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 .
........??!!!?........
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 .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.
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 .Just general statements like 'Hindus can't convert'.
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 !
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 talking about who's 'authentic' or not
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 .Again politically correct is you're understanding and Vivekanda's attempt to unite Hinduisms artificially under the adavitic interpretation
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 .
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 !!. 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.
no its not . its factually and polititcally correct when one goes by vaishnav scriptures .This is a fact of vaishnavism. Is it politically incorrect for me to say this??????
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 gives you the idea that it is without basis ?!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.
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 !!
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 .It may be the case that certain paths are meant for certain people and there can be valid differences of opinions,
yes to this i agree .. thats why shastras repetedly declare us to be carefull .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).
humble pranaams prabhu . dont take offence for my arguments . all done in healthy spirit . radhe radhe .
Bookmarks