"Complicatedism"

[palindrome]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Lord Mahavir saying he is a Brahmin in the Sanskrit Slokams is a historical fact.

Which Sanskrit shlokams?

Lord Buddha was a descendant of Angirasa through Gautama. This is a historical fact as stated in our ancient texts.

Which ancient texts?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

So, according to your logic, those who claim jains and buddhists are hindus (and this includes RSS), are pro-brahmanism?

I am not sure whether there is a deliberate attempt to misunderstand. My post, as I had already clarified, was a response to Kunjuppu's post. It is he who talked about relationships with other faiths. If jains and buddhists are anti-brahminical, which is his view, then how can the brahmins have "good" relationships with them? That is the crux of my point. If you can't understand it, I can't help it.

as though their teachings were vedic, accepted brahmin dharmashastra varna model, etc.

As a class, majority jains were a class of traders. Since brahmin dharmashastra model has 4 varnas, the jains too used all 4 varna terms; and copied the model of brahmin dharmashastras on near equal footing; with all sorts of rules and regulations (an outcome of competition with brahmins or an attempt to dominate versus brahmins).

Sorry. The statements here do not appear logical. If Mahavira's teachings did not include varna, then why did the jains used a varna model at all? Why a varna model is required to compete with brahmins? Why the promulgation of varna order is required to dominate the brahmins? Why did Jinasena have to justify varna system by saying that varnas arose from rsabadheva?

All these can be easily explained if one understands that varna is a social construct and not a religious construct as is made out repeatedly. Because it is a social construct, relgions including buddhism and jainism needed to incorporate them into their philosophical systems.

Buddhism is a very antithesis of the brahmin varna system.

.
This statement is patently wrong.

For interested readers with unprejudiced mind, I suggest the article below:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Also a word on sadhus. Sadhus, whether they are jains (yatis) or buddhists (bikkhus) or hindus (sadhus/ parivrajakas) generally do not come under any caste. However it does not mean there is no caste/varna system in any of these religions.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Jaykay767 Ji,

First of all, when we say 'Vedas', it includes all the Srutis; Upanishads are Veda+Anta, which is, attached to the Vedas at the end as a part of Vedas. That is why each Upanishad has an attachment to each of the Vedas.

As I have said, lots of ideas that we see as a part of Hinduism, were borrowed from Buddhism and Jainism. These include the concept of Ahimsa, the concept of Re-incarnation, the concept of Maya in Advaitha, the concept of 'Self Realization' etc.

So, should we say then that today's Hinduism is actually a combination of yester year's 'Vedic Religion' and the teachings of Buddhism and Jainism?

Of course not. Because we believe in the authority of the Sruthis, which do nor NEGATE these foreign concepts.

You look like the Greek dad, I posted about .

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS - Even if these religions came up because some of them were against the Vedas, it does not mean they are different. There is a lot of commonality among them, the core Karma theory - Life/Birth cycle, Liberation, etc., are the same. so they are joined at the Hip !! Similarly, Jewish, Christian & Islam are joined at the hip, this is a fact because there is a significant amount of commonality among them. Just because people will get upset, does not mean we don't state the facts. Satya meva Jayate !!. Cheers,

 

[Jaykay767]

Mah?v?ra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to svetambara tradition, the embryo of Mahavira was transferred from a Brahmin woman Devananda to a Kshatriya woman Trisala. This is described in Acharanga-sutra and Kalpa-sutra. In Vyākhyāprajñapti, Mahavira acknowledges Devananda to be his real mother

Vy?khy?prajñapti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vyākhyāprajñapti commonly known as Bhagavati sūtra is the fifth of the 12 Jain āagam said to be promulgated by Bhagwan Mahavara. Vyākhyāprajñapti translated as "Exposition of Explanations" is said to have been composed by Sudharma Swami Gandhara as per the Svethambara tradition. It is the largest text of the canon said to contain 60,000 questions answered by Mahavira. The subject matter of the answers ranges from the Jain Doctrine to rules of ascetic behaviour.

 

[Jaykay767]

Brahmin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lord Buddha was a descendant of Angirasa through Gautama. There were Kshatriyas of other clans whose members descend from Angirasa, to fulfill a childless king's wish.[33]

Angirasa is a Brahmin Rishi !!

 

[palindrome]

I am not sure whether there is a deliberate attempt to misunderstand. My post, as I had already clarified, was a response to Kunjuppu's post. It is he who talked about relationships with other faiths. If jains and buddhists are anti-brahminical, which is his view, then how can the brahmins have "good" relationships with them? That is the crux of my point. If you can't understand it, I can't help it.

Your point was addressed, here:
Who wants to improve relationship with anyone based on religion, caste, creed? Should these matter at all?

We are not living in days when people represented their religion, debated with others, established superiority, spoiled relationships or sought to make friendships on the basis of religion (ie., between one religion and another religion). If jainism and buddhism is anti-vedic, well they are what they are.

Sorry. The statements here do not appear logical. If Mahavira's teachings did not include varna, then why did the jains used a varna model at all? Why a varna model is required to compete with brahmins? Why the promulgation of varna order is required to dominate the brahmins? Why did Jinasena have to justify varna system by saying that varnas arose from rsabadheva?

All these can be easily explained if one understands that varna is a social construct and not a religious construct as is made out repeatedly. Because it is a social construct, relgions including buddhism and jainism needed to incorporate them into their philosophical systems.

Yes of course varna was a social construct, already said so. But brahmin varna social construct is totally different from jain varna constructs.

Varna in brahmin dharmashastras have nothing to do with philosophy. They are laws for administration

This statement is patently wrong.

For interested readers with unprejudiced mind, I suggest the article below:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I well stand by my premise that Buddhism is a very antithesis of the brahmin varna system.

Explained well enough here: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/11878-complicatedism-32.html#post187828

Cud easily make make a table of contrasts -- Varna in brahmin (dharmashastra) social construct versus Varna in Jain social construct. However, two points are sufficient to close the argument -- (i) violence, and (ii) rigid birth-based occupations (where a shudra even has to keep a contemptible name) in brahmin dharmashastras.

Also a word on sadhus. Sadhus, whether they are jains (yatis) or buddhists (bikkhus) or hindus (sadhus/ parivrajakas) generally do not come under any caste. However it does not mean there is no caste/varna system in any of these religions.

Ah, please justify why you juxtapose varna with caste? Also justify why you claim brahmin dharmashastra model of varna applied in jains and buddhists?

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear KRS,

LOL !!. I have no problem if people say, Vedic Religion borrowed from Buddhism or Jainism. For me all the 3 religions are interlinked & have a large body of similarity.

See, every Brahmin Rishi /School in the historical past was a force to reckon with. For eg, the entire Jain texts were coded by Brahmins – you can check this fact directly from Jain sources or wiki. Similarly Buddha’s teachings were codified by the Brahmins.

This is not intended to show our supremacy, these are just facts.

Cheers.

 

[Jaykay767]

Rishabha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rishabha (c. 7190 BCE)[SUP][1][/SUP] is an important figure in Jainism. He is referred to as the founder of Jainism.[SUP][2][/SUP] He was the first of the twenty-four Tīrthaṅkara. According to Jain beliefs, Rishabha founded the Ikshvaku dynasty.

Rishabha is also known as Rikhava. He is sometimes called Rishabha of Kosala. He is also given the title of Adinath (The first protector).[SUP][3][/SUP] He is one of the 24 Tirthankara or Jina of the Jains.[SUP][4][/SUP]

There is mention of Rishabha in Hindu scriptures. He finds some references in Veda. However, its meaning is not clear and has different interpretations. Lord Rishabha, who was also called Kesi, is depicted as head of Vatrasana Sramana in Bhagavata Purana.[SUP][15][/SUP] Scriptures like Bhagavata Purana, Markandaya Purana, Vayu Purana, Brahamanda Purana, Skanda Purana and Vishnu Purana specifically mentions the name of Rishabha. In the Skanda Purana (chapter 37) it is stated:[SUP][16][/SUP]
Rishabha was the son of Nabhi, and Rishabha gave birth to son Bharata, and after the name of this Bharata, this country is known as Bharata-varsha
Rishabha also finds mention in Buddhist literature. A known buddhist scripture named Dharmottarapradipa mentions Rishabha as an Apta (Tirthankara).[SUP][17][/SUP]

Any more questions on how these 2 religions are irretrievably interlinked

 

[KRS]

Sri Jaykay767 Ji,

I am confused.

What are you then saying?

We all agree that there is commonality among certain religions.

With respect to Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism, there is 'commonality'.

So, what exactly are we arguing about? That all Abrahamic religions are the same and Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are the 'same'?

I don't get it. Please present your hypothesis in a form that we can all understand.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS,

LOL !!. I have no problem if people say, Vedic Religion borrowed from Buddhism or Jainism. For me all the 3 religions are interlinked & have a large body of similarity.

See, every Brahmin Rishi /School in the historical past was a force to reckon with. For eg, the entire Jain texts were coded by Brahmins – you can check this fact directly from Jain sources or wiki. Similarly Buddha’s teachings were codified by the Brahmins.

This is not intended to show our supremacy, these are just facts.

Cheers.

 

[palindrome]

Mah?v?ra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to svetambara tradition, the embryo of Mahavira was transferred from a Brahmin woman Devananda to a Kshatriya woman Trisala. This is described in Acharanga-sutra and Kalpa-sutra. In Vyākhyāprajñapti, Mahavira acknowledges Devananda to be his real mother

Vy?khy?prajñapti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vyākhyāprajñapti commonly known as Bhagavati sūtra is the fifth of the 12 Jain āagam said to be promulgated by Bhagwan Mahavara. Vyākhyāprajñapti translated as "Exposition of Explanations" is said to have been composed by Sudharma Swami Gandhara as per the Svethambara tradition. It is the largest text of the canon said to contain 60,000 questions answered by Mahavira. The subject matter of the answers ranges from the Jain Doctrine to rules of ascetic behaviour.

Digambara jains reject the Shvetambara story. Already mentioned that in post 281.

So-called brahmin followers of Mahavira and Buddha did not leave any historical note, such as an inscription, about their parentage.

Brahmin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lord Buddha was a descendant of Angirasa through Gautama. There were Kshatriyas of other clans whose members descend from Angirasa, to fulfill a childless king's wish.[33]

Angirasa is a Brahmin Rishi !!

Went thru the source provided. As it happens with wiki, the source (p.17 of Dowson's book) is misquoted, misrepresented, used as a fake reference to peddle one of those favorite brahmin theories (that buddha was a vedic brahmin).

Not just p.17, the whole book says nothing about Buddha being a descendent of Angirasa through Gautama.

Please provide which of "our ancient texts" state as a historical fact that Buddha was an Angirasa through Gautama.

Already wrote on Gautama and Angirasa here.

Anyways, seems to me if Kabir had gotten very famous, a bunch of brahmins claiming to be his followers wud have entered the kabirpanthi fold. Eventually we wud have a brahmambara version that kabir was of brahmin embryo origin (very important), but transferred into a mochi lady's womb by a miracle (by the power of 'brahmin' rishis), born for the very purpose of propagating so-called 'vedic' dharmashastra rules (especially among mochis who reject brahmin dharmashastra rules).

Sounds hard or hurtful? Well this is how it is for Buddhists and Jains who are forcibly called hindus, of vedic brahmanical religion.

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear KRS,

Let me clarify.

All the 3 religions - Vedic Religion, Buddhism & Jainism are similar because the core teachings of these religions are the same, of course there are important differences.

Similarly the Abrahmic religions are similar (not same), because they have borrowed large body of text from the old testament & then modified them.

If you read my earlier post – Brahmins – Our True Origins, you can see why even the Abrahmic religions are interlinked to Vedic Religion/Buddhism/Jainism & hence the similarity in all these religions.

In short, the priestly class across all the religions are the same Trojans (Brahmins, Jews & Christian Priests), they codified all the religions & hence they borrowed across each other extensively.

Cheers,

 

[Jaykay767]

Digambara jains reject the Shvetambara story. Already mentioned that in post 281.

So-called brahmin followers of Mahavira and Buddha did not leave any historical note, such as an inscription, about their parentage.

This is what I said earlier.

If you want to disagree with our ancient texts, all you have to say is the other group (Digambara reject the Shvetambara).

So what is new?. Shaivite & Vaishnavite have been fighting from time immemorial. So that does not make the ancient texts false

Every Jain & Budhhist writer gave his lineage first in their works. Because every Brahmin first prays to his ancestors, Parents before writing any such texts. I feel bad for people who are desperately holding to fig leaves & hoping these writers were NOT brahmins.

Buddhists born to Brahmin families - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many of the best-known Buddhist visionaries were born in a Brahmin family. They include Vasubandhu and his key disciples Sariputra[SUP][1][/SUP] and Mahakasyapa (founders of Mahayana Buddhism); Nagarjuna[SUP][2][/SUP] and Asvaghosa,[SUP][3][/SUP] the reformer of Theravada Buddhism; Buddhaghosa (founder of Vajrayana Buddhism; Padmasambhava, founder of Tibetan Buddhism; Shantideva, author of The Way of the Bodhisattva; Bodhidharma, founder of Zen Buddhism and Kung Fu and Kumarajiva, both of whom brought Buddhism to China and beyond; Nagasena, the debater of Milinda Panha; Manjushri, mentor of Ashoka and Radhaswamy, the person who brought Ashoka to Buddhism, and scholars of Nalanda such as Aryadeva and Shantarakshita (one of the Kashmiri Pandits, who taught Buddhist and Hindu doctrine.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Jaykay767 Ji,

So what? Your argument is akin to this:

The original man was from Africa. So all the humans have the 'commonality' of the African.

They all look alike, as human beings, with a head, two eyes, a nose and a mouth.

So, they are all Africans!

I still don't understand your thesis.

Okay tell me in one sentence, what is your main point in all this is.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS,

Let me clarify.

All the 3 religions - Vedic Religion, Buddhism & Jainism are similar because the core teachings of these religions are the same, of course there are important differences.

Similarly the Abrahmic religions are similar (not same), because they have borrowed large body of text from the old testament & then modified them.

If you read my earlier post – Brahmins – Our True Origins, you can see why even the Abrahmic religions are interlinked to Vedic Religion/Buddhism/Jainism & hence the similarity in all these religions.

In short, the priestly class across all the religions are the same Trojans (Brahmins, Jews & Christian Priests), they codified all the religions & hence they borrowed across each other extensively.

Cheers,

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear KRS,

The one sentence is – all religions come from the Trojans/Brahmins/Jews.

If you read my post, you will find extensive historical evidence. In short, Valmiki Ramayana & Homer Illiad Troy are the same war. Winners write Ramayana, Losers write Troy.

Shaivites are Ravana followers, Vaishnavites are Vibishana followers. Brahmins & Jews are the descendants of these Trojans who wrote the Vedas, Manusmriti, testatment, Bible, Koran etc..

Cheers,

 

[palindrome]

Dear KRS,

The one sentence is – all religions come from the Trojans/Brahmins/Jews.

If you read my post, you will find extensive historical evidence. In short, Valmiki Ramayana & Homer Illiad Troy are the same war. Winners write Ramayana, Losers write Troy.

Shaivites are Ravana followers, Vaishnavites are Vibishana followers. Brahmins & Jews are the descendants of these Trojans who wrote the Vedas, Manusmriti, testatment, Bible, Koran etc..

Cheers,

Wow!! Hail to Trojans/Brahmins/Jews

:hail: :hail: :hail:​

 

[zebra16]

I was all along under the impression that M.K.Gandhi was born as a Hindu; was this wrong?

You are only partially correct. M K Gandhi was born as a Hindu and remained Hindu. He had also the courage to write as to why he was a hindu. The sharp point of the writing was that he was not ashamed to be a hindu as some of the posters in this appear to be so judging from their writing.

Is M.K. Gandhi the ultimate authority on such topics?

Gandhi was as much authority on such topics as a few of the posters in this forum pretend to be so, if not more. Furthermore, the quotation was furnished in response to the quotation by another poster of Dr. B R Ambedkar as to why he turned a Buddhist. So there was a parity between the authority of the quoted persons.

Obviously Gandhi might have said these words when the Muslim league had turned against his (Gandhi's kind of leadership) because they felt he was a hindu fanatic in disguise. Hence, in order not to alienate the Buddhists and the Jains (a powerful community of mostly Vaishyas including G.D. Birla who financed the INC all through Gandhi's time by making money in the cotton and jute markets - kind of gambling with lot of good gambling luck) Gandhi must have uttered these words.

I do not know. I have not come across any such writing. You use the word "obviously". So probably you were there or you have an inside information from an impeachable authority, which you have not shared.

While today's great Acharyas like zebra, jaykay767, C.Ravi may pronounce that Jainism and Buddhism are off-shoots of Hinduism, blah, blah, blah (),

It appears that Socrates Sangom is getting perturbed that others have a different opinion and are not in line with the understanding of the star pupils like Plato and Xenophon.

ignoramuses like Adishankara thought it fit to cite the Buddhist view points as the "poorvapaksha" and was successfully demolishing the Buddhist philosophy. And, the world over these two philosophies are even today not counted among the Hindu Shad Darsanas. I feel the world therefore needs to listen to this new set of ultra-scholars here in this forum.

It appears that the stock of Adi Sankara oscillates from genius grade to ignoramus grade depending the usage of his name to further one's own point.

I don't understand why a statement like "Buddhism and Jainism" arose in protest against vedic religion, becomes biased (against brahmin interests)!

The quoted portion of my original post was in response to Sri Kunjuppu asking Sri JK to "PLEASE QUOTE WHATEVER YOU SAY IN YOUR GRAND STATEMENT". I just wanted it to be enlarged to cover all posters and not restricted to only one poster. May be the postings of Socrates school are self evident like broad day light and they need not have to conform to any norms and their view points are self established facts

 

[ShivKC]

Dear KRS,

The one sentence is – all religions come from the Trojans/Brahmins/Jews.

Brahmins & Jews are the descendants of these Trojans who wrote the Vedas, Manusmriti, testatment, Bible, Koran etc..

Cheers,

relating brahmins to jewish race is like comparing apples to tomatoes.

jews came as a popular figures in the global map, only because of their root to global populated christianity and their recent flock of intellegentia & economic power.

all through the written history and biblical records,jews were just like our scheduled tribes and wanderers. they were the community looked down upon by roman/greek/egyptian kingdoms, and they were the best slaves to be hired in those days. they had no place to dwell and were very minuscule in population. they had neither priestly power among other communities nor political power. they were the last rug of the society. their priestly activity is limited only to their community, which was a very small wandering community.

that was not the case with brahmins. brahmins had power over kings & code of laws. they were a part of the large society in the asian continent. they were never been chased out of country, like how jews fled between egypt, israel and off late europe.

in nutshell, historically brahmins were in a far far better position than jews of those days.

just because you found jews of this century to be powerful, you are getting tempted to get closely identified with them.. thats a sad thing, I think!!

somehow, im finding difficult to find the jist of your post.

if you things, brahmins are the inventors or source for all major eastern religion, yes , it could be true and Im there with you.

 

[sarang]

I think you are putting this in another way. I remember you had said earlier that islam will take over all lands or something like that.

How are you so sure that the present day gods will ever remain?

 

[sarang]

This claim is made by the DK type dravidians and not by jains (supposed victims) or saivites. You may provide proof or references if available.

This type of wild baseless villification has been discussed and challenged in many forums. There is no literary, epigraphical or vayvazhi references in support.

you might have forgotten the wars conducted in tamil nadu by saivaites against the jains - about vaigai flowing red with the blood of the jain monks.

 

[sarang]

Funny; One's, jeevatma's, karma, good or bad, will come back to the same jeevatma. How I wish, my bad karmas are inherited by some other soul ( I have a list), and someone's good karma is attached to me.

My personal stock index may go to zero, means, I am freed from further transactions and reach moksha, or swells and I am tempted to invest more and more, forever tied to the exchange.

Dear Shri KB,

I am not familiar with the example of "grand universal stock index" and so on. My proposition is that karma is like a layer or skin attaching to every jiva. On death this karma layer (or, peel) gets out and searches a new birth which will be suitable for experiencing the results of all the accumulated Karmas in that particular peel. This explains the uniqueness of each individual as also the inequities at birth.

Hope this example is more lucid.

 

[sarang]

If the aztecs say so, one must accept. Unfortunately they have been silenced. Perhaps if the vedic community too is silenced by any means, one has to accept whatever imho fraternity shouts.

But all the world's religions including those of the Aztecs must have arisen from the vedic religion (Sanatana Dharma).

 

[sarang]

A section of the population followed the king and migrated to other religions (mainly related to jainism and buddhism) and remigrated; but other religions were not suppressed. This was the general condition all over Bharatavarsha. Only after the influx of abrahamic religions force was used to convert in addition to other methods. It is said that the during dark period in tamil history, 300 to 600 CE, kalabrars affiliated to jains ruled. The brahmins too kept a low profile during this period; no religious or secular literature.

We all agree that till the Moghul invasion, all sorts of idea borrowing has been going on between various then religious/philosophical groups. We also agree that given a particular king's inclination, one group/religion got prominence and others got suppressed.

KRS

 

[sarang]

You must asked this thousandth time. You better ask a shudra whether he wants to become a brahmin. If you believe in the adage - when there is a will ther is a way - perhaps he may find a solution.

Please let me know where in dharmashastras can a shudra become a brahman due to his vocation and not his birth.

Thanks.

 

[sarang]

We are discussing status, and not who is superior or inferior. Jains and buddhists have a right to claim that they are superior and the chosen ones. Who stops them? In fact they are proud of their traditions and do not denigrate their own community. They know what is sacred in their faith and what is good for them.

Only people with inferiority complex need fear of evaporation. Jains have plenty of goodwill for brahmins and tambrams in particular; will not disallow a tambram to buy or rent property in a jain society.

Jains are active in the cultural, religious and spiritual areas by building temples, pravachans, tv channels and what not. They do not care what others think about them. They don't need tambram baton holders to defend them. They are intelligent, vibrant, resourceful and cohesive.

It is ridiculous to claim that tambrams will undersell if they do what they are trained to do. Brahmins and all hindus in general have been living with multiple faiths without any friction till the advent of islam and christianity. Even the jews and parsis have lived harmoniously till today. If some srivaishnavites do not enter a shiva or ambal temple, they must have a reason born out of their conviction and there is nothing wrong in that.

Anyway a wide span of disconnected issues are covered but with a central theme; tambrams must cease to be tambrams. They are better off if they give up everything they cherish and value to become popular with tamilians to start with to citizens of this earth irrespective the mental disposition of the rest.

Brahmins, a subset of sanatan dharmists respect all other sects, and give then the freedom to practice what they have been doing.

to clarify, maybe, folks who claim that jainism, buddhism or sikhism, has roots, evolved out of hinduism, and pay obeisance to the vedas - do not realize how insensitive they are to the feelings of those faiths. i would not be surprised, that these folks who propagate such view, as brahmins, claim 'leadership' role here too, as the priestly class. that will be the last straw!!

whatever good will these jains/buddhist/sikh folks might have for the hindus, and brahmins in particular, i think, will evaporate immediately, on such pretensions. if all was good with vedic hinduism, there would have been no need for buddhism or jainism for that matter.

and we tambrams, continuing to harp on vedas, and ignoring the glorious heritage of tamil hinduism, of which we were a presence since sangam times, is i think, underselling ourselves in tamil nadu. all for what? i dont know.

there is no implied anti brahminism anywhere here. just facts, and a gentle instigation as to how we should approach our relationships with other faiths and ways of life. today, any indian originated faith, to us, is non threatening. that does not mean, these will give up their distinct identity when it comes matters of philosophy or practise. and none of them, are going to participate in our mutt affairs or yagnas.

the same goes for arya samaj or brahmo samaj. these too may claim to be offshoots of hinduism but with huge reservations on the scope and participation of priesthood and rituals.

even more telling, within our tambram groups, still today, a srivaishnavite will not step inside the kapali temple. so absolute is his devotion to vishnu. he might claim commonality to an extent, but that stops at the doors of the temple that he visits, and immaterial, whether i, a smartha, have no problems visiting sri rangam or thirupathi. from his viewpoint, there will be no quid pro quo. saying this, does not make an anti brahmin . let us respect differences, and we will all be the better for it.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

You said, in post # 250:



With one big difference - Allah is a Saguna God who demands absolute obedience.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS,

While Allah might have been a "saguna" godhead in pre-Islamic Arabia, the Quran does not describe His gunas. On the contrary, Muslims are forbidden to do any idolatry. The only characteristics of Allah, which man talks about are that Allah is the creator of the universe, and the judge of humankind, his uniqueness, all-merciful quality and omnipotent.[SUP][/SUP] The Qur’an declares "the reality of Allah, His inaccessible mystery". Since advaita allows the worship of saguna brahman in many forms, I feel Islam, by prohibiting idolatry, Allah is a better form of nirguna brahman.