05-12-2005, 01:12 AM
<b>rajesh_g</b>,
What <b>agasthiyan</b> said is just what I am trying to say.
The average english-educated Hindu, finally deciding to actually find out what his/her philosophical heritage is, may pick up the first book on "Hinduism" that he finds, which -- more often than not -- is a wishy-washy, mayavadi, "anything goes", "all paths are valid" kind of nonsense. The Vedas describe the spiritual path as "kshurasya dhaaraa" (the razor's edge). There is a science to spirituality. This "anything goes", or "various paths leading to the same thing" is mischievous word-jugglery. The "vipraha bahudha vadanti" quote has been plucked and quoted endlessly, completely out of context by the pseudo-secularist types, who have no real interest in spirituality anyway.
Forget about spirituality, even sociologically and psychologically, this "anything goes, we are so tolerant" philosophy is very harmful to Vedic dharma. On one hand, this older generation of Vivekananda-inspired nationalist Hindus keeps repeating this mantra of "equal-equal tolerance", and on the other hand, the younger generation is wondering why these same people get upset about conversions. This is just one of the many contradictions in this mayavad.
Absolute Truth is a VALUE, just like beauty, etc. And when speaking of value, it is natural that there should be an ordinality (ranking) when comparing different candidates. The Vedic literature has been compared to a tree in the Shrimad Bhagavatam, rooted in the manure of falsehood, and rising up to the spiritual sky. So the different branches of Vedic philosophy are not all "equal-equal", though each one may serve a purpose for different individuals at different stages of spiritual development. But not all these branches yield "the most mature fruit of the Vedas".
Now there is nothing "intolerant" about arguing this way, as long as the arguments are dispassionate, and based on "pratyaksha, anumana and agama", as per the Vedic tarka-shastra. Indian history has several great examples of public debates conducted between competing Vedic (including Buddhist) schools of thought. There is nothing "intolerant" about this, nor does it "divide" Hindus or undermine "Hindu unity", as some fools suggest. <b>On the contrary</b>, it is an expression of the living spiritual vitality of Vedic dharma, which keeps young and curious Hindus intellectually and spiritually INVOLVED. Let ideas (based on bona fide authority) collide in a democratic discourse, and let the best prevail!
<b>gangajal</b>,
"proud Hindus" should be upset over so-called Tantra and Kali-worship cults focussed on in english-language text-books simply because this is a heavily biased misrepresentation of Vedic dharma as a whole, and also because these practices are arguably deviant practices (apasampradayas). As I stated in a previous post, about 70% of Hindus identify themselves nominally as "Vaishnava" (though they may not be clear about the philosophy). But howmuch of real Vaishnavism -- which is far better described as monotheistic rather than monistic -- gets discussed in "Hinduism" books?? Ask most english-educated Hindus, and they will tell you that Hinduism is "NOT monotheistic", that "we are all God", and that Advaita is the last word on Vedanta! -- even though Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami and Lord Chaitanya came after Shankara (whose individual mission was to kick out the atheistic shunyavadi philosophy out of bharatvarsha). So this is the kind of misrepresentation that is happening.
Most of this happens under the banner of "Vivekananda". But try to understand the time and circumstances under which Vivekananda was working. His main concern was to politically unite Hindus at a time of aggressive and manipulative colonial evangelism. In that spirit -- and not out of any theological conviction -- Vivekananda says, "But in the modern period, in the name of a generic 'Hinduism'...It is therefore, that I preach this Advaita". But Vivekananda himself acknowledges that his own guru, Ramakrishna, did not seem to speak Advaita, or Dwaita, or Acintya bhedabheda tattva, or anything else. Vivekananda spoke of "Shri Ramakrishna's religion" as something quite separate. But for the sake of political and theological unity, he preached advaita, being as manipulative as the adversary.
But such mayavad is seriously offensive to any serious Vaishnav (70% of Hindus are descendents of those who accepted Vaishnavism). In fact, even the way Ramakrishna described and "experimented with" Vaishnavism is a mockery. He indulged in a so-called tantric deviation called "sakhi-bekhi" -- one of the 13 apasampradayas enumerated by Chaitanya mahaprabhu Himself. To give you an idea, this sakhi-bekhi business involves some concocted "mano-dharma", where the male starts behaving like a woman, associates and performes patently perverted acts with real women, etc, supposedly to whip-up some psychological condition, in imitation of a "rasa" with Shri Krishna. This sort of utter nonsense was severely condemned by Chaitanya mahaprabhu himself, though several such cults exist in Bengal and even Vrindavan. But it is precisely such kind of humbug that is discussed under the rubric of "Vaishnavism" in certain books. This is an example of what is offensive and suffocating to serious Vaishnavas.
More importantly, try to appreciate the REAL DAMAGE being done by mayavad representations of 'Hinduism'. It is THESE pseudo-philosophies that actually discredit the vast majority of Vedic agamas (including 80% of the Upanishads, most of the 4 Vedas, and ALL the Puranas). They only like to cherry-pick sentences (or sometimes even half-verses!) to support their philosophy. so understand this -- that the mayavadis trash most of Hindu literature (often appealing to modern pseudo-historical theories). So before anyone tries to put together a "united Hindu front", I suggest we pause and take a look at the people and philosophies that are being used to put up this front.
What <b>agasthiyan</b> said is just what I am trying to say.
The average english-educated Hindu, finally deciding to actually find out what his/her philosophical heritage is, may pick up the first book on "Hinduism" that he finds, which -- more often than not -- is a wishy-washy, mayavadi, "anything goes", "all paths are valid" kind of nonsense. The Vedas describe the spiritual path as "kshurasya dhaaraa" (the razor's edge). There is a science to spirituality. This "anything goes", or "various paths leading to the same thing" is mischievous word-jugglery. The "vipraha bahudha vadanti" quote has been plucked and quoted endlessly, completely out of context by the pseudo-secularist types, who have no real interest in spirituality anyway.
Forget about spirituality, even sociologically and psychologically, this "anything goes, we are so tolerant" philosophy is very harmful to Vedic dharma. On one hand, this older generation of Vivekananda-inspired nationalist Hindus keeps repeating this mantra of "equal-equal tolerance", and on the other hand, the younger generation is wondering why these same people get upset about conversions. This is just one of the many contradictions in this mayavad.
Absolute Truth is a VALUE, just like beauty, etc. And when speaking of value, it is natural that there should be an ordinality (ranking) when comparing different candidates. The Vedic literature has been compared to a tree in the Shrimad Bhagavatam, rooted in the manure of falsehood, and rising up to the spiritual sky. So the different branches of Vedic philosophy are not all "equal-equal", though each one may serve a purpose for different individuals at different stages of spiritual development. But not all these branches yield "the most mature fruit of the Vedas".
Now there is nothing "intolerant" about arguing this way, as long as the arguments are dispassionate, and based on "pratyaksha, anumana and agama", as per the Vedic tarka-shastra. Indian history has several great examples of public debates conducted between competing Vedic (including Buddhist) schools of thought. There is nothing "intolerant" about this, nor does it "divide" Hindus or undermine "Hindu unity", as some fools suggest. <b>On the contrary</b>, it is an expression of the living spiritual vitality of Vedic dharma, which keeps young and curious Hindus intellectually and spiritually INVOLVED. Let ideas (based on bona fide authority) collide in a democratic discourse, and let the best prevail!
<b>gangajal</b>,
"proud Hindus" should be upset over so-called Tantra and Kali-worship cults focussed on in english-language text-books simply because this is a heavily biased misrepresentation of Vedic dharma as a whole, and also because these practices are arguably deviant practices (apasampradayas). As I stated in a previous post, about 70% of Hindus identify themselves nominally as "Vaishnava" (though they may not be clear about the philosophy). But howmuch of real Vaishnavism -- which is far better described as monotheistic rather than monistic -- gets discussed in "Hinduism" books?? Ask most english-educated Hindus, and they will tell you that Hinduism is "NOT monotheistic", that "we are all God", and that Advaita is the last word on Vedanta! -- even though Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami and Lord Chaitanya came after Shankara (whose individual mission was to kick out the atheistic shunyavadi philosophy out of bharatvarsha). So this is the kind of misrepresentation that is happening.
Most of this happens under the banner of "Vivekananda". But try to understand the time and circumstances under which Vivekananda was working. His main concern was to politically unite Hindus at a time of aggressive and manipulative colonial evangelism. In that spirit -- and not out of any theological conviction -- Vivekananda says, "But in the modern period, in the name of a generic 'Hinduism'...It is therefore, that I preach this Advaita". But Vivekananda himself acknowledges that his own guru, Ramakrishna, did not seem to speak Advaita, or Dwaita, or Acintya bhedabheda tattva, or anything else. Vivekananda spoke of "Shri Ramakrishna's religion" as something quite separate. But for the sake of political and theological unity, he preached advaita, being as manipulative as the adversary.
But such mayavad is seriously offensive to any serious Vaishnav (70% of Hindus are descendents of those who accepted Vaishnavism). In fact, even the way Ramakrishna described and "experimented with" Vaishnavism is a mockery. He indulged in a so-called tantric deviation called "sakhi-bekhi" -- one of the 13 apasampradayas enumerated by Chaitanya mahaprabhu Himself. To give you an idea, this sakhi-bekhi business involves some concocted "mano-dharma", where the male starts behaving like a woman, associates and performes patently perverted acts with real women, etc, supposedly to whip-up some psychological condition, in imitation of a "rasa" with Shri Krishna. This sort of utter nonsense was severely condemned by Chaitanya mahaprabhu himself, though several such cults exist in Bengal and even Vrindavan. But it is precisely such kind of humbug that is discussed under the rubric of "Vaishnavism" in certain books. This is an example of what is offensive and suffocating to serious Vaishnavas.
More importantly, try to appreciate the REAL DAMAGE being done by mayavad representations of 'Hinduism'. It is THESE pseudo-philosophies that actually discredit the vast majority of Vedic agamas (including 80% of the Upanishads, most of the 4 Vedas, and ALL the Puranas). They only like to cherry-pick sentences (or sometimes even half-verses!) to support their philosophy. so understand this -- that the mayavadis trash most of Hindu literature (often appealing to modern pseudo-historical theories). So before anyone tries to put together a "united Hindu front", I suggest we pause and take a look at the people and philosophies that are being used to put up this front.