[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
M Suresh <msuresh@india.ti.com> wrote in article
<ghenDxMoLF.Mno@netcom.com>...
>
> In this respect it is ISKCON that seems to be more in tune with
> western thought, in contrast to the allegation that Hindu religion
> ( or collection of religions or culture or whatever ) attemtps to
> follow the west.
>
> It is the nature of the western mind to fit religion into a set of
> rules, regulations and concepts entirely within the limitations of the
> human mind. A religion, according to them should have a fixed set of
> books which bring out the concept of god in a fashion similiar to that
> of the proof of a theorem with axioms ( The axioms in this case will
> be numerous ). The religious books would also be expected to lay out
> in detail the rules and regulations of god which must be followed
> blindly. ISKCON claims to satisfy all these requirements which makes
> it a religion more tuned to western thought.
The above sentiments can be defeated with one, well-placed quote from the
Bhagavad-Giita:
ya.h s'aastra-vidhim uts.rjya
vartate kaama-kaarata.h
na sa siddhim avaapnoti
na sukha`m na paraa`m gatim
"He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims
attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination."
(16.23)
I don't think Lord Krishna was a Westerner...
[comparison with Christian fundamentalists deleted, in all honesty I feel
sorry for people who are so narrow-minded that they cannot see the
difference between Vaishnavism and Christian fundamentalism]
> Reading the attacks on hinduism from ISKCON supporters brings back
> those memories, because these attacks sound as if they are coming from
> the members of the group I have mentioned above.
No one is attacking Hinduism, Suresh. If you weren't so insecure in your
beliefs, you would easily see that. What we were talking about was defining
Hinduism.
> In fact I can find many parallels between ISKCON thought and thoughts
> of such christian groups. Examples are :
So, the implicit assumption is clear: if Gaudiya Vaishnavas say one thing,
and there are Christians who agree, that the former must be wrong? In order
for Hindus to be seen as authentic in your eyes, they have to disagree with
Christians, right?
Isn't that based on a kind of prejudice?
> 1. Hinduism is not a religion, but a culture or atmost a loose
> collection of beliefs and philosophies. I have heard this many
> times before.
And this fact is supported by history and common sense. Nowhere in the
shaastras is a Hindu religion spoken of. Jaladhar Vyaas is not an ISKCON
devotee, but he agrees. Why do you conveniently ignore him, as if to
suggest that one has to be ISKCON or anti-Hindu in order to be in agreement
with the above?
> 2. Krishna has made it explicitly clear in SBG that he alone can give
> salvation, Versus, Jesus Christ has explicitly stated that in the
> Bible that the kingdom of god can be reached through him alone.
Comparisons of the Bible to the Bhagavad-Giita are among one of the many
rampant misconceptions in Hindu society. The logic goes like this: If the
Christians are intolerant, and they base their beliefs on their Bible, then
surely someone who follows the Giita with the same kind of conviction in
singular devotion must be guilty of the same fallacy.
First of all, the Bible is nowhere on the level of the Bhagavad-Giita.
Christians will admit to you that the Bible was not written by God, but
rather by 40 different Christians from all walks of life. It is thus not
beyond the realm of human error. Furthermore, they cannot prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt that their Bible is what Jesus spoke. There is about a
100-year difference between when Jesus left the world and when the texts
which are today considered to be the modern Bible were discovered.
Secondly, the Bible admits its own shortcomings in terms of not being
complete. On the other hand, Krishna repeatedly declares in the Giita that
He is presenting the complete knowledge, the most confidential of secrets,
etc. The Bible was subject to political revisionism around the time of the
Council of Nicea, which was convened to select the Bible which they thought
to be most authentic (there were hundreds of different Bibles at the time).
No such revisionism has taken place with the Giita. The few "scholars" who
claimed that such revisions took place produced papers of extremely poor
quality.
Actually, this attempt to compare the Bible and the Giita is itself another
symptom of the post-colonialist India that I wanted to discuss. Many Hindus
tend to think of Christianity when they think religion. They have no
understanding of the apourusheya nature of the Vedic literatures, or of the
analyses given therein on the metaphysics of the soul which is absent in
many other religions.
> 3. Vaishnava is not an exclusive religion and is open to all those who
> want mukti, vs, Anyone can be saved by converting to christianity
> and following Jesus Christ, because jesus loves you, only you
> should become a christian for him to save you.
If one wants mukti, one has to go to the right source. What is your
contention, that anyone can get mukti by following whatever practice?
I wouldn't compare Christianity to Vaishnavism. Christians may claim that
they can lead you to God, but a closer analysis shows that much of their
religion is simply based on relieving people of the guilt of committing
sinful activities. Vaishnavas don't pray for heaven or hell -- they pray
for pure devotion to the Lord.
> 4. The road to salvation is viewed as a racetrack in which members of
> such groups like to think themselves to be far ahead of the rest in
> the race toward salvation. The ISCKONite will think, "Let Death
> come, I will be in Vaikuntha and you will be in
> heaven-knows-where".
This is a blatant misrepresentation, and M. Suresh should apologize for it.
The "ISKCONite" does not think like that. Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't care
about heaven or hell or even liberation. They only care about
Krishna-prema. Thus, a devotee will not even be asked for liberation from
samsaara. He only asks for service to the Lord, birth after birth. There
are some excllent Mukunda-maalaa-stotra verses (published by ISKCON) which
beautifully describe that. Look them up on SRV.
The christian extremist will think "Let the
> day of the judgement come, I will be admitted to eternal heaven and
> you will be judged to eternal hell".
If Hindus became more learned in Vedanta (rather than insisting that we
accept the silly, sentimental idea that all beliefs are okay and it just
does not matter what you follow), they could easily defeat Christian
extremists and wouldn't have to give a darn what they say.
> 5. HK Susarla had said the following in SRV in response to a info
> posting on a talk on advaita :
>
> -- BEGIN QUOTE --
> > Why was I born?
>
> because I became envious of the Lord's position as the supreme enjoyer
> and supreme controller, and, desiring
> to enjoy and control on my own, I was sent to the material world to
> lord it over material nature in a vain
> attempt to emulate Lord Krishna.
> -- END QUOTE --
>
> This is strikingly similiar to the concept of original sin in
> christianity wherein Satan originally an angel in heaven is thrown
> out of heaven by god because he wants to become equal to him, and
> he becomes the cause of all later sin.
So, what's your point? If it's similar, it is wrong?
> In fact the similiarity is so striking that it makes me wonder
> whether or not it is borrowed from christianity.
Oh give me a break. These kinds of "borrowing" theories were the hallmark
speculations of Indologists who attempted to denigrate Vaishnavism and
Hinduism. It is now a fact that the Bhaagavata or Vaishnava religion
predates Christ. If you don't believe me, look up information on the
Heliodorus Column and the Greek ambassador Megasthanese (sp?).
> 6. Reliance on special ( predicted ) signs for confirmation of
> avatarhood, vs, Unique circumstances of birth of Christ, his being
> born to a virgin, his resurrection, etc. regarded as irrefutable
> signs that Jesus is the messiah.
As opposed to just accepting any person you happen to like as an avataar?
> In fact exclusiveness seems to be a property of all dvaita religions.
Let's take a look at a certain sentiment that seems to pervade Hinduism: "I
accept all religions and beliefs, but I do not accept those religions and
beliefs which themselves do not accept everyone."
I hope you are not going to tell me that there is no exclusivity in the
above statement.
> I am including Christianity and Islam with ISKCON as dvaita religions,
> because they too preach the eternal separation of god and the soul.
That is to their credit. There is no logical basis for assuming otherwise.
> In fact putting all 3 under one banner of dvaita itself will cause
> protests from each of the 3 religions because differentiation from the
> rest in an attempt to stand out as separate and unique is the very
> characteristic of a dvaita religion.
Appreciating differences brings one closer to developing genuine respect.
You can't really appreciate someone else's beliefs if you gloss over
differences that may be uncomfortable for you to deal with.
> I wonder if throwing mud on hindus in India and thinking that ISKCON
> is the only true vedic religion, and that the majority of the people
> in India, the land of the vedas are following rubbish lends any
> support to the Krishna Bhakti of ISKCONites. I thought that true
> Bhakti should be spontaneous and not dependent on anything. Atleast
> it should not be strengthened by the thought that one is superior to
> others, and that others are heading for damnation.
I wonder if you really know what you are talking about, or if you are just
spewing anti-ISKCON hatred in attempt to satiate your false ego. ISKCON
devotees, and Gaudiya Vaishnavas in general, accept four other Vaishnava
traditions as genuine (that can lead to mukti) on the strength of the Padma
Puraana. Nowhere in their literatures do you find sentiments like "everyone
else is wrong." Rather, it is insecure people like you who conveniently try
to misrepresent them as such because you would rather avoid more scholarly
discussions on the basis of shaastra.
It saddens me that this is what has become of the once-great culture of
Bhaarata-varsha. Ignorance of scripture is justified on the premise that
Vedas are no better than the Bible or the Koran. Critical thinking is
sacrificed in favor of the sentiment of moral relativism: it's all okay, it
doesn't matter what you believe. Sadly, this is the kind of thinking that
today goes under the heading of Hinduism, and it is also why many people,
Hindus and nonHindus alike, have no respect for Hinduism.
Who would have thought that after centuries of invasion from other
countries, that the people to destroy Hinduism would be Hindus themselves?
regards,
-- Krishna
