Do you believe in Jesus as much as you believe in Ganesh?
This is a lazy post.
Lazy post = one that is entirely made of someone else’s comments or thoughts. Lazy post does not mean plagiarism – since full credit is given up front.
What you are going to read is a fascinating chain of debate/comments that was triggered by Indian’s remark in his comment (# 20) to a separate post “Why are Christian Missions targetting India?” – II).
Indian wrote: “I believe in Jesus as much as I beleive in Lord Ganesha.” and that started the discussion.
Krishna, Nandan and others: I hope you do not mind me moving your comments here. They are so interesting and thought-provoking that I felt they deserved an independent post.
Read on:
*****
Krishna on “Believing BOTH Ganesha and Jesus”
This is a question directed at Indian – you said
” I believe in Jesus as much as I beleive in Lord Ganesha”
“There is no line between two religion of Hindus-Christian”
Excuse my naivette, but I don’t understand this. Both Hindu religion and christianity can’t be true.
Either one of them is true or both false.
For example, Hindus believe in reincarnation, christians don’t.
There can’t be both reincarnation and NO reincarnation!
Right?
Both Bible and Vedas can’t be true when they talk about same subject in contradictory ways. Right?
I must admit 99% Hindus believe as Indian does and they are not joking. They are damn serious about the belief that all religions are somehow correct.
I know a person who visits Tirupati every month. Surprisingly, he also visits velankanni (christian place of worship) in the same trip! When I asked him how can he believe both, he gave an esoteric smile and said “you need to grow up”!!!
I believe I have enough grown-up, but still don’t get it. Can anyone explain? …. Indian?
*****
Comment by Indian
Hi Krishna
I was not equalizing two religion at balance from the point of content of Bible and Geeta. What I meant was there is no animosity between this two religion. We dont fight over why you believe in Jesus and don’t in Lord Ganesha. I was showing level of tolerence between two community and religion.
——-I believe in Jesus as much as I believe in Lord Ganesha— is to be meant like, I respect Jesus for his sacrfices and as humble human being. Not the whole concept of christianity I am talking about here.
—–You said: must admit 99% Hindus believe as Indian does and they are not joking. They are damn serious about the belief that all religions are somehow correct.—–
The same thing I meant. Till now Parsi, christian, sikh, buddhist live together peacefully in India and also outside the country. There is no qualm aagainst each other.
Sorry Krishna, I didnot wanted to hurt anyone but may be because of my not so expert comment in english may have put you in confusion.
Thanks for asking clarification.
*****
Comment by Indian
Krishna
You can read my comment #6. This public who is doing 2 trips to temple and church are converted people. They want “ladoo” from both side. Cunning tactics. They are confused mind. May be they got converted long long time back, but now they are in their senses they should take firm decision to hold un to one.
I have seen these converted people offerings, in temple as well as in churches, also attending pujas at hindus home. But talking diplomatically I find nothing wrong in it as long as they respect Hindus path of offerings also.
*****
Comment by Krishna
Hi Indian,
Thanks for clarification.
I’m happy at least you are not among those my real or perceived 99%!!!
I agree, in India there is a culture of tolerance. There is a general belief that someone should not be subject to persecution just because of his belief and I’m fully with that.
However, there really exist people who *seriously* believe both Jesus and Ganesha are divine. They are not opportunists or some cunning folks. And they do come around as “goody-goody” in a secular sense and influence others’ thinking. Missionaries have easy job of converting them.
All they have to do is prove only Jesus is correct.
OTOH, for people like me who is convinced only in Hinduism, and believe others are false, they have a very difficult job and they just give up at the outset itself. That explains why Missionaries are more successful in India (where 99% Hindus themselves accept divinity of Jesus) and no success
at all in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq (countries more poor and in dire situations compared to India).
*****
Comment by Nandan
The material given below is from www.himalayanacademy.com
This is a must visit site for those who are interested to know about Hinduism. I feel all Hindus must read the online material contain therein to have a better understanding of their faith.
This is given in support of the views expressed by Mr. Krishna.
“Our beliefs determine our thoughts and attitudes about life, which in turn direct our actions. By our actions, we create our destiny. Beliefs about sacred matters–God, soul and cosmos–are essential to one’s approach to life. Hindus believe many diverse things, but there are a few bedrock concepts on which most Hindus concur. The following nine beliefs, though not exhaustive, offer a simple summary of Hindu spirituality.
Hindus believe in a one, all-pervasive Supreme Be ing who is both immanent and transcendent, both Creator and Unmanifest Reality.
Hindus believe in the divinity of the four Vedas, the world’s most ancient scripture, and venerate the Agamas as equally revealed. These primordial hymns are God’s word and the bedrock of Sanatana Dharma, the eternal religion.
Hindus believe that the universe undergoes endless cycles of creation, preservation and dissolution.
Hindus believe in karma, the law of cause and effect by which each individual creates his own destiny by his thoughts, words and deeds.
Hindus believe that the soul reincarnates, evolving through many births until all karmas have been resolved, and moksha, liberation from the cycle of rebirth, is attained. Not a single soul will be deprived of this destiny.
Hindus believe that divine beings exist in unseen worlds and that temple worship, rituals, sacraments and personal devotionals create a communion with these devas and Gods.
Hindus believe that an enlightened master, or satguru, is essential to know the Transcendent Absolute, as are personal discipline, good conduct, purification, pilgrimage, self-inquiry, meditation and surrender in God.
Hindus believe that all life is sacred, to be loved and revered, and therefore practice ahimsa, noninjury, in thought, word and deed.
Hindus believe that no religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine paths are facets of God’s Light, deserving tolerance and understanding.
Hinduism, the world is oldest religion, has no beginning–it precedes recorded history. It has no human founder. It is a mystical religion, leading the devotee to personally experience the Truth within, finally reaching the pinnacle of consciousness where man and God are one. Hinduism has four main denominations–Saivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism and Smartism. “
*****
Comment by Krishna
Hi Nandan,
I appreciate if you agree with my views – but in the quotes you’ve given, at least one item in that, goes exactly against what I’ve said (in previous couple of posts of mine)
“Hindus believe that no religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine paths are facets of God’s Light”
I’m scared the above actually means (again) that somehow all religions are correct and following any religion will lead to the same goal.
Is that what it means? (I’m still not clear, though).
If yes, then there is some logical absurdity there.
I know for sure that the Gita does claim it alone is correct and following any other thing than what is said there will lead to destruction in spiritual terms for a soul.
*****
Comment by Nandan
Dear Krishna,
I was definitely supporting some of your views, but there seems to be small areas of difference in our approach.
I shall try to explain my point of view in a spirit of sharing. This must not in any way be taken as an affront to your way of thinking. Sanatana Dharma has evolved to become one of the best philosophies ever expounded by human beings by allowing free discussion on all matters and by allowing the dissenting word to be heard. That is why we have Shankara’s Advaita and Ramanuja’s Dwaita existing side by side without any conflict. The Shaivas, the Shaktas, the Vaishnavas and the Smartas all have philosophies peculiar to them though they all belong to the wide spectrum of Sanatana Dharma.
The first three groups have identified the Supreme Godhead as Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu. The Smartas feel free to choose their Ishta Devata (Favorite Deity) as the Supreme. Thus we have those who follow any of the Shan-matas (six paths). That is, the Smartas have among them those who worship Ganesha (Ganapatyam), Kartikeya (Koumaram), Shakti (Shaktam), Shiva (Shaivam), Vishnu (Vaishnavam) and Sun (Souram). The Smartas hold that the one Supreme Brahman becomes manifest as many [ eko vishnuh mahad bhootam pruthak bhootani anekasah). So those who worship any of the above Deities externally worship only the Para Brahman. This is further supported by the Namaskara Mantra in Sandhya Vandanam which is given below:
aakaashaat patitam toyam yadha gachchati saagaram
sarva deva namaskaarah keshavam prati gachchati.
Roughly translated it means “ Just as all water from the skies reaches the ocean, prayers made to any of the devas finally reach Vishnu (identified here as the Supreme Deity).
I should confess here that I subscribe to the Smarta school of thought. It is a matter of our individual discretion whether to extend the Shan-matas (six paths) to include the semitic religions. For each man his faith.
The point on which most people get confused in Sanatana Dharma and other religions is with the expression – “I am the only Way” This is also said in Gita. Bible and Quran also have similar statements. A little thought will clear the point. These statements were made in front of a specific audience. Krishna said “ I am the only Way” to Arjuna. He meant I stand in front of you as a visual expression and manifestation of the Supreme Truth. It is a waste of time to look any further. So is the case with Jesus. He said he was the only Saviour. He said it to those in front of him.
Over time such statements were quoted out of context and each, esp. the Semitic religions, started preaching exclusivity to the ownership of God. It is this incorrect understanding of various views (now termed religions) that has led to the continued strife in the name religion. The Christians and Muslims have even come to believe that their’s is the only way and it is their bounden duty to save others from eternal damnation by directing to the true path.
We shall now come to the point that says – “Hindus believe that no religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine paths are facets of God’s Light, deserving tolerance and understanding.”
What is important is for each to follow his own path without diluting his faith. There is no need to borrow from other faiths. Each faith has its fundamental sets of beliefs. Borrowing from other faith will contradict with the very basis of one’s faith. One cannot travel in two boats at the same time.
But each boat will take you to the destination. And each boat will be driven in the way it is made to be driven.
But Sanatana Dharma goes beyond religion and Godhead. For the ultimate liberation and realization, one has to travel beyond the religion. Merger becomes possible when you discard all your identities.
When you cannot identify your body as your own, how can you identify with a religion? That is the stage of progression called Samadhi. So the eternal truth is – EKAM SAT, BAHUDHA VADANTHI VIPRAH [There is only one Truth, it is described variously by the scholars].
I have striven to put forth my views as best as I can. Kindly understand that Gita and other Hindu scriptures contain subtle meanings which can be understood only by contemplation and Swadhyaya (wide reading and Satsang). The highly evolved souls that populated this country realised this and Sanatana Dharma came to be identified with practising the highest ideals of tolerance : sarva dharma sama bhava. If that were not so, after Gita, all the non-Vaishnava temples in India would have been pulled down by this time.
This is the way to rejoice and live peacefully. Hari Om.
*****
Comment by Harry Potter
Very well written piece…Nandan!
*****
Comment by Krishna
Hi Nandan,
I think my understanding is different and I’ll try to put-forth my views. There is nothing wrong debating, so I don’t take it as an affront, this will only result in sharing of knowledge.
First, let me get to you on Gita quote – this is what it says –
–
Those men who always practice what I’m preaching,with Shraddha, they will be freed from Karma (i.e., reach salvation) — 3.31
Those out of jealousy do not practice what I’m preaching, know them to be devoid of any knowledge and to be destined for destruction — 3.32
–
So clearly, this is not being directed at Arjuna alone as per the context, but for everybody. If you can, please explain what is your point of view on this.
By the way, I’m not really clear what you are saying about “I am the only way”. Somehow you are saying Lord Krishna did not mean it when he said, but that point is not coming across very clearly to me.
Now to give you some brief about what I understand as fundamentals of spirituality, I believe only Hindu scriptures give correct knowledge about anything spritual like God, life after-death, devatas, svarga, narka and salvation.
Bible and Koran talk about the same subjects, but are in total contradiction with Hindu scriptures (an example I gave earlier about reincarnation). So either Hindu scriptures are correct or Bible, Koran are correct. BOTH Can’t be.
Now why only Hindu scriptures are correct? because they are rooted in a Santana tradition. Other scriptures have basis in one person in some point in time. That is why.
If you have right spiritual knowledge then you’ll reach right spiritual destination. Another person who is *also having right knowledge* can reach the same destination on an another path. But the one with wrong knowledge, will not reach the same destination.
That is the reason we shouldn’t say followers of Jesus will also reach the same destination. They will not if Hindu scriptures are correct. So basically there are wrong paths and right paths.
Finally, I would like make a comment on tolerance. It is dangerous to believe your religion alone is correct, when you don’t know how to substantiate. That will make the person fanatic, terrorist etc. For those, who believe something and cannot substantiate, they should better be open to other thoughts in the same matter.
But claiming that Hinduism itself accepts validity of other religious scriptures, or divinity of Jesus etc., is like lying to themselves and they are commiting a serious mistake that will affect them and their generations.
*****
All, please continue the debate via comments here. Thanks.
*** Comment moved by Moderator to ensure continuity ***
Dear Krishna,
Thanks for your comments. I wish we could discuss your questions. However, we will be deviating from the main subject under discussion. For most people, it will appear dry and boring. I wonder whether this is a proper forum for such detailed exchange of views on this subject.
However, I suggest that you also refer to Gita Chapter 9, slokas 9 to 20. I also recommend with due respect to you that you must read Gita translations and commentaries of Shakaracharya, Madhvacharya and Ramanujacharya. Please understand that the subject of Gita is so vast that it must be discussed to the exclusion of all other things if we are to come anywhere near understanding the Gita Tatva. I am only a humble student and do not claim to be an authority.
Unless Mr. Shantanu gives me the green signal, I would better stop at this point. Thank you for responding to opinions. God bless you.
***
You have a big BIG heart, Shantanu- really. That’s for sure. I am glad you decided that it is okay to continue the debate.
Hello Krishna, I will answer you questions to the best of my knowledge. Give me a couple of days. Remember, I am only a seeker and not a realized soul.
Thank you for the compliments, Harry.
Bye for now.
Thanks Shantanu,
I find Krishna’s search for true religion very interesting.
Krishna. you are true in your saying, that only one religion can be true plus your views on “Why christian missionaries are more successful in India”?
Hi Nandan
You are excellent. I am the regular visitor of Himalayanacademy site and receiving its newsletter. One must also listen to the audios of Gurudeva at World Religion Conference. Gurudeva have defended Hinduism and Hindus in a examplary manner which no one has done so far in present scenerio. Gurudeva’s speech on conversion and media, one must not miss.
while as a christian i don’t even pretend to have the words necessary to begin as an apologist. i certainly have no authority on hinduism. however i did begin my journey in this life, (of truth seeking) and salvation with the reading of the bhagvad gita that a friend had lying around. the two truths that i have learned is that #1 there is but one “creator” #2 and that god gave us all the free will to choose our paths to him. while i don’t know what a true hindu does to assure his place in heaven, i do know what a true christian does. he follows the teaching of the christ. this is not in anyway a churh building or a religion, but a path. we have, as christians, only a couple of supreme commandments that we are to follow since the old testament and its laws and traditions passed away with the coming of christ. one is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves,and to spread this good news of christ and what he did for mankind with his supreme saccrifice. again i am not well versed enough in other religions to say whether or not any other prophet/man/god deity in other religions actually gave his life for the sins of the world. but, if not, then isn’t those who do not see jesus as the christ (the (annointed one) damned? that is, to live the eternal life separate from god? isn’t this what re-incarnation is? while i don’t personally believe that it behooves a soul to keep doing it over till he gets it right, would this not be what re-incarnation would be to the indian? a sort of damnation? till he, if ever made nirvana? like i said at the beginning, i seek the truth only. i wish not to offend anyone and ask only that my ignorance be forgiven. my personal belief as a christian is that there is a time of final judgement. a time when we all have to bear our guilt of denying god. then we are all judged and sentenced according to our faith. again, personally i believe that only if a thing can be proved true, then it actually empirically is. while i believe in the god given wisdom of many of the worlds religions, and, that they were used for good, were/are they truly holy? even though hinduism is the worlds oldest religion/god given religion, does it make it a right way according to christ to get back to god? you say that while christ presents himself as a prophet that should be seen as a path to salvation, christ himself said that THE ONLY way back to god was through him and the belief that he was the true messiah sent of god for the redemption of mankind. not just as a path. i know that many world religions, especially now with all the new age beliefs, say that there are many paths to god. i believe however, that if there are so many paths then we all can live as we want and just choose one that suits our situation. as a christian i know that i was transformed “spiritually” in my mind coming to christ as the savior. there was a change in how i thought, acted and above all how i wanted to act in my. it wasn’t just wisdom. i truly believe that the scriptures can not in any way be understood except in the spirit. they can’t be just read and understood with the natural mind. the history can, but not the heavenly meaning. i guess this is what is meant by meditation in both practices. you meditate on god to have god show you the way in the spirit. my mind is open enough to still question some of my beliefs. this is what makes it a quest after all. i know that anyone who searches for the truth in their personal religion is on the the path back to god. my only concern is that they reach it and not miss the boat. unfortunately people use god and all scripture, no matter where it comes from, to justify their secular humanistic actions. it just seems to me that there can only be one true path to god, in whose image we were created. a lot of wisdom in the world yes. but will that wisdom, a way that seems right to a man, get you back to spending the eternity/afterlife with the one that created you? since i believe that we are created beings i do not hold to the theory that we are gods also. god has written his laws on our hearts yes, but we cannot be gods also. but, that is a discussion for another time. i realize that i may have contradicted myself, or seemed to. i guess that only a long discussion would help in that area. please feel free to edit this for clarity or grammar. i belong to no church or religious affiliation and would enjoy a good study with some of like mind. thanks for the space. jimi
Thanks Shantanu, Nandan, Indian for appreciation.
I too will be slow in responding (maybe weekends is only
when I can write in detail).
Hi Jimi,
You’ve written a lot, but essentially you wonder –
“again i am not well versed enough in other religions to say whether or not any other prophet/man/god deity in other religions actually gave his life for the sins of the world. but, if not, then isn’t those who do not see jesus as the christ (the (annointed one) damned?”
You seem to believe that since jesus “gave his life” for “sins of
the world”, his words should be taken as correct and followed,
otherwise one is damned. Is that right?
Let me tell you about another person who “gave his life”.
Mahatma Gandhi. He sacrificed his life for some values like
non-violence and also freedom of India. He too said and
believed somethings which contradict what jesus said.
For example, he firmly believed in Shri Ram and even at
the time of death he said “Jai Shri Ram”. He specifically
voiced against conversion of Hindus to christianity. So
obviously he didn’t believe jesus’s words are the only
to be followed.
So here we have two who sacrificed and do not agree with
each other. So whom do you follow? I would say, Gandhi’s
sacrifice is higher since his sacrifice has visible effect, viz.,
freedom of India. Jesus sacrifce is supposed remove some
“sins of the world,” and I don’t know what it is and if
it is visible or agreeable for all. So shouldn’t you now follow
Gandhi and become devotee of Shri Ram?
If not, then obviously you believe having done sacrifice is
not enough reason to believe in someone’s words.
Then what is?
Shantanu
When a person says he believes in both Jesus and Ganesh — It does not mean he knows the teachings of Jesus and Ganesh
what that means is that he believes in both as divine beings and prays to them for his well being.
This is actually a non monotheistic way of looking at things – not only Indians, but Chinese, Japanese and other following traditional cultures have such all encompassing religous outlook.
nice post. you can read more about surrender at http://www.gitananda.org from the Hindu and Christian perspective
You may find it surprising that much of Christianity originated from India. Indeed, over the centuries, numerous historians and sages have pointed out that not only has Hinduism had a predominant influence on Christianity, but that many of the Christian rites could be directly borrowed from Hindu (Vedic) India.
French historian Alain Danielou had noticed as early as 1950 that “a great number of events which surround the birth of Christ – as it is related in the Gospels – strangely reminded us of Buddha’s and Krishna’s legends.” Danielou quotes as examples the structure of the Christian Church, which resembles that of the Buddhist Chaitya; the rigorous asceticism of certain early Christian sects, which reminds one of the asceticism of Jain and Buddhist saints; the veneration of relics, the usage of holy water, which is an Indian practice, and the word “Amen,” which comes from the Hindu (Sanskrit) “OM.”
Another historian, Belgium’s Konraad Elst, also remarks “that many early Christian saints, such as Hippolytus of Rome, possessed an intimate knowledge of Brahmanism.” Elst even quotes the famous Saint Augustine who wrote: “We never cease to look towards India, where many things are proposed to our admiration.”
Unfortunately, remarks American Indianist David Frawley, “from the second century onwards, Christian leaders decided to break away from the Hindu influence and show that Christianity only started with the birth of Christ.” Hence, many later saints began branding Brahmins as “heretics,” and Saint Gregory set a future trend by publicly destroying the “pagan” idols of the Hindus.
Great Indian sages, such as Sri Aurobindu and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of the Art of Living, have often remarked that the stories recounting how Jesus came to India to be initiated are probably true. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar notes, for instance, that Jesus sometimes wore an orange robe, the Hindu symbol of renunciation of the world, which was not a usual practice in Judaism. “In the same way,” he continues, “the worshiping of Virgin Mary in Catholicism is probably borrowed from the Hindu cult of Devi.” Bells too, which cannot be found today in Synagogues, the surviving form of Judaism, are used in church-and we all know their importance in Buddhism and Hinduism for thousands of years, even up to the present day.
There are many other similarities between Hinduism and Christianity, including the use of incense, sacred bread (prasadam), the different altars around churches (which recall the manifold deities in their niches inside Hindu temples), reciting prayers on the rosary (Vedic japamala), the Christian Trinity (the ancient Vedic trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as the creator, maintainer and destroyer respectively, as well as Lord Krishna as the Supreme Lord, the all-pervading Brahman as the holy ghost, and Paramatma as the expansion or son of the Lord), Christian processions, and the use of the sign of the cross (anganyasa), and so many others.
In fact, Hinduism’s pervading influence seems to go much earlier than Christianity. American mathematician, A. Seindenberg, has, for example, shown that the Shulbasutras, the ancient Vedic science of mathematics, constitute the source of mathematics in the antique world of Babylon to Greece: “The arithmetic equations of the Shulbasutras were used in the observation of the triangle by the Babylonians as well as in the edification of Egyptian pyramids, in particular the funeral altar in the form of pyramid known in the Vedic world as smasana-cit.”
In astronomy too, the “Indus” (from the valley of the Indus) have left a universal legacy, determining for instance the dates of solstices, as noted by 18th century French astronomer Jean Sylvain Bailly: “The movement of stars which was calculated by Hindus 4,500 years ago, does not differ even by a minute from the tables which we are using today.” And he concludes: “The Hindu systems of astronomy are much more ancient than those of the Egyptians-even the Jews derive from the Hindus their knowledge.”
There is also no doubt that the Greeks heavily borrowed from the “Indus.” Danielou notes that the Greek cult of Dionysus, which later became Bacchus with the Romans, is a branch of Shaivism: “Greeks spoke of India as the sacred territory of Dionysus, and even historians of Alexander the Great identified the Indian Shiva with Dionysus and mention the dates and legends of the Puranas.” French philosopher and Le Monde journalist Jean-Paul Droit recently wrote in his book, The Forgetfulness of India, that “the Greeks loved so much Indian philosophy that Demetrios Galianos had even translated the Bhagavad-gita.”
Many Western and Christian historians have tried to nullify this India influence on Christians and ancient Greece by saying that it is the West through the Aryan invasion, and later the onslaught of Alexander the Great of India, which influenced Indian astronomy, mathematics, architecture, philosophy-and not vice versa.
But new archeological and linguistic discoveries have proved that there never was an Aryan invasion and that there is a continuity from the ancient Vedic civilization to the Saraswati culture.
The Vedas, for instance, which constitute the soul of present day Hinduism, have not been composed in 1500 B.C., as Max Muller arbitrarily decided, but may go back to 7000 years before Christ, giving Hinduism plenty of time to influence Christianity and older civilizations which preceded Christianity.
Thus, we should be aware of and point out the close links which exist between Christianity and Hinduism (ancient Vedic culture), which bind them into a sacred brotherhood. Conscientious Christian and Western scholars can realize how the world humanity’s basic culture is Vedic through proper research. I found this on the internet and it is worth thinking about. Our real home is with the Great lord of the worlds. Jai Sri Ram, Jai Sri Krishan.
Neevedan Kumar.
Hi Krishna and all other participants,
The teachings contained in Gita are very subtle. They have inner meanings. This can be comprehended only by learned men who are well established in the Absolute. It must be approached with extreme humility and reverence because the word of God is God Himself. The more subtle meanings will be revealed as one progresses in spiritual knowledge. Constant contemplation and divine Grace are the prerequisites along with guidance from a Guru. On account of this fact, I will start with saying that what follows is what I have managed to grasp from reading Gita and other spiritual books. I have no claim to any qualities that are necessary to expound on the teachings of Gita.
Now, let us set out on a journey through certain sections of Gita and analyze their purport.
There are so many ways one can view Bhagavad-Gita. It was given so that Arjuna shed his unmanliness in the middle of the battlefield and fought to uphold Dharma. But some of the verses must be seen just as thread to join beads of wisdom. The truth contained therein is universal and, therefore, has practical applicability at all times.
Lord Krishna has used the words “I”, “Me”, “My” and “Mine” in many of the verses. Did He mean the person of Krishna as he was popularly known to the people at that time? Was there a bigger Being that was not revealed to the world? We shall now discover that He used the First Person (Uththama Purusha in Sanskrit) to refer to something more than Arjuna’s friend Krishna. Arjuna was not familiar with that Supreme aspect of the Lord. If he were, there would have been no Gitopadesa.
Gita 3-30. Mayi sarvaani karmaani sannyasya …. Arjuna, you must renounce all actions in Me. Keep your mind centered in the Self. Do not entertain any hope. Do not entertain the thought of doership. This will rid you of all confusion. [I have given just a rough translation only.]
[Nandan’s note: Arjuna, You are not the doer. I do the action through you. If you understand this, you will have no confusion.]
Gita 3-31 and 32. Those men who constantly practise this teaching of Mine with faith and without being jealous, are freed from actions. Those men who follow My aforesaid teaching constantly with complete faith are not attached to their actions. But those who delude themselves that they know everything and do as per their discretion which they wrongly believe to be correct, are headed for destruction.
Gita 4-1 to 3 I taught this imperishable (avyayam) Yoga to Vivasvan; he taught it to Manu; Manu taught it to Ikshvaku. This, handed down thus by one to another, the Rajarshis knew. As time passed this Great Yoga was lost. You are my devotee and friend. So I teach you the very same ancient Yoga which has always remained a secret.
[Nandan says: Lord Krishna was a contemporary of Arjuna. So how could he teach this secret Yoga to Vivasvan long before Lord Krishna Himself was born? From here on we get a clue of the meaning of the words I, Me etc. when the Lord utters it. It is very clear when He refers to Him in the First Person, He is pointing to a higher Being not yet known to Arjuna. If you read on Chapter 4, you will see this has been properly explained to Arjuna. Still Arjuna continued to believe that Lord Krishna was just his friend and nothing else.]
Gita 9-11. Avajaananti maam moodhaah …. Fools disregard Me because I am in human form. They do not know My higher Being as (bhootamaheswaram) the great Lord of beings.
[Nandan says: Avajaananti – They look down upon me since they think I am just another human being. They are fools (moodhaah) and so they do not realize that I am the Supreme Lord of all Beings. Here again, the Lord hints that we must substitute the word Supreme Lord of All Beings wherever the First Person is used. Please continue to read till verse 20 for further elucidation.]
Gita 10-3. He who knows Me that I am not born and I have no beginning (anadim), as the great Lord of the worlds, he, among men, is undeluded; he is released from all sins.
We know by now, Lord Krishna is not just Arujuna’s friend. Arjuna did not accept him as Lord until after he was shown the Visvaroopa. But the Gopis saw the divinity in him even as he was a child of seven years. They knew him to be the purest form of Love, i.e. personification of Divine Love.
We will explore what Devi Bhagavatapurana authored by Sage Vyasa says on the Supreme Being.
Ch 32.1. The Devi said:–“Hear My words with attention, that I am now going to speak to you, hearing which will enable the Jivas to realize My Essence. Before the creation, I, only I, existed; nothing else was existent then. My Real Self is known by the names Chit, Sambit (Intelligence), Para Brahma and others. My Atman is beyond mind, beyond thought, beyond any name or mark, without any parallel, and beyond birth, death or any other change or transformation. ……. .
Excerpts from Skandopanishad (As translated by Sivananda)
Salutations to Siva of the form of Vishnu; and Vishnu of the form of Siva. Siva’s heart is Vishnu and Vishnu’s heart (real nature) is Siva. As Vishnu is Sivamaya, Siva is Vishnumaya. As I do not perceive any difference I am a blessed soul. The body is the Lord’s temple; Jiva is Siva alone. One should worship it with the idea of SOHAM (I am He or a feeling of identity) abandoning ignorance. Jnana or Knowledge is the perception of non-difference. ………
Siva Kavacha (As translated by Sivananda)
I worship Him, who is the embodiment of pure consciousness, in whom doubts are dried and actions cease, who is beyond all change, time and destruction, who is full, pure, mute and eternal, who is Sachidananda (Existence-absolute, Knowledge-Absolute and Bliss-Absolute) ……. …… …..
CONCLUSION:
We can go on and on. Hindu literature is like an ocean. No one can master all the scriptures. But all the Puranas, most of them authored by Veda Vyasa underline the concept of Brahman (Supreme Truth – Satchidananda). The Puranas make it clear to us there is no anomaly in the dictum EKAM SAT BAHUDHA VADANTHI VIPRAH. The Supreme Truth has been represented at various times as Lord Siva, Lord Krishna, Lord Vishnu and the Mother Goddess. What is important is what form attracts the Sadhaka’s devotion.
Having concluded that Lord Krishna is the Supreme Being, one must hold on to that belief. Because, that is Truth in the light of the above facts. The Brahman being omnipotent, and our intellect being so limited, we must not, under the pressure of personal prejudice, limit His ability to manifest in another form without our approval.
There is a distinction to be made here as far as a Sadhaka (seeker) is concerned. A Sadhaka must go from many to one and from the gross to the subtle. He who considers Lord Krishna as Brahman must hold on to his belief. He must consider all other forms as subordinate to his Upasana devata. This is supported by Narada Bhakti sutras. TASMIN ANANYATA TADVIRODHISHU UDASINATAA CHA. (Sutra 9) . In Bhakti there must be ananyata. Ananyata means devotion without any other support. It must be unconditional and unswerving. Our Bhakti must be one hundred percent. There is no doubting. One comes across so many statements in the Scriptures which apparently contradict each other. A Sadhaka must not allow this to distract him. TADVIRODHISHU UDASINATAA – meaning that the Sadhaka must be indifferent with things that are at variance with accepted norms. This is so because such things are obstacles to spiritual growth. If one has developed an ananyata bhaava, one becomes indifferent to practices that are not in harmony with one’s faith.
We must remember that the object of our Bhakti is not something that thrives on our devotion. It is the other way round. The Sadhaka’s objective is to merge in the pure Love of the All Powerful Creator. So on a spiritual plane there is no need for us to worry about whose way is right so long as we are sure about our path. It is not anybody’s call to deflect somebody from his path. Why? PRAKRITIM YAANTHI BHOOTANI (Gita 3-33). All beings only act according to their nature. Shakaracharya says such nature is the result of past Karmas.
So far I discussed about the Hindu faith and the concept of One God. And we are clear what One God means to Hindus. There is no need for us to debate on the later imported religions, their concept of God and Scriptures here. I am neither qualified to do so nor am I inclined to be pushed to a tricky spot. A follower of Sanatana Dharma must desist from visiting places of non-Hindu worship or studying non-Hindu Scriptures unless he is fully proficient in the Scriptures of the religion of his birth. The reason for this is that such people tend to get into debates on religion and cannot intelligently answer to any of the pointed questions thrown at them. People with a hidden scheme and better skills can easily sway an unthinking person to make a wrong move. The case of the floating cross and sinking idol is not to be taken lightly. The need of the hour is for our Sadgurus to come forward and educate the Bharatiyas about their true faith. But it is a sad truth that many of our so called Gurus see Brahman, and therefore, Deliverance in the Dollar and the Dinar. It is such people who have given rise to the pejorative term “godmen”. We all know what the Lord has said about such people.
I feel that though I have not answered Mr. Krishna’s questions in a chronological order, the anwers to his queries are contained in my reply. I have deliberately left out the points about reincarnation, hell and heaven. Mr. Krishna, there is no need for Hindus to accept the validity of other religions. Neither is there any need for us to declare any other philosophy as worthless and wrong. In the words of Sivananda “ The glory of Hinduism is ineffable. It has within it all the features of a universal religion. Its Dharmas are universal. Its doctrines are sublime. Its philosophy is grand. Its ethics is soul-elevating. Its scriptures are wonderful. Its Sadhanas or Yoga-Vendantic practices are unique. Glorious has been the past of this religion; still more glorious is its future. It has a message to give to a world rent asunder by hatred, dissention and war – the message of cosmic love, truth and non-violence, the gospel of unity of Self or Upanishadic oneness.” I can only bow my head in reverence to this great Master and my Manasa Guru. What words can express this thought more beautifully? Hari Om.
Hi Jimi,
It is very good to know that you started your spiritual journey with reading Bhagavad-Gita. You learned (and have accepted it as a teaching of Gita) that there is only one Creator and God gave us free will to choose our paths (your words). Then you go on to ask a number of questions and make a lot of statements. If your journey in truth-seeking and salvation started with Gita, how come it ended with the Bible? Why did you not finish studying Gita? You would not have asked many of these questions if you had read it with concentration. Here are my views.
Jimi – 1: What does a Hindu do to ensure a place in Heaven?
A: A true seeker in Sanatana Dharma does nothing to guarantee himself a place in Heaven. Heaven is just another station on the path of his spiritual journey. Heaven, according to Lord Krishna, comes as a reward for good deeds done with an attitude of doer-ship. (Gita Ch. 9 Verse 20 and 21) So a stay in Heaven is temporary. That is why He advised the seekers to renounce the fruits of actions (karma-phala-tyagah) and do them as service to the Lord. Such devotees merge in Him. It is not nearness to Him (upasthiti = Heaven according to you) but merger (Laya) with Him that a Hindu seeks. A Hindu believes that Gods abode is in his heart.
Jimi – 2: Christians have a couple of Supreme Commandments to follow:
a) Love thy neighbor etc.
b) Spread the good news of Christ and what he did for mankind.
A: a) Hindus also believe in certain requirements for spiritual growth. This is not much different from adhering to the Commandments.
b) A seeker concentrates on doing good himself rather than propagating the good news of others. The Hindus do propaganda work only at the time of elections; they do not connect this with spiritual progress.
Jimi – 3: Did other gods give life for the sins of the world?
A: A Hindu cannot fully comprehend this question. As per Hindu theology, gods are immortal. They cannot give their lives even if they wish. Besides, suicide is not considered a virtue in Hindu philosophy.
Jimi – 4: Aren’t those who do not accept the Gospel doomed to eternal damnation (eternal life separate from God)?
A: Please refer the answer to Jimi – 1 above.
Jimi – 5: You seek the truth only.
A: We must all seek the Truth only.
Jimi – 6: You do not want to offend anyone and would like your ignorance to be forgiven:
A: I do not think you have offended anyone. Ignorance may be bliss. Others may forgive your ignorance. But you must never forgive yourself.
Jimi – 7: I believe that there is a time for Final Judgment.
A: “Faith – you can do very little with it; but you can do nothing without it.” [-Samuel Butler]
Jimi – 8: I was transformed spiritually. There was a change in the way I thought, acted ….
A: It is your personal experience. Others cannot comment on it.
Jimi – 9: I truly believe the scriptures cannot in anyway be understood except in spirit. One cannot understand the heavenly meaning by reading.
A9: I totally agree with you. That is exactly the reason why Hindus encourage meditation on the Self and discourage preaching and useless debate. (Preaching kills the seeker in a man by providing half-baked answers at inappropriate time. One must not be satisfied with others’ experience and explanations.)
Jimi – 10: I am concerned the real seekers in other religions will miss the boat.
A: We appreciate your concern. Your alarm is misplaced. A real seeker never misses the boat. But there seems to be a mix-up. A Hindu wants to be near God when he is live and kicking. He is not interested in setting up a meeting with Him in Heaven after death. He wants to live near Him (upasthiti) in the present moment.
Jimi – 11: My mind is open enough to question some of my beliefs.
A: You are one among the few lucky ones. A man with a closed mind is doomed.
Jimi – 12: I do not hold to the theory that we are gods
A: Man is dangerous even as a man as we can see from the daily happenings. I shudder to think of the outcome if such a man starts believing he is a god. The Hindu theory of equating Jiva with Brahman (Jivo Brahmaiva naaparah) is highly Vendantic. This is applicable to a sage of the highest order.
Jimi – 13: I realize that I may have contradicted myself.
A: That is a problem we all have when we are confused.
Jimi – 14: I belong to no church or religious affiliations.
A: You must extend it further. We must not attach ourselves to anything except God. We must relinquish everything else. That is the only way to His Grace.
Nothing can happen without God’s Grace. Doubts about one’s faith are but natural to any thinking mind. These must be resolved by constant meditation, and guidance from Gurus (in your case the priests). At some point in time, one must discard all doubts. There must be nothing except WONDER. — Wonder about God and His creation. What will help us to be rid of our smugness and one-upmanship? It is the realization that one is only an insignificant grain in the vastness of God’s creation, the realization that God cannot be comprehended by pure logic, the realization that it is not for us to define God and set His limits but for Him to lift us up to His Lap, and the realization that it is His Grace that will lead us to Him. This realization will lead to complete surrender to God.
It is then, only then, we are ready for the real experience (Refer to Jimi – 8). That experience is Bliss. This is the word of the Vedas. Vedas assure us that such experience will be different from what we have heard, seen or read before. Such experience belongs to that person alone. He cannot part with it, he cannot share it with anyone. Everyone has to experience the Sat-Chid-Ananda himself. Our seers and sages have confirmed it. There is no reason to doubt.
But I suggest you look for your Bliss in the Bible. If it eludes you there, only if you are convinced your way forward is blocked, then come back to the fold of your ancestors. The wealth of wisdom and storehouse of knowledge they have will gently unfold to you when you approach the sages with humility. They will show you how to lose yourself in the Lord and find Heaven on earth. They will fill you with Pure Love. There will be no conditions attached to it. Then you will know you never had a question and never needed an answer. You will be at Peace. That is a promise. Hari Om Tat Sat.
Hi Indian,
Thanks for your kind words. I would also appreciate if you could give your views and point out where I may have erred. Since you read Gurudeva’s writings, you must do what you can to spread his message of inclusiveness. I was in complete agreement with him when he said a Christian cannot and must not practice Hinduism unless he first formally severs from Christian religion. The reasons given by him were so convincing. I wish our other Swamis and Gurus had the guts to state this fact.
Thank you and best regards,
Hi Nandan
You are great!
Sure! I will join you in spreading Gurudeva’s writing. Yes, I agree, and Gurudeva asked all Hindu parents to celebrate christmas time by worshipping “Panchmukhi Lord Ganesha”. Hope we all find that strength to follow in todays world of westernisation.
Thanks
Hi Nandan,
I don’t think I see much contradictions with my views
in your latest post. I fully agree that the subject of
Gita is far too difficult for anyone to master fully.
What I’m talking about is very fundamental and doesn’t
dwelve on advanced aspects of dharma. I believe one
needs to ponder over these fundamentals before going
deeper into the scriptures.
Having said this, I just want to touch upon just one
point in your post –
“Neither is there any need for us to declare any other
philosophy as worthless and wrong”
Motive of holding other philosophies and religions
as wrong is NOT to hurt followers of those religions,
or arrogate oneself to be correct. It is a requirement
for maintaining your integrity and being consistent.
Two opinions on a subject contradicting each other
just can’t be both true.
An entire chapter in Brahma-Sutra called “Avirodha” is
dedicated to refuting other philosophies and you must
be knowing about it. Another chapter, the first one
called “Samanvaya” is for resolving contradictions within
Vedantic texts. In other words, one should not find
“Samanvaya” with Koran or Bible.
I’ll write two more posts, one on “why” and another
on “how” about truth-claim of our religion.
I too don’t claim to be an expert, so these are all some
basic issues that need some pondering over.
WHY TRUTH-CLAIM
————————
Q: Why “truth” important in our religion? Shouldn’t we follow
“good things” in all religions?
Ans: Truth is not important in a religion!
It is the only thing required in a religion!!
Other things in a religion are not even secondary
If a religion is false, what is the point in
following it?
Q: Isn’t it ego, narrow minded, selfish etc., to claim ours is
the only truth?
Ans: Scriptures themselves make claim to truth. So if we repeat
what is said in our scriptures, why should it amount to ego?
On the contrary, denying what is mentioned in our scripture amounts
to ego.
Of course, one should not ridicule or intimidate followers
of other religions for following their faith as there is
no proselytization in Hindu tradition. But at the same
time, one should not appease them by saying that they are also true.
Q: But can’t there be some truth in all religions, why should it
be claimed our is the only?
Ans: There are statements in all religious scriptures that mean
the same thing like “God is all powerful, all merciful” etc.
But when we make a truth claim, we consider the entire
doctrine of the religion (called prameya or theory) rather
than a few statements. For example, Hinduism talks about
certain nature of God, souls, their sadhana through many
births, various places like seven svargas etc., the highest
goal of a sadhaka and how one should make effort for achieving
highest goal. This does not match with any other religion (even
buddhism and jainism). So contradictory doctrines can’t all be
true. So implicitly when we believe in one doctrine, we are
already rejecting other doctrines.
Q: But doesn’t our scriptures say “ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti”?
Ans: Full shloka of Rig Veda I.164.46 where this appears is like this
“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.”
It is talking about different sages who call Ishwara or Sat as
Indra, Mitra etc. In other words, it says same Sat has different
names like Indra etc.
Jesus and allah are out of picture so it really doesn’t mean
all religions are truth and lead to same goal.
Q: But shouldn’t we be “different” from other religions
who also claim their’s alone is truth?
Ans: In fact, by not making claim to truth, we are letting
people “up for grab” by missionaries of other religions.
If a person believes his faith is alone true and others
false, he doesn’t even think of converting. On other
hand if he believes his own religion’s truth is suspect,
he can easily be converted by missionaries through
some “socio-economic” incentives. All converts
in their testimony never touch upon truth-claim aspect
at all.
HOW TRUTH-CLAIM
—————
Even while I am writing this, todays editorial by Shashi Tharur
repeats the ignorance that “Hinduism doesn’t claim to be
only true religion.”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/S_Tharoor_G_for_Godmen/articleshow/2256238.cms
People should just think about “reincarnation” whenever they get doubt
about whether Hinduism makes a truth-claim or not. By proposing
reincarnation, Hinduism implicitly rejects faiths that don’t accept it.
Which means Christianity and Islam are refuted implicitly. There
are explicit statements about rejecting other doctrines as well.
So it is totally unfounded to say Hinduism doesn’t make truth-claim.
Q: Every other religion say they alone are truth, how can we say Hinduism
alone is truth and other religions false?
Ans: Because all other religions have a founder and only Hinduism has no
founder. It’s roots are untraceable and a time when this religion didn’t
exist cannot be known unless one resorts to wild imaginations. It goes
by name Sanatana Dharma (eternal religion) from time immemorial.
Religions which are founded at some point in time rely too much about
unknowable things in the words of that founder.
Q: But some religions say they are actually founded by God and their founder
is merely a messenger of God?
Ans: That requires apriori faith in that religion itself. The whole concept
of God and his alleged interaction with the messenger etc., has to be
accepted based on the words of that founder which happens only when
you are already in that faith. That is too much of a risk spiritually,
to an impartial intellect and it cannot accept this.
Q: Some religions say their religion is also eternal? Their founder received
merely a “refresh course” from God, but not a new religion.
Ans: To an impartial observer, all other religions were non-existent before
and came to an existence at some point in time (when their founder establishes
it). This flies in the face of the claim that that religion is eternal.
In case of Hinduism, the time when it didn’t exist is not knowable even
to a impartial observer. Tradition, archeology, literature, none of these
give an insight into when this religion started.
Q: If Hinduism is eternal, then who was following it a million year ago? Dinasours?
Ans: This objection which is based on Evolution theory (there is an implicit
assumption that humans didn’t exist million year ago) cannot be made by
followers of other religions. Evolution batters their religion far too
much. At least Hinduism matches the time scales (like creation of earth
some billion years ago etc.) If an athiest is making this argument he
should be made known that evolution theory itself is going through
evolution. In past one decade, the time when humans came to earth
has changed from 10000 yrs go to 10 million years.
Q: But didn’t Aryans founded Hindu religion?
Ans: That is an academic guess. Academia is going through learning and there
is no reason to accept a guess made 1000s of yrs after an event. Hindu
tradition has its own version of history (Mahabharat, Ramayana etc.)
and there is no reason for not accepting it.
Hi Krishna:
In my earlier response, I stated “there is no need for Hindus to accept the validity of other religions. Neither is there any need for us to declare any other philosophy as worthless and wrong.”
I can understand that you have difficulty compromising with this declaration since it is apparent as daylight that truth cannot be two things at the same time and still be true. It goes beyond human reasoning for two contradictory statements to be held valid simultaneously. I have absolutely no quarrel with you on that count.
What was attempted to be projected in my comments (No. 8 and 9) is the traditional approach that has been the hallmark of Hinduism while dealing with spiritual and philosophical subjects. It is the common practice to state one’s arguments to the best of one’s ability and rest the case. See what Krishna tells Arjuna after finishing the Gitopadesa (Ch. 18 – 63)
Iti te jnaanamakhyaatam guhyaat guhyataram mayaa
vimrushyaitadasheSheNa yathechchasi tathaa kuru
(I have revealed to you knowledge that is extremely secret. Give considerable thought to this and take a decision as you deem fit.)
All matters discussed in Gita are the result of direct questions asked by Arjuna. So long as Arjuna did not express any doubt, Krishna did not bother him with any advice. Even after such knowledge was given there was no attempt by Krishna to forcefully make him accept them. He just suggested that Arjuna analyze everything in his mind and come to a wise conclusion. Similar is the case in Bhrugu Valli in Taittareeyopanishad where Bhrugu attains Brahma Jnana. Here again Varuna gives knowledge and asks Bhrugu to meditate upon the knowledge points. Brugu Varuni’s Atma Jnana was attained as a result of contemplation of the knowledge points and subsequently experiencing Bliss.
The Lord explicitly forbids Arjuna from passing on this knowledge to anyone unless the he is a real seeker and approaches with humility and devotion. Such knowledge is not meant for those who are defiant in their attitude whose objective is to find an opponent and defeat him in an argument.
Idam te naatapaskaaya naabhaktaaya kadaachana
Na chaashushrooshava vaachyam na cha maam (Gita Ch. 18-67)
(This is not to be taught by you to one who is not a seeker, to one who is not a devotee, nor to one who does not render service unto Lord, nor who does not desire to listen, nor to one who despises Me.) Shankarachary in his commentary explains this point further: This Shastra was given to you so that you are released from delusion. You must not advise this to one who does not perform Tapas. Even if one is a Tapasvee, you must not advise this knowledge to one who has no devotion to his Guru and the Lord. Even if he is a devotee, you must not reveal this to one who is not desirous of hearing (shushrooshaa ) this. In Sloka 68, the Lord continues ‘Bhaktim mayi paraam krutvaa” i.e. One must impart this knowledge to one who earnestly craves for the teachings of the Supreme Lord. The Supreme knowledge is not for anyone else.
It goes without saying that Indian culture which is based on Sanatana Dharma does sanction spreading the Truth to all and sundry. . Curiosity and desire to argue do not make a person eligible to be the recipient of Supreme knowledge. Only he who is humble, is not envious, has a real craving for the word of the Lord, only such a person becomes eligible to receive the word of Truth. This is so because a person without above qualifications cannot assimilate the Truth and will only misuse for quoting them out of context as is being done by many learned scholars of the Semitic religions.
This must be contrasted with the approach of the Semitic religions where it is the duty of every believer to spread the good news of Jesus / or to declare the final revelation to the world by whatever means. Here the method used is brain storming, force or emotional blackmail.
“Vado na’valambya” ( Narada Bhakti Sutra 74)
It is not proper to enter into any debate or argument about Him.
It is in this context that I mentioned that it is not our call to prove the truth of our Scriptures or disprove the fallacy of Semitic Religions. A true aspirant must, as much as possible, avoid scholastic discussions with those belonging to other philosophical schools. “Dustarkaat suviramyataam.” This is to make sure that no confusing thought that will shake the seekers mind must be allowed to take hold and thus hamper his faith and spiritual progress. Any attempt by others to draw us into an argument about the truth of our Scriptures must be shrugged off at all costs. It is not for us to prove anything to others who have an argumentative inclination. They are better ignored. For, the Truth is realized by constant meditation and repetitive exercise and not by fruitless debates. If someone were to approach us with an intention to learn about our Scriptures, we must do all that is possible to help them in their effort. It is not proper to talk ill of other philosophies. We must just point out the anomalies and let the person come to his own conclusion. This is not a war and the non-conformist is not our enemy. He is just another man with a different standpoint. Strengthening our faith in Dharma must be our motto; weakening other schools of thought must not be in our agenda.
It will be remiss of me, if I conclude this discourse without mentioning one thing. It is really unfortunate that our modern day Swamis and Gurus roam around the world proclaiming that all ways lead to God in that their attempt to distinguish religion from spirituality is in most cases prompted by a desire to enlist more number of followers with a view to collecting donations to organizations headed by them. To claim that one can follow two religions at the same time is absolute nonsense. That is outright hypocrisy. If one is to gain the full benefit of Yoga as enunciated by Patanjali Yogasutra, it is imperative that the seeker must fully surrender to the principles of Hindu philosophy. Anything less is wasteful exercise and to claim otherwise is a pure, unadulterated lie.
I think I have made my point clear and do not think there is any further scope of worthy discussion on this matter.
Hi Nandan,
Yes, fully agree with you that one should rest the case
after giving one’s arguments to the extent possible.
But one should not rest the case without giving any
arguments. At the same time needless and endless debates
must be avoided.
Debate is like war. One should not indulge in it, but one
should be prepared for it. A religiously inclined person
not responding to attacks on validity of his scriptures,
is similar to Arjuna who refused to do war in the middle
of battlefield. He will become a bad example for other
mundane folks and they will believe their religion really
doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I for one will never offensively
go against other faiths, but when attacked, I’ll not fail
to respond beffitingly.
Vada is not unknown to Hindu tradition. “Vadaha pravadatam
aham” says Gita thus lending credence to Vada. In the
current atmosphere, where belief that “Hinduism doesn’t
believe itself is true” is wide-spread, shying away from
debates is proving to be costly.
With this I am also resting my case over this issue.
Dear Krishna,
Thank you for your kind response to my comments. Please be assured there was not the least intention on my part to influence your way of thinking. We are all born with certain innate qualities that are so distinctively manifest in each one of us. We must not lose this identity just because someone else has a divergent view. It is this diversity of thought process that makes this world such a beautiful place to live in. We are able to experience dissimilar emotions at various times and finally to progress toward the goal of emancipation from bondage because of the opportunity afforded to face different situations while interacting with people.
Let us continue to share our views freely and take lessons from each other. Let us not allow ourselves to get trapped in dogmatism but let us strive to keep our mind open. Only an open mind allows free traffic of ideas. Sanatana Dharma is what it is today because free thought and discussion have been accepted as the defining principles governing it. Let us pledge to uphold this principle and continue our discussion on various matters and enrich ourselves by sharing knowledge. I am extremely grateful to have been able to engage in an intelligent debate with you, more so because this has forced me to go back to the source more than once. Your arguments have definitely rekindled in me the flame of contemplation that was about to be doused by an idle mind. Thank you very much.
Nandan and Krishna: Thanks for the superb debate.
I have certainly learnt a lot and will be visiting these comments again and again.
I will conclude by extracting one sentence each from Nandan and Krishna’s comments above:
From Nandan’s comment at #15:
“This is not a war and the non-conformist is not our enemy. He is just another man with a different standpoint. “
From Krishna’s comment at #16:
“Debate is like war. One should not indulge in it, but one should be prepared for it.”
Well said.
Jai Hind, Jai Bharat
I remember Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of Arsha Vidya Gurukula in Pennsylvania giving a wonderful definition of belief. He defined belief as “making a judgment before having any knowledge (of the subject) which is subject to change upon verification”.
Thus, any belief we hold can be changed if facts prove to the contrary.
According to him, having a belief is not a problem and in the absence of facts, one set of beliefs are as good as another. The problem really arises when people decide to act based on their beliefs.
Thus, it is perfectly okay to believe that infidels are going to hell but quite a different story when one wants to personally send them there.
Came across this piece in Vijayvaani: Religious conflict: Tracing the roots by Virendra Parekh, from which some excerpts:
If all religions preach love, amity and peace, why are there so much hatred, strife and violence in the name of religion? This question has often baffled not just atheists and agnostics, but also quite a few devout souls. The short answer is that every religion wants unity of mankind under its own banner – the operative word here is ‘banner’ and not ‘unity.’ What is worded as a call for brotherhood of mankind is very often a call for the conquest of the world by the faithful.
…..
Most people end up by concluding, mostly unconsciously, that people of other faiths are as a rule wicked, untrustworthy and prone to violence. This only deepens prejudices on either side. Since this is a sensitive matter, it is necessary to clear the ground by tracing the conflict to its roots.
To put the matter brusquely, there are two types of religious traditions. One may be called the Biblical or Abrahamic tradition and the other, Vedic or Indic tradition.
Biblical creeds
The Bible-derived creeds are founded on a central figure (Jehovah, God, Allah or History) who commands the exclusive and overriding allegiance of the believers. He is jealous, cruel and brooks no rival. To equate or identify Him (e.g. Allah) with gods worshipped by people of other faiths (e.g. Rama or God of the Bible) is to insult him by denying his supremacy. He (e.g. Allah) is the only true god. All other godheads are usurpers, pretenders and impostors, and their worship, being a denial of the only true God, deserves to be stopped.
This only true god is not accessible to ordinary human beings. He deals with his people through an intermediary messenger, prophet or Sole Saviour. His teachings are contained in the Book. The Book is sole repository of Ultimate Truth.
Thus in these creeds, there is only one Truth; there is only one way to it; the God has given it to the chosen people, and them alone; it is contained in ‘our’ Book and in ‘our’ Book alone. Since the Book is authored by God Himself, every word in it is true, excellent, immutable, and binding. The Book, al-kitab, is beyond the comprehension of most of even the believers, and certainly the non-believers. They must therefore heed the Church, the Priest.
Faith in the Book is the overriding duty, as is the duty of making others ‘see the light.’ Since this is the absolute Truth, since it alone can lead to Heaven or permanent bliss, mankind must be awakened to it for its own good, at any cost, in whatever way. No sacrifice is too great for holding on to it; no means impermissible for converting others to it.
The exclusivist claims about the only true god, the prophet, the Saviour etc. are to be accepted on faith, on authority. A believer is not permitted to ask for proof or confirmation of the claims or contents of the book. Asking for proof which cannot be supplied is to show one’s lack of faith, a great disqualification.
Since their entire edifice rests on unquestioning acceptance of the dogma or belief system, the Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, Islam as well as their secular variants like Nazism and Marxism – have always despised doubt, suspected reason and viewed science as a rival if not enemy. For them, testimony of the book is stronger than the proof of logic or testimony of experience.
The very idea of an absolute monopoly of ultimate truth contains within itself seeds of intolerance, aggression, strife and authoritarianism. It is a charter of killing, destruction and subversion with a clean conscience….
Vedic tradition
The Vedic tradition, on the other hand, is founded on very different premises. The starting point of this tradition is human consciousness, which can be explored, which can be purified progressively, and which can be transcended till it attains the loftiest heights of knowledge and creativity. At this summit, the Self becomes one with the Universe and sees all things, animate and inanimate, in Himself and Himself in everything. In this vast vision, sanctity attaches not only to human life, but to the whole of creation. This is the sumum bonum of spiritual humanism, which has always been India’s message to mankind.
The Indic tradition teaches us that….the quest for spiritual truths is innately ingrained in Man, just like hunger or thirst. These truths are not contained in or confined to a Book. On the contrary, they lie secretly in every human heart and have always been accessible to those who seek them. These truths never need any Jihad or Crusade for their spread and propagation. On the contrary, these truths are self-propagating due to their own inner strength. All they need is the dedication they inspire spontaneously in all those who invoke them.
The Vedic tradition advises people to be busy with themselves, that is, their own moral and spiritual improvement. Several disciplines have been evolved for this purpose: tapas (austerity), yoga (meditation), jnana (reflection), bhakti (devotion), etc. A seeker can take to any path or discipline that suits his adhara (stage of moral-spiritual preparation). There is no uniform prescription for everybody, no coercion or allurement into a belief system, and no claim of merit for aggression against others.
No single individual, book or sect has a monopoly of a vision of or path to the Ultimate Reality. Several sages all over the world, in all ages, have attained it. They have put down approximate descriptions of that reality as well as hints of how to attain it in some books. These books are like travel guides. What matters is not the adherence to the travel guide, but to arrive at the Truth, to perceive and be one with the Reality. Buddha cautioned his followers that they should not mistake his finger (his teachings) pointing at the moon for the moon itself.
The Message and the Means
The essential points are three: First, it is the individual who has to strive for himself; second, different ways will suit different persons; and third, the striving, the search is directed inwards.
…The syrupy slogan of sarva-dharma-samabhava glosses over the basic differences between these two traditions. This has caused an enormous amount of confusion.
———–The Vedic tradition advises people to be busy with themselves, that is, their own moral and spiritual improvement. Several disciplines have been evolved for this purpose: tapas (austerity), yoga (meditation), jnana (reflection), bhakti (devotion), etc. A seeker can take to any path or discipline that suits his adhara (stage of moral-spiritual preparation). There is no uniform prescription for everybody, no coercion or allurement into a belief system, and no claim of merit for aggression against others.————-
It is one of the best path I agree! Getting little bit out of context. But by seeing what happened to Buddhists and the monks of Tibet, I Think of Varna system! One has to prepare one self for political upheaval too! And today I can believe one of the reason for its existence in olden times. I am not endorsing Vrana system but why it was in existence is my point.
News story from the Indian Express dated 28th June 2009.
We keep on hearing that all religions are but different roads that lead to the same destination. Hers is a live example. See this harmonious similarity in values between leaders of faiths. Like rivers flowing towards the sea, all faiths bring their followers to one common goal. It only needs vision to see this. Luckily for us, our spiritual preceptors have that.
” Religious leaders oppose repeal of Section 377
Posted: Sunday , Jun 28, 2009 at 1529 hrs IST
New Delhi:
Even as gay communities rejoice over the news that the Government is considering the repealing of the IPC section that criminalises homosexuality, religious leaders have expressed their reservations over the move.
“It (homosexuality) is not at all acceptable and agreeable. It is against the tenets of bible. Man and Woman were created in God’s own image. Homosexuality is against the society,” Rt Rev Abraham Mar Paulos Episcopa, Head of Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar diocesan here told PTI.
Vishwa Hindu Parishad is also opposed to any dilution in the Section 377 of IPC.
“It is against the culture and family system in India. It will result in spread of number of diseases. But we will see what changes, if at all, are introduced in the section,” said Vinod Bansal, spokesperson of Delhi unit of the Parishad.
Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, a prominent body of Muslim community too has hit out at the government’s proposed move, saying the repeal of the section would create “sexual anarchy” in the society.”
Sometimes, the links do not work, which is why I copied the entire story here. Here is the link.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/religious-leaders-oppose-repeal-of-section-377/482347/
@ Jayadevan: Thanks…well spotted!
Interestingly the VHP spokesperson does not support his claim by reference to any Vedic/ Hindu texts (neither does the Jamiat spokesperson).
What are we to make of it? Or am I reading too much into this?
I am reasonably certain that there is no sanction against homosexuality in Vedic texts…but I am willing to be proven wrong…Does anyone have more info?
and does anyone know the URL/website address for VHP?
Thanks
Shantanu, even if there are sanctions against homosexuality in Vedic texts (I highly doubt it, though like you, I’m open to learning more), that would be no reason to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Just to clarify: I didn’t mean that you implied justifying any discrimination.
When I was in Hampi, a gentleman gave me these links to read. I found this article written by Dr Frank M a brilliant piece and he has explained really well. This article is very relevant to this post. The pdf version is available below. It seems that this article has created waves all over the world. It must have. It is very well written.
http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm –
http://www.vmission.org.in/files/pdf/radical-universalism.pdf –
@Indian,
There is very little historical evidence to support most of the current stories behind Jesus 🙂
@ Kaffir: Thanks… Just to be clear: I am totally against ANY discrimination towards gays and lesbians. The proposed amendment/repeal is a welcome and long overdue step.
***
@ JM: Thanks. I will have a look at the links.
***
@ DD: Good that we all still retain a sense of humour 🙂
Shantanu, good to know. 🙂
Vedic texts, at best, can help in showing to VHP and other Hindu groups that there was no sanction of discrimination. Hindu philosophy is the only one I know of that has a concept of ‘third sex/third gender’ explicitly mentioned. The wiki page on ‘Hinduism and homosexuality’ is quite instructive, actually.
@Shantanu,
While my point was made in a humorous vein, I’m sure you have done your research about the way the gospels and other documents are filled with inconsistencies and flaws. Not to mention most being written few hundred years after the incidents occurred.
Amongst the Hindus, and in many ancient socities, sexual relations between men was never the monster it had assumed in modern times. The Kama Sutra openly talks about the matter. Neither was such sexual tastes and profession of love between men not a taboo with the ancient Greeks and Romans. People like Alexandra the Great, Caesar and many more indeed were bisexual. It is not hard to be sure what they would be in the different climate of today. They would have chosen to be men in the hetrosexual sense of the word. But it was essential for their state then that they fathered children and they did not shirk their duty. There is also no doubt that they held their women in great esteem as well.
Turning to Hindu society, Arjun in the Mahabharat was cursed to being trangender male for he served as instructor in music and dance to the court of King Virata. See
http://www.chakra.org/discussions/GenNov26_02.html
Arjun’s reluctance to wage war is perhaps understandable because of this. Does that portend a larger message? I think that the condition of the transgender needs to be understood with the sort of kindness and understanding that Krishna displayed to Arjun.
The wretched conditions of hijiras in India is blot on our claim as a great civilisation. If their members were not denied the love and protection of their family and society at large just because of an accident of biology, they would not have fallen into their abject condition. The transgender should play as full a part in the life of the nation as their ability allows. The original tolerance of Hinduism did not suffer the transgenders to suffer mutiliation by castration and is a fitter subject for legislation than entering any debate on homosexual rights.
India faces serious security threats. That should be the most important consideration in mind before entering any legislation on the subject of homosexuality. The unncessary abuse of the hijiras should stop.
The Catholic religion has decreed that surgery cannot cure the condition. Even though it is true that infertility cannot be restored to transwomen by reconstructive surgery, but that is also a condition suffered by women who are infertile for any number of reasons. Happiness should not then stand solely on doctrine.