Re: Hindu Universalism
namaste Atanu.
Originally Posted by
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.
Originally Posted by
atanu
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?
Originally Posted by
atanu
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.
Originally Posted by
atanu
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.
Originally Posted by
atanu;
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.
Originally Posted by
atanu
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.
Originally Posted by
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.
रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥
To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.
--viShNu purANam
Bookmarks