namaskaram vinayaka ji ,
I do not mind to answer openly .
personaly I have no problem with any one or any school or liniage ,
but I do find it sad that when a non hindu asks a sincere question about prayer and refuge in god , that it ends up in some hindus refuting what shankara did or did not say , and what is or is not universalism , and whether universalism is or is not valid ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jainarayan
I wish people would learn to discriminate between the meanings of the words universalism and syncretization. Universalism means what Chinu has pointed out. Hinduism does accept universalism in that it is accepting as valid, all beliefs for those who follow those beliefs. Judaism is valid for a Jew, Buddhism is right for a Buddhist, Hinduism is right for a Hindu. Hinduism accepts this universalism, used in its proper meaning. Syncretization is the blending and melding of different ideas and religions, which is what people get a wedgie over.
Jainarayan raises a perfectly valid point here particularly in saying that "
Judaism is valid for a Jew, Buddhism is right for a Buddhist, Hinduism is right for a Hindu. Hinduism accepts this" universalism ",.........In the bhagavad gita krsna clearly states , .... that it is better that one should execute ones own dharma , (even if one executes it imperfectly ), than it is that we should do the duty of another , even if we are able to do this perfectly , ..... as we each have our prescribed
sva dharma .
personaly I have questioned how this affects our chioce of tradition when it comes to religious practices . therefore as jainarayan says it is valid for a jew to prctice judaism, and a ..... in fact in light of krsnas words it is better for a jew to practice judaism , and better for a buddhist to practice buddhism , .....as it is their
sva dharma , and one can see that this would lend it self to a cultural unity . but this also would suggest that we are to be accepting of each others
sva dharma , therefore accepting of each others traditions .which one could logicaly call universalism ?
however .....
Oh come on, both syncretism and universalism are new age phenomena that are to be condemned. At least syncretism has some history in Hindu practices,though not in sxripture. Universalism has none. The neo-hindu idea of all ideas being correct is moronic and intellectually dysfunctional. The world can either be real or an illusion. There is eithet eternal hell or there is'nt. Two contradictory beleifs cannot be true at the same time. Neither is reality malleable by the personal whims and fancies of a person.
.....to reply that such ideas as universalism are 'new age' , and should be condemned is not what I would quite have expected
and as for 'neo hinduism', being liberal enough as to be accepting of others beleifs and traditions ? .......Hmmmm .... firstly it is not a new idea ! ....and secondly the idea of living harmoniously with the beleifs of others is hardly "
moronic and intellectually dysfunctional " ..... far from it , it is inteligent and perfectly well ajusted .
the 'neo hinduism' that realy bothers me is this interlectual approach , which through too much learning and not enough practice has brought forth a new bread of ahamkarites who spend too much time belittling other traditions and nit picking over philosopical veiw points . this is not hinduism , it is interlectual attatchment .
and brings forth quotes such as this .....
It is so refreshing to see posts like this. Universalism reduces everything to the Loweat Common Denominator.
when in truth it is not universalism that reduces anything to the lowest common denominator .
it is the tendancy to interlectualise faith rather than practice it that reduces religion to the lowest level of understanding where one ceases to see the benifit of each others practices and reduces everything to the base level of sectarianism and fundamentalism , egnoring the validity of other traditions and the common benifit to mankind .
personaly I am very traditional in my veiw and beleive in preserving ones liniage without undue additions and subtractions and beleive in maintaining traditions ,
but that dose not mean that I canot or should not value and appreciate the traditions of others .(or learn from !)
personaly I would not like to see a bluring of what are often concidered to be cultural differences in tradition , as each has its own character , individuality and validity .
but I am aware that is also a need for it in some circumstances .
