Who Is A Hindu

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Really? Please read about what "Shri Ramakrishna's religion" is about. Apparently he experimented with all different philosophies, sects and cults -- INCLUDING Christianity and Islam (which you so hate) -- and declared that they were all equally valid.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa did not follow Islam or Christianity to the core. He did nto wage jihads, nor did he believe that mohammed was the only true messenger of God, or that Jesus was the only begotten son of God who alone was the path to salvation. Thus taking his words to heart LITERALLY does not do good to the discussion.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To give another example, Vivekananda, who resurrected Shankara's Advaita as the last word, actually says in one place that Buddhism represents the epitome of Hindu thought!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no problems with most of Buddha's teachings. It is Buddhist philosophy of absolute nihilism which is countered on logical ground.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If you are attracted by Swami Vivekananda's nationalist rhetoric, his preoccupation with religious demographics and his offensive and sad blasphemy of Prophet Muhammad (while his guru endorsed the same person!), then so be it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Paramahamsa was too loving and kind to see filth in anything. He even saw prostitutes as the Divine Mother. What more to say of such a great soul?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In any religion, there will be the ass-like, and the swan-like, and you can judge for yourself which category you and your idols belong to.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I object to such words. Can you please rephrase it.

[gangajal]

Sundar ji,
Excellent!

[Guest]

Wow. Looks like there's been a bunch of posts since I last visited. I haven't actually read through all of them, but let me quickly reply one last time to a couple of points I caught while scanning through.

<b>Sunder</b>,
I won't be able to spend time actually rebutting every theological argument about advaita on this BB. The thread was about academic and popular misrepresentations about 'Hinduism', and that's all I wanted to highlight.

But suffice to say that in every Upanishad or other scripture you mention, there is plenty of evidence to point to something MORE than Brahman. Note that the Vaishnavas do NOT deny the existence of Brahman, and in fact Brahman-realization is a preliminary stage to full svarupa-siddhi. This realization is supported by great mystics outisde of India also, such as Jalaluddin Rumi, etc. And to give you just one example of mischievous mayavad misquotations, the verse 7:24 in the Gita, which mayavadis like to translate as "fools think I have assumed a personal form whereas I am actually unmanifested..." can also be translated exactly the opposite to read "fools think that I am only unmanifest...". Depends on whether you decide that "apannam" modifies "avyaktam", or "vyaktim". Besides, there are innumerable quotes in the Gita, taken coherently, that support the Vaishnav position. The Vaishnav position is INCLUSIVE of Brahman, whereas the mayavad position is in denial of anything further. Mayavad quotes are always selective (just like the p-secs selectively quotes the vipraah quote), and convoluted in interpretation. Occam's razor should be enough to cut down most mayavadi arguments, but the tarka-shastra injunctions against vitanda and jalpa rather than vaad completely seal the fate of the mayavadis.

Anyways, all this has been conclusively proved and debated in public by great acharyas and scholars over the centuries, and one nationalist, sectarian Vivekananda coming out and preaching to largely clueless Hindu masses does not change that. The literature is there, go read it without prejudice. The Vaishnav literature is comprehensive, and debates openly. The mayavad literature is selective and polemical.

Also, watch what you call "sectarian". As you've seen, the Vivekananda types are more active in spouting ethnic chaivinism, interfaith polemic and other sorts of political rhetoric. This guy "bharatvarsh" doesn't even seem to have much respect for the bona fides of a guru-shishya parampara!

Anyways, just thought I'd make a point on this forum. Ramana ji on BRF pointed me here. Hari bol.

[Guest]

Carl, I still dont understand how your approach addresses the academinc and popular misrepresentations and for who ? Wouldnt it make sense to expand the definition and coverage of hinduism rather then each sect (vaishnavism, shaivism, shaktism etc) coming out with its own defense of their coverage ? What is to be achieved with such silo constructions and how does it help ?

[Sunder]

Carl, I respect your adherence and staunch faith to Vaishnava teachings. But 'blind' faith is just that.. It is blind. You speak the right jargons, your intent too seems to be good - i.e. trying to reach the Truth. But again, owing to force of habit, and limiting yourself to just one sect, you decry every other thought - thus like christians, you are unwilling to accept any other thought than that you already have. I do not ask acceptance based on faith. I ask logic and reasoning to prove your conviction. Iskcon indeed is doing some good things, but is it really doing good in the long run? Your karma vasana has led you to the mindset you are in now. Perhaps with more practise, you will some day see beyond the screen of maya. (Daivi hyeshaa guna-mayee mama maaya duratyayaa | maameva ye prapadyante maayaam etaam taranti te || (Geetha 7.14)') The maya is quite strong now, and with His grace you will see thru it.

The thread was about academic and popular misrepresentations about 'Hinduism', and that's all I wanted to highlight.

Yes, I agree. Academic side we are aware of. ISKCON sadly is one of the popular misrepresentation of Sanathana Dharma. Superficially, it seems good. But the teachings are quite asynchronous to traditional Vedic Teachings and the spirit of Dharma.

But suffice to say that in every Upanishad or other scripture you mention, there is plenty of evidence to point to something MORE than Brahman.

Name ONE teaching that says Brahman is inferior to name and form. Name ONE that says Brahman is not the final. You say - EVERY upanishad. Name one among the major 10 that says so.

Note that the Vaishnavas do NOT deny the existence of Brahman, and in fact Brahman-realization is a preliminary stage to full svarupa-siddhi.

Svaroopa Siddhi is superior to Nirvikalpa siddhi? Interesting. It is akin to saying that Ph.D training is only the preliminary stage to attaining high-school graduation. You are putting the cart before the horse. Upanishads declare that anything that has name of form is limited (Bhauma Vidya of "Naradha Sanathkumara Samvadham" - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 7th chapter.) Brahman neither has form, nor is formless. It is beyond all such duality. Or not even that.

This realization is supported by great mystics outisde of India also, such as Jalaluddin Rumi, etc.

As if the ancient ancestors were not enough, I now have to resort to Jalaluddin Rumi to endorse svaroopa. Rumi is not known as a final authority on Siddhi and Siddha. Ramana Maharshi on the other hand is quite known for his Direct Realization & people who had known him had experienced the 'I-I'.

And to give you just one example of mischievous mayavad misquotations, the verse 7:24 in the Gita, which mayavadis like to translate as "fools think I have assumed a personal form whereas I am actually unmanifested..." can also be translated exactly the opposite to read "fools think that I am only unmanifest...".

Param Bhaavam, Aja:, Anantha, Bootha Maheshwara. These are terms The Lord uses in the second line of the same shloka. I am sure you can translate this exactly into any tangent you wish to. That does not make it the right translation.

Besides, there are innumerable quotes in the Gita, taken coherently, that support the Vaishnav position.

Yes, but not vaishnava position alone. I ALSO supports vaishnava position. Vaishnavas are dependent on the Gita, the Gita is not dependent on the Vaishnavas.

The Vaishnav position is INCLUSIVE of Brahman, whereas the mayavad position is in denial of anything further.

Your mention of "inclusive" assumes that there are multiple simultaneous entities coexisting of their own volition. "Brahmaiva Satyam" does not support this stance, as it is not "Brahma api cha Satyam". The Vedic statements "by knowing which everything else is known" also signifies a common substratum. Iskcon is mighty confused about this, and is not quite the effective (or even right) representative of Sanathana Dharma. Iskcon is at best another abberration of the myriad other minor interpretations that exist.

Mayavad quotes are always selective, and convoluted in interpretation.

Convoluted only to a confused mind. To a mind pure and clear, there are no convolutions or contradictions. Ofcourse, a child of three will wonder how E can be MC2. E can only mean "Elephant" or "Engine". It takes some more learning on your part to understand Advaita.

Occam's razor should be enough to cut down most mayavadi arguments, but the tarka-shastra injunctions against vitanda and jalpa rather than vaad completely seal the fate of the mayavadis.

The Jargon is right. You are quite aware of the components of Nyaya. I am surprised then why you are unable to see thru the real nature of existence?

The literature is there, go read it without prejudice. The Vaishnav literature is comprehensive, and debates openly. The mayavad literature is selective and polemical.

You assume I have not read. I have read, and without prejudice Upanishads, Smrithis, Gita, Brahmasutra and ofcourse and Advaita texts like Panchadasi. I have also tried to read thru the Iskcon <b>moorkhavaadha</b> but could not bear to sit thru the bile and hate Iskcon has. (I am yet to read Sri Bhashyam, but I do not know when So you have a point there. But I ask you to read just ONE text. The Mandukya Upanishad - the King among Upanishads.. Can you post your understanding of it?)

Also, watch what you call "sectarian".

I do watch. I deliberate, and then I call it sectarian. Iskcon for example is one.

As you've seen, the Vivekananda types are more active in spouting ethnic chaivinism, interfaith polemic and other sorts of political rhetoric. This guy "bharatvarsh" doesn't even seem to have much respect for the bona fides of a guru-shishya parampara!

Anyways, just thought I'd make a point on this forum. Ramana ji on BRF pointed me here. Hari bol.

Welcome to the forum, we would be glad to hear your views that STRENGTHENS the discussion. You may want to treat members with respect instead of name-calling. We do like your motives, and hopefully we play on the same team on finding commonalities rather than dissecting every finger and toenail to see which part of my body is really my body. Hinduism is a full whole unit. So stop dissecting on who is a REAL hindu, and who should be the pope of Hindus. I would like to see posts on how to attain Swaroopya siddhi.

[gangajal]

<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+May 13 2005, 01:58 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ May 13 2005, 01:58 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Carl, I still dont understand how your approach addresses the academinc and popular misrepresentations and for who ? Wouldnt it make sense to expand the definition and coverage of hinduism rather then each sect (vaishnavism, shaivism, shaktism etc) coming out with its own defense of their coverage ? What is to be achieved with such silo constructions and how does it help ? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rajesh,
You are absolutely correct. Vaishnavas and anyone else who feel that the popular Hindu representation is too much Advaita-oriented should educate the public about their points of view instead of Vivekananda and Advaita bashing.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+May 13 2005, 01:58 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ May 13 2005, 01:58 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wouldnt it make sense to expand the definition and coverage of hinduism rather then each sect (vaishnavism, shaivism, shaktism etc) coming out with its own defense of their coverage ? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>rajesh_g</b>,
EXACTLY my point. That way, it preserves the 'social capital' that 'Hinduism' has as a cultural body, especially at a time of well-funded and manipulative external cultural aggression. And at the same time, it ensures that the spiritual and theological treasures of Hinduism are not trampled over by a purely ideological and chauvinistic class of men (which is what happened with most religious movements in history). "Pearls before swine...", etc.

<b>sunder </b>& <b>ganga</b>,
Come on folks, its a little amusing when you guys (lead by "gangajal") start the provocative name-calling, proceed with a bizzare cut-and-paste orgy that I hardly have the time to read (been thru it all before), and then try to act like the patronizing paterfamilias. Nice work. Unfortunately, even if you had a better attitude, I won't be able to respond at this point in time. Perhaps later this summer when I have more time on my hands.

But you can read the books. From a quick scan of your posts it is obvious that you are only acquainted with secondary or tertiary sources on Vedic literature. This is quite typical, and I myself have been through that. There is always that 'Putana' that comes in the guise of religion to murder the nascent spiritual cognizance of the neophyte. I myself have spent quite a number of years traversing the various grades of mayavad, and am actually only a very recent 'convert' to Vaishnavism. My room-mate here is an initiate of the Ramakrishna matha (Chennai), and we have some nice discussions. He's having a crisis of faith now. I met 2 devotees at the local ISKCON temple who are ex-Ramakrishna math initiates. And a couple who were staunch supporters of the Kanchi matha. There's an ex-RSS member (Hyderabad cadre) here also. And 3 people who were 'Art of Living' regulars. I myself have been closely associated with all mentioned orgs, done the courses, read the lit, etc..

My point is that the literature is available, and the only qualification is sincerity and effort. If you're going to 'take sides' too early on in life, then it is your loss. This material world is a world of "cheaters and the cheated". To the extent that you want to be cheated, you will be directed to the appropriate guru by the Supersoul. The Vaishnava caravan has moved a long way beyond debating mayavad, though from time to time it has to stop and chase away the barking dogs, as Mahaprabhu said. Hence the anti-atheist/mayavadi preliminaries! But there is so much more folks, so much more. Laters.

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->My point is that the literature is available, and the only qualification is sincerity and effort. If you're going to 'take sides' too early on in life, then it is your loss.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet another evasion at explaining your view point. You seem to waste away more keyboard taps than necessary. We know your vitriolic bile spewing and contempt. Get to the point, and answer the simple question I asked - on Mandukya Upanishad. Just that simple question is yet to be unanswered. I have to sit and read thru your vitriolic-venom-spewing & name calling of the true representatives of Sanathana Dharma.

Answer this simple question. (and I know you will not), "Explain Mandukya Upanishad seventh line, that says Shaantham, Shivam, Advaitham, chathurtham manyanthe sa aatma sa vigyeya:" Also, give your take on Saarupya Siddhi.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Vaishnava caravan has moved a long way beyond debating mayavad, though from time to time it has to stop and chase away the barking dogs, as Mahaprabhu said. Hence the anti-atheist/mayavadi preliminaries! But there is so much more folks, so much more. Laters.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As The Great Jagatguru Paramapoojya Parivrajakacharya Sri Adi Shankaracharya says, "Oh self-deceptive fools, this kind of debate will not lead you anywhere, worship the lotus feet of Lord Shiva."

[Sunder]

Carl, I will be deleting my posts in two days. I honestly do not enjoy sinking to your level and engaging in mud slinging. I would like to engage you in meaningful discussion. DO NOT issue uncalled statements on non-vaishnava sects if you cannot backup your accusations with facts.

Post your thoughts which are constructive. I still would like your view on Mandukya Upanishad & Saarupya Siddhi.

cheers,
Sunder.

[Guest]

Folks,

We have a interesting thread and postors with strong view points.

If it helps (was emailed to me by a good friend few days back):

Some Rules on Good Debate & The Art of Good Debate

• <b></li>
• Statements should be clear during debate.
• Questions or challenges should not be personal or insulting.
• If you don't want to debate a point, don't bring it up.
• Don't get mad......get logical.
• Speak/write with passion and intensity, but not melodrama.
• Choose experts and sources wisely.
• Take time to read or quote accurately.
• Don't resort to patronizing or being condescending.
• Keep an open mind.</b>

Apologies for the momentary thread hijack - please continue......

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyways, just thought I'd make a point on this forum. Ramana ji on BRF pointed me here. Hari bol.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Carl you are welcome here. Please post here and once the members know more about your views there will be comfortable discussion.

We have some deep discusison here and mostly specialists like you find this site good.
You can start your own thread and moderate your ideas

[ramana]

If India's old name was Hindustan then its residents are Hindus. There is no such concept of Hindusthanis. However with the advent of other religions and the modern nation state name of Bharat or India they are Bharatiyas or Indians. This is what Savarkar was trying to say but not in so many words.

Those following Sanathan Dharama are Sanathanis. What is this Hindus?

[Guest]

Carl,

You are talking in riddles. Let me explain..

1. We were talking about the representation of certain sects in the academia and your point was that a majority of hindus dont actually practice some of the schools and I think that you agree that most paths have validity and that we all belong to the tree - call it hinduism, or sanatanism or whatever. We can all differ on what is the best branch and what not.. I dont think the dispute is about that since you are saying that this just proves the vitality of the hindu spiritual traditions.

2. The point of contention I guess then -> there are some sects that are not well represented in the academia. Your opinion is this is due to chauvinistic etc individuals who just want to play their own tune. Hence your solution in one of the early posts was to ask the question "who speaks for hinduism". My understanding of that was -> ok Carl is saying Vaishnavs should speak for Vaishnavs, Shaivites for Shaivism and so on.. IOW rather then talk about hinduism people should talk about Vaishnavism, Shaivism etc.

3. But then on my suggestion that the definition/representation of hinduism should be at a higher level (meta level if you will) you sort of agreed with me. I dont understand why. Every one of us are then actually saying the same thing then and we are back to square one. We have 'hinduism' back as a whole and not as parts ? which is not the same thing that I understood you were saying in #2 ?

4. Am I to understand then that the ONLY disagreement that we have is about which branch bears the better fruit ? But in light of your comment about "taking sides too early" wouldnt it be better for the english-educated-hindu seeking his/her philosophical heritage to read about ALL these branches anyway ?

Where do we differ ?

Edited : some grammatical errors.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 13 2005, 09:01 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 13 2005, 09:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Those following Sanathan Dharama are Sanathanis. What is this Hindus? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>ramana</b> ji,
As per my understanding, sanatana dharma is a non-sectarian term, and is the same as the word "deen" used by Prophet Muhammad. It represents the original constitutional position of the Individual Soul w.r.t. the Supersoul, of Whom it is an infinitesimal part-and-parcel ("maamaiva-<b>amshaH</b>", BG), but not identical with.

In fact, terms like Ganapatya, Saiva, Vaishnava, etc also assume non-sectarian meanings ("sectarian" in the sociological sense), designating grades of development of consciousness. One could be a "Mohammedan", and be at the "Vaishnava" stage of spiritual development. One could be a Buddhist at the "Saiva" stage. One could be a member of "ISKCON" or whatnot and be at the "Ganapatya" stage.

Actually, every term in spiritual literature is a matter of <i>perception based on superimposed consciousness (adhyaasa)</i>. That is the explanation given of maya, the rope-and-snake analogy. Both the rope and snake exist, but mistaking one for the other due to imperfect senses and a dulled consciousness ("kuntha" as opposed to "vaikuntha") is maya. Therefore the twin terms mahamaya and yogamaya.

Hindu, OTOH, is a purely ethnic term, and a very broad one at that. In fact, its definition has changed with the changing political climate in the subcontinent. At one time in the past, Indian converts to Islam were referred to as 'Hindu Mussalmaans". But even after the Islamic invasions, the 'Hindus' weren't referring to themselves by that label. But in time, when speaking to Muslims, they started referring to themselves as 'Hindu', but among themselves they wouldn't use that term. Then gradually even that changed, and they started referring to themselves as 'Hindu' even while speaking with one another.

As I said, this can be used to leverage significant social capital in many circumstances, but it should not be at the risk of a creeping ignorance of the spiritual heritage and its specifics, which has been the trend thus far. Defensive ideology (masquerading as supercilious chauvinism) cannot be made the reason to fabricate and popularize a particular theological point of view, as Vivekananda publicly admits to doing. This sort of mish-mash causes endless confusion, and makes a mockery of several Vedic concepts and literatures.

<b>sunder</b> prabhu,
As I said, I will be happy to take you up on the Mandukya Upanishad (from which you quote selectively) -- and many other Upanishads apart from the select dozen that folks like you have heard of. I will be happy to talk with you about sarupya, sayujya, sarshti, samipya, salokya mukti, etc also. But not now. No time, plus you still need to chill out. You should take a bit of your own advice. I first posted about the point I've been discussing with <b>rajesh_g</b> and ramana ji. It was you and a couple of other baiters who started jumping around like tadpoles at the mere mention of Vaishnavism or "ISKCON", attacking a casual newcomer and expecting him to get into an exegesis of shastra on this thread.

[Guest]

<b>rajesh_g</b>,
You're spot on with most of what you said. My intention was to open a discussion at <i>how best</i> this can be done -- and to <i>spread an awareness</i> among Hindus and non-Hindus that this is the case.

This is trickier than it sounds, and there may be "stress" between the twin objectives of allowing free theological discourse and preserving 'Hindu unity'. Strong language will play a part in debate, because its not simply a philosophical discourse, but there are psychological issues involved. This is actually a very interesting point, and is at the heart of the way religion (and religious rhetoric) has evolved worldwide over the last 3000 years -- the sudden ban on "idol-worship" in the Semitic traditions, The Buddha's decision to shove the Vedas into the background, how Sripad Sankara took it from there, and so on. I gotta run now, but I'll prolly be back later to briefly explain my understanding of this point.

[ramana]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->rajesh_g and ramana ji. It was you and a couple of other baiters who started jumping around like tadpoles at the mere mention of Vaishnavism or "ISKCON", expecting a casual newcomer to get into an exegesis of shastra on this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Carl I baited you? <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> [Surprised]

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 14 2005, 02:15 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 14 2005, 02:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Carl I baited you? <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> [Surprised]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gosh no, I was addressing sunder and "gangajal"!
I guess I'm not the only one around here who's skimming thru posts rather too quickly! <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<b>rajesh_g</b>,
Just wanted to complete my last post: about WHY reconciling the 2 objectives (socio-political and spiritual) is trickier than it sounds. Actually the Hindu family of creeds includes a "cross section" of all creeds found in the world, encompassing the whole continuum from the atheistic to the epitome of spiritual Truth. So analyzing this question is interesting even from the point of view of interpreting world socio-religious history. The "Semitic" vs "Indic" categorization, "social memes" blah blah, etc. is a sham. IMHO, this religious behaviour has its roots in theological/philosophical imperatives rather than socio-cultural temperament. But of course, the socio-cultural temperaments and circumstances certainly played a part in the subsequent <i>expression</i> (and ultimate <i>type</i> of corruption) of these imperatives. At the outset, let's be clear about the distinction between the genesis and the later corruption of the same injunctions.

The issue is 2-fold: (a) the why and wherefore of some common religious rhetoric w.r.t. other creeds (atheistic and "religious"), i.e., why it is <i>ecessary</i> in many cases...why so many religious leaders found it necessary to include some apparently abrasive rhetoric in their preaching, and (b) what is the psychological interplay between the proponents of different creeds, and potential converts (the public). Actually point (b) explains point (a).

Let me start with a crude analogy to describe the <i>uneven psychological playing-field</i> for preachers of differing creeds. This is at the heart of the reasons why certain postures are taken. Let's suppose that I, an allopathic pharmacist, wants to discredit Ayurveda (assume Ayurveda is a more wholistic approach to health). Let’s say my motive for doing so is that the allopathic industry is more profitable, whereas the spread of Ayurveda and its understanding of wellness would be a commercial blow to the “sickness business”. One effective way would be for all allopathic pharmacists in the domain to imitate and proliferate in the Ayurveda market by carelessly placing counterfeit Ayurveda 'products' on our shelves. Firstly, the dividing line between differing philosophies of health and wellbeing will be diffused now, because we will keep telling an uninformed public that ayurvedic medicine is just another type of allopathy, perhaps for people with certain allergies (or some other condescending reason). Secondly, the fact that a lot of Ayurvedic quackery is now flooding the market will mean that the public will become quite cynical about the label 'Ayurveda' itself, and think that its bettter to just go with the 'other' type of medicine, since it surely provides some quick relief. Now the average Joe is not going to take the time and effort to listen to a detailed philosophical case on health and well-being that the genuine Ayurvedic doctors may want to make to society. Moreover, the unwitting customer buys into the allopathic philosophy of dealing with health (apart from just the products). Ayurveda requires some inculturation, some adjustment to the way one lives. Allopathy doesn't.

Now, would it be justified if the Ayurvedic Association made it a standard part of its campaign and advertizing to educate the public about the disadvantages of allopathy and the disingenuous advertizing (and even quackery) of the allopathy pharma industry? Conversely, would it be a valid argument if the Allopathy Association came forward and protested on the grounds that they were "tolerant" and "inclusive", and were "uniting" and "harmonizing" the medical fraternity, while the stubborn Ayurvedics were being intolerant and abusive, and unnecessarily "dividing" the medical profession? It should be clear that the former is imperative for the survival of their health-philosophy and their tradition, whereas the latter is just another disingenuous part of an invidious strategy to swallow the enemy -- let's assume (for the sake of the argument) that there is practically nothing complimentary b/w Ayurveda and allopathy, and that the highest benefits of Ayurveda cannot be attained if the subject indulges even the slightest in allopathy. The basic crux is this -- is the real issue the "unity in the health/sickness industry", or is the real issue "a better system of public health"?

It so happens that this analogy describes the situation between monotheism and non-monotheism (non-monotheism includes the whole spectrum from rank atheism to Impersonal mayavad). From the Vaishnav point of view, there's a lot of "mano-dharma" out there – mental concoction, or at least various grades of it, the "best" of which is the premature theological conclusion -- "my ecstatic spiritual experience is the last word in self-realization." IOW, at one end you have the Positivist school which says, "Anything metaphysical is nonsense because my gross physical senses cannot perceive it, and I'm not interested in wasting my time undergoing any spiritual process because I don't have the slightest faith in it". A modicum of faith/respect (<i>shraddha</i>) is a desideratum for learning any subject, religious or secular. And at the other end of this non-monotheistic spectrum you have certain genuine, advanced transcendentalists who prematurely declare that their spiritual realization is the last word, and that the scriptural stuff that they cannot relate to is superfluous, wrong, etc. Its the same egoic reflex in both cases.

The idea of "faith" is contentious. The variable along this spectrum is the forgetfulness of the fundamental precept that faith (<i>shraddha</i>) in bona fide authority is the prerequisite to spiritual advancement. Philosophical enquiry means to inquire HOW something in bona fide scripture can be true, and not WHETHER it is true. This particular point has been repeatedlyy stressed in the post-Buddhist Vedic rennaissance. After Shankara brought back popular respect to Vedic literature, acharyas from Ramanuja onwards kept refining this point. Ramanuja repeatedly brought up this point when some envious Advaitists wanted to snub him. They guys didn't want to admit that this new person Ramanuja could be saying anything more than what Shankara had spoken of when establishing the mathas of which they were initiates (Shankara established the existence of a plenum and conscious Brahman, defeating the atheistic sunyavadi voidists, or the so-called Buddhists).

Ramanuja constantly pointed to scripture to back up his preaching mission. The Vedic system of checks and balances is summed up in "guru-saadhu-shastra". Yamunacharya wrote a comprehensive explanation of this, called the Agama Pramanya. So since very early times, as a dormant Vedic religion re-unfolded itself, each successive stage has established its precept successfully by sound scriptural argument (among other things). Yet we have upstarts today (including on this forum) who want to make a case that "Vaishnavism", etc is ignorant of scripture. In that case, the greatest Advaitic scholars of those bygone eras who were defeated (and gracefully became diciples of succeeding acharyas), must have been hopelessly incompetent as compared with your neighborhood "I-am-an-avatar-of-God" swami, or your favourite Hindu nationalist.

The fact is that several mayavadi schools seriously undermine the authority of Vedic scripture and various aspects of Vedic culture, because it interferes with their preaching, or undermines their "matha". Excited young spiritualists in a hurry to establish a new religion often find shastra and the community of scholars an inconvenience. Let me give you an example (at the risk of re-starting a flame war): Sri Ramakrishna claimed to be an incarnation of Lord Chaitanya (among other avataras). So he based his claim to God-hood on the established glory of a preceding avatar. Lord Chaitanya's avatar-hood was demonstrated not only in lila, but also backed by scripture. But now if I were to accept Gadadhar Chatterjee aka Ramakrishna as an incarnation of Chaitanya, then I would logically seek to find the similarity and continuity in the message and gospel of Chaitanya and Ramakrishna. I declare I will hand my head on a platter to anyone in the world who can show the <i>slightest</i> similarity in the gospels of Sri Ramakrishna and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu! In fact, Chaitanya Himself designated 13 specific run-offs as apasampradaya (deviant Vaishnav cults), and Sri Ramakrishna claims to have experimented with "Vaishnavism" precisely under one such cult, under a female Tantrik guru. But such inconveniences are glossed over. In fact, Vivekananda preached quite a different theology than his "guru" Ramakrishna did, though he used his guru's fame and his godbrothers support to found the RK Math. How that is explained, I do not know, though I have heard that guru-bhoga and guru-tyaga are very serious offences in Vedic culture. <i>The point of this example is to show that, in putting together a patchwork ideology, serious damage can be done to the glory of the bona fide religious tradition on which it bases its glory.</i>

Coming back to point (b): every kind of mayavad depends on the initial <i>unfamiliarity</i> of the curious public, and their <i>tendency to shirk independent inquiry</i> (which takes time and effort...and also a certain intense disposition). The pure monotheist has to work against these human tendencies in situations where the mayavadi is taking advantage of them. As explained earlier, this disadvantage applies at every rung down the ladder, between genuine Sufi-Islam and hypocrite ideology, etc, etc. “Are you a frustrated Pakistani hoping to find some meaning in life thru religion? Come, we have a nice militant religious ideology that can serve as a catharsis for your existential frustrations” (ditto for Hindu/Christian chauvinism). Or less dramatically: “Are you a stressed-out (or bored) middle-class Hindu looking for your religious roots? Come, I'll teach you some pranayama, dharana and dhyana which will give you unprecedented vitality…and along with that you can also swallow whole my mayavadi theory of the universe which has a lot of flowery language and esoteric sounding stuff taken from those scriptures you've heard of, which only very great scholars can decipher.” Don’t get me wrong – each of these schools of yoga serve some good purpose also, and I myself am very grateful for what I have received from them, experientially and otherwise. But I am trying to point out the other side, the cost side, when they are <i>taken in isolation</i> (the bane of mayavad). There is no disdain here, just concern.

This preaching disadvantage works like dominoes right along this spectrum of creeds. Any creed faces a disadvantage w.r.t. the lower degree creeds on that scale. And each lower degree of cognizance will argue its point based on "obvious logic" and other simplistic word-jugglery. Most casual inquirers are not clear about the fact that spiritual growth is about <i>expanding</i> one's horizons, rather than finding the right spot within one's current "circle of light". Whence the great emphasis on bona fide guru-shishya parampara and scriptural authority. Now, some thought will enable one to understand why monotheism is at the right-most end of this spectrum of spiritual sophistication and preaching disadvantage.

Given this disadvantage, it should by now be somewhat clear WHY one finds a lot of "negative propoganda" in the monotheistic traditions of religion [the Ayurvedics in our medical analogy]. It has less to do with "desert tribal cultural traits" and other nonsensical theories [the personal temperament of the Ayurvedic doctors], and more to do with the imperatives of the mission [the business imperatives of Ayurveda and wholistic health philosophies]. The proponents of this theory would much rather deny that the MOST POPULAR Hindu tradition is monotheistic rather than monist (even though it is somewhat dormant).

One interesting thing to note is that the "preaching disadvantage" that I've been belabouring works primarily on the mental plane, but monotheism has a stronger attraction at the deeper intuitive level (simply because it is the real dharma of the Soul). The atheists and impersonalists <i>recognize</i> this fact (though they may not <i>understand</i> it). Their retort is that it is "blind" faith, etc. Of course, it may express itself that way in an unsophisticated person, but the supercilious accusors do not understand the deeper springs of that inclination. Although a scholarly Vaishnav can easily argue and defeat the carping mayavadi, the average devotee does not have any extensive command of all scripture -- only according to his own intellectual capacity, which is all that is required. If one can "burn" one's own intellect, imagination, emotion and will in the fire of devotional service to Godhead, that is sadhana. But some of these semi-learned mayavadi rascals will pick on the most neophyte devotee and start mocking his "blind faith", or condescendingly "encourage" him. The mayavadis keep a good stock of counterfaith "Bhakti" (some cheap sentiment) on their shelves, and say its for “beginners”. But these guys will whine and retreat if a Vaishnav scholar should decide to educate them a little. This is a rare spectacle, but a fascinating and enjoyable one. From my understanding, its quite clear why most Vaishnav scholars don’t usually waste time indulging prejudiced argumentators: Firstly, it’s one of the 10 primary offences to preach the most essential parts of Bhagavata dharma to the faithless and contemptuous, because the ensuing blasphemy does no one any good. And secondly because most madhyam- and uttam-adhikaris (more advanced devotees) are too immersed in the bliss of their sadhana, “diving and surfacing like sharks in the deep ocean of nectar” as per Rupa Goswami. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> It takes some motivating to go back and splash around in the shallows with a conceited ignoramus. But to one eager to listen and sincere in motivation, these same people will be prepared to endlessly narrate or explain stuff over and over again, each time with relish and enthusiasm!

Another tactic of the mayavadis is to use a straw-man argument. In their simplistic grasp of things, they claim that anything not Advaita is Dwaita (which has contradictions -- just like Advaita). This is false. Vaishnavism in its most evolved form is Achintya Bheda-abheda tattva. Islam in its most evolved form is "the mystery of ahadiyyat in wahdaniyyat".

But then why is monotheistic preaching apparently so full of “vitriol” for others? Isn’t that a lack of basic respect, uncharacteristic of spiritual people? The answer seems to be that calling a spade a spade is not a “lack of respect”. A couple of guys on this forum seem to be seriously upset about “ISKCON”, founded by one Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, probably the most prolific Vaishnav preacher ever. He ruffled a lot of feathers in his preaching mission, pointing out the hypocrisy of mayavadis and corrupt monotheist denominations alike. When asked why he didn’t show “respect”, he simply replied, “oh yes, we have respect. Respect is there. We respect every living entity, including plants and animals. But a thief must be called a thief.” He is also on record encouraging his disciples to take advantage of saintly association at the Kumbha Mela. When some hot-blooded new disciples protested that some of the sadhus there were mayavadi, he told them not to be foolishly fanatical on philosophical points, but to look at the good and saintly qualities in everyone. <i>Preaching an uncompromising philosophy was one thing. Making it an egoic intellectual position and looking for a fight is another thing.</i> This understanding of things has been repeated by various other monotheistic preachers throughout history, in any part of the world.

Also note, the philosophy is uncompromising (I don’t understand the concept of philosophical compromise anyway!), but <i>“uncompromising” is not equivalent to “exclusivist” in the narrow logical sense</i>. It is very important to understand that the Vaishnav understanding of reality is INCLUSIVE of the Brahmavadi understanding, not exclusive. On the contrary, it is the mayavadi philosophy that is exclusive, although it invidiously tries to portray itself as “inclusive”, “ruffling no feathers”, “everything is valid”, etc [like the allopathic businessmen in our analogy]. So this is an important point of understanding, before using words like “exclusivist”, “sectarian”, etc. The polytheists of Mecca wanted Muhammad and his followers to honour their demi-gods, in return for which they would accept his new religion. By now it should be obvious to the patient reader why this is the most ridiculous proposal, which was rejected by the Prophet. But anti-Muslim rhetoric wants to cite this incident to show how Muhammad was so “fanatical” even though the nice Meccans were trying so hard to be “peaceful”.

Same reason for why the Prophet Muhammad found it necessary to put an end to all idol-worship and demi-god worship, because these temples undermine the monotheistic philosophy. This is the same reason why Moses banned deity-worship, which was clearly a part of ancient Semitic religion. After being pushed around, after losing large parts of their religious teaching, the Hebrews had started to concoct rituals, innovate different “forms” of deity, etc. This innovation and cheap mimickry in religion had to be stopped in order to save monotheism itself, even though its more esoteric concepts would have to be shelved for a while by banning certain forms of ritual (which try to symbolize and drive home philosophical points). To get an idea of how monotheism can be undermined by imitative rituals devoid of all meaning, we need only look at India, especially certain parts like Tamil Nadu and to a lesser extent Bengal, where Hinduism has been made a mockery out of. Even Vivekananda and Gandhi ji said that the deep south was a “mental hospital”. My parents just moved to Madurai, and my mom recently wrote to me: “madurai has just finished with its 10day chithrai festival...this festival celebrates the wedding of meenakshi, the sister of visnu(as azhagar) and siva, and hence this is one festival that is significant, as this is when the shaivites and the vaishnavites come together in the celebrations.” <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> So, much worse than just sectarian designations, the gods have now become representatives of certain priestly castes, and mythologies have been invented and festivals commemorated each time the castes decide to have a go at one another or patch up. This was pretty much the case in pre-Islamic Arabia. Religion has been made such a mockery by the priestly classes in TN, that the average Hindu there is either atheistic (Dravidian “rationalist”), secular humanist, or converts to Christianity/Islam. My room-mate, an Iyer initiate of the Ramakrishna math, insists that Iyengars (Sri Vaishnavs) are “fanatical” because Iyers freely visit Vishnu temples but these Iyengars don’t return the favour by visiting Siva temples. He’s the sweetest guy, but he didn’t have the slightest understanding of Vaishnav philosophy, and simply assumed that it was a sectarian mirror-image of his own caste tradition...just a different “ishta-devata”. More importantly from the PoV of this discussion -- <i>his years in the Ramakrishna mission apparently didn’t give him the opportunity to get to know that there is a different, non-mayavadi school within “Hinduism”. </i>Therefore he was understandably upset that these Iyengars (and then ISKCON) should be so fanatical about their “ishta-devata” when “Hinduism” (as he was taught it) says that these are all just different imaginative means to relate to an Impersonal Reality. According to what he was taught, Durga, Vishnu, Shiva, you, I, this chair, this computer, and the world wide web are all Brahman, there is no <i>bheda</i>. Sorry to say, but even a sophisticated mayavadi would be embarrassed by this representation.

So to conclude (at last!), I hope I have made SOME sense, opened the door a LITTLE, in understanding the why and wherefore of religious rhetoric, its psycho-spiritual roots, and its historical manifestations. And why it would be difficult and “tricky” to manage the twin-objectives of “a united Hindu front” while giving real balanced coverage to all creeds within Hinduism. Actually the psycho-spiritual understanding of the imperatives for this tussle goes much deeper, and one appreciates it more and more as one understands Vaishnavism more and more through study and <i>actual practice</i>.

To echo to the health-industry analogy question: Is the real issue "Hindu unity", or is it the spiritual health of people in India (and outside). This is not a small issue -- there is an unprecedented trend in my generation of Indians, looking toward religion and spiritality. And let's be clear, just like this above analogy, while appealing to "Hindu unity", "tolerance", etc may hold things together for some time, in the end the house of cards will crumble. Its happened time and again in history. Look at Zoroastrianism, to take one spectacular example of collapse. They were all about "Zoro pride", etc after the Greeks ravaged them and then left, and then there was some kind of Zoro "rennnaissance" as they reconsolidated the Persian empire. But it was all about "pride". All that fell flat when Islam came later on, with large sections of Zoro society defecting and fighting WITH the invader. They felt enthused to do so, while their own hollow creed, devoid of spiritual essence, held no more attraction for them at a level deeper than Mind.

JMT.

[Sunder]

I am the least concerned with the existence or inexistence of Iskcon. Carl, your mention that Gangajal and I are baiting you is akin to calling the crow calling the swan black. I did not bother much with the discussion till you started carelessly throwing words like MAYAVAAD (for which I asked an explanation - which is yet to be given), and started taking a stance where Vivekananda and other True representatives of Vaidika Dharma were belittled, abused, or otherwise made fun of with subtle derogatory remarks. YOU were the one provoking and making uncalled for statements.

Your last post mentions the word "Mayavad" 15 times. Infact, it is incumbent upon me to correct your skewed vision and make you see the light for your own good. Your Iskcon and its false religious positioning is quite disturbing. Quite frankly, it is a well known fact that Iskcon and it's idealogies has lot more to be desired. It is only a missionary style organized religion with hindu sounding names. (I am not even mentioning the child-abuse that goes on within the walls if that is some track record.)

I tried softening the stance by saying I AM interested in your posts. If you continue using the term Mayavaad, you give me no other option but to rightly use the epithet Moorkhavaad for what you say. Your tone is quite patronizing, your stance is pretty arrogant and you have the nerve to say that to me and Gangajal.

You have a lot to learn from your own advise and mine too. If you choose to continue down this argumentative path, so be it. But if you can see the light and respect Vaidika Dharma, then we have lot more to share and less to fight about.

[Bharatvarsh]

"Same reason for why the Prophet Muhammad found it necessary to put an end to all idol-worship and demi-god worship, because these temples undermine the monotheistic philosophy. This is the same reason why Moses banned deity-worship, which was clearly a part of ancient Semitic religion. After being pushed around, after losing large parts of their religious teaching, the Hebrews had started to concoct rituals, innovate different “forms” of deity, etc. This innovation and cheap mimickry in religion had to be stopped in order to save monotheism itself, even though its more esoteric concepts would have to be shelved for a while by banning certain forms of ritual (which try to symbolize and drive home philosophical points)"

But who gave Muhammad and Moses the right to ban something just because they didn't like it. This is very much akin to fascism and dictatorship, this is what Communist states do. If they didn't like it they should have debated the leaders of these religious sects and should have converted them but Muhammad on the other hand adopted forced conversion and destruction of idols as his policy, this is not what some supposed prophets of God are supposed to behave like. The Sikh gurus also didn't like Polytheism and idol worship (atleast that's what Sikhs say) and criticised them but they never went around forcibly converting ppl and breaking idols. So according to u any philosophy which does not supp monotheism is to be put to an end, Muhammad had every right to do this and preach his new religion but he had no right to forcibly convert ppl and break idols just because he didn't like the pagan religion of the Arabs.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+May 15 2005, 12:48 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ May 15 2005, 12:48 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But who gave Muhammad and Moses the right to ban something just because they didn't like it. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a different topic, and one in which culture, historical circumstance, etc play a part. These things influence the mode of action, etc. Also, the circumstance of the Sikh gurus is quite different, and I think you understand that.

But we have tons of such examples from Vedic literature also. When Balarama was on His pilgrimage and he came upon the pashandi "guru" who was preaching some concoction, He immediately beheaded him without any preliminary discussion even. And what gives Krishna the "right" to say that He descends to "destroy the evil-doers and protect the sadhus"? But anyway, this is getting into a different topic. The issue here is the dynamics of theological debate, and how that can be balanced with certain socio-cultural imperatives for India and Hinduism. In that context, your question may be accommodated, because common preachers of any creed all too often try to "imitate" rather than "follow" the masters, an important distinction.

<b>sunder</b>,
I confess I was a little taken aback when I found myself "ambushed" in the beginning, and subsequently I might have let a few sparks fly. Please accept my apologies.

Why is the term "mayavad" offensive? Of course, it is a derogative, but has been in use for centuries. The reason it is used to descrie the carping opposition is because, when probed, their arguments fall apart, and with their backs to the wall, the final argument is always, "this is maya, it is beyond understanding within the duality of Mind, it is beyond debate". Hence "maya-vadi". But if you find it offensive, then I don't mind using another term. The reason I don't want to use "Advaita" in polemic is because Advaita itself is not "wrong", only incomplete, and because of its association with Sripada Shankara. Shankara is venerated by Vaishnavas for the role he played, as is Buddha. At no point do I want to give the impression that this argumentation against present-day self-styled "avatars" means I have a similar mentality about Sripada Shankara.