When Vivekananda perfomed Kumari Puja on a Muslim girl worshipping her as the Divine Mother...

[ajay0]

I do not see why we need to do that when we already have a surfeit of Gods/Goddesses and saints.

But you are an atheist in the first place. Why bother whether the theistic Hindus worship this or that as per their free will !

 

[stvdv]

I do not see why we need to do that when we already have a surfeit of Gods/Goddesses and saints

I can see 3 good reasons for myself:
1)To broaden my horizon
2)To understand other peoples faith
3)Thereby becoming less prone to becoming judgemental.

 

[stvdv]

Worshiping any person as if he/she is God goes against the foundational tenets of Islam and is considered a mortal sin of first order. In Islam, there is absolute distinction of essence between that which is created and the being who is Creator, and only the Creator is worthy of reverence as Creator. I know that Swamiji did it with the best of intentions from within his profound insight into Brahman, but it does show a certain absence of consideration of the other faith and what it holds as holy.

I understand what you say. But there are other considerations at stake here. Of course when you are not enlightened then you should not do it (without permission and good consideration). But here is mentioned "Vivekananda saw the Divine Mother in her". So He was not in a worldly state, but far above. Being in that state one follows different rules [when you see wrong you act upon it; when you see God you act different]. My master gave me sugar. Being diabetic this is not correct. But being divine He could do so, and cured me of diabetes. We don't know, but Vivekananda was a saint, and this young girl might have been given a big blessing. People live and judge by worldly rules. Allah is far beyond. God knows Vivekananda's intentions. If we are enlightened we also know, but else we only judge from worldly few a spiritual event; which makes no sense.

Furthermore Vivekananda did ask permission of the father. The father, boatman, was overwhelmed and thought God was asking him through Samiji and readily agreed [Is written in the article]. And him touching the feet is correct also, because He got permission and this is part of the ritual.

So I understand your view, but I do believe this was the perfect example of Love + Respect towards this Muslim girl and her family

"it does show a certain absence of consideration of the other faith and what it holds as holy"
Not correct because Vivekananda was in a different state + even asked the father for permission

A radical Hindu monk who was more socially-committed than being obsessed with religiosities, Vivekananda spotted the poverty-stricken girl and saw the Divine Mother in her.Incidentally, Swamiji was with Sister Nivedita and Miss McLaud (both his foreign disciples who embraced Hinduism) and others, including some disciples of Ramakrishna. He requested the boatman to allow him to worship his little daughter so that he could perform the Kumari Puja on that auspicious day.

The boatman was overwhelmed. He thought as if the God was asking him through Swamiji and readily agreed.
Then Vivekananda not only worshipped the girl but also bowed down to touch her feet, as part of the ritual.

 

[stvdv]

One must surely ask what the girl thought about it? I'm not happy about worshiping some-one without their consent, even though I sympathise with his motives.

I read the story and Vivekananda did ask permission from the father who was overwhelmed with joy and happily agreed to the worship

 

[stvdv]

Vivekenanda, and Ramakrishna before him, were more controversial than many will admit. There are two sides to all stories, and mostly I've observed that the people who do disagree with some of the things they did soon learn to shut up about it because of the reaction it causes in the defenders/devotees.

Still, love him or hate him, he changed the face of Hinduism in the west. So too for Gandhi and the likes of Yogananda. Personally, I try to remain dispassionate, and be the observer.

This was for me the most beautiful example of "Love Respect" from Vivekananda towards the Muslim young 4y old girl and family. Vivekananda did see the Divine Mother in her [people judging this only see wordly; so they can't judge the beyond-wordly events correctly IMHO]. Furthermore did Vivekananda ask permission from the father to do this puja to his 4y old daughter. For me He got it covered on all sides. Perfect Respect.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But you are an atheist in the first place. Why bother whether the theistic Hindus worship this or that as per their free will !

I do not bother. On the contrary I like it. I may be an atheist, but our culture/philosophy is the same. I like to see it strengthened.

3) Thereby becoming less prone to becoming judgmental.

When you understand other religions, you also come to realize their motivations. That makes some more judgmental.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Vivekananda saw the Divine Mother in her".

That is stark blasphemy in Islam. Good that he was doing it a 100 years ago. Today he would have been killed on that very day.

"Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him." [Quran Al Ikhlas 112:1-4]
"Allah forgiveth not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, hath, strayed far, far away (from the Right)." [Quran An Nisaa 115]

 

[sayak83]

I understand what you say. But there are other considerations at stake here. Of course when you are not enlightened then you should not do it (without permission and good consideration). But here is mentioned "Vivekananda saw the Divine Mother in her". So He was not in a worldly state, but far above. Being in that state one follows different rules [when you see wrong you act upon it; when you see God you act different]. My master gave me sugar. Being diabetic this is not correct. But being divine He could do so, and cured me of diabetes. We don't know, but Vivekananda was a saint, and this young girl might have been given a big blessing. People live and judge by worldly rules. Allah is far beyond. God knows Vivekananda's intentions. If we are enlightened we also know, but else we only judge from worldly few a spiritual event; which makes no sense.

Furthermore Vivekananda did ask permission of the father. The father, boatman, was overwhelmed and thought God was asking him through Samiji and readily agreed [Is written in the article]. And him touching the feet is correct also, because He got permission and this is part of the ritual.

So I understand your view, but I do believe this was the perfect example of Love + Respect towards this Muslim girl and her family

"it does show a certain absence of consideration of the other faith and what it holds as holy"
Not correct because Vivekananda was in a different state + even asked the father for permission

A radical Hindu monk who was more socially-committed than being obsessed with religiosities, Vivekananda spotted the poverty-stricken girl and saw the Divine Mother in her.Incidentally, Swamiji was with Sister Nivedita and Miss McLaud (both his foreign disciples who embraced Hinduism) and others, including some disciples of Ramakrishna. He requested the boatman to allow him to worship his little daughter so that he could perform the Kumari Puja on that auspicious day.

The boatman was overwhelmed. He thought as if the God was asking him through Swamiji and readily agreed.
Then Vivekananda not only worshipped the girl but also bowed down to touch her feet, as part of the ritual.

I am saying how a typical Muslim would view your example. He/She would view it as an aggressive and offensive affront to the principles of their faith and their God by an outsider and not an example of Vivekananda's spiritual greatness. And he would be justified in doing so, given the Quran. That is the danger.

 

[Vinayaka]

I am saying how a typical Muslim would view your example. He/She would view it as an aggressive and offensive affront to the principles of their faith and their God by an outsider and not an example of Vivekananda's spiritual greatness. And he would be justified in doing so, given the Quran. That is the danger.

In my view, there are no 'typical' Muslims, 'typical' Hindus, or 'typical' anythings. Clearly this chap was a moderate Muslim, and Vivekenanda was a universalist leaning style of Hindu.

I also think we error in grabbing a single event and using it as evidence or support for something. If we look at the entire life of our historical swamis, we will see a mixed bag. Vivekenanda's 'Song of the Sannyasin' poem, written at the retreat in Thousand Island National Park has inspired young men to become monks for the last 100 years.

 

[sayak83]

In my view, there are no 'typical' Muslims, 'typical' Hindus, or 'typical' anythings. Clearly this chap was a moderate Muslim, and Vivekenanda was a universalist leaning style of Hindu.

I also think we error in grabbing a single event and using it as evidence or support for something. If we look at the entire life of our historical swamis, we will see a mixed bag. Vivekenanda's 'Song of the Sannyasin' poem, written at the retreat in Thousand Island National Park has inspired young men to become monks for the last 100 years.

I adore Vivekananda, he is a great man and a hero. I am simply using this example to show that just as we do not want to be proselytized at, similarly we Hindus should also be responsive to some concerns our universalism may cause them to have. That is all.

 

[Vinayaka]

I adore Vivekananda, he is a great man and a hero. I am simply using this example to show that just as we do not want to be proselytized at, similarly we Hindus should also be responsive to some concerns our universalism may cause them to have. That is all.

I rarely go 'all in' on anyone. I do wish I would have gone to the historical shrine here in Canada called Vivekenanda's cottage a few years back. Here's the article in Hinduism Today to commemorate an anniversary.

Hinduism Today Magazine

 

[stvdv]

"Vivekananda saw the Divine Mother in her"

That is stark blasphemy in Islam. Good that he was doing it a 100 years ago. Today he would have been killed on that very day

1: Vivekananda did not say that he saw Allah in her; only the Divine Mother
2: Agreed "It's good that he did it a 100 years ago"
3: I could do a poll on the forum: You believe all Muslims would be willing to kill for this?

Even suggesting this would feel to me quite offensive if I were a Muslim; as if all Muslims kill when you believe different. I agree that in some countries Blasphemy gets you killed. And maybe you are right that all Muslims on the forum would kill.

But I learned 2 days back "Would be nice if you would have asked the Muslims how they would interpret this whole killing thing on this type of 'blasphemy' first".
So I hope a Muslim brother or sister can clear this out for us. Because if we have this type of thinking about Islam is not conducive to peace. And if not true is kind of silly also, to say the least.

 

[stvdv]

I am saying how a typical Muslim would view your example. He/She would view it as an aggressive and offensive affront to the principles of their faith and their God by an outsider and not an example of Vivekananda's spiritual greatness. And he would be justified in doing so, given the Quran. That is the danger.

Like I said, I understand your view. Other Muslims might be offended. I agree.

But by putting it in your way, you show one side and not even the important side. You show the side of the outsiders [I like to be free to decide myself how I believe; and Islam has also verses on this]. My point is: Oke how you put it. But at least mention in the same post that "the father wanted this to happen, and was delighted"

This way you give both sides. I always believe it is good to have both sides of the story. And omitting the essential part [father wanted it to happen] won't do any good. Giving half story will create "real danger". If lucky you get "debates", if unlucky people get killed, without the true story spoken even.

 

[Aupmanyav]

3: I could do a poll on the forum: You believe all Muslims would be willing to kill for this?

Do you think that they will reveal to you their innermost wishes on internet? They say elephant has two sets of teeth, one for show and the other for eating (in Hindi - Hathi ke do dant, ek khane ka, doosara dikhane ka). I do not say that ALL muslims will think like that but majority will.

If a Christian comes to me talking about "God is Love", looking at the old and current history of Christians, I would neither like it nor believe it. You see, stvdv, there are two realities. What is true in 'absolute' is not true in 'pragamtic' (Parmarthika and Vyavaharika).

 

[stvdv]

Do you think that they will reveal to you their innermost wishes on internet? They say elephant has two sets of teeth, one for show and the other for eating (in Hindi - Hathi ke do dant, ek khane ka, doosr dikhane ka). I do not say that ALL muslims will think like that but majority will.
If a Christian comes to me talking about "God is Love", looking at the old and current history of Christians, I would neither like it nor believe it. You see, stvdv, there are two realities. What is true in 'absolute' is not true in 'pragamtic' (Parmarthika and Vyavaharika).

Thank you Aupmanyav [nice story about the elephant; didn't know that. Good illustration too in this context].

I think we might be more on 1 line than you think. I am very much aware of these two realities. I do like to give humans a chance to prove themselves worthy to be called humans. And learned that 1 chance is enough. If they blow it, 90% sure they will not change. Evolution is just too slow for that. And those religions too rigid.

Besides giving the Muslim a chance, I also double check by creating a test if they don't use taqiyya on me [they can't blame me, because they started being taqiyya on me]. I came to this forum to find out the "true face" of Christians and Muslims. I'm a scientist, and quite smart at that, though pretending ignorant [my taqiyya]. My test for the Muslims will be ready in a few days, and then I have proof what their "true face" is. Sofar the non-Muslims were better in showing their "true face" [I do hope this changes]. But I have also seen a some nice Muslims. So I still hope and believe in the positive.

 

[sayak83]

I rarely go 'all in' on anyone. I do wish I would have gone to the historical shrine here in Canada called Vivekenanda's cottage a few years back. Here's the article in Hinduism Today to commemorate an anniversary.

Hinduism Today Magazine

I have read his entire writings. Have it with me and read often.

 

[sayak83]

Like I said, I understand your view. Other Muslims might be offended. I agree.

But by putting it in your way, you show one side and not even the important side. You show the side of the outsiders [I like to be free to decide myself how I believe; and Islam has also verses on this]. My point is: Oke how you put it. But at least mention in the same post that "the father wanted this to happen, and was delighted"

This way you give both sides. I always believe it is good to have both sides of the story. And omitting the essential part [father wanted it to happen] won't do any good. Giving half story will create "real danger". If lucky you get "debates", if unlucky people get killed, without the true story spoken even.

But you have already given the one side. So I am giving the other.

 

[sayak83]

1: Vivekananda did not say that he saw Allah in her; only the Divine Mother
2: Agreed "It's good that he did it a 100 years ago"
3: I could do a poll on the forum: You believe all Muslims would be willing to kill for this?

Even suggesting this would feel to me quite offensive if I were a Muslim; as if all Muslims kill when you believe different. I agree that in some countries Blasphemy gets you killed. And maybe you are right that all Muslims on the forum would kill.

But I learned 2 days back "Would be nice if you would have asked the Muslims how they would interpret this whole killing thing on this type of 'blasphemy' first".
So I hope a Muslim brother or sister can clear this out for us. Because if we have this type of thinking about Islam is not conducive to peace. And if not true is kind of silly also, to say the least.

There is nothing in Quran that says to kill people for this. Killing is only allowed in cases of self defense, organized oppression that needs to be resisted, and during times of war (as soldiers).

 

[ajay0]

I do not bother.

If you do not bother then why pass judgement on what other theistic hindus do and worship.

Indian actor Amitabh Bachchan had recounted of how he tied a string in a sufi shrine as part of their rituals at the beginning of his career, which proved auspicious to him.

That is stark blasphemy in Islam. Good that he was doing it a 100 years ago. Today he would have been killed on that very day.

Liberal sufism pervaded kashmiri culture at that point of time, as opposed to the extremist culture at present over there due to extremist indoctrination in recent times.

Even sufis have been subjected to intolerance and persecution by islamic extremists both in the past and present. The sufi enlightened sage Mansur Al-Hallaj was indicted and killed on charges of heresy by orthodox muslims who were unable to understand his teachings in their proper context.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, Sayak. Islam demands killing for these:
"Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17, see also Sahih Muslim, 16:4152, Sahih Muslim, 16:4154
More at Apostasy in Islam - Wikipedia