Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Husky' date='18 July 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1279436542' post='107508']





f) Now don't make up absurdities.



[color="#0000FF"]INSERTED:[/color] You don't deserve to know, but I will write it anyway for any poor Hindoo out there who naturally felt slighted by such lame accusations like yours involving "despise" and other inanities.



To Shaivas, Vishnu is seen as an equal, and those that ultimately make no conscious distinction, see him as an extension of Shiva's very self (or vice-versa).

Confirmed by Shiva's name as Vishnuvallabha, and the consequent fact that Vishnu (like Uma) is seen as occupying half of Shiva (or vice-versa, or rather, since it is an equal half, Harihara is part Shiva part Vishnu). Other full-on Shaivas like Lingayats don't make any distinction in quality either, they merely primarily worship their kuladevam (in their case Shiva) like the rest of the Hindus do, but I know for a fact that they worship Vishnu too when the occasion comes and have seen them do so with great eagerness.



It is generally the norm, as far as I know, that Shiva Kovils be constructed with a Sannidhi for Vishnu, as also for various other Gods like Lakshmi, Saraswati, Hanuman, the Navagrahas, etc. (which is why the construction of Shiva Kovils therefore also requires it have a special area for the Navagrahas). And ShivagaNas and, in Tamizh Kovils, Nandikeshwara.

And Hindus who pray in Shiva Kovils do NOT think of the other Gods as servants of Shiva (other than Nandi and the gaNas), but eagerly go to see all the Gods' sannidhis and pray to them all, each time with only the God/Couple they're currently looking at in mind. Shiva requires all these Gods to be worshipped - not as some lesser entities to himself, but so that Hindus do not forget, even in a temple primarily dedicated to Shiva+wife, that there are many Gods (and also particular manifestations of these same Gods) that also deserve Hindus' worship - which is exactly why his Kovils generally must house all these Gods. It is as Shiva wants it.



Pooja to the Shivalingam is likewise considered to be pooja at once offered to the Trimoorti (and all their spouses, of course) and ultimately all the Hindu Gods of the cosmos, as they are all represented in the very form and construction of the Shiva Lingam itself (most noticeably the Trimoorti is represented, but not exclusively them). The Shiva Lingam is a concentrated form of the Shiva Kovil, which is a concentrated form of the Kosmos. So the Hindu whose kuladevam is Shiva, when he prays to a Shivalingam, is praying to Shiva+every other Hindu God too. This is both consciously and subconsciously so. Certainly, the prayers that are offered ultimately go to all the Gods. Which is why Shiva becomes so immensely pleased. A Shiva Lingam is Shiva. A Shiva Lingam is Shiva+Uma. A Shiva Lingam is the Trimoorti (their spouses automatically included). A Shivalingam is also All the Hindu Gods. A Shiva Lingam is a concentrated version of Everything.



You're just obviously ignorant of Hindu religion altogether.





Anyway, to the easiest question of them all:

Your If is theoretical.

Regardless: I always say that People (and modern movements) Who Have Never Seen* the Hindu Gods Should Shut Up about said Gods. (Well, it is the only reasonable thing to say.)



[* "seen": with which I obviously don't mean in a vision/in the mind's eye/while dreaming or even while meditating or other such cases where the evidence can be dubious.]

[/quote]

Now,it take me 5 minutes to recover from the shock.

But before jumping on my head you should know that i have some facts that you can check yourself .About 1000 years ago Ramanuja was exiled by the shaiva king because he was a vaishnava.I hope these are the exceptions and not the rule,but last year ,right on this forum, an old user(which seem to be shaiva) said that some shaiva could get angry on vaishnavas because of their believes.Thats sound like intolerance to me.

The shaiva views are variate and the believes about Shiva and Vishnu are different from place to place.So im not question what you say but this doesnt mean that all shaiva views are reflected in what you say.

Anyway ,is nothing new to me.Even vaishnavas belive that Shiva is an expansion of Vishnu or Krishna by case,or part of Vishnu.Even your hated iskonites believe this.

But even if shaivas will belive that Vishnu is a minor god or even lower than that ,this will not bother me.At most i could debate whit them to prove that im right and they are wrong.If they will win the debate ,i will show them my regards.Thats the healthy and morally correct way to deal whit the situation.But if i force(by violence ,bribe,tricks) them to believe what i believe that will be immoral and dictatorial.

I find the shaivas as natural allies against the real danger(christo-islamics).If you protect the unity ,i protect the difference.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Husky' date='18 July 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1279436542' post='107508']





e) You know nothing about the Hindu religion. You just do some westernised brand of Indian religion.

Your two or 3 years (or were it even decades) of dabbling in ISKCON doesn't make you an expert on Hindu religion. And it certainly gives you no right to presume as you do. You keep playing the put-upon ISKCONite and declaring This and That from behind the safety you think your assumed label/affiliation buys you. But I am quite unaffected: in this one respect I am entirely unlike other modern Hindus, in that I'm not remotely interested in gaining or retaining western converts and their mostly passing interest in 'Hinduism'. Privately, I wait for them to get bored and find something else to do, as fortunately so many do. (Goes without saying that I have no problem with people of western origin who genuinely find their home to be in Hindu religion. But they are very different and do not concern us here.)

You really ought to stop your presumption in lecturing Hindus about our own religion, it got tiresome the very first time you tried it. You, and similar persons, sound like all those western people dabbling in Taoism (they get their knowledge of "Taoism" by reading books, of course, or from joining overseas orgs) who then ignorantly and arrogantly lecture Taoists and the world that "Taoism doesn't actually have Gods". Fortunately, the traditional Taoists expressly disregard them and their opinionations.



[/quote]

If you think that all i know about hinduism came from iskcon books then you dont know me at all mate.And you dont know my points of disagreement and critics that i bring to iskcon in my articles.Beside guru power abuse and brahmin imitation ritual among other i also was critical on their desire to affiliate whit christians(some iskconites believe that they are christians or even fulfilled christians despite incompatibility) .They bring a Purana about a guy call Isa(Jesus) which is fine for me,an least the gnostic Jesus seems a better guy then the biblical Jesus.But today christians are not gnostics are they?And also i show it that Chaitanya has some different views comparative whit iskcon today.

We have a common point here so i also critic the westerners which convert to hinduism(or some unsuccessful copy of it)just because is cool or trendy .I support such temporary passion for hinduism an least for the reason that such persons will be less anti-hindu in the future or will remove some christo-islamic programing from their mind.

You hope that westerners will get bored of hindu practices but sadly so does many hindus.If a feel comfortable whit hindu decorations ,or music ,or religion,or methods of speculation dont blame me.

Anyway,i believe that India in 2050,if muslims wouldn't destroy the world whit nuclear weapons until then,will look just like a western country,whit western dress,western buildings and western everything else.The indian dress will be seen only in museums or some old-fashioned festivals.Only the skin color will make a difference.

As im aggressive,not defensive ,i try to impose(by market laws of course) the tropical colors and decorations in anything ,from dress to buildings.It will be an injustice if the peoples who like this tropical stuff will not have their places ,being suffocated by western minimalisation of all other styles.

Dont underestimate my efforts to know the hindu believes as best as possible.I search carefully,trying to go to the source,viewing the pro and contras. And hindus dont lecture themselves and also im not going to, except to some points that could ruin my believes .

And i dont have your bias against learning from books.You can find in the books things that are not readily visible even for a old practitioner.An only from books you know the hindu practices that are distant from your native region.Dont tell me that you know what happens in Bengal or Himachal .You know mostly about immediate region ,the rest you know from tv or temporary visits.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Husky' date='18 July 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1279436542' post='107508']

b.) - you are wrong about the way traditional Hellenes viewed Philosophy. Julian is certainly not the only example to make the point I had mentioned in my post (and I merely re-iterated their views, of course: it was too serious an issue for me to opinionate on). And Julianus was himself re-stating the common views of his Hellenistic predecessors and contemporaries. R.Smith's explanation of Julian's reason for choosing to bring up this established Hellenistic view in public - in order to use it vis-a-vis christianism - certainly has its merits. However, the point here is that Julian's supporting references to his predecessors' views on the matter, shows that it was indeed the established, common Hellenistic POV.

It is Julian and his fellow Hellenes that know their religion.



Your logic is wrong. It does not and never did concern a mere word in the case of Philosophy: Philosophy is a religious term and has a very specific meaning. The error I speak of is akin to saying "Vedanta is universal and can be applied to all religions in the world" if we just adopted it into English to mean what "philosophy" means now in English. No, Vedanta is not universal, it is Hindu alone.

English has been misusing Philosophy in this way.

It subverted a core religious term that has a specific meaning (which it deserves to retain) among those who own everything to do with the word.





c) The "animist" accusation is entertaining.

Let's try to recall the different things you've accused me of being over the years of your visiting IF.

Smarta. Wrong. Advaitin. Wrong. On yet another occasion, you declared I was doing some random "folk religion" or something. Wrong. (Unless it's defined as just the religion of the Hindu folk. )

Then there was another accusation - I forget. (You accuse so often, it's hard to keep track.)

Now animist. (Ironically, despite the christoword, you may be getting closer. Well, it depends on the intended meaning/connotation of animist.)



I'll make it easy for you.

Leaving aside my own person, my *ancestors* - down to my parents and uncles and aunts - are of the very same religion as the Hindu monkey that hugged his=my Rama-moorti before dying at Rama's feet and the Hindu Cobra that did puja to his=my Shiva-moorti (news articles on this were posted in the Hindu thread I think). I.e. the Hindu religion. My ancestors are of the religion of the RuShis who set down knowledge of the Hindu religion/Gods in our various scriptures.



You're again creating a "Husky" that doesn't exist. I will state my views for myself if or when I choose to. Don't ascribe opinions to me (which you seem to do just so you can declare you disagree, the same way you presume to attach labels to me - how often must you be so totally wrong before you will stop it?)





d) Poor misrepresented Shankara Bhagavadpada: most of the vocalists speaking on Vedanta today and bringing him in, entirely ignore his many works on the Gods and imagine that he was purely a "philosopher", and so they keep peddling just that one aspect of his: the one aspect that they are able to appreciate. It's because the Gods don't compute to the modern people who have developed an interest in Vedanta: people who generally tend to have been non-religious until they 'discovered' Advaitam. (I have yet to find one who didn't fit this pattern.) In contrast, the Gods certainly computed to Shankara. E.g. he declares at the end of his SAL, which is in praise of the one he was named for, that he did not lie in his praise. People who discover Shankara and his explication of Vedanta frequently dismiss - when they do not outright ignore - all the rest of his works, as being but his materials "meant for the (unintellectual) Hindoo masses". Yet all his output was part of his same Hindooness, and he was sincere about them all.

They've entirely hijacked (<- that word again) Adi Shankaracharya. But he was just a Hindoo. An Acharya, yes (I have made his stotras on the Gods my own*, as I have those of others before and after him: they so eloquently say what I want to say), but a Hindoo.

* Lines like "aham chAtibAlo, bhavAn lokatAtaH" addressed to shaktipaNe :mine: are simply perfect for me to want to steal the words. The entire stotram is magnificent, like the shloka on worshipping His Twelve Infallible Arms that protect the Universe :love: and the one on the same Baby - who was already seen addressed as the Father of the Kosmos - running to its Dad.



Anyway, I think affected and concerned Hindus really should reclaim the Acharya before it is too late for them. Else the way Vedanta is being manipulated in our time (particularly Advaitam, esp. as explained by Shankara), will force these Hindus into an unnatural 'choice' - where there never was any before - between the Gods and Shankara/Shankara's explication of Advaitam. That was never his intention.







[/quote]

Philosophy mean love of wisdom ,if it was something like philolimposophia :love for the Olympian(gods)wisdom you may have a case.Vedanta cant be applied to anything else.Vedanta mean the end(conclusion) of Vedas.We have something very specific here.

You didnt read my texts were i laugh at the so call pure advaitins and i have debates whit some of this so call shankarians and they dont believe that Shankara was a gods worshiper,that he say :worship Govinda,or they believe that he did it only symbolically.

But you also miss some things from Shankara.He was what we can call today ,a missionary.He travel all over debating whit different schools and usually wining the debates.And the defeated intellectuals will recognize his points as superior to them and sometimes converted to his views.Maybe hindus today dont like debates but that was part of hindu tradition.

When i say impersonal advaita im not talking about gods,but about Brahman(that was impersonal in Sankara system).

And in my system there are 3 types of monotheism,the impersonalism being the type 3.And i believe are also 6 versions of type 2 monotheism in hinduism.

Call it wrong but the point that i make is that i consider just missionarism my moral right and you shouldnt take it from me.Only thing you can do is to shot the door when you see me,which is fine whit me as long as im not attacked physically.

By western understanding ,animism usually mean worship of spirits ,the spirits being the watered-down version of gods,or the gods are the spirits on steroids.

It came from anima meaning soul or spirit.

I dont know Husky but i made assumptions about his views from what he write.

So it will be good to share your views about afterlife and the spiritual world .And finally ,do you see your gods(not in dream) ?

[Husky]

And finally ,do you see your gods(not in dream) ?

Obviously not. Where did I say I did.

But there are still traditional Hindus in Bharatam who do.

So it will be good to share your views about afterlife and the spiritual world .

Why the anthropology? I didn't know I had sold my brain - or whatever - to science, where's the money?

Philosophy mean love of wisdom ,if it was something like philolimposophia :love for the Olympian(gods)wisdom you may have a case.Vedanta cant be applied to anything else.Vedanta mean the end(conclusion) of Vedas.We have something very specific here.

You overlook the literal way in which I implied its misuse:

"Veda literally means knowledge. Vedaanta means end of knowledge. Conclusion: Vedanta is universal. <insert random religion here, like the genocidal one known for appropriating and inculturation> is Vedaanta." (No it's NOT.)

To Hindus, it stands uncontested that the Vedam is Knowledge. And it refers to that something particular: The Vedam.

But you never know what English may do. A "guru" is now any kind of expert teacher and a pundit any kind of alleged expert, and an avatar ... etc.



Philosophia is Love For Wisdom, yes. But it is the Hellenes' name for something particular, not anything in general. That is, they weren't thinking of how the world would take it literally hence see it as universal, when they derived their word that seemed appropriate to them to refer to their ... Philosophy. It is *their* Wisdom they are referring to, and the energetic enthusiastic pursuit and practice of it (which could include rituals, such as in Theurgy).



But there's really no use arguing with me. Can read for yourself how the Hellenes considered it. (From memory, R. Smith in his work on Julian also indicates a few things on how Julian and others regarded this.)



It was IIRC Apollo who was - among other things - traditionally considered the God of Philosophy, who originated it, and brought it to man. (As an aside, I think I recall coming across how at times Wisdom was considered to be embodied - in a Goddess, Sophia. C.f. Athena presiding over Wisdom.)

i have some facts that you can check yourself .

[...]

but last year ,right on this forum, an old user(which seem to be shaiva) said that some shaiva could get angry on vaishnavas because of their believes.Thats sound like intolerance to me.

And which character was that? Link to the post, please. It can only be confirmed for "the intolerance that it sounds like", if you present it for scrutiny.

About 1000 years ago Ramanuja was exiled by the shaiva king because he was a vaishnava. I hope these are the exceptions and not the rule,

There are several instances of historical infighting, it is no revelation to Hindus. (There were also local-level skirmishes.) But at least one can happily say that the Acharya later returned from his exile after IIRC the tyrant who hounded him out got some disease and kicked the bucket (will need to confirm). The previous ruler and successor were normal Hindus, so yes, as anyone would know, it was "an exception and not the rule".



But why bring it up? I hope it's not to play the Injured Victim/Persecution Syndrome using some 6 degrees of separation via ISKCON. Because then I would win at this absurdly childish game: at least *I* have some actual Shri Vaishnava ancestry (an ancestor from several centuries back, the ancientry makes it relevant to the situ).

Even your hated iskonites believe this.

What's with the melodrama? (Your drastic uses of "despise", "hate", "before jumping on my head"... <- Uh, do people often jump on your head that you should anticipate such behaviour from a stranger?)



Your needling is unproductive. While there are things I find quite dangerous in ISKCON and which I disapprove of to varying degrees, nothing will come of discussing them. Whatever happens, happens.



As for your presenting ISKCON's view on Shiva, it is not complete. The full opinion (as also on Uma, Saraswati etc) can be found in the founder's "BG As It Is", for instance. Okay fine, examples. See his commentary ("purport" section) to "text 21" (I think they mean shloka 21) of chapter 7, his commentary to chapter 10 "text 42", etc.

I wonder that Hindus are not more wary about their blind endorsements.

And i dont have your bias against learning from books.

Again, why do you attribute such nonsense to me? Where did I say I have some universal problem with learning from books?

I said that the foreign dabblers in Taoism learnt what they thought they knew of the religion from books and overseas organisations. I have seen what is in books on "Hinduism" and even some books on "Taoism". Everyone *ought* to be biased against such literature and the half-baked conclusions it creates.

But in another sense, I do think that many important aspects of the old religions are not written down (Taoism, and Shinto especially), so in that sense too, learning from books in such cases must needs be incomplete.

You can find in the books things that are not readily visible even for a old practitioner.An only from books you know the hindu practices that are distant from your native region.

Lay Hindus don't need to study the traditional life of other Hindus, as they follow their own ancestral tradition: they *live* the religion passed down to them - that is the whole point. They're not tourists to go observing other Hindus and then come back and practice something that is not theirs. They don't dabble.

What they will do instead, is get initiation into certain practices important to them - which may or may not be local/known locally - which is not the same as reading books on "Hinduism".

Dont tell me that you know what happens in Bengal or Himachal .You know mostly about immediate region ,the rest you know from tv or temporary visits.

I don't feel guilty not knowing the details of Bengali or Himachal Hindus' traditional lives. It is enough for me to know they practice their ancient ancestral Hindu religious tradition, just as Tamizh Hindus, say, follow their own.

So your point is...?

You didnt read my texts were i laugh at the so call pure advaitins and i have debates whit some of this so call shankarians and they dont believe that Shankara was a gods worshiper,that he say :worship Govinda,or they believe that he did it only symbolically.

(Shankara variously declared that well-known Hindu Gods X, Y, Z, A etc. were the Ultimate - *one* of whom was Mahavishnu/Govinda.)



"Laughing"? Again, why do you nouveau converts feel you have the right to behave so to Hindus. Let them be. People will believe what they can and want to believe. The problem comes when those-Hindus-who-are-not-traditional-Advaitins (not ancestrally so) go about peddling their modern opinions on the internet, as if they are some grand authority on upanishadic "aham brahmaasmi" having "discovered" Shankara. There are some places on the web where ... oh it doesn't matter.



The danger that such modern Hindus simply don't see in their eagerness to Hey Let's Vedanta, is one that is quite insidious.

Anyway, Shankara, like Plato, was not "just" a "monistic philosopher". While Plato - in IIRC Julian's words (<- how handy he is, what would I do without him) - 'worshipped images', Shankara was a... a Poly-Idolator, and praised multiple Gods, with lots of Liebe to boot. I do not suspect Shankara of insincerity.





Will continue some other day.

[Bharatvarsh2]

There are several instances of historical infighting, it is no revelation to Hindus. (There were also local-level skirmishes.) But at least one can happily say that the Acharya later returned from his exile after IIRC the tyrant who hounded him out got some disease and kicked the bucket (will need to confirm). The previous ruler and successor were normal Hindus, so yes, as anyone would know, it was "an exception and not the rule".

This is most likely hagiographical.



The ruler was Kulottunga wasn't he?



Here is some info about that in a post made by Kalavai Venkat:

<<< If you think, legends exaggerated his partiality to Saivite

institutions, you are hallucinating. I think you should refer to

original sources rather than Nilakanta Sastri (who have modern day

Sankara mutt/ Saivite prejudices) and the like. Next you will come

and say that Ramanuja was never persecuted by Chola kings.



Disappointed,

Lakshmi Srinivas>>>



I was most surprised by the tone of your post. I always take any

hagiography with a pinch of salt. There has been a lot of bravado on

the part of both Saiva and Vaishnava bhakti schools. It is imprudent

to take them all as historical facts despite gaping logical holes. I

have not cited K A N Sastri at all on this topic but you seem to

bring him up twice now. In fact, I cited references to original Tamil

sources and the secondary research publications, both of which I am

familiar with, on this subject in

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivi...sage/72292 but

surprisingly, you refused to discuss them stating out of personal

preference you prefer to believe that Tirukkural is post-Sangam:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivi...sage/72345. I

respect your decision but I would like to submit that I am not the

one shying away from discussing primary sources.



K A N Sastri continues to be the most reliable authority on Tamil

history. None can even hope to get a glimpse of the Chola era but for

his magnificent work on the Chola copper plate inscriptions. Like any

other scholar, his works would also require amendments with time and

new evidences but it is unfair to dismiss an impeccable scholar out

of sectarian considerations.



Now that you brought up the subject of the supposed persecution of

Ramanujacharya by Kulottunga Chola, let us get down to the facts. Of

course, starting with Prof. S Krishnaswamy Aiyengar, many have done

this and I am merely summarizing the arguments. There has been a lot

of historical controversy about the identity of the Krimikanta Chola.

The claimed contemporary of Ramanuja, when the latter took himself to

Melkote, would've been Kulottunga I. He was, no doubt more inclined

to Saivism, but was hardly a fanatic. Aiyengar points out (South

India Inscriptions, Vol. 3, pp. 148-152) in his "History of

Tirupati", Vol. 1, p. 274 that we have inscriptional evidence from

the reign of Kulottunga I that he made endowments for the worship of

Lord Ranganatha at Sri Rangam. His son, who succeeded him 1n 1118 CE,

Vikrama Chola, was himself a Vaishnava. So, Ramanuja's departure is

not attributable to any historically known sectarian conflict.



K A N Sastri ("The Cholas") and others are inclined to think, with

caution, that the Krimikanta Chola could've been Kulottunga II. The

narratives of Venkatachala Itihasamala find a corroborative echo in

Ottakkuttar's poem and are datable to 1135 CE. There is little doubt

that Kulottunga II was partial towards Saivism and might've neglected

Vaishnavism. But I am not at all convinced that he would've

persecuted the Vaishnavas, but even K A N Sastri (to my surprise)

accuses him of having started bitter sectarianism by removing the

deity of Govindaraja Perumal from the courtyard of the temple in

Chidambaram ("The Cholas," Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 74, fn. 62) entirely on

the assumption that Krimikanta Chola was Kulottunga II. If he removed

the deity of Govindaraja Perumal, it is unattested anywhere except in

the eulogies of Ottakuttar and in Divyasuricharita (which is repeated

in Prapannamritam).



Another reason that I find it hard to believe that Kulottunga II was

a fanatical persecutor is because, as epigraphy attests, he endowed

Vaishnava temples, albeit to a lesser degree with grants. His reign

was virtually free from vicious wars and was highly prosperous. To

compare him with Aurangazeb is travesty. For example, in prasastis #

27 to 32 of Kulottunga II (all continuation of endowments made by

Kulottunga I), is a record of gift to the temple of "Tiruvayppadi

Tirumalai Azhwar" or the "Lord of the cowherd village on the hill."



Per the Guruparampara, the date of Ramanuja's birth would be 1017 CE.

It is even questionable if he was alive when Kulottunga II ascended

to the throne. In all likelihood, one was not even born when the

other had died. There is always a danger in taking hagiography

literally and accuse Hindu kings of having been Aurangazebs.



There is a reason why UVS refers to the incident in "Rajarajan ula"

only obliquely during his discussions on "Kulottungacholan ula," if I

remember correctly. In the former, Kulottunga II is just eulogized

as "the one that got rid of the mischief of smaller deities from the

sacred site of Tillai – tillait tirumanrin mandrir siru deivat

tollaik kurumbu togutteduttu" while in the latter "kuyirrip purambir

kurumbanaitu mannir kadalgalil muzhguvitta." These could be merely

empty boasts of a fanatical Saiva poet and may have nothing to do

with the acts of Kulottunga II. Remember, for this to be true, one

must also accept the possibility of Ottakuttar having been the court

poet of 3 generations of Cholas ending with Kulottunga II. UVS being

a responsible scholar doesn't pander to sectarian jealousies and

treats bragging as such.



The Saivites and the Vaishnavites were both given to igniting

passions and provoking each other with verbal taunts. In Sadagopar

Andadi, attributed to Kambar, the writings of the Saivite saint

Manickavasagar are compared to the "malattu aa – infertile cow." It

is impossible for this Kambar to have been the same author of

Ramayana for the latter sings, "(H)aran adhiga ulagalandha (H)ari

adhigan ena uraikkum arivilarkku – those who dispute in ignorance

about who is greater, Hari or Haran." The interesting point is that

the author of Sadagopar Andadi quite likely lived in the reign of

Kulottunga II. Had the latter been a persecuting fanatic, such

compositions would've been unlikely. Have you seen anything like that

composed in the reign of Aurangazeb? The contemporary saints knew

which side of the bread was buttered and maintained a sensible

silence – oops; the heterodox variety instead blamed the Brahmins,

the victims of the Islamic sword!



Thanks.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivi...sage/72662

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Husky' date='19 July 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1279551209' post='107523']

O



As for your presenting ISKCON's view on Shiva, it is not complete. The full opinion (as also on Uma, Saraswati etc) can be found in the founder's "BG As It Is", for instance. Okay fine, examples. See his commentary ("purport" section) to "text 21" (I think they mean shloka 21) of chapter 7, his commentary to chapter 10 "text 42", etc.

[/quote]

Ive check my romanian version of BG as it is.That chapters indeed talk about demigods.

Im sure they use the word demigods because english dont have separate words for Bhagavan and Devas.

A confusion between God and Gods is possible in english.Because they cant say something like SuperGod,that will sound weird.

In romanian is easy distinguishable because are different words for God-Dumnezeu(Domine et Deus)and Gods-Zeu,Zei.Yet even here they use the word semi-zei(demi-gods)despite the fact that the simple zei(gods) will be sufficient.

Now ,what iskconites believe in simple terms.

Persons whit infinite power(allpowerfull)-Krishna,Radharani,Balaram,Vishnu,Shiva and so one.

Persons whit limited power-Brahma,Husky,Romani and so one.

There are an infinite number of persons but the Source of all power(infinite or limited) is Krishna.

Shiva is allpowerfull but he have his infinite power from Krishna.

If i prey to god Husky to walk on the Moon,he will not be able to fulfill my wish.If i prey to Brahma,he will have the power to fulfill this.

If i prey to god Brahma to go in the spiritual world ,he will not be able to fulfill my wish. If i prey to Krishna ,he wil have the power to do this.

I hope i clarify what iskconites believe about Shiva.Shiva is infinite,but the Source is Krishna.

But dont read iskcon books,read Bhagavata Purana and Vishnu Purana and you will see the same teachings about Shiva.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Husky' date='19 July 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1279551209' post='107523']

You overlook the literal way in which I implied its misuse:

"Veda literally means knowledge. Vedaanta means end of knowledge. Conclusion: Vedanta is universal. <insert random religion here, like the genocidal one known for appropriating and inculturation> is Vedaanta." (No it's NOT.)

To Hindus, it stands uncontested that the Vedam is Knowledge. And it refers to that something particular: The Vedam.

But you never know what English may do. A "guru" is now any kind of expert teacher and a pundit any kind of alleged expert, an avatar ... etc.



Philosophia is Love For Wisdom, yes. But it is the Hellenes' name for something particular, not anything in general. That is, they weren't thinking of how the world would take it literally hence see it as universal, when they derived their word that seemed appropriate to them to refer to their ... Philosophy. It is *their* Wisdom they are referring to, and the energetic enthusiastic pursuit and practice of it (which could include rituals, such as in Theurgy).



But there's really no use arguing with me. Can read for yourself how the Hellenes considered it. (From memory, R. Smith in his work on Julian also indicates a few things on how Julian and others regarded this.)



It was IIRC Apollo who was - among other things - traditionally considered the God of Philosophy, who originated it, and brought it to man. (As an aside, I think I recall coming across how at times Wisdom was considered to be embodied - in a Goddess, Sophia. Versus Athena presiding over Wisdom.)



But why bring it up? I hope it's not to play the Injured Victim/Persecution Syndrome using some 6 degrees of separation via ISKCON. Because then I would win at this absurdly childish game: at least *I* have some actual Shri Vaishnava ancestry (an ancestor from several centuries back, the ancientry makes it relevant to the situ).





What's with the melodrama? (Your drastic uses of "despise", "hate", "before jumping on my head"... <- Uh, do people often jump on your head that you should anticipate such behaviour from a stranger?)



[/quote]

Its too late to reverse the philosophy meme.But universal Vedanta meme is not established yet so you have a chance there to change the trend.Yes,today we can talk about guru of science,the guru of chemistry .But probably is a good development of the word guru meme.Its has some positive values.

Theurgy,that's a word that is use often in the church.Who robbed who here.

Nobody play victimization card,not me anyway.I just interpret the facts according to my mental capacities.

Jumping on head its an expression,but you know that.I like drama and extreme emotional states and words.Call me korean on this.

In rest i agree.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Husky' date='19 July 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1279551209' post='107523']



(Shankara variously declared that well-known Hindu Gods X, Y, Z, A etc. were the Ultimate - *one* of whom was Mahavishnu/Govinda.)



"Laughing"? Again, why do you nouveau converts feel you have the right to behave so to Hindus. Let them be. People will believe what they can and want to believe. The problem comes when those-Hindus-who-are-not-traditional-Advaitins (not ancestrally so) go about peddling their modern opinions on the internet, as if they are some grand authority on upaniShaadic "aham brahmaasmi" having "discovered" Shankara. There are some places on the web where ... oh it doesn't matter.



The danger that such modern Hindus simply don't see in their eagerness to Hey Let's Vedanta, is one that is quite insidious.

Anyway, Shankara, like Plato, was not "just" a "monistic philosopher". While Plato - in IIRC Julian's words (<- how handy he is, what would I do without him) - 'worshipped images', Shankara was a... a Poly-Idolator, and praised multiple Gods, with lots of Liebe to boot. I do not suspect Shankara of insincerity.



[/quote]

Shankara believe the the Ultimate was impersonal,whit no attributes,nirvishesha. The gods,just like humans were temporary manifestations of the attributeless Brahman.

Yes some call him confused theist:how is possible to say that the Brahman is SatCitAnanda(truth-conscience-happiness)which are attributes by excelence and then say that Brahman have no attributes at all?

Other see him as a hidden buddhist:yes he talk about Brahman,but he see it as nirvishesa ,which is very similar(if not identical whit the buddhist Void(see Nirvana).

Yes he love gods,he even make a system of 5 or 6 gods most worshiped at his time(Vishnu,Shiva,Devi,Surya,Ganesha and Murugan). But it was not an eternal relationship.The gods and humans will return in the future in the unmanifested Brahman.

Im not an authority and not pretend to be.Im always ready to know the truth about Shankara.

There was special attention given to Shankara because his commentaries could be very well be emulated on a atheistic and non-religious minds.Not Ramanuja,Madhva or Nimbarka and their clear theistic views.

At the beginning of the century the indian intellectuals go ahead whit Shankara and say:"See you westerners,we are not primitive,we do not worship gods,we have abstract philosophy.Yes Shankara talk about gods but you see,he did it symbolically.He did not really mean it".

I rest my case.

[Pandyan]

[quote name='HareKrishna' date='18 July 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1279463269' post='107512']And also i show it that Chaitanya has some different views comparative whit iskcon today.

[/quote]

Shut up, no one cares about that homosexual chaitanya or fraudster organization iskCON.

[Pandyan]

At the beginning of the century the indian intellectuals go ahead whit Shankara and say:"See you westerners,we are not primitive,we do not worship gods,we have abstract philosophy.Yes Shankara talk about gods but you see,he did it symbolically.He did not really mean it".

I rest my case.

Clearly Gaudiya Vaishnavism is one of the worst things that happened to Hindus within the framework of Hindu society, because it produced homosexuals like you. What can you expect from a movement that was founded by mahanapumsaka chaitanya the loser who wore saris and bangles and danced like a homo at a LGBT parade in San Fransisco and produced more homo orgs like iskCON, the great fraud. Who the hell cares if advaita is atheistic (not saying that it is, mind you) you moron, not everyone wants to be a bangle wearing gay dancer like you. Stop trying to post like you're proving some great point.

[HareKrishna]

Mind your words boy .

Are Nimbarka,Vallabhacharya,Madhva,Ramanuja,Sankardeva,Shiva Siddhanta,Swaminarayan ,which all have almost identical views whit Chaitanya,homosexuals too?





Look at this heliodorus pillar made in 110 BC

And see the monotheism of Vasudeva(Krishna),the God of Gods.



this Garuda-standard of Vasudeva, the God of Gods

was erected here by the devotee Heliodoros,

the son of Dion, a man of Taxila,

sent by the Great Greek (Yona) King

Antialkidas, as ambassador to

King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, the Savior

son of the princess from Benares, in the fourteenth year of his reign.



Not to mention the indians that worship only Heracles as their god as mentioned by ancient greek writers.

[HareKrishna]

According to a story in the Shiva Purana, at the beginning of time in Cosmos, Vishnu and Brahmā approached a huge Shiva linga and set out to find its beginning and end. Vishnu was appointed to seek the end and Brahma the beginning. Taking the form of a boar, Vishnu began digging downwards into the earth, while Brahma took the form of a swan and began flying upwards. However, neither could find His appointed destination. Vishnu, satisfied, came up to Shiva and bowed down to him as a swarupa of Brahman. Brahmā did not give up so easily. As He was going up, he saw a ketaki flower, dear to Shiva. His ego forced him to ask the flower to bear false witness about Brahmā's discovery of Shiva's beginning. When Brahmā told his tale, Shiva, the all-knowing, was angered by the former's ego. Shiva thus cursed him that no being in the three worlds will worship him.

Various stories in Hindu mythology talk about curses that have supposedly prevented Brahmā from being worshiped on Earth. Interestingly, the Bhavishya Purana states that , certain 'daityas' or demons had begun to worship Brahma and therefore the 'devas' of heaven could not defeat them. Inorder , to mislead the 'daityas' from the worship of Brahma , Vishnu appeared on Earth, as Buddha and Mahavira . With various arguments he convinced the 'daityas' to leave the worship of Brahma. Having left the worship of Brahma , the 'daityas' lost power and were hence defeated. The Bhavishya Purana lays out that altogether , giving up the worship of Brahma , was unacceptable in Hindu religion.



We see here that according to Shiva Purana ,Vishnu was lesser then Shiva.Only a servant whit less power.





Swaminarayan, founder of the Hindu Swaminarayan sect, said in verse 115 of their scripture, Shikshapatri said, "Shree Krishna Bhagwan and Shree Krishna Bhagwan's incarnations alone are worthy of meditation. Similarly, Shree Krishna Bhagwan's images are worthy. And men or devas, even if they are devotees of Shree Krishna Bhagwan or brahmavettaa (knower of divinity), they are still not worthy of meditation - and thus one should not meditate upon them."



Who is the only worthy to be worshiped?

[Husky]

Bharata, thanks for correcting me.





Romani, you bring up too many things. Why do you so badly want dialog? It's very annoying for me to have to write in response (it has to be a lot because you bring up a lot). You're a massive waste of my time. And why are you derailing this thread.

One feels one has to respond, only so that anyone out there, who may ever read this page of the thread, doesn't misconstrue non-response to your assertions as people here having just rolled over and accepted what you said.



The most important topic you brought up (the one I really wanted to respond to) - your view of The Right To Proselytise and how you think Missionising Is A Good Thing - I'll now have to leave for another day yet again.

Ive check my romanian version of BG as it is.That chapters indeed talk about demigods.

It insists on much more than what you mention, which is why I referred to those chapters. The second reference I provided to ISKCON's "BG As It Is" states in the founder's commentary to Ch 10 Shloka 42 (though the actual shloka athavA bahunaitena kiM j~nAtena tavArjuna | viShTabhyAhamidaM kR^itsnam ekAMshena sthito jagat || doesn't even refer to the following matter) -

ISKCON's founder in BG As It Is: "There is a Mission that regularly propounds that worship of any demigod will lead one to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, or the supreme goal. But worship of demigods is thoroughly discouraged herein because even the demigods like Brahma and Shiva represent only part of the opulence of the Supreme Lord."

I.e. ISKCON discourages worship of the other Hindu Gods and forms of Gods, not (satisfied with) merely declaring them "demigods".

This is in direct opposition to what Krishna himself teaches not only in the Gita but elsewhere.



E.g. Considering just Shiva:

I think some 3 of the ~11 Sahasranamas on Shiva are taught to mankind by Vishnu. The Shiva Sahasranaamam in the Mahabharata is taught to the Pandavas by Krishna - who, as Bheeshma intimates, is the one to know it. Then I think the one in the Skanda Purana and I think Linga Purana are also taught by Vishnu.



RuShi Parashurama was a Shiva bhakta. Indeed, as is known, Parashurama's axe is Shiva's own Ayudha which is *called* the "Parashu", and which Shiva gifted Bhagavan Parashurama. (And this is one of several of Shiva's own great weapons that Shiva is known to have given to other Gods and 'men'.)

Rama worshipped Shiva too, as well as of course Rama's worshipping Surya. (And, going by a traditional Tamizh illustration to a narrative about Rama by an Azhwar - and what a thing of beauty the painting is to behold - Rama apparently worshipped Agni too.)



Did ISKCON forget to tell you these simple things?



When Vishnu can advertise for Gods like Shiva/Surya/Durga (see MBh, Lalita Sahasranaamam, etc.), how can ISKCON lie so straight-faced and lecture its clearly ignorant audience that "Krishna discourages worship of 'demigods'"? I don't recall that the Gita alludes to Shiva etc as being demigods: it does not mention them by name in such a reference. (Where various well-known Hindu Gods are named, they are directly identified with Krishna who also identifies himself as the Brahman. So what you have is: A = B = C. Gods = Krishna = Brahman.)

Besides, Devas are not "demigods". So anything translated as "demigod" cannot be speaking of the Hindu Devas. The Vedas are the first authority, and they praise various Gods, not the least the omniscient/sahasraakSha Indra (and Varuna etc). Indeed, Vishnu himself is a Deva, Shiva too is a Deva (hence "Mahadeva") - various Gods are variously called Suresha - lord of the Suras: Vishnu, Shiva, Senapati etc. And definitely Indra/Surendra himself - who is pre-eminently the Lord of all Devas - is known as Suresha too.

The Aditya Hrudayam that Rama learns to recite - which was derived by one Vedic Rushi and imparted by another Vedic Rushi to him - IIRC speaks of Surya as being the Trimoorti as well as of being Indra, Yama, Kubera, Agni and everyone. Surya is parabrahmam.



And in the Gita, Krishna identifies himself with Brahman to Arjuna (as other Gods have also been clearly identified with Brahman in other Hindu literature). There is the section where Krishna displays the Vishvaroopam, which reveals/explains to Arjuna - in a manifest physical form - how Krishna is the All/Brahman (just as Shiva displayed the Vishvaroopam in the earlier Shiva Gita, which was given to Rama - it's in one of the Puranas).

Anyway. In the Vishvaroopam section of Krishna's Gita, he gives Arjuna glimpses of Brahman (which Krishna is too) which has many great forms. To make Arjuna understand how great, as well as listing some of those beings and things he is to be identified with, Krishna lists a few famous examples of superlatives: such as Rama among human Kings I think, and was it [[color="#0000FF"]CORRECTION[/color]: not Bhairava but] Shankara among the ~11 Rudras, Vishnu among the ~12 Adityas, etc. The list is not complete, nor are these the sole superlatives to be had in each category, but these are ones that Arjuna can understand. The other Rudras are all Shiva too, and all 12 Adityas are famous - but Vishnu is particularly well-known. From memory, the other Adityas include of course mitra, and varuNa, indra, twaShTaa, dAtA(?), pUShaa, etc - I can't really spell. Ever since the Vedas - this is going by what I heard in a famous sequence from the YV - I think Vishnu is listed as one among the Adityas. And this fact is naturally repeated by the Gita.



So what does ISKCON mean by "demigods"? Who are they speaking of? Who knows. If one is a "demigod/lesser god", so is the other. But then, that is not what the Hindu texts say. Various Hindu texts and stotras in turn reveal the various Gods (that these texts are primarily about) to be ParaBrahman.



ISKCON is very selective about what it chooses to reveal to those it proselytises. Is it merely ignorant of the other core Hindu texts, or is it being disingenuous? In any case, the effect of the Lie - accidental or intentional though it be - is the same: it produces ignorance. Of a dangerous kind.



And yet, the same founder of ISKCON (hence ISCKON itself), who we've seen propounding that people not worship the other Hindu Gods (for their being 'mere demigods') magically identifies Krishna with the false, non-existent (demonic character) of jeebusjehovallah. That makes the Lie even worse - it is blasphemy against the true and perfect Krishna. This utterly false identification of Krishna with jeebusjehovallah also shows the lack of comprehension/knowledge in ISKCON as to who Krishna is. Krishna is not non-existent. Krishna does not have a demonic character, but the opposite. And yet the founder is willing to relate Krishna back to jeebusjehovallah. Who but one who does not know Krishna could actually do such a thing? Why do people - who ought to know better - follow ISKCON?



Anyway, why does Vishnu go peddling Shiva and other Hindu Gods? Why does Shiva peddle Vishnu and other Gods? Why does Indra peddle Lakshmi? And Shiva and Vishnu together peddle Lakshmi etc. Why do all these Gods always peddle each other and usually not themselves? The answer is obvious and doesn't require articulation.

Krishna certainly does not exclusively advocate himself in the Gita. (Don't read ISKCON's version of the Gita, read a plain vanilla translation.) He merely says in Arjuna's (and creature-kind's) best interest to give one's heart to him, and that by attaching oneself to him, Arjuna/any creature is assured of refuge: one will not be denied. But he also explains that those devotedly attached to their Gods (everything except the jeebusjehovallah type variety) will reach him ('him') - i.e. paraBrahman (which Krishna is too). The Gita is not unique Hindu literature. It is not the sole authoritative Hindu scripture. There are others. And it echoes the knowledge in those others, just as the same lessons are similarly echoed in later Hindu literature. The Gita is quite accurate.

But the ISKCON version of it is something different.





To declare Krishna to be the ParamapuruSha, the Parabrahman/Perfection itself offends no Hindu - because he is (it is our religion).

But going out of one's way to belittle other Gods - when the people doing so obviously don't know anything about the Gods they would speak of (can't they remain silent on what they don't know? just shows their arrogance) - and to furthermore go about telling people not to worship them (and then presenting this as something Krishna is instructing) is entirely uncalled for. They are teaching other people to look down on all those Hindu Gods who ISKCON looks down on.

Are Nimbarka,Vallabhacharya,Madhva,Ramanuja,Sankardeva,Shiva Siddhanta,Swaminarayan ,which all have almost identical views whit Chaitanya

Pandyan is not talking about Bhakti, I think. So the sequence you are trying to associate is wrong. (Not that I think anything disrespectful of Chaitanya.)

In any case, the others in your sequence don't all have identical views with ISKCON. So you're asking a trick question by formulating your question (the list in it) falsely.

Swaminarayan, founder of the Hindu Swaminarayan sect

And why is this new movement to be considered a magic authority now? Why should I care about them?

(People at my father's work took him to a Swaminarayan religious event. "Interesting" views and practices they have concerning women by the way. IIRC from what I heard.)

Who is the only worthy to be worshiped?

By all means, Indra. Can there be any doubt.

The Grand Spirit.

The Kami.

Nezha. Yes, Nezha. Hands down.

Oooh, oooh, I know the answer! "The only worthy to be worshipped" MUST BE Julian's father, the Titan Helios. Obviously. Since Julian is the uncontested attested Human Perfection, his father - the divine Sun God Helios - is Divine Perfection. And so too Julian's mother, Rhea. And his other mother Juno. And his other father Zeus. And Pan. And Dion. And Apollo, of course, as if there could be any question on the matter. Julian's taste in such important things is so unquestionably impeccable, that one can blindly accept his authority here. (Something one can't do with ISKCON etc.)





[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]

We see here that according to Shiva Purana ,Vishnu was lesser then Shiva.Only a servant whit less power.

UnHindu minds can't get it (certainly not those christoconditioned), but Hindu literature and praise is *like* that, it's quite typical.



When a God (or set of Gods) is the primary one/set being considered in a text, all others are eclipsed.



You can even see examples of this in one composer, such as Shankara's stotras to each God or set of Gods. So you get ones where Lalita(+husband Shiva) is the All. Shiva(+wife) is the All. Vishnu is the All (say in ShaTpadi stotram or bhaja govindam), Murugan is the father of the Universe, Shaarada (Saraswati) is the All, etc.



And this is also how Hindus view their family's major Gods. When they look at one (set), the God(s) in question seems to take up so much room, that all others are reduced to side players. Then, when they turn to look at another (set of) God(s), every other God seems to fade from view. It is just the way things are.



To established Vaishnava communities, Vishnu+Lakshmi are the All - and they are quite right - and the other Gods fade in comparison. Which is sensible, because these are their primary kuladevas, and the ones they are attached to. One's own kuladevas - how ever many these may be - tend to frequently be one's ishtadevas. Just like one's own parents are the best, Hindus' ancestral Divine Parents are frequently the Sole Universe for them.



Puranas on Shiva speak of the superlative greatness of Shiva, like puranas on Vishnu speak of the superlative greatness of Vishnu. The statement of Kambar that Bharatavarsha posted is the view of Hindus who are able to take a step back and see that there's no competition going on:

(Kambar) author of Ramayana [...] sings, "(H)aran adhiga ulagalandha (H)ari adhigan ena uraikkum arivilarkku – those who dispute in ignorance about who is greater, Hari or Haran."

[HareKrishna]

There are people that say that Prabhupad teaching are different from what Chaitanya has taught .I know a Krishna worshiper( he is not from iskcon )that tell me more about this differences.My answer was that Prabhupad must have adapted Chaitanya's mistical experiences and teachings,in order to be more easy assimilated by people living in a modern(?) society.Maybe Chaitanya has said on thing and Prabhupad just the opposed,but i dont know if Prabhupad really considered Jehovallah to be identical whit Krishna.Maybe he refer at God in general,not being specific.I know that some iskonites make equivalent Krishna whit Jesus,while others believe that Jesus is the demigod Brahma.

My answer was that Jehovallah can only be similar whit Hiranyakashipu,a demon that want to rule the whole world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiranyakashipu



But thats enough,i dont want to waste more of you time.You seem on a mission to not let errors of others to have negative effects on the hindus,hence you are a missionary.So my friendly advice is to use your time(and will try not to waste it anymore) to spread your messages on all places on the internet or on the everyday life.You can use copy/paste of your messages in order to cut time.The more people will know about them the more stronger they will become.Information is power and the more people will know,the better will be.

[Husky]

Apparently I missed a couple of posts. Sigh.



The length of this post is *your* fault. (As a rule I refuse to take responsibility for anything, but in this case it really is your fault anyway.)





1. Terminology

Its too late to reverse the philosophy meme. But universal Vedanta meme is not established yet so you have a chance there to change the trend.

I never said that Vedanta has been commandeered in that way. I merely brought up the hypothetical example to illustrate in what manner Philosophy has been misused, stripped of its actual meaning, generalised and misapplied at random.

And at least some among the Hellenes do not too consider it too late to reclaim their word.

But probably is a good development of the word guru meme.Its has some positive values.

No. And no.

Theurgy,that's a word that is use often in the church.Who robbed who here.

Theurgy. See Neo-Platonism. And mayhap it existed in Hellenismos prior to NeoPlatonism too?

But Greek belongs to the Hellenes, so it is not unlikely that they would have devised the word. (Unless English translations chose to use this more commonly-known Greek word for a more obscure Greek one that was actually used? I wouldn't know.)



"Who robbed who here?" Well, both the cross and crucifix in Hellenismos - with Dionysus on it - IIRC predates the earliest known uses of the christist crucifix and cross. It also predates christianism's claim that jeebus was cruficied, since the more "original" Greek-language bible has jeebus staked. So the fact that christianism now uses the cross doesn't mean that the Hellenes took it from christianism, when it is known (and long admitted) that the matter was the other way around. Similarly, the Church using "theurgy" for its rituals need not at all immediately imply that the Hellenes must have robbed the church's terminology. Even though Neoplatonism may have been late in Hellenismos, it still existed around a time when the christian church's "traditions" hadn't been anywhere near established yet; a time when a great many unrecognised gospels were still being peddled, and when various heresies declaring views of christianism/jeebus/mary that were profoundly inconsistent with current church belief were still afoot, and a time when I think the bishop of Rome hadn't yet assumed a more universal title of absolute and superior authority - to give some examples.





Now to your #68 which contains serious assertions that someone ought to have corrected -



2. About Nirguna Brahman

Shankara believe the the Ultimate was impersonal,whit no attributes,nirvishesha. The gods,just like humans were temporary manifestations of the attributeless Brahman.

Upanishads IIRC speak on the same topic too. Brahman without form or attributes is nirguna, and when it has form - being saguna - it is the Hindu Gods. Many Gods - in the various texts of Rishis and other Gods - are declared the very Brahman and hence as being the very form of Brahman.

Both are a reality: the Brahman - the Supreme Ultimate, the Absolute Reality - is Nirguna and can and does (of its own accord) assume a plurality of individual forms which makes it Saguna. Just like the Tao. People who deny one of these and insist solely on the other are in denial.



Also, the well-known paths in Vedaanta (Advaitam to Dvaitam) are consistent with the Agamic paths too. And that's as to be expected, as they're all part of the same religion (Hindoooism), so it's no surprise that they speak of the same things and keep repeating, reinforcing and confirming each other.



And also this:

The gods and humans will return in the future in the unmanifested Brahman.

Again, the notion you're referring to is not any originality on Shankara's part. It is in Hindoo religion, from traditional Hindoo texts. Consequently, the Gita also alludes to this. I read a translation of the (plain) Gita before ever I heard what Shankara's view was, and my understanding of the relevant refs in the Gita seemed to me to cohere with what I think I later read in Vedaanta texts. Shankara didn't devise it. He was merely repeating.

Creation is manifest. That which is beyond, is ... whatever it is.



One can't perceive or confirm anything Beyond existence, but in creation, Divinity *certainly* assumes forms. They are very real forms and they are the Gods' own forms - and Shankara obviously understood this, even if modern vocalists claiming to follow some part of his teachings do not. When Shankara speaks of *Nirguna* Brahman though, he explains that it is indeed without attributes. This is simply a fact about "Nirguna", just like Shivalingam is the moorty for Nirguna Shiva (Nirguna Brahman).



Shankara Bhagavadpada is not the one who came up with it: it's there in the Vedaanta texts that were established materials from well before him, and it's a part/view of Shaiva Agamic tradition, it's in Shaktam, it was repeated by Vishnu as Dattatreya etc. And the Gita is at least partly about revisiting the upanishadic - but not exclusively upanishadic - That which Brahman is.



I think Shankara's explanation of Advaitam could differ slightly from the other pre-existing explanations of Advaita, but I can't recall whether it was in his view that the Maya was unreal. Or maybe the difference concerned something else entirely (don't remember; read this in younger days.) That is beside the point however, as the Gods *are* real, their manifestations are real. And those who are attached to the Gods - their attachments are consequently real and remain real. See point 5 below.



While Shankara BP's works on Nirguna Brahman were about the Nirguna nature of Brahman, his works on the Saguna forms of Brahman were on the Saguna Brahman, Brahman manifest. Examples of the latter in point 4 below.

Yes some call him confused theist:how is possible to say that the Brahman is SatCitAnanda(truth-conscience-happiness)which are attributes by excelence and then say that Brahman have no attributes at all?

Read the plain Gita. It explains itself better than anyone else explaining it. It's hard to render anything accurately in English, and besides I'm not good at communicating. So I'm going to use words that may not be the right ones, but which hopefully give a notion of what I mean -



The nature of Brahman - its state of being - is SCA. The unmanifested Divinity is *like* that: it IS (i.e. it is real), and its state of being is SCA (i.e. SCA is its natural state).





3. Buddhism

yes he talk about Brahman,but he see it as nirvishesa ,which is very similar(if not identical whit the buddhist Void(see Nirvana).

No. Such identification is absolutely wrong. Buddhism's Void is fundamentally different from Brahman. Things could not be more opposite.



- In Buddhism, the ultimate reality is Nothing. Maya is illusion that prevents people from realising this. In Buddhism, Nirvana is liberation into realising the truth of Nothing.

- In Hindu religion, the ultimate reality is ParaBrahman - which is the All/the Everything, the Absolute Reality. Liberation in Hindu religion is realisation of/oneness with the Only Real (which exists, or rather which IS, as the Gita states), and which is that which permeates everything in existence and beyond: i.e. the Grand Spirit (the paramapuruSha). It is both the source of and sustenance of everything, and when all of creation is withdrawn/retracted again, it remains - complete, as ever.



Advaitam - all explanations of it including Shankara's - is Vedantic (incl. Upanishadic­) and also one of the views of the Agamas in that it declares that that Barely-describable-ness, "The Supreme Ultimate" (to steal again from the translation of the Taoist description) - which is often, but not exclusively, called "Brahman" in Hindu literature - is the Absolute Reality, and that all pashus are of its nature, since everything is derived from its fundamental reality. According to the Upanishads (from what I understood), this is the goal, it is that which has to be realised. And the manifest forms of the Gods - all of which are saguna Brahman, which is as Real as the Nirguna Brahman, since one is a version of the other - are the means for many a Hindu to realise Brahman (and, being equivalent, they are hence naturally considered the end in themselves), whereas some may prefer contemplating the Unmanifest (though the Gita indicates that this path is generally hard for mortals to achieve). Modern Hindus who peddle purely the Unmanifest tend to be the ones who can't realise either variant. I am not remotely criticising any who contemplate the Nirguna Brahman - and any that have done so, tend to traditionally be ones that also worship the Saguna Brahman since they realise the intrinsic connection between the two - I am commenting on the confused vocalists one sees everywhere. They juvenilely think of the Saguna Gods as quaint myth, then how will they understand the Nirguna which is even further from their limited contemplation? (And why would I care.)



Anyway, Hindu Dharma's reality is the Brahman, the Supreme Ultimate All, the Everything.

Bauddha Dharma and Hindu Dharmic religion are saying the very opposite: because Nothing is NOT the same as Everything. The All is NOT the same as the Void. Realising the very real Absolute Reality is NOT the same as realising the essentially unreal nature of absolutely everything.

Buddhism denies the All of Hindu religion. It denies the existence/reality of the Absolute Reality, having replaced it with Nothing. It consequently denies everything in Hindu (and Taoist, Hellenistic, etc) religion.

Other see him as a hidden buddhist

First of all, others' assertions about a person's "true state" are irrelevant, how do you imagine they can form the basis of any kind of genuine argument here? (In general too: they need not be at all representative of the one accused. Remember how you pompously declared at various times that I was an Advaitin/Smarta/animist/folk religionist or something - yeah *right* - and how your accusations are wrong. So we can set aside similar external claims.)



Shankaracharya was not at all peddling Buddhism, since he was only repeating the established, traditional views of Hindu religion (as are condensed in Vedaanta texts). Where Shankara appears to have diverged with some established Hindu traditional views of Advaitam, it was - going by very vague memory - only in the nature of reality of Maya and/or Ignorance. The Parabrahman for Shankara BP was very much an absolute reality, as it has always been for all Hindus. And this is why the Gods are very much a known reality for him too, something he could not - and would not and hence did not - deny. He is very much a Hindoo.

Vedaantic texts do *not* presage Buddhism, despite confused uppity Buddhist statements to the contrary. The Upanishads restate (some important elements in) the Vedam, and the Agamas run in parallel and are likewise connected to the Vedam too. All other *ancient*, established Hindu literature merely adds to the same.





4. "Symbolism"

At the beginning of the century the indian intellectuals go ahead whit Shankara and say:"See you westerners,we are not primitive,we do not worship gods,we have abstract philosophy.Yes Shankara talk about gods but you see,he did it symbolically.He did not really mean it".

Whatever.

But these claimants are *not* in line with Shankara, regardless of their claims.



What matters is not others' perception of Shankara, but what Shankara made known of himself. Those who claim he was doing things "only symbolically" are obviously ignorant of things such as how Sri Chakra Pooja, when carried out by people who do not have a sincere attachment to the God(s) therewith addressed, would not achieve the goal of it. Now, why would Shankara waste his time on it if he did not mean it sincerely and meant it only symbolically? Because the real practice is *far* more than symbolism. And Shankara is hardly a dabbler.



So people who claim to appreciate Shankara are essentially calling him dishonest when they dismiss or make little of the relevance that his devotional practices (and works) have to him and when they diminish the sincerity with which he viewed the Gods. Yes, he wrote various stotras for all Hindus to use, but I have never read a hint of false intention in them.



In fact, in his stotras he sticks traditionally to the established verbal worship (with consequent correct mental imagery) of the various Gods: from memory, the Kanakadhaara Stotram has a sequence that matches in form and praise with elements of the Shri Lakshmi Hrudayam, his SL contribution to the AL is typical established Lalita worship, his verbal/mental worship of Murugan too is correct and is as mirrored in Tamizh practice and works (earlier ones, as well as later ones like the powerful Tamizh masterpiece the (S)Kanda shaShTi kavacham), his stotram to Bhava's wife is perfection itself: the universal Hindu accessibility to her is part of how she has always been viewed.



The ShaTpadi Stotram (to Vishnu) is illustrative. From memory: Shankara explains that, like the waves belong to the ocean and not the ocean to the waves, Shankara - while realising he is not different from the ParamapuruSha who is the husband of the MahaLakshmi (herself also declared elsewhere to be the parabrahmaswaroopiNi) - also knows he belongs to Shripati and not Shripati to Shankara BP. This view is traditionally Hindoo and hence is there in many a traditional Hindu text; Shankara is not the originator or innovator of this Hindu understanding.



It is clear for me that in composing the Stotras in such a way as to make them usable for the general Hindus (i.e. not just himself), Shankara was certain of their profound merit (and hence the effects it would have on the Hindus to whom he could bequeath these). It also implies that he was certain of the greatness of the objects of his praise therein, else why would he recommend them, if he wasn't convinced of the great benefit for Hindus to remain firmly attached to their (his) Gods?*

Any dabbling modern advaitam-peddler answering this last question wrongly has essentially declared Shankara was dishonest. I don't know a greater offence to heap on someone they otherwise claim to think of as their teacher/whatever he means to them.



*Since the Gods - and the Gods alone - give realisation, moksha and saayujyam. And Shankara remains consistent with this in appending to the AL - I think it is the AL which states that by just starting the line "Bhavani tvam", she (Lalita), knowing the AL Seer's true desire, gave the Bhakta Saayujyam without them even asking for it at that stage.



Shankara is not an original in Hindooness. He is not a rebel either. He is a Hindoo, following on from many Hindoos before him - one of many Hindoos of the type that likes to think and ponder over the gnyaana of the Hindu texts.

His efforts on Vedantam's behalf may not have defeated Buddhism (it was actually the usually uncredited full-on VedaBrahmanas who had already defeated Buddhism in the intellectual/practical/in every important sphere of religion - something for which Hindu laity are forever indebted, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they know to be grateful for it or not), but Shankara - being a Hindoo parroting established Hindooism - is NOT a Buddhist, and only people who don't know would argue so.



Traditional followers of Shankara are nothing like those moderns who deny his Gods (and the meaning and importance the Hindu Gods have to him), even as the moderns repeat "aham brahmaasmi" to themselves without comprehension to lecture others online.



Poor Shankara. To be hijacked by aliens and the alienated. All such Alien Abductions (like inculturation) should really be denounced by Hindus as a crime that will not be tolerated. Should be. Instead, it is modern Hindu vocalists who keep selling him and Advaitam and even all Vedantam off to the highest bidder (like they've been doing to Yoga, etc). Meanwhile, even as they sell some Hindoo things, they mark other core Hindoo things (that they've been brainwashed into being ashamed of) as junk to be dumped off. <- The kind of Indian "intellectuals" who look down their nose at the "polytheistic idolatry of the masses" and at the "ritualism" of the Vedas. (Rituals? Oh yes, most certainly. Meaningless rituals? Absolutely NOT.) The same class of alienated "intellectuals" can elsewhere be seen declaring that "Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are in essence the same religion. Knowledgeable Hindoos' long-standing efforts to make known the contrary be damned."





And I don't understand the sort of self-confusiosos who declare that Advaitam is somehow magically, miraculously separate from or even contradicting 'Theism'/itself (let alone that it is somehow "closer to Buddhism" - or Jainism - of all impossible things) - it must be a great miracle indeed that must have transpired which allows any to deny what is intrinsically 'Theist'. Or those who say that Saguna contradicts Nirguna Brahman - imagining that the Nirguna is somehow mutual exclusive with Saguna <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />, when it so obviously is not. Clearly they can't compute one half of Hindoo religion. That's one natural aspect of this mysterious Parabrahman that they can't "get".

Actually, it's the christoconditioned that frequently make those claims about Hindu religion (and if only Hindoos bothered to notice something profoundly important to their situation, they'd see that the christowest has been doing the same to the religion called Taoism too, and to Hellenismos - read christowestern books). Else they declare - as a run up to inculturation and appropriation/parasitism - that Advaitam must be "monotheistic". What an impossibility. Or they attempt to separate "Monism" from what they call "polytheism" imagining a mutual exclusivity where there is none. Uh, NO. These are not *Hindoo* views.

Christianisms are always attempting to dissect the acceptable from the unacceptable in the "pagan" religions, ready to ingest/appropriate the one and throw out the other. Macaulayists - with or without the "Intellectual Indian" title conferred on them - merely do the same subconsciously.





5. OMGs it is never-ending:

Yes he love gods,he even make a system of 5 or 6 gods most worshiped at his time(Vishnu,Shiva,Devi,Surya,Ganesha and Murugan). But it was not an eternal relationship.

(And he also composed to Saraswati and from memory to Brihaspati, etc.) Am ignoring the literal meaning of Eternal which implies time, since time does not exist in that which is Beyond; time is part of creation alone -



Brahman is Permanence. Being essentially of Brahman means the Pashu's jeevaatman or whatever partakes of that permanence. The relationship with the stable Absolute Reality (the paramapuruSha) is permanent too, it remains real and stable.



Whether the nature of that relationship in the non-material world Beyond remains as it is in the world of manifestation, is something that one can't answer from this end. People can argue about it until the cows come mooing home.



But the Gods teach us of themselves. And the forms of the Gods in creation are their natural, own forms, just as their names and mantras are their own. What happens when creation dissolves? It's whatever happens. But the Gods are real. And Hindu texts explain how Lalita and Shiva exist past the dissolution, just as Krishna too confirms his permanence, etc. This is why one can find various ancient traditional established Hindu views on Vedaantic texts reiterated: those existing Hindu paths/views can and do all find vindication for their individual positions in the same texts.



But why people have to beat themselves up over a question that can only be faced/answered conclusively after death and Moksha is beyond me. Why can't people just live while alive. The Real Gods exist and can be known in life itself.





My next post here will be on missionising/proselytising.

[Husky]

Post 61:

the real danger(christo-islamics).

The *real danger* is The Monotheistic Tendency ("We're Right/We Have *The* Truth, We Will Spread On You), of which christoislamism is the prime, highly developed and most extreme example. But all missionary tendencies that seek to supplant or subvert ancient established tradition are problematic. The difference is merely in degree.

Call it wrong but the point that i make is that i consider just missionarism my moral right and you shouldnt take it from me.

Oh goodie. The monotheistic tendency. (And it IS wrong.)



"My moral right... you shouldn't take it from me"

Your "right" ends where mine begins. Personal space and freedom from missionaries is a universal right of ALL. And you may NOT take these rights from others by inviting your unwanted person and unwanted views - however glorious you imagine them to be - into their space.



Consider if all the billions of humans on this planet went about peddling their "ingenious" individual views on every other human as per their alleged "moral right". That is the absurd right you claim. I claim the right to be left in peace to follow the religion of one's ancestors.



People must be allowed to continue to pass down their ancient ancestral traditions naturally, to the next generations (certainly where these are harmless, even beneficial). <- And of course, such natural transmission is the one thing that christianism expressly disapproves of in India and the rest of unconverted Asia: it keeps telling Hindus not to assume that they have a Right to pass on their religion to their own children, but that they should instead understand that their Hindu kids should be made to have an open mind to "everything". (With which christianism is merely trying to get itself to have an "equal chance".) And this 'argument' is the frequent Opener for christianism's "Why Hindus should allow christian evangelisation".

Note that when christianism has established itself, it will appeal to its flock to keep to its "tradition", such as in S America where catholicism is staring down a face off with competing christianisms.





Religious proselytising is one of the worst possible things I can think of. It is more than mere interference and invasion of personal space, it is a Crime from which Tragedy frequently ensues:

It is a grave danger to human spiritual diversity on this planet and various people's collective spiritual/religious evolution. It is a threat to their ancient, ancestral, native traditions - where these traditions are harmonious. Of all losses, the one that is most irretrievable and irreplaceable is where an individual, community or population loses its ancestral tradition. (And subversion and inculturation do NOT count as preservation of ancestral tradition.) I don't mind people enriching what they already are with other related things: there is no objection in my mind when I read about Arabians eagerly including others' Gods such as the Hellenes'. It's like how no one forced the Taoist God Nezha on me. And yet, since childhood I have looked at Nezha with the same kind of appreciation and the same regard that I have for my own Gods (the intensity of feeling may vary).





There is something very wrong about disturbing the natural traditions of a harmonious and happy people by insinuating one's own religion by subverting and/or hijacking theirs, just because one thinks one's own is Right and True.

The Gods in other religions are the way Divinity manifests there. And the traditional local understanding of those Gods is something built over generations of interactions which the local people have had with their Gods and which they have carefully passed down.

To take this away from them - such as by distorting it - is very wrong. And to take (appropriate) from it to further one's own religion's chances of converting the people is more wrong still.



I do not approve of proselytising at all. The only efforts of conversion I could admit is of reverting people to their natural, ancestral traditions where these are harmless and recoverable (or the nearest relevant neighbour) rather than christoislamism. Still, I just don't think recovery is usually possible in the case of an ancient ancestral, traditional religion being lost. (Disregarding Deus Ex Machinas.)



Outside of inherited tradition, people must seek and discover for themselves what they want. It is not for others to try selling what they imagine would be Perfect for everyone else. This is not Advertising: "to inform the audience of their choices" - the analogy does not apply. The right to freedom to continue on as before applies. If someone in a traditional, naturally-evolved religion was dissatisfied, they will find their own way to something else.



I thoroughly approve of natural (hence also non-missionary) atheism and agnosticism as occurs in the west. It produces some very good, balanced people. Consequently, I dislike it when others peddle religion among them, as if they're some blank canvas asking to be written on: if they had been looking for something else, they would themselves make the effort to find it.





Post 74:

You seem on a mission to not let errors of others to have negative effects on the hindus,hence you are a missionary.

The charge is absurd. Don't play the equal-equal card.

Even were I the kind that intended to go about telling people to hold fast to their ancestral native traditions, it would not make me a missionary: I would not be peddling *my* religion then, as I would be telling them to remain as they are/constant to what they were/continue as they had been doing. Reminding people to retain their own religion is NOT the same as missionising them.



But even that is not true in my case: I have no intention to go about interfering with other people. (Besides, they would - else ought to - know the value of their religion for themselves.)



Christoislamism does concern me, as it affects more than merely Hindus. But an interest in warning Hindus against christoislamism cannot be classed as missionising either. It is simply an attempt at preventative immunisation - which is especially necessary since more than Hindus and other Dharmics are concerned.

[agnivayu]

[quote name='HareKrishna' date='20 July 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1279618896' post='107539']



Look at this heliodorus pillar made in 110 BC

And see the monotheism of Vasudeva(Krishna),the God of Gods.







Not to mention the indians that worship only Heracles as their god as mentioned by ancient greek writers.

[/quote]



What is this insistence on monotheism? Worship God in only this form or else! Sounds like an Abrahamic version of Hinduism. We don't want to start bending to suit the middle eastern terror religions. The whole idea of monotheism is a crock. Man makes God in his image, so the idea that God is of only one form is flawed. An Advanced Alien civilization will depict God in their form not like a human. Belief in oneness is not the same as monotheism. The whole idea from the Mono's of insisting on their way or the highway is what started religious conflict.

What if I insist that you should worship God in only my form? That creates a scenario of perpetual conflict (i.e. Islam and Christianity). We are a part and parcel of Brahman.

[Husky]

[quote name='agnivayu' date='27 July 2010 - 06:16 AM' timestamp='1280191129' post='107634']Man makes God in his image, so the idea that God is of only one form is flawed.[/quote]Absolutely false: the predicate rests on a false assertion.

The Gods are their own forms. Their individual forms (just like their individual characters) are moreover natural to them, and are an identical representation (in 'physical' exterior form) of their Nature. All of it is Divine: their 'exterior' and qualities perfectly mirror that 'interior' Divine.



The Gods (incl. their forms) have absolutely nothing to do with any consequence of mankind and its whims or flaws or whatever.

Don't peddle untruth just because you don't know better. It's still a crime.



You must think Hindus (and others) are very gullible/believe as you do, to make such impossible and unrepresentative assertions.

We are a part and parcel of Brahman.

"Brahman." And more blablabla.

Sounds very non-existent.

Especially when combined with the denial of the Gods. (Claiming the forms of the Gods are of man's invention/'genius' IS denial of their forms. And denial of the forms of the Gods IS denial of the Gods themselves. The logic carries further, of course, but does one really have to state the obvious?)



More concrete indicators of the denial - not that further instances were needed, the initial statement sufficed:

An Advanced Alien civilization will depict God in their form not like a human. [...]

An alien civilisation - advanced or not - can do as it pleases. It won't make their Gods any more real if they invent them ("shape them after themselves"). <- The Heathen Argument.

What if I insist that you should worship God in only my form?

More trite argumentation, coming not more than a breath after the one about Hindu Gods.





What's wrong with your "argumentation"? You - like many another today - sell heathenism in order to do it. In this case, you deny the reality of the Gods so as to score some non-existent point (and you just sank the point, BTW, whatever it was supposed to be). Note how real "heathens" never did that: they always argued for their Gods. It's ... very different. (Can you even tell?)

(In fact, your "argument" becomes another enemy to them heathens, and in some pitiable future they will have to fight the nonsense you - but not merely you - just helped peddle. I hope you don't expect them to be grateful for your intervention. I'm no mind-reader, but I predict they won't be.)



"Husky is so mean." (Yes...?)

Sell my religion=Gods, I sell you. (It's only fair.)





One of the great tragicomical ironies is that today's Hindus - most famous for scoring self-goals of even greater note (hard as that may be to imagine) - will nevertheless insist on going around advertising how "Hinduism is the last remaining heathenism". Oh wake up. Angelsk-speaking vocalist Hindus stopped being heathens a long time ago. We're just famous for parading about in words like "us pagans", "we heathens" and "we're the last, look we're so special". No. We're quite extinct. Like a sort of living dead: living past our expiration, simply because we just haven't noticed yet/are in denial that we're a bunch of spooks, shadows of our kind's former/original/natural state. I.e. subverted beyond recovery.





2. My post (~3 up) on Advaitam and (Nirguna) Brahman was in defence of an aspect of/a view in Hindooism. It has little enough bearing on the religious life of my family or most Hindoos I know. (And as far as I can be a judge of what goes on in their private minds.)





3. Hmmm. On proselytising. This excerpt again. (While it is stated in the context of the famously genocidal proselytising ideologies, the blue bit of the argument holds more generally) -

http://www.ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#17

Does Ethnic Hellenic religion engage in proselytizing?

[color="#0000FF"]Certainly not, we are dealing here with a clearly ethnic polytheistic (natural) religion, that is to say one that concerns a very specific Ethnos. If a non-Hellenic origin wants to honor our Gods, then he is always welcome to decide this for himself, as we will never try to convince him.



The phenomenon of proselytism belongs exclusively to the anti-ethnic and 'ecumenical' monotheistic religions. Their aim is to foster a denial of previously held correct views and replace them with novel alien ones. Proselytism involves crude attempts to misguide naive and spiritually weak people. To us it is wholly detestable, both as a means to an end and as a way of making a point.[/color]



We are enemies of all forms of proselytism, because it nullifies autonomy and free will. In our country, all foreign religions engage in proselytism, including the ruling one that practices it with especial audacity, calling it 'catechism' (and even emphases the 'importance of catechism' in the state education system). The outrageous laws of the Metaxas dictatorship grant 'Orthodoxy' the sole right to proselytize, making it unlawful for its competition. All forms of proselytism are raw violent attacks against human liberty.

Good.

[agnivayu]

[quote name='Husky' date='27 July 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1280245653' post='107636']

Absolutely false: the predicate rests on a false assertion.

The Gods are their own forms. Their individual forms (just like their individual characters) are moreover natural to them, and are an identical representation (in 'physical' exterior form) of their Nature. All of it is Divine: their 'exterior' and qualities perfectly mirror that 'interior' Divine.





[/quote]

Husky the dog the only perfect remaining Hindu today. Knows and only speaks the truth.

Others makes impossible statements.

[agnivayu]

[quote name='Husky' date='27 July 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1280245653' post='107636']

All of it is Divine: their 'exterior' and qualities perfectly mirror that 'interior' Divine.

Good.

[/quote]



Weren't you the same one debating on the other thread about how images are depicted. The way a particular God is drawn is that artist's impression of it. I personally would draw an image that shows the Gods in strong and muscular ways, but that doesn't mean that other images of the same Gods drawn are "wrong", even if male Gods are drawn more skinny or without a mustache. The image drawn of that God does reflect the person who drew it. They are projecting their own thinking into the way they draw God. What the heck do you mean by Do I think Hindus are gullible. Every region of India depicts the Gods slightly differently and many times there have been God equations in ancient times, i.e. Our God is equivalent to your other God.



[quote name='Husky' date='27 July 2010 - 09:25 PM']

And denial of the forms of the Gods IS denial of the Gods themselves.

[/quote]



Quit making nonsense up. There are a million different depictions of any God, by tens of thousands of different artists. So you are saying that by stating: All the forms are valid, but we can have our own preferences like more muscular versions (done suited to our image) or less is Denial? So we should all only depict the Gods in the version you like?



Your threatening attitude doesn't intimidate me one bit. You do bark a lot however.