Pros and cons of attempts at perceiving many or all religions as pointing to the same conclusions

[idav]

There are always people and, in fact, whole religions that seem put a lot of value in attempting to disregard the differences among religions.

The differences between single religions are not as significant in the scope of larger viewpoints that cross religious boundaries like that of philosophical and theistic concepts. For example there is often debate about whether Judaism or Muslims believe in the same god. I think in a case like that the monotheistic concept shared is more important than the nuances of whether god is able to have a son, or is some sort of trinity version of monotheism. I believe that the differences in understanding of course exist but don't override the shared goals and overall direction religions tend to strive for..

 

[atanu]

There are always people and, in fact, whole religions that seem put a lot of value in attempting to disregard the differences among religions.

Very often it is presented as an act of good faith, and often enough it is. It is always wise and prudent to remind ourselves that differences of belief are not to be overdone and should not be taken as reason for bitter rejection of other people.
Thoughts?

May I request you to present some such actual teaching from some scripture or from a teacher?

(I understand that what is good is universal. The differences, and often the poisonous differences, arise with ego sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

May I request you to present some such actual teaching from some scripture or from a teacher?

The founder of Seicho No Ie decided that the Boddhisatvas are Gods, for one.

The Bahai Faith claims to inherit from Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Buddhism, despite usually showing what can only be called a lack of awareness of their doctrines.

 

[atanu]

The founder of Seicho No Ie decided that the Boddhisatvas are Gods, for one.

The Bahai Faith claims to inherit from Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Buddhism, despite usually showing what can only be called a lack of awareness of their doctrines.

I wish to see the exact statements from these scripture or from founder teachers. Opinions of individuals usually will not convey the correct view.

I will not enter into arguments but IMO 'Bodhisattvas are gods' parallel the Hindu view that a knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.

 

[LuisDantas]

I wish to see the exact statements from these scripture or from founder teachers. Opinions of individuals usually will not convey the correct view.

The Seicho No Ie bit I got from a periodical from the religion itself. You will find some of it here.

http://www.snitruth.org/documents/CeremonyEmbracingAllReligions_EN_Distribution.pdf

As for the Bahai Faith, you may find a little bit here:

https://www.bahai.us/beliefs

http://bahaistudies.net/hindu_zoro.html

http://www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/revelation/manifestations-god

The Tabernacle of Unity may be of interest, particularly for Zoroastrianism and Hinduism:

http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/tabernacle-unity/

You will find a valiant effort at reconciling the Bahai Faith with Buddhism at http://bahai-library.com/momen_encyclopedia_buddhism - the good will really comes through.

I will not enter into arguments but IMO 'Bodhisattvas are gods' parallel the Hindu view that a knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.

Quite possibly. Once one begins to talk about Gods, all clear meanings are off the table.

Everyone defines the concept however he or she likes, with all the coherence or lack of the same that he or she might want to use.

 

[atanu]

The Seicho No Ie bit I got from a periodical from the religion itself. You will find some of it here.

http://www.snitruth.org/documents/CeremonyEmbracingAllReligions_EN_Distribution.pdf

As for the Bahai Faith, you may find a little bit here:

https://www.bahai.us/beliefs

http://bahaistudies.net/hindu_zoro.html

http://www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/revelation/manifestations-god

The Tabernacle of Unity may be of interest, particularly for Zoroastrianism and Hinduism:

http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/tabernacle-unity/

You will find a valiant effort at reconciling the Bahai Faith with Buddhism at http://bahai-library.com/momen_encyclopedia_buddhism - the good will really comes through.

Thanks. I will slowly study. If Baha'i believes in a way or if Hindus believe in a way, it is their matter. I hope you will see that finding fault in their view is not different from they finding fault in yours.

Quite possibly. Once one begins to talk about Gods, all clear meanings are off the table.

Again that is your opinion. God is that who has control over Nature. Hindus believe that knowledge of Self confers that capability to the knower. Thus it is said "Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman".

Thus Shri Ramana used to say "God, Guru, and Self are not three".

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Bahai Faith claims to inherit from Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Buddhism, despite usually showing what can only be called a lack of awareness of their doctrines.

Bahaullah, the manifestation of Allah, never even mentioned Indian religions. They were added to the list later. Unless one does not accept Bahaullah as a manifestation of Allah, one is not a Bahai. Is this any different from Christians asking for acceptance of Jesus or Muslims asking for acceptance of Mohammad? Such seemingly benign approaches are known as strategies.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Bahaullah, the manifestation of Allah, never even mentioned Indian religions. They were added to the list later. Unless one does not accept Bahaullah as a manifestation of Allah, one is not a Bahai. Is this any different from Christians asking for acceptance of Jesus or Muslims asking for acceptance of Mohammad? Such seemingly benign approaches are known as strategies.

Allah is one of the holy Names of God. As written (Bahaullah [is] a manifestation of Allah), I would not be able to advance a cogent reason to dispute that statement. After reflection, do you still Aup? The "acceptance" of the Messengers part, if indeed that is a requirement (what do they mean by acceptance? You intimate it must be something more than "honoring") is problematic. It would be like my saying everybody has to accept my guru as their own. Preposterous position.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I would not be able to advance a cogent reason to dispute that statement. After reflection, do you still Aup?

Sassimaa, many are under the spell of 'maya' and are in no position to guide others. Such people can only misguide. Bahaullah claimed that there would not be any more manifestation of Allah for at least 800 years after him. What is the logic of that statement? Do not mention my own views about it. As you know even a mad dog is a manifestation of Brahman for me. My philosophy does not accept any differentiation.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Sassimaa, many are under the spell of 'maya' and are in no position to guide others. Such people can only misguide. Bahaullah claimed that there would not be any more manifestation of Allah for at least 800 years after him. What is the logic of that statement? Do not mention my own views about it. As you know even a mad dog is a manifestation of Brahman for me. My philosophy does not accept any differentiation.

OK, and if you want me to take your reference to "mad dog" personally, you'll have to embellish a little bit, you know like "Sassy mad dog" or "mad sheepdog" or some fun Aup embellishment...

Allah is one of the holy Names of God. As written (Bahaullah [is] a manifestation of Allah), I would not be able to advance a cogent reason to dispute that statement. After reflection, do you still Aup? The "acceptance" of the Messengers part, if indeed that is a requirement (what do they mean by acceptance? You intimate it must be something more than "honoring") is problematic. It would be like my saying everybody has to accept my guru as their own. Preposterous position.
​

Bahaullah claimed that there would not be any more manifestation of Allah for at least 800 years after him.

Yes, not a logical statement at all on the face of it. But because we Hindus have irrefutable evidence that our scriptures have been mis-translated, I always have to run these statements made in English past the possibility that, once again, a translation might be faulty. Any possibility he could have been talking about his sampradaya, the birth of the next master in his line? 800 years is a long time to wait. But look what's been asked of the Christians! 2,000 and counting.

 

[Vinayaka]

There are many key differences between the messiah concept and the Hindu Guru concept. Of course there are also many takes on it ... that of the staunch Abrahamic follower, that of the universalist, that of the staunch Hindu, that of the universalist leaning Hindu, that of the atheist etc., and more. No view is more correct than another, they're all just views.

Some ideas ...

In the messiah concept, it is one and only this one particular messiah that is necessary. So Christians need Jesus, etc.
In the Hindu Guru, concept, the Guru is necessary, but Gurus with that stance say, 'A Hindu Guru is necessary, not 'this particular Hindu Guru is necessary.' or worse .."You need ME'
From the atheist POV, neither is necessary at all. "I can do all this by myself."

Another key and crucial difference is that in many cases within the messiah concept the messiah can do the work for you. "Jesus died for MY sins'.
In Hinduism, you're on your own, and the Guru says, "I can show you the path but you must walk it yourself."

And yes, of course, translations are a problem. When ever someone says, 'I believe this is what he really meant' in regard to scripture, ... well, at least its prefaced by an opinion.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

There are many key differences between the messiah concept and the Hindu Guru concept. Of course there are also many takes on it ... that of the staunch Abrahamic follower, that of the universalist, that of the staunch Hindu, that of the universalist leaning Hindu, that of the atheist etc., and more. No view is more correct than another, they're all just views.

Some ideas ...

In the messiah concept, it is one and only this one particular messiah that is necessary. So Christians need Jesus, etc.
In the Hindu Guru, concept, the Guru is necessary, but Gurus with that stance say, 'A Hindu Guru is necessary, not 'this particular Hindu Guru is necessary.' or worse .."You need ME'
From the atheist POV, neither is necessary at all. "I can do all this by myself."

Another key and crucial difference is that in many cases within the messiah concept the messiah can do the work for you. "Jesus died for MY sins'.
In Hinduism, you're on your own, and the Guru says, "I can show you the path but you must walk it yourself."

And yes, of course, translations are a problem. When ever someone says, 'I believe this is what he really meant' in regard to scripture, ... well, at least its prefaced by an opinion.

I need to start at the bottom of your post. If you're referring to me and you think I said, 'I believe this is what he really meant' in regard to scripture...', you are misquoting me. I asked a question regarding a translation, I did not make a statement of belief.

And it's still unknown to me if the messiah concept is at work here, that's what I was asking clarification on.

But also, how is the Hindu concept of "guru taking on karma for his disciples" any different than "Jesus died for his disciples' sins"??

 

[Vinayaka]

I need to start at the bottom of your post. If you're referring to me and you think I said, 'I believe this is what he really meant' in regard to scripture...', you are misquoting me. I asked a question regarding a translation, I did not make a statement of belief.

And it's still unknown to me if the messiah concept is at work here, that's what I was asking clarification on.

But also, how is the Hindu concept of "guru taking on karma for his disciples" any different than "Jesus died for his disciples' sins"??

No I was not referring to you ... There could be 500 people in a line-up reading the same quote, or translating something, or adding commentary, and all 500 would say something different. That was the point. Differing views is all. I'm one of the 500 as well. Just look at all the translations of the Gita.

As for that second part, not much difference other than intensity from the two far reaching views. On says 'I can do anything!' because Jesus forgives me. (I've actually seen that, believe it or not." and . 'Yes the Guru can help some with my karma' so the difference is in intensity, like the sun versus a flashlight, something like that.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

As for that second part, not much difference other than intensity from the two far reaching views. One says 'I can do anything!' because Jesus forgives me. (I've actually seen that, believe it or not." and .

OMG, you're not implying that the entire Christian view of Jesus' sacrifice is carte blanche permission to continue "sinning"? Surely there's a Christian reading this who can provide some insight on their Master's teachings in this regard?

'Yes the Guru can help some with my karma' so the difference is in intensity, like the sun versus a flashlight, something like that.

Vinayakaji, the Guru is capable of granting moksha (complete freedom) in one darshan (auspicious view or contact). That's a whole lot of "some karma" getting handled. The Master Jesus--who might have learned these very siddhis ("supernormal" powers) in India during the 17 years of his travels which are not substantively chronicled by mainstream Christian scriptures--certainly exhibited the requisite abilities, as well. Both are suns in This Story. Both are suns.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks. I will slowly study. If Baha'i believes in a way or if Hindus believe in a way, it is their matter. I hope you will see that finding fault in their view is not different from they finding fault in yours.

Oh, I must assume that they do. What else could happen once it is clear that we hold mutually exclusive views?

Both them and me must take responsibility for that what we believe and claim. There is no alternative.

Again that is your opinion.

Hey, God keeps refusing to correct me, so why do you feel entitled to?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Hey, God keeps refusing to correct me...

 

[atanu]

...
Both them and me must take responsibility for that what we believe and claim. There is no alternative.

Yes. Both ways... apparently.

But what about 'anatta'? Why do you think you have any responsibility at all? ...

Hey, God keeps refusing to correct me, so why do you feel entitled to?

God is not another.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. Both ways... apparently.

But what about 'anatta'? Why do you think you have any responsibility at all? ...

Interdependent Origination.
Or just plain ethics, if you prefer.

God is not another.

Then it must be within my rights to decide that I have no use for the idea.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. Both ways... apparently.

You expected something else? It seems so plain to me.

 

[atanu]

Then it must be within my rights to decide that I have no use for the idea.

Remember anatta? What is 'my right'?