My post is related to this question, where the writer of the question posted a link to this website. If you read the content posted on the website, it tries to belittle the beliefs of a particular Hindu sect. With due apologies to members of that sect, let me post the relevant contents here -

When I was on the hill, some Vaishnavaites used to come there to see me. There are, as you know, two sections amongst Vaishnavaites, Vadakalai and Thenkalai. I used to speak to these visitors in accordance with their respective traditions, as I lose nothing by doing so. When, however, they thought that I was on their side and wanted me to have Samasrayanam, I declined. They believe that no one will be permitted into Vaikuntam (heaven) unless he is duly initiated. I used to ask them, ‘Show me even one person who has gone to Vaikuntam with his body.’ According to their traditions, they do not accept Sayujyam (absorption into the deity). They say, ‘Sri Maha Vishnu is in heaven, Vaikuntam. Released souls sit around him and serve him.’ How will all find accommodation there? Perhaps they sit close together shoulder to shoulder? They alone should know. Not only that. It seems there is a mantra which declares that they surrender their all to their Guru at the time they receive Samasrayanam. It is enough if the mantra is recited and a dakshina (offering or donation) is given to the Guru. The surrender is over, and it does not matter whatever is done afterwards; a seat is reserved for them in Vaikuntam. What more is needed? That is the opinion of some of them. It is mere delusion to think of arpana (offering), so lightly.

The above statements clearly belittle the beliefs of one sect of Hinduism. My question is whether it is fine to post links to such websites. If this is fine, then tomorrow somebody can post links to websites where Hindu religion itself is belittled or denigrated. Someone can post links to websites that say that worshiping idols is same as worshiping inanimate, lifeless rocks and idol worshippers are deluded? Are posting such links acceptable?

Edit: There are two such questions with the same link given in each of them - this and this. I flagged both questions for moderator intervention.

  • It appears you have not commented in or posted an answer under this question Purge and blacklist the tag Neo-vedanta. Would like to do now? Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 6:49
  • @idol worshipper. I neither meant nor intent to offend anyone. But one thing, those highlighted portions do not belittle VAs rather misrepresenting them. Especially that accomodation in vaikunta part, we believe Narayana is Brahman, also we believe in sayujyam too( Maharshi claimed we don't) the Universe itself is situated in him, it is funny how he could not accomodate some souls. Seems Maharshi loves Advaita so much that he is misrepresenting other traditions to his devotees, not everything some lay vaishnavas tell becomes true.
    – Satya
    Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 8:23
  • @idolworshipper: Let me clarify on one issue here. It all started with my requesting the members and the moderator to purge the tag Neo-Vedanta. If you go back and check my questions and answers till then, you can find that they are posted without using any offensive language against any one, though I had stated on many issues, treating them as interpolations. However, when the moderator refused to purge the tag neo-vedanta and the Vaishnavaite fanatic members continued to troll me, I had decided to retort. That is all to say from my side Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 8:46
  • @idolworshipper: do you think removal the tag neo-vedanta is a small issue? The Vaishnavaite fanatics have been posting questions, using that tag, to demean advaitins. Even yesterday, the member Ikshvaku posted another question using that tag. Is it not provocating? Why the other members remained silent on this issue? When majority of the members, including the Vaishnava fanatics, are silent on that issue, why are you people are raising hue and cry over a few questions? Please remain silent on this issue. Take it in stride and move on. Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 9:30
  • @idolworshipper: I stopped commenting on the moderator, because of your request. What is the moderator doing, when I flagged the issue of calling me 'troll' by another Vaishnava Fanatic member? You and other members are getting offended when I called the moderator "lone biased moderator". Have you ever thought why did I feel when a fanatic calls me "troll" in this site and everyone remains silent? Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 9:33
  • @SrimannarayanaKV Who is 'I" in the quote in your question? Is it Raman Maharshi speaking those words?
    – Rickross
    Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 9:41
  • It is acceptable if the one posting such links wants to clarify/verify the content of such links or asking how those people being belittled defend their beliefs. May not be acceptable if OP wants to further belittle those sects subtly or indirectly.
    – Satya
    Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 9:43
  • @idolworshipper: You can take one pretext or the other on the issue of removal of the tag neo-vedanta. It is your problem. I have my own views on this topic. thanks Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 9:44
  • 1
    @idolworshipper You seem to be over sensitive to anything that you think as slightly against the Vaishnavas. Then you have to learn to deal with it. This is not a Vaisnava forum that such things will be censored.. There is nothing wrong in the quote.. BTW have you seen this "This rascal Ramakrishna did it" .. Someone calling Ramakrishna Paramhamsa a rascal from this question here : hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/41122/…. Nobody has objected, the question is still there, not many downvotes on it too.
    – Rickross
    Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 9:46
  • 1
    @Rickross: The narration was a part of letter written to her brother by a widower, Suri Nagamma. She used to stay in ashram and practice SPIRITUALITY as per Sri Maharshi's directions. The English version is of her letter. She might have used the word "I", referring to Sri Maharshi, while narrating the incident. Actually, Sri Maharshi rarely used the word "I". Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 9:47
  • Okay thanks ... @SrimannarayanaKV
    – Rickross
    Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 9:48
  • I have deleted my previous comment @idolworshipper
    – Rickross
    Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 10:03
  • @idolworshipper: the comment was deleted later by whom that I do not know. If you want to see the comment, please go through this question. This question has already received 9 downvotes, most probably from Vaishnava fanatics, and hence not appearing in the list. Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 10:11
  • @Rickross. //There is nothing wrong in the quote// In that quote Maharshi is clearly insulting both Sri Vaishnavas and their philosophy. Of course, nothing is wrong for a shakta advaitin..everything is wrong for a Sri Vaishnava. I am not against quoting it but content of that quote is insulting us and OP's intent is also further insulting us.
    – Satya
    Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 10:20
  • 1
    @Satya Here we are allowed to quote from the sayings of well known saints, Acharyas etc. So that is why there is nothing wrong. Even I have produced a quote by a Vaishnava scholar calling Ramakrishna Paramahamsa a rascal. So, the point is if someone quotes Davaitin scholar where he mentions Adi Shankara as a demon even that will be allowed.
    – Rickross
    Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 10:25


You must log in to answer this question.