ok, Lot has been said about this from questioning the authority of the Math to questioning the ordinance.
The bottom line is just because one is a great saint does not make one an authority to teach.
Meaning one can be venerable and respected but one need not be sanctioned as a teacher. He might be a siddha but not qualified enough to teach dharma.
So the question is not about people's personal faith. Buddha was a leading figure in india in those days , but his teachings were challenged.
Similarly here his teachings and the methods are being challenged. His authority as a teacher is being questioned. Not much can be derived from his teachings nor references could be made to the Vedic tradition. What generally remains is the experience of the people who see a good man and want to be good too. They see compassion in him and that leads people to devotion. But Religious institutions need much more than mere sentiments of devotees to establish Dharmic Gurus. They need a philosophical basis, they need a set of teachings to test it.
No one would have a problem if they are a isolated organisation like Rajneesh claiming exclusiveness. But Man they are claiming their affiliation to the vedic roots.. The Shirdi places are called vedic temples that belong to the Sanatana Dharmic faith. The Shankaracharya has all the rights to question to legitimacy of this affiliation. It is this that is questioned.
Hindus are too liberal and do not want any body or forum to regulate their religious activities.... not even ..whom to worship...It is advisable that shri SAI bhagats build their temples for sai nath and avoid this controversy created by putting SAi statues alongside other dieties...
Re: ?????????????? worship or...not
by abhimanyu on Aug 28, 2014 04:57 PM
Your right.
The Shankaracharya should concentrate on uplifting the lower castes and reducing poverty and illiteracy, instead of raking up such issues against popular figures like Shirdi Sai who did great service for the poor and underprivileged.
