PDA

View Full Version : Fanatacism



Sahasranama
11 September 2010, 01:45 PM
A muslim has to be a suicide bomber to be called fanatic. A hindu only has to say that he only believes in his own faith, and does not believe all religions are the same to be called a Hindu fanatic.

Riverwolf
11 September 2010, 01:55 PM
I think the reason behind this double-standard (which is, frankly, ridiculous), is because in the West, Hinduism seems very universalistic, so when you find Hindus that aren't, it can be somewhat jarring.

As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to be a suicide bomber to be a fanatic. (Side note: "fanatic" is the word from which "fan," as in, "I'm a fan of his music" came from. Food for thought IMO.) A religious fanatic is someone who believes his religion to be the one true religion, and that all other religions are evil and must be stamped out of the world. (I do stress ALL other religions, by the way, so I don't automatically call a Hindu who is anti-Islam, for example, a Hindu fanatic.) Whether this is to be done by violent means or non-violent means isn't really important to me.

Oh, and another criteria for being a religious fanatic is being so closed-minded that even when counter-evidence, or even counter-proof, of a certain religious argument is presented, it's ignored completely.

Sahasranama
11 September 2010, 02:20 PM
It's indeed a subjective term.

When it comes to Hinduism, the gurus that came from India to the west have really made it harder for Hindus who are not radical universalists.

I only have to say, I don't believe it's possible that Jesus is an avatar of Vishnu, and I get called a Hindu fanatic. :rolleyes:

Eastern Mind
11 September 2010, 02:23 PM
Vannakkam: Words can be so meaningless, or confusing. I once said to a friend that I was a bit of a fanatical Hindu. She stared me down (this was in India) and said, "No, you're just a very enthusiastic Hindu." So I don't see how the term 'fanatic' somehow got switched or connoted with willingness to be violent, or something like that. Certainly I prefer Riverwolf's definition.

Aum Namasivaya

Riverwolf
11 September 2010, 02:36 PM
When it comes to Hinduism, the gurus that came from India to the west have really made it harder for Hindus who are not radical universalists.


Ironic, seeing as I'd think that "radical universalism" would accept anything, even if it wasn't radically universalist!

Man, I love all the ironies that humanity can come up with.

sanjaya
11 September 2010, 08:05 PM
A muslim has to be a suicide bomber to be called fanatic. A hindu only has to say that he only believes in his own faith, and does not believe all religions are the same to be called a Hindu fanatic.

Well it makes sense if we understand that the definition of a fanatic is relative. Muslims in general are rather crazy. Even the ones here in America seem pretty normal, until you get to talking politics (at least that's been my experience). If we are fanatics for not believing that all other religions are equal to our own, then I say that Hinduism's fanatics are better than Islam's fanatics.

atanu
12 September 2010, 12:19 AM
I only have to say, I don't believe it's possible that Jesus is an avatar of Vishnu, and I get called a Hindu fanatic. :rolleyes:

Namaste sahsranama

Has anyone done that?

Actually, you are correct that Hinduism, as taught by genuine teachers, whether in west or in east, is unique and different in its emphasis in its teaching that beneath the infinite variety is the homogeneous consciousness, which must be experientially known by one wisshing to be freed of the pulls of preferences that is the ultimate causte of recurrence of birth and death.

If the attention is continuously on the diverse and their interactions, then the substratum is missed. Moreover, there is nothing that has not Vishnu as the Self -- so, veritably every being and every non-being is that.

Best wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

Sahasranama
12 September 2010, 01:22 AM
Has anyone done that?

Actually someone kept arguing that Jesus and Krishna are the same, because their stories looked similar. He didn't call me a fanatic directly, but said that anyone who can't see that all religions are the same must be a fanatic.


Actually, you are correct that Hinduism, as taught by genuine teachers, whether in west or in east, is unique and different in its emphasis in its teaching that beneath the infinite variety is the homogeneous consciousness, which must be experientially known to be freed of the pulls of preferences that is the ultimate causte of recurrence of birth and death.

Thanks for the explaination of what the common thread is in Hinduism. The core teachings are definitely unique in Hinduism, even though sometimes there are some similarities between Hinduism and other religions.

sm78
12 September 2010, 07:58 AM
He didn't call me a fanatic directly, but said that anyone who can't see that all religions are the same must be a fanatic.

Sounds like your friend has a fanatic and fundamentalist world view. You cannot prove to a fanatic that you are not fanatic.

satay
13 September 2010, 10:16 AM
namaste,


A hindu only has to say that he only believes in his own faith, and does not believe all religions are the same to be called a Hindu fanatic.

Correct. Stangely, Radical universalists don't seem to accept the hindu 'fanatic' and will argue till the cows come home...but will happily embrace the fanatic from any other religion. :rolleyes: :cool1:

Riverwolf
13 September 2010, 02:43 PM
Actually someone kept arguing that Jesus and Krishna are the same, because their stories looked similar...


:headscratch: No, they don't... from what I know of Krishna's story, they're almost nothing alike. Jesus primarily preached, whereas Krishna took on a large variety of roles.

Sounds like this someone has only a very rudimentary knowledge of religions.

See, the kind of universalism that I follow is that I believe all spiritual paths to be legitimate paths to God, even though some may be easier than others. That's COMPLETELY different from saying that all religions teach the same things or that they're all completely on equal ground, which, IMHO, is nonsense.

Okay, I shall stop myself now before I rant too long. ^_^

Sahasranama
13 September 2010, 04:02 PM
There is some similarity between the story of Kansa trying to kill all babies and some story in the bible about baby killing.


See, the kind of universalism that I follow is that I believe all spiritual paths to be legitimate paths to God, even though some may be easier than others.

Yes, I also believe that. They will reach God, maybe in their next life.

Riverwolf
13 September 2010, 04:30 PM
There is some similarity between the story of Kansa trying to kill all babies and some story in the bible about baby killing.

King Herod orders all babies under the age of 2 to be killed in an attempt to kill baby Jesus.

That's the only similarity that I can think of.


Yes, I also believe that. They will reach God, maybe in their next life.
[/font][/color]I think we may disagree on the "next life" part, because I do think that a couple other spiritual paths that aren't Vedic can lead people to God-realization in this life. (Not very many of them, though.) For me, Hinduism just happens to be the one that spoke the most to me. Basically I believe that Hinduism is the best for me, but not necessarily for all others.

However, though we may disagree on that (not sure if we do... do we?), I wouldn't call you a fanatic for that.

Sahasranama
13 September 2010, 05:07 PM
I am just curious, what is your definition of God? Which God can these people from other religions reach? Shiva, Krishna or the formless brahman and through what type of Sadhana will they reach God?

----------------------------

I don't know if this was posted before on this forum, but here's an interesting read about Radical Universalism:

http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm

Riverwolf
13 September 2010, 05:44 PM
I am just curious, what is your definition of God?

My definition of the Supreme Reality, Brahman, is undefinable. But I worship the Personal God in various forms.


Which God can these people from other religions reach? Shiva, Krishna or the formless brahman and through what type of Sadhana will they reach God?


Well, the Supreme Reality in the religion my girlfriend follows is called the Star Goddess, and ritual-work seems to be how they reach Godhood. (That religion is about awakening God-potential, as it were.)

Of course, IMO, the term "God-realization" is only the theistic way of describing it, and it can be described in other ways. For example, I believe that it's what Buddhism calls nirvana, and that Buddhism is also a way to reach it.

In the Abrahamic religions, you get the mystical sects (Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Sufi, etc.) which seem to be about God-realization.

None of these paths appeal to me or my disposition, so I don't follow them. But since everyone has different dispositions, people follow different paths. Some are more advanced than others.

Sahasranama
13 September 2010, 06:00 PM
Yes, to each its own.

But God realisation in Christianity means accepting Him and Jesus as the son of God and all, how can that lead the lofty goal of Brahma Jnana? I don't think it's possible at all.

Personally, I believe that the effort to search for God is never wasted, if their desire to know God is honest, they will be lead on the right path eventually, but I don't believe the ideal of Hinduism can be reached directly through the practice of other religions. In the mean time these people are sending prayers like crying in the forest, there's no one to answer. From a Hindu perspective, doing japa of Jesus is not very different from doing japa of Julius Caesar in terms of benefits. The only thing to be said is that they are inclined towards religion, which is a step in the right direction, but they are on the wrong path. Like someone who is lost in the forest, but has an intention to get out. If he is walking on the wrong path, he will not get out of the forest, but if he is lucky or finds someone to guide him in the right direction, he will be able to reach his purpose.

Riverwolf
13 September 2010, 06:51 PM
Yes, to each its own.

But God realisation in Christianity means accepting Him and Jesus as the son of God and all, how can that lead the lofty goal of Brahma Jnana? I don't think it's possible at all.

Personally, I believe that the effort to search for God is never wasted, if their desire to know God is honest, they will be lead on the right path eventually, but I don't believe the ideal of Hinduism can be reached directly through the practice of other religions. In the mean time these people are sending prayers like crying in the forest, there's no one to answer. From a Hindu perspective, doing japa of Jesus is not very different from doing japa of Julius Caesar in terms of benefits. The only thing to be said is that they are inclined towards religion, which is a step in the right direction, but they are on the wrong path. Like someone who is lost in the forest, but has an intention to get out. If he is walking on the wrong path, he will not get out of the forest, but if he is lucky or finds someone to guide him in the right direction, he will be able to reach his purpose.

And here's where we disagree. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's okay.

I'd never accuse you of being a fanatic for those beliefs. Quite the contrary; it's in line with many books on Hinduism (by Hindus), as well as what's in the Shastras.

Eastern Mind
13 September 2010, 06:54 PM
Vannakkam Sahasranama: Sheesh, you're such a fanatic about this topic. So many posts already. http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Then you have these guys like my dear brother the atheist but agnostic on his better days who claims that all religion is fanaticism. The Christians, anybody within 10 metres of a house of worship, anybody stopping for more than 2 seconds on a Sunday morning Christian show on TV, anybody who would travel anywhere to see a church or temple, any donor to any institution, even the upkeep of a graveyard. Basically anybody but him. http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Aum Namasivaya

PARAM
14 September 2010, 11:43 AM

Hindus must become stright no matter what anti Hindu says
Be Proud of Hinduism

[quote=Sahasranama;50932]I am just curious, what is your definition of God? Which God can these people from other religions reach? Shiva, Krishna or the formless brahman and through what type of Sadhana will they reach God?[/quote

Pray Supreme Braham
In Gita Krishan himself says to pray Supreme Braham is better

and do not use the word god, use Braham, Ishvar Parmeshvar, Parmatma, Bhagwan etc originally Hindu words

and better use ॐ

Ekanta
14 September 2010, 12:00 PM
God bless.

NetiNeti
14 September 2010, 02:22 PM
I get called a fanatic because of my ardent belief in Vegetarianism and my refusal to accommodate murderers and flesh eaters. Other Hindus who eat meat find me "brash" even though the only thing I advocate is the ending of animal suffering.

I take my dinners at work by myself and my co-workers think I am a jerk because I will not eat with them.

2 stories.

I was at subway and I had a button of Govinda on my book-bag. As I payed for my veggie sub a young Indian walked up to me and said "Is that krishna? We should eat together." I asked if his sub contained any meat and when he said yes I told him I do not eat with flesh-eaters. He got very angry over this even though I was being calm and rational. It's even funnier because he was trying to make a connection with me about Govinda and here he was purchasing carcasses to eat.

I was invited to a Buddhist/Hindu summit dinner thing. I showed up at the Buddhist temple/residence and the nun showed me to the kitchen. She showed me the stove and it had a chicken boiling in it! I told her I was leaving and she asked me why. I informed her I would not have a spiritual conversation on the same room as a murdered animal. She tried to convince me it was o.k. and then called me a hard-liner. I never went back.

Does this make me a fanatic or an advocate for peace?

Sahasranama
14 September 2010, 02:30 PM
I don't think it makes you a fanatic, nor an advocate, because people don't listen anyway. But I would call it traditional, brahmins used to be very strict about eating hygeine.

NetiNeti
14 September 2010, 02:37 PM
I don't think it makes you a fanatic, nor an advocate, because people don't listen anyway. But I would call it traditional, brahmins used to be very strict about eating hygeine.

You are right about people not listening. The majority of people (IMO) could really care less about their habits impact on other lives. Very sad.

Riverwolf
14 September 2010, 04:17 PM
I get called a fanatic because of my ardent belief in Vegetarianism and my refusal to accommodate murderers and flesh eaters. Other Hindus who eat meat find me "brash" even though the only thing I advocate is the ending of animal suffering.

I take my dinners at work by myself and my co-workers think I am a jerk because I will not eat with them.

2 stories.

I was at subway and I had a button of Govinda on my book-bag. As I payed for my veggie sub a young Indian walked up to me and said "Is that krishna? We should eat together." I asked if his sub contained any meat and when he said yes I told him I do not eat with flesh-eaters. He got very angry over this even though I was being calm and rational. It's even funnier because he was trying to make a connection with me about Govinda and here he was purchasing carcasses to eat.

I was invited to a Buddhist/Hindu summit dinner thing. I showed up at the Buddhist temple/residence and the nun showed me to the kitchen. She showed me the stove and it had a chicken boiling in it! I told her I was leaving and she asked me why. I informed her I would not have a spiritual conversation on the same room as a murdered animal. She tried to convince me it was o.k. and then called me a hard-liner. I never went back.

Does this make me a fanatic or an advocate for peace?

From what I can tell, it makes you a passionate advocate for peace, not a fanatic. ^_^

NetiNeti
14 September 2010, 05:21 PM
From what I can tell, it makes you a passionate advocate for peace, not a fanatic. ^_^

Thank you Riverwolf.

Believer
20 September 2010, 08:08 PM
I take my dinners at work by myself and my co-workers think I am a jerk because I will not eat with them.

I asked if his sub contained any meat and when he said yes I told him I do not eat with flesh-eaters.

I was invited to a Buddhist/Hindu... chicken boiling...called me a hard-liner.

Does this make me a fanatic or an advocate for peace?

I sincerely admire your convictions and your courage to stand up to people to defend your POV. I wish I had a firmer backbone.

As an aside, I would try to make up an excuse (even though that involves lying), like the smell of (or presence of) meat makes me ill, or makes me puke, instead of being blunt about it. People feel put down, when told that I cannot share a meal with them because of xxxx. It makes them look inferior and that would invite anger/hostility/accusation of me a being hardliner. A non-confrontational attitude helps to keep ones blood pressure down and his sanity intact. It makes for a better work environment and respectful interface with others, without giving any ground. Just my $0.02 worth.

sanjaya
21 September 2010, 06:22 PM
I was at subway and I had a button of Govinda on my book-bag. As I payed for my veggie sub a young Indian walked up to me and said "Is that krishna? We should eat together." I asked if his sub contained any meat and when he said yes I told him I do not eat with flesh-eaters. He got very angry over this even though I was being calm and rational. It's even funnier because he was trying to make a connection with me about Govinda and here he was purchasing carcasses to eat.

Well now I just feel guilty. I'm the guy who orders half meat/half vegetarian pizzas to split with my Western friends and coworkers.

I guess that's what happens to us second-generation Indian Americans. I must commend your commitment to vegetarian diet.

satay
21 September 2010, 11:42 PM
namaskar,

I don't think you are a 'fanatic'.

Here is a story of my own...I used to go for breakfast with my coworkers. Breakfast special: eggs, bacon or sausage, potatoes and two pieces of toast for like 2.50 or something like that. Instead of saying I don't want eggs and bacon etc. every day, I used to just get it and tell my coworkers to take it. Thus my coworkers would end up with extra bacon/eggs etc. everytime they went bkfast with me. They loved it. I couldn't care less... I look at it this way...It's not my job to educate them or force vegetarinism on them.


I get called a fanatic because of my ardent belief in Vegetarianism and my refusal to accommodate murderers and flesh eaters. Does this make me a fanatic or an advocate for peace?

Eastern Mind
22 September 2010, 06:49 AM
Vannakkam: At the school where I worked, the parents would cook us a lunch on teacher appreciation day. There were always tons of vegetarian options, and I just sat and ate with my colleagues, and the parents. The idea of having intense antagonism over several more years did not appeal to me. The only time I didn't get along with coworkers was when we had a disagreemant on how to approach a particular student's needs.

Aum Namasivaya

TatTvamAsi
25 September 2010, 07:40 PM
A muslim has to be a suicide bomber to be called fanatic. A hindu only has to say that he only believes in his own faith, and does not believe all religions are the same to be called a Hindu fanatic.

You hit the nail on the head! It is so perverse now that all a Hindu has to say is, "India is a Hindu country!" That person will be branded a "Hindu militant" by all sorts of fellows.

With regards to fanaticism, though, and even fundamentalism, it is incongruous to call a Hindu a "fanatic" or "fundamentalist".

This is for several reasons. One, a Hindu, by definition, is okay with various other paths that are chosen by devotees to greater or lesser degrees. A simple example is this: an Aghori who meditates on a corpse and a Namboodhri Brahmin of Kerala who thinks other Brahmins are mlecchas (wonder what they think of real mlecchas? :D) are both Hindus. Neither one is concerned about the other's way of life or path he has taken. That is what 'tolerance' means. If the Aghori went to the Namboodhri and said, "Hey, you have to meditate on corpses in order to achieve moksha" or something to that effect, the Namboodhri has a right to fight back or refuse the demand. Hindus in modern India are so beaten down, any whimper of an assertion made is enough to brandish them "saffronized" or "Hindutva" or "Hindu fanatic". It is so absurd.

Secondly, A Hindu can never be a fundamentalist as he will never try to convert another to his path. A fundamentalist by definition is one who thinks only his path/way of life is the correct one and coerces others to follow it. Even the Buddhists think one cannot achieve "Nibbana" unless one follows the Eight Fold Path and acknowledges the Four Noble Truths. The Abrahamics are obviously the worst of the lot.

So, if a Hindu threatens you or forces you to convert, go ahead and call him a fanatic. Otherwise, that word should only be reserved for mlecchas. ;)

kallol
25 September 2010, 10:25 PM
I get called a fanatic because of my ardent belief in Vegetarianism and my refusal to accommodate murderers and flesh eaters. Other Hindus who eat meat find me "brash" even though the only thing I advocate is the ending of animal suffering.

I take my dinners at work by myself and my co-workers think I am a jerk because I will not eat with them.

2 stories.

I was at subway and I had a button of Govinda on my book-bag. As I payed for my veggie sub a young Indian walked up to me and said "Is that krishna? We should eat together." I asked if his sub contained any meat and when he said yes I told him I do not eat with flesh-eaters. He got very angry over this even though I was being calm and rational. It's even funnier because he was trying to make a connection with me about Govinda and here he was purchasing carcasses to eat.

I was invited to a Buddhist/Hindu summit dinner thing. I showed up at the Buddhist temple/residence and the nun showed me to the kitchen. She showed me the stove and it had a chicken boiling in it! I told her I was leaving and she asked me why. I informed her I would not have a spiritual conversation on the same room as a murdered animal. She tried to convince me it was o.k. and then called me a hard-liner. I never went back.

Does this make me a fanatic or an advocate for peace?


This is what Krishna has cautioned us again and again. "Not to get stuck to a particular notion". It has to have balance - Madhyam marg.

Nothing wrong in your approach - only that it will create the strong LIKES & DISLIKES which becomes your character and destiny. Like and dislikes is one of the main quality which is deterrant to the spiritual growth.

This might be the cause for mental irritation, worry and degradation. We need to be careful about these habits growing unknowingly.

I have a devout devotee and a vegeterian friend. When we went to Russia, we were given soup with "Vegeterian Chicken". He took out the "Vegeterian Chicken" and took the rest.

Now this is another approach of another vegeterian.

However your destiny is is your hand. We can at the best provide some insight to this habits but we cannot live your life.

Love and best wishes