The openness of indian theism

[SA_mkhya (Sâmkhya)]

@"[i

Invitation to Indian Philosophy[/i], p. 66"]

Indian theism is not fanatical and narrow in its outlook, for it provides for a variety of conceptions of the Godhead. No one has a right to say that his view of God is the only right view. As the Mahabharata puts it, there is no sage without a view of its own. This is as it should be. As no two minds are identical, the form of faith that suits one may not suit another. Shri Krshna expressly declares that there are different ways to God, and that even those who worship other gods reach him alone. What one finds in the Gita is, thus, a philosophical theism, which is often mistaken for polytheism. The principle of Divinity according to this standpoint, is the same in all the gods. This is one important feature of Indian theism.

I find this wiser and loftier than Jesus saying that he is the only way leading to God. “Indian theism” appears to me as a sensible religion.

[km2_33]

@Invitation to Indian Philosophy

Indian theism is not fanatical and narrow in its outlook, for it provides for a variety of conceptions of the Godhead.

With due respect Samkhya, the paragraph you quoted is nonsense.

Hindus fight amongst each other as much as Christians do about the relevance of certain deities and the noblest way to worship god. Hindus also ridicule Buddhists for reducing god to a depersonalised energy force which Hindus believe is the brahmajyoti (energy /effulgence) of the supreme being and not godhead Himself. They ridicule Buddhists for god-envy and wanting to be equal to god rather than a servant of god. Buddhists believe Hindus are projecting their own anthropomorphic ideas and desires upon what is above and beyond human concepts and emotions. Then there’s all the internal inter-faith conflicts about how much emphasis to put on this deity or that practice etc etc.

@Invitation to Indian Philosophy

No one has a right to say that his view of God is the only right view. As the Mahabharata puts it, there is no sage without a view of its own.

The Mahabharata is huge – about 2-3 dozen volumes and dozens of interpretations. So to say something as vague, general and wishy-washy as the above, is meaningless. Where did it say that? What is the Sanskrit quote?

@Invitation to Indian Philosophy

Shri Krshna expressly declares that there are different ways to God, and that even those who worship other gods reach him alone.

There are different types of yoga and to say they are viewed as the same is incorrect also. For instance: Khama yoga is about seeking knowledge particularly with regards selfless action. Jnana yoga is for the disciplining the mind in preparation for development transcendental. Hatha yoga is about exercising the body and there are others. Bhakti yoga (yoga of the heart) is considered by many to be the culmination of all other forms of yoga.

@Invitation to Indian Philosophy

What one finds in the Gita is, thus, a philosophical theism, which is often mistaken for polytheism. The principle of Divinity according to this standpoint, is the same in all the gods. This is one important feature of Indian theism.

The only point I agree with The one godhead manifests in various forms; all forms are the same supreme godhead. But that’s not to say worshipping one is the same as worshipping another, because it is not.

@Samkhya

I find this wiser and loftier than Jesus saying that he is the only way leading to God. “Indian theism” appears to me as a sensible religion.

I have never understood Christians who interpret ‘I am the way’ as meaning ‘believe in me and no one else’. I have always interpreted it to mean ‘my behaviour/consciousness is the way’ That’s what belief means – you can almost break the word up into two parts ‘be’ and ‘live’
It does not mean simply acknowledge jesus as the son of god/man etc because satan acknowledge this fact more then any person possibly could.

For the record: I’m an ex-christian ex-hindu ex-buddhist born again atheist So while I know a fair bit about them, I agree with none.

[Phaedrus]

Any religion seems “sensible” if you can keep the Kool-Aid down. To my own eyes, that one seems certainly no more absurd than the rest, though.

BTW, is “loftiness” now a good criteria for choosing a faith?

[SA_mkhya (Sâmkhya)]

km2_33: I am impressed by your deep knowledge of hinduism­.

However, Indian Theism is not necessarily the same as hinduism, for the Gita, which is commented on, came before Hinduism.

Phaedrus: it is true that what I have quoted is not enough to hold that this religion is absolutely reasonable. However, regarding one aspect, it is certainly…

[Uccisore]

I can find no reason for Indian theism to be any more ‘reasonable’, other than it goes with the times. Tolerance is a buzzword, calling somebody ‘wrong’ is the ultimate insult, many Eastern philosophies just happen to jive with these attitudes better than Western religions. Not to mention the fact that the US has had 200 years to evaluate and poke holes in Western Religion, and Eastern stuff still has that ‘new car smell’ for a lot of us. No doubt it has it’s problems, and what seems ‘reasonable’ will change as the times change.
Also, let us not forget that ‘Invitation to Indian Philosophy’ was written in 1974, intended to appeal to and entice folks living in the 70’s. Small wonder it appeals to our senses of inclusion and diversity. The opening line of the quote gives it away: “…is not fanatical and narrow in it’s outlook”. You may as well add “…unlike Christianity” to that statement, that’s obviously the point of it.

[km2_33]

Oh… so your talking about classical, pre hindu/buddhist Indian Theism?

I don’t know how ‘ancient’ you want to go… but the further you go back, the less “fanatical and narrow” all religions become.
Its only when you add people and time do differences emerge and friction begins.

Having said that, the old scriptures are extremely complex and multi layered; there’s bound to different values given to certain texts and practices even in the earlier days there must have been groups that thought Vedic rituals where the way to go while others followed the philosophy in the Upanishads and still others deemed Gita’s bhakti to be the noblest.

Re my knowledge: I spent several years studying the Mahabharata / Vedas / Upanishads / Bhagavad Gita and learned quite a bit of Sanskrit in the process but, as time marches on, what I learned is quickly fading away

Most people have no idea of how profoundly beautiful the scriptures and the Sanskrit language are; its reads like poetry and the plots, characters, magical powers, mythology and philosophy would put Star Wars to shame.

It’s just a pity it isn’t true. Which is the short answer to the PM you sent me: ‘why did you drop hinduism and buddhism?”

[km2_33]

@Uccisore

“…is not fanatical and narrow in it’s outlook”. You may as well add “…unlike Christianity” to that statement, that’s obviously the point of it.

If you were a muslim you would have written ‘unlike islam’
If you were a jew you could have writtten ‘unlike judaism’

I read it as including all of the above.

[Uccisore]

@km2_33

If you were a muslim you would have written ‘unlike islam’

 Ahh, but I wouldn't have written it in English, or published it in the United States.  What language was this book in originally, and where was it released?
You have a point, though. I think the passage is meant to indict 'Western Religion' as a whole, and not Christianity in particular.

[tentative]

If you look to the ‘source’ writings of all religions, there is a commonality of shared vision, even though the expressions may have differed given cultural differences. It is only the later works that suffer “hardening of the categories” which has culminated in the religion mess we have today.

JT