<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is referred as moronic? Pease explain.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The moronic thing is his followers inventing tales of him living as a Muslim or a xtian for a few days (or perhaps it really happened) and claiming that they now have a new religion called Ramakrishnaism and that all faiths are valid (well then let us go and convert to Islam if its valid since we will end the Hindu-Muslim conflict forever).
Bharatvarsha, when Ramakrishna Paramahamsa tried worshipping as a Muslim and Christian, he felt it lead him to the same realisation of Parabrahmam - probably because he did it in the same Hindu state he had always been in.
His results therefore had nothing to do with ChristoIslamism, but with his Hinduism. He was experiencing the same things, because his mental approach to God was the same as it had always been. He was under the wrong impression that he had tried out ChristoIslam. (Of course, no ChristoIslamist has ever had such an experience and will not acknowledge RKP's experiences. There are strict rules as to what experiences are valid in ChristoIslamism.)
As an experiment, RKP's was obviously a biased one.
I agree with you. All faiths are not valid. All natural religions are.
Indeed ,Ramakrishna experience only the exterior and superficial form of christianity and islam.
Of course the experiences are diferent because God is define(if we can say so) diferent in every religion.
In catholicism the accent was put on sentimental extazy,like Tereza de Avila if im not mistaking and contemplation over divine essence
In orthodox christian the accent is put on mistical unity whit the uncreated divine energies.
In islam God cant be experimented ,but only his will can be known,i dont know about sufi though .
Jainism talk about an eternal happiness etc.
Like you see are not the same as hinduism extazy.The doctrine is different and mistical experience is diferent in every religion.
My opinion is cant be all religion true ,just like the earth cant be flat and spheric in the same time.
The fraze "all religions are true "is use because it sound nice and political correct.
Yes are rules and doctrines for mistical experience because some of this may be spiritual or metaphisical illusions.
Is no such thing as natural religion.All religions are made for man.
rkumar, when Husky is talking about natural religions, he is talking about <b>nature religions</b>, i.e., religions with gods representing natural forces, and derivations thereof.
Basically, these are religions which have no defined beginning like the birth of a known prophet. The Hindu religion, the druids, the Hellenes and other forms of paganism are all nature religions or derivatives thereof.
<!--QuoteBegin-vishwas+Aug 10 2006, 11:19 PM-->QUOTE(vishwas @ Aug 10 2006, 11:19 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->rkumar, when Husky is talking about natural religions, he is talking about <b>nature religions</b>, i.e., religions with gods representing natural forces, and derivations thereof.
Basically, these are religions which have no defined beginning like the birth of a known prophet. The Hindu religion, the druids, the Hellenes and other forms of paganism are all nature religions or derivatives thereof.
[right][snapback]55398[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not even natural religions talk about same true.Is the same as in the case of dvaita advaita debates.
You cant say all religions are true,and our religion is superior because say that all all religios are true.You see the contradiction.?
You see a confruntation betwin natural versus personal religions?
The aztecs,celts,ilyrians,slavs,germans and other european peoplle made wars in the name of their war god;they sacrifice prisoners of war in order to keep in touch whit the war god.Romans make their conquest in the name of Marte and Jupiter,they forbide the practice of celtic druidism,Decaneios cult and phoenician religion.They show a limited tolerance for some mistery cults like Isis
cult .Romans sack, destroy and desacrate celtic,decanian and phoenician temples.
The belive religion of head hunthers hunthers cult was that the more heads of other people you cut the big will be your place in the after life.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course the experiences are diferent because God is define(if we can say so) diferent in every religion.
In catholicism the accent was put on sentimental extazy,like Tereza de Avila if im not mistaking and contemplation over divine essence
In orthodox christian the accent is put on mistical unity whit the uncreated divine energies.
In islam God cant be experimented ,but only his will can be known,i dont know about sufi though .
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There has to be a proper definition of God.
What is God?
Is it a force, a living entity? a man? a woman?
Just a mental concept?
What is it?
Christianity and Islam don't provide any precise definition of God.
They keep calling God as a "he", "him", "father" etc.
So does that mean they believe God is a big guy sitting on a throne somewhere who created the universe in 6 days by waving a magic wand?
If God is my daddy, then where is my mommy?
If he is a big guy, then can I see his photo or picture?
But they won't provide any photos because they claim it is idolatory.
But if he is a male then he must have form. So what form does Mr. God have?
This is a catch 22 situation.
So what is the answer, is God a male or formless?
Let us see if the Abrahamics can answer this question.
Their theology is so stupid, I can blow holes in it in 5 minutes.
According to Xtian trad. God is a old White guy with a beard, and a jealous god. If you piss him off he will strike you down, but I would say he is still better than Allah. Allah is angry almost 24 hours a day.
Bhartvarsh, the issue was about RKP not about his followers and RKP gave the explanation about Islamic faith realization with palace example.
Singhi Kaya used the word weak Guru. There is no such thing as weak Guru, Guru is Guru and if Guru is weak he is not a Guru ;-). If some one dont know this basic , ought to refrain from indulging in issues like this.
Let me ask has Snatan Dharm gained strenght from the RKP movement or has the RKP weaken the Dharma?
The natural tedency of RKP mind was to soar toward divine , and he live in that state. The differneces and boundaires are mundane stuff , Parmahans is , by nature ,incapabale of delving in these petty issues . The actions of Parmhans are directly dictated by Almight Himself and there are contradictions or mistakes in
them.
Binding a Parmhans in religious bundaries is certainly not recommened in Snatani scriptures. The various systems are there to generate the ideas to comprehend the divine, they are not end in themselves.
Husky, you are right about RKP's state of mind and his experiences was of Divine in myriad ways. There was no religious tag to them as they are universal.
SNatani scriptures has recorded the same experiecnes of other God-realized men of India but has never tried to limit these experience or re;lizations within the boudaries of certain doctrine or dogma . I think example was of looking and distinguishing the different blades grass being easy and possible while crawling and cannot be done while being up in space ... in Space shuttle ;-)
08-11-2006, 08:13 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2006, 08:35 AM by Husky.)
Post 45 (Romani):<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They show a limited tolerance for some mistery cults like Isis cult .Romans sack, destroy and desacrate celtic,decanian and phoenician temples. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I suggest you investigate Roman history just a little bit deeper, beyond the Christo propaganda that states "Rome was not tolerant either". You will see why this most pluralistic nation banned certain religious 'cults'.
- The Romans did not like to see excessive sexual behaviour in public, self-flaggellation, etc. (Contrary to the Christian projection of Romans, the Romans had some quite strict social behaviour codes and were less promiscuous than BBC series like 'Rome' would have you believe. Yes, some were a bit over the top, but Roman society in general was not at all as mad as portrayed. Even the escapades of certain Roman emperors cannot compare to the quantity and excess of Byzantine Empresses - who of course were all Christians.)
It was because of Roman aversion to extreme behaviour in public, that several sub-expressions of overall religions were banned. Even so, the Romans allowed these far more license than governments would do today. Isis was in fact allowed as one of the national Roman Gods (in the general sense of this term, which includes Goddesses) for a very long time and not all sub-religions of this deity were ever banned. Rome merely prohibited some variations of this, as well as of certain Dionysus sub-cults that were considered too extreme to the Roman sense of decency.
- When the Romans tried to take over the Gauls, the Celts of mainland Europe, they used political reasoning to ban Celtic religion as well (the Gauls derived much of their impetus for resistance from their religions, like nationalist Indians got theirs from Hinduism to gain independence). This is not an excuse of Rome's dealings in this case, but I fail to see where there's a lack of pluralism implied in Rome's behaviour here.
Judaism was restricted because Jerusalem was taken up by the Roman Empire. And Judaism constantly created revolutionaries: men who thought they were the Messiah sent to free their nation from Rome's stranglehold. Therefore, Rome intervened. It would brook no opposition when its Empire was questioned or opposed.
- Romans despised Christianity for a myriad of reasons. Christians, even when they were a tiny population, were known to be intolerant of any Roman traditional religions. Christians burnt down, demolished or otherwise destroyed, a lot of Roman shrines even before Constantine's time (and I'm not talking about the fires during Nero's time here). The Roman Emperors also knew that Christians were traitors: they merely suspected them initially (Christians congregating secretly), but it turned out to be fact. When Rome was still heathen, Christians hated their own nation and wanted to work with Rome's enemies to bring it down, even to the extent of trying to create connections with Persia. Persia of course saw right through Christianity too.
Emperor Aurelius, and later on, Julian too, were of the opinion that Christianity was destroying, and finally destroyed, the Roman civilisation. History has proved them right.
The above is not my opinion, it is based on books I've read.
Post 44 (Vishwas):<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Natural religions<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, I do mean religions of nature, but I also mean to refer to religions that evolved over millennia, if not tens of thousands of years. Like human evolution, there is also evolution of thought and spiritual beliefs. Natural religions are those that have naturally evolved amongst communities since ancient times. These religions <i>all, and without exception,</i> tend to understand the basic principles of how to maintain harmony - merely because they've had centuries to learn the price of disharmony. For this reason, such religions gave rise to stable societies, ones which actually deserve to be called 'civilisations'. This includes native North American culture, and most native South American cultures too, as well as old African religious traditions. Of course, there can be upstart movements within these (like some Aztec practises and the twist Genghis Khan gave to Shamanism), but these anomalies happen. Call them undesirable cultural mutations.
Unnatural religions just start up as someone's 'bright idea' and then wreak havoc, destroying the societies built up over millennia by natural religions (actually, natural ways of life). There are none to match ChristoIslamism as prime examples of such destructive behaviour.
The indigenous and ancient traditions of Greece, Rome, Eastern-Europe, Northern-Europe, N and S America were destroyed by Christianity. And Islam destroyed (or attempted to destroy) the natural traditions of the Middle East, West to South to SE Asia, Central Asia Mongolia to S China. A record indeed, but not one worth admiring in the annals of human and cultural evolution.
Post 50 (Prem): <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There was no religious tag to them as they are universal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, they are universal in the true sense of the word, but there is a problem with using this term very often. When someone says Yoga is not Hindu, that it is universal - ChristoIslamists and p-secs take that to mean that it is as much theirs as it is Hindu. No it's not.
RKP was very much experiencing Parabrahmam through Hindu means and from the Hindu perspective. There are overlaps between all natural religions, but there are also differences in means and methods. Taoism also has 'rishi' concepts, but it also projects some different paths for understanding and realising Tao than Hinduism does. Many similarities, many differences.
Therefore it is right to say that RKP was practising Hinduism.
"Sarva Dharma Samabhava" does not mean all 'religions' are equal, but that all paths which lead to the same ultimate truth are equal. Hence, Taoism and North American native American traditions, take one to the same truths as Hinduism does. ChristoIslamism <i>does not</i> (unless a Christian or Muslim did so by accident: because he was not really practising ChristoIslamism, but did his own thing instead).
Post 215 (Agnivayu): <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->but I would say he [the scary, vengeful Bible-god] is still better than Allah<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Allah was one of the ancient Arabian deities of the heathen Arabians. Of course, we're not speaking ill of <i>that</i> Allah (the real one) who did not consider himself the only deity or better than all others. Since the real Allah has for the most part ceased to be recognised in the world, and only his name remains - which is now applied to Mohammed's new creation - nothing bad said about the latter will attach itself to the original.
By its very existance Islam is a threat to non-Moslems -- this is the concept of Dar-ul-Harb and Jihad. Islam can by its very existence be a de facto death sentence for kaffirs like Hindus and is aggressive even towards its fellow Abrahamisms. Given the recent developments it is necessary to consider the threat potential of various Islamic potentates of the world. After all they see a common thread unifying them (note the OIC) that transcends racial and linguistic divisions. They are ordered below in descending order of threat potential. We may have missed some due to our poor knowledge about them.
Pakistan: Pakistan is undoubtedly the most dangerous Islamic country in the world. It is nuclear-armed, a darling of the only super-power that further shores its military might, viewed by the Leukosphere as a legitimate state rather than a terrorist state that it really is, and most importantly is ignored as a threat by most other countries. Greatest danger for Hindus.
Saudi Arabia: One of the most hellish nations on the face of the earth. Its main threat stems from the fact that it houses the symbols of Islam that continue to remain an odious sign of Arab imperialism. It is also armed dangerously by the US, and uses its main power, oil wealth, to fund most Jihads the world over. It combines with Pakistant to keep the engine of Islam running.
Iran: May enter the nuclear club, and is a longstanding civilizational power, which has now been hijacked by Islam. Its Mullocracy has shown itself a major support of Shi'ite Jihads the world over. Not a major danger for Hindus.
Indonesia: A nation hijacked by Islam, has enormous potential in the form of its population to create a major domain for the Jihad in the East. It threatens to destroy Hindu Bali and as the Hindu influence of the past erodes, it threatens to morph into a future nest of Islamic terror.
Bangladesh: A hell-hole, which is rapidly developing to become the next Taliban-like state. Its enormous poor population has the potential to supply Islam its foot soldiers for the Jihad and a new home for Al Qaeda like organizations. An enormous threat to Hindus.
Egypt: With the end of Hosni Mubarak, it is quite possible that the seething masses of Egypt stage an Islamic revolution centered on one of the root sources of Islamic indoctrination -- the university in Cairo.
Indian Moslems: While not owing a separate country as yet, they constitute an significant state within the Hindu state. More intelligent than the Arabs and numerous as ants they constitute an enormous threat to the Hindus and the world as they continue shake off their Hindu influences and aggressively Islamize.
Malaysia: Population power, provides a vast scope for Jihad in the East.
Iraq: After the US has screwed Iraq up, it is a good place for Moslem terrorists to reorganize
Turkey: For now Turkey is a delicate balance and we have no clear estimates when Islam might over throw the secular rulers. But the balance might shift and provide foot soldiers for Islamic struggles in the Middle East and invading Europe.
Afghanistan: Stoked by Pakistan it will soon return to being a center of constant low level conflict with West and also a training ground for anti-Hindu ghazis.
UAE: Has oil money to stoke Jihads, despite small size.
Then we have the tail made up of the Hezbollah and Syria, who are significant from the Jewish stand point, the central Asian Stans, Libya, Algeria, Yemen, Chechnya, Moslems in China and assorted African Islamic and semi-Islamic states.
Historically speaking, after the spectacular initially expansion the Arabs became a spent force by 1100 CE. The Hu-le-gu's invasion of Arabia put an end to their pretensions for good. By 1400-1500 CE the Islam acquired several relatively long-lasting major power centers mainly fueled by the Turkic or Turko-Mongolic genius. These were: 1) the Kilafat empire of Osman (Ottoman) Turks who were acknowledged as the Kalifs of Islam and had decisively settled the historic crusades by taking their arms deep into Europe under their greatest sultans, Salim the Grim and Suleyman the Law-giver. Modern Turkey is a castrated survivor state of this historical Islamic empire. 2) Mogol empire of India was of Turko-Mongol origin. They displaced the older Turkic Sultanates of India like the Delhi Sultanate and the Bahmanid Sultanate of South India and after Alla-ud-din Khalji established the next major unified Islamic power of India. Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Indian Moslem State within State are surviving fragments of the Mogol empire. 3) The Safavid Iran and their successor states. Modern Iran is a successor of this historical Islamic power that now has largely retained its core territory. These three were clearly the greatest Islamic powers of the world in their heydays. Now their successors will make an attempt to relive their lost glory. Then there was the central Asian Uzbek Khanate and other successor states of Islamized Mongolic Khanates and Sultanates of the Timurids from which the Mogols were derived. At times they were enormously powerful states though their power fluctuated over time.
The British destroyed the Turkic power of the Osmans. The Hindus denuded the Mogol empire to the point of death, but they were deprived of the chance to deliver the coup de grace by the British. Iran was curbed by the British, Americans and Russians. The Russians subjugated the Central Asian Islamic powers.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Aug 11 2006, 08:13 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Aug 11 2006, 08:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Post 45 (Romani):<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They show a limited tolerance for some mistery cults like Isis cult .Romans sack, destroy and desacrate celtic,decanian and phoenician temples. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I suggest you investigate Roman history just a little bit deeper, beyond the Christo propaganda that states "Rome was not tolerant either". You will see why this most pluralistic nation banned certain religious 'cults'.
- The Romans did not like to see excessive sexual behaviour in public, self-flaggellation, etc. (Contrary to the Christian projection of Romans, the Romans had some quite strict social behaviour codes and were less promiscuous than BBC series like 'Rome' would have you believe. Yes, some were a bit over the top, but Roman society in general was not at all as mad as portrayed. Even the escapades of certain Roman emperors cannot compare to the quantity and excess of Byzantine Empresses - who of course were all Christians.)
It was because of Roman aversion to extreme behaviour in .
[right][snapback]55446[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok ,what about god of war in the non-roman europeans ;you know celts,germans and other made war and human sacrifice in order to go in heaven .This war like behavior of europeans was pass down until colonial age.
Is no proof that christians have a destructive behavior before year 250.If so they didnt reach 10% of roman empire population by year 200 ,and 40% until year 300 before Constantine.
The evilness of Bisantine empire was and stil is just a western and catholic propaganda,in order to show how much west -europe was moral comparative whit the Orient.
Hmm all path lead to Moksha. I think most of of amerindians,africans,aztec etc dont even heard of Moksha.Not even taoist have this,they only try to live acording to nature laws, they dont use metaphysical concepts like Samadhi or Jina.
08-11-2006, 11:56 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2006, 12:21 PM by Husky.)
Post 53 (romani):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The evilness of Bisantine empire was and stil is just a western and catholic propaganda,in order to show how much west -europe was moral comparative whit the Orient.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I am not referring to anti-Byzantine propaganda, I am referring to translations of letters and records of Byzantine Empresses.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you know celts,germans and other made war and human sacrifice in order to go in heaven .This war like behavior of europeans was pass down until colonial age.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->History is written by the winners, so you'll never know what really happened let alone the reasoning. There's lots of Christian propaganda to sift through here.
Yes, Germanic people did make war and kill others. I never said they were a peaceful people before or during their Viking culture. You forget that most of the human sacrifices that Germans were accused of performing were recorded by early missionaries (collated under revered names like 'St Boniface'), who made it a point to paint the heathens as evil as they could. Whether 'human sacrifices' happened or not, the spin given to these tales is one of "typical evil behaviour of those evil heathens". If Christian murder of Germanic heathens by their millions (in trying to convert them) can not be considered human sacrifice to the bloodthirsty Jehova-Jesus combine (which does not tolerate other Gods before him), then neither do any 'human sacrifices' performed by Germanic and Norse people count.
Many missionaries <i>were</i> killed and were possibly hung out by Germanic heathens as a sign of a victory of their Gods over the evil intolerant Christian religion that had bludgeoned so many of them. Can't say I blame them for retaliating. But the Germanic and Norse heathens did not kill for reasons of intolerance derived from their religious traditions, so there <i>is</i> a significant difference.
Natural religions allow open-mindedness and do not stifle dissent or free thinking. Hence, Germanic and Celtic religions (if the latter did have human sacrifice, I don't know) would have evolved out of these things in time - had they been allowed to survive. On the other hand, the history of ChristoIslamism reads as a centuries-long chronicle of murder, massacre and mayhem.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is no proof that christians have a destructive behavior before year 250.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You had PMed me before that there was no proof for destructive behaviour of Christians before the 4th century. I've gained 50 years in leeway now. The canonical Gospels themselves were not finalised into the 4 that are accepted today until the mid 2nd century. There was a lot of infighting between various tiny Christian sects before, during and after that. Also, even in small numbers they managed to be a trouble to the non-Christian Romans.
Karlheinz Deschner, German historian on Christianity, writes that even in Nero's time (~60 ce) Christians "were considered a small, uneducated group of religious troublemakers from the lowest social classes, operating in the shadowy sides of society."
Deschner refers to Roman sources, from where he finds that Christians were not a very popular group in Rome at this time. It's precisely because of their intolerant behaviour that this was so. ( http://www.bandoli.no/tolerance.htm )
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->all path lead to Moksha.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Who said that? It wasn't me. Moksha is a Hindu concept. <i>I personally think</i> it's merely another word to describe the ultimate realisation experienced by many people of natural religions the world over - I understand it as them not having been reborn.
In any case, I do know that the Gods or the Dao take care of righteous people and in this respect, they will look after all of us, whether we are north American native Americans or Hindus from India or Taoists from China.
I don't recognise hell/jekinnah, since it does not even stand the test of common sense let alone logic and reasoning. A murderous 'god' (OT) is a demon by definition and one that threatens with hell-fire (NT) is even worse. Such things are merely stories to scare people into believing (the carrot-stick method), they have no hold on truth.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Aug 11 2006, 12:24 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Aug 11 2006, 12:24 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Post 54 (Mudy):
Missed your post when I was typing my response (#55). Will cease writing on that topic.
[right][snapback]55461[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is posible that Rkumar post ,Husky post,Mitradena post about christianity should be move to christian and islam thread from indian politics?
The topic was deviate from Ramakrishna(which his book i read it when i was 14 years) . I ask moderators if is posible to continue the debate on other thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You are right, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda practiced and taught Snatan Dharm not popular Hinduism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know the difference. I think any true Sanatani or Hindu will tell you the same.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If there is One God , then He is the God of all i.e Universal God and The religion to realize Him require Universal thought, hense Univeralism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In Sanatana Dharma no thought can lead you to god whether it that thought is radical universalism or radical sectarianism. God can only be known by intense sadhana of bhakti, Yoga, Jnana and most imporant Karma.
Those who derive pleasure by intellectualizing God beyond the necessary comprehensive philosophy are far from reaching God. Consult Shastras!!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We dont own God, even though He is ours.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very True.
But unfortunately the <b>mleccha religions</b> thinks that they <b>own</b> God.
And those who think that these mleccha ideologies are on par with Sanatana Dharma have neither understood mleccha vada nor have understood Sanatana Dharma. They are just speaking their mind.
They are also arrogants who think one any nonsense talk about God and universe will lead to God.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I belive Ramakrishna gave the explanation of Islamic worship of Allah by giving example of beautifull Palace and He talked about Christ not of churchianity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The author of the article gives very good account of what ramakrishna did.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Any one contradicting and undermining the Universal "one who see Self in all , and all in Self" cannot be a Snatani and the follower of Vedas. Snatan Dharm consnsits of principles not of people or personalities , hense drawing boundary lines is like practising semetic exclusiveness. Who so ever the author, canot be a wellwisher of Snatani Hunoods. To "Know" God has to be Universal ,anything less is no Divine or worth knowing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again a fanatic and radicalization of God. In the level of mental intellectualization this "one who see Self in all , and all in Self" will lead to such universalist ideas.
The real person who "sees Self in all , and all in Self" will actually try to establish self in all his work. Humans are said to be ignorant of their self and have superimposed mental projection of reality over reality. Those who know self try to break this cloud of ignorance in others and society. This also involves breaking those false intellectual as well as asurik dogmas like mleccha vada.
You haven't even paid attention to Gita ~ that text that makes clear (more than any other) how a "knower of self" must act.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me ask has Snatan Dharm gained strenght from the RKP movement or has the RKP weaken the Dharma?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll answer. It has!!
Impact has mainly been cultural and intellectual. Bhava vada and Universalism rapidly spreading in hindu mind in Bengal and outside can be dirrectly attributed to some extent to RKM movement. But that point has been discussed already in the main article quoted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have heard from a sannyasin who has spend decades to counter missionary conversion activities on how RKM activity made jobs of missionaries easy. This was an incident in early part of his karmic life. He was woking in a remote tribal area where missionaries were active. RKM also had a very big mission there. RKM's services were best and it had the only good hospital in the area. RKM generally has potraits of Christ hanging in their buidlings and prayer halls. Missionaries used this oppertunity to take sick tribals to RKM service and say that these facilities were christian. They will point to potraits of christ as an example. RKM monks never bother to actually have contact with the poor tribal living in his hut unless someone comes to them. Neither they bothered how missionaries were using their facility to carry on their own work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a funny story that I have heard...but I thinks it points how universalims works in real life.
Who is the author of the above critique psted by Mr Singhi Kaya ?
Contrary to Mr. Kaya' asserion , author dont give any explanation.
Singi Kaya, what you called intellectualism , is a simple common sense and fortunately most of the Snatanis are blessed with this as far as Dhrama is concerned . I dont think authors of Upanishads were interested in empty "self" of intellect, mind or ego as the repeatedly ask to go beyond these superficial identities. Let me ask again, was RKP a intellectual or a God realized being or Paramhans?
What did you mean by Weak Guru. There has not been any True Known Guru in Snatan Dharma after his passing away. If you know one, please let us know.
Let just say that those who know "self" their actions/ inaction depend on Supreme and Shastras dont try to Judge them. Onlee the one granted authority by God are to teach , not the one who assume they "know' and start teachings thus leading one to false path prooving blind leading the blind. The knower of "self" AFAIK has gone beyond action or in action.
The Dogmas and differnces are for spritually crawling babies not for soaring spirits.
