Shankaracharya controversy about worshipping Sai baba by Hindus - Page 3

Originally posted by: souro

He didn't say about a lot of other con-men or god-men. That doesn't make his views valid or invalid.

And from where did you deduce that his objection stems only from him being a 'Muslim man'? Just now, I read in a TOI article the full text of what he said, and I'm posting it here:

"Hinduism is governed by Shastra and Vedas and there is no mention of Sai Baba. He should not be worshipped with Hindu gods... Muslims don't revere Sai Baba as much as Hindus do, who seem unaware of the 'adharma' they commit by worshipping him."

"They may burn my effigy or even send me to jail, but my campaign to protect the sanctity of the Hindu religion will continue... Sai Baba was a Muslim faqir who cannot be compared to Hindu deities or worshipped like them."

From what I see, his objection stems from the fact that unlike other Hindu gods, Sai baba is not mentioned in any Hindu shastra or Vedas and therefore in his view, worshipping Sai baba is against dharma. Whereas, you completely ignored that part and latched on to the two words 'Muslim faqir', that seem to suit your agenda, and misrepresented it in a way to suggest that that's the one and only reason why Shankaracharya objected to worshipping of Sai baba.

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

God, this Shankaracharya is now turning beautiful Hinduism into a terrorist religion !... this atrocity needs to be stopped !... the reputation of Hinduism is at stake !.. Hinduism perfectly allows a devotee to choose his own ishta-devta.. people can even worship rocks if they believe their god exists in it !..god can bestow its grace upon humanity in any form,shape,size...its all limitless...

Originally posted by: NATURESHIVANI

i seriosly dont think whats wrong with him

is sai baba was a human being then we should not worship him

then what about him

n it is in our hand what we will follow in our life n what we dont

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

@ Souro

On the contrary, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that Sai Baba being a "Muslim" is a major contributing factor to this fiasco...

For your reference I am quoting few lines from TOI article :

"The Shankaracharya, known to be a Congress backer, also took a dig at BJP leader, Union minister Uma Bharti, saying he thought a devotee of Lord Ram had become a Union minister and a Ram temple in Ayodhya would soon be a reality, but she turned out to be the "worshiper of a Muslim" " meaning Sai Baba."

Link to the TOI article :

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sai-vs-Shankaracharya-Conflict-may-turn-ugly/articleshow/37670625.cms

Shankaracharya has put Hinduism's reputation at stake !..this was highly unexpected from a Hindu religious guru...😔

Originally posted by: Rehanism

So aren't Satya Sai Baba, Asaram Bapu or even more mystical sages like Ramkrishna, Chaitanya, Lokenath Baba, Mirabai, Saradamoni, and even Adi Shankara himself and gazzilion other demi-gods and regional avatars worshiped by Hindus. None of them find an iota of mention in any Hindu text. Yet I don't find him having objections with any of them being revered as avatars. If he had problem with worshiping humans as avatars, he could have issued a generalized statement in favour of monotheism or against worshiping non-canonical figures, considering the fact that Hindus all over the country worship all sorts of godmen. Its crystal clear where his objection stems from.

He said that the objection to Sai Baba is because those not mentioned in the Vedas or shastras should not be worshipped. He didn't say, that even though Ramkrishna, Chaitanya, Lokenath Baba, etc. etc. are not mentioned in the Vedas or shastras, I've no objection to them being worshipped.

There can be many reasons why he mentioned Sai Baba. It can be that he mentioned Sai Baba because his temples are everywhere to be seen. Maybe he wanted to use it just as an example. Or it can be that someone questioned him about the validity of Hindus worshipping Sai Baba. Without knowing the full context, it's not possible to determine why he mentioned Sai Baba and not others. But him mentioning Sai Baba and not mentioning others, does not make his point any less valid. If there is to be a debate, then the debate should be about the reason that he provided, that is, anyone not sanctioned by the Vedas or shastras, should not be worshipped.

And what agenda do you think I have?

What your overall agenda is, you're the best person to know that. But currently your agenda is to show that the whole objection rises from Sai Baba being a Muslim and you resorted to quote mining to prove that.

If anyone has an agenda its the modern day Hindu fundies. And their agenda, I believe, is to compete with Muslims and Christians. They envy the fact that Islam is a centralized and authoritarian religion where the diktats of the clerics carry such tremendous influence on the followers and the governments of their countries (imposing ban on things ranging from a girls' band to facebook and youtube with practiaclly no opposition); compared to that Hinduism is a scattered and heterogeneous faith with no central authority, comparatively less sense of heresy and blasphemy, and pundits here have almost zero influence outside their own sphere - an image they have grown to perceive as weak and shameful in the global god market. That's why they are trying too hard to make Hinduism similar in structure and paradigm to the Abrahamic religions - to begin with, the suddenly heightened sense of blasphemy and heresy.

Lets see some proofs that it is happening like you said and then we will discuss this further.

Originally posted by: souro

He is completely within his rights to denounce something that he believes is wrong. Why do you feel it's an atrocity?

Secondly, how is the reputation of Hinduism not at stake when its followers are indulging in worshipping of all kinds of 'gods' which are not sanctioned in the Vedas? When the central pillar of the religion are the Vedas, and yet the followers of this religion are according more importance to some Sai Baba or any other Baba or Ma rather than what is written in the Vedas, how is that not hurting the reputation of the religion?

Originally posted by: souro

What he said about Uma Bharti can be taken as stating a fact. That instead of being a follower of Lord Ram, she is worshipping a Muslim. Nothing wrong in that statement, it's true. He didn't say that I won't have problem if she worshipped a Hindu man, Christian man or XYZ man. He had clearly given the reason for his objection stemming from worshipping someone not sanctioned by the Hindu scriptures. Worshipping Sai Baba (a Muslim man) is not sanctioned by Hindu scriptures. End of story.

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

If somebody chooses to live in denial inspite of concrete evidences otherwise, then yes IT IS DEFINITELY A PATHETIC END OF THE STORY !...

The conclusions,derivations,perceptions,notions that you arrived are strictly your own...the article however points to a completely different direction...