 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Mani Varadarajan <mani@be.com> replied:
> It is precisely this kind of misinformation that Hinduism
> needs to safeguard against. This strikes at the very heart
> of temple worship; ...........
Robert Harder, Mani Varadarajan, and others have expressed various
opinions on the significance of ‘idol worship' in Hinduism. I do not
believe that one can logically convince others to accept his or her
viewpoints. Instead, all of us can try to find a common ground to
coexist as friends. We can utilize our energy to benefit the community
instead of meaningless intellectual debates. We should find a common
ground to reduce inner conflicts and maintain inner peace. Religion
begins where Science ends. Scientific facts can be logically tested and
either can be rejected or accepted. There is no logical way of testing
religious viewpoints and we can neither accept nor reject them. The
following two quotations from Srimad Bhagavatam characterize the reasons
for the different view points of Religions in general and Hinduism in
particular:
"Truth has many aspects. Infinite truth has infinite expressions.
Though the sages speak in diverse ways, they express one and the same
Truth. Ignorant is he who says, "What I say and know is true; others are
wrong." It is because of this attitude of the ignorant that there have
been doubts and misunderstandings about God. This attitude it is that
causes dispute among men. But all doubts vanish when one gains
self-control and attains tranquillity by realizing the heart of Truth.
Thereupon dispute, too, is at an end." (Srimad Bhagavatam 11.15)
"Like the bee, gathering honey from different flowers, the wise man
accepts the essence of different scriptures and sees only the good in
all religions." (Srimad Bhagavatam 11.3)
Let me restate the well-known story from India about the blind men and
an elephant. Each of the blind men assembled touched only some parts of
the elephant's body. The first one touched the head, the second one its
ears, the third one its tusk, and the rest touched the trunk, back, the
tail etc. When each of them were asked to describe the elephant, they
explained the part they touched! We are all like that blind men who try
to explain the ‘TRUTH' with our partial knowledge. There is a famous
saying in the Upanishad (I don't remember the exact reference): The more
we know, we will realize that the more we don't know! In the modern
world, we happen to get more information and now we have more doubts!
With more information on health hazards of pesticides, we have more
doubts about food safety. Even though food is safer today than ever
before, we are more skeptical than ever before! Interestingly, though
food is relatively safe in USA but we are more worried here about its
safety than our counterparts in India!
I am a professional economist and there is a joke about economists in
general: Two economists can never agree! The truth is economists do
agree in theory but they don't agree on their ‘assumptions.' Assumptions
are subjective and most of the time they are not verifiable! It is a
known fact that Religious beliefs can't be verified! If they ever
become verifiable, there will be no distinction between Science and
Religion. Most of the points advanced by Mani Varadarajan are based on
his fundamental conviction to his belief on the images of Gods in
Tirupati or Sri Rangam. But for some others such as Robert Harder, the
same images of these Gods may be just the ‘means' and not the ‘end.'
Let me quote an important rule of Hindu Dharma: "Refrain from
criticizing or condemning the Dharma of another man less developed
than yourself. He is not looking through your eyes. He may be living
nearer to his spiritual ideal than you are to yours -- how dare you
judge him? Are you so near-perfect that you set your standard up as
absolute?" (Yogi Ramacharaka, "Advance Course in Yogi Philosophy and
Oriental Occultism" ). I just want to remind Mani Varadarajan that
great Hindu saints such as Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva have
interpreted the Scriptures differently from each other! What was
considered ‘information', to some, is possibly ‘misinformation' to
others? For a layman like me, what matters is the attempt to get a
flash of the beauty and intensity of ideas that constitute these
philosophies. Intellectual discussions on the correctness or otherwise
of any of these philosophies is neither relevant nor fruitful.
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|