A real Swami?

[c.smith]

Hari Om!

I have a question that's been weighing on my mind for some time and I'm somewhat undecided on the final outcome as to how I feel about it, thus this post and asking the esteemed forum members for personal opinions on the subject.

Several "Swamis" that I've read about and read the works of, gained some insight from, etc, have my full attention until they get to the part where they use Jesus or other religions as examples of the ultimate "truth". I can't always stomach the teachings that go along with this. Notice I used the word "always". Some examples seem appropriate, but why can't one use an example from our own Hindu works? I truly don't understand this when we have a vast variety to choose from. I know that the most respected Swami Sivananda uses other religions as examples and I certainly can't discredit him in any way. But why? I would never say that he is not a "Swami" in any way, shape or form and I respect him, his works and his writings tremendously. So again, why? I'm not clear what the final message of Sivananda is. Hindu? If I remember correctly (and I may not) he says that he does not embrace any religion. Please correct me here if I am wrong - again I may be. What about other Swamis? Maybe I haven't defined "Swami" correctly.

Am I a hard core Hindu, or does this not make me a true Hindu at all by not accepting this universalism?

Maybe I'm just confused at the point of the message or what they are trying to convey by the "message".

The Acharya at the Temple which I sometimes attend satsang has never used such examples, perhaps by accident, perhaps not. I've never taken the opportunity to ask him and will avail myself, but again, respect the opinion of members here too.

Om Namah Sivaya
Jai Hanuman

[Mana]

Namast� c.smith

I look to the meaning of the word haTha for my understanding of this, the introduction of Hinduism to the West. Drastic times need drastic measures.

Without the seeds planted by Swamis such as Swami Sivananda, might it be that The West would be a very different today?

To my mind it is the insight and wisdom of god that has lead them to such Divine actions. The intended audience will have affected both the choice of subject, and the choice of words; whilst translating ones thought into English.

Pranam

Mana

[sanjaya]

I don't think it's necessary for a Hindu to accept universalism. In fact I think this is ultimately self-defeating. I tend to stick with Hindu religious teachers from before the twentieth century, as this filters out a lot of Hindu pandering to the West.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: I think originally it may have been pandering to the west, but even then it was just an educated guess. "If I don't include Jesus, they probably won't listen at all." In truth, the opposite idea may have worked even better. It was only a guess. A lot of books when they switch culture change words to suit the new culture. Novels written in Britain are often edited for the American audience, for example.

Teachers all try to address their audience, and swamis are no different.

These days I just don't feel it's necessary at all. If you build it (a totally eastern temple for example) they will come. But that's just me. Some people like universalism ... obviously. But for me personally, I just walk the other way.

Aum Namasivaya

[NayaSurya]

When I speak to a xtian who has asked what SD is, I very very often use christ and the bible. Because if we do not, then they do not understand what we are saying.

Now I will tell you that today is as chilly as a hay ride at Huber's farm in November...and you will say...

"What the heck is Huber farms and how shall I know the temperature?"

The wise, will understand this problem with relativity and our experiences and try to link it to something their audience will understand.

Knowing this is a global community, but it's relatively world wide known that a freezer is cold I could say...I am cold as an ice cube!

So when the xtian come to my home and see Beloved Krishna or Shiva and ask....so what's this all about?

I tell them that "There are many names for Beloved...but no matter the Name, He love us just the same."

What else can I say? These Portions have a very rigid understanding of reality and a very narrow understanding of Beloved? They have a limited vocabulary about Beloved...and a limited understanding of His Vastness?


Just as the child would ask me ..."Mother will you die? Your mommy died."

and in an effort to comfort them, I reply... "Dear child please do not dwell on this...I will always be with you."

In the most finest sense, this is my heart's Truth. But they only understand it as a "physical presense".

Some day, as they grow...they will know we never die...and that we are always Together.

The problem with explaining SD with using terms xtians understand is that others will come along and try to use this as a bridge to conduct conversions upon Dharmic peoples.

But, if we understand these comments were made to speak to Portions with limited vocabulary...then it is taken as it should be.

When describing this Truth to simple Portions, we will make these link ups in an attempt to comfort them and help them grasp it.

[sm78]

Several "Swamis" that I've read about and read the works of, gained some insight from, etc, have my full attention until they get to the part where they use Jesus or other religions as examples of the ultimate "truth". I can't always stomach the teachings that go along with this. Notice I used the word "always". Some examples seem appropriate, but why can't one use an example from our own Hindu works? I truly don't understand this when we have a vast variety to choose from. I know that the most respected Swami Sivananda uses other religions as examples and I certainly can't discredit him in any way. But why? I would never say that he is not a "Swami" in any way, shape or form and I respect him, his works and his writings tremendously. So again, why? I'm not clear what the final message of Sivananda is. Hindu? If I remember correctly (and I may not) he says that he does not embrace any religion. Please correct me here if I am wrong - again I may be. What about other Swamis? Maybe I haven't defined "Swami" correctly.

Being a swami or having any other spiritual tags doesn't necessarily mean one is free from a collective delusion heavily ingrained in the society one belong's to.

But more importantly even possessing the true qualities of a Guru and renunciate, does not guarantee it as well.

I have only knew about perhaves 2 swamis who were not universalists.

I have learnt not to be too bothered by traces of universalism and seek other qualities which still may be in line with being a spiritual guide. However, there is ofcourse a limit to a referance of Jesus one can tolerate, and if it becomes the central theme like in case of Yogananda - I wud rather move elsewhere.