Mohammed as guru?

[sin_patas 0]

i simply ask as to whether it is the opinion of this forum that the Prophet Mohammed was in fact a bona fide God-realized master. he chanted the Qu'ran while in a deep trance-like state - but was this true God-realization? did he share his God-realization with disciples, or did he just preach?

 

my concern is whether Mohammed can accurately be described as a true guru or self-realized master.

 

[This message has been edited by sin_patas (edited 10-10-2001).]

[shvu 1]

 

This question can be extended to cover all Gurus and prophets. How does anyone know if anyone is genuine and bonafide or is simply an ordinary guy?

 

There is no way of knowing. We connect with some people and we like to think they are genuine. That's as far as anyone can go.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Jesus at least has resurrected at the 3rd day. That is indeed a wonderful feat that no other guru could do until now in spite of many attempts.

 

In fact san_patasji comment that Mohammed has only manifested symptoms of samadhi, or mystic trance, is quite correct and that does not place someone in the position of a mukta.

 

Who has Mohammed guru?

 

[shvu 1]

 

Jesus at least has resurrected at the 3rd day. That is indeed a wonderful feat that no other guru could do until now in spite of many attempts.

If such a thing really happened.

 

There are many people (including myself), who do not believe in Jesus as the son of God or his "miracles". Jesus is true and bonafide only to those who choose to believe in him. There is no rationale behind such choices. It is faith in the book; faith that the the people who wrote the book, were writing the truth and were not exagerrating.

 

The reality is, we will never know if they wrote the truth or not. There is no way of knowing if Jesus magically turned water into wine or if Krishna magically produced a saree of infinite length. That is the idea.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Satyaraj: Mohammed may be considered a debaucher and a murder indeed. But sins are not considered as an impediment to mukta’s satya-sankalpa. Hari has personally stated this in Gita (9.30). We simply cannot judge muktas under that angle.

That is an interesting point from Satyaraja Dasa. I think this merits some discussion.

 

Spiritual progress and revelation are beyond the scope of empirical sense perception. So, is it not possible for any lowly criminal to pursue his base agenda in the name of the Lord? For example, all Hitler should have done was pursue his efforts in the name of the Lord and he would have been called a saint.

 

How does a seeker distinguish a saint from a bogus criminal? Likewise, if an otherwise saintly person indulges in a set of abominable acts how should the seeker view him? Should he condone them?

 

Is BG 9:30 an exception to the rule? If so, under what circumstances? Or could it be that the Lord doesn't judge your spiritual progress on the merit of your material ethics?

 

This also brings about another interesting question. Why would a spiritually realized person ever indulge in acts that are so repulsive to an ethical unrealized person? What motivates him?

 

[karthik_v 0]

On 2 counts I wouldn't consider Mohammad a mukta or even a bonafide guru.

 

First, he had a very high predisposition to mindless violence. In Bhanu Qurraiah he killed 600 Jewish men even after they surrendered. That killing was cold-blooded. He also urged in Koran to attack and the infidels and kafirs (non-muslims). He spread (imposed) his religion through the sword than debates.

 

Second, he had a high predisposition to sex. He married 11 times and had many more concubines. He also forcibly took the daughter of the headman of Bhanu Qurraiah after murdering her father and husband in front of her eyes, against her will. She refused to marry him and spat on his face. He still kept her as his concubine. In a civilized world, this would be called rape. At 55, he married 6 year old Ayesha and consummated the marriage 2 years later. In a civilized world he would be called pedophile. He married his own daughter-in-law Zainab, after asking Zaid to divorce her.

 

These 2 project him as an ordinary criminal who mustered support by kindling the lowest urges among his followers. That puts him in the same league as Hitler et al.

 

Unless, the real Prophet was radically different from what is projected of him through the Koran and the Hadith. This could be a possibilty as the Koran was written 25 years after he died and the Hadiths were written 220 years after he died.

 

But, for that assumption we need concrete proof and cannot speculate.

[Guest guest]

Shvu: There are many people (including myself), who do not believe in Jesus as the son of God or his "miracles".

 

Satyaraj: Personally I am leaned to accept that Jesus had a direct relationship with Hari feeling himself as His son. Just like Ramakrishna felt Hari as his mother Kali. I do not accept that miracles are a necessary proof to establish someone else’s position as a mukta, as there are techniques on how to perform such miracles as to walk across a swimming pool or how to transform water into lemonade.

 

Mukta’s satya-sankalpa is something perfectly established into Vedanta and by studding mukta’s affairs one easily may attain the conclusion that Jesus, Ramakrisha, Mirabai, San Juan de La Cruz, Caitanya and many others had manifested the symptoms described therein. No miracles are needed. Only their deeds and words.

 

[karthik_v 0]

There are many instances in Tibetan Buddhism where a monk attained samadhi by just evoporating into the thin air in front of his many followers. Whether we choose to believe this or not is a matter of faith. My American colleague, who has spent almost half of his life in Tibet asserts that his guru attained samadhi that way in his presence. He is a sane guy and intelligent and I cannot suppose that he is spreading a myth.

 

The same applies to Jesus, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Ramana Maharishi et al. When Ramana Maharishi passed away many sannyasis in the Himalayas said that they perceived his soul depart this abode and merge with the Brahman. Whether we believe them or not is a matter of faith.

 

So, it is tough to prove whether someone is a bonafide guru. There are broad indications though. He preaches love of the Supreme, his actions towards his disciples and others are driven by this consideration of spiritual love.

 

So, when some one's actions fail miserably against these broad parameters, he can be deemed bogus. Like Mohammad.

[ggohil 0]

Originally posted by sin_patas:

my concern is whether Mohammed can accurately be described as a true guru or self-realized master.

[This message has been edited by sin_patas (edited 10-10-2001).]

A good question. However, I think the questions about Mohammad cannot be fairly discussed here, just as “who is Sri Krsna” would not solicit fair debate in the Islamic Forum.

 

[Guest guest]

karthik_v: On 2 counts I wouldn't consider Mohammad a mukta or even a bonafide guru...

 

Satyaraj: Mohammed may be considered a debaucher and a murder indeed. But sins are not considered as an impediment to mukta’s satya-sankalpa. Hari has personally stated this in Gita (9.30). We simply cannot judge muktas under that angle.

 

[ggohil 0]

Originally posted by shvu:

There is no way of knowing if Jesus magically turned water into wine or if Krishna magically produced a saree of infinite length. That is the idea.

Cheers

Even if there were irrefutable material evidence available of Sri Krsna’s acts, would this place

immovable faith in people, I think not. Irrespective of the evidence the non believers will find a

reason to doubt and this is fine too.

 

I think, the Supreme in essence is spiritual hence the faith cannot be based on material proofs,otherwise the faith will only be good as the material proof.

 

[This message has been edited by ggohil (edited 10-10-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Here is Gita (9.30) and its commentary by Visvanatha, a learned Gaudiya-acarya from the past, who has strictly followed the same line adopted by tri-matha-acaryas (Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva) while commenting Vedanta-sutra (2.1.37) that states: “And because it is proved that all attributes are present in Brahman, however conflicting they may be with each other, therefore He is just to all, and ‘partial’ to His devotees.”

 

api cet su-duracaro / bhajate mam ananya-bhak

sadhur eva sa mantavyah / samyag vyavasito hi sah

 

 

“If even a man of abominable character engages in My ananya bhajana he is still to be considered a sadhu, due to being properly situated in devotion.”

 

“My attachment for My bhakta is natural and, even if his behavior is degraded, My attachment for him is not lost and I make him supremely righteous.”

 

For this reason Bhagavan speaks this sloka beginning with the words api cet. Suduracarah means that even if he is addicted to killing others, having illicit relations with women, and being attached to others’ wealth, if he engages in My bhajana, he is surely saintly. What type of bhajana must he perform? In answer to this Bhagavan says: ananya-bhak.

 

“He is a sadhu who does not worship any devata but only worships Me, who does not engage in any karma and jñana but only engages in bhakti to Me and who does not desire any happiness such as the attainment of a kingdom but only desires to attain Me.”

 

But where is the question of his being a sadhu if some type of bad behavior is visible in him? In response Bhagavan says: mantavyah, “He must be considered a sadhu. From the word mantavyah the following injunction is indicated: There is a flaw in that person who does not consider him to be a sadhu. In this regard My order alone is authoritative.”

 

If a person who engages in Your bhajana is also poorly behaved, can he be considered a partial sadhu? In response Bhagavan says: eva, “He is to be considered a complete sadhu. One should not see that he lacks any saintly qualities because he has made a staunch resolve (samyag vyavasitah). His resolve is as follows: ‘Due to my sins whether I go to hell or to a species of birds or animals, I will never give up ekantika-bhakti to Hari.’”

 

 

[shvu 1]

api chetsudurAchAro bhajate mAmananyabhAk |

sAdhureva sa mantavyaha samyagvyavasito hi saha || 9.30 ||

 

Even if a man of very bad conduct worships Me with one-pointed devotion, he is to be considered verily good; for he has resolved rightly.

 

The meaning here, in my opinion is the person is has resolved righteously, by turning towards devotion, giving up his evil tendencies. It does not mean that he is a devotee who continues to performs evil acts in parallel. The next verse confirms this,

 

kshipram bhavati dharmAtmA shashvachchAntin nigachchhati |

kaunteya pratijAnIhi na me bhaktaha praNashyati || 9.31 ||

 

He soon becomes possessed of a virtuous mind; he attains everlasting peace. Do proclaim boldly, O son of Kunti, that My devotee does not get ruined.

 

Thus a devotee does not lack virtue and does not have evil tendencies. The idea is, devotion is available to a wicked person just as it is available to anyone else.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 10-11-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Thus a devotee does not lack virtue and does not have evil tendencies. The idea is, devotion is available to a wicked person just as it is available to anyone else. (Shvuji)

 

I don’t feel that the idea is that. Acarya’s understanding seems to corroborate the thesis that bhakti is always beyond right an non-right, good and evil, sin and virtue. It is stated that Hari is partial towards His devotees [Vedanta-sutra (2.1.37)].

 

So, let’s see Gita (9.31):

 

ksipram bhavati dharmatma / sasvac-chantim nigacchati

kaunteya pratijanihi / na me bhaktah pranasyati

 

 

“He quickly becomes virtuous and attains eternal peace. O Kaunteya, declare it boldly that My bhakta never perishes.”

 

Visvanatha comments: “ The following questions may be raised: “How can You accept the service of such an adharmic and unrighteous person? How can You eat the foodstuffs offered by a person whose heart is polluted by defects such as lust and anger?”

 

“Bhagavan answers by speaking this sloka beginning with the word ksipram. “He very quickly becomes righteous.” Here the word ksipram means that, he quickly becomes righteous and achieves eternal peace.

 

“The words bhavati and nigacchati are used in the present tense instead of the future. This proves that right after engaging in irreligious or abominable activity, he laments and remembers Krsna again and again, thus he quickly becomes righteous. “Alas, alas! There is nobody fallen like me who has brought such infamy to bhakti. Fie on me!” Repeatedly lamenting in this way, he attains eternal peace.

 

“Or if he eventually becomes dharmic and righteous, irreligiosity and contamination may remain in him in a subtle form. The deadly heat of fever or poison may remain for some time even after taking the best medicine. Similarly, as soon as bhakti enters such a person’s mind his evil conduct ceases, though it may remain in a subtle form for some time. Later, in a higher state, indications of poor behavior such as lust and anger may exist but they will have no influence, just like a snake whose poisonous fangs have been removed and whose poison is thus ineffective. This should be understood. Thus, his lust and anger, are eternally quelled (santim) in a way that is unparalleled. He should be considered to have a pure heart even while he is still in the condition where he behaves inappropriately.”

 

Sridhara Svami from Advaita school says that “if they become religious or righteous then there is no argument, but what can be said of a bhakta who is unable to give up such bad behaviour even until the time of death? In response to this Bhagavan strongly and angrily says: kaunteya pratijanihi na me bhaktah pranasyati, “Even when he dies he does not fall. But those who speak harshly against him due to poor logic will not accept this.”

 

“Thinking like this, Krsna spoke words of encouragement to Arjuna who was overwhelmed with grief and doubt. “O Kaunteya, while making a great sound with kettle drums go to the assembly of those who dispute this, and raising both your arms in the air, and being free from any doubt, declare that a bhakta of Me, Sri Bhagavan, is never destroyed, even if he is poorly behaved. Rather he becomes successful. In this way all their illogical words will be destroyed by your eloquence and they will definitely take shelter of you, accepting you as their guru.”

 

“Here the following objection may be raised: Why is Bhagavan asking Arjuna to make this declaration instead of making it Himself? As Bhagavan says in Bhagavad-gita (18.65): “You will surely attain Me. In truth I am taking this vow because you are very dear to Me.”

 

“So why does Bhagavan not say: “O Kaunteya, I declare that My bhakta is never lost?” In response it is said that at that time Bhagavan pondered, “I can not tolerate even the slightest insult to My bhaktas and therefore, in many instances, I Myself sometimes break My own vow, even though I have to accept insults as a result. In this way I protect the words of My bhakta, just as I will protect the words of Bhisma in this battle by breaking My own vow. Those who are non-devotees and cynical will laugh at My vow, but the words of Arjuna will be like marks etched on stone.” For this reason Krsna made Arjuna take this vow.

 

“Having heard about the ananya bhakti of such an ill-behaved person, some will understand this to mean that an ananya bhakta is only one who does not have irreligious qualities such as lamentation, delusion and anger which all arise from attachment to wife, children and so forth. But such an explanation by so-called scholars should be rejected.”

 

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 10-11-2001).]

[shvu 1]

 

It is stated that Hari is partial towards His devotees [Vedanta-sutra (2.1.37)].

I have Shankara's Bhasya, where 2.1.37 is about refuting objections raised by other schools against Brahman being the first cause.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes, you are right, as the whole Pada deals with these refutations.

 

But the Adhikarana XI — The grace of Lord is not partiality, says:

 

2.1.36: upa-padyate ca upalabhyate ca - (such partiality to His devotees) is proved to exist in the Lord and is found (in scriptures) too.

 

2.1.37: sarva-dharma upapatteh ca - (and) because it is proved that all attributes (are present in Brahman, however conflicting they may be with each other, therefore He is just to all and partial to His devotees.)

 

I am following the reasoning given by Baladeva, who is following tri-matha-acaryas' conclusions on that subject matter in spite of the difference of their comments.

 

Please post Sankara’s commentary on these sutras regarding Hari’s partiality towards His devotees.

 

[Guest guest]

In spite of his seemly abominable personal behavior, Mohammed should be considered a sadhu due the following characteristics:

 

1. He did not worship any devata but only worshiped Hari.

2. He wildly has spread the concept that Hari is one without a second.

3. He has instructed everyone to always glorify Hari’s Name. (harinama)

4. He has instructed everyone to be surrendered to Hari (saranagati is the entrance door to ananya-bhakti), as the word ‘Islam’ itself means ‘to be surrendered.’

5. He has given the concept of ‘jihad’ as a community’s duty. Know that the word ‘jihad’ in Arab does not means ‘holy war’ as some may believe. It means ‘to work with a fixed end’, just like its similar in Sanskrit ‘sadhana.’ His ‘jihad’ was to engage people to always to remember and never to forget Hari. Later after his death ‘jihad’ took the meaning of ‘holy war,’ due the ignorance and fanatism of most of his followers.

6. He did not engaged himself to any karma (to attain Svarga or earthly pleasures by worshiping Hari), nor to any kind of secondary jñana.

 

So, how can we say that he wasn’t a Hari’s servant? Isn’t Allah the same old Hari? Can we understand how Hari sportas His lilas on how to spread religion?

 

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Isn’t Allah the same old Hari?

Her Lover is before her.

She prostrates at His Feet

Knowing Him only as Krishna.

When she looks up He has moved on

but still she can feel His Presence.

Is it such an Unseen Presence

that some call Allah ?

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[shvu 1]

 

2.1.36: upa-padyate ca upalabhyate ca - (such partiality to His devotees) is proved to exist in the Lord and is found (in scriptures) too.

 

2.1.37: sarva-dharma upapatteh ca - (and) because it is proved that all attributes (are present in Brahman, however conflicting they may be with each other, therefore He is just to all and partial to His devotees.)

 

I am following the reasoning given by Baladeva, who is following tri-matha-acaryas' conclusions on that subject matter in spite of the difference of their comments.

 

Please post Sankara’s commentary on these sutras regarding Hari’s partiality towards His devotees.

From the translation I have,

 

///////////////////

 

2.1.36 :

 

upapadyate chApyupalabhyate cha

 

And (that the world is without a beginning) is reasonable and is also seen ( from the scriptures)

 

///////////////////

 

2.1.37:

 

sarvadharmopapatteshcha

 

And because all attributes (required for the creation of the world) are possible (only in Brahman, it is the cause of the world)

This sUtra answers the objection that because Brahman is attributeless, it cannot be the material cause of the world.

 

///////////////////

 

Interestingly, 2.1.34 says,

 

vaishhamyanairghriNye na sApekshatvAt tathA hi darshayati

 

vaishhamyanairghriNye na (No Partiality & cruelty)

 

Partiality and cruelty cannot (be attributed to Brahman) on account of it's taking into consideration (other reasons in that matter) because (the scriptures) declares (it to be) so.

 

Shankara explains the Supreme is neither partial nor cruel and quotes BrihadAranyaka 3.2.13.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 10-12-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

So, how can we say that he wasn’t a Hari’s servant?

I think generally it isn't any of our duties to state who is and who isn't Hari's servant. It is better if we try to become His servant our self.

 

[valaya 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

I think generally it isn't any of our duties to state who is and who isn't Hari's servant. It is better if we try to become His servant our self.

 

AMEN to that! RR