible with any theological cosmology, period, and, *again*, they aren't the same thing, anyway.

 

And to be exceedingly blunt, comparisons of Hinduism to scientific discoveries and/or theories is disingenuous itself and betrays either deliberate falsification or "magic brown person" thinking that does little credit to anyone.

 

The first question when anyone says, "Well, Hindu scriptures say THIS!" is "Which ones?" and "Interpreted by whom?" These are questions that have so much more significance than most Westerners can understand (and I'm including Islam in this), coming from a background of very short religious books and a very limited number of levels of religious authority.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Reya

[Julie in Austin]

. . . and we have fragments of the book of John within 30 years of the death of Christ.

 

What is your source for this?

 

It is generally accepted that P52 is the oldest NT fragment. It is from John but it dates to c125.

[prady]

Again, a cyclical universe has been disproven again and again by the very strong evidence of a universe that is expanding at an INCREASING rate.

 

Yes i am aware and so are the proponents that it is expanding. But it's not that if something is expanding it cannot contract. So disprove the 2002 theory. Give some link. Moreover the time scales favor the the Hindu cosmology don't they?

 

But a materialist/monist cosmology is not compatible with any theological cosmology, period, and, *again*, they aren't the same thing, anyway.

 

Why, theological cosmology IMHO should be IMHO compatible with scientific studies. I don't believe the Earth was created 5000 BC, even if theology says that. Compatibility with scientific evidence gives a fillip and boost to theology. Don't you agree?

 

Do you think that if Christianity and Islam had the same cosmology that Hindu's have, they would'nt have reminded you and others every instance? But here how many have heard that the Hindu cosmology timescales do really come close to the scientific ones?

And to be exceedingly blunt, comparisons of Hinduism to scientific discoveries and/or theories is disingenuous itself and betrays either deliberate falsification or "magic brown person" thinking that does little credit to anyone.

 

Here i am not defending or propagating Hinduism as much as i am exposing obsurantism. Why do you believe me? Verify the Hindu version cosmology, it's so easy on the net. Disprove me. Find one fallacy in the Upanishad or Bhagavad Gita. Everything is on the net.

The first question when anyone says, "Well, Hindu scriptures say THIS!" is "Which ones?" and "Interpreted by whom?" These are questions that have so much more significance than most Westerners can understand (and I'm including Islam in this), coming from a background of very short religious books and a very limited number of levels of religious authority.

 

Multiple scriptures mention Brahmas days and Yuga, Kalpas connotations of timescales in scriptures so old when mankind was finding it difficult to count sheep in the flock. These have been studied to death. However they attract seekers. But the evidence is all there.

 

I do not mean to say Hinduism is superior or anything. I mentioned before it's a sort of charter akin to the Liberty, peace, Life and happiness one that is aright of all Americans in the constitution. But the charter includes a powerful and yet wide framework on spiritual freedom. Primary being not to berate faith..

 

 

Faith is composed of the heart's intention.

Light comes through faith.

Through faith men come to prayer,

Faith in the morning, faith at noon and at the setting of the sun.

O Faith, give us faith!

 

 

Translation / quote n° 4329 : Rig Veda, most ancient of the Vedic collections of hymns

 

http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/book.asp?mc=291

 

Edited August 21, 2009 by prady
Adding link

[jenadina]

For anyone who would like to read the various scriptures of world religions, there is a great program called Ocean that is free, available here: http://www.bahai-education.org/ocean/

 

NAYY, I just like it :) It has a great search function, and you can limit it to your own scripture or search through all scripture. Scripture is included from the following religions: Zoroastrian, Tao, Sikh, Hindu, Judaism, Christian, Islam, Buddism, and the Baha'i Faith.

 

Hope this helps someone!

[prady]

This is a line of thought a friend an me were discussing and he came on with this:

 

What organizations like USCIRF seem to demand is exactly that - Basic Freedom of Spiritual Quest. However they demand this in physical terms. Everybody should be free to pursue his spiritual quest. Nobody should be allowed to physically obstruct him, including through law. There is nothing here to criticize.

 

However this is often applied to people who are external to the ideological context in which the individual resides. It happens where strong and aggressive religious groups physically obstruct minority and/or weaker religious groups from exercising their 'spiritual quest'.

 

It is also applied to when the State undertakes measures to subdue the 'spiritual quest' through law, law enforcement agencies, paramilitary groups, vigilante groups enjoying the protection of those in power, etc.

 

What most organizations active for religious freedom fail to condemn is when the system internal to the ideological context in which the individual resides obstructs an individual's freedom for 'spiritual quest'. That is, the religion to which the individual belongs is in itself an impediment to this 'spiritual quest'.

 

While i have no qualms that faith is sacrosanct, i do have qualms if religions themselves act as impediments to the freedom of spiritual quest.

[Guest Jayde_Mennon]

>>However it's only when you claim 'My path is best for ALL mankind' you wander away from Hinduisms core flexible tenets.

 

I'm again going to sort of supplement, or adjust actually, the above statement. Claiming "my path is the best for all mankind" is not essentially contradictory to the Hindu tenets (although as prady poetically stated, it does "wander away")... the problem arises when you say that "my path is the only path for all mankind" to achieve salvation or heaven or whatever. The difference is slight really because if you are saying it is "the best" it is in fact another way of saying "the only" because who wants anything but the best? Nevertheless, it is a distinction that must be made for purposes of clarity.

 

As a matter of practical reality, even holding the belief that "my path is the only path" is inherently limiting only to the believer (if one wants to argue that an absolute position leaves little room for spiritual flexibility - I'm stating this only for the record, not as a personal position). The problems arise when people who hold that belief want to take the next step, i.e. "convert" those who don't hold that belief through force or inducement. This is where the spark of conflict is ignited, either by word or by violence. When the conflict is by word, it can actually be sustained indefinitely until the dialogue produces an outcome which is a sort of modus vivendi. But when the conflict is by physical violence, it cannot be sustained - either one side or the other is defeated or exterminated, or there is a deadlock.

 

With the world being configured as it is, i.e. with nuclear weapons in the hands of key faith agglomerations, a conflict on that basis cannot even realistically be started - althought it might nevertheless. Thus, the pragmatic considerations of survival will dictate that a modus vivendi will have to be reached. And that will require moving away from absolute positions at least to the extent of imposing those positions on others. Hence, the world will come to an equilibrium that, to survive, would mean living by the principle that "there is one god (may be), but the paths to the divine are various". Or we will simply kill each other off. Its a 50-50 situation, as things stand.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Jayde_Mennon

[prady]

I'm again going to sort of supplement, or adjust actually, the above statement. Claiming "my path is the best for all mankind" is not essentially contradictory to the Hindu tenets (although as prady poetically stated, it does "wander away")... the problem arises when you say that "my path is the only path for all mankind" to achieve salvation or heaven or whatever. The difference is slight really because if you are saying it is "the best" it is in fact another way of saying "the only" because who wants anything but the best? Nevertheless, it is a distinction that must be made for purposes of clarity.

 

Thats an excellent post Jay, and thanks for the clarification indeed. That distinction is indeed significant and goes a long way in understanding the nuances involved.

[Peek a Boo]

What is your source for this?

 

It is generally accepted that P52 is the oldest NT fragment. It is from John but it dates to c125.

 

she offered a link in her post --it has a few sources listed at the bottom.

[Peek a Boo]

well written.

 

I would have to say, though, that it does read that way in the NT. Jesus does not make exceptions for other ways and when other ways are mentioned it's as a warning, not to fall for it, basically.

 

yup. basic reading comprehension ;)

 

Sure, most Americans probably DO believe everything is great and wonderful and it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're nice. That's not what it says, but that is what plenty of people believe.

 

It doesn't surprise me that this article was printed, and I'm not arguing its merits. I do, however, question the belief of the "Christians" that believe everyone has a right path.

 

Bingo. Being a Christian is not about polling what Christians believe by consensus.

 

All good is from God, so everything that people do that is good is to the glory of God. I don't know who's going to heaven and I'm not in a place to judge. All I can say is, the Bible disagrees, the words of Jesus disagree. So, how much of a follower of someone are you, if you do not believe their words?

 

I wonder this myself.

[sleepymommy]

Again, a cyclical universe has been disproven again and again by the very strong evidence of a universe that is expanding at an INCREASING rate.

 

Yes i am aware and so are the proponents that it is expanding. But it's not that if something is expanding it cannot contract. So disprove the 2002 theory. Give some link. Moreover the time scales favor the the Hindu cosmology don't they?

 

They most certainly do:)

 

But a materialist/monist cosmology is not compatible with any theological cosmology, period, and, *again*, they aren't the same thing, anyway.

 

Why, theological cosmology IMHO should be IMHO compatible with scientific studies. I don't believe the Earth was created 5000 BC, even if theology says that. Compatibility with scientific evidence gives a fillip and boost to theology. Don't you agree?

 

This would be the most sensical conclusion.

 

Do you think that if Christianity and Islam had the same cosmology that Hindu's have, they would'nt have reminded you and others every instance? [/b]But here how many have heard that the Hindu cosmology timescales do really come close to the scientific ones?

 

Only this once:bigear:

 

 

And to be exceedingly blunt, comparisons of Hinduism to scientific discoveries and/or theories is disingenuous itself and betrays either deliberate falsification or "magic brown person" thinking that does little credit to anyone.

 

Magic brown person... really?

 

Here i am not defending or propagating Hinduism as much as i am exposing obsurantism. Why do you believe me? Verify the Hindu version cosmology, it's so easy on the net. Disprove me. Find one fallacy in the Upanishad or Bhagavad Gita. Everything is on the net.

The first question when anyone says, "Well, Hindu scriptures say THIS!" is "Which ones?" and "Interpreted by whom?" These are questions that have so much more significance than most Westerners can understand (and I'm including Islam in this), coming from a background of very short religious books and a very limited number of levels of religious authority.

 

Multiple scriptures mention Brahmas days and Yuga, Kalpas connotations of timescales in scriptures so old when mankind was finding it difficult to count sheep in the flock. These have been studied to death. However they attract seekers. But the evidence is all there.

 

I do not mean to say Hinduism is superior or anything. I mentioned before it's a sort of charter akin to the Liberty, peace, Life and happiness one that is aright of all Americans in the constitution. But the charter includes a powerful and yet wide framework on spiritual freedom. Primary being not to berate faith..

 

:iagree:

 

 

Translation / quote n° 4329 : Rig Veda, most ancient of the Vedic collections of hymns

 

http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/book.asp?mc=291

 

 

>>However it's only when you claim 'My path is best for ALL mankind' you wander away from Hinduisms core flexible tenets.

 

I'm again going to sort of supplement, or adjust actually, the above statement. Claiming "my path is the best for all mankind" is not essentially contradictory to the Hindu tenets (although as prady poetically stated, it does "wander away")... the problem arises when you say that "my path is the only path for all mankind" to achieve salvation or heaven or whatever. The difference is slight really because if you are saying it is "the best" it is in fact another way of saying "the only" because who wants anything but the best? Nevertheless, it is a distinction that must be made for purposes of clarity.

 

As a matter of practical reality, even holding the belief that "my path is the only path" is inherently limiting only to the believer (if one wants to argue that an absolute position leaves little room for spiritual flexibility - I'm stating this only for the record, not as a personal position). The problems arise when people who hold that belief want to take the next step, i.e. "convert" those who don't hold that belief through force or inducement. This is where the spark of conflict is ignited, either by word or by violence. When the conflict is by word, it can actually be sustained indefinitely until the dialogue produces an outcome which is a sort of modus vivendi. But when the conflict is by physical violence, it cannot be sustained - either one side or the other is defeated or exterminated, or there is a deadlock.

 

With the world being configured as it is, i.e. with nuclear weapons in the hands of key faith agglomerations, a conflict on that basis cannot even realistically be started - althought it might nevertheless. Thus, the pragmatic considerations of survival will dictate that a modus vivendi will have to be reached. And that will require moving away from absolute positions at least to the extent of imposing those positions on others. Hence, the world will come to an equilibrium that, to survive, would mean living by the principle that "there is one god (may be), but the paths to the divine are various". Or we will simply kill each other off. Its a 50-50 situation, as things stand.

 

This is key, especially with the state of affairs the world is in today.

[Julie in Austin]

she offered a link in her post --it has a few sources listed at the bottom.

 

Her link agrees with the usual dating, not her dating, on this issue. That's why I asked.