Mis Quoting Swami Vivekananda by Dravidar Kazhagam, Christian and Mohammedan missionaries

By VEDAPRAKASH

Really, it is surprising that DK, Christian and Mohammedan missionaries and ideologists have started quoting Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), misleading the people completely and suppressing the facts that Swamiji himself answered suitably right inside Madras to these detractors. Interestingly, he countered such categories from the so-called “Social reformers” of Madras to the Sanskrit professor of PresidencyCollege – Gustav Oppert[1]!

Incidentally and ironically, such quoting are used only to attack Hindus. Moreover, they quote partially, picking up part of sentences or from translation. “Viduthalai” (Sunday edition dated July 20, 2008) has given an opportunity to expose their unethical way of misleading the public and as well as their cadres and ideologists, as they do not read his “Complete work” (nine volumes), Swami Vivekananda in the West – New Discoveries (six volumes), Life of Swami Vivekananda (two volumes). If anyone reads, he would laugh at these idiotic fellows for their mischievous, but wanton misquotes.

Incongruously for such misquote, one learned advocate need not necessary, as the shameless paper (available on the net – www.viduthalai.com), as any crook would do that.

When Swami Vivekananda left his mortal coil in 1902 at the age of 39, E. V. Ramasamy Naicker (1879-1973) was a 23 year old young man. As he was so keen in the affairs of Indian events, it is impossible that he might not have known Swami Vivekanana, that too when he was passing through Tamilnadu.

Swami Vivekananda appearing in Christian tracts!

The unashamed Christian missionaries do not have any decency and decorum to print Swami Vivekananda’s figure on such tracts[2] with “his quoting on Jesus Christ”! Actually, the missionaries have almost attempted to kill Swamiji, when he was in US and Europe and as well as travelling on board. Their propaganda, advertisements and media coverage speak volumes of such poisonous canard and the marvellous (dis)respect shown to Swamiji.

Their shameless acts have been suppressing the facts and presenting lies as “facts”. Anyone who reads Swami Vivekananda, he can understand easily, how he has exposed the machinery and machination activities of missionaries. In fact, the instinct “once bitten think twice” should work in their minds. But, strangely, they always indulge in such shameless activities of lying, lying and lying all the way.

The Mohammedan mischief


:

If the Christian missionaries have been like this, it is not known as to what happened to the Mohammedans all over the world, as they have also indulged in such shameless activities. Of late, the Mohammedan ideologists and fundamentalists have also joined the suit, in turn quoting DK-literature[3] or anti-Hindu literature of the biased western pen-pushers and bloggers. But, the Mohammedan friends have been doing injustice by not reading Swami Vivekananda, but picking up from the DK literature. I just quote from few paragraphs[4], where he has made study about Mohammed, his religion etc. The characteristics of Christians and Mohammedans are discussed as follows:

“People who deny the efficacy of any rationalistic investigation into religion seem to me somewhat to be contradicting themselves. For instance, the Christian claims that his religion is the only true one, because it was revealed to so – and – so. The Mohammedan makes the same claim for his religion; his is the only true one, because it was revealed to so – and – so. But the Christian says to the Mohammedan, “Certain parts of your ethics do not seem to be right. For instance, your books say, my Mohammedan friend, that an infidel maybe converted to the religion of Mohammed by force, and if he will not accept the Mohammedan religion he may be killed; and any Mohammedan who kills such an infidel will get a sure entry into heaven, whatever may have been his sins or misdeeds.” The Mohammedan will retort by saying, “It is right for me to do so, because my book enjoins it. It will be wrong on my part not to say so.” The Christian says, “But my book does not say so.” The Mohammedan replies, “I do not know; I am not bound by the authority of your book; my book says, ‘Kill all infidels’. How do you know which is right and which is wrong? Surely what is written in my book is right and what your book says, ‘Do not kill,’ is wrong. You also say the same thing, my Christian friend; you say that what Jehovah declared to the Jews is right to do, and what he forbade them to do is wrong. So say I, Allah declared in my book that certain things should be done, and that certain things should not be done, and that is all the test of right and wrong.” In spite of that the Christian is not satisfied; he insists on a comparison of the morality of the Sermon on the Mount with the morality of the Koran. How is this to be decided? Certainly not by the books, because the books, fighting between themselves, cannot be the judges. Decidedly then we have to admit that there is something more universal than these books, something higher than all the ethical codes that are in the world, something which can judge between the strength of inspirations of different nations. Whether we declare it boldly, clearly, or not — it is evident that here we appeal to reason.

 

Now, the question arises if this light of reason is able to judge between inspiration and inspiration, and if this light can uphold its standard when the quarrel is between prophet and prophet, if it has the power of understanding anything whatsoever of religion. If it has not, nothing can determine the hopeless fight of books and prophets which has been going on through ages; for it means that all religions are mere lies, hopelessly contradictory, without any constant idea of ethics. The proof of religion depends on the truth of the constitution of man, and not on any books. These books are the outgoings, the effects of man’s constitution; man made these books. We are yet to see the books that made man. Reason is equally an effect of that common cause, the constitution of man, where our appeal must be. And yet, as reason alone is directly connected with this constitution, it should be resorted to, as long as it follows faithfully the same. What do I mean by reason? I mean what every educated man or woman is wanting to do at the present time, to apply the discoveries of secular knowledge to religion. The first principle of reasoning is that the particular is explained by the general, the general by the more general, until we come to the universal. For instance, we have the idea of law. If something happens and we believe that it is the effect of such and such a law, we are satisfied; that is an explanation for us. What we mean by that explanation is that it is proved that this one effect, which had dissatisfied us, is only one particular of a general mass of occurrences which we designate by the word “law”. When one apple fell, Newton was disturbed; but when he found that all apples fell, it was gravitation, and he was satisfied. This is one principle of human knowledge. I see a particular being, a human being, in the street. I refer him to the bigger conception of man, and I am satisfied; I know he is a man by referring him to the more general. So the particulars are to be referred to the general, the general to the more general, and everything at last to the universal, the last concept that we have, the most universal — that of existence. Existence is the most universal concept.”

 

As long as Christians and Mohammedans fight with each other about the superiority of their respective religion, where is the question of claiming superiority over Hindu religion? Fundamentally, Mohammedans would stick to their Quran and assert that Christ was never died on the cross, but for Christians, it is one of the important fundamental tenet based on which resurrection and ascension are built upon. Here, he openly questions the belief of them as each group claims that their book alone is revealed and so on. After all, any belief is subjected to verification and none can claim that one’s belief should be accepted without verification. Thus the infallibility of scripture fails.

 

Swami Vivekananda challenges Mohammedans


:

The Vedantic approach to religion has not been fully understood even by Hindus perhaps, and that is why the Hindus are confused and such confusion is exploited by the half-baked atheists and anti-Hindu Black Parivar etc. But, the Mohammedans are really frightened about Advaita and therefore, they started canard that Adi Sankara copied Advaita from Quran and so on[5]. In fact, there had been a great theological battle about the “Advaita philosophy” among the Tamil Mohammedans as to whether they should study it or not[6]. One has to be very careful in criticising or commenting upon the Indian / Hindu tradition, heritage, culture and civilization, as many times, the ideologues do without understanding or reading Indian / Hindu books. Swami Vivekanda[7] said, “The Mohammedan says, there is no God but Allah. The Vedanta says, there is nothing that is not God.” Oh Mohammedans and DK-walas come on and take it. Can any honest, faithful and obedient believer would have any guts to oppose or disbelieve, “there is nothing that is not God (LA ILAHA LA ILLALAH)“. First the existence of God is asserted in double negative expression, “La ilaha illa Llah” and then, exclusively with “Khul hu vallahu ahad“. Just like Mohammedans’ claim, there is also Hindu claim that Adi Sankara went upto Arabia[8] and preached Advaita to Arabs and such Arabians imbibed with Advaita philosophy only later became “Mohammedans”. As pointed out above, the Vimarsa, a work attributed to known scholar mentions that Adi Sankara conquered the whole world. Particularly, he went to Arabia and preached the natives of Arabia for 64 days – the knowledge of Vedas – Karma, Upasana and Gnana to the Yogins of the area. As he preached in Arabic, they took down and they formed the Holy Quran of them. Thus, Swami Vivekananda clarifies as follows:

“The Mohammedan says, there is no God but Allah. The Vedanta says, there is nothing that is not God. It may frighten many of you, but you will understand it by degrees. The living God is within you, and yet you are building churches and temples and believing all sorts of imaginary nonsense. The only God to worship is the human soul in the human body. Of course all animals are temples too, but man is the highest, the Taj Mahal of temples. If I cannot worship in that, no other temple will be of any advantage. The moment I have realised God sitting in the temple of every human body, the moment I stand in reverence before every human being and see God in him — that moment I am free from bondage, everything that binds vanishes, and I am free.”

Recalling a “Indian mutiny” incidence, Swamiji succinctly points out as follows[9] Incidentalkly, I am tempted to ask why no historian[10] of any worth has ever pointed out this fact? Because, a Mohammedan stabbed a Swamy!:

“I call to mind an incident of the Indian Mutiny. A Swami, who for years had fulfilled a vow of eternal silence, was stabbed by a Mohammedan. They dragged the murderer before his victim and cried out, ‘Speak the word, Swami, and he shall die.’ After many years of silence, he broke it to say with his last breath: ‘My children, you are all mistaken. That man is God Himself.’ The great lesson is, that unity is behind all. Call it God, Love, Spirit, Allah, Jehovah — it is the same unity that animates all life from the lowest animal to the noblest man. Picture to yourself an ocean ice – bound, pierced with many different holes. Each of these is a soul, a man, emancipated according to his degree of intelligence, essaying to break through the ice.”

 

Swami Vivekananda exposes Mohammedan manipulation of Hindu scriptures


:

Really, I am totally taken aback about the historical knowledge of Swami Vivekananda, when he points about the manipulation made by the Mohammedans, of course in his own way gently:

 

“The Upanishads are many, and said to be one hundred and eight, but some declare them to be still larger in number. Some of them are evidently of a much later date, as for instance, the Allopanishad in which Allah is praised and Mohammed is called the Rajasulla. I have been told that this was written during the reign of Akbar to bring the Hindus and Mohammedans together, and sometimes they got hold of some word, as Allah, or Illa in the Samhitas, and made an Upanishad on it. So in this Allopanishad, Mohammed is the Rajasulla, whatever that may mean. There are other sectarian Upanishads of the same species, which you find to be entirely modern, and it has been so easy to write them, seeing that this language of the Samhita portion of the Vedas is so archaic that there is no grammar to it. Years ago I had an idea of studying the grammar of the Vedas, and I began with all earnestness to study Panini and the Mahabhashya, but to my surprise I found that the best part of the Vedic grammar consists only of exceptions to rules. A rule is made, and after that comes a statement to the effect, “This rule will be an exception”. So you see what an amount of liberty there is for anybody to write anything, the only safeguard being the dictionary of Yaska. Still, in this you will find, for the most part, but a large number of synonyms. Given all that, how easy it is to write any number of Upanishads you please. Just have a little knowledge of Sanskrit, enough to make words look like the old archaic words, and you have no fear of grammar. Then you bring in Rajasulla or any other Sulla you like. In that way many Upanishads have been manufactured, and I am told that that is being done even now. In some parts of India, I am perfectly certain, they are trying to manufacture such Upanishads among the different sects. But among the Upanishads are those, which, on the face of them, bear the evidence of genuineness, and these have been taken up by the great commentators and commented upon, especially by Shankara, followed by Ramanuja and all the rest.

 

The Europeans have involved in producing and manufacturing scriptural forgeries in connivance with the authorities and rulers. In 1821, Mr. Francis Ellis of Madras brought to the notice of the Asiatic Society the existence of a modern imitation of the Yajur Veda prepared by some Jesuit Missionaries of the 18^th century with a view to establish, by Vedic evidence, the divinity of Jesus Christ and the authenticity of the Bible.

 

Earlier, Roberto de Nobili was involved in such forgery of producing the so called lost Yasur Veda. He also produced several Sanskrit works engaging Indian ghost writers and circulated with his name.

 

In Dr. Buhler Catelogue of Sanskrit MSS, from Gujarat (p.44), Babu Rajendralala Mitra[11] noticed the existence of a Ms. of one “Allah Upanishad” in the possession of Krishnarav Bhimasankar of Vadodara.  In 17^th century, anticipating the Jesuits before Akbar, the Mohammedans  produced an apocryphal chapter of the Atharva Veda, designed to establish the superioriy of the religion of Akbar, and to enlist on its behalf the attachment of his Hindu subjects. Several personalities were suspected including Badaoni, Khan Khanan or Lord Chamberlain of Akbar[12] and so on, but the forger undetected leaving the forged MSS.

 

Thus his knowledge of fabricated Upanishads and the Mohammedan attempt of deriving Allah from Ila etc., are very significant[13].

 

How Satan was created (common to Jews, Cjristians and Mohammedans)?

Swamiji points out how Satan was created[14] or who created.

 

“The older I grow, the more I see behind the idea of the Hindus that man  is the greatest of all beings. So say the Mohammedans too. The angels were asked by Allah to bow down to Adam. Iblis did not, and therefore he became Satan.”

 

Why the same God, the creator should create such beings? He gives explanation[15] (the DK-fellow may note).

 

“According to the Jews and Mohammedans, God created man after creating the angels and everything else, and after creating man He asked the angels to come and salute him, and all did so except Iblis; so God cursed him and he became Satan. Behind this allegory is the great truth that this human birth is the greatest birth we can have. The lower creation, the animal, is dull, and manufactured mostly out of Tamas. Animals cannot have any high thoughts; nor can the angels, or Devas, attain to direct freedom without human birth. In human society, in the same way, too much wealth or too much poverty is a great impediment to the higher development of the soul. It is from the middle classes that the great ones of the world come. Here the forces are very equally adjusted and balanced.

 

 

Nicolas Notovich and Jesus Christ


:

The knowledge of Swamiji on the contemporary happenings has been astounding.

Responses