Post 4/4
The quoteblocks in the previous 3 posts are important. This one is mere opinion.
Forgot to add.
1. I think it would be a good thing for all the mathas and ashramas who were present at the Dharma Sansad to provide an FAQ on the Hindu position regarding Shirdi Sai Baba worship. They can put the FAQ on their websites - I know some mathas have a web presence - and provide both the regional language version of the FAQ and an English language translation.
This serves two purposes:
- christomedia has expended energy in misrepresenting the Hindu acharya's and the Dharma Sansad's position and statements, as did also those modern Hindu vocalists who were screeching at Swami Swaroopaananda over at VV. An FAQ at the official websites of mathas and ashramas will provide a source of info that can silence any conspiracy theories and dissent that detractors at VV and elsewhere have been generating.
- More crucially, it will allow the mathas etc to articulate their position more fully to a sympathetic Hindoo audience that wants to understand and know the reasoning more fully, and a written FAQ will allow the mathas to use as many sentences as necessary to clarify and answer all kinds of questions that have been or may be raised. They can also add answers to any additional questions that suddenly arise, and surrounding which controversy is manufactured. For example, if they had started an FAQ on the topic, they could have added a new Q&A section upon noticing that the Rama and Krishna statement resulted in a controversy. E.g. adding a new question section like "The news reported that you/Shankaracharya Swaroopananda meant to exclude Shiva (Mahadeva)? Is this true? Why did you only mention Rama and Krishna?" and here the Swami or other Hindoos at his matham could explain how the Swami never intended to exclude Shiva or the other Vedic Gods.
Between them, the Dharma Sansad needs but one FAQ on the Shirdi Sai Baba topic, which they can copy across all their websites. Having an English language translation will not only reach the modern mono-linguists but also be useful to gag christomedia and other entities' attempts at defamation and misrepresenting the Hindu position.
Interviews posted at youtube may not reach as great a number of the target audience. And news reports on the Dharma Sansad will fade out of view even if the topic remains important for a long time. FAQs can even be retranslated in whole or in part as is required by Hindus who need to refer to it.
Actually, an FAQ for any relevant topic touched upon by the Dharma Sansad or by any particular matham/traditional Hindoo org would be helpful for the Hindu laity to get a clear understanding of the Hindu position from a primary source, as opposed to from dubious sources like news sites or "Hindu nationalist" sites.
2. Most of the Shirdi Sai Baba followers (not counting the hysterical angelsk-speaking new-age kind who ranted against the Swami at VV) tend to be regular Hindus whose bhakti has merely been misdirected. It is not impossible to redirect all their bhakti back to their Hindoo Gods exclusively. One of the sane comments at Sandhya's anti-Swaroopananda article was by one Senthil. He mentioned he had experience in de-programming Hindus from cults worshipping god(wo)men and from going to their new-agey centres, and had returned these Hindus back to worshipping their Hindu Gods alone in Hindu temples and pooja rooms. Clearly it is a task that's possible and that's important. Senthil is a conscious Hindoo, so he can be an example to others who wish to try the same. An FAQ by the Dharma Sansad could help in bringing home the reasons why the Shirdi Sai Baba has no connection to Hindu religion, and that it is misguided Hindus who have projected this connection onto him. It could also immunise Hindus from similar situations in future, preventing them from falling into any other cults worshipping muslim, christian or Indic godmen. As it is one can see everyday Hindu salesmen on the road who have been given images (probably by missionaries) featuring both jeebus and Ganapati, and the hapless Hindus keep these framed near their stalls.
3. I doubt this next would make me popular (if anyone were to ever read it), but:
Maybe the above is how Buddha ended up being proliferated among Hindus amidst their Hindu Gods too. I wonder when Buddha imagery is going to be removed from Hindus' temples and homes. Though I doubt the Dharma Sansad let alone Swami Swaroopananda has any objection to Hindus keeping Buddha imagery, the most prolific and influential and subversive peddling of Buddhism among Hindus in *India* today happens by the hand of subtly Buddhicised Hindus and nationalists. And Hindus' religion does Not benefit by being amalgamated with Buddhisms and by Hindus once more becoming the target of subtle bauddicisation.
It is beyond strange how much modern Hindus have fallen for a Buddhism of their own invention. Romantic notions they have. Ironically, the very aspects of Buddhism that they are infatuated with frequently tend to actually be originally Hindu, and which Buddhism has inculturated on or else distorted or has recently re-written as Buddhist. I suspect that if Hindus can develop immunity to the other Indic traditions - immunity to forcibly conflating them with Hindu religion - then we will have better immunity to religions and persons further removed from Hindu religion, such as muslim characters like Shirdi Sai Baba and christian characters like jeebus or saints. Hindus have not fully been able to deal with inculturation in the past, and Buddhism etc regularly creeps back in - or is allowed to creep back in owing to a population that fails to remain on guard. But missionary religions remain missionary, and they don't always need adherents to peddle them. Sometimes Hindus will peddle St Thomas or jeebus among other Hindus much better than a christian or missionary can. Similarly, would-be Hindus tend to peddle Buddhism in Hindu circles that are generally beyond the reach of the Buddhist Sangha.
IMO, it is all the *same* problem. At least the Taoists drew the line at Buddhism (and Confucianism too, BTW), so that they remain more readily vigilant against incursions by christianism and islam. Hindus have lost of lots of ground. I wonder when we will make up. What's incomprehensible to me is why clearly-Bauddhified individuals don't just convert to Buddhism already when they so obviously prefer Buddhism over Hindu religion. But, though they are free to convert, it must be made clear to them that they are banned from inculturating on anything Hindu after that - or anything Daoist or Shinto or Bon etc. (Which doesn't leave much in Buddhism that's attractive to the general populace after that....)
Only Mahavira and Buddha's spin-offs-turned-into-religions have survived, but at the same period of a few adjoining centuries, a great many similar Nastika sects emerged (some a bit older than both Jainism and Buddhism, like the Ajeevikas), borrowing from Vedic religion yet diverging from it at minor or more fundamental levels, and with promulgators of their own schools. (I think some may perhaps have found mention in that wiki page on shramanism.*) These promulgators of other, competing nastika schools were back then of the same status as Buddha and Mahavira. It is only time, and the survival of two of these schools and the demise of others, that has established Mahavira and especially Buddha in such importance and respect in Hindus' minds (aided by copious amounts of inculturation and unwanted insertions of Buddhisms into Hindu lit). Sure, if Buddha can be elevated to the level of a deity or a guru by Hindus, why discriminate against others who gave rise to nastika movements long back just because these others' movements had died out? Surely they are "Gods" to Hindus too? Or should be? Why not insert them as avataras into Hindu accounts, as Buddha has been?
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sramanism
Worried about the Modi government promoting Buddhism in India (and Hindus incl the govt are apparently threatening to shove Buddhism onto E Asia and SE Asia again. Why do Hindus only complain about christian and islamic missionising? What about Hindus and Buddhists missionising Buddhism onto S/E Asia? The crime is still the same.) With Modi building a Buddhist circuit in India and dumping Hindu money into major Buddhist projects - obviously too hard for him to have a Sri Rama Mandiram re-built at Ayodhya, I mean, who cares about his Hindu votebank - I am sure Buddhists in SL and in India will use it to become powerful in India and to missionise on the Hindus once more. They always do this. Everywhere. After Hindus spent so much effort in beating the missionary monster, why revive it again? (Not to mention how hard Daoists and Shintos had to work to protect their religion and prevent E Asia from turning into Buddhist Thailand, where there's no sign of the native ancestral religion.) Does the Modi govt even know what it is that it's doing?
Indians are good at doing Everything wrong. It's an achievement too I suppose.
At least the Sri Lankan Buddhists seem very happy about Modi's Buddhism plans. So too the Hindu Buddhism-fans/peddlers in India.
The quoteblocks in the previous 3 posts are important. This one is mere opinion.
Forgot to add.
1. I think it would be a good thing for all the mathas and ashramas who were present at the Dharma Sansad to provide an FAQ on the Hindu position regarding Shirdi Sai Baba worship. They can put the FAQ on their websites - I know some mathas have a web presence - and provide both the regional language version of the FAQ and an English language translation.
This serves two purposes:
- christomedia has expended energy in misrepresenting the Hindu acharya's and the Dharma Sansad's position and statements, as did also those modern Hindu vocalists who were screeching at Swami Swaroopaananda over at VV. An FAQ at the official websites of mathas and ashramas will provide a source of info that can silence any conspiracy theories and dissent that detractors at VV and elsewhere have been generating.
- More crucially, it will allow the mathas etc to articulate their position more fully to a sympathetic Hindoo audience that wants to understand and know the reasoning more fully, and a written FAQ will allow the mathas to use as many sentences as necessary to clarify and answer all kinds of questions that have been or may be raised. They can also add answers to any additional questions that suddenly arise, and surrounding which controversy is manufactured. For example, if they had started an FAQ on the topic, they could have added a new Q&A section upon noticing that the Rama and Krishna statement resulted in a controversy. E.g. adding a new question section like "The news reported that you/Shankaracharya Swaroopananda meant to exclude Shiva (Mahadeva)? Is this true? Why did you only mention Rama and Krishna?" and here the Swami or other Hindoos at his matham could explain how the Swami never intended to exclude Shiva or the other Vedic Gods.
Between them, the Dharma Sansad needs but one FAQ on the Shirdi Sai Baba topic, which they can copy across all their websites. Having an English language translation will not only reach the modern mono-linguists but also be useful to gag christomedia and other entities' attempts at defamation and misrepresenting the Hindu position.
Interviews posted at youtube may not reach as great a number of the target audience. And news reports on the Dharma Sansad will fade out of view even if the topic remains important for a long time. FAQs can even be retranslated in whole or in part as is required by Hindus who need to refer to it.
Actually, an FAQ for any relevant topic touched upon by the Dharma Sansad or by any particular matham/traditional Hindoo org would be helpful for the Hindu laity to get a clear understanding of the Hindu position from a primary source, as opposed to from dubious sources like news sites or "Hindu nationalist" sites.
2. Most of the Shirdi Sai Baba followers (not counting the hysterical angelsk-speaking new-age kind who ranted against the Swami at VV) tend to be regular Hindus whose bhakti has merely been misdirected. It is not impossible to redirect all their bhakti back to their Hindoo Gods exclusively. One of the sane comments at Sandhya's anti-Swaroopananda article was by one Senthil. He mentioned he had experience in de-programming Hindus from cults worshipping god(wo)men and from going to their new-agey centres, and had returned these Hindus back to worshipping their Hindu Gods alone in Hindu temples and pooja rooms. Clearly it is a task that's possible and that's important. Senthil is a conscious Hindoo, so he can be an example to others who wish to try the same. An FAQ by the Dharma Sansad could help in bringing home the reasons why the Shirdi Sai Baba has no connection to Hindu religion, and that it is misguided Hindus who have projected this connection onto him. It could also immunise Hindus from similar situations in future, preventing them from falling into any other cults worshipping muslim, christian or Indic godmen. As it is one can see everyday Hindu salesmen on the road who have been given images (probably by missionaries) featuring both jeebus and Ganapati, and the hapless Hindus keep these framed near their stalls.
3. I doubt this next would make me popular (if anyone were to ever read it), but:
Maybe the above is how Buddha ended up being proliferated among Hindus amidst their Hindu Gods too. I wonder when Buddha imagery is going to be removed from Hindus' temples and homes. Though I doubt the Dharma Sansad let alone Swami Swaroopananda has any objection to Hindus keeping Buddha imagery, the most prolific and influential and subversive peddling of Buddhism among Hindus in *India* today happens by the hand of subtly Buddhicised Hindus and nationalists. And Hindus' religion does Not benefit by being amalgamated with Buddhisms and by Hindus once more becoming the target of subtle bauddicisation.
It is beyond strange how much modern Hindus have fallen for a Buddhism of their own invention. Romantic notions they have. Ironically, the very aspects of Buddhism that they are infatuated with frequently tend to actually be originally Hindu, and which Buddhism has inculturated on or else distorted or has recently re-written as Buddhist. I suspect that if Hindus can develop immunity to the other Indic traditions - immunity to forcibly conflating them with Hindu religion - then we will have better immunity to religions and persons further removed from Hindu religion, such as muslim characters like Shirdi Sai Baba and christian characters like jeebus or saints. Hindus have not fully been able to deal with inculturation in the past, and Buddhism etc regularly creeps back in - or is allowed to creep back in owing to a population that fails to remain on guard. But missionary religions remain missionary, and they don't always need adherents to peddle them. Sometimes Hindus will peddle St Thomas or jeebus among other Hindus much better than a christian or missionary can. Similarly, would-be Hindus tend to peddle Buddhism in Hindu circles that are generally beyond the reach of the Buddhist Sangha.
IMO, it is all the *same* problem. At least the Taoists drew the line at Buddhism (and Confucianism too, BTW), so that they remain more readily vigilant against incursions by christianism and islam. Hindus have lost of lots of ground. I wonder when we will make up. What's incomprehensible to me is why clearly-Bauddhified individuals don't just convert to Buddhism already when they so obviously prefer Buddhism over Hindu religion. But, though they are free to convert, it must be made clear to them that they are banned from inculturating on anything Hindu after that - or anything Daoist or Shinto or Bon etc. (Which doesn't leave much in Buddhism that's attractive to the general populace after that....)
Only Mahavira and Buddha's spin-offs-turned-into-religions have survived, but at the same period of a few adjoining centuries, a great many similar Nastika sects emerged (some a bit older than both Jainism and Buddhism, like the Ajeevikas), borrowing from Vedic religion yet diverging from it at minor or more fundamental levels, and with promulgators of their own schools. (I think some may perhaps have found mention in that wiki page on shramanism.*) These promulgators of other, competing nastika schools were back then of the same status as Buddha and Mahavira. It is only time, and the survival of two of these schools and the demise of others, that has established Mahavira and especially Buddha in such importance and respect in Hindus' minds (aided by copious amounts of inculturation and unwanted insertions of Buddhisms into Hindu lit). Sure, if Buddha can be elevated to the level of a deity or a guru by Hindus, why discriminate against others who gave rise to nastika movements long back just because these others' movements had died out? Surely they are "Gods" to Hindus too? Or should be? Why not insert them as avataras into Hindu accounts, as Buddha has been?
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sramanism
Quote:MahÃÂvëra, the 24th Jina, and Gautama Buddha were leaders of their à âºramaá¹â¡a orders. According to Jain literature and the Buddhist Pali Canon, there were also some other à âºramaá¹â¡a leaders at that time.[9][note 3] Thus, in the MahÃÂparinibbÃÂna Sutta (DN 16), a à âºramaá¹â¡a named Subhadda mentions:
Quote:...those ascetics, samaá¹â¡a and Brahmins who have orders and followings, who are teachers, well-known and famous as founders of schools, and popularly regarded as saints, like Pà «raá¹â¡a Kassapa, Makkhali GosÃÂla, Ajita Kesakambalë, Pakudha KaccÃÂyana, Sañjaya Belaá¹Âá¹Âhaputta and the Nigaá¹â¡Ã¡Â¹Âha NÃÂtaputta...[10]
Nigaá¹â¡Ã¡Â¹Âha NÃÂtaputta (PÃÂli; Skt.: Nirgrantha JñÃÂtaputra) refers to MahÃÂvëra.[note 4] In regard to the above other teachers identified in the Pali Canon, Jain literature mentions Pà «raá¹â¡a Kassapa, Makkhali GosÃÂla and Sañjaya Belaá¹Âá¹Âhaputta.[11][note 5]
Some Brahmins joined the Sramana movement, such as CÃÂnakya and à šÃÂriputra.[12] [color="#800080"](I think Chanakya joined the Ajeevikas and hence was of the subgroup that worshipped Vishnu.)[/color]
Similarly, a group of eleven Brahmins accepted Jainism of Mahavira, and become his chief disciples or Ganadharas.[13][note 6]
Worried about the Modi government promoting Buddhism in India (and Hindus incl the govt are apparently threatening to shove Buddhism onto E Asia and SE Asia again. Why do Hindus only complain about christian and islamic missionising? What about Hindus and Buddhists missionising Buddhism onto S/E Asia? The crime is still the same.) With Modi building a Buddhist circuit in India and dumping Hindu money into major Buddhist projects - obviously too hard for him to have a Sri Rama Mandiram re-built at Ayodhya, I mean, who cares about his Hindu votebank - I am sure Buddhists in SL and in India will use it to become powerful in India and to missionise on the Hindus once more. They always do this. Everywhere. After Hindus spent so much effort in beating the missionary monster, why revive it again? (Not to mention how hard Daoists and Shintos had to work to protect their religion and prevent E Asia from turning into Buddhist Thailand, where there's no sign of the native ancestral religion.) Does the Modi govt even know what it is that it's doing?
Indians are good at doing Everything wrong. It's an achievement too I suppose.
At least the Sri Lankan Buddhists seem very happy about Modi's Buddhism plans. So too the Hindu Buddhism-fans/peddlers in India.