PDA

View Full Version : Traditional Hindu



Ganeshprasad
26 February 2010, 12:44 PM
Pranam all



Its only recenty last century or so that neo-hindus have tried to create this umbrella banner telling people what hindus believe and dont who are hindus and who are not, prior 15th centuary people were okay to refer to each other as vaishnavas, shaivais followers of santan dhrama, bhagvata dharma, vedic dharma etc.
Srila prabhupada was happy to refer to the process as sanatan dharma, vedic dharma, bhagvat dharma, varnashrama dharma as these are concreate and refer to specific vedic concepts.
However with hinduism sometime's he was scathing in his remarks when describing a hodge podge philosophy not based on scripture and sometimes refered to it favourably when refering to it in the vedic context.
Neo hindus on this forum will only quote one side. The term hindu is relative and changes and different people hold different meanings to what it means.
If you want to read about the issue more thouroughly then you can read
 
If this is just more neo-hindu regurgitation of one sided quotes then keep it.
I'm surprised that when members of ISKCON call them selves followers of sanatan dharma, varnashrama dharma and followers of the vedas, people get hung up on the Hindu word.
 
 
Why not call this forum sanatan dharma? vedic dharma etc? At least its faithful to the vedic scriptures and has a specific concept attached to it?
Neo hindus need to get a reality check as someone who calls themselves a follower of sanatan dharma or varnashrama dharma is more of a traditional hindu than modern neo hindus who insit upon this label.


I thought I had done debating the term Hindu, it was a painful exercise on Audaryaforum, mainly with western Hks. When I joined HDF I thought I left all that behind, well I was wrong.

How, is Hinduism any different from Sanatan Dharma(this itself is a new word used in 19th century), Vedic or VarnaAshram Dharma?

Every school of thought derives their doctrine from vast literature that we are privileged to study.

Every doctrine has its share of interpretations. Baseline is drawn according to ones predisposition and proceeds to interpret accordingly.

Bhakti Karma or Gyan is not a monopoly of any one group, weather you call yourself a Hindu or SD or Vedic, they are mutually inclusive. When you deny one you deny the lot.

No one can tell for sure how the term Hindu came by, but it is a fact now, so why the problem, at the core off all this is Dharma and Karma upon which the whole of Hindu life style is based. The emphasis is on dharma which is what impacts the society, Varnashram was functioning perfectly, whom and how a person worship is a personal choice and local tradition, it does not impact the society but the Dharma and Karma which is common regardless of ones path, that is what synthesize us.

You have contended that this umbrella is a recent creation by neo Hindu (what ever that may be), but the fact is this term Hindu goes back a lot longer in history, in fact no one can tell for sure as to when it come by, I certainly don’t buy in to this malaki of deriving from sindhu although that is a common (mis) conception.

Chetanya mahaPrabhu did not have any problem using the term Hindu.

As for going on about neo Hindu , you will have to look in the mirror as to how traditional Iskcon is?

You make Hindus part with their money in many ways and one off that is by earning punya by donating Shastras. Lets consider this point. Vidhya or knowledge in Hindu tradition is to acquire, how can anyone give that in charity? Making huge amount of money selling shastra so gurus can jet set and stay in a plus hotels or have Zakusi built for personal use, easy meal tickets,
What to speak of Brahmin initiation via tape recording how traditional is this?

Jai Shree Krishna

Jivattatva
27 February 2010, 09:28 PM
Pranam


When someone asks what my religion is, I tell them I'm Hindu.

Up to now I still can't understand why ISKCON would have issues with the term.

keshava
01 March 2010, 07:06 AM
Pranam all




I thought I had done debating the term Hindu, it was a painful exercise on Audaryaforum, mainly with western Hks. When I joined HDF I thought I left all that behind, well I was wrong.

How, is Hinduism any different from Sanatan Dharma(this itself is a new word used in 19th century), Vedic or VarnaAshram Dharma?

Bhakti Karma or Gyan is not a monopoly of any one group, weather you call yourself a Hindu or SD or Vedic, they are mutually inclusive. When you deny one you deny the lot.


Jai Shree Krishna

Pranams,
They are not mutually exclusive to everyone. To you maybe but not to others.

Some people count their local traditions as Hindu this may be either throwing babies off a roof to satisfy a devta or something else, its not in the scriptures but categorized as a hindu practice. Other things like untouchability or brahmin by birth may be seen as Hinduism by some but not by others.


Therefore there are different perceptions depending on who you ask as what hindu means.

However Vedic dharma etc you have narrowed down your definition to what the scriptures of traditional bharat say.

Why do some nationalists say bharat rather than india? As the term to them is foriegn based on other people's conception of you rather than self or traditionaly defined.
If they are used in a mutually exclusive way like you say then its not a problem , however they are not allways used in that way.




In 1995 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995), Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._B._Gajendragadkar) was quoted in an Indian Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India) ruling:[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu#cite_note-SCI-14)
When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed). It may broadly be described as a way of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_life) and nothing more.


Below it is based on race: which many hindus subscribe to hindu by birth. (E.g many temples dont let non-indians enter their premise)



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar)Veer Savarkar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar) in his influential pamphlet " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar)Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva:_Who_is_a_Hindu%3F)" considered geographical unity, common culture and common race to be the defining qualities of Hindus; thus a Hindu was a person who saw India "as his Fatherland as well as his Holy land, that is, the cradle land of his religion". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar)

I have also heard this definition from the leader of the RSS however can't find you a quote at the momment.

So yes if you're definition of hinduism is similar to say



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Gangadhar_Tilak)Bal Gangadhar Tilak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Gangadhar_Tilak)'s formulation of Hinduism's defining features: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Gangadhar_Tilak)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu#cite_note-SCI-14)
Acceptance of the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Gangadhar_Tilak)Vedas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veda) with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Gangadhar_Tilak)reverence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverence); (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Gangadhar_Tilak)recognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition) of the fact that the means or ways to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Gangadhar_Tilak)salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation) are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Gangadhar_Tilak)

Then I will say I'm hindu but if its some of the others I will say I'm not. If Hinduism includes sacrifices, local traditions not in the scriptures or a definition that includes race then thats not me.

The trouble is that you say to me Hindu = Vedic dharma, varnashram dharma etc which then I agree to it, then someone else has another meaning of it which I wont agree to. I believe what I believe. So I personally describe my self as a follower of dharma, particlualrly vedic dharma, bhagvat dharma and varnashrama dharma to the best of my abilities.
Scholars have spent ages explaining the definitions of hinduims is fuzzy.

Its more complex than you make out. Not everything will fit in to the nice clean box that you want to fit everyone in to.

Pranams.

keshava
01 March 2010, 07:32 AM
Pranam all

You make Hindus part with their money in many ways and one off that is by earning punya by donating Shastras. Lets consider this point. Vidhya or knowledge in Hindu tradition is to acquire, how can anyone give that in charity? Making huge amount of money selling shastra so gurus can jet set and stay in a plus hotels or have Zakusi built for personal use, easy meal tickets,
What to speak of Brahmin initiation via tape recording how traditional is this?

Jai Shree Krishna

Its not just Hindus that part with their precious money the books are sold to eveyone. Sastra Dhan is charity. If someone has sciptures they have the opportunity to aquire the knowledge by their sincerity. If gurus or anyone else in positions of authority abuse their postions they will be dealt with either in this life or in the next. If you know anything that is actually happening then do something about it, but if you make generalised accusations against innocents then the accuser should also be careful.

Brahmin initiation by tape may not be traditional but philsophically there is nothing wrong with it (The debate is there and people will argure based on scripture)

Its not traditional for any holy sadhus to fly by airoplane but it doesnt go against scripture but facilitates the principle of scripture. Traditionally study of scripture siksa was done from palm leaves (well actually alot of it done through directly the guru speaking to you not even through books) now it can be done on the internet? Non traditional but facilitates principle of scripture.

The principle of Diksa is a debate you can read on other forums.

Pranams

Ganeshprasad
02 March 2010, 01:38 PM
Pranam


Pranams,
Some people count their local traditions as Hindu this may be either throwing babies off a roof to satisfy a devta or something else, its not in the scriptures but categorized as a hindu practice. Other things like untouchability or brahmin by birth may be seen as Hinduism by some but not by others.

Now you are letting your imagination running wild, lets not throw the baby with dirty bath water.
Untouchablity and Brahmin by birth basing, is well known Christian tactics, no wonder you find common ground with them, this in no way changes Hindu perspective, sure there are differences but the core belief in Dharma Karma and reincarnation is what makes a Hindu unique, if anyone thought Karma has no impact on birth, need a reality check.




Therefore there are different perceptions depending on who you ask as what hindu means.
However Vedic dharma etc you have narrowed down your definition to what the scriptures of traditional bharat say. [

And you will have the same different perception regardless of what defination you use
 
 


Quote:
In 1995, Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar was quoted in an Indian Supreme Court ruling:[15]
When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.

I think most Hindu will agree to that defination, here the way of life is very important, the parampara that has been followed since time in memorial although dented by two brutal invasion still remain intact. At the core of this is, Dharma, karma and varna. karmany evadhikaras te. Krishna gives us one right is to do our duty.
 


Below it is based on race: which many hindus subscribe to hindu by birth. (E.g many temples dont let non-indians enter their premise)

And one of them is Jagannath in Puri where Chetanya Mahaprabhu spent most his time yet he did not chalange this practice, I don’t see you denouncing him?

 


So yes if you're definition of hinduism is similar to say
 
Quote:

Quote:
Bal Gangadhar Tilak's formulation of Hinduism's defining features:[15]
Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion.

 
 
Then I will say I'm hindu but if its some of the others I will say I'm not. If Hinduism includes sacrifices, local traditions not in the scriptures or a definition that includes race then thats not me.

Yes everyone perception oh Hindu is different reading vast arrays of literature therefore its no surprise opinion differs, I abhor animal scarifies yet it is there in the Shastra, it would be foolish of me to deny someone to be a hindu simply because I don’t like it.



The trouble is that you say to me Hindu = Vedic dharma, varnashram dharma etc which then I agree to it, then someone else has another meaning of it which I wont agree to. I believe what I believe. So I personally describe my self as a follower of dharma, particlualrly vedic dharma, bhagvat dharma and varnashrama dharma to the best of my abilities.

And within that defination you will find a lot of differences so will you then reject that?
 
There really is no trouble except the one that you are creating for yourself. At the heart of the problem is that Prabhupada clearly says Iskcon is not Hindu. Otherwise Vedic or SD or Varnashram dharma they all mean different to different people. So your point is mute.



Scholars have spent ages explaining the definitions of hinduims is fuzzy.

Yet the vast populace of hindu followers has no such problems because he merrily goes on with his karma and follows his kula dharma. Hindu Dharma and culture is not necessarily homogenous or static



Its more complex than you make out. Not everything will fit in to the nice clean box that you want to fit everyone in to.

You better believe it, it is more complex then either of can fully understand, what makes you think I am trying to fit everyone in one box, that is your job, that is why you go out and convert everyone to your way of thinking. That is different between you and me, while I may differ from you I will not insist mine is the only way.


 


Its not just Hindus that part with their precious money the books are sold to eveyone. Sastra Dhan is charity. If someone has sciptures they have the opportunity to aquire the knowledge by their sincerity.

Hindus are pious people and they can easily be misled and they do give a lot to this so call Shastra dan first you get them to donate and then you go out on street to distribute yes allegedly free with every recipient with a plea for donation so there is a win win situation. This is nothing but a big business Iskcon is a big corporate house run like a corporate.

Here is what Tulsidas had to say and I quote
Selected texts from Sri Ramacharitamanasa
Uttar-kanda, verses 96-103

Kakbhushundi said: In the Kali-Yuga, the hot-bed of sin, men and women are all steeped in unrighteousness and act contrary to the Vedas. ----The people had all fallen prey to delusion and all pious acts had been swallowed by greed. Now listen, while I describe a few peculiarities of Kali-Yuga.
No one follows the duties of one's own caste, and the four Ashrams or stages of life also disappear. Every man and woman takes delight in revolting against the Vedas. The Brahmans sell the Vedas; the kings bleed their subjects; no one respects the injunctions of the Vedas. The right course for every individual is that which one takes a fancy to; a man of erudition is he who plays the braggart. Whoever launches spurious undertakings and is given over to hypocrisy, him does everyone call a saint. He alone is clever who robs another of his wealth; he who puts up false appearances is an ardent follower of established usage. He who is given to lying and is clever at joking is spoken of as a man of parts in the Kali age. Un quote.

One can consider giving books in charity to schools, or facilitate ahsram to further studies for their pupils, specially if there is no motive of making money. these can be construed as a charitable act of facilitating Vidya or knowledge but I know of no instance where vidya to have been given in dan.
But whole of your charitable act is a means to making money and run a big institute, even goes against what Lord Krishna says because you are giving scriptures to any tom dick and harry, on a of chance that they may acquire knowledge.

idam te natapaskaya
nabhaktaya kadacana
na casusrusave vacyam
na ca mam yo 'bhyasuyati
This (knowledge) should never be spoken by you to one who is devoid of austerity, who is without devotion, who does not desire to listen, or who speaks ill of Me. (18.67)


 


If gurus or anyone else in positions of authority abuse their postions they will be dealt with either in this life or in the next. If you know anything that is actually happening then do something about it, but if you make generalised accusations against innocents then the accuser should also be careful.

It’s a shame this fall down is much so frequent I wonder why?
What should I be careful about and why? This fatwa don’t work on me mate, this offence is an alien concept to me.
 




Brahmin initiation by tape may not be traditional but philsophically there is nothing wrong with it (The debate is there and people will argure based on scripture)

What would you know about tradition when any transgression of Vedic law can be explained away philosophically! Do you know that a Brahmin initiation, is given at a young age of five, high degree of expectation and responsibility placed on him. There you are proposing a bramin initiation whom someone has never met and confirm such high position because he might be good at book distribution, who probably was a drug user and cow eater before he joined up.



Its not traditional for any holy sadhus to fly by airoplane but it doesnt go against scripture but facilitates the principle of scripture. Traditionally study of scripture siksa was done from palm leaves (well actually alot of it done through directly the guru speaking to you not even through books) now it can be done on the internet? Non traditional but facilitates principle of scripture.

Who care about the dilution! or the tradition that the guru imparts the knowledge and personally take care of the sadhak? Wow!

Internet can be a good sourse of information but at the same time one can easily be fooled by the power of someones ability to write and debate and yet he could an impostor, a perfect forum for this wannabe guru because he can do whatever materialistic activity he wants and then, when he is feeling religious, come to forums like this to "preach." Never mind he may be quite degraded in his habits. Gurus galore.



The principle of Diksa is a debate you can read on other forums.

I don’t need to learn from a debate what Diksa entails.


Now coming back to my question how traditional are you? I have yet to receive a straight answer. Not that it matters to me but since you are the one who pointed finger at Neo Hindu (not that I know who that is )

You guys claim to follow in disciplic succession From Sri Madhvacharya line yet you differ from him in commentaries of Bhagvat Gita or his Devaita principles or his traditional view of Varnashram by birth
Within the system of Varnashram there is, the marriage ashrama, and this has always been between men and women. We have no evidence of gay and lesbian marriages being performed in Vedic society. So who is neo?

Jai Shree Krishna

bhaktajan
02 March 2010, 02:07 PM
Quote:
If gurus or anyone else in positions of authority abuse their postions they will be dealt with either in this life or in the next. If you know anything that is actually happening then do something about it, but if you make generalised accusations against innocents then the accuser should also be careful.
Ganeshprasada wrote: It’s a shame this fall down is much so frequent I wonder why?
What should I be careful about and why? This fatwa don’t work on me mate, this offence is an alien concept to me.
 
But it is not alien to you. You do know What Pitama Bhishma said, no?


http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/42389-how-should-one-react-people-who-insult-you-their-rudeness-arrogance.html

Mahabharata, Shanti-parva - Chapter 300

Importance of self-control:


Yudhisthira inquired, “How should one react to people who insult you by their rudeness and arrogance?”

Bhisma replied, “If one does not become angry when insulted by another, then he takes away all the pious merit that person may have accumulated by good deeds. In addition he transfers to the abuser his own sinful reactions. After all what is the value of praise or blame when uttered by a vulgar fool? A person who praises some one in his presence but criticizes him behind his back is no better that a dog.”


Yudhisthira, “How should one debate with an unscrupulous person?”

Bhisma replied, “In a debate the tactics of a truthful person are limited, but a deceitful person can utilize any abominable method. However if the truthful person were to use the same tactics as his opponent, he will find himself at a greater disadvantage, for he is acting contrary to his nature. Therefore a truthful and honest person should always avoid an argument with an unscrupulous person.”

Yudhisthira then inquired, “How should one behave towards a more powerful enemy?”

Bhisma replied, “Even though the swift current of the river can uproot and carry huge trees, the canes survive since they bend with the current. Similarly in order to survive an enemy more powerful, one must yield while staying firmly anchored to the roots.”

Yudhisthira inquired, “What should a weak person do if out of foolishness and pride he provokes a powerful enemy?”

Bhisma replied, “O King, the weaker person must repent and thus appease the stronger enemy.”

Yudhisthira inquired, “What is the origin of all sin?”

Bhisma replied, “Greed, the hankering to posses more than one’s naturally ordained quota is the origin of all sin. The desire to posses that which belongs to another is insatiable and gives rise to anger, lust, loss of judgment, arrogance, miserliness, lack of compassion, enviousness, mistrust and many other evils. Ignorance is made up of the same material as greed, though if analyzed it can be seen that ignorance also comes from greed. As one’s greed increases, his ignorance also becomes more dense.”

Yudhisthira inquired, “What produces the highest merit?”

Bhisma replied, “Self-restraint surpasses all other activities in this regard and is therefore considered to be the highest virtue. Because self-restraint purifies and controls every aspect of one’s life it is more important than giving in charity and the study of the Vedas. By self-restraint alone one can achieve liberation from the material world. Self-restraint comprises sense-control, freedom from anger, non-enviousness, impartiality, truthfulness, steadiness and contentment. However, the essential quality of self-restraint is austerity. Thus no good can be achieved without austerity.”

Yudhisthira then inquired, “O Bhisma, is there any rule that should never be violated under any condition?”

Bhisma replied, “The worship of true brahmans and giving them all kinds of respect must never be given up under any circumstance”

ScottMalaysia
02 March 2010, 02:45 PM
Up to now I still can't understand why ISKCON would have issues with the term.

I was thinking about this recently.

The reason that an ISKCON devotee told me that they don't use the term 'Hindu' is that the term ins not derived from the Vedas but was given to the Indians by the Persians. The Persians called the Sindhu River the Hindu River and referred to anyone who lived beyond the river as the Hindu people.

However, having a foreign origin isn't necessary a bad thing. The first Christians did not call themselves Christians either - the name was given to them by others, and often used in a disparaging way. However, the Christians embraced the name, and now they will say with pride that they are a Christian. Imagine a Protestant telling you that he was a "Praise Jesus" or a Catholic telling you that she was a "Hail Mary".

It's the same with Hinduism. Yes, the name has a foreign origin, bu we have adopted it ourselves. We should use it with pride. "Garve se kaho hum Hindu hai" - 'Say with pride that we are Hindus'.

The second reason that ISKCON doesn't like the term Hinduism is that there are many different sects and most of them don't agree with ISKCON's teachings. They don't want to be lumped with all these sects that they disagree with, that say that Shiva or Shakti is the Supreme and Krishna is but a form of Him or Her. They are distinguishing themselves from other Hindus, in the same way that a Catholic Christian might say to someone that they are a Catholic instead of saying they are a Christian, so people know what specific sect they belong to and don't lump them together with the "Praise the Lord" Protestants.

Some Hindus who have joined ISKCON have been taught to reject their family's religion. "Previously we were Hindus. Now we are Hare Krishnas," some said. I'd be certain that those people were Saivas, Saktas or non-sectarian Hindus who were told not to believe that all gods are different forms of God.

bhaktajan
02 March 2010, 02:52 PM
When someone asks what my religion is, I tell them I'm Hindu.

Up to now I still can't understand why ISKCON would have issues with the term.


I am an ISKCON member for several decades now.

When someone asks what my religion is, I too tell them I'm Hindu.

But,

I have always qualified it by saying, "I am an orthodox Hindu".

There is "NO Issues" with Iskcon-ites to claim themselves Hindu ---there is no restriction in Iskcon against using the term Hindu to describe themselves.

This is what A.C. Bhaktivedanta said [here he is establishing what is authenrically orthordox and why.]:
[Delivered as a lecture by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda on October 6, 1969, at Conway Hall, London, England]

You may call the Vedas Hindu, but “Hindu” is a foreign name. We are not Hindus. Our real identification is varëäçrama.

Varëäçrama denotes the followers of the Vedas, those who accept the human society in eight divisions of varëa and äçrama. There are four divisions of society and four divisions of spiritual life.

This is called varëäçrama. It is stated in the Bhagavad-gétä (4.13), “These divisions are everywhere because they are created by God.”

The divisions of society are brähmaëa, kñatriya, vaiçya, çüdra. Brähmaëa refers to the very intelligent class of men, those who know what is Brahman.

Similarly, the kñatriyas, the administrator group, are the next intelligent class of men.

Then the vaiçyas, the mercantile group. These natural classifications are found everywhere.

This is the Vedic principle, and we accept it. Vedic principles are accepted as axiomatic truth, for there cannot be any mistake.

keshava
02 March 2010, 05:00 PM
Pranam

Untouchablity and Brahmin by birth basing, is well known Christian tactics, no wonder you find common ground with them, this in no way changes Hindu perspective, sure there are differences but the core belief in Dharma Karma and reincarnation is what makes a Hindu unique, if anyone thought Karma has no impact on birth, need a reality check.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranams Ganeshprashadji

Chilout and read again I'm not bashing anyone just saying Hindu means different things to people. For some Hindu is following their family taraditions and culture for others its following only vedic scriptures.
No one said karma didnt have any effect on ones birth. I'm not trying to attack anyone just saying there are differing opinions on whats defied a Hinduism.


And you will have the same different perception regardless of what defination you useYes but the perceptions are more specific with certain definitions. Eg follower of vedic dharma is more specific than hindu as it defines what your authority is clearly and is self defined rather than an evolved term.



And one of them is Jagannath in Puri where Chetanya Mahaprabhu spent most his time yet he did not chalange this practice, I don’t see you denouncing him?Chill out I wasn't denonuncing anyone just pointing out that some feel Hindu is by birth whereas others dont.


Yes everyone perception oh Hindu is different reading vast arrays of literature therefore its no surprise opinion differs, I abhor animal scarifies yet it is there in the Shastra, it would be foolish of me to deny someone to be a hindu simply because I don’t like it.My point is that if its based on scripture then its fine but if its local traditions customs etc I dont accept that to be Vedic dharma and therefore not hinduism, but other may differ on this and say it includes culture (not in scripture).


And within that defination you will find a lot of differences so will you then reject that?
 
There really is no trouble except the one that you are creating for yourself. At the heart of the problem is that Prabhupada clearly says Iskcon is not Hindu. Otherwise Vedic or SD or Varnashram dharma they all mean different to different people. So your point is mute.No these terms are much more well difned than the term Hindu. Varnashrama dharm,a is a concept based on sastra, so is Vedic dharma it refers to sastra. Sure all words are subject to some perception, but some are more fuzzy than others.

Hindu - can encompass racial definitions, non vedic concepts, vedic concepts, culture and traditions that are not based on scripture

Vedic dharma - Accepts vedic scripture as a basis for everything

As per your repeated claims that prabhupada claims ISKCON is not hindu that is not the case again your trying to see black and white and fit everyone in boxes. Neo hindu i mean to be someone who is eager to stick people in to the hindu box or not hindu - its a black and white thing for them.

When he used accepted or rejected the word in different contexts. When he defines it as varnashrama dharma or followers of veda he is happy to use it but if it includes concocted practices which are not in any scriptures like local traditions, superstitions etc then he rejects it.

721108SB.VRN Lectures
Anyway, now we are known as Hindus. The "Hindu" is a vague term. Real term is varnasrama, varnasrama, four varnas and four asramas. This is dharma and this is given by God Himself. Just like Krsna says, catur-varnyam maya srstam guna-karma-vibhagasah. It is given by God. You cannot manufacture dharma, religion. No. Dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam: "Dharma means the codes, the regulations given by God." That is dharma. That is dharma. Otherwise, it is not dharma.



Yet the vast populace of hindu followers has no such problems because he merrily goes on with his karma and follows his kula dharma. Hindu Dharma and culture is not necessarily homogenous or staticIf thats the definition then some people will not like to be difned by it - agreed culture is not static but the words of scripture for me a aparushaya and dont evolve (hindu dharma). Here is a case were I fundemantally disagree being a hindu if thats the definition, but will agree if Hindu means accepting vedic scripture as primary even if the culture may be different.


You better believe it, it is more complex then either of can fully understand, what makes you think I am trying to fit everyone in one box, that is your job, that is why you go out and convert everyone to your way of thinking. That is different between you and me, while I may differ from you I will not insist mine is the only way.Its nice that you know me so well and you know what I do in my spare time. Its not me trying to make everything black or white, Hindu or not hindu. I dont have a problem with people using Hindu if they feel it means the appropriate thing. I'll use the term if its defined in a synonmous term as accepting vedic Dharma if not then im not one. No need for boxes and circles here.

It's good for you that you dont insist you're way isnt the only way and you may thing thats a great thing. If someone believes there's is the best way I guess that means they are abrahamic brainwashed narrow, huh? Madhavacarya and ramunjacraya shouldnt have debated sankara's philosophy they must have thought their way was better or (god forbid) the right way? Thats not very Hindu of them. Sri vaishnavas believe all the names in the vedas refer to narayan, these guy's better admit that their way isn't the only way else they are not very dharmic. lol


One can consider giving books in charity to schools, or facilitate ahsram to further studies for their pupils, specially if there is no motive of making money. these can be construed as a charitable act of facilitating Vidya or knowledge but I know of no instance where vidya to have been given in dan.
But whole of your charitable act is a means to making money and run a big institute, even goes against what Lord Krishna says because you are giving scriptures to any tom dick and harry, on a of chance that they may acquire knowledge.

idam te natapaskaya
nabhaktaya kadacana
na casusrusave vacyam
na ca mam yo 'bhyasuyati
This (knowledge) should never be spoken by you to one who is devoid of austerity, who is without devotion, who does not desire to listen, or who speaks ill of Me. (18.67)
Well maybe everyone should stop shops througout the world including temple shops from selling copies of scripitures.

The devotee is more merciful than the Lord.

You may be more concerned about all those that dont take to Bhakti but devotees are more concerned about "the off chance" that someone takes to worshipping the Lord and attains that supreme blissfull state in which there is no return. Its like the story of the child who found millions of starfishes washed up on the sea shore and his father saw him thorwing each one back, his father said what difference does it make you throwing a few starfishes back in to the sea, the child said throwing a star fish back in to the sea "it made a difference to that one".

Chaitany mahaprabhu has said whoever you meet tell them about krishna.
Ramunjacraya gave the mantra out to everyone when his guru said keep it a secret as he didnt want to keep something so benificial a secret.

Many acrayas for this reason preached throughout bharat.



It’s a shame this fall down is much so frequent I wonder why?
What should I be careful about and why? This fatwa don’t work on me mate, this offence is an alien concept to me.I apologise you are free to criticise whoever you please. It's ashame my fatwa trick didnt work.
The reason why people fall more frequently than india is that many people in the west come from having more deeper negative samskaras than those in india. From our perspective its easy to see a snapshot of a persons life and find many faults, but from the eternal perspective the Lord sees that some one has taken a step towards him and thats to his eternal credit.

We may see it as very bad especially if we see ourselves as very sattvik its easy to point fingers at others who are not so. But Krishna see's any little devotional activity done to their eternal credit. There are many example of devotees falling in the vedic srcipture's, Arjuna asks what happens to such a person. in bg 6.37 and Lord krishna describes what happens to someone who practiced for a long time and short time.


2.40 gita society

No effort is ever lost in selfless service, and there is no adverse effect. Even a little practice of the discipline of selfless service protects one from the great fear of repeated birth and death. (2.40)

2.40 as it is
In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear.

bg.9.30
Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination.

From the ultimate perspective any one who engages in practice of self realisation benifits to some degree or another to the level the absorb them sleves, even if its for a while and the return to normal karma and their Karmic reactions according to their nature it is still benificial for them according to Lord Krishnas words any thing spiritual they have done. However in our little snapshot view we may conclude xyz but not see the whole bumby road map.



What would you know about tradition when any transgression of Vedic law can be explained away philosophically! Do you know that a Brahmin initiation, is given at a young age of five, high degree of expectation and responsibility placed on him. There you are proposing a bramin initiation whom someone has never met and confirm such high position because he might be good at book distribution, who probably was a drug user and cow eater before he joined up.Previous life is no disqualification for devotional service
9.32
"O son of Pṛthā (http://vedabase.net/p/prtha), those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth — women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers] — can attain the supreme destination."


kirata-hunandhra-pulinda-pulkasa
abhira-sumbha yavanah khasadayah
ye 'nye ca papa yad-apasrayasrayah
sudhyanti tasmai prabhavisnave namah
Kirata, Huna, Andhra, Pulinda, Pulkasa, Abhira, Sumbha, Yavana, members of the Khasa races and even others addicted to sinful acts can be purified by taking shelter of the devotees of the Lord, due to His being the supreme power. I beg to offer my respectful obeisances unto Him. (Srimad Bhagavatam 2.4.18)


yan-namadheya-sravananukirtanad
yat-prahvanad yat-smaranad api kvacit
svado 'pi sadyah savanaya kalpate
kutah punas te bhagavan nu darsanat
To say nothing of the spiritual advancement of persons who see the Supreme Person face to face, even a person born in a family of dog-eaters immediately becomes eligible to perform Vedic sacrifices if he once utters the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or chants about Him, hears about His pastimes, offers Him obeisances or even remembers Him. (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.33.6)



Now coming back to my question how traditional are you? I have yet to receive a straight answer. Not that it matters to me but since you are the one who pointed finger at Neo Hindu (not that I know who that is )You seem to know what I do in my spare time and what my ill intentions are so I'm surprised you haven't told me what my out look on 'traditional' is. Hang on you have you have told me im in to gay marriages. The paramapara I follow is messed up. So whats the point asking the question there already seems to be a conclusion?

Here is a start on what some attributes of a neo hindu is some of which I see regularly on threads. The term has many thing associated with it some I dont agree with but otehrs I do.

http://hinduism.about.com/od/history/a/neohinduism.htm.

d) The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian / Universalist Christianity as a device designed to severely water down traditional Hindu philosophy.

Other things a neo Hindu does is just like christians and muslims he feels a need to box people in to an 'ism' i.e Hinduism which is a trend that happened in the last 200 years, especially during freedom struggle and onslaughts by christians no doubt had its uses but also has it's side effects.


Hare krishna.

devotee
02 March 2010, 08:42 PM
Some people count their local traditions as Hindu this may be either throwing babies off a roof to satisfy a devta or something else, its not in the scriptures but categorized as a hindu practice.

I don't know which Hindu tradition advises to do this ! You are a great non-Hindu !!

Shall we identify ISKCON with child molestation and other similar scandals which are connected with ISKCON ??

OM

keshava
03 March 2010, 04:24 AM
I don't know which Hindu tradition advises to do this ! You are a great non-Hindu !!

Shall we identify ISKCON with child molestation and other similar scandals which are connected with ISKCON ??

OM

Thank you for telling me what I am and am not o pope of Hindu's.

I think your clutching at straws - The definition of ISKCON doesnt include every nonsense it's memebers do whereas the point of the commenbt was the definition of Hindu can include all this.

If you define Hindu to include any local non vedic tradition then you include even bizzare practices. There is no hindu pope (well there is loads of little ones) who defines what is hindu and what is not hindu so every tom, dick or harry will say x is hinduism and y isnt or vice =versa.


Scott malaysia(NZ) - you make a good point about Christianity, it was used in a derogotary way, however it was then accepted by christians, however the difference is that they were actually followers of christ and the term was pritty specific. What Hindu referes to is vague and different for different people. There are plenty of people who call themselves hindu who dont believe in a god and eat beef but do the social things and refer to themselves as hindu. Its a bit like when being an atheiest jew as the term jew refers to ethnicity and cultre also.

I personally see the rise of this type of universal definition as dangerous and prefer sanatan dharma or the sorts as at least it refers to a vedic concept of the eternal soul or vedic dharama. (This has been my personal view even before I came to ISKCON before any of the physics here claim to know my true motives).
I see the need for for people to include everything in the term hindu makes the term watered down and weak in the end means not much as its so watered down any one can belong to it as long as they claim they are hindu.

Here is an analogy of a way I see it and I'm sure I'll get abused for it.
Its like the british refered to africans as Niger - They had their own traditions customs etc.

Now they are free they refer to themselves as N, they create a whole religion culture out of the word, old traditions in africa are all included in the term 'N'. You have to identify yourself as N in all circumstances and say it proudly else you are not being patriotic.
Now a few generations later you dont have to even follow any african traditions you go against some of them but still you can call yourself N.

There were many who didnt want the term Hindu used for self identification unfortuantely the debate was lost over a century ago and neo-hindus won.

Here is an excerpt of an essay of how the word Hindu evolved from the 10th centuary (Islamic contact) to what people see it as today.
http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/hdg/hind.html
One of the most striking and transparent changes in the ‘modern’ period
since around 1800, is the new use of ‘Hindu’ as an internal
self-identification. Enthusiasm for this development was never unanimous.
‘The Arya Samaj tried to replace the word “Hindu” with the ancient term
Arya.’ R.N. Suryanarayana calls ‘Hindu’ a ‘detestable term ... of which we
should be ashamed’ (Halbfass, p. 515, fn. 97).
As one might expect, others went to the opposite extreme: ‘Some modern
Indian nationalists, most notably M.S. Golwalkar and V.D. Savarkar, have
argued vehemently that the world ‘Hindu’ was not at all adopted from the
Muslims and was not originally used by non-Hindus. Instead they claim that
it is a genuinely Indian term, reflecting ‘the unity, the sublimity, and the
specialty’ of the Indian people.’ (Halbfass, p. 193)

ScottMalaysia
03 March 2010, 06:24 AM
There were many who didnt want the term Hindu used for self identification unfortuantely the debate was lost over a century ago and neo-hindus won.

If you an ISKCON devotee and tell people you are a Hindu, they will understand that you are following a major world religion.

If you say you are "practicing Krishna consciousnes" or something like that, people will think you're part of some new age cult that has just arisen. At least if you use the term "Hindu" then you are linking your beliefs and practices to thousands of years of history.

Ganeshprasad
03 March 2010, 06:48 AM
Pranam Keshava ji and all

I see us going in circles getting no where, so I shell try and make it as brief as possible. I have no need to chill as you have I asked of me more then once, or Bhaktjan to infer that I am arrogant this tactics are used to throw the people of the topics.

Thread was created because neo Hindu has been used as punching bag by lots of post here (the link you provided is so generic and without any substance, its not worth discussing), I am all for traditional approach. Your objection to term Hindu is spurious because no one is suggesting for a moment that dharma and karma can fall outside the injunction of Shastra. Those who live in glass house do not throw stones, conveniently my question gets evaded because HK can not claim to be traditional followers when I have and can point out many practice within Iskcon which is so radical that is not a traditional Hindu practice.

Selling Shastra certainly is not one off them in my estimate, Goswami Tulsidas certainly does not approve.

Sure Sankracharya, Ramanujacharya Madhvacharya and all did debate the philosophy and they are right in their respective field, who is to say one is more right then the other, to each to their own, hindus have long learnt to get on with it and seek that ultimate truth, and according to one karma and sanskaras will reach that ultimate resting place.

 


my Quote:
Now coming back to my question how traditional are you? I have yet to receive a straight answer. Not that it matters to me but since you are the one who pointed finger at Neo Hindu (not that I know who that is )

Your answer

You seem to know what I do in my spare time and what my ill intentions are so I'm surprised you haven't told me what my out look on 'traditional' is. Hang on you have you have told me im in to gay marriages. The paramapara I follow is messed up. So whats the point asking the question there already seems to be a conclusion?

No I don’t claim to know what you do in your spare time or your intentions or your personal view on traditions and gay marriages are but it does reflect on the ongoing Iskcon agenda and how traditional that is?
You know why the question were asked conclusion can only be drawn from facts if they are wrong you can refute it, see it pays not to throw stones!



Other things a neo Hindu does is just like christians and muslims he feels a need to box people in to an 'ism' i.e Hinduism which is a trend that happened in the last 200 years, especially during freedom struggle and onslaughts by christians no doubt had its uses but also has it's side effects.

This is so bizarre that is unbelievable and that coming from HK follower, whose activities resembles of evangelical Christians. didn’t anyone tell you Hindus do not believe in conversion?

“Hindu or Vedic culture” is so vast it would be impossible to put it in a box or a circle, you are just parroting something that has no scope rime or reason . It is a loose term to refer to the customs, religion(s), habits, and attitudes of the people whose civilization is based on the Vedas and their supplementary literatures. it means different things to different people. On the other hand, most "Hindus" would at least theoretically accept the authority of the Vedas.

Unique future of said culture is varnAshrama dharma, Karma and reincarnation it is a way of life, colourful and vibrant and not without its flaws and I am proud of it, sans the flaws.

Jai Shree Krishna

Eastern Mind
03 March 2010, 07:59 AM
“Hindu or Vedic culture” is so vast it would be impossible to put it in a box or a circle,

Vannakkam all:

Failure to understand the above is the crux of the problem that creates misunderstanding. People need to get out and about more. In my city which has 5, maybe 6 temples, there are few indeed that have been to all 5. About 90% are locked into that little version of Hinduism that sustained them spiritually as children. I can't tell you how many times I've heard 'They don't practise 'real' Hinduism over there when gossiping about some other temple.

I was at one temple function where a certain language group had rented space in a hall beside the main temple to have a bhajan night. They also brought a small murthi of Ganapati to be the center of focus. I had been invited to join them. Because the temple itself was open, a man from a different area of India came in to join. He sat beside me. During one song that he didn't understand, he actually leaned over to whisper in my ear, "What the hell kind of language is that?" When it came time to do a final aarti (South Indian style) he literally grabbed the flame and did it 'his' way with the condescending attitude, "I'm going to show these idiots the correct way to do this."

I felt embarrassed for everyone involved. So besides the term 'Hindu' the term 'traditional' is also troublesome. Traditional to whom? From my personal POV, 'traditional' means having stood the tests of time. Maybe 300 years.

Aum Namasivaya

keshava
03 March 2010, 08:56 AM
Pranam Keshava ji and all

I see us going in circles getting no where, so I shell try and make it as brief as possible. I have no need to chill as you have I asked of me more then once, or Bhaktjan to infer that I am arrogant this tactics are used to throw the people of the topics.


Jai Shree Krishna

Chill meaning on those occasions you're assuming I'm bashing like christians or denouncing something when I had not indicated such. You seem to either not be reading correctly or you're emotions of dislike are showing you something that hasn't been written down. So calm down.



Thread was created because neo Hindu has been used as punching bag by lots of post here (the link you provided is so generic and without any substance, its not worth discussing), I am all for traditional approach. Your objection to term Hindu is spurious because no one is suggesting for a moment that dharma and karma can fall outside the injunction of Shastra. Those who live in glass house do not throw stones, conveniently my question gets evaded because HK can not claim to be traditional followers when I have and can point out many practice within Iskcon which is so radical that is not a traditional Hindu practice.


People do suggest that hindu can be defined outside of sastra. Based on skin, tradition local customs.



Selling Shastra certainly is not one off them in my estimate, Goswami Tulsidas certainly does not approve.

What's in your estimate and what Goswami Tulsi dasa meant I dont know, but according to our acarya's estimate it is fine to give out and sell scripture not for the sake of bussiness but to be able to cover costs and continue.


Sure Sankracharya, Ramanujacharya Madhvacharya and all did debate the philosophy and they are right in their respective field, who is to say one is more right then the other, to each to their own, hindus have long learnt to get on with it and seek that ultimate truth, and according to one karma and sanskaras will reach that ultimate resting place.

They each think they are right in their respective fields and they tried to prove the other as a flawed or incomplete understanding of the vedas.
Followers follow the same sidhanat and will argue their respective poiints. Some Hindus seem to have a problem with someone thinking their way is the right way of interpreting something as to them 'its not the hindu way' (Neo-hindu thought police).




No I don’t claim to know what you do in your spare time or your intentions or your personal view on traditions and gay marriages are but it does reflect on the ongoing Iskcon agenda and how traditional that is?
You know why the question were asked conclusion can only be drawn from facts if they are wrong you can refute it, see it pays not to throw stones!



what makes you think I am trying to fit everyone in one box, that is your job, that is why you go out and convert everyone to your way of thinking. That is different between you and me, while I may differ from you I will not insist mine is the only way.


You seem to be talking to me like you know what I'm doing or are you talking to me like I am the instituation that you hate. If you want to know an answer about something like gay marriages etc ask in a straight forward way are you saying ISKCON does gay marriages? Please be clear rather than throwing things out.




This is so bizarre that is unbelievable and that coming from HK follower, whose activities resembles of evangelical Christians. didn’t anyone tell you Hindus do not believe in conversion?

Who told you that - are you the spokesperson for Hinduism? Where does it says Hindus dont convert? Actually where does it say Hindu? whats your authority?

Again another instance of the neo hindu thought police of what a hindu is and isnt and can or cant do.


“Hindu or Vedic culture” is so vast it would be impossible to put it in a box or a circle, you are just parroting something that has no scope rime or reason . It is a loose term to refer to the customs, religion(s), habits, and attitudes of the people whose civilization is based on the Vedas and their supplementary literatures. it means different things to different people. On the other hand, most "Hindus" would at least theoretically accept the authority of the Vedas.

Yes most would then I'm a hindu. neo-hindu says People can't convert then I'm not a hindu. neo-hindu says you have to be born a hindu. Then I dont subscribe to being a hindu.



Unique future of said culture is varnAshrama dharma, Karma and reincarnation it is a way of life, colourful and vibrant and not without its flaws and I am proud of it, sans the flaws.


Good for you. Thats not how everyone sees it.

grames
03 March 2010, 09:10 AM
People have wild assumption and self sanctioned authority on their own is what i get after going through some of the messages here. Just to counter someone, you assume a position of authority and also make so much of assertive statement like "Hindu" is a traditional name etc.

I feel there is a big gang of people who do not even know how to differentiate the so called "Brand" ISKCON from the philosophy and practice of ISKCON and have developed so much hatred on their mind and generalizing everything under the Brand ISKCON. But they simultaneouly claim they are ambassdors of univeralism which preaches and practices Tolerance.

Someone who cannot understand what Krshna consciousness will go on and make laws and grammatical definition and explanation of this term 'Hindu'. On the other thread, my dear friend devotee was wondered when i said, i do not mind declaring myself as not a Hindu but i thought he immediately understood that, Hindu is just a TERM and nothing else. For an advaitin like him any terms, names and etc. etc. shouldn't matter is what i thought. Dharmic practice or Sadhana is what makes someone progress in their spritual progress be it any philosophy you follow and that's why we do not have conversion.

Ganeshprasad
03 March 2010, 10:15 AM
Pranam Keshava


Chill meaning on those occasions you're assuming I'm bashing like christians or denouncing something when I had not indicated such. You seem to either not be reading correctly or you're emotions of dislike are showing you something that hasn't been written down. So calm down.

There you go again




People do suggest that hindu can be defined outside of sastra. Based on skin, tradition local customs.

again genralising. Is this the majority view?





What's in your estimate and what Goswami Tulsi dasa meant I dont know, but according to our acarya's estimate it is fine to give out and sell scripture not for the sake of bussiness but to be able to cover costs and continue.

selling vidva or shastra is unheard off in orthodox Hindu, besides it would not be too bad if it was just cost but sadly get the books gets donated at profit then distributed and ask for donation again a win win situation, run it like a big corporate be my guest but hardly tradtional.





They each think they are right in their respective fields and they tried to prove the other as a flawed or incomplete understanding of the vedas.
Followers follow the same sidhanat and will argue their respective poiints. Some Hindus seem to have a problem with someone thinking their way is the right way of interpreting something as to them 'its not the hindu way' (Neo-hindu thought police).

and you seem to have problem with tolerance which is a vertue it seems not in your books, so what is this humble then a blad of grass?








You seem to be talking to me like you know what I'm doing or are you talking to me like I am the instituation that you hate. If you want to know an answer about something like gay marriages etc ask in a straight forward way are you saying ISKCON does gay marriages? Please be clear rather than throwing things out.

neither my friend, but you cant deny these parctice is gaining ground and there actually is an agenda.



Who told you that - are you the spokesperson for Hinduism? Where does it says Hindus dont convert? Actually where does it say Hindu? whats your authority?

where does it say you can?

I can only go by tradition based on varnashram, if you abide by the laws of Karma you are either in it or out of it.






Yes most would then I'm a hindu. neo-hindu says Peo. ple can't convert then I'm not a hindu. neo-hindu says you have to be born a hindu. Then I dont subscribe to being a hindu.

good, i am a hindu with only proviso that i abide by Dharma



Jai Shree Krishna

keshava
03 March 2010, 11:25 AM
Originally Posted by keshava http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=40694#post40694)
Chill meaning on those occasions you're assuming I'm bashing like christians or denouncing something when I had not indicated such. You seem to either not be reading correctly or you're emotions of dislike are showing you something that hasn't been written down. So calm down.

There you go again







People do suggest that hindu can be defined outside of sastra. Based on skin, tradition local customs.

again genralising. Is this the majority view?


I'm not interested in Hindu being defined by majority votes. I'll define who I am and if the person I talk to ascribes to the same definition of Hindu that then I'm a Hindu if it doesnt then I'm not. Too me Hindu is a flexible term to others it may not be. Its your'e view Hindus cant convert, is that a majority view? if so does it make it true?





selling vidva or shastra is unheard off in orthodox Hindu, besides it would not be too bad if it was just cost but sadly get the books gets donated at profit then distributed and ask for donation again a win win situation, run it like a big corporate be my guest but hardly tradtional.

Only a fraction of the books sold are donated. your facts are exagerated and making sweeping statements on peoples intentions. You seem to be very good at knowing everyone elses ill intentions, on a personal level and on a general level. There are plenty of Hindu groups that run as an organisation to spread dharma, i guess thats not Hindu according to you.





They each think they are right in their respective fields and they tried to prove the other as a flawed or incomplete understanding of the vedas.
Followers follow the same sidhanat and will argue their respective poiints. Some Hindus seem to have a problem with someone thinking their way is the right way of interpreting something as to them 'its not the hindu way' (Neo-hindu thought police).

and you seem to have problem with tolerance which is a vertue it seems not in your books, so what is this humble then a blad of grass?

Krsna says in the gita that he castes the demoniac in to naraka I guess he wouldnt make a good hindu as he is not tolerant in the neo hindu eyes as disagreement is banned everything is one and no should say something that someone may not like as its not tolerant.
Sampradayas have always debated each other and said things that others dont agree with violence was never used. Debates where welcome which in turn helped refine vedic philsophy. That is tolernace not neo hindu political correctness where one can't say anything to big babies who cry if everyone doenst accept their god as supreme or all gods as the same if someone regards a god as a demigod then tha 'isn't the hindu way' by the neo hindu thought police.

Arjuna was humble as a blade of grass as he follows the will of the Lord regardless of what will happen to him.



neither my friend, but you cant deny these parctice is gaining ground and there actually is an agenda.

Whats the agenda and who has set it? I agree acceptance of homsexuality is gaining ground throughout the world????




Who told you that - are you the spokesperson for Hinduism? Where does it says Hindus dont convert? Actually where does it say Hindu? whats your authority?

where does it say you can?

I can only go by tradition based on varnashram, if you abide by the laws of Karma you are either in it or out of it.


You're the one who made the statement Hindus can't convert not me. So back it up. There are instances in tradition where muslims and otehrs have adopted vedic practices. There is even suppose to be history of greeks becoming vaishnavas and some inscription on a famous pole somewhere.

Anyway you said hindus can't convert prove it. Or is this another 'This isn't the Hindu way'





Quote:


Yes most would then I'm a hindu. neo-hindu says Peo. ple can't convert then I'm not a hindu. neo-hindu says you have to be born a hindu. Then I dont subscribe to being a hindu.

good, i am a hindu with only proviso that i abide by Dharma

Thats nice

Hare Krishna

keshava
03 March 2010, 11:37 AM
If you an ISKCON devotee and tell people you are a Hindu, they will understand that you are following a major world religion.

If you say you are "practicing Krishna consciousnes" or something like that, people will think you're part of some new age cult that has just arisen. At least if you use the term "Hindu" then you are linking your beliefs and practices to thousands of years of history.

Pranams Scott.
I'm not against using the term Hindu I use it when I feel the context is correct I usually use it as an opportunity to clarify that Hinduism is an umbrella term composed of diverse spiritual priocesses based on the vedic literature. I usually explain it as a science of concsiouness as that how i see it. If the term hindu helps I'll use it if not I wont. I don't appreciate neo Hindus trying to tell me when I have to use the term and how,telling me either im in or out. Who are they and who made them an authority?

keshava
03 March 2010, 12:08 PM
People have wild assumption and self sanctioned authority on their own is what i get after going through some of the messages here. Just to counter someone, you assume a position of authority and also make so much of assertive statement like "Hindu" is a traditional name etc.

I feel there is a big gang of people who do not even know how to differentiate the so called "Brand" ISKCON from the philosophy and practice of ISKCON and have developed so much hatred on their mind and generalizing everything under the Brand ISKCON. But they simultaneouly claim they are ambassdors of univeralism which preaches and practices Tolerance.

Someone who cannot understand what Krshna consciousness will go on and make laws and grammatical definition and explanation of this term 'Hindu'. On the other thread, my dear friend devotee was wondered when i said, i do not mind declaring myself as not a Hindu but i thought he immediately understood that, Hindu is just a TERM and nothing else. For an advaitin like him any terms, names and etc. etc. shouldn't matter is what i thought. Dharmic practice or Sadhana is what makes someone progress in their spritual progress be it any philosophy you follow and that's why we do not have conversion.

I agree theres plenty of neo hindu judge and jury universalists.

Its true that we dont believe in convertion in the sense that worshipping god is an eternal dharma(Sanmtana dharma), and whatever is practiced if its going to the goal of god conciousness then there is no such thing as convertion as its just adopting a more helpful process in that principle.

however many especially neo hindus take that now to mean you cant change your religion or process. When ramunjacraya preached he changed many sakarites to visitadvaita and their practices changed same with madhvas, and other acarayas tehre folowers changed smapradayas and even from other religions to vedic practices.

The aim is whetever helps get one closer to the goal do that. Krishna in 12 th chapter says if you cant do x do y else do z not that one just clings on to something for the sake of it because some one said 'thats the hindu way'.

keshava
03 March 2010, 12:10 PM
People have wild assumption and self sanctioned authority on their own is what i get after going through some of the messages here. Just to counter someone, you assume a position of authority and also make so much of assertive statement like "Hindu" is a traditional name etc.

I feel there is a big gang of people who do not even know how to differentiate the so called "Brand" ISKCON from the philosophy and practice of ISKCON and have developed so much hatred on their mind and generalizing everything under the Brand ISKCON. But they simultaneouly claim they are ambassdors of univeralism which preaches and practices Tolerance.

Someone who cannot understand what Krshna consciousness will go on and make laws and grammatical definition and explanation of this term 'Hindu'. On the other thread, my dear friend devotee was wondered when i said, i do not mind declaring myself as not a Hindu but i thought he immediately understood that, Hindu is just a TERM and nothing else. For an advaitin like him any terms, names and etc. etc. shouldn't matter is what i thought. Dharmic practice or Sadhana is what makes someone progress in their spritual progress be it any philosophy you follow and that's why we do not have conversion.

I agree theres plenty of neo hindu judge and jury universalists.

Its true that we dont believe in conversion in the sense that worshipping god is an eternal dharma(Sanatana dharma), and whatever is practiced if its going to the goal of god conciousness then there is no such thing as convertion as its just adopting a more helpful process in that principle.

however many especially neo hindus take that now to mean you cant change your religion or process. When ramunjacraya preached he changed many sankarites to visitadvaita and their practices changed same with madhvas, and other acarayas there folowers changed samapradayas and even from other religions like bhudists, jaian islam to vedic practices.

The aim is whetever helps get one closer to the goal do that. Krishna in 12 th chapter says if you cant do x do y else do z not that one just clings on to something for the sake of it because some one said 'thats the hindu way'.

Ganeshprasad
03 March 2010, 12:41 PM
pranam


Pranams Scott.
. I don't appreciate neo Hindus trying to tell me when I have to use the term and how,telling me either im in or out. Who are they and who made them an authority?

precisely who are they? Because every time an objection is raised or your own practice come in to question which in so many way goes aginst orthodox Hindu, you cry Neo.
get over it.

I come back with the rest, for now i have other things to do.

Jai Shree Krishna

keshava
03 March 2010, 01:41 PM
pranam



precisely who are they? Because every time an objection is raised or your own practice come in to question which in so many way goes aginst orthodox Hindu, you cry Neo.
get over it.

I come back with the rest, for now i have other things to do.

Jai Shree Krishna

Dandvats Ganeshprasadji,

I haven't used the term neo-hindu in reference to your objections to my practice if so show me where 'everytime' as you claim. You started this thread quoting me saying the words sanatan dharma, varanshrama dharma and hindu are equivalent and you dont know why people like me make these silly distinctions. O why o why.

I dont have to use the word Hindu to describe myself and can when I feel its appropriate and its perfectly valid (at least to me) I use sanatan dharma or vedic dharam unless the Hindu pope (who speaks for hindus?) tells me something else. I dont use the term hindu if 'Hindu' means Hindus dont convert others (as you claim), nor that hindu tolerance means no one should be called wrong or debated and should be politically correct, all devtas are equall, just in case someone is offended if one is said to be a servant of another, it goes against their sensibilities as 'its not the hindu way'. I rather base my self definition on what scriptures say rather than what the so-called 'majority' defintion of the word Hindu is (and their prescriptions of what a 'true Hindu' believes or not). Saivites have for millenia been saying vishnu is a servent of Shiva, Vaishnavas vice verse, add shaktas and smartas to the mix, dvatias saying advaitis are wrong etc, however we have modern day hindus who are abit sensitive and so we must restrain from saying such things as it may offend our poor friends. However saying they are all equal or all one is politically acceptable.

What I mean by neo hindu is all of the above.





Hare Krishna

ScottMalaysia
03 March 2010, 03:20 PM
Vannakkam all:

Failure to understand the above is the crux of the problem that creates misunderstanding. People need to get out and about more. In my city which has 5, maybe 6 temples, there are few indeed that have been to all 5. About 90% are locked into that little version of Hinduism that sustained them spiritually as children. I can't tell you how many times I've heard 'They don't practise 'real' Hinduism over there when gossiping about some other temple.

If it's possible, I'd advise everyone who hasn't done so to go to both a South Indian temple and a North Indian temple. The practice is very different.

South Indian temple
(on larger temples) Elaborate gopuram (gateway tower), decorated with statues
Open-plan temple area, very few internal walls
Deities are usually made of black granite; moveable ones are made of bronze
Deities are housed in individual shrines called grihas; priest moves from one shrine to the other to do the worship
Shrines are scattered around the temple complex in addition to having three main ones at the front
Worship is done by priests chanting mantras, in larger temples it may be accompanied by a reed instrument called a nadaswaram and a drum called a thavil
Incense, water, an oil lamp, a camphor lamp and flowers are offered to the Deities
Abhisheka (ritual bathing of the Deities) is performed publicly as a religious ceremony
Worship is very individualistic - people say their own personal prayers and do not generally join in congregational prayers

North Indian temple
Tower is located over main shrine (shikara)
Enclosed building with internal walls and a door to the main temple area
Deities are made of white marble (although Krishna is sometimes made of black marble)
Deities are placed on an altar at the front of the room
If there are other shrines around the temple complex, worship is not conducted there as part of the main service
Worship is done by the priest and people chanting bhajans ans slokas, accompanied by instruments like cymbals, tabla and harmonium; in addition, there will be a satsang (scripture reading and sermon) on some days
Worship consists of arati. The priest may offer incense to the Deities first but the main arati consists of offering a ghee lamp to the Deities. In some temples the congregation is encouraged to offer lamps from outside the sacred area. The bhajan "Om Jai Jagdish Hare" is sung while the arati is being offered.
Public abhisheka is not a regular occurance (at least not as far as I've seen)
Worship is congregational - people sing bhajans together in praise of the Gods


I felt embarrassed for everyone involved. So besides the term 'Hindu' the term 'traditional' is also troublesome. Traditional to whom? From my personal POV, 'traditional' means having stood the tests of time. Maybe 300 years.

Aum NamasivayaThe term "Hindu" is related to what people believe, not what they practice. However, many people who are Indian and designate themselves as Hindus do neither. My father-in-law told me that they are 'staunch' Hindus, yet he himself knows very little about the Hindu religion. He thinks that "doing good" is the most important thing and fails to realise that killing animals simply because you like the taste of their flesh is not "doing good". He also thinks that what my wife and I did (getting married without telling him) is the "worst sin". I told him that the worst sin is to kill but he didn't believe me, even though I know more about Hinduism than he does.

My sisters-in-law are almost totally Western in their outlook, despite looking Indian. They care more about fashion, music, partying and guys and couldn't care less about religion, although they did say to my mother-in-law that she never taught them about the Hindu religion, unlike their cousins who are practicing Hindus. I remember when their cousins came to visit, they called each other annai (elder brother) and akka (elder sister). My sisters-in-law never do that (although one of them referred to herself as akka to a cousin who was used to calling older girls that).

keshava
03 March 2010, 04:14 PM
The term "Hindu" is related to what people believe, not what they practice. However, many people who are Indian and designate themselves as Hindus do neither. My father-in-law told me that they are 'staunch' Hindus, yet he himself knows very little about the Hindu religion. He thinks that "doing good" is the most important thing and fails to realise that killing animals simply because you like the taste of their flesh is not "doing good".We had a couple of nationalist Hindus come to a program, that were telling us how we should call ourselves hindu first and foremost then vaishnava second, and that protecting Hinduism against muslims and protecting india is more important than our spiritual processes like prayer philosophy etc

They said to me directly it didnt matter if they ate meat (cant remeber if it included beef) smoke drink and womanise as they are doing more for hinduism by their so-called protection of it. These are typical neo or I guess political hindus - they believe in little nor practice but they give them selves a label hindu and act like spokesmen for it. I personally think this sort of shallowness and accepting this sort of hallowness as hinduism does more harm than good in the long term.

Eastern Mind
03 March 2010, 05:44 PM
Vannakkam all:

Scott: Nice summary.

Persornally, I have little interest in what you call me. Call me neo-Hindu, non-Hindu, WASH (White Anglo Saxon Hindu) whatever you want. In the end its between each of us and God, and has little to do with what anyone else thinks. whilst inthe realm of maya/intellect.

Call me a nutcase, a six year old, or an ignorant fool, if it makes you feel better. Either way I believe in an omnipotent God that is of form and formlessness at the same time that I call Siva.

Aum Namasivaya

Ganeshprasad
03 March 2010, 06:49 PM
Panam Keshva


I'm not interested in Hindu being defined by majority votes. I'll define who I am and if the person I talk to ascribes to the same definition of Hindu that then I'm a Hindu if it doesnt then I'm not. Too me Hindu is a flexible term to others it may not be. Its your'e view Hindus cant convert, is that a majority view? if so does it make it true?

As I said before I am a Hindu full stop there is no majority conspiracy because there is no Pope. You have your right of reservation, I don’t, our ancestors died preserving the dharma, no one ask them the defination they simply perished because they were hindus.
As to, if it is possible to convert in to way of life based on Varnashram? I will come to it later.

I need to clear this to some esteem members who are westerners who has adopted the Hindu ways here probably better then many born hindus I mean no insult to anyone here. I am trying my best to may be make some sense of what is orthodox or neo, I might be accused of signalling out HK but then I feel those who live in glass house do not throw stones.
 


Only a fraction of the books sold are donated. your facts are exagerated and making sweeping statements on peoples intentions. You seem to be very good at knowing everyone elses ill intentions, on a personal level and on a general level. There are plenty of Hindu groups that run as an organisation to spread dharma, i guess thats not Hindu according to you.

You accuse me of making sweeping statements yet all I am trying to say is selling vidya is not a traditional Hindu practice, Tulsidas certainly would not approve, it even goes against Krishna’s instruction although you claim to be more merciful then him using that as an excuse I suppose we excuse anything.

Proselytizations is an alien concept but hey go right ahead.



They each think they are right in their respective fields and they tried to prove the other as a flawed or incomplete understanding of the vedas.
Followers follow the same sidhanat and will argue their respective poiints. Some Hindus seem to have a problem with someone thinking their way is the right way of interpreting something as to them 'its not the hindu way' (Neo-hindu thought police).

Hindus have forged this unity without having to split hairs, this must have happened over a period of time. Sankrachariya certainly did a grand job synthesising the hindu mind set and Tulsidas Goswami in his Bhakti for Ram gave equal importance to Lord Shiva if you want to consider them neo go right ahead I will sweetly accept that term also.



Krsna says in the gita that he castes the demoniac in to naraka I guess he wouldnt make a good hindu as he is not tolerant in the neo hindu eyes as disagreement is banned everything is one and no should say something that someone may not like as its not tolerant.


don’t insult my intelligence, in the same chapter 16 Lord Sri Krishna describes quality of tolerance a virtue.

Where does Hindu propagate to tolerate Adharma? You are placing tolerance of differences, in concepts, within Hindu and demoniac nature on same par and thus ridiculing everything.



Sampradayas have always debated each other and said things that others dont agree with violence was never used. Debates where welcome which in turn helped refine vedic philsophy. That is tolernace not neo hindu political correctness where one can't say anything to big babies who cry if everyone doenst accept their god as supreme or all gods as the same if someone regards a god as a demigod then tha 'isn't the hindu way' by the neo hindu thought police.

Hmm Sampradaya, great place where one is not allowed to think outside the box, I am all for Varnashram great emphasis is placed on learning the Shastra imbibe the virtues dharmic way of life reach out for the final emancipation of life.



Arjuna was humble as a blade of grass as he follows the will of the Lord regardless of what will happen to him.

I fail to see your connection!
 


You're the one who made the statement Hindus can't convert not me. So back it up. There are instances in tradition where muslims and otehrs have adopted vedic practices. There is even suppose to be history of greeks becoming vaishnavas and some inscription on a famous pole somewhere.
Anyway you said hindus can't convert prove it. Or is this another 'This isn't the Hindu way'

With pleasure, now if you are orthodox you might understand but I doubt even after what I say you would accept it.

First let us consider 16 sanskaras they begin with conception

1. Garbhadan 2. Pumsvan 3. Seemantonayan 4. Jatakarma 5. Nama-karana 6. Nishkramana 7. Annaprashana 8. Chudakarana Cuda 9. Karna-vedha 10. Upanayan & Vedarambha 11. Keshanta 12. Samavartan 13. Vivaha 14. Vanprastha 15. Sanyas 16. Antyeshthi

These are the ceremony that take place there is no formal mention of conversion. I will not waste my time with any othe consideration as that would be rejected by you on grounds you don’t follow anything beyond your own sampradaya.

iskcon translation of Govinda Bhashya I hope you take a good look at VS pada 3.34-38 along with the accompanying commentary by your own Baladeva Vidyabhushana.
Therein, Sri Baladeva says repeatedly that shudras are not eligible to study the Vedas. Now one might think that a shudra can become a brahmana and then study the Veda, but Baldeva refutes this as well by stating that a shudra cannot undergo any reformatory samskaras. What to speak of malecha, who were druggist meat eater the lot.

So I guess Baladeva Vidyabhushana, the Vedanta commentator for the Gaudiya sampradaya, is also a bigoted neo Hindu who subscribes to a bogus idea of cast.

sanatana goswami, in his Hari-Bhakti-VilAs writes that a guru must be brought up in a proper family - he clearly rejects the idea of a non-brAhmana becoming a guru.

You may want to disagree with your acharya that is ok they probably were a neo Hindu believing in caste Brahmin
and Madhavachrya in whose line you allege to follow they also believe the same but we will ignore that.


Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
03 March 2010, 09:53 PM
Namaste Keshava,

You have brought the words "neo-Hindu" and "Hinu Pope" & you are giving fatwas after fatwas in your series of posts who will be called a "neo-Hindu" & how one becomes a Hindu Pope if one doesn't subscribe to your views.

Can you see the non-hindu Hindu Pope within yourself ?

OM

grames
04 March 2010, 12:58 AM
Dear SCott,

It is a nice listing of features of temples in India and i just want to add one slight clarification here. Most of the South Indian temples survived the muslim invaders and so they remained as how it was constructed through ages. Some of the temples in my native place are at least 2000 yrs old. Also there will be a spiritual history behind the temple, deity in that temple and you can see this truth is almost all the historical temples. Sadly, most of the ancient north Indian temples are no longer surviving and either they are reconstructed or renewed by certain monks belonging to certain vedantic schools. On the other hand, temples that are constructed in the modern era be it south or north, do have different structure and they do not follow the shastras due to lack of man power and spiritual technologies as well as authority like a King.

The local art, environment, weather and culture has lot of influence on the overall temple architecture and choice of materials, carvings etc.



The term "Hindu" is related to what people believe, not what they practice.

I think it is the reverse in my opinion. Hindu or Hinduism is not one single religion if we really want to give a meaning to this term. Hinduism has so many different practices but having only one goal and each and every practice of Hinduism can be considered as one religion itself. You only listed the differences in temple structure between north and south and imagine how much more differences are there between practices. Same time, you may ask isn't ultimately the "belief" which deliver us the same Goal. In fact, it is not true. In SD, belief is not expected to be blind and such blind belief leads you no where and this is exactly where we do see lot of cheaters making their business nowadays. So, it is more important what you want to practice as it fits you and how much faith you develope in that practice as you harvest the results of following such practice. Mere belief has all possibilities of ruining your complete life as everyone has at least one new belief on their own. My point is, all the different practices are what makes SD and Hinduism as a word may not represent this in total.

sambya
04 March 2010, 01:09 AM
pranaam keshava .

i am still interested to have a better conception of what you understand by the term neo hindu .
are you aware of the fact that the term sanatana dharma was first devised and used by the neo hindus ?!

keshava
04 March 2010, 04:46 AM
Panam Keshva



As I said before I am a Hindu full stop there is no majority conspiracy because there is no Pope. You have your right of reservation, I don’t, our ancestors died preserving the dharma, no one ask them the defination they simply perished because they were hindus.
As to, if it is possible to convert in to way of life based on Varnashram? I will come to it later.


Jai Shree Krishna

Exactly there is no hindu pope! it's sarcasm for those who like to define what hindu is and insist on others to be consistent on their adoption of it. Yes our ancestors did die preserving Dharma and definition was irrelevent they died because they were non-abrahmic.

You started this thread by saying that the terms are all equal the same thing eg vedic dharma, sanatan dharma and hindu. I believe they do not equal the same thing. Hindu is what you believe it to be and its not nesseceraily a dharmic definition. You dont have to be following any dharma and you can call yourself a hindu.






With pleasure, now if you are orthodox you might understand but I doubt even after what I say you would accept it.
First let us consider 16 sanskaras they begin with conception

1. Garbhadan 2. Pumsvan 3. Seemantonayan 4. Jatakarma 5. Nama-karana 6. Nishkramana 7. Annaprashana 8. Chudakarana Cuda 9. Karna-vedha 10. Upanayan & Vedarambha 11. Keshanta 12. Samavartan 13. Vivaha 14. Vanprastha 15. Sanyas 16. Antyeshthi

These are the ceremony that take place there is no formal mention of conversion. I will not waste my time with any other consideration as that would be rejected by you on grounds you don’t follow anything beyond your own sampradaya.


What has this got to do with your statements that you can not convert to Hinduism ?
Most of these samskaras are meant for dvijas (ie the 3 upper classes).
There are vedic and pancaratric initiation processes.

However practicing bhakti is not dependent on these. (Unless you dont class bhakti as Hindu)

Here are explicit verses saying even out-castes that are not included in varnashrama are qualified to be vaishnavas.


yan-namadheya-sravananukirtanad
yat-prahvanad yat-smaranad api kvacit
svado 'pi sadyah savanaya kalpate
kutah punas te bhagavan nu darsanat
To say nothing of the spiritual advancement of persons who see the Supreme Person face to face, even a person born in a family of dog-eaters immediately becomes eligible to perform Vedic sacrifices if he once utters the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or chants about Him, hears about His pastimes, offers Him obeisances or even remembers Him. (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.33.6)


aho bata sva-paco 'to gariyan
yaj jihvagre vartate nama tubhyam
tepus tapas te juhuvuh sasnur arya
brahmanucur nama grnanti ye te
Oh, how glorious are they whose tongues are chanting Your holy name! Even if born in the families of dog-eaters, such persons are worshipable. Persons who chant the holy name of Your Lordship must have executed all kinds of austerities and fire sacrifices and achieved all the good manners of the Aryans. To be chanting the holy name of Your Lordship, they must have bathed at holy places of pilgrimage, studied the Vedas and fulfilled everything required. (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.33.7)



Quote:
They each think they are right in their respective fields and they tried to prove the other as a flawed or incomplete understanding of the vedas.
Followers follow the same sidhanat and will argue their respective poiints. Some Hindus seem to have a problem with someone thinking their way is the right way of interpreting something as to them 'its not the hindu way' (Neo-hindu thought police).
Hindus have forged this unity without having to split hairs, this must have happened over a period of time. Sankrachariya certainly did a grand job synthesising the hindu mind set and Tulsidas Goswami in his Bhakti for Ram gave equal importance to Lord Shiva if you want to consider them neo go right ahead I will sweetly accept that term also.


You seem to miss the point again. I havent said that people can't think everything is all one or equal etc. I'm talking about people who say its 'not Hindu 'to say one devta is a servent or another and feel that tolerance means dont air you're differences as its not politically correct.



You accuse me of making sweeping statements yet all I am trying to say is selling vidya is not a traditional Hindu practice, Tulsidas certainly would not approve, it even goes against Krishna’s instruction although you claim to be more merciful then him using that as an excuse I suppose we excuse anything.

Proselytizations is an alien concept but hey go right ahead.

I did not say i'm merciful - Vaishnavas including ramunjacarya and otehrs preached and went against so-called vedic othordoxy at the time for a higher principle. So I guess Ramunjacrya shouldnt of preached or told everyone the secret mantra?
Our temple shops sell bhagvad gitas, book distrubter sell and/or asks for donations
I'm sure Vivekanda centres sell gitas. Here is a link on amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Message-Bhagavad-Gita-Exposition/dp/8175052147

Sri chinmoya sells books and cassetes etc
http://www.chinmayapublications.org/

O my god these guys are going against vedic dharma by selling knowledge!
I bet they have an evil bussiness empire as their motvies (Sarcasm intended)

I'm sure there is more.


iskcon translation of Govinda Bhashya I hope you take a good look at VS pada 3.34-38 along with the accompanying commentary by your own Baladeva Vidyabhushana.
Therein, Sri Baladeva says repeatedly that shudras are not eligible to study the Vedas. Now one might think that a shudra can become a brahmana and then study the Veda, but Baldeva refutes this as well by stating that a shudra cannot undergo any reformatory samskaras. What to speak of malecha, who were druggist meat eater the lot.

So I guess Baladeva Vidyabhushana, the Vedanta commentator for the Gaudiya sampradaya, is also a bigoted neo Hindu who subscribes to a bogus idea of cast.

You're last paragraph again is attributing something to me that I havent said you're again acting like a mystic, who thinks they now what I think. I have never said caste by birth is 'bogus' and a 'neo hindu' these tactics are getting tiring. In the vedic system the seminal system existed its validity today I dont know there are verses saying everyone in kaliyuga is born a sudra as the above vedic samskaars (which you talk about) are lesss and less properly performed .

As for your assesrtion that Baldeva vidyabhushana is saying a sudra can never be rectified - I dont see it. Here is what I used
http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/sastra/literature/texts/baladeva.htm

In sutra 35 qualities of the so-called shudra are used to establish what varna he belongs to kstriya. In sutra 37 in the commentry the example of Jabali is used to show how he was regarded as a sudra but was truthful so the guru gave him initiation smaskara.
Sutra 38 says how those born as shudra can be elevated, and that real caste is the end result of life.

here is a cut down version dont want to clog the post. (if i've missed anything essential to your point please show me)


sutra 35
Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa


Jänaçruti is understood to be a kñatriya. He
possesses religious faith and a host of other virtues. He is very
charitable. He gives charity generously. He is the ruler of the
people. For these reasons it is said that he is a
kñatriya. Because he sent (a messenger to search for
Raiìka) and because he gave cows, necklaces, chariots, his
daughter, and many other things in charity, it is said that he is
a kñatriya. It is not possible for anyone but a
kñatriya to possess these qualities. Because he
thus displays the qualities of a king, Jänaçruti should be
understood to be a kñatriya. At the end of the
story it is also understood that he is a kñatriya.
At the end of the story, where the description of
saàvarga-vidyä is concluded, there is mention of the
kñatriya status of a person named Abhipratäré
Caitraratha. In the concluding passage a brahmacäré
begged alms from Çaunaka Käpeya and Abhipratäré Käkñaseni when
these two were serving food to others.




Sütra 37


(This is so) also because care is taken to determine that (a
student) is not (a çüdra).


Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa


In the Chändogya Upaniñad (4.4.4-5) (when
asked about his caste, Jäbäli said) näham etad vede bho
yad gotro 'ham asmi (I do not know into what caste I was
born). These truthful words convinced the sage Gautama that
Jäbäla was not a çüdra. Gautama then said
naitad abrähmaëo vivaktum arhati samidhaà saumyähara tvopaneñye
na satyäd agäù (One who is not a brähmaëa
cannot speak in this way. O gentle one, please bring the sacred
fuel and I shall initiate you as a brähmaëa. You
did not deviate from the truth). This endeavor by the
guru Gautama demonstrates that only the
brähmaëas, kñatriyas, and vaiçyas are
eligible to receive the saàskäras. The
çüdras are not eligible.


Sütra 38

Some souls, such as Vidura and others, although born as
çüdras, become elevated by their attainment of perfect
transcendental knowledge. By hearing and understanding the
Puräëas and other transcendental literatures,
çüdras and others can become liberated. The only real
classes of higher and lower among men are determined by the final
result of their lives.



sanatana goswami, in his Hari-Bhakti-VilAs writes that a guru must be brought up in a proper family - he clearly rejects the idea of a non-brAhmana becoming a guru.

No he doesnt reject a non brahmana guru show me. I have the Haribhakti vilasa at home you seem to be good at misrepresenting without evidence. .


You may want to disagree with your acharya that is ok they probably were a neo Hindu believing in caste Brahmin
and Madhavachrya in whose line you allege to follow they also believe the same but we will ignore that.

They are free to believe what they want and I havent called them neo hindus or that those that believe caste by birth are neo hindus - - again you're misrepresnting. This tactic of straw men arguments is tire some. If you're going to accuse me of something please quote it, else its a waste of time for everybody, its childish at best and dishonest at worst.

keshava
04 March 2010, 05:33 AM
pranaam keshava .

i am still interested to have a better conception of what you understand by the term neo hindu .
are you aware of the fact that the term sanatana dharma was first devised and used by the neo hindus ?!

I'm not sure what the history of the term is and who revived it but at least its from sastra and means something and its self defined.

Manu Smriti 4-138
Satyam bruyatpriyam bruyanna bruyatsatyamapriyam. Priyam cha nanrtam bruyadesa dharmah sanatanah.
138. Let him say what is true, let him say what is pleasing, let him utter no disagreeable truth, and let him utter no agreeable falsehood; that is the eternal law.

What I mean by neo Hindu is i guess:
1. fanatic Hindus who try to impose the term on to people either as in or out.
2. They dont understand that the term is not the first identification for everyone, if hindu fits it will be used else not.
3. They tell practitioners something 'isn't the hindu way' with out reference from sastra or taking into account thier sampradya. E.g You can't convert.
4. Overly politically correct. They probably would have said to Madhavacraya and Ramunjacarya they are not behaving in a hindu way as they were saying each were wrong. Or Vishnu is supreme and others are servents.
They will come along and say "actually they are all correct they just dont know its the same thing with different paths" (Advaitic or universalist definition of Hinduism) Its fine if its specifed as another school of thought.

5. Are willing to class people who dont follow any dharma even acting against it as long as the call themselevs hindu, but will not recognise as Hindu anyone who doesn't proscribe to their label of 'Hindu' wholeheartedly even if they proscribe to sanatan dharma, vedic or varnashrama dhrama. (In another breath they will say they are all equal)


I think you get the gist.

Ganeshprasad
04 March 2010, 10:38 AM
Pranam


Exactly there is no hindu pope! it's sarcasm for those who like to define what hindu is and insist on others to be consistent on their adoption of it. Yes our ancestors did die preserving Dharma and definition was irrelevent they died because they were non-abrahmic.

You started this thread by saying that the terms are all equal the same thing eg vedic dharma, sanatan dharma and hindu. I believe they do not equal the same thing. Hindu is what you believe it to be and its not nesseceraily a dharmic definition. You dont have to be following any dharma and you can call yourself a hindu..

You seem to miss the point there is no chance of a clear defination, there really no insistence, and I still maintain there is no difference.
Lets consider this scenario, suppose there is no such word ‘Hindu’ there never was this word, in its absence Vedic or SD was the norm, you will find in these circumstances people in India or Bharat would have presented the same problem you object to, because they would call them self Vedic people cause that is what they would have inherited. You and me I hope object to people eating meat especially mother cow but that same very people who we object to will find passages in Vedas to justify their ways. Not speaking for atheist because they will refuse any defination

But most other even if not Dharmic as measured by certain yard stick will admit to Karma and reincarnation and if so they are taking responsibility for their actions and as such I refuse to judge them that is not to say I don’t debate them at the end of the day its their choice yathecchasi tatha kuru that is what Krishna says
 
 


What has this got to do with your statements that you can not convert to Hinduism ?
Most of these samskaras are meant for dvijas (ie the 3 upper classes).
There are vedic and pancaratric initiation processes.
So by your own admittance if there is no due process for sudra where would you find method of conversion?



However practicing bhakti is not dependent on these. (Unless you dont class bhakti as Hindu)
Here are explicit verses saying even out-castes that are not included in varnashrama are qualified to be vaishnavas.

Or a shaiva or shakta but Varnashram now that raises a lot question, orthodox it certainly want be.
 
 

You seem to miss the point again. I havent said that people can't think everything is all one or equal etc. I'm talking about people who say its 'not Hindu 'to say one devta is a servent or another and feel that tolerance means dont air you're differences as its not politically correct.
If you can provide a srutis pramana where Devtas are half measures or servant then you might have a point!
 
 
 


I did not say i'm merciful - Vaishnavas including ramunjacarya and otehrs preached and went against so-called vedic othordoxy at the time for a higher principle. So I guess Ramunjacrya shouldnt of preached or told everyone the secret mantra?

Preaching is a lot different from making money from mercy. Did Ramanujachrya make money from his distribution of secret mantra?
Going against ones guru you might consider lightly but I don’t, I would not use that as an excuse because it can open up a flood gate.



Our temple shops sell bhagvad gitas, book distrubter sell and/or asks for donations
I'm sure Vivekanda centres sell gitas. Here is a link on amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Mess.../dp/8175052147
Sri chinmoya sells books and cassetes etc
http://www.chinmayapublications.org/
O my god these guys are going against vedic dharma by selling knowledge!
I bet they have an evil bussiness empire as their motvies (Sarcasm intended)
I'm sure there is more.

There is a whole lot off different having books available for aspirant at a reasonable price, and running printing press of your own therefore cost would be minimal, huge profits are generated by selling vidya ! selling Vidya which goes against the grain an insult to knowledge if you can put price on it, I don’t care who does it.
 
 


You're last paragraph again is attributing something to me that I havent said you're again acting like a mystic, who thinks they now what I think. I have never said caste by birth is 'bogus' and a 'neo hindu' these tactics are getting tiring. In the vedic system the seminal system existed its validity today I dont know there are verses saying everyone in kaliyuga is born a sudra as the above vedic samskaars (which you talk about) are lesss and less properly performed .

Here is your quote the implication and context is clear although you have room to wriggle out of it, this was your first defence, have a look



Some people count their local traditions as Hindu this may be either throwing babies off a roof to satisfy a devta or something else, its not in the scriptures but categorized as a hindu practice. Other things like untouchability or brahmin by birth may be seen as Hinduism by some but not by others.




As for your assesrtion that Baldeva vidyabhushana is saying a sudra can never be rectified - I dont see it. Here is what I used
http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/...s/baladeva.htm (http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/...s/baladeva.htm)

Here it is
Sütra 36
saàskära-parämarñät tad-abhäväbhiläpäc ca
saàskära - of the purificatory rituals;
parämarñät - because of the reference; tad - of them;
abhäva - of the non-existence;
abhiläpät - because of the explanation; ca - also.
This is also so because the scriptures state both the
necessity of undergoing the saàskäras (rituals of purification)
and the exclusion of the çüdras from these rituals.
Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa
In the çruti-çästra is the passage
añöa-varñaà brähmaëam upanéyata tam adhyäpayed ekädeçe
kñatriyaà dvädaçe vaiçyam (One should perform the
saàskära and teach a brähmaëa boy when he
is eight years old a kñatriya boy when he is eleven
years old, and a vaiçya boy when he is twelve years
old). This shows that brähmaëas are eligible to
study the Vedas because they are also eligible for
the saàskäras. The scriptures also say
nägnir na yajïo na kriyä na saàskäro na vratäni
çüdrasya (A çudra is not allowed to light
the sacred fire, perform a fire-sacrifice, perform religious
rituals, undergo the saàskäras, or follow vows of
penance). In this way it is established that because a
çüdra is not allowed to undergo the saàskäras
he is also not allowed to study the Vedas.Now he confirms the view that the çüdras are not eligible for the saàskäras.
 


37 in the commentry the example of Jabali is used to show how he was regarded as a sudra but was truthful so the guru gave him initiation smaskara.

Please read the sutra 37 properly again, I try surmise the boys lineage was not know, he never was regarded as sudra, but by dint of his truthfulness Gautama concluded he must be a Brahmin.



Sutra 38 says how those born as shudra can be elevated, and that real caste is the end result of life.

Please be truthful and try and differentiate between sutra and Bhasya

sutra 38 says
This is so because the småti-çästra also prohibits the
çüdras from hearing and studying (the Vedas.

In the purport he says
çüdras and others can become liberated. The only real
classes of higher and lower among men are determined by the final
result of their lives.

And the Antim Pariksa ones life is death upon which our next Janam is determined

Thank you for listening, I have noting further to add unless it is relevant.

PS
Keshava, you have demanded sorry if that pleases you, I am truely sorry, i have said what i had to say as to what is traditional and i am no authority on it, that is my understanding, i will stand firm on what Tulsidas said regarding selling Shastra
Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Shree Krishna
 

keshava
04 March 2010, 12:45 PM
Dandvats Ganeshji


But most other even if not Dharmic as measured by certain yard stick will admit to Karma and reincarnation and if so they are taking responsibility for their actions and as such I refuse to judge them that is not to say I don’t debate them at the end of the day its their choice yathecchasi tatha kuru that is what Krishna says


I understand what you're saying however 'Hindu' can also contain extra culutral context divorced from dharma.

The example that you gave about someone claiming to be hindu and using dharma as an excuse is fine and synonmous with people who describe themselves as Hindu. This can be debated on the vedic basis and 2 people may have different interpretations of the vedic literature.

However there are many cultural or birth Hindus who do not believe in a god or re-incarnation or karma, but attend social events etc. As 'hinduism' meaning isnt nessecitated to mean one has to have grounding in vedic or dharmic pramanas this is also considered hindu and therefore not synonomous with dharma.



Quote:
What has this got to do with your statements that you can not convert to Hinduism ?
Most of these samskaras are meant for dvijas (ie the 3 upper classes).
There are vedic and pancaratric initiation processes.
So by your own admittance if there is no due process for sudra where would you find method of conversion?

I dont understand the logic? Sudra even if not going through these things is still a follower of dharma and a part of varnashrama.


Quote:
However practicing bhakti is not dependent on these. (Unless you dont class bhakti as Hindu)
Here are explicit verses saying even out-castes that are not included in varnashrama are qualified to be vaishnavas.
Or a shaiva or shakta but Varnashram now that raises a lot question, orthodox it certainly want be.


Depends on your version of orthodox. These verses are quite clearly in the Bhagvatam an othordox scriture I would have thought - Many Indonesioans in were converted to Hinduism as far as I understand it. Are they to be rejected as non vedic as no one can convert to follow the vedas?



There is a whole lot off different having books available for aspirant at a reasonable price, and running printing press of your own therefore cost would be minimal, huge profits are generated by selling vidya ! selling Vidya which goes against the grain an insult to knowledge if you can put price on it, I don’t care who does it.


Ok - So now the story changes to selling at a reasonable price is okay. I thought Tulsidas said selling sastra was condemed full stop? Huge profits??



Quote:
You're last paragraph again is attributing something to me that I havent said you're again acting like a mystic, who thinks they now what I think. I have never said caste by birth is 'bogus' and a 'neo hindu' these tactics are getting tiring. In the vedic system the seminal system existed its validity today I dont know there are verses saying everyone in kaliyuga is born a sudra as the above vedic samskaars (which you talk about) are lesss and less properly performed .
Here is your quote the implication and context is clear although you have room to wriggle out of it, this was your first defence, have a look

Quote:
Originally Posted by keshava
Some people count their local traditions as Hindu this may be either throwing babies off a roof to satisfy a devta or something else, its not in the scriptures but categorized as a hindu practice. Other things like untouchability or brahmin by birth may be seen as Hinduism by some but not by others.





Is that the best you can do - You used the word 'everytime' and now you show me one vague statement if I did it everytime I'm sure there are others.

I haven't even used the words neo Hindo or Bogus here like you claimed, just talked about the term Hindu and how it means different things to people. You're having a laugh that there is room to wriggle out of it, there is a gigantic opening, your accusation was wrong and your using your mystic meg powers again "the implication and context is clear although you have room to wriggle out of it"
An apology wouldnt go astray for false accusations.

Things that You have left out
Please show me hari-bhakti vilasa quote where it says Non-brahmanas can't become guru?

You assereted (actually it looks like a copy and paste from this thread
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/451551-sri-baladeva-vidyabhushana-gaudiya-vaishnava-sudras-not-allowed-study-vedas.html )


Therein, Sri Baladeva says repeatedly that shudras are not eligible to study the Vedas. Now one might think that a shudra can become a brahmana and then study the Veda, but Baldeva refutes this as well by stating that a shudra cannot undergo any reformatory samskaras. What to speak of malecha, who were druggist meat eater the lot.


I will not waste my time with your quote which assumes caste by birth here are replys to it
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/451551-sri-baladeva-vidyabhushana-gaudiya-vaishnava-sudras-not-allowed-study-vedas-3.html

Copy and pasted from the same audrya forums

iprād dvi-ṣaḍ-guṇa-yutād aravinda-nābha-
pādāravinda-vimukhāt śvapacaḿ variṣṭham
manye tad-arpita-mano-vacanehitārtha-
prāṇaḿ punāti sa kulaḿ na tu bhūrimānaḥ

“A bhakta who has taken birth in a family of dog-eaters, but who has dedicated his mind, words, activities and wealth to the lotus feet of the Lord, is superior to a brahmana endowed with all twelve brahminical qualities, but who is diverted from the lotus feet of Sri Padmanabha. Such a bhakta, although of lowly birth, can purify himself and his entire family, whereas the brahmana who is filled with pride cannot even purify himself.”


yasya yal lakṣaṇaḿ proktaḿ
puḿso varṇābhivyañjakam
yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta
tat tenaiva vinirdiśet

“If one shows the symptoms of being a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra, as described above, even if he has appeared in a different class, he should be accepted according to those symptoms of classification.”
(SB.7.11.35)

Any way what has this got to do with anything - you havent shown me where I said caste by birth is 'bogus' you just assumed it and went off on one.

I already accepted in a previous post that (can remeber if its this thread) that seminal vedic brahmanism did exist due to the purity of the bramanas in that age able to invite a soul with brahminical qualities (light fire with mantra and a whole lot of other things they could do), but I also accept verses in the skanda purana that says in kali everyone is born a sudra (unless shown by quality otherwise).

Hare Krishna

ScottMalaysia
04 March 2010, 05:37 PM
selling vidva or shastra is unheard off in orthodox Hindu

So you would be against bookshops stocking copies of Bhagavad-Gita?

Ganeshprasad
05 March 2010, 06:41 AM
Pranam


So you would be against bookshops stocking copies of Bhagavad-Gita?

No because one can not stop this reality.

Unfortunately it has become a product like any other product.

my understanding is that Vidya can not be sold or for that matter purchased.

Vidya is for acquiring which in turns requires effort.

i give you an example years ago i asked a pandit what do you charge, he was not pleased, he said and i keep it short, how can i put a price on my knowledge? would that not cheapen its value? knowledge is price less, its value can not be measured? In olden days a student would give Daksina to Guru after finishing the studies.

I take an example of many satsang mandal i know who would have their Bhajans printed with money received from donations and then distributing for free. you will find a lot of families would purchase Gita and other literatures and donate after their loved ones.

Tulsidas Goswami clearly stated that one off the symptom of Kali is that a Brahmin would sell Vedas, what to talk about maintaining huge institute selling shastras

A Gujarati publication 'Sastu Sahitya' title says it all, i have most my books from them, their moto is books to be avaiable at cost.

Ps
Just listening to Ashtha Channel, Rameshbhai Oza and he confirmed what i had been saying not only that he actually said it is paap to sell Gyan.

Jai Shree Krishna

proudhindu
05 March 2010, 10:46 AM
it is paap to sell Gyan.

Jai Shree Krishna

I agree.:goodpost:

sambya
06 March 2010, 12:58 AM
.... but at least its from sastra and means something and its self defined.

Manu Smriti 4-138
Satyam bruyatpriyam bruyanna bruyatsatyamapriyam. Priyam cha nanrtam bruyadesa dharmah sanatanah.
138. Let him say what is true, let him say what is pleasing, let him utter no disagreeable truth, and let him utter no agreeable falsehood; that is the eternal law.

its speaking about code of conduct ! not about the religions of subcontinent !!



What I mean by neo Hindu is i guess:
1. fanatic Hindus who try to impose the term on to people either as in or out.
2. They dont understand that the term is not the first identification for everyone, if hindu fits it will be used else not.i understand ..... not that it is a very comprehensive feature . but i can sense out something of what you are saying .


3. They tell practitioners something 'isn't the hindu way' with out reference from sastra or taking into account their sampradya.if thats the defination of the neo hindu then the first name that comes to my mind is modern GVs !! everytime something contradictory comes their way they scream " thats not vedic , thats not hindu " . i think in silence--do they even know whats 'authentic' vedic ?!!

i have even heard some outright LIES to propagate their own views . lone such lie is --- " when you sacrifice an animal to devi you utter in its ears ' may you be me in next life ' . i have gone through the ritualistic texts of sacrifice( it was creepy and saddening though , as i support vegetarianism) and have found nothing like that in anywhere . an outright lie in favour of their theory !
remeber here that im not speaking in support of sacrifices . i am concerned with the methods of lies that have been undertaken to preach someone's own views .

secondly do you think that shastras(starting with vedas and ending in medieval texts)are all correct ? put in a better way " are shastras absolutely infalliable ? "



4. Overly politically correct. strangely enough , this also reminds me of modern GV movements . jesus and mohammad are avatars( coz there's preacing to do in west) but shiva and devi are all demigods ! mohammad can be an avatar and swami vivekananda an incarnation of adharma(yes ! its the official iskcon version)



They will come along and say "actually they are all correct they just dont know its the same thing with different paths" (Advaitic or universalist definition of Hinduism) wel, 'all correct' doesnt mean that they are all equal in their goals and process . even their end destinations might be different ( for example a yogi might taste the formless rasa of god while a bhakta might taste the sweet form of the lord) . but their destination remains the same .

if you say that it is not the same thing then are you trying to say that christians , muslims , shaktas , vaishnavs , etc are each trying to realize different independent things ? in other words are there two gods ?!!

please clarify ....

sambya
06 March 2010, 01:01 AM
sorry .....double post

keshava
07 March 2010, 07:46 AM
Dandvats


its speaking about code of conduct ! not about the religions of subcontinent !!

I didnt say it's talking about religion.. please re-read.



3. They tell practitioners something 'isn't the hindu way' with out reference from sastra or taking into account their sampradya. if thats the defination of the neo hindu then the first name that comes to my mind is modern GVs !! everytime something contradictory comes their way they scream " thats not vedic , thats not hindu " . i think in silence--do they even know whats 'authentic' vedic ?!!


Please re-read context. I'm sure GV come's into your mind for many things.
I'm talking about things with absolutely no reference from anything vedic. Just general statements like 'Hindus can't convert'. I'm not talking about who's 'authentic' or not


Quote:
4. Overly politically correct.
strangely enough , this also reminds me of modern GV movements . jesus and mohammad are avatars( coz there's preacing to do in west) but shiva and devi are all demigods ! mohammad can be an avatar and swami vivekananda an incarnation of adharma(yes ! its the official iskcon version)



same argument as a previous post. Again politically correct is you're understanding and Vivekanda's attempt to unite Hinduisms artificially under the adavitic interpretation. Vaishnavas regard dualistic theism as accurate, islam chritianity are also dulistic theistic. Vaishnavs not just 'GV' regard other vedic gods as sparks of the supreme. This is a fact of vaishnavism. Is it politically incorrect for me to say this??????





Quote:
They will come along and say "actually they are all correct they just dont know its the same thing with different paths" (Advaitic or universalist definition of Hinduism)
wel, 'all correct' doesnt mean that they are all equal in their goals and process . even their end destinations might be different ( for example a yogi might taste the formless rasa of god while a bhakta might taste the sweet form of the lord) . but their destination remains the same .

if you say that it is not the same thing then are you trying to say that christians , muslims , shaktas , vaishnavs , etc are each trying to realize different independent things ? in other words are there two gods ?!!

please clarify ....


Clarification.

What you say is correct what I'm talking about is blind all inclusiveness for the sake of being all inclusive, without reference to any basis and saying this is the Hindu way. A vaishnva and shivate may actually think each other are wrong or an advaitc interpretation is worng etc, but if I say the Hindu way is that they are all correct without any basis it can be dismisive in a politically correct way of valid disagreements.

It may be the case that certain paths are meant for certain people and there can be valid differences of opinions, but there may also be actually wrong understanding of something and a right understanding of something blind acceptance of all paths can be naive at best and dangerous at worst (e.g someone claims they are god through some siddhis people are misled).

Hare Krishna

sambya
07 March 2010, 12:05 PM
I didnt say it's talking about religion.. please re-read.

i thought we were talking about the thing called 'hindu religion' and the its true name as you were suggesting--namely sanantana dharma .
and then you give me this qoute of moral ethics that has nothing to do with relgion .

........??!!!?........



Please re-read context. I'm sure GV come's into your mind for many things.
I'm talking about things with absolutely no reference from anything vedic.

tell me what is vedic . if you are supposed to go by vedas(the main four vedas , the principal upanishads and some sutras) then you would land yourself in a largely unknow alien religion . is puja vedic ? are bija mantras vedic ? are yantras vedic ? are kirtans vedic ? the answer to all of these and many others are a big no . they are not from 'vedic' shastras . they are from veda-dharmi shastras . in other words shastras that accept the hierarchial superiority of vedas .



Just general statements like 'Hindus can't convert'.
i see . here i both agree with you and the others . i have no problems in non-hindus adapting to hindu way of life . i personally feel that they are no less hindu than an indian if their belief is true .
infact any person with a minimum outknowledge in history would see how greeks(yavanas) central asians(chin) huns etc have adapted full fledged hindu lifestyles during their course of stay in india . some even erected temples and garuda stambhas !! adaoption of hinduism was not unknown in anceitn world and their are no known records of brahmiincal opposition till date .

however when an orthodox hindu says one cannot convert , he also has a basis for what he is saying . there is no formal 'conversion' procedure in hindu sects as in other religions . a person cannot 'convert' himself in a same way as in other religions . thats what they are trying to say !



I'm not talking about who's 'authentic' or not

aha .! that automatically implies 'neo hindus' are as authentic as any other sect . i thought it was a matter of authenticity , from the indications in your posts ! sorry for misunderstanding !!




Again politically correct is you're understanding and Vivekanda's attempt to unite Hinduisms artificially under the adavitic interpretation
artificial attempt ?! can you elaborate on that please . i mean he preached what he felt was best suited at that age . now its upto people and society to accept his words or reject it .
mahaprabhu preached bhaktiyoga as he felt it was best suited to his age . ramanuja preached vishistadvaita according to his feelings . sankaracharya preached his advaita because he thought it to be the best . buddha preached his doctrine because he believed in it . none of them created a new philosophy . they only elaborated upon the existing philosophy and gave it a new life . so was all that an artifical attempt ?!!

how r u saying that vivekanandas attempt was an artificial attempt ?! im eager to know the basis for this conlusion .


. Vaishnavas regard dualistic theism as accurate, islam chritianity are also dulistic theistic. Vaishnavs not just 'GV' regard other vedic gods as sparks of the supreme.

many shaktas and many shaiva sects also beileve in dualistic theism . going that way kali with a blue body and four arms is closer to vishnu than christian god !!


This is a fact of vaishnavism. Is it politically incorrect for me to say this??????


no its not . its factually and polititcally correct when one goes by vaishnav scriptures .

infact saying mohammad and jesus were avatars while aurobindo or vivekananda were imposters is also " politically correct " .

bravo for introducing politics in the land of god !!




What you say is correct what I'm talking about is blind all inclusiveness for the sake of being all inclusive, without reference to any basis and saying this is the Hindu way. A vaishnva and shivate may actually think each other are wrong or an advaitc interpretation is worng etc, but if I say the Hindu way is that they are all correct without any basis it can be dismisive in a politically correct way of valid disagreements.


what gives you the idea that it is without basis ?!

i thingk being born as humans the first basis is application of logic and reasoning . not applying the same would amount to non-untilisation of faculties given by god . shastra says 'vichaara' and 'viveka' -- discrimination .

its palinly visible by pure logic that there cannot be two gods. if two persons are pursuing two relgions their destinations must be the same . as god cannot be two . duality is always imperfect and hence not god . its only that their understanding of god and the means to reach it is different .

there are innumerable basis of this theory in shastras.........the vedic ones...........not some concocted smriti or 18th century upanishad !!


It may be the case that certain paths are meant for certain people and there can be valid differences of opinions,
there can be no 'may' in it . either it is fact or it is not . if it is not , you are advocating a dual or multiple god system . think yourself and judge wisely .


but there may also be actually wrong understanding of something and a right understanding of something blind acceptance of all paths can be naive at best and dangerous at worst (e.g someone claims they are god through some siddhis people are misled).

yes to this i agree .. thats why shastras repetedly declare us to be carefull .


humble pranaams prabhu . dont take offence for my arguments . all done in healthy spirit . radhe radhe .

keshava
08 March 2010, 02:19 AM
i thought we were talking about the thing called 'hindu religion' and the its true name as you were suggesting--namely sanantana dharma .
and then you give me this qoute of moral ethics that has nothing to do with relgion .

........??!!!?........


If you look at my post all I was saying is at least terms are in scripture and have some meaning and are self defined unlike the word 'Hinudism'. Yes you right its not a term that says this is how the religion is defined.




Quote:
Please re-read context. I'm sure GV come's into your mind for many things.
I'm talking about things with absolutely no reference from anything vedic.
tell me what is vedic . if you are supposed to go by vedas(the main four vedas , the principal upanishads and some sutras) then you would land yourself in a largely unknow alien religion . is puja vedic ? are bija mantras vedic ? are yantras vedic ? are kirtans vedic ? the answer to all of these and many others are a big no . they are not from 'vedic' shastras . they are from veda-dharmi shastras . in other words shastras that accept the hierarchial superiority of vedas .


Whatever - i'm talking about things with no references to veda purana ithasa we can argue what consititues veda but its besides the original point.






i see . here i both agree with you and the others . i have no problems in non-hindus adapting to hindu way of life . i personally feel that they are no less hindu than an indian if their belief is true .
infact any person with a minimum outknowledge in history would see how greeks(yavanas) central asians(chin) huns etc have adapted full fledged hindu lifestyles during their course of stay in india . some even erected temples and garuda stambhas !! adaoption of hinduism was not unknown in anceitn world and their are no known records of brahmiincal opposition till date .

however when an orthodox hindu says one cannot convert , he also has a basis for what he is saying . there is no formal 'conversion' procedure in hindu sects as in other religions . a person cannot 'convert' himself in a same way as in other religions . thats what they are trying to say !


I agree however I've seen Hindu's not sure if they are 'orthodox' or not saying that one should absolutely not convert to hinduism maybe its a misunderstanding of the statement or something.





Quote:
I'm not talking about who's 'authentic' or not
aha .! that automatically implies 'neo hindus' are as authentic as any other sect . i thought it was a matter of authenticity , from the indications in your posts ! sorry for misunderstanding !!


I'm not sure why you're taking one sentance out of three and twisting what I said - im tired of this. I'm talking about neo hindus not referenceing anything from any scripture and claiming its hinduism.





artificial attempt ?! can you elaborate on that please . i mean he preached what he felt was best suited at that age . now its upto people and society to accept his words or reject it .
mahaprabhu preached bhaktiyoga as he felt it was best suited to his age . ramanuja preached vishistadvaita according to his feelings . sankaracharya preached his advaita because he thought it to be the best . buddha preached his doctrine because he believed in it . none of them created a new philosophy . they only elaborated upon the existing philosophy and gave it a new life . so was all that an artifical attempt ?!!





how r u saying that vivekanandas attempt was an artificial attempt ?! im eager to know the basis for this conlusion .

Artificially representing Hinduism as advaita rather than school of thought within hinduism.



many shaktas and many shaiva sects also beileve in dualistic theism . going that way kali with a blue body and four arms is closer to vishnu than christian god !!


If the color of the godess's skin is what makes something closer to Vishnu then it would be but it comes down to interpretation from the scriptures about the hierachy of gods.



Quote:
This is a fact of vaishnavism. Is it politically incorrect for me to say this??????
no its not . its factually and polititcally correct when one goes by vaishnav scriptures .

infact saying mohammad and jesus were avatars while aurobindo or vivekananda were imposters is also " politically correct " .

bravo for introducing politics in the land of god !!


Bravo to you to - I dont understand what you're saying - Sankaracrya is also regarded as an empowered incarnation - whats your point?

You also made the bold claim that ISKCON officially says Vivekanada is the incarnation of adharma. I'm yet to see you're evidence of this.

Either there is evidence or you're speaking from heresay, or its an outright lie for some reason.

Sure his philosophy is'nt highly regared but this seems OTT I dont think anyone would go out of the way to make this offical claim.


Quote:
What you say is correct what I'm talking about is blind all inclusiveness for the sake of being all inclusive, without reference to any basis and saying this is the Hindu way. A vaishnva and shivate may actually think each other are wrong or an advaitc interpretation is worng etc, but if I say the Hindu way is that they are all correct without any basis it can be dismisive in a politically correct way of valid disagreements.
what gives you the idea that it is without basis ?!

i thingk being born as humans the first basis is application of logic and reasoning . not applying the same would amount to non-untilisation of faculties given by god . shastra says 'vichaara' and 'viveka' -- discrimination .




I'm saying if someone says it with an advaitic basis then its fine but if its done with out a basis just for saying this is what hinduism is then its misrepresentive of the traditions seen to be in hinduism, therefore the traditions who dont identify with this have the right not to be fully identified with such a definition of Hinduism.



its palinly visible by pure logic that there cannot be two gods. if two persons are pursuing two relgions their destinations must be the same . as god cannot be two . duality is always imperfect and hence not god . its only that their understanding of god and the means to reach it is different .



Logic as a prime means is defective to understand the absolute truth who is beyond the mind, it also depends on the premise you start on. Therefore logic is based on scritural premise, not the other way round.

According to the gita
Such material gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of celestial controllers go to celestial controllers, but My devotees certainly come to Me. (7.23)




Quote:
It may be the case that certain paths are meant for certain people and there can be valid differences of opinions,
there can be no 'may' in it . either it is fact or it is not . if it is not , you are advocating a dual or multiple god system . think yourself and judge wisely .


According to Bhagvad gita there are multiple gods who give temporary and different results. This is according to a straight reading of the gita according to vaishnva tradition - I'm sure an advaitic interpretation will try and explain this away.

please see bhagvad gita 7.21-7.23.


Hare Krishna prabhu - no offence taken, please don't take offence at my response either (-:

sambya
08 March 2010, 04:21 AM
Artificially representing Hinduism as advaita rather than school of thought within hinduism.

thats is'nt an answer to my question . the question was --why is vivekananda's interpretation of hinduism( in which adaita was stressed) an artificial effort ?

in fact previous important reformist figures within hinduism( like shankrachaarya and chaitanya) had also done the similar thing . they interpreted eveything from vedas to goal of life as per their own philosophies without mentioning that their interpretation is just one of the many subsects . vivekananda also did the same thing . he explained hinduism in his own philosophy . so what the difference and where's the irregularity or artificiality , as u put it ?

if you say vivekanada did not specify that advaita was a subsect then i would say chaitanya did'nt even agree that advaitist were any valid sect atall !! at least vivekananda agreed the importance and feasability of dvaita philosophies .

hope u get my question now ..






If the color of the godess's skin is what makes something closer to Vishnu then it would be but it comes down to interpretation from the scriptures about the hierachy of gods.
which scriptures elaborate the heirarchy of gods beyond doubt ? i would like to know a undisputed sciprture of vedic origin .. not somthing like gopala tapani upanishad !

during my long search i have not yet come across any universally accepted scripture that conclusively depicts the heirarchy of gods.



You also made the bold claim that ISKCON officially says Vivekanada is the incarnation of adharma. I'm yet to see you're evidence of this.

Either there is evidence or you're speaking from heresay, or its an outright lie for some reason.it was spoken to me by a iskcon saffron brahmachaari who's native place is canada and he said it when he was touring india . the story goes like this . its really funny --enjoy.......

when nityananda(as far as i can remember ) was ageing kali and adharma came to him an said " o lord , now that u have saved the entire world with your magnamoius holy name , what job do we have hear . everyone's chanting lords name " . to this he replied back " dont worry , within a short time you shall be reborn as two imposters to misguide the men .

they were rmakrishna and vivekananda !!



hahahaha lol .............. this is more funny that tom and jerry series !!


well i cant prove this one ....coz it was an oral story .


but if you doubt i can provide u with numerous derogatory remarks from GV acharyas about evryone , begining with gandhi , rabindranath , ramakrishna aurobindo , sree maa , vivekanada , sister nivedita , radhakrishnan etc etc etc ................the list goes on .




I'm saying if someone says it with an advaitic basis then its fine but if its done with out a basis just for saying this is what hinduism is then its misrepresentive of the traditions seen to be in hinduism, therefore the traditions who dont identify with this have the right not to be fully identified with such a definition of Hinduism.till date all of the acharyas that i have read or met have drawn this conclusion on basis of advaitic interpretations and logic .

can you show me someone who didnt ?!


Logic as a prime means is defective to understand the absolute truth who is beyond the mind, it also depends on the premise you start on. Therefore logic is based on scritural premise, not the other way round.
says who ? how can even the process of understanding begin without logic ??!! you understand because u apply logic . without logic our existence would be meaningless . you exist because of logic .

can a man 'understand' without having first applied logic ?!!!!!!
what comes first? logic or understanding ? its logic first and then understanding .


so can one reach god with pure logic(the neti neti marg) ? the answer is yes , if his aim is to reach god . if he wants to disprove god then he can never reach god .
but this application of logic must be a positive one . apply logic to discriminate betwen good and bad , temporal and permanent . thisa pplication must be there .

do u know that shastras advise each shishya to test his guru in an out before surrenduring to him ? if he says "oh . logic is imperfect so let me first surrendur and get initiated and then think about it " . can this lead him to anything ?!

this is rate one idiocy . but if your logic takes you away from god then that logic must be discarded --sat asat vichaara .
its impossible to know the supreme in totality .but how can anyone 'know' anything without logic . even when you want to accept words of shastra you need logic .

so what comes first according to u , logic or blind acceptance of shastras ?


According to the gita
Such material gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of celestial controllers go to celestial controllers, but My devotees certainly come to Me. (7.23)

i have another beautifull explanation for this sloka which i shall explain later , after you have provided me with the answers .

keshava
08 March 2010, 05:02 AM
Dandvats






Quote:
how r u saying that vivekanandas attempt was an artificial attempt ?! im eager to know the basis for this conlusion .


Originally Posted by keshava http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=41003#post41003)
Artificially representing Hinduism as advaita rather than school of thought within hinduism.


thats is'nt an answer to my question . the question was --why is vivekananda's interpretation of hinduism( in which adaita was stressed) an artificial effort ?

in fact previous important reformist figures within hinduism( like shankrachaarya and chaitanya) had also done the similar thing . they interpreted eveything from vedas to goal of life as per their own philosophies without mentioning that their interpretation is just one of the many subsects . vivekananda also did the same thing . he explained hinduism in his own philosophy . so what the difference and where's the irregularity or artificiality , as u put it ?

if you say vivekanada did not specify that advaita was a subsect then i would say chaitanya did'nt even agree that advaitist were any valid sect atall !! at least vivekananda agreed the importance and feasability of dvaita philosophies .



Chaitanya, ramunja etc were not trying to represent Hinduism, vivekanada was. Does Hinduism = advaita?



hope u get my question now ..

Hope you get my answer now.





which scriptures elaborate the heirarchy of gods beyond doubt ? i would like to know a undisputed sciprture of vedic origin .. not somthing like gopala tapani upanishad !

during my long search i have not yet come across any universally accepted scripture that conclusively depicts the heirarchy of gods.


As I quoted gita Krishna talks about about different gods and their frutis being tempoaray and limited. I'm sure you have a beutiful advaitic interpretation of it. However i'm not talking about adavata. The point being other schools of thoughts believe there are hierachys, who belong to '"Hinduism" are you saying adviata is Hinduism? or no hierachy is Huinduism?




it was spoken to me by a iskcon saffron brahmachaari who's native place is canada and he said it when he was touring india . the story goes like this . its really funny --enjoy.......

when nityananda(as far as i can remember ) was ageing kali and adharma came to him an said " o lord , now that u have saved the entire world with your magnamoius holy name , what job do we have hear . everyone's chanting lords name " . to this he replied back " dont worry , within a short time you shall be reborn as two imposters to misguide the men .

they were rmakrishna and vivekananda !!



hahahaha lol .............. this is more funny that tom and jerry series !!


well i cant prove this one ....coz it was an oral story .


but if you doubt i can provide u with numerous derogatory remarks from GV acharyas about evryone , begining with gandhi , rabindranath , ramakrishna aurobindo , sree maa , vivekanada , sister nivedita , radhakrishnan etc etc etc ................the list goes on .




So what you claimed was the "official iskcon" viewpoint was you're chat with someoneone in saffron of what seems like a he was telling a joke. So its heresay and misrepresentation at best. I'm sure there are negative statments about them but this one was false.




till date all of the acharyas that i have read or met have drawn this conclusion on basis of advaitic interpretations and logic .

can you show me someone who didnt ?!


This conversation is baffling me. Yes advaita is one interpretation not all of Hinduism, or am i missing something here?



Quote:
Logic as a prime means is defective to understand the absolute truth who is beyond the mind, it also depends on the premise you start on. Therefore logic is based on scritural premise, not the other way round.

says who ? how can even the process of understanding begin without logic ??!! you understand because u apply logic . without logic our existence would be meaningless . you exist because of logic .

can a man 'understand' without having first applied logic ?!!!!!!
what comes first? logic or understanding ? its logic first and then understanding .

its impossible to know the supreme in totality .but how can anyone 'know' anything without logic . even when you want to accept words of shastra you need logic .

so what comes first according to u , logic or blind acceptance of shastras ?


Where did I say you dont use logic????????





According to the gita
Such material gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of celestial controllers go to celestial controllers, but My devotees certainly come to Me. (7.23)

i have another beautifull explanation for this sloka which i shall explain later , after you have provided me with the answers .


I'm sure you do but your missing the point. The point is that from an advaitic point of view you may not see hierachys etc but from a dvaitic point of view there is. With all due respect you can have a debate/discussion about it somewhere else as I'm not interetsted in going thorugh it on this thread. This more or less seems to confirms that some Hindus view hinduism as advaita. unless I'm missing something here.

sambya
08 March 2010, 06:16 AM
Dandvats

Chaitanya, ramunja etc were not trying to represent Hinduism, vivekanada was. Does Hinduism = advaita?

Hope you get my answer now.

hinduism = advaita ? certainly not .

i think hinduism cannot be difined in mere words ....it has to be believed practised and experienced oneself .


why do you think that vivekananda was 'representing' hinduism while chaitanya ramanyuja shankaracharya etc were not ? merely because he was the one to go to the west and preach ? if going to west and preaching amounts to representing hinduism then what impression did GV acharayas carry there when they preached things like advaita is false , its worse than being atheists etc ? why didnt they just say that advaita is something that they personally dont follow ?

if you say , the GV acharyas went there with the intention of preaching vaishnavism , not hinduism . to this i would reply that vivekananda went there to preach advaita , not hinduism .

secondly didnt chaitanya ramanuja etc preach ?
didnt they advise their audiences exclusively on what they believed themselves ?
vivekanada also advised his audiences on what he beleived .

are preaching tactics of ramanuja and chaitanya not about 'representing hinduism' ?




The point being other schools of thoughts believe there are hierachys, who belong to '"Hinduism" are you saying adviata is Hinduism? or no hierachy is Huinduism?
yes they also believe in hierarchys . tantra thinks kali to be supreme . shaiva siddhanta takes shiva to be supreme . vaishnavas understand vishnu to be supreme and vedic literature think brahman to be supreme .
the hierarchial order varies from sect to sect . do you agree ?



So what you claimed was the "official iskcon" viewpoint was you're chat with someoneone in saffron of what seems like a he was telling a joke. So its heresay and misrepresentation at best. I'm sure there are negative statments about them but this one was false.

no it was not a joke . it was said after a visit to a temple with the pictures of vivekananda and ramakrishna hanging . it might be false . but to think a saffron saying outright false ..........@#??!!
i dont know !!:dunno:



This conversation is baffling me. Yes advaita is one interpretation not all of Hinduism, or am i missing something here?

yes it is but one of the interpretation of hinduism . what i was trying to say is that when a guru proposes that all paths lead to the same goal they base their theory on advaitic principles only . i havent come across someone claiming that all relgion are equal merely with a an intention to unify the subsects .



Where did I say you dont use logic????????
you said application of logic to understand god is foolish when the fact is that we begin our thought process with logic . thought process in itself is but logic .




I'm sure you do but your missing the point. The point is that from an advaitic point of view you may not see hierachys etc but from a dvaitic point of view there is.
yes i agree complete . there is ......but no uniform heirachy . it differs from sect to sect .


With all due respect you can have a debate/discussion about it somewhere else as I'm not interetsted in going thorugh it on this thread.
sorry for bothering you for so long . i wouldnt have done that if i would have found satisfactory answers to my querries . your still free to forward anything that might support your cause.


This more or less seems to confirms that some Hindus view hinduism as advaita. unless I'm missing something here.
probably you are . im not someone who veiws hinduism as advaita......if thats what you r trying to indicate .




i still want to know why vivekananda was the only representator of hinduism(not counting in the later western gurus) and not ramanuja or shankaracharyaa .


:)

keshava
08 March 2010, 07:08 AM
Dadvats Sambya

Quote:
Where did I say you dont use logic????????
you said application of logic to understand god is foolish when the fact is that we begin our thought process with logic . thought process in itself is but logic .


I understand it can be hard undertstanding each other through the medium of a forum, but i find it especially difficult here sometimes.
I get told I said something with out actually having said it.

Where did I say to understand god using logic is "foolish"?
Where did I say you dont use logic?

This is what I said

Logic as a prime means is defective to understand the absolute truth who is beyond the mind

Also by claiming you know "official" things Iskcon says, that are infact inaccurate without any reasonable basis is lazy at best.

Please check you're sources for some credibility. Else dont use 'official'. Else you loose credibility, and shows you argue on rumour and this can be very tedious.

Saying stuff that I'm not actually saying is also very tedious to carry on a discussion with.





i still want to know why vivekananda was the only representator of hinduism(not counting in the later western gurus) and not ramanuja or shankaracharyaa .

Because they didnt claim to speak for hinduism. Many people can represent an aspect of hinduism (sanatan-dharma) , but not many spoke for all of it or tried to give it an universalist identity (adviatic principly).

http://www.belurmath.org/swamivivekananda.htm

Swamiji’s Contributions to Hinduism
1.Identity: It was Swami Vivekananda who gave to Hinduism as a whole a clear-cut identity, a distinct profile. Before Swamiji came Hinduism was a loose confederation of many different sects. Swamiji was the first religious leader to speak about the common bases of Hinduism and the common ground of all sects. He was the first person, as guided by his Master Sri Ramakrishna, to accept all Hindu doctrines and the views of all Hindu philosophers and sects as different aspects of one total view of Reality and way of life known as Hinduism. Speaking about Swamiji’s role in giving Hinduism its distinct identity, Sister Nivedita wrote: “… it may be said that when he began to speak it was of ‘the religious ideas of the Hindus’, but when he ended, Hinduism had been created.”
2.Unification: Before Swamiji came, there was a lot of quarrel and competition among the various sects of Hinduism. Similarly, the protagonists of different systems and schools of philosophy were claiming their views to be the only true and valid ones. By applying Sri Ramakrishna’s doctrine of Harmony (Samanvaya) Swamiji brought about an overall unification of Hinduism on the basis of the principle of unity in diversity. Speaking about Swamiji’s role in this field K M Pannikar, the eminent historian and diplomat, wrote: “This new Shankaracharya may well be claimed to be a unifier of Hindu ideology.”

6.Refurbishing of Hindu Philosophy and Religious Doctrines: Vivekananda did not merely interpret ancient Hindu scriptures and philosophical ideas in terms of modern thought. He also added several illuminating original concepts based on his own transcendental experiences and vision of the future. This, however, needs a detailed study of Hindu philosophy which cannot be attempted here.


"your still free to forward anything that might support your cause."

Im not pleading a case


Hare Krishna

sambya
08 March 2010, 07:33 AM
Where did I say to understand god using logic is "foolish"?
Where did I say you dont use logic?

This is what I said "Logic as a prime means is defective to understand the absolute truth who is beyond the mind "

yes . u didnt use the exact word foolish. but you said that application of logic is far less important than putting your trust on scriptures . and i said that no matter how we try its logic thats comes first .



Also by claiming you know "official" things Iskcon says, that are infact inaccurate without any reasonable basis is lazy at best.

Please check you're sources for some credibility. Else dont use 'official'. Else you loose credibility, and shows you argue on rumour and this can be very tedious.i take back my word official . i thought an iskcon man , specially a saffron man of mayapura(headquarters) would have a little more genuinity in his words . for , in normal circumstances if you want to know about something about an instituion u go and ask a memeber of that instituion . whatever he says is generally the official version -as he is the representor of the institution --and specially when he is a saffron one.

anyways i take back my official word .


i can produce 'official' things too . would you like to see those unpleasant truths ...?? if yes reply me back and i shall give you the official ones .



Because they didnt claim to speak for hinduism. Many people can represent an aspect of hinduism (sanatan-dharma) , but not many spoke for all of it or tried to give it an universalist identity (adviatic principly). for arguments sake lets accept for a moment that he did try to give it an universalist identity . now whats the criminal thing about it(as you posts are indicating) ? at a time when hindus were busy fighting amongst each other and christian missionaries were busy exploiting the situation , and there was noone daring enough to fight for indian relgions , a man got up and took some positve diplomatic moves --- so what the big thing in that ?

he also mentioned about other sects like dvaita etc and accepted their validity .


whereas another man goes to west much later and preaches what he believes and classifies whatever doesnt tally with his thoughts as un authentic and bogus and non-vedic and atheistic .

who's the problem maker amongst them ?

when someone labells anything that is not in accordance to his own philosophy as non-vedic isnt he giving hinduism an exculsive identity . in other words it means only they have got the right meaning of vedas .




Swamiji’s Contributions to Hinduism
1.Identity: It was Swami Vivekananda who gave to Hinduism as a whole a clear-cut identity, a distinct profile. Before Swamiji came Hinduism was a loose confederation of many different sects. Swamiji was the first religious leader to speak about the common bases of Hinduism and the common ground of all sects. He was the first person, as guided by his Master Sri Ramakrishna, to accept all Hindu doctrines and the views of all Hindu philosophers and sects as different aspects of one total view of Reality and way of life known as Hinduism. Speaking about Swamiji’s role in giving Hinduism its distinct identity, Sister Nivedita wrote: “… it may be said that when he began to speak it was of ‘the religious ideas of the Hindus’, but when he ended, Hinduism had been created.”
2.Unification: Before Swamiji came, there was a lot of quarrel and competition among the various sects of Hinduism. Similarly, the protagonists of different systems and schools of philosophy were claiming their views to be the only true and valid ones. By applying Sri Ramakrishna’s doctrine of Harmony (Samanvaya) Swamiji brought about an overall unification of Hinduism on the basis of the principle of unity in diversity. Speaking about Swamiji’s role in this field K M Pannikar, the eminent historian and diplomat, wrote: “This new Shankaracharya may well be claimed to be a unifier of Hindu ideology.”

6.Refurbishing of Hindu Philosophy and Religious Doctrines: Vivekananda did not merely interpret ancient Hindu scriptures and philosophical ideas in terms of modern thought. He also added several illuminating original concepts based on his own transcendental experiences and vision of the future. This, however, needs a detailed study of Hindu philosophy which cannot be attempted here.yes i know all these . i have been through both ramakrishna mission and gaudiya vaishnavism . prabhupada's bhagavatam , as it is and vivekananda's complete works .

keshava
08 March 2010, 08:48 AM
yes . u didnt use the exact word foolish. but you said that application of logic is far less important than putting your trust on scriptures . and i said that no matter how we try its logic thats comes first .

I didnt say its application doesnt come first either.





i take back my word official . i thought an iskcon man , specially a saffron man of mayapura(headquarters) would have a little more genuinity in his words . for , in normal circumstances if you want to know about something about an instituion u go and ask a memeber of that instituion . whatever he says is generally the official version -as he is the representor of the institution --and specially when he is a saffron one.

anyways i take back my official word .


i can produce 'official' things too . would you like to see those unpleasant truths ...?? if yes reply me back and i shall give you the official ones .


Do what ever you like.



for arguments sake lets accept for a moment that he did try to give it an universalist identity . now whats the criminal thing about it(as you posts are indicating) ? at a time when hindus were busy fighting amongst each other and christian missionaries were busy exploiting the situation , and there was noone daring enough to fight for indian relgions , a man got up and took some positve diplomatic moves --- so what the big thing in that ?


I didn't say it was criminal nor implied it. If you look back through my posts rather than trying to read my mind, I said this approach has "its uses but also has it's side effects" post 9. And I talked about these side effects, explaining why people should be free to identify themselves as Hindus when appropriate and identify themselves by thier own tradition when the definition of Hindu is given that you dont agree with.

devotee
08 March 2010, 10:22 AM
Namaste,

No intention to interrupt the on-going discussion but would like to say something regarding Swami Vivekanada, Ramkrishna Paramhansa and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu because there is an effort in this thread to discredit some of the great personalities of Hindus :

1. It is difficult to find even 1 in one thousand Hindus in India who is not proud of Vivekananda & the way he presented Hinduism in America. There have been very few messenger of Hinduism comparable to him. It is very much surprising to see that there is a sect within Hinduism who has an issue with Vivekananda.

Vivekannada did talk of Advaita in the parliament. What did you expect an Advaitin to do ? That is the highest philosophy that Hinduism has to offer whether the ISKCONites agree with this truth or not, it doesn't change the truth. And moreover, if Advaita is not = Hinduism then what were the great Vaishnavas (read ISKCON or like minded people) doing at that time .... why didn't they go that parliament and showed that Hinduism = Vaishnavism ?? Who stopped them ?

2. It is true that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not considered an avatar like Rama and Krishna by majority of Hindus, though he is considered God-realised like Ramkrishna Paramhansa. There are ten Avatars of Vishnu & Hindus consider Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as none of those. Was he the Kalki Avatar which is yet to take place ?

3. Though it is not correct to compare two saints but if forced to do that, majority of Hindus would put Ramkrishna ahead of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. This is because Chaitanya Mahaprabhu realised God only in one form & he remained shackled to that form. Ramkrishna Paramhansa realised God through Hinduism (in the form of mother Goddess Kaali), Christianity and also Islam .... finally he became Self-realised (the ultimate realisation of Truth) by attaining Nirvikalpa Samadhi by breaking the form of Goddess Kaali in his mind (which was the hindrance in his Self-realisation) during meditation through his power of discrimination.

The ISKCON members would certainly take objection to use of the word majority ... but it is the Truth ... if they don't accept it ... it is upto them. I am telling from my knowledge & experience & I can claim to know quite a number of Hindu families in different parts of India who subscribe to this view. There are quite a number of Hindus from India in this forum itself ... I am sure they would agree to above view.

OM

satay
08 March 2010, 11:22 AM
Admin Note

Thread under review.