id33803827 pdfMachine by Broadgun Software - a great PDF writer! - a great PDF creator! - http://www.pdfmachine.com http://www.broadgun.com
Reply to the critical comments of Mr. Frank Gaetno Morales ‘ ’ ‘ ’ on the so-called Neo-Hinduism and Radical Universalism .
Mr. Frank Gaetano Morales observed that Hinduism never supported the “ ” idea of the so-called Radical Universalism claiming that all religions are the same. But he must know that Hinduism is the most ancient and universal religion which took the origin millions of years ago, even before Christ was born and Buddha made his appearance. At the time Hinduism took its origins there was absolutely no religion which existed in the world. So it became universal. It is only with the advent of Buddhism in 500 B.C. and Christianity 2006 years ago, other religions like Jainism, Sikhism, Zorastrianism, Zen Buddhism, Chintoism etc. raised their heads in accordance with the preachings of the respective gurus who are treated as gods by their followers. Even within India, many great gurus came on the scene after Christ and Mohammed established their respective religions through their ardent devotees. They all started preaching as though theirs is the only God of their religion and nobody else. For example, Christians treat Jesus Christ only as their god and nobody else; Muslims treat Allah as the only unseen God who can give deliverance. The followers of Zoraster consider him as their only God and nobody else. Also they started converting others to their respective religions by hook or crook. Simultaneously a sort of dogmatism and fundamentalism is also developed by the followers of all these religions. At this juncture Sri Ramakrishna came in the 19th century. He was born in an orthodox Hindu family worshiping Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva. At that time the British was ruling our country and consequently Christian Fathers came to India in large numbers and not knowing anything about Hinduism practised by the people o India, they started preaching about Jesus Christ and converting people into their own religion (Christianity) at the cost of Hinduism. They were even giving some monetary benefits to the poor people of India to attract them towards Christianity, as is done even now. Seeing the onslaughts of Christianity and also Buddhism and other religions on Hinduism, after realizing the Truths of Hinduism, Sri Ramakrishna for the first time practised Christianity and Mohammadanism to find out the truth of these religions and established that these religions also are as true as Hinduism ‘ and for the first time vindicated the Vedic dictum, Truth is one, but sages call it in many ways (Ekam sat viprah bahuda vadanti). His chief disciple, Swami Vivekananda, while preaching Hinduism in America and Europe also
- 1 - explained this concept in a broad way, and this was followed by many other ‘ saints of modern India. So this is not a non-Hindu idea and Radical ’ Universalism as is coined by Mr. Morales. It is already there in the Vedas and it has become universal. But there was no necessity at that time (when other religions were not in existence) to dilate it further. It is only when the necessity came, Sri Ramakrishna explained it in so many words, that too after experimenting with the truth in the other two major religions of the world, viz, Christianity and Islam. If other religions do not accept this idea of the same Truth in all religions, it is because of their gross ignorance Thus you can say that Hinduism is the most broad-minded religion in the world.
It is no doubt true that modern Indians do not find time to understand Hinduism in its depths and so they are not able to influence their children about the greatness and broad-mindedness of Hinduism. The modern Indian children succumbing to the influence of the material West started indulging in gross material pursuits and do not like to know the deeper truths of Hinduism and some of them being in the West are mostly influenced by Christian Fathers in the absence of any Indian satgurus there and begin to abuse Hinduism. So, it is not proper on the part of Mr. Morales to attribute ‘ ’ – all this to Neo-Hinduism or Radical universalism the terms coined by him to conveniently make all sorts of derogatory remarks against Hinduism practised and followed in modern times. In fact, he used big and strong derogatory words that are available in English dictionary to abuse Hinduism as it is followed now putting in the mouth of modern saints and Hindu ‘ ’ scholars that all religions are the same without even authenticating it. In fact it is his own intellectual concoction, without understanding the purport ‘ ’ of the Vedic dictum Ekam sat Viprah bahuda vadanti which does not at all mean that all religions are same. He did all this through his intellectual perversions and pre-conceived notions.
We strongly object to the derogatory words used by Mr. Morales that ‘ parents themselves are not to be blamed for espousing this non-Hindu idea to their children. Rather, much of the blame is to be placed at the feet of ’ today s ill-equipped teachers and leaders, the supposed guardians of ’ authentic dharma teachings . This is utterly a freakish nonsense and is a highly irresponsible remark of the writer using the freedom of speech that is given to him by the Constitution in good faith.
Big big words in English cannot at all destroy the greatest truths of Hinduism. Hindu religion preaches mostly spiritualism through
- 2 - meditation and God-consciousness. That is the reason why the West is looking to India and Hinduism to realise the beneficial effects of meditation which will not only keep a healhy mind, but also a healthy body.
To the question by some of the Hindu youth that since all religions are he same, why not they follow the religion of their own liking, Swami Vivekananda replied that a Hindu can become a better Hindu, a Christian a better Christian, a Muslim a better Muslim by remaining and following his own religion truthfully and sincerely and there is absolutely no need for converting to any other religion. It is only on account of conversion tactics which some of the followers of other religions are indulging in, the Hindu youth are becoming vulnerable and susceptible to jump to any other religion the leaders of which are influencing them, forgetting the greatness of their own religion.
We also agree that temple priests are ill-equipped with the knowledge of Hinduism because being poor, they are firstly taking up jobs as temple priests which does not involve much of an effort except to get by heart a few Sanskrit slokas and Vedic hymns and puja procedures, only to eke out their livelihood. Thus the temple priests are completely ill-equipped with the knowledge of Hinduism. Hindu Sastras are only in Sanskrit which a few intellectuals who have mastered Sanskrit are able to grasp the truths of Hinduism and give this knowledge to the public. While some of them fail to convey this knowledge properly to the people, a few others are able to understand and express better the ideas and truths explained in Hinduism. The perverted intellectuals like the present author who attributed radical universalism to modern saints etc. are unable to go and find out the tenets and truths of Hinduism from those few genuine saints of modern India to establish that they pertain to traditional Hinduism.
The question of religious intolerance had never arisen in ancient times when no other religion existed except Hinduism. So the entire chapter of criticism that Hinduism has not believed in tolerance is dismissed on this “ ” ground. In fact, tolerance is one of the virtues (and not a tradition) extolled in the Vedic era, which is practised by genuine followers of Hinduism even today.
There was only one religion in India, viz, Hinduism from the very ancient times (Buddhism, Jainism etc. are only off-shoots and recent ones). The philosophy of Hinduism has been vividly explained in modern terms (which
- 3 - can be easily understood) by great saints like Sri Ramakrishna because of the onslaughts of Christian fathers and Muslim leaders and their destructive ‘ ’ practices against Hinduism. So it cannot be dubbed as neo-Hinduism or ‘ ’ radical universalism which is purported to have been introduced in modern times. All the ideas and tenets of Hinduism explained in modern terms were already there in Vedic times and there was no necessity of explaining them so vividly till the onslaughts of Christianity and Islam in the 19th and 20th centuries and also being carried out in the 21st century.
Dubbing Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda as neo-Hindu radical universalists is simply atrocious. As was said above, when Christianity was in its ascendancy and its preachers were damaging the image of Hinduism from its roots in their zeal to Christianise the entire world, it was Sri Ramakrishna who experimented with Christian religion as also with Islam and proved to the world the Vedic dictum that Truth (Brahman) is one and all religions are different paths to reach that Brahman; and to realise Brahman one needs a lot of faith (Shraddha) and sincerity in his spiritual pursuits and for this purpose conversion is not at all necessary. Swami Vivekananda while explaining broadly what Sri Ramakrishna meant, went a step further and said that without any conversion idea whatsoever, a Christian can become a better Christian, a Muslim a better Muslim and a Hindu a better Hindu by practising his or her own religion faithfully and sincerely. It is highly idiotic to spell this as neo-Hindu radical universalism. This idea is already there embedded in ancient traditional Hinduism. That is why Hinduism is widely accepted as the most tolerant of all religions in the world.
Mr. Morales on the pretext of appreciating ancient traditional Hinduism foisted the idea of neo-Hindu radical universalism and attributed it to the greatest of the saints of modern India, Sri Ramakrishna and his chief disciple Swami Vivekananda, who was responsible for renaissance of Hinduism and explained everything of what Vedas taught in the simple English language for the benefit of western people and westernized Indians and urged all Hindus directly and indirectly not to get succumbed to the onslaughts of Christian priesthood and remain in their own fold of Hinduism which is the richest on all counts. It is the most faithful and sincere practice of the tenets of any religion that leads one to spiritual fulfillment in life. But the Christian Fathers and Muslim religious leaders are bent upon spreading their own respective religions far and wide even at the cost of human life and suffering. They want the entire world population
- 4 - to be Christianised or Islamised as the case may be, crushing all other religions at their roots. Is it the way to practise a religion or does it lead one to the realisation of any spiritual goal whatsoever?
Mr. Moralese perhaps does not have the indepth knowledge of Sanskrit (though he claims to know it) in which the Vedas, puranas and other Hindu religious texts were written because at that time it was the only known language available for writing these texts, So he mainly depends upon the versions of English translations of these texts which might have distorted the real meaning of Vedic dictums and after going through them he would have ‘ ’ coined the term Neo-Hindu and radical universalism without even caring to know whether the ideas in the so-called radical universalism existed in the original ancient Hindu texts or not. If he cares to know the real meaning ‘ ’ and purport of the vedic dictum ekam sat viprah bahada vadanti (Truth is one, sages call it by various names), which does not say that all religions are same, he would be able to realise easily how much damage he is doing to Hinduism by dubbing great saints of Modern India like Sri Ramakrishna and ‘ his disciple Swami Vivekananda as the architects of the so-called Radical ’ universalism . So he would well to apologise to the Hindu community for the faulty understanding of Hindu religion and the abusive remarks he made against great Hindu religious leaders of modern times whom the Hindu community worship as great gurus or even gods. He would also do well if ’ he goes through and understands correctly Swami Vivekananda s speech at the final session of the Parliament of Religions giving a clarion call and a “ mild warning to all other religions of the world: If anybody dreams of the exclusive survival of his own religion and the destruction of the others, I pity him from the bottom of my heart, and point out to him that upon the banner ‘ of every religion will soon be written, in spite of resistance: Help and not ’ ‘ ’ ‘ Fight , Assimilation and not Destruction , Harmony and Peace and not ’ Dissension .
‘ ’ Mr. Moralese used such words as neo-Vedanta etc and attributed them to ‘ ’ Swami Vivekananda. There is no neo-Vedanta or modern Vedanta or any such thing except that it is Vedanta only. It is only because some of the common people are not able to understand the nuances in Vedanta that the great gurus like Sri Ramakrishna and his disciples like Vivekananda explained them in simple words which will suit the understanding of the ‘ ’ ‘ ’ common people who are English educated rather than Sanskrit educated . With the advent of British Raj, the Sanskrit language is almost on the verge of dying, thanks to the great service (or disservice) done by Lord Mecaulay
- 5 - and others who anglicized Indians by teaching them English language. The result is that the Vedic texts, which are in Sanskrit only, are becoming beyond the comprehension of the so-called highly educated people of modern India who are becoming susceptible to all sorts of evil influences by coming in contact with the West so often in modern times. So, another Vivekananda is the need of the day to hold them together in their own fold. The use of such derogatory remarks against modern saints, that too patriotic ‘ ’ saints, like Vivekananda, is, I think a sort of sin which Christians call in their religious parlance. The author, Mr. Moralese, seems to be neither Christian oriented nor Hinduism oriented. He is simply a perverted intellectual who misuses all his intellect to discuss traditional Hinduism and ‘ ’ the so-called radical universalism and pass some derogatory remarks against modern saints and sages of Hinduism rather than diverting his god- given intellect to his spiritual unfoldment and fulfillment in life. However, nothing is too late provided he realises his mistake of misusing his intellect for such useless discussions which will lead him nowhere. During this process, he may die one day without achieving anything worthwhile in life. So, better late than never!
The aim of a person in any religion should be spiritual unfoldment. One can achieve this goal through any religion to which he belongs and through any object which he treats and worships as God. If spiritual fulfillment is the only object of a person of any religion, he will not indulge in any perverted intellectual discussions and criticisms like the present one mentioned above, but will definitely make every effort to achieve his object irrespective of the fact that he belongs to Hindu religion or Christian religion or Islamic religion. From that angle only the Vedic religion, i.e., Hinduism, asserted that all religions are different paths to achieve the goal of spiritual ‘ fulfillment (i.e., realizing Brahman) and not from any angle of neo- ’ ‘ ’ Hinduism or radical universalism and so on.
This is not at all understood properly by Mr. Moralese as he is obsessed with the diction of the English language with which he wanted to demean ’ ‘ ’ Hinduism by dubbing it as neo-Hindu and radical Hinduism and attributing it to modern saints and scholars of Hinduism. If he wants to criticize Hinduism for criticism sake, God save him!
It is humbly submitted that the above observations are equally applicable to all the so-called intellectual luminaries, Swami Sri Dayananda Sarasvati, Mr.
- 6 - Rajiv Malhora etc. who are purported to have supported the views of Mr. Frank Gaetano Morales, as acknowledged by him at the end.
- 7 -