[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On

Pranams
 
 I propose that acceptance of authority, and how it is
 assigned or recognized, is an important consideration for
 spiritual students. Thus I took note when Susarla was asked
 to consider the meaning of the following statement:
 
>    Krsna or Christ, The Name Is the Same
 
>    Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, and Christos is the Greek
>    version of the word Krsna. When an Indian person calls on Krsna, he
>    often says "Krsta." Krsna is a Sanskrit word mean ing the object of
>    attraction."
>    When Jesus said, "Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy
>    name," that name of God was Krsta or Krsna. "Christ" is simply another
>    way of saying "Krsta," and "Krsta" is another way of pronouncing Krsna.
 
 Susarla was asked if he "would say that the above statement
 was made by a neo-advaitic swami with the best of
 intentions." He replied, "No I would not, because I happen to
 know that the speaker is NOT an advaitin..."
 
 I am sure he did not mean it was said with bad intent, but
 rather only that he knew the author was not an adwaitan. That
 admission however suggests it is not content, but the name or
 title of the author that determines value to Susarla.
 
 I used to do the same thing, used to decide value based on
 author, until a correspondent pointed out the error of that:
 it leads to utter acceptance without discrimination, and that
 is a quality that aptly manifests at the end of sadhana, not
 in its beginning or middle.
 
 Thanks to my correspondent, (a student of Ching Hai), it is
 now my view that the *authorship* of any text does not affect
 its accuracy, value, or veracity, and might even be ignored
 in one step of the discriminative intellect's study of the
 statement.  After all, if the truth is said by a sudra or by
 a brahmin or by an atheist, surely it is the truth
 nonetheless.  So too if a falsity is said by a sudra or by
 the Lord Himself, one does well to accord it proper place.
 For example, should the Lord say things that are not so, were
 He questioned, much sorrow might be avoided. I believe He
 welcomes sincere questions, as is exampled in Gita.
 
 So I took note when Susarla replied based more on author,
 rather than content. Many sects teach "our way is right,
 ignore others", and advise applicants to look to author
 FIRST, and if the author is in the sampradaya, accept; if
 not... well, look at how so many teachers and teachings are
 mocked online. Most often it is because the names and titles
 are outside the carper's clique, and so the critic tends to
 not only ignore the ideas in a text, not only dismiss any
 value therein, but perhaps even mock the ideas therein, as
 well as mock the author or his or her title(s).
 
 For example, at alt.hindu some time back I quoted a statement
 by Swami, and VS Pai mocked it immediately.  It was clear to
 me Pai had mistakenly thought that the Swami I had qouted was
 Sai Baba, one of those whom Pai and Susarla et cie have often
 mocked, (never so politely as with the phrase `neo-advaitan
 modernist swami')-- as if Truth is only true when signed by
 an acharya of his sect. Parker, Jahnu, Susarla, and Rabeh all
 exhibit that same attitude, and all support ISKCON.
 
  That Susarla admits, in a sense, that he also depends on
  knowing who said what, *before* interpreting it and thus
  uses authorship, not content, in assigning validity, does
  imply that ISKCON teaches its supporters to not depend for
  spiritual instruction on the inherent Truth of a statement,
  nor on Grace nor on insight nor on wisdom, but on clique.
 
  That exclusivity is an attitude prevalent not only in
  ISKCON, but in many modern spiritual organizations. I know
  several Sai devotees who accept without question whatever is
  signed Sathya Sai Baba, but will argue over the same text
  quoted without attribution. It seems to be a mark of the
  aspirant to defend what one believes is by one's teacher,
  rather than support what is true regardless of who says it.
 
  In my view, that is safe surely, but spiritual growth does
  not depend on such safety for any but beginners, and to
  FOREVER look to the author's name more than to the text in
  order to determine meaning or value in the words, suggests
  belief, not wisdom, and shows an unwillingnss to think for
  oneself or to determine reality or truth or GOD for oneself,
  nor to recognzie Him, so much as to demand to be told by
  third parties what is going on.  The signature is that third
  party, and is a dependence, in my view, to be eschewed in
  sadhana, not admired, since acceptance of a monopolistic
  authority due to NAME or TITLE, sometimes results in an
  anti-spiritual denunciation of other names and titles, and
  can inculcate an unexamined narrowminded cultishness, if not
  a horrible spiritual deadening via arrogance.
 
>Secondly, I do know that the speaker of this article is of
>the opinion that Christianity, like Buddhism and Advaita, was
>a religion taught to uplift people who were not ready to hear
>the full understanding of sanaatana-dharma. He does not claim
>that Christianity is on the same level as Krishna-worship,
>and in fact he explicitly states the opposite in some cases.
 
 It is then perhaps wise to listen carefully when that Swami
 preaches His own sectarian views, and then turn a very
 discerning ear should He preach something scriptural outside
 His own sect, such as Christian or Buddhist theologies (or
 any topic not within His expertise, such as astrophysics for
 example).
 
 I advise a similar discriminative listening to all spiritual
 aspirants, including Sai devotees. To examine beyond title or
 assigned authority, helps one become discriminating,
 insightful, and dependent on truth itself rather than on
 `who' says the truth. I therefore suggest that those who
 actively seek Truth as a direct experience, not only need not
 know an author's identity in order to determine if he or she
 is speaking fact or fancy or fiction, but might even ingore
 the authorship. There is a ring to Truth, a tone that does
 not depend on signature or title, one that arises in the
 heart and resonates via one's own direct experience, not by
 rote, and not by signature.  Those who see an animal or an
 illegitmate child or a sage as equal spiritual emdodiments,
 tend to appreciate that, and so speak (and accept) the truth
 accordingly, even anonymously.
 
 This is my considered opinion. Thank you for your attention.
 
 *+*
http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/index.htm
http://www.atmapress.com
 
             *}******************+**********************{*
                 You see the moon only with the help of
                  moonlight, so too you can see GOD only
                    through the rays of LOVE.
                       -Sri Sathya Sai Baba
              *}**************+**********************{*
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.