Who Is A Hindu

05-15-2005, 06:22 AM

The general tone of this discussion has been good barriing some swipes. Pl. adhere to the guidelines that Viren has posted earlier in the thread to maintain and elevate the tone of discussion even more. As a general rule it is not a good idea to shoot the messenger and by not refuting with a logical counter one is conceding defeat.

Welcome Carl to the forum that encourages free, frank but courteous exchanges on theological topics, instead of stiflling them.

Shambhu · (This post was last modified: 05-15-2005, 08:03 AM by Shambhu.)

Namashkaar!

Allow me to share my views:

We have to tread lightly around "Who is a Hindu". Discussions within the circle of those who are really sadhaks is OK. But people who have no claims to Hinduism except that they would like to call themselves Hindu should not be turned away, even by mistake or through taken-for-grantedness.

Dilution of Hinduism qualitatively is an issue, but nowhere as important, IMHO, as it is quantitatively. The only true spiritual exercise, dharm, should be allowed to prosper; not have to look over its shoulder every time to see if there are evangelist, or jehadi shadows. Only numbers will do this.

Those who God has imbued with the search for the truth will not change. THeir numbers will stay constant. However, those that have not been should not met lukewarmly. That will only encourage them to turn to worthless quick fixes which parade as religion (since they have that "kill the unbelievers" clause-my original grouse with Abrahamic cults- even if you just for a second stop questioning the second point which intrigues me: validity of religions whose sole promise is unending pleasures and perversions in "heaven").

This is not a commentary on this thread. What is going on is fine. <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />
But just for interaction with outsiders.....

I am not adding anything substantial to the discussion already over here, but please bear with me.
<!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Satyameva jayate.

05-15-2005, 08:41 PM

Carl,

Thanks for sharing your views. Very interesting and informative, I must add. I do follow your take on philosophy to certain extent, but I am lost at the point of cross over (from Spiritual philosophy to political philosophy that is) to the dangers of "Ethnic Pride" and "Hindu Nationalist" angles. Perhaps I am missing something, well obviously I am missing something <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' />

All the gentle jingos who were referred to swami vivekananda, savarkar et al, all had different purposes at different time periods with varying focus - am I wrong in reading them that way?

Since your argument(s), If I am reading correctly, seem to take - Ethnic Pride equates to walking down the slippery slope and eventual destruction (of what?) - , I want to understand this cross over point, so we can appreicate it better and have a good discussion.

Thank you!

gangajal · 05-17-2005, 12:16 AM

QUOTE(Carl @ May 14 2005, 12:24 PM) 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 slightest 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. 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 fideÂ religious tradition on which it bases its glory.

Carl,
I am very impressed by the fact that you are oozing with love for everyone, calling Sundarji and others tadpoles among other things. This is exactly the behavior I would expect from a true disciple of Lord Chaitanya.

Any way. I would like to point out a few mistakes you have made in your enthusiastic Ramakrishna bashing:

1. Sri Ramakrishna NEVER claimed that he was an incarnation of Lord Chaitanya. Others may have said that about him. Let me give you a concrete example. Sri Ramakrishna once visited a Vaishnava meeting in Kolutala, Kolkata. An empty seat meant for Lord Chaitanya is kept in such meeting. Sri Ramakrishna went into Samadhi listening to the Kirtana and while in Samadhi stood on the seat meant for Lord Chaitanya. After the meeting was over this incident created an uproar among Vaishnavas. Some supported Sri Ramakrishna while others opposed him. Bhagavandas Babaji, the then leader of the Bengal Vaishnavas, became angry when he heard about the incident and abused the person for daring to stand in the seat meant for Lord Chaitanya. At that time Bhagavandas Babaji did not know Sri Ramakrishna. Some months later there was a meeting between Bhagavandas Babaji and Sri Ramakrishna. When Bhagavandas Babaji realized that it was Sri Ramakrishna who had done that deed, Bhagavandas Babaji apologised to Sri Ramakrishna for abusing him. Later on Bhagavandas Babaji told his disciples that Sri Ramakrishna was the only person living at that time who could indeed stand on Lord Chaitanya's seat. So it was the then Vaishnava leader of Bengal who said that Sri Ramakrishna was as great as Lord Chaitanya. If you don't like this you should ask around as to why Bhagavandas Babaji said such a thing.

2. You claim that Ramakrishna experimented with one such "Vaishnava cult" with a female Tantrika Guru. The absurdity of this claim is self evident. One doesn't go to a TANTRIKA Guru to indulge in deviant Vaishnava practices. Come on Carl, you can do better than this.

3. You are again claiming that Vivekananda preached a different theology than Ramakrishna. This is of course a false charge and I have pointed this out earlier.

BY THE WAY Carl I saw that you keep running out of time whenever you are challenged (for example Sundarjis' challenge regarding Mandukya Upanishad). Would you ever have the time when you are challenged?

05-17-2005, 01:27 AM

QUOTE(k.ram @ May 15 2005, 08:41 PM)Ethnic Pride equates to walking down the slippery slope and eventual destruction (of what?) - , I want to understand this cross over point
k.ram,
IMHO, wrapping religion too tightly in any ideology that springs from the bodily concept of life (dehaatmabuddhi) leads to the spiritual essence being stifled out and gradually extinguished. The first precept of Vedanta is: "you are not the body (gross or subtle), you are the Soul/Self". Illusion (maya) is dehaadhyaasa -- superimposition of the body (on the Self), or IOW, mistaking the body for the Self. This bodily concept of life does not pertain only to the gross and subtle bodies, but also to our "extended false ego", such as caste, community, nation, race, etc.

To put it another way, Vedic literature draws a well-known distinction b/w shruti and smriti, the latter being subordinate to the former. If smriti does not constantly adapt to time, place and circumstance, and acknowledge its subservience to shruti (which it must strive to embody in the best possible way), then religion dies out. We will only be left with the hollow shell of smaarta religiosity.

So the cross-over point in this discussion revolves around the delicate task of balancing some temporary socio-cultural imperatives with upholding the universal and eternal Truth of the Veda. I am cautioning that there is the real risk that these ideologies would (and have) become a runaway menace, and are reducing "sanatana dharma" to an ethnic or sectarian descriptive. Whiskey-sipping Vajpayee was quoted as saying, "I am a pucca sanatani Hindu". <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> I am even prepared to accept that in the last century, certain mish-mash theories of "Vedanta" MAY have played some positive socio-cultural role while riding a wave of nationalistic sentiment. I agree there was a real danger that this nationalistic wave could have been solely hijacked by completely atheistic philosophies (pinkos), and Vedic religion could have been pushed out of sight. So this Hindu nationalism brand of preaching may have at least given "religion" a place at the table.

But IMHO, along with serving this (debatably) useful purpose, some serious damage has been done to the understanding of Vedanta itself, because the standard-bearers of these religious ideologies (pretending to be genuine philosophies) have left behind a confused mish-mash of philosophical jargon (I will give one example below). "Hinduism" will become another Judaism. Just take a look at the pathetic theological mess that is modern Judaism (no offence intended to Jewish folk). Dunno when exactly things went wrong with them, but I'm afraid their notions of "tikkun olam" ("repairing the world") is more applicable to their own theology than the state of the universe.

In fact, in the example I give below, I will show that this mish-mash mayavad is self-contradictory, and incorrect even according to the authority (Sripada Shankara) off whom they claim their reputation, i.e., one can demonstrate the flawed nature of this concoction without even going into a comparative explanation of (genuine) Advaita with other schools. It is an additional matter that Shankara's mission itself was not to give a complete understanding of Vedanta, but to establish its superiority over the shunyavadi (so-called Buddhist) theorists. A simple understanding of the historical circumstance of his mission, along with a reading of his commentaries will make it clear whom and what he was addressing.

sunder,
I now give a first example of mayavad concoction, one which is not even faithful to Shankara's explanations, and actually echoes the Shunyavadi scatterbrains whom he smashed in debate. I hope this will illustrate to you why I prefer using the word "mayavadi" to "Advaitin", because most of mayavadi argument is an insult to true Advaita itself (and we're not even getting into Vaishnavism here). The "mayavadis" were those jealous abbots and monks who considered Ramanuja's preaching a challenge to their ceremonious authority. Analogous to the politics of Vatican popery, although these guys based their authority on Shankara, they actually started using all sorts of argument, including atheistic shunyavaad, just to try to combat Vaishnava preaching. Of course, later on they even used their royal influence in Tamil country to brutally persecute and drive out the Vaishnavas.

The present example deals with the very definition of "maya". The Ramakrishna mission that Vivekananda founded publishes many books, and one will note that even within this set theire is plenty of inconsistency -- what to speak of the inconsistency b/w what Vivekananda said and what Ramakrishna said. Many "swamis" in this mission define maya as a "dream", non-existence, some mental projection (classic shunyavaad). They quote the line from the viveka-cudaamani -- brahma-satyam jagan-mithya. "Mithya" means "false", therefore all except brahman is non-existent, according to their simplistic explanation. You, I, and the computer in front of you...its all a dream...wake up and realize you're God!

But the Vedanta definition of sat and asat, or real and unreal is not in terms of simple existence and non-existence. Rather it is in terms of eternality and transience. nitya-anitya vastu viveka. Several quotes from the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita will support this. This explanation is also supported by several genuine Advaitin publications, and IIRC its also on the Sringeri Matha website. Maya is mistaking the "snake for the rope", both of which exist. Maya is the mistake of perception (not of existence), because of the superimposition of one memory onto another object. But in their convoluted theory, the mayavadis take this "superimposition" word and tie their gamchas/langots in knots, giving weird, circular psychological theories, and shutting out questions by saying, "it makes no sense to ask questions, because actually all this does not exist"! Then, sir, why are you wasting your time talking about it??

Several Ramakrishna mission books define maya the shunyavadi way. In fact, even Sri Ramakrishna disputed this mayavadi definition, given by one of his gurus, Totapuri. Sri Ramakrishna spoke of vidya-maya and avidya-maya, which is basically what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and most of the Vaishnav acharyas before him have explained (also called yogamaya and mahamaya), and Lord Chaitanya's teachings are very well-known in that part of the country. This world exists, but is temporary, and maya is the illusion that we can derive any sort of satisfaction from it. The Soul by its very nature seeks eternal pleasure (anandamayo 'bhyasaat), and since this material world is transient, its efforts to find bliss here are doomed to failure. Maya is the illusion that the individual soul is the Enjoyer, the center. This is false ego. Et cetera.

No need to go into further details of Vaishnava theory. It should be sufficient to show the inconsistencies within the Ramakrishna mission itself to establish the case that there's a lot of hodge-podge here. Why RK mission? Because they have appropriated the role of modern speaker for "Hinduism". Forget Hinduism, they cannot even claim that right on Advaita. I'm not sure why Vivekananda had a peculiar fascination for Buddhism. Was it because Westerners (towards whom the Indian intelligentsia looked) had a greater "respect" for Buddhism? After all, the swami's mission was to rstore the "self-respect" of Hindus. Was it a way of also including Buddhism under the 'Hindu' umbrella? If so, it should have been done without diluting Vedanta and making a mockery of it.

Expedient social compromises are okay, but philosophical contortions just to accommodate a practical end are ridiculous (and also devious when they are intellectually dishonest) -- a point which should be central to this discussion. I am perfectly alright with respectfully associating with any grade of mayavadi or Buddhist or anythone else for that matter, and acknowledging what we share in common. But it just makes no sense to me how anyone can conceive of artificially "synthesizing" these disparate philosophies into some new animal.

More significantly, the debunking of this shunyavadi theory of maya also means that the mayavadi castle built on this fundamental concept comes tumbling down like a ton of bricks. If this material energy exists (albeit temporarily), then one has to explain this "non-uniformity" within Existence. Whence we get into parinama-vaada, vivarta-vaada, etc., and the existence of multi-potencies. Once we get into that, the real debate begins, and Lord Chaitanya's Teachings give the most elegant, natural, and complete understanding thus far.

Kaushal ji,
Thanks for the opportunity.

05-17-2005, 01:56 AM

gangajal prabhu,
Greetings.
QUOTEI am very impressed by the fact that you are oozing with love for everyone, calling Sundarji and others tadpoles among other things. This is exactly the behavior I would expect from a true disciple of Lord Chaitanya. In this fallen condition, I wouldn't want to try to artificially imitate the gentle disposition of the saintly persons. I thought the tadpole bit had an element of humour in it, and was a good way of communicating that I was annoyed by the combative fusillade. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> BTW, I'm not a "true disciple" of anyone yet. Just trying to feel my way around.

About the incident in Kolkata and the "Bengal Vaishnavs", note that there's a lot of stuff in Bengal that goes by the name of "Vaishnavism". As I indicated earlier, that was the case even during the time of Lord Chaitanya, and He pointed it out.

QUOTE2. You claim that Ramakrishna experimented with one such "Vaishnava cult" with a female Tantrika Guru. The absurdity of this claim is self evident. One doesn't go to a TANTRIKA Guru to indulge in deviant Vaishnava practices. Come on Carl, you can do better than this.I will always try to do better. But in this case you're right only about the absurdity bit, which was also exactly my point. Sri Ramakrishna has said that he has experimented successfully with "all 64 types" of Tantra, and he called one or two such schools as "Vaishnava". Lord Chaitanya had already designated them as apasampradaya 400 years before. The sect that Sri Ramakrishna associated with included a female teacher (Yogeshwari?) and female companions. It involves psyching oneself into believing one is a woman, a gopi, dressing like a gopi, and enacting scenes of conjugal love, including massages, and more. I think you know what some schools of Tantra involve. And you're right, it is absurd to go to a semi-tantric sect to "experiment" with Vaishnavism. So your question is better directed at the RK mission.

It is significant therefore, that even Swami Vivekananda had utter disgust for "Vaishnavas", whom he referred to as "sex perverts". Surely, he could not have been referring to bona fide "Rupanugas", i.e. those coming down in the parampara of Rupa and the other 5 Goswamis of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, because they were (and are) puritanical in their behaviour.

QUOTEBY THE WAY Carl I saw that you keep running out of time whenever you are challenged (for example Sundarjis' challenge regarding Mandukya Upanishad). Would you ever have the time when you are challenged?Inshallah, yes. But if you've been reading my posts, you will note that I wanted to tie any argument on this thread to the central theme -- the cost/benefit and the effect on theology in the drive for "Hindu unity". But I have already started responding to sunder.

Firstly, it makes more sense to me to conduct theological debate around concepts, rather than scattered and isolated quotes, because concepts are the building blocks of a philosophy. So I started with the very fundamental concept of maya in my last post.

Secondly, for future reference, do remember that the Upanishads should be taken in toto. Isolated quotes about the existence of Brahman and Brahman-realization are non-arguments, simply because no Vaishnava denies the existence of either. The Vaishnava theology is inclusive of this. But it says that there is much more beyond this. The most mature fruit of the Veda is the understanding and realization of rasa.

Time permitting, I hope to come back and take up sunder's questions in more detail later. Midterm week + internship pressure.

gangajal · 05-17-2005, 02:37 AM

Carl,

QUOTEIn this fallen condition, I wouldn't want to try to artificially imitate the gentle disposition of the saintly persons. I thought the tadpole bit had an element of humour in it, and was a good way of communicating that I was annoyed by the combative fusillade. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Don't worry! No one will mistake you as a saint even if you tried to imitate a saintly person. You introduced the combative tone by making false and vituperative allegations against Sri Ramakrishna. As far as I can see you are still continuing.

QUOTEAbout the incident in Kolkata and the "Bengal Vaishnavs", note that there's a lot of stuff in Bengal that goes by the name of "Vaishnavism". As I indicated earlier, that was the case even during the time of Lord Chaitanya, and He pointed it out.

Yes, I expected some such remark from you. You naturaaly talk down Vaishnavas who differ from your view.Bhagavandas Babaji actually saw and met Sri Ramakrishna and accepted that Sri Ramakrishna was as great as Lord Chaitanya. So naturally your sectarian mind rejects Bhagavandas Babaji as a Vaishnava.

QUOTEI will always try to do better. But in this case you're right only about the absurdity bit, which was also exactly my point. Sri Ramakrishna has said that he has experimented successfully with "all 64 types" of Tantra, and he called one or two such schools as "Vaishnava". Lord Chaitanya had already designated them as apasampradaya 400 years before. The sect that Sri Ramakrishna associated with included a female teacher (Yogeshwari?) and female companions. It involves psyching oneself into believing one is a woman, a gopi, dressing like a gopi, and enacting scenes of conjugal love, including massages, and more. I think you know what some schools of Tantra involve. And you're right, it is absurd to go to a semi-tantric sect to "experiment" with Vaishnavism. So your question is better directed at the RK mission.

Your ignorance is showing, Carl. Yogeshwari was not leading a sect and did not have female companions. Yogeshwari was all ALONE when she met Sri Ramakrishna and taught Sri Ramakrishna all the 64 Tantric schools. Sri Ramakrishna NEVER called a Tantric school Vaishnava. If he did say that PLEASE GIVE AN EXACT REFERENCE FROM A BENGALI ORIGINAL SOURCE. Your insinuation that Sri Ramakrishna took part in massage and more is also false. In fact the exact opposite is true. Yogeswari marvelled at Sri Ramakrishna's self control. This is one of the reasons why Yogeswari called him an Avatara.

I do not have to ask RK mission. I already know. You really have to know before you throw mud at others.

QUOTEIt is significant therefore, that even Swami Vivekananda had utter disgust for "Vaishnavas", whom he referred to as "sex perverts". Surely, he could not have been referring to bona fide "Rupanugas", i.e. those coming down in the parampara of Rupa and the other 5 Goswamis of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, because they were (and are) puritanical in their behaviour.

Swami Vivekananda NEVER uttered disgust for ALL Vaishnavas. Again you are making false claims. Give an EXACT REFERENCE if you feel you are right.

QUOTEBut if you've been reading my posts, you will note that I wanted to tie any argument on this thread to the central theme -- the cost/benefit and the effect on theology in the drive for "Hindu unity". But I have already started responding to sunder. 

Judging by your writing, your drive for Hindu unity will be still born.

gangajal · 05-17-2005, 02:49 AM

Carl,
I read through your claim that RK mission gives contradictory definitions of Maya and laughed aloud to see your ignorance.

QUOTEThe present example deals with the very definition of "maya". The Ramakrishna mission that Vivekananda founded publishes many books, and one will note that even within this set theire is plenty of inconsistency -- what to speak of the inconsistency b/w what Vivekananda said and what Ramakrishna said. Many "swamis" in this mission define maya as a "dream", non-existence, some mental projection (classic shunyavaad). They quote the line from the viveka-cudaamani -- brahma-satyam jagan-mithya. "Mithya" means "false", therefore all except brahman is non-existent according to their simplistic explanation. You, I, and the computer in front of you...its all a dream...wake up and realize you're God!


You claim that Mithya means false and therefore all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream. Mithya does not mean non-existence. That would violate Shankara's teaching that Mithya does not mean barren woman's child which is clearly impossible. You clearly have no understanding of Mithya. First find out the meaning of Mithya and then enter into debates. You have made other silly charges against RK mission and Vivekananda in your continuing quest for Hindu unity no doubt. Before there can be any debate about those charges, first make sure that you have a proper understanding of Mithya.

05-17-2005, 11:06 AM

gangajal, once again I'll try and answer:

QUOTESwami Vivekananda NEVER uttered disgust for ALL Vaishnavas.I didn't say he was speaking of ALL Vaishnavas. But the fact that he was referring to such apasampradayas as "Vaishnava" shows a lack of familiarity with the pronouncements of authorities like Lord Chaitanya. And Vivekananda's stamping such deviant sects as "Vaishnava" has been carried into several textbooks on "Hinduism", especially in the West. This is the sort of thing I was complaining about originally, that the RK mission has set itself up as an information-booth about "Hinduism", when it is ill-qualified to do so.

QUOTEYou claim that Mithya means false and therefore all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream...Er, my friend, in those lines I was stating the shunyavadi theory that I was arguing AGAINST. Did you read the full sentence?? It ends with "according to THEIR simplistic explanations". <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> After that I wrote 2 paras about what my understanding of maya is. Bro, if you want to attempt theological debate on an internet BB, you should try to read complete sentences before jumping up to criticize, or "laughing aloud"...

That shunyavadi theory (which you yourself have just mocked) is to be found in several books published by initiated swamis of the RK mission. You may verify this for yourself. You will also not deny the fact that there is no philosophical consistency within the RK mission, and many brannches are more-or-less independent. Further, several long-time initiates of the RK mission whom I know have echoed such shunyavadi notions. It is quite surprising to me, especially since Sri Ramakrishna himself has explained maya in more enlightened terms that Chaitanya mahaprabhu popularized in Gauda desh.

QUOTEYes, I expected some such remark from you. You naturaaly talk down Vaishnavas who differ from your view.Bhagavandas Babaji actually saw and met Sri Ramakrishna and accepted that Sri Ramakrishna was as great as Lord Chaitanya. So naturally your sectarian mind rejects Bhagavandas Babaji as a Vaishnava.First off, the RK mission's published books claiming Sri Ramakrishna is an avatara of Lord Chaitanya is not based on this unknown personage Bhagavandas, but on the pronouncements of Sarada devi, Sri Ramakrishna's wife. She is reported to have observed his ecstacies and said, "Just like Chaitanya, he is an avatara of God". Also, in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, he says "I am Nimai". He also said at other times, "I came as Rama, I came as Krishna". So let's leave it at that. In any case, don't side-track the issue with unverifiable quibbles. The point I was making was this -- please demonstrate to me any similarity or continuity between the teachings of Lord Chaitanya and that of Sri Ramakrishna. The Chaitanya Charitaamrita (and the writings of the Goswamis) are available. And the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna is available. The Gospel book is full of anecdotes, parables and analogies that Sri Ramakrishna related which were originally spoken by Chaitanya mahaprabhu (but no acknowledgement is made of the source). But apart from the patchy storytelling, the whole plot is quite different. I invite you to read both books, the Gospel, and Chaitanya Charitamrita.

About Sri Ramakrishna's experiments with Tantra: It is a touchy subject and the RK mission rarely publicizes it because the Indian public is rather conservative. But we know what Tantra involves. And of course it involves self-control. I didn't say otherwise. No need to be defensive. My only point was that this part has nothing to do with Chaitanya Vaishnavism.

05-17-2005, 02:45 PM

Dear Carl,
I wish I had time to join this thread, but I do see that you are doing a great job.
Vaishnavism is most misunderstood, thanks to the neo-advaitic groups who have hijacked Hinduism to be Monism which as Vaishnavas know has been thoroughly debated and defeated by All the PurvaAcharyas.

Keep up the good fight!

As for Ramakrishna and Co, I have this to ask: Where do they trace their Sampradaya to?? What is their Guru-Parampara? Who is his Diksha Guru?

Jagan Mohan.

05-17-2005, 05:34 PM

Carl,

Sorry for the delay.

1. From the latest post (perhaps I need to re-read your post) I still dont see why you agreed with me when I said -> 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 ?

2. I see that in your worldview you see the world in terms of monotheistic v/s non-monotheistic and consider monotheism the highest virtue to aspire to and you think that monotheism will be able to hold the pack of cards in their place ? Am I understanding this correctly ? If my assumption is correct then which monotheistic God should India aspire to ?

3. A couple of unrelated points which we probably shouldnt discuss at length.. (a) I guess you were responding to my copy-paste on BR re. the quraish ? I agree that saying islam = arab paganism is false. It is much more then that. But you forgot to mention the first proposal that the quraish made -> dont speak ill of our gods. That doesnt sound too ridiculous to me. (b) IMHO hindu nationalism didnt put "religion" on table, it put hindu religion on table. The others were already on the table.

4. Let me just clarify one thing - I am not against monotheism, per se. If Dharma needs this tool to defeat the abrahamnic cults once and for all, then so be it. Lets adapt ourselves to it and lets have a go at them. I am just not sure how it fits the bill though. For example, given a monotheism v/s non-monotheism worldview how do you distinguish between the abrahamnic cults and vaishnavism, say ? What is Vaishnavism's USP ? How does it equip "hinduism" with more firepower ?

5. I agree the issues are much deeper. Hopefully guroos here will educate.. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' />

Might take a few days to respond. A little tight work schedule.. <!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />

Hari Bol.

gangajal · 05-17-2005, 11:12 PM

QUOTE(Carl @ May 17 2005, 11:06 AM)


Carl,
Your effort is again less than satisfactory.

QUOTE]I didn't say he was speaking of ALL Vaishnavas. But the fact that he was referring to such apasampradayas as "Vaishnava" shows a lack of familiarity with the pronouncements of authorities like Lord Chaitanya. And Vivekananda's stamping such deviant sects as "Vaishnava" has been carried into several textbooks on "Hinduism", especially in the West. This is the sort of thing I was complaining about originally, that the RK mission has set itself up as an information-booth about "Hinduism", when it is ill-qualified to do so. 

Vivekananda called these sampradayas Vaishnavas because these sampradayas call themselves Vaishnavas. This is the reason why western scholars have accepted Vivekananda's position. No one will accept your sampradyas' designation of another sampradaya. Your sampradaya seems to have a fascistic bent of mind trying to dictate to other sampradayas what they should call themselves. Who has given the right to your sampradaya to dictate to other sampradayas?

Your diatribe against RK mission suggests envy. If you do not like RK mission's position then inform people of your position instead of writing sexual inneundoes against Ramakrishna.

To Be Continued

gangajal · 05-17-2005, 11:33 PM

QUOTE<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEYou claim that Mithya means false and therefore all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream...Er, my friend, in those lines I was stating the shunyavadi theory that I was arguing AGAINST. Did you read the full sentence?? It ends with "according to THEIR simplistic explanations". <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> After that I wrote 2 paras about what my understanding of maya is. Bro, if you want to attempt theological debate on an internet BB, you should try to read complete sentences before jumping up to criticize, or "laughing aloud"...

That shunyavadi theory (which you yourself have just mocked) is to be found in several books published by initiated swamis of the RK mission. You may verify this for yourself. You will also not deny the fact that there is no philosophical consistency within the RK mission, and many brannches are more-or-less independent. Further, several long-time initiates of the RK mission whom I know have echoed such shunyavadi notions. It is quite surprising to me, especially since Sri Ramakrishna himself has explained maya in more enlightened terms that Chaitanya mahaprabhu popularized in Gauda desh.
</div>

Carl,
I laughed loudly even more after reading your claim that you were stating Shunyavad theory when you wrote that all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream. Shunyavad, expounded by Nagarjuna and commented on by Chandrakirti, is a Buddhist theory and rejects Brahman and Atman and all eternalism. Why did you suddenly jump from Advaita to Shunyavad and then you get shunyavad wrong? This is about the craziest answer I have ever come across. I was making a point about Advaita and this fellow jumps over to a faulty description of Shunyavadis. Why????

I did not mock Shunyavadis but you Carl. RK mission does not follow Shunyavad but bhakti misrita Advaita and also respects Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita. If you have seen shunyavad in RK mission swami's books then I suggest you check your eyesight.

You have also made the fatous claim that Sri Ramakrishna has explained maya popularized by Lord Chaitanya. I have some news for you Carl. The explanation of maya given by Sri Ramakrishna is a Sakta theory borrowed from Tantra/Kashmiri Saivism. It has absolutely nothing to do with the bahiraga/Antaranga or swarupa Shakti theory of Gaudia Vaishnava sampradya. You seem to be going all over the map, Carl!

To Be Continued

gangajal · 05-17-2005, 11:55 PM

QUOTE<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEYes, I expected some such remark from you. You naturaaly talk down Vaishnavas who differ from your view.Bhagavandas Babaji actually saw and met Sri Ramakrishna and accepted that Sri Ramakrishna was as great as Lord Chaitanya. So naturally your sectarian mind rejects Bhagavandas Babaji as a Vaishnava.First off, the RK mission's published books claiming Sri Ramakrishna is an avatara of Lord Chaitanya is not based on this unknown personage Bhagavandas, but on the pronouncements of Sarada devi, Sri Ramakrishna's wife. She is reported to have observed his ecstacies and said, "Just like Chaitanya, he is an avatara of God". Also, in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, he says "I am Nimai". He also said at other times, "I came as Rama, I came as Krishna". So let's leave it at that. In any case, don't side-track the issue with unverifiable quibbles. The point I was making was this -- please demonstrate to me any similarity or continuity between the teachings of Lord Chaitanya and that of Sri Ramakrishna. The Chaitanya Charitaamrita (and the writings of the Goswamis) are available. And the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna is available. The Gospel book is full of anecdotes, parables and analogies that Sri Ramakrishna related which were originally spoken by Chaitanya mahaprabhu (but no acknowledgement is made of the source). But apart from the patchy storytelling, the whole plot is quite different. I invite you to read both books, the Gospel, and Chaitanya Charitamrita.

About Sri Ramakrishna's experiments with Tantra: It is a touchy subject and the RK mission rarely publicizes it because the Indian public is rather conservative. But we know what Tantra involves. And of course it involves self-control. I didn't say otherwise. No need to be defensive. My only point was that this part has nothing to do with Chaitanya Vaishnavism.</div>

Carl,
You do not seem to read what you have yourself written. You have quoted Sarada Devi saying,"Just like Chaitanya .....". Yes, Sri Ramakrishna was JUST LIKE Chaitanya. That DOES NOT mean Sri Ramakrishna was Chaitanya. Don't you understand simple English?

You have then gone on claiming that the Gospel is not the same as Chaitanya Charitamrita. You are right. Sri Ramakrishna was just like Lord Chaitanya but not Lord Chaitanya himself as your quote of Sarada Devi shows . So why should the Gospel and the Chaitanya Charitamrita be exactly the same?
They won't be. Your claim that Sri Ramakrishna's maya theory is borrowed from Lord Chaitanya is also bogus. The Saktas of Bengal adapted Kashmiri Saivism for their theory. You are making all these bogus claims because you are ignorant of the issues.

You have made another false and fatous claim that RK mission rarely publicizes Ramakrishna's experiments with Tantra. Why call his Tantric sadhana experiments? Tantra is a regular spiritual practice. It is RK mission that has detailed Ramakrishna's Tantra sadhana.
You have written,"But we know what Tantra involves". Yes, I know what Tantra involves. But do you?
You claimed that Ramakrishna involved himself in massages. Please give exact reference on the massage part. RK mission, unlike your false claim, has detailed Sri Ramakrishna's experiences with Tantra. For example, once Yogeswari brought a woman in Sri Ramakrishna's room at midnight. Yogeswar asked the woman to disrobe and then asked Sri Ramakrishna to meditate on this woma's lap. Apparently this is one of the 64 Tantric sadhana. Sri Ramakrishna sat on the woman's lap and plunged into samadhi. When he came out of samadhi he found himself alone. Then Yogeswari came into the room and told him that his Tantric sadhana is at end. Yogeswari told Sri Ramakrishna that usually most spiritual aspirants ask her to remove the woman within a few minutes. She told Sri Ramakrishna that she has never seen anyone go into samadhi while seated on the lap of a naked woman. All the details are given in Swami Saradananda's "Sri Ramakrishna: The Great Master". So where did you get the idea, a false one, that RK mission does not publicize Sri Ramakrishna's Tantric sadhana?

Sunder · 05-18-2005, 12:03 PM

Gangajal ji, I have been reading your posts, and see that you are logically trying to defend an illogical rant. I have been silent on this thread as I thought it will take away what every focus from the topics of discussion on "Who is a real Hindu", and the "Hindu Unity" etc.

Gangajal ji / Admins, I seek permission to start a thread where Iskcon's POV is analyzed ? That way, the current thread will gain focus on it's "Who is a Hindu"

QUOTEISKCON says AUM is an "Incarnation" of Vishnu.

So far as Omkara Pranava is concerned, He is considered the sound incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; (Sound, and "Incarnation"?? did I actually read Incarnation??) as such Omkara is eternal, unlimited, transcendental, supreme, and indestructible. He is the beginningless, and He is the beginning, middle and end. When one understands the Omkara as such, then he becomes immortal. One should know Omkara as a representation of the Supreme situated in everyone's heart. Anyone who understands Omkara and Vishnu as one and the same and all-pervading, never laments the material world, nor does he remain anymore as a Sudra.

Although He (Omkara) has no material form, He is unlimitedly expanded, and has unlimited form.
...
Actually, Omkara is as good as other incarnations (???????????????) of the Supreme Lord.

The Lord has innumerable incarnations, and Omkara is one of them, as an incarnation of the alphabet. As stated in the Bhagavad-gÄ«tÄ: "Amongst the letters I am Omkara".(Is it Aksharaanaam AKAAROSMI, or AUMKaarosmi?)

My head hurts, after incessantly banging my head on the walls trying to understand this interpretation of Aum... this and such "wisdoms" are what I would like to discuss in the "Iskcon, what is it?" thread.

**acharya** · 05-18-2005, 10:35 PM

SUndar, Please start a thread on ISKON since the real message and direction of ISKON has to be studied.

gangajal · 05-18-2005, 10:43 PM

Sundar ji,
It would be great if you do start a thread on ISCKON.

Regards

Gangajal

05-18-2005, 11:04 PM

Sunder guroo,

Please go ahead. We are a little short on mods right now, so please lead the discussion in a direction where little or no moderation is required. Also it would be nice if somebody from ISCKON (like Carl) participates in this in order to make discussion more fruitful. So I guess more then us, it is their availability that is important ?

Thanks.

_____________________

All,

Lets try and keep this thread focussed on "who is a hindu" theme and at a higher level. This isnt really about vaishnavism v/s advaita v/s shaktism etc.. This discussion has been going on for god only knows how many centuries (or millenia) and we are unlikely to settle this in a thread here. What we can discuss and hopefully get more insight in are some higher level issues like

- Why is it that hindu society is a cross-section of all creeds (per Carl) and why isnt any other society like that ? And despite all these 'creeds' what ties a hindu to another hindu ?
- What does it mean when a 'creed' or an acharya debates and defeats another acharya ? Does that mean the defeated acharya was 'false' ? If he was 'false' then was his experience 'false' ?
- What does 'absolute truth' mean ?
- etc..

IMVHO hindu society has provided a rich and fertile ground like no other. However there does exist a framework within which these 'creeds' come up. What is that framework ? Is this framework the same as it was 50 years ago ? 500 years ago ? 5000 years ago ? How do i evaluate these 'creeds' ? As a neophyte in this field I would like to understand this first before I ever go deep into any of these 'creeds'.

Hope it makes sense... <!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 05-18-2005, 11:50 PM by Sunder.)

QUOTEIMVHO hindu society has provided a rich and fertile ground like no other. However there does exist a framework within which these 'creeds' come up. What is that framework ? Is this framework the same as it was 50 years ago ? 500 years ago ? 5000 years ago ? How do i evaluate these 'creeds' ? As a neophyte in this field I would like to understand this first before I ever go deep into any of these 'creeds'.

Hope it makes sense... <!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />

Rajesh ji, it makes perfect sense to what you say. (About the moderation in the new thread, it will ONLY be fruitful if there is participation from ISKCON members like Carl.) Personally, I have no malice towards any denomination of Sanathana Dharma. It is when someone throws derogatory remarks against another that the defences go sky high.

Your questions above are in the right direction. The 'creeds' (mathas) within Sanathana Dharma is a beautiful framework of the Indian cosmology. The Vaidhika Dharma sampradhayas work within the framework of the Vedas. The Agamas however vary, as you can find here ( http://www.dlshq.org/religions/agamas.htm )

QUOTEThe Agamas are divided into three sections: the Vaishnava, the Saiva and the Sakta. The three chief sects of Hinduism, viz., Vaishnavism, Saivism and Saktism, base their doctrines and dogmas on their respective Agamas. The Vaishnava Agamas or Pancharatra Agamas glorify God as Vishnu. The Saiva Agamas glorify God as Siva and have given rise to an important school of philosophy known as Saiva-Siddhanta, which prevails in South India, particularly in the districts of Tirunelveli and Madurai. The Sakta Agamas or Tantras glorify God as the Mother of the Universe, under one of the many names of Devi.

The Agamas do not derive their authority from the Vedas, but are not antagonistic to them. They are all Vedic in spirit and character. That is the reason why they are regarded as authoritative.


Thus the differences that come about is from the Agama stream of thought. The Brahma Sutra Bhashya (I have read only Shankara Bhashya) refutes the Agama schools - Pashupatha, Pancharatra etc, and reconciles them. Someone can educate me how Sri Ramanujacharya, and Sri Madvacharya interpret this.

OTOH, The framework for unity is the Vedas (Shruthi), the Smrithi, and the Puranas. Any one (be it a shaiva, or vaishnava) who holds on to ONLY ONE set of name/form and rejects another set of name/form as inferior cannot be speaking the Vedic statemt "sa Brahma, sa Shiva, sa Hari, Sa Indra, So Akshara, paramah Sva Raat", i.e he is Brahma, Shiva, Hari, Indra, the Imperishable and is the Self-Ruler.)

Shambhu · 05-19-2005, 02:31 AM

My suggestion for "who is a hindu":

a. A person who calls himself a hindu

--which, to my knowledge, is fully equivalent to (b) below.

b. A person (X) who does not call for the conversion of other people based on his (X's) belief system [I put in the X to make the meaning clearer]. A hindu may ask for people to be reconverted to hinduism. "Reconverted" meaning that there exists strong evidence to say that the present religion the "other people" (above) was hinduism.

I added the reconversion clause to include the VHP etc.

Please feel free to add/subtract/correct/praise/issue monetary rewards <!--emo& Wink

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' />

Login




Remember me Lost Password?