• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Treat them as men, not Gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
A fair assessment by T.K.Arun...Tho' there are factual errors such as Tat Tvam Asi is not propounded by Sri Sankara but is from Chandogya Upanishad

Treat them as men, not God
TK Arun
TuesdaySeptember 03, 2013, 04:28 AM
Millions of Indiansare poor, illiterate and malnourished. They are prone to disease and their lifeexpectancy is low. If a healthy mind requires a healthy body, millions ofIndians are incapable of having healthy minds. Millions of Indians are alsofollowers of godmen, whose ranks include people like Asaram.

Spiritual guides,saints and others given to epiphany are common to all cultures around theworld, their frequency coming down with the advance of modernity andrationality. Industrial and post-industrial life has seen a sudden decline inthe number of miracles and of holy men associated with them.

India remainslargely pre-industrial, even today. In 2011, for the first time, the share ofthe working population engaged in agriculture dipped below 50%. Even now, morethan two-thirds of all Indians live in rural areas. Even those who live intowns carry with them the baggage they brought from the village, beliefs andideas for the most part.

Just last week, at awayside dhaba in Uttar Pradesh, a man shot dead an 11-year-old who refused towash a tumbler for him — so what if he did not work at the dhaba and was thereonly to watch television, he was a Dalit and how could he defy a direct orderfrom his social superior? (Note that television and guns, modern inventions inthemselves, did not quite modernise the interaction between the shooter and thetelevision viewer.)

In such a country,it would be surprising if godmen like Asaram did not proliferate. How shouldthe state deal with errant godmen? Exactly as it would deal with errant men.There should be no compromise on this. This is more than just maintainingequality before the law. Refusing to make any special allowances for godmen ispart of nation-building in this country where the constitutional ideal ofliberal democracy is not an actualised reality but a goal, an ideal, theimperative to attain which should inform every action of the state.

No Place for Godmen

Is such disdain forgodmen part of so-called modernists’ disdain for Hinduism? Would peopleadvocating such down-to-earth treatment for Hindu holy men still stick to terrafirma when it comes to holy men of minority religions? Isn’t this all part of alarger anti-Hindu conspiracy? This version ofoffence-is-thebest-form-of-defence has already been launched on behalf ofAsaram, with the BJP chipping in with vigour. It belittles Hinduism as a beliefsystem incompatible with democracy and equality before the law.

In reality, Hinduismprovides scope for Asarams to exist only because it affords endless flexibilityin how people find their spiritual equilibrium. A rigorous articulation ofHindutva’s core concept of advaita(non-duality) would leave no place for gods and goddesses, leave alone for thegarden variety of godmen with base instincts.

Tattvamasi (that thou art) was Sankara’sfamous reply to someone who asked him to explain the concept of Atman. Atmanis not just the ultimate reality but also the only reality. Everything livingand lifeless is some or the other manifestation of Atman.

Things that seemdifferent are the same in their essence. Their difference is illusion.Inability to see the underlying unity of all things is ignorance, delusion. Thepoint of enlightenment is to realise this.

Hinduism is perhapsthe only religion to posit the non-duality of what are commonly perceived asthe creator and the created. Such negation of distinction between the creatorand the created, and among the myriad bits of the created, opens up radicalpossibilities.

Kerala’s socialreformer Sri Narayana Guru drew on advaita to assert the illegitimacy andinvalidity of caste. When all men, apart from all other things, aremanifestations of the selfsame Atman, how can some men be inferior, even untouchable?

Radical Hinduism

Apart from beingincompatible with the caste system, advaita has other potential disadvantages. Those who appreciate theunderlying unity of all things also appreciate that all ethics and morality aresocial constructs and not divine ordination. Just look at what a high concentrationof amoral people has done to global finance to see how dangerous it could befor the world to be full of enlightened ones who are above morality.

Privilege Progress

So while Hinduismcounts enlightened knowledge as one route to salvation, it quite practicallyrules it out for the majority, who are left to contend with worldly delusionthrough piety, devotion, diligent discharge of duty and so on. It is thisfreewheeling mix of means that offers the folds and creases out of which godmenoperate. The enlightened state should see them for what they are: at best liketutors for those who were remiss in the classroom, at worst exploiting thebackwardness that alone makes them possible.

The job of the stateis not to take backwardness for granted. To give Asarams privileged treatmentis to collude in backwardness, to collude in the shooting of the boy in UttarPradesh. India deserves better and Indians now know this.

 
Shri Gane,

Traditional Hindu religion had many, many mendicants or sannyasis of many different systems (as we see at the time of the Kumbh Melas) but this religion did not have any 'Godman' for a long, long time since Krishna. But Krishna was not a sannyasi nor is he described as having had his own Ashram, followers, etc.

<edited. Please note there are many people who are believers and devotees of Sai Baba here and outside the forum. So, please keep their sentiments and beliefs in mind while posting something that can be grossly mis-interpreted. - praveen>

Asaram also tried his hand at this industry but he possibly wagered a little too much and without precautions. And he will pay for his "business follies". But godmen, godwomen etc., will thrive in this country of the so-called Sanatana Dharma which some of our learned members say must "evolve" according to person, time and surroundings and therefore, we will have repeats of Asaram "ācandratāram" (as long as the Moon and the stars exist). !;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Disclaimer: No intention to hurt sentiments but only voicing my opinions

I consider godmen as human beings like others with exception of certain gifted "skills". While these skills vary from person to person, the underlying is same: Most of them perform things that garners crowd.

Puttaparthi Sai Baba was mildly different: His spiritual things apart - his trust did some wonderful work like providing water supply to parched villages, etc. I am no devotee of his but I admire what he created. Whether it was his powerful connections, his spiritual power, or whatever, he / his trusts got certain things done. Very few trusts of other godmen does anything free of cost OR truly socially impacting work. So I won't comment more on him.

But people like Asaram - he isn't convicted yet - but being accused of such grave crime itself speaks a lot. Such people must be tried such that his emergence and his way of functioning must be interrogated and published. This will enlighten people and prevent foolish following.

And as my elders always tell me - spiritualism and materialism never go hand in hand.
 
Asaram Bapu regularly met women alone at night in his 'dhyan ki kutiya' (meditation hut) to "heal" them, Shiva, the personal attendant of the religious guru has told the police, Rajasthan additional advocate general Anand Purohit informed the sessions and district magistrate (rural) on Wednesday.

Details provided by Shiva, whom the police have been interrogating since Sunday, strengthen the case against Asaram, Purohit said. The guru has been accused of sexually assaulting the minor daughter of a disciple inside his Jodhpur ashram on the night of August 15.

Investigators said they have substantial evidence to conclude that Asaram, Shiva and Shilpi, the hostel warden, "conspired" to get the 16-year-old victim to Jodhpur from Chhindwara where she studied. Call detail records show Shilpi had been in constant touch with both Asaram and the girl's family, and that the contact grew very frequent in the week before the girl was allegedly assaulted, they said.
 
More trouble for Asaram, this time over 'illegal' ashram
Pradeep Sharma, Hindustan Times Bharatpur, September 05, 2013

Troubles mounted for arrested self-styled godman Asaram on Thursday, this time over alleged illegal construction of his ashram in Rajasthan's Bharatpur district.


The district collector, Neeraj K Pawan, ordered an inquiry into complaints that the ashram in Bharatpur city, 178 km east of capital Jaipur, was built on agricultural land without the mandatory land-use conversion.


"We have started legal proceedings and if it is proved in court that the construction is illegal, the ashram can be declared government land and seized," said Pawan.


The fresh trouble for Asaram emerged even as he spent his fourth day in jail following his arrest on charges of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl.


The self-styled godman's ashram on Circular Road is built on around four bighas (1.6 acres). It has a sermon hall, a parikrama marg, rooms and a separate residence for him.

Local businessman and director of Bharatpur Grih Nirman Society Uddhav Das Arora has alleged the ashram encroached on his plot. "He (Arora) showed us the map and prima facie, the plot and road have been encroached on," Pawan said. The ashram authorities dismissed allegations of encroachment. Shiva Bhai, a supporter of Asaram, said the plot was given to the ashram by late Congress MLA RP Sharma seven or eight years ago. "Before the paperwork could be completed, he passed away," said Shiva.
 
Is sex not a taboo for Hindu spirituality? How can a person who is a preacher attempt to do what he has supposed to have done

Times of India...6 Sep 2013
Unlike Christianity, sex isn't taboo in Hindu spirituality

Asaram is being pilloried by everybody, from parliamentarians to journalists, for alleged sexual assault on a teenager and is in jail now. Some of the horrified public responses at his alleged act can also be attributed to the general notion that dissociates sex from spirituality. This notion considers everybody on the spiritual path as 'wedded' to celibacy. But is this perception correct?

A spiritual person, such orthodoxy goes, must not have a carnal side, a belief that stems from the sanyasi tradition where it is popularly believed that a seeker after God renounces all desires. This possibly explains why many Hindi newspapers and TV channels are aghast at the preacher's "fall from grace". In the English language media, the same horror is related: that men of cloth, like the Christian missionaries, must be celibate and breaking the vows of chastity would call for de-frocking of the erring priest.

In fact, the Boston Globe in the United States had run a series of reports on sex abuse in the Catholic church. Several such reports have appeared also in TOI. Since 2002, much of the US media has been critical of the approach of the bishops while dealing with sex abuse by priests. The net has a number of reports like this and this. This is because in Catholic church priests are bound by religion to be celibates. The instances of aggravated sexual transgressions by priests are worse as they involve under-age children, often of the same sex.

However, according to many Indian traditions, the path of spirituality does not preclude sex. In fact, drawing from the divine Krishna tradition, there is a spirit of joy and celebration around the idea of sex and loving union. It follows logically that sex forms a vital part of self-realization. Osho Rajneesh, a modern master, said forced celibacy was not just wrong, it was damaging to the soul of man.

It was against man's natural instincts. Celibacy as a vow had to be voluntary, and under the guidance of a capable preceptor. Otherwise, there was every possibility of the act of self-mortification destroying the initiate. All Hindu gods had families while several Indian traditions emphasized the sense of the sensual.

However, other streams of Indian spiritualism also grew, drawing from more severe notions of renunciation. One of the best that exists in Sanatani philosophy on the subject of the human body is Patanjali's statement, 'Swa-ang jugupsa, parai asansargah.' It means that with increasing spiritual insights, with greater realization, with the mind's constant attachment with truth, there develops apathy for the physical body, and it loses its physical affiliation with others. This is considered a high state of spiritual being, and that is what has made celibacy the plinth of sanyas as many understand it.

Yet, ancient Hindu rishis were known to have families and children. Even modern spiritualists like Swami Ramakrisnha Paramhansa, Lahiri Mahasaya and Sri Yukteswar Giri, the master of Paramahansa Yogananda, were all householders.

If Asaram has broken the law with the alleged sexual assault on a minor then of course the book must be thrown at him.

However, he cannot be held guilty, as a householder, of having sexual relationships or desire just because he is a spiritual preacher.
 
However, he cannot be held guilty, as a householder, of having sexual relationships or desire just because he is a spiritual preacher.

Sir,
That is not the case at all. The criminality arises from multiple alleged acts of the godman.
1. The Girl is minor.
2. The girl claimed Rape.
3. Non-cooperation with the Police
4. Trying to alter the evidence
5. Colluding with others to hide the evidence.
6. Threatening the child.
ETC,

Asaram is a married man with a son, so no body said he should not have sex or had in the past. So to compare with a celibate Catholic priest is completely wrong.
 
S

<edited. Please note there are many people who are believers and devotees of Sai Baba here and outside the forum. So, please keep their sentiments and beliefs in mind while posting something that can be grossly mis-interpreted. - praveen>
Hi Praveen, was wondering over this censure...

How is one godman different from another? The strength of following should not deter from discussing about a godman. I mean, when we allow discussions that question the existence of God itself, then I feel, this censure is not required. Then it would necessarily follow that we have to ban discussions on anybody who calls himself a godman, whether it be x, y or z.

However, you set the rules here, and it shall be so; just food for your thoughts. If you want such topics to be clarified through PM, it is also ok.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
I think winning over sexual desire is the ultimate test for a spiritual person and I also think that in the present world there would be virtually none to claim this level of spirituality. The point is there is so much temptation and pressures that lapses such as what Asaram and other spiritual leaders may commit in spite of being highly spiritually evolved. One needs perfection or very close to perfection to remain blotless today when one is famous.
 
Hi Praveen, was wondering over this censure...

How is one godman different from another? The strength of following should not deter from discussing about a godman. I mean, when we allow discussions that question the existence of God itself, then I feel, this censure is not required. Then it would necessarily follow that we have to ban discussions on anybody who calls himself a godman, whether it be x, y or z.

However, you set the rules here, and it shall be so; just food for your thoughts. If you want such topics to be clarified through PM, it is also ok.

Regards,

I do not think there is any contradiction in the so called rules.

One can critique a doctrine - theism, atheism etc.
In my view one can even discuss pros and cons of a given theology.
Such discussions being allowed is an affirmation of freedom of expression.

What is not in the domain of freedom of expression is the following .

Making disparaging comments about Mohammad or Pope or Sankaracharya or Sai Baba or any human icons of a given faith is equivalent to making disparaging comments about large number of followers. Hence that should not be allowed in an open forum and this ban should include disparaging comments about establishments like Vatican, Matams, Ashrams etc.
 
I do not think there is any contradiction in the so called rules.

One can critique a doctrine - theism, atheism etc.
In my view one can even discuss pros and cons of a given theology.
Such discussions being allowed is an affirmation of freedom of expression.

What is not in the domain of freedom of expression is the following .

Making disparaging comments about Mohammad or Pope or Sankaracharya or Sai Baba or any human icons of a given faith is equivalent to making disparaging comments about large number of followers. Hence that should not be allowed in an open forum and this ban should include disparaging comments about establishments like Vatican, Matams, Ashrams etc.

I feel that if the above rule is applied impartially, even Asaram Bapu cannot be commented upon, for his present condition is such that much of what has been written above is disparaging comments only and these are about large number of followers that he (Asaram Bapu) has, all over the world. Hope some clarification will come from Shri Praveen soon.
 
1. 99% of the land dealings violate one law or the other; there are many reasons and it is a different story. Chidambaram, rahul gandhi, robeert vadera, karunanidhi and virtually every politician, bureaucrat has a hand in this. Any one who has purchased lands can be harassed.
2. It is reported in some magazines that he asaram is cleared in all or most land related cases.
3. Recently he was vilified for wasting water (two tankers loads) for celebrating holy. He has been in the lens of the media for two to three years, and what ever he says is blown out of proportion and used to show him in bad light. Asaram claims that because he criticised sonia and rahul.
4. Death of two boys in one of his schools is used to whip him eventhough the police are finish their investigation and file a charge sheet. He runs more than 50 schools, with thousands of students. In today's news, 793 tribal tribal kids have died in the past decade in the ashram schools run by the governemnt. That will be anotehr investigation.
5. Even his assistant shiva, who the police said has given damning evidence and nailing statement has done a balti and now says that police forced him to give a false statement and that he has no proof.
6. Even with Nityananda, his trouble started when he refused to sell his ashram land to the maran brothers. Noe Ranjita has won a case, and vijay tv has been asked to apologise to her and run the statement every half hour for the next seven days. Defamation against sun tv is pending.
7. The politicians have an agenda, the media has an agenda; they are shamelessly misreporting and villifying without any proof and have become the judge and jury - dangerous trend. Sri Jayendra Saraswati was hounded with false leaks, threatening witnesses to lie, and misinformation.

It is better to wait for the truth to come out. Houndin comes easy to politicians and media - the victims are sankaracharya, modi and brahmins.
 
Passing disparaging remarks on someone is generally not desirable. Reputation built over decades can be damaged in days. Also it is almost impossible to be perfect. Firstly consider what the person has done to the society. If he has done more to the society than he has taken from it, I think we need to give him the benefit of doubt and wait till he is really proven guilty. Also, consider the potential for people maligning his name. This is very high when the person is very famous. These days people especially want to malign spiritual people as they represent the biggest hurdle to materialism.

So I would hold my comments especially if the person has a good reputation.
 
I do not think there is any contradiction in the so called rules.

One can critique a doctrine - theism, atheism etc.
In my view one can even discuss pros and cons of a given theology.
Such discussions being allowed is an affirmation of freedom of expression.

What is not in the domain of freedom of expression is the following .

Making disparaging comments about Mohammad or Pope or Sankaracharya or Sai Baba or any human icons of a given faith is equivalent to making disparaging comments about large number of followers. Hence that should not be allowed in an open forum and this ban should include disparaging comments about establishments like Vatican, Matams, Ashrams etc.
I agree with post #12 above.

If someone were to come and write disparagingly about a person (need not be a public figure), that should be censured, but if one were to critique the actions of a person in public domain, that has an impact on the public at large, then we have to necessarily allow that, in a healthy manner, of course.

There are followers to a doctrine as well, and debating about one or the other would definitely hurt their sentiments.
 
... If he has done more to the society than he has taken from it, I think we need to give him the benefit of doubt and wait till he is really proven guilty...

Boss, what logic is this? Don't we need to wait, for anybody, until they are proved guilty?
 
What's the problem in understanding what I said. Why don't you read it again?
I think you have not realized the purport of your words - irrespective of whether one has given or taken, to the society, no one can pronounce another guilty. Maybe it is you who needs to rephrase it if you meant something else.
 
Last edited:
Dear Shri Auh,

This is how one would normally read it:

If he has done more to the society than he has taken from it, I think we need to give him the benefit of doubt and wait (i.e., not disparage) till he is really proven guilty


 
I feel, therefore, this thread should be closed immediately and, in future, similar threads should not be started unless a judgment is pronounced by a court of law. Even then, if we take into account the followers of such people, it is better that in this forum no such thread is allowed.
 
Frustrated souls criticize and and abuse brahmins, scriptures, their own ancestors, traditions, and customs. What will they do or where will they go if such easy targets are denied?
 
Even though prerogatives of ownership allow Praveen to declare anything impermissible I feel it is not unreasonable for members to expect transparency and consistency of censure policy. Shri Sangom is correct, not all godmen or public figure who enjoy broad popularity and reverence enjoy protection from even valid and evidence based criticism, some have come under severe attack in this forum

The claim that freedom of speech does not include disparaging comments about religious figures betrays a complete lack of understanding of what freedom of speech really is. A "freedom of speech" that does not include the freedom to offend people is not freedom of speech at all. This quote of Voltaire has become such a cliche, yet I shall cite it as it is relevant in this context, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Don't let offensive speech offend you to the extent of wanting to shut other people off from some topics entirely.
 
\

If he has done more to the society than he has taken from it.


So Hitler did much more for Christine Germans. So do you think he should be revered? Mahabali did a lot for his people but he was not spared.
I do not think your logic holds any water.

I does not matter how much he has done, a crime is a crime. I agree he is presumed innocent till proven guilty.
 
I agree with post #12 above.

If someone were to come and write disparagingly about a person (need not be a public figure), that should be censured, but if one were to critique the actions of a person in public domain, that has an impact on the public at large, then we have to necessarily allow that, in a healthy manner, of course.

There are followers to a doctrine as well, and debating about one or the other would definitely hurt their sentiments.

Sri Auh

I tend to agree with what you have written - the key is 'healthy manner'.

What we cannot have is a group of one religious types (including those that believe in atheism) use an opportunity to denigrate an icon of another faith under the banner of 'impact on public at large'. This has nothing to do with if an expression is 'offensive' to someone else or not. There are many that forget the common sense axioms in their zealous to put others down under the banner of free speech.

Once again the idea is not about anyone getting hurt or not because a doctrine is critiqued. What does not work is to create public issues (much like yelling 'fire' in a theater under the banner of free speech) by denigrating icons of a faith unless illegal acts of such a person is already established. In that case speaking against the illegal act or criminal act is perfectly fine.

By allowing members to criticize icons of a faith the forum owner will invite law suit since defamation is a crime. Sri Sarang in his post has made this point extremely well in my view

There is a quote of some sort that comes to my mind to make a point - "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins"


 
Last edited:
I feel, therefore, this thread should be closed immediately and, in future, similar threads should not be started unless a judgment is pronounced by a court of law. Even then, if we take into account the followers of such people, it is better that in this forum no such thread is allowed.

I disagree with such statement for the following simple reasons. A forum could show maturity by self restraint. Just because someone invites you to their house to have a party for free does not mean that the host should be called to be a court of law for simple items.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top