Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Indeed. I've lost count of the times people have tried to tell me what I believe as a Buddhist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pros and cons of attempts at perceiving many or all religions as pointing to the same conclusions
- Thread starter LuisDantas
- Start date
Indeed. I've lost count of the times people have tried to tell me what I believe as a Buddhist.
Swamiji, I must say, first and foremost, that I am in love with everything you've posted since your time here!
I think my use of “can” and “do” was my recognition of the fact that many people in the world are just so focused on the differences between people, for better and worse, which is a very wonderful thing! You are, indeed, correct on the matter.
One thing I say on this issue is:
“The True Lovers, those devout and righteous souls, in every religion, across religions, will
recognize one another as brothers and sisters, never strangers. They will rejoice in the diversity of the other, the inherent difference of the other, never regarding them with hostility and combativeness, rather in the spirit of humility and with the heart of an honest student.”
I disagree. For me, that unity is not necesarily the starting point, rather it is the ending point.
Now THAT is beautiful! It has quotes around it. Please attribute, thanks so much.
No, actually, the experience of "universalism" (we keep trying to tell you it's not a belief, but it appears difficult to get the distinction across) doesn't start with an assumption.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
So what does that experience consist of, practically speaking?
Yet. I will still exhort you to abide in non-dual self and then examine the source of differences etc. I do not think that the differences are really real, just as a movie is not. The seer of the movie is real.
Last edited:
I concur, from what I've been told. Have yet to verify personally, but suspect it to be true yes. Until then, will walk a path that have been told leads to there.
Yes. See, at one level males and females are opposite sexes yet atman is said to have no gender. So what would be more conducive to realisation of truth? Focussing-meditating on male-female difference or on the gender-less infinite soul?
Vannakkam,
I'm not so sure if it's differences we're focussing on, but rather the naive misrepresentation of Hinduism by projecting non-Hindu beliefs onto us, or into our paradigm.
Aum
I remember 25 years ago seeing a book in a library that claimed all religions lead to the same thing, and I immediately thought it was a ridiculous statement. Therefore I did not open that book.
That's a Devin Jones original, dig?
Namaste, Rick
On the one hand, I deeply appreciate your asking this question. On the other, I'm going to get slammed because it's almost impossible to answer! Mainly because we're talking about a transcendental experience, i.e., it "transcends" the senses, mind and intellect. For someone who hasn't had this type of experience, it's almost impossible to provide a satisfactory answer. And for someone who has, getting them to talk or write about it in private--let alone in a public forum--is difficult; it's asking for a sacrifice of enormous proportions because contact with God is such an intimate experience, SO personal. And doing justice to a description of it in this realm is well nigh impossible because it simply isn't of this realm. Whether you realize or not, you are asking me to get "naked" in front of everybody here. I'm not sure even now I have permission.
In significant ways, your question parallels one asked of me some years ago in a different, poorly moderated forum which I soon left, because I discovered fanaticism doesn’t confine itself to those who “believe in God.” There are an equal number of fanatics who “don’t believe in God.” And just like believers, some are quite well-meaning while some are just plain mean. That is not my experience at RF and I'm so very grateful for it. While I ponder sharing or trying to describe the spiritual experience which you ask about and which was gifted to me by God, I will share why I feel reluctance to try. (I posted the first paragraph elsewhere in RF, some may recognize it.)
The similar question asked was: Can you produce your God? Let me see him and touch him. Prove he exists—then I might believe. Religions are just man-made for people who can’t abide not having answers to all their questions.
Greetings [I replied],
The gathering of proof for most of the knowledge you are talking about (knowledge of changing phenomena perceivable to the senses) is done by people who then write or speak of it. The recipients, based on whether they ‘trust’ the giver or his credentials or his methods, then agree that it’s ‘knowledge.’ They do not gather the proof themselves. But what fool will trust his spiritual knowledge to that kind of second-hand proof? Proof for spiritual knowledge of the Changeless Eternal Truth has to be granted by and to oneself. Even though a teacher of spirituality might write a thousand “cookbooks” on how to experience the knowledge s/he has, until someone actually cooks a recipe and EATS the product of his efforts, so long he will feel hungry, that is, he will not have the experience—the proof.
This knowledge is not acquired with the usual knowledge-gathering tools, i.e., mind, intellect, sense perception, ego, etc. But no matter how many times we write or say that simple statement, people respond that if the knowledge can’t be acquired with those tools, it must not exist. So we repeat ourselves. Guruji used to say, “We strike the flint over and over until a spark ignites the Fire of Knowledge,” and I’ve come up with my own analogy, i.e., “The sculptor achieves his result after 20 blows, but it couldn’t have been accomplished without the first 19.”
You’re right, religions are about people. They were/are created for people who seek (or who already have an inkling that there is, there must be) something more meaningful to existence than just eating, sleeping, mating, acquiring, divesting, and dying. Something besides the excruciating boredom (or nauseating roller coaster ride) of enjoying a drop of happiness followed by an ocean of misery followed by happiness followed by misery followed by happiness ad infinitum. And since the Truth is the same for everybody, it’s why religions are so similar at their core.
Even if there were no religions, however, God as Truth, as Love, as Awareness, as Bliss existed, exists and will continue to exist. Until and unless one experiences any aspect of That, one simply will not know. It continues to amaze me how in this one area (God-experience) people who simply have not had a taste will opine most eloquently and sometimes heatedly that it doesn’t exist to taste. Amazing! In other realms of experience, this doesn’t happen as much. The same person will say, when asked about whether he knows x about y, “No, I haven’t ever done that or seen it. I don’t know anything about it.” And neither the asker nor the answerer gets excited about it.
But trying to “explain God” [or God-experience] is like trying to explain the sun to a man who has so much dust in his eyes that he’s essentially blind. Or he’s lived in a dark cave all his life. You simply can’t convince him that the sun is. But when a physician removes the dust and leads that person into the presence of the sun, or someone takes the caveman’s hand and leads him out to where he feels the warmth, sees the light, no more explanation is needed. He experiences for himself.
The other "problem" with just launching into an attempt to write a description of a transcendental experience is there's zero context and that invites other issues to the party. The members of this debate might not need that context but how am I to know? Very reluctant to proceed. Perhaps I may PM you, Rick?Greetings [I replied],
The gathering of proof for most of the knowledge you are talking about (knowledge of changing phenomena perceivable to the senses) is done by people who then write or speak of it. The recipients, based on whether they ‘trust’ the giver or his credentials or his methods, then agree that it’s ‘knowledge.’ They do not gather the proof themselves. But what fool will trust his spiritual knowledge to that kind of second-hand proof? Proof for spiritual knowledge of the Changeless Eternal Truth has to be granted by and to oneself. Even though a teacher of spirituality might write a thousand “cookbooks” on how to experience the knowledge s/he has, until someone actually cooks a recipe and EATS the product of his efforts, so long he will feel hungry, that is, he will not have the experience—the proof.
This knowledge is not acquired with the usual knowledge-gathering tools, i.e., mind, intellect, sense perception, ego, etc. But no matter how many times we write or say that simple statement, people respond that if the knowledge can’t be acquired with those tools, it must not exist. So we repeat ourselves. Guruji used to say, “We strike the flint over and over until a spark ignites the Fire of Knowledge,” and I’ve come up with my own analogy, i.e., “The sculptor achieves his result after 20 blows, but it couldn’t have been accomplished without the first 19.”
You’re right, religions are about people. They were/are created for people who seek (or who already have an inkling that there is, there must be) something more meaningful to existence than just eating, sleeping, mating, acquiring, divesting, and dying. Something besides the excruciating boredom (or nauseating roller coaster ride) of enjoying a drop of happiness followed by an ocean of misery followed by happiness followed by misery followed by happiness ad infinitum. And since the Truth is the same for everybody, it’s why religions are so similar at their core.
Even if there were no religions, however, God as Truth, as Love, as Awareness, as Bliss existed, exists and will continue to exist. Until and unless one experiences any aspect of That, one simply will not know. It continues to amaze me how in this one area (God-experience) people who simply have not had a taste will opine most eloquently and sometimes heatedly that it doesn’t exist to taste. Amazing! In other realms of experience, this doesn’t happen as much. The same person will say, when asked about whether he knows x about y, “No, I haven’t ever done that or seen it. I don’t know anything about it.” And neither the asker nor the answerer gets excited about it.
But trying to “explain God” [or God-experience] is like trying to explain the sun to a man who has so much dust in his eyes that he’s essentially blind. Or he’s lived in a dark cave all his life. You simply can’t convince him that the sun is. But when a physician removes the dust and leads that person into the presence of the sun, or someone takes the caveman’s hand and leads him out to where he feels the warmth, sees the light, no more explanation is needed. He experiences for himself.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, by all means. I've had some powerful experiences in meditation myself, but not being a theist I did not interpret them in terms of God. Which is sort of the point.
Thank you, but before we go to PM, could you please explain "which is sort of the point"? "Theist' or "atheist" matters not at all to me. In your paradigm, for you, does there exist something or some non-thing or a no-thing that you want to contact or realize? Why do you meditate, in other words? Does the performance of that act have a "goal"?
And how do you feel about sharing your powerful experiences? Would it be off-topic to ask you to do so?
Are you alluding to the ill-mannered and loaded questions by a particular non-Hindu member recently in Hinduism DIR? If so, then I agree.
OTHT, I object to how some so-called Hindus allude to how some Guru/s is/are not authentic Hindus. I also find objectionable comments of certain people that Hinduism was a package of hodgepodge. Some so-called Hindus aver that different schools of Hinduism have no commonality and are products of warring sects. Systematic arrangement of Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas point to the opposite truth -- that Hinduism while acknowledging the diverse branches, considers the root to be the same. Gita uses a metaphor of the universe being akin to an inverted Banyan tree, with the numerous branches projecting down into mind senses.
On this matter, let me refer to the book "Hindu Dharma", by Shri Chandrasekhara Saraswati that I believe is the view of a master. Readers do not have to agree to all points or all data cited in the book, but the central message is loud and clear that Sanatana dharma (which means 'without a beginning or an end") is the universal dharma. How can one practise unless one has faith that the teaching is universal and holds beyond desha-kala-mana (beyond space-country, time, and mind)?
http://www.kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html/2/1/hindu/The+Vedic+Religion:+Introductory
Yes the appreciation of diversity should begin within our own Sanatana Dharma flock. Some people just need to get around more, I think. Generally the leaders try to set a great example with this, and its the regular folk who are insecure and have a psychological need to think their version is the only or best version. (Of course it is for them) Most of that stuff is just the grass is greener on my side of the fence immaturity, IMHO.
Oh, that's a wonderful one, Vi'ji! "The grass is greener on my side." Heh heh, never heard that one before. Like turning a sock named "envy" inside out.
I had another idiom, but I've learned over the years that some of our idioms have racial beginnings, so I caught it and changed it just when I went to hit 'post reply'. Some stuff is very subtle.
But on this topic we slip occasionally. I know I do for sure, when I get rolling on the strength of my own sampradaya, or someone says something against my sampradaya. Hard some days not to get caught in ego battles. I believe you and I are decent examples of this solidarity, given our two sampradayas are actually reasonably far apart within the broad Hindu spectrum.
The absolute best place for unity within diversity I've ever been to is Mauritius. The beaches have Muslims, Hindus, French tourists wearing next to nothing, smokers, abstainers, gays, 'for hire' people for the rich tourists, Still we are all just swimmers in the ocean.
Well, I think your edit produced a winner. And yes, language, the words, the nuances--as you say, some stuff is very subtle. It's incredible to me how, here in this forum, we must have so many devotees who use English as a second+ language but who are so utterly fluent in it! For myself, I don't dumb down my speech or writing one whit and the grasp the people in RF have would surely put some of the locals here in my lovely village in head-cocking wonderment. Whisper, whisper, "What?! You mean swami found somebody she can talk to who actually understands her?!" They seem to like me well enough but then they do this hand swipe motion a couple of times about 6" above their heads.
Even though I fully grok that Truth certainly doesn't require our defense, and as you hint it's probably ego which makes us defensive, I confess here that I had to "abandon all communication" with one of my offspring because she could not, would not, did not understand what she repeatedly put at stake by loudly and viciously slandering my guru and his teachings. Wedded to duty and dharma, picking my way through that choice required some deep meditation. And thank you for the news about Mauritius. I need an ocean fix and if I'm ever blessed with a vacation, other than going back to Kashi Benares (why did you guys change it [back?] to Varanasi?), that's sounds like a place I'd like to visit.
And totally on point of the OP (ta da and flourishes), your statement: We are all just swimmers in the ocean. And if our heads are barely above water sometimes as you say and I can relate, like @atanu says, who's to tell if we're male or female?