Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Traditional Hindu

  1. #41
    Join Date
    October 2009
    Age
    38
    Posts
    374
    Rep Power
    97

    Re: Traditional Hindu

    Quote Originally Posted by keshava View Post

    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 .

  2. #42

    Re: Traditional Hindu

    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 (-:
    Last edited by keshava; 08 March 2010 at 02:31 AM.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    October 2009
    Age
    38
    Posts
    374
    Rep Power
    97

    Re: Traditional Hindu

    Quote Originally Posted by keshava View Post
    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 .
    Last edited by sambya; 08 March 2010 at 04:34 AM.

  4. #44

    Re: Traditional Hindu

    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
    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.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    October 2009
    Age
    38
    Posts
    374
    Rep Power
    97

    Re: Traditional Hindu

    Quote Originally Posted by keshava View Post
    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 !!


    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 .



  6. #46

    Re: Traditional Hindu

    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

  7. #47
    Join Date
    October 2009
    Age
    38
    Posts
    374
    Rep Power
    97

    Re: Traditional Hindu

    Quote Originally Posted by keshava View Post
    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 .

  8. #48

    Re: Traditional Hindu

    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.




  9. #49
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Traditional Hindu

    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
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  10. #50
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Re: Traditional Hindu

    Admin Note

    Thread under review.
    satay

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •