PDA

View Full Version : Hindu Universalism



satay
19 December 2009, 11:25 PM
Pranam atanu,


Also, no authentic Hindu Guru has termed koran as non revealed scripture.
Om Namah Shivaya

Could you please share the names of the 'authentic' Hindu gurus who have termed Koran as revealed scriptures?

As far as I know, the 'authentic' hindu gurus have not made any comments on the abharamic scriptures as they didn't care about these scriptures since these are considered malecha scriptures and are beneath any comment from an authentic guru. This is why I am curious to know the names of the gurus that you know of that have termed koran a revealed scripture.

I am just curious.

Thanks!

satay
19 December 2009, 11:54 PM
namaskar,

Does Hinduism teach universalism? Universalism is defined as follows elsewhre on the net: "the ideology that all religions are true"

Does Hinduism or Hindu gurus teach that all religions are true or is it a propaganda spread by the new age gurus?

What do you think?

saidevo
20 December 2009, 03:47 AM
namaste Satay and prospective posters.

I would request members who seek to answer in favour of the topic--that Hinduism teaches universalism, in the context of the explanation provided by Satay--that the ideology of all religions are true (therefore equal), to peruse and discuss the points raised by these two eminent Hindu scholars/teachers in their essays (there might be others):

Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same?
A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism
By Frank Gaetano Morales

An Appeal to Hindu Sadhus
By Prof. GC Asnani
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3380326/Appeal-to-Hindu-Sadhus-

IMHO, instead of just saying from the point of Advaita

• that everything is the lIlA of Ishvara;

• that the aggression of the Muslims and Christians is only guNa-play, not the teachings of their religions;

• that ours is Sanatana Dharma, all faiths sprang out of it, so Hindus should be tolerant to aggressions of adharma, etc., etc.,

• and questioning the level of spiritual advancement of the members who seek to find fault with the scriptures of Abrahamic religions with specific quotes,

it would be for the benefit of everyone, if the posts that seek to equate the teachings of Hinduism with those of the Abrahamic religions try to provide

• explanations with specific examples of scriptural quotes and show how the teachings are identical;

• with convincing, down-to-earth explanations about the third aspect of every religion that Prof.Asnani gives: Relationship between people of their own and other religions;

• the number of enlightened sages today in the Abrahamic religions vis-a-vis Hinduism and why the numbers are woefully less in the western religions;

• the number of tolerant common people of the Abrahamic religions (as seen in normal life and on their religious forums on the Net) who would be even willing to go beyond the monopolistic precepts of their religious authorities and seek peaceful co-existence with the people of other religions, not as a matter of circumstance, but conceding that there could be other ways to reach the Absolute Truth;

• and such other points.

I have my own impressions on the points given above; I shall post them in a short while. Meantime, I look forward to meaningful discussion/debate on the issue that Satay has given for this thread.

atanu
20 December 2009, 09:13 AM
Namaskar Ekanta,
However, I challenge you and atanu to refute spiritualseeker's original post instead of making personal attacks on him and other members.
Thank you!

Namaste Satay,

How do you you judge personal attack from me?


A friend used to say to others, 'physician heal thyself'.

:) Is it a case of dost dost nA rahA? I still believe in 'physician heal thyself'.


Could you please share the names of the 'authentic' Hindu gurus who have termed Koran as revealed scriptures?

As far as I know, the 'authentic' hindu gurus have not made any comments on the abharamic scriptures as they didn't care about these scriptures since these are considered malecha scriptures ----

Happily. But I request you to reciprocate by showing what is a Mleccha and what is Mleccha scripture from authentic scripture/guru.

Moreover, my following submission is limited to showing revelatory nature of Koran (and also Bible). I have equal distaste for conversions, violence, and fanaticism.

Sri Aurobindo on Islam and other religions

"A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult egoism stand in the way "

-----Each religion has helped mankind. Paganism increased in man the light of beauty, the largeness and height of his life, his aim at a many-sided perfection; Christianity gave him some vision of divine love and charity; Buddhism has shown him a noble way to be wiser, gentler, purer, Judaism and Islam how to be religiously faithful in action and zealously devoted to God; Hinduism has opened to him the largest and profoundest spiritual possibilities. A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult egoism stand in the way.
(Essays in Philosophy and Yoga, p.211)

All fanaticism is false, because it is a contradiction of the very nature of God and of Truth. Truth cannot be shut up in a single book, Bible or Veda or Koran, or in a single religion. The Divine Being is eternal and universal and infinite and cannot be the sole property of the Mussulmans or of the Semitic religions only, – those that happened to be in a line from the Bible and to have Jewish or Arabian prophets for their founders. Hindus and Confucians and Taoists and all others have as much right to enter into relation with God and find the Truth in their own way. All religions have some truth in them, but none has the whole truth; all are created in time and finally decline and perish. Mahomed himself never pretended that the Koran was the last message of God and there would be no other. God and Truth outlast these religions and manifest themselves anew in whatever way or form the Divine Wisdom chooses.
(On Himself, p.483.)
http://www.auroville.org/journals&media/avtoday/august_04/sri_other_religious.htm


From Kanchi Paramacharya
The Word of God

We must not distrust the belief that the Vedas are not the work of mere mortals. Followers of other religions too ascribe divine origin to their scriptures. Jesus says that he merely repeats the words of God and, according to Muslims, the prophet speaks the words of Allah. What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts.

----"Each great man, like each great work, speaks about a particular system, a particular path. Which of these is to be followed? " such a question arises in the minds of people. Whatever system or path you follow, follow it with faith. Do not give it up midway. In the end it will lead you to the Paramatman. In the beginning the paths may seem different but all of them take you to the same goal.
---
It is this spirit of catholicism that Englishmen exclaim: "Jevhovah, Jove or Lord!". Jehovah is the Semitic God of the region of Israel, the home of the Bible. Jove is another name of Jupiter. The word "Lord" applies to the God of any faith; it is common to all religions. Realised people in the West also speak that the one Being is the same, call him by any name you like.

God is One.
The sense of religious toleration is not a modern conception. It can be traced to very ancient times. The Kural proclaimed that all teachings referred only to one Porul or Object. Sri Sankara and Sri Sambandar saw the same God worshipped in the six systems to which they referred. Arhat, the name by which Jains call the Supreme Being, is a Vedic name identified with Siva. Other religions also speak of one God.

All troubles in this world start only when attempts are made to wean away people from their native religion to convert them to a new faith, -----It is the duty of every person to follow the religion of his ancestors. If a non-Hindu finds that he had Hindu ancestors, its up to him to revert to Hinduism after performing the prescribed Praayaschitta(purificatory ceremony).
October 22, 1957.

MANY PATHS TO SAME GOAL
-------All of you are familiar with the scene at a railway station, as soon as a train arrives and the passengers emerge out of the platform. A passenger will be stormed by drivers of a variety of conveyances, each trying to snatch his baggage in order to attract him to his vehicle. In whichever conveyance he ultimately decides to travel, his destination is his home. Similarly the protagonist of each school of religious thought try to attract the seeker after truth by saying that their school is the easiest and surest way to realise the truth. When it is recognised that all paths lead to the same goal, there is no necessity to change the path one is already following.

"Quest For God" From Swami Vivekananda

O'ver hill and dale and mountain range,
In temple, church, and mosque,
In Vedas, Bible, Al Koran
I had searched for Thee in vain.
-----
Thou wert my God with prophets old,
All creeds do come from Thee,
The Vedas, Bible, and Koran bold
Sing Thee in Harmony.
"Thou art," Thou art" the Soul of souls
In the rushing stream of life.
"Om tat sat om." Thou art my God,
My love, I am thine, I am thine.

From a letter written by Vivekananda on September 4, 1893 to Prof. J.H. Wright of Boston who introduced the Swami at the Parliament of Religions

Ramakrishna Paramhamsa
From the book "The Mahageeta volume1" by Osho

Ordinarily a person reaches by one path. When you have reached the summit of the mountain, who bothers about other paths? Do you walk the other trails up it then? Who cares? -- you have reached. The trail you came on, you came on; what's the use of walking all the others? But Ramakrishna reached to the summit of the mountain again and again, then descended.

He climbed by a second path, then by a third path. He is the first person who practiced the sadhanas of all religions and attained to the same peak through all religions. Many have talked about synthesis -- Ramakrishna is the first to create a science of synthesis. Many people have said that all religions are true, but it has just been talk. Ramakrishna made it a reality. He gave it the strength of experience, he proved it with his life. When he was doing Islamic sadhana he became a real Muslim fakir. He forgot Ramakrishna and began chanting, "Allahoo... Allahoo."

He began listening to the verses of the Koran and lived right on the steps of the mosque.

Gospel of Ramakrishna by Swami Abhedananada
CHAPTER I: SRÎ RÂMAKRISHNA AT THE TEMPLE OF DAKSHINESWARA
When there is true devotion and love, one can reach God by any of the sectarian religions. The Vaishnavas, the worshippers of Krishna, will attain God in the same way as the Sâktas, the worshippers of the Divine Mother or the followers of Vedânta. Those who belong to the Brâhmo-Samâj, the Mahometans and Christians, will also realize God through their respective religions. If you follow any of these paths with intense devotion, you will reach Him. If there be any mistake in the path chosen, He will correct the mistake in the long run. The man who wishes to see Jagannâth may go towards the South instead of towards the North, but some one will sooner or later direct him in the right way and he will surely visit Jagannâth in the end. The one thing necessary for realization is whole-hearted and whole-souled devotion to God.

Many names of one God.

Vaishnavas, Mahometans, Christians and Hindus are all longing for the same God; but they do not know that He who is Krishna is also Shiva, Divine Mother, Christ and Allah. God is one, but He has many names. The Substance is one, but is worshipped under different names according to the time, place and nationality of His worshippers. All the different Scriptures of the world speak of the same God. He who is described in the Vedas as Absolute Existence-Intelligence-Bliss or Brahman, is also described in the Tantras as Shiva, in the Purânas as Krishna, in the Koran as Allah, and in the Bible as Christ. Yet the various sects quarrel with one another.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gork/gork04.htm)

Also by Ananda Coomarswamy http://religioperennis.org/documents/acoomaraswamy/ramakrishna.pdf

Shri Sathya Sai Baba
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-362196


Shirdi Sai Baba
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZcEJn3MLjcIC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=sai+on+koran&source=bl&ots=bnL5il7nNL&sig=TI9DJG1ySZ-DFb0lEoXTsuTCAJA&hl=en&ei=-youS_eYEcGHkQXk-vWDCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=sai%20on%20koran&f=false

Abdul Baba
Abdul Baba came to Shirdi in around 1890 from a poor family and through a fakir who received instructions in a dream to send him. Baba greeted him with the curious words "My crow has come".
He was a dedicated worker and it was he who cleaned the mosque, washed Baba's clothes and collected water. He swept the streets outside the mosque, lit the lamps in Lendi and obeyed Baba's instructions to the letter.

Baba took care of his welfare, and often had him reading aloud passages from the Koran.
(http://www.shirdi-sai-baba.com/saidevoteeabdulbaba.html)


Shree Chaitanya and Srila Prabhupada
----(A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada writes in his purport to this verse: The revealed scripture of the Mohammedans is the Koran. There is one Muslim sampradaya (school of thought) known as the Sufis. The Sufis accept impersonalism, believing in the oneness of the living entity with the Absolute Truth. Their supreme slogan is "analahak." The Sufis Sampradaya was certainly derived from Adi Sankaracarya’s Advaitist impersonalism.)
(Purport by Prabhupada: According to the Muslim scripture, without evadat, offering prayers at a mosque or elsewhere 5 times daily (namaja), one cannot be successful in life. Sri Caitanya pointed out that in the revealed scripture of the Mohammedans, love of Godhead is the ultimate goal. Karma yoga and Jnana yoga are certainly described in the Koran, but ultimately the Koran states that the ultimate goal is the offering of prayers to the Supreme Person (evadat).
(http://krishna.org/shri-chaitanya-and-the-koran/)


Shri Aurobindo
Hinduism : An Overview by Neria Harish Hebbar (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/../writers/nhhebbar.htm)
Introduction
If looked at in the historical perspective, all the religions have an interesting beginning and development. Also looking at all the religions in the historical context makes it easier to understand and tolerate. Sri Aurobindo wrote that all religions have two aspects. One is the Truth or the core essence of the religion. The second is the unimportant part that is only relevant to the time the scriptures were written. Thus the Gita is a sermon on the battlefield. The battlefield is not important. Similarly the Koran was revealed over many years during tumultuous years with tribal infighting in Mecca and Medina. That context of the Koran, with its violence and death is not important and significant only for the contemporary period. Similarly one religion does not hold an answer to all the questions.
http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/050.htm

Sri Aurobindo on Islam and other religions

"A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult egoism stand in the way."
http://www.auroville.org/journals&media/avtoday/august_04/sri_other_religious.htm

Kabir

I. 112. 'sunta nahi dhun ki khabar
HAVE you not heard the tune with the Unstruck Music is playing? In the mist of the chamber the harp of joy is gently and sweetly played; and where is the need of going without to hear it?

If you have not drunk of the nectar of One Love, what boots it though you should purge yourself of all stains?

The Kazi is searching the words of the Koran, and instructing others: but if his heard be not steeped in that love, what does it avail, though he be a teacher of men?

The Yogi dyes his garments with red: but if he knows naught of that colour of love, what does it avail though his garments be tinted?

Kabir says: "Whether I be in the temple or the balcony, in the camp or in the flower garden, I tell you truly that every moment my Lord is taking His delight in me."


Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
20 December 2009, 10:03 AM
namaste Satay and Atanu.

The content of both your post #60 and Atanu's reply in post #61, as you can see, properly belong to the 'Hindu Universalism' thread that Satay has floated today. You may possibly shift both the posts to that thread so we may discuss them in the context of that thread. The authors Atanu have quoted would surely have said a lot more about Hinduism that we need to check up and highlight vis-a-vis their statements about other religions.

Essentially, the three AchAryas Adi shankara, rAmAnuja and mAdhva are the proponents of traiditional Hinduism in the kali yuga. They are also the Adi gurus of most if not all the Hindu sects that exist today. It is within the context of their teachings that we as traditional Hindus must need to discuss the views of our modern sages and AchAryAs, and arrive at the conclusion if the Hindu shruti and smRiti really teach Radical Universalism or is it a necessary extrapolation of the times by our modern sages.

devotee
20 December 2009, 10:29 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Thanks for a very good post ! :)

The Self-realised Saints can never think or say against anyone ... because there is no "other" for them !

But that is not how the majority of Muslims think. Most people are unaware what is written in their holy book & what is there in Hadith. They just pray 5 times in a day & try to lead a life the way the Mullah say or the way he understands Islam.

What the extremists & the hard-core Islamists are propagating in the name of religion is even worse. They are able to brainwash young minds & make them ready for suicide attacks. They are able to lure young girls by showing only the goodie-goodie part of Islam & then that poor soul has to grow through a nightmarish life.

It is not that there are no good things in Islam & Quran. They are there. You can't make a person drink poison if you do not cleverly mix it in a tantalizing sweetened juice !

OM

Ganeshprasad
20 December 2009, 10:51 AM
Pranam Atanu ji

i hope i am not offending you



I want to get off the hook myself and do not have much time to put Prophet Muhammad on the hook or to get him off.

Good idea, nor would I care to give time of day to Islam or the prophet in particular, but I can not put my head in the send to think there is no danger, I would be happy to pray side by side with anyone if there is a mutual respect, I am happy to say it loudly that I and Hindu dharma pose no threat to anyone or any religion let them reciprocate, is this too much to ask?



Logically, I cannot put credence on the personalty cult based Puranic stories as shruti, if they contradict the Vedas. If one goes only by puranic stories, creating mental images of fleshy divinities, in place of spiritual beings, then one would come across many horrendous ideas. Similarly, i cannot accept Hadiths as stand alone evidences. But I acknowledge Koran as revelation. Koran could not have been written by an illiterate goon and without divine intervention --

From what I can gather the Hadiths are complimentary to understand Koran, if that has been written and followed by majority, who are we to dispute that, what purpose does it serve us and the rest of humanity. Are you going to tell them, mate you got it all wrong, would we be able to convince them that the Vedas and Koran speaks the same language?
I have no idea who wrote the Koran but Muhammad certainly followed it with his sword and history certainly bares the scars. It sure is a revelation but off a kind not spoken in Vedas or else its fruit would be the same. But I do agree nothing happens without a reason.

Sweeping generalisation on puran to prove a point is uncalled for. Puranas are highly venerated by majority of Hindus, no one disputes the Vedas ultimate authority, hardly anyone reads it or understands it, most of the time we are relaying on translations given by foreigners and we all know their agenda. If one does not know Sanskrit the real meaning is lost anyway. But in this age of Kali purans are easily understood, I have not seen any monster cult springing from reading purans, sure there are debates between different sects but here again it is as you say Vedas have the final say.

Jai Shree Krishna

Harjas Kaur
20 December 2009, 11:15 AM
Long post Atanu ji. Not one sentence anywhere there says Mohammed was enlightened.

I especially appreciated this quote you cited from that list:


Sri Aurobindo on Islam and other religions

"A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult egoism stand in the way "English is a tricky language. Is this sentence saying God-visions (visions FROM the God? or visions OF the God by finite men?). This sentence alone makes no claim whatever that Koran is equal to Sruti as you have alleged. Nowhere in any of your quotes is any such statement, only reflections of the TOLERANCE of Sanatana Dharma for any other religion and recognition of Islam as a major world religion. Nowhere is any comment stating Mohammed was enlightened as you have alleged.

Lot's of quotes. Zero proof. Try again.


-----Each religion has helped mankind. Paganism increased in man the light of beauty, the largeness and height of his life, his aim at a many-sided perfection; Christianity gave him some vision of divine love and charity; Buddhism has shown him a noble way to be wiser, gentler, purer, Judaism and Islam how to be religiously faithful in action and zealously devoted to God; Hinduism has opened to him the largest and profoundest spiritual possibilities. A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult egoism stand in the way.
(Essays in Philosophy and Yoga, p.211) Even bhuta worship is useful to someone. This is tolerance of Sanatana Dharma. NOTHING here is saying what you have been saying about Islam. In fact it is even telling us that Islam is "zealous" which is something very close to fanaticism in definition, and then making correction warning against fanaticism. This reflects the deep insightful vivek of Sri Aurobindo Ji.


All fanaticism is false, because it is a contradiction of the very nature of God and of Truth. Truth cannot be shut up in a single book, Bible or Veda or Koran, or in a single religion. The Divine Being is eternal and universal and infinite and cannot be the sole property of the Mussulmans or of the Semitic religions only, – those that happened to be in a line from the Bible and to have Jewish or Arabian prophets for their founders.Seems like your own quotes are making the case against your points. Please do continue with your presentation Ji. Lol.


Hindus and Confucians and Taoists and all others have as much right to enter into relation with God and find the Truth in their own way. All religions have some truth in them, but none has the whole truth; all are created in time and finally decline and perish. Mahomed himself never pretended that the Koran was the last message of God and there would be no other. God and Truth outlast these religions and manifest themselves anew in whatever way or form the Divine Wisdom chooses.
(On Himself, p.483.)
http://www.auroville.org/journals&me..._religious.htm (http://www.auroville.org/journals&media/avtoday/august_04/sri_other_religious.htm)It's abundantly clear that Sri Aurobindo Ji was well acquainted with the mentality of Islamic religion and was gently correcting it from this quotation you cited and proclaiming the RIGHT of other religions, which ISLAM so famously cannot tolerate as even being "of God."


That's for sharing. All you did was make SS points more clear.

It is within the context of their teachings that we as traditional Hindus must need to discuss the views of our modern sages and AchAryAs, and arrive at the conclusion if the Hindu shruti and smRiti really teach Radical UniversalismThe teaching is everyone is part of one universal energy/soul and One God. But in this world we fight against adharma. The goal is to do this duty without ourselves becoming adharmic. No one could live in a society where law does not prevail in name of some false interpretation of Advaitic Oneness. In real world of Maya delusion and dimensions, child molestor must be punished and society protected from harm. Even with this, child molestor is still a part of the wholeness.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji's life gave best example of this. He did not trample on Muslims until they trampled on Hindu's. WHY? Because not to defend Dharma is greater evil then the criminal. So that is perfect answer to "without limits," irrational, radical universalism.

(Cont.)

Harjas Kaur
20 December 2009, 11:16 AM
ALL religions and religious worship comes from the GOD. No religion can contain the Total Truth. Guru Nanak Dev Ji explained Truth is part of nirguna and quite beyond human intellectual comprehension. Likewise, some religions more than others carry greater degree of error explained by Bhagavan Krishna Ji.

If God in Bhagavad-Gita did not say every religion is equal, then what are we thinking? But this is not to confuse that every religion has it's right (SO long as it does not infringe on others), and every religion lifts the atma some measure to the God. In Sanatana Dharma, there is no such thing as FALSE religion, is not the same thing as ALL religions are the same.


O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship demigods with faith, they too worship Me, but in an improper way. (9.23)
Because I alone am the enjoyer of all Yajna, and the Lord. But, people do not know My true transcendental nature. Therefore, they fall (into the repeated cycles of birth and death). (9.24)
Worshippers of the demigods go to the demigods, the worshippers of the ancestors go to the ancestors, and the worshippers of the ghosts go to the ghosts, but My devotees come to Me (and are not born again). (See also 8.16) (9.25)
Whosoever offers Me a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water with devotion; I accept and eat the offering of devotion by the pure-hearted. (9.26)
O Arjuna, whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer as oblation to the sacred fire, whatever charity you give, whatever austerity you perform, do all that as an offering unto Me. (See also 12.10, 18.46) (9.27)
By this attitude of complete renunciation (or Samnyasa-yoga) you shall be freed from the bondage, good and bad, of Karma. You shall be liberated, and come to Me. (9.28)
The Self is present equally in all beings. There is no one hateful or dear to Me. But, those who worship Me with devotion, they are with Me and I am also with them. (See also 7.18) (9.29)
~Bhagavad-Gita, words of Lord Krishnaਗਊ ਬਿਰਾਹਮਣ ਕਉ ਕਰੁ ਲਾਵਹੁ ਗੋਬਰਿ ਤਰਣੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥
Ga▫ū birāhmaṇ ka▫o kar lāvhu gobar ṯaraṇ na jā▫ī.
They tax the cows and the Brahmins, but the cow-dung they apply to their kitchen will not save them.

ਧੋਤੀ ਟਿਕਾ ਤੈ ਜਪਮਾਲੀ ਧਾਨੁ ਮਲੇਛਾਂ ਖਾਈ ॥
Ḏẖoṯī tikā ṯai japmālī ḏẖān malecẖẖāʼn kẖā▫ī.
They wear their loin cloths, apply ritual frontal marks to their foreheads, and carry their rosaries, but they eat food with the Muslims.

ਅੰਤਰਿ ਪੂਜਾ ਪੜਹਿ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਸੰਜਮੁ ਤੁਰਕਾ ਭਾਈ ॥
Anṯar pūjā paṛėh kaṯebā sanjam ṯurkā bẖā▫ī.
O Siblings of Destiny, you perform devotional worship indoors, but read the Islamic sacred texts, and adopt the Muslim way of life.

ਛੋਡੀਲੇ ਪਾਖੰਡਾ ॥
Cẖẖodīle pākẖandā.
Renounce your hypocrisy!

ਨਾਮਿ ਲਇਐ ਜਾਹਿ ਤਰੰਦਾ ॥੧॥
Nām la▫i▫ai jāhi ṯaranḏā. ||1||
Taking the Naam, the Name of the Lord, you shall swim across. ||1||
~SGGS Ji ang 471

Guru Nanak Dev Ji is clearly warning against those evil Hindu leaders who corrupted themselves by collaborating with the Muslims (Mlecchas) and became oppressors of their own people, just as Guru Ji is warning them against the hypocrisy of pretending to be holy by renouncing the true faith and practice of of Naam Japna for conversion to Islam. Guru is saying mukti will only be achieved by Nama Jap.


ਮਰਣਾ ਮੁਲਾ ਮਰਣਾ ॥
Marṇā mulā marṇā.
Death, O Mullah-death will come,

ਭੀ ਕਰਤਾਰਹੁ ਡਰਣਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Bẖī karṯārahu darṇā. ||1|| rahā▫o.
so live in the Fear of God the Creator. ||1||Pause||

ਤਾ ਤੂ ਮੁਲਾ ਤਾ ਤੂ ਕਾਜੀ ਜਾਣਹਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਖੁਦਾਈ ॥
Ŧā ṯū mulā ṯā ṯū kājī jāṇėh nām kẖuḏā▫ī.
You are a Mullah, and you are a Qazi, only when you know the Naam, the Name of God.

ਜੇ ਬਹੁਤੇਰਾ ਪੜਿਆ ਹੋਵਹਿ ਕੋ ਰਹੈ ਨ ਭਰੀਐ ਪਾਈ ॥੨॥
Je bahuṯerā paṛi▫ā hovėh ko rahai na bẖarī▫ai pā▫ī. ||2||
You may be very educated, but no one can remain when the measure of life is full. ||2||

ਸੋਈ ਕਾਜੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਆਪੁ ਤਜਿਆ ਇਕੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਕੀਆ ਆਧਾਰੋ ॥
So▫ī kājī jin āp ṯaji▫ā ik nām kī▫ā āḏẖāro.
He alone is a Qazi, who renounces selfishness and conceit, and makes the One Name his Support.

ਹੈ ਭੀ ਹੋਸੀ ਜਾਇ ਨ ਜਾਸੀ ਸਚਾ ਸਿਰਜਣਹਾਰੋ ॥੩॥
Hai bẖī hosī jā▫e na jāsī sacẖā sirjaṇhāro. ||3||
The True Creator Lord is, and shall always be. He was not born; He shall not die. ||3||

ਪੰਜ ਵਖਤ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗੁਜਾਰਹਿ ਪੜਹਿ ਕਤੇਬ ਕੁਰਾਣਾ ॥
Panj vakẖaṯ nivāj gujārėh paṛėh kaṯeb kurāṇā.
You may chant your prayers five times each day; you may read the Bible and the Koran.

ਨਾਨਕੁ ਆਖੈ ਗੋਰ ਸਦੇਈ ਰਹਿਓ ਪੀਣਾ ਖਾਣਾ ॥੪॥੨੮॥
Nānak ākẖai gor saḏe▫ī rahi▫o pīṇā kẖāṇā. ||4||28||
Says Nanak, the grave is calling you, and now your food and drink are finished. ||4||28||
~SGGS Ji ang 24

Muslims may pray 5 times a day and read their Koran but the grave is waiting them, they will not have liberation until they obtain the practice of Nama Japa.


ਸਾਹਾਂ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਗਵਾਈਆ ਰੰਗਿ ਤਮਾਸੈ ਚਾਇ ॥
Sāhāʼn suraṯ gavā▫ī▫ā rang ṯamāsai cẖā▫e.
The kings had lost their higher consciousness, reveling in pleasure and sensuality.

ਬਾਬਰਵਾਣੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਗਈ ਕੁਇਰੁ ਨ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਇ ॥੫॥
Bābarvāṇī fir ga▫ī ku▫ir na rotī kẖā▫e. ||5||
Since Baabar's rule has been proclaimed, even the princes have no food to eat. ||5||

ਇਕਨਾ ਵਖਤ ਖੁਆਈਅਹਿ ਇਕਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਪੂਜਾ ਜਾਇ ॥
Iknā vakẖaṯ kẖu▫ā▫ī▫ah iknĥā pūjā jā▫e.
The Muslims have lost their five times of daily prayer, and the Hindus have lost their worship as well.

ਚਉਕੇ ਵਿਣੁ ਹਿੰਦਵਾਣੀਆ ਕਿਉ ਟਿਕੇ ਕਢਹਿ ਨਾਇ ॥
Cẖa▫uke viṇ hinḏvāṇī▫ā ki▫o tike kadẖėh nā▫e.
Without their sacred squares, how shall the Hindu women bathe and apply the frontal marks to their foreheads?

ਰਾਮੁ ਨ ਕਬਹੂ ਚੇਤਿਓ ਹੁਣਿ ਕਹਣਿ ਨ ਮਿਲੈ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥੬॥
Rām na kabhū cẖeṯi▫o huṇ kahaṇ na milai kẖuḏā▫e. ||6||
They never remembered their Lord as Raam, and now they cannot even chant Khudaa-i||6||

ਇਕਿ ਘਰਿ ਆਵਹਿ ਆਪਣੈ ਇਕਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਪੁਛਹਿ ਸੁਖ ॥
Ik gẖar āvahi āpṇai ik mil mil pucẖẖėh sukẖ.
Some have returned to their homes, and meeting their relatives, they ask about their safety.

ਇਕਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਏਹੋ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਬਹਿ ਬਹਿ ਰੋਵਹਿ ਦੁਖ ॥
Iknĥā eho likẖi▫ā bahi bahi rovėh ḏukẖ.
For some, it is pre-ordained that they shall sit and cry out in pain.

ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਸੋ ਥੀਐ ਨਾਨਕ ਕਿਆ ਮਾਨੁਖ ॥੭॥੧੧॥
Jo ṯis bẖāvai so thī▫ai Nānak ki▫ā mānukẖ. ||7||11||
Whatever pleases Him, comes to pass. O Nanak, what is the fate of mankind? ||7||11||
~SGGS JI ang 417


Guru Nanak Dev Ji is aware of the destruction Babar/Muslims brought to land of Hindustan and the complete destruction of Dharma and religion, even for themselves sinking deeper into sins by doing evil deeds have lost even their own religion too.

None of this is praise of Islam, nor claim that Mohammed was enlightened and contradicts that Islam sits in any equality to traditional Vaishnav teaching of Nama Japa as superior method of obtaining liberation. Since this is also taught by Bhagavan Krishna in Bhagavad-Gita, there is Sruti and Hindu scriptures for you to answer the question. Bhagavad-Gita is accepted by Hindu's as aligned with Sruti of Vedas. And Shri Guru Granth Sahib is agreeing with Bhagavad-Gita.

maharṣīṇāḿ bhṛgur ahaḿ
girām asmy ekam akṣaram
yajñānāḿ japa-yajño 'smi
sthāvarāṇāḿ himālayaḥ
"Of the great sages I am Bhṛgu; of vibrations I am the transcendental oḿ. Of sacrifices I am the chanting of the holy names [japa], and of immovable things I am the Himālayas."~Bhagavad-Gita 10:25

So what is Guru Nanak Dev Ji's NAAM? It is the same as Vaishnav sankirtan.

ਰਾਮ ਰਾਮ ਰਾਮ ਕੀਰਤਨੁ ਗਾਇ ॥
Rām rām rām kīrṯan gā▫e.
Sing the Kirtan of the Praises of the Lord, Raam, Raam, Raam.
~SGGS JI ang 865

satay
20 December 2009, 12:54 PM
Namaste atanu,

My original question was Could you please share the names of the 'authentic' Hindu gurus who have termed Koran as revealed scriptures?

Which guru has termed Koran as revealed scripture? From what you posted, I don't see anyone that has termed koran as revealed scripture.

When I was reading your original quote about 'authentic' hindu gurus, I thought you meant shakaracrya, ramnuja or madva. I didn't know you were thinking of contemporary gurus/politician/atheist and calling them authentic hindu gurus. Though I should've guessed.

satay
20 December 2009, 01:10 PM
Namaste Satay,

How do you you judge personal attack from me?


That is simple. Instead of replying to the points raised by spriritual seeker you were focusing on him instead as if there is something wrong with him personally.

I noticed that there hasn't been given any refutation for spiritualseeker's points instead there was yet another attack this time on puranas. :rolleyes: Wha ray universalism...




:) Is it a case of dost dost nA rahA? I still believe in 'physician heal thyself'.


Not at all the case. If I weren't a dost, would I have made the post to remind you? :)



Happily. But I request you to reciprocate by showing what is a Mleccha and what is Mleccha scripture from authentic scripture/guru.

Once you show us a quote from an authentic guru who has termed Koran as a revealed scripture.

See my point is that no authentic guru has done that as you assert. That's because by default only scriptures or religions that have vedas as its source need any comments or further examination. The rest has been ignored by our gurus as maleccha scriptures and thus beneath them. No comment or examination is necessary of the maleccha scriptures.

This is why you are having hard time finding one name of an authentic guru.

Ganeshprasad
20 December 2009, 02:39 PM
Pranam Satay and all

The message that Hindu give is universal, it can not be otherwise Vasudeva kutumbka.
Vedas respects the fundamental right of an individual to be or not to be, that is why I am wary of Semitic religion it coheres and frightens one in to submission.

Let us not mistake the universal message, as acceptance of all religions as same, respect yes, but we must learn to discriminate,
dharma stands on four pillars, Satya(truthfulness),Ahimsa (non violence), pavitrata(purity) and tapasya(austerity) not in any particular order.if these are lacking then we have to make our own judgement.


Hindus certainly respect all other form of worship and religion but let us not mistake that all path leads to same goal. Certainly no one that follows Vedas are aiming for Muslims or Christians idea of heaven.

Well the Christmas is upon us, spare a thought for millions of turkeys, gallons of intoxication party and orgy, these are the kind of celebration goes in the name off religion, accept this we will certainly gain enlightenment!

It is hard enough to follow dharma which is like walking on double edge sward, we certainly do not need distraction of accepting these kind of religion as same as Vedic, even if someone is bound to remind me that this is not true Christianity and I accept that but these are the ground reality.

Jai Shree Krishna

Ps. I am going to take a week off, reflect on my own sadhna, I have to check my reasoning does not get transferred in to hate, I certainly do not need that.

Jai Shree Krishna

Eastern Mind
20 December 2009, 04:30 PM
Vannakkam: This is from Dr. Morales statement that got this discussion going in 2005.

Beacons of Hope
Fortunately, by no means have all present-day Hindu leaders allowed themselves to thoughtlessly succumb to the mind-numbing influence of Radical Universalism. Indeed, in the present generation we have been blessed with the sagacious guidance of many truly authentic traditionalist Hindu gurus and teachers. These gurus, many of whom represent some of the most ancient lineages (sampradayas) of classical Hinduism, have spoken out compellingly and courageously against both Radical Universalism and the neo-Hinduism from which it took birth, and have articulated the urgent need for the restoration of genuine and traditional Hinduism. Among the many Hindu leaders in recent decades who have openly repudiated Radical Universalism and neo-Hinduism can be included Swami Chinmayananda, Pujya Swami Dayananda Sarasvati, Shivaya Subramuniya Swami, Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Sri Vamadeva Shastri, Sri Chinna Jeeyar Swami, Sri Rangapriya Swami, among many others. We need to help facilitate the work of such truly genuine Dharma leaders if we wish to witness the renewal of authentic Hinduism.


My personal take is that it started with Vivekenanda's trip to the west.

Before that time the Europeans had pretty much convinced everyone, including the Hindus themselves, that Hinduism was a primitive pagan-like faith not worthy of consideration of any rational man. So in order to gain any degree of acceptance, the swamis who came to the west had to reconcile water down certain beliefs or they would be chased out of town. This led to this new thing called universalism, or the idea that all religions are equal, and Vedic quotes etc were selectively used to demonstrate the point. But the swamis didn't really take a close look at the western faiths.
They sort of assumed, because of their own upbringing in a tolerant Hinduism, that these faiths would be of like mind. Of course this idea was dead wrong. The belief in reincarnation versus heaven/hell afterlife is the most dramatic and obvious difference that comes to mind, but there are many many others like vegetarianism, karma, murthi vs idol etc. So now wea re stuck with this tag called universalism, which is basically saying, "I'm a Hindu, but I don't want to be called one." The Ramakrishna Mission, Satya Sai Baba's group, and the Self Realisation fellowship to a lesser degree keep promoting this concept. But when you ask them what they believe, and forget any labels, its clear that they're Hindu. You just don't see many Christians or Muslims joining up.
Just today I was reading about an encounter with some ashram or another the editor of Hinduism Today had with someone in Australia. They in fact had been debating, "Should we call ourselves Hindu or not?" for quite some time. The editor asked them some of their befiefs, and right away it became abundantly clear they were Hindu. So the anti-Hindu propaganda has worked over history. Personally, I'm very proud to say I'm a Hindu.

Sorry for the rant.

Aum Namasivaya

Ekanta
20 December 2009, 05:48 PM
For those interested:

The Sword of Kali
Reply to "A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism"
http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/101.htm

A few quotes:
"Dr. Morales seems to believe that the statement ‘all religions are the same’ is identical to the statement ‘all religions are exactly the same’. But Hinduism does not say that all religions are exactly the same. Hinduism says that all religions speak of the same Reality though they may call this Reality by different names or conceive of It differently. "

“By placing Universalism in opposition to Absolutism, Dr. Morales tries to create the impression that Universalism is a kind of Relativism. But this opposition has no basis to stand on. Universalism is based on absolutes… “

MahaHrada
20 December 2009, 06:32 PM
"Dangers of the Sameness Myth:

The Myth of Hindu Sameness is leading to the dissolution of Hinduism. Patanjali's Yoga-Sutras are being clicked-and dragged into becoming footnotes to the Gospel of John or some other system of Western thought.

The Hindu Goddess became the subject of very serious and intense study by many white women in the 1970s when they revolted against the male centric Abrahamic religions. Today, the Hindu Goddess is often used to enhance the historical narrative of Mother Mary or to reinterpret European Goddesses such as Sophia, Diana, etc. Furthermore, Gloria Steinem, one of the pioneers of the women's liberation movement in the US, spent two years in India in the 1960s, and after her return to the US she helped to launch the feminist movement. She writes in her autobiography that it was her experiences with women's empowerment groups in India that inspired her later work in the US.

Yet, Western scholars and their Indian chelas have started to demonize the Hindu Goddess as vulgar, as a symbol of sexual oppression of Hindu women, and as a cause of violence by upper castes.

There is a long list of Hindu items being appropriated as Western ornaments to be preserved, modified, celebrated and used by the new owners. The source traditions are seldom acknowledged, and, instead, are burdened with negative images and liabilities to encourage their demise.

This kind of sameness perpetuates the colonial inferiority complexes, while feeding the cultural and political capital of the dominant culture. The burden to be same is upon the underdog culture in terms of power, i.e., it is Hindus who must prove their sameness to the dominant culture, and not vice versa, because it is the neo-Hindus who uphold sameness and not the other religions. The sameness is therefore on the terms of the dominant West. The West determines how authentic one's mimicry is and which Indians get legitimized to various extents through awards, certificates and brand value given to them. We are only as legitimate as we are similar to them, and they control the judgment on how well we are accomplishing this goal.

Ironically, one of the most common reasons given by Hindu youths to their parents when they convert to another religion is, “You taught us that all religions are the same, so how does it matter?” It would be okay if the parents and Hindu leaders would simply accept this fine logic and not be concerned. But they are concerned and do get angry. Yet, it has not occurred to the leaders that their own sameness myths have caused the very problems, which they are fighting."

Rajiv Malhotra (bold emphasis mine)
Read the whole article here:


http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41:myth-of-hindu-sameness&catid=24:unclassified&Itemid=33

atanu
21 December 2009, 12:17 AM
Namaste atanu,
My original question was Could you please share the names of the 'authentic' Hindu gurus who have termed Koran as revealed scriptures?
Which guru has termed Koran as revealed scripture? From what you posted, I don't see anyone that has termed koran as revealed scripture.
When I was reading your original quote about 'authentic' hindu gurus, I thought you meant shakaracrya, ramnuja or madva. I didn't know you were thinking of contemporary gurus/politician/atheist and calling them authentic hindu gurus. Though I should've guessed.

Namaste Satay,

Hmm. Contemporary gurus/politician/atheist? But where is the evidence of mleccha scripture from your authentic gurus?

From Kanchi Paramacharya
The Word of God
We must not distrust the belief that the Vedas are not the work of mere mortals. Followers of other religions too ascribe divine origin to their scriptures. Jesus says that he merely repeats the words of God and, according to Muslims, the prophet speaks the words of Allah. What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts.
---------------
That Kanchi Pramacharya has not questioned the divine origin of Bible and Koran is enough for me. He has compared "apauruseya" nature of Vedas to the 'Revealed' nature of these. Kanchi Paramacharya has said that "The Truth is One". If one understands this, one would reject anything that is asat as asat -- non-existent.


That is simple. Instead of replying to the points raised by spriritual seeker you were focusing on him instead as if there is something wrong with him personally.

If you think this way you are thinking OK. Since, frankly speaking I could not comprehend why a Christian who went into Islam should not first refute the Bible? But I understood it as mere playfulness and what I said was not with ill will. What I said, IMO, was not an attack.

It is not easy to decipher scripture, if one is situated in the effect of Lord. Why has Soma 29 wives? Why five Pandavas share one wife? Why Aditya is Lord of 11 or 13 wives? Why Shri Krishna married 8 wives and then also married 16000 wives?

"ekaikasyam dasa dasa
krsno jijanad atmajan ...." (SBG)

According to Srimad Bhagavatam, Krishna married with 16,108 wives, of which eight were chief—including Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Nâgnajitî, Kâlindî, Mâdrâ, Mitravindâ, Bhadrâ; Of these He bore ten sons each.

At the hand of a fanatic, this will be enough ammunition for labelling Shri Krishna as a sexual maniac.

Kanchi Paramacharya has in fact warned not to apply History to scripture. The History is merely the effect of Lord kAla, who has 11 or 13 wives, but history is not Lord kAla.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
21 December 2009, 12:32 AM
In post #2 of this thread (which was the original OP), Satay has asked us to examine the presence or absence of teachings in our sacred scriptures as to the popular supposition that all religions speak of the same Truth. Let us start with the oft-(mis)quoted Vedic mantra 'ekam sad'.

ekam sad viprA bahudhA vadanti--RV i.164.46

"Truth is one; seers call it variously." This Rig Veda mantra, is quoted invariably as the tAraka--saving, mantra that elevates the state of all other religions to that of the Vedic religion of the Hindus, so much that it has become a cliche. Almost every Hindu and non-Hindu quote it to say that Hinduism teaches that all religions are the same, without any idea of--or wilfully ignoring--the context of the mantra within the Rig Veda sUkta 1.164.

Here is a compilation of some of the various interpretations of the mantra, whose full text is:

indraM mitraM varuNam agni mAhuratho divyaH sa suparNo garutmAn |
ekaM sad viprA bahudhA vadanti agniM yamaM mAtarishvAnamAhuH ||1.164.46||

• There are four pAdas--quarters, to the mantra:

indraM mitraM varuNam agnim Ahuh,
atho divyaH sa suparNo garutmAn |
ekaM sad viprA bahudhA vadanti,
agniM yamaM mAtarishvAnam AhuH ||

They hail Him as Indra, as Mitra, as VaruNa, as Agni,
also as that divine and noble-winged GarutmAn.
It is of One Existence that the wise ones speak in diverse ways,
whether as Agni, or as Yama, or as MAtarishvAn.

• The Rig Veda sUkta 1.164 is addressed to the vishvedevas--god-forms that guard and rule the universe. The mantra 1.164.46 and 47 are addresssed to Aditya--Sun god. The RShi who discovered this 'shruti mantra' was dIrghatamA auchatya.

• A look at the names of gods addressed in the mantra gives the proper context of the 'ekam sad' part of the mantra.

•• Indra is the God of the Mind;
•• Mitra is the God of Love and Harmony;
•• VaruNa is the Master of Infinities who canot tolerate restrictive thinking of actions;
•• Agni is the cosmic power of heat and light and the will-power united with wisdom.
•• garutmAn is the heavenly bird with beautiful wings, an epithet for the Sun god.
•• Yama is the charioteer who guides the dharmic restraints.
•• MAtarishvAn is the hidden fire, identified by SAyaNa as vAyu.

Thus the message of the Hymn is that just as the Sun God, the one visible form of Brahman to the humans, is spoken of in many names whose essential form is Agni, Brahman who is one, is spoken of by the learned sages in many names.

The 'eksam sad' part of the mantra refers to the essential unity of all forms of gods. The 'bahudhA vadanti' part refers to the learned sages attributing different names (not prescribing different paths) to that One Reality.

The 'ekam sad' and 'bahudhA vadanti' stand as two clauses of a sentence, that are connected by the conjunction 'although' or 'despite'. Connecting them by the conjunction 'but then' (or other such phrase) and saying that "Hinduism teaches that all religions are the same", thereby treating as identical the name and concept of the Absolute in the other religions to that of Brahman is nothing but a case of speculation and extrapolation.

• Among the significant interpretations of this sUkta--hymn, is the paper presented by David Frawley titled 'The Hymns of Dhirgatamas in the Rig Veda', wherein he explains how the mantras deal with the Zodiac and its relation to the Subtle Body. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/12887392/The-Hymns-of-Dirghatamas-in-the-Rig-Veda-By-David-Frawley-)

• Ralph T.H.Griffith translates the mantra as:

46. They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.--Tr.

• H.H.Wilson has this explanation:

46. They have styled (him, the Sun), Indra, Mitra, VaruNa, Agni, and he is the celestial, well-winged Garutmat, for learned persons call one by many names as they speak of Agni, Yama and MAtarishvan.

Him, the Sun--The Sun is SAyaNa's interpretation: YAska says Agni: but they ar the same, and are the same as all other forms, according to the texts, "ekaiva vA mahAn AtmA devatA sUryaH"--the divine sun is the great spirit; and "agni sarvA devatAH"--Agni is all the divinities.--aitareya brAhmaNa, 2.3.

• Frank Morales, in his essay 'A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism' has given a detailed analysis of this statement.

He takes the view that the statement is absolutely--not just predominantly--ontological in its purport: it talks only about the Unity of the Abosolute Truth and not about the multiplicity of Its names; and that its other and more popular--epistemological and soteriological--interpretations are incorrect and can only be speculative.

Thus the actual meaning and purport of the statement, according to Dr.Morales is this:

"Truth/God (sad) [is] One (ekam), [despite] seers (vipra) call (vadanti) [it] variously (bahudha)."

The implied condition 'despite' makes this statement purely ontological; whereas in the popular interpretations, the condition is taken to be 'but then' which gives rise to the speculations.

• SitA rAm goel in his book "Defence of Hindu Society" gives the reference interpretation given at the top in four pAdas--quarters and laments:

Why do modern Hindus quote only one-fourth and not the whole mantra? Why do they forget or refuse to cite the rest of it, or at least consider three-fourth of it as irrelevant or superfluous? And why do they assign a disproportionate weight to just one word, ekam, out of the five words which comprise what they consider to be the weighty one-fourth?

A careful reading of the full mantra, particularly in the context of the sűkta of which it is a part, leaves no doubt that the three-fourth which is ignored is not at all a repetition or paraphrase of the one-fourth which is presented. On the contrary, that three-fourth is as significant, if not more, as the one-fourth when we take into account the spirit of the Veda from which the citation has been selected. In fact, the one-fourth which is flourished so forcefully remains meaningless unless it is read with the rest of the mantra.

Why do modern Hindus maim in this manner a mantra from what they hold as their most sacred shastra? What do they want to prove by this wanton misrepresentation of an entire and ancient ethos in spirituality, philosophy and culture?

The answer becomes obvious as soon as we look into the psychology behind the citation.

Firstly, modern Hindus want to stake a claim for admission to the exclusive club of Monotheism maintained by Christianity and Islam. Hindus here are out to convince the monopolises of monotheism that the earliest Hindu shastra, the Rigveda, also supports and sanctions what is supposed to be the summum bonum of religion according to Christian and Muslim theology, or its apotheosis according to the modern Western “Science” of Comparative Religion. At the same time, there is an almost pathetic appeal to the monopolises of Monotheism that they should not be appalled by the multiplicity of gods and goddesses in the post-Vedic Hindu pantheon, and that they should judge Hinduism in terms of the “original aspiration” rather than in terms of the latter-day “aberration”.

• Even Swami Nirmalananda Giri of the Atmajyoti Ashram which is identified as part of the evangelical missionary of Christian Priests in Hindu disguise (check http://hamsa.org/ashram.htm), does not agree with the popular interpretation that the mantra teaches that all religions are the same. He says:

There you have it. The illumined sages of India have called the One Reality, the Ekam Evam Advityam Brahman, by the many names found in the Veda. Even though many names are used, the Reality spoken about in the Vedas is one. There is not a thought of "other" religions. The question of their validity or invalidity just does not come into this matter.

Certainly there are parts of the Gita that affirm the validity of the various paths by which human beings seek God. But to quote these Vedic words in support of that view is simply indefensible. Satyam Eva Jayate!

**********

As Frank Morales states emphatically, only the Neo-Hindus attempt at the pathetic concept of 'Radical Universalism', at the cost of blissful ignorance of the destruction of their own religion and the unjustified identification of Brahman with the Absolutes of other religions. He says:

• The primary reason why Radical Universalists claim that "all religions are the same" is due to the pretentious assumption that the various individual Absolutes toward which each religion aims is, unbeknownst to them all, really the same conceptual goal. In other words, the members of all other religions are also really seeking Brahman…they are just not intelligent enough to know it!

• As every religion will vociferously affirm, however, they are not seeking Brahman. Brahman is not Allah; Allah is not Nirvana; Nirvana is not Kevala; Kevala is not polytheistic gods/goddesses; polytheistic gods/goddesses is not Yahweh; Yahweh is not the Ancestors; the Ancestors are not tree spirits, tree spirits are not Brahman.

• When a religious Muslim tells us that he is worshipping Allah, and not Brahman, we need to take him seriously and respect his choice. When a Buddhist tells us that they want to achieve Nirvana, and not Brahman, we need to take his claim seriously and respect his decision; and so on.

• To disrespectfully insist that all other religions are really just worshipping Brahman without knowing it, and to do so in the very name of respect and tolerance, is the very height of hypocrisy and intolerance.

• The uncomplicated fact is that, regardless of how sincerely we may wish that all religions desired the same Absolute that we Hindus wish to achieve, other religions simply do not. They, and we, are attempting to climb categorically different mountains. We need to accept and live with this concrete theological fact.

**********

In the light of knowledge gained above, we need to check out the quotes from our Shruti, SmRti and the three Great Kali Yuga AchAryAs about the uniqueness and greatness of Hinduism, spread it and feel proud about it, instead of cringing and crooning to the supposed authority of the Abrahamic Religions.

devotee
21 December 2009, 01:10 AM
Namaste,

I think it is not fair having almost all members of this forum on one side & only two on the other ! I hope we will be able to cruise along safely !! :)

We cannot deny that God is one & whether we call Him Allah, God, Ishwar, Brahman or whatever ... the Reality remains the same. Ramkrishna Paramhans proved that we all reach the same goal even if we adopt various different paths. He attained the Ultimate ont only through Hindu Path but also through Christian & Islam. So, I have no doubts on the validity of paths.

However, Ramkrishna didn't follow each & every word written in Quran when he was practising Islam ... nor do the Sufis do ... similarly he didn't follow everything contained in the Bible while practising Christianity.

OM

atanu
21 December 2009, 01:25 AM
In post #2 of this thread (which was the original OP), Satay has asked us to examine the presence or absence of teachings in our sacred scriptures as to the popular supposition that all religions speak of the same Truth. Let us start with the oft-(mis)quoted Vedic mantra 'ekam sad'.

ekam sad viprA bahudhA vadanti--RV i.164.46

• Even Swami Nirmalananda Giri of the Atmajyoti Ashram which is identified as part of the evangelical missionary of Christian Priests in Hindu disguise (check http://hamsa.org/ashram.htm), does not agree with the popular interpretation that the mantra teaches that all religions are the same. He says:

namaste saidevoji,

True. Not all things are same and not all religions same. But the substratum underlying all these different things is same. This understanding can occur in all things.


As Frank Morales states emphatically,

• As every religion will vociferously affirm, however, they are not seeking Brahman. Brahman is not Allah; Allah is not Nirvana; Nirvana is not Kevala; Kevala is not polytheistic gods/goddesses; polytheistic gods/goddesses is not Yahweh; Yahweh is not the Ancestors; the Ancestors are not tree spirits, tree spirits are not Brahman.

Only partly true. Why is Dr. Morales not completing the idea? Brahman is a name to represent the Truth, apart from which nothing else exists. The truth is One means that the truth of the 'tree spirits' and 'the acestors' is the single Truth, which only IS and which is indivisible.

24. Brahman is the oblation; Brahman is the melted butter (ghee); by Brahman is the oblation poured into the fire of Brahman; Brahman verily shall be reached by him who always sees Brahman in action.

Not all can see Brahman in action, but born Hindus are eminently suited. At the same time not all mlecchas can be barred from seeing God acting in every process and thing, since truly it is God that constitutes the Heart everywhere, without exception.




From Kanchi Paramacharya
The Word of God

We must not distrust the belief that the Vedas are not the work of mere mortals. Followers of other religions too ascribe divine origin to their scriptures. Jesus says that he merely repeats the words of God and, according to Muslims, the prophet speaks the words of Allah. What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts.

----"Each great man, like each great work, speaks about a particular system, a particular path. Which of these is to be followed? " such a question arises in the minds of people. Whatever system or path you follow, follow it with faith. Do not give it up midway. In the end it will lead you to the Paramatman. In the beginning the paths may seem different but all of them take you to the same goal.
---
It is this spirit of catholicism that Englishmen exclaim: "Jevhovah, Jove or Lord!". Jehovah is the Semitic God of the region of Israel, the home of the Bible. Jove is another name of Jupiter. The word "Lord" applies to the God of any faith; it is common to all religions. Realised people in the West also speak that the one Being is the same, call him by any name you like.

God is One.
The sense of religious toleration is not a modern conception. It can be traced to very ancient times. The Kural proclaimed that all teachings referred only to one Porul or Object. Sri Sankara and Sri Sambandar saw the same God worshipped in the six systems to which they referred. Arhat, the name by which Jains call the Supreme Being, is a Vedic name identified with Siva. Other religions also speak of one God.

All troubles in this world start only when attempts are made to wean away people from their native religion to convert them to a new faith, -----It is the duty of every person to follow the religion of his ancestors.

Whether the seeker sees many conflicting varities or the One Truth is important. Whether one sees the antagonistic variety as also from the One Truth is important.

I will request that Frank Morales should not be accorded more credence than Swami Vivekananda or Kanchi Seer. That is effectively killing the shining branches of Sanatana Dharma. What motivation Frank Morales and others, sitting in USA and other foreign countries, can have in indirectly indicating that sages of modern India are all NEOs and do not know the Vedas? This is very painful. This way we destroy all sages of modern India, who have rejuvenated Hinduism after a long dark hiatus.

To avoid further confusion and potential animosity among friends, i will stop here.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
21 December 2009, 02:29 AM
namaste Atanu.

I am rather disappointed with your stringing discrete quotes from KAnchi ParamAchArya as if he uttered them in a single context successively, as his endorsements of the identity of the Absolute as revealed in other religions to that of Brahman.

Your quote under the caption 'The Word of God' is from the opening paragraph of chapter 11 of the same title under Part 5 titled 'The Vedas', of the compilation of his speeches about the 'Hindu Dharma'. To have an idea of the context of his words, we need to look at what goes before and after this chapter 11 (emphasis added):

• In Chapter 1, the AchArya talks about the Basic Texts of Hinduism. He says that the followers of each religion has one book showing them "the way to their spiritual uplift. Such books are believed to enshrine the utterances and commandments of God conveyed through the founders of the respective faiths. For this reason they are called the revealed texts. We call the same "apauruseya". The AchArya goes on to say that the one sacred text of other religions is taught in their schools, and Hindus under the secular government of India, have no such facility, hence the common Hindu does not know much about the Vedas as the one authentic book of Hinduism.

• In Chapter 2, the AchArya talks about the Dharma Shastras as the scriptures of common man's dharmic life.

• In Chapter 3, he gives the names of 14 Hindu Texts that have the authority as the 4 Vedas, 6 VedAngas, MimAmsa, NyAya, PurANas and Dharma Shastras.

• In Chapter 4, he says, "The fourteen branches of learning were taught in our country from the remote past until the inception of British rule."

• In Chapter 5, he cites the four Vedas as the "first four of the pramanas (authoritative texts) of our religion and also the most important."

• In Chapter 6, he makes an important comparison between the 'revealed texts' of other religions and the Vedas, with a view to prove that the Vedas "anAdi" and "it means that nothing existed before it." The AchArya says this in comparision of this eternity of the Vedas with the other 'revealed texts':

"The Old Testament contains the sayings of several Prophets. The New Testament contains the story of Jesus Christ as well as his sermons. The Qu'ran incorporates the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. The founders of such religions are historical personalities and their teachings did not exist before then. Are the Vedas similarly the work of one or more teachers?"

• In Chapter 7, the AchArya reveals that the Vedas are eternal because they are "shabda pramANa" and that their mantras that are vibratory in nature were obtained by the Vedic Rishis by shruti--listening to the revelations (not thinking about them and composing).

• In Chapter 8, the AchArya evaluates how the Western research of the Vedas failed to discover that "Our scriptures are meant to be a living reality of our speech and action"; with their limited and unsympathetic understanding the Western Indologists consigned the Vedas "to the libraries, in the form of books, (is) like keeping living animals in the museum instead of in the zoo."

• In Chapter 9, the AchArya examines the absurdity of the Western claims as to the date of the Vedas.

• In Chapter 10, the AchArya explains how the oral traidition of preserving the Vedas.

• The Chapter 11 starts and ends with the AchArya's concern that some Hindus mistrust the notion that the Vedas are revealed (due to the Western scholarship he examined in detail in the earlier chapters) and that the Vedas can be preserved by oral tradition instead of writing them down. It is in this context that he says the words Atanu has quoted:

"We must not distrust the belief that the Vedas are not the work of mere mortals."

--this line only expresses the AchArya's concern for the ignorance of the Hindus about the eternity of their Vedas.

"Followers of other religions too ascribe divine origin to their scriptures. Jesus says that he merely repeats the words of God and, according to Muslims, the prophet speaks the words of Allah. What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case."

--Obvriously, the AchArya only says that "Jesus says", "prophet speaks"; it is an error to say that by these words the AchArya 'admits' that the revelation of other scriptures is identical to that of the Vedas, specially when he earlier talked in detail about the 'shabda pramANa' nature of the Vedas.

Chapter 11 ends with the AchArya's concern for the skeptical Hindus:

"A professor told me that the Theory of Relativity occurred to Einstein in a flash, that he knew it intuitively. If we accept such claims, how can we dismiss the belief that Vedas are not the work of mortals, that they revealed themselves to the seers in their heart-space, seers who were inwardly pure?"

• In Chapter 12, the AchArya explains how the 'shabda pramANa' nature of revelation of the Vedas is the knowledge of this 'shabda prapancha' and how even the Rishis were not revealed of all the shAkas--branches of the Vedas.

**********

Your second quote "Each great man, ... name you like." is from Chapter 11 titled 'Many paths to the One Goal' under Part 14 of the same name.

After talking about the Oneness of Hindu gods in Chapter 10, the AchArya in Chapter 11, shows as to how there are 'Many paths to the One Goal'.

In the beginning of this chapter the AchArya explains how each sect of Hinduism has either a devotional or a philosophical form of God as their deity. TirumUlar, on the other hand "he does not deal so much with God, devotion, etc, as he does with aspects of yoga like pranayama, dhyana, dharana and samadhi."

It is after this line that the AchArya says:

"Each great man, like each great work, speaks about a particular system, a particular path. Which of these is to be followed? " such a question arises in the minds of people. Whatever system or path you follow, follow it with faith. Do not give it up midway. In the end it will lead you to the Paramatman. In the beginning the paths may seem different but all of them take you to the same goal.

The context is clearly an address to the Hindus and the paths he speaks about as rivers leading to the same ocean are not the paths of Abrahamic religions.

Then he quotes a hymn from the "Sivamahimna-stotra": "Trayi(the three Vedas), Sankhya(philosophical inquiry), yoga, the Pasupata system, Vaisnavism- people follow any of them according to their different dispositions. Like the rivers merging in the ocean all these paths have one meeting point, the Paramatman."

Thus the AchArya's earlier statement about rivers and ocean is only an echo of this statement about the Hindu paths.

Then comes the passage that Atanu quotes (emphasis added):

"It is this spirit of catholicism that Englishmen exclaim: "Jevhovah, Jove or Lord!". Jehovah is the Semitic God of the region of Israel, the home of the Bible. Jove is another name of Jupiter. The word "Lord" applies to the God of any faith; it is common to all religions. Realised people in the West also speak that the one Being is the same, call him by any name you like."

AchArya's emphasis in this passage is that even Western religions have many names for their God, so why the Hindus should feel shy about having many names of God and worshipping them under different forms. He gives only an analogy, subtly implying that even the Western religions that speak of One God, speak about Him under many name; all he admits here is that the names of Western gods too are forms of Brahman--not that all those form are identical to Brahman, to each other or to the Hindu gods.

Had KAnchi ParamAchArya really felt that the Gods of the Bible and Quran are identical with the NirguNa Brahman of the Vedas, or the SaguNa Brahman of the SmRtis, he would have certainly quoted passages from them. So let us not attempt to read out of context the words of a staunch disciple of Adi Shankara who debated and defeated the gurus of the other Indian religions to establish the supremacy of Hinduism.

atanu
21 December 2009, 02:37 AM
namaste Atanu.

I am rather disappointed with your stringing discrete quotes from KAnchi ParamAchArya as if he uttered them in a single context successively, as his endorsements of the identity of the Absolute as revealed in other religions to that of Brahman.



namaste,

I accept your rebuke. You are correct that two paragraphs are mixed since, I could not find the original. However, the following is one piece:




From Kanchi Paramacharya
The Word of God

We must not distrust the belief that the Vedas are not the work of mere mortals. Followers of other religions too ascribe divine origin to their scriptures. Jesus says that he merely repeats the words of God and, according to Muslims, the prophet speaks the words of Allah. What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts.

The following is another


It is this spirit of catholicism that Englishmen exclaim: "Jevhovah, Jove or Lord!". Jehovah is the Semitic God of the region of Israel, the home of the Bible. Jove is another name of Jupiter. The word "Lord" applies to the God of any faith; it is common to all religions. Realised people in the West also speak that the one Being is the same, call him by any name you like.


I have reason to be disppointed since you do not cognise above and also see nothing wrong with the categorisation of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Sathya Sai, Sri Prabhupada and others as NEO.

Any way. Not to add to confusion i bow out.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

rcscwc
21 December 2009, 04:03 AM
Originally Posted by atanu http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=36786#post36786)
Also, no authentic Hindu Guru has termed koran as non revealed scripture.
Om Namah Shivaya

Sawmi Dayanand Saraswati and Swami Veivekanand wrote adversally on koran and bible,

saidevo
21 December 2009, 06:28 AM
namaste Atanu.

As for the two quotes of KAnchi ParamAchArya, I have given my impression about the context in which he uttered them. For me, unless a modern Hindu sage gives direct quotes from the Bible and the Quran and equate them to the concepts of Brahman in Hinduism (as Sarabhanga tried to do earlier and we are doing now by sometimes-thoughtless extrapolation), I can't take their sayings as full endorsements of the identity of those religions with Hinduism.

You are surely aware that the Ramakrishna Mission (RKM) in the year 1980 filed a court affidavit that they were not part of Hinduism and that they were a 'minority religion'. RKM also won the case initially. Here is the report in the Hinduism Today issue of August 1999:



Education is a major part of the Mission's social service, and their schools in India receive considerable government money. According to the 1991 figures, 43 percent of the total RK Mission annual operating income in India came as government grants, and nearly all for education. Ironically, these schools, though run by the RK Mission, cannot teach religion. Only schools run by minority religions (also supported by government funds) can so teach.

The consequences of accepting this government money came to a head in 1980 when, in order to circumvent government restrictions, RK Mission made the shocking claim in a court affidavit that they were a minority religion: "Ramakrishnaism,... clearly distinguished from all other cults or religions, including traditional Hinduism."

At issue was control of their schools in West Bengal, a communist-ruled state. In brief, the Mission could either give up control of its schools, or they could seek protection from government interference under the constitution as a minority religion. Initially the Mission won, but, in a celebrated judgment by the Supreme Court of India, were formally declared "Hindus" in 1995. The issue was deeply disturbing to the Hindu public, for it appeared the heirs to the very symbol of resurgent Hinduism, Swami Vivekananda, had abandoned the faith. Even within the Order there was considerable debate. Today the Mission is relieved to have the matter closed. In response to the question, "What has been the greatest success of the RK Mission?" Swami Bhajanananda, Assistant Secretary of the Mission, replied, "The 1997 centenary of RK mission, the Youth and Devotees Convention of that year and the Supreme Court's judgment declaring Ramakrishna Mission monks to be Hindus."

Ref: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4331


If you look at the 'IDEOLOGY of Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission', you find the following declarations: (http://www.belurmath.org/Ideology.htm)

1. God realization is the ultimate goal of life
2. Potential divinity of the soul
3. Synthesis of the Yogas
4. Morality based on strength
5. Harmony of Religions
6. Avatarhood of Sri Ramakrishna
7. A New Philosophy of Work

IMHO, only the first four and the last of these declarations are completely within the fold of traditional Hinduism.

The fifth is based on sage RAmakRShNa's "direct experience (of) the transcendental unity of all religions". As Devotee has pointed out, RAmakRShNa could not have had this direct experience if he were not a Hindu earlier. This means that supposing RAmakRShNa was a non-Hindu and tried to live by the scriptures of Islam and Christianity alone, he could not have achieved this direct experience, unless and until he knew about and practised the Hindu concepts of Atman and Brahman, for the simple reason that such concepts are not there in the Abrahamic religions.

If, for argument sake, the concepts of Brahman and ultimate Self-Realization are found in the scriptures of Abrahamic religions, I am yet to find a Self-Realized saint, a jIvanmukta in those religions known to the world, who by virtue of his fearlessness obtained by Self-Realization, boldly asserts that the efforts of conversion and many other popular and official practices of their religion are contrary to the spirit of their religion. If RAmakRShNa was able to have a direct experience of the Absolute Truth within the framework of concepts of the Abrahamic religions, why can't even the most spiritually advanced souls of the Abrahamic religions have and declare their direct experience as to the unity, infinity and immanence of the equivalent of their Brahman in all beings and entities of the universe, without reference to the concepts of Hinduism?

The fifth declaration about the 'Harmony among world religions' is based on Swami VivekAnanda's belief "that the religions of the world are expressions of one eternal Universal Religion. Since Vedanta contains all the basic principles and laws of the spiritual world, Swamiji regarded Vedanta as that eternal Universal Religion. That is to say, Vedanta can serve as the common ground for all religions."

IMHO, Swamiji was a VedAntin in his life and outlook, and a VedAntin does not resort to worship of nirguNa brahman. But then VedAnta cannot be a religion of the masses because the worship is absent therein. No religion--Indian or foreign--would ever be prepared to forgo worship in some form or other, and thus Swamiji's concept of the VedAnta being Universal Religion has only remained a dream. Today in a RKM ashram you would find large statues of the three founders--sages RAmakRShNa, VivekAnanda and Mother SAradA DevI--to which the ahsram priests chant hymns and show Aarti. Other Hindu festivals such as the Durga Puja and ShivarAtri are also held in the Ashram.

The sixth, 'Avatarhood of Sri Ramakrishna' sounds like a Christian concept to me. I have no doubt that both RAmakRShNa Paramahansa and SvAmi VivekAnanda had the devAMsham--divinity aspect in them, but using it as a necessary belief among the VedAntic order of sannyAsis in the RKM sounds like using the name of Jesus for all the three aspects of God (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) in some Christian sects. I may be wrong here and I am willing to be corrected in this impression.

Although sage RAmakRShNa and SvAmi VivekAnada held that all religions lead to the same Truth, while VivekAnanda freely chided the Christians for their aggressive practices, even RAmakRShNa criticized them in hiw own way. More on this in the next post.

atanu
21 December 2009, 09:01 AM
namaste Atanu.
As for the two quotes of KAnchi ParamAchArya, I have given my impression about the context in which he uttered them. For me, unless a modern Hindu sage gives direct quotes from the Bible and the Quran and equate them to the concepts of Brahman in Hinduism (as Sarabhanga tried to do earlier and we are doing now by sometimes-thoughtless extrapolation), I can't take their sayings as full endorsements of the identity of those religions with Hinduism.


Namaste saidevo ji,

Regarding Kanchi Paramacharya, I have no doubt from
"-----What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts."

and

"It is this spirit of catholicism that Englishmen exclaim: "Jevhovah, Jove or Lord!". Jehovah is the Semitic God of the region of Israel, the home of the Bible. Jove is another name of Jupiter. The word "Lord" applies to the God of any faith; it is common to all religions. Realised people in the West also speak that the one Being is the same, call him by any name you like."

Regarding identity: Is identity between one thing and another possible? Is Dvaita darshana identical to advaita darshana? But there are indeed such comparisons, which I will not post here in detail for the fear of gettng the guru names sullied and branded.

I will remind you of sage of ---- saying that "I am that I am" and "Be still and know ----" of the Bible are sufficient upadesha equal to Vedanta. To Muslims he said that the true religion is Islam - Surrender. Though, he also discussed with both christians and muslims to dispel their doubts on immanence of God.
----------------------

I had once mentioned about a talk between a Muslim ruler and Madhavacharya. At that time Raghu shrugged it off as bogus. I do not know whether the following are bogus or not?



'Vision of Madhavacharya and Raghavendra Swamy' by Tamarapu Sampath Kumaran
-----There is a story of his argument with a Muslim king who had no sympathy towards Hindu monks. He spoke to the sultan in Persian, convincing him that his Allah and his own Narayana are one and the same. Madhva said to the sultan" We are all citizens of His Kingdom." This impressed the King who turned his follower.




Concept of one God from Madhava Vijaya by likucha nArAyaNapaMDitAchArya

The author likucha nArAyaNapaMDitAchArya records the following dialogue of AchArya madhva to the muslim ruler on the banks of the ganga:

yo&sau devO vishvadIpaH pradIptaH kurmaH sarvaM tatparAnugrahENa
yAmastAvat tUrNamAshAmudIchImityAdyaM tadbhAhayA chitravAkyaM 10.17

All our actions are controlled by just one supreme being like how the entire world is illuminated by just one sun.
Only one Lord creates, sustains, controls and destroys this entire universe.
paramAtma is just one (EkamEva advitIya). The rest are all jIvas whom the Lord uses to perform His activities.

-----------------------
Though Swami Ranganathananda may not be accepted as a genuine swamy but I cite his teaching below:


Islam-Stagnant (http://www.hinduism.co.za/islam.htm)
The Message of Prophet Muhammad
By Swami Ranganathananda, Belur Math

The character of Prophet Muhammad has been misrepresented, not only by many prejudiced non-Muslim critics, but also by the violent, ambitious, and worldly-minded faithful Muslims as well. In his personal life, the prophet shines as a man of high character, integrity, and humanity.

But, after the Mongolian invasion of the thirteenth century A.D. and the complete destruction of Baghdad in 1258, when many millions were killed, whole areas were laid waste, and political rule in the centre of the Islamic world passed into the hands of barbarian infidels, leaving only Egypt and Spain to nourish Arab culture for another two centuries. There set in the slow and steady erosion of these universal and rational elements and the rising, to dominance, of its dogmatic and intolerant elements. The Mongol invaders, and later the Turks, were soon converted to Islam and became the carriers of Islamic religion, culture, and political power. With some great exceptions, these new Muslim groups came under the influence, less of Islam’s rational and universal, and more of its dogmatic and intolerant elements. This led to the increasing exploitation of the name of Islam by several military conquerors to destroy and rob and pillage other countries and cultures, which has given a bad name to this great religion.

The stagnation and decay of Islam commenced, as in the case of Sanatan Dharma in recent centuries, with the dominance of the Smrti over the Sruti elements. It was a dominance of the fundamentalist group over the ever-diminishing rational and humanist group which advocated the scientific approach and the stressing more and more of the eternal, universal, spiritual elements and the soft-pedalling of the temporal and local elements, in response to the advance of history.

Since the destruction of Baghdad, there has been an increasing dominance by its rigid and intolerant Sariah or Smrti elements, and the consequent exploitation of Islam, as referred to earlier, by power-hungry worldly-minded individuals to cover their own greed and bloodthirstiness.

If Islam is to become creative once again, and help in the human development and fulfilment of its followers, it has to capture once again the rational and universal temper of its early period, by taking inspiration from the spirit of Islam and not from its letter.

It is my understanding that just as Roman emperors used Christianity to further their rajasic dreams, Mongol invaders changed the whole complexion of the another religion. Further the antagonism between these two gropus of rulers vitiated the whole teaching and the gnostic elements are buried deep inside literal-historical-ritualistic interpretations forced on gullible public.

We must remember that Jesus was killed. So was Muhammad's grandson Hussain. The killers, predominantly, are the propagators now.

I reiterate humbly that the devil abides in the rajas and tamas of the adherants of these two religions and not in the scriptures. This is my opinion but it is supported by most Hindu Gurus.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 December 2009, 09:22 AM
Easterm Mind mentioned about Swami Chinmayananda as one who has repudiated Radical Universalism. Swamiji touches upon the subject of this thread in an article, which is posted:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36873&postcount=4

The relevant portion is:

-----The values seem to be different. at least in emphasis in different religions and a student who studies various religions may find that one religion emphasizes one set of ideals and another religion.a different set of ideals. Buddhism asserts one maxim, Hinduism another, Islam and Christianity yet another. But if one closely examines the maxims, one discovers that the fundamental principle is one and the same though the language and the emphasis are different. Just as two doctors would prescribe to the same patient on separate occasions two seemingly different prescriptions for the same disease, those who understand the science of medicine would know that the prescriptions are the same, only in name are they apparently different.------


------The great religious masters, using their own ingenious efforts, have time and again revived the philosophical and religious values and thereby arrested the deterioration of culture. When culture deteriorates, there is an increase in barbarity and immorality in the country and its philosophy is misinterpreted leading to confusion and chaos among its people. This is more or less the sad condition of the present world. The need of the hour is to arrest forthwith the deterioration by reviving the great philosophical and religious values of life.------

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
21 December 2009, 09:28 AM
Easterm Mind mentioned about Swami Chinmayananda as one who has repudiated Radical Universalism. Swamiji touches upon the subject of this thread in an article, which is posted:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36873&postcount=4




Atanu: This was from a quote of Dr. Morales, not me. Sorry for any confusion.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
21 December 2009, 09:30 AM
Atanu: This was from a quote of Dr. Morales, not me. Sorry for any confusion.

Aum Namasivaya

Namste EM,

Sorry. I was in haste. But I hope the result is not bad.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
21 December 2009, 09:42 AM
namaste Atanu and others.

Although RAmakRShNa had the direct experience of God by living as a Muslim and Christian for short periods, he was very well aware that such realization was not within the reach of the common people, which is the reason he prescribed intense devotion--bhakti to transcend the limitations of rituals and texts and feel the oneness of God of all religions. He was however aware of the limitations of the established scriptures, practices and dogma of the Abrahamic religions.

I find that I have collected sage RAmakRShNa's and svAmi VivekAnanda's views on Christianity in the following posts:

What some Hindu sages said about Christianity
Ramakrishna Paramahansa
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=27096&postcount=19

Hindu Sages on Christianity: Swami Vivekananda
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=27109&postcount=25

Here I give some more quotes from sage RAmakRShNa and then post sVami VivekAnanda's views on Islam and Mohammad in a separate post.

Some more quotes from sage RAmakRShNa on Christianity

The conversation next turned to a certain Marhatta lady.

PRATAP: "Some women of our country have been to England. This Marhatta lady, who is very scholarly, also visited England. Later she embraced Christianity. Have you heard her name, sir?"

MASTER: "No. But from what you say it seems to me that she has a desire for name and fame. That kind of egotism is not good. The feeling 'I am the doer' is the outcome of ignorance. But the feeling that God does everything is due to knowledge. God alone is the Doer; all others are mere instruments in His hands. (page 446)

(This quote, IMO, shows how sage RAmakRShNa was aware that Christianity as a religion sought name and fame more than spiritual development.--sd)

**********

Different paths for different temperaments

"Hindus, Mussalmans, Christians, Saktas, Saivas, Vaishnavas, the Brahmajnanis of the time of the rishis, and you, the Brahmajnanis of modem times, all seek the same object. A mother prepares dishes to suit the stomachs of her children. Suppose a mother has five children and a fish is bought for the family. She doesn't cook pilau or kalia for all of them. All have not the same power of digestion; so she prepares a simple stew for some. But she loves all her children equally...

"Do you know my attitude? I love all the preparations of fish. I have a
womanly nature. (All laugh.) I feel myself at home with every dish—fried fish,
fish cooked with turmeric powder, pickled fish. And further, I equally relish
rich preparations like fish-head, kalia, and pilau. (All laugh.)

"Do you know what the truth is? God has made different religions to suit different aspirants, times, and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths; but a path is by no means God Himself. Indeed, one can reach God if one follows any of the paths with whole-hearted devotion. Suppose there are errors in the religion that one has accepted; if one is sincere and earnest, then God Himself will correct those errors." (page 576-577)

MASTER (smiling): "I keep men's own ideals intact. I ask a Vaishnava to hold to his Vaishnava attitude and a Sakta to his. But this also I say to them 'Never feel that your path alone is right and that the paths of others a wrong and full of errors. Hindus, Mussalmans, and Christians are going to the same destination by different paths. A man can realize God by following his own path if his prayer is sincere." (page 622)

SUB-JUDGE: "Sir, I am a sinner. How can I say that God dwells in me?"

MASTER: "That's the one trouble with you Brahmos. With you it is always sin and sin! That's the Christian view, isn't it? Once a man gave me a Bible.A part of it was read to me, and it was full of that one thing—sin and sin! One must have such faith that one can say: 'I have uttered the name of God; I have repeated the name of Rama or Hari. How can I be a sinner?' One must have faith in the glory of God's name."

SUB-JUDGE: "Sir, how can one have such faith?"

MASTER: "Have passionate love for God..." (page 658)

(Although it is his direct experience that the paths of Islam and Christianity lead to the same Truth, sage RAmakRShNa here shows how those paths could be different for the common people. His analogy of a mother preparing dishes to suit the tastes of her children indicates that the children have different propensities so the ultimate taste of the food is bound to be different for them.--sd)

**********

As for Islam, I find this episode of sage RAmakRShNa in his 'Gospels':

With a smile Sri Ramakrishna said to the pundit: "Mani Mallick has been following the tenets of the Brahmo Samaj a long time. You can't convert him to your views. Is it an easy thing to destroy old tendencies? Once there lived a very pious Hindu who always worshipped the Divine Mother and chanted Her name. When the Mussalmans conquered the country, they forced him embrace Islam. They said to him: 'You are now a Mussalman. Say "Allah". From now on you must repeat only the name of Allah.' With great difficulty he repeated the word 'Allah', but every now and then blurted out 'Jagadamba'. 15 At that the Mussalmans were about to beat him. Thereupon he said to them: 'I beseech you! Please do not kill me. I have been trying my utmost to repeat the name of Allah, but our Jagadamba has filled me up to the throat. She pushes out your Allah.' (All laugh.) (page 488)

**********

saidevo
21 December 2009, 09:48 AM
Vivekanada on Islam
by Dinesh Agrawal
part 1:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.hindu/browse_thread/thread/ba944ae47339c0dd/98ef97606614604e?lnk=gst&q=dinesh+agrawal#98ef97606614604e
part 2:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.hindu/browse_thread/thread/bceea96fe2ffc25e/1b387965283c003a?lnk=gst&q=dinesh+agrawal#1b387965283c003a
part 3:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.hindu/browse_thread/thread/ffb8d4c59432d028

The quotes posted below are with the explanations of Dinesh Agrawal. I have indicated my impressions, if any, in parenthesis with my initial:--sd.

Books of Abrahamic religions are fallible

Swamiji said "people who deny the efficiency of any investigation into religion seem to me somewhat to be contradicting themselves. For instance the Christian claims that his religion is the only true one, because it was revealed to so and so. The Mohammedan makes the same claims for his religion; his is the only true one because it was revealed to so and so....

"The books fighting among themselves cannot be the judges. Decidedly then we have to admit that there is something higher than we have to admit that there is something more universal than these books, something higher that all the ethical codes that are in the world, something which can judge between the strength of inspirations of different nations. Whether we declare it boldly clearly or not - it is evident that here we appeal to reason." (The Complete Work of Swami Vivekananda, Vol I 368-69).

**********

How 'enlightened' was Mohammad?

Mohammed claimed that the Angel Gabriel came to him in a cave one day and took him on the heavenly horse, Harak and he visited the heavens. But with all that Mohammed spoke some wonderful truths. If you read the Koran, you find the most wonderful truths mixed with superstitions. How will you explain this? That man was inspired, no doubt, but that inspiration was as it were stumbled upon. He was not a trained Yogi, and did not know the reason of what he was doing. Think of the great evil that has been done through his fanaticism! Think of the millions massacred through his teachings, mothers bereft of their children, children made orphans whole countries destroyed, millions upon millions of people killed". (I. 184)

**********

There is idol worship in Islam

Swamiji further said: "The Mohammedan who thinks that every ritual, every form, image or ceremony used by a non-Mohammedan is sinful does not think so when he comes to his own shrine, the Kaaba. Every religious Mohammedan whereever he prays, must imagine that he is standing before the Kaaba. When he makes a pilgrimage there, he must kiss the black stone in the wall of the shrine. All the kisses that have been imprinted on that stone, by millions and millions of pilgrims will stand up as witnesses for the benefit of the faithful on the last day of judgement. Then there is the well of Zam Zam. Mohammedans believe that whoever draws a little water out of that well will have sins pardoned, and he will, after the day of resurrection, have a fresh body, and live for ever (II:39). The Mohammedans use the graves of their sainst and martyres almost in the place of images (III:61).

**********

on the synthesis of Hinduism and Islam
as explained by Dinesh Agrawal

Following is an often quoted Swamiji's view on the synthesis of Hinduism and Islam, the people do not go in the depth of this Utopian hope: "My experience is that if any religion approached equality in an appreciable manner it is Islam and Islam alone. Therefore, I am firmly persuaded that without the help of practical Islam, theories of Vedantism, however fine and wonderful they may be, are entirely valueless to the vast mass of mankind. We want to lead mankind to the place where there is neither the Vedas, nor the Bible, nor the Koran yet this has to be done by harmonising the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran... For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam-Vedanta brain and Islam body--is the only hope."

Here Swamiji is very clear that concept of equality of Islam has to be extended to the universal equality as propounded in the Vedantic thought, and the division of the mankind into the land of believers and non-believers or Muslims, Zimmis and Kafirs as enjoined and sanctioned in the Koran has to be done with by synthe- sizing the basic Islamic truths with the Vedantic truth of divinity in all, then only the fusion of Islamic body and Vedantic brain would work.

(It seems strange to me that Swamiji should think that Vedas do not encourage equality in practice but Mohammad's Islam does. Also, there could be no religion of the Vedantas without the Vedas. Thus it seems to me that svAmi VivekAnanda's VedAntic religion with the body of Islam can at best be only a dream. It also seems to me that VivekAnanda compromised if not sacrificed some of the ideals of Hinduism for the sake of gaining the attention of the wild and civilized West, which was perhaps a necessity in his time.--sd)

**********

Spread of Islam by Sword...

he was also ruthless in condemning the barbaric, divisive and inhumane aspects and actions of Islam and its followers, he did not mince words when he stated:

"The Mohammedan religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in Koran, "Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans". They must be put to fire and sword. (II.335). Think of the little sects, born within a few hundred years out of fallible human brains, making this arrogant claim of knowledge of the whole of God's infinite truth! Think of the arrogance of it! If it shows any- thing, it is this how vain human beings are. And it is no wonder that such claims have always failed, and , by the mercy of the Lord, are always destined to fail. In this line the Mohammedans were the best off; every step forward was made with the sword--the Koran in the one hand and the sward in the other: "Take the Koran, or you must die; there is no alternative!". You know from history how phenomenal was their success; for six hundred years nothing could resist them, and then there came a time when they had to cry halt. So will it be with other religions if they follow the same methods." (II:369-70)

**********

"What is called the Mohammedan invasion, conquest or colonisation of India means only this that under the leadership of Mohammedan Turks, who were renega- des from Buddhism, those sections of the Hindu race who continued in the faith of their ancestors were repeatedly conquered by the other section of that very race, who also were renegades from Buddhism of the Vedic religion and served under the Turks, having been forcibly converted to Mohammedanism by thier superior strength. (VII:395)

**********

...and the Hindu resilience

"Wave after wave of barbarian conquest has rolled over this devoted land of ours. "Allah Ho Akbar!" has rent the skies for hundreds of years, and no Hindu knew what moment would be his last. This is the most suffering and the most subjugated of all the historic lands in the world. Yet we will stand practically the same race, ready to face difficulties again and again if necessary; and not only so, of late there have been signs that we are not only strong, but ready to go out for the sign of life in expansion." (III.369-70)

"...You have withstood the shocks of centuries simply because you took great care of it, you sacrificed everything else for it. Your forefathers underwent everything boldly, even death itself, but preserved their religion. Temple after temple was broken down by the foreigner conquerers, but no sooner had the wave passed than the spire of the temple rose up again. Some of these old temples of southern India and those like Somnath of Gujarat will teach you volumes of wisdom, will give you a keener insight into the history of the race than any amount of books. Mark how these temples bear the marks of a hundred attacks and a hundred regenerations, continually destroyed and continually springing up out of the ruins, rejuvenated and strong as ever! That is the national mind, that is the national life-current. Follow it and it leads to glory. Give it up and you die; death will be the only result, annihilation the only effect, the moment you step beyond that life-current. (III:289)

The heroic resistance of Hindus against Islamic imperialism the growth of many sects, the supreme sacrifices of Guru Tegh Bahadur and the Bhakti Saints checked the Muslim proselytizing activity. Swamiji said: "Again it is in an undoubted fact that if there had not been the advent of Kabir, Nanak and Chaitanya in the Mohammedan period, and the establishment of the Brahmo Samaj and the Arya Samaj in our own day, then, by this time, the Mohammedans and the Christians would have far outnumbered the Hindus of the present day in India. (IV:463)

**********

Allah, the God of Islam

According to Islam, Allah is unknowable. He is so transendent, so exalted, that no man can ever personally know Allah. To the Muslim the idea that Allah is a person or a spirit is blasphemous because this would demean the exalted one. Allah is not limited by anything. He is not even limited by his own nature. Swamiji used to react to this belief by saying: "For the Mohammedans,it is impossible to have this idea of God as a child; they will shrink from it with a kind of horror. But the Christian and the Hindu can realise it easily because they have the Baby Jesus and the Baby Krishna. (III:96)

Swamiji also reacted on the 'universal brotherhood' in Islam by saying: Mohammedans talk of universal brotherhood, but what comes out of that in reality? Why anybody who is not a Mohammedan will not be admitted into the brotherhood; he will more likely have his throat cut. (II:380)

More from Swamiji on this aspect: "Now, some Mohammedans are the crudest in this respect, and the most sectarian. Their watchword is "There is one God, and Mohammed is His Prophet". Everything beyond that not only is bad, but must be destroyed forthwith; at a moment's notice. every man or woman, who does not exactly believe in that, must be killed; everything that does not belong to this worship must be immediately broken; every book that teaches anything else must be burnt. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, for five hundred years, blood ran all over the world. That is Mohammedanism! Neverthe- less, among these Mohammedans, wherever there was a philosophic man, he was sure to protest against these cruelties. (IV:126)

**********

Theocratic Islamic governments

Regarding the fact that in Muslim countries the non-Muslim religious communities had difficulty in performing their religious duties and the theocratic governments do not allow to build temples or churches, no wonder Swamiji said: "It is here that Indians build temples for Mohammedans and Christians. Nowhere else. If you go to other countries and ask Mohammedans or people of other religions to build a temple for you, see how they will help. They will instead try to break your temple and you too if they can (III:114).

**********

satay
21 December 2009, 10:20 AM
namaskar,

Hmm..I still don't see any 'authentic' guru having termed Koran as a revealed scripture.

If they did, why hasn't there been any scholary examination of the maleccha scripture? Why would a hindu guru term koran as a revealed scripture?

On the topic of Universalism, Hinduism definitely, does NOT teach that all religions are the same. If it did, then why did shankara refute and defeat buddhism? If all religions are the same, then why not happily accpet buddhism or even a maleccha religion. Then why try refute others at all?

I have seen this forum full of pages and pages where members often refute the 'other' sect or philosopical system. If all religions are the same, why insist that your sect or philosopical system is the only correct understanding of the Vedas?

One just has to do a comparative study of a few religions of the world to see that they are NOT the same! Their teachings, their traditions, their rituals, their goals are all different. The comparative study doesn't even have to be long, it can be short and this is evident.

saidevo
21 December 2009, 10:25 AM
namaste Atanu.

IMHO, KAnchi ParamAchArya's views on the Abrahamic religions are to be viewed in consonance with his views on conversion that I have posted here:

BibleGod vs Krishna
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=28247&postcount=16

ParamAchArya was a jIvanmukta who would always convey the truth in subtle words and in a loving manner. This specific statement of the AchArya has much to say about what he has conveyed by inference:

"That the beliefs and customs of the various religions are different cannot be a cause for complaint. Nor is there any need to make all of them similar. The important thing is for the followers of the various faiths to live in harmony with one another. The goal must be unity, not uniformity."



I will remind you of sage of ---- saying that "I am that I am" and "Be still and know ----" of the Bible are sufficient upadesha equal to Vedanta. To Muslims he said that the true religion is Islam - Surrender. Though, he also discussed with both christians and muslims to dispel their doubts on immanence of God.


I can't consider these statements of the Bible as the equivalent of VedAnta. They are uttered in different contexts to different people under different circumstances and are a far cry from the MahAvAkyas of the UpaniShads because the Bible texts neither contain elaborate explanations of these statements like the UpaniShads nor prescribe the sAdhana--practice tools towards their realization.



It is my understanding that just as Roman emperors used Christianity to further their rajasic dreams, Mongol invaders changed the whole complexion of the another religion. Further the antagonism between these two gropus of rulers vitiated the whole teaching and the gnostic elements are buried deep inside literal-historical-ritualistic interpretations forced on gullible public.


I wonder if any Christian or Islamic scholar or priest has thought of in these lines and published their views, isolating the so-called shruti and smRti parts of the Bible and Quran. I don't understand why should it always be the Hindu sages and commons who need to have a different and more spiritual view of the scriptures of Abrahamic religions, which are unsupported if not scorned at by the orthodox followers of these religions. Why should we Hindus try to be more Catholic than the Pope or more authentic than the Mullahs?

atanu
21 December 2009, 10:28 AM
Vivekanada on Islam
by Dinesh Agrawal
on the synthesis of Hinduism and Islam
as explained by Dinesh Agrawal

Following is an often quoted Swamiji's view on the synthesis of Hinduism and Islam, the people do not go in the depth of this Utopian hope: "My experience is that if any religion approached equality in an appreciable manner it is Islam and Islam alone. Therefore, I am firmly persuaded that without the help of practical Islam, theories of Vedantism, however fine and wonderful they may be, are entirely valueless to the vast mass of mankind. We want to lead mankind to the place where there is neither the Vedas, nor the Bible, nor the Koran yet this has to be done by harmonising the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran... For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam-Vedanta brain and Islam body--is the only hope."

Here Swamiji is very clear that concept of equality of Islam has to be extended to the universal equality as propounded in the Vedantic thought, and the division of the mankind into the land of believers and non-believers or Muslims, Zimmis and Kafirs as enjoined and sanctioned in the Koran has to be done with by synthe- sizing the basic Islamic truths with the Vedantic truth of divinity in all, then only the fusion of Islamic body and Vedantic brain would work.

(It seems strange to me that Swamiji should think that Vedas do not encourage equality in practice but Mohammad's Islam does. Also, there could be no religion of the Vedantas without the Vedas. Thus it seems to me that svAmi VivekAnanda's VedAntic religion with the body of Islam can at best be only a dream. It also seems to me that VivekAnanda compromised if not sacrificed some of the ideals of Hinduism for the sake of gaining the attention of the wild and civilized West, which was perhaps a necessity in his time.--sd)

**********


Namaste saidevoji,

You are correct. Swamiji was an activist. The immutable Master was however Ramakrishna. Unlike Ramakrishna or Ramana who stood like rock with their conviction, Swami Vivekanada reacted and evolved. What you say (in blue fonts above) can also be turned in the opposite direction -- that is, much of his anti islam stance was popular.

With time, Swamiji also said things which may create hatred in the hearts of Hindus. But it was his purely staunch practical stance:

“Mohammed – the Messenger of equality. You ask, ‘What good can there be in his religion?’ If there was no good, how could it live? The good alone lives, that alone survives… How could Mohammedanism have lived, had there been nothing good in its teachings? There is much good.”

“Mohammed by his life showed that amongst the Mohammedans there should be perfect equality and brotherhood. There was no question of race, caste, colour or sex. ---"

“It is a mistaken statement that has been made to us that the Mohammedans do not believe that women have souls…I am not a Mohammedan, but yet I have had opportunities for studying them, and there is not one word in the Koran which says that women have no souls, but in fact it says they have.”

“Practical Advaitism … is yet to be developed among the Hindus universally… Therefore we are firmly persuaded that without the help of practical Islam, theories of Vedantism, however fine and wonderful they may be, are entirely valueless to the vast mass of mankind…......"

Late in his life (but very early compared to us, since he lived only 29 years), he said:

'There must be no more of this anger.' Mother (Devi) said: 'What even if the unbeliever should enter My temples, and defile My images, what is that to you? Do you protect me? Or do I protect you?

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
21 December 2009, 10:30 AM
Namaste atanu,



I have reason to be disppointed since you do not cognise above and also see nothing wrong with the categorisation of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Sathya Sai, Sri Prabhupada and others as NEO.

Any way. Not to add to confusion i bow out.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Who is categorizing viveka, ramskrishna, sai baba and prbhupada as Neo? They are contemporary. Are they not? Even if they are categorized as Neo what's wrong with that? Is Neo a derogotary term?

Did any traditional acarya say that Koran is a revelaed scripture? No, they didn't. Since it was not worth their time to examine anything outside of the Vedas. Anything that doesn't have vedas as its source is not worth examining since by default it would be maleccha and thus not worthy of any examination.

Viveka, sri aurobindo, prabhupada, osho, one doesn't have to search far to see that they were great scholars. I will leave at that.

I request other readers of this thread to do their own examination of the lives of vivekanda, aurobindo, prabhupada and osho. I can only speak about these four because I have studied them with a lot of interest and with some depth. If one studies their lives, one would know that these scholars would not have termed the koran as a revealed scripture. However, I digress and invite the reader to their own studies.

Thanks,

atanu
21 December 2009, 10:52 AM
The following is from Complete Works

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/lectures_and_discourses/practical_religion_breathing_and_meditation_frame.htm (http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/lectures_and_discourses/practical_religion_breathing_and_meditation_frame.htm)

MOHAMMED

This article was recorded by Ida Ansell in shorthand. As, however, Swamiji's speed was too great for her in her early days, dots are put in the articles to indicate the omissions, while the words within square brackets are added by way of linking up the disconnected parts.



(Delivered on March 25, 1900, in the San Francisco Bay Area)

The ancient message of Krishna is one harmonising three — Buddha's, Christ's and Mohammed's. Each of the three started an idea and carried it to its extreme. Krishna antedates all the other prophets. [Yet, we might say,] Krishna takes the old ideas and synthesises them, [although] his is the most ancient message. His message was for the time being submerged by the advance wave of Buddhism. Today it is the message peculiar to India. If you will have it so, this afternoon I will take Mohammed and bring out the particular work of the great Arabian prophet....
Mohammed [as] a young man ... did not [seem to] care much for religion.

He was inclined to make money. He was considered a nice young man and very handsome. There was a rich widow. She fell in love with this young man, and they married. When Mohammed had become emperor over the larger part of the world, the Roman and Persian empires were all under his feet, and he had a number of wives. When one day he was asked which wife he liked best, he pointed to his first wife: "Because she believed [in] me first." Women have faith.... Gain independence, gain everything, but do not lose that characteristic of women! ...

Mohammed's heart was sick at the sin, idolatry and mock worship, superstitions and human sacrifices, and so on. The Jews were degraded by the Christians. On the other hand, the Christians were worse degraded than his own countrymen.

We are always in a hurry. if any great work is to be done, there must be great preparation. ... After much praying, day and night, Mohammed began to have dreams and visions. Gabriel appeared to him in a dream and told him that he was the messenger of truth. He told him that the message of Jesus, of Moses, and all the prophets would be lost and asked him to go and preach. Seeing the Christians preaching politics in the name of Jesus, seeing the Persians preaching dualism, Mohammed said: "Our God is one God. He is the Lord of all that exists. There is no comparison between Him and any other." God is God. There is no philosophy, no complicated code of ethics. "Our God is one without a second, and Mohammed is the Prophet." ...

Mohammed began to preach it in the streets of Mecca. ... They began to persecute him, and he fled into the city of [Medina]. He began to fight, and the whole race became united. [Mohammedanism] deluged the world in the name of the Lord. The tremendous conquering power! ...

You ... people have very hard ideas and are so superstitious and prejudiced! These messengers must have come from God, else how could they have been so great? You look at every defect. Each one of us has his defects. Who hasn't? I can point out many defects in the Jews. The wicked are always looking for defects. ... Flies come and seek for the [ulcer], and bees come only for the honey in the flower. Do not follow the way of the fly but that of the bee....

Mohammed married quite a number of wives afterwards. Great men may marry two hundred wives each. "Giants" like you, I would not allow to marry one wife. The characters of the great souls are mysterious, their methods past our finding out. We must not judge them. Christ may judge Mohammed. Who are you and I? Little babies. What do we understand of these great souls? ...

[Mohammedanism] came as a message for the masses. ... The first message was equality. ... There is one religion — love. No more question of race, colour, [or] anything else. Join it! That practical quality carried the day. ... The great message was perfectly simple. Believe in one God, the creator of heaven and earth. All was created out of nothing by Him. Ask no questions. ...

Their temples are like Protestant churches. ... no music, no paintings, no pictures. A pulpit in the corner; on that lies the Koran. The people all stand in line. No priest, no person, no bishop. ... The man who prays must stand at the side of the audience. Some parts are beautiful. ...

These old people were all messengers of God. I fall down and worship them; I take the dust of their feet. But they are dead! ... And we are alive. We must go ahead! ... Religion is not an imitation of Jesus or Mohammed. Even if an imitation is good, it is never genuine. Be not an imitation of Jesus, but be Jesus, You are quite as great as Jesus, Buddha, or anybody else. If we are not ... we must struggle and be. I would not be exactly like Jesus. It is unnecessary that I should be born a Jew. ...

The greatest religion is to be true to your own nature. Have faith in yourselves! If you do not exist, how can God exist, or anybody else? Wherever you are, it is this mind that perceives even the Infinite. I see God, therefore He exists. If I cannot think of God, He does not exist [for me]. This is the grand march of our human progress.

These [great souls] are signposts on the way. That is all they are. They say, "Onward, brothers!" We cling to them; we never want to move. We do not want to think; we want others to think for us. The messengers fulfil their mission. They ask to be up and doing. A hundred years later we cling to the message and go to sleep.

Talking about faith and belief and doctrine is easy, but it is so difficult to build character and to stem the tide of the senses. We succumb. We become hypocrites. ...

[Religion] is not a doctrine, [not] a rule. It is a process. That is all.

[Doctrines and rules] are all for exercise. By that exercise we get strong and at last break the bonds and become free. Doctrine is of no use except for gymnastics. ... Through exercise the soul becomes perfect. That exercise is stopped when you say, "I believe." ...

"Whenever virtue subsides and immorality abounds, I take human form. In every age I come for the salvation of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, for the establishment of spirituality." (Gita, IV. 7-8.)

[B][Such] are the great messengers of light. They are our great teachers, our elder brothers. But we must go our own way!

Om namah Shivaya

satay
21 December 2009, 11:05 AM
namaskar,


The following is from Complete Works

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/lectures_and_discourses/practical_religion_breathing_and_meditation_frame.htm (http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/lectures_and_discourses/practical_religion_breathing_and_meditation_frame.htm)

Om namah Shivaya

So, is this a scholary examination of the Koran by a Hindu? Or is the implication that Vivekananda terming Koran as a revealed scripture?

Or both perhaps?

Harjas Kaur
21 December 2009, 11:06 AM
(It seems strange to me that Swamiji should think that Vedas do not encourage equality in practice but Mohammad's Islam does. Also, there could be no religion of the Vedantas without the Vedas. Thus it seems to me that svAmi VivekAnanda's VedAntic religion with the body of Islam can at best be only a dream. It also seems to me that VivekAnanda compromised if not sacrificed some of the ideals of Hinduism for the sake of gaining the attention of the wild and civilized West, which was perhaps a necessity in his time.--sd)Thank you Saidevo Ji for wonderful post. Swami Vivekananda Ji's comments must be evaluated in the context of the formation of the Indian Nation as an independant entity from British Rule, and still struggling with crushed self-identity as British created a racist caste-based society, manipulated and edited scriptures such as Manu Smritis to establish domination of thought by legal system using Manu Smritis as it's authoritative base like substitute for a Christian Bible (Which the West has used as moral foundation for jurisprudence.)

It takes a lot of scholarship to unravel now what is the true meaning and functioning of the caste-varna system after the British have hijacked it, and before them the Muslim kings. But one consistent theme which is true of any occupation is the tendency to blame the victims as deserving all sort of abuse by defaming their beliefs and culture.Why are we still discussing like this in this era, with these clear understandings? Why would we give any credibility to political distortions of the caste-varna system which have remained such a blight on Indian Society as the longest lasting legacy of the false interpretation of this teaching?

Swami Vivekananda Ji had no choice. He was the product of the British Educational system, and all his writings should reflect our consciousness of that. What is remarkable about the man is his utter love for India and Hinduism shining through the incredible morass of self-hatred which WAS the British system of Raj taught to Indians. Swami Ji was also dealing with Mohandian-ism, that political worship of Mohandas Gandhi as the "greatest spiritual saint who ever lived" and his utterly Jain ideology of pacifism and appeasement in an effort to form Independent India into a secular state. The only way to do this would have been full integration of the Muslim population. The only problem was the Muslim's under Jinnah demanded more and more until they obtained their own Muslim Raj, Pakistan.

So these political philosophies of Islam as equal and universal have to do with the whole project of Nation-building which was going on at the time. Sadly the results are clearly evident that Muslims declared a Jihad under Jinnah DESPITE all these CONCESSIONS and obtained their civil war, their partition, their mass slaughter, their destruction of minority populations under their rule (namely Hindu's and Sikhs), a war culture represented by consecutive military dictatorships, and finally a Nation torn apart by the most spectacular violent religious fundamentalism ever seen.

I think we can safely rest the ghosts of the Indian independence movement and no longer use their political ideologies as gospel political truths of today. Islam has demanded itself to be different. Islam has achieved the distinction of rejecting the legitimacy of all other faiths. And ISLAM, not "Hindu prejudice and hatred" has created jihadi Islam as an ENEMY of other world religions. And we have to realistically deal with that and stop pretending their our equals when the teachings clearly oppose our religion and our right and freedom to practice it. I am sorry Gandhi was wrong on this point. But he clearly was. And all the brotherly wishes for unity and intellectual justifications for the horrible disruption (terrorism) of the Islamics themselves HAVE NOT STOPPED THE VIOLENCE OR MINIMIZED THE THREAT.

And therefore, in the interest of common sense and the dignity of self-respect and out of love for our own communities, we must be HONEST in acknowledging the ADHARMA of Islamic religion and it's intentions toward us. And this is not to diminish the character of Swami Vivekananda Ji. But his words on this subject reflect the politics of his day, and are in NO WAY SRUTI FOR ALL HINDU'S.

satay
21 December 2009, 11:14 AM
namaskar,


Why should we Hindus try to be more Catholic than the Pope or more authentic than the Mullahs?

yes, why indeed?

Isn't it true that just the fact that you are pondering this in a public forum would get you labelled as a hindu extremist or belonging to hindutva or of being a nationalist?;)

Harjas Kaur
21 December 2009, 11:19 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how Hindu Nationalism became a dirty word and an ugly thing and how defending those forces dedicated to our destruction became representitive of "authentic spirituality."

We have been infiltrated with an ideology of self-hatred and this is what has the power to destroy us. Have you ever heard of a Communist or a Muslim defaming their own ideologies the way we defame ourselves almost justifying their right to dominate our own?

atanu
21 December 2009, 11:23 AM
namaste Atanu.

I wonder if any Christian or Islamic scholar or priest has thought of in these lines and published their views, isolating the so-called shruti and smRti parts of the Bible and Quran. ---?

Namaste saidevoji,

First, this is the teaching of Swami Ranganatha. Second, yes there are Gnostics and Sufis.


I can't consider these statements of the Bible as the equivalent of VedAnta. They are uttered in different contexts to different people under different circumstances and are a far cry from the MahAvAkyas of the UpaniShads because the Bible texts neither contain elaborate explanations of these statements like the UpaniShads nor prescribe the sAdhana--practice tools towards their realization.

That is not the point. The point is "I am That I am" is taught in Bible. If Church hides it or common people do not see it is another matter. Further there is no dispute that Veda-Vedanta is MOTHER of all scripture. To show that we must know the correspondence. As Swami Vivekananda says:


The ancient message of Krishna is one harmonising three — Buddha's, Christ's and Mohammed's.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
21 December 2009, 11:26 AM
namaste Atanu.

I knew you would come up with this article! It is addressed to the Christians at San Francisco and not to the Hindus in India. Swamiji has always held that Christians hated Muslims much more than Muslims hated Christians. Dinesh Agrawal in the opening para of part 3 of his essay has quoted Swamiji's narration of the barbaric Tartaric invasion of Jerusalem and the even more barbaric Christian reaction to it. It is to the Christians with such a history of propagation of their religion that Swamiji spoke about the 'virtues' of Mohammad. To the Hindus in India however, he was more practical and realistic and showed the true character of Mohammad's achievement and the Koran's spiritual authenticity as I have shown in my collection.

Atanu, I am really interested--and willing to concede some advaitic spiritual ground to the Abrahamic religions--if you can show the writings of some Christian or Islamic scholar who has thought about their religions on the lines you are inclined to think about. Even the Christian scholars such as Koenraad ELST and Francois Gautier who have done some authentic research on Hinduism and have earned the acclaim of the Hindus, are not prepared to find even semblances of their findings in their own religious scriptures.

Instead of wasting our time on how our modern Hindu sages view Islam and Christianity, let us find out what our traditional scriptures shruti and smRti say about our own religion vis-a-vis the other Hindu religions, how Sankara debated with them and spread his teachings. I would request your extensive scholarship towards that end for the real benefit of the Hindus, as it is also the need of the times we live in today.

satay
21 December 2009, 11:33 AM
namaskar,


First, this is the teaching of Swami Ranganatha. Second, yes there are Gnostics and Sufis.


Om Namah Shivaya

Are Gnostics accepted by the Christian church?

How long have I been sleeping?:)

atanu
21 December 2009, 11:34 AM
namaste Atanu.

I knew you would come up with this article! It is addressed to the Christians at San Francisco and not to the Hindus in India. ----.

Namaste Saidevoji,

I also knew what the reply would be. So, I bow out as I have to pack. Just this:

Swami Chinmayananda

-----The values seem to be different. at least in emphasis in different religions and a student who studies various religions may find that one religion emphasizes one set of ideals and another religion.a different set of ideals. Buddhism asserts one maxim, Hinduism another, Islam and Christianity yet another. But if one closely examines the maxims, one discovers that the fundamental principle is one and the same though the language and the emphasis are different. Just as two doctors would prescribe to the same patient on separate occasions two seemingly different prescriptions for the same disease, those who understand the science of medicine would know that the prescriptions are the same, only in name are they apparently different.------

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
21 December 2009, 11:39 AM
namaskar,

If all religions are the same, why some of our traditional sects don't accept 'foreigners' in their fold or even in some temples?

Why did adi shakara defeat buddhism if buddhism is same as all other religions?

Why establish maths all over bharata to spread your teachings if all religions are the same?

If there is nothing special and distinct in Hinduism then why bother to even remain a hindu?

Honestly, I don't get it.

satay
21 December 2009, 11:42 AM
Only if our traditional gurus shankara, ramanuja and madva had read this first...



Swami Chinmayananda

-----The values seem to be different. at least in emphasis in different religions and a student who studies various religions may find that one religion emphasizes one set of ideals and another religion.a different set of ideals. Buddhism asserts one maxim, Hinduism another, Islam and Christianity yet another. But if one closely examines the maxims, one discovers that the fundamental principle is one and the same though the language and the emphasis are different. Just as two doctors would prescribe to the same patient on separate occasions two seemingly different prescriptions for the same disease, those who understand the science of medicine would know that the prescriptions are the same, only in name are they apparently different.------

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
21 December 2009, 11:46 AM
namaste Satay.



yes, why indeed?

Isn't it true that just the fact that you are pondering this in a public forum would get you labelled as a hindu extremist or belonging to hindutva or of being a nationalist?;)


For me, Hindutava or Hindu Nationalism are not bad words or the inclination towards them a bad trait that a Hindu shoud be shamed of. As a Hindu I wish to live in an atmosphere of peaceful co-existence and mutual respect with all my other Hindu sects, other Hindu religions, as well as the Abrahamic religious strains in India, as long as they respect Hinduism, are proud of their Indian heritage, and are willing to reform their religions on the issue of conversion and intolerance.

As you have rightly observed, the modern Hindu sages of traditional Hinduism do not consider it worthwhile to examine and scriptures of Abrahamic religions, which only goes to show that the Hindus do not need to do it either, if we are true followers of our sages.

atanu
21 December 2009, 11:49 AM
Only if our traditional gurus shankara, ramanuja and madva had read this first...

So, now Chinmayananda is also not acceptable?:dunno:

Probably you have not read fully. Shankara possibly could not compare, on account of being pre-dated. He would have stripped away the duality just as He did with Buddha. But I do not know whether you know or not that Yamunacharya was actually a yavana (as per Satyarth Prakash). And as for Madhavacharya it has been posted above, how He believed and convinced a sultan that Allah and Narayana were not different.

Thanks for your and every one's patience.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 December 2009, 11:54 AM
namaskar,

If all religions are the same, why some of our traditional sects don't accept 'foreigners' in their fold or even in some temples?


namaste Satay,

I think the question is akin to asking ------. I let go.

Better to ask, why some Vaisnavas even do not enter Shiva temple? No one says that religions are same.

I will repeat what Swami Vivekananda said: Gita contains Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. That is why Sanatana dharma is Sanatana and not neo, which has a birth. Sanatana has no birth and no death.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
21 December 2009, 11:54 AM
namaskar,


namaste Satay.

For me, Hindutava or Hindu Nationalism are not bad words or the inclination towards them a bad trait that a Hindu shoud be shamed of. As a Hindu I wish to live in an atmosphere of peaceful co-existence and mutual respect with all my other Hindu sects, other Hindu religions, as well as the Abrahamic religious strains in India, as long as they respect Hinduism, are proud of their Indian heritage, and are willing to reform their religions on the issue of conversion and intolerance.


Amen to that. 110% agreed.



As you have rightly observed, the modern Hindu sages of traditional Hinduism do not consider it worthwhile to examine and scriptures of Abrahamic religions, which only goes to show that the Hindus do not need to do it either, if we are true followers of our sages.

This is why I was wondering about the aunthentic hindu guru who would term Koran as a revealed scripture and why would they do it? There is no reason to term any scripture other than the Vedas as a revealed.

Note that even Gita is not termed as shruti and some hindus here on this forum have proudly reminded us of the fact that Gita is smriti and puranas are just some kakameme stories. So if that's the case, then it doesn't make logical sense to accept that an authentic guru would term something non-indian as 'revealed' or shruti unless there was some political agenda or some other propaganda.

Harjas Kaur
21 December 2009, 11:57 AM
The ultimate spiritual truths are true in every religious teaching. We all know what it means to be good, to be charitable, or recognize that God is Light, God is mercy, etc.

The ULTIMATE spiritual truths expressed in any language or in any religious context are still spiritual truths. But that is not the same as to say no error exists which blocks out those truths in greater and lesser degrees.

If no error exists, which is the real assertion of radical universalism, then why are we reading scriptures at all? Everything is the same truth, what is to learn? Learning implies vivek/discrimination. Radical Universalism is true ignorance because it is indiscriminate and swallows error for truth, and asserts universality and sameness even of those who oppose and undermine our teachings and threaten our lives. So instead of enlightenment it amounts to shameful foolishness.

Much like demonstrated on these two videos. Please watch!

Hindu comments on Dr. Zakir Naik's lecture on Hinduism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeJaNooRHL0

Every Muslim Should be a Terrorist - Mullah Zakir Naik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI

atanu
21 December 2009, 12:00 PM
namaskar,
There is no reason to term any scripture other than the Vedas as a revealed..

May I ask why so? Does Veda mean the written book or the silent realisation of the Heart?

Do you think that all sages who have been cited are all bluffing?

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
21 December 2009, 12:01 PM
No one says that religions are same.

Om Namah Shivaya

Huh?

I asked

namaskar,

Does Hinduism teach universalism? Universalism is defined as follows elsewhere on the net: "the ideology that all religions are true"

Does Hinduism or Hindu gurus teach that all religions are true or is it a propaganda spread by the new age gurus?

What do you think?


Elsewhere on this thread, you wrote that Hinduism teaches universalism meaning that Hinduism is an ideology that teaches that all religions are true.

If all religions are true then they must logically be same. Isn't? Otherwise, it doesn't hold logically.

or is it that truth is different since religions are not the same.

satay
21 December 2009, 12:02 PM
Do you think that all sages who have been cited are all bluffing?

Om Namah Shivaya

Which sages have been cited as saying Koran is a revealed scripture?

atanu
21 December 2009, 12:04 PM
namaskar,

---- then it doesn't make logical sense to accept that an authentic guru would term something non-indian as 'revealed' or shruti unless there was some political agenda or some other propaganda.

Satay,

Is this your idea of revelation - apauruseya. It has to be Indian?

From Kanchi Paramacharya
The Word of God

We must not distrust the belief that the Vedas are not the work of mere mortals. Followers of other religions too ascribe divine origin to their scriptures. Jesus says that he merely repeats the words of God and, according to Muslims, the prophet speaks the words of Allah. What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts.


Om

saidevo
21 December 2009, 12:07 PM
I also knew what the reply would be. So, I bow out as I have to pack. Just this:

Swami Chinmayananda

-----The values seem to be different. at least in emphasis in different religions and a student who studies various religions may find that one religion emphasizes one set of ideals and another religion.a different set of ideals. Buddhism asserts one maxim, Hinduism another, Islam and Christianity yet another. But if one closely examines the maxims, one discovers that the fundamental principle is one and the same though the language and the emphasis are different. Just as two doctors would prescribe to the same patient on separate occasions two seemingly different prescriptions for the same disease, those who understand the science of medicine would know that the prescriptions are the same, only in name are they apparently different.------


I understand that the modern Hindu sages, even of the traditional Hindu institutions, need to use such pacifism and reconciliation perforce, in their addresses to the public, for reasons such as: i) the Indian society they address comprises Hindus of varied inclinations, ii) the society is mutl-cultural and multi-religious, iii) their addresses are often under the scanner of the pseudo-secular media and iv) we have a pseudo-secular government which would not hesitate to arrest a Hindu sage on the slightest pretexts while turning a blind eye to the vitriolic utterances and deeds of Christian and Muslim authorities in India.

I reiterate that if the Bible and Quran has any values on par with the Hindu concepts as revealed in the Hindu scriptures, the Hindu sages would go deeper than such superficial, sympathetic and analogical statements and give us solid quotes from the scriptures, even as they do it with the Hindu scriptures.

satay
21 December 2009, 12:08 PM
So, now Chinmayananda is also not acceptable?

Om Namah Shivaya

Acceptable for what?

Look, the point is, adishankar fought with the Buddhas and defeated them. Why? Because buddhism is also a true religion?

You yourself say that some vaishnavas don't enter shiv temples. If all religions are true and same then why? Are you implying that Vaishnavas are not Hindus?

satay
21 December 2009, 12:11 PM
No, sorry, i struggled to find a proper word.


Satay,

Is this your idea of revelation - apauruseya. It has to be Indian?

Om

Which authentic guru has termed Koran as revealed scripture?

adishankar, ramanuja, madva?
Kanchi Paramacharya?
Which one? So that I can studying them more.

atanu
21 December 2009, 12:14 PM
Huh?

If all religions are true then they must logically be same. Isn't? Otherwise, it doesn't hold logically.



I do not understand your requirement of logic. Saivism and Vaisnavism are not same due to difference in names and forms yet they are same because both relate to OM and its substratum.

Similarly,

Swami Chinmayananda

-----The values seem to be different. at least in emphasis in different religions and a student who studies various religions may find that one religion emphasizes one set of ideals and another religion.a different set of ideals. Buddhism asserts one maxim, Hinduism another, Islam and Christianity yet another. But if one closely examines the maxims, one discovers that the fundamental principle is one and the same though the language and the emphasis are different. Just as two doctors would prescribe to the same patient on separate occasions two seemingly different prescriptions for the same disease, those who understand the science of medicine would know that the prescriptions are the same, only in name are they apparently different.------



From Saidevo
I understand that the modern Hindu sages, even of the traditional Hindu institutions, need to use such pacifism and reconciliation perforce, in their addresses to the public, for reasons such as: i--

But Frank Morale named Shri Chinmayananda as having busted the radicals. So I quoted Swami Chinmayananda. Which Hindu sage you want me to cite (except the writer of Satyartha Prakash, since then we have to reject idol worship, saivism and vaisnavism also)?

Om Namah Shivaya

Harjas Kaur
21 December 2009, 12:15 PM
What is understood as Sruti is itself a part of Hindutva, meaning from within Hindu and Indic culture, heritage, religion and tradition. How could it be understood or conceptualized any other way without betraying the very definitions which it defines? That is the difference between yoga as understood within Hindu teaching and culture, and the popular "yoga" commercialized in the west for relaxation or "Christian" varieties or even yoga exercise classes as part of calisthenics.

What is defaming Hindu teaching is this continual appeasement of forces antithetical to our religion and culture. Like someone wearing colorful Krishna tee shirts on the beach drinking their beers and enjoying their meat barbecues. Divorced from CONTEXT AND HERITAGE you can render the greatest truths MEANINGLESS.

Atanu Ji, if you consider the Koran to be Sruti, then you have already accepted the teachings of Koran as God's Divine and Revealed Truth. And therefore you accept it's teaching that Mohammed is the final prophet. So you are a Muslim. You have converted. There is no other truth beyond the Koran according to the Koran, and it's teachings are the culmination of everything from the past, so now you study only Koran, since it declares itself the greatest and final revelation of God.

If this is Sruti teaching for you, you have already become a Muslim. So you are now a Maleccha. What do you care about what Hindu's think unless you are a Muslim Missionary?

Are you arguing this to manipulate other Hindu's on this forum to accept Mohammed as the final Prophet of God's revealed Koran? What in the hell are you doing?

Eastern Mind
21 December 2009, 12:23 PM
I understand that the modern Hindu sages, even of the traditional Hindu institutions, need to use such pacifism and reconciliation perforce, in their addresses to the public, for reasons such as:


I'm not so sure. Once when Subramuniyaswami came here, he made it clear that he didn't want to be speaking to any Christians in the temple. At that time some members of the Sri Lankan community were somewhat upset at this. He just explained that he didn't want to upset them. He might go into some of the deplorable conversion tactics or such. Our leaders do need to speak out, expecially within the Hindu community. The Melbourne Parliament of world religions and other such events was different. That is what its for. Interfaith dialogue. Building bridges etc. So it depends on who you're talking to, and in what circumstance.

I also recall a lady (She seemed christian) who listened to a swami talk at a Hindu temple here. I was chatting with her afterwards, and mentioned that we Hindus don't proseltyse. She got upset with me, and asked, "What was He (referring to the swami) doing then? I just rolled my eyes and walked away, realising the pointlessness of cotinuing. The swami was speaking to Hindus in a Hindu temple. What did she expect? For him to glorigy Christ? That;s like us accusing the Christians of proselytising when they're just doing their normal Sunday sermon in a Christian church.

Saidevo and Satay: I reallly appreciate how you've started referring to the Hindu religions (plural) rather than Hindu religion. Amazing how one letter (s) can convey so much more meaning.


Aum namasivaya

rahulg
21 December 2009, 12:25 PM
Here are my thoughts on the matter:

# 1 Even within Hinduism, there are many different schools, all differing from each other. To say that they're all the same wouldn't make sense, because even greats like Sankara and Madhva disagreed on that point. Who are we to say they're wrong and we're right?

#2 Most swamis who say all religions are the same...this is due to political compulsions. Why? Because Christian countries (read west) are rich; so are Arab/Muslim nations in the Middle East. Hindus, being poor in comparison, find it awkward to challenge them. So the only way is the way of compromise: we won't attack you, provided you won't attack us.

Bottom line, all religions are different, and there's nothing wrong with it. Most Hindus who believe otherwise are suffering from an inferiority complex.

atanu
21 December 2009, 12:28 PM
Acceptable for what?
You yourself say that some vaishnavas don't enter shiv temples. If all religions are true and same then why? Are you implying that Vaishnavas are not Hindus?

I asked which one is true? Vaisnavism or Saivism? God underlying both the paths is true. And thus Kanchi Pramacharya says:

"-----What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts."

and

"It is this spirit of catholicism that Englishmen exclaim: "Jevhovah, Jove or Lord!". Jehovah is the Semitic God of the region of Israel, the home of the Bible. Jove is another name of Jupiter. The word "Lord" applies to the God of any faith; it is common to all religions. Realised people in the West also speak that the one Being is the same, call him by any name you like."
---------------

Satay, revelatation is not prerogative of a nation and your question shown below is meaningless.




From Satay
"then it doesn't make logical sense to accept that an authentic guru would term something non-indian as 'revealed' or shruti unless there was some political agenda or some other propaganda".

Please do not make the sayings of Hindu sages as propaganda.

Bye.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
21 December 2009, 12:32 PM
namaste Atanu.



But Frank Morale named Shri Chinmayananda as having busted the radicals. So I quoted Swami Chinmayananda. Which Hindu sage you want me to cite (except the writer of Satyartha Prakash, since then we have to reject idol worship, saivism and vaisnavism also)?


Although I wanted us to discuss Radical Universalism on the points given by Frank Morales, I never said that I agree with all his views or assessment of the Hindu sages. I also think that Swami Dayananda missed the bhakti aspect of Hinduism which is perhaps the most important element in sAdhana, athough his intention is noble and he has some valid points. He was like RamaNa maharshi minus the latter's inclination towards bhakti.

As for your query, you can cite me any Hindu sage who gives us solid quotes from the Bible and Quran (just as you and some other members do here) and establish that those statements are on par with the Hindu mahAvAkyas. This does not mean that the Hindu sages have not studied the Abrahamic scriptures; only that they don't find it worthwhile to quote them on par with the UpaniShadic concepts. Since most if not all of them don't find it worthwhile, why should we try to extrapolate those scriptures and waste our time. After all Hindus don't need the Abrahamic scriptures to learn about Advaita--or any other spiritual concept for that matter.

Christian Gnosticism and Islamic Sufism are not accepted by their established religious authorities, nor have much influence over the followers.

Harjas Kaur
21 December 2009, 12:49 PM
Please do not make the sayings of Hindu sages as propaganda.Satay has not. But you have. Moreover, all over India this is happening. We have to analyze in context of "WHAT IS THE PURPOSE" of blindly promoting unity efforts. Because the end result will often be the destruction and betrayal of our Dharmic teachings. Abrahamic religions teach intolerance. You either accept their teaching as revelation of God, and if you do, you accept what they teach as ONLY revelation of God. The moment you do this, you have repudiated everything else.

That is the danger and the TRAP of such stupid intellectualizations of radical universalism, to force conversions of Hindus by accepting what is renouncing everything we believe.

I reallly appreciate how you've started referring to the Hindu religions (plural) rather than Hindu religion. Amazing how one letter (s) can convey so much more meaning.I can see your point, as a Sikh who believes that Sikhism is part of Sanatana Dharma, I am in that category of "other religions or sects." It's remains an ackward grammatical construction. For simplicity I call myself a Hindu. But I equally call myself a Sikh. I realize Sanatana Dharma includes all the Dharmic faiths and sects, so it is properly a plural.

I asked which one is true? Vaisnavism or Saivism? God underlying both the paths is true.Advaita is entirely misrepresented when made out to be some kind of compunction to deny differences or to scold that we are under delusion of Maya and should try to be a sort of radical sameness. Ultimately Sanatana Dharma accepts without prejudice. This is not the same as accepting without wise discrimination. And the purpose behind your comparison is to assert that Islam is equally true, and it is not. Vaishnavism and Shaivism are sects within the body of beliefs of Sanatana Dharma teaching and based on Sruti.

Islam is a meleccha teaching utterly opposed to the Sruti of the Vedas and to Vedic religions.

It really is not requiring any rationalization unless you intend to propagandize this radical toleration of intolerant teachings. The sole intent of Abrahamic faiths in any Unity with Hinduism is conversion and destruction of Hindu religion(s). So why be idiotic and persist in demanding full equality with those who assert domination? It is to allow yourself to be dominated and converted. Is this what pretends to be spiritual wisdom?

saidevo
21 December 2009, 12:51 PM
namaste EM.

The situation in India under the rule of the pseudo-secular and anti-Hindu central and state governments, is very different. A Christian evangelist can distribute pamphlets abusing Hindu gods and make their Hindu children distribute it among the public; a Zakir Naik can fake a ShankarAchArya and make him sing praises about Islam; a Muslim painter can paint the Hindu gods in the nude; and the governments would take no action. If a Hindu sage talks strongly about the Christian aggressions or Islamic terrorism or a common Hindu distributes pamphlets that are antagonistic to the Abrahamic religions, the state would immediately resort to action, foist a case on him/her and harass the Hindu member. Where they can't do it, the ruling party would employ goons to terrorise the 'offending' Hindus.

The BJP, which was the only political hope of the Hindus, have failed miserably and deserted the Hindus both while they were in office and now out of it.

Although the total lack of Hindu unity and the utter inertia and selfishness the Hindus are complacent are the factors that have brought in such a situation, the State in India has never been proud of their Hindu ancestry and initiated steps to nourish it.

atanu
21 December 2009, 12:51 PM
namaste Atanu.

--- I also think that Swami Dayananda missed the bhakti aspect of Hinduism which is perhaps the most important element in sAdhana, athough his intention is noble and he has some valid points. He was like RamaNa maharshi minus the latter's inclination towards bhakti.

namaste saidevoji,

Shri Ramana rejected nothing and accepted nothing but God as true.


As for your query, you can cite me any Hindu sage who gives us solid quotes from the Bible and Quran

If i quote anything, i do it from those teachers only. But as said earlier i do not wish it now for the reason told to you.

Om namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
21 December 2009, 12:57 PM
namaste EM.

The situation in India under the rule of the pseudo-secular and anti-Hindu central and state governments, is very different. A Christian evangelist can distribute pamphlets abusing Hindu gods and make their Hindu children distribute it among the public; a Zakir Naik can fake a ShankarAchArya and make him sing praises about Islam; a Muslim painter can paint the Hindu gods in the nude; and the governments would take no action. If a Hindu sage talks strongly about the Christian aggressions or Islamic terrorism or a common Hindu distributes pamphlets that are antagonistic to the Abrahamic religions, the state would immediately resort to action, foist a case on him/her and harass the Hindu member. Where they can't do it, the ruling party would employ goons to terrorise the 'offending' Hindus.

The BJP, which was the only political hope of the Hindus, have failed miserably and deserted the Hindus both while they were in office and now out of it.

Although the total lack of Hindu unity and the utter inertia and selfishness the Hindus are complacent are the factors that have brought in such a situation, the State in India has never been proud of their Hindu ancestry and initiated steps to nourish it.

Thank you. I think I already understood this, but I also think eventually it will change, as per the conversion story posted here today. A ton more has to be done convince the uneducated the path of Sanatana dharma is all they will ever need. The politicians really need to take a harder look at where all their taxes are coming from.

Aum Namasivaya

Harjas Kaur
21 December 2009, 01:05 PM
"As for your query, you can cite me any Hindu sage who gives us solid quotes from the Bible and Quran?"

"If i quote anything, i do it from those teachers only. But as said earlier i do not wish it now for the reason told to you." Because he can't. All his wordiness is a cop out that he has failed to establish the 2 original principle statements.

1. That Koran is Sruti, as proved by famous Hindu sages and scriptures.
2. That Mohammed was "enlightened."

Both are ridiculously and obviously wrong and can never be proven true.

satay
21 December 2009, 01:16 PM
I asked which one is true? Vaisnavism or Saivism? God underlying both the paths is true. And thus Kanchi Pramacharya says:


Is Buddhism true?
Is Islam true?
Is Christianity true?

You are saying that they are. Are they? Is that what Hinduism teaches?

Hindus argue among each other for their sects and philosophical systems. You have done the same here on HDF. If all religions are true...what's the point and why bother?




"-----What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts."

and

"It is this spirit of catholicism that Englishmen exclaim: "Jevhovah, Jove or Lord!". Jehovah is the Semitic God of the region of Israel, the home of the Bible. Jove is another name of Jupiter. The word "Lord" applies to the God of any faith; it is common to all religions. Realised people in the West also speak that the one Being is the same, call him by any name you like."
---------------


Could you please provide a source (the name of the book, link if it exists)?

I am interested in knowing if after terming Koran as a revealed scripture, did kanchi parmacarya accept its authority. do you know if he did or not?

Because Koran is an exclusive scripture for the belivers of 'allah', once you accept it as a revelation, you can not at the same time hold the Vedas in your hands. You must by default burn the Vedas. This is why no authentic Hindu sage has accepted Koran as a revelation. Because by doing so they would accepting its authority. Once you accept the authority of Koran, you cannot at the same time be accpeting the authority of Vedas.



Satay, revelatation is not prerogative of a nation and your question shown below is meaningless.


I agree with this.



Please do not make the sayings of Hindu sages as propaganda.

Bye.


So I am making sayings of Hindu sages as propaganda?

satay
21 December 2009, 01:32 PM
namaste,


Christian Gnosticism and Islamic Sufism are not accepted by their established religious authorities, nor have much influence over the followers.

:cool1: Thanks for that. I thought I had been sleeping too long. I suppose atanu's point is that even though Christians themselves don't accept Gnosticism that Hindus should accept it as valid and true religion.

From what I deduced of this discussion:

Hinduism is just a hodge podge of every religion and everything is valid and true.
Hinduism has not or does not deserve its own identity. It has nothing distinct in it.
Advaita is no more true than Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion that claims to be true.
Shankara's interpertation of the shurti is of no more value than a mullah shouting his lungs out at the top of a masjid because after all Koran is a revealed and accepted scripture of the Hindus.Let's reject the Gita because that's just a smiriti text, and let's reject the puranas because definitely they are not the authority compared to the Vedas but let's accept the barbaric, maleccha scriptures as being apurshaya and revealed.

Wha re universalism...:banghead:

atanu
21 December 2009, 03:04 PM
namaste,

:cool1: Thanks for that. I thought I had been sleeping too long. I suppose atanu's point is that even though Christians themselves don't accept Gnosticism that Hindus should accept it as valid and true religion.

From I deduced of this discussion:
Hinduism is just a hodge podge of every religion and everything is valid and true. Hinduism has not or does not deserve its own identity. It has nothing distinct in it. Advaita is no more true than Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion that claims to be true. Shankara's interpertation of the shurti is of no more value than a mullah shouting his lungs out at the top of a masjid because after all Koran is a revealed and accepted scripture of the Hindus.

Let's reject the Gita because that's just a smiriti text, and let's reject the puranas because definitely they are not the authority compared to the Vedas but let's accept the barbaric, maleccha scriptures as being apurshaya and revealed.

Wha re universalism...:banghead:

namaste satay,

Don't do that. You will break your head. Nothing of what you claim above has been deduced by any of the citations (provided by me) which consistently say that the goal for all religions is God and only God - by whatever name.

That the main goal is passed over in favour of power and control is another issue. Without any reason or proof you are clinging to 'Barbaric and Mleccha' theme.

Dvaita guru, Shri Chaitnaya, Kanchi Paramachaya, Shirdi Sai, Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, Chinmayananda, Vivekananda, Sathya Sai, Shri Prabhupada have been cited but you have rejected all of them. They have all said that sincere progress along any path will lead to God (since that only is God's will). That would not be possible had the other scriptures been asat.

You are misinterpreting regarding Gita, though nothing has been said of Gita in this thread. Is it in your mind from some other thread? What has been said is that sharia or smriti/purana in isolation to the original revealed scripture is not meaningful. As Hindu we should accept that, else what are you arguing for? Hindus do accord infallible status only to shruti.

It has been shown that Frank Morale has not spoken correctly about the Vedic shruti: The Truth is One; sages give it different names. Frank Morales has named Chinmayananda as one who has busted Radical Universalism. But we have seen what Chinmayananda has spoken. Frank Morales has also included Maharishi Dayanand in his favorite's list. Now if we follow Maharshi Dayanand, all will be well but we have to denounce murti puja, vaisnavism and saivism. Will that suit us?

Who else? There are other names. You can find out what they say about whether God is universal or not? And if each sect is claiming that its way is the only way then where the fault lies?

Read all the citations calmly and decide whom you want to include as a representative of Hindu thought? Once you decide on one or two names we can discuss as to what universalism means from Veda point of view without reference to Mleccha ideas.

Not a single Guru has however said that anything taught by Buddha, Christ, or Mohammad falls outside of Veda, which is the eternal and full word of God. Yet God is not in the Veda but in living heart. So your frustation and beating your head on the wall is unwarranted.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 December 2009, 03:22 PM
namaste Atanu.
Christian Gnosticism and Islamic Sufism are not accepted by their established religious authorities, nor have much influence over the followers.

Namaste Saidevoji,

That is acceptance that there is gnosis in Bible and Koran which is being overlooked.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
21 December 2009, 03:28 PM
namaste atanu,


So your frustation and beating your head on the wall is unwarranted.

Om Namah Shivaya

Which authentic guru has termed Koran as a revealed scripture?

Does Hinduism teach that all religions are same?

Honestly, I still don't know the name of the authentic guru that has termed Koran as a revealed scripture.

Secondly, Hinduism does not teach that all religions are the same or even true or else adishankara would not have debated with the Buddhists.

yajvan
21 December 2009, 03:30 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

Namasté



Without any reason or proof you are clinging to your theme of 'Barbaric and Mleccha' theme.

I have nothing to offer but can see a few HDF members scratching their heads on this word mleccha.
mleccha म्लेच्छ - a foreigner , barbarian ; person of an outcast race; also considered or used to identify the ignorance of saṃskṛt.

praṇām

satay
21 December 2009, 03:34 PM
Read all the citations calmly


I have been doing that.



and decide whom you want to include as a representative of Hindu thought? Once you decide on one or two names we can discuss as to what universalism means from Veda point of view without reference to Mleccha ideas.

Om Namah Shivaya

Once you tell us the name of the authentic guru that has termed Koran as a revealed scripture we can discuss about that guru. Now, which guru termed Koran as a revealed scripture? aurobindo, vivekananda, sai baba, kanchi parmacrya, adishankara, ramunja, madva or even non hindus like osho? Which one?

atanu
21 December 2009, 03:52 PM
namaste atanu,
Which authentic guru has termed Koran as a revealed scripture?

Kanchi Paramacharya has said that as Veda is apaurusheya to us so are the revealed scriptures to Christians and Muslims. Vivekananda has agreed of the revealed nature of Koran -- though he has suggested mixing. Srila Prabhupada has said that Koran verses are revealed. All Gurus I have cited accept that the God and only God is the goal of all paths.


Does Hinduism teach that all religions are same?

Swami Vivekananda says that Shri Krishna's teachings encompass the whole teachings of Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad.



Secondly, Hinduism does not teach that all religions are the same or even true or else adishankara would have debated with the Buddhists.

No. When Buddha followers degraded and claimed that Buddha alone is the valid teacher, it had to be shown that Veda contained Buddha's teachings and more. Similarly Madhavacharya is said to have convinced a Sultan of His time that the idea of God and only God is Narayana. He said your Alah is my Narayana. The Sultan converted. Similar incident is reported with Shri Chaitanya. Two greatest devotees of Shri Chaitanya were Muslims. With Gurus such as Ramana, Aurobindo, Sathya Sai, and Shri Shri Ravishankar there are Muslims and Christians.

Today also we need to unite our Dvaita, Visistaadvaita, and Advaita and show that these three steps comprise all paths. And I believe that most of our modern sages are happily doing that and not beating their heads with frustration -- because Ishwara in whom all are included is the leader of all paths.

namo hiraNyabAhave senAnye dishA.n cha pataye namo namo
vR^ikshebhyo harikeshebhyaH pashUnAM pataye namo namaH
saspiJNcharAya tvishhImate pathInAM pataye namo namo

By believing faithfully that pathInAM pataye, Sanatana dharma is Sanatana.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
21 December 2009, 04:06 PM
Kanchi Paramacharya has said that as Veda is apaurusheya to us so are the revealed scriptures to Christians and Muslims.


Oh, I see what you mean now. kanchi Paramacharya has termed the Koran as a revealed scripture for the Muslims! Ahh. Cool. Muslims would agree that their scripture is a revealed scripture.

So there is no authentic hindu guru that has termed Koran as a revealed scripture, correct?



Vivekananda has agreed of the revealed nature of Koran -- though he has suggested mixing. Srila Prabhupada has said that Koran verses are revealed. All Gurus I have cited accept that the God and only God is the goal of all paths.


Did they term Koran as a revealed scripture? For whom? For muslims or for everyone including Hindus? By the way, I can't help but notice that you are seeking support from srila prabhupada to cling to your ideas. Prabhupada, the saint and scholar that you have insulted several times even here on HDF. (Just an observation).



Swami Vivekananda says that Shri Krishna's teachings encompass the whole teachings of Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad.


Okay.



No. When Buddha followers degraded and claimed that Buddha alone is the valid teacher, it had to be shown that Veda contained Buddha's teachings and more. Similarly Madhavacharya is said to have convinced a Sultan of His time that the idea of God and only God is Narayana. He said your Alah is my Narayana. The Sultan converted. Similar incident is reported with Shri Chaitanya.


Why would one do that if all religions are true? Why show that Veda contained Buddha's teachings? Since as per you, Hinduism teaches all religions are true, what does it matter if Veda contains Buddha's teachings or not. Since buddhists were claiming to be a religions, all that was required from the sages of Hinduism at that time as the acceptance that yes, buddhisism is a true religion since that's what Hinduism teaches. Correct?



Today also we need to unite our Dvaita, Visistaadvaita, and Advaita ...


Why? What's the need to unite? Since all religions are true so is dvaita, visistaadvaita and advaita on their own true. Isn't it?

If all religions are true, then there is no point in discussing, debating, showing anything to anyone like the buddhists or muslims or christians. If every religion is true, and hinduism or the vedas are equal to any other religion or ideology then what's the point in arguing for example that advaita is the correct interpretation of shruti and others like sirla prabhupada are incorrectly interpreting shruti and giving too much importance to puranas and Gita.

Hindus accept the existence of other religions and want to live peacefully with other religions. But the claims that all religions are true is a neo or contemporary idea mostly spread by vivekanada. Traditional hindu sages never claimed that all religions are true. This is why you are having hard time finding a quote from those sages. Their actions speak louder. Examination of the 'other' philosopical system with fierced debates and the defeating the other systems by the acaryas should lead one to believe that they never thought that the 'other' is true. They always thought the 'other' is incorrect understanding of the vedas. If you are arguing against a point then by default it has to be incorrect or false and cannot be true so that you can begin the argument. If everything is true, how would you even start a debate or even the examination of the other? If our traditional acaryas debated even within Vedanta to the supermacy of their system, how can one logically accept that Hindu sages claim that all religions are true.

The thesis of Hinduism is that only Sanatana Dharma is true as it is eternal. Saying that all religions are true doesn't hold logically and must be thus a propaganda. I don't mean the word propaganda in a negative tone.

isavasya
21 December 2009, 04:58 PM
,

The character of Prophet Muhammad has been misrepresented, not only by many prejudiced non-Muslim critics, but also by the violent, ambitious, and worldly-minded faithful Muslims as well. In his personal life, the prophet shines as a man of high character, integrity, and humanity.

But, after the Mongolian invasion of the thirteenth century A.D. and the complete destruction of Baghdad in 1258, when many millions were killed, whole areas were laid waste, and political rule in the centre of the Islamic world passed into the hands of barbarian infidels, leaving only Egypt and Spain to nourish Arab culture for another two centuries




Now after reading atanu ji's posts I feel that he constantly searches for materials of his liking without even giving a logical thought if it is correct or not and he unintentionally spams the forum down under.


Atanu ji mentions a time period after 13th century. Let us review what Muslims were doing before his time line.




Under the first four Caliphs, the direct descendants of the prophet Mohammed, Iran remained predominantly Zoroastrian. Zoroastrians were awarded the status of People of the Book or dhimmi status by the Caliph Omar, although some practices contrary to Islam were prohibited.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians#cite_note-bbc-10)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians#cite_note-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians#cite_note-new-15) Before this took place, however, thousands of Zoroastrian priests were executed, hundreds of temples destroyed, and religious texts burnt, and the use of the ancient Avestan as well as Persian languages was prohibited. Omar did not take the jizya from the "Magian infidels" (Zoroastrians) until he heard a testimony that Muhammad had taken the jizya from the Magians of Hajar.
When the Persian capital of Ctesiphon in province of Khvârvarân (today known as Iraq) fell to the Muslims during the Islamic conquest of Persia in 637 under the military command of Sa`ad ibn Abi Waqqas during the caliphate of Umar the palaces and their archives were burned.


When Muhammad Kasim invaded Sind in 711 AD, Buddhism had no resistance to offer to their fire and steel. The rosary could not be a match for the sword and the terms Love and Peace had no meaning to them. They carried fire and sword wherever they went and obliterated all that came their way. Muhammad triumphantly marched into the country, conquering Debal, Sehwan, Nerun, Brahmanadabad, Alor and Multan one after the other in quick succession, and in less than a year and a half, the far-flung Hindu kingdom was crushed, the great civilization fell back and Sind entered the darkest period of its history. There was a fearful outbreak of religious bigotry in several places and temples were wantonly desecrated. At Debal, the Nairun and Aror temples were demolished and converted into mosques.[Resistors] were put to death and women made captives. The Jizya was exacted with special care.[Hindus] were required to feed Muslim travellers for three days and three nights.

Mahmud of Ghazni sacked the second Somnath Temple in 1026, and looted it of gems and precious stones and the famous Shiva lingam of the temple was destroyed . Later the temple was demolished by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in 1706.


I can go on and on to actually prove that, Islam was even more barbaric before 13th century, than after it.

MORE purposive writings of the 14th century are the chronicles of Barani and Isami. Both were poets, one associated with the Delhi Sultanate and the other with the Bahmani kingdom of the Deccan. Both project Mahmud as the ideal Muslim hero, but somewhat differently. Barani states that his writing is intended to educate Muslim rulers in their duties towards Islam.20 For him, religion and kingship are twins and the ruler needs to know the religious ideals of kingship if he claims to be ruling on behalf of God. Sultans must protect Islam through the shar'ia and destroy both Muslim heretics and infidels. Mahmud is said to be the ideal ruler because he did both.


Did ever hindus or other dharmic faiths took such adharmic ways of propagating their religion ? No only Islam or other abrahmaic religion was spread this way, because they are systems and not dharms.
.



Since the destruction of Baghdad, there has been an increasing dominance by its rigid and intolerant Sariah or Smrti elements, and the consequent exploitation of Islam, as referred to earlier, by power-hungry worldly-minded individuals to cover their own greed and bloodthirstiness

Now this is what I call out of world hilarious writing, smriti elements, huh, ~100 % muslims believe complete authority of hadith, and here we have a non -muslim terming shruti n smriti on his own. Still your own link calls smriti intolerant, and I for one have put some few verses from kooran itself (they are only few and read horrible) ,almost every chapter of kooran constantly speaks ill of kafirs/idolators/ christians/jew , what about them ?


Namaste satay Ji,

You are 100% right, No authentic guru of hinduism has ever termed kooran as anything, and kooran is definitely not shruti, at least after reading it, no true veda dharmi will respect it, simply because it is not just against veda dharm, but against all dharm except Islam

Harjas Kaur
21 December 2009, 04:59 PM
atanu (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=24) #4 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36816&postcount=4)

Quote: "Could you please share the names of the 'authentic' Hindu gurus who have termed Koran as revealed scriptures? As far as I know, the 'authentic' hindu gurus have not made any comments on the abharamic scriptures as they didn't care about these scriptures since these are considered malecha scriptures."

Happily. But I request you to reciprocate by showing what is a Mleccha and what is Mleccha scripture from authentic scripture/guru.

Moreover, my following submission is limited to showing revelatory nature of Koran (and also Bible). I have equal distaste for conversions, violence, and fanaticism. http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4982Here Atanu says he will show the names of authentic Hindu Gurus who have termed the Koran and also Bible which comprises the mleccha Kateba, as revealed scriptures.


"...any of the citations (provided by me) which consistently say that the goal for all religions is God and only God - by whatever name."

"You can find out what they say about whether God is universal or not?" You are muddying up the water. No one said God is not universal or that the goal of every religion is not God. The question is:

WHICH Hindu sages have said the Koran is the revealed message of God? Because such a claim gives authority to the teachings of Koran which are exclusive and rejecting of every other religion. You are skirting all over the place and never answering the direct question with direct quotes.

From Kanchi Paramacharya
We must not distrust the belief that the Vedas are not the work of mere mortals. Followers of other religions too ascribe divine origin to their scriptures. Jesus says that he merely repeats the words of God and, according to Muslims, the prophet speaks the words of Allah. What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts.This block of text is not saying the Koran is sruti. It is saying that people of other religions have their belief that their scriptures are revealed by God. You are working incredible mischief to put words in mouth of Kanchi Paramacharya to say that for a Hindu the Koran is revealed scripture equal to the Vedas.

----"Each great man, like each great work, speaks about a particular system, a particular path. Which of these is to be followed? " such a question arises in the minds of people. Whatever system or path you follow, follow it with faith. Do not give it up midway. In the end it will lead you to the Paramatman. In the beginning the paths may seem different but all of them take you to the same goal. Absolutely this is true! Every religion has a right to exist and followers of their particular faiths should stick with them and be sincere. Ultimately the whole purpose of religion is to lead the person to God. No one is disputing. But these words are being hijacked if you are using them to construct a case that Koran is sruti and revealed truth and Hindu's must accept them as scripture valid and equal to the Vedas. This goes back to Bhagavan Krishna teaching that even those who worship ghosts are still worshipping Him, although wrongly.

All troubles in this world start only when attempts are made to wean away people from their native religion to convert them to a new faith, -----It is the duty of every person to follow the religion of his ancestors. If a non-Hindu finds that he had Hindu ancestors, its up to him to revert to Hinduism after performing the prescribed Praayaschitta(purificatory ceremony). Well now, if Kanchi Paramacharya really said what you're trying to fool us into thinking, then why would he say this at the end of the paragraph you quoted? If Islam and Hinduism are the same, what is he talking about? Why is conversion an issue at all?

BECAUSE CLEARLY HE IS NOT SAYING THE ERROR WHICH YOU ATTRIBUTE TO HIM!

Harjas Kaur
21 December 2009, 05:04 PM
The revealed scripture of the Mohammedans is the Koran. There is one Muslim sampradaya (school of thought) known as the Sufis. The Sufis accept impersonalism, believing in the oneness of the living entity with the Absolute Truth. Their supreme slogan is "analahak." The Sufis Sampradaya was certainly derived from Adi Sankaracarya’s Advaitist impersonalism.)

(Purport by Prabhupada: According to the Muslim scripture, without evadat, offering prayers at a mosque or elsewhere 5 times daily (namaja), one cannot be successful in life. Sri Caitanya pointed out that in the revealed scripture of the Mohammedans, love of Godhead is the ultimate goal. Karma yoga and Jnana yoga are certainly described in the Koran, but ultimately the Koran states that the ultimate goal is the offering of prayers to the Supreme Person (evadat).The context of these comments is taken from a story about the Lord Mahaprabhu Caitanya who encountered soldiers from the Pathan Army. In the context of that conversation, Mahaprabhu Caitanya says:

The heart of that saintly Muslim softened upon seeing Sri Caitanya. He wanted to talk to Him and establish impersonal Brahman on the basis of his own scripture, the Koran. When that person established the impersonal (Formless) Brahman conception of the Absolute Truth on the basis of the Koran, Sri Caitanya refuted his argument.

Whatever arguments he put forward, the Lord refuted them all. Finally the person became stunned and could not speak. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said,” The Koran has certainly established impersonalism, but at the end it refutes that impersonalism and establishes the personal God.”

The Koran accepts the fact that ultimately there is only One God. He is full of opulence, and His bodily complexion is Blackish.”
Why would Mahaprabhu Caitanya be refuting the Muslim if Islam was fully correct in all it's teachings and equal and the same with Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta? Moreover, Mahaprabhu Caitanya established to the Muslim that Allah was in actuality an aspect of Bhagavan Krishna. Rather than making any claim that the Koran is some kind of Sruti, all this context is saying is that the religion of the mleccha's has a validity. Something which the mleccha religions do not accord to Hindus. It is saying that God is God. But moreover it is saying that Mahaprabhu Caitanya's understanding of the God is the correct view, and that the God of the Muslims is really only Bhagavan Krishna, but they don't know that.

They don't know that because their scriptures have limitations and errors in them which sruti does not have. And that is because they are not sruti. TO THE PEOPLE OF THOSE RELIGIONS, these are valid paths to God. No one ever disputed. No Hindu's ever said Islam is a false religion and Muslims should convert. And comments to this story about Mahaprabhu Caitanya proving to the Muslim that Allah is really Krishna, Swami Prabhupada made his comments. In the spirit of tolerance, Swami Prabhupada praised the Sufi Sampradaya as being the most correct of the Muslim schools because:

"The Sufis Sampradaya was certainly derived from Adi Sankaracarya’s Advaitist impersonalism."

And this goes to the fact that the Sufi sampradaya is descended from those Hindu's historically who were forced to convert to Islam.Naturally the remnant of Hindu teachings will remain with them. So in fact Swami Prabhupada was NOT validating Muhammed as "enlightened" NOR was he claiming that Koran is sruti for Hindu's as you were claiming.
“The scholars of the Koran are not very advanced in knowledge. Although there are many methods prescribed, they do not know that the ultimate conclusion should be considered the most powerful.”
“Seeing your own Koran and deliberating over what is written there, what is your conclusion?” The Saintly Muslim replied,” All that You have said is true. This has certainly been written in the Koran, but our scholars can neither understand nor accept it.” “Usually they describe the Lord’s impersonal aspect, but they hardly know that the Lord’s personal feature is worshipable. They are undoubtedly lacking this knowledge.”

“Since You are that very same Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, please be merciful upon me. I am fallen and unfit.”

“I have studied the Koran very extensively, but from it I cannot conclusively decide what the ultimate goal of life is nor how I can approach it.”
“Now that I have seen You, my tongue is chanting the Hare Krsna Maha Mantra. The false prsetige I felt from being a learned scholar is now gone.” Saying this, the saintly Muslim fell at the lotus feet of Sri Caitanya mahaprahu and requested Him to speak of the ultimate goal of life and the process by which it could be obtained.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said,”Please get up. You have chanted the holy name of Krsna; therefore the sinful reactions you have accrued for many millions of lives are now gone. You are now pure.” Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu then told all the Mohammedans there,”Chant the holy name of Krsna! Chant the holy name of Krsna!” As they all began to chant, they were all overwhelmed by ecstatic love.

In this way Sri Caitanya indirectly initiated the saintly Mohammedan by advising him to chant the holy name of Krsna. The Mohammedan’s name was changed to Ramadasa. http://krishna.org/shri-chaitanya-and-the-koran/
So you have mischieviously hijacked a beautiful story about how Mahaprabhu Caitanya actually converted the Muslim and became his Guru. Something which would be entirely unnecessary if Islam were the absolute equal of Hindu religion and means of obtaining mukti. Nor is anywhere any claim that Mohammed was enlighted. Rather, it is very clear from the Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective that “The scholars of the Koran are not very advanced in knowledge."

So you are absolutely wrong.

satay
21 December 2009, 07:42 PM
namaskar,


Well now, if Kanchi Paramacharya really said what you're trying to fool us into thinking, then why would he say this at the end of the paragraph you quoted? If Islam and Hinduism are the same, what is he talking about? Why is conversion an issue at all?


I wondered about the same. But honestly, I cannot comment about paramacarya because I don't know about him (but will learn about) or about his teachings.

Why would a hindu guru term Koran as a revealed scripture and then be okay with having a praschita ceremony performed by the person who is being 'converted' over to Hinduism? If someone really believes that Koran is a revealed scripture wouldn't they oppose the praschita ceremony? The fact that Kanchi paramcarya silently accepts the praschita ceremony implies that he didn't believe that the 'other' religion was equal to hinduism.

satay
21 December 2009, 07:44 PM
You are muddying up the water. No one said God is not universal or that the goal of every religion is not God. The question is:

WHICH Hindu sages have said the Koran is the revealed message of God? Because such a claim gives authority to the teachings of Koran which are exclusive and rejecting of every other religion. You are skirting all over the place and never answering the direct question with direct quotes.

Thus the head banging on the wall...:)

satay
21 December 2009, 07:49 PM
namaskar,


no true veda dharmi will respect it, simply because it is not just against veda dharm, but against all dharm except Islam

That was my impression and understanding too but atanu seems to think otherwise. I would like to understand how and why he thinks that. The sages and scholars he is quoting to support his assertion that authentic hindu gurus have termed Koran as a revealed scripture don't seem to be saying such a thing. So I am trying to understand where the gap is in my understanding.

saidevo
21 December 2009, 09:36 PM
namaste Satay.



Could you please provide a source (the name of the book, link if it exists)?

I am interested in knowing if after terming Koran as a revealed scripture, did kanchi parmacarya accept its authority. do you know if he did or not?


The quotes from KAnchi ParamAchArya that has Atanu has selectively picked up are from the compilation of his speeches on Hindu Dharma at this link:
http://www.kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html

The compilation is also in a book form that can be downloaded here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5339801/Hindu-Dharma-Pujyasri-Chandrasekharendra-Saraswati-Swamiji-of-Kanchi

ParamAchArya's intention in his lectures is to teach Hindu Dharma to the ignorant, indifferent and complacent Hindus. Since he is a sage of Advaita, he stresses 'religious unity, NOT uniformity', but he would never recommend the Bible or the Quran to a Hindu for guidance. Atanu is trying to make a mountain out of a mole by selectively quoting ParamAchArya. The sage's words of advise are to be read in consonance with what he has said on religious conversion and about the greatness of Hindu Dharma. That once phrase 'religious unity, NOT uniformity' speaks volumes about ParamAchArya's views on Radical Universalism that the Neo-Hindus try to force upon us, but Atanu conveniently misses the point.

atanu
22 December 2009, 01:16 AM
namaste Satay.

The quotes from KAnchi ParamAchArya that has Atanu has selectively picked up are from the compilation of his speeches on Hindu Dharma at this link:
http://www.kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html

The compilation is also in a book form that can be downloaded here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5339801/Hindu-Dharma-Pujyasri-Chandrasekharendra-Saraswati-Swamiji-of-Kanchi



Namaste saidevoji,

The scribd link is not avalilable any more.

Do you say that the following are not taught by the Seer:



Devotion Common to all Faiths: Power that rules all worldly activities. Devotion or bhakti is a feature common to all religious schools- Advaita (non-dualism), Dvaita (dualism), Visistadvaita (qualified non-dualism), Saiva Siddhanta, Christianity, Islam and so on.
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap5.htm

The Unity of Religions
All religions have one common ideal, worship of the Lord, and all of them proclaim that there is but one God. This one God accepts your devotion irrespective of the manner of your worship, whether it is according to this or that religion. So there is no need to abandon the religion of your birth and embrace another.

The temple, the church, the mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatman who wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same.
------
One big difference between Hinduism and other faiths is that it does not proclaim that it alone shows the path to liberation. Our Vedic religion alone has not practiced conversion and the reason for it is that our forefathers were well aware that all religions are nothing but different paths to realise the one and only Paramatman.

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap6.htm (http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap6.htm)


All of should read the full book instead of reading material from Internet that are designed to inflame and take us way from the Sanatana Truth. No one (or me atleast) has said that leave aside Hindu scripture. OTOH, please read Hindu Gurus and have faith on them.

I must thank saidevoji.
----------------------

Why no Hindu Guru will teach otherwise is simple. Bible and Koran also contain the Word - akshara. Om is indivisible yet it can be seen as made of parts. Hindu gurus see the full and then parts. Most Royal adherents of Bible and Koran are not capable of that view -- because of rajas.

Om Namah Shivaya

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
22 December 2009, 01:47 AM
The highest teaching in all Upanishads, the crown of Vedas is that the Brahman-Prabhu is the Atman. It can be seen as one OM (akshara) or in three parts A-U-M.

The akshara abides as pure infinite Pragnya (pre-awareness), where all minds go to in deep sleep. This is dark to us but is said to be adityavarnam. It is bliss and it is the ruler of all.

From the Pragnya arises the variegated dream state made of light and shadow and from the dream state the state of many fleshy bodies and objects. But all this has emerged from the formless and nameless Pragnya. In truth the substratum of all variety -- subtle and fleshy is one indivisible Pragnya -- wherein we sleep.

I had thought that this understanding was unique to Sanatana Dharma alone. But I found the following:



Isaiah 60

1ARISE [from the depression and prostration in which circumstances have kept you--rise to a new life]! Shine (be radiant with the glory of the Lord), for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you!

2For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and dense darkness [all] peoples, but the Lord shall arise upon you [O Jerusalem], and His glory shall be seen on you.

3And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.

4Lift up your eyes round about you and see! They all gather themselves together, they come to you. Your sons shall come from afar, and your daughters shall be carried and nursed in the arms.

5Then you shall see and be radiant, and your heart shall thrill and tremble with joy [at the glorious deliverance] and be enlarged; because the abundant wealth of the [Dead] Sea shall be turned to you, unto you shall the nations come with their treasures.
----
19The sun shall no more be your light by day, nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you, but the Lord shall be to you an everlasting light, and your God your glory and your beauty.

20Your sun shall no more go down, nor shall your moon withdraw itself, for the Lord shall be your everlasting light, and the days of your mourning shall be ended.

Just beautiful - The Dead Sea that will make Sun go down no more. Please read the above again and again.

Again:



"The Nightly Visitant"

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

"86.1": I swear by the heaven and the comer by night;
"86.2": And what will make you know what the comer by night is?
"86.3": The star of piercing brightness;
"86.4":There is not a soul but over it is a keeper.
"86.5": So let man consider of what he is created:
"86.6": He is created of water pouring forth,
"86.7": Coming from between the back and the ribs.
"86.8": Most surely He is able to return him (to life).


Here we have not a soul but only its keeper of piercing brightness - the comer by night.

I know that many readers will reject the above two evidences as speaking of the truth of Shushupti and beyond - the immortality, since most Christian and Muslim commentators appeared to have not done so.

But that is not true. It is natural that only a few will be privy to the wisdom of the subtle. The following shows that at least some gnostics know 9perhaps there are many more).


The Dark Night of the Soul
St John of the Cross



On a dark night,
Kindled in love with yearnings--oh, happy chance!--
I went forth without being observed,
My house being now at rest.
In darkness and secure,
By the secret ladder, disguised--oh, happy chance!--
In darkness and in concealment,
My house being now at rest.
In the happy night,
In secret, when none saw me,
Nor I beheld aught,
Without light or guide, save that which burned in my
heart.
This light guided me
More surely than the light of noonday
To the place where he (well I knew who!) was awaiting me--
A place where none appeared.
Oh, night that guided me,
Oh, night more lovely than the dawn,
Oh, night that joined Beloved with lover,
Lover transformed in the Beloved!
Upon my flowery breast,
Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping, and I caressed him,
And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.
The breeze blew from the turret
As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand he wounded my neck
And caused all my senses to be suspended.
I remained, lost in oblivion;
My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.
----------------


Lover transformed in the Beloved!
Such is the beauty and secret of the sleep.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


What is common knowledge for a meditative Sadhu who have seen the bliss of deep sleep as aditya varnam bliss is not very common there. But it cannot be said that the Truth went holidaying from inside the Word.


Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
22 December 2009, 01:59 AM
namaste Atanu.

Yes, the scribd link has been deleted. However, scrbd has the convenience of other copies of the same document stored by other users, so we have today the following links for the book:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8591806/Hindu-Dharma-Kanchi
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21581029/Hindu-Dharma-The-Universal-Way-of-Life

Members may please hurry and download the book today, as the links may not be there tomorrow!

Ekanta
22 December 2009, 02:40 AM
Supreme surrender (Ahamkara converted into Aham, and Aham as the universal self)
I here just makes a few references. I dont see the need to make much comments, I think it speaks for itself.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
"This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself only as 'I am Brahman' [Aham Brahma Asmi]. Therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment also became That Brahman. It is the same with the seers (rishis), the same with men. The seer Vamadeva, having realized this self as That, came to know: 'I was Manu and the sun.'" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1,4,10)

Bible
"No one comes to the Father except through me"... this is the famous (or infamous?) quote by Jesus often used by christians to show christianity as the only path... but what is the real meaning?

"6Jesus answered, "I am [Ego Eimi] the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me [Aham]. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (John 14:6-7)

["Ahyah asher Ahyah" “I am who I am”... I am = Ego Eimi (greek) = Ahyah (hebrew)... Jesus here makes a direct reference to the name revealed in the old testament to Moses].
Who is this "I"?
”The Lord abides in the heart of all beings, O Arjuna…” (Bhagavad Gita 18.61)

Comments by Sathya Sai Baba:
"To experience real Prema (love) there is no need to practice any kind of meditation, worship or rituals. That is because in the practice of all these them is an element of selfishness. Prema can only be obtained by complete absorption in spirituality. It was for this reason that Sri Krishna declared in the Gita: "Sarva Dharmam Parithyajya" (Abandoning all duties... take refuge in Me alone). Likewise, Jesus also declared: "I am the Path." Buddha, conveying the same meaning, declared, "Sarvam Sharanam Gachchaami" (I am surrendering everything). This means that the essence of all religions, the root of all scriptures, the goal of all virtues, is Sarva athmika Bhaavam (experience of spiritual unity). The Gopikas exemplified such a spirit of surrender and oneness." (sss25-25) [Sathya Sai Speaks 25-25]

Harjas Kaur
22 December 2009, 04:59 AM
I here just makes a few references. I dont see the need to make much comments, I think it speaks for itself. Indeed it does! No matter which way you slice it, the Abrahamic ideologies and their scriptures are based on REJECTION of other religions. You may take verses outside of any context and make them say whatever you like. You can illogically oppose two thousand years of Christian scholarship. But it wouldn't be in keeping with official Christian teaching and you know it.

The purpose of this post is to show a few verses in isolation taken from Kateb/Abrahamic scriptures and by this prove they are parallel with Hindu scriptural teachings. But this can only fail as the Kateb is based on the Abrahamic injunction to renounce false gods and false religions of the world and worship only the Judeo-Christian God in the Judeo-Christian context. That means foremost, REJECTING everything else as demonic.

No one has said these religions have NO spirituality or wisdom or are false the way they speak of OUR Hindu religions. We have said Abrahamic faiths are paths of light leading to the worship of the Divine, but that they are problematic because people of lesser spiritual understanding wrote them. They were not sages and they were not "enlightened." They could not have grasped Sruti saying what they are saying in opposition to Sruti Truths. So whatever truths were grasped by them clearly contain a lot of error, most egregiously in that they oppose the Sruti.

Bible
"No one comes to the Father except through me"... this is the famous (or infamous?) quote by Jesus often used by christians to show christianity as the only path... but what is the real meaning?

"6Jesus answered, "I am [Ego Eimi] the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me [Aham]. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (John 14:6-7)

["Ahyah asher Ahyah" “I am who I am”... I am = Ego Eimi (greek) = Ahyah (hebrew)... Jesus here makes a direct reference to the name revealed in the old testament to Moses].
Who is this "I"?
”The Lord abides in the heart of all beings, O Arjuna…” (Bhagavad Gita 18.61) Did Bhagavan Krishna say in Bhagavad-Gita that Arjuna should separate himself from all the unclean people who are of the devil and worship idols? If He did not, then what kind of comparison are you making? It becomes an absurdity. "Well, Krishna Bhagavan says the God is in the heart and Jesus scriptures say this too, so this is teaching the same thing."

ENTIRE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE DEFINES WHAT JESUS/CHRISTIAN GOD TAUGHT AND IN HUNDREDS OF PLACES IT CLEARLY OPPOSES ANY OTHER RELIGION!

14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial (Devil)? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."
18"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."
~Christian Bible 2Corinthians Chapter 6According to Kateb, unbelievers (those who do not believe in Christ as their Lord and Savior and repudiate all former beliefs) are unclean, darkness, of the devil and oppose god by practice of "idol worship."

Can you explain that away or show any context whatsoever in which Krishna Govinda Bhagavan ever said or taught ANYTHING like this which could be falsely construed as RADICAL SAMENESS with a doctrine of radical rejection?

It speaks for itself. How annoying this conversation is. What in the world is your purpose? What are you trying to prove? WHY would you WANT the Sruti and wisdom of Hindu scriptures to be dragged into the mud of such low spiritual understanding? You want that Hindu's should become a kind of Christian and Muslim intolerant people rejecting everybody else?

Ekanta
22 December 2009, 05:30 AM
The scriptures talk at different levels at the same time. That's the beauty with them. There is something for all levels there. What is mud to one is Divine to another. What is madness to one is beauty to another. The good thing is this: We don’t have to accept other religions. We can stick with our own. We don’t have to accept advaita or even Visishta Advaita, we can stick with Dvaita as long as we see it fit.
I don’t post do disturb any religion. I remember many years ago when I was a practicing zen-buddhist. I got the Bhagavad-Gita free from ISKON. Nice I thought... While reading it I became quite confused and it affected my practice in a bad way. I had to throw it away. Many years later I read the Gita again and it was in another light. It didn’t conflict with me anymore, it was very beautiful instead.
If Christianity seems bad... don’t bother with it, the same with other religions. However, the purpose of this thread was… exactly that, so naturally there will be conflicts. :)

Harjas Kaur
22 December 2009, 06:38 AM
If Christianity seems bad... don’t bother with it, the same with other religions.But they are bothering with us, that's the point. And the justification for why they are bothering with us is that they don't read their scriptures the same way you, as a non-Christian and non-Muslim read their scriptures. They read them as a totality, not rejecting the parts they don't like. They can't reject "God's Divinely inspired and revealed word." So they accept all those parts which oppose us. Hundreds of thousands of Christian missionaries and billions of dollars are infiltrating India right now. In their Churches they are smashing murthis and trampling temples and breaking apart families. They are gaining millions of converts with inducements of money. Millions dedicated to trampling our religion.

By what idiocy would anybody start arguing about how wonderful and true this religion is for Hindu's to accept equally as Sruti, these same scriptures with this same destructive message?

Look do you realize how many bombing attacks there have been in India committed by Islamic jihadis? Do you realize how well funded they are and how they are trampling over Punjab to weaken the Indian side of the Pakistani border? And why should WE make such efforts to find commonality and accept validity of scriptures which reject our own and lead to cultural genocide?

The scriptures talk at different levels at the same time. That's the beauty with them. There is something for all levels there. What is mud to one is Divine to another. What is madness to one is beauty to another.Yes, there is something for jihadi's too. This is beautiful?

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/moshe.jpg
Moshe Holtzberg Shown at the funeral of his parents who were murdered in the Mumbai attack 2008.
"However, the purpose of this thread was… exactly that, so naturally there will be conflicts." :)

The moment we stop having conflicts with something dedicated to destroying us is the day we convert to their teachings as Divine TRUTHS and all those passages which bitterly repudiate and give justifications for violence against us.

saidevo
22 December 2009, 09:37 AM
namaste Ekanta and other members.

The bRuhadAranyaka upaniShad mantra that Ekanta has quoted says, very cleary, 'aham brahma asmi'--'I Self am'. This mantra is considered a mahAvAkya--great wisdom saying, used in meditation to realise the Self in us.

Applying the three aspects of the Self that Ekanta has mentioned to this verse, we find that

• aham = I,
• brahma = Self and
• ahamkAra = am (i.e.ego).

• When the asmi--am, ego is let gone, we shall have

• 'aham brahma', i.e., the aham--I in us, equals brahma--Self. Note that this realization 'I (equals) Self' is not the same as 'I am Self' because 'I am Self' is only a feeling, so the realization is at the mental level. When the 'am' goes, the realization moves to the buddhic--wisdom/intellectual, level and the realization becomes more inherent and stable with intermittent direct experiences of the Reality.

• Ultimately, the 'aham' goes away too and only the brahma--Self, remains. This would surely happen for every aham--I, that has dropped the asmi--am/ego, but only eventually, because although the aham has dropped the asmi, the karmic balance of its earlier and current incarnations still remain to be experienced. When this karmic balance becomes nil, the aham--I, is released from its existential separation and merges with brahma--Self.

**********

Now, tell me honestly Ekanta, whether the Bible-NT verse you have quoted, speaks of these levels and depths of realization towards the Self in such an explicit and sanAtana--universal way, that the bottom of the pond is easily seen through the crystal clear waters that have come to fill it up?

I have attempted the same logic to the Bible verse and arrived at the following interpretation. Corrections are welcome.

So now brahma(n)--Self, is the Father, aham--I, is Jesus and asmi--ahamkAra--ego, are the Apostles. (The Holy Ghost is as yet not in the picture). Let us try this concept on the Bible verse:

014:006
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus says, aham--I, is the way, the truth and the life; the 'him' in the verse thus indicates the ego--asmi--ahamkAra.
No man--i.e., no ego, reaches the Self, except by the aham--I.

What about 'the way, the truth, and the life' part of the verse? To a Hindu, 'the way' means sAdhAna--spiritual practice, 'the truth' means sat--Reality, and 'the life' means samsAra--worldly life.

To a Christian, however, they mean totally and radically different things.

Taken in isolation, this Bible verse looks brilliant, almost matching the UpaniShad mahAvAkya 'aham brahma asmi'. No wonder, with a little slant, the Hindu is able to understand and appreciate the nuances of fresh light that dazzles through the Hindu-interpreted meanings of the verse.

But what about the Christian common and the clergy who believe only in the following orthodox Christian commentary of the verse? Will they ever be prepared to concede the position of monopoly the verse wields for them?

The orthodox Christian position on the verse:
This statement is true or Christianity is false!

Here is the orthdox Christian commentary of the verse from Dr.Bob Utley, Professor of Hermeneutics (Retired), who has offered his commentary free in many languages of the world (Hindi and Punjabi included). He is offering a whole lot of Christian ministry 'services' in his Website at http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/ (I chanced across this Website as I searched for a commentary of the verse).

14:6 "I am the way" In the OT, biblical faith was spoken of as a lifestyle path (cf. Deut. 5:32-33; 31:29; Ps. 27:11; Isa. 35:8). The title of the early church was 'the Way'(cf. Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 24:14,22). Jesus was emphasizing that He was and is the only way to God. This is the theological essence of John’s Gospel! Lifestyle good works are an evidence of personal faith (cf. Eph.2:8-9,10), not a means of righteousness.

• "the truth" The term "truth" in Greek philosophy had the connotation of "truth" versus "falsehood" or "reality" versus "illusion." However, these are Aramaic-speaking disciples who would have understood Jesus to be speaking in the OT sense of truth which was "faithfulness" or "loyalty" (cf. Ps. 26:3; 86:11; 119:30). Both "truth" and "life" characterize "the way." The term "truth" is often used to describe divine activity in John (cf. 1:14; 4:23-24; 8:32; 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 17:17,19). See Special Topic on Truth at 6:55 and 17:3.

• "the life" In the OT, a believer's lifestyle faith is spoken of as a path unto the life (cf. Ps. 16:11; Pro. 6:23; 10:17). All three of these terms are related to lifestyle faith which is found only in personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

• "no one comes to the Father but through Me"; What a shocking claim! It is very restrictive but also very obvious that Jesus believed that only through a personal relationship with Himself can one know God. This has often been called the exclusivistic scandal of Christianity. There is no middle ground here. This statement is true or Christianity is false! In several ways this is similar to John 10.

**********

If we study the meaning of the verse in context, in the surrounding verses Jesus says that in his Father's house there are many mansions and he would go "to prepare a place for you."--John 14:2--this is obviously Dvaita, the standard Christian concept.

In John 14:16 Jesus says: "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;"

This 'another Comforter' is interpreted as 'another Helper', 'another Advocate', 'another Paraclete'; and 'another' is from the Greek allos that means "another of the same kind". The Holy Spirit has been called "the other Jesus" (G.Campbell Morgan)--from the aforesaid commentary by Bob Utley.

• If in Hindu terms, Jesus, the I is 'aham', what is this Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost comes in to take charge after Jesus, the I speaks about leaving the world soon: "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more;" (14:19). How can the aham--I, ever leave the man before the asmi--ego leaves him?

And in 14:26 Jesus says, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Who is this proxy for the I and how does it take chare of the man after he is already born and living?

**********

Compare these surrounding verses with those of the bRuhadAranyaka upaniShad in Chapater 4, where the 'aham brahma asmi' mahAvAkya is stated and decide for yourself if the two cryptic statements of the UpaniShad and the Bible are identical, eye for eye, ear for ear.

Am I contradicting or disbelieving Bhagavan Sathya Sai Baba (whose devotee I am) about his speech given by Ekanta, where Baba says "Jesus also declared: 'I am the Path.'"? No, but I understand the context in which Baba spoke those words: Baba usually makes his speeches in a large hall of his ashram thronged by his devotees from all religions, Christians usually being in large numbers, among his non-Hindu devotees. As the embodiment of Love, Baba only hints at the way a Christian should interpret the verse and learn to get to the essence of all religions and live in amity. As such, Baba has only hinted at the similarity the followers of each religion should look for, not the identity.

Thus, it is possible to give a Hindu version of many verses in the Bible considered in isolation and attribute to them the lofty and divine expressions of the UpaniShad. But considered in context, the loftiness quickly evaporates in the heat of monopolistic theology, which is the backbone of the Abrahamic religions.

satay
22 December 2009, 09:42 AM
namaste all,

I see that the thread is now quickly going in circles and has lost its original purpose.



The highest teaching in all Upanishads, the crown of Vedas is that the Brahman-Prabhu is the Atman. It can be seen as one OM (akshara) or in three parts A-U-M.


No one on this thread is disagreeing with this. At least for me, it is clear.

However, the original purpose of the thread was to find out:
a) which authentic hindu guru has termed Koran as a revealed scripture
and,
b) if Hinduism teaches universalism; universalism as defined as 'the ideology that all religions are equal'

What I found is that for

a) there is no evidence that any aunthentic hindu guru has termed Koran as a revealed scripture. In fact, we are having a tough time finding a straight forward quote from a hindu guru that would actually term koran as a revealed scripture even for the muslims. Even for that, we have to take comments of sages out of context and twist the meaning.

b) hinduism does not teach that all religions are equal. This is evident by the fact that our traditional sages argued for the truth and thus the supermacy of their school against the 'other'. Saying that hinduism teaches all religions are equal is a great insult to our sages.

Hindu sages seem to have agreed that christians and muslims are correctly following their ideologies. i.e. because of their rajas. Their scriptures are revealed scriptures to them just as 'the well' is the whole world to a frog. However, the well is not equal to the world. If all religions are same, then the sages (with the exception of one) quoted here would have joined the 'other' but the fact that they didn't shows that at least in their minds, the 'other' was not equal to Hinduism the eternal dharma in which they were born in.

If anything more about the a) and b) has to be said, please share it, otherwise, there is no point in posting large texts on this thread. Well, on a second thought, of course, you guys are welcomed to continue and keep going in circles as your time permits...

Thanks,

satay
22 December 2009, 09:51 AM
namaskar Ekanta,


However, the purpose of this thread was… exactly that, so naturally there will be conflicts. :)
The purpose of the thread (once again) has been outlined in my last post.

Thanks.

Ekanta
22 December 2009, 11:32 AM
I hope I dont screw up the purpose of the thread by this but I would like to reply to saidevo...

I interpret is as:
• aham = I = Brahman = Saksi
• ahamkAra = Aham + something, i.e. identity with the body, mind. (aham becomes the jiva by this ID)
• asmi = am (it will be hard to fix this at this point, instead look below)

"This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself only as 'I am Brahman' [Aham Brahma Asmi]. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1,4,10)
Where's the ego in this?

As you mentioned Sathya Sai Baba, I will give a few quotes below from him, and some form Ramana Maharshi, just to show how Aham is “the” name.

Sathya Sai Baba on Aham & Aham Brahmaasmi
"The second pronouncement is "Aham Brahmaasmi." People think that Aham is "I." No. It has another meaning also. It is witness. He is witness to everything. He is the Aatma. Aham is the very form of Aatma. The Awareness or Consciousness which is present everywhere is installed as Aatma in man. Aatma, Consciousness and Brahma are not different. What is this? (Bhagavan showed-the handkerchief in his hand). This is cloth. If you remove the idea of cloth, you see thread and if your remove the idea of thread, you see cotton. The cloth, thread and cotton are one and the same. Similarly the same principle takes upon the names of Aatma, Brahman or Aham at different times and situations. Therefore, the statement of "Aham Brahmaasmi" means that the witness Aatma or "I" in me is Brahman Himself." (sss25-22)
http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume25/sss25-22.pdf

"The "I" principle is present everywhere. It begins with the Divine itself. The first word was "Aham" ("I"). Even the Pranava ("Om") came after "Aham". Before all creation "Aham" alone existed. That "Aham" became the many. One who realises the oneness of what he regards as his "I" with the cosmic "Aham" alone knows his Reality. The universal "I" appears under different names and forms in different bodies owing to time and circumstance. Even the same person goes through many changes in form and relationships in life. But the "I" remains unchanged. It is like an actor wearing different disguises, but himself remaining one and the same. The realisation of the unchanging and universal character of the "I" (the Atma) is the essential objective of the spiritual quest." (sss20-06)
http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume20/sss20-06.pdf

Ramana Maharshi, from “Be as you are” on Aham & Aham Brahmaasm
Q: Shall I meditate on `I am Brahman' (aham Brahmasmi]?
A: The text is not meant for thinking `I am Brahman'. Aham [`I'] is known to every one. Brahman abides as aham in every one. Find out the `I'. The `I' is already Brahman. You need not think so. Simply find out the `I'.

Q: Is God the same as Self ?
A: The Self is known to everyone, but not clearly. You always exist. The be-ing is the Self. `I am' is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement `I am that I am' in Exodus 3. There are other statements, such as Brahmaivaham , aham Brahmasmi [I am Brahman] and soham [I am he]. But none is so direct as the name Jehovah which means `I am'. The absolute being is what is. It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact God is none other than the Self.

Q: God seems to be known by many different names. Are any of them justified ?
A: Among the many thousands of names of God, no name suits God, who abides in the Heart, devoid of thought, so truly, aptly, and beautifully as the name `I' or `I am'. Of all the known names of God, the name of God `I' - `I' alone will resound triumphantly when the ego is destroyed, rising as the silent supreme word [mouna-para-vak] in the Heart-space of those whose attention is Selfward-facmg. Even if one unceasingly meditates upon that name `I-I' with one's attention on the feeling 'I', it will take one and plunge one into the source from which thought rises, destroying the ego, the embryo, which is joined to the body.
http://www.beasyouare.info/index2.html

The rest… depends on this interpreted correct.
But still: If Jesus is Aham (which we all are), he cannot be the father… Is it not Brahman who acts as Ishvara? Is not merging jiva with Ishvara the same as Moksha?

Often people think bad about “I”, it’s because we identify it with Ahamkara. Think about it: For what reason is there love in the world? Its love of oneself (aham/atma)

[B]brihadaranyaka-upanishad, part 2, Chapter 4
5) Then Yajnavalkya said: "Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true nature, is one with the Supreme Self. "
… and then it goes on and on with variations on this…

devotee
22 December 2009, 08:19 PM
Namaste everyone,

Very few threads have generated so much heat & been able to survive so long ! That shows that we are getting better in putting across our viewpoints without making it bitter & unbearable !

The last post by Saidevoji is remarkable. I don't know how many of us noticed that ... so will reproduce it herein below :


Baba only hints at the way a Christian should interpret the verse and learn to get to the essence of all religions and live in amity. As such, Baba has only hinted at the similarity the followers of each religion should look for, not the identity.

Is it not a wonderful observation ? I think it is. How beautiful & lovely place this world would have been if the verses would have been interpreted in that manner ? It certainly would have been a better place to live in. I think that noble intention reflects in sayings of Sathya Sai Baba, Ramana Maharishi & Maharishi Yogananda when they talk about the Bible. And not to forget our good & knowledgeable friends ... Ekanta & Atanu ... they do have this noble intention behind their way of interpretation of the Abrahimic scriptures.

OM

saidevo
22 December 2009, 09:02 PM
namaste Devotee.

Although the celebrations in PrashAnti Nilayam, the ashram of BhagavAn Sathya SAi BAbA, are predominantly Hindu, devotees of major world religions celebrate their important festivals in the ashram. Thus Christmas is a grand occasion for celebration there, with BAbA's devotees from all religions participating.

In all his speeches, BAbA compares the universal truths found in other religious scriptures with those of Hinduism, thus effectively advising his devotees of Abrahamic religions two things:

1) since their own religion has all the universal truths they need, they should stick to them, instead of leaving it for better spiritual pastures; and

2) since Hinduism, the SanAtana Dharma, like Brahman, is the substratum of all religions (just as Sanskrit is the mother of all languages), there should be no attempt to wean away gullible Hindus to their religions.

Bhajans on BAbA describe him as sarva deva svarUpam--embodiment of all gods, and most devotees worship him in the form of their own iShTa devata--preferred deity.

Thus IMO, the backbone of BAbA's teaching is that everyone should strive to understand his/her own religion better, learn to look for similarities in other religions and appreciate the varieties in unity, without trying to impose uniformity.

Harjas Kaur
22 December 2009, 09:06 PM
It doesn't matter how noble is their intention or interpretation. By promoting blind unity with these scriptures they play into the hands of fanatics and murderers who misuse these scriptures to justify cultural genocide and jihad against our communities. It is impossible to reconcile any blind acceptance or afford Divine legitimacy to misguided verses which literally justify murder of Hindus! Our great sages were at every turn, speaking in this way to PACIFY the FANATICISM rampant among adherents to these Abrahamic faiths who interpret these scriptures in such destructive ways.

The message of peaceful coexistence and unity was FOR THEM! Not for Hindus. Hindus are already peacefully coexisting with everyone. We do no need to DECLARE some MORAL LEGITIMACY or DIVINE REVELATION of ISLAM.

Islamic message is same as it has ever been. Our sages have not changed this message, though they may have swayed a few radical's hearts. We people in general should not misconstrue these wise words of our sages and create abject self-hatred in our own communities to TOLERATE the INTOLERABLE.

We are not persecuting MUSLIMS and CHRISTIANS. IT IS QUITE THE OTHER WAY AROUND! WHEN THEY DECLARE THAT HINDU'S HAVE A VALID PATH TO GOD AND A RIGHT TO COEXIST IN PEACE IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES AND REMAIN UNHARMED AND UNBOTHERED THEN IT MAY BE WORTH PURSUING HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY EFFORTS.

BUT YOU DON'T APPEASE A JINNAH WHILE HE IS DECLARING JIHAD! ALL IT WILL GET YOU IS CIVIL WAR AND SLAUGHTER.

What peace will come from words like these when all you do is parrot the deceitful lies of missionaries like Dr. Naik who presents similarities between Hinduism and Islam for the sole purpose of converting Hindu's against Hindu religions, having them smash murthis and destroy former way of life? What peace is this? What enlightenment is this? What Divine revelation is this? None of you are speaking noble words. Not one of you is giving any protection to our communities or being a voice of rationalism to defend the HUMAN RIGHTS to FREEDOM OF RELIGION and FREEDOM TO BE DIFFERENT.

All you are doing is saying the persecutory scriptures are Divine word of God, which is exactly what the radical missionaries and fundamentalists are saying, and if we accept that, then we must logically accept our genocide.

Eastern Mind
22 December 2009, 10:21 PM
Namaste all:

If you want to be confused, be a universalist. Join a universalist group by all means. Make the declaration: All same , all same. If you are confused now, and want to be for a long time yet, raise your hand. Hallelujah! Say, I have no idea about life so I'm going to be a member of all religions, because they all are the same.

Let me ask you some questions then.

Do you need to follow Christ to go to heaven? Yes , or no?
What happens when you die? Do you go to heaven or do you reincarnate?
Is Allah the only true God, and Vishnu, Siva false? Or not?
Which do you prefer, Hindu bhajans, or Christmas carols? Maybe its Islamic chanting, of beating of drums only?
What is a woman's role in society?
Shall I prostrate, or bow, or kneel?
Why mention gays when they don't exist. But they do. They need love too. Lets eat meat. Lets not eat meat.

Little wonder children born into universalist sects drop out. By the time they reach the age of reason they are saying, "Mom and Dad don't know what they believe. Its just not worth it."

Take fresh milk. Take the best mango juice. Add some beer. Throw in coffee, and the best tea you can find. Add some yoghurt, and saki. Throw in tomato juice. Mix it all around. Give it a really good stir. Look what happened. Its now this total piece of garbage that no person in their right mind would want to drink.

Aum Namasivaya

Ekanta
22 December 2009, 10:22 PM
Nice post saidevo. Baba doesnt like the "christian missionaries" either.

At present there is a growing tendency among propagators of the Christian faith to cast aspersions on other religions. Money is being spent lavishly to spread Christianity. None of you should have any part in such activities. This type of propaganda does great harm to the personality of Jesus. (sss18-30)

saidevo
22 December 2009, 11:02 PM
namaste Ekanta, Atanu and other members.

I accept the teachings of BAbA and RamaNa Maharshi about the 'aham' with reverence. Let us also note that RamaNa spoke about that Bible quote 'I am that I am' and the name Jehovah to a Christian, C.R.Wright. (talk no.106).

• RamaNa did NOT say it to a Hindu devotee giving any message such as, "The name Jehovah is better than the name Brahman and the Bible statement is better than any mahAvAkya found in the UpaniShad, so don't resist any conversion attempts."

• RamaNa did NOT say in those words of his that Hinduism teaches universalism. He only spoke about the essential similarities across religions.

Why don't we reaslize that by quoting our Hindu sages random and sundry, without any reference to the context or object of such quotes, we only spoil the name of our great modern sages such as RamaNa, KAnchi ParamAchArya, SAi BAbA and others? I consider it a sin to take the words of sages out of context, try to give them a twist and make them sound as we want.

Why should we do this? What is the purpose? If at all there is any purpose, it must be to teach the aggressive followers of Abrahamic religions, but are we capable of doing it? Even if we do, will they listen to it? When our own modern sages find it difficult to hammer home the essential truths to the followers of Abrahamic religions and thereby stem the rot of conversion and aggression, what can we achieve by way of making the people of Abrahamic religions learn?

If our purpose in giving such quotes is to prove that Hinduism teaches all religions are the same, then the quotes should come from our traditional scriptures--not from the sayings of modern sages, taking them out of context or extrapolating their purpose.

I don't object to such Hindu interpretations of western scriptures: I only insist that we also give the context and actual purpose of the Hindu sage whose quote we use.

Whatever our spiritual affiliation--advaita, dvaita or vishiShtadvaita, and whatever our way to Self-Realization--karma, bhakti or jnAya yoga, we needs must recognize the adharmic aggression of Abrahamic religions, and at least sympathize--if we can't empathize, with our brothers and sisters who are in the sacred task of dharma rakShaNa--safeguarding one's dharma, in every little way they can.

We should realize that our unnecessary efforts of extrapolation of the scriptural texts of Abrahamic religions could have adverse effects

• when a crafty missionary senses them and finds a way to use them for their adharmic acts;

• when our own young Hindus who have enough of western influence to misguide them in life, happen to read them and be misguided further, losing their last straw of holding on to Hinduism for their life and liberation.

The Ultimate Liberation cannot be achived within the framework of orthodox Christianity or Islam, because the very meaning of liberation--and even the concept of God--is radically different in their religions.

saidevo
22 December 2009, 11:14 PM
namaste EM.

Beautiful! A refreshing current of breeze that drives home the truth, state and status with such coolness and clarity to the posters of this thread caught in the sultriness of their arguments and counter arguments. May God Shiva give you the best in life.

Harjas Kaur
22 December 2009, 11:16 PM
"This type of propaganda does great harm to the personality of Jesus."

1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+13&version=NIV#fen-NIV-5288a)] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 ~Deuteronomy Chap. 13You are derailing again. The topic isn't the personal opinions of "Baba," which are shown here devoid of context, but the topic is whether or not Hindu sages have agreed there is Divine revelation in those Abrahamic scriptures. According to the words of the Christian Bible, Abrahamics are commanded by God to destroy people of other faiths. This is NO Divine revelation but an asuric error. It has not to do with misinterpretation but with the very fact of the error within these scriptures.

Why are you defending this clear evil as Divine light and skirting all over the place to obscure it? Because it isn't Divine light and no intellectual gyrations will ever make it so. Is it Divine light for someone? Yes. But not for Hindus who have much brighter light in Sruti and commentaries on Sruti. Which are thankfully NOT the same or we would already be Muslims and Christians and Sanatana Dharma would be extinguished as a light in the world. What does great harm to the personality of these scriptures is not HINDU prejudice, but the very words and teachings themselves. Why should we accept these clearly destructive and erroneous teachings or promote them as Divine revelation for anybody else? What have Mleccha ideologies and religions to do with us? Why should we have to explain and accommodate them? That was for particular Guru's to do, for very practical purposes of maintaining communal harmony. It is not meant for extinguishing the Divine Light of Sanatana Dharma.

saidevo
23 December 2009, 01:42 AM
namaste EM.



Do you need to follow Christ to go to heaven? Yes , or no?
What happens when you die? Do you go to heaven or do you reincarnate?
Is Allah the only true God, and Vishnu, Siva false? Or not?
Which do you prefer, Hindu bhajans, or Christmas carols? Maybe its Islamic chanting, of beating of drums only?
What is a woman's role in society?
Shall I prostrate, or bow, or kneel?
Why mention gays when they don't exist. But they do. They need love too. Lets eat meat. Lets not eat meat.

Little wonder children born into universalist sects drop out. By the time they reach the age of reason they are saying, "Mom and Dad don't know what they believe. Its just not worth it."

Take fresh milk. Take the best mango juice. Add some beer. Throw in coffee, and the best tea you can find. Add some yoghurt, and saki. Throw in tomato juice. Mix it all around. Give it a really good stir. Look what happened. Its now this total piece of garbage that no person in their right mind would want to drink.


Frank Morales expresses the same idea as above in a slightly different way with a similar sense of humour:

Distinguishing Salvific States

• The Christian’s sole aim in salvation is to be raised physically from the dead on the eschatological day of judgment, and to find herself with Jesus in heaven, who is to be found seated at the right hand of the anthropomorphic male Father/God of the Old and New Testament.

• Muslims aspire toward a delightfully earthy paradise in which 72 houris, or virgin youth, will be granted to them to enjoy (Qur’an, 76:19).

• Jains are seeking kevala, or "aloneness", in which they will enjoy an eternal existence of omniscience and omnipotence without the unwanted intrusion of a God, a Brahman or an Allah.

• Buddhists seek to have all the transitory elements that produce the illusion of a self melt away, and to have themselves in turn melt away into the nihilism of nirvana. To the Buddhist, Brahman also is an illusion.

Each of these different types of religion has its own categorically unique concept of salvation and of the Absolute toward which they aspire. Each concept is irreconcilable with the others.

To state the situation unequivocally, if a Christian, Muslim, Jain or Buddhist, upon achieving their distinct notion of salvation, were to find themselves instead united with Brahman, they would most likely be quite upset and confused indeed. And they would have a right to be! Conversely, the average yogi probably would be quite bewildered upon finding 72 virgins waiting for him upon achieving moksha, rather than realizing the eternal bliss of Brahman. One person’s vision of salvation is another person’s idea of hell.

saidevo
23 December 2009, 08:51 AM
Divnity and Supremacy of the Vedic Dharma over all other religions

In order to establish that Hinduism does NOT teach Radical Universalism, let us collect quotes from our traditional shruti and smRti texts that speak of the divinity, uniqueness, and supremacy of our Vedic Dharma.

We start with Manu SmRti. Manu makes a clear distinction between the Vedic knowledge of light and the others of darkness:

Manu SmRti:
12.94a: pitR^idevamanushhyaaNaaM vedashchakshuH sanaatanam.h |
12.94b: ashakyaM chaaprameyaM cha vedashaastramiti sthitiH ||

12.94. The Veda is the eternal eye of the manes, gods, and men; the Veda-ordinance (is) both beyond the sphere of (human) power, and beyond the sphere of (human) comprehension; that is a certain fact.

12.95a: yaa vedabaahyaaH smR^itayo yaashcha kaashcha kudR^ishhTayaH |
12.95b: sarvaastaa nishhphalaaH pretya tamonishhThaa hi taaH smR^itaaH ||

12.95. All those traditions (smriti) and those despicable systems of philosophy, which are not based on the Veda, produce no reward after death; for they are declared to be founded on Darkness.

12.96a: utpadyante chyavante cha yaanyato.anyaani kaani chit.h |
12.96b: taanyarvaakkaalikatayaa nishhphalaanyanR^itaani cha ||

12.96. All those (doctrines), differing from the (Veda), which spring up and (soon) perish, are worthless and false, because they are of modern date.

**********

Revelation of the Vedas

• Vedas were originally revealed to the four Rishis Agni, VAyu, Aditya and Angiras.

shatapatha brAhmaNa 11.5.8[3]:
agne Rgvedo vAyoryajurvedaH sUryAtsAmavedaH

In the beginning of the creation, God revealed a Veda to the soul of each of the four sages, called Agni, VAyu, Aditya, and Angira.

manu smRti 1.23:
agni-vAyu-ravibhyas tu trayaM brahma sanAtanam |
dudoha yaj~jasiddhyartham Rug-yajur-sAma lakSaNam ||1.23||

The three Vedas, Rig, Yajur and Sama were revealed to the three rishis, Agni, VAyu and Ravi, to give a knowledge of how to accomplish the purpose of life in this world.

• Although the above quotes do not speak of the Atharva Veda, a mantra in the PuruSha sUkta speaks of divine origin of all the four Vedas:

puruSha sUkta:
tasmAdyaj~jAtsarvahuta RuchaH sAmAni jaj~jire |
ChandAMsi jaj~jire tasmAdyajustasmAdajAyata ||10.090.09||

The Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Chandas or Atharva Vedas have proceeded from that Purusha who is Yajna and Sarvahuta.

Pandit Gurudatta VidyArthi this in his book 'The Wisdom of the Rishis' as to reference of the term Chandas for the Atharva Veda:

The emanation of the four Vedas from the Divine essence is clearly pointed out under the four respective names of Rig, SAma, ChandAMsi, and Yaju, and to preclude the supposition of ChandAMsi as merely meaning metrical compositions and therefore as simply qualifying the other three Vedas, the verb 'jajnire' is distinctly coupled with ChandAMsi which clearly shows that a fourth Veda is made mention of.

• Patanjali maharshi too confirms the divine origination of the original knowledge in his Yoga Dharshana.

yoga darshanam 1.26:
sa pUrveShAm api guruH kAlena anavachChedAt ||1.26||

1.26 From that consciousness (ishvara) the ancient-most teachers were taught, since it is not limited by the constraint of time.

Explanation by SwamiJ:

purvesham = of the first, former, earlier, ancient
api = too, also
kalena = by time
anavachchhedat = not limited by (time), no break or division, continuous

This pure consciousness, being eternal in nature, is the direct teacher of all of the ancient, earlier, or even the first of the teachers within humanity. In other words, some of the original teachers of humanity have learned directly from this pure consciousness, not from a human lineage of teacher-student, etc., whereby there is just a passing of information. This direct learning from the source continues to be available at all times and places, though the help of human teachers is surely a useful, if not essential aid.

**********

Members are welcome to add to these quotes from Hindu traditional texts.

saidevo
23 December 2009, 10:10 AM
Divnity and Supremacy of the Vedic Dharma over all other religions

Here is incontrovertible evidence that KAnchi ParamAchArya did NOT teach Radical Universalism--all religions are the same. I have given below only select extracts (emphasis added); I urge the members and other readers to check this link for the full text of the AchArya's speech: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap3.htm

Distinctive Features of Sanathan Dharama: KAnchi ParamAchArya
Karma and Reincarnation

• Our religion has a number of unique or distinctive features. One of them is what is called the theory of karma, though this theory is common to religions like Buddhism which are offshoots of Hinduism.

• Our religion further asserts that one is born again and again so as to experience the consequences of one's good and bad action. "Do good", "Do not do evil", such are the exhortations of all religions. But Hinduism (and its offshoots) alone lay stress on the cause-and-effect connection. No religion originating in countries outside India subscribes to the cause-and-effect connection, nor to the reincarnation theory as one of its articles of faith

• Indeed religions originating abroad hold beliefs contrary to this theory and strongly oppose the view that man is born again and again in order to exhaust his karma. They believe that a man has only one birth, that when his soul departs on his death it dwells somewhere awaiting the day of judgment. On this day God makes an assessment of his good and bad actions and, on the basis of it, rewards him with eternal paradise or sentences him to eternal damnation.

• Some years ago, a well-known writer from Europe came to see me; nowadays you see many white men coming to the Matha. This gentleman told me that the Bible stated more than once that God is love. He could not reconcile this with the belief that God condemns a sinner to eternal damnation without affording him an opportunity for redemption. On this point a padre had told him: "It is true that there is an eternal hell. But it is eternally vacant."

• The padre's statement is difficult to accept. Let us suppose that the Lord in his compassion does not condemn a sinner to hell. Where then does he send his soul? Since, according to Christianity, there is no rebirth the sinner is not made to be born again. So he too must be rewarded with heaven (as much as the virtuous man). This means that we may merrily keep sinning without any fear of punishment. After all, God will reward all of us with heaven. This belief implies that there is no need for morality and truthfulness.

• According to our religion too, Isvara who decides our fate after death on the basis of our karma is infinitely merciful. But, at the same time, he does not plunge the world in adharma, in unrighteousness- that is not how his compassion manifests itself. What does he do then? He gives us another birth, another opportunity to reap the fruits of our good and bad action.

• In His mercy the Lord gives us every time a fresh opportunity to wash away our sins. The guru, the sastras, and the temples are all his gifts to wipe away our inner impurities. That Isvara, in his compassion, places his trust even in a sinner confident that he will raise himself through his own efforts and gives him a fresh opportunity in the form of another birth to advance himself inwardly- is not such a belief better than that he should dismiss a sinner as good for nothing and yet reward him with heaven?

Strong evidence to support reincarnation

• There is strong evidence to support the reincarnation theory. A lady from the West came to see me one day and asked me if there was any proof of reincarnation. I did not have any discussion with her on the subject. Instead, I asked her to visit the local obstetric hospital and find out all about the children born there. There was a learned man who knew English where we were camping then. I asked him to accompany the lady.

• Later, on their return from the hospital, I asked the woman about her impressions of the new-born children. She said that she had found one child plump and lusty, another skinny; one beautiful and another ungainly. One child was born in a comfortable ward [that is to a well-to-do mother] and another to a poor mother.

• "Leave aside the question of God consigning a man to eternal hell after his death," I said to the foreign lady. "We are not witness to such a phenomenon. But now you have seen with your own eyes how differently the children are born in the hospital that you visited. How would you account for the differences? Why should one child be born rich and another poor? Why should one be healthy and another sickly? And why should one be good-looking and another not so good looking?

• "If you accept the doctrine that men are born only once, you cannot but from the impression that God is neither compassionate nor impartial--think of all the differences at birth--and that he functions erratically and unwisely. How are we to be devoted to such a God and have the faith that he will look on us with mercy? How are we to account for the differences between one being and another if we do not accept the doctrine that our life now is determined by the good and the bad we did in our past births." The lady from the West accepted my explanation.

• Such an explanation is not, however, good enough for people in modern times. They demand scientific proof of reincarnation. Parapsychologists have done considerable research in the subject and their findings are in favour of the theory of rebirth. During the studies conducted in various parts of the world they encountered people who remembered their past lives. The latter recalled places and people they had seen in their previous birth-places and people that have nothing to do with them now. The parapsychologists verified these facts and to their amazement found them to be true.

Ishvara avatAra

• The doctrine of the incarnations of the Lord--avataras--is another unique feature of our religion. The Reality (Sadvastu) is one. That It manifests itself as countless beings is one of our cardinal tenets.

• It follows that it is this one and only Reality that transforms itself again and again into all those beings that are subject to birth and death. Also it is the same Reality that is manifested as Ishvara to protect this world of sentient beings and insentient objects. Unlike humans he is not subject to the law of karma.

• If the Lord descends to earth again and again it is to lift up man and show him the righteous path. When unrighteousness gains the upper hand and righteousness declines, he descends to earth to destroy unrighteousness and to establish righteousness again- and to protect the virtuous and destroy the wicked. Sri Krsna Paramatman declares so in the GItA:

yadaa yadaa hi dharmasya glaanirbhavati bhaarata |
abhyutthaanamadharmasya tadaatmaanaM sR^ijaamyaham.h ||4.7||

paritraaNaaya saadhuunaa.n vinaashaaya cha dushhkR^itaam |
dharmasa.nsthaapanaarthaaya sambhavaami yuge yuge ||4.8||
--BhagavadgItA, 4.7&8.

• Ishvara is to be known in different states. That the Lord is all--that all is the Lord--is a state that we cannot easily comprehend. Then there is a state mentioned in the "vibhuti yoga" (ch.10) of GItA according to which the Lord dwells in the highest of each category, in the "most excellent" of things.

• To create the highest of excellence in human life he sends messengers to earth in the guise of preceptors (AchAryas), men of wisdom and enlightenment (jnAnins), yogins and devotees. This is another state in which God is to be known.

• Not satisfied with the previous states, he assumes yet another state: he descends to earth as an avatara. The word "avatAraNa" itself means "descent". Ihsvara is "parAtpara", that is "higher than the highest", "beyond what is beyond everything". Yet he descends to earth by being born in our midst to re-establish dharma.

Worshipping God in his images

• That the one and only Paramatman who has neither a form nor attributes is manifested as different forms with attributes is another special feature of our religion.

• We worship idols representing these forms of deities. For this reason others label us polytheists. There view is utterly wrong. Because we worship the one God, the one reality, in many different forms it does not mean that we believe in many gods.

• It is equally absurd to call us idolaters who hold that the idol we worship is God. Hindus with a proper understanding of their religion do not think that the idol alone is God. The idol is meant for the worshipper to offer one-pointed devotion and he adores it with the conviction that the Lord who is present everywhere is present in it also. We see that practitioners of other religions also have symbols for worship and meditation. So it is wholly unjust to believe that Hindus alone worship idols- to regard them with scorn as idolaters is not right.

The Hindu tolerance and interaction

• That ours is the only religion that does not proclaim that its followers have an exclusive right to salvation is a matter of pride for us Hindus. Our catholic outlook is revealed in our scriptures which declare that whatever the religious path followed by people they will finally attain the same ParamAtman. That is why there is no place for conversion in Hinduism.

• Christianity has it that, if a man does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, he shall be condemned to hell. Islam says the same about those who do not follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. We must not be angry with the adherents of either religion on that score.

• We may not approve of people being forced into a religion or of conversions carried out by temptations placed before them. But we need not for that reason doubt that those who spread their religion in this fashion really believe that their work will bring general well-being.

• We cannot, however, help asking whether their belief is right. People who do not follow either Christ or the Prophet, are they really condemned to hell?

• A little thinking should show that the belief that the followers of Christianity or Islam have an exclusive right to salvation cannot be sustained. It is only some 2,000 years since Jesus was born and only about 1,400 years or so since the birth of the Prophet. What happened to all the people born before them since creation? Are we to believe that they must have passed into hell?

• We are also compelled to infer that even the forefathers of the founders of Christianity and Islam would not have earned paradise. If, like Hindus, all those who lived before Christ or the Prophet had believed in rebirth, we could concede that they would have been saved: they would have been again and again until the arrival of Christ or the Prophet and then afforded the opportunity of following their teachings. But if we accept the logic of Christianity and Islam, according to which religions there is no rebirth, we shall have to conclude that hundreds of millions of people for countless generations must have been consigned to eternal hell.

Religions evolve according to maturity

• The question arises as to whether God is so merciless as to keep dispatching people for ages together to the hell from which there is no escape. Were he compassionate would he not have sent, during all this time, a messenger of his or a teacher to show humanity the way to liberation? Why should we worship a God who has no mercy? Or for that matter, why should there be any religion at all?

• The countries are many and they have different climates and grow different crops. Also each part of the world has evolved a different culture. But the Vedas encompassed lands all over this planet from the very beginning. Latter other religions emerged in keeping with the changing attitudes of the nations concerned. That is why aspects of the Vedic tradition are in evidence not only in the religions now in force but in what we know of those preceding them. But in India alone has Hinduism survived as a full-fledged living faith.

• It must also be added that this primeval religion has regarded- and still regards- with respect the religions that arose subsequent to it. The Hindu views is this: "Other religions must have evolved according to the degree of maturity of the people among whom they originated. They will bring well being to their adherents." "Live and let live" has been and continues to be the ideal of our religion. It has given birth to religions like Buddhism and Jainism and they [particularly Buddhism] have been propagated abroad for the Atmic advancement of the people there.

atanu
24 December 2009, 02:37 AM
Oh, I see what you mean now. kanchi Paramacharya has termed the Koran as a revealed scripture for the Muslims! Ahh. Cool. Muslims would agree that their scripture is a revealed scripture.

Namaste Satay,

No. Apaurusheya does not mean specific for a person, or group or a time. The point is not that. The point is that no hindu sage has taught that Bible or Koran is barbaric.


By the way, I can't help but notice that you are seeking support from srila prabhupada to cling to your ideas. Prabhupada, the saint and scholar that you have insulted several times even here on HDF. (Just an observation).

Yes. My mind is not immutable like some other minds. But I do not like Prabhupada callng Shiva, who is denoted as Ishwara in Vedas, as a demi-god but suporting that God of Bibble or of Koran are same as Narayana. Similarly, I also do not agree that a Brahman worshipper, an Ishwara worshipper, a God worshipper, or an Allah worshipper have different aims. Bhakti is same.

There is no need for a Hindu to look elsewhere. At he same time there is no need to disparage other peoples faith.


Okay.

That is a big relief.


Why would one do that if all religions are true? Why show that Veda contained Buddha's teachings? Since as per you, Hinduism teaches all religions are true, what does it matter if Veda contains Buddha's teachings or not. Since buddhists were claiming to be a religions, all that was required from the sages of Hinduism at that time as the acceptance that yes, buddhisism is a true religion since that's what Hinduism teaches. Correct?

Why? What's the need to unite? Since all religions are true so is dvaita, visistaadvaita and advaita on their own true. Isn't it?

No that is not the point. Veda is sanatana truth, why does God then take repeated birth as Avatara? The truth of single soul origin of all the seeming variety is lost to us every morning on waking up. We need to meditate/study/listen to guru to retain the correct perspective. Religions also get muddied and require similar churning.

Shankara's aim was not argument against Buddhists but to re-establish the the truth of the immutable. Though, the Buddha had taught of an unborn immutable truth, but what most Buddhists remembered was "All this a big flux and here is nothing else".

Anyway, I see that it is pointless to continue. Only the following is my view, which I have posted again and again:



Devotion Common to all Faiths: Power that rules all worldly activities. Devotion or bhakti is a feature common to all religious schools- Advaita (non-dualism), Dvaita (dualism), Visistadvaita (qualified non-dualism), Saiva Siddhanta, Christianity, Islam and so on.
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap5.htm

The Unity of Religions
All religions have one common ideal, worship of the Lord, and all of them proclaim that there is but one God. This one God accepts your devotion irrespective of the manner of your worship, whether it is according to this or that religion. So there is no need to abandon the religion of your birth and embrace another.

The temple, the church, the mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatman who wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same.
------
One big difference between Hinduism and other faiths is that it does not proclaim that it alone shows the path to liberation. Our Vedic religion alone has not practiced conversion and the reason for it is that our forefathers were well aware that all religions are nothing but different paths to realise the one and only Paramatman.

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap6.htm (http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap6.htm)

-------------------
Once we turn back from individual or group centric view to Ishwara centric view, then we will be fully content with Veda, understanding that it is the full.

I do not know who has said that all religions are same that saidevo cites again and again.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 December 2009, 02:47 AM
Because Koran is an exclusive scripture for the belivers of 'allah', once you accept it as a revelation, you can not at the same time hold the Vedas in your hands.

Namaste Satay,

Enough evidence has been shown that no hindu guru teaches that Lord/God/Jehovah etc. are different. The teachers are emphatic that God is one - given names are different. Paths are different suited to time or maturity of followers.

I do not understand your question as to how if name of Allah is true then Veda cannot be true? This is simply illogical. It is like saying if Bhagavatam is true then how can be Shiva Purana be true?

Veda is not the printed words but it is the body of the Lord.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 December 2009, 03:08 AM
Divnity and Supremacy of the Vedic Dharma over all other religions
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap3.htm

Ishvara avatAra

• The doctrine of the incarnations of the Lord--avataras--is another unique feature of our religion. The Reality (Sadvastu) is one. That It manifests itself as countless beings is one of our cardinal tenets.

• It follows that it is this one and only Reality that transforms itself again and again into all those beings that are subject to birth and death. Also it is the same Reality that is manifested as Ishvara to protect this world of sentient beings and insentient objects. Unlike humans he is not subject to the law of karma.



Namaste saidevoji,

This is good post highlighting the differences. Since Paramacharya teaches this we must accept full teaching which also says right in the beginning:


All religions have one common ideal, worship of the Lord, and all of them proclaim that there is but one God. This one God accepts your devotion irrespective of the manner of your worship, whether it is according to this or that religion. So there is no need to abandon the religion of your birth and embrace another.

The temple, the church, the mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatman who wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same.


Has any guru claimed exact sameness of all paths? Then there would be no need for different paths, even within the Hindu dharma fold. Has any guru said some paths are barbaric?

Can you support Dr. Frank Morales' contention that Bhakti of Allah and Brahman (which you cited in an earlier post) are absolutely different, in the light of Paramacharya or Ramana or any other Hindu Gurus's teaching?

And who among the Hindu Gurus have not highlighted these differences and established the supreme applicability of the Vedas? What is all comprehensive, true eternally, applicable to all -- is Universal. And Kanchi Paramacharya's book title highlights this. Almost every scripture begins with an emphatic statement of one source of all variety that we see in the jagrat, so that the variety is not taken as the sole reality.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
24 December 2009, 05:28 AM
Namaste All,

I think we have all said what we had to say. I think we can summarise now :

a) All paths have a common factor, "Devotion", as Atanu pointed out & we all know. This "Devotion" is important & not the names & forms of God. As long as the purity and intensity of devotion is maintained, it should lead to the same result i.e. grace of God.

b) The goals of all religions are not the same. Hindus are more for liberation from the cycles of births & deaths. So, their devotion would ultimately guide towards that goal of theirs. Abrahimic religions have a different goal ... they seek eternal ( ? ) happy after life in heaven .... so the devotion should get them a happy after life. However, it is difficult to say what happens to a man who is truly devoted to Allah but being indoctrinated by Quranic teachings kills a so-called infidel Hindu because he does not believe in Quran & Muhammad. The same goes for Christianity & Judaism. All these three religions advocate that idol-worshipping is bad & Deuteronomy-13 does preach violence against idol-worshippers.

c) Though pure devotion may lead all of us to the same destiny ... our desired goal ... yet the scriptures have strong contradictions. So, all the scriptures cannot be true revelations ... either one or the other must be corrupted (even though major part may be revealed). It may be that some parts may be pure revelation but some may be manipulated by some powerful people due to their vested interests. If all are pure & non-manipulated, then God must be mad or there must be different Gods for different philosophies.

d) It is seen that irrespective of what the different scriptures say, the true saints of different saints have something common to share : "They don't hanker after for worldly things. They love all beings in the same manner." etc. Jesus Christ, Sufi Saints like Rumi, Rabia etc. showed these characteristics even though their scriptures taught hatred against the idol-worshippers etc. The only exception is Prophet Muhammad who claimed to be the prophet & indulged not only in his own sexual gratification to hilt but also indulged in merciless killing of innocent people. So, we can safely assume that true devotion to God takes one to love for all beings & non-violence equally irrespective of the differences in scriptures or the prophet(s).

e) Let's not forget that everyone doesn't reads or understands the scriptures. So, it is incumbent upon people who know to interpret the scriptures carefully so that we can avoid unnecessary sufferings in this world. The reality is that we can't do away with the differences in scriptures & the faiths. We should not close our eyes towards the faults in the scriptures wherever they teach wrong things like killing innocent people ... but highlight them so that the concerned religious leaders could interpret them in a manner which can be considered safe for the mankind. Let it be debated threadbare by people of all faiths so that people should know the flaws & try to think of required solutions. If there is some wound then it can't be cured by hiding ... it has to be noticed & then operated upon.

So, here both types of people are required ... those who highlight the flaws & the inherent danger hidden in the words of those scriptures & also those who are capable of giving the same words a meaning which can make them harmless or benefiting to the mankind. And 2nd part is not an easy task. As we have seen in this very thread ... there are only two people (Atanu & Ekanta) on this board who want to be on the 2nd part of the task ... all of us are happy being on job for the first part because that is a pretty easy task. Though I agree that the 2nd part is not in the hands of the Hindus but in the hands of the religious leaders of those religions.

OM

saidevo
24 December 2009, 06:49 AM
namaste Atanu and others.

I think we are indulging in verbal calisthenics using our own ideas of the word 'same' and trying to attribute it to the words of KAnchi ParamAchArya and other Hindu gurus, without looking adequately into the context of their sayings.

Satay has spelled out the objective of this thread in the OP (post #2):


Does Hinduism teach universalism? Universalism is defined as follows elsewhere on the net: "the ideology that all religions are true"

Does Hinduism or Hindu gurus teach that all religions are true or is it a propaganda spread by the new age gurus?


• The word 'same' has three primary meanings: 1. identical; the very one; 2. similar; alike in kind, quality, amount, or degree; 3. unchanged, not different.

• Now, combined with the word 'true' that Satay has given us, the word 'same' in the context of this thread can only mean 'identical, unchanged, not different', and not 'similar', because truth is 'identical, unchanged, not different'.

• So, in this context, it can be shown that most contemporary Hindu gurus when they talk about the 'sameness' of all religions in different contexts, only mean that

•• the goal of all religions is the 'same', One God, but the paths towards that goal are different although it might appear 'same--similar', in the bhakti--devotion, aspect of all religions.

The gurus very well know (although they don't say it) that even this similarity is only in the kind and that it differs in quality, amount, and degree; but because our Hindu Dharma teaches us tolerance and our tradition has taught us peaceful co-existence, our gurus don't want us to take the differences in similarity seriously.

•• although the concepts of this 'same' One God are radically different between religions, and even between the sects of the same religion, if the path of devotion is sincere and ardent, that One God would eventually grant liberation to the followers of all religions (as KAnchi ParamAcharya has said), so there is no necessity to switch one's faith or insist another to switch over.

•• the concept of liberation is radically different between religions and sects, but that should not be the motivation for conversion or revilement of another religion.

Because our Hindu contemporary gurus either explicitly state or subtly imply ALL the above facts of the 'sameness' and essentiality among religions and sects,

• whereever KAnchi ParamAchArya talks about 'all paths leading to the same goal' and that the same One God will bless every sincere follower whatever his/her religion, he also brings in the issue of conversion and stresses the unique features of Hinduism, specially of the Vedas, earlier or later in his speeches.

• VivekAnanda appreciated the devotional discipline in Islam and wanted it to be the body with the VedAnta as the head for his new concept of a futuristic religion based on Vedanta, and at the same time took Islam and Christianity to task for their monopolistic and aggressive teachings.

• RAmakRShNa said he would like all dishes prepared of the same fish that the Mother gives a child, but since the Mother knows about her children, she prepares different varieties of dishes with the same fish.

• Sathya SAi BAbA wanted people of all religions to live in amity recognizing the essential unity of their religions and at the same time he unequivocally said that his devotees should not be part of the conversion activities.

and every other Hindu contemporary guru at one time or another spoke about the desirables and undesirables of the other religions and of the sects of our own religion.

**********

Where does that leaves us now? What are the practical implications of the explicit and implied teachings of our contemporary gurus, specially about the Abrahmaic religions, and about our own religions sects?

• Our contemporary gurus want us live in amity with the people of other religions and sects; at the same time, since they don't approve of the coercive conversion efforts of the Abrahamic religions, we have their implied sanction to safeguard our dharma by reaction and with sincere efforts of learning and appreciating more and more about the unique features of Hindu Dharma and living them out in our worldly life.

• Unless we learn, appreciate and spread the knowledge about the greatness of Vedic Hindu Dharma among our children, and youth and the religiously uneducated grass roots, we face the daily risk of our children and the youth getting easily weaned away towards the Abrahamic religions in their relentlessly coercive and inhuman conversion efforts. Thus acqusition and dispensation of the true and traditional knowledge about our Vedic Hindu Dharma must be the primary goal--and role--of every discerning Hindu.

• By and large the followers of Abrahamic religions are peaceful, despite the teachings they receive, but there are hundreds at the public level, and most at the clergy, academic, corporal and political levels, who are vociferously hostile towards the Hindu religious teachings and practices.

As true Hindus, we have a duty to denounce and debate those adharmic forces motivated by the teachings of their own scriptures. This duty requires us to identify and highlight the erroneous teachings (whatever their motivation) more, than trying to find similarity in the scriptural revelations.

After all, our gurus have not told us to read and research the Bible and the Quran and try to match their teachings with the findings of our shruti and smRti texts. They only want us to understand the similarity of the religions and sects at the devotional level.

Let us remember that all our gurus have quoted from Hindu sectoral scriptures and the common traditional scriptures far more extensively, than what they have quoted of the Abrahmic religious scriptures, so let us NOT try to give more weight than what they intended to such quotes. Our primary concern as Hindus is to find the similarities and essential unity in our own sectoral scriptures.

So let us try to bell the wild Abrahamic cat that persistently tries to maul us in the strong belief that it has only one life, not nine.

• The essential unity that our contemporary gurus teach us is more applicable to our own Hindu sects. Therefore, let us learn to appreciate the theological differences in the streams of Hinduism that we sail through, and do our best to forge and foster the unity among our own Hindu religious community, which is the most essential factor in safeguarding our Vedic Hindu Dharma.

What is more to be said in this thread?

IMO, a lot more, about the 'Divnity and Supremacy of the Vedic Dharma' about its 'Distinctive Features' so we gradually grow in our true knowledge. I request our learned members to contribute about this aspect of the thread because only this knowledge could ultimately convince everyone of us about the practical reality of the Abrahamic religions.

Eastern Mind
24 December 2009, 07:20 AM
Vanakkam all: Just for the record, this is how I actually see it. There is only one religion. It is Sanatana Dharma. The Abrahamic religions are kindergarten classes. The followers are in the kindergarten class. There is only one school, many grades. Everybody reincarnates, whether they believe in it this lifetime, or not. Souls currently in Abrahamic faiths will also slowly move up in their evolution. The first step beyond kindergarten is a more liberal view within Abrahamic faith. The second step up is to atheism, or agnosticism, the great realisation that perhaps there are other ways. Doubt. Get out of that first little box. This was put so lovely in Herman Hesse's Damien. Escaping from the shell into a new world.

So in the grand scheme of things there is nothing to worry about. The world and its people are evolving as they should. You cannot get rid of Sanatana Dharma. There would always be some individual somewhere who could sit down in a cave, by his own choice or otherwise, and get a flash of insight, and ponder,"Where did that come from?" He would then go in and in and in and find the true Self. This might happen 10 000 years from now. He might be the only being on the planet that has this knowledge. Then if he were killed, some great soul who had realised this truth before would decide to take on a body again, and the whole thing would repeat itself.

So no matter what happens, these eternal truths cannot be destroyed. They existed forever, and will continue to exist forever. If, at this point in the Kaliyuga it seems to be dark, and nigh impossible to get anywhere, or stop suffering, so be it. It is the Kali yuga, after all. These are just bodies, not souls. These are just minds, not souls. And these souls are identical to God in vibration.

Yes, it's frustrating to see 'lower' forces from the mind. But its just the mind, not the Self.

Aum Namasivaya

kd gupta
24 December 2009, 08:52 AM
namaskar Ekanta,


The purpose of the thread (once again) has been outlined in my last post.

Thanks.
However, the original purpose of the thread was to find out:
a) which authentic hindu guru has termed Koran as a revealed scripture
and,
b) if Hinduism teaches universalism; universalism as defined as 'the ideology that all religions are equal'

Authentic Hindu guru means Rishis , and no scripture eg. 3Vedas , 18 Puranas and 6 Shashtras at that time TELL , what this bala is .

All these scriptures tell of universalism , the ideology that sanatan dharm is only ONE .

Now this I feel stops the heads collision .

atanu
24 December 2009, 09:26 PM
namaste Atanu and others.

The word 'same' has three primary meanings: 1. identical; the very one; 2. similar; alike in kind, quality, amount, or degree; 3. unchanged, not different.


Namaste saidevo, Jai murugan, Satay,

I wish to dispel a doubt before I begin. Sanatana dharma, understood as one truth is universal and is anadimat - without beginning and end, complete, stand alone and does not require any other knowledge. Just as Swami Vivekananda believed and taught: Hinduism is the Salvation for the all.

Conversion etc. is most evil tendency, which we can only counter by God's grace and by wisdom. By knowing our dharma in full.

I agree with saidevo as above. But we cannot forget that Bhagwan while teaching to stand upright against evil also taught Arjuna to be a yogi. A yogi sees the same Brahman in a Brahmana, in a chandala, and in a Dog. He ses Brahman in oblation, in the oblation holder, etc. He sees Brahman in action in all things and in all processes. A yogi sees all in self, sees self in Lord and Lord in self.


Take fresh milk. Take the best mango juice. Add some beer. Throw in coffee, and the best tea you can find. Add some yoghurt, and saki. Throw in tomato juice. Mix it all around. Give it a really good stir. Look what happened. Its now this total piece of garbage that no person in their right mind would want to drink.

I see great value in above view of EM. But some thing has remained unsaid. Milk and Mango juice are both irreplaceable. One cannot replace one with another. One can always pay attention to what is good and what is common to all these. Sanatana dharma teaches that the auspicious one pervades all this just as butter pervades Milk.

A henpecked husband may hold lifelong anger against women. A tortured woman may hold lifelong grudge against menfolk. But the fact is that the world is half female and half male. The fact, whether we like or not, is that the world is 1/3rd Hindu-Buddhist, 1/3rd Christian-Jew, and 1/3rd Muslim (approximately). This is the body of the Lord. Hindu Dharma is universal since Hindu Dharma has the wherewithal to transcend the apparent differences.

Lasty, there has been a general view as below:


#2 Most swamis who say all religions are the same...this is due to political compulsions. Why? Because Christian countries (read west) are rich; so are Arab/Muslim nations in the Middle East. Hindus, being poor in comparison, find it awkward to challenge them. So the only way is the way of compromise: we won't attack you, provided you won't attack us.

It is surprising as to why no one says anything to counter such ideas. Have Hindu teachers taught that all religions are same? Who has taught so? Have all Hindu teachers taught from a stand of weakness or are the Self Realised sages fearless and teach nothing but the Truth? Is is OK to denounce andweaken the roots in this way?

atanu may be abominable but please speak impartially.

Every teacher or every scripture begins with: OM, the akshara is All This, before going on to the variegated teaching.

Isha
1.All this is covered by the lord, whatsoever is individual universe of movement in the universal motion. By that renounced thou shouldst enjoy; lust not after any man´s possession.

It cannot be over-emphasized that all the world is universal motion of the Lord, called Vishnu, whether one sees rAma or rAvanA.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 December 2009, 09:57 PM
namaste Atanu and others.

I think we are indulging in verbal calisthenics using our own ideas of the word 'same' and trying to attribute it to the words of KAnchi ParamAchArya and other Hindu gurus, without looking adequately into the context of their sayings.

Satay has spelled out the objective of this thread in the OP (post #2):

Does Hinduism teach universalism? Universalism is defined as follows elsewhere on the net: "the ideology that all religions are true"


Namaste saidevoji,

There is no doubt. Whatsoever or in howsoever fashion the tern 'Universal' is defined in net, it primarily means:



–adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience. 2.applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
–noun 13.something that may be applied throughout the universe to many things, usually thought of as an entity that can be in many places at the same time.


Wherever the teaching is of one immutable pervading all phenomena, that is Universal teaching. Whomsoever knows the one immutable akshara beneath all phenomena knows the Universal. IMO, Paramacharya's teaching has no scope for verbal calisthenics, if seen only from the motive of knowledge of Brahman/dharma.


The temple, the church, the mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatman who wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same.

The centre is not the individual or any group; but Paramatman - the sanatana, the universal.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 December 2009, 10:32 PM
For those interested:


The Sword of Kali
Reply to "A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism"
http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/101.htm (http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/101.htm)

A few quotes:
"Dr. Morales seems to believe that the statement ‘all religions are the same’ is identical to the statement ‘all religions are exactly the same’. But Hinduism does not say that all religions are exactly the same. Hinduism says that all religions speak of the same Reality though they may call this Reality by different names or conceive of It differently. "

“By placing Universalism in opposition to Absolutism, Dr. Morales tries to create the impression that Universalism is a kind of Relativism. But this opposition has no basis to stand on. Universalism is based on absolutes… “

Namaste Ekanta,

I bring this to surface once again just that 'Radical Universalism' may be better understood, without malice and without bias. I do not feel OK that Dr. Frank Morales creates a definition and picks only certain sages as correct teachers. IMO, That is solely his view and implies (as if) that he indirectly attributes motive to sages who are not on his list. He creates an idea exactly opposite of Vedantic knowledge that a knower of Brahman is Brahman.

Even though Krishna and Bhisma pitAmaha fought, but both being Brahma jnanis were not different in essence. Yet they were different and on the opposite side in the physical plane.

Dr. Frank Morales propounds a naive theory as if Swamy Chinmayananda and Swami Vivekananda are not aware of this. Unfortunately (IMO), such criticism and naivety, in general, arise in west or in hindu converts who were christian priests.

The simple is :



There is in reality no such thing as Radical Universalism. The idea that ‘all religions are exactly the same’ is devoid of meaning like the sentence ‘he is the son of a barren woman’ because the multiplicity of religions indicated by the sentential-subject ‘all religions’ is negated by the predicate ‘are exactly the same’ to present a mere word-combination devoid of meaning.

Sanatana cannot be Neo. Or rather Sanatana is ever the NEO.


Om Namaha Shivaya

atanu
24 December 2009, 11:09 PM
namaste Atanu and others.

• whereever KAnchi ParamAchArya talks about 'all paths leading to the same goal' and that the same One God will bless every sincere follower whatever his/her religion, he also brings in the issue of conversion and stresses the unique features of Hinduism, specially of the Vedas, earlier or later in his speeches.

• VivekAnanda appreciated the devotional discipline in Islam and wanted it to be the body with the VedAnta as the head for his new concept of a futuristic religion based on Vedanta, and at the same time took Islam and Christianity to task for their monopolistic and aggressive teachings.

• RAmakRShNa said he would like all dishes prepared of the same fish that the Mother gives a child, but since the Mother knows about her children, she prepares different varieties of dishes with the same fish.

• Sathya SAi BAbA wanted people of all religions to live in amity recognizing the essential unity of their religions and at the same time he unequivocally said that his devotees should not be part of the conversion activities.

and every other Hindu contemporary guru at one time or another spoke about the desirables and undesirables of the other religions and of the sects of our own religion.


Namaste saidevoji,

Though atanu has been rebuked by many and you extolled by many in this thread, but it appears that we must come to the similar conclusion eventualy. Based on above in quote, I query "Who is this 'Radical Universalist Guru' that Dr. Morales talks about and creates two classes of gurus?" Are not the Self realised gurus, the brahma jnanis, the brahma itself?

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
25 December 2009, 12:43 AM
namaste Atanu.



There is no doubt. Whatsoever or in howsoever fashion the tern 'Universal' is defined in net, it primarily means:

–adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience. 2.applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.

–noun 13.something that may be applied throughout the universe to many things, usually thought of as an entity that can be in many places at the same time.


You have given the definition for the term 'universal', but this thread is about 'universalism'. Whenever an 'ism' is suffixed to universal concepts, it limits and even corrupts them in some cases: universal--universalism, capital--capitalism, commune--communism, creation--creationism, future--futurism, hindu--hinduism, method--methodism, spirit--spiritism and so on. (Incidentally, here is a list of 887 words ending with 'ism': http://www.morewords.com/ends-with/ism/)

In the context of this thread, the definition of 'universalism' as given by Satay is "the ideology that all religions are true". This definition is an extension of the dictionary definition of the word 'universalism': "the theological doctrine that all souls will eventually find salvation in the grace of God."

IMHO, what KAnchi ParamAchArya has taught us is that 'The One Universal God', who is the 'goal' of devotion and is the essential 'core' of all religions, will certainly grant salvation to all souls who are sincere in their devotion, by his grace but only eventually, despite the 'paths' of devotion and the 'concepts' of salvation being radically different amongst religions.

This is the teaching of contemporary Hinduism for this Kali Yuga. In the traditional teaching of KrShNa ParamAtma and the Vedic Rishis, mokSha can be obtained by following the Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga or Jnana Yoga paths either exclusively or in combination.

Although contemporary Hinduism in general teaches this concept of eventual salvation by God's grace, as you are aware, we have had long and tedious discussions about a seeker's efforts vis-a-vis God's grace, without coming to a conclusion such as "the salvation can be obtained just by the grace of God without any effort on the part of the seeker, once he surrenders completely to God", which is the philosophy of vishiShtadvaita.

As a human being endowed with identical spiritual faculties, every one of us, irrespective of our gender, country, creed and religion, is eligible for salvation and will get it, but only eventually. The 'eventually' is a very big condition which is based on the maturity of the theology and practice of religions and sects.

In the Indian religions that don't preach monopolistic exclusivity, this eventually is bound to be far shorter than in the case of Abrahmic religions. Thus this condition of eventuality dilutes the application of universality in the concept of universalism. This is the reason Vivekananda said 'Hinduism is the Salvation for all.'

saidevo
25 December 2009, 02:22 AM
namaste Atanu.



I agree with saidevo as above. But we cannot forget that Bhagwan while teaching to stand upright against evil also taught Arjuna to be a yogi.


BhagavAn KrShNa taught Arjuna to be a yogi alright, but you don't need me to remind you that he wanted Arjuna to first do his duty as a kShatriya rather than stay away from the war as a yogi.

Bhagavat GItA 2.31:
Further, having regard to thy own duty, thou shouldst not waver, for there is nothing higher for a kShatriya than a righteous war.

Bhagavat GItA 2.32:
Happy are the kShatriyas, O Arjuna, who are called upon to fight in such a battle that comes of itself as an open door to heaven.

When as Sarabhanga would say, Arjuna and KRShNa embody the nara-nArAyaNa principle, and KRShNa reminds Arjuna the great warrior with the potentiality of a yogi of his first duty--svadharma, as a kShatriya, what would be shrI KrShNa's advise to the common Hindus that everyone of us are? In the messy mixup of varNas in the Kali Yuga, every Hindu has the duty of a kShatriya when it comes to dharma-rakShaNam--safeguarding his/her dharma.



The fact, whether we like or not, is that the world is 1/3rd Hindu-Buddhist, 1/3rd Christian-Jew, and 1/3rd Muslim (approximately). This is the body of the Lord. Hindu Dharma is universal since Hindu Dharma has the wherewithal to transcend the apparent differences.


This also means that the Lord's body needs to be balanced with the three guNas--sattva of the Hindu-Buddhist, rajas--of the Christian-Jew and tamas--of the Muslim. What will the Lord do when the rajas and tamas try to dominate the sattvic? Would He want the sattvic to be subverted or react to regain and establish its equal share?



It is surprising as to why no one says anything to counter such ideas. Have Hindu teachers taught that all religions are same? Who has taught so? Have all Hindu teachers taught from a stand of weakness or are the Self Realised sages fearless and teach nothing but the Truth? Is is OK to denounce andweaken the roots in this way?


I have not tried to counter the post of 'rahulg' because he is only a newcomer here and would eventually learn. Perhaps the other members have desisted for the same reason.



It cannot be over-emphasized that all the world is universal motion of the Lord, called Vishnu, whether one sees rAma or rAvanA.


When RAmA himself saw RAvaNa as RAvANa who needed to be destroyed, and destroyed the asura, remaining in the form of a nara--man, it is the same RAmA who, after reminding us of our svadharma as KrShNa in the GItA, wants us to identify and fight the RAvaNa in reaction (if not in proaction), so ViShNu's body of sattvic nature remains in a balanced state in the Hindu-Christian-Muslim equation you have given above.



atanu may be abominable but please speak impartially. (post #113)
It is surprising as to why no one says anything to counter such ideas. (post #113)
Though atanu has been rebuked by many and you extolled by many in this thread, but it appears that we must come to the similar conclusion eventualy. (post #116)


I am at a loss to understand this kind of personal expressions coming from an Advaitin like you who needs to emphasize with everyone, frankly.



The temple, the church, the mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatman who wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same.


You are repeating this quote for the third time (posts 106,108,114). I don't understand your purpose in disregarding the overall POV of ParamAchara's speech about 'The Unity of Religions' in part, chapter 6: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap6.htm

Leaving aside the fact that the AchArya in the immediately following chapter 7 talks about the 'Qualities of Religious Teachers', even in the present chapter the text that immediately follows the quote you have given above is this (emphasis added):

"The different religions have taken shape according to the customs peculiar to the countries in which they originated and according to the differences in the mental outlook of the people inhabiting them. The goal of all religions is to lead people to the same Paramatman according to the different attributes of the devotees concerned. So there is no need for people to change over to another faith. Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God."

Three things are indicated here: 1) guNas determine the nature of religions; 2)even where some religions attribute those guNas to their God, they don't affect Ishvara, who remains the same; 3) Since Ishvara is the same, one should stay in the religion of his/her birth.

These three aspects in themselves merit a long discussion in a separate thread. The most important of these three aspects is that Ishvara is the same in all religions (despite their concepts about Him). But the AchArya is also equally concerned the other two aspects or else he would not have juxtaposed them in his speech. Not only that, the chapter closes with a telling concluding remark:

"That the beliefs and customs of the various religions are different cannot be a cause for complaint. Nor is there any need to make all of them similar. The important thing is for the followers of the various faiths to live in harmony with one another. The goal must be unity, not uniformity."

Given this context, why do you quote only the portion dealing with the second aspect repeatedly, ignoring the others?

I shall readily concede this POV which is the only one you see in the AchAryA's words: that Ishvara is above all the guNas that religions seek to attribute to him and that he remains universal, identical and the same in all religions.

But the AchArya emphatically says "Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God." How can God, who is above all guNas be demeaned? So what is the real purpose of speech in this chapter? Think over, Atanu.



Based on above in quote, I query "Who is this 'Radical Universalist Guru' that Dr. Morales talks about and creates two classes of gurus?" Are not the Self realised gurus, the brahma jnanis, the brahma itself?


Let me make it very clear here that I don't consider the opinions of Frank Morales--or those of any other western guru for that matter--as superior to those of our Hindu gurus--contemporary and traditional. I am not bothered with his idiosyncratic classification of them as Neo and Traditional. At the same time, I share his concern of us Hindu parents remaining ignorant of the distinctive features of our religion as taught by our traditional gurus; and our failure to teach our children properly which only makes them easy conversion targets for the missionaries of Abrahamic religions.

satay
25 December 2009, 09:14 AM
namaskar,

Please focus.

Are all religions true?
Is that what sanatana dharma teaches?

LALKAR
25 December 2009, 09:40 AM
Namaste All,

Satya G, I agree with you

Even Rajah Ram Mohun Roy and Mahrshi Dayanand promoted hinduism
there is a tale made my fools that both of them were impressed by christianity but when I studed them I discovered some facts that both rejected christ's claims, and supported Dharm Prachar

devotee
25 December 2009, 08:19 PM
I have a feeling that we should stop now. Everyone has already said what he/she had to say. I don't think there is much to gain now by going ahead like this.

Pressing the lemon too much will give out only bitter juice.

OM

Harjas Kaur
26 December 2009, 09:24 AM
namaskar,
Please focus.
Are all religions true?
Is that what sanatana dharma teaches? There is no negativity. People will naturally have hard feelings where someone is ignorantly promoting a teaching of violent rejection as the equivalent of Sruti. The question remains unanswered. I'm interested to see what the self-prefessed scholars of this forum can come up with. Because in order for Islamic teaching to be Sruti, it must have been perceived by RiShis. Mohammed was not a RiShi. As per his statements about religion and God in Koran, he wasn't even enlightened. His path is genuine, for him and for those predisposed to accept his teachings. Sanatana Dharma does not disparage other religions or deny them legitimacy. But Islam does denies legitimacy to every other religion.


All these scriptures tell of universalism , the ideology that sanatan dharm is only ONE .The Koran is rabidly against universalism, that is the problem, as it is against Sanatana Dharma.


If, at this point in the Kaliyuga it seems to be dark, and nigh impossible to get anywhere, or stop suffering, so be it. It is the Kali yuga, after all. These are just bodies, not souls. These are just minds, not souls. And these souls are identical to God in vibration. Yes, it's frustrating to see 'lower' forces from the mind. But its just the mind, not the Self.The Sikh Guru's never said ignore injustices of radical Muslim jihadis and forced conversions because these are only ideologies or physical bodies and therefore meaningless. They built up an Army and defeated it, casting the Muslim invaders out of Hindustan. By sacrificing his life to stop forceful conversions and mischief of Muslims, Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji became Hindu di chaadar, the blanket of protection of the Hindus. Why would pretend physical life does not matter, or that onslaughts of Muslims trampling the Dharma was no harm? Are you wiser than Guru Tegh Bahadur to say that? Is that how people translate Advaita? To ignore suffering, jihadi terrorist bombers and forced and manipulated conversions as just imagination of the mind? Is that how people are imagining Islam to be some kind of Sruti and equal part of Sanatana Dharma? What a distortion of Advaitic philosophy.

Hindu Woman Converts to Islam and Breaks his God MUST SEE !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0_xrdfjGPQ

Ganeshprasad
26 December 2009, 06:10 PM
Pranam all


The point is that no hindu sage has taught that Bible or Koran is barbaric.


That is because it is self evident, a tree is known by the fruits it produces.
Sages do not indulge in mud slinging.

those who speak on them have vested interested and makes statements that sound pleasing to the audience.



I also do not agree that a Brahman worshipper, an Ishwara worshipper, a God worshipper, or an Allah worshipper have different aims. Bhakti is same.
There is no need for a Hindu to look elsewhere. At he same time there is no need to disparage other peoples faith.


Why do you think we are disparaging anyone’s faith? What interest any Hindu would have other then its own welfare. We have no interest in meddling in anyone’s affair but when situation is not of our own making, is forced on you, then one has to make right judgement and this task is made even more difficult when our effort is made to look like fanatics by our own.


It is very simplistic statement to make that everyone worships one same God, I am not even sure the aim can be the same but these similarity ends here, Bhakti is not the same as you would like to assert, bhakti as we know and they follow is like cheese and chalk.
If you compare instructions coming out from Mulas and our Dharama gurus you might understand.

If you call going out to change the world in your only way of to god by hook or crook by deceit or force, ‘bhakti’ then we have different defination of love of God, I don’t think I need to spell out for you what that is.
 


I do not understand your question as to how if name of Allah is true then Veda cannot be true? This is simply illogical. It is like saying if Bhagavatam is true then how can be Shiva Purana be true?

A lot off us understand Satay’s statement, it is rather unfortunate you choose to be different, if you accept Koran to be final word and that is what it says, it accepts no God but Allah and classes Vedas and it followers as Kafir, how difficult is this to understand?


There is no comparison for puranas they are all given by Vedvyas, non speak ill off each other, these are not even considered as dharma Shastra in a strict sense. It is a treasure trove of glories or lila, of various aspect of that one God without a second. Neither makes a demon out off you, on the contrary even a demon can become a sage if he/she lucky enough to come in contact and hear its glories.


Now let me explain why I feel so strongly about this issue, I do not hate these followers but I sure do hate what they follow, if their aim is to convert us heathens and kaffirs then it becomes our duty to defend our self, this is my defence, we certainly can not give them the fuel and ammunition to make us weak, it is suicidal and talking about suicide many off our ancestors chose death in place of conversion, it would be an insult to them who met brutal death (it is gruesome history) in upholding Vedic dharma, can I tell them you fools did you not know they worship the same god?
I really need no evidence "the ideology that all religions are true" if it were our ancestors would not have resisted.

Jai Shree Krishna

satay
27 December 2009, 12:55 PM
Admin Note

Hello,
I have moved some of the posts to the Moderation thread.

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=379&page=4

Thanks,

atanu
29 December 2009, 04:04 AM
This also means that the Lord's body needs to be balanced with the three guNas--sattva of the Hindu-Buddhist, rajas--of the Christian-Jew and tamas--of the Muslim. What will the Lord do when the rajas and tamas try to dominate the sattvic? Would He want the sattvic to be subverted or react to regain and establish its equal share?

Namaste saidevoji,

Its OK because it is HDF. Had it been a christian forum or a muslim forum the blue highlights and the word 'sattva' would shift. It would also shift with every change of dress of the soul. This itself is the world. Not understanding this shifting stand of mind-belief is denying the karma and re-incarnation. IMO, we cannot obliterate the unique power of Sanatana Dharma, which alone teaches in detail the karma and re-incarnation. No doubt that small hearts will have their blue highlights somewhere or other but what will the big Heart do?

Rest is based on one's experience and wisdom. My understanding concurs with the following:

"That the beliefs and customs of the various religions are different cannot be a cause for complaint. Nor is there any need to make all of them similar. The important thing is for the followers of the various faiths to live in harmony with one another. The goal must be unity, not uniformity."

--- AchAryA's words: that Ishvara is above all the guNas that religions seek to attribute to him and that he remains universal, identical and the same in all religions.
I believe that worshipping Ishwara is worshipping the full. Ishwara's will is unsurpassed. I also agree to the following, noting that even Bible and Koran do not encourage forcible or seductive conversions (but surely followers of these scriptures do).

"Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God." .

----concern of us Hindu parents remaining ignorant of the distinctive features of our religion as taught by our traditional gurus; and our failure to teach our children properly which only makes them easy conversion targets for the missionaries of Abrahamic religions.
The last quote, to me, is most important, since i know how the most important part of my life has passed in ignorance of ignorance. Teaching sanskrit, indian languages, and scripture to young people must be the first goal. Also, to me, harmony is important since, many of us do not know that the vak is the fiery ashtra. Vak originates in the fire of mind. These missiles then go to their targets and further build their bodies with sweetness or with poison (depending on so may factors) and return.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
29 December 2009, 04:36 AM
Now let me explain why I feel so strongly about this issue, I do not hate these followers but I sure do hate what they follow, if their aim is to convert us heathens and kaffirs then it becomes our duty to defend our self, this is my defence, we certainly can not give them the fuel and ammunition to make us weak, it is suicidal and talking about suicide many off our ancestors chose death in place of conversion, it would be an insult to them who met brutal death (it is gruesome history) in upholding Vedic dharma, can I tell them you fools did you not know they worship the same god?

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasadji,

I fully agree, noting however, that even worshippers of same God kill. The cultural differences seem to accentuate the problems further.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
29 December 2009, 01:33 PM
namaste atanu,
I somehow didn't see your posts 106 and 107 till today. However, under the circumstances, I agree with you that there is no point in continuing.

I believe the two original queries on this thread were clear and simple enough.

For me the answers to those questions are clear. However, I understand your personal conviction in the matter.

Thanks for your participation.


Namaste Satay,

Anyway, I see that it is pointless to continue.
Om Namah Shivaya

Ganeshprasad
29 December 2009, 05:11 PM
Pranam Atanu ji


Namaste Ganeshprasadji,

I fully agree, noting however, that even worshippers of same God kill. The cultural differences seem to accentuate the problems further.

Om Namah Shivaya



I am heartened by your fully endorsing my reason for defence ‘we certainly can not give them the fuel and ammunition to make us weak’

Sure people kill but you will not find endorsement or encouragement from dharma guru or Shastra for it, on the contrary it is well understood even a street sweeper, no disrespect intended, knows that one is held responsible for ones action.

Cultural difference should not necessarily accentuate any problem, verity is a spice of life.

Many a culture has been assimilated in the history of Bharat without them having to loose their identity. We can all co exist with mutual respect.

Please tell me who are the odd ones out and why?

Jai Shree Krishna

amra
30 December 2009, 01:15 PM
I humbly request all you fools to stop arguing and read this book

The temple of Hanuman.

All questions of 'Hindu' Universalism are answered in it.

http://www.omphaloskepsis.com/ebooks/pdf/ttoh.pdf

Ganeshprasad
30 December 2009, 01:56 PM
I humbly request all you fools to stop arguing and read this book



Come on old wise one give me one good reason this fool should open that link, is it Veda revelation?

Jai Shree Krishna

Eastern Mind
30 December 2009, 02:05 PM
Come on old wise one give me one good reason this fool should open that link, is it Veda revelation?



So you can report back to the rest of us fools. Check it out for viruses at the same time. Go GP, Go GP. Satisfy your curiousity. Boy do I wish one book could take the place of this one lifetime of experience that has gotten me this far.

Aum Namasivaya

satay
30 December 2009, 02:26 PM
pranam amra,


I humbly request all you fools to stop arguing and

Why do you think we are fools?

Is it because we are arguing among each other or is it because we are arguing for the truth?

Just trying to understand your criteria for calling us all fools.

Ganeshprasad
30 December 2009, 04:54 PM
Pranam EM

What can this old fool report back, have you not heard it’s the curiosity that killed the cat, my anti virus got the better of me, this old fool could not risk it so I am afraid nought to report. Frankly I could rely on your experience more, then anyone who claims to have all the answers without elaborating jack.

Jai Shree Krishna

Eastern Mind
30 December 2009, 05:17 PM
Vanakkam GP:

Ah, but I am a fool.

Who is this elaborating Jack you talk about? Is he like elaborating Yajvan, or elaborating Saidevo?

Actually you made me chuckle as I don't think I've ever heard anyone from India use this idiom.

Aum namasivaya

Ganeshprasad
30 December 2009, 05:46 PM
Pranam EM

now now why bring Yajvan ji and Saidevo ji, when you know who is the wise one on this thread.

By the way what ever gave you the idea that i am from India?

Jai Shree Krishna

Eastern Mind
30 December 2009, 06:19 PM
GP: So sorry for the assumption. With a name like Ganeshprasad, I should have guessed you were from jolly England. Right along there with the MacTavish, Smiths, and Windsors, its a right proper British namesake, isn't it?
A pint o' Guiness then, mate. Please accept me sincerest apologies.
So Chelsea's 'avin' a mighty fine year, then?

Cheers, my Matey.

Sahasranama
18 December 2010, 06:35 AM
http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41:myth-of-hindu-sameness&catid=24:unclassified&Itemid=33

Thank you for the link

Harinama
29 April 2011, 05:58 PM
I haven't read the rest of the thread regarding this, but I know that in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, Bhaktivinoda Thakura in passing regards Muhammad as the Supreme Teacher of Sakhya Rasa (mood of friendship) towards the Lord.

"In the age of Dvapara, Uddhava and Arjuna became the qualified authorities of sakhya rasa. They preached this rasa throughout the world. Gradually tha rasa expanded up to the Arabian countries and touched the heart of Mohammed, the knower of religious principles."

-- Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura


And of course, Srila Prabhupada has said immensely that the Qur'an is also shastra, that Islam is also Vaishnavism (albeit a 'corrupted' form, like all later religions), and that Allah is another name for Krishna, God.

Adhvagat
01 May 2011, 06:12 PM
Islam can't be Vaishanvism, they don't accept Vishnu to begin with (not mentioning all the questionable acts sanctioned by Qu'ran according to muslims themselves).

Of course any religious inclination (whatever it be) points to the same, not the same that as another religion, but to the same archetypal religious tendency, it's a nice blanket statement to avoid arguments and make everybody happy in the end thougf.

When it is said that religion from the Vedas can make one be a better christian/muslim/whatever, this can only mean that the Vedas speak of higher truths, with higher clarity. Of course a person can just use them to improve their practice and not let go of their old practices due to attachment or not even considering in the first place, but the best practice would be to embrace the higher truths wholeheartedly. Not to mention it's logically the best course of action: Since X makes Y better, why not just go with X all the way?

Sahasranama
01 May 2011, 07:18 PM
I haven't read the rest of the thread regarding this, but I know that in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, Bhaktivinoda Thakura in passing regards Muhammad as the Supreme Teacher of Sakhya Rasa (mood of friendship) towards the Lord.

"In the age of Dvapara, Uddhava and Arjuna became the qualified authorities of sakhya rasa. They preached this rasa throughout the world. Gradually tha rasa expanded up to the Arabian countries and touched the heart of Mohammed, the knower of religious principles."

-- Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura


And of course, Srila Prabhupada has said immensely that the Qur'an is also shastra, that Islam is also Vaishnavism (albeit a 'corrupted' form, like all later religions), and that Allah is another name for Krishna, God.

Before Bhaktivinod Thakur became a Gaudiya vaishnava, he was already influenced strongly by the neo Hindu reformers like Ram Mohan Roy, so he brought that bagage into his sampradaya.

anirvan
02 May 2011, 01:29 AM
, but I know that in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, Bhaktivinoda Thakura in passing regards
Muhammad as the Supreme Teacher of Sakhya Rasa (mood of friendship) towards the Lord.

Swami Vivekananda in his discourses several times mentioned that Muhammad was a yogabhrasta and fallen soul from yoga with deranged mental status and literally a pshyco with perverted religious thinking.
"

Seeker123
25 January 2012, 11:43 AM
Interesting discussion. Just finishing reading. Looking at Adi Sankara's (and the other 2 great Acharyas) life it is clear that they would state all religions do not have the same goal (they felt even all 3 paths dont have the same goal!). But I am concerned that even well regarded sages like Kanchi Paramacharya and Ramakrishna have appeared to allude that all religions have same goal. If it is my misunderstanding please correct it.

From Kanchi Paramacharya:
"One big difference between Hinduism and other faiths is that it does not proclaim that it alone shows the path to liberation. Our Vedic religion alone has not practiced conversion and the reason for it is that our forefathers were well aware that all religions are nothing but different paths to realise the one and only Paramatman"
From Ramakrishna:
'Never feel that your path alone is right and that the paths of others a wrong and full of errors. Hindus, Mussalmans, and Christians are going to the same destination by different paths. A man can realize God by following his own path if his prayer is sincere"

Swami Dayananda has published on this subject. You can probably google and see the full publication. Some excerpts:
"All prayers are valid. But all religions do not have same goal"
There is no concept of sin or original sin in Hinduism
"Heaven is impermanent and it is a non-verifiable belief"
"Please understand, we do not say all religions lead to the same goal. It is wrong. But all worship Iswara, if they worship. Some religions do not have Ishwara. But Ishwara is replaced by something else, whatever that may be. But they have a concept that God who is sitting in heaven and created the world, and he is formless, beats all reason and logic. Does a formless God require a location? Does formless space require a location?"
"Honestly, I am telling you, we can live in harmony if we give respect to people to have their beliefs. And Hindus do not have problems in this. We do not think that God will be confused, if you pray in any language."
"Moksha, liberation, in other words, is here and now, while one is living. Moksha is not heaven-bound."
Here is a Christian writer who has come to the same conclusion.
http://www.comparativereligion.com/conclusion.html