Hinduism and India's Decline

[suresh]

So lets work towards removing these misunderstandings rather than having misgivings about dharma.

That's the problem, there are too many different versions of Hinduism. So how does one choose the right one, because not all of them can fit into a political ideology that's required to guide a nation's progress?

[Bob G]

Hello Nuno,

My post #8 was a "for instance if" type of question to Suresh - to see if his pov as he saw it would extrapolate to and still apply if the words Hinduism and Mahadeva were swapped in his original sentences. It was not my pov or a definition based on Hinduism.

Om

[Bob G]

Hello Sarabhanga,

You stated:
"brahma is flawless, but brahmA (from the unborn perspective of brahma) is fatally flawed"

Could your meaning above also translate to: Brahman is flawless, but Lord Brahma (from the unborn perspective of Brahman) is fatally flawed?

...If so I do not agree with that school of thought. To me Lord Brahma is doing exactly as Lord Brahma should be doing - perfectly.

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

That's the problem, there are too many different versions of Hinduism. So how does one choose the right one, because not all of them can fit into a political ideology that's required to guide a nation's progress?

Dharma is not about progress of a nation although it is not mutually exclusive. It is about individual choice and orientation. So many different concepts that do exist is not the problem, infect it is healthy for the progress of any society were views are varied and respected. Problem is the lack of dharma and greed of politician that impedes the progress of the nation.

Vedic (Hindu) Dharma goal, is to achieve Moksa, to move from darkness in to light, to transcend the material existence in to spiritual bliss, non of this can be realised without the basic rules, like truthfulness cleanliness purity ahimsa. These are common within all Hindu society.
of course Raj niti is a complex matter but within the Dharma it will always make progress.

Jai Shree Krishna

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Bob,

brahman gives no indication of gender, but implies BOTH neuter and masculine forms.

The neuter brahman NEVER actually appears as brahman ~ with the vocative, nominative and accusative cases ALL being brahma.

And the ONLY appearance of brahman is as the vocative case of the gendered nominative brahmA.

brahma is flawless, but brahmA (from the unborn perspective of brahma) is fatally flawed.

And by presenting brahma only as brahman, and assuming that ajAtivAda is merely a “school of thought” (rather than the uttama satyam of advaitam, which may be expressed as brahma, but not as brahman), advaitam is discarded and only dvaitAdvaitam is possible, and there was never a point at which time began, which denies the ultimate creation event (which is otherwise accepted by science and by the vedAs).

And without knowing brahma, it will always appear that brahmA is unflawed and doing exactly as he should. But those who truly know advaitam understand that brahmA (praised as brahman) is the seed of all mAyA ~ as the son of a barren/virgin woman (which by definition and logic cannot truly exist).

I cannot agree with your school of thought, since it raises nArAyaNa to unborn eternity while dismissing nara as non-existent.

Those who know only the mAyA of jA remain ignorant of the uttama satyam, which is aja sadAshivam.

shAtanam is the destruction (of mAyA), which is sadAshiva, and the satAnakam is the shmashAnam of advaitam, the very possibility of which is discarded merely by ignorance of brahma. And those who have ultimate faith in the virgin birth of mAyA would cast sadAshiva into eternal oblivion.

In the very beginning, brahmA was born, and in the very end brahmA must die; whereas brahma, unborn and eternal, always exists.

[atanu]

Namaste Suresh,

There is no scope for persistent misunderstanding when one has an appropriate guru. And in every case of misunderstanding the most likely culprit is either the lack of a guru or inattention to the words of one’s guru.

gurorvAkyam sadAsatyam satyam ekam parampadam

Namaskar Suresh,

In the above quote is hidden the Sat. Yes, problems are truly traceable to lack of knowledge or due to apparent absence of Guru himself.

But when Guru imparts knowledge whose misunderstandings will go? Misunderstandings of the realist will go or misunderstandings of the so-called 'problem ridden Hindu philosophy and Hindu world' will go? Is it logical to think that the world (which is inert) will get rid of its ignorance?

The realist has his own image of reality but this realist is in real need of knowledge of the reality called Sat --That is perfect and this is perfect.
----------------------

Not seeing perfection is lack of Jnana and this Ajnana cannot be of the Universe, which is inert. Seach for the realist takes one to Jnana and Jnani.

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu and Suresh,

If everyone is lost, then suffering will increase and productive society will fail.

If everyone is found, then pleasure will increase but productive society will fail.

But if everyone is either on the way or at the destination (with nobody lost), then suffering will be minimized, pleasure will be maximized, and productive society will endure ad infinitum.

[Bob G]

Hello Sarabhanga,

Thanks for putting together the reply you posted to me.

"In the very beginning, brahmA was born, and in the very end brahmA must die; whereas brahma, unborn and eternal, always exists"

I think this last sentence of yours was the clearest to me. I'll have to consider the meanings to the rest.

Anyway, I'd like to ask you this: If the Being (and or soul if you will) of Lord Brahma is "fatally flawed" then how about your soul, is it also fatally flawed? And if so how could it ever become purified through the Yogas and Grace to attain enlightenment? Thus if such was the case there would never be any resulting True gurus giving true teachings...for all souls would be condemned and fatally flawed, not unlike the idea of the "Vanity of vanities"!

Further, in my pov there is no dichotomy between "brahma" and "brahmA',
although brahma is transcendent.

Btw., I think Lord Brahma is a far more respectful term for the First and the Last Being that contains all other forms of Beings.

Om

[sarabhanga]

If the Being (and or soul if you will) of Lord Brahma is "fatally flawed" then how about your soul, is it also fatally flawed?

In dvaitam, ALL souls are divided and all such division must pass.

dvaitam was born and dvaitam will die, and only advaitam is unborn and eternal.

And “my soul” (as you have so dualistically regarded it) was forgotten years ago, through the saMskAra of saMnyAsa and the wisdom of vedAnta.

In dvaitavAda there is no yoga and no shiva (grace) and no moksha (liberation from re-birth) ~ all of which is avidyA and mAyA.

And since Isha and brahmA are absolutely synonymous terms, I have not particularly distinguished the Isha as brahmA or the brahmA as Isha. But IshabrahmA could be used if you prefer.

nara = brahma = hara = shiva
IshanArAyaNa = IshabrahmA = Ishahari = IshaviSNu

And adding “lord” to every divine conception gets even more cumbersome when the twin is considered.

Ishau = IshanaranArAyaNau = Ishaharihare

Or perhaps IshAna (lord) could be used; in which case, would the respectful term IshAnanaranArAyaNa improve anyone’s comprehension??

If the discussion was regarding mythology, then “lord” would certainly apply, but when dvaita-vAda and bhakti-mArga lords it over all conversations then a simple discussion of saMskRta grammar and meaning becomes very difficult.

I have stopped using bold type to distinguish saMskRta words (apparently they are already frightening enough in normal type), and now you suggest that IshAna should be used before every reference to brahmA!

[Bob G]

originally posted by Sarabhanga:

"I have stopped using bold type to distinguish saMskRta words (apparently they are already frightening enough in normal type), and now you suggest that IshAna should be used before every reference to brahmA!"

It's not frightening, but the underlined text above is a dubious aside since you have already used it in other posts yet you continue to harp on about it?...so feel free (if you don't already) to do as you will whether using giant type, bold type, colored type, capitals, etc., such doesn't really matter because your state of being is evident regardless of grammer, font, or knowledge.

Om