Shankaracharya controversy about worshipping Sai baba by Hindus - Page 8

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

So

tell me, DO YOU SEE IT NOW?... in black & whilte ?.. purple & yellow?.. or whatever...

Read this article a few minutes back. Shankaracharya gives one more reason here 😛

Originally posted by: souro

So you failed to back your claim. You failed to establish from the initial statement alone that Shankaracharya objected to worship of Sai Baba because of Sai Baba's Muslim identity.

Definitely not, moreover, I hardly had to do any proving at all.. Shankaracharya's intentions were proved by none other than Shankaracharya himself..you on the other hand, failed to back ur claim.. ur logic was unacceptable..

Now you bring in another statement.

Wasn't this what u were asking all along- want some more proof?..and so I did.. Moreover, this additional evidence was hardly required to prove my point.. it was already proved, but u didnt accept it because of ur logic..a logic which butchers a statement & presents it out of context..and I find that logic unacceptable.. hence, ur point is yet to be proved..

Fine with me. However, when new information is revealed, the whole dynamics change. Therefore, I'm also free to bring in other statements and rework my defence.

-Cool

The first sentence I can safely ignore, because we already know Shankaracharya has openly claimed that tenets of Hinduism did not permit the worship of Sai Baba. No new information is revealed here. And the part "...who was most probably a Muslim" can be an addition by the author of the article as the whole sentence is not within quotes.

-Sure ..but yes I would like to add that worshiping of Sai Baba is not against Hindu Tenets..and one doesnt have to have the credentials of Shankaracharya to understand this basic fact..its there in Hinduism..I can present a counterargument ( I already have) but I suppose , right now we should just stick to our current debate...

Coming to the portion of the quoted text, let's take up each of them one at a time:

Statement 1: They are using Vishnu Sahasranaam and Gayatri Mantra to worship a Muslim Fakir, which is not right.

This statement still doesn't prove that he has a problem with Sai Baba because Sai Baba was a Muslim. He has already said in another statement, "Hinduism is governed by Shastra and Vedas and there is no mention of Sai Baba. He should not be worshipped with Hindu gods...". Sai Baba is a Muslim Fakir in his opinion. And it's a fact that there is no mention of Sai Baba in Vedas or shastra. So, it might very well be the non-presence of Sai Baba in Vedas/ shastras which is his cause of objection to use Vishnu Shahasranaam and Gayatri Mantra to worship Sai Baba (Muslim Fakir). It perfectly fits with his logic.

It perfectly fits which logic ?..Your perceived reasons cant be accepted as logic..according to you it "might" be the absence of Sai baba from Vedas & Shastras...where does it say that in my quoted statement?..my quoted statement says Sai Baba's "Muslim Fakir" identity is the reason..so prove it & I want it in Black & White..moreover where does it say in our Vedas & Shastras that it is not right to worship a "perceived' Muslim with Vishnu Sahstranamam & Gayatri Mantra?.. even a rock can be worshiped with those shlokas if there is enough bhakti in the bhakt towards that rock..proof?...according to Hinduism god is formless,genderless, omnipotent ,omnipresent..God can be worshiped in any form- trees , animals, rocks, Sai baba.. etc..

Statement 2: When we do not have a single temple for someone like Adi Sankaracharya and other Dharmagurus, why should there be temples for a man who believed 'Allah is Malik' all his life?

First a note on your earlier observation. You had claimed: "However, Shankaracharya did say he would be much more happy to see Hindu Dharmaguru's temples as opposed to Sai baba who believed "Allah is Malik"all his life". Nowhere in the above statement does Shankaracharya said that he will be much more happy or at all happy to see temples of Hindu Dharmagurus. If I say, "We do not have a single statue of Hitler, why should there be statues of Stalin?", will not necessarily mean that I want to see statues of Hitler being built. It can very well mean that I do not want to see statues of either Hitler or Stalin.

Moreover, in another statement he has clarified that, "I would never ask devotees to establish my statue at a temple. Why are people doing what he (meaning Sai Baba) hasn't asked them to?". Therefore, he is not asking devotees to build temples of Hindu Dharmagurus, he is asking people not to build temples of Dharmagurus.

Correction- he is only stating that he doesnt demand a temple for himself & that Sai Baba too never asked his devotees to build a temple for himself( in other words, y havnt people built a temple for Dharmagurus like me & worship someone who never even asked 4 it? 😆.but ofcourse thats strictly my interpretation & not a fact) ...However,no where is it stated that he doesnt want people to build temples for Dharmagurus...that is strictly your interpretation..

Now coming to the main point, in my quoted statement he clearly said , "When we do not have a single temple for someone like Adi Sankaracharya and other Dharmagurus, WHY SHOULD THERE BE A TEMPLE FOR A MAN WHO BELIEVED "ALLAH IS MALIK" ALL HIS LIFE?"... ergo, Shankaracharya's objection does stem from Sai baba's Muslim identity..

Coming to your present contention, does it prove that he has problem with Sai Baba being a Muslim? Maybe not. It might be merely a question, that when we don't have temples for other Dharmagurus, then why are we making an exception for Sai Baba. That Sai Baba happened to have believed in 'Allah is Malik' is a fact and just a conincidence.

Your "may be" and "might be" are in stark contradiction with my quoted statement.. the statement clearly states that according to Shankaracharya, Hindu Dharmagurus are much more worthy of being worshiped than Sai Baba & that he has a problem with Sai Baba's Muslim Identity - proof?... no more proof required..yet again, HE SAID SO HIMSELF!..." ur interpretations, may be's & might be's" are your own & u can never prove it otherwise..

Even if, let's say, that he does express objection because of Sai Baba's religion, even then, do note, the issue can be with the religion but may not exclusively be because of Muslim religion. The issue can be with him being not a Hindu..

YES!.. this I agree with.. I do not have any doubt & nor do I counter question u in this regard..and I never said that his problem is that Sai Baba is a Muslim more than anything else.. that was never my take.. i would like to remind you that I always maintained that Sai Baba's Muslim identity is only a contributing factor.. I do belive that Shankaracharya's stand would have been the same if Hindus worshiped any non-Hindu entity.. and this objection is what i disagree with..

However, coming to the current predicament..it so happens that Sai Baba's non-Hindu identity is that of a Muslim man..and hence the debate became centered around Sai Baba's Muslim identity..So in the current predicament the Shankaracharyas do have a problem with Sai Baba's Muslim identity & which is what I have been trying to prove since the very onset of this perticular debate between us..you made it out to be independent of Sai baba's religious identity whereas I was of the opinion Sai Baba's religious identity (Muslim) is a problem to the Shankaracharyas..

And there is a difference between having a problem with Muslim and a problem with non-Hindu..

hmm..possibly...but will that make a differnce to our current debate?..

The non-Hindu identity of Sai Baba is that of a Muslim Man , so we are back to the starting point..

He has further clarified the reason for his objection in this statement, "There is a difference between God and Guru. A Guru is the one who guides us towards the devotion to the Lord,the one who makes us relate with the Lord. He is not the guru if he starts addressing himself as the "Lord". In the Sanatan Dharm, we believe that the Saints and the Mahatamas show us the path towards the Lord, and they direct us towards the worship of Lord. People are worshipping a person who never took the name of anyone but "Allah", the one who said no to Ganga Snaan. People have made a God out him."

And also this statement, "In our religion, it is said that you would be accepted by the Lord whom you remember in your last moments. Hence, be devoted to Krishna, to Ram."

From the above 2 statements, to me his objection appears to be more because of non-adherence or non-acceptance of what is considered holy in Sanatan Dharma, rather than adherence to another religion.

Might I just point out that your conclusions are self contradicting statements...🤓

On the one hand , you say that it appears to you that the objection stems from non-adherence or non-acceptance of what is considered holy in Sanatan Dharma- which is TRUE !

( P.S. Sanatan Dharma is only a Hindu Dinomination )

And yet on the other hand you contradict the first part of ur conclusion statement by saying that it doesnt appear that objections stems from adherence to another religion-.. how is that possible?.. adherence to another religion is non-adherence or non-acceptance of Sanatan Dharma ..god ! ur twisted logic has ended up twisting ur conclusions.😆.

I didn't think Sai Baba was worshiped by Hindus as a God. I thought he was revered as a saint, similar to how people revere priests etc.

I don't think Hinduism has that many restrictions on whom to worship. There are several Godmen and people worshiped across India for various reasons. I disagree with worshiping humans or even raising them on too high of a pedestal. But if people wish to worship Sai Baba or others that is their choice.

Just like how I have the right to express my opinion on dhongi babas or distaste for worshiping people - Shankaracharya has rights to his opinion too. The only difference is that he is a major religious figure and his opinions receive more attention.

I don't think it is a huge deal if the objection is over religion. Most religions discourage their followers from revering those outside the religion.

That being said I think a few people like Shirdi Sai Baba or Mother Teresa go above and beyond faith lines with their compassion and service. They will be universally revered.

Hinduism does not dictate who to worship and who not to worship. Heck we even worship stones if we have faith in it.

Second we don't have any religious gurus who can dictate terms to Hindus . It is still private issue for Hindus to choose the main deity they want to worship. We are not required to follow any guru to guide us in religious matters and we should keep it like that .

I don't think shankarachraya has any business to raise objection on who to worship.

We should not encourage these kinds of people who will slowly make themselves upholders of Hinduism and promote their propaganda

Originally posted by: mr.ass

"Baba lived in a mosque, was buried in a Hindu temple, embraced Hindu and Muslim practices, and taught using words and figures that drew from both traditions. One of his well known epigrams says of God: "Sab ka Malik Ek" ("Everyone has One God.") "

also as hindu4lyf said it is not established what his religion is. but the very fact that his belief of everyone having one god corroborates with hinduism which says all religions lead to one god, raises questions about the intentions of this fellow who is speaking against shirdi sai baba. not sure how he is so sure sai baba of shirdi was a muslim. there is no proof to refute or confirm that fact. but obviously he believes he was muslim so that is the basis. personally i have no problems with muslims except those who say that those who dont believe in allah is an infidel and must be destroyed. sai baba even if he was a muslim obviously did not fall into the description of such a muslim.

good point about conman sai baba, who made ppl close their eyes and then gave them gold to test their "Faith". 😆

Sai baba wasMuslim.Muslim disowns him AndRefuse to Accept himAs A muslim Bcz InIslam You Worship only allah and SaiBaba was Preaching complete OppositeThing in his EntireLife " Bhagwaan , ishwar ,allah ,ram ek hai , sabka malik ek " Thus muslim disowned him.

What he believes is up to him. And what he not believes is up to him. I seriously don't know how this made the headlines. I personally don't worship Shirdi Sai Baba, but I revere him because I feel he is a great person and a saint. He can respectfully state his views, but he has no right to make personal attacks on people because of their religious views.