Prophet Krishna - 1
It is time to take a look at RSS and antics of its leader i.e. Mr. K. S. Sudarshan,
Not so recently he made a comment that Muslims in India should Indianize, he also said that a step in the direction will be when Muslims accept Bhagwan Krishna as their prophet.
Needless to say I am not amused with this, in fact I feel distinctly uncomfortable with this.
There are two problems with this. This post is about the first issue.
Attempt to reinterpret Bhagwan Krishna in terms of Islam is an attempt to make dogma of Hinduism.
Hinduism posits presence of one supreme power beyond human perception and even human logic (Read previous post)
Hinduism also admits that contemplation by man,of the infinite and formless is possible through a form. Therefore Hindus worship Murthis (idols). In the same fashion avatars are a proxy, a placeholder of the supreme, devotion to avatars is a way to contemplate Sat-Chit-Ananda.
It is therefore not important what is the superficial nature of the form, what is important is by worship Hindus seeks to affirm and reinforce certain attributes of the life.
It may be love, kindness, compassion, devotion, creation, or destruction.
There is another thing Hindus worship all kinds of forms, Hinduism has diverse philosophies, since the dawn of civilizations so many sages have reflected and argued, many times agreeing and many times disagreeing, the only common thread was quest for mysteries.
Hinduism doesn't have prophets, it has sages and gurus . It is intentional.
Hinduism is not about angels and afterlife. It is also not about ether unconnencted to reality.
Lastly it is not the end to all the human ingenuity.
Hinduism is about life, it is about this world, it is about seeking.
There is no guaranteed path, sure there are gurus and Rishis to guide but in the end it is the individual himself who has to find the path and if it doesn't exist carve it out of barren land. His only tools are intellect and knowledge and his only companion is inquisitiveness.
Our avatars are not to make sheeps of men, they are not their to harvest souls. They symbolize what Hinduism signifies, in glory and in bleakness.
As a Hindu, it is least of my problem or concern that a Muslim revers Prophet Muhammed or a Christian Jesus Christ, I do not judge by symbols, I judge by meanings behind the symbolism.
However what concerns me is that by trying to make Bhagwaan Krishna as a Prophet the whole essence and beauty of Hinduism is lost.
Not so recently he made a comment that Muslims in India should Indianize, he also said that a step in the direction will be when Muslims accept Bhagwan Krishna as their prophet.
Needless to say I am not amused with this, in fact I feel distinctly uncomfortable with this.
There are two problems with this. This post is about the first issue.
Attempt to reinterpret Bhagwan Krishna in terms of Islam is an attempt to make dogma of Hinduism.
Hinduism posits presence of one supreme power beyond human perception and even human logic (Read previous post)
Hinduism also admits that contemplation by man,of the infinite and formless is possible through a form. Therefore Hindus worship Murthis (idols). In the same fashion avatars are a proxy, a placeholder of the supreme, devotion to avatars is a way to contemplate Sat-Chit-Ananda.
It is therefore not important what is the superficial nature of the form, what is important is by worship Hindus seeks to affirm and reinforce certain attributes of the life.
It may be love, kindness, compassion, devotion, creation, or destruction.
There is another thing Hindus worship all kinds of forms, Hinduism has diverse philosophies, since the dawn of civilizations so many sages have reflected and argued, many times agreeing and many times disagreeing, the only common thread was quest for mysteries.
Hinduism doesn't have prophets, it has sages and gurus . It is intentional.
Hinduism is not about angels and afterlife. It is also not about ether unconnencted to reality.
Lastly it is not the end to all the human ingenuity.
Hinduism is about life, it is about this world, it is about seeking.
There is no guaranteed path, sure there are gurus and Rishis to guide but in the end it is the individual himself who has to find the path and if it doesn't exist carve it out of barren land. His only tools are intellect and knowledge and his only companion is inquisitiveness.
Our avatars are not to make sheeps of men, they are not their to harvest souls. They symbolize what Hinduism signifies, in glory and in bleakness.
As a Hindu, it is least of my problem or concern that a Muslim revers Prophet Muhammed or a Christian Jesus Christ, I do not judge by symbols, I judge by meanings behind the symbolism.
However what concerns me is that by trying to make Bhagwaan Krishna as a Prophet the whole essence and beauty of Hinduism is lost.
Categories : Religion, Hinduism, India, Civilization, Culture
4 comments:
I am uncomfortable for a different reason : religion is meant to be a pursuit of truth, not a set of definitions to make materialistic life better. For instance Mirza Ghulam Ahmad" is believed to be a prophet in whose visions it was revealed to him that bhagavAn shrIkRShNa is a prophet. That is different from a person ( supposedly ) in the materialistic plane asking you to believe in something because it promotes national integration.
It is for similar reasons that the issue of reforming caste so as to develop a uniform set of rituals for all people and to select temple priests from all groups through some standardized procedure still remains an issue of "who will bell the cat" - ordinary people can't just mould religion according to the social changes they wish to make ( sorry if this is a digression ).
Frog,
I assume truth in end makes life better.
Again vision is not a proof and hence can not be used to establish truth.
Regards
I am not saying vision of others can be used to establish truth. Spiritual life certainly depends on faith ( on "AptavAkya" or verbal testimony ). But that is meant for people whose spiritual experiences you have faith in, eg. I have faith in shrIrAmakRShNa. Similarly Ahmadiyyas have faith in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Neither I nor Ahmadiyyas ( I believe ) can establish to others that we are right ( unless may be if we get enlightened ourselves ). sudarshan ji seems to be trying to define truth according to convenience which is where both of us have problems with him.
Frog,
What you call faith may be approximated as assumption.
Assumption can not be proven, yet they can be disproven and they have to possess a certain consistency (excuse me for not elaborating, I am hardly an expert on logic).
I also have faith in RaamKrishna, but I am skeptical of a faith which is unqualified. It is instructive to note that RaamaKrishna defended his position against atheists, also as Guru Aurobindo said the there are only two kinds of honourable people
enlightened believer and skeptic seeker.
In last I place highest faith in human intellect and ingenuity.
Regards
Post a Comment