Xposted--
I think there are two lines of discussion around Arun's posts --
firstly, is there something that can be considered common in the
experience of the Indian traditions and secondly how should they be
classified.
I think there is reasonable consensus around the fact that the
Indian traditions cannot be described as religion as well as the
fact the phenomena is experienced differently within Western and
Eastern cultures.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7615...duism.html
Part of where we were stuck was the label of Hinduism -- i.e. even
if there is a commonality of experience (we won't say exactly what
right now), does the label Hinduism server to meaningfully
distinguish a category of phenomena from another one,
say "Buddhism." I think the point that Balu is making is that this
distinction is arbitrary and does not encapsulate a real category in
the world. In the new Encarta article on Hinduism we find:
"A Hindu is thus identified by a dual exclusion. A Hindu is someone
who does not subscribe to a religion of non-Indian origin, and who
does not claim to belong exclusively to another religion of Indian
originâBuddhism, Jainism, or Sikhism. This effort at definition
produces a rather artificial distinction between Hinduism and other
dharmic traditions, which stems from an attempt to limit a system
that sees itself as universal to an identity that is strictly
religious. In many ways, labeling the other dharmic traditions as
non-Hindu has a basis that derives more from politics than from
philosophy. Indeed, greater differences of belief and practices lie
within the broad family labeled as Hinduism than distinguish
Hinduism from other dharmic systems.
Indian historian Irfan Habib makes this point when he quotes an
early Persian source that Hindus are those who have been debating
with each other within a common framework for centuries. If they
recognize another as somebody whom they can either support or oppose
intelligibly, then both are Hindus. Despite the fact that Jains
reject many Hindu beliefs, Jains and Hindus can still debate and
thus Jains are Hindus. But such discourse does not take place
between Hindus and Muslims because they do not share any basic
terms.
"
Clearly however, that way (people in) the Indian culture experience
phenomena is itself a commonality as well as a distinction from the
West. However, can one say more that is in common vs. the experience
of other societies that are non-religious?
Statistically, according to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 70% of 'Hindus' nominally refer to themselves as Vaishnava, 20% as Advaitist/Mayavadi/'Saiva', 2% as "reform", and 3% under "other".
As an extended family of creeds that 'speak the same language' (karma, dharma, etc.), it may be useful to continue the usage of a catch-all cultural term like "Hindu". However, from a theological point of view, it continues to cause serious damage to several creeds that have found themselves suffocated and misrepresented by this term, simply because only one statistically marginal creed had usurped the pulpit (opportunistically riding a wave of nationalism) to define 'Hinduism' academically according to its own notions.
The relevant question some of us ask is:
For whom does Hinduism speak?
Carl, Hindus are the ones who should decide what we should call ourselves. Whether Hindu was coined by invaders or not is immaterial, we took the term and made it into our own label with pride. Most Hindus call themselves as Hindus, only if u specifically ask them about what sect they belong to, will they say that they r "Vaishnavas" or "Shaivas", if u stop a Vaishnava person on the street and ask what his religion is he will say that he is a "Hindu" not a Vaishnava. We see Vaishnavas and Shaivas as sects of Hinduism. As for ppl ppl taking advantage of nationalism and defining Hindu to suit themselves, again the vast majority of Hindus have no problem with this definition then what problem does IKSCON (actually CON) have with it, no one is begging them to be Hindus. If they want to call themselves Gaudiya Vaishanavas cool but then these ppl should stop saying that they are Hindus when they need donations from Hindus, Hindus are fine with the label Hindu we do not want to call ourselves as Vaishnavas or Shaivas. Our foremost identity is Hindu everything else comes secondary and IKSCON should stop messing around with Hindus. Today if u go teach weird ideas to try separate Vaishnavas and Shaivas u r seen as a traitor to Hindus, as long as Hindus are fine with it its ok, screw IKSCON and what right do they have to speak for Vaishnavas. My family are Vaishnavas but they consider themselves to be Hindus first and foremost, not Vaishnavas.
Bharatvarsh prabhu,
Take a chill pill. Then re-read my post.
I recognized the social and cultural utility of continuing to use the umbrella term "Hindu". But there also needs to be some academic clarity about what's involved here. Most "Hinduism" textbooks in the West focus in Tantra, Kali-worship cults, etc., which even "proud Hindus" like you SHOULD be upset about, because this is a skewed and deliberately distorting picture. Therefore, I pointed out that theologically-speaking, greater clarity is required. Your post does not even address the central point of the post I made.
As for the greater part of your obscene and incoherent post, I don't want to reply, save to say that "political" Hinduism will not survive if its spiritual core is not nurtured. It is well and good to create a united front against manipulative evangelists/tablighis. But <b>your defensive mentality </b>(betrayed by obscene offensive language) is IMPOTENT in meeting this threat that haunts your psyche. More than ANY other religious or political organization, it is ISKCON that is taking the battle right into the enemy camp, capturing people's hearts through a spiritually vital message propounded by Chaitanya mahaprabhu.
This enduring role of ISKCON has been acknowledged by several BJP personnel, who gave the ISKCON GBC several concessionary grants and rights to build grassroots programs in certain parts of India. Barking like a dog does nothing for ones own spiritual life, much less for the spiritual rejuvenation of the human race, which is the real mandate of Vedic culture, i.e. to be Jagadguru.
Carl
To be honest, I am confused about your post(s). Who is getting suffocated ? And who has usurped the pulpit -> tantra, kali-worhip cults, isckonites ? What stops these suffocated creeds from reclaiming the pulpit ?
PS : It would be great if you could post a few summaries in the "vedanta/indian philosophy" threads.
rajesh
there is truth in what carl says.
think about the image that hinduism has. not just in the west..but in india itself ,among the cursory hindus. the thinking by and large is..anything goes.
we need to be STRONG and SECURE in our faith not this wishy washy anything goes as long as it is hindu type beliefs that is prevalent today.
Via email
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A. <b>HINDUISM : THEOLOGY </b>Its origin and the name : Hinduism is the name given to a set of religious traditions which originated in India. They are ever growing, over a few millennia. The current name is the one given to their whole pattern of life and culture by outsiders who spotted them on the banks of the river Indus. Hindus do not call their religion by any name. To say what they practice as their mythological as well as spiritual tradition, they use the term "Sanatana Dharma" which means "perennial righteous conduct". At the outset, its emphasis has been threefold - purity of life, devotion to the Almighty and a yearning for the spiritual salvation. Â
If we take into account all the names and forms worshipped by all the Hindus, they are countless. Details of the Hindu Gods and Goddesses fill in the spectacular pantheon of Hindu mythology. Traceable to no one source, Hinduism has numerous prophets and holy books. This means Hindus are a collection of enormous spiritual and religious things accumulated over a long period. Among their scriptures, Vedas are said to be basic because no other earlier book is known to the mankind. Subsequently numerous scriptures described to various authors have been the tributaries of one major river, namely Hinduism. Variety is the name to caption its doctrines, beliefs as well as practices. Hinduism shares many things in common with predominant religions of India like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. It is possible to find various sects within Hindu community being parallel to the specific faiths of the world.
The central belief of Hinduism is that the truth is one but its nature is manifold which explains why there are many religions in the world. Consequent to this belief, Hindu followers have no difficulty, nor find any problem in believing in one God and several Gods at the same time.
However diversified the practices of Hindus may look, one can perceive a unity in their one character - the tendency to change, to adopt and to assimilate.
We also discover many gods/goddesses are but the embodiment of certain virtues e.g. learning or wisdom or arts is Goddess Saraswati, wealth is Lakshmi, power is Parvati. God is both He and She. The same divinity, which is one, when in charge of creation is called Lord Brahma (Creator God); while protecting, He is called Vishnu; and termed as Shiva when He is about to destroy the evil world. Apart from its inexhaustible mythological panorama, Hinduism has also a long and living tradition, - of mystic and spiritual enquiry, practiced to attain Godliness. Hinduism respects all notions of God and even no-God. It does not discriminate between religions.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agasthiyan,
I am not sure I understand your post either. What do you mean when you say "anything goes" ?? I am talking about India. West is a different story.
Infact my confusion about Carls post(s) is exactly that. Is he trying to address the issues in western academic world regarding what hinduism is ? Who should claim the pulpit ? What stops them from doing so ? What is wrong with the current scenario ? Or is he trying to address issues in India ? If so what are the issues he is raising ?
I am completely lost.. <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Carl+May 11 2005, 05:44 AM-->QUOTE(Carl @ May 11 2005, 05:44 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> I recognized the social and cultural utility of continuing to use the umbrella term "Hindu". But there also needs to be some academic clarity about what's involved here. Most "Hinduism" textbooks in the West focus in Tantra, Kali-worship cults, etc., which even "proud Hindus" like you SHOULD be upset about, because this is a skewed and deliberately distorting picture. Therefore, I pointed out that theologically-speaking, greater clarity is required. Your post does not even address the central point of the post I made.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should proud Hindus be upset over Tantra and Kali-worship cults focused by western textbooks?
<b>rajesh_g</b>,
What <b>agasthiyan</b> said is just what I am trying to say.
The average english-educated Hindu, finally deciding to actually find out what his/her philosophical heritage is, may pick up the first book on "Hinduism" that he finds, which -- more often than not -- is a wishy-washy, mayavadi, "anything goes", "all paths are valid" kind of nonsense. The Vedas describe the spiritual path as "kshurasya dhaaraa" (the razor's edge). There is a science to spirituality. This "anything goes", or "various paths leading to the same thing" is mischievous word-jugglery. The "vipraha bahudha vadanti" quote has been plucked and quoted endlessly, completely out of context by the pseudo-secularist types, who have no real interest in spirituality anyway.
Forget about spirituality, even sociologically and psychologically, this "anything goes, we are so tolerant" philosophy is very harmful to Vedic dharma. On one hand, this older generation of Vivekananda-inspired nationalist Hindus keeps repeating this mantra of "equal-equal tolerance", and on the other hand, the younger generation is wondering why these same people get upset about conversions. This is just one of the many contradictions in this mayavad.
Absolute Truth is a VALUE, just like beauty, etc. And when speaking of value, it is natural that there should be an ordinality (ranking) when comparing different candidates. The Vedic literature has been compared to a tree in the Shrimad Bhagavatam, rooted in the manure of falsehood, and rising up to the spiritual sky. So the different branches of Vedic philosophy are not all "equal-equal", though each one may serve a purpose for different individuals at different stages of spiritual development. But not all these branches yield "the most mature fruit of the Vedas".
Now there is nothing "intolerant" about arguing this way, as long as the arguments are dispassionate, and based on "pratyaksha, anumana and agama", as per the Vedic tarka-shastra. Indian history has several great examples of public debates conducted between competing Vedic (including Buddhist) schools of thought. There is nothing "intolerant" about this, nor does it "divide" Hindus or undermine "Hindu unity", as some fools suggest. <b>On the contrary</b>, it is an expression of the living spiritual vitality of Vedic dharma, which keeps young and curious Hindus intellectually and spiritually INVOLVED. Let ideas (based on bona fide authority) collide in a democratic discourse, and let the best prevail!
<b>gangajal</b>,
"proud Hindus" should be upset over so-called Tantra and Kali-worship cults focussed on in english-language text-books simply because this is a heavily biased misrepresentation of Vedic dharma as a whole, and also because these practices are arguably deviant practices (apasampradayas). As I stated in a previous post, about 70% of Hindus identify themselves nominally as "Vaishnava" (though they may not be clear about the philosophy). But howmuch of real Vaishnavism -- which is far better described as monotheistic rather than monistic -- gets discussed in "Hinduism" books?? Ask most english-educated Hindus, and they will tell you that Hinduism is "NOT monotheistic", that "we are all God", and that Advaita is the last word on Vedanta! -- even though Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami and Lord Chaitanya came after Shankara (whose individual mission was to kick out the atheistic shunyavadi philosophy out of bharatvarsha). So this is the kind of misrepresentation that is happening.
Most of this happens under the banner of "Vivekananda". But try to understand the time and circumstances under which Vivekananda was working. His main concern was to politically unite Hindus at a time of aggressive and manipulative colonial evangelism. In that spirit -- and not out of any theological conviction -- Vivekananda says, "But in the modern period, in the name of a generic 'Hinduism'...It is therefore, that I preach this Advaita". But Vivekananda himself acknowledges that his own guru, Ramakrishna, did not seem to speak Advaita, or Dwaita, or Acintya bhedabheda tattva, or anything else. Vivekananda spoke of "Shri Ramakrishna's religion" as something quite separate. But for the sake of political and theological unity, he preached advaita, being as manipulative as the adversary.
But such mayavad is seriously offensive to any serious Vaishnav (70% of Hindus are descendents of those who accepted Vaishnavism). In fact, even the way Ramakrishna described and "experimented with" Vaishnavism is a mockery. He indulged in a so-called tantric deviation called "sakhi-bekhi" -- one of the 13 apasampradayas enumerated by Chaitanya mahaprabhu Himself. To give you an idea, this sakhi-bekhi business involves some concocted "mano-dharma", where the male starts behaving like a woman, associates and performes patently perverted acts with real women, etc, supposedly to whip-up some psychological condition, in imitation of a "rasa" with Shri Krishna. This sort of utter nonsense was severely condemned by Chaitanya mahaprabhu himself, though several such cults exist in Bengal and even Vrindavan. But it is precisely such kind of humbug that is discussed under the rubric of "Vaishnavism" in certain books. This is an example of what is offensive and suffocating to serious Vaishnavas.
More importantly, try to appreciate the REAL DAMAGE being done by mayavad representations of 'Hinduism'. It is THESE pseudo-philosophies that actually discredit the vast majority of Vedic agamas (including 80% of the Upanishads, most of the 4 Vedas, and ALL the Puranas). They only like to cherry-pick sentences (or sometimes even half-verses!) to support their philosophy. so understand this -- that the mayavadis trash most of Hindu literature (often appealing to modern pseudo-historical theories). So before anyone tries to put together a "united Hindu front", I suggest we pause and take a look at the people and philosophies that are being used to put up this front.
"Forget about spirituality, even sociologically and psychologically, this "anything goes, we are so tolerant" philosophy is very harmful to Vedic dharma. On one hand, this older generation of Vivekananda-inspired nationalist Hindus keeps repeating this mantra of "equal-equal tolerance", and on the other hand, the younger generation is wondering why these same people get upset about conversions. This is just one of the many contradictions in this mayavad."
Dont' know where u get these ideas from, the nationalist Hindus and Vivekananda followers don't preach that all religions are equal, the ones who do are the Gandhi followers. It was Gandhi who gave foremost importance to the term "sarva-dharma-sambhava", and what makes u think Vivekananda is the only one influencing Hindus, we have other ppl like Shri Aurobindo and Veer Savarkar who also influence Hindus as much as Swami Vivekananda does. Swami Vivekananda was the one who emphatically emphasised that Hindus must reconvert Hindus who converted, again if being labelled as a Hindu is offensive to u, fine don't call urself that but as i said before the vast majority of the so called Vaishnavas have no problem with it. If IKSCON wants to call itself as Gaudiya Vaishnava then fine, no one is stopping them but they don't have the right to act as if they speak for all Vaishnavas, IKSCON can call themselves whatever they want to no one is stopping them. If u want to have debates with other sects of Hinduism and criticise them no problem but when an outsider like a Muslim or Christian asks what u are u say that u r a Hindu not a Vaishnava or Shaiva, an org which tries to break up Hindus into little sects is no different than a missionary who tries to separate Dalits or Tribals from Hindu society. We all know that philosophical differences exist between diff sects but we don't go around calling ourselves Vaishnavas and denigrating other Hindus especially infront of outsiders. Actually ISKCON says that Allah and Krishna are the same, just read this:
http://krishna.org/Articles/2000/10/00184.html
And let's see what Swami Vivekananda had to say about Hindus getting converted:
"Of course, he said, Hindus who became Muslims must be taken back into the Hindu fold. Otherwise our numbers will keep dwindling -- we used to be around 600 million by the reckoning of Ferishta, the oldest Muslim historian, now we are just 200 million. "And then", he continued, "every man going out of the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the more."
That is the new darling of the communists and secularists, Swami Vivekananda, answering questions put to him by the editor of Prabuddha Bharat. Not only what he goes on to say but the word he uses for the converts is bound to stick in the secularistsâ throat. "Again," says Swami Vivekananda continuing his reasons for accepting them back as Hindus, "the vast majority of Hindu perverts to Islam and Christianity are perverts by the sword, or the descendants of these. It would be obviously unfair to subject these to disabilities of any kind. As to the case of born aliens, did you say? Why, born aliens have been converted in the past by crowds, and the process is still going on..." (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume V, pages 233-4. In all subsequent references to these books, the number of the volume is given first followed by the page number.)"
http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/art...930131.htm
Swami on the Prophet:
"The yogi says there is a great danger in stumbling upon this state. In a good many cases, there is the danger of the brain being deranged, and, as a rule, you will find that all those men, however great they were, who had stumbled upon this superconscious state without understanding it, groped in the dark, and generally had, along with their knowledge, some quaint superstition. They opened themselves to hallucinations. Mohammad claimed that the Angel Gabriel came to him in a cave one day and took him on the heavenly horse, Harak, and he visited the heavens. But with all that Mohammad spoke some wonderful truths. If you read the Koran, you find the most wonderful truths mixed with superstitions. How will you explain it? That man was inspired, no doubt, but that inspiration was, as it were, stumbled upon. He was not a trained yogi, and did not know the reason of what he was doing. Think of what the good Mohammad did to the world, and think of the great evil that has been done through his fanaticism! Think of the millions massacred through his teachings, mothers bereft of their children, children made orphans, whole countries destroyed, millions upon millions of people killed!... So we see this danger by studying the lives of great teachers like Mohammad and others. Yet we find, at the same time, that they were all inspired. Whenever a prophet got into the superconscious state by heightening his emotional nature, he brought away from it not only some truths, but some fanaticism also, some superstition which injured the world as much as the greatness of the teaching helped."
http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/art...930131.htm
Not quite what a person who believes that all religions are equal would say and neither do most Hindu nationlists say that all religions are equal, please check facts before u say whatever u want.
bharatvarsh ji,
[EDITED - PLEASE DISCUSS/DEBATE ISSUES WITHOUT GETTING PERSONAL]
quote bharatvarsh :
"Vivekananda followers don't preach that all religions are equal..."
Really? Please read about what "Shri Ramakrishna's religion" is about. Apparently he experimented with all different philosophies, sects and cults -- INCLUDING Christianity and Islam (which you so hate) -- and declared that they were all equally valid.
That Vivekananda chose to say things directly contradicting his guru is just one off the contradictions. To give another example, Vivekananda, who resurrected Shankara's Advaita as the last word, actually says in one place that Buddhism represents the epitome of Hindu thought! Try and figure that one out.
The fact that you equate Vir Savarkar (a fine political leader, no doubt) with Shri Aurobindo, Vivekananda and even Arun Shourie, shows that you and I are speaking past one another. You are a Hindu nationalist, foaming at the mouth out of ethnic pride and whatnot. That is fine with me, but before [edited] next time, please consider that my arguments here are THEOLOGICAL.
If you are attracted by Swami Vivekananda's nationalist rhetoric, his preoccupation with religious demographics and his offensive and sad blasphemy of Prophet Muhammad (while his guru endorsed the same person!), then so be it. But please don't pretend to engage in any serious theological debate.
In any religion, there will be the ass-like, and the swan-like, and you can judge for yourself which category you and your idols belong to. Here, read thiss for your edification: Non sectarian Vaishnava dharma
quote bharatvarsh :
"what makes u think Vivekananda is the only one influencing Hindus, we have other ppl like Shri Aurobindo..."
Yes. Shri Aurobindo is a prodigious scholar of the Vedic literature. I love Shri Aurobindo. Now if you ever actually read his philosophical conclusions, you would have known that he POURS DISDAIN on the Advaitist mayavad, which Vivekananda chose to preach for his socio-political reasons.
As for your gratuitous invective about "ISKCON", I can only say that it is your own imagination. Most ISKCON members willingly call themselves "Hindu" for "vyavaharik" practical purposes, but when it comes to philosophy, they make sure to distinguish and inform the listener that there are different "types" within this Hinduism umbrella. What's wrong with that? BTW, the fastest growing congregations for the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya are in INDIA now, followed closely by Russia.
Please continue to come up with more accusations, and I will be happy to clarify as long as you are willing to listen.
Quote:...may pick up the first book on "Hinduism" that he finds, which -- more often than not -- is a wishy-washy, <b>mayavadi</b>, "anything goes", "all paths are valid" <b>kind of nonsense</b>.
Quote:This is just one of the many contradictions in this mayavad.
You mention "mayavaada" as nonsense. What is Mayavaada? Are you refering to Advaita Vedanta?
Quote:The "vipraha bahudha vadanti" quote has been plucked and quoted endlessly, completely out of context by the pseudo-secularist types, who have no real interest in spirituality anyway.
Agree. The key word here is "vipraah". Not every viper who calls himself a prophet is a vipra. Secondly, the psecs do not quote "na anyah panthaa vidyathe ayanaaya", there is <b>no other way</b> to know this - and mean 'no other way but Sanathana Dharma'.
Quote:Vivekananda-inspired nationalist Hindus keeps repeating this mantra of "equal-equal tolerance"
Carl, you may want to re-read Swami Vivekananda. Specially his criticism of Missionaries.
Quote:Now there is nothing "intolerant" about arguing this way, as long as the arguments are dispassionate, and based on "pratyaksha, anumana and agama", as per the Vedic tarka-shastra.
Minor correction: Tharkam (Gautama Nyaya) considers Prathyaksha, Anumana, Upamana, Shabdham as pramanam. Yoga (of Patanjali) says Pratyaksha, Anumana, Agamah Pramaanani. (but I get your point.)
"proud Hindus" should be upset over so-called Tantra and Kali-worship cults focussed on in english-language text-books simply because this is a heavily biased misrepresentation of Vedic dharma as a whole, and also because these practices are arguably deviant practices (apasampradayas).
Quote:Ask most english-educated Hindus, and they will tell you that Hinduism is "NOT monotheistic", that "we are all God", and that Advaita is the last word on Vedanta! -- even though Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami and Lord Chaitanya came after Shankara.
Last word does not literally mean the word that comes later in time. Advaita Philosophy is far more convincing, and experientially superior to the other interpretations of Vedas as it echoes what is already given in the Mandukya Upanishad and such. (Shaantham Shivam ADVAITHAM chathurtham manyahthe - sa Aathma Sa vigneya: - Mandukya 7.)
Quote:But for the sake of political and theological unity, he preached advaita, being as manipulative as the adversary.
Or so you say. Krishna Himself in the Bhagavad Geetha taught Advaitha (7.7) how can Vivekananda be any different? Krishna HIMSELF declared that "These fools do not recognize me - the Brahman - who is manifested in human form." True enough, fools think of Krishna as mere mortal who lives in Goloka. How can the Sarva-vyapi be bound by space and time except within the confines of Maya?
Quote:But such mayavad is seriously offensive to any serious Vaishnav (70% of Hindus are descendents of those who accepted Vaishnavism)/
You will have to give up this 70% number theory. Headcount is immaterial when battling out ideology. If 80% of the world is suffering from poverty, then poverty does not become superior overnight. (WE can discuss Vaishnava beliefs without having to repeat the "70% headcount" ad nauseam.)
Quote:This sort of utter nonsense was severely condemned by Chaitanya mahaprabhu himself, though several such cults exist in Bengal and even Vrindavan. But it is precisely such kind of humbug that is discussed under the rubric of "Vaishnavism" in certain books.
Okay, are you dissing Hinduism or praising it? You seem to be dissing every other view except your keyhole view. Have you asked what Krishna has to say about these type of views? ("ANUDVEGA karam vaakyam sathyam PRIYA Hitham cha yath" said the Lord.)
Quote:More importantly, try to appreciate the REAL DAMAGE being done by mayavad representations of 'Hinduism'. It is THESE pseudo-philosophies that actually discredit the vast majority of Vedic agamas (including 80% of the Upanishads, most of the 4 Vedas, and ALL the Puranas).
Says who? Advaita is the only true interpretation of the Vedas. ISKCON is heavily confused, and is confusing others or is refusing to understand the Vedas. Either way, it is stagnat. (Lord in the Gita says : Utthareth Athman aathmaanam, na athmanam avasaadhayet.)
Quote:They only like to cherry-pick sentences (or sometimes even half-verses!) to support their philosophy. so understand this -- that the mayavadis trash most of Hindu literature (often appealing to modern pseudo-historical theories).
You owe an explanation on what your definition of "Mayavada" is. I am sure it is not Advaita Vedanta you are talking of. Calling Iskcon Moorkhavaadam is more appropriate than calling Advaita as Mayavaadham. (the term Maya is used by Lord himself in the Gita and is not a concoction of Advaita..)
05-12-2005, 04:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2005, 06:35 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
"Really? Please read about what "Shri Ramakrishna's religion" is about. Apparently he experimented with all different philosophies, sects and cults -- INCLUDING Christianity and Islam (which you so hate) -- and declared that they were all equally valid."
I thought we were discussing Vivekananda, we r not talking about Ramkrishna, if he contradicted his guru is that some kind of crime, everyone does not blindly nod and agree with his guru, ppl come to their own conclusions.
"That Vivekananda chose to say things directly contradicting his guru is just one off the contradictions. To give another example, Vivekananda, who resurrected Shankara's Advaita as the last word, actually says in one place that Buddhism represents the epitome of Hindu thought! Try and figure that one out."
I know and so do others, if u don't agree with it no Hindu nationalist will force u to agree with it.
"If you are attracted by Swami Vivekananda's nationalist rhetoric, his preoccupation with religious demographics and his offensive and sad blasphemy of Prophet Muhammad (while his guru endorsed the same person!), then so be it. But please don't pretend to engage in any serious theological debate."
Swami Vivekananda may have been preoccupied with religious demographics but there are good reasons for that too, why don't all u IKSCON followers go and live in Pakistan and see how Hindus are treated when they become a minority. It is very easy to preach when u r safe and secure but tell any Hindu Pakistani that demographics don't matter he is sure to laught at u. And what is blaspheming Muhammad, atleast he spoke the truth about Muhammad unlike politically correct Hindus who like to praise Muhammad to flatter Muslims, whether or not his guru endorsed Muhmmad does not matter, what he said about Muhammad's fanaticism is the truth whether u like it or not.
"As for your gratuitous invective about "ISKCON", I can only say that it is your own imagination. Most ISKCON members willingly call themselves "Hindu" for "vyavaharik" practical purposes, but when it comes to philosophy, they make sure to distinguish and inform the listener that there are different "types" within this Hinduism umbrella. What's wrong with that? BTW, the fastest growing congregations for the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya are in INDIA now, followed closely by Russia."
ISKCON are not Hindus, they themselves make it clear. Read the following article:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/krishna/krishna8.html
If they are Hindus then the following statement is quite a breakaway from Hinduism:
"The Krishna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion.... One should clearly understand that the Krishna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion."
http://www.rickross.com/reference/krishna/krishna8.html
This is a complete breakaway from Hindus and Hinduism, there are theological diff's and they are Gaudiya Vaishnavas, but here Prabhupada himself made it clear that what they preach has nothing to do with Hinduism so how can we consider them to be Hindus.
And what about ISKCON preaching that Allah and Krishna are the same, if they are the same then what is the point of Krishna conciousness movement if Muslims already worship Krishna under the name Allah.
As for the fastest growing movement statement, can u provide statistics from India about ISKCON being the fastest growing movement without just making blanket statements.
As I said before ISKCON can call themselves whatever they want to, but they are not representative of the majority of Hindu Vaishnavas just like Vivekananda was not representative of every Hindu on the planet. They are not Hindus and they themselves made it quite clear, so stop trying to say that they are Hindus.
<!--QuoteBegin-Carl+May 12 2005, 01:12 AM-->QUOTE(Carl @ May 12 2005, 01:12 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>gangajal</b>,
"proud Hindus" should be upset over so-called Tantra and Kali-worship cults focussed on in english-language text-books simply because this is a heavily biased misrepresentation of Vedic dharma as a whole, and also because these practices are arguably deviant practices (apasampradayas). As I stated in a previous post, about 70% of Hindus identify themselves nominally as "Vaishnava" (though they may not be clear about the philosophy). But howmuch of real Vaishnavism -- which is far better described as monotheistic rather than monistic -- gets discussed in "Hinduism" books?? Ask most english-educated Hindus, and they will tell you that Hinduism is "NOT monotheistic", that "we are all God", and that Advaita is the last word on Vedanta! -- even though Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami and Lord Chaitanya came after Shankara (whose individual mission was to kick out the atheistic shunyavadi philosophy out of bharatvarsha). So this is the kind of misrepresentation that is happening.
Most of this happens under the banner of "Vivekananda". But try to understand the time and circumstances under which Vivekananda was working. His main concern was to politically unite Hindus at a time of aggressive and manipulative colonial evangelism. In that spirit -- and not out of any theological conviction -- Vivekananda says, "But in the modern period, in the name of a generic 'Hinduism'...It is therefore, that I preach this Advaita". But Vivekananda himself acknowledges that his own guru, Ramakrishna, did not seem to speak Advaita, or Dwaita, or Acintya bhedabheda tattva, or anything else. Vivekananda spoke of "Shri Ramakrishna's religion" as something quite separate. But for the sake of political and theological unity, he preached advaita, being as manipulative as the adversary.
But such mayavad is seriously offensive to any serious Vaishnav (70% of Hindus are descendents of those who accepted Vaishnavism). In fact, even the way Ramakrishna described and "experimented with" Vaishnavism is a mockery. He indulged in a so-called tantric deviation called "sakhi-bekhi" -- one of the 13 apasampradayas enumerated by Chaitanya mahaprabhu Himself. To give you an idea, this sakhi-bekhi business involves some concocted "mano-dharma", where the male starts behaving like a woman, associates and performes patently perverted acts with real women, etc, supposedly to whip-up some psychological condition, in imitation of a "rasa" with Shri Krishna. This sort of utter nonsense was severely condemned by Chaitanya mahaprabhu himself, though several such cults exist in Bengal and even Vrindavan. But it is precisely such kind of humbug that is discussed under the rubric of "Vaishnavism" in certain books. This is an example of what is offensive and suffocating to serious Vaishnavas.
More importantly, try to appreciate the REAL DAMAGE being done by mayavad representations of 'Hinduism'. It is THESE pseudo-philosophies that actually discredit the vast majority of Vedic agamas (including 80% of the Upanishads, most of the 4 Vedas, and ALL the Puranas). They only like to cherry-pick sentences (or sometimes even half-verses!) to support their philosophy. so understand this -- that the mayavadis trash most of Hindu literature (often appealing to modern pseudo-historical theories). So before anyone tries to put together a "united Hindu front", I suggest we pause and take a look at the people and philosophies that are being used to put up this front. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carl,
1. It seems you are trashing any thing that does not agree with ISCKON's sectarian position. Tantra and Kali-worship are not deviant as you are claiming. In fact there is historical evidence that Chaitanya himself worshipped Kali. Govindadasa mentions in his kadaca that Chaitanya went into ecstasy in a temple dedicated to Kali in Padmakota during his South India tour (c 1500). There is other evidence that Chaitanya did not like your kind of sectarian view. Chaitanya reverently visited Siva temples and expressed joy that one of his companions, a devotee of Rama, refused to take initiation with a Krshna mantra.
2. I have no objection that you do not agree that Advaita is the final position of the Vedas. The different Acharyas have given these different philosophies to satisfy different minds. However, just as you can not accept Advaitavada, you can not expect people who follow Advaita to accept Vaishnava philosophy. Chaitanya himself was an ardent admirer of Sridhar Swami who was an Advaitin albeit of the bhakti type. Chaitanya told Vallabhacharya," You have the vanity to write your own commentary without showing your respect to Sridhara, and have even criticized him! It is by the
grace of Sridhara that I have understood the Bhagavata. He is a world teacher;
I consider him to be my very own Guru. Whatever you have written out of pride
against Sridhara is wasted effort; no one will accept it. Give up your false
pride and follow Sridhara in your commentary. Whatever you write in accordance
with Sridhara will be honoured and accpeted by all.' (CCa 7/128-132) So you see Lord Chaitanya accepted an Advaitin as his Guru.
All six Goswamis have been full of praise for Sridhar Swami even though
Sridhar was an Advaitin (though an ardent proponent of Bhakti). Jiva, for
example, writes at the commencement of his Bhagavata commentary, the
Kramasandharva:"I salute the venerable Sridhara, the sole guardian of Bhakti.
This commentary, bearing the name Kramasandharva, should be understood to
function as clarifying what was not clearly stated by the Swamin, or
mentioning what was left unsaid." Jiva cites Shankara as an authority several times in
his Sarvasambidini.
Sridhara acknowledges his debt to Sankara at the beginning of his commentary
on the Bhagavad Gita. He writes,"After studying, according to my own light,
the interpretation of the commentator (Shankara) and the writings of his
sub-commentators, I begin this commentary on the Gita." Sridhara does not
follow Shankara very closely, placing greater emphasis on Bhakti, often
speaking of the jiva as portion of Brahman and giving a more realistic
interpretation to the concept of Sakti.
3. You have also trashed Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. Since my Guru is of the Ramakrishna order I
feel I have to defend their reputation. You claim that Vivekananda was being manipulative when he preached Advaita and that Ramakrishna did not follow any system. You clearly do not have any understanding of their teachings. Ramakrishna himself told the monastic disciples to have the Advaitic experience and then live in the world. Ramakrishna also accepted the other philosophical systems but always said that Advaita is the highest experience. So your claim that Vivekananda was being manipulative is false.
4. You have made a nasty allegation that Ramakrishna performed perverted acts with real women. This is completely false allegation. He did worship Krishna with the attitude of a woman. This is a recognized Vaishnava position since only Lord Krishna is man. In fact there is a story regarding this kind of worship. Once Mira Bai visited Vrindavan and wanted to meet Santana Goswami. Sanatana Goswami refused saying as a Sannyasi he could not talk to a woman. Mira Bai scolded him saying that it is a pity that Sanatana Goswami still thinks himself as a man when it is well known that Lord Krishna is the only man in the universe. An embarrassed Sanatana Goswami, a direct disciple of Chaitanya, met Mira Bai.
05-12-2005, 04:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2005, 04:58 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
And why don't u do some research before repeating that Ram Krishna endorsed Muhammad, this most probably is a latter day concoction by his disciples, as the following passage shows:
6.2. Ramakrishnaâs experiments
The central argument of the RK Mission for its non-Hindu character was that, unlike Hinduism, it upheld the âequal truth of all religionsâ and the âequal respect for all religionsâ. The latter slogan was popularized by Mahatma Gandhi as sarva-dharma-samabhâva, a formula officially approved and upheld in the BJPâs constitution.4 In 1983, RK Mission spokesman Swami Lokeshwarananda said: âIs Ramakrishna only a Hindu? Why did he then worship in the Christian and Islamic fashions? He is, in fact, an avatar of all religions, a synthesis of all faiths.â5
The basis of the Swamiâs claim is a story that Swami Vivekanandaâs guru Paramahansa Ramakrishna (1836-86) once, in 1866, dressed up as a Muslim and then continued his spiritual exercises until he had a vision; and likewise as a Christian in 1874. If at all true, these little experiments shouldnât be given too much weight, considering Ramakrishnaâs general habit of dressing up a little for devotional purposes, e.g. as a woman, to experience Krishna the lover through the eyes of His beloved Radha (not uncommon among Krishna devotees in Vrindavan); or hanging in trees to impersonate Hanuman, Ramaâs monkey helper.
But is the story true? Ram Swarup finds that it is absent in the earliest recordings of Ramakrishnaâs own talks. It first appears in a biography written 25 years after Ramakrishnaâs death by Swami Saradananda (Sri Ramakrishna, the Great Master), who had known the Master only in the last two years of his life. Even then, mention (on just one page in a 1050-page volume) is only made of a vision of a luminous figure. The next biographer, Swami Nikhilananda, ventures to guess that the figure was âperhaps Mohammedâ.6 In subsequent versions, this guess became a dead certainty, and that âvision of Mohammedâ became the basis of the doctrine that he spent some time as a Muslim, and likewise as a Christian, and that he âproved the truthâ of those religions by attaining the highest yogic state on those occasions.7
It is hard not to sympathize with Ram Swarupâs skepticism. In todayâs cult scene there are enough wild claims abroad, and it is only right to hold their propagators guilty (of gullibility if not of deception) until proven innocent. In particular, a group claiming âexperimental verificationâ of a religious truth claim as the unique achievement of its founder should not be let off without producing that verification here and now; shady claims about an insufficiently attested event more than a century ago will not do. It is entirely typical of the psychology behind this myth-making that a researcher can testify: âNeither Swami Vivekananda, nor any other monk known to the author, ever carried out his own experiments. They all accepted the truth of all religions on the basis of their masterâs work.â8 This is the familiar pattern of the followers of a master who are too mediocre to try for themselves that which they consider as the basis of the masterâs greatness, but who do not hesitate to make claims of superiority for their sect on that same (untested, hearsay) basis.
http://www.voi.org/books/wiah/ch6.htm
xposting from perils of syncretism thread..
Post from S R Krishnan on IC..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/74257
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->--- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, "Kalavai Venkat"
<history_judge@y...> wrote:
> Please see "Sri Ramakrishna the Great Master" by Swami Saradananda
& Swami Jagadananda [Ramakrishna Math, 1956], p. 296. Ramakrishna had
> a vision of Jesus, who not only embraced Ramakrishna but also
> disappeared into his body causing ecstatic trance. Then, Ramakrishna
> asked his disciples what Jesus would've looked like. They
> replied, "No description is given in the Bible but born a Jew he
> must have been very fair in complexion with aquiline nose." To this
> Ramakrishna replied, "But I saw him with the tip of his nose a
> little flat."
Thank you for the reference. This book by Swami Saradananda,
whatever its merits, seems highly suspect, esp. in light of the
following:
http://www.voi.org/books/hhce/Ch13.htm
Sri Ramakrishna had never heard of Jesus till Jesus was thrust under his nose by those disciples who had come to him from the fold of Keshub Chunder Sen. Mahendra Nath Gupta, whose record of the talks of Sri Ramakrishna was to become famous as The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna had an infantile fascination for Jesus and never missed an opportunity to compare the sayings and doings of Jesus with those of the Paramahamsa. But to the last, Jesus remained for Sri Ramakrishna only a figure which people belonging to a foreign religion worshipped as God. He did not have even a remote knowledge of the dogmas of Christianity. The only dogma, that of the original sin, which was presented to him by some disciples, he repudiated with repugnance. "Once someone gave me," he said on October 27, 1882, "a book of the Christians. I asked him to read it to me. It talked about nothing but sin." Turning to Keshub Chunder Sen, who was present, he continued, "Sin is the only thing one hears at your Brahmo Samaj too... He who says day and night, `I am a sinner, I am a sinner', verily becomes a sinner... Why should one only talk about sin and hell, and such things?"11 Thus he knocked the bottom out of Christianity. Without sin, there was no need for the atoning death
of a historical saviour.
http://www.voi.org/books/wiah/ch6.htm
Ram Swarup finds that it is absent in the earliest recordings of Ramakrishna's own talks. It first appears in a biography written 25 years after Ramakrishna's death by Swami Saradananda (Sri Ramakrishna, the Great Master), who had known the Master only in the last two years of his life. Even then, mention (on just one page in a 1050-page volume) is only made of a vision of a luminous figure.
The next biographer, Swami Nikhilananda, ventures to guess that the figure was "perhaps Mohammed". In subsequent versions, this guess became a dead certainty, and that "vision of Mohammed" became the basis of the doctrine that he spent some time as a Muslim, and likewise as a Christian, and that he "proved the truth" of those religions by attaining the highest yogic state on those occasions.
Also read
http://www.hindu.org/publications/ramswa...ssion.html
tracing the evolution of syncretic Ramakrishnaite mythology.
*********************************************************************
Sri Ramakrishna died in 1886, and the first edition of Swami Saradananda's biography must have come out in 1886 + 25 = 1911. Your edition is that of 1956, a full 45 years later and with an additional author as well. One wonders if Ramakrishna-ite mythology is not evolving with time and fashion. From a one-time vision of a "luminous figure" in 1911, we are treated to the touching racial concern for the shape of Jesus' nose in 1956, not to mention his ecstatic merging into Sri Ramakrishna.
So, while criticising Sri Ramakrishna, it is important to keep in mind that he is more sinned against by his followers than a sinner himself. While many Hindus, including Ramakrishna Mission guys, spend no end of time and ink discovering the "true" (i.e. pagan-loving, yoga-teaching) Jesus/Mohammad, one wonders why they have notinvested similar effort in uncovering the "true" Sri Ramakrishna.
If they did, we should have had more data on the number of hands Ma Kali has, rather than on the shape of Jesus' nose.
S.R.Krishnan
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carl,
Thanks for clarifying - I thought you were talking about something else. Somehow your posts gave me an impression that you were talking about either
(a) dump the hindu identity.
(b) prompt the vaishnavas to work towards changing the hindu identity to align more with abrahamnics in order to fight them better.
Need some time to think. Will enjoy debate b/w guroos in meantime.
Bharatvarhsa,
The RKM claim that it is not a Hindu organization is of course bogus. They were forced to take that course because the Communist Govt in West Bengal was threatening to take over their schools, colleges, orphanges. They were advised by their lawyers that the only way to save their property was to declare themselves as minority since Indian constitution gives special rights to minorities. They managed to save their institutions for 20 years by using that legal maneouvre. No one in the RKM believes their "legal position" that they are not Hindus.
What is Ramakrishna and Vivekananda's position about other religions. I give below direct quotes:
*************************************************************************************
"God can be realized through all paths. All religions are true. The important
thing is to reach the roof. You can reach it by stone stairs or by wooden
stairs or by bamboo steps or by a rope. You can also climb up by a bamboo
pole.
You may say that there are many errors and superstitions in another religion.
I should reply: Suppose there are. Every religion has errors. Every one thinks
that his watch alone gives the correct time. It is enough to have yearning for
God. It is enough to love Him and feel attracted to Him. Don't you know that
God is the Inner Guide? He sees the longing of our heart and the yearning of
our soul. Suppose a man has several sons. The older boys address him
distinctly as 'Baba' or 'Papa', but the babies can at best call him 'Ba' or
'Pa'. Now will the father be angry with those who address him in this
indistinct way? The father knows that they too are calling him, only they
cannot pronounce his name well. All children are same to the father.
Likewise, the devotees call on God alone, though by different names. They call
on One Person only. God is one, but His names are many."
"It is not good to feel that one's own religion alone is true and all others
are false. God is one only and not two. Diferent people call on Him by
different names, some as Allah, some as God, and others as Krishna, Siva,
and Brahman. It is like water in a lake. Some drink it at one place and call
it 'jal', others at another place and call it 'pani', and still others at a
third place and call it 'water'. The Hindus call it 'jal', the Christians
call it 'water', and the Mussalmans 'pani'. But it is one and the same thing.
Opinions are but paths. Each religion is only a path leading to God, as
rivers come from different directions and ultimately become one in the one
ocean."
"I see people who talk about religions constantly quarrelling with one
another. Hindus, Mussalmans, Brahmos, Saktas, Vaishnavas, Saivas, all
quarrel with one another. They haven't the intelligence to understand that He
who is called Krishna is also Shiva and the Primal Shakti, and that is He
again, who is called Jesus and Allah. There is only one Rama and He has a
thousand names."
- Sri Ramakrishna
****************************************************************
You must remember that humanity travels not from error to truth, but from
truth to truth; it may be, if you like it better, from lower truth to higher
truth, but never from error to truth. Suppose you start from here and travel
towards the sun in a straight line. From here the sun looks only small in size
. Suppose you go forwards a million miles, the sun will be much bigger. At
every stage the sun will become bigger and bigger. Suppose twenty thousand
photographs had been taken of the same sun, from different standpoints; these
twenty thousand photographs will certainly differ from one another. But can
you deny that each is a photograph of the same sun? So all forms of religion,
high or low, are just different stages towards that eternal state of light,
which is God Himself. Some embody a lower view, some a higher, and that is all
the difference.
- Vivekananda (Complete Works IV, p147)
****************************************************************
The Yogi says there is a great danger in stumbling upon this state (Samadhi).
In a good many cases there is the danger of the brain being deranged, and, as
a rule, you will find that all these men, however great they were, who had
stumbled upon this superconsciousness state without understanding it, groped
in the dark, and generally had, along with their knowledge, some quaint
superstation. They opened themselves to hallucinations. Mohammed claimed that
the Angel Gabriel came to him in a cave one day and took him on the heavenly
horse, Harak, and he visited the heavens. But with all that, Mohammed spoke
some wonderful truths. If you read tha Koran, you find the most wonderful
truths mixed with superstitions. How will you explain it? That man was
inspired, no doubt, but that inspiration was, as it were stumbled upon. He
was not a trained Yogi, and did not know the reason of what he is doing.
Think of the good Mohammed did to the world, and think of the great evil that
had been done through his fanaticism. Think of the millions massacred through
his teachings, mothers bereft of their children, children made orphans,
whole countries destroyed, millions and millions of people killed.
- Vivekananda (Complete Works I, p184)
Ramakrishna never accepted the dogmas and doctrines of Christianity or Islam.
This is clear from the following quote:
Vivekananda presented his "practical Vedanta" in the Mahavakya, "Each soul is
potentially Divine. The goal is to manifest this Divine within by controlling
Nature external and internal. Do this by work or worship, or psychic control,
or philosophy, by one or more or all of these ? and be free. This is the whole
of religion. Doctrine or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms,
are but secondary details."
So when Ramakrishna is talking about a religion like Christianity he is not saying that the doctrine of "original sin" is correct or Jesus is the only way. He is saying that if a Christian sincerelyy follows Jesus's teaching,"Be ye Perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" then such a person will realize God eventually.
Of course a Christian might well say that such an understanding of Jesus is not Christianity at all.
|
