28 Aug 2016
MESSAGE-1: Following are the objections raised by two users to Your recent article on Sri Shirdi Sai Baba: (forwarded by Shri Kartik)
Objections from user 1:
'The Swami has no idea what smaarta means. smaarta has no relation with Advaita as such (it only happened in the late 1700s on a mass scale with the rise of Kanchi Sankara maṭha). It simply means someone who performs the basic Śrauta karmans and not any other philosophy specifically. So no Pañcarātra, Śaiva Siddhanta or any Śaiva stuff(because all of them are classically declared to be Veda-bāhya by most smaartas,cf. Aparāditya, Kumarila, etc, etc. on Manu). The only Vishnu-focused thing left is Vaikhānasa.
Also,the cluster of Hindu subreligions will formally pay respect to the Veda,Varnashramadharma (which most people here will blanch at,etc). They can be placed in a nice cluster and religions with a similar background (Sikh,Jain) can be excluded from this "Hindu" cluster.
Also, just claiming oneness doesn't make it so. Most of Hindu stuff outside advaita strongly opposes this "one-ness" business. And I don't need to mention Āpadeva, that great commentor on the Vedanta primer Balabodhini who would have condemned this affair as well.'
(I have posted a message on Shri Shirdi Sai Baba in ‘Reddit’ forum on which the two users expressed criticism. Swami neglected the criticism, ignoring it even though I informed it to Him. I posted again another message on analysis of scripture and User 2 again expressed criticism on it. Now, Swami took it seriously and replied to both criticisms. First, I am sending the reply on the criticism of first message. After sometime, I shall post the reply on the criticism of second message also. Swami told me “Criticism is always good because it opens new points and new areas of debate. But, while submitting the criticism, one should confine himself to the point only and not to pass unnecessary, extra damaging remarks like ‘Swami does not know the meaning of Smaarta and Swami did not read Gita, etc.’ Such negative comments sidetrack the issue on main points leading to personal grudge and retorting back hurting each other. Such extra words only lead to the conflicts between the pure philosophies of religions leading to hatred between religions. Ego and jealousy of some people resulting in such negative comments reflect as differences between religions. Religions start fighting with each other due to such people in the background, who lit the fire through negative comments. I request the users to apologize Me for using a similar language in My reply-criticisms because one can understand anything in his own language only! I beg the users to stress on their points of criticism without using negative comments. I also request the User 2 to express the point clearly so that I can also clearly submit My point. Please do not put comments like ‘doubtful’, which do not express any point at all. Please do not use the poll survey like saying ‘many do not believe’, etc., since our debate is only on the point and not regarding passing the point of the bill in parliament getting support from majority”. —Karthik)
(Introduction for Both Users: Let me introduce Shri Datta Swamiji, author of 100 books in Sanskrit (on philosophy and Sanskrit grammar like Panini sutras etc.,), by 16 years age and performed Ashtaavadhaanam in Sanskrit in 11th year. All these books are mainly based on the correlation of three philosophies of Hinduism. Shri Paramacharya of Kanchi Peetham heard the commentary on ‘Tattvamasi’ and expressed full satisfaction by giving a basket of fruits to Swami. Swami got Ph.D (chemistry) in 19th year and is Retd. Professor. Lord Dattatreya appeared before Him and asked to propagate spiritual knowledge for world-peace. After saying this, Lord Datta merged in Shri Datta Swami and after that, several miracles were done by Shri Datta Swami as a proof of the merge. Accordingly, He is doing this spiritual work and Swamiji says that whatever He speaks is from Lord Datta only. —Surya)
Swami replied: Thinking that I am also a person, who is master of none and jack of all trades, they have gone to the extent of climax of their ego and climax of jealousy (to others), to go to such level to say that I don’t know the meaning of the word ‘Smaarta’ (as user 1 says) and that I have not read the Gita (as user 2 says)! Some people are of the nature to criticize every one without establishing anything from their side and such type of comments are called as ‘Vitandavaada’. Such people have nothing to say to the world except misleading the world and throwing it into chaos. Such people have only one goal, which is that they should be recognized as super intellectuals than anyone else. For this purpose, they criticize everybody without knowing the depth of the other side. They don’t even read and assimilate the others’ knowledge by taking some time to absorb the ideas. They immediately attack the message of anyone as soon as they see it. While reading itself, criticism will come from their mouth! Such criticism doesn’t pertain to the subject presented by other side and they don’t even touch the actual points. Neither they beat the bush, nor they beat the bird in the bush. They beat only around the bush and return as successful hunters of the bird! They touch a word like ‘Smaarta’, misunderstand the word and fight with the other side stressing their misunderstood meaning as the absolute truth. They don’t care about the other side even if God is arguing with them! Whatever they know, they vomit it whether related to the present context or not, so that the public should think that they have lot of knowledge in their brains! They are very fast in expressing their little knowledge because their aim is only that they should be recognized as greater scholars than any other side opposing them. Their aim is not to understand the subject peacefully and criticize if there is a genuine point. The aim of all My knowledge is world-peace by bringing unity in religions. At least, seeing the value of the goal, a scholar should support the preacher of knowledge even assuming that really there are some genuine mistakes in their knowledge. But, people of this evil lot are not real scholars at all and find faults even if really there is no fault on the other side! They, by themselves, are faulty and find fault with others even if there is no fault on the other side! It is very easy to convince a real scholar, who doesn’t make sound like pot with full of water. On the other side, the really ignorant person like a vacant pot doesn’t make sound and can be convinced with little pain in work. But, the middle person, with little knowledge, who makes a lot of sounds like little or half-filled pot can’t be convinced even by God as said by Bhartruhari (Brhamaapi na ranjayati…).
A scholar knows everything perfectly and has no ignorance at all. Even if he has ego, it can be tolerated because at least there is no ignorance. On the other hand, a person having total ignorance knows that he is ignorant (due to lack of ego) and hence, can be easily convinced even if ignorance exists. But, the middle person having both ego and ignorance like B.P. and Sugar can’t be convinced and becomes very difficult case for a doctor! Such people exist in every religion and are responsible for the split of religions in the world. Along with them, very good people with broad mind also exist in every religion.
User 2 says that Muslims will not agree to My knowledge as if he is representing the Muslims! In fact, some good Islam scholars have sent Emails to Me appreciating My knowledge! But, My own Hindu (users) tries to stab Me even if it is not possible, at least not in systematic way! Hence, I say that every religion, every region and every caste contains both good and bad people. Their nature comes as samskara or vaasana from previous millions of births! User 2 is a very fantastic person! 1) I said that Krishna didn’t quote the Veda in the Gita as authority to support any one of His points. User 2 says that I am wrong as per 15th verse of 15th chapter! In that verse, the presented point is “I am in the heart of everything and everybody. Memory, knowledge and ignorance are due to Me only. I am known by all the Vedas. I am the author of this spiritual knowledge (Upanishats) and I am the only knower of the Veda”. Let any wise man or even a wise child tell Me that in this verse whether any statement of the Veda is quoted! This shows that user 2 is unaware of Sanskrit language and even unaware of the sense of translation given by somebody!! At least, whatever little Gita I read, I have understood it thoroughly because I am scholar in Sanskrit language. In his case, even though he read all the Gita, it is very clear that he has not understood even a word of it, either from original text (due to lack of knowledge of Sanskrit language) or even from its translation. 2) He often says ‘many don’t agree’, ‘a few only agree’ etc.! I am amazed to understand how this person got the poll-survey of the world or country or a religion. Did he conduct any SMS survey to say that many Hindus don’t accept Swami Vivekananda! He also says that many Muslims will not agree to this. This is spiritual knowledge, which doesn’t depend on majority or minority in assembly or parliament! We are simply presenting the facts derived by sharp analysis. You read it, you understand it and then raise any objection as far as the analysis of concept is concerned. You need not be a politician to comment on majority or minority supporting or opposing the point. The only context with specified limits is that whether a point is true or false based on very sharp analysis. You are expected to recognize the context and its limits only. You are not asked to judge the concept by passing it through assembly or parliament. It is only a discussion about the genuine logic of the point. Even in assembly or parliament, the elected people of a party of minority also present their arguments to support or to oppose a point proposed by majority! Nobody says that their party will not oppose an issue since their party has no majority in the assembly or parliament! They only discuss about genuine merits and genuine defects of the point. Sometimes, majority may be wrong and minority may be correct. In the Gita, it is said that one in millions only knows God in correct sense (Kashchit maam…). The correctness of the point is to be examined and not majority or minority.
I am sorry to say that no user has done analysis on the logic of any concept presented briefly by Me in this message and very vastly in the website www.universal-spirituality.org. I should have been very happy to answer in more detailed way if the users asked these same points as doubts or enquiries in the form of questions as others do. I request you both (users) to excuse Me for using the same language used by you in return since elders say that speaking in the same language makes the other side to understand the concept very well!
You are speaking about cluster of Hindu-sub religions! Who are there in your cluster? All non-Brahmins are not given authority to use hymns of shruti in rituals (of course, I am also Brahmin, remember please) and they have to use only the hymns from smruti (purana).
To User 1: He says that I don’t know the meaning of the word ‘Smaarta’! I will just now prove that he doesn’t know even the basic meaning of this word. The word smaarta means that which is told by Smruti or Puraana or secondary scripture (Smrutyaa yat uktam tat smaartam) or that which is related to smruti (smruteh sambandhi sarvam smaartam). He says that smaarta is a person, who does all the rituals told by shruti or the Veda or Primary scripture. In this sense, the word to be used must be ‘Shrautam’, which is either told by shruti (shrutyaa uktam) or which is related to shruti (shruteh sambandhi). How a shrauta is called as smaarta since shruti and smruti are different? As per shruti, the rituals of Brahmin-caste are done and as per smruti, the rituals of other castes are done! If smaarta means shrauta, all castes must be involved in rituals with shruti or the Veda only. You say that shruti is smruti (since you say shrauta is smaarta) and this is absurd because shruti and smruti are different and if both contradict each other, shruti prevails over smruti (Shrutireva gariiyasii).
Do you know the fundamentals of Sanskrit grammar? A word is used (shaabda bodha of Patanjali Mahaabhashyam) in two senses: 1) Yoga, in which the word is used in the sense of its root meaning. The word smaarta can’t be used for the people doing rituals as per shruti and hence your usage of the word in this sense is objected. 2) Rudha or Samjnaa, in which the word is used not in the sense of its meaning, but in the sense of usage in the world without reference to its meaning. If you say that you have used this word in this sense, I have also equal right to use the same word in any sense other than its meaning.
The first sense is like using the word Rama to name a boy speaking truth (Yoga). The second sense is like using the word Rama to name a liar (Rudhi). If you have called one liar as Rama, I have equal right to call another liar also as Rama. Similarly, if you call a shrauta as smaarta, I have equal right to call a devotee worshipping both Shiva and Vishnu as smaarta. The word by usage in long run (vyavahaara prayoga bala) gains strength and is acceptable. My native place is full of great Sanskrit scholars. Even in My childhood, I heard from them saying “this is as per Shaiva tradition”, “this is as per Vaishnava tradition” and “this is as per our (worshipping Shiva and Vishnu) smaarta tradition”. The usage (vyavahaara) of our scholars is as good as the usage of your Kanchi Math since both are ripened Sanskrit scholars in scriptures. If you select that usage of your liking, I have equal freedom to select the usage of My liking to My native place. The scholars of Kanchi Math used this word smaarta to mean a shrauta by rudhi and by the strength of same rudhi, scholars of My native place used the same word to mean a devotee worshipping both Shiva and Vishnu. Your funny statement appears as if this smaarta word was not born before the birth of Kanchi Math and for the first time only, the Math generated this word to mean shrauta by rudhi and the same rudhi should not be used by anybody else!
All right. Is this discussion not out of the subject of the message? You are fighting against the usage of the word smaarta to a set of devotees worshiping both Shiva and Vishnu. This set of devotees called by name smaarta or by some other name has no difference as far as main concept is concerned. Whether to name this type as smaarta or by some other word is immaterial. I don’t mind if you give a new word to a devotee worshiping Shiva and Vishnu since the word smaarta was generated by Math and got registered as patent word! Hence, you have side tracked the point and the main stream of points is not touched by all your present argument at all! You pondered only around the naming of that sect as smaarta and you appeared as if you are criticizing My subject, but, actually you have not done anything on that side. It is a clear side tracking of the main issue to unnecessary direction so that you can project yourself as if the winner by defeating all My knowledge in the message without touching a single point!
Religion- Specific God & Mode of Worship
Culture Related to Food, Clothes etc.
To User 2:
1) Religion is concerned to the spiritual aspect whereas culture is concerned about external aspect. - (Swami)
There is no clear-cut line between the two. Especially in Islam, culture is an integral part of it, according to both scripture and tradition. - (User 2)
Swami: I have taken religion as 1) specific God and 2) specific mode of worship to please Him. I have separated the external culture related to food, clothes etc., from the religion. If you want to mix all the three, you can do so since you have every fundamental right. Similarly, based on the same fundamental right, I can eliminate the external culture and take the word religion confined to above two points only. Again, this is another magic of you appearing as if you are criticizing the basic point, while you are pondering only on the addition or deletion of culture to or from religion! I have separated two banana fruits from one apple fruit. You consider all the three as three fruits. Is there any contradiction between us? You are concentrating on the unnecessary superficial point and projecting that on the actual point so that your success on the superficial point appears as if it is the success on the actual point!
2) The religions are always one because God in all the forms is one only and the essence of the paths of the religions is only the effort to please God. - (Swami)
Some Hindus believe this is the essence, others don't. For many, liberation is the ultimate aim, not theistic devotion. Some don't even believe in God. - (User 2)
Swami: Liberation (moksha) is from worldly bonds. Devotion (saayujya) is attachment to God. First is relieving from old institution and second is joining the new institution. Both are integrated and can’t be separated. The sect of atheists is out of religion and spiritual knowledge. This sect can be converted into theists only by unimaginable events called miracles, about which the scientific logic fails.
Conservative-negative Approach Belongs to Ignorant Followers of Any Religion
3) you had different sub-religions (Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shakteyism etc.,) in the religion called as Hinduism. Thus, Hinduism is a micro world or a reflection of the macro world (Universe) in small scale. - (Swami)
They are united by a common search for Truth and the acceptance that others too will reach the goal (like "various rivers into one ocean"). Islam does not accept this teaching- it is very adamant that it is the only right religion. There is no concept of different forms of spirituality according to Islamic scripture, tradition and scholarship. It aims to please God but only by following His revealed law. This has been clarified multiple times by Muhammad and Muslim scholars. - (User 2)
Swami: Why to blame Islam for the rigid conservative path? In our Hinduism also, there is extreme fanatic path like Veera Shaivism or Veera Vaishnavism. You are finding a dust particle in the eye of other person, having a big log in your eye! This conservatism is in every religion. But, broad-minded approach of universal spirituality also exists in some good persons in every religion. Ignorance lies everywhere irrespective of caste, religion, nationality, etc. We need not criticize the conservative path, which means that you should strictly travel in the path existing from your house to the center (of cross-roads) without thinking about other paths coming from other houses to the same center. This type of conservatism is not problematic and in fact, is good since concentration on the own journey exists. Problem comes only when this conservative devotee starts criticizing other paths stating that those paths will not reach the center! For such diverted conservative people only, this concept of universal spirituality is proposed, which says that all other paths also end in the same center.
4) What is the difference between Shri Shankara, Prophet Mohammad and Shri Sai Baba? - (Swami)
Adi Sankara did no such thing as 'uniting all the sub religions'. He presented a philosophy and argued against other philosophies. Muhammad completely rejected the religions that were present before Islam apart from some small elements. Is this similarity between the three figures supposed to be about reconciling different philosophical systems, about allowing different forms of worship/ritual or about bringing different groups in society together? These are three different ways of 'uniting religions'. - (User 2)
Swami: If you read the book “Shankara Digvijayam”, you can easily understand that Shankara criticized all the sub-religions of Hinduism and condemned their philosophies having different mediated Gods resulting in mutual splits. The philosophy established by Shankara projects single God called Brahman beyond forms and names. This is what exactly Mohammad did in His region. Sai Baba also followed the same philosophy removing the differences between Hinduism and Islam. Shri Satya Sai Baba also followed the same path uniting all the worldly religions.
Hindus go to Hindu temples and worship the shrines with rituals (religious culture). All these Hindus go to hear philosophical discourses on the Gita. A religious culture and its philosophy are associated with each other. If you separate these two and bring unity in philosophies, which is easier, you can bring unity in the religions also by separating religious culture from religion. When you separate religion from culture, religion means only God and the path to please Him. We can establish that God for this entire creation is only one and hence, the path to please Him must be also one. The result is one philosophy (spiritual knowledge) and one religion (universal religion). Please remember that all our efforts are only to avoid the negative criticism of other religions from the mouth of an extreme diverted conservative devotee. By this, we clearly say that we are not against the conservative path of any religion, provided negative approach to other religions is avoided. Universal spirituality is like the central government and religions are different state-governments in India. You perfectly belong to a state (religion) following conservative path of devoting to your state without contradicting the central government. We say that you are a perfect Tamilian or Marathi or Keralite, etc. and at the same time, you are also an Indian to love other states in India.
5) Shri Swami Vivekananda united all world religions as one biggest hall. - (Swami)
Perhaps, but he rejected many of the beliefs of Islam etc. Furthermore, many Hindus do not consider Swami Vivekananda authoritative or correct. - (User 2)
Swami: His first speech speaks about the universal religion like a mighty ocean and the extreme conservative religions with negative approach to other religions as petty wells. A sea frog (broad-minded devotee) and a well frog (conservative-negative devotee) were clearly mentioned. Don’t speak such lies to add ghee in the fire between Hinduism and Islam. When He presented His very first idea as the union of all rivers (religions) in the sea, how can He contradict His own fundamental concept? He has criticized some followers of every religion, who are extreme conservatives with negative approach. He will never criticize any specific religion. He praised good concepts of every religion and condemned wrong concepts of every religion.
6) If Shri Swamiji criticized Shri Shirdi Sai Baba, he simultaneously criticized Adi Shankara - (Swami)
This has absolutely no basis. Adi Sankara argued against many schools of thought. - (User 2)
Swami: The meaning of My statement is not understood at all by you! What I said is that if you criticize Sai Baba, simultaneously, you criticized Shankara since Shankara was for the union of all philosophies in the Hindu religion and Sai Baba was for the religions in the world. Shankara criticized the philosophies of all sub-religions of Hinduism only to bring the background unity of one absolute and unimaginable God (Parabrahman) existing in different forms (ruupa) with different names (naama). The same oneness in different religions was preached by Sai Baba based on the extension of same logic of Shankara to the world.
7) The union of Shaivism with Vaishnavism is called as Smaarta-sub-religion - (Swami)
Throughout this article, the Swami has used culture in a very weird way. Are tilaks and malas culture or religion? Think about it. Shaivism and Vaishnavism aren't just "different cultures" - they have different belief systems!!! And Sankara did not "unite" the two religions. This is not what Smarta is. - (User 2)
Swami: The external culture (like tilaks and malas) is to be separated from the religion (standing for Shiva, Vishnu, etc. and different paths to please Shiva, Vishnu, etc.). If you go down into deeper level of the religion, it is called as philosophy of that religion. Thus, religion and philosophy can fit easily in one phase. When unity in religions is achieved by achieving the unity in the philosophies, the meager difference in the cultures can no more stand as a separating factor. I have achieved the unity in philosophies like Advaita, Vishishta-Advaita, Dvaita in Hinduism through My commentaries in Sanskrit on the Upanishats, the Gita and the Brahma Sutras (Samanvaya bhaashyam). This is the main subject of almost all hundred books written by Me in Sanskrit. Then, extending the various ways of logic in uniting these philosophies, I have brought unity in all the worldly religions. Please read the website carefully with lot of patience.
8) Following the same logic followed by Shankara in uniting all sub-religions in Hinduism, we can extend it to all religions of the world and unite Jehovah of Christianity and Allah of Islam to the united single God of Shiva and Vishnu. - (Swami)
Yes, if you throw all belief systems out the window. You can't extrapolate that all religions are one just because Sankara taught a way of worship which combined elements from different religions. Plus, try asking /r/islam or even /r/progressive_islam how this idea sounds. - (User 2)
Swami: If you have understood the concept of central government and state governments in India as above presented, there is no problem at all since we have accommodated even the conservative path of every religion with due respect. Our effort is only to avoid the splits based on religion leading to extreme terrorism also for world peace. Don’t pass on comments like throwing beliefs through windows, etc. which enrage the conservatives. Such comments are baseless since there is no concept behind them except to bring splits and spoil the world peace to go to terrible hell.
9) “once Hanuman and Allah were boxing with each other and Allah was defeated” - (Swami)
Then maybe he's not a Muslim either. I don't know but he certainly didn't "prove himself as the greatest Hindu" (see /u/pinaka_dhrrita 's comment). - (User 2)
Swami: You always expose yourself as a conservative Hindu with negative approach. Baba told this story only to remove the negative-sided conservative mind of that Muslim devotee. This does not mean that Baba is a conservative Hindu criticizing Islam. He always chanted that Allah alone is the master (Allah Malik). Had that conservative devotee been a Hindu, Baba should have reversed this story by saying that Hanuman was defeated by Allah. I have mentioned this to criticize the negative-sided conservative approach of any religion taking Islam as an example in that specific context. This does not mean that Islam is conservative and Hinduism is universal. Every religion established by great human incarnations like Krishna, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. is universal only and the conservative-negative approach belongs to some ignorant followers of any religion exploited by evil forces.
10) But, God and path to please God (both these together are called as religion) are one and the same in all religions. - (Swami)
The word 'God' or similar words are defined differently by different religions. Some religions don't even have any comparable concept. In Hinduism, we have many words like Brahman, Isvara, Parabrahman, Narayana, Shiva, which all mean different things. There is lots and lots of philosophy explaining all these ideas. You cannot whitewash them all because they're 'roughly the same'. As for paths to 'God', just within Hinduism there are many different paths and some of them are very incompatible with each other. - (User 2)
Swami: You are always fighting like a rigid devil to disturb the world peace. Your fight can be appreciated if there is at least one solid point. All your points are superficial, out of context and devoid of even basic logic. If there is some solid point, I can easily argue. The points projected by you are fast conclusions of your mind (not intelligence and logic) just to contradict Me and just to maintain the fire between sub-religions of Hinduism and religions of the world. You mentioned many words and say that there is lot of explanation! On this comment, how to react from My side? You don’t show any solid ground of point on which we both can discuss and arrive at a good conclusion. Your basic aim is to establish your superiority on anybody in this world. Alright, I accept your superiority. Hereafter, please project any point completely with a solid basis of logic, so that I will certainly accept your point if I cannot disprove it. Please stop passing comments.
11) this simile is applied since religion is mistaken as external culture. - (Swami)
You can say all religions are the same if you call all their differences culture. But to actually truthfully determine if they're the same or not, you need to see where the differences come from. You will find that many of them cannot be thrown out in this way without perverting the religion's essential significances. - (User 2)
Swami: I really experience that My arguments with you are like moving My sword in vacuum. Every time, I don’t understand whether I am cutting something substantially or moving My sword to create pain in My hand! Can you tell Me what do you mean by ‘essential significances’? Difference in the culture comes from difference in the availability of food, dress suitable to the climate of a specific region, etc. which are in no way connected with the divine path. We must merge the religion with philosophy by separating it from the external culture. We can bring unity in all the philosophies through sharp logic and thus, bring unity in religions also, which is the only path for world peace.
12) Shri Swami Vivekananda tried His level best to unite all regions of world. - (Swami)
No, I think his main goal was preaching the truths of Vedanta, not to unite different religions. Religions can remain separate and irreconcilable while respecting certain common truths. - (User 2)
Swami: These common truths are the unity in diversity. If unity is not realized and diversity alone rules, the splits between religions are unavoidable. These common truths are like in the deepest level of religions called as philosophies of those religions. Our effort to bring unity should be from the deepest level of the religion (philosophy). Then, the differences remain only in the superficial level called as external culture depending on food, climate, etc.
13) logic of intelligence, the highest faculty in human body - (Swami)
This is not the highest faculty according to Hinduism. There are many greater faculties that we aim to explore and possess. - (User 2)
Swami: You don’t mention what are those greater faculties. You criticize the mentioned intelligence. This is Vitandavaada, which is simply criticism of opponent without establishing anything from the claimant. Above intelligence, only God is said to exist (Yobuddheh paratah…). This means intelligence is highest faculty in the creation by which only human being stands on the topmost place.
14) 1700 AD and till then there was no connection between India and other countries - (Swami)
Oh, come on! - (User 2)
Swami: I mentioned only about discovery of India by Vasco Da Gama in 1700 AD in the conversation of Swami and Father of Christianity (Please click here to read). Here, the word ‘countries’ means India and other countries. Why do you concentrate on these superficial points without going to the actual point? The actual point is that whenever there is a specific case of two disconnected countries, the Gospel presented in one country did not reach immediately the other country. In that gap, some generations of other country have gone to hell for their no fault! This is the main concept. There is a saying called ‘Vastramuulya vichaaranyaaya’, which says that a bride-groom was enquiring about the rate of the saree of the bride throughout the night on his first night ceremony! He was speaking about the manufacturing rate, sale rate, marketing rate, etc. (subject of business) throughout the night! Leave the superficial points and concentrate on the actual subject.
15) preaching of Jesus entered in - (Swami)
St. Thomas? - (User 2)
Swami: Again, another superficial point like the manufacturing rate of the saree!
16) that the disbeliever of their specific God (Krishna or Jesus) will go to hell! Our ancestors before 1700 AD went to hell as per Christianity and ancestors of other countries before 1700 AD went to hell as per Hinduism! - (Swami)
True for Catholicism and some other Christian Churches. Not true for Vaishnavism or most(all?) schools of Hinduism. - (User 2)
Swami: Fantastic! I am talking about two world religions existing in two different countries disconnected in that span on time! I am not speaking about two sub-religions of Hinduism existing in the same country (India)!!
17) Each religion says that their God is the creator of this one earth and this one entire humanity - (Swami)
Many Hindus believe God is not a 'creator'. Brahma the creator god is not 'God'. Many believe the world is eternal. Many don't believe in 'God'. - (User 2)
Swami: The second Brahma Sutra says that God is known by creation, control and dissolution of the world (Janmaadyasya yatah). The first Sutra says (Brahma Jigjnaasaa) that enquiry about God (Brahma) is done. Here, Brahma means God and not the creator Brahmaa. The first word is in neutral gender (Brahma or Brahman) and the second word is in masculine gender (Brahmaa). All the three commentators said in their commentaries that God (Brahma) alone created this world through the creator called Brahmaa. You must know at least the fundamentals of Sanskrit grammar while touching the scriptures of Hinduism. I feel very sorry about this!
18) Each religion says that their God is the creator of this one earth and this one entire humanity. This becomes impossible if Gods and religions are different. Essentially one God or essentially one religion exists. That one God alone created this one earth and this one humanity. If one specific God of one specific religion alone exists, such God gave gospel in a specific region without spreading it immediately all over the world, some generations of outer country missed the opportunity of gospel and went to hell for their no fault! This is extreme partiality of God! - (Swami)
This is a very good criticism of Islam and Christianity. Simply does not apply to Hinduism though. Has this Swami ji studied even the Gita? - (User 2)
Swami: This applies to the conservative side of every religion. In Hinduism also, Veera Vaishnavas say that Vishnu alone created this world. Veera Shaivas say that Shiva alone created this world. This is the answer for your first sentence. You say simply that this does not apply to Hinduism. You don’t explain how it does not apply! You simply pass on a statement without giving even basic logic of your concept. Suddenly, you say “did Swami study even Gita”? I am unable to follow the link between this comment and the first two statements. First and second sentences cannot be connected since the explanation of non-application was not given at all. The third sentence can’t be connected to the first two sentences because I do not understand the relevance of the Gita in this context! I am reminded of a statement “if you want to beat somebody, call him as dog and then beat him!” The first and second statements are calling Me as dog and the third statement is beating Me! But, I feel inconvenient here also because the saying has connectivity in points. Here, the three statements have no connectivity! I think even God (Brahma) cannot answer you!!
19) Our concept is: From the beginning of this creation, the one God, who created this one earth and this one humanity on this one earth, came in different forms with different names till now and gave the same subject of one gospel in different languages. Since subject of all gospels is one and the same, there is no danger of any generation of any region missing this gospel of other region on this earth. One, who follows the subject of gospel of his religion in his region, he/she followed all gospels of all religions in all regions. The follower, anywhere, at any time, goes to God and the disbeliever goes to hell. There is no possibility of partiality of God to any religion of any region. - (Swami)
Very easy to come up with such concepts. Unfortunately, to gain acceptance in traditional Hindu belief systems, you have to go through the philosophical argumentation. Anyway, this just sounds to me like a universalised version of Islam. Hinduism does not assume the existence of God or of revelation/gospel. There also is not this concept of believers vs disbelievers. We consider such concepts naive. - (User 2)
Swami: You are worried always about the passing of the bill in the parliament like a politician. A bill may be really good, but, may not be passed in the parliament because such bill causes inconvenience to the leaders of the party. Since the bill is not passed, do you say that the bill is wrong? Why do you bother about the words like Islam, Hinduism, etc.? You must go to the deepest level of the philosophy to establish such concepts. I cannot present all the deepest levels in this one simple message. If I present, it will become a big book. Please go through the website for the details of the deepest level. Since you have read only this message, your impression formed is poor. I understand this, but, I can’t help it except suggesting that you should go through the vast website containing all the arguments in detail.
20) God comes as human incarnation to rectify all points of humanity. - (Swami)
Completely contrary to Islam. - (User 2)
Swami: Yes, I agree to this. This point is already projected by Me in the messages on Islam (Quran). (Please click here to read)
21) to kill a goat on the day of pious Ekaadashi. The devotee became ready! - (Swami)
That devotee was no Vaishnava! Continued … - (User 2)
Swami: You please read at least the translation of the final verse of the Gita, which says that you have to surrender to God and vote for God against even justice (Sarvadharmaan…). That devotee was worshiping Sai Baba as God. This test is for that devotee only and not to you, who does not believe Sai Baba as God in human form.
22) Even Shri Krishna didn’t quote the Vedic authority anywhere in the Gita - (Swami)
Chapter 15 verse 15. Also there are many verses which are almost word-for-word quotes of the Upanishads. In the Mahabharata, Krishna is clearly said to have studied the Vedas. I can provide further information on this point if need be. - (User 2)
Swami: Explanation for this was already given above.
23) preaching of any human incarnation can be found in the Veda or in any scripture of other religion also since every human incarnation is God - (Swami)
The Vedas are unique in being very different from every other scripture found throughout the world and 99% of Hindus will tell you they are the highest authority. Almost all the Hindu scriptures are very unique, novel creations for their time. The Quran has little in it which didn't exist in Hinduism before. - (User 2)
Swami: You have just spoken in support of My point only. I never said that any scripture is not unique. You are again criticizing Islam! Mohammed is also God in human form. He objected the concept of human incarnation only seeing the pitiable situation of Jesus, the prophet just before Him. He told Himself as messenger of God, even though He is really God in human form. This one point is sufficient to show the divine nature of that prophet to lower His status for the sake of protection of human incarnation. Of course, Jesus did not protect Himself since the program was like that to create the element of kindness in the rocky hearts.
24) Life initiation is not bringing even a trace of life into any statue so that it is not moving even half inch! - (Swami)
This Swami is taking prana pratishtha to be a blind belief. We Hindus consider it a real and significant scientific process. It is not arbitrary and cannot be done in any way one pleases. - (User 2)
Swami: Anubhava (experience) is said to be the final authority among the four authorities (Shruti, Smruti, Yukti and Anubhava). If anything fails in experience, such concept is not true. This is said by all Hindu scriptures. Life entering the statue is false since it is against the experience. If you believe anything which is against the experience, you are said to be blind. The true concept of this ritual is that an inert statue (inert human body) on getting life becomes the alive human form into which only God enters to preach spiritual knowledge to humanity. I am telling the actual meaning of this ritual and you say that I am contradicting the ritual!
25) The Veda says that God will never enter inert statue (Natasya pratimaa…) - (Swami)
Confusing different paradigms. The rituals of murtis are not from the Veda. This does not mean they are false. - (User 2)
Swami: I never said that statues are false. I have only quoted the Upanishat, which says that God will not enter inert statue. Shastra also says that inert statue in human form is only for beginners (Pratimaahyalpa buddhiinaam). You just misunderstand Me and represent Me as the speaker of such wrong concept so that others will fight with Me! You are a terrible politician!
26) The Veda says that the only Brahman is creator, ruler and destroyer of the world (yato vaa imaani...). But, Brahma as creator, Vishnu as ruler and Shiva as destroyer of this world are existing separately. This brings contradiction to the Vedic definition of God (Brahman). - (Swami)
The verses quoted here says nothing about a creator, maintainer or destroyer. It is talking about Brahman, the absolute supreme (beyond jobs like creation). It is part of a larger sadhana process where the student discovers Brahman in matter, life, etc. successively. This Brahman is not 'God'. Does the word Veda refer to everything from the Samhitas to Upanishads here, btw? The Aranyakas (from which this verse comes) don't necessarily enjoy the same authority as the Samhitas in everyone's eyes. Also, one needs to be careful of confusing different paradigms and saying they contradict each other. The more ancient Vedic literature is very different from the Puranas in its style of expression. - (User 2)
Swami: This means that you are not accepting the Brahma Sutras written by Sage Vyasa, which explain the correlation of all Upanishats. As I told above, the first Sutra speaks about God and the second Sutra speaks about the identity of God as creator, etc. Such identity does not make God imaginable since such identity is about the inference through work of creation, just like the smoke gives the indirect identity of fire (Tatastha lakshanam) and this is not the direct identity of God or fire (Swarupa lakshanam). Since God is unimaginable, the direct identity is impossible. Don’t confuse the concepts so that others get confused and think that you are the only person, who has understood such confusion!
27) Had human incarnations of God Datta like Sai Baba been absent, by this time, almost all human beings must have become atheists - (Swami)
Doubtful. - (User 2)
Swami: Atheist believes the existence of unimaginable God through the unimaginable events called miracles performed by human incarnations of God. This is the meaning of My statement. Your single word ‘doubtful’ will create millions of doubts in any brain!
28) bring unity in the humanity for the peaceful balance of the world. Shri Shankara was really the first incarnation of God, who came for this purpose in Hinduism - (Swami)
Sri Krishna? - (User 2)
Swami: In this Kali age, Shankara was the foremost incarnation, who exposed the philosophy on the background of very sharp analysis. Again, this is a superficial point like the rate of the saree!
Conclusion: Answering your points is like the following story. A person is very rich and lives in the biggest house in that city, which can be called as palace. The house tax-department issued a notice to pay house tax. The person did not pay the tax objecting that the tax to be paid by him should be called as palace-tax and not house-tax! The officials of the tax department were beating their foreheads with their hands! My situation is like that of those officials!!
★ ★ ★ ★ ★