Post 3/3
3. india.com/news/india/sai-baba-should-not-be-worshipped-dharma-sansad-2-129548/
Christomedia from zee to especially rediff went all out to blacken the reputation of the Dharma Sansad, first by implying that the Hindoos there were intolerant of dissent from a few Shirdi Sai Baba devotees who had IIRC invited themselves (whereas the Shirdi Sai Sansthan reps were invited but did not come) and then Rediff went so far as to ask readers to comment whether said readers thought the Dharma Sansad had the right to decide this matter for the Hindu masses. Total mental manipulation by Rediff. The Dharma Sansad merely looked over the Hindu texts and found - by sane reasoning (as opposed to new-ageist feely-weely subjective "opinion" crap) - that the Hindu dharma shaastras are against Hindus worshipping persons like Shirdi Sai Baba. People are free to worship him of course - as they are free to worship any other muslim who has his food blessed by a maulvi and who facilitated circumcisions - but it isn't Hindu religion and shouldn't be combined with Hindu religion.
It's like the traditional Daoist priests have been telling the lay Chinese Buddhists who'd pleaded to learn how to properly worship their ancestral Daoist Gods at home: don't place the Buddha alongside the Daoist Gods but have separate, non-adjoining pooja areas (even separate pooja rooms) for them; don't apply Buddhist rituals/practices to the Daoist Gods and contexts, and do NOT use Daoist rituals on Buddhist characters like Buddha and in Buddhist contexts (this is further considered by Daoists to be Buddhist inculturation on Daoism), and realise that what you're doing is dabbling part-time in Buddhism and part-time in Daoism, rather than following Buddhism or Daoism properly, since the two religions don't really have anything to do with each other despite Buddhist inculturation on Daoism: their cosmologies are fundamentally different and not reconcilable. In short, "don't mix, because these two religions don't mix".
Further, the same Daoists have instructed lay Daoists to do away with any statues of Bauddhised clones of Daoist Gods that are in their personal possession. A specific example they gave was the famous Daoist God who does not have the head of a pig, but which Buddhism's perversion of Daoism insinuated as having the head of a pig and which false disrespectful Bauddhified image of a sacred Taoist God consequently became unnaturally popular in some lands where Chinese have historically settled. The Daoists were therefore understandably advised to dislodge the inauthentic (Bauddhified) imagery of their Gods and acquire the correct Daoist vigrahas of the same Gods and worship that. Because Daoism is understandably Very Pedantic about correct form and representation of their vigrahas. (Else nothing works, plus the Daoist Gods will not accept it.)
And while the Daoists oppose Bauddified images of their Gods as doing yoga - in the Chinese Buddhist context, this implies that the Daoist Gods are seeking Buddhist Nirvana and are further subordinated to the Buddha, whereas in reality the Daoist Gods have nothing to do with Buddhism and Buddha and are instead eternally perfect beings that are the source and pinnacle of Daoist enlightenment - the same strict Daoists have not complained against those SE Asian Daoist temples housing Hindu Gods in separate sannidhis nor have they any objection to Daoists offering worship to these Hindu Gods alongside the temples' primary Daoist deities. (And it's not that they don't know that some vigrahas are of Hindu Gods.) Daoists are also clear among their kind to resist the modern trends in China etc to invent and join new religions that are a mix of Daoism + Buddhism + Islam + Christianism (and sometimes Confucianism too), because Daoism cannot be mixed with these other religions.
The above paragraphs are also relevant to the sorts of typical igno-Rant comments at that Rediff article - the one which had desperately invited people's "opinions". Ignoring the many islamics and obvious cryptos responding there, a great number of many self-professed "Hindu" comments at Rediff were all against the Dharma Sansad for daring to "dictate" to Hindus what does and doesn't constitute Hindu religion and who Hindus can and can't worship. But the Dharma Sansad is not dictating to them. It is merely stating the facts of what is and isn't Hindu religion and who is and isn't worshippable to a *Hindu*. People can take it or leave it, BUT can't pollute established Hindu rituals and spaces (i.e. Hindu temples) with Shirdi Sai Baba etc. That is, anyone can still worship Shirdi Sai Baba - in non-Hindu buildings dedicated to this - but not in Hindu temples. And doing so of course means your doing new-ageism and not Hindu religion. That is, you're not really a proper Hindu, just a new-ageist. (C.f. some people in China dabbling in the aforementioned modern 5-religion-ideology combining Daoism+Buddhism+islam+christianism+Confucianism aren't Daoists.) And that if you think of yourself as a Hindu you wouldn't be worshipping Shirdi Sai Baba. Note also that in some respects, this position of the Dharma Sansad is not dissimilar to the Daoist answer to the lay Chinese Buddhists: that their interest in Daoist Gods meant they were essentially dabbling half-heartedly in 2 distinct religions and hence not doing either properly, since the two were unrelated and - in some important respects - are mutually exclusive. (=Also the traditional Shintos' argument - to this day - against mixing Buddhisms with Shinto, since it was Buddhist inculturation on Shinto, and since it further diluted Shinto religion and took away from its pristine quality and actual import.)
Note how traditional heathenisms are not "Anything Goes" religions. Neither Hindu, nor Daoism nor Shinto religions. And they are regularly forced to purge themselves from subversions that creep in or that have been insinuated into their religion by missionary ideologies.
Note also how the heathen situation is very different from the monotheisms' intolerance for other religions, contrary to how rediff-reader types like to pretend that the Dharma Sansad's conclusions make their pronouncements equal to islamic fatwas. Not at all. Islamic fatwas are on pain of death.
Missionary religions can't stand the existence of heathens practising their heathenism, and at best will inculturate on them to replace them at the head and at worst will convert-or-kill to replace them in full. Heathens don't mind the existence of other religions, they simply don't want their own religions subverted and distorted from its pristine quality and intent, since heathen religions are directly related to their cosmologies and Gods, and any distortions here will distort the heathens' understanding of their Gods and of their relationship to their Gods, and this in turn obstructs (ritual practices for) communion with their Gods/the aims of their religion.
3. india.com/news/india/sai-baba-should-not-be-worshipped-dharma-sansad-2-129548/
Quote:Sai Baba should not be worshipped: Dharma Sansad
By Press Trust of India @indiacom | August 26, 2014 1:40 PM | comment
Tags: 'Dharma Sansad, news, Sai baba, Shirdi, Shirdi Sai Baba
Raipur, Aug 25: A two-day-long 'Dharma Sansad' convened by the Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati of Dwarka Peeth today passed a resolution that Sai Baba, the 19th century saint from Shirdi, should not be worshipped as a deity by the followers of 'Sanatan Dharma'.
'Kashi Vidvat Parishad' has taken a decision that Sai Baba was neither a god nor a guru, therefore he cannot be worshipped, Rajesh Joshi, the media in-charge for the Dharma Sansad (religious conclave), which was held in Chhattisgarh's Kabirdham district, told PTI.
After Shankaracharya Swaroopanand raked up a controversy by opposing the worship of Sai Baba, Divya Chaturmas Mahotsav Samiti organised the conclave at Kawardha, 150km from here, to debate the issue.
Representatives of 13 Akharas and other religious leaders discussed the issue.
Resolutions on other issues, including introduction of Hindu scriptures in school curriculum, making the country free of addiction, safety of women, construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, protection of cows, etc. were also passed, Joshi said.
(Oh at last, some Hindoos/representatives of the Hindoos - and representing the wishes at the heart of every Hindoo. Insisting on the all-important Sri Rama Kovil at Ayodhya and protecting the gau. And insisting on the protection of that other hapless group: Hindoo women, preyed upon as they are by the christoislamaniac rape jihad.
Don't care if the Dharma Sansad are powerless to implement any of their resolutions or in full. I love them for insisting on all these things as being the aspirations and rights of Hindus. Wonderful to see that HindOO acharyas at least remain steadfast and haven't lost sight of imperative heathen Hindoo concerns.
If Hindoos had had Emperor Julian, a Sri Rama Mandiram would have been rebuilt at Ayodhya by now. Sigh. With each passing day, the total failure of Indian nationalism/"Hindu" nationalist government to muster an iota of Hindoo heathenism in their governance and concerns, just shows up more and more how great a heathen ruler Emperor Julian was. And how spectacularly diminutive everyone else is in the comparison. It may be hard to be great, but it should not be hard to be a heathen for those who are.)
Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust,which runs the Shirdi Sai temple, did not respond to the invitation by the Shankaracharya to attend the Dharma Sansad.
However, devotees of Sai Baba from Delhi and Ahmedabad participated in the conclave.
A minor row erupted when a sadhu on the dais interrupted Manushya Mitra, a Sai Baba follower, while speaking, said Superintendent of Police, RS Nayak. Both were pacified by others present on the dais.
Modified Date: August 26, 2014 1:40 PM
Christomedia from zee to especially rediff went all out to blacken the reputation of the Dharma Sansad, first by implying that the Hindoos there were intolerant of dissent from a few Shirdi Sai Baba devotees who had IIRC invited themselves (whereas the Shirdi Sai Sansthan reps were invited but did not come) and then Rediff went so far as to ask readers to comment whether said readers thought the Dharma Sansad had the right to decide this matter for the Hindu masses. Total mental manipulation by Rediff. The Dharma Sansad merely looked over the Hindu texts and found - by sane reasoning (as opposed to new-ageist feely-weely subjective "opinion" crap) - that the Hindu dharma shaastras are against Hindus worshipping persons like Shirdi Sai Baba. People are free to worship him of course - as they are free to worship any other muslim who has his food blessed by a maulvi and who facilitated circumcisions - but it isn't Hindu religion and shouldn't be combined with Hindu religion.
It's like the traditional Daoist priests have been telling the lay Chinese Buddhists who'd pleaded to learn how to properly worship their ancestral Daoist Gods at home: don't place the Buddha alongside the Daoist Gods but have separate, non-adjoining pooja areas (even separate pooja rooms) for them; don't apply Buddhist rituals/practices to the Daoist Gods and contexts, and do NOT use Daoist rituals on Buddhist characters like Buddha and in Buddhist contexts (this is further considered by Daoists to be Buddhist inculturation on Daoism), and realise that what you're doing is dabbling part-time in Buddhism and part-time in Daoism, rather than following Buddhism or Daoism properly, since the two religions don't really have anything to do with each other despite Buddhist inculturation on Daoism: their cosmologies are fundamentally different and not reconcilable. In short, "don't mix, because these two religions don't mix".
Further, the same Daoists have instructed lay Daoists to do away with any statues of Bauddhised clones of Daoist Gods that are in their personal possession. A specific example they gave was the famous Daoist God who does not have the head of a pig, but which Buddhism's perversion of Daoism insinuated as having the head of a pig and which false disrespectful Bauddhified image of a sacred Taoist God consequently became unnaturally popular in some lands where Chinese have historically settled. The Daoists were therefore understandably advised to dislodge the inauthentic (Bauddhified) imagery of their Gods and acquire the correct Daoist vigrahas of the same Gods and worship that. Because Daoism is understandably Very Pedantic about correct form and representation of their vigrahas. (Else nothing works, plus the Daoist Gods will not accept it.)
And while the Daoists oppose Bauddified images of their Gods as doing yoga - in the Chinese Buddhist context, this implies that the Daoist Gods are seeking Buddhist Nirvana and are further subordinated to the Buddha, whereas in reality the Daoist Gods have nothing to do with Buddhism and Buddha and are instead eternally perfect beings that are the source and pinnacle of Daoist enlightenment - the same strict Daoists have not complained against those SE Asian Daoist temples housing Hindu Gods in separate sannidhis nor have they any objection to Daoists offering worship to these Hindu Gods alongside the temples' primary Daoist deities. (And it's not that they don't know that some vigrahas are of Hindu Gods.) Daoists are also clear among their kind to resist the modern trends in China etc to invent and join new religions that are a mix of Daoism + Buddhism + Islam + Christianism (and sometimes Confucianism too), because Daoism cannot be mixed with these other religions.
The above paragraphs are also relevant to the sorts of typical igno-Rant comments at that Rediff article - the one which had desperately invited people's "opinions". Ignoring the many islamics and obvious cryptos responding there, a great number of many self-professed "Hindu" comments at Rediff were all against the Dharma Sansad for daring to "dictate" to Hindus what does and doesn't constitute Hindu religion and who Hindus can and can't worship. But the Dharma Sansad is not dictating to them. It is merely stating the facts of what is and isn't Hindu religion and who is and isn't worshippable to a *Hindu*. People can take it or leave it, BUT can't pollute established Hindu rituals and spaces (i.e. Hindu temples) with Shirdi Sai Baba etc. That is, anyone can still worship Shirdi Sai Baba - in non-Hindu buildings dedicated to this - but not in Hindu temples. And doing so of course means your doing new-ageism and not Hindu religion. That is, you're not really a proper Hindu, just a new-ageist. (C.f. some people in China dabbling in the aforementioned modern 5-religion-ideology combining Daoism+Buddhism+islam+christianism+Confucianism aren't Daoists.) And that if you think of yourself as a Hindu you wouldn't be worshipping Shirdi Sai Baba. Note also that in some respects, this position of the Dharma Sansad is not dissimilar to the Daoist answer to the lay Chinese Buddhists: that their interest in Daoist Gods meant they were essentially dabbling half-heartedly in 2 distinct religions and hence not doing either properly, since the two were unrelated and - in some important respects - are mutually exclusive. (=Also the traditional Shintos' argument - to this day - against mixing Buddhisms with Shinto, since it was Buddhist inculturation on Shinto, and since it further diluted Shinto religion and took away from its pristine quality and actual import.)
Note how traditional heathenisms are not "Anything Goes" religions. Neither Hindu, nor Daoism nor Shinto religions. And they are regularly forced to purge themselves from subversions that creep in or that have been insinuated into their religion by missionary ideologies.
Note also how the heathen situation is very different from the monotheisms' intolerance for other religions, contrary to how rediff-reader types like to pretend that the Dharma Sansad's conclusions make their pronouncements equal to islamic fatwas. Not at all. Islamic fatwas are on pain of death.
Missionary religions can't stand the existence of heathens practising their heathenism, and at best will inculturate on them to replace them at the head and at worst will convert-or-kill to replace them in full. Heathens don't mind the existence of other religions, they simply don't want their own religions subverted and distorted from its pristine quality and intent, since heathen religions are directly related to their cosmologies and Gods, and any distortions here will distort the heathens' understanding of their Gods and of their relationship to their Gods, and this in turn obstructs (ritual practices for) communion with their Gods/the aims of their religion.