Guest guest Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 , gautham karthik <manalianamika wrote: > > Srigurubhyo namaha. > > >According to what Agama or tantra? She can be thought as a strI or >a pumAn or as neutral according to the sUta samhita. None of the >shastra-s prescribe mediatating devI as Allah or Christ.> > > Is Christ not pumAn then?? Is everyone seeing this? Not that I cannot respond to this but I wanted to see our members respond to this. So I request members to please reply to Gautham on this. Even madness hould have some limits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 > Is everyone seeing this? Not that I cannot respond to this but I wanted to see our members respond to this. > So I request members to please reply to Gautham on this. Satish, Since you asked others to respond: (at this stage, mentally fill in here the customary stuff about not taking this reply personally. Though it is personal. And excuse the gratuitous advice.) i actually think Gautam's question is perfectly valid. In fact, your statement: " None of the shastra-s prescribe mediatating devI as Allah or Christ " reminds me exactly of some creeds which believe in a fossilized set of beliefs : " The Quran does not mention Krsna - hence none shall worship Krsna. " Of course, they take it a step ahead. But you seem to be sharing the same platform. ____Start gratuitous advice___ i reckon that it's more about how you are communicating than what you are communicating that is ticking off people (and this is from someone who is professionally associated with the media industry). And is giving you these kind of responses. For example, i interpret the statement : " even madness has its limits " as an irritating personal remark. And irrespective of who is at the the receiving end of that statement, i get put off. But of course, that might just be me. Your reactions seem like you think our entire religion will be wiped out real soon, like day-after tomorrow. Others here have more confidence. It's a question of approach. And i think we need to recognize that there will never be uniformity in the approach or underlying thought process. There will always be people who think that they need to go all guns blazing and convince (pressurize?) others about the imminent threat to Sanatana Dharma. And there will always be the other party who thinks that doing their svadharma (anuSthana, svAdhyAyapravacana etc.) with their best efforts will beget the desired results. And then the final majority (my estimate is 80% Hindus) - the fence sitters who are confused about what exactly to do. The tragedy is that the way you react is going to put off this 80% (many of them educated in missionary schools, ha!) Fact is, most Hindus are uncomfortable with the christist/islamicist creeds. But for various reasons, they are equally uncomfortable when statements like " mohammad is a paedophile " are made. To top it all when you say things like " ...then your mahAsvami is wrong " you can be guaranteed that your audience has started dissapearing. And when you rubbish the fact (yes, it is a fact - unless you dispute solid biographical - even if hagiographical - evidence) that Ramakrsna Paramahamsa worshipped Christ/Allah you are appearing rabidly blind. As in other situations, my personal role models have been the ShankarAchAryas. i have learnt a lot from the discussions the svAmIs have had with people from other religions. On the one hand, they have categorically talked about the non-eternality of other religions and have firmly stood their ground on that front. For example, Sri Abhinava VidyAtirtha's admonishings to a Christian priest who wanted to establish a church in Srngeri. But at the same time have recognized the fact that there are people who need to follow certain other faiths and will do so - and should do so! as long as it doesn't interfere with ours. You spoke somewhere about being shocked and elsewhere about rolling on the floor laughing when some member unfortunately expressed his thoughts. Just to let you know whenever you say something like " Your mahA svAmi is totally wrong then. You dont need to be genius to see why he is wrong " i had the latter reaction. The context is important. ____End gratuitous advice______________ ____Begin apology for being personal___ ____End apology for being personal_____ , " Satish " <satisharigela wrote: > > , gautham karthik <manalianamika@> wrote: > > > > Srigurubhyo namaha. > > > > >According to what Agama or tantra? She can be thought as a strI or >a pumAn or as neutral according to the sUta samhita. None of the >shastra-s prescribe mediatating devI as Allah or Christ.> > > > > Is Christ not pumAn then?? > > Is everyone seeing this? Not that I cannot respond to this but I wanted to see our members respond to this. > > So I request members to please reply to Gautham on this. > > Even madness hould have some limits! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Namaste All Though I ama Devi Baktha I take a broader look at the world Amma is for all. She has different names Just for example xians speak of Mary in my view that corresponds to our Mariamman in the soutn,Maria is also such a corruption This is just one example PBK --- On Sat, 6/6/09, Satish <satisharigela wrote: Satish <satisharigela Re: Ambaaji's Protection - A request Saturday, June 6, 2009, 5:51 PM @ .com, gautham karthik <manalianamika@ ...> wrote: > > Srigurubhyo namaha. > > >According to what Agama or tantra? She can be thought as a strI or >a pumAn or as neutral according to the sUta samhita. None of the >shastra-s prescribe mediatating devI as Allah or Christ.> > > Is Christ not pumAn then?? Is everyone seeing this? Not that I cannot respond to this but I wanted to see our members respond to this. So I request members to please reply to Gautham on this. Even madness hould have some limits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 , " Sharan Sharma " <sharan_sharma wrote: I think large portions of your mail are quite appropriate. i did not take this personally but look upon your feedback as being constructive. > i reckon that it's more about how you are communicating than what >you are communicating that is ticking off people (and this is from >someone who is professionally associated with the media industry). >And is giving you these kind of responses. I think you are correct and many thanks for the advice. I will definitely keep this in mind when posting from now on. > In fact, your statement: > " None of the shastra-s prescribe mediatating devI as Allah or >Christ " reminds me exactly of some creeds which believe in a >fossilized set of beliefs : " The Quran does not mention Krsna - >hence none shall worship Krsna. " > Of course, they take it a step ahead. But you seem to be sharing >the same platform. While I agree many things in your post I think this is out of place. We have nothing to do with the practices of other religions. we neither need to denounce them nor praise them unless they bother us in some way or the other. Forgot the prescription of teh shAstra where is the need to bring in other religions into the picture when discussing practices related to our devata-s? It is ok to compare with pagan deities because of some similarties but you know that the Abrhmaic relgions do not share our beleiefs. > Your reactions seem like you think our entire religion will be >wiped out real soon, like day-after tomorrow. Others here have more >confidence. My view is that, realistically looking at this, at the current rate it might take a couple of centuries but who can tell for sure. But if you find it hard to completely curb the attack now what chance do we have after a significant amount of population joins the other camp? > And there will always be the other party who thinks that doing >their svadharma (anuSthana, svAdhyAyapravacana etc.) with their best >efforts will beget the desired results. Sometimes getting into the detail will help. As an example, imagine that I refrained from stopping my cousin's converting to Christianity and just focused on my daily rituals. Can you or some one tell me how is my performance of my rites going to stop my cousin's conversion? I performed my anuShThAna then took time to explain my cousin, clarify to whatever little extent i can, some of his doubts which eventually turned away his mind from Christianity. Now we can be sure that his infant daughter will definitely not grow up to be a Christian..so on and so forth. All that is required is spending some time and effort on this. The main reason for my ire was that some people who are just lethargic to do these things come up with fancy all is good explanations to remove their guilt. > The tragedy is that the way you react is going to put off this 80% >>(many of them educated in missionary schools, ha!) Thank you. I will make note of this and keep in mind. > To top it all when you say things like " ...then your mahAsvami is >wrong " you can be guaranteed that your audience has started >dissapearing. I understand what you say, but more on that below. > And when you rubbish the fact (yes, it is a fact - unless you >dispute solid biographical - even if hagiographical - evidence) that >Ramakrsna Paramahamsa worshipped Christ/Allah you are appearing >rabidly blind. I read this in the book " Gospel of rAmAkrishna " or something very long back while in school but even at that time it looked unconvincing. So when I asked some gurus and they are either silent or ignored the question while others just smiled. A smile which seemed to indicate .. that is just BS. Other siddha puruSha-s that I came across seemed to indicate disbeleif when I mentioned this and probably even thought I was just playing tricks on them by mentioning this. There were a few sanyasins who explained...yes because all religions are same ....etc etc but with a sense of discomfort(the sort of ..since he asked we should give some answer) which is clearly noticeable in their tone. This is the background of my rubbishing this.. > But at the same time have recognized the fact that there are people >who need to follow certain other faiths and will do so - and should >do so! as long as it doesn't interfere with ours. I did not say anything different -- did I? > You spoke somewhere about being shocked and elsewhere about rolling >on the floor laughing when some member unfortunately expressed his >thoughts. > Just to let you know whenever you say something like " Your mahA >svAmi is totally wrong then. You dont need to be genius to see why he > is wrong " i had the latter reaction. The context is important. I still stand by this. And since you responded to this, I request to reply on this point. I reproduce here what Ganapathyji posted. may be you can provide the context of mahAsvAmi's statement so that the confusion is removed. --- > Maha Swamy furhter?confirms that if one belongs to christianity or >Islam and truly believes and follow it,that person?is also entitled >and reaches?to Brahma >Lokam. ( Voice Of God 6Th part ). If you are others are so convinced by this statement of HH paramAchArya, can you or someone explain how a true beleiver and follower of these two religions reaches brahma lokam? A good approach to this would be to define what is brahma lokam and how the practices of these two religions help those followers in attaining it. We will take it from there and see whether you need to roll laughing or get a shock...haha :-)) 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.