Christianity/Islam & Vaisnavism

[Guest guest]

HKS, Surya and raja_ram prabhus,

Dandavats. I need some clarification here on the subject of

paurusheya/apaurusheya, role of rishis and acharya, disciplic

succession, written/oral scripture, demigods, etc. I would also like

to respond to some points made.

 

HKS:

> I am simply referring to the point that Christians, Muslims, etc

> follow paurusheya granthas, if we are to believe what they say

about

> their own scriptures. In contrast, Vaishnavism is founded on

> apaurusheya granthas.

 

I need a clearer explanation of this point from the Vedic view.

Don't we have access to the apauresheya shruti *through* certain

rishis (drashTa)?

 

For comparison, take Islam: The distinction is made between the

Qur'an, the Qudsi Hadis, and the normal Hadis. The Qur'an is

considered the word of God, and it is explicitly stated that it is

meant to *restore* what has become corrupt in the other Semitic

religions. Muhammad never said he was making ipse dixit claims that

overturn anything. Qudsi Hadis are the sayings of the Prophet which

are still directly the word of God, but not through the angel

Jibreel. And the other Hadis are the sayings of the Prophet which he

said were his own explanations and words of guidance, and not to be

considered the eternal word of God. The Prophet himself is referred

to as Rasool -- *transmitter* of God's word delivered by the "angel"

Jibreel. Also, a difference is made between Anbiya (Prophets) and

the Imaams -- great acharyas who descend in every "century" to

correct the course and maintain the truth under changing social

circumstances, though more and more people will go astray.

 

Isn't there some parallel here to the Vedic idea? Each

section of shruti has a drashtaa (transmitting sage), chandas

(metre), devataa (demigod), etc... Each of these six points has an

equivalent in Qur'anic hermeneutics -- Many Soorahs start with a

cryptic mantra (like alif laam meem). They have distinctive metres,

and great mystical significance is attached to this by scholars in

parampara. Great importance is attached to parampara itself

(tawatur). Lots is spoken about the "jinn" and the "angels", and

their intercession between God and man. Et cetera. Similar

comparisons can be made between the idea of Anbiya/Imam and

different kinds of Saktyavesha Avataras, etc.

 

So what exactly is the meaning of paurusheya versus apauresheya?

Vyasadeva compiled the Vedas, but we believe He is a literary

incarnation of God. But if some Christians make a similar claim

about Christ (and Christ only -- not all souls), then it is wrong?

What is it I'm missing here? What did Lord Caitanya mean when he

said that Islamic scripture was man-made?

 

> > There are many impersonalist sects within Islam ("impersonalist"

to some degree or the other), but there are also some very very few

true 'Vaisnava' ones. The commentary by Nursi that I linked in the

previous post is one such. In fact, in that line of disciplic

succession, the doctrine is pretty much achintya bheda-abheda.

>

> But these are most likely syncretic traditions which have departed

> from the orthodoxy.

 

No. Said Nursi was given the title Bediuzzaman by a council of ulema

from all over the Ottoman empire. He was put through a tunnel of

fire, almost exactly like the ashta-avadhanis or shata-avadhanis we

have in India, and his precocious talent was recognized as the

elderly ulema bowed down to the teenager Nursi.

 

I think there's a general impression among Hindus that Islamic

theology is pretty crude and lacks sophistication. I personally was

surprised when I did some serious reading -- under the tutelage of

some Turkish friends who are disciples of Fethullah Gulen, a

disciple of Nursi, and not from some academic Western viewpoint

(which also protrays Hinduism in ridiculous ways).

 

Of course, most ordinary Muslims will have a very basic, sketchy

idea of philosophy, just like most ordinary Hindus or Christians.

Especially today, when the commentaries of Muslim Brotherhood and

Maududi are increasingly popular amongst youngsters, deviant

doctrines are becoming standard even amongst the new "ulema", which

is being forged in the madrassas established with Saudi money and

Pakistani manpower.

 

> Whatever the case may be, his point of view is pretty clear. Srila

> Prabhpada did not have to institute the skeletal beginnings of

> varnaashrama-dharma, but he did so and wanted to continue doing so

> even in his final years. External? Yes, but it is still extremely

> important.

 

I agree. I didn't say that the external forms are not important. But

they are a problem when followers become attached to the empty hive,

which is the case with most religious traditions. Prabhupada wanted

everyone to taste the honey.

 

raja_ram prabhu:

>Jesus was and is considered God by Christians.

>

> "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the

beginning

> and the end" (Rev. 22: 13)

>

> "I and my Father are one" (John 10:31)

 

Not by all Christians, at no point in history. The origins of the

split can be traced back to the debate between the people who put

together the Nicene Creed, the group of "Arians", and the "semi-

Arians". Please look this up. BTW, these quotes above are taken out

of context, just like Advaitists do with the Upanishads. By no means

does the Bible consistently lay down that Christ is identical to the

Supreme Personality of the "Heavenly Father".

 

> If Sai Baba is to be considered a cheat because he / his followers

> claim to be God, why should you not consider Jesus to be a cheat

for

> claiming to be God too?

 

Sai Baba says that ultimately everyone is God. Even the Roman

Catholics don't say that. They say this only about Jesus. Lots of

other differences. But in any case, we didn't say that Churchianity

doesn't cheat the people. We are talking about Christ and Muhammad,

and seeing if there is a Vaishnava hidden somewhere beneath the

prevalent dogma(s).

 

And as I said, from the earliest times Christians have not agreed on

the idea that "Jesus is God". Of course, a major portion of

organized Churchianity, under the Roman empire, adopted the Nicene

Creed.

 

Also, a point about "Jesus/Muhammad being the only way for all

time": Obviously, the Arians and semi-Arian Christians would have a

different view about that. Moreover, the Muslims did NOT seem to

have that view in early times, but that view hardened after

prolonged bickering with Christians. There seems to have been some

osmosis of ass-like mentality over the Byzantine border, and slowly

the Islamic dogma hardened under fire from Christian fanaticism. But

even today, it is more respectful of other *previous* prophets than

Xianity.

 

> All the three semitic faiths and branches, sub-branches thereof

> condemn idolatory in the strongest terms. It is one of the ten

> commandments.

 

It may be worthwhile to see what they really mean by "idolatry".

Perhaps the most worshipped idol in the whole world is the Sang-e-

Aswad inside the Ka'aba in Mecca. The Qur'an says not to worship any

idol besides God. This seems to me a very clear instruction that God

should be the only object of our consciousness. We cannot worship at

the altar of our senses, etc.

 

Also take into consideration the historical circumstances in which

certain prophets decided to do away with temple-worship in order to

preserve monotheism. Apparently idolatry was becoming a business,

and was giving way to polytheism and pantheism. (Just look at many

pilgrimage-towns in India, and how caste-brahmin business interests

and rivalry have caused such towns to give rise to all kinds of

sectarian fables and/or wishy-washy Mayavada "compromises").

 

In our tradition also, we believe that deity-worship belongs to a

previous yuga, and is not the yuga-dharma in this Age. Only japa and

kirtan is recommended in this Age. This is also the explicit

instruction of the Qur'an, and the Bible. In the Qur'an, tasbih

(chanting the Names or Allah) is considered the most suprerior form

of meditation and worship.

 

>Also God is formless in all the threee faiths. How is

> it personal and of all vaishnavism?

 

In my last post to HKS prabhu, I said that impersonalism is clearly

present within all 3 faiths, but that there is the odd sect --

always with a very prominent emphasis on disciplic succession --

which is NOT impersonal. There are also descriptions within Hebrew

scripture of the form of the Supreme God, His dark hair moving in

the breeze, etc. Divine sensuality is found within all 3 faiths.

 

So my point was not to treat these traditions as monolithic. Prophet

Muhammad said that, at the "time of Armageddon" there would be 72

Islamic sects, 73 Christian sects, and 71 Hebrew, and only one of

each would be following a true doctrine.

 

>If saivism and saktam are tamasic

> and hence not vaishnavism, how can some thing lower than that be

> considered vaishnavism?

 

Again, in my previous post, I clearly said that the Semitic faiths

are in a *different* guna from Vaishnavism. But by "Vaishnavism" we

mean a basic understanding of God, the individual soul, and their

eternal relationship. I don't know why you are confusing terms here.

 

Your servant,

Carl.

[Guest guest]

HKS >> In contrast, Vaishnavism is founded on apaurusheya granthas.

 

Carl

>For comparison, take Islam: The distinction is made between

>the Qur'an [considered the word of God],

>the Qudsi Hadis [the sayings of the Prophet which are still directly the word of God],

>and the normal Hadis [Prophet’s own explanations/not the word of God].

 

The apaurusheya nature of Vedas distinguishes them from scriptures of other religions. The Semitic religions depend on texts delivered by prophets, who are believed to be transmitting the word of God. However, God's existence and perfection and the integrity of transmitters are all assumptions and these involve *extensive *blind *faith. In contrast, there is *no* element of blind faith or belief in holding that the Vedas are not flawed, as they are apaurusheya. This point is addressed in the Advaita and Vaishnava commentaries to the opening sutras of Vedanta-sutra 2.1 and very elaborately in Madhvacharya’s Vishnu-tattva-vinirnaya and its commentaries. The integrity of Veda and its teachings of dharma (culminating in bhagavata dharma) is logically and uniquely full-proof.

 

> I need a clearer explanation of this point from the Vedic view. Don't we have access to the apauresheya shruti *through* certain rishis (drashTa)?

 

>Isn't there some parallel here to the Vedic idea? Each

>section of shruti has a drashtaa (transmitting sage),

>chandas (metre), devataa (demigod), etc...

>Each of these six points has an

>equivalent in Qur'anic hermeneutics

 

First of all, I think there are smrti texts with the same qualifications, so these are not unique to sruti. Secondly, this epistemological hierarchy is based on the assumption that Allah is the Supreme Lord and that his word is an independent pramana. Lord Caitanya never said that the words of God were such. Rather, He states that the sruti is the pradhana pramana. Therefore, the Semitic “evidences†self-prove their invalidity.

 

>What did Lord Caitanya mean when he >said that Islamic scripture was man-made?

 

He says that specifically in relation to the Quran. The answer is twofold: (1) it is not sruti and (2) it is subject to the four defects of its compilers who were conditioned souls, therefore it is not even valid as smrti (valid smrti being consistent with sruti).

 

>The Prophet himself is referred to as Rasool -- *transmitter* of God's word delivered by the "angel" Jibreel.

 

See all the assumptions: Allah exists, he is the all-perfect, all-knowing Supreme Lord (what an incredible assumption!), he gave his words, Gabriel delivered these, and then Muhammad transmitted them. What guarantee do we have these that all these three persons are not faulty? No self-respecting Vedantist can accept all this.

 

>So what exactly is the meaning of paurusheya versus apauresheya?

>Vyasadeva compiled the Vedas, but we believe He is a literary

>incarnation of God. But if some Christians make a similar claim

>about Christ (and Christ only -- not all souls), then it is wrong?

>What is it I'm missing here?

 

The Jainas and Buddhists have similar claims about their founders. Where is the end to human imagination about the perfection of their particular founders? The Semites are no different. When followers of Srila Prabhupada place his words out of context of Vedic epistemology, their reasonings are also faulty like this.

 

>The Qur'an is and it is explicitly stated that it is meant to

>*restore* what has become corrupt in the other Semitic religions.

 

If it is true that the Quran is eternally inscribed in the tablets in heaven, then corruption of the other Semitic religions is such an important spiritual fact, that God has already prepared eternal verses damning supposedly corrupt Christians and Jews *before* the historical occurrence of these religions? Why is the author of the Quran so obsessed with them even prior to their existence?

 

Gerald Surya