‘Religions are for humans, not for Gods’

Wisdom from Swami Dayananda Saraswathi

Tue, 22 Jul, 2008,03:38 PM

‘Narada Gana Sabha’ was jam-packed and overflowing on Sunday, with the religious elite of Chennai that had poured in to listen to Swami Dayananda Saraswathi’s luminous eloquence on a subject of imperative importance: Do all religions have the same goal?
.
’Only Hindus believe all religions have the same goal. All religions must have a goal and there is no doubt about it. But, they need not be the same or they cannot be the same. Religions are for human beings and not for Gods’; said Swami Dayananda Saraswathi.

While categorizing the religious goals as ‘Dharma’ and ‘Moksha’, Swamiji said that all religions are connected to Dharma and asked, ‘is Dharma universal? Is it religion specific? Does each religion have its own views on Dharma?’
Delving deep on Dharma, Swamiji took the concept of ‘Ahmisa’ and clarified that Ahimsa is not universal.

He connected the concept of Ahimsa to the ‘survival instinct’ of all living beings. ‘There is no exception to the survival instinct and no living being wants to get hurt and no one has the right to hurt others! Ahimsa is not subject to double standards! One can have ones own belief and promote one’s religion by respecting others irrespective of their beliefs.

The ‘freedom’ must not be abused! Though we believe in ‘Ahimsa Paramo Dharma’, other theologies believe in hurting others by various means to achieve their goal. There, the ends do not justify means. For them only end is sacred and not the means and hence they indulge in deception, seduction and coercion,’ averred the Swamiji.

He said that the Abrahamic religions do not accept even one common value whether it is Ahimsa or Mutual Respect or what ever.

Elaborating more on Dharma, Swamiji said, ‘Dharma has a matrix of values to make our choice and we can choose either to do, or not to do, or to differently do! Dharma is not a mandate of God, but a manifestation of God and its basis is knowledge, which doesn’t require to be taught.

This aspect brings the ‘universality of Dharma”. Swamiji added, ‘though law is subject to interpretation, in terms of Dharma all indigenous religions held more or less the same view until they are destroyed’.

Dayananda Saraswathi clearly distinguished between the ‘Moksha’ concept of Sanatana Dharma and the so-called ‘salvation’ propagated by other religions. He said, ‘other religions publicize ‘going to heaven’ as salvation. For them salvation is the need of a condemned or a damned person. They wax eloquent on ‘sin’, ‘sinners’ and ‘saviour’ and they save only sinners!

n the process, they address people of other faiths as ‘sinners’ and say that their God alone can save those sinners. We are not sinners; we are not born out of sin, not in this country; if others say that we are born out of original sin, then they are insulting our parents; we Hindus have highest respect for our parents and we will never subscribe to the view that they are sinners; this is ridiculous! Our prayer must be ‘Oh god, save me from these saviours! They also claim that their God alone can pardon us, save us from our sins for our salvation. They even claim that their God died for us! If somebody died for me, I am not responsible! I have the freedom to take care of myself and I am aware of it’.

Analysing the concept of going to heaven Swamiji said, ‘the other religions talk about heaven as a place, where one can stay permanently and happily without any problem, which are all ‘non-verifiable’ beliefs. Life after death and going to heaven are all non-verifiable.

When you say you are going to a place, then it must be bound by space and time. They say ‘heaven’ is the place of their God, but they also say that their God is ‘formless’. Does ‘formlessness’ require a location? A belief is subject to correction and verification! We believe in different forms of God and that He understands our prayers, which we conduct in different languages.

When a human can respond to different calls and catcalls, God can understand any number of languages. We also believe reaching heaven is a result of ‘Punya’, which in turn is the result of Prayer. Prayer is ‘Karma’ containing specific valid and sophisticated rituals. ‘Karma’ comes from the ‘Kartha’ and as Karthas, we earn Punya by the Karmas of Charity, Dharma, Bakthi, pooja, meditation and penance etc.

When our Punya gets exhausted, we come down to the earth, which means the permanent stay in heaven is denied. When all religions hold non-verifiable beliefs and if all religions accept others religious practices and their beliefs, how can there be a ‘dispute’? Only ‘harmony’ must be there!’

Swamiji concluded by saying, ‘this Jagath (world) is the manifestation of ‘Eshwara’ and ‘Dharma’ is Eshwara and it is non-negotiable. For us, the ‘means’ is much more important than the ‘goal’. We will follow Dharma in our means and God will take care of our end’

Dr. Padma Subramaniam, Bharathanatyam expert and Vice President of Dharma Rakshana Samithi which had organised the speech, welcomed the gathering.

In her welcome address she said ‘Hinduism caters to four different concepts namely Dharma, Artha, Kaama and Moksha as clearly spelt out in Tamil scriptures as Aram, Porul, Inbam and Veedu. Sage Thiruvalluvar has dealt with the first three in his magnificent work Thirukkural through Araththuppaal, Porutpaal and Kaamaththuppaal, which would lead us to the fourth Veedu peru that is the Moksha’.

She also said that women are treated equally well in Hinduism, while they are either discriminated against or ill-treated in other religions. She cited the examples of Gargi, Maithreyi,
Avvaiyaar, Kaaraikkaal Ammaiyaar and Mata Amrithananthamayi Devi who have reached the pinnacles of glory in their service to humanity and divinity.

She called for ‘Unity’ among various religions and also made it clear that unity doesn’t mean uniformity and that Swamijis and Gurus are there to relieve humanity from conflicts and sufferings. She gave a small brief about Dharma Rakshana Samithi.

Cho Ramaswamy stayed clear of ‘religion’ leaving the serious topic to Swamiji and enthralled the audience with his humour and sarcasm on the current political scenario. He said that he has been invited as a ‘Speaker’ and that he would not go without speaking.

Being known for ‘confusions’ he wondered how he could give a clear speech! He said that Swamiji’s speech would be ‘new’ and ‘clear’ but not ‘nuclear’! Then talking about the magical figure of 271 and connecting it with Hindu concept of Advaitha, he said, ‘two of ‘us’ take ‘seven steps’ and become ‘one’. He also said that if the world does not have people like Swamijis and Gurus to throw light on us, then what is ‘Left’ will be ‘darkness’ and concluded by saying, ‘If the Left has a future in India, then India has no future’.

Swami Dayananda Saraswathi released a music CD on Aadhithyahridayam and Essence of Vishnusahasranamam sung by Unni Krishnan and composed by Rangasamy Parthasarathy.

Mathura Mangalam Jeer SWamigal and Hindu Munnani President Ramagopalan were also felicitated and honoured.
newstodaynet.com/newsindex.php …

SUPREME COURT SAYS ‘NO’ TO KARUNANIDHI

The Supreme Court allowed the plea of Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati for appointing a public prosecutor from Puducherry on Tuesday to hold trial against him in the Sankararaman murder case.

Supreme Court has said that the state of Puducherry can appoint public prosecutor to hold trial against Kanchi Shankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati’ in the Sankararaman murder case.

The Apex court was hearing a plea by the seer challenging the appointment of a public prosecutor from Tamil Nadu in the Sankararaman murder case, in which he himself is an accused and whose trial was shifted to neighbouring Puducherry.

The Court on 10th April had reserved the judgement on the issue in which the Seer had contended that since the trial in the case was transferred to Puducherry, the Tamil Nadu Government has no authority to appoint its public prosecutor.

Further, Shankaracharya had submitted that the apex court should address an important question as to which State should be vested with the power of appeal against the order of the trial court.

Sri Jayendra Saraswati had challenged the appointment of a public prosecutor from Tamil Nadu for holding trial in the case, which was shifted to Puducherry on the direction of the Apex court. Seer had contended that since the trial in the case was transferred to Puducherry, the Tamil Nadu Government has no authority to appoint its public prosecutor.

SUPREME COURT FORBIDS TAMILNADU GOVT’S ATTEMPT AGAINST ACHARYA

The Supreme Court allowed the plea of Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati for appointing a public prosecutor from Puducherry on Tuesday to hold trial against him in the Sankararaman murder case. Supreme Court has said that the state of Puducherry can appoint public prosecutor to hold trial against Kanchi Shankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati’ in the Sankararaman murder case. The Apex court was hearing a plea by the seer challenging the appointment of a public prosecutor from Tamil Nadu in the Sankararaman murder case, in which he himself is an accused and whose trial was shifted to neighbouring Puducherry. The Court on 10th April had reserved the judgement on the issue in which the Seer had contended that since the trial in the case was transferred to Puducherry, the Tamil Nadu Government has no authority to appoint its public prosecutor. Further, Shankaracharya had submitted that the apex court should address an important question as to which State should be vested with the power of appeal against the order of the trial court. Sri Jayendra Saraswati had challenged the appointment of a public prosecutor from Tamil Nadu for holding trial in the case, which was shifted to Puducherry on the direction of the Apex court. Seer had contended that since the trial in the case was transferred to Puducherry, the Tamil Nadu Government has no authority to appoint its public prosecutor.

SC allows Kanchi seer’s plea for a public prosecutor

Tuesday, 22 July , 2008, 12:14
Last Updated: Tuesday, 22 July , 2008, 12:27

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today allowed the plea of Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati for appointing a public prosecutor from Puducherry to hold trial against him in the Sankararaman murder case.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said that the state of Puducherry, where the trial was shifted from Tamil Nadu, can appoint the public prosecutor and the case will continue there.

Jayendra Saraswati had challenged the appointment of a public prosecutor from Tamil Nadu for holding trial in the case, which was shifted to Puducherry on the direction of the Apex court.

Seer had contended that since the trial in the case was transferred to Puducherry, the Tamil Nadu Government has no authority to appoint its public prosecutor.

Further, Shankaracharya had submitted that the apex court should address an important question as to which state should be vested with the power of appeal against the order of the trial court.

The Tamil Nadu Government had maintained that Section 24 CrPC provides exclusive right to a state for appointing its own public prosecutor and hence the pontiff’s plea should not be entertained.

The Shankaracharya was arrested on November 14, 2004 by the Tamil Nadu police in Andhra Pradesh’s Mahaboobnagar district in connection with the murder of A Sankararaman, manager of the Sri Vardaraja Perumal Temple, Kancheepuram on September 3, 2004.

Following a petition filed by the pontiff, the Supreme Court on October 26, 2005 shifted the trial against the seer from the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in Tamil Nadu to the District and Sessions Court, Puducherry.

The apex court on May 2, 2006 had also stayed the trial before the session court, Puducherry after the seer opposed Tamil Nadu Government’s move to appoint its own public prosecutor for the trial.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14721038

`Baptising’ Thiruvalluvar to `besiege’ the Hindus!

Monday, 07 July 2008, 02:25 PM

By: B R HARAN

‘History is always written by the victors and whoever controls the writing of history books control the past. Without doubt, the most consistently powerful force in the western world over the last two thousand years has been the Roman Catholic Church and consequently history has often been what it wanted to be’.

George Orwell in his novel ‘1984’.

(Thamizhaga Anthanar Varalaaru – History of Brahmins of Tamil Nadu – Vol-II-Page599).

As rightly expressed in those immortal words by George Orwell, the Indians have been fed with distorted history by the Western Christian elite before independence and the same has been continued even after independence, thanks to the takeover of the nation’s history by the Marxists and Christian stooges, who continued the dark and sinister legacy of Max Mueller and McCauley. As an important part of the perverted history, which was planted by the western scholars, the so-called St.Thomas’s arrival, life and death were thrust on South India. This thrust gave a solid foundation to the Church to claim as if Christianity was also an indigenous religion.

As brilliantly shown in these columns by Mr.Sundaram for the last four days, many attempts have been made at regular intervals to impose the concocted history of Thomas on the people, thereby removing the facts from their minds, about the persecution of Hindus and destroying of Hindu Temples by the Christian invaders (Portuguese, French and British) from the fifteenth century onwards.

One such attempt, in the line of Arulappa and Acharya Paul, was made by a writer by name Deivanayagam, who wrote a book titled, ‘Vivliyam (Bible), Thirukkural, Saiva Siddantham – Oppu Ayvu (Comparative Research)’, which was published in 1985-86 by none other than the ‘International Institute of Tamil Studies’, Adayar, Madras, either without any application of mind, or, as a deliberate act of connivance. Shockingly Deivanayagam was also awarded a Doctorate by the University of Madras. Deivanayagam had predetermined to conclude his book with a finding that Thiruvalluvar was a Christian and a disciple of the so-called St.Thomas and most of the Saiva Sidhantha and the vivid knowledge found in Thiruklural were nothing but the sayings of The Bible. In order to achieve this devious motive, he distorted and misinterpreted the verses of Kural and Shivite Philosophical Works and completed the book. Later on, Tamil and Shivite scholars protested against this and the ‘Dharmapuram Adheenam’, a famous Shivite Mutt, came out with a book of refutation written by Tamil Shivite Scholar Arunai Vadivel Mudaliar and released it amongst a congregation of eminent Scholars, who strongly criticized Deivanayagam for his perversion of history. This was done mainly to prevent the usage of such deceitful materials by the future generations for research activities. (Ref: www.hamsa.org – Ishvar Sharan)

The planting of the so-called St.Thomas’s story was not only to have a foundation for Christianity in India, but also to spread it through out the country. This fabrication succeeded slightly, over the years, in the areas of Madras, Nagappatinam and Pondicherry, mainly because of the fact that the ‘Kapaleeshwarar Temple’, Mylapore, ‘Vel Ilankanni Amman Temple’ near Nagappattinam and ‘Vedapureeshwarar Temple’, Pondicherry were destroyed and Santhome Basilica, Velankanni Church (Our Lady of Health Basilica) and the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, Pondicherry were built on their remains respectively. Well known scholars of Archeology have established that, the details of the destruction of original Kapaleeshwarar Temple could be found in Tamil inscriptions on the walls of the Marundeeswarar Temple in Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai, even today!

But, the glorious religious tradition and cultural heritage of Sanatana Dharma had been so hugely established that, despite the cooperation from the Dravidian racists, Marxists and the English language media, the Catholic Diocese couldn’t expand beyond a certain limit. As a result, it started indulging in ‘inculturation’ methods (saffron dressing, paadayaatra, calling ‘Santhome Mary’ as ‘Thirumayilai Annai’, giving sugar-rice as prashaad, etc) to confuse and win over the gullible masses.

At this juncture, fell on its head like a ‘bolt from the blue’, the categorical statement from Pope Benedict that the so-called St.Thomas never ever visited India! This resounding statement from the Papacy, which shocked the Catholic community, had shaken the very foundation of Christianity in South India! As the Papacy didn’t bother to listen to the Indian Catholic community and their protests, the Madras and Cochin Bishops met in Cochin, Kerala during the second week of June 2008, to find out ways and means of reestablishing the history of the so-called St. Thomas.

As a step in that direction, the Archdiocese of Santhome, Madras, decided to produce a feature film on the so-called St.Thomas the Apostle of India, at a cost of Rs.50 Crore in the banner of ‘St.Thomas Apostle of India Trust’, which has Archbishop A.M.Chinappa, Deputy Archbishop Lawrence Pius, Treasurer of the Diocese Mr.Ernest Paul and Script Writer Dr.Paulraj Lourdusamy as office bearers. The movie will be presenting the life and times of the so-called St.Thomas in South India in general and Madras in particular. The film will have certain supposedly important events like the alleged meeting between Thomas and Tamil Sage Thiruvalluvar, the establishment of Santhome Cathedral and the alleged killing of Thomas by a Hindu Brahmin Priest.

The story of Thirukkural containing Biblical verses was first concocted by G.U.Pope, a Christian Missionary, who learnt Tamil and translated the Tamil Literary works such as Thiruvachagam, Naaladiyaar and Thirukkural in English. The missionaries like G.U.Pope, Joseph Besky (who took a Tamil name ‘Veeramaa Munivar’) and Caldwell have a modus operandi of learning the native language with a motive of distorting history to suit their missionary agendas. The Dravidian racist political party, which always thrived on the bogus Aryan Invasion theory, took immense satisfaction in glorifying these missionaries by erecting statues for them along the Marina Beach when it ruled Tamil Nadu in the late sixties and early seventies, thereby exhibiting its unholy connection with Christian missionaries. No wonder, the Honourable Chief Minister Karunanithi inaugurated this 50 crore movie-magnum on the so-called St.Thomas!

G.U.Pope lived up to the true tradition of Christian missionaries, by telling that Thiruvalluvar lived in Madras between 800 and 1000 years after the birth of Christ! The Tamils never bought this story and laughed at it. As per the available records it is believed that Thiruvalluvar could have lived during the second century based on the evidence that ‘Thirukkural’ was included in the group called Pathinen Keezh Kanakku (Eighteen literary works) during the ‘Kadai Sangam’ (Last Sangam) days. Those days, there was a literary-grammatical procedure by which the author would always make it a point to convey to the readers the identification of his Teacher (Guru) and Patron apart from his own personal details such as name, native place, worshipping deity, etc. But Thirukkural sans such details, and hence, the connection between Thiruvalluvar and Thomas is a mere figment of imagination.

Whereas, a look at many other literary works written after the second century, say for example Kamba Ramayanam, or Periya Puraanam, could lead to the mentioning of Thirukkural or its philosophy in them and none of them would have any information about a religion called Christianity. The glorious rule of Raja Raja Chola was during the 10 century and there was no trace of Christianity then! Also the Santhome Cathedral had the inscriptions of Rajendra Chola of the eleventh century on its corridor walls! Then what meeting is this Archdiocese talking about between Thiruvalluvar and the so-called St.Thomas?

Even the Chief Minister during his speech at the inauguration function, has not mentioned anything about the alleged meeting between Thomas and Thiruvalluvar. It is a well-known fact that, Karunanidhi, himself being a Tamil Scholar and well versed with Tamil literary works, had written his masterpiece ‘Kuraloviyam’ on Thirukkural. As he had not talked anything about the connection between the Bible and Thirukkural or Thomas and Thiruvalluvar at the inaugural function of the movie, it becomes obvious that the ‘Thomas story’ is an absolute falsehood! But, he has waxed eloquent on the supposed killing of the so-called St.Thomas at the hands of a Hindu Brahmin Priest and went on to say that the particular scene alone is enough for the success of the movie! But For this (Thomas’s killing) also, the Church doesn’t have even an iota of evidence.

At this juncture, it can be recalled that the Honourable Chief Minister had recently questioned the truth of Bhagwan Rama, historicity of Ramayana and existence of Rama Sethu, despite the availability of so much of archeological, literary, cultural, numismatic, geographical and historical evidences. But, he has not exhibited the courage to question the historicity of the so-called St.Thomas, despite being aware of the fact that there is absolutely no iota of evidence. The Honourable Chief Minister, who is a well-known expert in Thirukkural, has unfortunately not felt it important to ascertain the truth of the so-called metering between Thomas and Thiruvalluvar, but conveniently left it untouched at the inauguration function. Though the people are aware of the Chief Minister’s hostile stand against the majority community, it doesn’t augur well for him to openly pander the minority community accepting their devious machinations.

The Archdiocese talks of three vital places in Madras namely Santhome (Mylapore), Little Mount (Saidapet) and Thoms Mount (Brungi Malai). While Santhome Cathedral stands on the ruins of Kapali Temple, Little Mount was also built after demolishing a Temple and the Church on the Big Mount was also built on the ruins of a Temple. The Big Mount was called as ‘Brungi Malai’ named after ‘Brungi Maharishi’, who sat in penance there invoking Bhagwan Shiva seeking his Darshan and Blessing. Ultimately Bhagwan Shiva appeared before Brungi Munivar as ‘Nandeeshwara’ and as clear evidence the ‘Avudai Nayagi Sametha Nandeeshwara Temple’ stands near the St.Thomas Railway Station, from where one could see the Brungi Malai clearly. This ‘Stal puraanaa’ can be found in the form of inscriptions on the walls of the Nandeeshwara Temple even today! Even while the Archdiocese has been attempting to establish the fallacy of St.Thomas over the years, it has not exhibited the courage so far to face a public debate despite invitations from learned Tamil Hindu scholars.

The Archdiocese has the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion to propagate its faith, but it cannot be done at the cost of other religious faith. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion cannot be used to distort history, or Christianise the icons of other religions, with a motive of belittling the other faith, which is native in all respects and which has well-established glorious religious tradition and cultural heritage spanning thousands of years even before the birth of Christianity. Thrusting of falsehood on the gullible masses cannot be allowed. It is not too difficult to understand the aims and objectives of the Madras Archdiocese behind this movie project. So, it would be better for them to understand the sensitivity attached with this project, as they have a social responsibility. The government must also ensure that history is not distorted and the people are not repeatedly fed with fabrications and fallacies.

It would be appropriate to conclude with the sensible and courageous words of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, ‘The Church will have to go, and the Kapaleeshwara Temple re-built on that site. Hindus will do it with the help of sane and civilised Christians if possible, without them if necessary, and despite them if forced. When 83 percent Hindus unite, let those who are seeking to debase Hindu icons by bogus history realise that a religiousTsunami will wash them away’.

Politics has always been interwoven with religion and history in our nation of diversity and in such a scenario, it would be better to leave this project untouched, for the sake of Unity!

P.S:

Ompalaniappan writes:

1. Deivanayagam got Ph.D and then only his bogus-thesis was
published by the IITS.

2. IITS is in Taramani and not in Adyar as stated.

3. Tamil and Shivite scholars were sleeping and it was Vedaprakash
who pursued the matter with the mutts by corresponding with them.
Though Arunai Vadivelu Mudaliar of Tattuva Maiyam, Kanchipuram gave
the typed manuscript, the Mayiladurai Adhinam (International
Institute of Saiva Siddhanta)was not publishing. Sri. T. N.
Ramachandran was secretary at that time.

4. Even Deivanayagam was ridiculing the delay by issuing handbills.

5. Vedaprakash met Arunai Vadivelu Mudaliar and knew the facts,
later made arrangements to reach the copy to the Mutt (Sri.
Palaravayan Mudaliar’s son took the copy from him).

6. “Inculuration” program has been there since early 1960s as the
Vatican Council II documents.

7. Arulappa, the collaborator clearly recorded in his book that the
temple on the Big-mount was Perumal / Vishnu temple. This was
destroyed by the Portuguese after driving away the people living
there.