Swami Vivekananda: Religious inclusivist or Hindu supremacist?

[pmaitra]

I think he's the source of inspiration for our "secular" politicians.

On a more serious note, these are all fabricated tales, you know that very well. You are from WB, and I think you know the truth better.

I don't know what is the truth, but I don't know anything to suggest either Vivekananda or Ramakrishna were not secular.

Vivekananda did go on the record to say that in a certain part of India, dalits were treated as untouchables, but when they converted, they were 'liberated.' He even ate from the hands of a dalit person during his journey across India. This was to emphasize that he wanted to make a a point against untouchability, because he saw the problem within Hinduism that was motivating people to quit this religion. He was a Hindu, no doubt about that, but he was not one to point fingers at other religions, but to point within. I see him as secular.

More below:

But what did Vivekananda say? There is a wonderful chapter on 'Mohammed and Islam' in a book titled Teachings of Swami Vivekananda, which has a moving 30-page introduction by British writer Christopher Isherwoood. The chapter is a collection of quotes from a speech Vivekananda gave to an American audience.

This is what he says: "Mohammed – the Messenger of equality. You ask, 'What good can there be in his religion?' If there was no good, how could it live? The good alone lives, that alone survives"¦ How could Mohammedanism have lived, had there been nothing good in its teachings? There is much good."

"Mohammed by his life showed that amongst the Mohammedans there should be perfect equality and brotherhood. There was no question of race, caste, colour or sex. The Sultan of Turkey may buy a Negro from the mart of Africa, and bring him in chains to Turkey; but should he become a Mohammedan, and have sufficient merit and abilities, he might even marry the daughter of the Sultan. Compare this with the way in which Negroes and the American Indians are treated in this country (the United States of America)! And what do Hindus do? If one of your missionaries chances to touch the food of an orthodox person, he would throw it away."
[HR][/HR]
As he told the Americans, "As soon as a man becomes a Mohammedan, the whole of Islam receives him as a brother with open arms, without making any distinction, which no other religion does. If one of your American Indians becomes a Mohammedan, the Sultan of Turkey would have no objection to dine with him. If he has brains, no position is barred to him. In this country, I have never yet seen a church where the white man and the Negro can kneel side by side to pray."

"It is a mistaken statement that has been made to us that the Mohammedans do not believe that women have souls"¦I am not a Mohammedan, but yet I have had opportunities for studying them, and there is not one word in the Koran which says that women have no souls, but in fact it says they have." That would get Vivekananda a nationwide Hindu-Muslim women's vote bank.

Source: Take it from Vivekananda - Hindustan Times

 

[spikey360]

I don't know what is the truth, but I don't know anything to suggest either Vivekananda or Ramakrishna were not secular.

Vivekananda did go on the record to say that in a certain part of India, dalits were treated as untouchables, but when they converted, they were 'liberated.' He even ate from the hands of a dalit person during his journey across India. This was to emphasize that he wanted to make a a point against untouchability, because he saw the problem within Hinduism that was motivating people to quit this religion. He was a Hindu, no doubt about that, but he was not one to point fingers at other religions, but to point within. I see him as secular.

They weren't secular, they were deeply spiritual and enlightened people. Check dictionary meaning of secular.

And yes, he did point the finger within, and that is exactly what we "Hindus" need to do, self improvement and unification, no question about that. And only after that can we hope to tackle the threats we face.

 

[pmaitra]

Just to point you to an interesting fact which is Ramkrishna mission is now controlled indirectly by church via OCOY. The ideas of Ramkrishna Paramhans have been written posthumously about 100 years after his death using Swami Vivekanandas thoughts and interpretation of Vivekanandas writings without either Ramkrishna or vivekananda having any say or control over it. Ramkrishna did attempt to reach Jesus or Mohammad but he did it via dhyan saadhana. Christianity explictly forbids dhyan saadhana- proof being mediveal witch hunts in Europe. Islam AFAIK states that way to god is via Koran.

Dhyaan Saadhana is very integral to Sanatan Dharma. On Rajiv Malhotra Yahoo group. Few people explictly proved the ideas propagated by 'Ramkrishna mission that Ramkrishna P stated islam and christianity are also true' was Hocus Pocus.

The sheer ferocity of our agreement in economics is countered by the ferocity of our disagreement when it comes to religion.

 

[pmaitra]

They weren't secular, they were deeply spiritual and enlightened people. Check dictionary meaning of secular.

And yes, he did point the finger within, and that is exactly what we "Hindus" need to do, self improvement and unification, no question about that. And only after that can we hope to tackle the threats we face.

Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saecularis meaning "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied or against any particular religion.

Source: Secularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vivekananda was not separate from religion, so you are right, Vivekananda was not secular.

Thank you for correcting me.

 

[parijataka]

Source: Secularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vivekananda was not separate from religion, so you are right, Vivekananda was not secular.

Thank you for correcting me.

Best comment of this thread sir! How can a religious leader be termed secular.

 

[Manas7]

Ramakrishna's catholicity'

I think it is the first time someone used the word in this context since 1900 .