Fw: TEACHERS

[Guest guest]

Qualities of Religious Teachers from Hindu Dharma

www.kamakoti.org.

Today students of philosophy and seekers all over the world accept Advaita or

non-dualism as the supreme system of thought. Since you call me a teacher of

Advaita you will naturally expect me to say that it is because of the

excellence of this Vedantic system that it has so many followers.

But, on reflection, the question arises as to whether all people do indeed

to non-dualism. The world over people follow so many different

religions, to so many different philosophical systems. People

belonging to the same country go from one faith to another. During the time of

the Buddha many adherents of the Vedic religion embraced his system. In later

centuries many Hindus became converts to Christianity or Islam. Jainas have

become Vaisnavas with the name of "Pustimargins". During the time of Sri

Ramanuja a number of people went over to the Visistadvaita (qualified

non-dualism) fold. Similarly, Sri Madhva's school of Dvaita or dualism also

gained many adherents. When Adi Sankara held sway, non-Vedic religions like

Buddhism and Jainism suffered a decline. Those following the path of karma

then- the karma marga is a part of the Vedic religion- returned to Advaita

which indeed is a wholly Vedic system.

Why did religions that had flourished at one time go under later? Do people

really follow a religion or to a philosophical system after making a

proper inquiry into the same? Perhaps only thinking people embrace a religion

after an assessment of its doctrines. The same cannot be said about the

generality of people who any faith. If it is claimed that the common people

accept a religion for its concepts, they must be able to speak about the and

tell us how these doctrines are superior to those of other religions. The fact

is that the vast majority of the followers of any faith know precious little

about the beliefs or doctrines on which it is founded.

I believe that the growth or expansion of a religion is in no way related to its

doctrines. The common people do not worry about questions of philosophy. A great

man of exemplary character and qualities appears on the scene- a great man of

compassion who creates serenity all round- and people are drawn to him. They

become converts to his religion in the firm belief that the doctrines preached

by him, whatever they be, must be good. On the other hand, a religion will

decline and decay if its spokesmen, however eloquent they are in expounding its

concepts, are found to be guilty of lapses in character and conduct. It is

difficult to give an answer to the question why people flock to religions that

have contradictory beliefs. But if we examine the history of some religions-

how at one time people gloried in them and how these faiths later perished- we

shall be able to know the reason. At the same time, it would be possible for us

to find out how at the first place they attracted such a large following. If you

find out how a religion declined you will be able to know how it had first grown

and prospered.

The decay of a religion in any country could be attributed to the lack of

character of its leaders and of the people constituting the establishment

responsible for its growth.

When we listen to the story of the Buddha, when we see again and again his

images that seem to exude the milk of human kindness, compassion and

tranquility spring in our own hearts and we feel respectful towards him. People

must have been attracted to him thus during his time. How, in later times, there

was a moral decline in the Buddhist monastic establishments will be seen from

MattaVilasam written by Mahendra Pallava. This work shows how Buddhism came to

be on the decline and demonstrates that the rise or fall of a religion is

dependent on the quality and character of its spokesmen.

After the Buddha came AdiSankara to whom people were drawn for his incomparable

goodness and greatness. Later appeared Ramanuja and Madhva who, in their

personal lives, stood out as men of lofty character. They too were able to

gather round them a large following and extend the sway of their respective

systems. Recently came Gandhiji as a man of peace and sacrifice. Millions of

people accepted his teachings which indeed came to constitute religion,

"Gandhism". If a system owes its growth to the excellence of the philosophical

principles on which it is based, Gandhism ought to be at the peak of its glory

today. But what do we see in reality? The Gandhian way of life as practised now

is all too obvious to need any comment.

The question here is not about the religions that try to draw people to

themselves either through force or the lure of money. It is but natural for

ignorant people to become converts to a new religion through rites like baptism

after receiving various inducements and "social rewards". It was in this manner,

they say, that Christianity extended its influence during times of famine. It is

also said that Islam was propagated with the sword, that masses of people were

forced to join it by force of arms. Here again there is proof of the fact that

that the common people do not adopt a religion for the sake of any principle or

out of any interest in its philosophical system. There is one matter to

consider. The padres [Christian missionaries] converted mainly people living in

the ceris [that is people on the outskirts of a village or town]. Their usual

procedure was to tell these poor folk that they were kept suppressed in the

religion of their birth and offer them inducements in the form of free

education and medical treatment and the promise of a better status.

Not all, however, fell to such lures. However much they seemed to be suppressed

in the religion of their birth, many of them refused to be converted, ignoring

the advantages held out. Why? One reason was their good-naturedness and the

second was respect for the great men who have appeared in our religion from

time to time. They told themselves: "Let us continue to remain in the religion

of our forefathers, the religion that has produced so many great men."

We must not censure those who convert people to their faith. They believe that

their religion religion represents the highest truth. That is why they practise

conversion by compulsion or by placing various temptations before people

belonging to other faiths. Let us take it that they try to bring others into

their fold because they believe that that is the only means of a man's

salvation. Let us also presume that they believe that there is nothing wrong in

carrying out conversion either by force or through the offer of inducements

because they think that they are doing it for the well-being of the people they

seek to convert.

If religions that resort neither to force nor to money power have grown, it is

solely because of the noble qualities of their teachers. Outwards guise alone

is not what constitutes the qualities of the representative or the spokesman of

a religion. Whatever the persuasion to which he belongs he must be utterly

selfless, bear ill-will towards none, in addition to being morally blameless.

He must live an austere life, and must be calm and compassionate by nature.

Such a man will be able to help those who come to him by removing their

shortcomings and dispelling the evil in them.

Producing men of such noble qualities from amongst us is the way to make our

religion flourish. It is not necessary to carry on propaganda against other

religions. The need is for representatives, for preceptors, capable of

providing an example through their very life of the teachings of our religion.

It is through such men that, age after age, sanatana dharma has been sustained

as a living force. Hereafter too it will be through them that it will continue

to remain a living force.

If a militant proselytiser appears on the scene, I shall not be able to gather a

force to combat him. Nor can I spend crores and crores like those religious

propagandists who build schools and hospitals to entice people into their

faith. Even if I were able to do so, conversions carried out in such a manner

would be neither true nor enduring. Suppose a group comes up that has more

muscle and money power; it will undo my work with its superior force and

greater monetary strength. We should not, therefore, depend on such outward

forces to promote our religion but instead rely on our Atmic strength to raise

ourselves. In this manner our religion will flourish without any need for

aggressive propaganda or the offer of inducements.

At present many intellectuals abroad talk in glowing terms of Advaita, may be

because of its lofty character as a philosophical system. They come to the

school of Vedanta after examining it and after being inwardly convinced of its

truth. But the common people need the example of a great soul, a great life

[not abstract principles].

A man of peace and compassion, a man of wisdom and self-sacrifice, must arise from our midst.