Relating to Non-Vedic Religions - What is our stand ?

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathas,

 

A lot of devotees have pointed to a number of books on inter-religious

faith. I would like to add a point about what Srimad Bhagavatham says about

it in Canto 1.

 

Sages in Naimisaranya ask Suta Goswami about "What is a bonafide religion"

Suta Goswami answers by saying "Any religion that cultivates unadulterated

love of the Supreme Lord is bonafide".

 

In that sense, pure form of Christianity or Islam are definitely bonafide

because they preach love of God. But none of them can compare with

Vaishnavism in cultivation of love of Godhead for atleast three reasons :

 

1. They dont clearly describe the Lord's form, names & His activities which

are very important for cultivation of love of Godhead. Vaishnavism does

that.

2. Vedas are the very word of Lord Narayana & no where else the Lord

Himself speaks like He does in Bhagavad Gita. They dont have eternal

scriptures like the Vedas so the truths said there in have to be rejected,

if they contradict vedic opinion. The opinion of Jesus or Prophet is not

the same as that of our acharyas because our acharyas are basing their

philosophy on eternal vedas where as others are not. Atleast not directly.

3. Much of Christianity & Islam are highly degraded because of the vested

interests of the followers & commercialization.

 

 

With warm regards

Rajaram V.

 

 

 

 

narayanan.k.m [sMTP:narayanan.k.m]

Tuesday, January 04, 2000 11:28 AM

bhakti

Re: Relating to Non-Vedic Religions - What is our stand ?

 

 

 

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear Sri.JaiSimman,

 

Well, regarding the religious faiths from West, Our seers could not have

commented

due to the very fact during their existence, these religions were not even

born.

 

However, I have heard Sri Krishna Premi once telling in a discourse, that

any

religious philosophy or practice if it is not sanctioned by Vedic Dharma

or

that which does not recognise the superiority of Sri Vasudeva should not be

given importance.

 

He was referring to Buddhism Buddhism also talks of ahimsa, truth etc like

vaishnavism.

He said that such things are like serving the Honey in

a container made of Dog's skin. Though the content is Honey, since not

served

through the right medium of vedic sanathana Dharma, it has to be rejected.

I

feel this holds good for other latter faiths also.

 

 

Dasan

 

K.M.Narayanan

-------------------------------

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to

which

it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.

Any

review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any

action

in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the

intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please

contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

[Guest guest]

Rajaram Venkataramani <rajav

> Sages in Naimisaranya ask Suta Goswami about "What is a bonafide religion"

> Suta Goswami answers by saying "Any religion that cultivates unadulterated

> love of the Supreme Lord is bonafide".

 

This is not exactly correct. What the sages ask is as follows:

 

tatra traa~njasayuShman bhavataa yad vinishchitam |

pu.msaam ekaantataH shreyas tan naH sha.msitum arhasi || bhaa 1.1.9 ||

 

Please, therefore, being blessed with many years, explain to us, in an

easily understandable way, what you have ascertained to be the absolute and

ultimate good for the people in general (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.1.9).

 

bhuuriiNi bhuurikarmaaNi shrotavyaani vibhaagashaH |

ataH saadho'tra yat saara.m samuddhR^itya maniiShayaa |

bruuhi bhadraaya bhuutaanaam yenaatmaa suprasiidati || bhaa 1.1.11 ||

 

There are many varieties of scriptures, and in all of them there are many

prescribed duties, which can be learned only after many years of study in

their various divisions. Therefore, O sage, please select the essence of all

these scriptures and explain it for the good of all living beings, that by

such instruction their hearts may be fully satisfied (bhaagavata puraaNa

1.1.11).

 

and then Suuta responds as follows:

 

munayaH saadhu pR^iShTo'ham bhavadbhir lokama.ngalam |

yat kR^itaH kR^iShNasamprashno yenaatmaa suprasiidati || bhaa 1.2.5 ||

 

O sages, I have been justly questioned by you. Your questions are worthy

because they relate to Lord Krishna and so are of relevance to the world's

welfare. Only questions of this sort are capable of completely satisfying

the self (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.2.5).

 

The actual fact is a little different, as I am sure you can see. The sages

don't ask for the characteristics of genuine religion. They simply ask for

the ultimate good of all men and the essence of all Vedic scriptures (which

might not be understood properly given that they speak of many dharmas, and

people in Kali Yuga in general are not intelligent enough to grasp their

meaning). And Suuta does not speak of God in any abstract way - he

specifically mentions Lord Krishna. There is nothing here to indicate that

any other non-Vedic concept of God is being entertained. Therefore, the

evidence does not support the idea that Suuta is speaking in a general way

about any

religion, or that he is suggesting that any religion which teaches love of

its concept of God is also bona fide. There is no evidence in the

Bhaagavatam as far as I know that any religion other than sanaatana-dharma

is considered bona fide.

> In that sense, pure form of Christianity or Islam are definitely bonafide

> because they preach love of God.

 

Whether they teach love or not is questionable - is it really love to be

taught that one should worship someone in order to avoid being thrown into

hell? And are they really teaching love of God? Shriiman Naaraayana is God.

There can be no other supreme God. Given that, and assuming the historical

truth behind such non Vedic scriptures as say, Exodus, are we really

prepared to accept that it was in fact Shriiman Naaraayana who is the God

being referred to in them? Are we prepared to accept that it was Shriiman

Naaraayan who told the Hebrews that they were His chosen people, and who

caused all kinds of suffering to the Egyptians, and who told His people that

"thou shalt have no other gods before me... for I the Lord am a jealous

God...." etc? I suppose it is possible, but personally, I reserve the right

to be skeptical. The kinds of

statements and actions attributed to God by some of these non-Vedic

scriptures don't seem in character with Him as He is revealed to us in the

Bhaagavatam.

 

<Mrgerald

> Here is the ISKCON list of interreligious books:

>

> Steven Rosen (Satyaraja)

> + East West Dialogues (Christianity related)

> +Om Shalom (Jewish related)

 

I have experience with these two books, having read them cover to cover.

While I think Satyaraja's writings are thought provoking, it's pretty clear

that the books don't prove in a scholarly way what he wants to prove - that

the other religions are ultimately leading to the same Supreme Lord that our

Vedas speak of. Again, I think that if one starts with the assumption that

the supreme goal of all the religions is the same, it might be possible to

manipulate the evidence in such a way as to show this. But from a scholarly

point of view, that is, one based on shaastric pramaanams, I don't see why

one necessarily would be constrained to start with this assumption, however

appealing it might be to our sentiments.