[Buddha-l] Universalism?

[Dan Lusthaus]

> I'm not sure how universalism got into this discussion.

It started with the example of digging holes, some only shallow, but one 
deep, with the pluralistic implication that any of those holes, if dug deep 
enough, would hit the same or comparable paydirt. That "same or comparable" 
paydirt is universalism.

The term "universalism" has been used for a long time to refer to a much 
broader spectrum of ideas than the Universalist Church (which attends dances 
with the Unitarians from time to time). Universalism holds that universals 
are true and real, and that a universal is more valuable, truer, more real, 
etc., than particulars and particularity (and would be quick to point out 
that the idea of "particularity" is itself a universal). When generally and 
broadly applied to religions, it is the idea that there is a universal truth 
at the heart / core / bottom / top / wherever of each religion, and, since 
there is only one ultimate universal (call it God, Allah, Buddha-nature, 
Dao, Brahman, whatever) it must be the same universal in each of them, 
though most of the dummies in each religion are too dense to recognize it as 
such beyond superficial concessions. Hence the need for Guru Nanaks, Madame 
Blavatsys, Edward Conzes and sundry other perennialists (the true and 
ultimate universal is also eternal, don't you know?).

It is from that assumption that ideas of universal salvation can be derived.

These universalists congratulate themselves of being generous to all other 
religions, granting them possession of the most important thing, whether the 
other religions are aware of it themselves or not. It is, of course, a very 
patronizing -- and ultimately distortive -- generosity. It subsumes all 
others, whether they wish to be subsumed on those terms or not.

Dan