My Letter to the Editor of Hinduism Today

[sambya]

I don't agree with most of the argument in the original letter. Paths are many doesn't mean "Christianity" is a valid path too. There may be a 1000 routes to Rome, but there will be a much larger number of routes that do not lead to Rome. Christianity is one of those paths that doesn't lead anywhere.

hi sahasranama . i just want to understand your perspective a little better . exactly what ways are there to determine which paths lead to rome and which not ? someone must have walked along all of the paths before proclaiming this ? so , who is that man ?

Respecting another faith is something else than believing it's a true path to salvation or enlightment.

i was thinking whether respect can really come when you are convinced that a path is wrong . what would rather come is a feeling of diplomacy -- you know its wrong and yet keep shut to be diplomatically correct and safe . that is just another version of hypocrisy !!

Only Hindu Gods can clear the sins of the past and bestow their grace upon their devotees. Christians and Muslims cannot clear their karma going to church or mosks. Hindus can do so just by chanting the authentic names of Hindu Gods like Rama, Durga, Hanuman, Krishna, Ganesha.

oh ! that's new to me !!

The worship of gods not mentioned in our Sanatana Dharma is false, but it can bestow minor results, because of the ideas of honest devotion and worship can develop in a certain person outside of Hinduism.

isnt this creating a paradox ? i worship and believe in a false god and yet get bestowed with minor results . and to top it all devotion can develope too ! devotion for whom ? the false god ? how does belief in false god generate devotion -- in hindu sense of the word ?

Hindus are cutting themselves in their feet, extenting the logic of "ekam sat, vipra bahudha vadanti" outside of Sanatana Dharma, the mantra specifically speaks of vedic gods.

thats also something new to me . i have never heard of this one . where is it specifically written that the sloka is to interpreted only in context of indian gods ?

[sambya]

namaste everyone.

It is a question of hierarchy about the many paths, which means that only one path leads to the Ultimate Truth in its Absolute Nature, and that all the others only lead to Related Truths, as secondary/temporary destinations. This also means that all the paths are necessary and valid in their own domains to reach the secondary destinations en route the final.

namaste saidevo . theory of many paths does mean a heirarchy and relative truth . but i would differ with you saying that a certain path leads to truth in its absolute nature .

the question is , can truth be known in its absolute nature with my physical and psychological imperfections ? shastras opine that even the gratest of nitya-mukta sages like narada coudlnt know him completely . he is infinite . its is not possible to comprehend his true nature fully due to imperfections of body .

i would quote a story from sri ramakrishna's sayings . im sorry if im qouting him a bit too often in my posts . i find his parables simple and illustrative and am also a follower of his bhavas . cant help it . hehe
here it goes---

" who can know god completely ? he is like a mountain of sugar crystals . we are like ants . an ant came in took a crystal back to his den and came back for another one to eat . and as he was going away he chukled to himself thinking that he would come back next time and take home the entire mountain ! only a tiny crystal of him satisfies our hunger "

i think it is a question of relativism . discovering one aspect of god . some relegions discover a little more than others , but never in its totallity .

[Sahasranama]

......

[Sahasranama]

hi sahasranama . i just want to understand your perspective a little better . exactly what ways are there to determine which paths lead to rome and which not ? someone must have walked along all of the paths before proclaiming this ? so , who is that man ?

It's a matter of accepting the vedas(āstika) or rejecting the vedas(nāstika) to know which paths are true.

i was thinking whether respect can really come when you are convinced that a path is wrong . what would rather come is a feeling of diplomacy -- you know its wrong and yet keep shut to be diplomatically correct and safe . that is just another version of hypocrisy !!

There may not be anything wrong with someone's path as long as they are peace loving and not out for conversions and sacred wars. But that doesn't mean that their faith has become the truth. Personally, I reject Christianity as a true path.

oh ! that's new to me !!

Good think I told you then.

The names of the Hindu gods are sacred in Hinduism. The names of Jesus and Allah are not. As an hindu you would be insulting your own gods to equate the names of Jesus or Allah with those of Durga, Krishna, Ganesha, Shiva etc.

isnt this creating a paradox ? i worship and believe in a false god and yet get bestowed with minor results . and to top it all devotion can develope too ! devotion for whom ? the false god ? how does belief in false god generate devotion -- in hindu sense of the word ?

If the devotion is solely towards the fake gods like Jesus Christ or Maria then it's worthless in the Hindu perspective. But in a rare case, if the devotion extends towards the nirguna brahman or vishva rupa, even in minor ways, like in new agy type of beliefs, that can develop into Hinduism in the next life.

thats also something new to me . i have never heard of this one . where is it specifically written that the sloka is to interpreted only in context of indian gods

People quote that mantra out of context. The mantra mentions gods like Indra, Varuna. It also mentions the word vipra which can only be given to our rishis and not to prophets of the mleccha dharmas.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam:

One way to look at various paths is to study the body language and words of the leaders. (and the adherents, but we don't get to know so easily)

In Hinduism we see happy smiling swamis and gurus and sadhus that seem to glow with some sort of inner contentment, coupled with a sense of humour. Mostly. Not always. Maybe photographers only push the button when a smile is there.

In Islam it seems we see yelling angry old men. Maybe somewhere yet in minority sects a few people look content.

In Christianity, we have a very sad looking man in the pope, crippled by his own church's controversy, and the evangelical preachers who yell fire and brimstone at you. Maybe some Franciscan monks hiding somewhere are content. I don't know, never saw one. Some more liberal pastors look happy enough, but usually they're not hell bent on conversion and exclusivism.

The Dalai Lama seems a happy man despite the politics.

These are just my mundane random observations.

Aum Namasivaya

[sambya]

hi sahasranama . i just want to understand your perspective a little better . exactly what ways are there to determine which paths lead to rome and which not ? someone must have walked along all of the paths before proclaiming this ? so , who is that man ?

It's a matter of accepting the vedas(āstika) or rejecting the vedas(nāstika) to know which paths are true.

that not the answer to my question . i accept the vedas in my own way . i wanted to know what is your method of 'acceptance' . kindly read the orignal question once more ..... im speaking of simple logic .

i was thinking whether respect can really come when you are convinced that a path is wrong . what would rather come is a feeling of diplomacy -- you know its wrong and yet keep shut to be diplomatically correct and safe . that is just another version of hypocrisy !!

There may not be anything wrong with someone's path as long as they are peace loving and not out for conversions and sacred wars. But that doesn't mean that their faith has become the truth. Personally, I reject Christianity as a true path.

good . now that you have used the word "personally" i guess it eliminates all confusion . you are surely entitled to think your way .

by the way , the opposite of truth is always wrong (false to be precise) .


another question . do you believe that other(since your ishta is probably krishna, judging by your posts) gods of hinduism are on the level as krishna ?

[Sahasranama]

I accept the paths within Hinduism as valid spiritual paths without judging who is right on a philosophical level. The paths outside Hinduism are nāstika by definition, because they reject the vedas. Some can still be helpful on a psychological level, but they are devoid of any religious merit.

by the way , the opposite of truth is always wrong (false to be precise) .

Morally there might be nothing wrong with praying to Jesus and going to church, as long as they are not preaching about forceful conversions etc, so there's no reason to object to their faith even if I believe it's a false religion. Christianity remains a nāstika pantha.

another question . do you believe that other(since your ishta is probably krishna, judging by your posts) gods of hinduism are on the level as krishna ?

Yes, they are all one. But on an emotional level your ishta deva can stand out.

Let me ask you a few questions too. Do you believe Ma Kali is a real godess or do you believe that Jesus Christ was the only son of God born from a virgin mother and do you believe in the biblical God in heaven?

[saidevo]

namaste Sambya.

Perhaps if I change a word in my statement you have quoted, my meaning would be clearer:

This is my original statement:

It is a question of hierarchy about the many paths, which means that only one path leads to the Ultimate Truth in its Absolute Nature, and that all the others only lead to Related Truths, as secondary/temporary destinations. This also means that all the paths are necessary and valid in their own domains to reach the secondary destinations en route the final.

Let me change
"only one path leads to the Ultimate Truth in its Absolute Nature"
to
"only one path extends to the Ultimate Truth in its Absolute Nature".

I agree with you that the UT in its AN is unknowable even by the devaRishi NArada or by his father BrahmA. Even our MahAViShNu and MahAdeva are constantly in dhyAna--meditation, investigating the UT further and deeper.

• The most significant aspect of SanAtana Dharma vis-a-vis other religions (East or West) is that only this religion has given a comprehensive, logical and impersonal postulation about the UT.

• At the same time, SD has also said that the Absolute Nature of that UT is beyond the faculties of Atma-buddhi-manas-brain. I think what this means is that a jIvan-mukta who has realized his Self and thereby tasted the AN of the UT can only experience it more and more, not express it in any way.

• An ordinary sAdhaka--seeker, can adore the Gods and understand what he/she can by reading, of the lofty truths of our scriptures, but would certainly need a human guide to take as a spiritual role model. This is where the guru comes in, who could validate a sAdhaka's approach to the UT and ensure that the seeker groomed by dharma and is capable of realizing it in svAnubhava--personal experience.

• Just as we need to pass the living room and threshold of our home and then go through our street to reach the main road, the paths of jnAna is overlaid on the paths of karma and bhakti, although it extends beyond them.

‣ In the modern scenario a sAdhaka lives in, some people limit their sAdhana only within the confines of their home by niyama-anuShTAna--rigours, of dharma and bhakti.

‣ Some people are inclined to peep in at the temple in the street corner or in another road.

‣ And the are some, albeit very few, who take to the jnAna yoga of meditation on the Self, sitting at their homes. Even these people must first need to obtain chitta-shuddha--purity of mind, by following the paths of dharma and bhakti.

Yes, as sage RAmakRShNa said, who can know God completely? But then we as Hindus know that God is such an unknowable entity, and not a super human personality. This is where Hinduism raises above the other religions and gives as choices of paths groomed by dharma and paved with bhakti.

*****

[sambya]

The paths outside Hinduism are nāstika by definition, because they reject the vedas.

not all paths outside hinduism rejected the vedas . after the invasion of india by alexander in 327 B.C. he left behind many greek generals and army men to rule over the conquered territories . you would be surprised to known that most of them accepted vedic authority and some even erected garuda stambhas in their own name . now we all know that back in 327 b.c. no ritual could have been possible in india without brahmins . and errecting a garuda stambha in someones name implies that there was puja and sankalpa done by brahmins in their name . that also implies that the brahmins back then didnt object to it !

and all this from what you call pagan believers more than 2000 years back !!

Let me ask you a few questions too. Do you believe Ma Kali is a real godess or do you believe that Jesus Christ was the only son of God born from a virgin mother and do you believe in the biblical God in heaven?

haha . my maa kali is a royal lady who doesnt come out in front of outsiders . outsiders have to see her through a muslin(an expensive cloth) curtain while she sits on her throne the other side . these outsiders mistook her for a bearded jew and an ageing ruler of heavens , getting to see her partially .

so i hug them an say . "atleast you have managed to see her outline . someday you too shall come over to the other side of the curtain and sit on her lap , like i do !!

its just that i dont say " my mother has her doors closed for all you guys and others not born in india or of indian lineage !! "

simple , isnt it ?

[sambya]

thanks saidevo for explaining . that was all i wanted to know . god bless