My expanded view on universalism and syncretization:
Often syncretists take non-conflicting beliefs from 2 or 3 systems, and may well combine them into his/her preferred way.
I agree that's syncretism. There has to be a compatibility, even an overlapping or saying the same thing differently. For example, I like the parables of Jesus because he speaks of compassion, love, non-judgmentalism, and devotion to God, when one looks past the Pauline corruptions and overthinking (and boy do I know overthinking
) of the simple teachings of Jesus. Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings on compassion and the state of the world and suffering are not that different than Jesus's, at their cores.
But do I go to a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church and participate in the worship? Certainly not. Would I go into a Buddhist temple if I had the opportunity to pray and chant to Shakyamuni or Tara? Sure because they are extensions and expansions of Hinduism and of Vishnu and Durga, respectively. Contrary to what many or most Buddhists say, Buddhism does not reject the validity of the Vedas
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...t-most-authoritative-writing-interesting.html and is not entirely non-theistic nor atheistic (Mahayana and Vajrayana are quite polytheistic and have Adi-Buddha, which is darn close to Brahman, as is the Tao).
But a universalist takes many, even conflicting ones, and then tries somehow to imply that both are correct.
I want to qualify that by saying a universalist takes many, or even just two, conflicting belief systems/religions, and then tries somehow to imply that both are correct
at the same time in the same practice. You can't meld two systems that are mutually exclusive. Roman Catholic practice and belief does not meld with Hindu belief and practice. Non-theistic Jesuism or Jesusism
could work, because there's only a stress on morality, devotion and faithfulness to God, but no rituals or the polemics of "salvation" only through Jesus; Roman Catholicism and elements of Buddhism, and Islam and elements of Buddhism, for example,
could work because Buddhism stresses compassion and enlightenment. Though Buddhism on the whole is non-theistic, one still strives to be enlightened and know God in Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Zoaroastrianism, etc. But that's not universalism if they do mesh, that's syncretization.
Universalism is the belief, from definitions I've read, that e.g. Islam is right for the Muslim; Hinduism is right for the Hindu; Judaism is right for the Jew; Buddhism is right for the Buddhist. They are all different, but are equally valid paths (I'm coming to hate that word, it's getting hackneyed) for reaching God. That is, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Baha'i Faith, Zoroastrianism, etc. are right for the adherents of those faiths. They are indeed valid religions for their adherents. A Hindu can't say that Roman Catholicism is an invalid path for a Roman Catholic. This is universalism according to this
Universalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (we'll skip righ to the non-Christian faiths).
Put another way, one sort of makes sense to me, because you can sort out any confusion, whereas the other one makes no sense to me at all.
Yes agreed. The problem is that people get the two concepts confused and conflated. They are very different concepts. The former (syncretization) does work; the latter, when misapplied and misunderstood, does not work, as in the example of blending Hinduism or Buddhism with Roman Catholicism or Judaism and Roman Catholicism. That's neither universalism nor syncretization... that's a Neo-Mess.
