Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (3rd Bin)

[Husky]

This post is in pre-emption.



The quoteblocks contain the only important things.



New-agey Indians and religion salesmen already sold (out) yoga to alien demons.

And so now modern Indians/"Hindus" are on the backfoot, as it is being wrested from them. Communist crypto-christo allegations that Yoga has nothing to do with (Hindu) religion - and is in fact Greek or Roman or anything else - gets the retort from "Hindus" that yoga is Hindu in origin, but tied to yet another grave error: that just because it is Hindu "in origin" it does not follow that christoislamaniacs and the dabbling alien demons can't dabble in it too. <- A bit like monogamists saying that even though X should be recognised as my spouse doesn't mean others can't sleep with X. Even the tackiness in the arguments is identical.



In other words, modern Hindus have totally capitulated and the enemies know it (though not the 'Hindus' arguing): such Hindus have essentially said anyone may pillage on yoga now. It is also an invitation to distortion, which is all Malhotra wants to disapprove of, but this is an inevitable secondary problem that follows on from the aforementioned primary one.



Long ago had wondered out loud what things still remain to Hindoo heathenism. Though modern Hindus might try selling all that remains off next (and then give up without a proper fight with the right arguments too). I mean, they've already sold most things to Buddhism and Jainism, from which it got branded "all-Indian" by christianism, after which these things were also encroached on by christianism as equally christian and actually/originally christian.





A very serious matter to heathen Hindus - note: to heathens, i.e. Hindoos alone, so not atheist Hindu Atanu Dey types or neo/pseudo-Vedantins like "ccc" to whom heathenism=Vedic religion dubbed 'polytheistic idolatry' doesn't compute and who therefore confuse it with christoislam -

Again: a very serious matter to HindOOs is that, Buddhism and christianism too have been attempting to not just redefine bhakti to refer to Buddha bhakti and christian bhakti respectively, but to claim that each originated it. It's a trait of the many infernal missionary religions plaguing heathens.





An example of the Buddhist assertions is brought up in post 251 and onwards in the Buddhism thread, and particularly discussed in post 257.

The christian case is more well-known to Indians, and can be seen in much of the back-projected missionary literature on India, including that by S Korean missionaries even.





Christianism has long been eyeing bhakti, to claim this as its own origination, and to thereupon claim that christianism must have influenced Hindoo-ism with this (and other heathenisms, since what Hellenes call Piety is a natural and indigenous feature of all heathenisms). Like Buddhism peddlers and the Jain Minority Forum, who have tried the same joke, christianism is still on a compulsive lying spree.



Bhakti is exclusively and originally Hindoo, originating in and exclusively concerning the Vedic religion=Gods (and the Hindoo cosmology) onlee, as seen in the Vedam. Missionary religions merely encroach on the word 'bhakti' and make a shadow copy of its meaning, all in order to missionise on heathens: by declaring that the original devotion or the true devotion was to their gawd/replacement entity. (Buddhism argues mostly by 'original devotion' and christianism via 'true devotion' but hopes to even try 'original devotion'.)





Transcribing - in pre-emption, as stated before - from a useful source:

[Bhakti:] Its Vedic Origin



Actually the doctrine of bhakti is as old as the R^ig-veda itself. While commenting on the aphorism 'bhaktiH prameyA shrutibhyaH' [1], shrI nArAyaNa tIrtha has accumulated quite a mass of unassailable evidence to prove its [bhakti's] Vedic origin. Take for instance the R^ik where the Lord Vishnu has been praised and there is also a reference to the recitation of His names:



"You praise that Ancient Cause, the Origin of R^ita (the Divine Law), according to your knowledge. You will be freed from birth.** If you cannot praise Him, recite His name. However, we, O Lord ViShNu, devote ourselves to your light and attributeless form*!" (R.V. 1.156.3)



(Looked up and transcribed the referenced Rik from the RV index that was compiled by ethnic Hindoos [a temple initiative] and which is now hogged by alien demons - typical summary of how Hindoo endeavours get siphoned off to enlarging the alien vampires.)

tam u stotAraH pUrvyaM yathA vida R^itasya garbhaM januShA pipartana |

Asya jAnanto nAma cid-vivaktana mahaste viShNo sumatim bhajAmahe || (R^igveda 1.156.03)



तमु स्तोतारः पूर्व्यं यथा विद ऋतस्य गर्भं जनुषा पिपर्तन ।

आस्य जानन्तो नाम चिद्विवक्तन महस्ते विष्णो सुमतिम् भजामहे ॥ (ऋग्वेद १.१५६.०३)

* Can't quite work out where the 'light & attributeless form' bit appears. <- Is this the "chid-vivaktana mahaH", 'Vishnu, your chit-only and light [form]'? Note: this supposition is based on plain dictionary lookups, to find out which words match the translator's provided translation segments.



** "You will be freed from birth" seems to be a ref to "[tam...] garbhaM januShA pipartana". If translated this way, as has been done above, it does sound like a reference - in the Rigveda itself - of ancient Hindoos already aiming for mokSha as freedom from rebirth/samsAra...

Merely noting.

And again, this R^ik where there is a clear allusion to the hearing and reciting of His (Vishnu's) names as also surrender to Him:



'He who offers (his all) to Lord ViShNu, the husband of ShrI (LakShmI), the Ancient Cause, the Creator, the Ever-new, he who recites the glorious birth and works* of this glorious Being, that giver, that reciter, obtains fame (or bhukti) and reaches the Highest Abode' (R.V. 1.156.2)



(Looking up the original Skt of the verse again

yaH pUrvyAya vedhase navIyase sumajjAnaye viShNave dadAshati |

yo jAtam asya mahato mahi bravat sed u shravobhir yujyaM cidabhyasat || (R^igveda 1.156.02)



यः पूर्व्याय वेधसे नवीयसे सुमज्जानये विष्णवे ददाशति ।

यो जातम् अस्य महतो महि ब्रवत् सेदु श्रवोभिर् युज्यं चिदभ्यसत् ॥ (ऋग्वेद १.१५६.०२)

* "Reciting the glorious birth and works [of Vishnu]". Wait wait, is that a ref to Vishnu's avataaras? Nah, can't be: Vishnu's avataaras were totaal verboden by Elst/Elstians.



[BTW, the above two examples of Vishnu worship taken from the R^igvedam contravenes Michel Danino's statement that Vishnu was a Puranic deity (or any possibly intended implication that Vishnu-worship is Pauranic). Of course, the Hindoo Puranas are part of Vedic religion and not otherwise, but the point is that the Vedam already shows Vishnu worship (well obviously) and so it cannot be dated/traced to the Puranas for origins - as it's not a separate religion.]

Another R^ik considers Indra the great God as father and mother:



'O Vasu! O Shatakratu! You have become our Father! You are Mother! So now we bow down to you!' (R.V. 8.98.11)

tvaM hi naH pitA vaso tvam mAtA shatakrato babhUvitha |

adhA te sumnam Imahe || (R^igveda 8.098.11)



त्वं हि नः पिता वसो त्वम् माता शतक्रतो बभूविथ ।

अधा ते सुम्नम् ईमहे ॥ (ऋग्वेद ८.०९८.११)

:zó lief:

Anyway, can see it's literally true: the Vedam itself says so. Indran+his devAtmaShakti (Shachee Amman) gave birth to all the ethnic Hindoos and the cosmos. Like Vishnu united with his wife LakShmI 'sumajjAnaye viShNave' seen just a bit above in RV 1.156.02, and like Rudra united with UmA seen in the posts 189-191 on the previous page.



Note: all the above - the Gods and the vedamantras about them - belong to HindOO heathens onlee. Not to 'Hindus' who reinvented themselves as "atheist agnostic Hindus".

"Sorry."

Coming to the UpaniShads [...]

(And then the above goes on to give examples from the Upanishads. But I stop excerpting here, because enough examples have been referred to in the ShvetAshvatara Upanishad in post 189 on the subject of Ishvara praNidhana, devotion to the Ishvara [Hindoo Gods]. But this bit is literally relevant



The ShvetAshvatara UpaniShad actually uses the word bhakti and clearly states prapatti also (Shv. U. 6.23)



(And of course the already mentioned "sharaNam prapadye" to Rudra the Maheshvara literally occurring in 6.18 of Shv.U.)

So not only does the bhakti - the profound affections - of Hindoos for their Gods date to the Vedam, but the word itself too.

But then, christianism stole the word Piety from Hellenismos and pretended that only christianism cultivated 'piety'. In truth, only Hellenes ever felt deeply for their Olympic Gods, as all heathens in Europe and beyond did for their pantheons of Gods, whereas christians were at most brainwashed into obsessing over a non-existent entity, by replacing their heathen ancestors' attachment to the heathen Gods with the obsession/fake feelings to the fake gawd that replaced the ancestral heathenisms. Christoislamics never loved their gawd: not only are they incapable of love and only capable of genocide, but that's all that their fake religion with its evil and non-existent=false monogawd *could* ever inspire.





[1] Expanded version of reference:

'bhaktiH prameyA shrutibhyaH || 9

purAnetihAsAbhyAM cheti || 10

(and from the worship and conduct of bhaktas starting with Rishis)'



"Bhakti is to be known from the Vedas. || 9

And also from the PurANas and itihAsas. || 10"

Anyway, the pre-emptive warning is that HindOOs shouldn't let other Hindus allow christos/everybody else to steal the origins and sole home of bhakti away from Hindoos, the so-called "polytheistic idolators", the way originally-heathen Hindoo yoga has been sold to anybody and everybody to dabble in.



Other Hindus are NOT heathens. Bhakti at least can't be contorted to some universal Indic religion, as it concerns exclusively Hindoo heathenism, and so non-heathens who go by the Hindu appellation have no right to speak on it, much less gift Bhakti next to missionary religions, Indic or alien.



In truth, the so-called "polytheistic idolatry" is the only thing that prevents the Borg-assimilation of Hindoos into the replacement movements. Whenever this feature ("polytheistic idolatry") - which is the definition of heathenism - is removed from HindOOs, they become de-heathenised, and they or their progeny somewhere along the line can become easily assimilated into any missionary religion or into unheathen replacement ideologies, whether these go by the Hindu label too or not.

And there is No Way back to heathenism from de-heathenisation - excluding deus-ex-machinas, obviously. Heathenism/"polytheistic idolatry" does NOT compute to once-were-monotheists and atheists/agnostics (the latter would have to have seen the Gods before they have any valid reason to change over to heathenism, anything else is sentimentality and hypocrisy, and the former repeatedly show proof that heathenism makes no sense to them without the direct intervention and initiation into heathenism by the Gods to encourage their efforts. Example of direct intervention leading to successful reversion. Another example of proper reversion to heathenism is famously Julian himself, although his inclinations were heathen - his quality was innate - except that he had unfortunately been raised by christians in a christianised family.)



In short, it is very easy to lose the heathenism one is raised in (i.e. the heathenism of one's recent lineage) - by de-heathenising - but it is very nigh impossible to become a heathen of one's ancestral tradition. The examples are not just the tragic case of most of the west, but also seen among Indians, even among many calling themselves Hindus but who are not heathens (not HindOOs) though their ancestors were in most cases.





The stuff in quoteblocks are the only important parts of this post.