Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 93 Completely support Sharabhanga's position in this issue . If TRUTH is one (and this is stated in Vedas, "Ekam Sat") it is necessarily reflected in different religions in similar ways. We can percieve onenness of them in their essence and understand correlations in their doctrines and methods. Moreover, IMO this is necessary. At least for those who claim to follow the path of jnana (that too Kula-jnana )... A. , "Sarabhanga Giri" <sarabhanga> wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 There are views and views. I personally think that the equation is quite vauge though the concept may be there. I agree with DB that these equations have to be made very carefully. Though it may "look" or "sound" similar the base concepts differ. It is true that all great minds go to "Eko sat" principle, the perception varies and over time has changed. IMHO it is better not to have such comparisons especially using western tools. , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m... wrote: 93 Completely support Sharabhanga's position in this issue . If TRUTH is one (and this is stated in Vedas, "Ekam Sat") it is necessarily reflected in different religions in similar ways. We can percieve onenness of them in their essence and understand correlations in their doctrines and methods. Moreover, IMO this is necessary. At least for those who claim to follow the path of jnana (that too Kula-jnana )... A. , "Sarabhanga Giri" <sarabhanga wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 I agree with Kochu and DB for these reasons. The beauty of "AS IS" disappears when we see all religions with the "paradigm" that they are all somehow connected. This then MAY lead to the dangerous path, of what Sherlock Holmes would say, "somehow fitting the facts to support the theory, instead of somehow fitting the theory to support the facts". Comparative religion can lead us to an error in that "somehow" (out of 100 times, chances are we will make a mistake 3 or 4 times in the somehow). PLUS The sheer beauty of the structures of the different religions and how they approach God, is lost in this 'unifying' exercise. IMHO, the beauty of the unifying factor in religion is best understated, never overtly asserted and definitely not insisted (atleast this is my impression of what DB was trying to say). Jai Ma! , "kochu1tz" <kochu1tz> wrote: > > There are views and views. I personally think that the equation is > quite vauge though the concept may be there. > I agree with DB that these equations have to be made very carefully. > Though it may "look" or "sound" similar the base concepts differ. It > is true that all great minds go to "Eko sat" principle, the > perception varies and over time has changed. IMHO it is better not > to have such comparisons especially using western tools. > > > , "Arjuna Taradasa" > <bhagatirtha@m... wrote: > > 93 > > Completely support Sharabhanga's position in this issue . > > If TRUTH is one (and this is stated in Vedas, "Ekam Sat") it is > necessarily reflected in different religions in similar ways. We can > percieve onenness of them in their essence and understand > correlations in their doctrines and methods. > > Moreover, IMO this is necessary. At least for those who claim to > follow the path of jnana (that too Kula-jnana )... > > A. > > > , "Sarabhanga Giri" > <sarabhanga wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Dear Sarabhanga: I do not question the essential truth of what you are saying, or your sincerity in saying it. I am simply questioning whether it's a really a useful comparison point for people who are just beginning to try and wrap their heads around these ideas. Maybe it is, I don't know. It is just my opinion, and we can agree to disagree on that. As usual, manoj_menon's clear and concise summary puts across my feelings more effectively than I did myself. He states that "the beauty of the unifying factor in religion is best understated, never overtly asserted and definitely not insisted (at least this is my impression of what DB was trying to say)." He is right, of course, and I thank him for helping me express this point. Kochu stated, "I agree with DB that these equations have to be made very carefully. Though it may 'look' or 'sound' similar the base concepts differ." This is so. Again, my post was not intended to disparage your idea, but merely to add this caution. Thank you, and please do accept my apology if I inadvertently offended you in any way. Aum MAtangyai NamaH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.