Friday, September 29, 2006
Santhara - an idealistic death
I knew there existed a tradition of fasting-to-death voluntarily in Jain religion, not as a reaction to any extraneous reasons of poverty or disease, but for spiritual reasons. People commit suicide due to suffering or disappointment. But the fasting-to-death tradition in Jainism is different. I am reminded of the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita on what constitutes good and bad action – the answer being motive. In the case of Santhara (I am actually hearing this word for the first time, after the recent incident concerning a Jain lady), it is easy to see that it is part of the higher spiritual practice of the Jains and we must not ridicule it or see it as a crime. Of course, this practice can be misused and we might not know which the genuine cases are and which are being done with ulterior motives. But then the best of practices can be misused. So let us not call Santhara as suicides and instead see it in the larger context of a genuine and legitimate religious practice pursued by the sincerest of adherents to the path.
As for myself, I see it as one of the most idealistic of sanctions given by religion to motivate a pilgrim on the spiritual path - fancy giving up everything, finally food, all under the most stringent of self-determined tapas. He who is detached enough to watch death as it eats one away is verily the one who has transcended fear and known what truth is. The Jains indeed have the noblest of religions.
The message of Santhara is that there is nothing to fear. We all horde money to help us out of a difficult situation that may arise in the future. Our greatest fear is the suffering for want of food or medicine. But if we know that the perishing of the body cannot harm us, then where is the fear of the future? Thus we will cease being materialistic. We shall be fearless to pursue the spiritual path.
8:51:43 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (0) Uncategorized
Friday, September 29, 2006
Santhara - an idealistic death
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Allah and beyond in the Vedas
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Allah and beyond in the Vedas
Dear Imran,
Thanks very much for your comments to my blog ‘Grow up Ruzan’ on Sept 26th. Your quoting Dr. Zakir Naik is great. He is a scholar, no doubt. But I am afraid his inability to beyond the One God concept, even theoretically, is a limitation. Nevertheless, he is a man of books and to be respected.
The Vedas talk of the concept of Brahman and this is actually a pre-creation stage. The Vedas also call God, the creator as Purusha and his creation as Prakriti. The Vedas also talk about the substratum, the undifferentiated whole, referred to as Brahman, whereupon the drama of creation-maintenance-destruction takes place. In the totality of Brahman, technically, there is no God the creator!
In response to your comments to my blog, I wish to say that I agree we all love our religion, but we should love other religions also, because all spiritual teachings are the heritage of entire mankind. Trying to prove that my religion is the best is childish. In comparing religions, certain things may be noted. But as the famous philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurthy said, comparisons are odious. It is almost like trying to say that my language is the best. (Not unlike saying, my mummy best!) Aren’t all languages equally expressive? There is no need for a person to know all the languages in the world to conclude that all the languages are equally expressive. All he has to do is to watch and listen to native speakers of languages and he will understand the universal truth that all languages are equally expressive. Likewise, Hindus say all religions are sacred and all religions lead to God. It is not necessary to be a scholar, dissecting all religions, to come to this conclusion. All you have to do is to stand in front of devotees in prayer or meditation to get a glimpse of the sacredness of all religions. Even then, the final conviction would be our own experience of our religion to conclude that others too would be having similar experiences with their religions. Why do the Muslims find this difficult to accept and go on claiming that theirs is the only true religion, or, worse, saying theirs is the only true God?
Reading the scriptures is fine, but we must not get stuck with mere words, we ought to get to the spirit of the message.
Hindus actually don’t follow scholars. Hindus have spawned an entity called Gurus. It’s to them that Hindus flock. They are more than scholars. Scholars are stuck with words. Gurus are those who have caught the spirit of the scriptures. They are verily the knowledgeable ones.
The real cross-checking of what we have read in the scriptures ought to be with the impact they have had on us. I have heard Dr. Zakir Naik on TV and he came across as a person who is well-versed with the letters of the scriptures but seem to have missed the spirit of the scriptures. He is more into hair-splitting than trying to awaken one to the spiritual message of all scriptures. Moreover, he just wants to prove Islam is the best religion. It is only a sense of lack that propels one to prove that his religion is the best. Spiritualism, however, cures one of that sense of lack.
Having said this much, I also wish to say that scholars like Dr. Zakir Naik can lead Muslims to take a peep into the scriptures of others and eventuality discover that truth is one, though expressed variously.
I am taking the liberty to comment on Dr. Naik’s commentary of selected verses in the Vedas and Quran in his attempt to prove that Vedas too preached that there is only one God.
For clarity while reading, I am colouring Dr. Naik’s quotations and his commentary in blue.
CONCEPT OF GOD IN HINDUISM. The most popular amongst the Aryan religion is Hinduism.
Dr. Naik starts by considering Hinduism as a single religion, whereas Hinduism is actually a confluence of innumerable religious expressions.
Also, he calls Hinduism an Aryan religion. The religious and spiritual culture that is denoted by the word Hinduism, being expressions of the universal urge of man to delve within to his divine potential, is not restricted to any so-called race. Its traditional name, Sanatana Dharma (the Eternal Harmony) is very indicative of the universality of Hinduism.
Common concept of God in Hinduism: If you ask a common Hindu that how many Gods he believe in, some may say three some may say thirty three, some may say a thousand while some may say thirty three crore i.e. 330 millions.
These 33 crores Gods do not cause a Hindu disharmony while even a suggestion of a single other God besides Allah causes the Muslim great anguish. Why? Because the Hindu knows that these 33 crores Gods are only the expressions of the ultimate truth, which truth is not separate from our own potential. The Muslim on the other hand, is forbidden to express God except as he believes Allah has instructed him in the Quran. A God separate from him has to be submitted to, no questions asked. The Hindu is free to be creative and expressive, for he knows that in his fullest potential, he himself is that God. Tat Tvam Asi.
But if you ask this question to a Hindu learned man who is well versed with the Hindu scriptures, he will reply that the Hindu should actually believe and worship only one God.
No learned Hindu would say that we SHOULD believe and worship only one God for the simple reason that he does not see the worshiping of many Gods out of sync with man’s pursuit of spirituality, which is the purpose of religion.
Difference between Islam and Hinduism is ‘s’ (Everything is ‘God’s’ - everything is ‘God’): The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim is that the common Hindu believes in philosophy of Pantheism i.e. everything is God, the tree is God, the sun is God, the moon is God, the snake is God, the monkey is God, the human being is God. The Muslims believe that everything is God’s. God with and apostrophe ‘s’. Everything belongs to God, the tree belongs to God, the sun belongs to God, the moon belongs to God, monkey belongs to God, the human being belongs to God. Thus the major difference between the Hindus and the Muslims is the apostrophe ‘s’. The Hindu says everything is God. The Muslim says everything is God’s, God with an apostrophe ‘s’. If we can solve the difference of the apostrophe ‘s’, the Hindus and the Muslims will be united.
Dr. Naik’s differentiation between Islam and Hinduism as being just the ‘s’ is legitimate and honest. In Hindu parlance, Islam is a Dwaitic (dualistic) religion whereas Hinduism goes deeper to the Advaitic (non-dualistic) experience. When we say Islam is a Dwaitic religion, it is not to belittle Islam thereby. A vast majority of Hindus also celebrate dualism. And yet, all Hindus know that this is not the ultimate. The ultimate is merging in God. Islam does not go this deep (with the exception of the Sufis). It merely waits for God to judge everyone and dole out eternal punishments or rewards. The Hindus who are Dwaitic of course do not believe in a line up and judgement scenario. Why? Thanks to the sublime influence of Advaita among the masses of even Dwaitic Hindus, what with the teachings of Karma and rebirths.
I like Dr. Naik’s saying that if we resolve the apostrophe ‘s’ problem, Hindus and Muslims can unite. However, I wish to tell him that Hindus and Muslims are disunited only because Islam insists that it is the only true religion and not because there is a difference of opinion on this or that. Hinduism celebrates differences of opinion, for they see it all as man’s various expressions. So let the Muslim believe that his religion is a great religion, his scripture is God’s own words and Muslims are the most blessed folks in the world. No harm in all that. We have a lot of Hindus who believe the same thing about their religions too. But Muslims must accept that other religions are also legitimate. Then and only then can there be a joint celebration of each others religion and thus real unity.
Hinduism has proved this historically. Take Vaishnavism and Shaivism. In the Islamic milieu, there would have been bloodbaths between the followers of Vishnu and Shiva. But look how they have amalgamated into one religious culture, so much so that outsiders would be surprised to know that they are actually two different religions with two different and distinct Gods, each God with his own set-up! And more surprising would be Shaktism, whose followers believe that God is actually a Goddess! And their followers do not even follow the Vedas. They follow the Tantric scriptures. So much difference and yet so much unity. That’s Hinduism. Unity in diversity.
The Holy Qur’an says, "Come to common terms as between us and you", which is the first term? -That we worship none but Allah, so lets come to common terms by analyzing the scripture of the Hindus and the Muslim.
Dr. Zakir Naik quotes the the Holy Qur’an to say “Come to common terms as between us and you”.
How great. But the Islamic milieu has transformed it to mean, “Let there be a common ground by all means and let that common ground be Islam.”
I. Bhagwad Geeta 7:20. The most popular amongst all the Hindu scriptures is the Bhagwad Geeta. Bhagwad Geeta mentions in Chapter 7, Verse 20, "Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires worship demigods" that is "Those who are materialistic, they worship demigods" i.e. besides the true God.
I wish to say that when the Bhagwad Geeta refers to demigods they only mean the reference point of a person who has not fully awoken to the truth of who he is. This is in consonance with the ultimate hallmark of Hinduism – that truth is one but the wise express it variously. A person who has not fully awoken to the spiritual truth is not a lesser person, just as a child is not a lesser person than a grown-up. So a materialist is he who has not fully awoken to his destiny and he will therefore worship God at his level. This is what is called ‘various expressions’. The Gita does not call a child stupid. But when the child does not grow-up, then the Gita says such a person is Baleshu – a childish person.
II. Upanishad are also one of the sacred scriptures of the Hindus. In Chandogya Upanishad, Chapter 6, Section 2, Verse 1 it is mentioned "He is one only without a second". Similar to what is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an in Surah Ikhlas, Chapter 112, Verse 1, "Say he is Allah one and only".
May I ask who is one without a second? Not a God who can be distinguished as being a Creator separate from his creation. In separation, there is a second. Only when everything is God (or when there is nothing, not even God – the shoonya concept of the Buddhists), is there one without a second.
I wish to say that when the Quran enjoins to say that he is Allah one and only, it has reached only the penultimate Dwaitic situation of Hindu culture. The ultimate is the Advaitic situation, which the Sufis understand.
The Hindu believes everything is pervaded by God. So the Hindu takes a stone and chisels it to be the centre of divinity in his life and the life of the community. It is just like electricity being everywhere but requiring a bulb to bring the light to our sensory level.
III. In Svetasvatara Upanishad, Chapter 6, Verse 9 it is mentioned "Of him there is neither parents nor lord". "Of him there is no master in the world, no ruler, nor is there any mark of him. He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the sense organs; of him there is neither progenitor nor lord". Similar message is given in Holy Qur’an in Surah Ikhlas, Chapter 112, Verse 3, "He begets not, nor is he begotten".
Absolutely. The Vedas here are talking of the undifferentiated state of Brahman, not the state of creator-created separation, where Ishwar or Allah or God and His creation come in.
The Quran in similar verses is also talking of Allah in the Brahman state. The moment Allah creates, then he is no longer in the Brahman-state. Then he is in the Ishwar state (in Hindu parlance). This differentiation of Allah into two states, His state before creation and His state after creation is not clear in Arabic because the same word Allah is used in both before-creation state and after-creation state. Sanskrit however has used two different words for the before and after stages and thus the clarity on this in Hindu commentaries. (Brahman is not to be confused the Brahma the creator in mythical parlance.) Brahman is not the creator. Brahman is the substratum on which the drama of creation manifests and subsides in aeons of time.
IV. "His form is not to be seen; no one sees him with the eye. Those who through heart and mind know him as abiding in the heart become immortal". Similar message is given in the Holy Qur’an in Surah Anam, Chapter 6, Verse 103, "No vision can grasp him. But his grasp is over all vision: he is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things".
The Vedic verse quoted above appears reflected picturesquely in the battlefield of Kurukshetra when Krishna displays his Vishva-roop to Arjuna.
In both the above verses it will be noted that the speaker is not Purusha of the Vedas or Allah of the Quran. It is a Rishi who has reached the ultimate stage who is describing the state in the Vedas. Is it Mohammad who is saying the words quoted in the Quran? Or is it Allah telling Mohammad to proclaim thus? Please clarify.
V. In Svetasvatara Upanishad, Chapter 4, Verse 19 it is mentioned "There is no likeness of him whose name is great glory". Similar message is given in the Holy Qur’an in Surah Ikhlas, Chapter 112, Verse 4, "And there is none like unto him". Surah Shura, Chapter 42, Verse 11 and also in Surah Shura, Chapter 42, Verse 11, "There is nothing whatever like unto him".
The curious thing about the two verses that were received in two different milieus is that in the case of the Veda the “He” still remains unknown and mysterious whereas in the Quran the “He” has a name – Allah. Proving once again that the Vedas are talking of the undifferentiated Brahman whereas the Quran is talking of the differentiated God, where the totality is differentiated between the creator and his creation.
We must bow humbly to all the scriptural verses quoted. How potent in force the verses are, both of the Vedas and the Quran. They are indeed mystical poetry. Very Hindu in fact. Hindu mystics talk like this.
VI. It is mentioned in Yajurved, Chapter 32, Verse "There is no image of Him." It further says as "He is unborn, He deserves our worship" "There is no image of him whose glory verily is great. He sustains within himself all luminous objects like the sun etc. may he not harm me, this is my prayer. As he is unborn, he deserves our worship".
This again is at the Brahman stage, a purely undifferentiated stage, called for only of the highest mystics. For us ordinary folks, the Vedas prescribe idol-worship. Just as Allah has prescribed for Muslims the form of the Kaa’ba. The Muslims know that they are really not offering their worship to Ka’aba but it is only an aid to help them to focus on the prayer to Allah. Likewise the Hindus too know that the idols are an aid to worship Ishwar and then go beyond idols and Ishwar and reach the stage of Brahman – knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.
VII. It is mentioned in Yajurved, Chapter 40, Verse 9 "They enter darkness, those who worship natural things" For e.g. air, water, fire etc. It further continues and says, "They sink deeper in darkness those who worship Sambhuti i.e. created things", For example table, chair, idol etc. "Deep into shade of blinding gloom fall asambhuti’s worshippers. They sink to darkness deeper yet who on sambhuti are intent"
The above quotations taken by Dr. Naik are exhortations by the Vedas that we should not restrict our advancement in spirituality to level of objects. It has got nothing to do with BELIEF in One God. What is behind a tree, for instance? It is the bij mantra for that tree (akin to the physical seed). It is said that we may be born in a temple but we should not die in a temple. This only means that we have to go beyond everything, including even the Vedas, till we merge in the Brahman. (And Hinduism gives us as many lifetimes as we need for that.) This is the ultimate. What’s beyond the ultimate? (Well, this question may sound meaningless. But it is worthwhile to remember that there are Rishis in India even of late, like Aurobindo Maharshi, who thought at levels that are beyond the ultimate. Islam, as understood by the best of Muslims, stops at Allah, the sound vibration. It is yet to take its teachings to the level of silence. (But how is this possible, Mohammad has come and gone. No further editions of knowledge are possible.) The Vedas however have no such restrictive teachings. That is what the above verses mean. The full implication of the above verses can only be explained by a Guru.
I feel Dr. Naik is stopping at the brink of studying the Vedas. (But he can’t do it by himself, he needs a Guru. You can’t study the Vedas merely by making annotations as your read along!)
Dear Imran, you will notice in all of Dr. Naik's quotation of the Vedas, nowhere does the God of the Vedas proclaim that He is the only true God and He has appointed so and so as his final authentic messenger. Actually, the “speaker” of the Vedas is not God himself separate from his audience but the resonance of the eternal truths as received by the self-realized Rishi of yore. This is a marked difference between the passages you have quoted from the Vedas and the Quran. The God of the Quran enjoins loyalty and obeisance. Submission of his creatures to him (as if he failed programming that quality in men when he created them). In the Vedas, it is the expression of the Rishi in his higher consciousness of spirituality.
In the light of the above verses, what needs to be pondered over is why the Vedas did not spawn a culture of exclusivity whereas Islam did? What is the reason for this difference in consequence? I humbly suggest that this is because Islam separated the Creator and the created whereas Hinduism says that the Creator and his creation are one.
8:41:41 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (3) Uncategorized
Grow up, Ruzan
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Grow up, Ruzan!
Am I sounding increasingly a cynical Islam basher, as you say? I believe that the creator and his creation are one and the same and we have to awake to the divinity within us and about us. This is what Hinduism teaches. Islam, in believing in a God that is separate from us is actually a primitive religion, compared to Hinduism. If I say thus, am I being an Islam basher? I submit that I am simply stating facts as I see them to be.
Why do you say I am dishonest? I am only expressing myself. Where have I lied? I may have got my facts wrong and I stand corrected when it is pointed out.
You are unnecessarily being paranoid when you say I want to defame Muslims and Islam. NDTV has given me a forum to express myself and I don’t think NDTV bloggers are the naïve sort to just swallow what someone says. They are discerning folks and won’t allow any nonsense to pass muster without a challenge.
You say I can’t stem the advancement, influence and appeal of Islam ideologically. Islam has been having a captive audience so far, with much of its societies being closed ones. But with the internet’s influence growing, Islam, as it is officially interpreted, will be exposed as a stunted creed, thereby making Muslims an intolerant majority and a turbulent minority, as a famous historian said.
What are the cheap tactics you accuse me of resorting to?
I have not written any fabricated, concocted or baseless falsehoods. I wish you would point out particularly where I have done it.
You say you have answered many questions I have raised and point out that I still parrot the same accusations every time without trying to understand. I say, why don’t you be specific? I think you are attempting character assassination. Just because you answered my questions does not mean I have to accept your answers as gospel truth.
You say I am here to defend falsehood and spread hatred. Pray, which is the falsehood I am defending? If you think defending Hinduism is defending falsehood, then you are welcome to your views.
You might not like my praising and whole-heartedly defending people like Thackeray, Modi, Togadia et al. I have a democratic right to support them. Further, I see them as defenders of Hindutva or the spirit of Hinduism. The spirit of Hinduism is this – that the truth is one and its expressions are many. And I would seek to expose anyone who defends any belief which says that truth is the monopoly of anyone in particular.
You say I am justifying the killing of innocent people in Gujarat as well as demolition of Babri Masjid. The Gujarat riots took place because Muslims burnt Hindus returning from a pilgrimage. Muslims have to blame their brethren in Godhra for the subsequent violence. Babri Masjid was built after destroying the Ram Mandir there. Why should Hindus alone be expected to forget history when Muslims remember diligently every war Mohammad took part in?
Hindus are nothing if they are not secular and not merely tolerant, but have a culture which accepts all religions as various paths towards the truth and expressions of the same. There is no democracy in Muslim countries.
Rule of law? This I accept that the Islam has a clear sense of. The Shariat appeals to many outside Islam also. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But here I prefer to remember Jesus who said an eye for an eye will only lead everyone to be blind.
You say I have justified hatred, crimes and criminals and therefore ask how I think I am tolerant. But where have I justified hatred, crimes and criminals? Be specific, Mr. Ruzan Shah, otherwise you are simply giving me a bad name to hang me.
You say Dalits were excluded by untouchability, even though they were an integral part of Hinduism. They were and are still an integral part of Hinduism. They may have been excluded, but they were never sought to be ethnically cleansed as the idol worshippers of Islam were by Mohamamd. They are very much part of Hinduism.
You challenge me to prove my false accusation that idol worshippers were massacred by Mohammad. All I have to do to prove this is to quote the Quran.
9:5. “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
This is the instruction of Allah in the Quran. Mohammad, being the specially appointed messenger of Allah, would he not have been at the forefront to carry out the injunction of Allah? Thus, even by inference it is proved that Mohammed massacred the idol worshippers. What more proof do you want, unless you want, nevertheless, that Mohammad did not do it, thereby exposing that he did not follow Allah’s command.
You would accuse me of bending things out of context when I quote the Quran. But tell me, would a single word of Allah be out of context? Allah’s context surely must be in the timeless and spaceless context. By talking of a context with reference to the Quran, you are only saying that Quran requires a context to be relevant, thereby disproving your own claim that Quran is the word of God.
About idols, they are most important. They make us reach the truth step by step. It is like language leading us to the great truth of silence. (Sorry, am I speaking Greek?)
You say idol worshippers are genetically prone to easily develop inability to distinguish things rationally or lack abilities to understand anything that is formless. If what you say is true, then this is most true of Muslims and therefore they must be the greatest idol worshippers of all.
Conceive of anything formless? Muslims can’t imagine it even a wee bit. That is why they want a direction to pray to God. Imagine a direction to pray to God as if God was located in Mecca, the so-called centre of the earth. (How can the surface of a globe have a centre? Maybe the Arabs at that time thought the earth was flat!).
You are greatest when you say that Islam offers complete and final solutions for all mankind. Let me tell you, Ruzan Shah, and through you to all my Muslim brothers, that there is no such thing as a complete and final solution for all mankind. Religion has solutions only for the individual, not for the society. Society is the sumtotal of individuals, but that sum-total is only a shade of what the individual is. My Guru, who is not a Hindu by birth, said that Communism failed because it is a promise to the world and Vedanta succeeds because it is a promise to the individual. (I am sorry if, again, I speak in Greek to you. But sometimes I am unable to express except in Greek. I hope some of my fellow bloggers who know ‘Greek’ will know what I am speaking about.)
Why should a religion be concerned about governance? Religion is a teaching leading to spiritualism of the individual practitioner. I agree that politics is a part of Islam and that is why Islam has failed in what it purports to be, that is, a religion. For religion should create spiritual men (by spiritual I mean being in a state of oneness with God, not as a believer and hence separate from God. Has Islam created such men? If there are such men in Islam, they are the Sufis. Hinduism has created such men throughout the ages and that is why even today Hinduism is alive and kicking without any state patronage whereas Islam is surviving, particularly in Arabia, only because of state patronage and the atmosphere of intolerance towards any other religion exhibited there. Do not call me anti-Islamic for say all this. I am only stating facts as I see them.
You say Islam is the only religion which clearly shows how to rule by divine orders. Look, when divinity becomes your nature, you don’t rule, you become free. You are talking about ruling by divine order. As if God requires his minions to rule the world!
You say Islam is complete in its totality. On what basis do you say that? Because the Quran is the word of God and a perfect book? If that is so, why does Islam require the Sunnah/Hadidths, as if to supplement the Quran? Can’t Islam survive by the Quran alone? If it can’t survive by the word of God, then how is the world to believe that Quran is the word of God?
Does Quran talk of the rule of law or does it have the Shariat, which are harsh measures to force regimentation in society? Real rule of law is the inherent sense of Dharma in society, which manifests itself if it is inspired by self-realized men of religion.
You say I am exposing my ignorance about Islam. Well, I won’t be for long. I have you as my Guru of Islam. Lo!
You keep saying one true God. Can you tell me where the untrue Gods are? You might point to the idols in the Hindu temples. Well, do you really think God feared competition from stone idols in attracting followers? Why have you conceived Allah as a jealous God?
Faith at best may be the beginning of self realization. You have to live in the truth, not live away from truth, with the belief that God is separate from you.
You have the right to preach and practice your religion. Please give others also the freedom. Please tell the Ulema to invite Hindu Swamijis to preach in Saudi Arabia.
For the first time, you have pointed out where I have erred. I said Muslims believe that Mohammad is the final word on religion. You said no, Allah is. I stand corrected. I fully, totally and completely agree with you that Allah is the final word on religion and final authority for everything. I have no quarrel with you on that. But I have, when you try to shrink Allah by saying that he ended his messages with Mohammad. You would even quote the Quran to say that Allah said so. Well, I simply don’t believe Allah said anything of this sort, Quran or no Quran. Hindus have been taught not to accept anything if it does not convince one’s logic, even if it is in the Vedas. No blind belief.
You say that the Vedas say that there is one God. The Vedanta, as you might not know, is part of the Vedas and is considered as the acme of the Vedas, that is, it is where its most philosophical teachings are written for advanced folks. There, it goes beyond saying there are many Gods, one God or no God to state that there is only God. That is my heritage as a Hindu.
You say there is only one god and He is separate from us, his creation. But because the Hindu believes that God is part and parcel and whole of creation, he always has a direct access to God within himself. That is why many Hindu Gurus have claimed to have seen God, experienced God etc. Is this possible according to Islam? (Apart from the special permission Allah gave Mohammad to hop on to a steed and fly to heavens to meet Him?) Is it true that according to Islam, you have to wait until judgement day to meet Allah? Can you please clarify on this?
If you think Hindus believe in two Gods, you are mistaken. Hindus express Gods variously. An expression leads us to the source. Do you think no Hindu has been led to God through idol worship?
You say you totally reject the false deities. They may be false for you. But they are not so to their worshippers. Reject it as far as your own practice is concerned. But do not reject it as practice for others. Unfortunately, this is what Mohammad did when he destroyed the idols in Mecca. There is no getting away from this fact. And don’t call me anti Islam for stating it umpteen times.
You may say idol worship is anti-Islamic because you have been officially told that it is so in the Quran and you cannot have your own interpretation of the Quran. But that is not the culture the Vedas are in. They are in the Hindu culture and the Hindu culture allows its adherents to interpret the Vedas as they please, for they know that if the interpretation is not truthful, the interpreter will only be a laughing stock. But those who saw idols in the Vedas are no laughing stock. They are some of the most venerated names in Hinduism, nay in the world of religion.
You say Mohammad never said he is God. Has Rajneesh said that he is God? Please quote me his saying so.
You are almost warning me to stop spreading lies about Islam because I know nothing about Islam. This reveals your fascist mentality. Expressing my view point on a public document like the Quran or a public and historical figure like Mohammad becomes a violation of some code you believe in. About my knowing nothing about Islam, since every Muslim believes he is duty bound to preach Islam, please go right ahead and tell me all about Islam. But don’t insist that I remain silent after your discourse. I retain the right to question your discourse. I am not a captive Muslim audience. I am a Hindu.
I reiterate that Muslims are being fascist in proclaiming that “Allah is the only true God and Mohammad is his last messenger”. I stand by my statement that this proclamation is fascist because that is how, on the strength of this proclamation, Islam behaved throughout history - intolerance of non-believers. I pray, may the Muslims turn a new leave, may they all become Sufis!
Please don’t say I hate Muslims. I love Muslims. But how am I to prove this to you? I only hate Muslims (or any other religious denominations) saying that their religion is the only true religion. Muslims are simply wrong in saying this. All religions are true, otherwise there would not be so many religions. Only interpretations can go horribly wrong and, in the case of Islam, historically wrong. I hate the sin, not the sinner, as Jesus said.
You say it is an established fact that Darkness opposes Light, Falsehood opposes Truth, Atheist opposes Believer, Evil opposes Divine and Lost people oppose those who are on the right path. By the negatives, I suppose you mean Hinduism and by the positives, I suppose you mean Islam. Give the Hindus too some credit in the field of religion, won’t you? At least we are the oldest religion in the world. When I read the Quran, I feel empowered by the majesty of its vision and scope. But that is because I read the Quran in the light of Vedanta, not in the my-religion-only-true-religion way the Muslims tend to read it. Maybe one day I must write my own interpretation of the Quran, unless the Muslims kill me before that!
You say Islam gives you right of war with the unjust. That’s democracy for the Muslims I suppose, because the Muslims get to decide who is unjust. Grow up, Ruzan.
12:28:18 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (18) Uncategorized
Grow up, Ruzan!
Am I sounding increasingly a cynical Islam basher, as you say? I believe that the creator and his creation are one and the same and we have to awake to the divinity within us and about us. This is what Hinduism teaches. Islam, in believing in a God that is separate from us is actually a primitive religion, compared to Hinduism. If I say thus, am I being an Islam basher? I submit that I am simply stating facts as I see them to be.
Why do you say I am dishonest? I am only expressing myself. Where have I lied? I may have got my facts wrong and I stand corrected when it is pointed out.
You are unnecessarily being paranoid when you say I want to defame Muslims and Islam. NDTV has given me a forum to express myself and I don’t think NDTV bloggers are the naïve sort to just swallow what someone says. They are discerning folks and won’t allow any nonsense to pass muster without a challenge.
You say I can’t stem the advancement, influence and appeal of Islam ideologically. Islam has been having a captive audience so far, with much of its societies being closed ones. But with the internet’s influence growing, Islam, as it is officially interpreted, will be exposed as a stunted creed, thereby making Muslims an intolerant majority and a turbulent minority, as a famous historian said.
What are the cheap tactics you accuse me of resorting to?
I have not written any fabricated, concocted or baseless falsehoods. I wish you would point out particularly where I have done it.
You say you have answered many questions I have raised and point out that I still parrot the same accusations every time without trying to understand. I say, why don’t you be specific? I think you are attempting character assassination. Just because you answered my questions does not mean I have to accept your answers as gospel truth.
You say I am here to defend falsehood and spread hatred. Pray, which is the falsehood I am defending? If you think defending Hinduism is defending falsehood, then you are welcome to your views.
You might not like my praising and whole-heartedly defending people like Thackeray, Modi, Togadia et al. I have a democratic right to support them. Further, I see them as defenders of Hindutva or the spirit of Hinduism. The spirit of Hinduism is this – that the truth is one and its expressions are many. And I would seek to expose anyone who defends any belief which says that truth is the monopoly of anyone in particular.
You say I am justifying the killing of innocent people in Gujarat as well as demolition of Babri Masjid. The Gujarat riots took place because Muslims burnt Hindus returning from a pilgrimage. Muslims have to blame their brethren in Godhra for the subsequent violence. Babri Masjid was built after destroying the Ram Mandir there. Why should Hindus alone be expected to forget history when Muslims remember diligently every war Mohammad took part in?
Hindus are nothing if they are not secular and not merely tolerant, but have a culture which accepts all religions as various paths towards the truth and expressions of the same. There is no democracy in Muslim countries.
Rule of law? This I accept that the Islam has a clear sense of. The Shariat appeals to many outside Islam also. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But here I prefer to remember Jesus who said an eye for an eye will only lead everyone to be blind.
You say I have justified hatred, crimes and criminals and therefore ask how I think I am tolerant. But where have I justified hatred, crimes and criminals? Be specific, Mr. Ruzan Shah, otherwise you are simply giving me a bad name to hang me.
You say Dalits were excluded by untouchability, even though they were an integral part of Hinduism. They were and are still an integral part of Hinduism. They may have been excluded, but they were never sought to be ethnically cleansed as the idol worshippers of Islam were by Mohamamd. They are very much part of Hinduism.
You challenge me to prove my false accusation that idol worshippers were massacred by Mohammad. All I have to do to prove this is to quote the Quran.
9:5. “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
This is the instruction of Allah in the Quran. Mohammad, being the specially appointed messenger of Allah, would he not have been at the forefront to carry out the injunction of Allah? Thus, even by inference it is proved that Mohammed massacred the idol worshippers. What more proof do you want, unless you want, nevertheless, that Mohammad did not do it, thereby exposing that he did not follow Allah’s command.
You would accuse me of bending things out of context when I quote the Quran. But tell me, would a single word of Allah be out of context? Allah’s context surely must be in the timeless and spaceless context. By talking of a context with reference to the Quran, you are only saying that Quran requires a context to be relevant, thereby disproving your own claim that Quran is the word of God.
About idols, they are most important. They make us reach the truth step by step. It is like language leading us to the great truth of silence. (Sorry, am I speaking Greek?)
You say idol worshippers are genetically prone to easily develop inability to distinguish things rationally or lack abilities to understand anything that is formless. If what you say is true, then this is most true of Muslims and therefore they must be the greatest idol worshippers of all.
Conceive of anything formless? Muslims can’t imagine it even a wee bit. That is why they want a direction to pray to God. Imagine a direction to pray to God as if God was located in Mecca, the so-called centre of the earth. (How can the surface of a globe have a centre? Maybe the Arabs at that time thought the earth was flat!).
You are greatest when you say that Islam offers complete and final solutions for all mankind. Let me tell you, Ruzan Shah, and through you to all my Muslim brothers, that there is no such thing as a complete and final solution for all mankind. Religion has solutions only for the individual, not for the society. Society is the sumtotal of individuals, but that sum-total is only a shade of what the individual is. My Guru, who is not a Hindu by birth, said that Communism failed because it is a promise to the world and Vedanta succeeds because it is a promise to the individual. (I am sorry if, again, I speak in Greek to you. But sometimes I am unable to express except in Greek. I hope some of my fellow bloggers who know ‘Greek’ will know what I am speaking about.)
Why should a religion be concerned about governance? Religion is a teaching leading to spiritualism of the individual practitioner. I agree that politics is a part of Islam and that is why Islam has failed in what it purports to be, that is, a religion. For religion should create spiritual men (by spiritual I mean being in a state of oneness with God, not as a believer and hence separate from God. Has Islam created such men? If there are such men in Islam, they are the Sufis. Hinduism has created such men throughout the ages and that is why even today Hinduism is alive and kicking without any state patronage whereas Islam is surviving, particularly in Arabia, only because of state patronage and the atmosphere of intolerance towards any other religion exhibited there. Do not call me anti-Islamic for say all this. I am only stating facts as I see them.
You say Islam is the only religion which clearly shows how to rule by divine orders. Look, when divinity becomes your nature, you don’t rule, you become free. You are talking about ruling by divine order. As if God requires his minions to rule the world!
You say Islam is complete in its totality. On what basis do you say that? Because the Quran is the word of God and a perfect book? If that is so, why does Islam require the Sunnah/Hadidths, as if to supplement the Quran? Can’t Islam survive by the Quran alone? If it can’t survive by the word of God, then how is the world to believe that Quran is the word of God?
Does Quran talk of the rule of law or does it have the Shariat, which are harsh measures to force regimentation in society? Real rule of law is the inherent sense of Dharma in society, which manifests itself if it is inspired by self-realized men of religion.
You say I am exposing my ignorance about Islam. Well, I won’t be for long. I have you as my Guru of Islam. Lo!
You keep saying one true God. Can you tell me where the untrue Gods are? You might point to the idols in the Hindu temples. Well, do you really think God feared competition from stone idols in attracting followers? Why have you conceived Allah as a jealous God?
Faith at best may be the beginning of self realization. You have to live in the truth, not live away from truth, with the belief that God is separate from you.
You have the right to preach and practice your religion. Please give others also the freedom. Please tell the Ulema to invite Hindu Swamijis to preach in Saudi Arabia.
For the first time, you have pointed out where I have erred. I said Muslims believe that Mohammad is the final word on religion. You said no, Allah is. I stand corrected. I fully, totally and completely agree with you that Allah is the final word on religion and final authority for everything. I have no quarrel with you on that. But I have, when you try to shrink Allah by saying that he ended his messages with Mohammad. You would even quote the Quran to say that Allah said so. Well, I simply don’t believe Allah said anything of this sort, Quran or no Quran. Hindus have been taught not to accept anything if it does not convince one’s logic, even if it is in the Vedas. No blind belief.
You say that the Vedas say that there is one God. The Vedanta, as you might not know, is part of the Vedas and is considered as the acme of the Vedas, that is, it is where its most philosophical teachings are written for advanced folks. There, it goes beyond saying there are many Gods, one God or no God to state that there is only God. That is my heritage as a Hindu.
You say there is only one god and He is separate from us, his creation. But because the Hindu believes that God is part and parcel and whole of creation, he always has a direct access to God within himself. That is why many Hindu Gurus have claimed to have seen God, experienced God etc. Is this possible according to Islam? (Apart from the special permission Allah gave Mohammad to hop on to a steed and fly to heavens to meet Him?) Is it true that according to Islam, you have to wait until judgement day to meet Allah? Can you please clarify on this?
If you think Hindus believe in two Gods, you are mistaken. Hindus express Gods variously. An expression leads us to the source. Do you think no Hindu has been led to God through idol worship?
You say you totally reject the false deities. They may be false for you. But they are not so to their worshippers. Reject it as far as your own practice is concerned. But do not reject it as practice for others. Unfortunately, this is what Mohammad did when he destroyed the idols in Mecca. There is no getting away from this fact. And don’t call me anti Islam for stating it umpteen times.
You may say idol worship is anti-Islamic because you have been officially told that it is so in the Quran and you cannot have your own interpretation of the Quran. But that is not the culture the Vedas are in. They are in the Hindu culture and the Hindu culture allows its adherents to interpret the Vedas as they please, for they know that if the interpretation is not truthful, the interpreter will only be a laughing stock. But those who saw idols in the Vedas are no laughing stock. They are some of the most venerated names in Hinduism, nay in the world of religion.
You say Mohammad never said he is God. Has Rajneesh said that he is God? Please quote me his saying so.
You are almost warning me to stop spreading lies about Islam because I know nothing about Islam. This reveals your fascist mentality. Expressing my view point on a public document like the Quran or a public and historical figure like Mohammad becomes a violation of some code you believe in. About my knowing nothing about Islam, since every Muslim believes he is duty bound to preach Islam, please go right ahead and tell me all about Islam. But don’t insist that I remain silent after your discourse. I retain the right to question your discourse. I am not a captive Muslim audience. I am a Hindu.
I reiterate that Muslims are being fascist in proclaiming that “Allah is the only true God and Mohammad is his last messenger”. I stand by my statement that this proclamation is fascist because that is how, on the strength of this proclamation, Islam behaved throughout history - intolerance of non-believers. I pray, may the Muslims turn a new leave, may they all become Sufis!
Please don’t say I hate Muslims. I love Muslims. But how am I to prove this to you? I only hate Muslims (or any other religious denominations) saying that their religion is the only true religion. Muslims are simply wrong in saying this. All religions are true, otherwise there would not be so many religions. Only interpretations can go horribly wrong and, in the case of Islam, historically wrong. I hate the sin, not the sinner, as Jesus said.
You say it is an established fact that Darkness opposes Light, Falsehood opposes Truth, Atheist opposes Believer, Evil opposes Divine and Lost people oppose those who are on the right path. By the negatives, I suppose you mean Hinduism and by the positives, I suppose you mean Islam. Give the Hindus too some credit in the field of religion, won’t you? At least we are the oldest religion in the world. When I read the Quran, I feel empowered by the majesty of its vision and scope. But that is because I read the Quran in the light of Vedanta, not in the my-religion-only-true-religion way the Muslims tend to read it. Maybe one day I must write my own interpretation of the Quran, unless the Muslims kill me before that!
You say Islam gives you right of war with the unjust. That’s democracy for the Muslims I suppose, because the Muslims get to decide who is unjust. Grow up, Ruzan.
12:28:18 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (18) Uncategorized
Comments slot malfunction - here's my reply Ruzn Shah
Sunday, September 24, 2006
The solution to the inter-religious problem
To find a solution to inter-religious problems, we have to first see that there are three elements to any religion: its scriptures, its interpreters and its followers. I feel that it is the way a scripture is interpreted that is vital.
It goes without saying that all followers of all religions are human beings and are basically alike. Scriptures are dead words till we lay our hands on it and try to understand it and comment on it.
Taking Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, we can see that Hinduism is in a different situation because it has a culture of freedom in interpreting religious texts. Both Islam and Christianity have always had an official version. Christianity has somewhat been freed from this after the Pope was put in his corner in a secularisation process. Islam unfortunately has not gone through this process.
I shall give an example of what I am trying to say. Islam says (that is, it is interpreted to say) that it is the only true religion. But if you have been to ISKCON, you will observe that its Swamijis too interpret Bhagwad Gita and all literature associated with Krishna to say that Krishna alone is the truth. What has saved this from becoming a problem is that in Hindu culture such claims are passé. All schools of thought thrive and there is no official religion trying to establish itself as the only true religion. Who knows, if ISKCON had a country all to themselves, they might have disallowed any other expression of the divine except Krishna. But the saving grace is that it says so in the background of the Hindu culture and therefore its claims of exclusiveness get submerged in the Hindu culture of inclusiveness. This is true of the Arya Samaj also. They say that idol worship is bunkum. But why did they not go around in an idol smashing spree? Again, because of the all-inclusive Hindu culture. (So much so that is said that what is true of Hinduism, its opposite is also true.) Islam does not have this saving grace. It is trapped in the tribal mentality of either I am right or you are wrong.
The only solution to the problem is that Islamic societies must be secularised. The first step of course is to democratise them. This is a big deal. But Bush must be appreciated for trying to do this. If he fails, it would be because he did not take the right measures to do it. (It has to come from within, external bombardment will not work. He might have, for instance, sought to give more space to the Sufis.) Maybe he should have studied the Hindu culture and taken tips from there on the art of being inclusive.
In conclusion, I would say that the Muslim societies ought to have space for interpreting Islam more liberally and this space can come about only with a democratisation of their communities, which in turn ought to lead to a secularisation of their polity.
12:08:25 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (2) Uncategorized
The solution to the inter-religious problem
To find a solution to inter-religious problems, we have to first see that there are three elements to any religion: its scriptures, its interpreters and its followers. I feel that it is the way a scripture is interpreted that is vital.
It goes without saying that all followers of all religions are human beings and are basically alike. Scriptures are dead words till we lay our hands on it and try to understand it and comment on it.
Taking Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, we can see that Hinduism is in a different situation because it has a culture of freedom in interpreting religious texts. Both Islam and Christianity have always had an official version. Christianity has somewhat been freed from this after the Pope was put in his corner in a secularisation process. Islam unfortunately has not gone through this process.
I shall give an example of what I am trying to say. Islam says (that is, it is interpreted to say) that it is the only true religion. But if you have been to ISKCON, you will observe that its Swamijis too interpret Bhagwad Gita and all literature associated with Krishna to say that Krishna alone is the truth. What has saved this from becoming a problem is that in Hindu culture such claims are passé. All schools of thought thrive and there is no official religion trying to establish itself as the only true religion. Who knows, if ISKCON had a country all to themselves, they might have disallowed any other expression of the divine except Krishna. But the saving grace is that it says so in the background of the Hindu culture and therefore its claims of exclusiveness get submerged in the Hindu culture of inclusiveness. This is true of the Arya Samaj also. They say that idol worship is bunkum. But why did they not go around in an idol smashing spree? Again, because of the all-inclusive Hindu culture. (So much so that is said that what is true of Hinduism, its opposite is also true.) Islam does not have this saving grace. It is trapped in the tribal mentality of either I am right or you are wrong.
The only solution to the problem is that Islamic societies must be secularised. The first step of course is to democratise them. This is a big deal. But Bush must be appreciated for trying to do this. If he fails, it would be because he did not take the right measures to do it. (It has to come from within, external bombardment will not work. He might have, for instance, sought to give more space to the Sufis.) Maybe he should have studied the Hindu culture and taken tips from there on the art of being inclusive.
In conclusion, I would say that the Muslim societies ought to have space for interpreting Islam more liberally and this space can come about only with a democratisation of their communities, which in turn ought to lead to a secularisation of their polity.
12:08:25 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (2) Uncategorized
The solution to the inter-religious problem
Sunday, September 24, 2006
The solution to the inter-religious problem
To find a solution to inter-religious problems, we have to first see that there are three elements to any religion: its scriptures, its interpreters and its followers. I feel that it is the way a scripture is interpreted that is vital.
It goes without saying that all followers of all religions are human beings and are basically alike. Scriptures are dead words till we lay our hands on it and try to understand it and comment on it.
Taking Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, we can see that Hinduism is in a different situation because it has a culture of freedom in interpreting religious texts. Both Islam and Christianity have always had an official version. Christianity has somewhat been freed from this after the Pope was put in his corner in a secularisation process. Islam unfortunately has not gone through this process.
I shall give an example of what I am trying to say. Islam says (that is, it is interpreted to say) that it is the only true religion. But if you have been to ISKCON, you will observe that its Swamijis too interpret Bhagwad Gita and all literature associated with Krishna to say that Krishna alone is the truth. What has saved this from becoming a problem is that in Hindu culture such claims are passé. All schools of thought thrive and there is no official religion trying to establish itself as the only true religion. Who knows, if ISKCON had a country all to themselves, they might have disallowed any other expression of the divine except Krishna. But the saving grace is that it says so in the background of the Hindu culture and therefore its claims of exclusiveness get submerged in the Hindu culture of inclusiveness. This is true of the Arya Samaj also. They say that idol worship is bunkum. But why did they not go around in an idol smashing spree? Again, because of the all-inclusive Hindu culture. (So much so that is said that what is true of Hinduism, its opposite is also true.) Islam does not have this saving grace. It is trapped in the tribal mentality of either I am right or you are wrong.
The only solution to the problem is that Islamic societies must be secularised. The first step of course is to democratise them. This is a big deal. But Bush must be appreciated for trying to do this. If he fails, it would be because he did not take the right measures to do it. (It has to come from within, external bombardment will not work. He might have, for instance, sought to give more space to the Sufis.) Maybe he should have studied the Hindu culture and taken tips from there on the art of being inclusive.
In conclusion, I would say that the Muslim societies ought to have space for interpreting Islam more liberally and this space can come about only with a democratisation of their communities, which in turn ought to lead to a secularisation of their polity.
12:08:25 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (2) Uncategorized
The solution to the inter-religious problem
To find a solution to inter-religious problems, we have to first see that there are three elements to any religion: its scriptures, its interpreters and its followers. I feel that it is the way a scripture is interpreted that is vital.
It goes without saying that all followers of all religions are human beings and are basically alike. Scriptures are dead words till we lay our hands on it and try to understand it and comment on it.
Taking Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, we can see that Hinduism is in a different situation because it has a culture of freedom in interpreting religious texts. Both Islam and Christianity have always had an official version. Christianity has somewhat been freed from this after the Pope was put in his corner in a secularisation process. Islam unfortunately has not gone through this process.
I shall give an example of what I am trying to say. Islam says (that is, it is interpreted to say) that it is the only true religion. But if you have been to ISKCON, you will observe that its Swamijis too interpret Bhagwad Gita and all literature associated with Krishna to say that Krishna alone is the truth. What has saved this from becoming a problem is that in Hindu culture such claims are passé. All schools of thought thrive and there is no official religion trying to establish itself as the only true religion. Who knows, if ISKCON had a country all to themselves, they might have disallowed any other expression of the divine except Krishna. But the saving grace is that it says so in the background of the Hindu culture and therefore its claims of exclusiveness get submerged in the Hindu culture of inclusiveness. This is true of the Arya Samaj also. They say that idol worship is bunkum. But why did they not go around in an idol smashing spree? Again, because of the all-inclusive Hindu culture. (So much so that is said that what is true of Hinduism, its opposite is also true.) Islam does not have this saving grace. It is trapped in the tribal mentality of either I am right or you are wrong.
The only solution to the problem is that Islamic societies must be secularised. The first step of course is to democratise them. This is a big deal. But Bush must be appreciated for trying to do this. If he fails, it would be because he did not take the right measures to do it. (It has to come from within, external bombardment will not work. He might have, for instance, sought to give more space to the Sufis.) Maybe he should have studied the Hindu culture and taken tips from there on the art of being inclusive.
In conclusion, I would say that the Muslim societies ought to have space for interpreting Islam more liberally and this space can come about only with a democratisation of their communities, which in turn ought to lead to a secularisation of their polity.
12:08:25 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (2) Uncategorized
Words and action - the religious dilemma
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Words and action - the religious dilemma
Jesus said a tree is known by its fruits. However much merits one may see in a religious teaching, its impact on society at large cannot be assessed without taking into account the effect it has had on at least the best of its followers.
The best (actually, all) of Jesus followers eventually became members of one Church or the other and thereby became ?Churchians? rather than Christians. Where is the Jesus who said ?Let the dead bury the dead? and where is the Pope today who is ornamented in all regalia, stays in palaces, has retreats from where he offers his benediction to his congregation, and to top it all, is the political head of a minute country - not to forget that he lacks moral courage to call a spade a spade (if not a bloody spade) without taking recourse to quotations from 14th century monarchs and later retracting what he meant.
Mohammad was always in battles to defeat his enemies (not enemies within but enemies without, thereby setting an example of what is meant by Jihad) though Allah said if one man is killed, the entire mankind is killed. So the better a Muslim wants to become, the more Mohammad-like he needs to be. Is it any surprise, therefore, that Muslim communities at large want to more honour than condemn Islamic terrorists?
But the most pathetic state is that of the Hindus, the Hindus who have inherited the Vedantic legacy of Aham Brahmasmi and Vasudeva Kutumbakam but have compartmentalised themselves into innumerable castes and divided loyalties. Hindus have taken to materialism with greater gusto than others and thereby have become a corrupt lot. Any wonder we have been ruled by foreigners for long ages and still continue to be ruled by a foreigner to whom the Congress and the voters seem to have hypothecated themselves?
I would call upon the Hindus to awaken to their legacy and vibe to the vibrancy of Vedanta, as I would call upon the Christians to be Christ-like and not merely members of this body or that body. To the Muslims I would say, interpret the Quran so that the voice of Allah comes through it, not that of mere mortal mullahs.
P.S. I am not pompous enough to actually advise anybody anything. I am merely exercising the option of poetic licence to fling a few chosen words in the hope that they would sprout to be thoughts in a few like-minded folks? minds.
9:50:24 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (0) Uncategorized
The Pope on Mohammad
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The Pope on Mohammad
The Pope in quoting a 14th century king to say that Mohammad brought nothing to the world except violence is a bit unfair not because the facts may be wrong but because the Pope, being who he is, ought to have been courageous enough to speak up for himself. Actually, he would find it difficult to accuse Mohammad of violence because the same violence was the hallmark of the Church too in its long history – violence in the name of religion. Jesus’ position is of course different. Jesus has epitomised peace with his “offer the left cheek if smote on the right” etc. but Churches of all denominations have caricatured the teachings of Jesus as put forth in the Gospel of the Mount, for instance, and stood for the very evil the Pope is accusing Mohammad of having represented.
Neither Islam nor Christianity is in a position to talk about peace and love unless the former rejects the dogmatic interpretation of Islam that has been in vogue throughout its history and takes on the spirit of the Sufis and the later abandons the Churches and takes on the spirit of Jesus Christ of the Mount (sermon). These represent the quintessential spirit of Vedanta.
5:17:52 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (7) Uncategorized
The Pope on Mohammad
The Pope in quoting a 14th century king to say that Mohammad brought nothing to the world except violence is a bit unfair not because the facts may be wrong but because the Pope, being who he is, ought to have been courageous enough to speak up for himself. Actually, he would find it difficult to accuse Mohammad of violence because the same violence was the hallmark of the Church too in its long history – violence in the name of religion. Jesus’ position is of course different. Jesus has epitomised peace with his “offer the left cheek if smote on the right” etc. but Churches of all denominations have caricatured the teachings of Jesus as put forth in the Gospel of the Mount, for instance, and stood for the very evil the Pope is accusing Mohammad of having represented.
Neither Islam nor Christianity is in a position to talk about peace and love unless the former rejects the dogmatic interpretation of Islam that has been in vogue throughout its history and takes on the spirit of the Sufis and the later abandons the Churches and takes on the spirit of Jesus Christ of the Mount (sermon). These represent the quintessential spirit of Vedanta.
5:17:52 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (7) Uncategorized
Religion as an identity slot
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Religion as an identity slot
The whole problem is that for many religion is just an identity slot when, ironically, religions are teachings that seek to break-down all attachments to identities and thereby rid man of his ego and turn him into a spiritual being.
We have to approach all religions as teachings for the benefit of mankind and be philosophical enough to see even its so-called negative aspects as good intentioned. We shall then benefit spiritually from all religions and realise that they are but the truth expressed variously.
Karl Marx's communism failed because it was a promise to the masses. Religion always succeeds (provided it is not hijacked to be an identity factor) because it is a promise to the individual. The human solution is not at the macro level (at the social level) but at the micro level (individual level).
3:06:29 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (0) Uncategorized
Life after death and all that
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Life after death and all that
We've got a life now and we have to cherish every moment of it, trying to assimilate everything life offers with a sense of awe and great calmness. Everything else is merely academic in nature, like whether there is life after death or if god is black or white etc.
However, I must add that you could profit much by teachings that declare that you are the eternal spirit residing in a temporary body and all that – such teachings frees you from any sense of limitation and unfolds the divine being that you really are and thereby you live forever, even death being a great mystical experience, the experiencer that you are never dying till you merge into the ultimate.
2:59:59 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (2) Uncategorized
Life after death and all that
We've got a life now and we have to cherish every moment of it, trying to assimilate everything life offers with a sense of awe and great calmness. Everything else is merely academic in nature, like whether there is life after death or if god is black or white etc.
However, I must add that you could profit much by teachings that declare that you are the eternal spirit residing in a temporary body and all that – such teachings frees you from any sense of limitation and unfolds the divine being that you really are and thereby you live forever, even death being a great mystical experience, the experiencer that you are never dying till you merge into the ultimate.
2:59:59 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (2) Uncategorized
Islam should not pass of faith as fact
Friday, September 15, 2006
Islam should not pass off faith as fact
It is interesting that Islam not just states what it declares are facts, but requires Muslims to believe in them. This is very sensible of Islam, because many things cannot directly be proved as facts to everyone. Life after death (as stated by Islam) has not yet occurred. Islam says it will occur and till then all we have to prove that it will occur is faith. If we are very deep in our faith, then it becomes as good as a fact for us.
Why Islam calls for faith in what it says (about, for instance, life after death) is that thereby, by turning it into a fact for the faithful, it can have the necessary effect on the faithful that Islam wants.
Science, on the other hand, does not call for any faith - at best it requires the scientist to be patient and await the results of tests which it says would prove such and such a thing.
What I find disconcerting is that in Islam the faithful are trying to pass off as facts that which are merely in the realm of faith. Faith is something that concerns the individual. This Hinduism appears to have understood and that is why its religious culture is individualistic in nature.
My contention is that Islam should be propagated without trying to pass off faith as fact.
9:07:19 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (2) Musings
Dear Roger, am I being boycotted?
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Dear Roger, am I being boycotted?
Dear Roger,
I have had no intentions of the sort you ascribe. My reply just did not kick start in the comments slot, as was the experience of all the bloggers for the past few days. They must have rectified the fault by the time you responded here. Why, I responded to a blog by TLN Sundara Raja today on the subject of Vande Mataram on the comments slot itself.
As a matter of fact, I have only one point against Islam and that is their claim that Islam is the only true religion. Add this to the religious fanaticism practised by ardent Muslims and you have a potent combination that is deadly. Christianity too claims that it is the only true religion and then go about converting folks, which irritates the Hindu to no end. The saving grace is that the greatest ‘terrorist’ the Christians have produced is the saint-to-be Mother Theresa whereas Muslims have actually produced a charismatic Osama bin Laden who actually asks a whole nation to convert to Islam en-bloc!
P.S. I could not paste my comments on my own blog. Is NDTV (maybe Muslim-friendly Barkah Dutt?) trying to boycott me for asking all those silly questions on Islam and making grandiose statements on Hinduism? I did manage to break the 'ban' net to comment on a blog on Vande Mataram, though.
11:02:47 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (2) Uncategorized
The Life of Prophet Mohammad - a question
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
The Life of the Prophet Muhamad - a question
In the blog by Mohammad Irshad Hussain, in chapter 3, 'The Elephant Refuses to Move', it is noteworthy that the Ka'bah that Allah protected contained idols, as the incident happened before the birth of Mohammad. Since this incident is etched in the Quran, was Mohammad in error in not protecting the Ka'bah with the idols rather than cleanse it of idols, something which Allah himself did not do? Was there then a specific instruction from Allah to Mohammad to destroy the idols in Ka'bah?
9:16:34 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (3) Musings
Hindu Muslim dialogue Part VIII
Sunday, September 10, 2006
The discussion continues, after a pause - Ruzan Shah-Venu
Dear Venu u r rigid.
Dear Ruzan Shah,
Thank you for your response to my posting “Muslims doing pooja, much less reciting Vande Mataram, is not un-Islamic”
You say I am being rigid. I am not being rigid; I am only trying to see the logic of things. I do not think, when we communicate in written language, anything other than logic can direct the course of the discussion.
I shall retain your response intact and colour my response in red so that we have at hand our flow of thoughts.
I am a muslim & I know what is universal brotherhood.
I am not questioning that you are a Muslim, that’s something between you and Allah. But the universal brotherhood you claim to know, if based on Islam, is illogical because Islam propounds the theory of Kafir and if I am not mistaken, a Kafir is one who does not accept Islam to be his religion. The celebrated verse in the Quran, where it says “Onto you your religion and onto me my religion”, unfortunately did not develop into a culture that accepted that there are many paths to God but led to the attitude “mine is the true religion and if you are not joining it, then go the hell your way”. This is evidenced in Islam’s greatest display – at the Hajj in Mecca where only Muslims are allowed. This is the ‘universal brotherhood’ that is on display – the brotherhood of only the believers.
Its for all the mankind & not only for muslims.
I am glad you recognize that the Quran is for all mankind and not just for Muslims. I too recognize that it is part of mankind’s heritage. Therefore it gives me a right to seek to understand and explain it from the Hindu viewpoint (or rather a Hindu’s viewpoint, that is, my own viewpoint).
So it will be better if you stop twistings facts. I know my religion better than you my friend.
Not just your religion but mine too. Its for all mankind, remember? (I know I don’t qualify to be a Muslim just because I accept the Quran to be mine also, because according to you folks I have to circumcise and all that.)
Either you concieved it wrong or u just dont want to accept the fact. If thats the case nobody can help you. I dont understand why are you lieing ?
Please don’t call me a liar just because I have a different view on matters.
So me where in Quran it says its only for muslims ? I challenge you.
All religious books are the heritage of all mankind. While for the others Quran is but one of the many sacred scriptures extant in the world, for the Muslims it is the only religious book of any worth. Quran may not be only for Muslims, but Muslims are only for the Quran.
Even in your earlier post how many times you backedoff when asked to prove your mis-conception ? Everytime you gave a standard reply I am not a scholar of Islam.If you dont know Islam than why are you speaking lies ?
Being ignorant is not tantamount to being a liar. I do not remember backing off but I do concede the possibility because I am a mere blogger, not the Shankaracharya!
Ask somebody who knows Islam better or just stop propagating lies.
But tell me, do you know Islam? If there are people who know Islam better than you, does it not mean that you have still more to know about Islam? So, my friend, it’s all a matter of degrees, in knowledge (no pun intended). We live and we learn.
Vasudhev Kutumbakam ok If the whole world is one family why you dont even want to touch dalit ?why ?
Mercifully, the so-call upper castes only kept the so-called lower castes at arms length or even out of sight, but they never massacred them. That is, there was no ethnic cleansing in Hindu history. But that’s not so with Islam. Just as Mohammad cleansed Mecca of idols, the Muslims cleansed communities which, for instance, believed in idol-worship. Where are the idol-worshiping communities in Arabia today? (Don’t include the present generation Hindu expatriates there.)
Dont lie man come on speak the trueth......lol I know Hindus never get tired of talking about vasudhev kutumbakam but in reality they never practice it its a hypocracy my friend.
Surprise, my friend. The Hindus are the only people in history who spread their inclusive culture in peace around the globe. It was the Hindu culture of learning that the Greeks picked up and later transmitted to the Arabs, who passed it much later in history back to the Europeans, who had long since lost it. Ironically, it was the Islamic culture of exclusiveness (not a dot of the Quran shall change stuff) that was the greatest cause of shattering of this Vasudeva Kutumbakam vision in the world. But in today’s world, when Hinduism’s vision of acceptance of multiple cultures is a beacon light to world unity, Vasudeva Kutumbakam will become a rallying banner across the world.
Like they never forget to mention that all converted muslims were hindus originally if so why u are killing them ?
That the vast majority of Muslims are children of converted forefathers is a fact. Hindus are not killing Muslims. Though only 20% of the population, the Muslims in India are safer than the Muslims in Pakistan. Bombs go off in mosques as routine there, whereas Malagaon is an exception in India. Maybe Pakistan does not want the Muslims of India to feel so safe and it might therefore be they who have begun targeting mosques in India too.
Who you are fooling around with ? Indeed some of them were hindus but then why they converted to Islam ? why ? You know better than me Venu.
They converted to Islam only because there was freedom to do so. If there were freedom in Saudi Arabia, then I am sure if somebody like Sathya Sai Baba goes there, thousands will become his disciples. Why, there are many Arabians who are already disciples of Hindu gurus but because of the atmosphere in Arabian countries, it is largely kept under wraps.
Why u guys never discussed pain & suffering & exploitation & cruelty inflicted on the dalit brothers by ur ancestors ?
Pain and suffering all humans go through. But exploitation and cruelty are phases different groups seem to go through at different times in different parts of the world. They are a recurring phenomenon in the world – only the communities and the perpetrators change. What about, for instance, the slave trade famous in Arabian history? Much of the social flaws have been corrected from within the Hindu community itself. But it will take some more time for Islam to correct its greatest flaw – insisting that it is the only valid expression of Truth. From this view has resulted much of history’s bloodshed. The Dalits have lived to tell the tale, for they were no enemies of the Hindus – they were and are the mainstay of the Hindus. But have the ‘dalits’ of Islam (the unfortunate ones who did not abandon their religion for Islam) survived? No, they were Islam’s enemies and have either been forcibly converted to Islam or killed. Consider the partition of India, which resulted in the death of lakhs of people, all because Muslims insisted that Hindus and Muslims are separate nations – the two nation theory.
If u have no guts to accept the trueth u better keep quiet You are the people who preach one thing & practice another,
This accusation is more apt for the Muslims, for we see during the Eids, in the name of Allah the most merciful, massacre of goats in their millions. Preaching peace but not for the animals!
well no wonder coz u guys r so obsessed with changing expressions like 33 crore....lol
To be expressive is to be alive and Hinduism has been alive the longest on this planet and will continue to last long. Islam, unfortunately, is today the terrorist fount of the world (because of the way the Mullahs interpret it). It is, thus, surely not going to survive in its present form. Await a ganging up of the rest of the world against it.
These kind of intellectual bankruptcy is the root cause of ur frustration
I at least am not frustrated. Only someone who has a sense of lack feels frustrated. I have no sense of lack because I have dipped into the Vedanta philosophy. But then what do you know about Vedanta?
so dont blame muslims for that sickness my friend. If anybody is responsible for this turmoil thats ur own karma,
Ruzan Shah, what have you done? You bring up the subject of karma. It’s a big subject, which Islam has given a total go-by. We will discuss it some other day. Inshallah!
well about time to take a holy dip in sacred water... wow what a simple solution for all those gigantic sins.
Just like bringing Zam Zam water back home from Mecca?
11:46:53 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (0) Uncategorized
The discussion continues, after a pause - Ruzan Shah-Venu
Dear Venu u r rigid.
Dear Ruzan Shah,
Thank you for your response to my posting “Muslims doing pooja, much less reciting Vande Mataram, is not un-Islamic”
You say I am being rigid. I am not being rigid; I am only trying to see the logic of things. I do not think, when we communicate in written language, anything other than logic can direct the course of the discussion.
I shall retain your response intact and colour my response in red so that we have at hand our flow of thoughts.
I am a muslim & I know what is universal brotherhood.
I am not questioning that you are a Muslim, that’s something between you and Allah. But the universal brotherhood you claim to know, if based on Islam, is illogical because Islam propounds the theory of Kafir and if I am not mistaken, a Kafir is one who does not accept Islam to be his religion. The celebrated verse in the Quran, where it says “Onto you your religion and onto me my religion”, unfortunately did not develop into a culture that accepted that there are many paths to God but led to the attitude “mine is the true religion and if you are not joining it, then go the hell your way”. This is evidenced in Islam’s greatest display – at the Hajj in Mecca where only Muslims are allowed. This is the ‘universal brotherhood’ that is on display – the brotherhood of only the believers.
Its for all the mankind & not only for muslims.
I am glad you recognize that the Quran is for all mankind and not just for Muslims. I too recognize that it is part of mankind’s heritage. Therefore it gives me a right to seek to understand and explain it from the Hindu viewpoint (or rather a Hindu’s viewpoint, that is, my own viewpoint).
So it will be better if you stop twistings facts. I know my religion better than you my friend.
Not just your religion but mine too. Its for all mankind, remember? (I know I don’t qualify to be a Muslim just because I accept the Quran to be mine also, because according to you folks I have to circumcise and all that.)
Either you concieved it wrong or u just dont want to accept the fact. If thats the case nobody can help you. I dont understand why are you lieing ?
Please don’t call me a liar just because I have a different view on matters.
So me where in Quran it says its only for muslims ? I challenge you.
All religious books are the heritage of all mankind. While for the others Quran is but one of the many sacred scriptures extant in the world, for the Muslims it is the only religious book of any worth. Quran may not be only for Muslims, but Muslims are only for the Quran.
Even in your earlier post how many times you backedoff when asked to prove your mis-conception ? Everytime you gave a standard reply I am not a scholar of Islam.If you dont know Islam than why are you speaking lies ?
Being ignorant is not tantamount to being a liar. I do not remember backing off but I do concede the possibility because I am a mere blogger, not the Shankaracharya!
Ask somebody who knows Islam better or just stop propagating lies.
But tell me, do you know Islam? If there are people who know Islam better than you, does it not mean that you have still more to know about Islam? So, my friend, it’s all a matter of degrees, in knowledge (no pun intended). We live and we learn.
Vasudhev Kutumbakam ok If the whole world is one family why you dont even want to touch dalit ?why ?
Mercifully, the so-call upper castes only kept the so-called lower castes at arms length or even out of sight, but they never massacred them. That is, there was no ethnic cleansing in Hindu history. But that’s not so with Islam. Just as Mohammad cleansed Mecca of idols, the Muslims cleansed communities which, for instance, believed in idol-worship. Where are the idol-worshiping communities in Arabia today? (Don’t include the present generation Hindu expatriates there.)
Dont lie man come on speak the trueth......lol I know Hindus never get tired of talking about vasudhev kutumbakam but in reality they never practice it its a hypocracy my friend.
Surprise, my friend. The Hindus are the only people in history who spread their inclusive culture in peace around the globe. It was the Hindu culture of learning that the Greeks picked up and later transmitted to the Arabs, who passed it much later in history back to the Europeans, who had long since lost it. Ironically, it was the Islamic culture of exclusiveness (not a dot of the Quran shall change stuff) that was the greatest cause of shattering of this Vasudeva Kutumbakam vision in the world. But in today’s world, when Hinduism’s vision of acceptance of multiple cultures is a beacon light to world unity, Vasudeva Kutumbakam will become a rallying banner across the world.
Like they never forget to mention that all converted muslims were hindus originally if so why u are killing them ?
That the vast majority of Muslims are children of converted forefathers is a fact. Hindus are not killing Muslims. Though only 20% of the population, the Muslims in India are safer than the Muslims in Pakistan. Bombs go off in mosques as routine there, whereas Malagaon is an exception in India. Maybe Pakistan does not want the Muslims of India to feel so safe and it might therefore be they who have begun targeting mosques in India too.
Who you are fooling around with ? Indeed some of them were hindus but then why they converted to Islam ? why ? You know better than me Venu.
They converted to Islam only because there was freedom to do so. If there were freedom in Saudi Arabia, then I am sure if somebody like Sathya Sai Baba goes there, thousands will become his disciples. Why, there are many Arabians who are already disciples of Hindu gurus but because of the atmosphere in Arabian countries, it is largely kept under wraps.
Why u guys never discussed pain & suffering & exploitation & cruelty inflicted on the dalit brothers by ur ancestors ?
Pain and suffering all humans go through. But exploitation and cruelty are phases different groups seem to go through at different times in different parts of the world. They are a recurring phenomenon in the world – only the communities and the perpetrators change. What about, for instance, the slave trade famous in Arabian history? Much of the social flaws have been corrected from within the Hindu community itself. But it will take some more time for Islam to correct its greatest flaw – insisting that it is the only valid expression of Truth. From this view has resulted much of history’s bloodshed. The Dalits have lived to tell the tale, for they were no enemies of the Hindus – they were and are the mainstay of the Hindus. But have the ‘dalits’ of Islam (the unfortunate ones who did not abandon their religion for Islam) survived? No, they were Islam’s enemies and have either been forcibly converted to Islam or killed. Consider the partition of India, which resulted in the death of lakhs of people, all because Muslims insisted that Hindus and Muslims are separate nations – the two nation theory.
If u have no guts to accept the trueth u better keep quiet You are the people who preach one thing & practice another,
This accusation is more apt for the Muslims, for we see during the Eids, in the name of Allah the most merciful, massacre of goats in their millions. Preaching peace but not for the animals!
well no wonder coz u guys r so obsessed with changing expressions like 33 crore....lol
To be expressive is to be alive and Hinduism has been alive the longest on this planet and will continue to last long. Islam, unfortunately, is today the terrorist fount of the world (because of the way the Mullahs interpret it). It is, thus, surely not going to survive in its present form. Await a ganging up of the rest of the world against it.
These kind of intellectual bankruptcy is the root cause of ur frustration
I at least am not frustrated. Only someone who has a sense of lack feels frustrated. I have no sense of lack because I have dipped into the Vedanta philosophy. But then what do you know about Vedanta?
so dont blame muslims for that sickness my friend. If anybody is responsible for this turmoil thats ur own karma,
Ruzan Shah, what have you done? You bring up the subject of karma. It’s a big subject, which Islam has given a total go-by. We will discuss it some other day. Inshallah!
well about time to take a holy dip in sacred water... wow what a simple solution for all those gigantic sins.
Just like bringing Zam Zam water back home from Mecca?
11:46:53 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (0) Uncategorized
On Muslims doing Pooja and all that
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Dear Ruzan - on Muslims doing pooja and all that
My dear Ruzan,
You ask, if a Muslim does pooja, what does he do - is it not to pray to someone (other than God) as a God and in a different way (a way not prescribed by God)? How can you, as a devote Muslim, frame such questions? To whom can Man pray but to God? No Hindu offers prayers to anyone else other than God. Just because his way of offering prayers to God is different from a Muslim’s, does it mean that the prayer is per-se different? If man has so many ways to communicate with one another, that is, many languages, why wouldn’t he have many ways to communicate with God? Does Allah say in the Quran, “You shall pray to me in this way and no other?”
If Islam says there is only one God, than how can a Muslim believe that it is possible for anyone to pray to a God that Islam says is not there? Hinduism does not say there are many Gods - but it does say that the one God is expressed variously. (It means both – that the one God expresses Himself variously – which Islam somewhat accepts when it says that messengers were sent before Mohammad too – and that the devotees express their divine experience variously). This is probably the big difference between the Islamic vision and the Hindu vision – the Hindus have been given the freedom to express their religious experience variously whereas the Muslims are to express themselves only in the officially prescribed manner!
My friend Ruzan, one day I would like to tread into new territory with you and open up the subject of spirituality. When I start talking about spirituality, then actually it will be a talk from an individual to an individual. Religion has today come to mean religious identity. You identify yourself as a Hindu or a Muslim. The truth is that all religions are teachings seeking to take man to his core - his soul – and awakening him to his spiritual nature, thereby awakening him to freedom. But most of us seem to have missed it. Religion has come to be our identity tag, one more badge upon our chest of ego.
Meanwhile, let me continue in response to your blog. You say Islam forbids idolatry. I had earlier pointed out that using the word Allah in worship is itself idolatry but you said you do not think so. Well, lets agree to disagree on this.
You say you can’t be a Muslim by force. But this is not true in application. All Muslim or Hindu children are brought up as Muslims or Hindus. However, the Hindu is allowed the freedom to choose his religion when he grows up whereas there is no such choice granted by Islam. Death is the punishment if you leave Islam. (The law of apostasy.) Can you deny this?
When you say you can’t accept Islam in part but have to take it as a whole faith, it implies that once you enter, there are to be no more questionings. The consequence is not spiritual growth but blind faith.
Quran, you say, says faith (Imaan) is a must to be a Muslim. Well, the Bhagwad Gita too talks about faith (Shradha). But in the Hindus’ case faith is only the beginning of a journey that ends in Self-realisation – that you are God. (It is a long journey, over many lifetimes.) Am I right in saying that for the Muslims, faith remains just that - that for obedient behaviour God will reward you on the day of the Judgement?
Dear Ruzan, you appear to have made a very un-Islamic statement when you said, “A believer is free to do whatever he thinks right.” I am afraid Islam does not permit such liberty to the Muslims. If in any Muslim country a Muslim is caught performing Ganesh pooja, he would be tried for apostasy and in all probability executed - it is not left to Allah for deciding his fate on the day of the Last Judgement!
You ask what good a pooja would do to a Muslim who would have no faith in it? Why, it will only fortify his faith in Allah, showing him in what wonderful ways he can approach Allah. You would of course ask, “But how can any Muslim do anything that Allah has prohibited him to do?” Well, this is the crux of the Muslim dilemma – being trapped in a narrow interpretation of the Quran – it is time at least Indian Muslims sought to see Islam in the light of the Sufis. (I think your statement that Sufis are not Muslims would be contested by the vast majority of Muslims in India who throng to Sufi shrines like that in Ajmer.)
You say Muslims are not scared of fellow humans but only of Allah. I say, don’t be afraid of Allah either – why do you fear that which you actually are?
Love,
Venu
6:39:38 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (4) Politics
On Muslims doing Pooja and all that
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Dear Ruzan - on Muslims doing pooja and all that
My dear Ruzan,
You ask, if a Muslim does pooja, what does he do - is it not to pray to someone (other than God) as a God and in a different way (a way not prescribed by God)? How can you, as a devote Muslim, frame such questions? To whom can Man pray but to God? No Hindu offers prayers to anyone else other than God. Just because his way of offering prayers to God is different from a Muslim’s, does it mean that the prayer is per-se different? If man has so many ways to communicate with one another, that is, many languages, why wouldn’t he have many ways to communicate with God? Does Allah say in the Quran, “You shall pray to me in this way and no other?”
If Islam says there is only one God, than how can a Muslim believe that it is possible for anyone to pray to a God that Islam says is not there? Hinduism does not say there are many Gods - but it does say that the one God is expressed variously. (It means both – that the one God expresses Himself variously – which Islam somewhat accepts when it says that messengers were sent before Mohammad too – and that the devotees express their divine experience variously). This is probably the big difference between the Islamic vision and the Hindu vision – the Hindus have been given the freedom to express their religious experience variously whereas the Muslims are to express themselves only in the officially prescribed manner!
My friend Ruzan, one day I would like to tread into new territory with you and open up the subject of spirituality. When I start talking about spirituality, then actually it will be a talk from an individual to an individual. Religion has today come to mean religious identity. You identify yourself as a Hindu or a Muslim. The truth is that all religions are teachings seeking to take man to his core - his soul – and awakening him to his spiritual nature, thereby awakening him to freedom. But most of us seem to have missed it. Religion has come to be our identity tag, one more badge upon our chest of ego.
Meanwhile, let me continue in response to your blog. You say Islam forbids idolatry. I had earlier pointed out that using the word Allah in worship is itself idolatry but you said you do not think so. Well, lets agree to disagree on this.
You say you can’t be a Muslim by force. But this is not true in application. All Muslim or Hindu children are brought up as Muslims or Hindus. However, the Hindu is allowed the freedom to choose his religion when he grows up whereas there is no such choice granted by Islam. Death is the punishment if you leave Islam. (The law of apostasy.) Can you deny this?
When you say you can’t accept Islam in part but have to take it as a whole faith, it implies that once you enter, there are to be no more questionings. The consequence is not spiritual growth but blind faith.
Quran, you say, says faith (Imaan) is a must to be a Muslim. Well, the Bhagwad Gita too talks about faith (Shradha). But in the Hindus’ case faith is only the beginning of a journey that ends in Self-realisation – that you are God. (It is a long journey, over many lifetimes.) Am I right in saying that for the Muslims, faith remains just that - that for obedient behaviour God will reward you on the day of the Judgement?
Dear Ruzan, you appear to have made a very un-Islamic statement when you said, “A believer is free to do whatever he thinks right.” I am afraid Islam does not permit such liberty to the Muslims. If in any Muslim country a Muslim is caught performing Ganesh pooja, he would be tried for apostasy and in all probability executed - it is not left to Allah for deciding his fate on the day of the Last Judgement!
You ask what good a pooja would do to a Muslim who would have no faith in it? Why, it will only fortify his faith in Allah, showing him in what wonderful ways he can approach Allah. You would of course ask, “But how can any Muslim do anything that Allah has prohibited him to do?” Well, this is the crux of the Muslim dilemma – being trapped in a narrow interpretation of the Quran – it is time at least Indian Muslims sought to see Islam in the light of the Sufis. (I think your statement that Sufis are not Muslims would be contested by the vast majority of Muslims in India who throng to Sufi shrines like that in Ajmer.)
You say Muslims are not scared of fellow humans but only of Allah. I say, don’t be afraid of Allah either – why do you fear that which you actually are?
Love,
Venu
6:39:38 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (4) Politics
Let there be a flashpoint on September 7th!
Saturday, September 2, 2006
Let there be a flashpoint on 7th September!
No, I do not mean of the violent kind. First, let’s see clearly that this ‘compulsory’ business of singing Vande Mataram is restricted only to educational institutions. Let us also understand that educational institutions wouldn’t be educational institutions if there is not an overwhelming aspect of compulsoriness in its affairs, right from seeking admission within a specified time, to attending classes punctually up to home work, sitting for exams and all that. Actually, this compulsory stuff at schools leads to discipline. And this discipline it is that leads us to true freedom. Without discipline freedom is only licentiousness.
Insha’llah, this generation of ‘forced’ September 7th Vande Mataram singers would sing it voluntarily when they leave schools. Then, patriotism in-bred, we need not even talk about it – it would simply be a natural phenomenon for all Indians. Let thus 7th September be a flashpoint of patriotism. OM TAT SAT!
Insha’llah, this generation of ‘forced’ September 7th Vande Mataram singers would sing it voluntarily when they leave schools. Then, patriotism in-bred, we need not even talk about it – it would simply be a natural phenomenon for all Indians. Let thus 7th September be a flashpoint of patriotism. OM TAT SAT!
9:49:47 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (0) Politics
Muslims doing Pooja, much less reciting Vande Mataram, is not un-Islamic
Friday, September 1, 2006
Muslims doing pooja, much less reciting Vande Mataram, is not un-Islamic.
Muslims' justification in refusing to sing Vande Mataram is that Islam does not allow worship of any other than Allah and by bowing to the Motherland they would be breaking the Quranic injunction.
This is illogical because the Quran has prescribed the ritual of worship of Allah and any other form is not recognised by Islam as worship of Allah. Therefore even if a Muslim goes to a temple and performs puja, since it is not worship of Allah in the prescribed way, it is, according to Islam, no worship at all. Then where is the problem? He is asked to worship in the prescribed manner 5 times a day and only if he fails to do this is he breaking any injunction. If this be so, then reciting Vande Mataram would not make a Muslim any less a Muslim.
7:00:58 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (11) Politics
Hindu-Muslim dialogue VII
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Ruzan Shah - Venugopal Hindu-Muslim dialogue continues
Dear Ruzan Shah,
Unless we define the word ‘idol’, we are getting nowhere. In our context, discussing religion and all that, including Hinduism, idol simply means a reflection or representation of the divine or God. Allah, the word as uttered by man, represents Allah who is the creator and who is beyond our grasp. Therefore, Allah the word for man is an idol, in the form of sound and language. The Ka’aba, the Quran and Mohammad (with some special prayers after his name every time you utter his name) are all idols because they represent the divinity of Allah. You might be worshiping only Allah, but since you cannot worship Allah without the aid of Kabaa (for direction), the Quran (for the words of prayers) and Mohammad (for without him would you have known Allah?), they are all idols you worship in Islam, without you conceding it, because it is said in the Quran “Thou shall not worship idols.” Hindus too are only worshiping the creator or the ultimate or whatever they choose to call him through various idols. Therefore, I say, the Hindu and the Muslim, both being human beings, have no escape from being an idol worshipper.
That Islamic culture is intolerant is easily proved by the fact that in most Muslim countries, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens. And Islam itself is intolerant is proved by the fact that Islam teaches that it alone is the true religion and that all other religions are of lesser value and its followers are Kafirs.
You say Shariat is there to show all the people how to live a peaceful civilized life. Saudi Arabia, which is being run on the basis of shariat, as was the Taliban regime, are hardly the epitomes of peaceful or civilized societies. Saudi Arabia is more a police state than a peaceful state. And the Taliban was hardly a civilized entity, its greatest triumph having been the blowing up of Buddha idols in Bamian.
I agree the Shariat has been intact in its original pure form, but it is an obscurantism in the modern world. Instead of adjusting the Shariat to cope with the modern world (which you can’t, as it is part of Quran and not a world can be altered), Muslims are attempting to change the world according to the laws of Shariat! It is simply unfeasible because the Shariat has not taken into account the progress the world has made since the middle ages. On the other hand, the Shariat portion of the Hindu religions, called Smriti, is not a collection of dead laws being sought to be imposed on the world. The Hindu culture allows new elements to be incorporated in its ever living Smiriti, so much so that we have now come from Manusmirti to Ambedkar smirti, as we could call the Indian constitution. I would go the extent of saying that the greatest failing of Islam is that it is stuck with the Shariat. Islam without being stuck with the Shariat would be more like Sufism.
If you say the Shariat says that “idols can’t even help themselves because they are dead stones and have no life” and thereby proof that idols are useless, I ask you, isn’t the Quran also a dead thing without life. Would you thereby consider the Quran as a useless thing?
You say Allah ordered stones to recite the Quranic verses and sure enough it did so. This is a logical fallacy. Allah you say has no shape or size or anything of that sort. So who saw or heard Allah ask the stones to obey His command. Actually, Allah spoke only to Mohammad. Did anyone else hear even the Quranic verses that Allah spoke to Mohammad. Even Mohammad cannot claim that he saw Allah. (Or can he calim so, having flown up on a flying horse to heaven to meet Allah?) He at best only heard Allah. So please tell me how this story of stones reciting Quran arose.
Henceforth I think you should say “Mohammad said, as was recorded in the Quran”, and not “Allah said”, because nobody else has heard Allah speak except Mohammad, and we have only Mohammad’s word for it. Am I right?
It is quaint that you say of anything that the Quran does not explain, like as to why Mohammad was the last prophet or why Allah sent the last message to the Arabs, with the words “that’s Allah’s wish, nobody can question that”. At least you are modest.
You talk of the contradictions in Hinduism, failing to understand that the so-called contradictions are only the One Truth being expressed variously. Islam, the One Truth being expressed in a single way, is actually full of contradictions. I of course came to know about it from some Internet sites. If you wish to know which Internet sites are saying so, I shall inform you.
There are many ways to God and each way is a particular religion. Hinduism is the culture that endorses the various ways to God. Hinduism is not just one religion. It is a culture of many religions.
Love,
Venu
10:12:49 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (5) Politics
Vandi Mataram - Do not recite, but at least stand shoulder to shoulder
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Vande Mataram - do not recite, but at least stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest
I must congratulate one of our bloggers Mr. Ashram Prasad for raising the point that Muslims have no compunction about reciting the Azan 5 times a day, 365 days a year, thereby forcing the Hindus also to compulsorily hear it. But they are not willing even for once to stand in line with the Hindus while Vande Mataram is being recited.
Indeed, if singing the Vande Matram is tantamount to worshiping another instead of Allah, is listening to it being sung as bad?
I think Muslim school children ought to at least be instructed by their elders to attend to the function and stand with the others while the song is being sung, even if not actually reciting it themselves. This way Muslim children will eventually come to appreciate Vande Mataram.
Is this asking too much of the Muslims of India?
11:48:07 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (4) Politics
Hindu=Muslim dialogue - Part VI
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The Ruzan Shah correspondence - Hindu-Muslim dialogue - Part VI
Dear Ruzan Shah,
You missed my question. My question was, can you think of Allah without using the word Allah? Of course you cannot. Thereby, you cannot deny that you are also onto idol worship. If the Hindus worship an idol made of stone, you worship an idol made of sound. I did not say Allah is sound, just as no Hindu would say that the stone is God. It is just made of stone so that we can conceive God by the sense of our sight; likewise there are the names of God made out of sound so that we can conceive of God by our ears. So partner, we are all idol worshippers.
For your information (because you seem to be forgetting these things) you have the granite idol of Aswath placed in the giant cubic idol of Kaaba. You say you do not worship the Kaaba or the Aswath. Unless we define the word ‘worship’, we are going nowhere. But I know that it is obligatory at the Haj pilgrimage to kiss the Aswath. Because of the crowds, it would be good enough to touch the person in front of you who would be touching the person in front of him upto someone touching the person who is actually kissing the Aswath! As a matter of fact, the entire pilgrimage of Hajj is made up of rituals that we Hindus perform in our temple 365 days a year but which Muslims perform in Mecca only, and not in any other mosque in the world, in the few days of the Hajj.
Please quote me the Agni Rahasya or tell me the site I can go to to learn about it. If I cannot understand, I shall ask for your guidance.
You say we are discussing religion and not culture. What is there to discuss about religions? If you have known one religion, you have known all religions. The so-called differences are only in external ornamentation and not in the spirit. We have indeed to be talking about cultures – the Islamic culture of intolerance of other religions and the Hindu culture that believes that there are many ways to God.
By religion is meant teachings of a particular way to God. As there are many ways to God, there are bound to be many religions.
I used the term ‘systems’ to mean the various laws that societies have had to live under in different ages. Like the laws of Manu in an earlier age, for instance, which eventually rigidified the caste system. Or the laws of the Shariat under which Muslims are bound to live, but is today a cause of conflict with other civilisations.
We both agree that God sent messages to all peoples and in all languages. My question is, why has God suddenly decided to stop doing it and sent the last message to the Arab people through Mohammad?
There is nothing like an original version or later version of Hinduism. You are alluding to such things only because you continue to hold that Hinduism is just one single religion. Hinduism is the collective of all the divine experiences of man and his spiritual expressions. It is not just the expression of a single man named Mohammed, which is what Islam is.
Love,
Venu
The Ruzan Shah correspondence - Hindu-Muslim dialogue - Part VI
Dear Ruzan Shah,
You missed my question. My question was, can you think of Allah without using the word Allah? Of course you cannot. Thereby, you cannot deny that you are also onto idol worship. If the Hindus worship an idol made of stone, you worship an idol made of sound. I did not say Allah is sound, just as no Hindu would say that the stone is God. It is just made of stone so that we can conceive God by the sense of our sight; likewise there are the names of God made out of sound so that we can conceive of God by our ears. So partner, we are all idol worshippers.
For your information (because you seem to be forgetting these things) you have the granite idol of Aswath placed in the giant cubic idol of Kaaba. You say you do not worship the Kaaba or the Aswath. Unless we define the word ‘worship’, we are going nowhere. But I know that it is obligatory at the Haj pilgrimage to kiss the Aswath. Because of the crowds, it would be good enough to touch the person in front of you who would be touching the person in front of him upto someone touching the person who is actually kissing the Aswath! As a matter of fact, the entire pilgrimage of Hajj is made up of rituals that we Hindus perform in our temple 365 days a year but which Muslims perform in Mecca only, and not in any other mosque in the world, in the few days of the Hajj.
Please quote me the Agni Rahasya or tell me the site I can go to to learn about it. If I cannot understand, I shall ask for your guidance.
You say we are discussing religion and not culture. What is there to discuss about religions? If you have known one religion, you have known all religions. The so-called differences are only in external ornamentation and not in the spirit. We have indeed to be talking about cultures – the Islamic culture of intolerance of other religions and the Hindu culture that believes that there are many ways to God.
By religion is meant teachings of a particular way to God. As there are many ways to God, there are bound to be many religions.
I used the term ‘systems’ to mean the various laws that societies have had to live under in different ages. Like the laws of Manu in an earlier age, for instance, which eventually rigidified the caste system. Or the laws of the Shariat under which Muslims are bound to live, but is today a cause of conflict with other civilisations.
We both agree that God sent messages to all peoples and in all languages. My question is, why has God suddenly decided to stop doing it and sent the last message to the Arab people through Mohammad?
There is nothing like an original version or later version of Hinduism. You are alluding to such things only because you continue to hold that Hinduism is just one single religion. Hinduism is the collective of all the divine experiences of man and his spiritual expressions. It is not just the expression of a single man named Mohammed, which is what Islam is.
Love,
Venu
Comments
aaamir Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:10:04 PM
Sorry for intruding...Allah, Al-Ilah etc means only The God. We address Him as Ar-Rahman ,Ar-Rahim etc, not only as Allah.But Allah is The God.About granite idol of Aswath, its just a black stone. Hajr Al Aswad, means Black Stone. It is NOT mandatory to kiss the stone, just a 'salam' is required, if you cant touch or kiss the stone.No muslims worship Kaaba. They worship only The Almighty.And these rituals at Ka'aba are taught by Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). It is in the direction of Ka'aba, the entire muslims in the world face to.And as to why suddenly God stopped sending new messengers, you can get the answer only from Him.If I try to find a reason it'll go like this. But I am NOT an authority to say this."Actually there is no need for a new messenger, because the messages given by The Almighty is preserved in-tact by Him. And the new technological advances make sure it can be spread anywhere in the world very easily."Keeping the text in original has lot of advantages. It can be interpreted using the latest information we have. The Holy Quran is for all ages and for all people.Aamir
10:30:41 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (1) Politics
A Hindu Muslim diaglogue - Part V
Saturday, August 26, 2006
The Ruzan Shah correspondence - A Hindu-Muslim dialogue - Part V
Dear Ruzan Shah,
Muslims quote the Quran to say that Allah has no family. But I think Muslims have by and large chosen to read the Quran literarily. The Sufis appear to have got more into the spirit of the Quran and they would certainly say that Allah has a family and we, his creation, are his family.
If you believe that the Vedas prophesied the birth of Mohammad thousands of years before his birth, I have no problem. Do tell me, what exactly did they say about Mohammad? That he would be the final messenger of Allah? Muslims are really stretching their imagination on this one!
When you say God has no pratimas or pictures, what you are saying is that Islam prohibits man from having pratimas or pictures of his concept of God or the divinity. Hindu culture does not restrict anyone from expressing his religious or spiritual experiences. Thus, Hinduism - the colourful culture.
You say that Allah has spoken not just to the Arabs but to peoples of all races and ages. He would have certainly spoken to the Hindus too, largely in Sanskrit though. And since God is unlikely to have contradicted himself and yet we see so much differences of approach to God, we have to conclude that religions are more about Man’s hearing than God’s speaking. This must surely be so, particularly since Muslims have only one Quran - of which not a comma has changed since the prophet first uttered it - and yet so many sects and sub-sects are flourishing. If Hindus have manifoldly more sects and sub-sects, it is only because their religions are older.
Praying to man’s expressions of his divine experience is just another way of praying to God. I challenge you to pray to the creator or the ultimate without using the word Allah. If you can’t, you are also in the idol worshiping category. If you can, then get rid of the idol made of sound called Allah. You will then come to the Hindu concept of Nirguna Bhraman.
Let me make it clear. When I say Hindu culture, I mean the general atmosphere of acceptance of many ways to God and by religion I mean the special way you choose for yourself to reach God. Hindu culture has nurtured and nourished innumerable religions down through the ages.
Love,
Venu
12:29:20 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (1) Politics
A Hindu Muslim dialogue - Part IV
Friday, August 25, 2006
The Ruzan Shah correspondence - A Hindu-Muslim dialogue - Part IV
Dear Ruzan Shah,
Please do not pressurize yourself to reply urgently. Please get to my correspondence only when you are free. Otherwise, before long you would consider me a pest for writing on and on.
You repeat that Islam was there since day one. Was the Quran also there since day one? Now please don’t tell me that Mohammad was also there since day one! Allah of course was there since day one. If you say that all the four were there since day one, then you are talking in Advaitic (non-dual) language – that there is no separation between God the creator and his creation – both are one and the same, just like the ocean and the waves. If all the four entities came at different times, then you would be talking about Dvaita (duality). From the Vedantic (Vedic) point of view, Islam is a dvaitic teaching and the ultimate teaching is the advaitic teaching. Mark, I have said ‘the ultimate’, not ‘the only’. To reach the ultimate you have to travel through ‘lesser than ultimate’ teachings. So the Hindu would never say that Islam is a false religion or anything like that. He would only say that it is not the ultimate, just as he would say that idol worship is not the ultimate. And this travelling to the ultimate is not a happening of just one lifetime. It is a passage through many lifetimes. (Remember, the Hindus believe in reincarnation.)
About everything being there in the Quran, the Hindus also believe that everything is there in the Vedas. The Christians too say the same about the Bible. So what’s new?
That difference of “ ‘s ” between Islam and Hinduism is a difference between the penultimate and the ultimate. Beyond the Islamic thought that God is different from you lies the ultimate knowledge that you are God – ‘Aham Bhramasmi’ or ‘Ana Al Haque’. (The great Mansoor Al Hallaj lost his head for saying this, thanks to Islamic intolerance!)
Sri Sri Ravishankar is absolutely right in saying that there is only one God and no other. But the Vedas also say that that this God is expressed variously by the brightest of men. In Islam all expressions of God other than that authorized by the Quran is prohibited.
If the Vedas forbid idolatry, that is fine for the Hindus, because the Hindus have the choice of taking up a religion or scripture that exults in idol worship.
It is this freedom given by the Hindu culture that has produced the 33 crore Gods and more. The issue is not whether there is one God or innumerable Gods, whether God is masculine or feminine, or neither, as in the case of Allah. The point is, how can man realize the truth about himself. This is the entire striving of the Hindu culture and its spiritual teachings.
Of course Allah is there in the Vedas because the Vedas do nothing but glorify God. For the Hindu Allah is simply Arabic language for God. And God is simply English language for Ishwar. But Mohammad would certainly not be there in the Vedas. How can a man born in the 7th century AD be there in the Vedas which was written much earlier? (Was Mohammad born when Ganapati was taking his dictation from Vyasa?) Unless it was prophesying, which is actually reading what we want to read in a so-called prophecy?
You make it sound sad when you say that God has nobody! Of course, God, defined as the Absolute, can have no one else quite like him. But God being God, you never know. He may well be having a world all of his own where he has family, friends, neighbors etc. Quite like Shiva and his family or Vishnu and his family!
I would not be uncharitable to call Islam an ideology. I would like to think Islam is an endeavour towards spiritually. (Spirituality = a state when man no longer depends on anything for his survival. A state quite like God’s)
It is possible to be on the straight path with clear mind and vision in ways not spelt out by the Quran.
If by Hindu Hriday Samrat you mean Bal Thackray, I must say that I admire him because he is perhaps the only politician in India who has the guts to call a spade a bloody spade, whatever the consequences. However, I feel there is no need to bring him in in a talk about religion and spirituality. However, as a Muslim you might be prone to do so because, as I said earlier, Islam is not just a religion, but it has political ambitions.
Whatever Brahmins may have preached about killing whoever, it is not valid today. Today we live under the Indian constitution and no killing is allowed. Muslims are stuck with the Shariat and would wish to live under the Shariat and not under the Indian constitution if given a choice. Hindus have no such problems because they have separated Smriti from Shruti, but the Muslims are limited to an anti-Indian-constitution Shariat.
Talking about temples being desecrated merely by the entrance of a dalit, Hindus do not follow the Manusmiriti now. As a proof, the foundation stone for the Ramjanmabhoomi Temple was laid by a Brahmin. This again is an example of the Hindu genius in distinguishing between Smriti and Shruti.
I understand, when you say that the Caliphate is part of your faith. This is the main difference between Sufism and Islam. Islam has a political goal, unlike Sufism. This political goal has been the undoing of Islam. It is this political goal that is breeding terrorists. All Muslims say that Islam is the religion of peace. It truly would be, minus its political element. Then what else would Islam be, but Sufism? If Islam has produced terrorists, Sufism has produced the most spiritual savants in the history of the world’s religions.
I know Shariat is part of the Quran. And that’s the problem. You don’t make a distinction between Shariat, which deals with temporal matters and the Quran, which deals in spirituality, which is eternal, like Hindus make the distinction between Smriti and Shruti.
I am not a scholar and therefore I do not want to be provided any reference about what you say. As long as you say it, it is good enough for me.
Bridging the gap for peace between the Hindus and Muslims, or with anyone else for that matter, would succeed only if we cease identifying ourselves as Muslims or Hindus or Christians. Spirituality is the very anathema of identity. In the Indian context, we can easily become united if we base our basic identity as Indians. This is nationalism and this is what the RSS actually strives to do. In the universal and ultimate context, man must learn to identify himself with Ram or Rahim or whatever he calls God, with the understanding that Ram and Rahim are one. Any lesser identification will not bring peace.
About dalits not being allowed to perform pujas, it is interesting to note that even in the worst periods of caste discrimination, the lower castes were never exterminated by the upper castes. They were at worst kept at arm’s length. That is why the dalits still have their own temples and rituals. Where are the people in Arabia who worshipped idols? They were not shunned - like the Hinuds, maybe, did the Dalits. When Mohammad destroyed the idols, it was the signal to his followers to destroy the idol worshippers too.
Ram is as important to Hinduism and Mohammed is to Islam. (Though in Islam there is only one Mohammad, whereas in Hinduism there are many Rams.) As the Hindus are also idol worshippers, the Ram Temple in Ayodhya is most important to them. There would have been no fuss if Baber, the founder of the Mughal Empire, had chosen not to destroy it, like Mohammad destroyed the idols in Mecca.
Ekalavya should not have been denied entry to the school. (Note, today the RSS names its schools Ekalavya Vidyalayas). Nevertheless, Ekalavya turned out to be a better pupil than Arjuna, learning from the idol of Dronacharya. This story is from the Mahabharatha. By cutting off his thumb to give his guru, Ekalavya becomes one of the greatest characters of Mahabharatha. The presentation of such incredible characters is what makes Mahabharata an immortal classic. There was no whitewashing of any events to make the book ‘politically correct’.
If you say Sufism is not Islam, you take away whatever spirituality there is in Islam away from Islam.
If you disapprove everything that is not approved by Islam, then you will see that only Muslims would be acceptable to you. No wonder you are always at war with non-Muslims!
The Nobel Laureate Sir Vaidya Naipaul, for one, wrote about Arabian Imperialism dominating Islam.
Islam may be the fastest growing religion in the world now, but there is no saying which religion will overtake which religion tomorrow. Communism at one time was the fastest growing phenomenon, but where is it today?
It is to the eternal glory of the Quran and Mohammad for having said, “Killing a single human being is like killing the whole humanity.” I must tell my fellow Hindus to paste this verse in all Hindu temples to indicate that this is the Islam that the Hindus look forward to. But the Quran in its entirety would not be acceptable because there are many verses therein that call for the non-believers to be killed.
About Godhra and post-Godhra, it is a case of action and reaction. Majority reactions are always horrendous. What’s the need for justifying it, facts are facts.
Buddhism never died in India, because it is also a product of the Hindu culture.
Buddha taught the higher teachings. Buddha-idols in no way stopped, for example, the Dalai Lama from attaining great spiritual heights.
Your analogy of food to children would also be a good analogy of the Hindu scheme of things, where the culture permits so many religions and religions at so many levels - from the child-like idol worship to the ultimate formless meditation.
You said about gradual revelation of the Quran. This has happened in India too under the influence of the syncretism Hindu culture. In Arabia, however, nothing today exists except the Quran. All the earlier revelations have been destroyed by Islam after Mohammad.
If Quran is the full and final set of divine revelation, it must mean, according to your theory of gradual unfolding of teachings from Allah, that man has reached the pinnacle of his growth. But many thinkers do not think so. Aurobindo Maharshi spoke of higher dimensions of living yet to come for man and of man evolving further.
You ask why Shankara is different from other Gods. Whatever the reason, what does it matter, except to symbolize some philosophy? Our approach to religion and all its symbols should be for our attainment of higher and higher spiritual states of unfolding and insights. Does it matter whether God is called Allah or Krishna? Anyway, to answer your question about Shankara and Vishnu being so different in appearances – it only indicates that the ultimate can be achieved regardless of the external appearances.
Looking forward to hearing from you, Ruzan.
Love,
Venu
12:36:40 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (4) Politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
