World Religions – The Spiritual Scientist: Recent Episodes
None
Podcast:
Chaitanya Charan · Why Should We Mention DaVinci Code When Christian Missionaries Only Portray Our Culture Negatively
Answer Podcast
https://www.thespiritualscientist.com/audio/CCD%20QA/2016%20QA/11-16%20QA/What%20is%20the%20difference%20between%20Arjuna%20fighting%20under%20Krishna%20and%20jehadis%20fighting%20under%20Allah.mp3
Download by “right-click and save content”
Transcribed by: Anupama Kulkarni (Pune)
Question: What is the difference between Arjuna fighting under Krishna and jehadis fighting under Allah?
Answer: Firstly, even when one is fighting under God’s guidance, there are certain codes of war prescribed by dharma that need to be followed. The war code generally is that you fight against a warrior who is your equal, who is equipped and alert. For example, an elephant warrior will fight with an elephant warrior; a chariot warrior will fight with a chariot warrior. It is not that you fight with a person who is looking somewhere else and you shoot at him.
When the jihadis launch terror attacks, it is completely the opposite. They are trained, well-equipped soldiers whereas their victims are civilians who are not their equal, neither alert nor armed with any weapons.
The jehadis attack civilians in their usual places of living. It is not a situation of war at all. This is against the war codes. Kshatriyas, when they fought, would always fight with war codes. There is no example in the Mahabharata or the Ramayana of Kshatriyas killing civilians. All the wars were fought in designated areas. The Pandavas and Kauravas designated Kurukshetra as the area for war. Even earlier in the Mahabharata, when the Kauravas attacked the Pandavas when they were staying in the kingdom of Virat, Kauravas did not go and disrupt the cities to injure civilians. To indicate that they had come to fight, they took possession of the grazing cows, not wounding them but simply possessing. When Virat got the news, he came out to fight and the war took place.
Another major difference between the two is from the Islamic perspective itself. Islam talks of a holy war which is primarily fought for protecting oneself. A war fought for attacking others is not considered a holy war. When the jihadis attack the civilians, they are not really following the Islamic codes of warfare. Theirs is not a sacred war even as per Islam.
Moreover, jihadis have no inclusive philosophical understanding. Their idea is that we are right because we are devoted to Allah and everyone else is a kafir (infidel) and they deserve to be killed. Their conception of religion is very sectarian. Krishna was on the battlefield and still he was saying – suhrdam sarva-bhutanam (BG 5.29) – I am the well-wisher of all living beings. He meant he is the well-wisher of the Kauravas also. He demonstrated this by himself going as a peace messenger. Krishna was the greatest warrior of his times and for him to go as a peace messenger was an extraordinary act. It is like say Pakistan is attacking India and the Indian prime minister himself goes as a peace messenger. Krishna tried everything for a peaceful resolution. Here, there is an inclusive understanding of spirituality where Krishna says that I am the well-wisher of even these people whom we are fighting against. Krishna does not differentiate that these are people who are hell bound and we have to send them to hell. Krishna says – na tv evaham jatu nasam, na tvam neme janadhipah (BG 2.12) – all these kings, they are all souls. This is an inclusive philosophical understanding.
There is the God of the transcendentalists that is revealed in the Gita. That is a God who loves everyone. In the extreme case, when some people are so corrupted by selfishness, ego or greed that they are incorrigible, then as the last resort, a war is declared.
For many of these jihadis, their God is not even the God who is described in the holy Quran. Their conception of God is simply a projection of their ego. Their God is a God who hates who the jihadis hate. Both the terrorists and the transcendentalists use the word God, but it is different in conception. This does not mean Allah and Krishna are different. It is just that Allah is conceived by the terrorists in a particular way and they are not actually worshipping God. They have simply created a conception of a God who licenses what they want to do.
In summary, there is a complete difference between the kshatriyas’ and jehadis’ conceptions of war, the conception of God, and the philosophical understanding of spirituality.
End of transcription.
Hindi translation:
**प्रश्न: श्रीकृष्ण के लिए लड़ने वाले अर्जुन और अल्लाह के नाम पर लड़ने वाले जेहादियों में क्या अंतर है?****
**उत्तर: क्षत्रियों और जेहादियों में बहुत बड़ा अंतर है। इसे तीन स्तर पर समझा जा सकता है – इन दोनों की (क) यद्ध की अवधारणा में अंतर (ख) ईश्वर की अवधारणा में अंतर तथा (ग) आध्यात्मिकता की दार्शनिक समझ में अंतर। आइए इन तीनों बिंदुओं पर एक-एक करके विचार करते हैं।****
**युद्ध की अवधारणा में अंतर****
*वैदिक काल में युद्ध लड़ने के नियम होते थे। ये नियम तब भी लागू होते हैं जब युद्ध स्वयं भगवान के मार्गदर्शन में लड़ा जा रहा हो। युद्ध संहिता के नियमों के अनुसार युद्ध बराबरी के योद्धा से किया जाता था, वह भी तब जब वह लड़ने के लिए अस्त्र-शस्त्र के साथ पूरी तरह तैयार हो, सतर्क हो। उदाहरण के लिए, हाथी पर सवार योद्धा हाथी पर सवार योद्धा से, एक रथ पर सवार योद्धा एक रथ पर सवार योद्धा से, एक पैदल सैनिक दूसरे पैदल सैनिक से लड़ सकता था। ऐसे व्यक्ति से युद्ध नहीं किया जाता था जो सतर्क न हो या फिर निहत्था हो।*
*जेहादियों की युद्ध शैली इसके बिल्कुल विपरीत है। जेहादी युद्ध कला में प्रशिक्षित होते हैं, अस्त्र-शस्त्र से लैस होते हैं, पूरी योजना करके आक्रमण करते हैं। किन्तु जिन साधारण नागरिकों को ये लोग मारते हैं वे न तो युद्ध कला में प्रशिक्षित होते हैं, न ही वे युद्ध के लिए सतर्क होते हैं और न ही किसी हथियार से लैस होते हैं।*
*जेहादी आम नागरिकों के रहने के ठिकानों पर हमला करते हैं। यह युद्ध की स्थिति से कोसों दूर है। क्षत्रिय, जब भी लड़ते थे तो युद्ध संहिता का पालन करते थे। महाभारत या रामायण में ऐसा कोई उदाहरण नहीं मिलता जहाँ क्षत्रियों ने सामान्य नागरिकों की हत्या की हो। सभी युद्ध निर्दिष्ट क्षेत्रों में लड़े जाते थे। पाण्डवों और कौरवों का युद्ध कुरुक्षेत्र की युद्धभूमि पर हुआ। महाभारत में कुरुक्षेत्र के युद्ध से पहले भी, जब कौरवों ने पाण्डवों पर आक्रमण किया था, तब वे विराट के राज्य में रह रहे थे। कौरवों ने नगर में प्रवेश कर नागरिकों को घायल नहीं किया था। यह जताने के लिए कि वे युद्ध करने आए हैं, उन्होंने चरती हुई गायों को पकड़ लिया। उन गायों को भी घायल नहीं किया, केवल अपने पास रखा। जब विराट को समाचार मिला तो वे युद्ध के लिए निकले और इस प्रकार युद्ध हुआ।*
*इस्लामी दृष्टिकोण के अनुसार भी इन दोनों परिस्थितियों में एक और बड़ा अंतर है। इस्लाम में एक पवित्र युद्ध की बात कही गई है जो मुख्य रूप से अपनी रक्षा के लिए लड़ा जाता है। दूसरों पर आक्रमण करने के लिए लड़ा गया युद्ध पवित्र नहीं माना जाता। जब जेहादी नागरिकों पर हमला करते हैं, तो वे वास्तव में युद्ध के इस्लामी नियमों का भी पालन नहीं करते। स्वयं उनके इस्लाम के अनुसार भी इस प्रकार का युद्ध पवित्र नहीं है।*
**ईश्वर की अवधारणा में अंतर****
*इसके अलावा, जेहादियों के पास कोई समावेशी दार्शनिक समझ नहीं होती है। उनकी विचारधारा होती है कि ईश्वर प्राप्ति के लिए केवल हमारा ही मार्ग सही है और बाकी अन्य सभी काफिर (पथभ्रष्ट) हैं जिन्हें मार दिया जाना चाहिए। उनकी धर्म की अवधारणा बहुत ही संकीर्ण एवं सांप्रदायिक होती है। इसके विपरीत गीता में श्रीकृष्ण की शिक्षाओं पर ध्यान दें। युद्धक्षेत्र में उपस्थित श्रीकृष्ण अर्जुन से कहते हैं – सुहृदं सर्वभूतानाम् (गीता 5.29) अर्थात् – मैं सभी जीवों का शुभचिंतक हूँ, उन कौरवों का भी जो वहाँ युद्ध करने के लिए आए हैं। उन्होंने केवल यह कहा ही नहीं किन्तु स्वयं शांति दूत के रूप में जाकर इस बात को सिद्ध भी किया। श्रीकृष्ण अपने समय के सबसे महान योद्धा थे और उनके लिए शांति दूत के रूप में जाना एक असाधारण कार्य था। यह बिल्कुल ऐसा था कि मानो पाकिस्तान भारत पर हमला करने वाला हो और भारत के प्रधान मंत्री स्वयं एक शांति दूत के रूप में जाने का निश्चय करें। श्रीकृष्ण ने शांतिपूर्ण समाधान के लिए हर सम्भव प्रयास किया।*
*गीता में जिस ईश्वर की व्याख्या हुई है वह सबके लिए चिंता करता है। उनके लिए भी जो उससे प्रेम करते हैं और उनके लिए भी जो उससे प्रेम नहीं करते, यहाँ तक कि नास्तिकों से भी जो ईश्वर के अस्तित्व को ही नकारते हैं। वही ईश्वर युद्ध का निर्देश भी ऐसी विषम परिस्थितियों में देता है, जब कुछ लोग स्वार्थ, अहंकार या लोभ से इतने भ्रष्ट हो जाते हैं कि उनके सुधरने की कोई आशा नहीं बचती। ऐसे में समाज में व्यवस्था स्थापित करने के लिए, अंतिम उपाय के रूप में, युद्ध घोषित किया जाता है।*
*इन जेहादियों में से कईयों के लिए, उनकी ईश्वर की अवधारणा स्वयं उनके अपने ग्रन्थ कुरान में वर्णित ईश्वर की अवधारणा के अनुसार नहीं है। उनकी ईश्वर की अवधारणा उनके अहंकार का एक विस्तार मात्र है। उनका ईश्वर एक ऐसा ईश्वर है जो उन सबसे घृणा करता है जिनसे जेहादी घृणा करते हैं। जेहादी और आध्यात्मवादी दोनों ही “ईश्वर” शब्द का प्रयोग करते हैं, किन्तु दोनों की अवधारणा बिल्कुल भिन्न है। जेहादियों की अल्लाह को लेकर बिल्कुल अलग अवधारणा है। उन्होंने एक ऐसे ईश्वर की अवधारणा बना रखी है जो उन सभी कार्यों को करने की अनुमति देता है जिन्हें वे करना चाहते हैं। इसके विपरीत आध्यात्मवादियों के अनुसार अल्लाह और श्रीकृष्ण एक ही भगवान के दो अलग-अलग नाम हैं।*
**आध्यात्मिकता की दार्शनिक समझ में अंतर****
*वैदिक दर्शन में आध्यात्मिक दर्शन समावेशी है जहाँ भगवान स्वयं कहते हैं कि मैं उन लोगों का भी शुभचिंतक हूँ जिनके विरुद्ध हम युद्ध कर रहे हैं। श्रीकृष्ण ऐसा कोई भेद नहीं करते कि ये तो वे लोग हैं जो नरक जाने वाले हैं और हम ही उन्हें नरक भेजेंगे। गीता में श्रीकृष्ण कहते हैं – न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं, न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः (गीता 2.12) अर्थात् – ये सभी उपस्थित राजागण, ये सभी आध्यात्मिक हैं, ये सभी आत्माऐं हैं, जो ईश्वर का अंश हैं। यह एक बड़ा समावेशी दर्शन है जिसमें सबके प्रति आध्यात्मिक समानता का भाव स्पष्ट दिखता है।*
*इस प्रकार, यदि गंभीरता से इन तीनों बिंदुओं पर विचार किया जाए तो क्षत्रियों तथा जेहादियों में अंतर स्पष्ट हो जाता है।*
*End of transcription.*
Podcast:
Chaitanya Charan · 187 Hijab controversy Dharmic insights on state religion interactions Monk s Podcast Govinda P Summary podcast:
Chaitanya Charan · 187 Hijab controversy: Dharmic insights on state-religionInteractions,TheMonk’sPodcast Govinda P sum Video:
Chaitanya Charan · Isn't The Vedic Path Better Because It Doesn't Claim To Be The Only Way As Do Abrahamic Religions
Chaitanya Charan · Do We Need To Be Politically Correct And Say That All Paths Are The Same When Addressing Devotees
Answer Podcast
Transcription :
Question: How can we know which spiritual path to follow?
Answer: This is a valid concern by many who think of practising a spiritual path. We may think, there are so many teachers, books, paths – how do I know that my path is right? To understand what is good for us, we need to be pragmatic. If our conception of spirituality is – there is one right path and finding it will make my life successful and not finding it means failure – then such understanding of spirituality will make our life insecure. Instead we should see and understand that there is a purpose to life.
Look at our existence right now. While speaking, we formulate some thoughts and then speak. However, the entire mechanism of thoughts getting converted to voice is unknown. Similarly, how food gets digested and converted to energy is unknown. We can see that there is something beyond us which sustains our existence and enables our basic functions in life. We need air, water, food for survival which is provided to us. We need heat and light for functioning which is also provided to us. If such survival and functional needs of life are provided for then the need for a spiritual path should also be provided for by a similar arrangement.
If we use our intelligence and consider all the teachers, books, paths available around us we may get confused. How to choose between so many options? Whichever option we chose, we may think that there still might be a better option available. However, if we think that there is some higher divine being or force who is sustaining my existence and based on my intelligence take a step forward in that direction, we can have two possibilities. If my path is right, I will realize about that divine higher being. If my path is not right, I will not realize. Here we should understand that realizing that my path is not right should not be seen as a failure This should be seen as a step in my evolution. When we are sick, we do not explore all the possible treatments available. We take what is workable using our experience and intelligence. If the treatment works, we continue. However, if it does not work, we explore other ways. Similarly, if we do not get intended results after choosing a spiritual path, we explore other ways.
We do not have to wait for a mystical revelation to begin our spiritual journey. We can take small steps using our intelligence and experience and do a course correction if we realize that the teacher or the path is not the best for me. We will be given this intelligence from inside because, we are not just putting faith in a particular teacher, we are putting faith in the divine. To summarize, we do not have to wait infinitely to choose a spiritual path. At the same time, we do not have to gullibly just jump into [...]
Answer Podcast
Transcription :
Transcribed by: Keshavgopal Das
Question: Why is Islam the most violent religion?
Answer: I will talk about this in three different ways.
First, it is not just the religion which makes the people violent. It is people who are violent and find some reason in religion to be violent. World War I and World War II are two of the biggest wars that have been fought in recent history, but there was no religion involved in these wars. Then in the communist era in China and Soviet Russia, these two countries, without any war, killed three times more people (their own citizens) than the number of peoples killed in World War I and World War II combined. They wanted to establish communism and wanted to eliminate all those opposing communism. From Gita we understand that there are three modes of material nature – goodness, passion and ignorance. Generally, passion combined with ignorance is the cause of violence. People who are situated more in mode of passion-ignorance in a race, country, ideology, cast, or religion, they would be violent.
Second, historically speaking in most religions spiritual powers and political powers are separate from each other. For example, in sanatana dharma, the spiritual powers are vested in the brahmanas whereas the political and martial powers are vested in the kshatriyas. In Buddhism also, Buddha was a spiritual teacher, whereas King Ashoka, after accepting Buddhism became the political leader and propagated the teachings of Buddhism. In Christianity also, Jesus was the spiritual teacher, but Christianity spread because of Paul who was both spiritual as well as political. Then later when the Roman emperor accepted Christianity, it spread very fast.
In Islam, however, there is a combination of both spiritual and political powers in one. Mohamed happen to be both a spiritual teacher as well as a political leader. Politics in this world is a dirty business. Even people with purest of intentions on entering politics have to do dirty things. Mohamed did the spiritual teachings and following those many people practised Islam and lived pious and godly lives.
Today in this world, one out of every four-person is a Muslim. If all Muslims were violent, then world would have been a hellish place. Not all Muslims are violent. At individual level, Muslims when they follow Mohamed’s spiritual teachings they give charity, offer namaaz, and in many ways lead a godly life. However, at a political level, many of the leaders of Islam, they focus more on Mohamed’s political example than his spiritual example. When they focus on political examples, then they try to imitate what Mohamed did politically. That is why at an individual level Islam may be a path to godliness for many people, but at a social level Islam become less a path to god and more a tool to political power. Mohamed fought wars and following his example, many of the Islamic leaders do fight wars or justify fighting of wars. That is why Islam is associated [...]
Answer Podcast
https://www.thespiritualscientist.com/audio/CCD%20QA/2018%20QA/06-18%20QA/In%20what%20context%20did%20you%20say%20that%20to%20err%20is%20divine%20and%20to%20forgive%20human.mp3