It is fashionable in interfaith discussions to advocate "tolerance" for other faiths. But we would find it patronizing, even downright insulting, to be "tolerated" at someone's dinner table. No spouse would appreciate being told that his or her presence at home was being "tolerated." No self-respecting worker accepts mere tolerance from colleagues. We tolerate those we consider inferior. In religious circles, tolerance, at best, is what the pious extend toward people they regard as heathens, idol worshippers or infidels. It is time we did away with tolerance and replaced it with "mutual respect."
Religious tolerance was advocated in Europe after centuries of wars between opposing denominations of Christianity, each claiming to be "the one true church" and persecuting followers of "false religions." Tolerance was a political "deal" arranged between enemies to quell the violence (a kind of cease-fire) without yielding any ground. Since it was not based on genuine respect for difference, it inevitably broke down.
My campaign against mere tolerance started in the late 1990s when I was invited to speak at a major interfaith initiative at Claremont Graduate University. Leaders of major faiths had gathered to propose a proclamation of "religious tolerance." I argued that the word "tolerance" should be replaced with "mutual respect" in the resolution. The following day, Professor Karen Jo Torjesen, the organizer and head of religious studies at Claremont, told me I had caused a "sensation." Not everyone present could easily accept such a radical idea, she said, but added that she herself was in agreement. Clearly, I had hit a raw nerve.
I then decided to experiment with "mutual respect" as a replacement for the oft-touted "tolerance" in my forthcoming talks and lectures. I found that while most practitioners of dharma religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) readily espouse mutual respect, there is considerable resistance from the Abrahamic faiths.
Soon afterwards, at the United Nation's Millennium Religion Summit in 2000, the Hindu delegation led by Swami Dayananda Saraswati insisted that in the official draft the term "tolerance" be replaced with "mutual respect." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict), who led the Vatican delegation, strongly objected to this. After all, if religions deemed "heathen" were to be officially respected, there would be no justification for converting their adherents to Christianity.
The matter reached a critical stage and some serious fighting erupted. The Hindu side held firm that the time had come for the non-Abrahamic religions to be formally respected as equals at the table and not just tolerated by the Abrahamic religions. At the very last minute, the Vatican blinked and the final resolution did call for "mutual respect." However, within a month, the Vatican issued a new policy stating that while "followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." Many liberal Christians condemned this policy, yet it remains the Vatican's official position.
My experiments in proposing mutual respect have also involved liberal Muslims. Soon after Sept. 11, 2001, in a radio interview in Dallas, I explained why mutual respect among religions is better than tolerance. One caller, identified as a local Pakistani community leader, congratulated me and expressed complete agreement. For her benefit, I elaborated that in Hinduism we frequently worship images of the divine, may view the divine as feminine, and that we believe in reincarnation. I felt glad that she had agreed to respect all this, and I clarified that "mutual respect" merely means that I am respected for my faith, with no requirement for others to adopt or practice it. I wanted to make sure she knew what she had agreed to respect and wasn't merely being politically correct. The woman hung up.
In 2007, I was invited to an event in Delhi where a visiting delegation from Emory University was promoting their newly formed Inter-Religious Council as a vehicle to achieve religious harmony. In attendance was Emory's Dean of the Chapel and Religious Life, who happens to be an ordained Lutheran minister. I asked her if her work on the Inter-Religious Council was consistent and compatible with her preaching as a Lutheran minister, and she confidently replied that it was. I then asked: "Is it Lutheran doctrine merely to 'tolerate' other religions or also to respect them, and by respect I mean acknowledging them as legitimate religions and equally valid paths to God"? She replied that this was "an important question," one that she had been "thinking about," but that there are "no easy answers."
It is disingenuous for any faith leader to preach one thing to her flock while representing something contradictory to naive outsiders. The idea of "mutual respect" poses a real challenge to Christianity, which insists that salvation is only possible by grace transmitted exclusively through Jesus. Indeed, Lutheran teaching stresses this exclusivity! These formal teachings of the church would make it impossible for the Dean to respect Hinduism, as opposed to tolerating it.
Unwilling to settle for ambiguity, I continued with my questions: "As a Lutheran minister, how do you perceive Hindu murtis (sacred images)? Are there not official injunctions in your teachings against such images?" "Do you consider Krishna and Shiva to be valid manifestations of God or are they among the 'false gods'?" "How do you see the Hindu Goddess in light of the church's claim that God is masculine?" The Dean deftly evaded every one of these questions.
Only a minority of Christians agree with the idea of mutual respect while fully understanding what it entails. One such person is Janet Haag, editor of Sacred Journey, a Princeton-based multi-faith journal. In 2008, when I asked her my favorite question -- "What is your policy on pluralism?" -- she gave the predictable response: "We tolerate other religions." This prompted me to explain mutual respect in Hinduism wherein each individual has the freedom to select his own personal deity (ishta-devata, not to be confused with polytheism) and pursue a highly individualized spiritual path (sva-dharma). Rather than becoming defensive or evasive, she explored this theme in her editorial in the next issue:
"In the course of our conversation about effective interfaith dialog, [Rajiv Malhotra] pointed out that we fall short in our efforts to promote true peace and understanding in this world when we settle for tolerance instead of making the paradigm shift to mutual respect. His remarks made me think a little more deeply about the distinctiveness between the words 'tolerance' and 'respect,' and the values they represent."
Haag explained that the Latin origin of "tolerance" refers to enduring and does not convey mutual affirmation or support: "[The term] also implicitly suggests an imbalance of power in the relationship, with one of the parties in the position of giving or withholding permission for the other to be." The Latin word for respect, by contrast, "presupposes we are equally worthy of honor. There is no room for arrogance and exclusivity in mutual respect."
Deepak Chopra: Only Spirituality Can Solve The Problems Of The World
Interfaith dialog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rabbi Sid Schwarz: Hanukkah and Interfaith Dialogue: Increasing ...
What is Hindu Identity? - Rajiv Malhotra
YouTube - Interfaith Respect Series #1 Islamic Center of America ...
Please give it up. One cannot demand respect from others. If you think it's possible, then you are no different that those Abrahamic conquerors who believe that intimidation equals persuasion.
You are right that Abrahamic people do not respect dharmic religions. Respect is even difficult between their own sub-sects. That is who they are. When I come up to that point of disrespect in any such individual, unfortunately I in turn lose respect for them. That is who I am.
I have learned that they tolerate us, and in return, I tolerate them. That is enough for civil society.
I read points-counter points made by Quintus & Jighter etc.. (on Bhuddism v. Christianity...)... The quote attributed to Buddha appears reasonable; but, there is a catch- "observation and analysis"... What to observe or analyze? Not all is observable even to Buddha- that's why Buddha skipped talk on 'Creator', although like you and I, he knew no one would be here without a 'Creator' or a purpose, Or do we? Think !
Now, we know you and I are nothing but a bunch of atoms working together (even DNA is atoms or params...), and if we find all life lives in someone-else's Atom- what that tells us? That someone-else's must have something to do for all this- what purpose? Buddha refused to talk on this to the ignorant- because it is too complicated to explain or comprehend at that time... Now, with some primitive knowledge of Biology, Physics etc.. in hand we should be able to see some light?
Ask- why did ancients worship Earth, Sun, Fire, Tree or Monkey? Not because Darwin will come to see Man coming out of Ape- which is simply a nonsese, like salvation is ONLY thru Jesus- but, because they knew it thru "observation and analysis"- we have a long way to get there...
Earths’ continued spin of its N.pole 180 degrees in ½ -cycle, from a position pointing away from Indra (at 0N or 360 degrees) to a position pointing towards Indra, is a Yuga of 4.32* million-years consisting of 4-unequal time periods with varied result.
At 0N degrees [between 337.5W to 22.5E: A period of ~0.9x10^6 years that ended on Earth about 25,000 years ago- as a result lighter skin man emerged out of ice-cold regions, and darker skin man emerged out of warm-hot regions] The polar-regions face ice-age and the regions on both sides of the equator face hot-age with other regions between the poles-equator face cold-warm-hot age.
At 45E degrees [between 22.5E to 67.5E: The present time on Earth with a tilt of 23.5 degrees.., and this period will be ~1x10^6 years] A portion of the hemisphere facing Sun and the regions on both sides of the equator will have warm-hot age (~6 months) while the other hemisphere will have cold-warm age (~6 months).
Sunil Kumar (Engineer)
Formerly GM of an International Business House and Founder Trustee & Professor of a Management Institute.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:10 AM
Subject: Polar Motion
Finally I understood what you have computed : the pole coordinates differences X_{i} - X_{i-1} at annual interval, for t_i = 1996, 1997, 1998, 1990, 2000
And what is your point ? What's puzzling ?
X (arc sec) Y (arc sec) Polar Motion
Year 1996 -0.17 0.10 [.17^2+.1^2]^.5=0.197 arc sec
Year 1997 0.14 0.10 =0.172
Year 1998 0.03 0.15 =0.154
Year 1999 0.10 0.10 =0.10
Year 2000 0.12 0.05 =0.13
I did not say 'Veda' is revealed to us 1.6x10^6 Yrs ago- I said "more than 1.6x10^6"- after which Ice-age began and ended 25-35,000 Yrs. ago- Yuga is 4.32x10^6 Yrs during that time Eath spins 180degrees- rest you can calculate..
Your belief on Black holes is misguided by the confused scientists... There are NO black holes; Galaxy is a Living-Cell of Almighty Brahman of which 'Indra-Suns-Planets' (we live) is just one of the Atoms out of Billions of Atoms in the Galaxy...How do I know? Wait..
By the way, the black hole theory is not mine - it is mentioned specifically in Srimadh Bhagavatam part of the Puranas in Hindu Canonical text.
The Puranic story goes somewhat like this - Rishi Markandeya ( who is credited as founding father of the Hindu kingdoms of Bali, Philippines, and other Australasian countries ), is a Chiranjeevi (ie) they could live an immortal life as long as they like - but would be eventually assimilated into the 'Bramham' in the pralaya (end of all universe). Once, requested Krishna to show the Prayala to him - the minute he turned away asking the question, he went through multiple universes seeing himself manifold times at different stages, and suddenly, he saw that almost all the universe is being sucked into a black hole - when he noted that after some time, that the black hole is actually the mouth of a baby and that the baby now assumed the form so small that it could fit into the center of a fig leaf and it floated into the vast expanse of space - suddenly Markandeya was woken up by Krishna - and Krishna said to him - this is Pralaya ( or end of universe ) - so, concepts like black holes do exist in Puranic part of Hindu canonical text. The Vedas also state steady state theory of Golden egg
Your dog example is good- but, what if its' time is up- a stone will not do any good?.
I am convinced Adi Shankara and the 'Advita' is better than Buddha+Jesus+Nagarjuna...; but, the problem remains the same- none of them could show 'god' to the ignorant. That gave a chance to some to form various political parties in the name of 'god' (including in India, within Hindu, as Shiva or Vishnu followers etc...). Whereas, the scientists, in my view, are no different from petty-thieves, like the Wallstreet steal... So, where are we heading?
For that reason I wish to present Veda in simple terms to the scientists, and show 'god'- unfortunately, scientists have no interest in 'god'- only dollars... Thank you for your suggestion...
What was 'not behaving' that 'learned to behave'?
Christianity has come to give nothing and instead taken out and rooted out the entire civilization of the Native Americans.
When you mention Ramayana - I see a sea change between the two stories - Rama stood for Dharma - even though the story of Rama is spread as far away as Greece, Siberia, Central Asia, India, Srilanka, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bali, Malaysia,Philippines and other Balenasian countries, nowhere the local and native religions are modified - the story of Rama assumes the local flavor- while this is not the case with jesus. Christianity commands its followers to pledge allegiance to a standard book, a standard code and a standard 'god' - which seems like you are having no choice at all at the end of day.
In case of Ramayana, even if the character itself is not there, it is not history centric and the 'Dharma' is of core importance.
Regarding your aging - as per Hindu upanishads,'A determined Atman knows the truth no matter how many birth it takes' - so, death is simply a change of Robe and your quest will continue into your next birth. All the
Frankly, I'm surprised at what you've encountered in your dialogues on the subject with Abrahamic religious leaders in this day and age. I thought we'd have come further along toward respecting the religious practices of others than what you've reported.
Quite an eye opener.
It made me think about the semantic difference between the two words; Tolerance and Respect. For example, "I can tolerate my Sister, but I don’t respect some of the choices she’s made.” Tolerance requires no action on my part, other than not hitting them in the nose. Whereas, respect implies other choices could be better or equally effective choices, which might force me to change my beliefs as a result.
In a religious context, I think many people cannot respect those that make different choices because they are taught there is only “ONE RIGHT WAY.” If your belief structure is based on strict community adherence, then respect of others beliefs challenges that structure.
The way to get around this semantic problem is to focus on the objective of the interaction. If the objective of the interaction is to find solutions to problems where both sides contribute, then respect is required. However, if the objective is just to get through the interaction with no objective of changing either party, then tolerance is sufficient. Using my Sister as the example, if I just want to get through dinner without a fight, tolerance is adequate. But, if we need to decide what to do with our aging parents, where her suggestions and opinions matter, then I have to respect her.
Since I want to find solutions to problems, I like to respect those that make different choices because, who knows, they may have a better answer.
There was never a Big bang as hypothesized by our confused scientists- yes, there are big-bangs in space- scientists call them GRBs or explosions; these are fission & fusion of Atoms- such fission-fusion takes place in you, I & tree all the time: that's Brahma in action to create-destroy or make-unmake protein to do a specif 'duty' to keep you going- that our ancients called "OM". One day our-Sun & Eath will get destroyed by Indra with a big-bang to create the new (Neutron- creates Suns, Planets- like the neutron in our atom that make-unmake proton, electron...).
One more word on Jesus: I love Jesus, the man, on the basis of what I learned- I think, the authors of Bible and Quron confused us all, like the 'reds' did to us- in trying to simplify "Veda"- in fact, those of us (during the past 10,000 Yrs...) who have interpreted Veda did not do a good job either... because of lack of Proof to convince the ignorant... who asks Where is 'god', Show me...
I again request you, please do not see Vedas with the jesus glasses on - you ain't going go anywhere with that soldier... only if you remove your ignorance of jesus or other false prophets and read Vedas with the lamp of 'Dharma' alone, then will you be able to understand it in to some extent as a mere mortal.
You might ask, what is 'Dharma' - normally, hitting a dog with a stone is an immoral act - but if you see the same dog sleeping in a railway track and you see a train coming - but you are at a distance - now, if you think hitting a dog with a stone is immoral and do not help the dog, ( since you are some distance far away ), you will be doing an immoral act - instead, if you throw a stone at the dog, so that it moves away from the on coming train, even though you have done an immoral act of throwing stone at the dog, you have done a 'Dharma' of saving the dog. This is the basic difference of 'DHARMA' - which many Westerners fail to identify. cont.
How you could be so sure no one had interpreted Vedas correctly, when many great men of esteemed knowledge, like Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vallabhacharya, Chaitanya have given out fantastic explanations to 'Bramha Sutras' and there by established the respective philosophies.
That is why, I again stress, reading or understanding Vedas with western lenses ain't going to give you anything - find a good religious master from the above Vedantic schools - if you search the net you could get plenty - but verify and cross verify, first learn the basics of 'Dharma' - using this lamp - when you decipher Vedas, you will understand it better.
I respect your sentiments and love for jesus as a man - but your love for jesus should not hinder your evolution into a higher being. That's my concern. ok then, have a good time.
I prefer facts not philosophy- unfortunately everyone you mentioned above interpreted Veda philosophically because they lacked concrete evidence to show to the ignorant that we, all life, on Earth reside in Almighty-god. I think, Adi Shankara and Advita is simple and direct: Shankara ~ Buddha+Jesus+Nagarjuna (I hope you can follow my Eq.). Even that Great Shankara is handicapped for evidence to convince the ignorant- if he could, we would not have Bible, Quron & red-book people running confused...
Believe me, I am an old man, bodily- and almost died 7-yrs ago. But, still limping with life- I hope to provide that evidence which Shankara could not...
I finished my work in 3-parts: Atom, atom & params- because I am saying "Indra is the center of our-universe, not Sun" the scientists are blocking me, like the Church did to Galileo when he asserted 'Sun is the center of our-universe, not Earth' (and got rid of him, then- now he is the Father of science: now, I end up fighting with Galileo-Einstein crowed being the follower of Archimedes-Mendeleev-Kepler-Newton-Young-Faraday-Wien-Bose etc.. the true geniuses)- I hope to succeed ONLY if Almighty Brahman & Iswara wants me to finish the work- otherwise, I am sure, Almighty might have some-one in mind..
Second, 'Veda' is a summary of pure-science, Law or Dharma of Almighty- so, it is 'Eternal'. We re-discover and affirm that knowledge in each 'Yuga' using the summary as a guide (although most of our-scientists are confused and going in the wrong way, now- because we are in the last part of present Yuga which will end with hot-age).
Third, Yuga~4.32x10^6 Yrs~Earth spins 180 Degrees (spins 0.15arcsec/Yr. from IERS data). Now we are at 23.5D; between 67.5D to 112.5D hot-age destruction completes- next Yuga begins with new struggles with the ignorant.. and within this struggle cream of the Crop- the Arya-Brahmana prevails and the rest goes thru more cycles..
Fourth, Anuvu is Atom of Brahman; anuvu is atom in you, I & tree; paramanuvu, you are correct, is a smallest of anuvu which binds both the anuvu & Anuvu- What binds? "Iswara", The Force- Vishnu is Cold-force, Shiva is Hot-force and Brahma (Concious) thru Narada makes Cold-Hot do it. That's how "Iswara" is everywhere- in you, I & tree- so, worship all to get mind concentrate on 'duty'
I am not worried- no matter who calls me What? The Science Journals & Professors who eat billions or trillions doing and publishing 'useless garbage' (this I am not telling you- I told them so...)research have already beat you in that game- to them, I am no better than Galileo 400 years ago to the Chruch elitists...
If you put 'Indra-Suns-Planets', it is an 'Anuvu'- Whose Atom is this- we reside in? Almighty Brahman.. (see Krishna's message in Chapter 7- everything, visible and invible is all within...). Even Jesus 'Prayed' to Almighty Father...) Christianty is close to Hindu, like Buddism... sure, there are bad-actors... Rajiv's concept is clear- let us begin to respect as a start and join hands to do our 'duty' to Almighty Brahman- the name given more than 1.6x10^6 years ago..
By the way if you want to read more on Jesus and grave in Kashmir- go to Wikipidia.
Be happy...
1)Before taking your 1.6X10^6 years for the birth of Vedas, do you mean to say this is twice the time of calculated time of Big Bang ( in theory of course ) - How did you arrive at this date for start of Vedas? - So, what is your take on Vedas being Eternal - having no start - development and end?
2)If you say, the start of Vedas is so and so time, do you mean the 'Bramhan' whom according to you, deciphered the Vedas to the 'selected few' - did so during this time? - so, do you mean to say, the Vedas have been a pass on messages?
3)I have pointed out some of the documentaries like 'The god who was not there' by Brain Fleming, for proving the historical inaccuracies in the so called 'bible' - so, when the cult figure of jesus himself is a question - how do you believe jesus was one who was also told this so called 'vedas' of a so-and-so time?
4)Were these documented anywhere - if so, please point in Vedic concepts and in specific Bhagavadh Gita where in Krishna specifically tells that this was given to him through this so called 'Bramhan'?
cont.
5) Only the bible story tells about the 'father god' begetting a son concept - in Hindu tradition, the so called God himself descends directly into humans and sends no sons or messengers.
About Anuvu - here goes my thoughts - though please be advised, I have not yet tested these against scientific theories - but I am still working on them with some scientists whom I know.
1) The word 'Anuvu' to mean the sub-atomic particle level features prominently in Vedas, Mahabharata and Vedantas.
2) For example, Vishnu as the Primordial God is called as 'Anoraneeya' - meaning the Atom of an Atom, elsewhere there is a concept in Vedic reference to Paramanu or the indivisible sub-atomic particle which is even smaller than Atom.
3) The size of Atom is vividly given as the splitting of a string of hair several millions of times and taking a single portion of that split hair and again splitting it to several millions of times, I will give you the reference - due to space limiting here.
4) In Mahabharata - in the war canton - Bheeshma, when being questioned by Yudishtra on what is 'Dharma' - he explains, ' Anur Bhruhat Krutha Sthoolo Guna Brin Nir Guno Mahan' - in which he praises the force that holds the sub-atomic particle inside an Atom to form the strong bonds is the same formless force which protects Dharma. So, these are some references, which I could get of Anuvu.
cont.
I see that you trying to bridge different religions of this world for a common cause of humanities happiness and peaceful co-existence.
My two cents on these:
1) Abrahamic religions have grown so very arrogant of their own position that they should be left behind as they deserve no respect what so ever.
2) Hinduism, with all its factions including the ones living in Java and Bali, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, along with this, the nature worshiping religions of South-East asia, Animism of Indonesia, Aboriginals of Australia, Balenesians, Native Indians who still follow their ancestor worship and nature worship, the Nature worshiping tribes of Africa, the few remaining Druids of Europe, should all be brought under one umbrella organization and should have a separate voice in UN.
3. These above religions of Dharmic background must be given voice for expressing their concerns against their thousands of years of oppression by Christian and other Abrahamic faiths, which are trying to enforce desert culture upon ordinary people.
4. Until this kind of a umbrella organization is not formed, the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael's group, will always have the only voice and say over the inter-faith religious group meets and good people like you will only be asking for mutual respect rather than basic RIGHT. I wish to see more of great works from you - all the best.
Please also do see the possibility of including the Atheists too to this umbrella if possible.
Many thanks Rajiv sir and I sincerely wish you all the very best in blowing the cover out of these Abrahamic religious mafias.
Vijay, IMHO I think you have completely missed the mark and you are misunderstanding what RM has said. You are letting your tormentors turn you into one of them - you have started thinking like them. This clearly is not the intention of RM's post. You be the change you want to see in your tormentors. Everything is as it should be, and everything is progressing as it ought to. Fear not. You hold on to satya and dharma, the rest will take care of itself, as it always has. For example, you know the Christian fundamentalists here in USA are far more civilized now, than they were just a few decades ago.
Abrahamic religions have been slowly absorbing Indian concepts, practices and philosophies over the past several centuries (even though they don't explicitly give any credit) and progressively becoming more civilized in their behavior towards "others". Though their scriptures can't change, they have been forced to change their interpretation based on what they learn from Indian systems. Eventually they will all be wondering what they were fighting about, why they were the cause of so much suffering.
http://dogmatoxin.wordpress.com/
Speaking of non-voilence with these kinds of desert religions is like making peace with charging lion.
Patience should not be confused with complacence.
Even a great stone gets damaged by the constant movement of ants on it.
So, now, our Eastern religions are under great stress by the religious conversion mafias. We have a golden opportunity of getting together through these forums in religious debates - we must not waste this opportunity and learn from our past and prepare for our future.
When time comes and the abrahamic faith finally ends its arrogance - then after proper confirmation throughout the world, then alone could we bring down our guard.
Else, it is again going to be another small uprising, which would be eventually extinguished by the oppressors.
All the best.