Guest guest Posted June 30, 1999 Report Share Posted June 30, 1999 In the course that we do on Hinduism, we have paid special emphasis on the contribution of Sri Ramakrishna to the idea of God being both with and without form. The idea of God with form was being abandoned as a compromise to the Muslim and Christian influences in India. Both the Arya Samaj and the Brahmosamaj movements in India were happy to adopt a formless God. This would have been a great loss as God with form is one of the sweetest and dynamic approaches to God. We had taught our youngsters how this allows one to build a personal relationship with God. (How can you have a personal relationship with the formless? we had argued). We had then given them many examples of people who have found God through the form and in the test we set we then asked: - Who liked to think of God as his father? Who liked to think of God as his mother? Who liked to think of God as his friend? Who liked to think of God as his master? Who liked to think of God as her husband? One little chap was quick to catch on and in reply to the questions Who likes to think of God as his father? He wrote - me! Who likes to think of God as his mother? He wrote- me! I had to give him marks for all his answers ----- I was expecting to get answers like Jesus, Ramakrishna, Arjun, Hanuman and Meera. But this little guy could not be bothered to remember all that so he just kept writing 'me' and scoring marks. I caught him with the final answer he had written "I like to think of God as my husband" So I called him up and asked - Are you sure about this? He turned pink and said 'no'. One mark lost! jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 1999 Report Share Posted June 30, 1999 Hari Om Jay: I fully agree with your view that Hindus perceived God through the Role Models who include, father, mother, teacher, Rama, Krishna, Shiva, etc. The points that you have raised are quite interesting and important to understand Hinduism in general and Advaitam in particular. I am currently preparing an article - Advaitam and Idol worshiping and I will post in the near future. This posting contains an E-mail correspondence between me and Mr. Mustafa Said (belonging to Islamic Faith) of Orlando, Florida on the role of Idol Worship in Hindu Religion. Mr. Mustafa has sent me an E-mail asking me some questions related to one of my postings related to Idol Worship at Soc.Religion.Hindu newsgroup. I thought this dialog can help the readers to get more insights on this topic. Let me take this opportunity to thank Mustafa for giving me permission to post this on the net. It is my opinion that that major religions including Hinduism, Christianity and Islam have the same common goal - to help human beings to seek and enjoy eternal life, both physical and spiritual in heaven with God. They have approached using different means to reach the same end! Mustafa Said's E-mail Address: MEF-INC Ram Chandran's E-mail Address::chandran Mustafa Wrote: > Dear Ram Chandran, > > I read your response to the Idol worship discussion. It seems to me, from > reading your posting, that you are an intelligent man. I want to know if > you really believe in idol worship, and if you do, how does it make sense to you? ............................................................... > Peace. > Mustafa Saied, MEF Marketing. (Orlando) Ram Chandran's Reply: Dear Mustafa Saied: Vanakkam (Namaskar). Excuse me for delayed reply. Thanks for your kind remarks. I am from Madurai, Tamil Nadu and I have quite a few friends from Islamic faith. I assume that you know Tamil and I appreciate your sincerity and politeness. You have several questions and there are no quick answers to your questions. Please read all my postings related to "Idol Worship." Jerzy Tarasiuk belonging to Christian faith has several questions that are similar to yours. He is a Physicist from Eastern Europe and we both agree with the fact that any form of worship of God is Idol Worship - either the image is created within the mind or an Idol fabricated with human ingenuity. Take few moments and think deeply about the worship procedures adopted in Islamic faith. Creative thinking will always take us beyond our intelligence! Creation is not equal to manufacturing. Manufacturing requires human intelligence and creation requires super intelligence. Why there are so many gods in Hindu religion? I would ask a counter question why there are so many religions in this world? Everyone seems to agree that people are different with diverse customs, beliefs and traditions. They look and behave differently and they have different taste for food, languages, music and habits. India is a vast country with a large population and Hinduism became very flexible to satisfy the needs of the people. Hinduism contains many sub-sects that include Vaishnavism, Shaivam, etc. Just imagine a Banyan Tree which started with a single root and after many years each branch of the tree sets its own root. There may be several branches and many roots but still the banyan tree is only one! Hinduism is very much like that! The unity of Hinduism is preserved by the Hindu scriptures that include the Vedas, the Puranas, the great epics and the Bhagavad Gita. The Caste system is not an integral part of Hindu religion. Professions in vedic period were classified into four categories: Intellectuals (Brahmin), Business people (Vaishya), warriors or soldiers (Chathriyas) and unskilled labor (Sudras). It should be pointed out that the original classification is not by birth. The Ramayan, Mahabharat and the puranas were helpful for creating a society that is moral and law obeying. Rama, the hero of Ramayana is an ideal character who served as a role model for ideal behavior. The responsibilities of citizens, teachers, king, soldiers, business men and the intellectuals were instructed through the epics, puranas and the vedas. Unlike other religion, Hinduism gives complete freedom to Hindus to practice their day to day life. The rules are subtle and practices were preserved through family traditions. As a family tradition, I do go to temples and worship the idols but that is not the end of my religious practice. I give more importance to how I lead my life on a day to day basis. What is my role at home, at work and in the community? I get subtle reminders to these responsibilities when I conduct my worship. For me, Idol worship is a symbolic worship of God! Le me stop at this time and allow you to digest what I have said here. I can explain more after hearing from you. Om Shanthi! Shanthi! Shanthi! Ram Chandran Mustafa Saied's reply and my reply response > The Islamic faith stresses that we as humans cannot comprehend the image of > God. We are given limited capabilities, and if we can imagine some thing, > some shape, some form, some face, that is NOT God. Anything at all, if it > is within our comprehension, is not the image of God. I totally agree with > you that creation is not the same as manufacturing. That is why we > consider God as creator of all things. Man can only envision created > things. In Islam, we are told by God in the Qur'an that there is nothing > in the created sphere that is even remotely like God. Creatin does not > require super intelligece, it requires God. All religions including Hinduism do stress that as humans, we cannot comprehend the image of God! God is infinity and it cannot be comprehended but infinity can be symbolized that is what I learnt in mathematics. We do need a symbol to indicate the entity that can't be comprehended! I have seen the Islamic worships where the dedicated people conduct mental prayers. Any form of worship implies some mental comprehension of God. This may not be complete but everybody understands the limitation of their intelligence! Muslims believe (rightly) that God has written Qur'an which implies human beings are able to understand what God expects from the believers! The English word "G O D" symbolically represents the noncom prehensible entity called God! Please think carefully before you jump into quick conclusion. At the moment of worship human mind meditates "God." The god may not have a name, may not have a form but the worshiping person feels that he (she) is very near (or very far) to God! That is "Idol" worship and such an idol needs not necessarily "a physical matter" or "mental image." Therefore, I may have to disagree with you about your perception on worshiping a god. You may not realize that it is idol worship and you may not agree that it is idol worship but fact will not disappear. You still did not explain why God should forbid "worship of God" by a dedicated person with honesty, dignity and sincerity. > The problem that I see with the above comparison is the conflict that would > arise. Let us imagine that the Banyan tree can do whatever it wants. Now, > after the other roots have taken hold, what if they require from the > branches that they suck the water out of the main trunk? What if one root > needs water to satisfy itself and another needs alcohol? What if the root > that needs water is hurt by alcohol and the root that needs alcohol is hurt > by water? This is just one of the many contradictions that could take > place. Even if it is one tree, the fact that multiple roots are defining > themselves is inevitably going to lead to disarray. God did not create many gods! They are fabricated by the human beings. God did not create many religions. They are assembled by innovative human beings! On a general note, I believe that no specific religion can help anyone to comprehend God. The Grace of the god is the only requirement for human liberation and elevation. I agree with your view point that more religions and more gods introduce more problems! God is beyond the scope of any religion, belief or dogma and Truth is a pathless land! > I studied the Ramayan and the Mahabharat when I was in school. Although I > did not pay much attention to all the minute details, it did not appeal to > me in terms of logical attributes. A society that is moral and law obeying > according to who? Who lays down the law? Who says what is law obeying or > moral and what is not? This is something that I dont understand. What is > morally correct to you may not be so for someone else? Like you mentioned > earlier, this world is full of people with diverse mentalities, diverse > thinking. In such a world, whose idea of morality do you accept? The world is much more complex for any single religion or a single government to handle. That is why there are more religions, more countries, more languages, more governments, more professions and more political parties. No rules of any single religion, no laws of any government, etc. can satisfy the requirements of all the people! In the modern world, religion alone can't solve all the social problems and conflicts. > In the Ramayan, you said that Rama is a role model for ideal behavior. Do > you accept the mistrust of your spouse to be ideal behavior? No. Towards > the end of Ramayan, Ram does not accept the complete trust in his wife and > asks her to prove her loyalty to her husband...in public. Would this be > considered ideal behavior? As a king, I would expect him to set an example > in trusting your spouse by trusting his wife. To humiliate her in such a > way would not be considered ideal behavior. Every human being in this world has good qualities and bad qualities. Rama is an exceptional person with lots of good qualities. In my daily life I am forced to play multiple roles: as a father, as a husband, as a son, as a brother, as a friend, as a teacher, as a boss, as a worker, as Hindu etc. Almost every day my action on one role conflicts with my other role. At that moment, I am forced to make a judgement which pleases some and antagonize someone else. Rama also was forced to play the role of the King and as a husband. He apparently took an action that pleased his citizen causing misery to his wife. How many political leaders today would be willing to sacrifice their personal comforts while making public decisions? Ideal behavior does cause pain and Ram suffered more pain due to the quoted episode than Sita. The trust between Ram and Sita can't be measured by one or several incidents using inappropriate yardsticks. What is Ideal behavior really means? Does it necessarily mean 100 percent correct? Would 90 percent correct qualify as an ideal behavior? > This is something that has created a lot of misunderstanding and feuds > between people. Think about it. If everybody can have their own > perspective on their duties and obligations, rights and responsibilities, > there will be nothing but chaos, simply because everyone does not think > alike. Just imagine if the government of the US gave freedom to its people > to pay taxes or not, do you think everybody would pay taxes? It is > regulated and controlled because law is something that unifies people. Religions and governments tell the people the rules and laws. Everybody knows the consequences of not obeying any rule or law! No government or religion can ever stop people breaking the rules or laws. People do break the rules and laws and when they are caught, they get punished. Nothing less or nothing more can be done! Religions and governments cannot solve all the social evils without total cooperation from the public. > I would like you to think about your role at home, at work, in the > communtiy, etc. Think about it. Who guides you and tells you that what > you are doing is correct or wrong? God created you, and no one knows what > is best for you other than God. The message from God should also be proved > logically, because anybody can come up to you and say that this is a > message from God. You must logically derive the proof for the message of > God. Does the message make sense? Does the origin of the message > logically lead to divinity? Could someone other than God have written this > message? All these questions will lead you to an understanding that you > can be comfortable with. Delve on the origin of texts, the morals of the > stories, the possibility of differing in the understanding of the same > incident, etc. These are interesting questions and there are no quick answers to these questions. To understand God one has to go beyond all religions, beliefs and dogmas and sincerely pursue for the TRUTH. > You said that you consider idol worship a symbolic worship of God. I would > think that if there is a way to worship God directly without any symbolic > element in it, that would be a more logical choice. If you can directly > help a friend or symbolically help a friend, wouldnt you directly help him? What do you mean by direct worship of God? I can help a friend directly because I can see him, touch him and talk to him. I need to worship God symbolically because I can't see him, I can't touch or talk to him. I still can't see how you worship God directly? Your worship is just symbolic and it is nothing more than that! Om Shanthi! Shanthi! Shanthi! Ram Chandran =============================================================================== Vivekananda Centre wrote: > > "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda > > In the course that we do on Hinduism, we have paid special emphasis on the > contribution of Sri Ramakrishna to the idea of God being both with and > without form. > > The idea of God with form was being abandoned as a compromise to the Muslim > and Christian influences in India. Both the Arya Samaj and the Brahmosamaj > movements in India were happy to adopt a formless God. This would have been > a great loss as God with form is one of the sweetest and dynamic approaches > to God. We had taught our youngsters how this allows one to build a personal > relationship with God. (How can you have a personal relationship with the > formless? we had argued). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 1999 Report Share Posted June 30, 1999 > > Ram Chandran [sMTP:chandran] > Wednesday, June 30, 1999 3:49 PM > advaitin > Re: Digression from Astavakra > > Ram Chandran <chandran > > Rama also was forced to play > the role of the King and as a husband. He apparently took an action > that pleased his citizen causing misery to his wife. How many > political leaders today would be willing to sacrifice their personal > comforts while making public decisions? Ideal behavior does cause pain > and Ram suffered more pain due to the quoted episode than Sita. [Madhava Replies:] I have a few genuine questions: 1. How many of you *really* believe that Rama has asked his wife to enter in to the fire? 2. Is this much quoted / questioned episode, is really written by Valmiki i.e. is that in Srimad Ramayana (as it is...)? I personally put this question to Sri MurariBapu and he said "yE jhooT hai. kOyi dushTOMnE thOk diyA, mErE bhagawaan pE E kahAnee...", means "It is a lie. Some one with ulterior motives has created this story and blamed it on Rama." Sri Bapu also said this during his Ramayan Pravachan at Bombay. I guess, any Bapu followers on this list could confirm this. I am interested in knowing everyone's opinion. Thanks a lot in advance. Regards, Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 1999 Report Share Posted June 30, 1999 Hari Om Madhavaji: Any judgement regarding 'Ideal' behavior depends on individual perception and varies by culture, environmental factors and time. The Dharma during Ramayana's time was to uphold 'TRUTH' and everything else becomes less important. Dharma and Truth are synonymous and Rama, Dharma and Truth are fully integrated. Fulfilment of promises was the most important factor for the preservation of Truth. All actions became sponteneous without Duality. Examples: Dasaratha's promise to Kaikehi forced Dasaratha to tell Rama to leave Ayodhya. Rama's Dharma was to obey his father and he has to leave Ayodhya inspite of protests from the citizens of Ayodhya. Sita's Dharma was to follow the footsteps of her husband Rama to the forest. Lakshmana's infinite love and respect for Rama was responsible for him to join Rama to the forest. Rama's promise to Sukrivan was responsible for Rama to kill Vali during the fight between Sukrivan and Vali. Rama's duty as a huband is to protect and establish the purity of Sita. In short, Ramayana is a symbolic story to motivate people to practice and preserve Dharma. Rama is the charactrization of True Human Nature and Ramayana was used to illustrate his character. Some of the incidents in Ramayana can appear contradictory to modern time practice of human life. The killing of Vali by Rama is more controversial than all other actions of Rama using the modern yardstick. But society at Ramayana's time considered fulfilment of Promise to be formost important. Rama's words always came from the heart rather from head or mouth and this is the underlined subtle Truth of Ramayana. The questions below in your posting have been raised by many scholars in India and the answers are inconclusive. When Ramayana is studied with the Bhakti attitude, these questions doesn't arise because the power of faith blinds the intellect! Ram Chandran "Madhava K. Turumella" wrote: > I have a few genuine questions: > > 1. How many of you *really* believe that Rama has asked his wife to > enter in to the fire? > 2. Is this much quoted / questioned episode, is really written by > Valmiki i.e. is that in Srimad Ramayana (as it is...)? > ........ > I am interested in knowing everyone's opinion. Thanks a lot in > advance. > > Regards, > Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 1999 Report Share Posted July 1, 1999 > > Ram Chandran [sMTP:chandran] > Wednesday, June 30, 1999 10:39 PM > advaitin > Re: Digression from Astavakra > > Ram Chandran <chandran > > Hari Om Madhavaji: > > Examples: > Dasaratha's promise to Kaikehi forced Dasaratha to tell Rama to leave > Ayodhya. Rama's Dharma was to obey his father and he has to leave > Ayodhya inspite of protests from the citizens of Ayodhya. [Madhava Replies:] Hari Om! Ramachandranji: Thank you for your answer. For the sake of the argument, since we are any way on the topic, I would like to ask few more questions : Point (1) Rama obeyed his father's orders and went to the forest, in spite of protests from the Citizen's of Ayodhya. Point (2) Rama asked Sita to enter in to the flames *just* to satisfy the citizens, though he personally might have undergone tremendous pain to do any such thing to Sita. In the 1st point Rama did it against the wishes of the citizens of Ayodhya. In the 2nd point Rama did it to satisfy the citizens of Ayodhya.... My question is: "What exactly is Rama doing? Is he obeying his Citizens or not?" If he is obeying his citizens then his obedience should be in an uniform way. The above points say that this is not the case. Rama seem to have behaved differently in each situation. If he could disobey his citizens for the sake of his father, then why didn't he do the same for the sake of his wife? I would look forward for the answers. Regards, Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 1999 Report Share Posted July 1, 1999 > > Ram Chandran <chandran > > Rama also was forced to play > the role of the King and as a husband. He apparently took an action > that pleased his citizen causing misery to his wife. How many > political leaders today would be willing to sacrifice their personal > comforts while making public decisions? Ideal behavior does cause pain > and Ram suffered more pain due to the quoted episode than Sita. [Madhava Replies:] >I have a few genuine questions: >1. How many of you *really* believe that Rama has asked his wife to >enter in to the fire? >2. Is this much quoted / questioned episode, is really written by >Valmiki i.e. is that in Srimad Ramayana (as it is...)? >I personally put this question to Sri MurariBapu and he said "yE >jhooT hai. kOyi dushTOMnE thOk diyA, mErE bhagawaan pE E kahAnee...", means >"It is a lie. Some one with ulterior motives has created this story and >blamed it on Rama." Sri Bapu also said this during his Ramayan Pravachan at >Bombay. I guess, any Bapu followers on this list could confirm this. >I am interested in knowing everyone's opinion. Thanks a lot in >advance. Regards, Madhava Dear Madhava: Personally, I do not believe that Rama had Sita go into a literal fire. I felt that the 'fire' was an internal 'tapas' deemed necessary due to Sita having stepped into the world of 'maya' resulting from her time spent with Ravana. This is not different from what we all go through as we move towards our own divinity. I can not speak for others but there have been times in life when I have felt that God/Rama has been exceedingly harsh as I walk through the play of maya. That part of the Ramayana appeared to me as a wonderful allegory for the process removing the dross. Namaste, Linda --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Looking to expand your world? ONElist has 180,000 e-mail communities from which to choose! ------ Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 1999 Report Share Posted July 1, 1999 This is a reply to just one question of Madhava. The question is about Rama's apparently inconsistent response(arising on two occasions) to the dharma of satisfying his kingdom's citizens. We have to note that there are always two levels of dharma. One is called sAmAnya dharma and the other is called viSesha dharma. Whenever the two contradict each other, it is the viSesha dharma that one has to obey. In the AyodhyA kANDa when the citizens cried to him to return, his viSesha dharma was pitr-vAkya-paripAlana. In the Yuddha kANDa when he asked Sita to enter the Fire, his viSesha dharma was his duty as a king to satisfy his citizens and the sAmAnya dharma in this case was to be considerate to the worman, his wife! Incidentally it is the viSesha dharma that made the King Suddhodana to abandon his wife and kingdom and retire to the solitude of the forest to find out His Enlightenment, in response to the call from within Him. It is the viSesha dharma of the Inner call that made Narendra take to a discipleship of Sri Ramakrishna, rather than attend to his family responsibilities which really needed him. sUkshmah-parama-durjneyah satAm dharmah.! PraNAms to all advaitins. Prof.V. Krishnamurthy === Prof. V. Krishnamurthy You are invited to visit my latest book entitled GEMS FROM THE OCEAN OF HINDU THOUGHT VISION AND PRACTICE at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/2952/gohitvip/contents.html _______ Get your free @ address at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 1999 Report Share Posted July 1, 1999 Shree Krishnamurthy has very well presented the two aspects of Dharma - sammanya and visheshhaNa That is the reason why we donot have absolute doos and don't and dharma is tought in terms of stories of how the wise people have handled when there is conflict between the values. >"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk >advaitin >advaitin >Re: Digression from Astavakra >Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:45:00 -0700 (PDT) > >"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk > > >This is a reply to just one question of Madhava. The question is about >Rama's apparently inconsistent response(arising on two occasions) to the >dharma of satisfying his kingdom's citizens. We have to note that there >are always two levels of dharma. One is called sAmAnya dharma and the >other is called viSesha dharma. Whenever the two contradict each other, it >is the viSesha dharma that one has to obey. In the AyodhyA kANDa when the >citizens cried to him to return, his viSesha dharma was >pitr-vAkya-paripAlana. In the Yuddha kANDa when he asked Sita to enter the >Fire, his viSesha dharma was his duty as a king to satisfy his citizens >and the sAmAnya dharma in this case was to be considerate to the worman, >his wife! >Incidentally it is the viSesha dharma that made the King Suddhodana to >abandon his wife and kingdom and retire to the solitude of the forest to >find out His Enlightenment, in response to the call from within Him. It >is the viSesha dharma of the Inner call that made Narendra take to a >discipleship of Sri Ramakrishna, rather than attend to his family >responsibilities which really needed him. sUkshmah-parama-durjneyah satAm >dharmah.! >PraNAms to all advaitins. >Prof.V. Krishnamurthy > >=== >Prof. V. Krishnamurthy >You are invited to visit my latest book entitled GEMS FROM THE OCEAN OF >HINDU THOUGHT VISION AND PRACTICE at >http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/2952/gohitvip/contents.html >_______ > >Get your free @ address at > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >Looking to expand your world? > >ONElist has 180,000 e-mail communities from which to choose! > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.