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

[paarsurrey]

I have a small book "Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions" which expresses in the title and content how I feel - the root is the same and the branches are varied in how they express the commonality. Of course some focus on differences and others on similarities - that's human nature. I focus on the similarities. For example, see the "Golden Rule" page of http://www.onenessonline.com/ which has quotes from all the major world religions.

And the 2nd Passage is:

The Golden Rule, Love Thy Neighbor, Speak Truth, It is More Blessed to Give than to Receive—these principles and more than sixty others are shown to be common to all religions.
http://www.onenessonline.com/​

Not only the revealed religions but even the unrevealed one would agree on it, and I think even the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Humanism/Secularism also would happily adopt it
Agreed
Regards.

 

[paarsurrey]

I have a small book "Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions" which expresses in the title and content how I feel - the root is the same and the branches are varied in how they express the commonality. Of course some focus on differences and others on similarities - that's human nature. I focus on the similarities. For example, see the "Golden Rule" page of http://www.onenessonline.com/ which has quotes from all the major world religions.

The 3rd one reads:

When their inherent similarities are revealed, the collected wisdom of the world’s religions shows a profound "Oneness" of the human spirit. When placed side-by-side—with surprisingly similar wording in many instances—the essential beliefs shared by all religions confirm that our differences are superficial, and that our similarities are deep. They have the overwhelming effect of creating unity, where differences dissolve and the soul can wonder—why do we have such conflicts?
http://www.onenessonline.com/​

Fine!
Agreed
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I have a small book "Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions" which expresses in the title and content how I feel - the root is the same and the branches are varied in how they express the commonality. Of course some focus on differences and others on similarities - that's human nature. I focus on the similarities. For example, see the "Golden Rule" page of http://www.onenessonline.com/ which has quotes from all the major world religions.

And the 4th one:

These volumes of spiritual wisdom have another value—on a very personal level for each individual. When their most fundamental themes are gathered and compared directly, as in Oneness: Great Principles Shared by all Religions, they become like a guide or a blueprint for the inner development of mind and spirit. They form the basis not only for how nations can live together peacefully, but also for how individuals can structure their lives to achieve success, happiness, and spiritual fulfillment.
http://www.onenessonline.com/​

Good!
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I have a small book "Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions" which expresses in the title and content how I feel - the root is the same and the branches are varied in how they express the commonality. Of course some focus on differences and others on similarities - that's human nature. I focus on the similarities. For example, see the "Golden Rule" page of http://www.onenessonline.com/ which has quotes from all the major world religions.

"As this book shows … every major religion of the world has similar ideals of love, the same goal of benefiting humanity through spiritual practice, and the same effect of making their followers into better human beings."
—The Dalai Lama
http://www.onenessonline.com/​

Nice words from The Dalai Lama.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I have a small book "Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions" which expresses in the title and content how I feel - the root is the same and the branches are varied in how they express the commonality. Of course some focus on differences and others on similarities - that's human nature. I focus on the similarities. For example, see the "Golden Rule" page of http://www.onenessonline.com/ which has quotes from all the major world religions.

"I pray that this book accomplishes what God wants it to."
—Mother Teresa
http://www.onenessonline.com/​

She was a Catholic, and an outstanding fruit of Catholicism. Didn't she belonged to us? Yes, of course.
Regards

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The 3rd one reads:

When their inherent similarities are revealed, the collected wisdom of the world’s religions shows a profound "Oneness" of the human spirit. When placed side-by-side—with surprisingly similar wording in many instances—the essential beliefs shared by all religions confirm that our differences are superficial, and that our similarities are deep. They have the overwhelming effect of creating unity, where differences dissolve and the soul can wonder—why do we have such conflicts?
http://www.onenessonline.com/​

Unfortunately history shows that religious belief is often a source of conflict, rather than something which dissolves it. Perhaps unity would be best served if people just let go of religious beliefs and embraced humanism.

 

[paarsurrey]

I have a small book "Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions" which expresses in the title and content how I feel - the root is the same and the branches are varied in how they express the commonality. Of course some focus on differences and others on similarities - that's human nature. I focus on the similarities. For example, see the "Golden Rule" page of http://www.onenessonline.com/ which has quotes from all the major world religions.

The Golden Rule Man Does Not Live by Bread Alone
Love Thy Neighbor
Blessed To Forgive
There is One God Speak Truth
More Blessed To Give To Receive Honor the Elderly
Do Not Harm Anything Keep Company With The Wise
World is Our Family There Are Many Paths To God
As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap Seek and Ye Shall Find
Blessed Are the Peacemakers God is Love
Honor Thy Father and Mother We Are Made in the Image of God
Judge Not The Peace That Passes All Understanding
Love Your Enemies Thy Will Be Done
Wisdom Is More Precious than Riches Prayers of the Religions

And still more, one could see them on the following site, I could not read them all but all seem to be OK:
http://www.onenessonline.com/
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Unfortunately history shows that religious belief is often a source of conflict, rather than something which dissolves it. Perhaps unity would be best served if people just let go of religious beliefs and embraced humanism.

Humanism is a part of every revealed religion, it is not invented by Humanists/Humanism. They loaned this word "humanity" from religious people to start with. Right?
Now they should return to any one of the religion they like after due search/research, they borrowed this word from:

human (adj.)
mid-15c., humain, humaigne, "human," from Old French humain, umain (adj.) "of or belonging to man" (12c.), from Latin humanus "of man, human," also "humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite; learned, refined, civilized." This is in part from PIE *(dh)ghomon-, literally "earthling, earthly being," as opposed to the gods (see homunculus). Compare Hebrew adam "man," from adamah "ground." Cognate with Old Lithuanian zmuo (accusative zmuni) "man, male person."

Human interest is from 1824. Human rights attested by 1680s; human being by 1690s. Human relations is from 1916; human resources attested by 1907, American English, apparently originally among social Christians and based on natural resources.
human (n.)
"a human being," 1530s, from human (adj.). Its Old English equivalent, guma, survives only in disguise in bridegroom.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=human
humanity (n.)
late 14c., "kindness, graciousness, politeness; consideration for others," from Old French humanité, umanité "human nature; humankind, life on earth; pity," from Latin humanitatem (nominative humanitas) "human nature; the human race, mankind;" also "humane conduct, philanthropy, kindness; good breeding, refinement," from humanus (see human (adj.)). Sense of "human nature, human form, state or quality of being human" is c. 1400; that of "human race, humans collectively" first recorded mid-15c.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=humanity
humanism (n.)
along with humanist used in a variety of philosophical and theological senses 16c.-18c., especially ones concerned with the (mere) humanity of Christ, or imitating Latin humanitas "education befitting a cultivated man." See human (adj.) + -ism. In the sense "the doctrine or science of human nature,"humanics (1864) has been used.

From 1832 in reference to "intelligent study and appreciation of the classics," especially in reference to the Renaissance. By 1847 in reference to "system or mode of thought in which human interests predominate" (originally often in the writings of its enemies). As a pragmatic system of thought, defined 1907 by co-founder F.C.S. Schiller as "The perception that the philosophical problem concerns human beings striving to comprehend a world of human experience by the resources of human minds."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=humanism​

Right?
No compulsion however,whatsoever,please.
Regards

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Humanism is a part of every revealed religion, it is not invented by Humanists/Humanism. They loaned this word "humanity" from religious people to start with.

Humanism has a secular focus these days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

 

[paarsurrey]

Too many people are not as interested in learning about another's beliefs as they are as changing the other's beliefs to match their own. I agree that religion would be better used to work towards perfection of ones' self instead of foisting your beliefs onto another.

Well Judaism are not universal in approach, they are shy to mix the masses. I might be wrong! Please correct me if I am wrong. Right? Please
Peace!
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Humanism has a secular focus these days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

But they are late on the Universal canvas.They should join the masses, if they please, no compulsion, at their own sweet will, if at all. Please
Regards

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But they are late on the Universal canvas.They should join the masses, if they please, no compulsion, at their own sweet will, if at all. Please
Regards

Quite honestly I think the world would be a much happier place if everyone abandoned religious belief. It causes nothing but trouble!

 

[paarsurrey]

As per Hinduism (paraphrased in my words) there is the General (Brahman is the non dual general) and the particulars. The goal is to attain the general that supports all particulars and also constitute the core of all the particulars.
Rig Veda is quite emphatic on this point "Truth is one, sages give it different names".

Needs some more elaboration.
Will you please elaborate/illustrate it for our benefit, please?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Quite honestly I think the world would be a much happier place if everyone abandoned religious belief. It causes nothing but trouble!

I don't agree with you.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Religions have different goals and different assumptions, and I think it is best to recognise and respect the differences. I am dubious about snycretic approaches which invariably gloss over differences and misrepresent individual traditions. I am also dubious about people who claim that their religious view somehow incorporates or transcends all the others, they sound rather arrogant to me.

You know there are exception always. In case of Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslims, it definitely is an exception, errors and omissions excepted. We are humble person out and out. Did you meet one ever? Please
Regards

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't agree with you.
Regards

That's OK.

 

[LuisDantas]

But they are late on the Universal canvas.They should join the masses, if they please, no compulsion, at their own sweet will, if at all. Please
Regards

Sorry, may you elaborate? I am not sure what you mean here.

 

[paarsurrey]

One may like to read post #168.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Humanism is a part of every revealed religion, it is not invented by Humanists/Humanism. They loaned this word "humanity" from religious people to start with. Right?

Perhaps. Why would that be significant?

Now they should return to any one of the religion they like after due search/research, they borrowed this word from:

That is no explanation for why Humanism can't be as legitimate as any other religion (or more).

 

[Kartari]

Hi Sw. Vandana Jyothi,

Namaste,

Namaste.

There are some here using the word "universal" in reference to the religions who are emphatically saying they are NOT "one and the same." Hoping this is clear even though you fail to acknowledge it. We are saying that though the religions may express the Truth differently, the Truth itself, i.e., God, Supreme Being, Ultimate NoGod(gods), Highest Order NoName, Theist, NoTheist--blah, blah, blah, any and all the designators for That which the inventive human mind needed to come up with for itself and the times--the substratum, the inter-penetrator, creator, maintainer, destroyer of All that is, is still only One.

One what? Well, that's what the "arguments" are about. And it will only BE argument, supposition, intellectual fodder to heap upon other interesting heaps of fodder for contemplation until a person actually EXPERIENCES the Truth for which he is searching (or claims he is already in possession of). Until then, it is all talk and thought... and only talk and thought.

Your use of the phrase "opt to view" is interesting, even telling. It means one is weighing information in order to form a belief. That is merely exercising one's intellect which is certainly OK and might even produce a spark which results in actual knowledge. But after having a genuine experience of the Supreme, entertaining or "holding a view" to form some sort of "belief" about Oneness is no longer required nor optional. An experience of Truth gives a definitive "view" of Truth and its overarching Oneness.

If one's final freedom from ignorance (moksha, nirvana, rapture, et al) doesn't happen in that moment of experience (and that's possible), some very pleasant times can be had during the balance of one's sojourn here by sipping the delectable juices to be found deep in the different faiths (as well as in the sweetwater heart-wells of their devotees). No "universalist" used in this sense of the word will deny another devotee his right to eat only apples or even pooh-pooh his desire to do so. But we will certainly be wondering from the sidelines why he or she isn't at least tempted to try the kiwis, oranges, bananas, jackfruit and nectarines left lying around over time by OneGod for His brood? Our error, if any, might be in trying to cajole a brother or sister into doing so. Try it! You'll like it! Mikey likes it! Please forgive us if, in our delivery, we are overly exuberant. However, this is not the same as naive, which means inexperienced, lacking wisdom or judgment.

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts in this welcoming environment.
Sw. V.

Sorry if my wording came across as a bit strong. I tend to be short on time these days, which I think makes me come across more blunt than I intend to in posts.

Anyway, I'm merely trying to convey my observation that there is a group, a spectrum of religious people if you will, who so likes to emphasize this "all is One" ideal of world religions that they tend to overlook what each religion actually teaches in lieu of their own preconceived ideal that religions ought to be more unified. I can appreciate the broad interest, and share it. And granted, there are quite a number of similarities. But there is a danger in oversimplifying the differences as merely different types of fruit, as per your analogy. There are in fact more fundamental differences between religions. Better in my view to first understand each religion on its own terms (taking into account one's own preconceived notions and biases, the proper context of scriptures, etc.) before more seriously investigating the similarities and differences, so that one has a sufficiently informed background before making statements about what they really share.