gangp
Introduction
Passions are raised whenever the standard Hindu position, ”All religions are valid” , is discussed. Well meaning Hindus feel, passionately no doubt, that such a claim is an unilateral acceptance of defeat by Hindu religious leaders who are at best naive and at worst defeatist. Some also accuse Hindu leaders of the dreaded S word (S for sameness). Some people also claim that such a position will mean acceptance of conversions. A defence of the, “All religions are valid” position by quoting the Bible itself cuts no ice to its critics who say that while Christian scholars try to bring down the prestige of Hindu scriptures, Hindu scholars invent quotes from the Bible to show its similarity to Vedanta.
I have in this short piece put together a defence of the standard Hindu position. I hope to show that, this position has deep hidden powers not fully understood by its critics and that the statement “All religions are valid” is not the same as “All religions are same”. I also hope to show by giving one example that a close study of the Bible, specially the Gospels, does not in fact support the Christyian position about the teaching of Jesus.
Meaning of “All religions are valid”
The statement “All religions are valid” simply means that there is a common spiritual aspect in every religion that talks of a higher power, that all religions are true. It does not mean that these religions are free of all errors. The theologies of these religions, specially the Abrahamic ones, are in fact full of errors. Nevertheless, these religions are true precisely because they accept a higher power. Also since no Hindu can accept the theologies of the Abrahamic religions, the statement “All religions are valid” does not imply that “All religions are same”.
Is the standard position defeatist?
I would argue that the answer to the above question is a clear negative. Let us look at how this particular Hindu claim appears to followers of Christianity and Islam. The followers of these aggressive religions have been brain washed to believe that say only a believer in Jesus is saved and no one else. Similarly a follower of Islam thinks that only followers of Islam would end up in heaven although they give some privilege to followers of the book. The net result of the Abrahamic position is that either Christianity is right and all other religions are wrong or Islam is right and all other religions are wrong or the most likely case as argued by atheists is that all religions are by products of insane minds! The strong gwoth of atheism in many western countries supports my claim that the Abrahamic position is in fact a weak position. The Hindu position by accepting the spiritual validity of all religions clearly rejects Abrahamic claims and positions Hindu dharma in a unique position in the market place of religions. This position does not support conversions since, one should not convert to another religion that does not accept the universalistic claim of Hindu dharma. What would happen if Hindu dharma mimics the Abrahamic position that only it is valid and all other religions are wrong. Then it would vacate its unique space and would be one of many doubtfully religions that are making the same claim. I would say that such a thing would be a calamity for Hindu dharma.
Does the Gospels support the Christian claim?
The critics of the Hindu position usually argues that the Christian position of uniqueness that only Jesus can save is in fact deeply rooted in the Bible and Hindus are not in any position to tell the Christians how they should interpret the Bible or not. For example, Jesus said in the Bible that, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man can come to the Father, except through me”. Given this direct claim by Jesus, it is futile for Hindus to claim that Christian theology is in error or that Jesus spoke Vedanta! I would like to make the point that there is some doubt about the precise meaning of this claim. This doubt is not dependent on whether there was a historical Jesus but is based on the precise translation of the Koine Greek language in which the Gospels were written. The Koine Greek original of this statement is:
Ego eimi ha hodos kai ha alatheia kai ha zoa; oudeis erketai pros ton patera ei ma di emou.
The key word here is erketai. This is an extremely present-tense form of the verb. The exact translation would be,”I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man can presently come to the Father, except through me”. Jesus did not make the claim that he was the only way for all eternity. He made the modest claim that he was the only way in Palestine 2000 years ago. Christian scholars know about tjis problem but deliberately mistranslate this statement. There are numerous such translation issues in the English Bible. Given this situation should we accept Christian claims about the Bible?
Passions are raised whenever the standard Hindu position, ”All religions are valid” , is discussed. Well meaning Hindus feel, passionately no doubt, that such a claim is an unilateral acceptance of defeat by Hindu religious leaders who are at best naive and at worst defeatist. Some also accuse Hindu leaders of the dreaded S word (S for sameness). Some people also claim that such a position will mean acceptance of conversions. A defence of the, “All religions are valid” position by quoting the Bible itself cuts no ice to its critics who say that while Christian scholars try to bring down the prestige of Hindu scriptures, Hindu scholars invent quotes from the Bible to show its similarity to Vedanta.
I have in this short piece put together a defence of the standard Hindu position. I hope to show that, this position has deep hidden powers not fully understood by its critics and that the statement “All religions are valid” is not the same as “All religions are same”. I also hope to show by giving one example that a close study of the Bible, specially the Gospels, does not in fact support the Christyian position about the teaching of Jesus.
Meaning of “All religions are valid”
The statement “All religions are valid” simply means that there is a common spiritual aspect in every religion that talks of a higher power, that all religions are true. It does not mean that these religions are free of all errors. The theologies of these religions, specially the Abrahamic ones, are in fact full of errors. Nevertheless, these religions are true precisely because they accept a higher power. Also since no Hindu can accept the theologies of the Abrahamic religions, the statement “All religions are valid” does not imply that “All religions are same”.
Is the standard position defeatist?
I would argue that the answer to the above question is a clear negative. Let us look at how this particular Hindu claim appears to followers of Christianity and Islam. The followers of these aggressive religions have been brain washed to believe that say only a believer in Jesus is saved and no one else. Similarly a follower of Islam thinks that only followers of Islam would end up in heaven although they give some privilege to followers of the book. The net result of the Abrahamic position is that either Christianity is right and all other religions are wrong or Islam is right and all other religions are wrong or the most likely case as argued by atheists is that all religions are by products of insane minds! The strong gwoth of atheism in many western countries supports my claim that the Abrahamic position is in fact a weak position. The Hindu position by accepting the spiritual validity of all religions clearly rejects Abrahamic claims and positions Hindu dharma in a unique position in the market place of religions. This position does not support conversions since, one should not convert to another religion that does not accept the universalistic claim of Hindu dharma. What would happen if Hindu dharma mimics the Abrahamic position that only it is valid and all other religions are wrong. Then it would vacate its unique space and would be one of many doubtfully religions that are making the same claim. I would say that such a thing would be a calamity for Hindu dharma.
Does the Gospels support the Christian claim?
The critics of the Hindu position usually argues that the Christian position of uniqueness that only Jesus can save is in fact deeply rooted in the Bible and Hindus are not in any position to tell the Christians how they should interpret the Bible or not. For example, Jesus said in the Bible that, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man can come to the Father, except through me”. Given this direct claim by Jesus, it is futile for Hindus to claim that Christian theology is in error or that Jesus spoke Vedanta! I would like to make the point that there is some doubt about the precise meaning of this claim. This doubt is not dependent on whether there was a historical Jesus but is based on the precise translation of the Koine Greek language in which the Gospels were written. The Koine Greek original of this statement is:
Ego eimi ha hodos kai ha alatheia kai ha zoa; oudeis erketai pros ton patera ei ma di emou.
The key word here is erketai. This is an extremely present-tense form of the verb. The exact translation would be,”I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man can presently come to the Father, except through me”. Jesus did not make the claim that he was the only way for all eternity. He made the modest claim that he was the only way in Palestine 2000 years ago. Christian scholars know about tjis problem but deliberately mistranslate this statement. There are numerous such translation issues in the English Bible. Given this situation should we accept Christian claims about the Bible?
2 years ago
About Me
Basic Information
Contact Information
Education
Forum settings
Author Bio
- Bio
-
The author, gangp, has a Ph.d in Physics from the Department of Physics, University of Pittsburgh. He has been a Research Scientist in the Department of Physics, astronomy and Space Sciences Center, University of Southern California since 1984. His research interests include radiative transfer in solar heliosphere, solar Extreme Ultraviolet irradiance, Jupiter Lyman Alpha glow, laser driven multi-photon ionization, heavy atom-ion scattering and ultra-long period solar Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) pulsations.
He has also been a principal investigator of several NASA grants. He has also been a reviewer of Journal of Geophysical Research and has also been a member of NASA proposal review committee.
His other interests include the study of Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina darsanas, Greek Philosophy, New Testament scholarly studies, Islamic historical studies. He has also participated in some low level chess tournaments.
Dear Rajendra and Partha,
People like Flanagan are searching for meaning within a strictly materialistic model. The claim is that Buddhism minus the hocus pocus will provide the meaning of life. My objection to this line of thinking is that life can not have any meaning within a strict materialistic paradigm. What meaning can be found in the life of a child who dies young? For that matter, what meaning can be found in the lives of most persons? It seems to me that without a goal like moksha, there can be no meaning in life. I doubt very much if a stripped down Buddhism can help.
Regards
Pradip
Read More...
People like Flanagan are searching for meaning within a strictly materialistic model. The claim is that Buddhism minus the hocus pocus will provide the meaning of life. My objection to this line of thinking is that life can not have any meaning within a strict materialistic paradigm. What meaning can be found in the life of a child who dies young? For that matter, what meaning can be found in the lives of most persons? It seems to me that without a goal like moksha, there can be no meaning in life. I doubt very much if a stripped down Buddhism can help.
Regards
Pradip
Read More...
7 hours ago
partha replied to the topic Re: Steven Weinberg on Physics in the forum.
I have read the Weinberg article three times after Pradip posted the link here.
Every reading makes me sadder.
The article happens to be a beautiful summary of developments in the past century in understanding primary particles, both through advances in particle physics and those in exploration of space leading to better ways of looking at what is happening out there where there is more action.
Subsequent readings expose the total dependence of the scientific community in the developed west for funding for relevant further research on political expediencies.
Weinberg points out very clearly to the need for larger and more endowed equipment needing more and more funds for effecting marginal breakthroughs and the uncertainties in the ability of scientists to have their way and say.
December 2011 probably gave us evidence of the appearance of the Higgs boson. Scientists quickly referred to some earlier evidence which may also have indicated the same.
The aside about the naming of the special boson is interesting. It is hoped scientists will not fight about the naming rights the way other categories of us are capable of doing.
Read More...
Every reading makes me sadder.
The article happens to be a beautiful summary of developments in the past century in understanding primary particles, both through advances in particle physics and those in exploration of space leading to better ways of looking at what is happening out there where there is more action.
Subsequent readings expose the total dependence of the scientific community in the developed west for funding for relevant further research on political expediencies.
Weinberg points out very clearly to the need for larger and more endowed equipment needing more and more funds for effecting marginal breakthroughs and the uncertainties in the ability of scientists to have their way and say.
December 2011 probably gave us evidence of the appearance of the Higgs boson. Scientists quickly referred to some earlier evidence which may also have indicated the same.
The aside about the naming of the special boson is interesting. It is hoped scientists will not fight about the naming rights the way other categories of us are capable of doing.
Read More...
11 hours ago
gangp created a new topic Buddhism naturalized! in the forum.
There is a fashion nowadays in the West to naturalize Buddhism.
This book,
The Bodhisattva's Brain: Buddhism Naturalized
Owen Flanagan (Author),
is an example of such an attempt to naturalize Buddhism. The book review in the amazon.com site says the following:
************************************************************************
If we are material beings living in a material world--and all the scientific evidence suggests that we are--then we must find existential meaning, if there is such a thing, in this physical world. We must cast our lot with the natural rather than the supernatural. Many Westerners with spiritual (but not religious) inclinations are attracted to Buddhism--almost as a kind of moral-mental hygiene. But, as Owen Flanagan points out in The Bodhisattva's Brain, Buddhism is hardly naturalistic. Atheistic when it comes to a creator god, Buddhism is otherwise opulently polytheistic, with spirits, protector deities, ghosts, and evil spirits. Its beliefs include karma, rebirth, nirvana, and nonphysical states of mind. What is a nonreligious, materially grounded spiritual seeker to do? In The Bodhisattva's Brain, Flanagan argues that it is possible to subtract the "hocus pocus" from Buddhism and discover a rich, empirically responsible philosophy that could point us to one path of human flourishing. "Buddhism naturalized," as Flanagan constructs it, contains a metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics; it is a fully naturalistic and comprehensive philosophy, compatible with the rest of knowledge. Some claim that neuroscience is in the process of validating Buddhism empirically, but Flanagan's naturalized Buddhism does not reduce itself to a brain scan showing happiness patterns. Buddhism naturalized offers instead a tool for achieving happiness and human flourishing--a way of conceiving of the human predicament, of thinking about meaning for finite material beings living in a material world.
**************************************************************************
What do you think of such attempts? Will Buddhism make sense after subtracting the 'hocus pocus' (Karma, nirvana etc)?
Read More...
This book,
The Bodhisattva's Brain: Buddhism Naturalized
Owen Flanagan (Author),
is an example of such an attempt to naturalize Buddhism. The book review in the amazon.com site says the following:
************************************************************************
If we are material beings living in a material world--and all the scientific evidence suggests that we are--then we must find existential meaning, if there is such a thing, in this physical world. We must cast our lot with the natural rather than the supernatural. Many Westerners with spiritual (but not religious) inclinations are attracted to Buddhism--almost as a kind of moral-mental hygiene. But, as Owen Flanagan points out in The Bodhisattva's Brain, Buddhism is hardly naturalistic. Atheistic when it comes to a creator god, Buddhism is otherwise opulently polytheistic, with spirits, protector deities, ghosts, and evil spirits. Its beliefs include karma, rebirth, nirvana, and nonphysical states of mind. What is a nonreligious, materially grounded spiritual seeker to do? In The Bodhisattva's Brain, Flanagan argues that it is possible to subtract the "hocus pocus" from Buddhism and discover a rich, empirically responsible philosophy that could point us to one path of human flourishing. "Buddhism naturalized," as Flanagan constructs it, contains a metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics; it is a fully naturalistic and comprehensive philosophy, compatible with the rest of knowledge. Some claim that neuroscience is in the process of validating Buddhism empirically, but Flanagan's naturalized Buddhism does not reduce itself to a brain scan showing happiness patterns. Buddhism naturalized offers instead a tool for achieving happiness and human flourishing--a way of conceiving of the human predicament, of thinking about meaning for finite material beings living in a material world.
**************************************************************************
What do you think of such attempts? Will Buddhism make sense after subtracting the 'hocus pocus' (Karma, nirvana etc)?
Read More...
2 days ago
gangp replied to the topic Re: Why is there something and not nothing? in the forum.
Nothing is the absence of everything. So it can not be something.
There is a concept of nothing in Quantum Mechanics, the vacuum or void state. The void state is, however, not nothing in the sense described in the first sentence.
Read More...
There is a concept of nothing in Quantum Mechanics, the vacuum or void state. The void state is, however, not nothing in the sense described in the first sentence.
Read More...
8 days ago
My twitter updates
Twitter access is not allowed yet.
