Suicidal Flaws in Countering Sarvadharmasamabhava

In the past 90 years, the rise of Muslim appeasement politics has caused great damage to Indian culture. By equating "Ali Maula Allah" with Ishvara, pseudo-secularism has paralyzed our core spiritual and cultural consciousness. Even from a definitional perspective, "religion" and "mazhab" are distinct from dharma (righteousness/cosmic order), and in such a scenario, only the Hindu is left holding the rattle of *sarva dharma samabhava* (equal respect for all religions), while the fanatics of sectarian obsession play their game.

Only now has the Hindu become vocal against this all-destructive, suicidal secular culture of "Sarvagarmvadapav" (a satirical pun on *sarva dharma samabhava*). However, today I will not discuss the horrific consequences of Sarvagarmvadapav, but rather point towards a specific mindset that has emerged among Hindus while fighting it. This specific mindset has harmed Hindus at an intellectual level, rendering their spiritual vision void.

Since there is immense anger among Hindus today for the sake of *dharmarakshana* (protection of dharma) against Sarvagarmvadapav, Hindus sometimes fail to understand the depth of statements made by their own people/saints/thinkers and categorize them too under the modern label of secular. To what extent is it rational for certain medieval and contemporary Hindu saints to speak of Allah-Mulla-God-Jesus and make Vaishnava (relating to the worship of Vishnu) comparative statements about them, among other controversial things? What could have been their actual purpose? Based on historical and situational backgrounds, I present my thoughts on all of this today.

Any "statement" is always bound by the limitations of community, place, time, circumstance, purpose, context, and the intellectual level of the audience. If even one of these variables is lost, the function of the statement loses its purposeful meaning, and the statement begins to appear detached from the speaker (and their true nature).

Sarvagarmvadapav

And it begins to seem: how could the speaker say such a thing? For instance, if a saint tells people living in the Sahara Desert, "One should sprinkle cold snow to lower body temperature and sit in meditation," but if a person sitting in the snowy peaks of the Himalayas reads this same statement, they would say, "Oh, this saint is not a saint, but a madman!" Exactly similar examples can be given in the context of different time periods, different circumstances, and different audiences.

And regarding such statements that are based on external information, whose interpretation, truth, and practicality change according to time, era, and circumstance—no one can use such statements to cast doubt on a saint's spiritual attainment. For example, if it were universally established today across all disciplines of the world that Jesus Christ was noble and the Bible is a true scripture, then the *sadhakas* (spiritual aspirants) raised in this era, who later become saints, would also accept this as true, and without denying its validity in their discourses, they would explain their own doctrines.

Now suppose that 100 years later, people find out that the Bible is a false book and this becomes universally accepted. In such a scenario, if a person of that future era reads the thoughts of those 100-year-old saints, they will say, "What nonsense!" This is exactly the state of the neo-Hindu warriors spawned by the culture of Sarvagarmvadapav. Certainly, no accurate conclusion regarding their (the saints') spiritual attainment can be drawn from their (the saints') statements.

Therefore, if any medieval saintly literature contains Islamic equivalences, it is incorrect to view it through the intellect of today's era. Today, we are aware of all the misdeeds of Islam, the truth of Islamic books is out in the open, the dissemination of knowledge is rapid, and we also have knowledge of the history of Hazrat Muhammad. But the Hindu masses in the medieval era did not know this much; generally, people must have viewed it simply as another religion. At that time, there was no distinction between *mazhab* and dharma.

Furthermore, today we are not ruled by an Islamic regime, whereas back then, the rule of Mughal invaders prevailed. Imagine you are standing before 100,000 Muslims and you have to deliver a *dharma-deshana* (discourse on dharma); what would you say? Can a *jitendriya* (one who has conquered their senses) saint engage in abusive name-calling like "Pislam" or "Hinslam" as you do? Do you expect such behavior from a saint? Could any saint speak against Muhammad or Islamic symbols? No!

And even if they could speak, did they have as much information about Muhammad and Islam as we have today? No! Therefore, to turn beings born into that foreign Mughal mental framework into Vaishnavas or *jogis* (yogis), it was natural for the saints to preach by giving comparative examples from the then-prevalent Islamic and Christian ideologies of those communities.

For example—if someone believed that Allah is supreme, our saints said Bhagavan Vishnu is supreme, and what you call Allah, we call Vishnu! In this manner, our saints practiced and propagated dharma without political, financial, or physical muscle power. In the *Gorakhbani* (sayings of Gorakhnath), one finds some verses in praise of Muhammad as well as Islamic terminology; all of these reflect the dialogues that Gorakhnath Ji had with the Muslims of his time.

One key aspect of such dialogues is that while pointing out that Muslims had gone astray, they presented the Muslims' own symbols as elevated (equating them to yogis) to inspire them to progress on the path (indirectly, the path of Yoga). And history is witness that even today, there are 10,000+ yogis who were once Muslims. In this way, saints like Gorakhnath and others turned even Muslims into yogis.

Now, if some fool (overly frenzied in their opposition to Sarvagarmvadapav) takes a few *shabads* (hymns/verses) from the Gorakhbani and claims that Gorakhnath was "secular" and influenced by Islam/Sarvagarmvadapav, such a mindset will certainly offer less protection (from Sarvagarmvadapav) and cause more downfall. Who on earth has the audacity to "cancel" Shri Guru Gorakhnath—the incarnation of Shiva, the crown jewel of *mahasiddhas* (great perfected masters), the founder of the Nath Sampradaya, the master of alchemy (*rasashastracharya*), and the master of Hatha Yoga (*hathayogacharya*)!

Indeed, another example is the dialogue between Jagadguru Madhvacharya and a Muslim king! Cancel him too! Similarly, we find Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's dialogue with Pathan Maulanas, where he says that even the Quran does not speak of impersonalism (*nirvisheshavada*) but of the Supreme Person, the personal God, and thus Shri Chaitanya indirectly initiated the Muslim by advising him to chant the holy name of Krishna. The Muslim's name was changed to Ramdas.

There was another such Pathan Muslim named Vijuli Khan. Now let someone call Chaitanya Mahaprabhu secular and "cancel" him too! This is exactly how, these days, the literature of the saints of the medieval Bhakti movement is being reviewed (scrutinizing their Muslim-comparative statements), and our saints are falling victim to such spiritually vacant criticism.

It is not as if they only sang praises of Islam; medieval saints also vehemently opposed Islamic ideology. It is thanks to these very saints that Hindu dharma is safe today. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu explicitly called the author of the Quran "deluded" and ignorant (Chaitanya Charitamrita / Dialogue with Maulana Chand Kazi)

In this very context, if we look at some contemporary saints who preach abroad, we also find statements by them that resemble "Sarvagarmvadapav". You will find such statements from Swami Vivekananda too! From Ramakrishna Paramahansa too! From Paramahansa Yogananda too! And from modern Sadgurus too. For this reason, heretics also level allegations against Srila Prabhupada, but it is a matter of common sense that if the audience's intellect is based on pre-acquired knowledge (here, Christianity and Islam), then it is appropriate to explain Vedic principles to them starting from that point, using their most accessible perspective.

In their timeline, the dissemination of knowledge was not so rapid, and Sanskrit non-translatables were not widely recognized. Therefore, in their English writings, one might find Christian-equivalent English words. After advancing to an appropriate level, the devotees/followers automatically realize the true knowledge. Answering the audience's questions in a way that does not shatter their ego and prejudice, yet directs them toward the truth, is a highly esoteric preaching strategy (*guhyatama prachara niti*) that not everyone will understand. And under this very strategy, Swami Vivekananda, Srila Prabhupada, and others also launched the most severe intellectual attacks on Christians and Muslims, causing them widespread damage.

 “O Hindu Rashtra! Uttishthata! Jagrata! (Arise! Awake!)”

It is hoped that Hindus will reflect on the above points and further strengthen their defensive mechanism. Yes, if today's *kathavachakas* (storytellers/preachers)—whose audience is Indian, who know the true nature of Islam, who have nothing to fear, and whose circumstances are not like those of the past—sing "Ali Maula", then outrage must certainly be shown against them, and such destructive secularism must be opposed. Thank you.

Sarvagarmvadapav Sarvagarmvadapav Sarvagarmvadapav Sarvagarmvadapav Sarvagarmvadapav Sarvagarmvadapav Sarvagarmvadapav Sarvagarmvadapav

Also read,

Karpatri-Ratna-Samucchaya and Trad-ism | Including 'Kutarka-Kuta-Nashaka'

Sant Ravidas and Contemporary Society

What are these Crypto-Christians?

The History of the Christian Assault on India

Why a Muslim Can Never Be a Communist?

“The City of God” – Augustine’s Attack on Pagans