WHAT'S THE USE OF BEING A HINDU?

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Apparently the origin of the word is also up for debate though. (Not that it matters to me ... it is what it is, I'm detached.) Another member linked this once... http://www.b-i-f.com/hindu.pdf

Aum Namasivaya

[Viraja]

Namaste Viraja



Can we tolerate ASATHYA? I didn't mean HINDUS are epitome of TRUTH and others are not. But being tolerant to evil is not Hinduism at all. So why should we tolerate ?

No... Anirudh ji... I am not taking any sides... I am not suggesting that Hindus should tolerate or even adhere to or practice that are appropriate for other religions/cultures, etc... All I am saying is that the world that we know is always bound to have differences in all forms... So it is only appropriate that we do not close ourselves towards appreciating and celebrating 'all that is one's own' only and have the heart to recognize good things in others too when we get exposed to it.

In the other forum, for example, someone ridiculed 'Thulukka Nachiyar' (the Muslim wife of bhagwan Sri Ranganatha) in that 'her name got changed from whatever it originally was to have a Nachiyar identifier' to suggest as if Vaishnavas are always focused on converting others... For that I replied that it is not the case and perhaps it is our dear Ranganatha alone who is capable of marrying a mleccha (meaning outsider/foreigner) and make her a 'goddess' and also preserve her religious identity intact by calling her 'Thulukka' (muslim) ). Immediately someone else said, my use of 'mleccha' keyword is inappropriate and that what-if someone called me 'Kafir'? So you see, it is only in us Hindus predominantly to think in terms of how others would feel and make everyone feel welcome and treated fairly and equally. I read a little while ago, that the entire Madras presidency was 'given away' by some royals of olden days to the British East India Corporation when they first settled in India. Such is the warm-heartedness and simplicity of our folks. I think such a tendency is more in Hindus than anybody else belonging to other religions.

[Anirudh]

Namaste Viraja ji

What you heard about Madras is true. But that wast an irresponsible act.

There is a saying in Tamil "Patthiram Arindhu Pichai ALi and Gothiram Arindhu Pennai Edu" roughly translate into If you are giving something as alms be sure whom you are giving it to. Likewise when you are you are choosing a bride know her Gothra. I am getting into Varna and Gothra because it is a topic by itself.

So there is no place for tolerance if you are following / practicing / spreading TRUTH.

Also one should remember Epporul Yaar Yaar Vaai Ketpinum Apporul Meiporul Kanpathu Arivu.

So even the truth should be analyzed whether it is Truth or not.

I am also aware that my words doesn't have any flexibility. We can't apply same rule to all situations but our actions should be to establish truth.

No... Anirudh ji... I am not taking any sides... I am not suggesting that Hindus should tolerate or even adhere to or practice that are appropriate for other religions/cultures, etc... All I am saying is that the world that we know is always bound to have differences in all forms... So it is only appropriate that we do not close ourselves towards appreciating and celebrating 'all that is one's own' only and have the heart to recognize good things in others too when we get exposed to it.

In the other forum, for example, someone ridiculed 'Thulukka Nachiyar' (the Muslim wife of bhagwan Sri Ranganatha) in that 'her name got changed from whatever it originally was to have a Nachiyar identifier' to suggest as if Vaishnavas are always focused on converting others... For that I replied that it is not the case and perhaps it is our dear Ranganatha alone who is capable of marrying a mleccha (meaning outsider/foreigner) and make her a 'goddess' and also preserve her religious identity intact by calling her 'Thulukka' (muslim) ). Immediately someone else said, my use of 'mleccha' keyword is inappropriate and that what-if someone called me 'Kafir'? So you see, it is only in us Hindus predominantly to think in terms of how others would feel and make everyone feel welcome and treated fairly and equally. I read a little while ago, that the entire Madras presidency was 'given away' by some royals of olden days to the British East India Corporation when they first settled in India. Such is the warm-heartedness and simplicity of our folks. I think such a tendency is more in Hindus than anybody else belonging to other religions.

[Anirudh]

Namaste Viraja ji

When you find time plz read this thread
http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthr...ery&highlight=

In the other forum, for example, someone ridiculed 'Thulukka Nachiyar' (the Muslim wife of bhagwan Sri Ranganatha) in that 'her name got changed from whatever it originally was to have a Nachiyar identifier' to suggest as if Vaishnavas are always focused on converting others... For that I replied that it is not the case and perhaps it is our dear Ranganatha alone who is capable of marrying a mleccha (meaning outsider/foreigner) and make her a 'goddess' and also preserve her religious identity intact by calling her 'Thulukka' (muslim) ). Immediately someone else said, my use of 'mleccha' keyword is inappropriate and that what-if someone called me 'Kafir'? So you see, it is only in us Hindus predominantly to think in terms of how others would feel and make everyone feel welcome and treated fairly and equally.

[satay]

namaste Anirudh,

Very good question that made me think. Couldn't we say the same for adherents of any religion? For instance, what's the use of being a buddhist or a muslim or a sikh or a christian?

In my view religion doesn't give a man physical security and a better standard of life. That has to be earned. Religion is focused on the development of the spirit/atma and as you have rightly pointed out gives spiritual knowledge. Isn't expecting security and a better standard of living from religion in particular from Hinduism like asking for gold coins from a cow? Cow can only give sweet milk. If you want gold coins, you have to work for it.

Economic prosperity has nothing at all to do with spiritual knowledge. This much should be clear even with a cursory look at the largest economies in the world today. Personally I happen to think that there is nothing wrong with economic prosperity. One can be spiritual grihasta and still drive a BMW! Accumulation of wealth (for taking care of your family) is a duty of every grihasta and one of the pursharthas for a hindu.

Another point that has always bothered me but a separate issue which you have mentioned further down the thread is about detachment. How can one do father's duty properly with detachment? Why not be fully immersed in being the father? Wouldn't that be more genuine and rewarding for both the father and the child?

I know the detachment piece is coming from the Gita but it is misunderstood. The detachment is about the 'result'of an action not the action itself, is my understanding. If one has to perform a duty with detachment essentially meaning without any compassion and commitment then why perform it at all? Did Krishna perform all his duties with detachments? I doubt that. He was fully immersed in the performance. I think that we should perform all of our duties be that being a son, father, brother, uncle, an employee, a bhakta, or whatever else with full committment fully attaching ourselves to the act of doing but detaching ourselves from the results.

Now back to the OP regarding use of being a Hindu, it is my opinion that if one is an adherent of hinduism i.e. when one practices dharma and performs his duty whatever that duty might be, that act of performing is way more meaningful and genuine because it is established in dharma than let's say compared to an act performed outside of dharma.

Just my 2 cents.

Namaste HDF

I have come to a conclusion that Hindu(ism) and India are synonymous.

Every one of us agree that Indians had glorious past but due to several reasons living like tribes (ie after the invasion(s) ).

We are all proud of our spritual knowledge. But has it given all of us security and a better standard of life?

Simply to say, WHAT'S THE USE OF BEING A HINDU?

[Seeker]

Namaste HDF

I have come to a conclusion that Hindu(ism) and India are synonymous.

Every one of us agree that Indians had glorious past but due to several reasons living like tribes (ie after the invasion(s) ).

We are all proud of our spritual knowledge. But has it given all of us security and a better standard of life?

Simply to say, WHAT'S THE USE OF BEING A HINDU?

Namaste Anirudh Ji.

Today I was reading 'complete works of Swami Vivekananda' & I am quoting from that book. May be this will help you. This quote is from vol 4 , chapter titled "My Master".

"I will try to present before you the secret of India, what India means. If those whose eyes have been blinded by the glamour of material things, whose whole dedication of life is to eating and drinking and enjoying, whose ideal of possession is lands and gold, whose ideal of pleasure is that of the senses, whose God is money, and whose goal is a life of ease and comfort in this world and death after that, whose minds never look forward, and who rarely think of anything higher than the sense-objects in the midst of which they live — if such as these go to India, what do they see? Poverty, squalor, superstition, darkness, hideousness everywhere. Why? Because in their minds enlightenment means dress, education, social politeness. Whereas occidental nations have used every effort to improve their material position, India has done differently. There live the only men in the world who, in the whole history of humanity, never went beyond their frontiers to conquer anyone, who never coveted that which belonged to anyone else, whose only fault was that their lands were so fertile, and they accumulated wealth by the hard labour of their hands, and so tempted other nations to come and despoil them. They are contented to be despoiled, and to be called barbarians; and in return they want to send to this world visions of the Supreme, to lay bare for the world the secrets of human nature, to rend the veil that conceals the real man, because they know the dream, because they know that behind this materialism lives the real, divine nature of man which no sin can tarnish, no crime can spoil, no lust can taint, which fire cannot burn, nor water wet, which heat cannot dry nor death kill. And to them this true nature of man is as real as is any material object to the senses of an Occidental."

[Believer]

Namaste,

I just happened to come across this.....

Did Krishna perform all his duties with detachments? I doubt that.

Bhagwan has no duties; whatever He does is called His Leela. His doings are not out of any compulsions or motives or desired results for mortals. His appearance in the bodily form has only one motive - to remove Adharma.

Another question and a more important one at personal level - is it proper/advisable for us humans to evaluate Bhagwan's Leela? Have we become smarter than Bhagwan Himself?

Pranam.

[Indialover]

Namaste Believer

You may evaluate Bhagavan, because Bhagavan is beyond evaluation, beyond good and bad, right and wrong.

You even may hate Him - Abrahamic religions would call it blasphemy - Vedic lore calls ist Virodha Bhakti.

Thus, whatever you do, you are His bhakta, whatever you do is right - that is the greatness of Vedic thoughts.

Pranam

[Anirudh]

Namaste Satay,

Apologies for delay....ed reply.

The detachment is about the 'result'of an action not the action itself, is my understanding. If one has to perform a duty with detachment essentially meaning without any compassion and commitment then why perform it at all? Did Krishna perform all his duties with detachments? I doubt that. He was fully immersed in the performance. I think that we should perform all of our duties be that being a son, father, brother, uncle, an employee, a bhakta, or whatever else with full committment fully attaching ourselves to the act of doing but detaching ourselves from the results.

I might have of misunderstood Srimad Bhagavad Gita, but my understanding on the point is :

The moment I start associate myself with the act, I am burdened. That leads to misery. This comes out practice. I haven't mastered that art, but, whenever I practiced, felt peace. Upon hearing and reading many of the discourses by eminent Sri Vaishnava practitioners found that the underlying principle is I am suppose to develop an unflinching faith on Sriman Naaraayan. If we keep 'Unflinching faith on Sriman Naaraayan' as our base, we can execute our actions with a attached detached mindset.

I am unable to explain further. I assume watching this advertisement (i am not promoting this product) with a philosophical mindset might help. If readers find it offensive in this part of the post, I ll remove the link.

[devotee]

Dear Anirudh,

The detachment is about the 'result'of an action not the action itself, is my understanding. If one has to perform a duty with detachment essentially meaning without any compassion and commitment then why perform it at all? Did Krishna perform all his duties with detachments? I doubt that. He was fully immersed in the performance. I think that we should perform all of our duties be that being a son, father, brother, uncle, an employee, a bhakta, or whatever else with full committment fully attaching ourselves to the act of doing but detaching ourselves from the results.

The understanding of Satay is correct, imho.

OM