[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
-
From: "H. Krishna Susarla" <susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu>
-
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 23:05:17 +0000 (GMT)
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: U.T. Southwestern Medical Center
-
References: <ghenDx64FJ.1D6@netcom.com> <ghenDx7vqz.5qJ@netcom.com> <ghenDx9t1p.BzG@netcom.com> <ghenDxBv5o.4vK@netcom.com> <ghenDxL7KL.LA3@netcom.com>
Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDxL7KL.LA3@netcom.com>...
> Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian (rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
>
> : They also acknowledge other vaishnavite faiths like Madhvas etc. They
are
> : infact known for their catholicity in outlook, actually. Really! You
can see
> : this from the strident support wannabe ISKCONites provide to Muslims
and
> : people of other religions, on the internet. Their hearts bleed for the
> : downtrodden and oppressed. Their statements are without exception well
thought
> : out. Please refer to the archives, if you don't believe me.
I'm really not sure what "support" for "Muslims and people of other
religions" that Mr. Balasubramanian is referring to. He might be talking
about charities like Food For Life. But in any case...
> Dear Ramakrishnanji:
>
> Thank you for reassuring me. I do believe you. I look at exclusivism
> strictly from the catholic viewpoint, that means, I do not think that the
> term refers to whether or not people are actively excluded from joining
> the faith or even sharing festivals together, but whether or not a claim
> is being made that our God is the true God, yours is not (eg. demigod).
This is a very poorly thought-out statement. Let's say for the moment on
the strength of your opinion that characterizing some deities as demigods
constitues exclusivity. In that case, one can infer that you belief the
"correct" belief to be the opposite: that all the deities are different
forms of God.
But how do you know that? Dhruba, what if it actually IS the case that
there is one Supreme Deity amongst many demigods? Why do you not consider
that possibility when it is so clearly enunciated in the Giita? In fact,
what you demonstrate here is that you are arbitrating one view and saying
that statements to the contrary constitute exclusivity. Your view is itself
exclusive, because you have no means of proving the strength of your
assertion, but you are ready to criticize the opposite. You certainly have
not been able to show from the Giita that other deities besides
Krishna/Vishnu are anything other than subordinate entities (hence the term
demigod - one who is not God but is invested with some of the potencies of
God). The evidence from the Giita clearly states that the
devas/demigods/other deities are NOT the same as Krishna. So, according to
you, the Giita is exclusive? I hope you are prepared to label other
scriptures as such, like most or all of the saattvik Puraanas which
constitute the basis for the traditions of most of the major schools of
Vedanta.
> Christianity is exclusive, and Christians too care for the poor in wealth
> and in spirit, because that is part of the Christian creed. The same is
> true for the vaishhNavas.
One can care for someone even if he worships a subordinate deity. In fact,
if one truly cared about others he would try to convince them of the truth,
rather than simply telling them what they want to hear.
yat tad agre vi.sam iva
pari.naame 'm.rtopamam
tat sukha`m saattvika`m proktam
aatma-buddhi-prasaada-jam
"That which in the beginning may be just like poison but at the end is just
like nectar and which awakens one to self-realization is said to be
happiness in the mode of goodness." (Giita 18.37)
If I was wrong in my views, it would be far better for me to experience
some disappointment or ego-deflation rather than continue to hold ideas
which are not correct. Consequently, I am very suspicious of most
spiritualists or religionists who are all too quick to agree with me. I
would rather they disagree and do so on the basis of shaastra rather than
falsely claim to accept my religion just to prove how great and
all-accepting their own religion is.
Finally, I think it worthwhile to point out that opponents of exclusivism
(as you define the term) are all too quick to exclude themselves. Consider
the logic: I am not exclusive because I accept all other
religions/faiths/and beliefs. But I don't accept those religions or parts
of religions which are themselves exclusive.
Is this very sensible to you?
regards,
--K
