While The Gods Fail

How many religions must start before you begin to realize that whatever you are doing is nothing but a prelude to a religion?

A well meaning reformation is always a prelude to a religion.

How many people must die from the religious madness before YOU start taking the responsibility of a Guru and a Master ("God Personified")?

It is the disciples that bring the master down.

Is this "Spiritual Guru" business over the centuries the greatest smokescreen ever erected by ALL the spiritually "accomplished"?

I hope not, there were some good reformists- Vivekananda, Martin Luther, Ramanujan, Maha Rishi Lahri, Yogananda and some more.

Doubt help us distinguish between a blind faith and a seeking faith.

Finally, all gurus are human till they are crucified ;)

oops did I say Ramanujan? My bad!

Deepti:

My question to all the reformists is .. what do THEY think they know more than the previous "reformist" that they can be sure a new religion will not come about?

And this cliche of followers bringing the Master down is hog-wash for me... how many such Masters will be brought down .. before the "Masters" start realizing that their fate is already sealed??!!

My theory is very simple - The "Masters" end up "patenting" a path for the followers. Which ends up doing nothing but adding to the avenues of "ego" to the followers! Initially it was "My land, Nation, family, spouse, Mom, Money.." Now the Master adds some more - "My Master, his word, his book.. etc."

So, essentially, the Masters instead of providing a path to salvation end up "binding" the followers and making them more dogmatic! Its a guaranteed!!

Personally, I find the Vedic RIshis the greatest of the "Enlightened Souls" - reason: none of them "patented" any "religion" or path! They just gave their philosophy and moved on!! True "Open Source" spirituality!!

Cheers,
dkaps,
Drishtikone.com

Well, the Vedic Rishis followed oral traditions which were later put to word by the Brahmans so we really dont have primary evidence.

If you believe that the Rig Veda is pure then you are no different from those who beleive that the Bible is the word of 'God'.

I guess, its a matter of interpretation as far as Masters go. I happen to believe that Christ and Buddha were enlightened souls.

In Mahayana Buddhism the concept of reaching enlightenment in one's lifetime is possible. So I also differed with whichever 'Guru' you had been listening to.

What I found when I read on the 'Yogananda Satsanga Society of India' is that they talked about attaining emlightenement via Yoga and medidation.

Was it something new ? No, but these forms of ancient Indian practices had been lost to common Hindus and were made possible by these masters.

I still believe that disciples bring down true masters- Islam today is being questioned by the world because of a few zealots, whereas historically the muslims have been far more tolerant towards their governed masses who were non- muslims.

Witch burning and the killing of the Cathars goes against the spirit of Christ.

And the caste system, sati etc goes against all that the hindu gods stood for.

So, yes it is the disciples, the priests that bring their masters down.

No - I am not saying Vedas were pure.. I am just saying I havent heard a "religion" after Valmiki, or Vasishtha.. or Tulsidas. There were many enlightened souls.. Christ and Buddha included. What I am saying is didn't Christ realize (if he was indeed God personified as most Enlightened souls were) what mess the Jewish Masters had created? What made Guru Nanak believe that he knew something more than Christ or Buddha or whoever?? The "need" to propogate .. the thought that some can indeed "change" the world - implicitly assumes an ego!! That ego, I presume, was somehow absent - from evidence of no such "paths" coming out of the Vedic forest!

In one of my future posts I will write on this subject of changing the world in more detail to explain my point further. But until then, Deepti.. please read my post again (specially the starting verse!) .. and seriously.. I am NOT trying to rubbish any Master.. just saying that if they were indeed Enlightened.. then those Gods FAILED (the reason for title). So my post PRESUMES them as enlightened if anything! For if they werent.. saying they failed would be facetious!

Cheers,
Desh

"Islam today is being questioned by the world because of a few zealots, whereas historically the muslims have been far more tolerant towards their governed masses who were non- muslims."

I have not known many examples of the one that you are talking about! I challenge you to show me historical or contemporary societies - where, if the Muslims were in majority - the minorities had even an IOTA of reigious freedom... and where they were in minorities their interests did not clash with the majority's??

I have a personal explanation for it.. which I will blog about later.. but here I really want to know of some examples from the readers here!

Cheers,
dkaps
Drishtikone.com

[Allah does not forbid you that you show kindness and deal justly with those who did not fight you in your religion and did not drive you out from your homes...] (Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8)

In the Reconquista of Portugal, the following was observed,

Perhaps the most important legacy of Muslim rule was, precisely, its tolerance towards the Roman heritage. Much representative of that tolerance was the existence during the Muslim period of an ethnic group, the so-called moçárabe or mozarabe population, constituted by traditional residents that lived within Muslim communities, accepted Muslim rule, and mixed with Muslim peoples, but still kept their language and religion, i.e. some form of Latin and the Christian creed.

Thanks! In a history of couple of thousand years - less than a dozen brief societies do prove something.

The verse you cite above leaves enough room for intolerance. An unambiguous tolerant verse would have ideally read:

"Allah forbids you that you show cruelty and deal unjustly with those who did not fight you in your religion and did not drive you out from your homes..."

So, your few handful examples prove the point I was trying to make!

And btw, when I talk of "religious freedom" - its NOT just the freedom to LIVE and do business but the freedom to construct a TEMPLE .. hold ones religious festivals as one pleases.. EXACTLY what the Muslims "demand" in the western societies!

Re: Ruvy's comments - I am not sure what he really means by that.. because it doesnt make sense in the world that we live in. If that was indeed so, the mess in Jerusalem would not have occurred.. as in the Mid-East! So, it might be a good opinion to air.. but facts dont quite support it!

As far as Akbar was concerned, he was an exception in the LONG line of intolerant and barbaric Moghuls.. starting from Babar to Aurangzeb.. so lets not even go there! In any case, Akbar would easily qualify as an infidel for just throwing up the idea of Din-i-ilahi! I havent read or talked to any Pakistanis on this.. but I will be VERY surprised if Akbar was treated kindly in their history books! :-)

Cheers,
dkaps
Drishtikone.com

From your perspective, you seem to have already made up your mind, so this debate is not really working. The Renaissance happened because of the Muslim preservation of the Hellenistic heritage. The West has had more bloodshed - ref the Cathars, the Albigenisians, etc. The Hindu races have subjugated the aboriginal tribes everywhere.

'Nuff said.

Ok.. so its a toss up between the Christians and Muslims rulers between who killed the most? Cool admitted. I am talking about freedom still. So give me those examples.

"The Hindu races have subjugated the aboriginal tribes everywhere."

If you are talking about Aryan Invasion Theory .. then thats nonsense in any case.. so lets not go there. I have had enough nonsense coming out from "seculars" who swear by AIT when it pleases them ... and then argue that AIT wasnt correct to start with but the "indigenous theory" in bunk (read ROmilla Thapars epiphany about her attempt to discredit the AIT in 1960's - oh yes, she left it in my NCERT history just for the fun of it!!).. truth is in the middle! Ok.. so just because I say that AIT is BS doesnt mean that I am siding with the other extreme??!!

So argue with useful historical examples.

When I had asked the question - my attempt was to get educated about the exceptions.. it still is. But lets not get distracted by who killed how many. And when I am talking about the freedom in the Islamic - run by Shariat - societies.. I am talking JUST about those societies.. to start bringing up AIT and Hindu theories.. is facetious.

I had an open mind to ask for examples... you gave "counter weights" from "other" societies! Thats not much of an argument to start with .. isit?

Cheers,
dkaps
Drishtikone.com

I challenge you to show me historical or contemporary societies - where, if the Muslims were in majority - the minorities had even an IOTA of reigious freedom... and where they were in minorities their interests did not clash with the majority's??

You challenged and I came through but as RealityCynic says there is no point arguing with you.

RealityCynic, Interestingly, in Baghdad, the capital of the Abbassids, there was a Jewish academy named Yeshiva, where research on and compilation of the Talmud was undertaken. Records show that active exchange of views took place between the Jewish rabbis there and the ulemas.

And after Islam conquered Spain in the 8th century, places like Granada and Cordoba became academic centers where Europeans came to study Islamic culture, especially Granada which drew Jewish students.

But as soon as the Muslims were expelled from spain in 1492 so were the Jews and the inquisition against the Christian heretics followed.

Deepti:

Yes, I challenged because even I wanted to see those examples. And both of you came up with that ONE example in Europe before the crusades. Of course, realityCynic lapsed into the other side of the argument.

I am bringing home just ONE point .. in close to 2000 years of history ... do we have JUST a few tolerant societies?? That aint a good record!

It is enough of a thought that must make intelligent and thinking Muslims introspect! There is a strong case for reform... by deflecting that requirement by blaming others WONT DO!

Lastly, Deepti, Debating or not is your prerogative (I thought this place was for opinionated people :))... but to get irritated because someone challenges your folk-lorish set views is not something that I can help you with.

So please do come up with more than what happened before and after the crusades and Akbar. And RC, stay on the topic please!

Cheers,
Dkaps,
Drishtikone.com

After crusade? Turkey and Inshallah she will survive.

Dkaps .....you asked for historical or muslim contemporary societies Right?

Your question had the word 'or' and thus my initial statement nullified your argument ie if we are still talking about debates!

Call my views whatever you may - I believe in giving the devil his due and oh! read temporal's latest post...he answers your question about moderate muslims in a refined manner!