RajeshA wrote:I am actually interested in knowing if there is some kind of blasphemy that is not possible in Dharmic traditions but would be considered as such in Abrahamic faiths, as well as blasphemy that is in fact possible in Dharmic traditions and thus should not be allowed.
I don't think assertions of "only Way" are blasphemous in Dharmic traditions, because Dharma itself is universally acknowledged to be sookshma (subtle), and so based on their subtle expressions most Dharmic sects do make that claim. The difference is the way in which their truth-claims are understood, as opposed to the way in which Abrahamics history-centric truth-claims are understood by themselves. Dharmic sects all point to the fact that there is only One Way, and all viewpoints must connect with that Way. But they do acknowledge the multiplicity of viewpoints, while also denouncing certain 'viewpoints' as spurious.
For comparison, here is one such set of 10 blasphemous "offences" that form part of the credo of a couple of Vaishnava sects. They were taken from the Padma and other Puranas. As you can see, the doctrinal aspect is very subtle. And the etiquette and mental attitude is generally at odds with typical practices of Adharmic sects, though at times it is misunderstood in propaganda:
सतां निन्दानाम्नः परमं अपराधं वितनुते
यतः ख्यातिं यातं कथं उ सहते तद्विगर्हाम् |
This relates to etiquette: "The greatest offence is to blaspheme the Good/Truthful Ones who had dedicated their lives to the propagation of the Holy Name. How can one bear to then degrade them?"
शिवस्य श्रीविष्णोर्य इह गुणनामादि सकलं
धिया भिन्नं पश्येत् स खलु हरिनामाहितकरः ||
Now this is about doctrine, and is very subtle! The sentence can mean two opposite things depending on whether nAmAhita is broken up as "nAma + ahita" or "nAma + Ahita": "One whose intellect sees the Attributes and Names of Shiva and Vishnu as separate from one another... he has indeed done a disservice to the Name of Hari -- OR -- ...he has indeed performed/offered the Name of Hari!"
So here the concept of simultaneous difference and non-difference is alluded to, and the intellect must be refined to see this.
गुरोरवज्ञा श्रुतिशास्त्रनिन्दनं
ततार्थवादो हरिनाम्निकल्पनम् ||
This one is about discipleship and again about mental attitude and doctrinal understanding: "To disobey the orders of the spiritual master. To denigrate the Shruti literature and shastras written in pursuance of the Vedic version. To believe in rationalizations and mental interpretations of the Names/Mantras. To consider the glories of uttering the Name/Mantra to be a product of the faculty of 'imagination'."
नाम्नो बलाद् यस्य हि पापबुद्धिर्
न विद्यते तस्य यमैर्हि शुद्धिहा||
"To commit sinful activities on the strength of chanting the Holy Name of the Lord (e.g., to think it wipes off one's sins, so one can be a little unethical at times). Such a person's intellect is itself sinful. Even Yama cannot purify him!"
धर्मव्रतत्यागहुतादि सर्वशुभक्रियासंयम
अपि प्रमादः |
"To consider chanting of the Names/Mantras as similar to vows, or duties, or ritualistic activities offered for auspicious fruitive purposes (like heaven, or wealth and success, or for one's ancestors, etc.) is an offence. Being inattentive or distracted while chanting is also an offence."
अश्रद्दधाने विमुखे 'पि अशृण्वति
यश्चोपदेशः शिवनामापराधः ||
"To instruct or preach to an unwilling or uninterested or faithless person about the significance of the Holy Name is an offence to the auspicious Name (or Shiva's Name)."
श्रुत्वापि नाममाहात्म्ये यः प्रीतिरहितो 'धमः |
अहं ममादि परमो नाम्नि सो 'प्यपराधकृत् ||
"In spite of having heard/read so much about the significance of the Holy Name if one is still lacking in affection for It, then one is a neophyte. In spite of hearing so much if one is still involved in "I" and "mine" and other material attachments, then one is only committing offences against the Holy Name when one chants."
That covers all Zakir Nayak followers as well.