I had been having a troubled relationship lately with my guru, Swami Harish Chander Puri, over philosophical differences. As of today, a permanent and rather official break in our relationship occurred, and I will no longer be allowed to call him guru, or even contact him for that matter. I added the video to demonstrate exactly what happened - more or less . Basically, he accused me of 1] going back on my word, which I have to admit is true but for extenuating circumstances, and 2] being too rigid, traditionalist, and old fashioned. In other words, dogmatic. Which is a strange thing to hear for a Western student from his older, Indian teacher. It is not, however, a strange thing for a Advaitavadi (monist, myself) to hear from a Dvaitavadi (dualist, my guru). There is a long history of dissension between the two doctrines. Hinduism is not always the perennial philosophy it is portrayed to be. Hindus argue over doctrine all the time; we have just managed to avoid killing, discriminating, and ostracizing each other over it. This issue has even caused a bit of a break between me and my Hinduism student who is clearly a religious dualist even though she gave monism a good try. She is just not ready for the path of One Reality. Those who enjoy clinging to falsehoods as comforts and coping mechanisms rarely are in my humble opinion. The Unitarian Universalism and Omnism of the neo-Vedanta movement, which has links to the liberal, new age, flower-children philosophy of the West, is relatively new in Hinduism - around a hundred years old. It was started by some very beloved gurus of the 19th century. So it is often viewed as a form of progress amongst religious Hindus, many of which have no idea just how new it is because it has become so wide-spread in modern Dhramic thought; much like the way Hindus are now often viewed as strict vegetarians who never eat beef. Historically speaking, this is not true. It is the tolerant and agreeable notion within modern Sanatana Dharma. Therefore, in my rejection of it, I am labeled the Orthodox Extremist. And I am fine with that. It is just a shame that it led to such a split with my teacher who I still view as being a very good person. The kind of religious person we could use more of. The Charlie Hebdo killings is a reminder of how precious the religiously tolerant are in this world. But the real question Ive been asking myself as someone who is often raging against the ignorance of the dogmatic viewpoint is: If one is dogmatic against the very idea of universalism, does it not eventually negate itself and become in essence anti-dogmatic? In other words, can one be so dogmatic that they eventually cease to be dogmatic at all? I know. It seems irrational. I believe I need to provide you with a little background... My guru is a Shaivite bhakta (devotee of Lord Shiva). He is also a dualist in that he believes god and the universe are separate realities - a non-pantheistic philosophy. He is a personalist - Shiva is a personal god for him much like Jesus is for a Christian - a concept I also reject, and his religious devotion is summed up entirely as Monolatrism (believing in many gods, but worshiping only the Supreme God). I, however, am a Shakta jnani who follows the Advaitavada notion that all reality beyond the absolute reality is false. A pantheist and an impersonalist who worships an unknowable Goddess. Although I do entertain devotional worship and Monolatrism as a cultural aspect of my Hinduism, in truth, I do not accept the existence of any real gods beyond the pantheistic notion of god. The consequence of this is that even the concept of god is a falsehood that must be discarded at some point. I am called a rigid traditionalist because this was the philosophical viewpoint of Brahmanism / Hinduism before the re-emergence of devotional religion in Indias medieval period. To sum it up: Mine is an ancient religious philosophy so extreme that even the divine becomes a worthless term in light of the principle of Shakti-Brahman, the Absolute, where all other realities dissolve into nothingness (pralaya). So, you can kind of see where the break occurred here. I am asraddadhanah - the Faithless. A disrespectful (though tolerated) transgression against the Lord according to the Bhagavad Gita, textbook for the religious Hindu. Is this a dogmatic position? I dont know. I never thought of it as being dogmatic for the following reason: When you embrace the absolute because the absolute is the ultimate state of being, is that dogmatic when there is no other alternative? My status as a logician follows the same principle. There is only Logic, and Illogic is just a state of being ignorant of the logic involved in any particular proposition or causal event. Is the scientist dogmatic because they embrace the evidence of the big bang or because the universe is proven physical and material and no contradicting evidence has ever been found? Is the technologist dogmatic when they say the computer is the greatest form of technology to emerge in the 21st century? Is the bee dogmatic in its insistence on producing honey as a primary food source because no other food will do? (Bonus question: Does anyone else think it is disgusting that we eat bee vomit?) youtu.be/ID2kx-z1pZk
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 07:48:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015