How Hindu Dharma differs from other religion?
There are good people who want to do good Karma. Why is the need for so many religions and why isn’t there one only when everybody believes there is only one god? First thing is, the word ‘Dharma’ written in Bible or is it written in Quran Sharif ?
They believe in Ishwar and call it ‘Allah’.
Shankarachary Ji : Before Allah, you talked about Dharma. I will deal with term Ishwar as well but first talk about Dharma. Is the word ‘Dharma’ used in Bible or is it used in Quran sharif?
Second thing is, don’t we know the name, age and period of the creator these religions?
These are creation of mind of some particular people and we call them ‘Dharma’ due to our own humility. If we apply the principles of Dharma, do they qualify as Dharma, this we need to ponder on.Due to our own humility, we call these religions, their beliefs, their theories as Dharma.The actual definition of Dharma, if we apply this definition, do they qualify as Dharma?
In English, they would call it ‘Religion’ only.
The sense in which word Dharma has been used in Vedic literature. No matter, Jains and Buddhist don’t consider themselves as Vedic but they have used the word Dharma from Vedas only. They have taken ‘Omkar’ from Vedas only. So, Dharma can’t be translated as religion anyways. Like if we call a drop of water as Ocean or if a spark of fire as fire, there is a lot of difference. That’s why, the way we define Dharma, all these stand nowhere near. A person was my disciple in Vrindavan and he used to lie a lot. His father was in police. He once came to me and I told him that his son used to lie a lot, so let him do LLB(Law).He was already MA and father said, he will teach him law himself. I thought that he was not an LLB and in fact didn’t study after Intermediate. He said that "I arrest people under particular sections of a particular law”.
Person who think that I know Law because I can charge somebody by the rules of that Law is a fool.In the same way, if a particular stream of waterbody like Gangnahar, went somewhere, it does not become that river.
We should search the origin of that stream. Like that, all the Religions are born from the Sanatan Dharma.
You must have heard the name of Bharati Krishna Teerthaji Maharaj. The 143rd Shankaracharya of Govardhan Peeth. He has written a book in English called ‘Sanatana Dharma’ and its Hindi translation is available with us.He knew 14 languages and in one year he passed M.sc, which too was called M.A. that time, in 7 subjects with high distinction. He has said that if you remove from Bible the part which is borrowed from Gita, then nothing would remain in Bible. I point out further. You must have heard about a person called Mr.Bush. When he was about to become the President for the second time, I read his interview in a newspaper where he said, “I am a born Christian. I do believe in Bible. But the science about the universe described in Bible, that proves absolutely a myth against the modern science. Hence, I don’t believe in the Bible on this part.
I wondered why nobody spoke against him. But, if you take the whole Vedic scripture or only 700 shlokas of Geeta, leave those 700 shlokas as well, take only seven mantras of 10th Mandala of Rigveda which means Nasadiya Suktam.
Nasadiya Suktam has only 7 smantras and scientists world over are still engrossed onto these as the way the nature of the universe explained in these seven mantras, no scientists can ever negate this and infact is bound to follow that. So, what I said is that any stream of Dharma due to which humanity somehow survives, if it reaches somewhere, it doesn’t mean that it is absolute Dharma. The whole Dharma is Vedic Dharma only which is the oldest. Now let’s talk about other thing i.e. Ishwar(God). In one and other Ishwar, there could be difference of earth and sky. You would have amazed to know that there is difference in Ishwar as well.
Once there was a Mullah Ji. A Bhandara(Feast) was happening in the house of a Brahmin. This mullah dressed as a Hindu and went into the Bhandara and took a seat in the row.The person serving the food noticed that he hasn’t seen this person before and he was also feeling uneasy. He said to him, “Shriman, please have the food but please give your introduction.”
Mullah replied, “ Dubey,”. He further inquired, “Which Dubey?” Mullah replied, “Hi-allah ! Hi-allah! Now something is still inside Dubey also!” The person found him as a Muslim but still said, “Ok, have food and it seems that you are somebody else.” So, what I am pointing out is that there is difference between Ishwar and Ishwar
and there could be as wicked an Ishwar. The Ishwar created out of the imagination of a human is not an Ishwar. I will not take the name but a particular Baba is also being called Ishwar today.
Bhamti Kar Vachaspati Mishra Ji has used a word, “Vidur prabhavit Kanta Sakshatkar”.
Vidhur is a person whose wife has died. In, he meditates about this wife in his imagination and due to the strength of his feelings, he can have a glimpse and can even be able to touch her. This is called “Vidur prabhavit Kanta Sakshatkar” by Bhamtikar Vachaspati Mishra Ji.
But this is not real. In the same way, there are many kinds of Ishwar. If any Ishwar is created with the imagination of a meditator, that is not real Ishwar as it doesn’t have the traits of Ishwar. Similarly, if a person believes in an Ishwar only due to his inference, then too that Ishwar is not real Ishwar. Why not?
The imaginary God born out of the sentiments of an emotional person can not become real Ishwar. It is like the emotional person who saw his dead wife in his dream world. Neither the God proven with the power of inference of logician,also can not prove to be the true Ishwar.
Once I was giving discourse in Vrindavan. One of my Guru Brother, who was elder to me in age, but, was younger to me considering the relationship. His name was Bipin Chandra Mishra and his sanyasi name was Bipin Chandranand Saraswati, I told him the same thing. He didn’t say anything that moment, but later said, “I have been a lawyer. But pardon me, I didn’t like this argument of yours that any Ishwar proved with the power of inference of logician, is not Ishwar. I disagree with this. The inference should be the proof.” I said, “Not at all.”
I explained him when will logic prevail by giving reference from the Shankara Bhasya on Kena Upanishad.At a far off place, we see smoke on a hill so from that we infer that there must be fire there. So, is the fire there proved with inference, is able to remove darkness or cold here? No. This is a very good example. So, any Ishwar proved with the power of inference, that is not real Ishwar but only a Mano-vilas. Nyayayikas and Vaishashikas too have considered the form of Ishwar but that is not real Ishwar. Their Ishwar is not existence but exist because of the existence in general, not consciousness, but conscious because of one of the attributes of the consciousness called Gyan, not blissfulness either. Another small thing which everybody can understand, any knowledgeable, desire-driven, active and conscious person, create this instrument mike through metal and plastic, he had the ability to make the mike but not himself becoming the mike.And the matter, i.e. plastic and metal which went into this mike, had the ability to become mike but not to be the maker of that mike.
Similarly, the Ishwar which can create the cosmos but cannot become the cosmos, i.e. can be a maker but not the matter, for that, I will ask a question which I will answer myself.
Any mechanic, no matter how good he is, can we say that he has full control over the instrument that he has made? No. And if he has no full control over that, how come he is Ishwar. That’s why the Ishwar accepted in Vedas is true. We have the criteria to judge the Ishwar and one who is maker as well as matter that only has all the traits of Ishwar. That’s why they have makeshift gods and in truth, the traits of Ishwar are present in Vedas only. And the Dharma approved by the Vedas only qualifies to be Dharma.
According to Sut-samhita, what we have told about this mechanic thing, according to our Guruji Swami Karpatri Ji Maharaj, his commentary on Ishavasya Upanishad, whose Ishwar can create the cosmos but can’t become the cosmos, their Ishwar, can’t have full control over the cosmos and when he has no control over the cosmos, so it means, it has no traits of Ishwar. In reality, their Ishwar can not even make the Universe. One more thing, whose Ishwar can create the cosmos and can become the cosmos, their Ishwar only can take the incarnation. Whose Ishwar, can create the cosmos but can’t become the cosmos, it cannot take incarnation.
For example, the Ishwar of Vaishashiks, Nyayikas and of Seshwar Sakhyavadi Yogis can’t take incarnation. Let me give an example, there is this word ‘Aabhas’ (impression). What would Chitabhas mean - that which looks like conscious like Chit but not has the traits of consciousness,Dharmabhas would be – which seems like Dharma but has no traits of dharma, Ishwarabhas would be – which seems like Ishwar but has no traits of Ishwar.
At other places, it is Dharmabhas and Ishwarabhas, so there is only one Dharma and Ishwar. The dharma which is described in Veda only is dharma. Any of its stream, went here and there, that is not Dharma. They are right upto that extent which is acceptable to the root of Dharma.