do different paths of self realization go towards absolute truth?

[hinduism♥krishna]

ुdeleted

[kallol]

That we differ to agree and at the same time looking for the same TRUTH is the sign of different paths. Now how to view these paths. I can view these paths from micro point of view or macro point of view. For us - we are all different and different paths - it is micro observations. For Krishna - people coming from different directions are following the same path of the spirituality enhancement - it is the height we achieve in terms of the status of the mind. People coming from several directions towards a temple on the mountain top ultimately is doing the same thing - achieving the height !!!

The path to TRUTH is enough broad to accommodate different lines of thinking and different observations.

Whatever it is, it has all the three components - Bhakti, Karma and Knowledge. That one talks about what Krishna says is a pointer to his knowledge. That he vouches by Krishna is his devotion. That he is thriving to imbibe the same knowledge in all of us is his karma.

These three are the basic pillars and rest are mostly derivatives out of these.

I am not differing from waht you are saying at all.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Pranams hinduism-krishna. Jai Sri Krishna!

Please note, before this thread degenerates into another HDF free-for-all, that I am taking issue not with your conclusions, but with the soundness of the reasoning by which you arrive at them. Certainly you may feel free to believe in "all gods are one" philosophy, but you should consider the tenuous basis for this viewpoint, especially as you started off stating that you were articulating "sanatana hindu dharma" and/or "hindu vedic dharma."

Hindu dharma is purely vedic dharma . It doesn't relate with any non vedic traditions.
where I said all gods are one. The problem is not in my views. The problem is in your dualistic mind incapable of knowing non duality in duality. I have already stated that supreme bramhan is the reality. Bramhan is manifested in material world including vital gods such as shiva ganesha. There are two types of knowledge.
one is knowledge through satvik mode and other is knowledge free from any three gunas.
The satkic mode knowledge includes seeing the difference between this world and bramhan krishna.
The other knowledge includes bramhan is the only reality. whatever living and non living things appears are situated in undividable bramhan. Their real nature is bramhan alone. Maya plays a role in hiding the real nature of material world as bramhan.
The devotees who are situated in bramha state for them everythin becomes bramhan only. They realises that supreme bramhan lord krishna is present equally everywhere. For those devotees this material world becomes vaikunta itself. They completely know the term " vasudevam sarvam " . For them knowledge of duality between supreme bramhan and material world becomes useless. In bramha bhava state they also don't differ between supreme bramhan and other gods who are servants of lord krishna. In that state there only remains sat chi ananada bhava without any duality.
Supreme bramhan has manifested in trinity gods rudra bramha and vishnu. The real knower of bramhan doesn't indulge in any type of duality.this knowledge is understandable for them who is free from impure dualistic mind.
The great sages are situated in non dual nirguna type of knowledge.
The other satvik mode knowledge can't b granted as supreme knowledge. After realisation of bramhan ,maya along with satvik knowledge responsible for liberation gets merged in bramhan. So satvik knowledge doesn't have any absolute existence though it is responsible for liberation.

The trouble is, you did not quote the veda at all, but only purANa-s. In fact, you did not quote the purANa-s, but only one specific purANa. Even that purANa, you clearly did not read in its entirety, but merely perused for a few quotes that appeared at first glance to support your personal opinion. Even those quotes which you extracted, you took out of context. And then you simply ignored all evidence which contradicted your conclusion, both within that same purANa and from other shAstra-s of greater authority, like bhagavad-gItA.

I didn't read vedas entirety. But I know the goal of vedas and what vedas want to say. Besides I know the summary of vedas told by lord krishna to uddhava in 11th skandha. This is more than enough to know supreme bramhan according to vedas. Vasudeva is the creator knower and goal of vedas.
If lord krishna is clearly stating all paths will reach at me why you are opposing that.
Puranas and gita are the summaries of vedas.vedas intructs according to various gunas ruling on different people. Purans aim is to bring all people to the absolute truth by various paths.I don't differe between gita and purana. I know what gita want to say is same as what puranas want to say. There is no such authentic like thing about puranas. All puranas are branches of vedas. All purans doesn't say anything non vedic truths. Puranas are the summary of vedas.all purans describe about absolute bramhan. The people who are narrow minded and who believes other views are fake say " this is not according to my view so it is fake. That purana is non authentic because it doesn't support my view "
If we accept your authentic concept which is illogical then gita doesn't become higher than purana.
mahabharat is constructed by vyasa muni for low borned such as women and shudra to become interested in spiritual life by stating various stories. And padma purana is purely in satvik mode. It is for people who are situated in satvik guna.so if you say gita part of mahabharata is more authentic than padma purana it doesn't make any sense. Because how the scripture which is for shudras women will be more authentic than padma puran in satvik mode. ?
Besides veda vyasa is the only one creator of vedas puranas gita . Then how one sage will give different truths in different puranas ? I accept that vyasa muni created different paths but didn't create any new truth. He was fixed at bramhan as the ultimate truth in every puranas. That truth is supreme bramhan and various puranas teaches how to attain it. All this duality about puranas and vedas occur in the impure mind of people which are highly influenced by maya. Thers no any part of truth in duality term.

The first point is that there is no such thing as an all-encompasing "Hinduism" which endorses "all paths of sanatana dharma leads to absolute reality." The term "Hinduism" is not even Vedic in origin, and its historical usage encompasses a variety of Vedic and non-Vedic doctrines. Intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge the fact that these are distinct traditions with varying levels of basis in veda, and not equally valid paths as per the authority of the veda

hindu dharma is santana vedic dharma. Because it purely accepts vedas and other puranas, gita etc. All these scriptures are according to veda. So hindu dharma is santana vedic dharma only. The only difference between them is of the name. The name hindu is modern name.all hindu scholars and foreign religion philosophers say ancient name of hindu dharma was sanatana vedic dharma. They have no doubt in it.
Hinduism is nothing but vedic dharma. By saying it is not found in hindu scriptures such as gita puranas doesn't imply that hinduim is different from sanatana dharma.
Eg. The real name of india is bharat.
during the time of british rulers over india britishians change the name bharat as india. nowdays even indians also call india but not bharatians which is it's real name.
similarly
During the time of ruling of non vedic followers muslims muslim began to call followers of vedas as hindus.

Hindu dharma is purely based on vedic dharma.
How did you use the term non vedic even hindu dharma accepts vedas ? Does worship of shiva is non vedic? does worship of ganesha is non vedic ? First know what is vedic and non vedic then post such useless posts.
hindu dharma has 4 branches: vaishnwism saivasim shaktism and smartism. so do yo want to say vaishnavism shaivism smartism shaktism are non vedic? They are according to veda only.
Hindū Dharma or Hinduism (Sanskrit: हिन्दू धर्म, is often referred by its practitioners as Sanātana Dharma, सनातन धर्म; Vaidika Dharma, वैदिक धर्म; or Vedic Tradition) is the spiritual, philosophical, scientific and cultural system that originated in Bharatavarsha (the Indian subcontinent), that is based on the Vedas, and it is created with the creation of vedas. A Hindu, as per definition, is an adherent of the spiritual practices, yoga, philosophies and scriptures of Hindu Dharma suchs as bhagavad gita puranas upanishadas vedas.Hindu is the one who is follower of vedic dharma.

Hinduism is a modern term, but it represents the ancient sanatana vedic dharma.The Hindu tradition consists of several schools of thought. Thus any definition of Hinduism is somewhat arbitrary and requires qualification. One such definition is "the followers of Vaidika Dharma," or those who follow the religious teachings outlined in the Vedas and their corollaries such as puranas, bhagavad gita etc.

The word 'Hindu' has its origin in Sanskrit literature. In the Rigveda, Bharat is referred to as the country of 'Sapta Sindhu', i.e. the country of seven great rivers. The word 'Sindhu' refers to rivers and sea and not merely to the specific river called 'Sindhu'. In Vedic Sanskrit, according to ancient dictionaries, 'sa' was pronounced as 'ha'. Thus 'Sapta Sindhu' was pronounced as 'Hapta Hindu'. This is how the word 'Hindu' came in to being.

Hindus themselves prefer to use the Sanskrit term sanātana dharma for their religious tradition. HINdu dharma is not a religion. It is dharma.Sanātana Dharma means eternal and universal law or principle that governs everyone irrespective of culture, race, religion, belief and practices. These truths regarding the universal principle were divinely revealed to ancient rishis (sages). For many eons they were passed down orally and only later written down, apparently around the start of the Kali Yuga when people's memories began to deteriorate.
The thought of dharma generates deep confidence in the Hindu mind in cosmic justice.

Read shrimad bhagavatam . There is a strory of king bharat. There is mentioned country of bharat king as " sindhu desha ". Its is same as hindu desha . Only difference is it is adulterated word. Muslims call sidhu as hindu . These proves that
The people who live in bharat varsha are sindus ( this name is given according to the geographical position of vedic dharma followers). So in the flow of time vaidik dharma becomes hindu dharma in the time of muslims who ruled over india.
When muslims call hindu dharma they r only tryibfmg to say "dharma of the people who live beyond sindu river is hindu dharma ". This doesn't imply that vedic dharma is different than hinduism.these r only the two different words giving the same meaning.
V hindus call us santana dharmis or followers of vaidik dharma .

Now, by "Hinduism" or "Hindu Vedic dharma," you may have been referring to the conclusions of the veda-s, which do encompass multiple paths but endorse a singular conclusion about the nature of the Absolute - in other words, vedAnta. Well, there have been many great vedAnta scholars over the centuries, all with greater command of shAstra than you or I, and none of them to the best of my knowledge subscribe to "all gods are one" philosophy. The association of panchopAsana doctrine with Adi shankara is controversial, and his writings in gItA bhAShya and brahma-sUtra-bhAShya clearly acknowledge a difference between shrI hari and anya-devatas.

I have already explainined you the types of knowledge. One is through maya( satvik mode)and other is nirguna knlowledge. Satvik knowledge says shri hari is different from vital gods like ganesha shankara. And that supreme knowledge beyond three gunas says lord hari is everywhere and he is equally present everywhere. He is manifested as shiva bramha vishnu. It is his leela. But ignorant person due to influence of maya sees him different from this material world.
Also in uddhava gita shri krishna say " whatever one sees thinks is only maya. Maya has no existence .but it appers as a real thing through subtle body of jeeva " " there is no such thing as duality. Duality is only the effect of maya. Then why to say this thing is something different than that thing"
Great devotees of bramhan lord krishna see everywhere only atmatatva ( sat chit ananda bhava) everywhere and there is not duality at all. There remains only one thing shri krishna, supreme bramhan.
If we see through nirguna dnyana we will come to know that bramha vishnu mahesh are bramhan only.

The authority of the purANa-s is dependent on their not contradicting veda-s. This has been accepted by all vedAnta schools, and thus it is disingenuous to extract a few select verses out of one purANa as being somehow representative of "sanAtana-dharma," what to speak of the broader category of "Hinduism."

I have stated only according to vedas. I have only stated what lord krishna wants to say.
I didn't write my views. I wrote what vedas and puranas want to say.
If you don't want to believe in krishnas words you can.
believe or not. it is true.

Yes, the padma purANa is considered sAttvik, but this has nothing to do with how well preserved it is. Even sAttvik purANa-s have suffered interpolation over the years, and padma purANa is one of the worst in this regard. Unlike the viShNu and bhAgavata purANa-s, which have been commented on and thus are better preserved, the padma purANa has no such distinction

how you are very sure that padma purana is not well preserved ? The narrow minded people and secterian people says " this verse is not according to my philosophy. So this should be wrong.it should be interpolated. "
Padma purana is not interpolated. Many bramhans who are expert in vedas and all puranas have preserved it very well.
Even if we accept ur commentating view we cant say it is interpolated. There is very high chance of interpolation of bhagavat purana. Because bhagavat purana is popular also it is very vast. So it is possible that various dvaita advaita techers interpolated it. Because in india there is always quarrel between views of dvaita advaita acharyas.
You must give me a strong proof not just words in order to disprove that verse.

Apropo to #4, I quoted to you the 255th chapter of the uttara-kANDa which clearly establishes the supremacy of viShNu over shiva and brahmA, and you simply ignored it. Again, you can argue that this is interpolated if you want, but without a universal standard to determine right knowledge (as in, something other than your personal bias), you have no objective basis by which to determine which shlokas are right and which are not

i m not ingnoring that.my basis is according to the two type of knowledge. One is satvik knowledge and other nirguna. Here you should know that nirguna is the highest supreme. Because that is beyond three gunas. That knowledge is itself bramhan without a second.
The person situated in bramha is free from any duality. Because to see duality is the main function of maya. It is useless for him to see differences between gods. Great devotees see supreme equally present everywhere.
" it is not wrong to say vishnu is supreme than shiva.
Also it is not wrong to say vishnu is shiva."
One may see contradiction in this. But it is not like that.
Both are same and true.
People with impure mind with duality thinking cant understand oneness in duality. They say duality of this world is real . But in fact duality has no existence at all.
Vedas also are based on the contradictions theory. Because bramhan cant b described in words. Words may go closer to bramhan only by showing contradictions . Bramhan is beyond duality and non duality. Then how one describe bramhan? Only For this reason vedas take the help of duality and nonduality concepts.

Again, gItA clearly indicates that a different result is obtained by worship of anya-devatas than is obtained by worship of brahman. As you said, these are the supreme brahman's words. Not only does Lord Krishna Himself say this but it is also stated in shruti: anyad evāhuḥ sambhavād anyad āhur asambhavāt iti śuśruma dhīrāṇāṁ ye nas tad vicacakṣire (IshopaniShad 13). There is no way around it, as far as the prasthAna-trayi are concerned: to reach the Supreme, one must worship the Supreme!

yes. We must worship supreme bramhan only. In bhagavad gita lord krishna says about people who have material desires.person who has material desires cant attain the supreme truth. Person who is knower of all pervading nature of bramhan and worshipper of anya main gods like shiva whithout any material desire may not fall down. He will surely make progress and will reach supreme truth as said by lord krishna.

Lord krishna says in 21th chapter 43th verse of 11th canto of bhagavat purana

Supreme bramhan says: The Vedas enjoins me alone in the form of Yadnya, me alone in the form of various deities in Devata Kanda nay whatever is super-imposed on me first and then negated in Dnyana kandas is me alone taking this stand on me as the cause of all causes and the highest reality, the Vedas posit (states) diversity as a mere illusion and then denying it, ultimately becomes quiet. This much is the import of all the Vedas. (43)

In divisions of vedas various upasanas of shiva ganesha etc. are mentioned. By worshiping shiva and one who knowns the nature of all pervading bramhan attains that bramhan. At the end Vedas try to describe bramhan everywhere by neglecting duality and encourage them to concentrate on supreme bramhan. In vedas the spiritual effort to be
made by man is mentioned. In this way the seekers reach supreme bramhan, their Goal through devotion.

But you don't believe what He said in gItA 7.23 and 9.25. Please explain the double standard

i believe in those verses . In chapter 7 lord krishna is saying about those people who are materially inclined and are the worshippers of ordinary deities like indra, vayu etc. Also lord krishna says those verses about person who are not aware of final abode parabramhan but thinks heaven as a final goal.
In Vedas there are described various ways to attain heaven. But people due to ignorance think that only heaven is the truth.
"But the reward of the men of poor wit has an end. Those who worship the deities go to them, My
devotee�s alone come to Me.
"
Such devotees do not know Me; because they do not get over their narrow views and they don't see a parabramhan as a goal. Though
they receive the desired fruit, it is perishable. Why say more! Such worship only leads to
the cycle of birth and death. Their enjoyment of fruit is like the experience in a dream. Even
if we leave this aside, whatever deity he likes to worship, he attains to its region only. But
those who fixes his mind in bramhan attains me.

Even if you are not accepting deities described as ordinary deities
Furter lord krishna says in 9.24
"For I am the enjoyer and the Lord of all sacrifices; but they do not know My true nature and so
fall.
"
Why they fall? Because they dont know my nature as supreme bramhan. This is only reason of falling of worshippers of anya devatas.
Worshipper of vital gods such as shiva ganesha without any desire cant fall. Because they know parabramhans all pervading nature equally present everywhere. Considering anya devata as parabramhan is not the fault. Because purana itself created it just to concentrate on omnipresent parabramhan.
Lord himself says in vibhuti yoga about the places to worship parabramhan. One of them is rudra ( shiva).
About 9.25: actually Worshiping shiva as a manifestation of parabramhan and understanding the nature of bramhan is not the worship of shiva. In reality it is the worship of only bramhan.

How do you know that the 88th chapter of the padma purANa isn't interpolated?

In fact i should ask this que. 88th chapter is not interpolated. U should give me proper proof.
Worshipping other vital gods like shiva or ganesha without any material desire by person will not make him impious. Worshipping shiva as supreme bramhan will not make him impious.
Veda vyasa muni created different puranas describing absolute truth in different ways and describes various paths. Vyasa munis intention was only to encourage people to know all pervading nature of bramhan and to concentrate and purify the mind on the undividable bramhan so they can surely attain that supreme bramhan.

Well, why stop there? Is Krishna not merciful enough to to make sure worshipers of Indra and other devas also reach Him? After all, according to the chapter you quoted, He fought with Indra to remove the pArijAta tree from heaven. And what to speak of Vedic deities, why is He not merciful enough to deliver devotees of non-Vedic gods, like Allah and Jehova? And what about the atheists? Maybe there are atheists who don't believe in Krishna or any God, but still live moral lives. Will Krishna not deliver them also? Why or why not?

the terms hindu krishna or bramhan has nothing to with non vedic religions. According to bhavishya purana Christianity and islam are called as demonic religions. The lord has created these religions to destroy hindu vedic dharma in kaliyuga. Thats why u will find many beliefs in Christianity and islam that are totally against veda. Eg. Hindu Vedas accept worship of idols. But demonic religions are against the worship of idols. In bhavishya purana they are called as mlecchas ( demons followers of non vedic religion). Indra is an ordinary deity. I m not talking about ordinary deities such indra vayu. By Worshipping indra like gods one cant attain supreme goal.
Here i am talking about gods like shiva ganesha.
Shiva is not god. Shiva is called as purusha and shakti is called as prakriti. Lord krishna has divided himself in purusha and prakruti by the help of his maya. Here one should know that bramhan is not actually divided.because bramhan is undividable. Its just an apperance due to maya. Although we see shiva taking three gunas of world but it is not like that. He is always free from trigunas.
And lord ganesha is represented as om ( representation of parabramhan krishna) in veda . Ganesha is nondifferent from lord krishna. Also in names of shri ganesha it is called as " ganadhyakshaya ( ruler of gunas) " .
So what is the real nature of lord ganesha?
Devotee praises lord ganesha in vedic hymns,

1) Shri Ekadanta Gajanana, I also bow to You. In the Present, You are making manifest the
Multiplicity in Unity, yet You are not disturbing the Unity (Advaita = Non-duality).
3)You are called Lambodara (having a big belly) because within You the whole world � both moving and stationary exists and, therefore, You are really the nearest relative of all Beings!
(4) The family-life of the man who gets Your (auspicious) glimpse becomes happy and therefore, the name Wighnaharta is becoming You very aptly.
(5) O Ganaraja! (the king of Ganas), Your face is joy itself. All the four accomplishments of human life are Your face, arms, and Your tooth, which shines, gives light to the luminous bodies (stars,
planets etc).
(6) The Vedas and the Upanishads (which are respectively the �Primary doctrine� and the �Secondary doctrine�, called Poorva-meemansa, and the Uttar-meemansa) are attached with love
to both of Your ears, and all the four kinds of speech, viz, the soundless Para, Pashyanti,
Madhyama, and Waikhari � are standing with folded hands in Your mouth. (They are at your
command).
(7) O, Vinayaka! Your vision is such that by its power, the whole world is seen as Atman and is
divine and gives happiness and contentment.
(8) Your belly is big which is full of joy, there is joy also in the navel; and the girdle around Your
middle, which is called Nagabandha, is enhancing your beauty.
(9) You are wearing the white cloth of Shuddha Sattwa (Pure Piety), and the golden ornaments on Your body are appearing beautiful because of the beauty of Your own body.
(10) Prakriti and Purusha (the Female and the Male Principles) are Your two feet. You have
pressed them down under Your body and seated in the natural easy posture, You are very
graceful in Your completeness.
(11) If even for a moment, we have the fortune to look at You, calamity is not found though we hunt for it. This is because of spade in Your hand, which destroys the bondage of worldly life.
(12) You pull, by your crooked goad, such devotee who is very dear to you, and freeing him from the disaster of wordly life, keep him safe with You.
(13) By giving the sweet 'modaka� which is joy itself, to Your devotee, who is really desireless,
You give him real ecstasy of divine joy.
(14) You are easily established in the smallest object and, therefore, the adjective �Mouse-Rider�is very properly fitting for you.
(15) If we observe carefully, You are neither man nor elephant, thus You are beyond the visible and invisible. Knowing You to be beyond any modification, (Vikara) I worship you as a supreme bramhan only.

Actually, the padma purANa does not agree with you there - it says that the bhAgavata purANa is the best of all purANa-s:

purANeShu tu sarveShu shrImad-bhAgavataM param || uttarak-khANDa 193.3 ||

The same statement about the bhAgavatam's position is found in garuDa purANa 3.1.43-45, garuDa purANa 3.1.64, and bhAgavata purANa 12.13.16-17

i didnt say bhagavta is not imp. For me bhagavat is very essential to attain lord krishna in this kaliyug.
No doubt bhagavat purana is the best of all puranas. It is best because it easily releases one from bondage of material life. What vedas say the same thing bhagavtam says.It completely describes everything starting from material to spirit.

Jai shri hari govinda

regards,[/QUOTE]

[realdemigod]

The path to TRUTH is enough broad to accommodate different lines of thinking and different observations.

Whatever it is, it has all the three components - Bhakti, Karma and Knowledge. That one talks about what Krishna says is a pointer to his knowledge. That he vouches by Krishna is his devotion. That he is thriving to imbibe the same knowledge in all of us is his karma.

These three are the basic pillars and rest are mostly derivatives out of these.

I am not differing from waht you are saying at all.

I think you are confused or I'm. Bhakti is one path, Karma is one and Knowledge is one. All are different according to Bhagavad Gita. That being said one could imbibe all three in his or her path to truth. But individually also these paths will lead to Ultimate Truth if done properly. For example the path of Knowledge is the Knowledge of what is real and unreal - Knowledge of Brahman but not Knowledge about Krsna.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

I'm not sure if an in-depth reply is really worth my time, especially as you have started from an assumption that Advaita is correct, have admitted that you have not studied the shAstras by which you could objectively come to such a conclusion, and are convinced that the only way one could disagree with your conclusion (which is really really putting the carriage before the horse), is to have a "dualistic" mind (whatever that means).

My point was simply that you cannot articulate a single scriptural conclusion applicable to all Hindus, because not all Hindus are Vedic (i.e. Sai Baba, Vivekananda, et. al.) and not all smRitis are truly authentic (i.e. many have been interpolated). Case in point: the quote about Ganesha, Surya, Shiva, and Shakti all being different forms of Krishna - in the 88th chapter of the uttara-khANDa of padma purANa, the subject matter is how satyabhAma got her current birth. It says there that in her previous life, as gunAvati, she was the daughter of a pious brahmin who did worship of the sun and who was killed by a rAkshasa. Then it is mentioned that, being without a protector, she had to do a special vrata that involved serving the devotees of Hari (this is mentioned in the next chapter) and that was how she got the good fortune of being the Lord's wife in her next birth as satyabhAma. The sentiment about Krishna having five forms including Shiva, Ganesha, Surya, Shakti, etc makes no sense in that story, because the story example given had nothing to do with pancopAsana, but rather with the service to the devotees of Hari which is what lead to her upliftment. Even her father was not following panchopAsana, but rather was only doing worship of the sun. Worship of The Lord as the inner controller of the sun is of course, a bona fide Vaishnava meditation as it is taught in the shruti. The sentiment about being reachable through worship of Shiva, Shakti, and Ganesha stands out because of it not really having contextual support, and being contradicted by pramANa-s elsewhere (which I quoted and which you completely ignored).

I have no doubt that you can come up with umpteen more examples from corrupted smRiti-s pointing to worship of anya-devatas as being liberating. My point remains that by only quoting these sources, and ignoring all the other sources that contradict them (i.e. bhagavad-gIta, bhAgavata purANa, viShNu purANa, other parts of the same smRiti-s), you aren't making a convincing case of anything, just picking and choosing what you like.

Anyway, best of luck to you with your sadhana.

regards,

[hinduism♥krishna]

The term hindu is not vedic in origin

The Persians coined it (S is replaced by H in Persian) to refer to those that lived beyond the mighty Sindhu River. There are references in the Zend Avestha and Bem Riyadh to 'Hapta Hindu' (Land of Seven Mighty Rivers). However, the Persians never used the word Hindu to refer to the religion of these people.
Some scholars hold that ancient Indian civilization did have a name of its own, prior to the arrival of Persians. A Sanskrit scholar, Swami Mangal Nathji, had found ancient Hindu writings called Birhannaradi Purana in Hoshiarpur (Punjab)[1] which contained the verse:

"Himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
Hindusthanamiti qyatan hi antaraksha-rayogatah"

The country between Himalayas and Bindu Sarovar (Cape Commorin Sea) is Hindusthan derived by combining the first letter 'Hi' of Himalayas and the last compound letter 'ndu' of the word Bindu.

Other instances are cited in Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the Brihaspati Samhita:


" Aaasindo sindhu paryantham yasyabharatha bhoomikah
Mathrubhuh pithrubhoochaiva sah vai hindurithismrithaah "


A Malayalam (language spoken in the south west region of India comprising mostly Kerala) verse also connote the same meaning and reads as:

"Sapta sindhu muthal sindhu maha samudhram vareyulla bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano
Mathru bhoomiyum pithru bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu"

Both indicate that whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Saptha Sindhu and the Indian Ocean as his motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu.
The real and ancient name of India is referred to as 'Bharatha Varsha'. There are numerous Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other texts as well as common usage within the country and is agreed to by scholars.

Another theory is that it is derived from the Sanskrit word 'Hidi', which means to achieve one's objective, to acquire knowledge, to be progressive and ignore what is obstructive. Therefore, one who follows the spiritual path in order to acquire perfection through divine knowledge is known as 'Hindu'.
I have alrealdy explained the term hindu present in vedas and puranas in my previous post.

Hare krishna govinda !

[hinduism♥krishna]

Pranams,

I'm not sure if an in-depth reply is really worth my time, especially as you have started from an assumption that Advaita is correct, have admitted that you have not studied the shAstras by which you could objectively come to such a conclusion, and are convinced that the only way one could disagree with your conclusion (which is really really putting the carriage before the horse), is to have a "dualistic" mind (whatever that means).

My point was simply that you cannot articulate a single scriptural conclusion applicable to all Hindus, because not all Hindus are Vedic (i.e. Sai Baba, Vivekananda, et. al.) and not all smRitis are truly authentic (i.e. many have been interpolated). Case in point: the quote about Ganesha, Surya, Shiva, and Shakti all being different forms of Krishna - in the 88th chapter of the uttara-khANDa of padma purANa, the subject matter is how satyabhAma got her current birth. It says there that in her previous life, as gunAvati, she was the daughter of a pious brahmin who did worship of the sun and who was killed by a rAkshasa. Then it is mentioned that, being without a protector, she had to do a special vrata that involved serving the devotees of Hari (this is mentioned in the next chapter) and that was how she got the good fortune of being the Lord's wife in her next birth as satyabhAma. The sentiment about Krishna having five forms including Shiva, Ganesha, Surya, Shakti, etc makes no sense in that story, because the story example given had nothing to do with pancopAsana, but rather with the service to the devotees of Hari which is what lead to her upliftment. Even her father was not following panchopAsana, but rather was only doing worship of the sun. Worship of The Lord as the inner controller of the sun is of course, a bona fide Vaishnava meditation as it is taught in the shruti. The sentiment about being reachable through worship of Shiva, Shakti, and Ganesha stands out because of it not really having contextual support, and being contradicted by pramANa-s elsewhere (which I quoted and which you completely ignored).

I have no doubt that you can come up with umpteen more examples from corrupted smRiti-s pointing to worship of anya-devatas as being liberating. My point remains that by only quoting these sources, and ignoring all the other sources that contradict them (i.e. bhagavad-gIta, bhAgavata purANa, viShNu purANa, other parts of the same smRiti-s), you aren't making a convincing case of anything, just picking and choosing what you like.

Anyway, best of luck to you with your sadhana.

regards,

Namaste. Pranam..
I may b wrong. But Can you explain me following verses ?


Kaivalya Upanishad 8 - � He (Brahman) is Brahmaa, he is Siva, he is Indra, He is the imperishable, the supreme majesty, the self-effulgent; He is Vishnu, he is prana, He is time, He is fire, He is the moon.�

Svetasvatara Upanishad IV.17 �The gods are united in Brahman or Iswara, i.e. they are non-different from Brahman or krishna or Iswara�

Regards.

Hari govinda hari hari

[philosoraptor]

Namaste. Pranam..
I may b wrong. But Can you explain me following verses ?


Kaivalya Upanishad 8 - “ He (Brahman) is Brahmaa, he is Siva, he is Indra, He is the imperishable, the supreme majesty, the self-effulgent; He is Vishnu, he is prana, He is time, He is fire, He is the moon.”

Svetasvatara Upanishad IV.17 “The gods are united in Brahman or Iswara, i.e. they are non-different from Brahman or krishna or Iswara”

Regards.

Hari govinda hari hari

Yes, I can explain the mantras which you translated (incorrectly) above, and I can do so in a way that does not require dismissing other mantras which clearly establish the difference between brahman and other jIva-s. Having said that, I'm not sure that any further discussion with you is likely to be productive. "Dualistic mind" here, remember?

I read, review the evidence, and then formulate conclusions. This is how I operate. You formulate conclusions, and then look for evidence to support them, ignoring anything that does not. Again, I just don't see that any discussion with you is likely to be any more productive than discussion with other forum members whose reasoning process you seem to emulate.

regards,

[kallol]

I think you are confused or I'm. Bhakti is one path, Karma is one and Knowledge is one. All are different according to Bhagavad Gita. That being said one could imbibe all three in his or her path to truth. But individually also these paths will lead to Ultimate Truth if done properly. For example the path of Knowledge is the Knowledge of what is real and unreal - Knowledge of Brahman but not Knowledge about Krsna.

Do you have any example to follow who has only Bhakti and no karma and knowledge but still attained the heights of Chaitanya, Ramakrishna, Ramana, Vivekananda, Shankaracharya, etc. Same goes for other two also. If you feel anything different, read their life. They all have different proportion of each of these three - manifestation can always have one as dominant.

Like Chaitanya and Ramakrisha - Bhakti. Do you mean they did not have knowledge or karma ? Vivekananda - Knowledge. Do you mean he did not have any bhakti or knowledge.

There is no pure path. Neither there is moksha without knowledge. Nor any knowledge without karma. Nor karma or knowledge without bhakti.

Very early in my day of spiritual quest, I used to think the same. But more learning has changed my thoughts.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Yes, I can explain the mantras which you translated (incorrectly) above, and I can do so in a way that does not require dismissing other mantras which clearly establish the difference between brahman and other jIva-s.

PRANAM...
I DONT find any explanation from u. u said about my previous verses that they are interpolated. Now you are saying meaning of verses are incorrect. Also you have no any proof that my verses are interpolated or incorrect. You are just defending your views by saying it is interpolated, incorrect.

Having said that, I'm not sure that any further discussion with you is likely to be productive. "Dualistic mind" here, remember?

Sorry for that

I read, review the evidence, and then formulate conclusions. This is how I operate. You formulate conclusions, and then look for evidence to support them, ignoring anything that does not. Again, I just don't see that any discussion with you is likely to be any more productive than discussion with other forum members whose reasoning process you seem to emulate.

IT Doesn't matter when you show evidences before or after? evidences are evidences only. Because they remain Truth in all time.

regards.

shri hari govinda