Where does Preaching end and Fanaticism begin

[Guest guest]

There seems to be a very fine line where preaching about a religion ends and being fanatic about it begins (assuming that one exists). Christianity when it preaches that the only light from the darkness is Christ, (though of late it admits that there may be good elements in other religions like Budhism and Hinduism)but salvation is attained only with Christ.

Closer home (culturally) we find a similar stance in ISKCON. That Krsna is the one true god and relegating the others to that of lesser importance. The more traditional (magnamious) approach of Hinduism of there being different ways to the one god is looked down upon if not rejected outright. Also other traditional schools of philosophy

Is this approach any different from traditional Christianity or Islam qualitatively?

[Guest guest]

that all gods are one may be a "magnanimous" approach, but ridiculous because if all gods were one, there wouldn't be so many gods, would there? Non-vedic nonsense like christianity and islam are to be rejected for obvious reasons, I am not going to waste time and enumerate them. If you don't know, read a few books and find out for yourself.

 

Then what's left? Only the eternal Veda that declares Visnu (Krishna) to be supreme. That alone should be accepted as the ultimate authority.

[Guest guest]

"Non-vedic nonsense like christianity and islam are to be rejected for obvious reasons"

 

Which means 'X'-is-the-only-god religions is to be rejected. This means vaishnavism is one non-vedic religion, and this is to be rejected.

 

Never get sucked by sweet words and ritualistic looks of vaishnavas. Challenge the interpretation of vedas from vaishnavas. And try to engage in debates with vaishnavas without asking any questions back at them, and get out of the debate.

 

And if one perceives vaishnavas as successful, it's surely got NOTHING to do with their interpretation of vedas. It's the attitude of each one, the +ve side of which can be learnt. In a leading womens magazine, actress Hema Malini, an Iyengar says that she keeps vrat on Monday for shiv and for durga on fridays. That'a all.

[Sephiroth 0]

There's an old saying - "When in Rom, do as what the Romans do".

 

That Krsna is the one true god and relegating the others to that of lesser importance.

 

Foolish ISCKON members forgets the Source. If Sri Krishna is the "true" god, then they should take to worship Lord Vishnu since Sri Krishna comes from Him. Why say Sri Krishna is true God while ignoring Lord Vishnu?

 

Is this approach any different from traditional Christianity or Islam qualitatively?

 

This is close to Christianity than Islam. In Islam, you are told to blindly follow Muhammad as guide. In Christianity, however, you are told that Jesus is the ONLY way.

 

My guess is, when ISCKON operates in US, the members are mostly Westerners who are used to Christianity and its concept of Father-Son. So, when ISCKON preach about the Gita, it take Sri Krishna as "Son" (or in this case the Avatar) and proclaim that the only way to obtain salvation was through Him, same way as Christians do with Jesus.

 

What we have here is a repeat in History (like what they say - History repeats due to Humans' stupidity).

 

Around 11th to 13th century, Christianity spread to Rom and Greek but many of the Romans and Greeks were Zeus-worshipper. So what Christians do was, they modified their Bible to take Zeus as the Father (the One Jews called Yahweh) and Jesus as the Son. This made the conversion easy because Zeus was known to have children through human women (although most of them turn out to be giants like the cyclops - what Hindus calls Asuras).

 

Now, we see the same pattern emerging with the Gita and Sri Krishna in ISCKON.

[maadhav 0]

most people who argue are ignorant of god, but all are not.

 

Suppose there is god at the top of a mountain.

all the people of different religions are at the bottom in the valley. Each says "i know the way to god. only my path is different and true." the fact is he has not gone to god (not realized god), and what he thinks is god is not really god.

 

this however does not mean no one knows the way to god, and how god is, or no one has seen god. Some accept the authority of the vedas, and find god in vedic ways. This most ancient culture has produced largest number or saints, swamis, sanyasis, sadhus, who actually have seen god in person, and are in direct contact with god. Some even can show god to othrer (if qualified).

 

if the world first finds them as genuine mystics or sadhus and just listens to them only, then there is agreement. else ther will not be agreement.

 

we hindus are humble. even if, suppose, we know god face to face, and if some one says us "you do not know what god is and how to go to god," then we most likely will say, "thank you. please continue searching god in your own way (but do not dare to bother us, we must say now). we will contine practicing our dharma and we know we make no trouble for you. so dont bothere us."

 

So, if we hindus find the mystics who have realized god,

then I suggest we request them to convince all what is the true religion and true scripture to follow.

 

vada (open debate) is another way to prove rationally which religon is best. to do it, the highest authority of each religion needs to debate openly with each other in a systematic manner. we Hindus are ready for this. will pope agree? will the mullas agree? not likely.

 

the first task if all agree to debate and decide (which BTW can be done in universities) will be the mutually agreed criteria defining 'what are the universal characteristics of a religion that surely lead to world peace and individual peace and happiness?' When this criteria is at hand, then one can easily sort out whci religon meets this criteria and os is the best.

 

Could you fromulate this crtieria that the leaders of all religons could agree?

 

If not, this world will have wars.

So, we listen to krishna.

 

[Guest guest]

This exactly is the approach of a fanatic. What you claim for the Vedas is also claimed by the followers of other religions to their holy books. My question is why not let people follow their own paths without getting into the mode of making claims and often casting aspersions on rival claims.

[Guest guest]

Other religions can claim anything they want, but only Veda is apurusheya. Therefore, only Veda can be accepted as authority and others discarded. If you nod your head at everything, that doesn't make you a broad-minded person. It makes you a confused person. OTOH, if you speak the truth and attack the false, it doesn't make you a fanatic. It makes you a truthful person, a Dharmi.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dvaitin,

 

The Vedas (the fundamentals) are indeed divinely inspired, but then the essentials ( The fundamental teachings) of other texts too are. My contention is the feelings of superiority of one school of thought (this by itself is also agreeable) at the expense of deriding another is not in good taste. From the Bhagavat Gita (BgAs it is) Krishna himself says that He helps make a person's faith in other dieties or gods firm and eventually they reach him. I find this to be the essence of Hindu thought, the pillar on which its tolerance is based. ISKCON, maybe because its got more western / christian leanings in terms of organization and methodologies, has adapted traditional christian methods in preaching about Krisna. Somewhere down the line it appears to have picked up some of the bias and prejudices of its neo convert followers, which I am not able to reconcile with traditional Hinduism. I would only conclude that just as Krisna is my chosen god, but a friend of mine has chosen to love Christ or Devi, so be it. To each Krsna shows mercy in his own way.

 

Hare Krishna.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

"ISKCON, maybe because its got more western / christian leanings in terms of organization and methodologies, has adapted traditional christian methods in preaching about Krisna. Somewhere down the line it appears to have picked up some of the bias and prejudices of its neo convert followers, which I am not able to reconcile with traditional Hinduism."

 

ISKCON does not engage in Christian methods of preaching. It fully recognises Jesus as a devotee of God. It fully recognises Allah, Jehovah, Buddha and Yahweh as authorised names of God. It fully recognises the impersonalist's freedom to focus on the impersonal aspect of God. It fully recognises the atheist's freedom to deny God. ISKCON tells the truth based on guru, sadhu and scripture.

 

Hare Krishna

[maadhav 0]

<< Other religions can claim anything they want, but only Veda is apurusheya. Therefore, only Veda can be accepted as authority and others discarded. If you nod your head at everything, that doesn't make you a broad-minded person. It makes you a confused person. OTOH, if you speak the truth and attack the false, it doesn't make you a fanatic. It makes you a truthful person, a Dharmi. >>

 

Thanks. very good post!

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The Vedas (the fundamentals) are indeed divinely inspired***

Indeed.

 

but then the essentials ( The fundamental teachings) of other texts too are***

No.

 

My contention is the feelings of superiority of one school of thought (this by itself is also agreeable) at the expense of deriding another is not in good taste***

 

Truth is truth. If one school of thought is true and the others false, we have to say it loudly and clearly. To distinguish between nectar and poision, is that a derision? Is that intolerance?

 

I find this to be the essence of Hindu thought, the pillar on which its tolerance is based.***

 

You're completely wrong. That's all I can say. You're deluding yourself if you think this is what H'ism is.

 

ISKCON, maybe because its got more western / christian leanings in terms of organization and methodologies, has adapted traditional christian methods in preaching about Krisna.***

 

I don't care about ISKCON or its methods. Vaishnavam didn't start with Iskcon, did it? Was Madhva an ISconite? Ramanuja? Vallabha? Chaitanya? Nimbarka? Give up your foolish tendency of equating Vaishnavam with ISkcon. Let ISkcon preach any way they want, I don't care. Truth has to be understood from our acharyas, and that includes discarding false religions.

 

Somewhere down the line it appears to have picked up some of the bias and prejudices of its neo convert followers, which I am not able to reconcile with traditional Hinduism.***

 

If a person speaks the truth and attacks false religion, he's supposed to be biased. Wow, if this is your logic, all our acharyas are biased because they spent their whole lives attacking the false and establishgn the truth. It seems you're so stuck up with this 'equality' and 'tolerance' business that you fail to see things as they are.

 

I would only conclude that just as Krisna is my chosen god, but a friend of mine has chosen to love Christ or Devi, so be it. To each Krsna shows mercy in his own way.***

 

Frankly, I don't give a flying flip whether you and your friends worship a unicorn, or worship at all. Keep your worship to yourself, just don't try to tell people that all religions are the same, they have the same goal and they all pursue the same path.

 

Prove it, if you dare make that assertion. Otherwise, your opinions have no meaning. It is one thing to repeat like a parrot, as you did, that all gods can be worshipped, bla-bla, but another to prove it from shastras. And if you say you don't believe in (Vedic) shastras, then what are you doing here on a Hindu forum? OTOH, if you believe in our shastras, your 'evidence' must be based on them.

 

Put simply, either you should stop playing 'defense counsel' for false religion, or you must prove your contentions based on Veda. If you don't believe in Veda, your participation on a Hindu forum is suspect.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Again you are under false impression that only followers of vedas are hindus.

You have left out saiva siddhanta.

 

Since almost all hindus other than the elite Brahmins don't know what is in vedas, am I right to say vedas are not representive of hinduism?

[Guest guest]

I belong to Dhrayayana sutra, but still I don't know meaning of the sama veda verses I chant during avani avittam and gayatri japam, does that mean I'm not a hindu??

 

You'll most probably say I'm an athiest or a christian, if that is the case, according to you India is a majority atheist or christian country.

[Guest guest]

If you don't know the meaning please study it

 

Out of your laziness of studying vedas, please don't try to force your opinion that Vedas are unnecessary, you don't realize what you are loosing.

 

For your benefit, a proverb from Tamil says, "The benefit of shade is realized only under burning sun". Vedas is the tree that still gives shade over Bharat.

[Guest guest]

You don't have to know what is in Vedas to Believe that it is divinenly inspired, you just have to have the belief.

 

Also as far as my knowledge goes no Shaiva Siddahanta Siddhar has spoken against Vedas, if you know any, please let me know.

 

In fact many of them, like Pambatti Sidhar, had created Tamil Stanzas which almost replicate the Vedic meaning and sound effects.

 

Please start studying them in detail, particularly thirumoolar, don't assume that Shaiva Siddhanta existed as some seperate religion and then merged with Hinduism, it may be wrong.

[Guest guest]

You'll most probably say I'm an athiest or a christian***

 

You're not intelligent enough to be an atheist, so that's not an option. If you're christian, you must be the weirdest one, as if christians aren't already weird enough.

[Guest guest]

{Again you are under false impression that only followers of vedas are hindus.

You have left out saiva siddhanta}

 

I always thought a Hindu is one who follows any of the paths derived from the teachings of the Vedas. There are Hindus who don't follow the Vedas directly but other scriptures that were inspired from the Vedas. Is Shaiva Siddhanta not included? What are the scriptures of Shaiva siddhanta? Is it dualistic/monistic? Do they acknowledge the Upanishads?

 

{Since almost all hindus other than the elite Brahmins don't know what is in vedas, am I right to say vedas are not representive of hinduism?}

 

In a way I think you're right. Many Hindu groups claim to follow the Vedas, but really follow the teaching of their acharyas and the scriptures...they follow a path derived from the Vedic teachings. There is more alliegence to an Acharya and their interpretation of the Upanishads than being strict followers of the Vedas. There is a group of Hindus called Arya Samaj who claim to be the closest followers of the vedas and state that all other Hindu sects are not truly following the Vedas. Their Guru wrote a book where he discussed this point. He wrote how some practices and beliefs in modern Hinduism contradict and is actually against Vedic teachings and uses verses from the Vedas to argue his case. I'm not saying he is right or wrong but he has thrown some light on the matter and opened up a challeging debate on what Vedic or Hindu belifs really are and what we think they are.

[Sephiroth 0]

What exactly is Shaiva siddhanta?

 

And what is a Dhrayayana sutra? I ran a google search on it and found no such organization or belief to exist.

 

I ran a check on Shaiva Siddhanta and found this website:

 

http://www.shaivam.org/siddhanta/

 

I think it means you are supposed to be "Servant of Lord Shiva". So why are you supporting Muslims? Did anyone said that Muslims are Lord Shiva's servants as well? I doubt it ... no servants of Lord Shiva could kills others (especially since India is full of them), however, I do hear stories on how Asuras gain boons from Lord Shiva and go against Him in the end.