literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

One reader requests clarification:

Dear Sitaram:

Some years ago, you wrote at your website:

"I have practiced Christianity for 17 years, then practiced
Buddhism for 3 years. Then you studied Hinduism. When asked “What
is the guarantee that you will not choose any other religion after
this,” you answered, "If I find something that is more truth than
Hinduism, then I shall embrace that."

My question is,
Why did you say "if something that is truthful than Hinduism......."
Does it mean that "Still you are searching for some truth, that is not
answered in Hinduism"?

Here is my clarification:

I was raised with no religion, by nominal Protestants who never brought me to church even once. Childhood is the ideal time to be trained in a religion. When a child learns a religion as part of their family and culture and nationality, then such a religion will be deeply ingrained in their nature. They may stray during their young adulthood, distracted by pleasures or ambition, but often in mid-life, they return to the religion of their childhood.

I felt quite lost as a child and adolescent because I had no religious training. I was very curious. I wanted to find the truth. I wanted to know how I should live my life. I wanted to see some purpose to my existence. I wanted to know what the universe means in relation to me and what I am to the universe.

Thus, I began a long journey of searching and discovery.

At St. John’s College, in the Sophomore year, I studied Bach’s St. Matthew’s Passion and read Blaise Pascal’s Pensees/Meditations, and found myself attracted to Christianity.

After college, I taught myself modern Greek and became a Greek Orthodox Christian. I learned some Russian and Church Slavonic and spent some time in a Russian monastery and also a Greek monastery (both in the U.S.A.).

I found Christianity to be a confusing multitude of Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox denominations and divisions. Eastern Orthodox seemed the most original and form of Christianity least changed and changing from apostolic times. But the Orthodox were divided into so many different groups who were at odds with one another, and who differed on key doctrinal issues.

I also found the same confusing diversity in Buddhism and Hinduism. There is Mayayana, Teravadin, Pure Land, Soka Gokai, to name a few, in Buddhism, and in Hinduism there are Monists (Adwaita), Vasithdvaita (semi dualists) and Dvaita (dualists) as well as Saivites and Vaishnavs, and among Vaishnavs alone, there are so many groups aside from Hare Krisna devotees of Prabhubad Bhakti Vedanta Swami. And even among the Hare Krishnas, there are so many splinter groups. Even Roman Catholics are divided in various ways, as Mel Gibson’s personal life illustrates.

Personally, I have come to the realization that, for myself, there is no groups or corporate form of congregational worship, or sangha, or parampara lineage that is suited to me. Or perhaps I should say that I am suited to none of them. All organized corporate endeavors, whether political, religious or academic are corrupt and corrupting because of the corruptible weakness of human nature.

I do not believe in telling people what is the absolute truth, or what they should personally believe, or how they should affiliate themselves. Each person must decide this for themselves. They should not copy my spiritual journey. They should make their own spiritual journey. Krishnamurthi said “Truth is a pathless land.”

I am Hindu-like and Buddhist-like in my thinking and understanding, but I do not think I will ever be able to claim that I am a Hindu or a Buddhist.

The Greeks did not want me because I was not Greek. The Russians did not want me because I was not Russian. The Hindus did not want me because I was not Indian.

My dentist of many years is a very devout Orthodox Jew. We have often discussed religion. One day, he more or less scoffed at me. I do not think he realized how hurtful his words were. He said, with a laugh, “Well, what do you believe nowadays. You must always be changing and trying different things.” I let his comment pass without replying in detail my honest reactions. My real reaction was to explain to him that he cannot rightfully claim his religion as his own, because it was handed to him in his childhood. He cannot reject it because to do so would be to reject his ancestors, wife, children, family and friends, as well as his only identity. He cannot reject it, but neither can he ever earn it or create it or embrace it. He makes the mistake of assuming that a person, born with nothing, who constantly seeks and questions, and never become genuine and legitimate. He confuses truth with inconstancy, and yet Judaism and all other religions, philosophies and governments have changed drastically over the millennia and continue to change, at a glacial rate. Even the snows of Kilimanjaro eventually vanish. Those of us who are born into something can never truly possess it. Rather it is the case that the ideology or belief system possesses and enslaves us.

I would hope that I am always ready and willing to admit my error, or change or improve myself. The reader who asks for clarification perhaps hopes for an unqualified endorsement of Hinduism as the ultimate truth.

An acquaintance of mine was raised an Irish Roman Catholic. He can still tell Irish jokes
with a genuine brogue in his accent. He began to explore every religion. I would say that
he made his religion the study of all religions. He whispered to me once, outside a Hare
Krishna temple, “When I am with the Sufis I say in my mind ‘I am chanting with the
meat-eaters’ and when I am with the Krishna devotees, I mentally repeat, “I am dancing
with the idolaters.” He explained to me his insight from the Srimad Bhagavatam, that
our particular conviction of faith in one form of worship, to the exclusion of all others, is
a gift from God, in the form of maya or illusion, that we may practice our form of
devotion without doubt or distraction.

The very first thing I did, when I left my novitiate in the Greek monastery, was to visit St.
John’s in Annapolis, my alma mater. I was so certain that I had discovered the absolute
truth, to which so many were blind. My former tutor, William Pitt, listened patiently to
my explanations, smiled wryly, and replied “To truly understand an ideology, one must at
first be alien to it, then become passionately converted to it, next reject it in doubt and
disappointment, and finally in exile and excommunication, become reconciled to it.” Mr.
Pitt was a prophet of what my future life would be, but at the moment, I felt he was
simply a scoffer and skeptic.

I shall close this post by citing a previous post entitled “Who is Greatest?”

http://literarydiscussions.myfree...pic687.php&highlight=tulsidas

A woman in India wrote me to ask me which Deity is the greatest.

Here is my reply:

I have begun to write you an answer, but I have been distracted by other matters and have
not had time to finish. I do hope to finish my answer in the coming weeks, but here is
what I have so far:

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic687.php

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sitaram/message/1574

One reader has written to me:

Dear Sitaram,

Who according to you is greater of our gods- Vishnu or Shiva and why? One personal question - who is your favorite ?

I read some time ago that one single
Ram Nama is equivalent to any 999 names of Vishnu. So
your parents, wife & children are blessed in that sense
that willingly or unwillingly they will chant Ram
Nama.

===================

Sitaram replies:

Thank you for writing and asking this excellent question.

You will notice that I entitle this post "Who Is Greatest?"

Your question pertains to Hinduism and is in regard to Lord Shiva vs. Lord Vishnu, but I
am reminded of something which Jesus says in the Gospels: "The Father is greater than
I."

I shall attempt to answer you, in part, by a consideration of certain aspects of Christian
theology and, in part, by making reference to Tulsidas' Ramacharitamanassa ("Holy
Lake of the Acts of Ram"), and Ramanand Sagar's wonderful movie version of the
Ramayan.

In the Ramayan, Lord Vishnu incarnates in human form as the avatar, Ram. But Ram, in
human form, must have a religion. So, whom does Ram worship? Lord Shiva!

Each child has two parents; a mother and a father. Which is greater, the mother or the
father? Who loves the child more, the mother or the father? And which does the child
love more. Yet, both a mother and a father are necessary. Without both a mother and a
father, there is no child.

Back to the words of Jesus, “The Father is greater than I.” I turned to my “Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance” to find this verse. But what do I notice on the cover jacket of
this large book? The jacket states that the words of Jesus <b>are in red letters</b>. Is it
not most curious that it is not the words of the Father which are in red letters, but the
words of Jesus, and yet Jesus says “The Father is greater than I.”

Jesus says “The Father is greater than I” in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, verse 28. The
ancient Greek theologians called this the “hypopantesis” or, roughly translated, the
“placing beneath all.” There is one icon depicting Christ dead in the tomb. This
depiction of God's death is termed the "Extreme Humility" and symbolizes the "Kenosis",
or emptying of Christ, renouncing all things, even life itself.

And yet various Ecumenical Councils and creeds of faith all stress that God is three
Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet one, and that all three Persons are totally equal,
and no one is greater than the others.

It is said that Tulsidas had one brother who became a great devotee of Lord Krishna. One
day Tulsidas went to visit his brother, who brought him to the mandir where there was a
great stature of Lord Krishna. Tulsidas explained that he could worship no one except
Lord Ram.

I am going to quote several footnotes from "The Ashta Chhap Poets", translated by
Shyam Das.

One day, Tulsidas decided to journey to Gokul to see his younger brother. Arriving in
Mathura after many days of travel, he asked some local people if a Brahmin by the name
of Nandadas had come to their city. Someone advised him that Nandadas was a disciple
of Shri Gusainji and that he could be found either in Gokul or near the Govardhana Hill.
Tulsidas went to Gokul, but did not find Nandadas. Tulsidas, so enchanted with the
beauty of the town, wondered how his brother could have ever left such a place. Hearing that Nandadas was at the Govardhana Hill with Shri Gusainji, Tulsidas headed in this
direction. He found his brother in the town of Parasoli and insisted, "Come with me. If
there is a beautiful town in this world, it is Ayodhya; Banares is the supreme city; of all
mountains, most glorious is Chitrakuta, and among forests, the Dandkarnaya is the best.
These areas Lord Ram has purified.

Nandadas replied to his brother in the following poem

If you like mountains,

live by the Govardhana Hill.

If you like towns,

then reside in Nandagam.

If you prefer cities,

live in Mathura,

an ocean of splendor,

extremely pleasing.

If you enjoy rivers,

stay by the banks of the Yamuna,

the fulfiller of all wishes.

Nandadas relishes the forest

and dwells in the land of Vrindavan.

After meeting with Suradas in Parasoli, Nandadas proceeded to Shri Nathji's temple,
while Tulsidas followed behind. When Tulsidas had Shri Nathji's sight, he did not bow
to Him. Nandadas then knew that Tulsidas would not bow before anyone other than his
beloved Ram. Nandadas then considered, "I will show him that his Lord Ram is here as
well as in Gokul. Only then will he come to know of Shri Krishna's greatness.

Nandadas then prayed to Shri Nathji.

Lord, so finely adorned,

what can I say of your splendor today?

Tulsi lower his head only

when in your hand the bow and arrow stay.

Hearing Nandada's prayer, Shri Nathji thought, "Shri Gusainji's disciple is making a request. I should listen to him."

Shri Nathji then took on Lord Ram's form and held the bow and arrow. Tulsidas, seeing
Shri Nathji as Lord Ram, prostrated himself flat on the ground. After having Shri
Nathji's "darshan", Tulsidas and Nandadas went to Shri Gokul where Nandadas said to
Shri Gusainji, "My brother, Tulsidas, will bow only to Lord Ram."

Footnotes:

In the Krishna Upanishad it is mentioned that once, while Rama and Sita were walking in
the forest, the sages there, who were absorbed in the meditational state of Samadhi, saw
Ram's divine beauty and suddenly desired to be his lover. They approached Ram, saying,
"Give us the pleasure that you afford your wife, Sita."

Ram replied that in his current incarnation he was Maryada Purushottam, that is, The
Supereme Personality under the bondage of scriptural restriction. Therefore, he could have only one wife. He consoled them that in his next life as Krishna, he would be Pushti
Purushottam, the Supreme Personality who is dominated by grace. Then, he would fulfill
al their wishes. These sages were born in Braja as Gopis during Krishna's life on earth
and had all o their divine desires satisfied.

The fact that Tulsidas would not bow to Krishna reveals his single-minded devotion to
his Lord, Ram, a quality so necessary in fostering bhava, mood. His refusal to bow to
Krishna was not disrespectful, but rather a statement of his immense and faithful love for
Ram. Devotion to a single form of God is considered a sign of great grace.

Ironically, one myspace member has written me just now as I posted this, to ask:

Thank you for your response. I have read over a few things on your blog and agree with many, though some remain as thoughts to ponder further. I do enjoy "deep" topics, but have also come to the conclusion that philosophy will never answer some questions, those questions shall be answered by faith.

I hope you understand that I am very specific about whom I add to my friends list, especially if I actually do not know them. So may I ask you Mr. Sitaram, what is your faith? I am not asking for a politically correct answer, please do not sugar coat your response.

"I believe the measure of a man is not how tall he stands, how wealthy or intelligent he is. I say the measure of a man God knows and understands, and He looks inside to the bottom of their hearts, because what's in the heart defines the measure of a man."

I would love to hear your response.

(and here is my reply)

I will answer you by quoting Socrates who said, "I am a citizen of the world." What a curious thing for him to say at a time when the known world was so provincial.

By the strangest coincidence, the post I made just now, as you were e-mailing this to me, entitled "A More Comprehensive Truth," is a good answer to your question.

However it is very likely that someone who feels compelled to ask me such a question will find any answer that I might give most difficult to understand.

They say that water seeks its own level. The behavior of water is a natural phenomenon, and nature cannot be deemed mistaken or misguided. I am always seeking a higher level.

I shall certainly understand if you do not add me to your friend list.

Thanks for your time and interest.

Perhaps, when we are too selective, desiring friends who believe only as we do, then we miss the message of Jesus, who immortalized the good Samaritan and the Samaritan woman at the well, even though Samaritans were heretics in the eyes of Jews.

Get your own free IRC Chat room