MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Removing The Sheen From Buddhism
#81
[quote name='Husky' date='25 July 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1280040375' post='107612']





2. About Nirguna 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:

Again, the notion you're referring to is not any origina

3. Buddhism

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



- 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.

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.

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"

Whatever.

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



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.



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'

5. OMGs it is never-ending:

(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 -



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.

[/quote]

You say that Brahman is sat-cit-ananda, truth(of existence),consciousness and happiness .This are clear personal attributes,so Brahman is a Person.If he is a person,surely it has other personal attributes and preferences-he may have a favorite form,favorite color and music and so one, no matter what we believe.

To deny that Brahman is a person who is the source of all other persons ,mean you minimize the saguna brahman aspect.No real personal absolute just relative persons subordinate to an impersonal nirguna brahman.

The world as maya was the teaching of Shankara teacher,but Shankara has a more subtle approach;he postulate that are 3 types of reality depending from which point of view you see things.

3.No.Nirvana doesn't mean nothing but is mean more like the notion of Beyond ,not existence,not non-existence,just like Shankara proposed that nirguna is.

Saguna Brahman and Parabrahman mean the same thing,just that saguna may have also the meaning of limited temporary qualities ,while para refer specifically to infinite transcendent qualities.Parabrahman is a real person(as he is real and have consciousness and happiness).

Buddhist monks describe the Upanishads as teaching bheda-abheda view of Brahman,that before Shankara suggest that abheda(oneness,unmanifest) is more important then bheda(diference,manifest).

4.Yes,the mimamsa school defeated the buddhism not vedanta.Buddhism was already in decline in Shankara time.After Shankara,vedanta become the dominant school and integrated mimamsa in its doctrine.

5.I refer to eternity as unlimited time,not as absence of time.Any attribute may have a corespondent in the Transcendent ,lets say a super-time.This neo-platonist point about the eternity as absence of time doesn't impress me.

We are ever to exist and maybe that's the difference from buddhism (for them everything is temporary).The dissolution refers mostly at the material universes.The game end but the players are still alive.
  Reply
#82
[quote name='Husky' date='25 July 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1280074304' post='107617']

Post 61:



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.

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:

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.

[/quote]



i was 3 times visited by jehovah witness and one time by mormons.I hope they will come again.I like debates ,sadly they have only prescribed answers and when in trouble they run away.Their misionarism doesn't affect me,they don't force me to believe what they believe which is a rare thing for a christian group.Its right right to preach and mine to not listen them.I do listen them because is a lot of fun when i hear them selling crap.

However i don't consider that they are minimize my liberty to believe whatever i want.

However again,they try to sell a book(bible) that is aggressive to others,even if the sellers don't believe in aggression.

More disturbing is the orthodox priest that came every year to throw "holy" water in my house.He is not interested in debates,only in my money.

I guess christian misionarism work only on weak minded and seems there are millions of them.

Im not talking about forced missionarism,bribe misionarism ,or tricks misionarism.
  Reply
#83
[quote name='agnivayu' date='27 July 2010 - 06:16 AM' timestamp='1280191129' post='107634']

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.

[/quote]

is not monotheism per-se because recognize the existence of other gods.

The difference it could be one of terminology-what is the difference between mono and oneness?

Not the fact that they see their religion as superior start the war(though this idea could add fuel),but their incapacity to listen other ideas.
  Reply
#84
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='28 July 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1280331148' post='107659']

is not monotheism per-se because recognize the existence of other gods.

The difference it could be one of terminology-what is the difference between mono and oneness?

Not the fact that they see their religion as superior start the war(though this idea could add fuel),but their incapacity to listen other ideas.

[/quote]

I see mono as dualism, I am separate and different from the supreme being as a pose to oneness which is only one thing exists and we are part and parcel of the supreme being.
  Reply
#85
[quote name='agnivayu' date='29 July 2010 - 04:38 AM' timestamp='1280358030' post='107671']

I see mono as dualism, I am separate and different from the supreme being as a pose to oneness which is only one thing exists and we are part and parcel of the supreme being.

[/quote]

what do you say can be call in greek language terminology

-exclusive monotheism:christian type, where god is made from a different substance then the rest(other beings,world).So there are 2 different substances.Only Madhva among indian philosophers believe that Brahman and the world are from 2 different muttualy exclusive substances.He also is the only one that believe that some sold will have a fate similar whit eternal hell(an eternal reincarnation in lifes of suffering) .

-inclusive monotheism:were the god and the rest(beings,world)are made from the same substance .This can also be name panentheism(not pantheism) and is the believe shared by Ramanuja,Shankara and Chaitanya.

Because greek and hindu terminologies are somewhat different ,confusions can be made by translation.
  Reply
#86
Romani,

The problem of missionising is *much* greater and deeper than the examples you provide. (At times, it is far more subtle too than in-your-face religion salesmen.)

Also, it is not always merely individuals who get confronted by it.

It is a very serious matter.





[color="#0000FF"]3.No.Nirvana doesn't mean nothing but is mean more like the notion of Beyond ,not existence,not non-existence,just like Shankara proposed that nirguna is.[/color]



1. English doesn't allow for many words. And one of the closer words for its belief of what lies beyond simply happens to be Nothingness, which is also why it has been used by some non-lay Buddhists in their English-language lectures. Who am I to argue.

They stress this when they explain there is also no "God" in Buddhism.

(BTW, in English, Void is Nothingness, absence of everything.)



But if you wanted to merely dispute terminology, the rest of what I stated still holds. Buddhism denies the reality of Brahman, the Absolute Reality of Hindu religion. I.e. it denies Hindu religion. It denies the Vedas. At its core, Buddhism denies the Gods (Hindu, Taoist, Shinto and every other kind): it denies their reality.

Again: Shankara doesn't deny the Gods, Hindu religion, etc. He does not declare the Gods "unreal".



2. Repeat: Shankara didn't invent nirguna. And the fact that Nirguna is beyond all qualities is the definition of Nirguna Brahman. That It/the Gods certainly continue to Be beyond creation/existence is alluded to in the Gita and elsewhere. Things dissolve back into It. But Its state of being is not dependent on creation - It does not cease to be.



This can not be a discussion: *I'm* not the one you should be arguing with on this, as *I* am not originating these statements. They are there in Hindu texts. (Of course, I may mis-phrase them, but if you tip your head sideways - so to speak - maybe you'll see how my attempts at verbalising is just me parroting existing stuff.)





[color="#0000FF"]You say that Brahman is sat-cit-ananda, truth(of existence),consciousness and happiness .This are clear personal attributes,so Brahman is a Person.[/color]



1. Brahman is SCA. And it's not me saying it. (I don't usually think about "Brahman".)

2. "So brahman is a person". You have not proven this. Your "so"/ergo doesn't mean more than that it is a conclusion *you* saw fit to derive. I didn't derive it at all. Nothing for it then, but for you to produce mathematical proof.

While we wait:

Nirguna Brahman is not "a person", unmanifest Brahman is not "a person" - a phrase that puts certain limitations of perception/understanding of what is meant.

Besides, there is the other error: Brahman need not at all be a single person. "Saguna Brahman" applies to all the Hindu Gods. They are all Parabrahman, the "Supreme Ultimate". Once more, this is not a claim I came up with.



[color="#0000FF"]If he is a person,surely it has other personal attributes and preferences-he may have a favorite form,favorite color and music and so one, no matter what we believe.[/color]



The Gods are certainly real and do have - for lack of a better word - "personalities"; perfect, flawless, divine, individual "characters" that reflect the/ir divine Nature. But they are more than characters, a word which sounds almost random. Hmmm. They are Divinity personified. (English really is a painful language. It just leads me in circles.)

Yes, they certainly have their own personal attributes, as natural to them - and more so - than, say, mine are to me. (They, being perfect, do not really change qua character.)





[color="#0000FF"]Saguna Brahman and Parabrahman mean the same thing ... Parabrahman is a real person(as he is real and have consciousness and happiness).[/color]



Ignoring the "person" statements: Yes, Parabrahman (Saguna or Nirguna) is real. And its state of being is SCA. It's just The Way Things Are.



From what I can make out, the closest to the Hindu view of what "Brahman" is, is to be found in at least one (famous) E Asian tradition - and they make roundabout explanation too. But once they finally have gone through their "explanations" of it, it is rather well-illustrated. (They are very like Hindus in other important respects as well. But they are not the only ones.)



But why are you so adamant in trying to establish a Saguna-only Parabrahman independent of/at the expense of (denying) the Nirguna Brahman?

If you were merely attached exclusively to the Saguna Parabrahman, it would be possible for you to turn only to that and simply not think of the Nirguna (like a great many traditional Hindoos have successfully done; it is not *necessary* for them). But the fact that you want to de-link it entirely - in contradiction to what remains very much established Hindoo religion - suggests something else.





[color="#0000FF"]Buddhist monks describe the Upanishads as teaching bheda-abheda view of Brahman,that before Shankara suggest that abheda(oneness,unmanifest) is more important then bheda(diference,manifest).[/color]



Buddhist monks aren't the authority on Upanishads.

Also, there is a lot more in the Upanishads than on the unmanifest absolute Brahman. (They also speak of the manifest Gods - who are very much a reality.)

Besides, you are the one differentiating, since traditional Hindu paths have always included the religion's established multi-views on Divinity.





Quote:The difference it could be one of terminology-what is the difference between mono and oneness?

Not the fact that they see their religion as superior start the war(though this idea could add fuel),but their incapacity to listen other ideas.

1. Monotheism - as defined by the recognised monotheisms - is "one gawd, all *others* are false". It often even includes recognition of the existence of other Gods, but makes the particular insistence that they must not be worshipped. (And even that their followers must be persecuted/converted/killed.)



2. "Monotheistic Tendency" is the arrogant presumption that one's ideology is the Sole Truth, or the Superior Truth to be established over others/in place of others/on top of others, and that Other Ancient Religionists Badly Need To Have It and have been Waiting For It. That established True Traditions must be subordinated to the New-Found (sudden) "Truth".

It is the tendency to want to "save" people by insinuating your ideas on their free time and personal space (E.g. feminism is a perfect case in point.) Maybe other people ... actually don't give a hoot, but would like to be left alone - and will leave you free to believe whatever you want where it does not encroach on others.

Everyone has a right to be left alone. This also makes them free to discover for themselves - independently, which makes the search more honest. And where they are unsubverted, they will discover, if that's what's right for them.



3. An "incapacity to listen to other ideas" is not at all the problem. That is too easy an excuse for the monotheisms. They're not merely unable and unwilling - which implies inaction (and that's not at all a problem in itself: not for others, only for themselves). The problem is that they are particularly on the *offence*: peddling *their* ideas, convinced it is the Only Truth (when usually it is entirely untrue) and that it Must Be Universally Adopted.

The unsubverted populations of the world can manage just fine. If it were up to me, I'd declare them all Non-Contactable Peoples and have done.







Yay! Profound Inanity -



[quote name='agnivayu']Weren't you the same one debating on the other thread about how images are depicted.[/quote]Back up your statement with a link to the post you're referring to. Else there's no point in bringing it up.



Quote:The way a particular God is drawn is that artist's impression of it.
But art is not what you spoke of. You wrote: "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."

The context in which you made the statement defines the scope of it. And the context was monotheism.



As for art though, traditional Hindu art - as an authentic representation of the Hindu Gods - does have very particular ways of depicting the Gods. They are passed down that way. The accurate presentation is considered a part of Hindoo religion. While there is leeway in somethings here, other things never change: else they are not recognised as depictions of the Gods.

Just like why construction of moorties and Kovils have certain specifications governing them.





[quote name='agnivayu']I personally would draw an image ...[/quote]What, what? You draw???? And I thought they said the Age of Miracles was over...



[quote name='agnivayu']You do bark a lot however.

[/quote]Flattery!

See? If you try really really really hard, you *can* inch a bit towards being charming after all. (But mind you don't land yourself in the hospital with your strenuous attempts.)



Quote:Your threatening attitude doesn't intimidate me one bit.
Even more compliments. And I wasn't even trying.



Quote:Husky the dog the only perfect remaining Hindu today. Knows and only speaks the truth.
Looks like an invitation for an argument.

But why go through the motions? Let's just declare the inevitable: I win.

Oh, but I see now that you had already conceded (and not just for yourself, but for others too - how ungracious of you):

Quote:Others makes impossible statements.
It seems I'm more skilled at arguing than I thought: it's amazing how I won without even being present this time! Particularly impressive is that, despite how obviously hopeless you are in "telepathy" (or whatever it was that you were attempting), your wild conclusions still magically worked on my behalf. (Their veracity - or lack thereof - is another issue. And what do I care about that anyway, when I Won In Absentia. :woohooSmile



Hmmm, just so no one is left wondering, do you always argue all by yourself and let the Absent Other win? It's certainly a, a ...novel ...approach. But, as I said, who am I to complain when 'tis in my favour. "All's well as ends well." (Etc.)





But enough entertainment. Even though you have been desperately nagging for someone to babysit you, I have to forego the invitation: I have no experience. Really sorry, kid. But: there's no need for you to cry on either, as you're in the care of the capable professionals of IF. They will Parent you.
  Reply
#87
Husky,

I agree with what you said about the Monotheists, yet like a rabid mad animal you are snapping at me. What's wrong with you? I think you need to check yourself.



Are you denying the fact that as Hinduism expanded, local tribal deities were not added and equated to the primary Hindu Gods?







[quote name='Husky' date='29 July 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1280405372' post='107678']



1. Monotheism - as defined by the recognised monotheisms - is "one gawd, all *others* are false". It often even includes recognition of the existence of other Gods, but makes the particular insistence that they must not be worshipped. (And even that their followers must be persecuted/converted/killed.)



2. "Monotheistic Tendency" is the arrogant presumption that one's ideology is the Sole Truth, or the Superior Truth to be established over others/in place of others/on top of others, and that Other Ancient Religionists Badly Need To Have It and have been Waiting For It. That established True Traditions must be subordinated to the New-Found (sudden) "Truth".

It is the tendency to want to "save" people by insinuating your ideas on their free time and personal space (E.g. feminism is a perfect case in point.) Maybe other people ... actually don't give a hoot, but would like to be left alone - and will leave you free to believe whatever you want where it does not encroach on others.

Everyone has a right to be left alone. This also makes them free to discover for themselves - independently, which makes the search more honest. And where they are unsubverted, they will discover, if that's what's right for them.



3. An "incapacity to listen to other ideas" is not at all the problem. That is too easy an excuse for the monotheisms. They're not merely unable and unwilling - which implies inaction (and that's not at all a problem in itself: not for others, only for themselves). The problem is that they are particularly on the *offence*: peddling *their* ideas, convinced it is the Only Truth (when usually it is entirely untrue) and that it Must Be Universally Adopted.

The unsubverted populations of the world can manage just fine. If it were up to me, I'd declare them all Non-Contactable Peoples and have done.







Yay! Profound Inanity -



Back up your statement with a link to the post you're referring to. Else there's no point in bringing it up.



[/quote]



"Clean-shaven or whiskered - both suit Hindu men. Unlikely any could be mistaken for a woman or child for not sporting a moustache and/or beard. "

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index....e__st__320



So we can have variations in depiction then huh?





[quote name='Husky' date='29 July 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1280405372' post='107678']



But art is not what you spoke of. You wrote: "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."

The context in which you made the statement defines the scope of it. And the context was monotheism.



So the context is monotheism and the idea of the Christians/Muslims etc that only their God is the way. They actually acknowledge the existence of other Gods, like Hindu Gods but state they are manifestations of the devil (which is different that saying that they don't exist at all).

So I am actually supporting what you are saying, but like a crazy maniac you seem hell bent on lashing out. I think you need to get some more fresh air.







"As for art though, traditional Hindu art - as an authentic representation of the Hindu Gods - does have very particular ways of depicting the Gods. They are passed down that way. The accurate presentation is considered a part of Hindoo religion. While there is leeway in somethings here, other things never change: else they are not recognised as depictions of the Gods.

Just like why construction of moorties and Kovils have certain specifications governing them."



Even from casual observation, there are significant variations in how they are depicted including muscles. In addition, many local areas have their own village deities for example not worshiped elsewhere, but over time they were equated to a primary Hindu God.





"What, what? You draw???? And I thought they said the Age of Miracles was over..."



Again, you are acting like a pathetic little worm.



"Flattery!

See? If you try really really really hard, you *can* inch a bit towards being charming after all. (But mind you don't land yourself in the hospital with your strenuous attempts.)"



You have been locked in your closet too long. Get some fresh air.





"Even more compliments. And I wasn't even trying."



You consider that a compliment? What a dirtbag loser.



"Looks like an invitation for an argument.

But why go through the motions? Let's just declare the inevitable: I win."



Pathetic little excuse for a human being. Looking to fight for absolutely no reason. I suggest you get someone to examine your mental state.





"But enough entertainment. Even though you have been desperately nagging for someone to babysit you, I have to forego the invitation: I have no experience. Really sorry, kid. But: there's no need for you to cry on either, as you're in the care of the capable professionals of IF. They will Parent you."



LOL, What a pathetic loser. You are probably a wimpy little man, a spineless coward who sits behind his computer screen and talks big. In real life you probably wear a diaper and piss your pants. Feel free to talk to me in person if you have the guts.
  Reply
#88
[quote name='Husky' date='29 July 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1280405372' post='107678']



But why are you so adamant in trying to establish a Saguna-only Parabrahman independent of/at the expense of (denying) the Nirguna Brahman?

If you were merely attached exclusively to the Saguna Parabrahman, it would be possible for you to turn only to that and simply not think of the Nirguna (like a great many traditional Hindoos have successfully done; it is not *necessary* for them). But the fact that you want to de-link it entirely - in contradiction to what remains very much established Hindoo religion - suggests something else.



[/quote]

I didnt see were I denied the nirguna and propose only saguna. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

It seems for me that you minimize the saguna at the expense of nirguna.

I just that exist a person that is the source of all other persons.Brahman is also one and also many .But that one it doesn't mean only the nirguna aspect.

I didnt make that up ,just like you i pointed to the hindu writings that say so.

As you say ,hinduism has multi-views.Anyway i think we do here,hair splitting activity.
  Reply
#89
1. Romani:

Quote:I didnt see were I denied the nirguna and propose only saguna.
I already responded to the instances. (Repeat) You do it here:



Quote:1. You say that Brahman is sat-cit-ananda, truth(of existence),consciousness and happiness .This are clear personal attributes,so Brahman is a Person.If he is a person,surely it has other personal attributes and preferences-he may have a favorite form,favorite color and music and so one, no matter what we believe.
And

Quote:2. Saguna Brahman and Parabrahman mean the same thing,just that saguna may have also the meaning of limited temporary qualities ,while para refer specifically to infinite transcendent qualities.Parabrahman is a real person(as he is real and have consciousness and happiness).
On the 2nd: your statement that "Saguna and Parabrahman mean the same thing" leaves out that "Nirguna and Parabrahman (also) mean the same thing".

In Hindu religion, Parabrahman can mean both Saguna AND Nirguna Brahman. This is left open to the traditional Hindu. It's not just one OR the other. For the individual Hindu's experience and understanding it is "And/Or". For the Hindu religion it is "AND", like it is for Daoism etc.





Quote:It seems for me that you minimize the saguna at the expense of nirguna.

I just that exist a person that is the source of all other persons.Brahman is also one and also many .But that one it doesn't mean only the nirguna aspect.

It was you who unduly stressed (insisted on) the one and started it all off by trying to make Shankara sound like the inventor of an attributeless Brahman and linking his mention of the already-long-established *Hindu* explanation of Nirguna with the entirely unrelated Buddhism. I merely corrected your statements in saying that Shankara was a Hindu as he was but parroting Hindooism on this, that he never even focused purely on the Nirguna (again, he was very Hindoo in his significant focus on Saguna) and that Buddhism is entirely unrelated in such Hindu matters.

I pointed out that Shankara was but a typical Hindoo - of a certain type.





Quote:It seems for me that you minimize the saguna at the expense of nirguna
Your supposition is patently untrue. And you could have verified it for yourself -

Case in point is my #78 in response to agnivayu's "We are a part and parcel of Brahman" shortly after he had stated "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":

Quote:"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?)



Quote:I didnt make that up ,just like you i pointed to the hindu writings that say so.

Correction to your claim: It was you who brought up the "impersonal Brahman without attributes", Advaita (and Shankara) - your posts #55, #63 (and again in #81) to which I responded. And it was me who pointed out that those things *too* were supported by Hindu texts. Of course, Saguna is certainly extremely highly supported as well (something which I also referred to).



In no other way does Nirguna even concern me or most Hindus I know. I don't know how often I need to repeat this.

I have certainly *never* minimised the Gods, though you minimise the plurality of them or the traditional Hindu recognition (through such statements like your question "who is the only worthy to be worshipped") that the Hindu Gods are All variously seen as the Supreme Ultimate - either on their own, with their spouse, in families, or sets of n, or altogether.





Quote:Anyway i think we do here,hair splitting activity.
No. And it was worth correcting/pointing out. Though it really ought to have been others that corrected it* and not me.

(* It's in their interest, because the very topics you ended up leading into has been latched onto elsewhere by Very Unfriendly Entities - why do you think I bothered responding? like anyone *wants* to have a dialog on "Nirguna", Advaitam, etc. - and it's not just Hindus/Hindu religion that they're gunning for. But I've already alluded to this a page or two ago in this thread. Either Hindus choose to do something about it, or they can wait around as usual until it chooses to do something about them.)





Oh and Romani, I don't want to be unnecessarily pulled into another round of "you said, I said" unless you are absolutely sure I said something dubious on a topic you find important to correct.
  Reply
#90
2. "Agnivayu":

Quote:In addition, many local areas have their own village deities for example not worshiped elsewhere, but over time they were equated to a primary Hindu God.
Only those village Hindu Gods who *are* local manifestations of pan-Indian Hindu Gods are correctly identified with the pan-Indian Hindu Gods. E.g. Meenakshi and Sundareshwara, etc.



Other local village Gods remain exactly that: purely local Gods. Little townships in Tamizh Nadu have local chieftain Gods who are specifically NOT the same as any God known elsewhere in the country or any other village. (There are carnatic songs on these truly local Gods.) They are certainly connected in other ways to the pantheon of familiar Hindu Gods - in a manner akin to how Gandharvas are connected to the Devas. They are part of an extended Hindu pantheon (and they are *very* much Hindu, based on their narratives), but they specifically guard the local regions. To pick on a more familiar example, not so much village-based, but still "regional": the God of the Hindu Mahasagar is unlikely to be equally intimately familiar to the Hindus indigenous to, say, Nepal. Local tree Gods remain local tree Gods - moreso when it concerns plants that don't occur in all Hindu places of the subcontinent. Some local Gods are major - and have become well-known - some are minor. For instance, Ayappa is very much a *regionally-based* Hindu God (major though he is); in his case, his association with the other major Hindu Gods also happens to be more visibly direct (familial relations).



Anyway, the situation is exactly the same as in, say, Taiwanese and Chinese villages/townships: there are major Taoist Gods who are known throughout Taoist territory, as well as local village Gods (still very much Taoist) protecting a particular locality - which is their region to look after, which is the region they choose to reside in: their home. They look after the families and wildlife of their region. And close kinship with such local Gods is ancestrally-passed down in people who have ancestral ties to the region.



And it is much the same in the rest of India, too. There are (a) exclusively-local Gods for various indigenous Hindu endogamous communities in greater India, even though (b.) the same Hindu communities are frequently also familiar with those Hindu Gods known throughout (i.e. pan-Indian) and are especially familiar with the local expressions/manifestations of these pan-Indian Hindu Gods.





Quote:"Clean-shaven or whiskered - both suit Hindu men. Unlikely any could be mistaken for a woman or child for not sporting a moustache and/or beard. "

http://www.india-for...n/page__st__320



So we can have variations in depiction then huh?
My statement which you have reposted is obviously speaking of Hindu *men* not Gods. It has no bearing on anything you said.



Also, from memory, the context of the post was: BV was wondering why he hadn't seen any God but Parashurama depicted with moustache/beard/male facial hair, despite Hindu men at various times having traditionally worn beards/moustaches. To which I noted that there were several instances of moorties and traditional paintings of Hindu Gods in my region that I could think of which did depict certain Gods with facial hair. And that the Gods always look perfectly male and attractive in the traditional Hindu depictions.



I then *also* stated that Hindu men looked male with or without beard/moustache - that they weren't dependent on either state.



Yes, check. This was my entire post which includes BV's opener (added blue colouring to keep BV's statements distinct):

Quote:QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Aug 11 2009, 03:48 AM)

Why the hell are all the male deities with the exception of Parashuraama portrayed without beards & moustaches like they are some kind of pre pubescent boys?



Shri Parthasarathy looks to have a moustache. Some drawings in the South have Shiva with moustache (one of Bhairava particularly comes to mind). Am doubting my recollection of whether I saw him depicted with beard :not sure:



The representations of an older-looking Brahma often have a beard + moustache.

I think I've seen some representations of an older-looking Agni also have a beard + moustache.



But whether shown with or without moustache/beard, the Hindu Gods always look mature and male and beautiful in traditional Hindu artworks, IMO.



QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Aug 11 2009, 03:48 AM)

It's weird considering that in Indian culture moustache is considered a sign of masculinity.



Clean-shaven or whiskered - both suit Hindu men. Unlikely any could be mistaken for a woman or child for not sporting a moustache and/or beard.
So my earlier post remains consistent with my more recent statements (complete with mention of "traditional Hindu artworks"), even as that post continues to have nothing to do with your irrelevant claims concerning it.





Anyway, to the more general claim: No, we haven't been saying the same things, because we don't have the same reasoning. The similarity is in your imagination: it only *seems* that way to you, because you can't distinguish.

Motivation always matters.

Various Hindus have many and various reasons to criticise the famous monotheisms (christoislamism). It is clear from your earlier line of "argumentation" that your reasons are different from mine. My arguments against monotheisms and for retaining people's ancestral tradition also remain profoundly different from yours (i.e. they continue to do so - well, from what I can make out of glancing over your more recent whining).



Missed this in one of your recent posts:

Quote:Quit making nonsense up.
And why would I encroach on what is exclusively *your* field of expertise?

Example:

Quote:You are probably a wimpy little man, a spineless coward who sits behind his computer screen and talks big.
:roll: The wrongness of your insane outburst makes it all the funnier: even though you are entirely without Wit, you have nevertheless unintentionally added to the hysteria. Your sad little mental image - more "telepathy" on your part? - clearly makes you feel safe.

Correcting you is superfluous: you have publicly revealed a lot more about yourself - qua character definitely - than your hyper-desperate assertions try to insinuate about me.



Quote:In real life you probably wear a diaper and piss your pants.
Oh, so you're not yet potty-trained, I see? And that's why, in your frustration, you're transferring your inability to manage yourself onto elsewhere.

But don't flip, FoulMouth, you may one day grow out of it: other kids do it all the time. "You can too!"





Seeing as how I've covered your assertions on "art", what I said/did not say about it, and "local Gods", am skipping the rest of your spastic verbal episodes - I doubt you said anything in the remainder that actually requires a sensible response. (It's probably just more of your retching.)



At last, can get down to the only useful bit in your entire posting session:

Quote:Feel free to talk to me in person if you have the guts.
Perfect, it's like you read my mind. (Some accidentally accurate "telepathy" at last: AKA Pure Guesswork).



Your address.



And you will be paying for my return-flight up front*. The appointment will have to be past the end of next year, as this year I have my annual leave pre-booked for Home and next year I'm travelling to the Land of the Rising Sun :woo:



But I am serious. You also *better* be. Else back off.



[* Plus I will need sufficient moolah for my tourist expenses in your neck of the woods, of course: the sight of your snooty mug before it bites the floor is not sufficient compensation for my flying about the world at random - I will want to do some travelling after leaving you behind - and it will all be going from my annual leave: time is money. (BTW, I charge double for the USA, for obvious reasons.) Besides, you're the one hiring me to beat you up, remember: You invited, you pay.]

These are the terms. (And no. You *can't* come here. My address etc. is private.)



Let's see you put your money where your Foul Mouth is.
  Reply
#91
We know how "serious" you are with those terms. I won't be paying for your travel expenses.

So you assumed there will be a physical confrontation when talking in person? That would be your call, not mine. I have plenty of training to defend myself incase you initiate any aggression.



Check your messages, you can reach me at that address if you wish and it's for your use only.







[quote name='Husky' date='01 August 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1280665491' post='107713']





But I am serious. You also *better* be. Else back off.



[* Plus I will need sufficient moolah for my tourist expenses in your neck of the woods, of course: the sight of your snooty mug before it bites the floor is not sufficient compensation for my flying about the world at random - I will want to do some travelling after leaving you behind - and it will all be going from my annual leave: time is money. (BTW, I charge double for the USA, for obvious reasons.) Besides, you're the one hiring me to beat you up, remember: You invited, you pay.]

These are the terms. (And no. You *can't* come here. My address etc. is private.)



Let's see you put your money where your Foul Mouth is.

[/quote]
  Reply
#92
hey love-birds,love declaration give them on pm not forum.
  Reply
#93
AV,

Why are you such a predictable comedian? Read what I wrote, dude. I was mocking your hyper unrealism: your extending invites to parties* you can't afford to host (not to mention a zillion other impossibilities tied to them, even if your opponent were serious.)



*And yes, your "Feel free to talk to me in person if you have the guts" is specifically an invitation for confrontation: because actual talking in person would require no guts (nor would talking even require a face-to-face meeting; besides, people can already 'talk' on a forum, and that's exactly what IF is. You were fishing with that ridiculous grandstanding finale of yours: it's typical teenager talk.

But I note at least your verbal rabies is gone for now. Perhaps it wasn't as chronic as was suspected?)





Quote:Check your messages, you can reach me at that address if you wish and it's for your use only.
Sure OK. But then, where's the other half of the deal for me to show up to your little teenage high school fight/drama/musical? Like I said: no money, no show.



Quote:We know how "serious" you are with those terms. I won't be paying for your travel expenses.
Oh look, you can do Reading and Comprehension. And yet you sent me an address anyway.... What's with that?



Quote:I have plenty of training to defend myself incase you initiate any aggression.
And yet none of this can happen until I see my money first.

Until then, I'm just going to have let go of your address, PM and all.

(Ooh I know, I could blackmail you into giving me the money anyway: to prevent me from publicising the address you so foolishly sent me. It would be a suitable lesson for you on Internet Stupidity And Why To Avoid It. Tragically, the annoying Ethics Commission - known more formally as "IF Admin" - may frown for the Unethics involved. Thwarted in every way.)





Quote:hey love-birds,love declaration give them on pm not forum.
Romani, you romantic heart, you sound so single, what with the hint of jealousy and all. But there's really no need: there was never any competition, as you're so *obviously* better matched with Agnivayu. I never stand in the way of True Love: you can (and must) have him - it's ordained! - and with all my best wishes for your combined future.

(Of course I support Civil Unions: I'm an equal opportunity Husky.)





About this, though:

Quote:The world as maya was the teaching of Shankara
Shankara did not invent that. It is part of Shaktam (and not exclusively Shaktam) that this is Maya.

(While there is some innovation/contribution of Shankara in this area, I really ought to revisit his views before I can confidently parrot my earlier statements on the subject. But - sadly - I have no interest in revisiting anything at present.)
  Reply
#94
[quote name='Husky' date='05 August 2010 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1281024395' post='107763']



Romani, you romantic heart, you sound so single, what with the hint of jealousy and all. But there's really no need: there was never any competition, as you're so *obviously* better matched with Agnivayu. I never stand in the way of True Love: you can (and must) have him - it's ordained! - and with all my best wishes for your combined future.

(Of course I support Civil Unions: I'm an equal opportunity Husky.)



[/quote]

You bet i am alone.Trying to solve the world problems give me little time for love and i dont have any knowledge on how to love .

So is better for you to go whit the second best Agnivayu and teach him the true unconditional love .I know you both like the snowy peaks of Alaska ,i cant offer such intimate and delightful honeymoon.So go ahead trembling butterfly and don't forget to send me the tape of your wedding.
  Reply
#95
[quote name='Husky' date='05 August 2010 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1281024395' post='107763']



About this, though:

Shankara did not invent that. It is part of Shaktam (and not exclusively Shaktam) that this is Maya.

(While there is some innovation/contribution of Shankara in this area, I really ought to revisit his views before I can confidently parrot my earlier statements on the subject. But - sadly - I have no interest in revisiting anything at present.)

[/quote]

There are 6 traditional vedic schools:

-nyaya,vaisheshika,yoga which have less following to the general public.

There was a period called by experts the synthetic hinduism period(200-1200 AD) ,the period in which the mimamsa school was predominant and also was the school that overshadowed buddhism in India.

Mimamsa somehow offered something for everybody.Ways for material wealth and pleasure ,spiritual advancement or eliberation.

starting from 1200 was replaced by uttara mimamsa school also known as vedanta.

Vedanta produce teachers like Shankara,Ramanuja,Nimbarka and Chaitanya.

Vedanta is a period of well defined sects,whit rigorous theology and clear practice.

I guess you are more a mimansa-minded human so to speak.

I suggest to make a little search on this 6 schools and solve the mystery of Shankara.
  Reply
#96
But I note at least your verbal rabies is gone for now. Perhaps it wasn't as chronic as was suspected?)



All the froth and foam in your writing might indicate you might have actual rabies. Appropriate picture for you by the way. Good choice.



Sure OK. But then, where's the other half of the deal for me to show up to your little teenage high school fight/drama/musical? Like I said: no money, no show.



<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

Don't show then, stay in your closet.

It's been educational husky. I have learnt a lot about schizophrenia from this interaction with you.

Let me guess you are about 58 years old ?





Oh look, you [i]can do Reading and Comprehension. And yet you sent me an address anyway.... What's with that?[/i]



And yet none of this can happen until I see my money first.



Send me your bank account information, I will wire the money to you.



Until then, I'm just going to have let go of your address, PM and all.

(Ooh I know, I could blackmail you into giving me the money anyway: to prevent me from publicising the address you so [i]foolishly
sent me. It would be a suitable lesson for you on Internet Stupidity And Why To Avoid It. Tragically, the annoying Ethics Commission - known more formally as "IF Admin" - may frown for the Unethics involved. Thwarted in every way.)[/i]



Go ahead. Let's see how clever you really are. That address will get you nowhere for identity theft if that's your goal. I am too smart for you. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
  Reply
#97
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='05 August 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1281027166' post='107767']

You bet i am alone.Trying to solve the world problems give me little time for love and i dont have any knowledge on how to love .

So is better for you to go whit the second best Agnivayu and teach him the true unconditional love .I know you both like the snowy peaks of Alaska ,i cant offer such intimate and delightful honeymoon.So go ahead trembling butterfly and don't forget to send me the tape of your wedding.

[/quote]



Alaska is very nice to visit, however I am not interested in a gay marriage so must turn down this offer. Perhaps you can find husky someone of his orientation who is a good match for him.
  Reply
#98
1. ^ Oh no, No. Not the usual Musical Chairs Dance of "I'm not gay, I'm not gay. Has everyone got that I'm not gay already?" type strenuous objections that only the insecure among hetero males do. (See textbook example case above.) Complete with reverse projection onto other people (same as with the earlier absurd "diaper" statement) - it can only make people think you protest a bit too much.



But, Cheese Piece, even if I *had* been a gay man, I'm sure reading your spastic vapidity would have turned me straight already. You may want to cross your fingers that you can refrain from oozing this anti-appeal of yours onto the very unfortunate women who may wander your way.



Hmmm. Your case just reminded me of the amusing opposite effect I once read of, which that brilliantly entertaining actor Takeshi Kaneshiro had on someone. Let's see if I can dig it out from the web. Yes here. It's some person commenting on the lovely combination of the dashing Kaneshiro and the glorious Zhang Ziyi in House of Flying Daggers:



http://homecinema.thedigitalfix.co.uk/co...mentpage=2

Quote:The acting was uniformly excellent, Andy Lau surprised me yet again (and I thought he looked really awkward and out of place in the trailers); I thought Zhang Ziyi was fantastic, but I'd watch her do anything; and despite being 100% heterosexual, Takeshi Kaneshiro is so good looking I almost doubted myself for a second <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.
My memory was right: that last line is *still* hysterisch. Dude is so funny.

Though it comes as no surprise to learn that Kaneshiro has all the women after him (he is so infuriatingly goodlooking and likeable - and *very* cool, even in the OTT hysteria of Ritanaaaa), but I predict the dude who wrote the comment above would be very popular with a great many of the female persuasion for his natural likeableness in stating something so hysterical (but not an insincere compliment) as the above in his review.

(So deeply different from Agnivayu et al of the dreary Loser Club and their childish whining of "I'm not gay. I'm not gay. You're gay! Everyone else is gay!")





What's that? No! Not yet another post of your whining above that! Ugh, let's go then. "58"? Uh, isn't that somewhere around the age my dad's at? (I only claimed a grand, exalted and respectable ancientry for myself. Not the *Pleiocene*.) And that makes your blundering guess but yet another example of your hopeless telepathy/how you're always wrong. (Maybe you should stop tripping over yourself with your bad guessing games - it's only exposing more of your unreliability.)



Oh I give up with your incessant error-prone whining and whinging. I really should stop encouraging more of your repeat response. Besides, it's not like I've ever read you say anything sensible let alone anything funny (even more criminal) - and I'm not even getting paid for it.





2. And yet More Romani:

Quote:I guess you are more a mimansa-minded human so to speak.
There you go again. You really can't control yourself, can you.



So where are we at now? You have variously claimed I was an Advaitin. A Smarta. Doing some "Folk religion". A something something. Then an animist. Now mimamsa-minded human.

When will it all end? Never. Because you can't stop your christo-conditioning. It's a permanent part of you. You can't shake it.



Simple: did the snake and monkey of the Hindooism thread (the ones with their Shiva and Rama moorties) - or rather their ancestors - get indoctrinated into being "mimamsa minded" in your convenient period that your "experts call the synthetic hinduism period(200-1200 AD)"? Hmmm?

Whatever the actual answer, it is the same for the human Hindus I know.



Oh, and you do know that Vedas, homams, yagnyas - and those who carry them out - are older than 200-1200AD right? And that that part of Hindooo religion has been going on unbroken as well?

Predates Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc.

It's of no moment if your textbooks and "experts" don't say so.



Quote:There are 6 traditional vedic schools
Ya don't say! Except that everyone already knows of the "6 schools of Indian 'Philosophy'" that are part of the Astika Mathas. Isn't that Textbook Hinduism 101?

(BTW Yoga is a major practice of various Hindu religious ways of life on the ground.)



Clearly you know of little else of the rest of the Hindoo religion. Again, it's reminiscent of western people reading the Tao Te Ching and declaring "That Is (All There Is To) Daoism". <- The analogy of that similar situation is always so relevant and a very important one.



Quote:[...]

I suggest to make a little search on this 6 schools and solve the mystery of Shankara.
Good grief. Shankara etc is a mystery to *you* - you, who exclusively depend on textbooks (and Indian movements in the west) to learn about "hindooism".



But Romani, I suggest you stop condescending on Hindus and pretending you know more than actual Hindus. The rest of us here and elsewhere are born and raised Hindu. We know our religion (first-hand), yeah? Not you.

You have so far demonstrated you can only Textbook (moreover, western or otherwise foreign-language Textbook) and parrot ISKCON.

I predict you will never know Hindu religion, but that you will certainly feel you "know" it. (Again: western dabblers in "Taoism" come to mind.)

It's always so very different talking to E Asian traditionalists. Now why IS that. Oh yeah, because they're not christoconditioned, but actual heathens - through-and-through. Christoconditioning doesn't compute to them: they are incapable of thinking in christoconditioned ways. Full-on heathens are so very refreshing.

And they never encroach on one's religion (oh how I wish Hindus would learn from the declaration which the Nakota/Lakota/Dakota wisely delivered), and they certainly never pretend they know better than one knows about one's own religion. (And yet they understand it so well. Not really a mystery: other traditional "heathens" of unbroken heathen lineage actually understand Hindoooism, because they know their own religion.)





But seeing as how you like lecturing so much, I suggest you go lecture that Cobra doing Shivalinga pooja (see the Hindooism thread). Surely it will take kindly to your interference on what "Hinduism" is and your "suggestions"? No? Am I wrong?

But I'm certain it prefers dialogue on "Hindoooism" far more than I do.





Anyway -

This thread's been so totally derailed. Though I didn't start the derailment, I am still 1/3rd to blame, so I'll try and make up for it by being helpful -

For any poor person out there trying to work out where the last sensible (and on-topic) posts were: they go upto somewhere on page 3
  Reply
#99
As fight rages on here, elsewhere i.e @ HP, a Tibetan monk has upset Nepalese because he called Buddha an Indian; while other Westerners, many from the atheist fold, seem to be ever impressed with Buddhism.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dzogchen-p...69740.html
  Reply
Interesting to see the anti India tilt of Nepal which has been going on with no interruption for years with the Indian gov't passively watching.



When Buddha was born there was no separate "Nepal" as it is known today or for that the modern day "India", there was a cultural unit of Bharatavarsham with separate states unified by religion and culture similar to the different Polis in ancient Hellas.



That is like saying Panini is an Afghan as that idiot Amartya Sen tried to claim, simply absurd.



If anyone posts on that site try to set the record straight.
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)