Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 18, 2000 Report Share Posted June 18, 2000 From another list: > The reason I asked about Quran/bible is : They preach > intolerance. How can we equate that to Hinduism. Saying > all human beings are equal is one thing, and saying > hindus are same as others is another. Hinduism is THE > most tolerant religion and let us not mislead people. In the seventeenth shapter of Bhagavad Gita Krishna explains the divisions of faith in human society. He says that due to contamination of the three modes of nature, people's faiths are of different levels or qualities. Some people are heavily influenced by the lower modes of nature, tamas and rajas (ignorance and passion), and as such their faith is a reflection of this. Influence by ignorance and passion will result in an intolerant and blind system of beliefs. I am not identifying any particular religion in this regard, this is simply a system explained in Bhagavad Gita. It can equally refer to a hindu. If a Hindu is influenced by the lower modes of nature, they will also be intolerant, violent, and blind in their beliefs. Such is the case of some people who perpetrate crimes on others in the name of God. Killing Christian missionaries, burning churches, etc., are clear examples of Hindus influenced by tamas and rajas. Likewise in every religion there will be people of this nature. The difference with Hinduism is the very system of the religion is designed for people less influenced by these lower modes, and there is an occasional exception to this. Whereas in some other religions, the religious system is designed for those within the lower modes, and they have an occasional exception of someone influenced by sattva guna (goodness). That is why these religions are referred to as mleccha-dharma in our sanskrit texts. J.N.Das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tattvadarshi Posted March 10, 2003 Report Share Posted March 10, 2003 Should Islam be considered religion in the mode of ignorance? I ask this because many of the edicts in the Koran and in the Hadith (the life of Muhammed) call for the killing of non-Muslims. Craig Winn has studied Islam extensively and says that in order for a Muslim to be a good person he has to be a "bad Muslim." In other words, peaceful, tolerant, or enlightened Muslims are those who deviate from the pure Islamic teachings. People like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic fanatics are the real followers of the Islamic path. http://www.teawithterrorists.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2003 Report Share Posted March 10, 2003 "Should Islam be considered religion in the mode of ignorance? " yes. it is so obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2003 Report Share Posted March 10, 2003 "Such is the case of some people who perpetrate crimes on others in the name of God. Killing Christian missionaries, burning churches, etc., are clear examples of Hindus influenced by tamas and rajas." and what is so holy about the grand plan and effort of christian missionaries to wipe out all the hindus and hinduims right in their own land? first they say, every country must be democartic. then they say now in democarcy we must be allowed to preach/convert. wow! what a plan to invade and convert. and they eat cows and drink wine. jai radhe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anveshan Posted March 10, 2003 Report Share Posted March 10, 2003 ========================================================== > The reason I asked about Quran/bible is : They preach > intolerance. How can we equate that to Hinduism. Saying > all human beings are equal is one thing, and saying > hindus are same as others is another. Hinduism is THE > most tolerant religion and let us not mislead people ========================================================== You are right. It is the combination of the gunas that makes one tolerant, intolerant or indifferent(inthe 'nirmama' and 'nirahamkara' sense). But those who made theologies and religeous philosophies were subject to these gunas and hence the difference in tolerance levels. There is no doubt 'Hinduism' is the most tolerant of all 'religeous' philosophies. Never classified anyone as pagans, heathens or kafirs. Never imposed any taxes and levies on its non-believers. Gave tax-free lands to construct mosques and churches. For all the rivers lead to the Ocean. But no religion was more intolerant to its own adherents than Hinduism. Enslaved, tortured and persecuted the brute majority and treated them worse than cattle. Access to place of worship and books of knowledge were denied to them. I sometimes wonder, if they were given access to knowledge, how much more we Indians could have contributed to humanity through the millennia. How many more Dhanwantaries, Charakas, Susrutas and Varahamihiras could have contributed to the advent of humanity! If anybody is saying Hindus are intolerant, because a Babri Masjid is demolished or wanted a temple inside Qutab Minar, they are absolutely wrong. These were barbaric cultural onslaughts. You can see very old Pali and sanscipt inscriptions inside the 'Qutab Minar' which clearly tells us who had built this vijaya stambha. A person without prejudiced views and with his own naked eye can observe and conclude what the Ayodhya or Bhojshala was. No expert archaeologist is needed. The question is why we became subjugated? Why we, one sixth of humanity this time or that time, surrendered to a band of armed scoundrels? Why we let Karnavati became Ahmedabad, started writing the great Sindhi language from left to right? Why we were silent spectators when Somnath was razed to the ground and a Babri Masjid came up at Ayodhya? Because we were a divided lot. Because the main stram 'cream' who occured from the nabhi, right and left hands were enjoying and torturing 90%, the nishads, the chandalas and the panchamas... We welcomed the invaders with a lofty philosophy to our own peril. In that shikhandine 'tolerance', the twice born ones were quite oblivious of what Srimad Gita was all about. They were happy as far as their zamindaries were not seized upon. And even if it were seized, no despised panchama came to their rescue. The result? When Kalu Ram 'Chamar' became Habeebullah Khan, they called him 'Khan Sahib'. The poor untouchable cattle was elated. And the flocks joined new herds..... Now we sit and wail, but not ready to look inwards and introspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narayanidd Posted March 13, 2003 Report Share Posted March 13, 2003 My dear vaisnava, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! mAM ca yo 'vyabhicAreNa bhakti-yogena sevate sa guNAn samatItyaitAn brahma-bhUyAya kalpate One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman. "This verse is a reply to Arjuna's third question: What is the means of attaining to the transcendental position? As explained before, the material world is acting under the spell of the modes of material nature. One should not be disturbed by the modes of material nature; instead of putting his consciousness into such activities, he may transfer his consciousness to Krsna activities. Krsna activities are known as bhakti-yoga--always acting for Krsna...So if one engages himself in the service of Krsna or his plenary expansions with unfailling determination, although these modes of material nature are very difficult to overcome, one can overcome them easily... One who surrenders unto Krsna at once surmounts the influence of the modes of material nature." -B.G. Ch.14 text 26 What is the best way to perform devotional service in this age of kali? Chant Hare Krsna!! Even though there is so much religious intolerance around the world the louder and longer we chant the more others will hear and slowly become purified. Just like Prahlad Maharaja. He was subject to the very embodiement of religious intolerance (his own father), yet still he chanted. What happened? Even though Hiranyakasipu didn't become a vaisnava, because of Prahlad's wonderful chanting, he was able to see the Lord face to face. He was even touched by the Lord's lotus hands when Nrsmhadava riped Him apart! Can you just imagine if hundreds of thousands of devotees chanted with such ardor? What a golrious time it would be!! Your servant, Narayani d.d. 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.