PDA

View Full Version : Jesus The Son or Sun?



Hiwaunis
10 January 2009, 10:18 PM
Om Shanti,

There is information being posted on YouTube that Christianity is a version of Sun Worship. Jesus is another version of the Egyptian God, Ra.

Can this information be disproven? Here is one of several links to the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKG59NUdn8A&feature=related

Om Shanti

Nuno Matos
11 January 2009, 09:30 AM
Namaste Hiwaunis,

Christianity is an ideia.
The Sun worship is related with history and god as a male as so much to do with organised burocratic society. Civilization. War.
Altought as a nature worship the sun can be male or female it depends often on the patern of power that a certain group follows. And is actual structure of prodution.
In the beguining as christianity spread the local nature cults and others wore adopted into the basic ideias that formed christianity. An organized burocratic society. So it toke many centurys until the actual rituals and traditions come to be fixed.

amra
12 January 2009, 06:55 AM
The vedics were worshippers of the sun, so were the avestans. The sun is not feminine, it is a masculine, active principle. The moon is passive, feminine. The moon waxes and wanes, it is fey, whereas the sun is constant. The sun is creator of all life and also known as the atma-karaka. He is the source of all souls. SHiva is known as the Sun and Shakti as the moon. Sun worship is part of the great tradition originating in primordial times, christianity absorbed part of this tradition. Christianity and other religions were guises that the primordial tradition took upon itself.

MahaHrada
12 January 2009, 09:01 AM
The sun is not feminine, it is a masculine, active principle. The moon is passive, feminine.....SHiva is known as the Sun and Shakti as the moon.

This is incorrect. First of all shiva is not considered to be separete from shakti while she is the energetic creative will of the deity, shiva is the passive awareness but they are not two separete principles.
Therefore both are seen depicted as ornamented with the sun and the moon, because both are transcending the diversity of creation. But if these aspects of one divinity are considered separetly it is rather the other way around then what you wrote. Shakti is the acting principle of Shiva, or Shiva is the quiet, peaceful, passive awareness of the action of shakti.
Shakti is primarily the creatrix, she is the complete visible universe, the prakriti, she is creation as well as destruction she emanates the universe and also reabsorbs it, Shiva on the other hand is the eternal stable witness that is not involved in the play of diversity. While primarily she spreads out as all the planets, sun and moon, in the particular it is nonetheless Shiva who is asociated with Soma the moon, and the white color and the life giving fluid (amrita) and Shakti is primarily associated with the fire, (of kundalini) with the sun and the red color, in general with life, creativity and activity but also impermanence war and destruction, which by the way does not mean that shiva is not associated with agni, he as well as devi is adorned with soma, surya and agni.
Shiva is known as someshvara, the lord of the Moon, who wears the soma, the moon crescent on the matted hair.
Shakti means translated power energy and activity, Energy contrary to western ideas, is not conceived as male but as female. Sanskrit verb root is “shak,” which means “to be able”, “to do”, “to act”. shakti vinaa shiva shava: "Without Shakti, Shiva is a corpse."shiva becomes "shava" (a corpse, unable to act) without shakti.

yajvan
12 January 2009, 07:34 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


First of all shiva is not considered to be separete from shakti while she is the energetic creative will of the deity, shiva is the passive awareness but they are not two separate principles.
...Shakti is the acting principle of Shiva, or Shiva is the quiet, peaceful, passive awareness of the action of shakti.

While primarily she spreads out as all the planets, sun and moon, in the particular it is nonetheless Shiva who is asociated with Soma the moon, and the white color and the life giving fluid (amrita) and Shakti is primarily associated with the fire, (of kundalini) with the sun and the red color, in general with life, creativity and activity ...
Shakti means translated power energy and activity, Energy contrary to western ideas, is not conceived as male but as female. Sanskrit verb root is “shak,” which means “to be able”, “to do”, “to act”. shakti vinaa shiva shava: "Without Shakti, Shiva is a corpse."shiva becomes "shava" (a corpse, unable to act) without shakti.

Namasté

MahaHrada offers us a very insightful post ( thank you).
As I was watching one thing on science the other day, this notion of śakti came to mind instantly.


The scientists were describing the energy levels found in atoms, in electrons. I thought to myself, I have never heard of an electron running out of energy. It changes energy levels i.e. jumps from one level to another when properly excited ( so they say). Yet there is never the idea of an electron just running out of energy.
This to me is śakti that permeates the full universe, a fundamental principle.

Now there may be different laws when talking quantum mechanical fields and this is way outside of my expertise... perhaps the scientists on HDF can help us here?

Think of your car... it needs fuel. When the fuel is consumed the car stops. Yet at the atomic and sub-atomic levels the electron's fuel is never consumed as I understand it... this is śakti on the physical levels of existence.

I hope others can take this idea further ( I hope this does not de-rail the string here?).

The Sun , pure energy, śakti. Sūrya. This Sūrya is from sū - to set in motion , urge , impel , vivify , create , produce i.e. to give.

This fits nicely from what MahaHara offers:

Sanskrit verb root is “shak,” which means “to be able”, “to do”, “to act”.
The sun like śakti is to do, to give, to make things occur. As sūr means strong powerful, valiant, hence sūra is a strong, mighty person.
And what of sūri? A a learned man , a sage and is another name for bṛhaspati or Jupiter ( Guru)... Hence Sūrya and suri are closely connected. Both bring brightness, wisdom for action.

praṇām

MahaHrada
14 January 2009, 09:05 AM
Namaste,
In the Shastras, the symbols of the sun and moon are associated with both Shiva and Shakti, depending on their diverse aspects and also the differing context in which they appear.

The sun is not so much a symbol of activity but appears mostly as an attribute of destructive energy, it is often associated with the ugra or the samhara form, which is the wild and devouring or dissolving aspect of a devata, while the attribute of the moon is more often associated with the saumya or anugraha rupa, the satiated, peaceful, graceful and blessing aspect of a devata.

When polarising Shiva and Shakti we forget their interaction or union. In the shastras we most often are theerefore confronted with the three sources of light, Agni Soma and Surya, which can fully describe Siva Shakti including their interaction or union.

Both can assume any of the 3 modes symbolised by the three lights and other associated sets of triplicities, that this symbolism can refer to.

Fire, sun and the moon depend for their existance on the presence of kala and desha, time and space. Shiva and Shakti are beyond kala and desha thats why any of the grahas and the kalachakra serves only as an ornament for them. So neither the sun nor the moon can fully represent Shiva or Shakti.

To be exact we have 5 modes of being, the state transcending the three modes is the fourth, the next unifying both the immmanent and the transcendent is the fifth.

These 5 are also the modes that constitute all possible processes of cognition, not only of human cognition, but of cognition per se.
When we accept the opinion of some shaiva and shakta shastra that there is nothing inert, and all that exists, even if it is so called inert matter, is in reality pervaded by conciousness, then the original creation process and our day to day cognition, are both controlled by the same laws and therefore mirror each other.

That means by our cognition process we are constantly creating our individual reality, that is we are interpreting the raw matter of the unmanifest prakriti, according to our momentary state of being, and of course, limited organs of perception. This philosophical conception could provide a meaningful link to laws of quantum mechanics, since it is said in quantum mechanics that without an observer present, the universe remains in a blurred, poised state between matter and energy.

Shiva the inactive awareness is as much needed for the universe to come into existance than the Shakti the Prakriti, providing the actively changing objects of awareness , without anyone observing it there would be no universe, and there can be no observer without any objects he can watch.

When the Shakti is considered representing Prakriti, she is the one associated with Soma, the Moon since she is providing the objective world for the enjoyment of Shiva (the principle of awareness) The one who enjoys here is Shiva and in this context, he is neither associated with the moon nor with the sun, but the polar opposite of this Shakti, who has the the likeness of Soma, is Shiva associated with Fire, Agni the devourer of the offering. The process of the enjoyment of the limited objects is that part of the triplicty which is likened to the sun.

The triad of fire, moon, and sun is respectively associated with the knower (fire) the objects of knowledge (moon) and the means of acquiring knowledge (sun).

When Shakti appears as kundalini inside our body she is the agni the devourer of the limited knowledge, while shiva is the moon.
Here that what is to be enjoyed is Shiva and this time the enjoyer is the Kundalini Shakti. He that rests in the highest chakra in the form of Soma or amrita, is that what is enjoyed, the immortal quiescent awareness of the purusha, not the changing limited objects of the prakriti as in the first example.

Then again we find another polarity in our own body where the forces of prana are parted into those of the sun situated in the lower half of the body where the devi is the sun, she is lessening our lifespan because slowly she devours the share of amrita given to us hereby reducing our lifespan by the natural process of dessication of the life fluid that is trickling from the internal Moon which is contained in the upper part of the body and which is identical with Shiva, because he is the immortal one, and therefore the giver of longevity. In the Yoga this liforce can be saved and replenished.
But these polarities already contain their opposites. The sun here contains within itself the downward voiding water and the Moon contains the upward rising fire, both polarities that are also associated with shiva and shakti.
This again points to the true nature of the pair, which is that they are immanent as well as transcendent, beyond kala and desha while being contained in the particular also, but independent of wheter they manifest as transcending or as immanent in the universe, they remain non dual.

Sicne we can find any of the two in each of the luminaries, there is also an important aspect of Shiva, known as Martanda Bhairava which is Shiva in the form of the sun god.

Instead of being associated with either the sun or the moon, in the shastras shakti is likenend to the rays of the sun or the moon while shiva is likened to the sun or the moon itself.
This means that as the sun or the moon do not exist without their effect the rays and the effect, the rays cannot manifest without the cause, the sun or moon, in the same way shiva is non different from his shakti.

Hiwaunis
26 January 2009, 07:25 PM
The vedics were worshippers of the sun, so were the avestans. The sun is not feminine, it is a masculine, active principle. The moon is passive, feminine. The moon waxes and wanes, it is fey, whereas the sun is constant. The sun is creator of all life and also known as the atma-karaka. He is the source of all souls. SHiva is known as the Sun and Shakti as the moon. Sun worship is part of the great tradition originating in primordial times, christianity absorbed part of this tradition. Christianity and other religions were guises that the primordial tradition took upon itself.

Pranam,
Although I don't see anything wrong with using the Sun as a symbol of our Divine Parent, I believe what you are saying is that Jesus is a personification of the Sun (a face drawn on the sun). Just as the Egyptian God Ra? So, we have never stopped worshiping the Sun we basically just changed it's name?

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti

amra
28 January 2009, 02:42 AM
No I would not say Jesus is a personification of the sun. The CHristians took many powers from the old religions and pagan traditions, and then cut their own feet off by ridiculing these traditions. The solar cult surfaces in many forms throughout mans history the shape it takes depends on what forms are available to express it at the given space and time. The sun is divine before we called it the sun it was known as Ra by the egyptians they did not know of the 'sun' as we call it. They appreciated the divinity of the SUn and Ra was the Sun not a personification of the Sun. Just as now the Sun is the Sun not a de-personalised form of Ra. With regards to Jesus, I see him as the same as Rama or Krishna, they may have been historical personages, but too me it does not matter as what is important is the idea or myth of Jesus that raises him to a form of divinity, a higher intelligence, a higher reality by the intentional worship and devotion towards him by his devotees. Although in the case of Jesus unfortunately much that is negative is associated with his name, but why consider this, he is a higher being and thus should be respected. This 'archetype' of Jesus may be associated with divinities such as the Sun only in certain contexts, and by certain sects.

TatTvamAsi
28 January 2009, 10:24 PM
No I would not say Jesus is a personification of the sun. The CHristians took many powers from the old religions and pagan traditions, and then cut their own feet off by ridiculing these traditions. The solar cult surfaces in many forms throughout mans history the shape it takes depends on what forms are available to express it at the given space and time. The sun is divine before we called it the sun it was known as Ra by the egyptians they did not know of the 'sun' as we call it. They appreciated the divinity of the SUn and Ra was the Sun not a personification of the Sun. Just as now the Sun is the Sun not a de-personalised form of Ra. With regards to Jesus, I see him as the same as Rama or Krishna, they may have been historical personages, but too me it does not matter as what is important is the idea or myth of Jesus that raises him to a form of divinity, a higher intelligence, a higher reality by the intentional worship and devotion towards him by his devotees. Although in the case of Jesus unfortunately much that is negative is associated with his name, but why consider this, he is a higher being and thus should be respected. This 'archetype' of Jesus may be associated with divinities such as the Sun only in certain contexts, and by certain sects.

(In BOLD):

It is an insult to equate jesus with that of Rama and Krishna. The latter two are avatars. jesus was a mere jew, a carpenter's son I might add, who travelled to India to study Hinduism & Buddhism and then pondered them off as his own thoughts to the gullible people in the Middle East.

Just because the truth has been hidden for two millenia doesn't make the fallacy correct. jesus, although different from his untouchable brethren in the middle east due to his innate curiosity in the nature of reality, was a VERY ORDINARY human being.

Rama/Krishna were AVATARS of Vishnu which mean that the Supreme had manifested bodily on this planet (especially in Bharat). So-called "Hindus" who claim that jesus was an avatar are just 'being nice' as they themselves don't know the real history behind that jewish tradition.

Interesting how after Buddhism spread like wildfire in India, many Hindus appropriated Buddha and started saying that he was the 9th avatar! LOL. Buddha was indeed an enlightened man, however he was just a MAN, whereas a real avatar is completely different.

It's funny how world over, fanatical christians, from the likes of BBC etc., went to great lengths and spent enormous resources in trying to discredit and demonize Sathya Sai Baba (ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba) by slandering him to no end and calling him all sorts of names like pedophile, murderer, charlatan etc. when they fail to see that that droopy corpse they pray to, jesus, was the biggest fake of them all! This jew went around performing perfunctory tricks and the morons in the middle east fell for it hookline and sinker! Where is the PROOF for his gimmicks? He wasn't scrutinized by HD cameras and doctors, physicists, and other scientists! Yet BILLIONS of people blindly pray to a droopy corpse for whom there is no real proof. On the contrary, Sai Baba has indeed been questioned and tested by western (biased) scientists who then conclusively have stated that they cannot explain the miracles he does.

I am in no way a Sai Baba devotee but at least all the money he gets he builds schools, hospitals, and nurseries for the sick, poor, and needy all around India! He has never used an iota of his 'funds' for self-aggrandizement!

I highly suggest people question this jew that they so blindly follow before attacking anyone else or their beliefs or even equating divinity to the biggest charlatan in the history of mankind; jesus.

Millions around the world are now practising Hinduism subliminally by doing Yoga & meditation and are abandoning the two largest cults, christianity & islam, in droves.

PS: I hope this post will remain in order to show that not all Hindus take abuse sitting down.

amra
29 January 2009, 03:19 AM
tattvamasi good luck to you in holding these racist views. In 'protecting' 'Hinduism' your brand of intolerance will create a modern version of Christianity and Islam. Those cults you hate so much, in your opposition to them, you will become like them. In Yoga if you oppose a desire or repress it, it multiplies and becomes stronger. To kill Christianity and Islam they must be absorbed not opposed.

saidevo
29 January 2009, 10:33 AM
Rama/Krishna were AVATARS of Vishnu which mean that the Supreme had manifested bodily on this planet (especially in Bharat). So-called "Hindus" who claim that jesus was an avatar are just 'being nice' as they themselves don't know the real history behind that jewish tradition.


It is funny that the Christian missinaries seek to destroy Hinduism and revile Hindu gods, yet try to equate Jesus with Krishna or Rama! And this when some prominent Christian scholars are questioning the very historical existence of Jesus! Check this post 'The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold' to know how the Jesus myth is cobbled up from many pagan resources: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=22103&postcount=128

For an example of the absurd heights the Christian missionaries are capable of, check this link: http://societyandreligion.com/jesus-talks-with-krishna/483/

and this reply: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=24322&postcount=4

Such being the case, I support TTA's view that there is no rhyme or reason as to why a Hindu should take kindly to such things as comparing Jesus with Krishna or Rama. This is not seeking to kill Christianity, only countering false propaganda.

TatTvamAsi
29 January 2009, 08:40 PM
Is it wrong to be a Jew or a carpenter?


No, but it is CERTAINLY WRONG to equate some two-bit charlatan with an avatar of the Supreme!



What's wrong with you? Why this anti-semitism? You're making Hindus look like a bunch of intolerant racists.

I was waiting for someone to use that label. :rolleyes:

I am not anti-semitic. In fact, if I had to choose between the three evils (Abrahamic faiths), I would choose Judaism in a heartbeat. They mind their own business (literally & metaphorically) and they do not proselytize.

The fact is though that Abraham and his progeny are asuras.

TatTvamAsi
29 January 2009, 08:48 PM
tattvamasi good luck to you in holding these racist views. In 'protecting' 'Hinduism' your brand of intolerance will create a modern version of Christianity and Islam. Those cults you hate so much, in your opposition to them, you will become like them. In Yoga if you oppose a desire or repress it, it multiplies and becomes stronger. To kill Christianity and Islam they must be absorbed not opposed.

haha.. first, are you really 89 years old? Secondly, are you a christian? A muslim? They do not need to be absorbed because ALL religions/philosophies have descended from Sanatana Dharma. The message, after all, is only as good as the vessel that receives it. What can you expect from untouchables who are given the high philosophy of the Vedas? Even that jesus tried to rebel and preach to uninitiated people in India and was driven out. After all, what kind of person goes around claiming, "I am god"?! Remember, don't throw pearl before swine!

And just to clear it up, I am not anti-semitic. I have respect for the jews. They are only Abrahamic people who are tolerable. And of course, since they blasted those filthy musLAMES in Gaza, I like them even more! :D In fact, that is why Indians LOVE George W. Bush!

satay
29 January 2009, 08:51 PM
Namaskar,
Indians and Hinduism have always protected the weak, especially Jews. There is nothing wrong in being a carpenter or his son or in being a jew.

Actually, I find jews to be the kindest people (at least the ones I have met). Their mthyology doesn't condemn anyone to a firepit for eternity. And I respect that.

I fail to see how TTA's comments are racism or anti-semitism. I think the problem is that non-hindus and also some hindus don't understand what an 'avatar' is and wrongly assume that an avatar is an 'incarnation' of God.

It is wrong to compare a fictional character to an avatar and say that both are one and the same thing. However, Amra I see your point and in a way agree with you that the best way is to absorb the foreign myths. One should think that the 'TRUTH' must have this ability to absorb. And we all know that Hinduism has such ability.

My 2 cents.

amra
30 January 2009, 05:20 AM
The last comment of TTA I find very disturbing any individual who supports the mass extermination of a group of human beings, I find very difficult to call a human being but I see them as some sort of animal, i will not respond to anything he writes from now on as it is dangerous to be involved (even virtually) with such nasty people.

amra
30 January 2009, 05:35 AM
Satay, I agree with what you say about avatara which is not an incarnation of the absolute but a theophanic manifestation. ava is a prefix meaning downwards and tR (tarati) means to cross. So the absolute manifests in a pure and godlike individual. This is the correct way in which to view the semitic prophets, if the 'sanatana dharma' can re-educate the semitic religious traditions and re-orientate them towards the one truth, why should we prevent this, or is it as TTA says they are all mlecchas and untouchables.

saidevo
30 January 2009, 07:46 AM
Namaste amra.



Sun worship is part of the great tradition originating in primordial times, christianity absorbed part of this tradition. Christianity and other religions were guises that the primordial tradition took upon itself.


It is well established that the rituals of Christianity were derived from the primordial traditions: even the Christmas is an imported ritual. You are indeed right to call Christianity a guise of such traditions. The Christian rituals in India today adapt to the Hindu traditions. Hindus have no complaints against such adaptations, only against how the Christian religion seeks to revile Hindu traditions and gods and convert Hindus with false and evil propaganda.

On the one hand, the Christian missionaries go to any extent: equate Jesus with Krishna, let their women follow the Hindu customs such as wearing a tilak and flowers, retain Hindu names and more, while on the other they seek to revile Hinduism. This is not only hypocritical but dangerous as well, since the missionaries use such adaptations only as a ploy towards their evil aims.



To kill Christianity and Islam they must be absorbed not opposed.


I agree with you there, but remember Christianity is the biggest religion in the world; Hinduism ranks only as the third, next to Islam. So for the absorption of these western religions into Sanatana Dharma to happen, the Christians and Muslims, specially their notables, must create a friendly atmosphere. Recently, the Jewish religious leaders declared their intentions of peaceful co-existence and cooperation with Hinduism. In the same way, the Christian religious leaders should actively desist from conversion and deplore when it happens, and the Muslim religious leaders should issue a fatwa against terrorism, specially in India against the Hindus: Hindu religious leaders have placed these demands in their recent meating in Mumbai, India (http://www.kanchiforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2490).



So the absolute manifests in a pure and godlike individual. This is the correct way in which to view the semitic prophets, if the 'sanatana dharma' can re-educate the semitic religious traditions and re-orientate them towards the one truth, why should we prevent this, or is it as TTA says they are all mlecchas.


Both Christianity and Islam have the power of money and brutal might to score their religious points, and they do it coercively and loudly all over the world to establish the monopoly of their religions to the destruction of others. The general public of both these religions are by and large silent and indifferent to the wrongs done by their religious leaders. In these circumstances, it seems that no amount of debate, education and reorientation could convince the Christians and the Muslims.

So long as the One Truth is only Jesus for the Christians and only Allah for the Muslims and nothing else, Hindus would be hard put to absorb them into Sanatana Dharma, specially when their own survival is in question. This is the reason that most Hindu gurus and AchAryAs have today started talking about curbs to be put on the propagation of these religions in India.

amra
30 January 2009, 08:36 AM
"So long as the One Truth is only Jesus for the Christians and only Allah for the Muslims"

And can I add 'Sanatana Dharma' for the hindus. Modern scholarship has shown that Sanatana Dharma is a concept evolved out of colonial thinking. As an opposition to the ideas of the christian missionaries, some Hindu reformists, like the brahmo samaj, began to fight fire with fire. In opposing these missionaries the reformists actually took on their traits. Much like Shankara, of advaita vedanta fame, is accused by some of being a crypto-buddhist, in refuting and expunging buddhism from the subcontinent he absorbed many of their ideas. 'Sanatana Dharma' in this sense is far from being sanatana in fact it is a modern concept that is projected upon the diverse history of the subcontinent it attempts to unify many conflicting and diverse trends. This 'sanatana dharma' is an attempt to preserve some sort of identity in the face of massive depersonalising trends that originated in the west.

Saidevo on the last point you make i will say this, when the first europeans arrived in America, they were starving, destitute and with no way of finding food. The native Americans saw their plight. They were warned by one of their shamans that these white men will destroy our way of life, culture, pride and everything. They could have easily let them die thus avoiding all the future pain for them. But instead they helped them, teaching the secrets of land and giving them food. So if it is possible to help then we must help, if a baby does not want to eat food, you do not leave it to die, you coax it, make the spoon into an airplane or something, you cannot let it just die.

MahaHrada
30 January 2009, 09:29 AM
"So long as the One Truth is only Jesus for the Christians and only Allah for the Muslims"

And can I add 'Sanatana Dharma' for the hindus. Modern scholarship has shown that Sanatana Dharma is a concept evolved out of colonial thinking. As an opposition to the ideas of the christian missionaries, some Hindu reformists, like the brahmo samaj, began to fight fire with fire. In opposing these missionaries the reformists actually took on their traits. Much like Shankara, of advaita vedanta fame, is accused by some of being a crypto-buddhist, in refuting and expunging buddhism from the subcontinent he absorbed many of their ideas. 'Sanatana Dharma' in this sense is far from being sanatana in fact it is a modern concept that is projected upon the diverse history of the subcontinent it attempts to unify many conflicting and diverse trends. This 'sanatana dharma' is an attempt to preserve some sort of identity in the face of massive depersonalising trends that originated in the west.

Saidevo on the last point you make i will say this, when the first europeans arrived in America, they were starving, destitute and with no way of finding food. The native Americans saw their plight. They were warned by one of their shamans that these white men will destroy our way of life, culture, pride and everything. They could have easily let them die thus avoiding all the future pain for them. But instead they helped them, teaching the secrets of land and giving them food. So if it is possible to help then we must help, if a baby does not want to eat food, you do not leave it to die, you coax it, make the spoon into an airplane or something, you cannot let it just die.

In this thread not a single idea of yours is correct i wonder what sources you depend on.

Please understand that more informend people begin to loose their patience when confronted with ideas that are distorted in a way beyond recognition and restoration.

Why should sanatana dharma be the only truth for Hindus understood in a way comparable to the agressive and proselytizing christianity and islam?

This is baseless and an insult.

The accusation that adi shankara is a nastika just because he was using a terminology that can be traced to Nagarjuna is similarly baseless and insulting.

Brahmo samaj never had any influence beyond a few western educated hindus and they are definetly not the originators of the concept of the Sanatana Dharma.

The term Sanatana Dharma only expresses the idea that truth is not man made but is eternally existing independent on its own and that it is the same truth diversely manifested on earth in each age, being seen and then expressed in human terminology by the rishis.

This exalts the gnosis or the vision way above man made concepts and dogmas since the shastras can be revealed at any time in history and nonetheless be of eternal quality unlike christianity or Islam where some manmade writings, originated at a certain time, are considered eternal truth.

It is also sanatana = eternal because truth can not be destroyed even if all the physical shastras will vanish, it can always be newly revealed by a rishi having a vision of the independently existing eternal truth.

That you say about the american indians that they willingly accepted the fate of being murdered and tortured by the millions, just for the sake of being helpful is baseless and another grave insult, if these poor people really would have known what their fate would be, they would have shurely rooted out and killed all the conquistadores. It would have been their duty to protect their own people.

I do not think that Islam and Christianity can be called "asuric" religions since the asuras are not entirely evil, some have been great devotees of shiva like Ravana, some others great tapasvins and yogis and some where engaged in yajnas to the benefit of all, it is true many ultimately failed because of their ego, but during other periods the asuras had some greatness and where at peace, since no greatness and nothing good can be found in Islam and Christianity we cannot call these religions asuric.

satay
30 January 2009, 12:08 PM
Modern scholarship has shown that Sanatana Dharma is a concept evolved out of colonial thinking.


I am very much interested in reading further the views of these 'modern scholars' that you wrote about. Please provide a reference.



As an opposition to the ideas of the christian missionaries, some Hindu reformists, like the brahmo samaj, began to fight fire with fire.


Such 'scholary' comments are truly laughable. Amazing really...

Please do proper research before making such comments. Research into history of Brahmo samaj would be a great place to start. Without a proper research such comments will not be accpeted by any Hindu let alone a scholar.



In opposing these missionaries the reformists actually took on their traits. Much like Shankara, of advaita vedanta fame, is accused by some of being a crypto-buddhist, in refuting and expunging buddhism from the subcontinent he absorbed many of their ideas. 'Sanatana Dharma' in this sense is far from being sanatana in fact it is a modern concept that is projected upon the diverse history of the subcontinent it attempts to unify many conflicting and diverse trends. This 'sanatana dharma' is an attempt to preserve some sort of identity in the face of massive depersonalising trends that originated in the west.


I am not sure if you are insulting the acarya and Sanatana Dharma on purpose or you just wrote that stuff without giving any thought to what you were writing.



Saidevo on the last point you make i will say this, when the first europeans arrived in America, they were starving, destitute and with no way of finding food. The native Americans saw their plight. They were warned by one of their shamans that these white men will destroy our way of life, culture, pride and everything. They could have easily let them die thus avoiding all the future pain for them. But instead they helped them, teaching the secrets of land and giving them food. So if it is possible to help then we must help, if a baby does not want to eat food, you do not leave it to die, you coax it, make the spoon into an airplane or something, you cannot let it just die.

Indians in general and Hindus in particular should learn from the native americans, specifically focusing on what happens if one doesn't follow their duty and the sound practical advice. A great question to ponder is: where are the native americans now in the American society? In Canada, I see them on the streets begging for money in the dead of winter (-40 'c) weather!

The thought that Hindus might have the same future as the native americans makes me sick to my stomach. Native americans like the Arjuna should have taken care of their duty properly but chose to go against the advice of their shamans due to not having complete faith in their advice (?).

satay
30 January 2009, 12:43 PM
This is the correct way in which to view the semitic prophets, if the 'sanatana dharma' can re-educate the semitic religious traditions and re-orientate them towards the one truth, why should we prevent this.

This re-education piece seems to stem from a christian mentality.

I agree that no such re-education effort should be prevented, however, I don't know why Hindus in general are obligated to do such a thing to begin with. It is not anyone's job to re-educate anyone else.

MahaHrada
30 January 2009, 01:03 PM
The thought that Hindus might have the same future as the native americans makes me sick to my stomach. Native americans like the Arjuna should have taken care of their duty properly but chose to go against the advice of their shamans due to not having complete faith in their advice (?).

Of course historically there never was such an advice given, they where simply helpful at first, and that to their disadvantage, when they found out what kind of people the conquistadores were it was already too late. I suspect the source of the idea that their "shamans" warned the american indians, is some new age channeling or some such nonsense, maybe a hollywood movie?

ohmshivaya
30 January 2009, 02:13 PM
" But instead they helped them, teaching the secrets of land and giving them food.

Yes, and where did it get them? Their shaman was right. Less than a century later, many of these native American tribes were obliterated by the very 'starving,' 'hungry' foreigners on whom they took pity and showed compassion, and the tribes that somehow survived the wars, their culture and faith relegated to tourist sideshows. The British came to India as mere traders under East India Company, and soon after militarily occupied major parts of the Indian subcontinent, while the Portuguese and the French helped themselves to the remaining areas; the Dutch too went to Indonesia as traders under the Dutch East India Company, and soon after occupied Indonesia and other countries; The Dutch Reformed Church set up shop as the 'messenger of God' in south Africa, and soon after became instrumental in creating the most appalling social and economic system in the world - the Apartheid.

Today, the christians from the west do not necessarily enter other countries in the role of 'trader' or 'messenger of god,' or even as the 'starving, pitiful immigrant from faraway land that needs food and shelter.' They enter as social workers, claiming to help the poor and downtrodden, and then slowly begin their annihilation process. Nothing has changed really, except the wolf dons different disguise in each century, and gets creative each time.

It must be said one thing about the muslims (if you may look upon it as a 'positive' trait) - historically for most part they have entered other nations as nothing other than Jihadis - with swords flashing in their raised hands and trumpets annoucing their arrival and intent - to conquer and subugate the 'infidels.'. The christians on the other hand have adopted subtle tactics.

It would be foolhardy to not take lessons from history. Every century has produced ample evidence of attempts by white christians to exterminate other belief systems and cultures. Why then would the hindus even toy with the idea of trying to reform christianity and islam, through patience, tolerance and education? Is it naivity, complete ignorance (of historical and contemporary events) or mere stupidity that would make someone still believe, and hope, despite all that has happened, that christianity and islam will willingly reform themselves, and embrace the 'live and let live' ideology of other faiths.

I don't think one needs the help of a shaman to predict that christianity and islam will not leave without a big fight, without kicking and screaming. They have never left any place quietly, and they do not intend to go from India in that way either.

saidevo
30 January 2009, 10:06 PM
Namaste amra.

The points you have raised about Sankara and Brahmo Samaj have been answered ably by MahaHrada and Satay.



And can I add 'Sanatana Dharma' for the hindus. Modern scholarship has shown that Sanatana Dharma is a concept evolved out of colonial thinking.


This is one of the best religious jokes I have heard! Perhaps you got this idea from the 'books' of that sly Christian missionary 'Prof.M.M.Ninan'.

In case you are curious about the origin of the term 'Sanatana Dharma' for Hinduism, it was Maharshi Veda Vyasa who first used it. Here is a brief:

चतुर्युगान्ते कालेन ग्रस्ताञ्छृतिगणान्यथा ।
तपसा ऋषयोऽपश्यन्यतो धर्मः सनातनः ॥

chaturyugAnte kAlena grastA~jChRutigaNAnyathA |
tapasA RuShayo&pashyanyato dharmaH sanAtanaH ||
--shrImad Bhagavatam, 8.14.4

"At the end of every four yugas, the great saintly persons, upon seeing that the eternal occupational duties of mankind have been misused, reestablish the principles of religion." (commentary by Srila Prabhupada)

त्वमक्षरं परमं वेदितव्यं त्वमस्य विश्वस्य परं निधानम् ।
त्वमव्ययः शाश्वतधर्मगोप्ता अनातनस्त्वं पुरुश्हो मतो मे ॥

tvamakSharaM paramaM veditavyaM tvamasya vishvasya paraM nidhAnam |
tvamavyayaH shAshvatadharmagoptaa anAtanastvaM purushho mato me ||
--Bhagavad Gita, 11.18

You are the Changeless, the Supreme Being worthy to be known. You are the great treasure house of this universe. You are the imperishable protector of the Eternal Dharma. In my opinion, you are the ancient PuruSha. (Translation by Swami Chinmayananda)

**********

As to the native Americans helping the first European missionaries, a similar situation existed when they first entered India, at Malabar, Kerala coast. Here is an extract from the book History of Hindu-Christian Encounters (AD 304 to 1996) by Sita Ram Goel:



The Hindus of Malabar were the first to see Christians arriving in their midst. They were mostly refugees from persecution in Syria and later on in Iran. Christians in Syria were persecuted by their own brethren in faith. They had become suspect in Iran from the fourth century onwards when Iran’s old adversary, the Roman Empire, became a Christian state. They suffered repeated persecutions in both countries. As most of them were heretics in the eyes of Christian orthodoxy, they could not go west. So they fled towards India and China, which two countries were known for their religious tolerance throughout the ages...

The record that has been preserved by the Christian refugees themselves tells us that they were received well by the Hindus of Malabar. Hindu Rajas gave them land and money grants for building houses and churches. Hindus in general made things so pleasant for them that they decided to stay permanently in Malabar. No Hindu, Raja or commoner, ever bothered about what the refugees believed or what god they worshipped. No one interfered with the hierarchs who came from Syria from time to time to visit their flock in India and collect the tithes. In due course, the refugees came to be known as Syrian Christians.


What the Christian missionaries, setting foot as guests in India over centuries, did to the country, its religion and culture is history. People like M.M.Ninan, like the Communist historians in India, take delight in perverting the real history of the Hindu religion and land. Such people would shamelessly go to any extent to tarnish the name of their own Hindu ancestors.

devotee
30 January 2009, 10:58 PM
Namaste Amra,

Your post is highly interesting ! :)


Modern scholarship has shown that Sanatana Dharma is a concept evolved out of colonial thinking. Sanatan Dharma has its origin in the Vedas. Colonial rule came after 16th Century AD. So, the problem is just of a few thousands of years between the two ! Right ? I think reading ancient history of India would help you.


As an opposition to the ideas of the christian missionaries, some Hindu reformists, like the brahmo samaj, began to fight fire with fire.Brahmo Samaj was founded by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1828 AD which was basically a socio-religious movement against idol-worship, Sati-system & other evils prevailing in Hindu society at that time. "Brahmo Samaj" was so named because they asserted themselves to be worshipper of the One Brhaman.

Now, do you think you need to read Indian history a little more in depth ?


Much like Shankara, of advaita vedanta fame, is accused by some of being a crypto-buddhist, in refuting and expunging buddhism from the subcontinent he absorbed many of their ideas.Just for your information, Vedanta came into being many centuries before the birth of Shankara. So, there was no reason why Shankara could have absorbed Buddhist's ideas. The idea of One & one Brhaman which manifests in all has come originally from Rig-Veda which is at least 1000 years older than Buddha. All Shankaracharya's commentaries refer to the Vedas/Upanishads to support his views & not the Buddhist's scriptures or Buddha's sayings.

This is true that at deeper level somewhere the Buddhist ideas & Vedanta appear to say similar things. ... and that is what is expected, isn't it ? The Truth must be same ! That doesn't mean Truth found by one is just copied by the other ??? If you try, you will also reach the same Truth ultimately. And no one will say that you copied it from anyone. :)

OM

atanu
31 January 2009, 08:19 AM
Om Shanti,

There is information being posted on YouTube that Christianity is a version of Sun Worship. Jesus is another version of the Egyptian God, Ra.

Can this information be disproven? Here is one of several links to the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKG59NUdn8A&feature=related

Om Shanti

Namaste Hiwaunis,

I have not seen the video but thought that some information may be relevant here. Hiranyagarbha Sukta of Rig Veda, does clarify that the Sun is Son pf Paramatman. The Sun and the Son, in this context is same.

Om

amra
31 January 2009, 11:34 AM
Whenever I used the term Sanatana Dharma to mean something else than what it should I have put the term in apostrophies. I am aware the true meaning of this term, I have spent 4 years of my life learning the sacred language of India and I have the utmost respect for it. But words become corrupted and meanings applied to them become not what they should mean. Are you all aware the term Islam means submission to God? The way people use it now it does not carry this meaning. And I believe many people who use the term Sanatana do not use it with the meaning it should carry. If i go by your reasoning a bhakta of nirgun paramatma is islamic.

Please see for reference The Oxford India Hinduism reader - Vasudha Dalmia, Heinrich von Stietencron, for the 'Sanatana Dharma' discussion
and Richard King Orientalism and religion if you want a true picture of modern hindu religiosity.

I admit i was wrong on the brahmo samaj point but we all make mistakes.

Many scholars have discussed the fact that Shankara may have been a crypto-buddhist, I did not mean by saying this to cause offense, as i don;t believe to be called a buddhist is offensive. If you disagree with this view say why instead of reacting emotionally. I myself do not believe it as Shankara wrote laudations to the Goddess. But some do believe he may have been a crypto buddhist, and I used this in my argument to illustrate a wider point, which is what I am trying to get across which is that when you oppose something you take on its qualities. This is a law nothing can be gotten rid of through opposition. Please try for yourself. Try repressing all sexual thoughts - you cannot if you forcibly repress carnal desires you will become perverted. It is the same on a larger scale. All I am saying is this learn as much as you can about indic tradition and immerse yourself in the culture, and with this knowledge apply it to ideas like Jesus. This is what Yogananda did.

atanu
31 January 2009, 12:34 PM
Many scholars have discussed the fact that Shankara may have been a crypto-buddhist, I did not mean by saying this to cause offense, as i don;t believe to be called a buddhist is offensive. If you disagree with this view say why instead of reacting emotionally. I myself do not believe it as Shankara wrote laudations to the Goddess. But some do believe he may have been a crypto buddhist, and I used this in my argument to illustrate a wider point, -----

Namaste Amra,

I think the point is now made somewhat more clearer than it was in your original post. From the original post, however, it was clear to me at least, that you were merely giving an example as to how some people view Shankara to be influenced by Buddha. Also, even if Shankara was influenced by Buddhism, He drew upon from Vedas to re-inforce sanatana dharma's emphasis on one primeval unchanging truth that is substratum of all changing phenomenom, which Buddha empasized (for a very well known reason that a sadhaka may not associate one's small ego self to that infinite Self).

The point is that true sanatana dharma is Dharma itself and has the inherent strength and agility to draw upon from the unchanging Veda, which is the knowledge face of the Lord, even if the times are a changing.

Regards
Om

atanu
31 January 2009, 12:40 PM
Namaste Amra,

This is true that at deeper level somewhere the Buddhist ideas & Vedanta appear to say similar things. ... and that is what is expected, isn't it ? The Truth must be same ! That doesn't mean Truth found by one is just copied by the other ??? If you try, you will also reach the same Truth ultimately. And no one will say that you copied it from anyone. :)

OM

Namaste Devotee,

Welcome. I understand that amra tried to say the same thing.

Regards.

Om

satay
31 January 2009, 01:02 PM
Please see for reference The Oxford India Hinduism reader - Vasudha Dalmia, Heinrich von Stietencron, for the 'Sanatana Dharma' discussion
and Richard King Orientalism and religion if you want a true picture of modern hindu religiosity.


I haven't read these books but will try to get a copy.
However, in general, I question the so called 'scholarship' of authors of such books that are not of Indian origin, who have not spent a lifetime or any time for that matter in India.

Here is what one of the reviewers had to say about King's book.

from amazon.com reviews:


This is a typical book based on the European sense of superiority over other cultures. It claims that very heart of Indian religion and philosophy, which is based on the Upanishads, is merely a way to impress Westerners. However, given the acknowledged fact that these scriptures predate most of Western civilization by thousands of years, how could they have been motivated by the need to impress Europeans at that time. In relatively recent times, Shankara re-popularized the Upanishad philosophy, giving it the name Vedanta. But that too was in the 7th century, a thousand years before the arrival of the British in India. It was in reaction to the Buddhists, particularly the Madhyamikya, that Vednata was polularized starting in the 7th century. One should read the many Westerners who have been and continue to be inspired by the Upanishads for many of the ideas that constitute today's prevalent worldview in the West called post-modernism. I suggest that its better for a reader to read books by authors such as Harold Coward, Fritojf Schoun, W. C. Smith, Hustom Smith, and Bede Griffiths, in order to get a baeetr view.


Please try to learn about Hinduism from scholars who at least have a 'Hindu' background! There is no guarantee that their views will be better but atleast one would think that the Indian writer with a Hindu background has a better understanding of the matter just by the virtue of simply being part of it.

If I could make a suggestion, I would recommend anything written by Sita Ram Goel, Aurobindo, K.S. Lal, Koenraad Elst, Francois Gautier, Dr. Frawley. These are the scholars who can shed some light on the 'true condition' of modern hinduism.

Thanks,

MahaHrada
31 January 2009, 02:22 PM
Whenever I used the term Sanatana Dharma to mean something else than what it should I have put the term in apostrophies. I am aware the true meaning of this term, I have spent 4 years of my life learning the sacred language of India and I have the utmost respect for it. But words become corrupted and meanings applied to them become not what they should mean.

Who among the Hindus in your opinion is applying a wrong meaning to the term?

I don´t know anyone, but i know the groups that are usually accusing Hindus of misunderstanding or misapplying the term Sanatana Dharma or accuse Hindus of misunderstanding their own religion.

I enumerate:

Leftist or christian western academics who are of the opinion that Hindutva is an extremist right wing movement
dalit extremists
a few indian academics that are promoting a stone age marxist/stalinist or maoist agenda
tamilian (dravidian) extremists

Maybe you read the wrong books?



Are you all aware the term Islam means submission to God?

Have you been to Iran, Irak, Pakistan or parts of India that are dominated by a muslim population and do you know under what conditions these people live and what they belive and practice and how they interact with infidels or foreigners? Islam is not only an academic subject or linguistic construct, the real Islam is a day to day Reality, and it is a miserable reality, and unbearable, uncivilised and cruel, a shocking reality and i bet, like so many westerners you don´t have any first hand experience of what is really going on at the places were muslims rule. But of course you are an expert in matters of Islam. I wish you would just spent one month in Lahore and then we meet again, and after that month we will see wheter you tell me again Islam means submission to God.


The way people use it now it does not carry this meaning. And I believe many people who use the term Sanatana do not use it with the meaning it should carry. If i go by your reasoning a bhakta of nirgun paramatma is islamic.

This is purely academic theoretical reasoning about the word Islam but this word and its linguistic meaning cannot be compared with the real existing islam and the terrible social disorder on the streets of Lahore or Teheran or Kashmir or the Gaza strip. And again all you say is academic. What kind of imaginend Hindu misunderstands the term Sanatana Dharma? You are just quoting some propaganda i belive. I am certain you are not writing about your own experience at all, there is no individual Hindu, or a group of Hindus who misunderstood the term Sanatana Dharma, you personally had any contact with or have conversed with. These are all only preconceived notions.

A bhakta of nirguna paramatma is something new, you just invented that, so i guess its up to you to decide what kind of religion such a person will have. Best ask your local mullah if in doubt whether he is really islamic. :)


Please see for reference The Oxford India Hinduism reader - Vasudha Dalmia, Heinrich von Stietencron, for the 'Sanatana Dharma' discussion and Richard King Orientalism and religion if you want a true picture of modern hindu religiosity.

So you think Hindus should inform themselves about the true picture of their own religion by reading the Oxford India Hinduism reader :) ... and Richard King?


Many scholars have discussed the fact that Shankara may have been a crypto-buddhist, I did not mean by saying this to cause offense, as i don;t believe to be called a buddhist is offensive.

When calling Adi shankara, who is considered one of the greatest saints, exponents and defenders of Hinduism that lived during the last two thousands years, a "crypto buddhist" , did you expect applause?



I myself do not believe it as Shankara wrote laudations to the Goddess. But some do believe he may have been a crypto buddhist, and I used this in my argument to illustrate a wider point, which is what I am trying to get across which is that when you oppose something you take on its qualities.

You don´t belive that Adi Shankara was only a crypto-buddhist but you nonetheless use the fact that some academics that are not even spiritualists, discuss the possibility of him being a crypto-buddhist in a discussion.

For the time being you decide to pretend to belive it, just to make a point, to prove some minor issue related to freudian psychology, now to aid you in this noble task you decide you should misuse doubts about Adi Shankara and turn him into a crypto buddhist, while you do not belive this yourself, you just try to convince others by pretending to belive in it to illustrate your wider point?
But you do know that Adi Shankara is considered by Hindus to be one of the greatest Gurus and saints of their religion?

Maybe you should better pretend to belive in something else more popular, next time when trying to illustrate your "wider points". :) Or you maybe stop pretending at all.



This is a law nothing can be gotten rid of through opposition. Please try for yourself. Try repressing all sexual thoughts - you cannot if you forcibly repress carnal desires you will become perverted. It is the same on a larger scale. All I am saying is this learn as much as you can about indic tradition and immerse yourself in the culture, and with this knowledge apply it to ideas like Jesus. This is what Yogananda did.

As you can see by the example of the history of Islam and Christianity one can get rid of almost anything simply by opposing it. Maybe not in modern psychotheraphy but in real life opposition can be a very good idea

atanu
01 February 2009, 01:50 AM
Please try to learn about Hinduism from scholars who at least have a 'Hindu' background! There is no guarantee that their views will be better but atleast one would think that the Indian writer with a Hindu background has a better understanding of the matter just by the virtue of simply being part of it.

If I could make a suggestion, I would recommend anything written by Sita Ram Goel, Aurobindo, K.S. Lal, Koenraad Elst, Francois Gautier, Dr. Frawley. These are the scholars who can shed some light on the 'true condition' of modern hinduism.

Thanks,

Namaste Satay,

This is most reasonable.


But isn't the corollary true also? If Veda is apauruseya and santana dharma is eternal, as per the Hindus, then there should be no ground to call other scriptures as mere mortal writing, or myth, or work of Mlechhas etc. Let us see below what Kanchi Paramacharya says about revealed scripture.
The Word of God



We must not distrust the belief that the Vedas are not the work of mere mortals. Followers of other religions too ascribe divine origin to their scriptures. Jesus says that he merely repeats the words of God and, according to Muslims, the prophet speaks the words of Allah. What we call "apauruseya" is revealed text in their case. The word of the Lord has come through the agency of great men to constitute religious texts.
---------------------------Om


I may be a loner to point out again and again that like one cannot blame Vedas for the wrongdoings of Ramalinga Raju et al., one cannot blame Quran or Bible for the many atrocities that India has suffered at the hands of so-called adherants of these religions. And your statement "Please try to learn about Hinduism from scholars who at least have a 'Hindu' background ----", indicates a need for us to do the same with respect to our own religion and also with respect to the other religions, if we are inclined to comment on them.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
01 February 2009, 02:32 AM
For Sh. amra,

Namaste,

I do not know your religious belief. Assuming that you are not a Hindu, the following notes are made. If you are a Hindu, possibly the following may not be necessary.

Upanishads guide us as below:

Isha Upanishad


14. He who knows both the Unmanifested and the destructible (manifested) together, transcends death by the (worship of) the destructible and attains immortality by the (worship of ) the Unmanifested.

Though we believe in one Lord, yet this teaching ensures that no manifested aspect is left unworshipped. If you study Rudra adhaya of Yajur Veda, you will find that very malefic aspects are also worshipped as forms of Lord. Western religions, on the other hand, believing in one Lord, are parochial to the extent that the followers of Abraham/Ibrahim kill each other. Because their Lord is separate from the world they live in.

Regarding this there is a comment of Kanchi Paramacharya that you may like to read:
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap17.htm (http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap17.htm)

Om

saidevo
01 February 2009, 07:21 AM
Namaste Atanu.



Western religions, on the other hand, believing in one Lord, are parochial to the extent that the followers of Abraham/Ibrahim kill each other. Because their Lord is separate from the world they live in.


There, you have beautifully briefed it: considering the Lord as separate from the world is the main form of avidyA the western religions suffer from, which makes Self-Realization hardly possible for them within the precincts of their doctrine. This is especially so when their doctrines exhort the followers of Abraham and Ibrahim to either convert or kill the others to establish their monopoly.



Though we believe in one Lord, yet this teaching ensures that no manifested aspect is left unworshipped. If you study Rudra adhaya of Yajur Veda, you will find that very malefic aspects are also worshipped as forms of Lord.


Worshipping the 'very malefic aspects' of manifestation of Rudra by keeping in mind that everything is after all a form of Brahman is possible only for matured souls. This concept, IMO, is likely to be interpreted wrongly by misguided souls--non-Hindus as well as Hindus--that one can try to 'see' the Lord in practices such as the psychedelic effects of drugs or in sex-dominant tantra practices or other starkly material pursuits. A more subtler form of practice is the emphasis placed on yogic exercises rather than on the meditation which is the soul of yoga.

Noble concepts and practices of the Hindu Dharma are thus being cooked up into degenerate forms and widely practiced as we see in the world today. Another recent trend is that the Holywood films, which are trend-setters of degeration in one own way, have started using Hinduism-Buddhism based dialogues mixed with the vulgar slang of the average film character. Thus, a recent Hollywood film which is an action comedy on the life of three drug-addicted individuals, has such dialogues as: "Prepare to suck the .... of karma!"; "I'm just into Buddhism and I'm at peace..." (spoken by a drug-addict); "If you're an ...hole, you're gonna come back as a cockroach." (explaining reincarnation). Long back, a Hinduism-oriented message I posted in a hardcore science forum was snubbed back with the words, "my dogma was run over by my karma!"

Of course, we can easily dismiss that as things stand in the world today, reviling the Hindu concepts in funny and subtle ways in the media is bound to happen, but unfortunately, they begin to set trends and influence the Hindu youth more and more. But then how do we get to explain such vulnerable concepts as adoring the malefic aspects of life as manifestations of God to our youth and arm them with maturity against subscribing to misinterpretations of such concepts?

devotee
01 February 2009, 07:31 AM
f Veda is apauruseya and santana dharma is eternal, as per the Hindus, then there should be no ground to call other scriptures as mere mortal writing, or myth, or work of Mlechhas etc.

Namaste Atanu,

Thanks for your welcome & valuable inputs. :)

I agree with you. In fact, if we are able to see some flaws in their scriptures, we must be ready to accept some flaws in our scriptures too.

The problem starts when we say that "Our religion is the only Truth", "We worship the 'real' God", our scriptures are the only true scriptures & things like that. And considering that, even at the threat of being called biased, I can say that Hindu scriptures teach us to respect other scriptures / religions in a way, no other religion does. Eastern religions, Sanatan Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism ... they give a lot of emphasis on non-violence. We are taught not to try to convert anyone ... we believe that all paths lead ultimately to the same Ultimate.

Somehow, this is not what happened in case of Abrahimic religions. The followers were taught to subjugate people from other faiths ... they were taught to kill idol worshippers, destroy their temples & break their faith ... the whole history of Abrahimic religions is full of tears of the innocent souls.

I don't say that the problem lies in the religions or in the scriptures. Actually, from whatever I have read ( Q'uran & the Bible) & , I can say that whatever was said only for a particular time (the births of Abrahimic religions are closely related to wars for survival right from the time of Moses ... we all know that the rules in war time are different) was propagated as eternal truth by the religious heads & there things went wrong. There may be other reasons too ... but the reality is that something has gone wrong somewhere & there is an urgent need to stop hatred among people of different faiths.

Yes, from our side, we must respect their religions, their faiths their scriptures with full sincerity. If we fail to do that then we are not only failing to take right step in the right direction but also not following the true teachings of Sanatan Dharma. It is all manifestation of the same ONE (without a second) ... who is inferior to who ?

Regards,

OM

atanu
01 February 2009, 09:38 AM
Namaste Atanu.

Of course, we can easily dismiss that as things stand in the world today, reviling the Hindu concepts in funny and subtle ways in the media is bound to happen, but unfortunately, they begin to set trends and influence the Hindu youth more and more. But then how do we get to explain such vulnerable concepts as adoring the malefic aspects of life as manifestations of God to our youth and arm them with maturity against subscribing to misinterpretations of such concepts?

Pranam saidevoji,

I agree that it is not easy to stand the slander and still stick to the truth, which is tranquil sea of Mansarovar. But Shiva, the Lord of Sanatana dharma, has just four students who are forever. I just thought of sharing a little Shakespeare with you, because I know you are familiar to them and because poetry is as precise as Math.


Done To Death By Slanderous Tongues


Done to death by slanderous tongues
Was the Hero that here lies:
Death, in guerdon of her wrongs,
Gives her fame which never dies.
So the life that died with shame
Lives in death with glorious fame.


All the world's a Stage


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages."


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
01 February 2009, 10:31 AM
Namaste Atanu.

Worshipping the 'very malefic aspects' of manifestation of Rudra by keeping in mind that everything is after all a form of Brahman is possible only for matured souls. This concept, IMO, is likely to be interpreted wrongly by misguided souls--non-Hindus as well as Hindus--that one can try to 'see' the Lord in practices such as the psychedelic effects of drugs or in sex-dominant tantra practices or other starkly material pursuits. A more subtler form of practice is the emphasis placed on yogic exercises rather than on the meditation which is the soul of yoga.



Namaste saidevoji,

You are correct to point out the mistake. Actually, the evil and destruction are seen as Lord's anger - manyu and Lord is worshipped to remove the evil. I found an appropriate poem from Lord Buddha (?) that may fit in here.

Good And Bad



A person should hurry toward the good
and restrain one's thoughts from the bad.
If a person is slow in doing good,
one's mind will find pleasure in wrong.


If a person does what is wrong, let one not do it again.
Let one not find pleasure in wrong.
Painful is the accumulation of bad conduct.


If a person does what is good, let one do it again.
Let one find joy in it.
Happiness is the result of good conduct.


Even a wrong-doer sees happiness
as long as one's wrong action does not ripen;
but when the wrong action has ripened,
then does the wrong-doer see bad.
Even a good person sees bad
as long as one's good action does not ripen;
but when one's good action has ripened,
then the good person sees the good.
Let no one underestimate evil,
thinking, "It will not come near me."
Even a water-pot is filled by the falling of drops of water.
A fool becomes full of evil
even if one gathers it little by little.
Let no one underestimate good,
thinking, "It will not come near me."
Even a water-pot is filled by the falling of drops of water.
A wise person becomes full of goodness
even if one gathers it little by little.
Let a person avoid wrong actions, as a merchant,
who has few companions and carries much wealth,
avoids a dangerous road;
as a person who loves life avoids poison.
Whoever has no wound on one's hand
may touch poison with that hand;
poison does not affect one who has no wound;
nor does evil one who does no wrong.
Whoever does wrong to an innocent person
or to one who is pure and harmless,
the wrong returns to that fool
just like fine dust thrown against the wind.
Some people are born again in the womb;
wrong-doers go to hell;
the good go to heaven;
those free from worldly desires attain nirvana.
Neither in the sky nor in the middle of the ocean
nor by entering the caves of mountains
is there known a place on earth
where a person can escape from a wrong action.
Neither in the sky nor in the middle of the ocean
nor by entering the caves of mountains
is there known a place on earth
where a person can escape from death.


Regards


Om Namah Shivaya

satay
01 February 2009, 06:52 PM
Namaskar Atanu,

Thank you for pointing that out.


Namaste Satay,
And your statement "Please try to learn about Hinduism from scholars who at least have a 'Hindu' background ----", indicates a need for us to do the same with respect to our own religion and also with respect to the other religions, if we are inclined to comment on them.

Om Namah Shivaya

My only intention was to say that if we want to learn something we have to learn it from someone who actually knows something about that thing.

I am in agreement that if one wants to learn about christianity or islam then one should seek out those who actually know about christianity or islam.

For example, it would not be fair to learn christianity from a Hindu writer like Sita Ram Goel. ;)

Just curious, Would you recommend Amra to learn Hinduism from authors that are not Hindus themselves?

atanu
01 February 2009, 10:38 PM
Namaskar Atanu,

Thank you for pointing that out.

Just curious, Would you recommend Amra to learn Hinduism from authors that are not Hindus themselves?

Namaste Satay,

Of course not (in general). There may be some exceptions but exceptions prove the generality and not other way around. Also, usually, I may not like to learn Hinduism from a lesser sage than Paramacharya of Kanchi or a similar sage -- especially when such help is available. I will prefer to learn it from a brahmin/sage who is a living example and not from a political personality.

Thus, I agree to some extent to amra that the term 'sanatana dharma' may have very variable meaning, depending on from whom you are getting it or depending on the mental level of the recipient.

Two basic premise of sanatana dharma are 1. Lord is immanent and transcendent; Lord is all pervasive. and 2. Lord is sahasrashira purusha and is seated in all hearts. All our heads are heads of the Sahsrashira Purusha. When we believe that the Lord is manifest as all, we also need to believe that communists or cheater industrialists, chamars or highest brahmins, christians or muslims etc. etc. cannot be external to sahrsashira purusha.

There is secular goal of safety to all citizens and another is moral upliftment of all. I believe that the moral upliftment is of primary importance that will naturally lead to safety for all. Any blind investment in Police and Military is not the solution right away -- and all military states are examples of this.

I am sorry that I have written much more than necessary.

Love

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
01 February 2009, 11:08 PM
Namaskar Atanu,
Thank you for taking the time to explain further. Much appreciated.

Just as a side note, my whole post (#31) was in the context of Amra's following comment.



Please see for reference The Oxford India Hinduism reader - Vasudha Dalmia, Heinrich von Stietencron, for the 'Sanatana Dharma' discussion
and Richard King Orientalism and religion if you want a true picture of modern hindu religiosity.


Specifically, the part where it says, "if you want a true picture of modern hindu religiosity."

In my opinion, one cannot get the 'true picture' of modern hindu religiosity from a non-hindu author.



Also, usually, I may not like to learn Hinduism from a lesser sage than Paramacharya of Kanchi or a similar sage -- especially when such help is available. I will prefer to learn it from a brahmin/sage who is a living example and not from a political personality.


Generally true, however, we cannot turn a blind eye to those who are 'teaching' Hinduism but are not sages at all. For example, Oxford Centre of Hindu Studies has many teachers that are teaching Hinduism (mostly non-hindus I believe). What should we tell the students that attend the centre there? That they shouldn't pursue their studies of Hinduism because the courses are not taught by any paramacarya? I think that would not be practical. No?

This is not related to what we are talking about but I wanted to share that If you get a chance listen to lectures of Dr. Lipner and Dr. Clooney (a Christian Priest!). http://www.ochs.org.uk/publications/multimedia/mp3_downloads.html

atanu
01 February 2009, 11:42 PM
Namaskar Atanu,
Thank you for taking the time to explain further. Much appreciated.

Just as a side note, my whole post (#31) was in the context of Amra's following comment.



Specifically, the part where it says, "if you want a true picture of modern hindu religiosity."

In my opinion, one cannot get the 'true picture' of modern hindu religiosity from a non-hindu author.



Generally true, however, we cannot turn a blind eye to those who are 'teaching' Hinduism but are not sages at all. For example, Oxford Centre of Hindu Studies has many teachers that are teaching Hinduism (mostly non-hindus I believe). What should we tell the students that attend the centre there? That they shouldn't pursue their studies of Hinduism because the courses are not taught by any paramacarya? I think that would not be practical. No?

This is not related to what we are talking about but I wanted to share that If you get a chance listen to lectures of Dr. Lipner and Dr. Clooney (a Christian Priest!). http://www.ochs.org.uk/publications/multimedia/mp3_downloads.html


Thank You Satay,

I will read the link. Let it be clear that whatever I wrote addressing to you was not in contradiction to what you said but as a corollary, taking support from you. I hope you will understand that.

Om

atanu
04 February 2009, 06:21 AM
Namaskar Atanu,
http://www.ochs.org.uk/publications/multimedia/mp3_downloads.html

Namaste,

I think a nice precise document on Advaita from Oxford Centre.
http://www.ochs.org.uk/pdf/gmishra01mmas04.pdf