• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (3rd Bin)
Archiving older news. Related to posts 151-159 and 167 of the previous pages.

A specific development that I totally missed earlier makes all the following worth archiving: apparently Dwaraka Shankacharya told Shirdi Sai worshippers to not dabble in Hindoo heathenism while they pursued their interest in worshipping a muslim. The acharya essentially asks them to refrain from turning the pristine Hindoo heathenism into a new-ageism with their tendency to dabble in multiple mutually-exclusive religions. (BTW, worshipping a muslim/a peddler of islam is not only not sanctioned in Hindoo heathenism, it is also haraam in islam. So basically Shirdi Sai followers have invented a totally new religion. It is right that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya asks them not to enter Hindoo temples while they are under the subversive spell of their new-ageism.)


Quote:[Dwaraka Shankaracharya stated:] [...] People are worshipping a person [Shirdi Sai baba] who never took the name of anyone but "Allah", the one who said no to Ganga Snaan. People have made a God out him. [...]

The Hindus plugging for Sai Baba never claimed anything else: even in the Shirdi Sai "miracle" story concerning Ganga, can see that Shirdi Sai Baba wanted to replace Hindoo heathenism with himself as the centre of worship, as he tells his Hindu following that bathing in Ganga is "not necessary", since it is already - conveniently - supposedly encompassed within himself [before he then produces an alleged miracle to win over his doubting thomases].* Aka replacement theology. Sufis were known to practise subtle replacement theology, same as christianism employs today, and like christianism used cheap tricks and hoaxes to fool people into worshipping them (it's easy to Jedi mindtrick people I mean Sith mindtrick people). So Shirdi Sai Baba may have been a sufi.

* Compare with how Hindu avataaras regularly went on yatras to all the sacred teerthas of the Hindoos.

The matter took an excellent turn when the Dwaraka Shankaracharya said that Shirdi Sai Baba followers should not falsely dabble in two things at the same time:

- both worshipping Shirdi Sai Baba (who was against himself or followers dipping in the Ganga as sacred)

- AND play at being Hindoos (for whom bathing in Ganga is a sacred rite, for whom Rama's name is sacred - note Rama is a Vishnu avataaram to Dwaraka Shankaracharya, not a deified person, and for whom visiting Hindoo temples a.o.t. islamised spaces is important).

So the Dwaraka Shankaracharya asked the Shirdi Sai Babans dabbling part-time in Hindoo religion - and bringing their partial islamisation into actual Hindoo temples and polluting these - to choose one or the other and stick to it, instead of practising a new-ageism by dabbling in both:


Quote:Don't enter our temples, avoid taking dip in Ganga, Shankaracharya tells Sai Baba followers | VOTE

By : News Nation Bureau

Updated On : Wednesday, June 25, 2014 01:15 PM

New Delhi : -

Dwaraka Peeth Shankaracharya Swaroopananda Saraswati's remarks against Sai Baba have sparked controversy. The followers of the 20th century saint staged protest against Shankaracharya at various parts of the country and his effigy was also burnt in Varanasi, demanding immediate withdrawal of his remarks.

Despite the row, Shankaracharya still stands by his statement that "Sai Baba is not a God and should not be worshipped." He has refused to take back his controversial comments.

In what could ignite further controversy, Shankaracharya has now given a new advice to Sai Baba followers.

"We are ready to give them freedom. But they should not enter our temples, should not take dip in Ganga and should not chant the name of Ram. Only then they can worship Sai Baba, we don't have any problem," Shankaracharya said.

Defending his remarks, Shankaracharya exclusively told News Nation that he has not committed any crime and that FIR should not have been registered against him.

Shankaracharya had told News Nation earlier that in "Sanatan Dharma, only avatars should be worshipped and hence Sai Baba should not be worshipped as he is not an avatar. Hence, the followers of Sanatan Dharma should not worship him."

The anti-Hindoo Newsnation is eager in peddling that the Shankaracharya is "angry" etc, as seen in other news headings. But should acharyas thenbe happy that people are turning the pristine Hindoo heathenism into a travesty by islamising it? Should he be neutral and disinterested about it? Or should he be displeased at what is happening to this endangered heathenism and be stern about the matter by issuing the necessary warnings?

The Shankaracharya seems utterly immune to personal insults: despite being taunted and hissed at and his good advice neglected by an ungrateful de-heathenising / new-ageisng people, he continues to advice them in their own best interest. It is very understandable that he sounded more urgent in his statements and more absolute as the sensationalised non-controversy went on and he realised the gravity of the matter indicated by the stubborn insistence of others in continuing to de-rail the sacred heathenism that he is tasked to guard.

It isn't just newsnation.in that's anti-Hindoo in their reporting, complete with their lame "VOTE" request/desperations.

Virulently anti-Hindoo firstpost opportunistically promotes Shirid Sai-ism, in order to cast aspersions on Shankaracharyas and Naga Sadhus (and all of Hindoo heathenism thereby):


Quote:Jul 3, 2014

On Sunday, Bharti reacted saying she had no regrets over her devotion to Sai Baba, enraging Swaroopanand further. He has launched a fresh attack on her saying she was worshipping a Muslim. That is the reason she failed build the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. He argued that Sai Baba was a Muslim ascetic and thus could not be treated as a Hindu deity. He accused certain forces of corrupting the Hindu religion by creating new gods and there was a conspiracy to divide the Hindus. He even said foreign forces were behind the practice.

[Shankaracharya is too charitable, but there's no such thing as a muslim ascetic. There are islamic frauds, I mean fakirs. Sufis are islam's soft-power, who work on the minds of impressionable shake-nines among polytheistic idolators, to turn them gradually out of their attachment to their Gods and into redirecting this attachment to islamic frauds instead, eventually making them apologists for islam and ultimately making them mentally islamised.]

The issue took a grave turn when despite written clarification from the minister the sadhus persisted with venomous statements and directed the Sai disciples to be prevented from chanting the name of Lord Ram and taking a dip in the Ganga for purification. Interestingly, the Muslims devotees of the Shirdi saint are unaffected by Shankaraacharya's diktat. It is the devout Hindus who face the dilemma.

I'm not at all surprised that the Shankaracharya considers there to be a real conspiracy afoot to subvert Hindoos' heathenism, and that he suspects that even foreign powers are involved, in creating the problem, and then raising a controversy to make people opt for Shirdi Sai Sufi as the supposed "liberal minded" (though he advocated against Gangaa snaanam, for circumcise, against offering foods to Hindoo Gods in favour of having food blessed by maulvis etc) by presenting Hindu acharyas as offering supposed "ultimatums" and that Hindoo heathenism is close-minded. Never mind that Hindoo heathenism - or any heathenism - was never an "anything goes" religion in the first place, and is actually far too reasonable for its own good/for the sake of its own self-preservation. It is not the Hindoo acharyas of the Dharma Sansad that are unreasonable: they are stating mere facts and warning against serious threats from the outside. Stupid de-heathenising Hindus refused to take heed despite it being for their own good.

Contrary to how Taoist laity respect their knowledgeable teachers of Taoism to guide them on the right path, including including when these ask the Taoist laity to refrain from mixing Taoism with mutually exclusive religions, Indian Hindus - Vijaya Rajeeva and the countless other "Hindu" VV etc commenters were just the tip of that iceberg - are certain they know better themselves, arrogating authority to themselves upon stripping those worthy of it, and thus act reactively every time in delusional 'defiance' to correct guidelines. What else can be expected from modern Indians, every one of which is such an 'expert' - as per themselves - and who so readily resort to blackmailing those that will still follow their ancestral tradition unsubverted?

And so too, one can't expect otherwise from the Shirdi Sai fans: instead of being respectful to Hindoo heathenism by refraining from further attempts to islamise it with their Shirdi Sai hobby, Shirdi Sai fandom have apparently deliberately insisted on pursuing their process of islamification of Hindoo heathenism and themselves, though still not entirely successfully:


(one of the videos that was - possibly still is - archived there has the following description as metadataSmile

Quote:Enraged over the diktat Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand, devotees of Shirdi Sai Baba along with his idol took a dip in the holy water of Ganga.

They can't even follow Shirdi Sai-ism correctly: Shirdi Sai specifically didn't want them to take a dip in the Gangaa, but to worship himself in place of Gangaa and other Hindoo Gods' (which was eventually to be directed to worshipping allah). More proof that these misguided Hindoos actually love Gangaa and their Hindoo heathenism in truth, and not sufism or the sufi whose wishes they have ignored - e.g. that they stop dipping themselves in Gangaa.

Is it not better then - for themselves - that they give up on the Sufi whose instructions to them they refuse to follow anyway but who they will mystifyingly idolise, and that they instead return to following their ancestral Sanatana Dharma and its Gods? Islam is either way going to wipe them out for their idolatry of their Mother Ganga (and of the unrelated idol of the Shirdi sufi). They would therefore be much happier and safer if attached exclusively to Ramaavataram and all the other Hindoo Gods, who do not create confusion in their minds about Gangaa Amman etc.

Dwaraka Shankaracharya may sound frustrated with the Shirdi Sai Sufi peddlers who have chosen to manufacture a fake rebellion, but he nevertheless hints to them there is a way to purify themselves from their stubborn waywardness and return to their true home:


Quote:Perform "shuddhikaran" and stop worshipping Sai Baba, Shankaracharya tells Hindus

By : News Nation Bureau

Updated On : Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:06 PM

Even as scores of people have been protesting against Dwaraka Peeth Shankaracharya Swaroopananda Saraswati for his controversial remarks against Shirdi Sai Baba, the spiritual guru is refusing to withdraw his statement.

Shankaracharya is making controversial statements one after another. In his first controversial comment he had told News Nation that Sai Baba is not a God and hence should not be worshipped.

Later, he said that Sai Baba followers "should not enter our temples, should not take dip in Ganga and should not chant the name of Ram. Only then they can worship Sai Baba."

Continuing his scathing attack on Sai followers, Shankracharya has now said that Hindus should undergo "shuddhikaran" or "purification" process and should stop worshipping Sai Baba.

"It's their (Hindus) obligation to perform shuddhikaran by keeping a nirjala (without water) Ekadashi fast, taking a dip in Ganga and never take Sai Baba's name," he said.

When asked why he want to remove the word Ram from Sai's name, he said: "Ram is worshipped since time immemorial, while Shirdi Sai Baba came after him, how can people worship him?"

First Published: Thursday, June 26, 2014 22:19 [IST]

Backpeddling is only forbidden in serious crimes against the Hindoo Gods/heathenism, such as lying about [the nature of] Hindoo Gods and/or peddling subversive views about these, convinced by (self-)delusion. [Such persons should be doubly debarred from Hindoo temples, certainly those temples housing the very Gods they lied about.]

In constrast, the many lay Hindu ex-Shirdi Sai Sufi worshippers can naturally return home, by performing shuddhi. Their error is merely misplaced bhakti: they have misattributed the character of their Hindoo Gods to the Shirdi Sufi and for this reason worship him also. But he does not factually have that character (it is only their imagination that he has), so they actually love only the Hindoo Gods without their knowing it.
Loose ends.

1. Noticed self-deluded Indian nationalists keep referring to Yezidis as being "pagans", which is considered an insult by Yezidis themselves, who disapprove of paganism. The following is one of many examples where Yezidis affirm this view:


Quote:The references to Adam and God are not coincidental according to Hatim Darwesh, a American-based Yezidis who maintains a Yezidi Facebook group. [...] While quick to say that he is not a "religious expert," Darwesh was clear on several points: God is the same being who is worshiped in Abrahamic faiths; the Peacock Angel is not any sort of devil and the Yezidi religion is definitely monotheistic. In addition, within Yezidi culture, he says that the term "pagan" is used as a pejorative and not a label they themselves would welcome.

Darwesh above is repeating a consistently vocalised Yezidi view on all 3 points.

2. Related to post 151 and onward about some comments at the Vijayvaani link (vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=3250)

Where "shaastra sevaka" wrote in response to (the in other ways wrong) Vijaya Rajiva:

Quote:[Vijaya Rajiva:] "Adi Shankara should be the Dwaraka Shankaracharya's example. The shanmata includes 6 deities : Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, Surya, Ganapati, Skanda (Kartikeyan). The Dwaraka shankarachariar left out Skanda."

[Shaastra Sevaka:] This again arises from your lack of knowledge of Hindu tradition (a lack that you ascribe to others). The pancayatana worship as established by Adya Shankaracharya doesn't include Skanda (go and check with someone rooted in a tradition). So, all your rants against the present Shankaracharya have been just but hot air.


shaastra sevaka

July 06, 2014

Concerning the bold blue bit stated by 'shaastra sevaka':

Finally located the audio evidence about how in TN at least it is established Hindoo tradition that Murugan [=Skanda] is indeed one of the Shanmatham. (Knew I had it somewhere but was too lazy to track it down before and so didn't want to mention it earlier without immediate supporting evidence at hand.)

In defence of the Shankara Matham's traditions in TN, here is an audio excerpt of Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swami, senior Shankaracharya of the Kanchi Matham. The 20 second audio may be in Tamil, but any native Hindoo speaker can make out that he is speaking of the Shanmatham and directly brings up -in this very context- the list of names of Ganapati, Murugan [=Guha], Shivan, Ambaal (i.e. Ambaa=Devi), Suryan, [ADDED: oversight but surely self-evident] Vishnu=Narayana.


mp3, 334 kB, 20 second excerpt (=just the relevant bit)

The source: Track 01 - introductory speech of the Shankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swami of Kanchi Matham - of a carnatic Ganapati album (containing stotras and carnatic kritis to Bhagavaan Ganapati in Skt and Tamizh, at least one of the tracks is a very rare mantram not available on the visible internet) recorded for a Hindu charity under the auspices of the Kanchi Matham (a Shankaracharya Matham in TN). The album is from the age of the "tape cassettes". More I will not say. Digitised some years ago (personal collection). Excerpted as above. I would never choose to share any part of it here obviously, except that I needed it as supporting data.


So while I have no doubt that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya is [also] completely right in saying (repeat from his interview excerpted in post 151):

"Adi Shankara was a great exponent of Vedic Sanatana Dharma. God, he taught, is grouped into six forms. He preached six types - five based on forms of God like Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, etc. and one, Nirakar, without form."

I just wanted to submit the proof that shaastra sevaka challenged Vijaya Rajeeva for: "go and check with someone rooted in a tradition".*

=> That Sri Jayendra Saraswati heading the Kanchi Matham is very much rooted in Adi Shankaracharya's tradition. And that he - not the only traditional Hindoo in TN either - includes Murugan in Shankara's Shanmatam listing at least**, as is evident in the audio excerpt.
(In the original, uncut audio-track this Acharya proceeds to understandably talk more about Ganapati in particular, since the album is in praise of Him.)

[** ADDED: Just to be clear. Murugan=Skanda's not included in the panchaayatana worship, which is quite as stated by Shaastra Sevaka. But as ShS was specifically responding to a statement by Rajiva on the 6 Gods listed under Shanmatam, it is important to mention that Murugan is included in that 2nd list - at least in TN - because the unfortunate impression given by ShS' response was that Murugan was not generally included by Adi Shankara, though what was [presumably] meant by ShS was that Murugan/Skanda is merely not included in the smaller subset of 5. And hence Dwaraka Shankaracharya does not always need to make explicit mention of Skanda in order to nevertheless endorse Skanda as supremely worshipful to the Hindoos.]

Also, as per southern traditions at least, Adi Shankaracharya composed that great pearl known as the bhujangam on Murugan at Tiruchendur. Of course, the same traditions hold that Adi Shankaracharya also composed a famous aShTakam on the Mother of all the Hindoos, Gangaa Amman. So this does not negate what the Dwaraka Shankaracharya said either. And as I recall, Dwaraka Shankaracharya - implicated by his own statements - holds his Mother River Gangaa as most sacred, worshipful and purifying, and was thus naturally irked by the Shirdi Sai Baba openly discouraging his Hindu followers from bathing in River Ganga Amman. See separate post above.

[Besides, Murugan (Kumaran) is IIRC one of the many vigrahas of the many Gods worshipped in the huge pooja area of Rishi Agastya's hermitage as per the Sri Valmeeki Ramayanam itself. So the Dwaraka Shankaracharya - contrary to the silly insinuations made against him by Vijaya Rajeeva - would *never* have denied that Murugan is legitimately worshipful in Vedic Religion and hence to the Hindoos.

Also, what TN vedabrahmanas whose kuladevam and ishtadevam is Ayyappa/Shaastaa state knowingly about him - that Dharmashaastaa IS the Ishwara of the Vedam (he factually is BTW, as all those who know him affirm, including Vedabrahmanas whose primary Gods are Shaastaa+Wives+Entire-Family) - is also stated of Murugan by those as knowledgeable about Murugan.


BTW, it seems to me highly likely that Dwaraka Shankaracharya would endorse Dharmashaastaa too, as Shaastaa is a hyper-Vedic God, not to mention the child of Vishnu-Mohini Amman and Shiva. In any case, Kanchi Matham very much includes Ayyappa worship. Not to mention that there is of course a very centrally important Dharmashaastaa moorti at Kanchi Kamakoti temple itself, which temple is closely associated with Adi Shankaracharya and the Kanchi Matham.

But for supporting evidence of Kanchi Matham's natural connection to and worship of Ayyappa, which really should go without saying, here's:

- Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal at an Ayyappa/Dharmashaastaa temple in Delhi: ayyappatempledelhi.org/history/

- And a video titled "Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Visit to Ayunthumalai Ayyappa Trust" at youtube.com/watch?v=mTAp3Qc7XBc

The video description says: "Jayendra Saraswathi visited AAT on 20 Dec 2013 and took part in Ayyappa Pooja"

Of course he did, Ayyappa is a Supreme God of the Vedic religion, well known to the Hindoos of the region.

- And here's an example of a Kanchi Matham trained Kerala Vadyar - whose kuladevam appears to be Ayyappa going by his magnificent name Shasthrusarman Namboodiripad - presiding at yet another Ayyappa temple: see nerulayyappa.in/nerul_ayyappa_temple_thanthri.htm and airoliayyappatemple.org/thantri.html

(but Dharmashaastaa worship is of course very common among Smarta brahmanas in southern India).

Don't know why it even requires saying that Dharmashaastaa worship is very much a part of at least TN's Shankaracharya Matham. Since he is a famously Vedic God, an ancestral God of Tamil, Malayali and indeed all southern Hindoos, and actually an ancestral God of all ethnic HindOOs.]

To make it very clear, the audio is posted here solely in defence of a Hindoo view as being upheld by a recognised Shankaracharya: that Murugan is included in the Shanmatham shortlist by the Adi Shankaracharya. The audio is NOT uploaded in support of Vijaya Rajeeva whom I care not a tuppence for, for reasons that should already have been apparent in posts 151 and subsequent of this thread.
The only meaningful part of this post is the text in quoteblocks.

Tracked down supporting evidence for this statement:

[quote name='Husky' date='10 May 2015 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1431268382' post='117703']

Besides, Murugan (Kumaran) is IIRC one of the many vigrahas of the many Gods worshipped in the huge pooja area of Rishi Agastya's hermitage as per the Sri Valmeeki Ramayanam itself. So the Dwaraka Shankaracharya - contrary to the silly insinuations made against him by Vijaya Rajeeva - would *never* have denied that Murugan is legitimately worshipful in Vedic Religion and hence to the Hindoos. [/quote]


From Aranya Kaandam as indicated in the link. At this point, Rama, Sita and Lakshmana come to the hermitage of Rishi Agastya. The moorties of the HindOO Gods in the Rishi's pooja room are listed:

Quote:pravivesha tato raamaH siitayaa saha lakSmaNaH || 3-12-16

prashaanta hariNa aakiirNam aashramam hi avalokayan |

And then Rama entered the hermitage with Seetha and Lakshmana looking over it which is overspread with docile deer. [ 3-12-16b, 17a]

sa tatra brahmaNaH sthaanam agneH sthaanam tathaiva ca || 3-12-17

viSNoH sthaanam mahendrasya sthaanam caiva vivasvataH |

soma sthaanam bhaga sthaanam sthaanam kauberam eva ca || 3-12-18

dhaatur vidhaatuH sthaanam ca vaayoH sthaanam tathaiva ca |

sthaanam ca paasha hastasya vaaruNasya mahaatmanaH || 3-12-19

sthaanam tathaiva gaayatryaa vasuunaam sthaanam eva ca |

sthaanam ca naagaraajasya garuDa sthaanam eva ca || 3-12-20

kaartikeyasya ca sthaanam dharma sthaanam ca pashyati |

Rama saw in Agastya's pooja area the sannidhis of the Gods named above. Wow, jackpot. And there's like "Vasus" in plural in one sannidhi - all 8 presumably :clapping: "complete your collection" - and Gayatri Amman :woo:.

[The line that describes the sannidhi to Bhagavaan Varuna casually mentions mahaatman Varuna as with paasham in his hand. <- This seems to me to be a description of a vigraham of Bhagavaan Varuna in his sannidhi, because of the mention of a specific ayudha in hand. Would then naturally hold for the rest mentioned in the list. The only other alternative would be that the Gods appear to the Rishi Agastya in the sannidhis for each - since how else would anyone know that Varuna has a paasham in his hand? It is from Rishis seeing the Gods that specifications of the appearances of the Gods derive - embedded in the various Gods' dhyana mantras - and from which moorties are fashioned.]

Therefore, as per the Ramayanam too, Rishi Agastya - as all the Vedic Rishis - were what aliens and some recently-invented Indian cultists would call "polytheistic idolators". Then again, the Hindoo itihasas are of and about Vedic=Hindoo heathenism, and for the Hindoos. Onlee.* Not remotely secular or "all-Indian" or general "Dharmic" or "Indic" literature, as is nowadays often peddled, usually by unheathens.

* Just like the Odyssey and Iliad - and the 'lost' ancient Greek epics of Hellenismos, such as the Returns and the one about the death of Odysseus - are very much of Hellenismos and belong to the Hellenes ["polytheistic idolators"] onlee and not to all and sundry of Greece/Rome/Mediterranean/anywhere in the world to poach on. For instance, christianism's illegal encroaching on Odysseus and projecting him as jeebus, backwards in time - e.g. some notorious christian theologians of the modern era infesting the Classics tried this joke on the Odyssey that only christian dweebs will lap up, and which genuine Classicists have to laugh off in embarrassment. Of course non-religious western people also try to pretend that the Odyssey and Iliad is general "western" literature or "mere" literature rather than what it is: epics of Hellenismos with deep views of Hellenismos embedded in them - duh - as ancient Expert Hellenes had repeatedly explained, and an inkling of which any Hindoo heathen would also have got for themselves.

This next is not relevant to this post, but worth pointing out: the translation section for the above shloka at the site valmikiramayanam.net adds its own descriptive about Kartikeya as being "the second son of Shiva". The actual shloka itself mentions Kartikeya in the final line, but only by name - i.e. that a sannidhi is present for him too - and nothing descriptive. While his being the child of Shiva Parvati is not at all in question, there is no mention in the line about him being either the divine couple's 1st or 2nd child as far as I can tell. But that is not the reason for my bringing it up. Rather: I think ValmikiRamayan.net is an Andhra site. And while there are many Tamil Hindoos in Andhra Pradesh too, I think the site's owners are Andhra Hindoos, as in native Telugu speakers. Pointing out the Kartikeya descriptive they provided, to illustrate how Subrahmanya=Kartikeya being the 2nd baby of Uma-Shiva is a common view of much of southern Indian Hindoo heathenism. (Which is why in images of the Divine Family made by southern Hindoos, Murugan's shown as the tinier one.)

The translation notes for the quoted Ramayanam shloka also explain that since Shiva/Rudra is not mentioned explicitly in the Gods listed in Agastya's hermitage, that Shiva is therefore already accounted for by the mention of Agni.**

Plus Kartikeya's presence (Skanda being "shivastvam, shaktistvam") in itself already includes both his mother and father.

And then there is of course Agastya's teaching Rama the Aditya Hrudayam which refers to Shiva several times: IIRC Surya is once named as encompassing the trimoorti (brahma + ishaana + achyuta) as parabrahman, and Shiva is once mentioned in a long list of well-known Gods - brahmaa viShNu shiva skanda prajaapati mahendra etc etc - all of whom Bhagavaan Surya is then identified with. (And 'raudraya vapuShe' and 'Shambhu' are similarly used for Surya in the stotram.)

So within the Ramayanam text itself, Agastya finds Shiva worshipful.

Here, this translation of an aforementioned ref in the stotram is useful:


Quote:raudraaya vapuShe= appearing in the form of Rudra.
(C.f.: In YV, Rudra is IIRC said to appear in the form of the Sun, all forms of the Sun (having all colours of it). Essentially the Sun. And Vedic Sun = the Hindoos' Parabrahman as per upanishads. Which is Bhagavaan Suryan, the paramaatman, sarvaatman.)

** Presence of Agni accounting for Rudra/Shiva too makes perfect sense. But the ValmeekiRamayanam translation notes also mention the inevitable presence of the homa kundam in Agastya's pooja space, which would also be Agni and Rudran too. (Vedic fire of a homa/yagnya - also internally within the Hindoo - is said to be Shiva/the Shivalingam as per agama and tantra shlokas describing Shiva/Shivalingam.) Besides, IIRC there's no explicit mention of Shiva/Rudra in the Chamakam of the Yajur Vedam, despite it happy to name a great many Vedic=Hindoo Gods explicitly. But reference to/presence of Rudra-Shiva is of course most self-evidently implicit in the Chamakam, it being the 2nd part of the Rudram and belonging with the Namakam part which does explicitly mention Rudra and which, in fact, mentions him over and over again by his various names. Therefore, since so many Gods are accounted for in Agastya's cottage while Shiva is not mentioned by name, and which becomes conspicuous just as in Chamakam [whereas, for instance, Rudra is not left out in Mahanarayanopanishad - having entire shloka sections to himself - or in the Narayana sooktam where he along with other Gods are included by name in Narayana etc], "therefore the Homa Kundam in Agastya's hermitage is the Shiva sannidhi". Tadaa/QED.

Though I still think there must be a Shivalingam somewhere in the Rishi's pooja room, or that he builds one regularly. (And how can any collection of a Vedic Hindoo="polytheistic idolator" be complete without a Shivalingam among them?)

The only meaningful part of this post is the text in quoteblocks, specifically the 2nd quoteblock. The rest is unadulterated spam as always.
Related to post 179.

More theft, which will eventually evolve to obscure ethnic Hindoo origins and credit the west in the end.

Of course it would be Harvard, that vampire that aims to suck the life out of Hindoo heathenism: i.e. kill Hindoodom even as it steals all of Hindoo heathenism for the west.




Quote:Harvard Yoga Scientists Find Proof of Meditation Benefit

HHR November 25, 2013 Articles, Hinduism and the World of Science

Scientists are getting close to proving what yogis have held to be true for centuries — yoga and meditation can ward off stress and disease.

John Denninger, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, is leading a five-year study on how the ancient practices affect genes and brain activity in the chronically stressed. His latest work follows a study he and others published earlier this year showing how so-called mind-body techniques can switch on and off some genes linked to stress and immune function.

While hundreds of studies have been conducted on the mental health benefits of yoga and meditation, they have tended to rely on blunt tools like participant questionnaires, as well as heart rate and blood pressure monitoring. Only recently have neuro-imaging and genomics technology used in Denninger’s latest studies allowed scientists to measure physiological changes in greater detail.

“There is a true biological effect,” said Denninger, director of research at the Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, one of Harvard Medical School’s teaching hospitals. “The kinds of things that happen when you meditate do have effects throughout the body, not just in the brain.”

The government-funded study may persuade more doctors to try an alternative route for tackling the source of a myriad of modern ailments. Stress-induced conditions can include everything from hypertension and infertility to depression and even the aging process. They account for 60 to 90 percent of doctor’s visits in the U.S., according to the Benson-Henry Institute. The World Health Organization estimates stress costs U.S. companies at least $300 billion a year through absenteeism, turn-over and low productivity.

Seinfeld, Murdoch

The science is advancing alongside a budding “mindfulness” movement, which includes meditation devotees such as Bill George, board member of Goldman Sachs Group and Exxon Mobil Corp., and comedian Jerry Seinfeld. News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch recently revealed on Twitter that he is giving meditation a try.

As a psychiatrist specializing in depression, Denninger said he was attracted to mind-body medicine, pioneered in the late 1960s by Harvard professor Herbert Benson, as a possible way to prevent the onset of depression through stress reduction. While treatment with pharmaceuticals is still essential, he sees yoga and meditation as useful additions to his medical arsenal.

Exchange Program

It’s an interest that dates back to an exchange program he attended in China the summer before entering Harvard as an undergraduate student. At Hangzhou University he trained with a tai chi master every morning for three weeks.

(Of course. Preying on Taoism too, so that that will be incorporated into an amalgamation and passed off as "western discovery" too.)

“By the end of my time there, I had gotten through my thick teenage skull that there was something very important about the breath and about inhabiting the present moment,” he said. “I’ve carried that with me since then.”

His current study, to conclude in 2015 with about $3.3 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health, tracks 210 healthy subjects with high levels of reported chronic stress for six months. They are divided in three groups.

One group with 70 participants perform a form of yoga known as Kundalini, another 70 meditate and the rest listen to stress education audiobooks, all for 20 minutes a day at home. Kundalini is a form of yoga that incorporates meditation, breathing exercises and the singing of mantras in addition to postures. Denninger said it was chosen for the study because of its strong meditation component.

(Which traitors are teaching alien demons Kundalini let alone its mantras?

And Kundalini yoga -and its mantras- stripped of the Hindoo Gods. Oh wait, Elst already tried the same, and his Hindu fandom acquiesced.)

Participants come into the lab for weekly instruction for two months, followed by three sessions where they answer questionnaires, give blood samples used for genomic analysis and undergo neuro-imaging tests.

‘Immortality Enzyme’

Unlike earlier studies, this one is the first to focus on participants with high levels of stress. The study published in May in the medical journal PloS One showed that one session of relaxation-response practice was enough to enhance the expression of genes involved in energy metabolism and insulin secretion and reduce expression of genes linked to inflammatory response and stress. There was an effect even among novices who had never practiced before.

Harvard isn’t the only place where scientists have started examining the biology behind yoga.

In a study published last year, scientists at the University of California at Los Angeles and Nobel Prize winner Elizabeth Blackburn found that 12 minutes of daily yoga meditation for eight weeks increased telomerase activity by 43 percent, suggesting an improvement in stress-induced aging. Blackburn of the University of California, San Francisco, shared the Nobel medicine prize in 2009 with Carol Greider and Jack Szostak for research on the telomerase “immortality enzyme,” which slows the cellular aging process.

Build Resilience

Not all patients will be able to stick to a daily regimen of exercise and relaxation. Nor should they have to, according to Denninger and others. Simply knowing breath-management techniques and having a better understanding of stress can help build resilience.

“A certain amount of stress can be helpful,” said Sophia Dunn, a clinical psychotherapist who trained at King’s College London. “Yoga and meditation are tools for enabling us to swim in difficult waters.”

Substantiating claims made in an earlier post.

1. [quote name='Husky' date='12 May 2015 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1431448406' post='117709']** Presence of Agni accounting for Rudra/Shiva too makes perfect sense. But the ValmeekiRamayanam translation notes also mention the inevitable presence of the homa kundam in Agastya's pooja space, which would also be Agni and Rudran too. (Vedic fire of a homa/yagnya - also internally within the Hindoo - is said to be Shiva/the Shivalingam as per agama and tantra shlokas describing Shiva/Shivalingam.) [/quote]


The Shiva Sahasranamam from appropriately named Yamala goes through Shiva's names as various combinations of yagnya (including IIRC the yagnya itself).

Agama/Tantra draws a straight line between performing exoteric yagnya as worship of Shiva, with yagnya as Shivalingam, to the esoteric (internal) worship of Shiva in the hrudayam with hrudayam as Shivalingam.

2. Substantiation for the bit in bold:

[quote name='Husky' date='12 May 2015 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1431448406' post='117709']

And then there is of course Agastya's teaching Rama the Aditya Hrudayam which refers to Shiva several times: IIRC Surya is once named as encompassing the trimoorti (brahma + ishaana + achyuta) as parabrahman, and Shiva is once mentioned in a long list of well-known Gods - brahmaa viShNu shiva skanda prajaapati mahendra etc etc - all of whom Bhagavaan Surya is then identified with. (And 'raudraya vapuShe' and 'Shambhu' are similarly used for Surya in the stotram.)

So within the Ramayanam text itself, Agastya finds Shiva worshipful.

Here, this translation of an aforementioned ref in the stotram is useful:


Quote:raudraaya vapuShe= appearing in the form of Rudra.
(C.f.: In YV, Rudra is IIRC said to appear in the form of the Sun, all forms of the Sun (having all colours of it). Essentially the Sun. And Vedic Sun = the Hindoos' Parabrahman as per upanishads. Which is Bhagavaan Suryan, the paramaatman, sarvaatman.)


While Aditya Hrudayam has Surya in the form of Rudra,

for Rudra appearing in the form of Surya see Rudram, 1.7 and 1.8 (hope I didn't miscount).

Better yet, with translation from tradition see here:


Mantrams 7 and 8

Quote:Mantra 7

Parameswara has eight forms- Earth, Water, Agni, Vayu, Akasa, Chandra, Surya and Yajamana (individual sacrificer). Of them, Parameswara of the form of Surya is praised in the 7th and 8th mantras. The zone around Surya appears red-coloured at dawn time, a less deep red in colour after some time and golden later. Surya mandalam is praised as ‘Sumangala:’ –very auspicious, because it drives away darkness, dew etc. and brings comfort to all. Were there no Surya, the entire world will become inauspicious, enveloped in darkness. Just as Sun’s rays pervade the entire world, thousands of Parameswara’s ganas (armies), whose appearance is same as Parameswara’s, are spread in the earth region all around in many places and bless or curse people according to the merits and sins they commit. We douse the anger of Sri Parameswara of the form of the Sun’s zone and Rudraganas, who are spread everywhere in thousands, by songs of praise, prostration etc. May all of them bless us.

Heda:- This word has two meanings- dishonour and anger. Dishonour arises by not performing acts as laid down in Vedas and anger because of performing acts prohibited in Vedas. It is said that we nullify these two aspects.

Quote:Mantra 7

Having pacified through the 7th mantra, the Rishi prays in this 8th mantra for fulfillment of desires. Sri Parameswara himself travels in the sky in the form of Suryamandala every day owing to compassion that everyone might see him. Hence even unlettered, innocent people get an opportunity to look at Sri Rudra directly. Generally, while referring to uneducated people, it is usual to cite cowherds as examples. It is a practice to say ‘Aabaalagopalam’. In accord with that, ‘गोपा अदृशन्’ has been mentioned. Women, who fetch water, and who lack even the knowledge possessed by cowherds, look at this Rudra of the form of Suryamandala. Not only that; even animals like bull and sheep see and enjoy the Sun. The true form of Advaita, Sachchidananda, is beyond the reach of anyone’s intellect. The form with attributes, residing in Kailasam, is capable of being known only by worshippers. However the form of Sri Parameswara as the Suryamandala can be seen and enjoyed by all creatures. May Sri Parameswara, who, out of great compassion, travels in the sky so that all may have darshan and attain to higher state, bestow comfort on us; this is the prayer.

(One of the other mantras on that page is explained as also implying Shiva in the form of Indra.)

Note that the translations/explanations are based on that of traditional Hindoo heathen experts' commentaries (you know, the exact thing that Rajarant hates).

Each mantram/set of mantrams has a Rishi. And in the Sri Rudram all these Rishis of each mantra-set are speaking of Maheshwara (Rudra-Shiva).

Now can compare even the above two mantras (else can check the rest of the translation of the Rudram at the link) which shows the Vedic Rishis of the mantras of the Rudram repeatedly affirming Maheshwara and his worship,

can compare *that* with entity "CCC" commenting at indiafacts, a new-agey, post-Hindu, anti-Hindu, un-Vedic, anti-Vedic revisionist of the Vedam (and a whole new type of Nastika-ism is born) who will nevertheless dare to speak for Rishis, in declaring that the Vedic Rishis did not have Gods:


Quote: ccc 12 hours ago

What is the difference between Hindus and Christians, both pray to a god. Why have hindus not learned from "Aham Brahmasmi" "Sarvam khalvidam Brahma", that instead of praying they have to focus on their true nature though patanjali astang yog for example and draw energy and see things for what they are.

A god fearing hindu who prays is no better than a christian or a muslim.


ccc > Rajalakshmi J 10 hours ago

every society has passed through the same road with these milestones but the its only the Rishis and Tapasvis who have gone farthest and found that there is no god outside of us who is listening to all the prayers, judging us on the basis of our actions

Geez. Nothing more annoying than unheathens who encroach on the word "Hindu" and pretend they know the Vedic Rishis better than *actual* Hindoos=heathens.

Here is the famous mantram in the Rudram where "idolatry" is famous and undeniable, every traditional Hindoo translation always has said it correctly:


Quote:Mantra 15

अयं मे हस्तो भगवानयं मे भगवत्तरः ।

अयं मे विश्वभेषजोयँ शिवाभिमर्शनः ॥


मे- My, अयं हस्तः- this hand, शिवाभिमर्शनः- touches the auspicious idol of Sri Parameswara. (performs Abhishekam, decoration etc.) अयं- This hand, भगवान्- is fortunate. मे- My, अयं- this hand, भगवत्तरः- is very fortunate. मे- My, अयं- this hand, विश्वभेषजः- becomes also medicine relieving from all diseases.


The idea is that as the hand which worships Sri Parameswara is very fortunate and capable of relieving from all diseases, everyone should worship Parameswara without fail.

I don't know why "CCC" types, who can only subvert the Vedam and the Rishis, don't convert to Jainism/Buddhism/agniveerism already, instead of continuing to parasite on Vedic religion=Hindoos' heathenism="polytheistic idolatry".

CCC type entities have no right to subvert the Vedam just because Ishwara/the Hindoo Gods don't compute with them.

And how dare they equate Hindoos worshipping the very real and perfect Hindoo Gods with the christoislamaniacs worshipping a non-existent frightful and genocidal invention?

The likes of CCC has far more in common with christoislamaniacs, who are also famous in subverting the Vaidika Dharma in *exactly* the same way CCC is doing: lying about it to make it seem like it confirms his ideology/his view (christoislam regularly lies about the Vedam pretending it is speaking of jeebusjehovallah too).

The amount of gangrene infesting "Hindu" "nationalism" - or encroaching on the very term "Hindu" - is quite a revelation.

In what way are these subversionist people "Hindus" (is it just 'cause they're Indian unsaved kaffirs?) and why do Hindoos have to be lumped with them under the umbrella term "Hindu"?

Not an important post. Merely substantiating statements in an earlier post, after which it leads into a rant that's continued in the Buddhism (etc) thread.
A tweet or retweet at the Rajeev2004 blog showed that the Modi-led BJP had granted citizenship to Hindu and Sikh refugees from TSP. That's brilliant but not the reason for this spam.

Rather, this post is about Rajeev tweeting that India should grant 'automatic refuge to all Dharmics including Yezidis' (paraphrased from memory). That Yezidis=Abrahamics are Dharmics is false. And that they should be granted refuge is dangerous advice.

Here, this:


Quote:rajeev srinivasan


Hindus but also other dharmics incl Yazidi should be given automatic refuge. Buddhists have Thailand doing same.

rajeev srinivasan added,

Quote:Naren Ramakrishna @NarenMenon1

This is what I've been saying all along. Like Jews, Hindus should have the ability to perform 'Aliyah' to India

https:// twitter.com/prasannavishy/status/601224950758780928

1 retweet 3 favorites

And a very useful comment there for my purpose:

Quote:vikasraina @vikasraina

@RajeevSrinivasa Sir, How would you define Dharmic unless you want to say Non-Abhramic instead.

Yezidis are 1. Abrahamics ("Adamic" - belief in Adam - is an Abrahmism from the Sanatana Dharma POV) and 2. specifically not-pagans

both by their own insistence, from their religion and traditions.

Whatever their ancestry (which was originally of an Iranian religion long ago, but which was replaced by an islamic one - yes an islamic one - and the Iranian motifs that linger are just that: lingering Iranian motifs), they are not anything other than Abrahamic.

They are entirely of the biblical cosmology, both with and without disagreements with the others of the same cosmology as to the details. (E.g. Jews don't think Satan is evil but a servant of the Jewish God testing mankind, whereas christians - and their spin-off the muslims - have transformed satan into an evil character.)



Quote:9 August 2014, 12.38am AEST

Explainer: who are the Yazidis?

Christine Allison


Yazidism, as we know it today, began in the 12th century, when the Muslim sheikh ‘Adi bin Musafir settled in the Kurdich hills north of Mosul, where he was acclaimed as a “khas by locals who followed an older religion from Iran, the origins of which are still debated.

Quote:Christine Allison (is the) Ibrahim Ahmed Professor of Kurdish Studies at University of Exeter

And the Yezidis themselves say they are an Adamic (and Abrahamic) religion. And even that they worship the same monotheist God as that of the known Abrahamisms. Note: worshipping the monotheistic God of Abraham (whether Abraham himself is important or not) = definition of Abrahamism, right?

Again, the recently pasted example should suffice, repeating:


Quote:The references to Adam and God are not coincidental according to Hatim Darwesh, a American-based Yezidis who maintains a Yezidi Facebook group. [...] While quick to say that he is not a "religious expert," Darwesh was clear on several points: God is the same being who is worshiped in Abrahamic faiths; the Peacock Angel is not any sort of devil and the Yezidi religion is definitely monotheistic. In addition, within Yezidi culture, he says that the term "pagan" is used as a pejorative and not a label they themselves would welcome.

I've heard lots of well-meaning Hindu nationalist Indians today peddle that Yezidis are Dharmics. Presumably because they believe in reincarnation. So what? So do many other middle-eastern Abrahamic spin-offs influenced by lingering Hindu and Buddhist views (not just Manichaenism and the recently concocted Baha'i fraud either):


Quote:According to the narrative of the Druze, Jethro is considered an ancestor of all Druze and revered as the spiritual founder as well as chief prophet, who lived in Midian.(11)(12)(13)(14)(15) The Druze faith is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Akhenaten, Hamza, and Al Hakim.(16)(17) The Epistles of Wisdom is the foundational text of the Druze faith alongside supplemental texts such as the Epistles of India.(18) (Like the 'Epistle to the Romans' concocted by christianism?) The Druze faith incorporates elements of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism, Ismailism,(19) Judaism,(10) Christianity,(10) Hinduism,(20)(21) Buddhism(21) and other philosophies and beliefs, creating a distinct and secretive theology known to esoterically interpret religious scriptures and to highlight the role of the mind and truthfulness.(10)(20)

There. Quick "Hindu nationalists", claim the Druze - a spin-off of Ismaili Shia muslims - as Dharmics too.

Again, most of middle-eastern religions - christianism included - are heavily influenced by Iranian and Indian religions.

Christianism also had some historical subsects that believed in transmigration (Greek influence). "Therefore", by the same idiot logic, "Christianism must be dharmic too".

Yezidism has more in common with Zoroastrianism, and even traditional Zoroastrians refuse point blank to lump the Yezidis as a Zoroastrian group.

They're certainly not Dharmic. No more than the Druze or the christians or Manichaens or baha'i.

And now comes the other purpose of this post.

It is a *very* Bad - as in Terrible - idea to invite the Yezidis to India and give them refuge.

They could turn out like the more benign Jews who were given refuge in India, though even they have not avoided missionising* among the heathens of India and inculturating on Keertanas more recently (documented by Rajeev2004 blogposts themselves). * Both ancient and present conversions of Hindus/native heathens into Judaism (e.g. obviously-Indic Jewish communities in South India - Indians need not pretend these people were originally Jewish, leave that to western and Jewish people themselves - and more recently the Mizos of Mizoram who look very SE Asian and far removed from anything Middle-eastern, so Indians need not pretend here either.)

However, they could easily turn out like the Syrian christians. In India, monotheists often gang together. Nowadays, can see Indian and western christians trying to speak also for Jews in India as being opposed to Hindu "fanaticism" etc. And Yezidis nowadayas express very cordial relationships with Christians. If they're settled in India, their initial gratitude will eventually erode and self-entitlement and abrahamic brotherhood/monotheistic supremacism will very likely surface.

Even Zoroastrians and Sikhs in India - which aren't Abrahamisms and the latter is counted as Dharmic - are seen to have a monotheistic superiority complex going, with them both siding theologically with monotheism when faced with "polytheistic idolatrous" Hindoos.

In Yezidis, who are moreover a middle-eastern Iranic/Kurd population, they will choose Syrian Christians over Hindus.

The day will come when they will choose to side with muslims over Hindoos too.

Therefore shortsighted Hindus need to nip this idiotic talk of inviting Kurds to take refuge in heathen India in the bud. Either some Iranian country with a reasonable Zoroastrian presence - Tajikistan? - can take them, or Israel, or European nations (last two being Abrahamisms). NOT Hindoo India. Modern nationalist Hindus - with the advantage of hindsight - must stop repeating the mistakes of the less knowledgeable Hindu kings of the past who gave refuge and citizenship to middle eastern religions especially Syrian christianism and Arabian islamics in Kerala.

Also, if Yezidism - which affirms faith in the monotheistic God that 'Abraham' believed in (i.e. Yezidism = Abrahamism) - is a "Dharmic" religion, then every Abrahamic religion can be declared an equally 'dharmic' religion.

Indians have already turned the term Hindu into toilet paper, and - just as I predicted - they've turned Dharmic hence Dharma into toilet paper too. I'm surprised christians in India haven't encroached on it yet, and declared that acting according to biblical commandments + accepting jeebus is the new (i.e. christian) definition of "Dharma". Rajeev Srinivasan and who knows how many others now (SEWA also, btw) have met them more than half-way by issuing the Dharmic certificate to the Adamic Abrahamic Yezidis.

Vikas Raina asked: "Sir, How would you define Dharmic unless you want to say Non-Abhramic instead."

While Dharmic is not defined by non-Abrahamic, but apparently by being [Indic plus] the use of the word "Dharma", it is certainly an implicit feature of Dharmic religions that they are not Abrahamic. [I could be wrong but I haven't yet heard of any Sikhs affirm that their invisible monotheistic once-Hindu/ex-Hindu godhead is the same as the invisible monogawd of christoislam/of Abraham. Although this may be a development that happens tomorrow, since Sikhism has evolved quite far away from its roots in its definition of its deity, so why stop now, especially since its re-formulation is inching ever closer to the monotheisms of the Abrahamisms?]

Yezidis have claimed variously to be Zoroastrians - to be accepted by Zoroastrians - all through the late 90s and early to mid 2000s. And have affirmed close cosmological/religious kinship with Christians and Jews (which is also not false). More recently/suddenly, since the ISIS crisis, rumours have surfaced of Yezidis being "Dharmic"/long lost Dharmic brothers all of a sudden. To get Indian support. It is opportunistic.

Of course new-agey Hindu Indians lap it up, because they see some motifs (reincarnation of old Indic influence, a peacock which is also Indic influence, sun worship which is remnant of Iranian religion) and decide that "therefore" Yezidis "must be" Dharmic.

Yezidis *have* Indian support. Both on the ground (R2004 blog mentioned Sri Sri & co. IIRC) and monetary from the average Hindoo (myself included), and moral from all Hindus.

But India should not offer permanent settlement of Yezidis in India - and it may never ever be made permanent, unless they forswear monotheism and revert to ancestral Kurdish/Iranian religion (which no one remembers what it is, so there's no way to reconstruct it, so it won't work out). India has had only slightly bad to genocidally bad repercussions from letting in any Abrahamisms. Hindus can finally decide to learn from the past.

And no rewriting that Abrahamisms - which Yezidis' religion is - is suddenly "Dharmic" too.

This post was on:

Why this next tweet is factually wrong and its suggestion is very ill-advised


Quote:rajeev srinivasan


Hindus but also other dharmics incl Yazidi should be given automatic refuge. Buddhists have Thailand doing same.

rajeev srinivasan added,

Quote:Naren Ramakrishna @NarenMenon1

This is what I've been saying all along. Like Jews, Hindus should have the ability to perform 'Aliyah' to India

https:// twitter.com/prasannavishy/status/601224950758780928

1 retweet 3 favorites

vikasraina @vikasraina

@RajeevSrinivasa Sir, How would you define Dharmic unless you want to say Non-Abhramic instead.

And unless RajeevSrinivasan wants to redefine the meaning of Dharmic to include Abrahamic too (i.e. that Dharmic is the next term to mean "anything and everything"), he can't include Yezidis:


Quote:The references to Adam and God are not coincidental according to Hatim Darwesh, a American-based Yezidis who maintains a Yezidi Facebook group. [...] While quick to say that he is not a "religious expert," Darwesh was clear on several points: God is the same being who is worshiped in Abrahamic faiths; the Peacock Angel is not any sort of devil and the Yezidi religion is definitely monotheistic. In addition, within Yezidi culture, he says that the term "pagan" is used as a pejorative and not a label they themselves would welcome.

Note that even in 2014, when Yezidis are severely persecuted by their Adamic brothers in Abrahmic monotheism, there is a palpable abhorrence for not the just word "pagan" but what it means: they don't just want to be identified by it, but it is used as a pejorative in their own culture.

So consider, when they are given refuge in heathen "pagan" India and doing well, they will feel this distinction w.r.t. and odium towards "pagans" more deeply than during their current plight.

Syrian christians also came to India as refugees with their tails between their legs, but now are filled with self-entitlement to convert the land to their religion and fight the native "paganism" of India and conspire with their brothers in monotheism in India and overseas to bring down the heathen identity of India. Is it too beyond people's abilities to foresee that adding Yezidis into the cocktail will not in the long run favour the native heathens at all, but only raise another hand by which christoislam will slap and restrict Hindoo heathenism with?
Related to post 179 and 184

Beginning of western backlash against 'meditation', without a "spiritual-ethical" framework (=code: it's an opening to introduce the need for christianism to underpin meditation).

Ostensibly an attack on Buddhism, but also an attack on Hindoo heathenism.


Quote:Meditation is touted as a cure for mental instability but can it actually be bad for you?

If it's so powerful, might meditation also do harm to sensitive souls? Researching a mass murder, Dr Miguel Farias discovered that, far from bringing inner peace, it can leave devotees in pieces

Dr Miguel Farias

Thursday 21 May 2015

Aaron Alexis was looking for something. He started attending a Buddhist temple in Washington and learned to meditate; he hoped it would bring him wisdom and peace. "I want to be a Buddhist monk," he once told a friend from the temple. His friend advised him to keep studying, and Alexis did. He learned Thai and kept going to the temple – chanting, meditating. But other things got in the way.

On 16 September 2013, Alexis drove into Washington's Navy Yard. It was 8am. He'd been working there not long before, and security let him in. Minutes later, the security cameras caught him holding a shotgun, and by 9am, 12 people were dead. Alexis killed randomly, first using his shotgun and, after running out of ammunition, the handgun belonging to a guard he'd just killed. He died after an exchange of gunfire with the police.

It took only 24 hours for a journalist to notice Alexis had been a Buddhist, prompting her to ask: "Can there be a less positive side to meditation?" Western Buddhists immediately reacted: "This man represented the Dharma teachings no more than 9/11 terrorists represented the teachings of Islam," wrote one. Others explained that Alexis had a history of mental illness. However, some noted that meditation, for all its de-stressing and self-development potential, can take you deeper into the recesses of your mind than you may have wished for.

I'd come across the idea that, without the guidance of an expert, meditation can have adverse effects, but I'd thought this was a metaphor for the difficulties we might encounter as we venture into ourselves. Then, one day, I heard a first-hand account that opened my eyes. At the time, I was teaching a course on the psychology of spirituality, and the majority of students were in their late fifties and early sixties: a combination of retired lawyers, Anglican priests and psychiatrists, and three or four yoga and meditation teachers – of whom Louise was one.

In her late fifties and lean, Louise was quiet and spoke only when she felt she had something important to say. She had taught yoga for more than 20 years, stopping only when something unexpected happened that changed her life, and she had chosen to give a presentation about this as part of her assessment on the course.

During one meditation retreat, she said – she'd been on many – her sense of self changed dramatically. "Good," she thought initially, "it must be part of the dissolving experience." Still, she couldn't help feeling anxious. "Don't worry, just keep meditating and it will go away," her teacher told her. But it didn't. She couldn't get back to her usual self. It felt like something was messing with her sense of identity, how she felt in her body, the very way she looked at the world and at other people. The last day of the retreat was excruciating: her body shook, she cried and panicked.

The following day, back at home, her body was numb and she didn't want to get out of bed. Louise's husband took her to the GP; within hours, she was being seen by a psychiatrist; and she spent the next 15 years being treated for psychotic depression. Now, she talked lucidly about her illness and its possible origins (including a genetic predisposition). She explained that she had gradually taken up yoga again, but had never returned to meditation retreats. "I had to have electroconvulsive therapy," she said.

(Meditation IS Yoga. All yoga not good for aliens=dabblers.)

I was stunned – and more so when I looked through medical and psychological data bases to research the possible adverse effects of meditation. One paper, written in 2001 by a British psychiatrist, told of a 25-year-old woman who, like Louise, had a serious mental health problem following meditation retreats. The first time she was admitted to hospital her symptoms included "thought disorder with flight of ideas", elevated mood and grandiose delusions "including the belief that she had some special mission for the world… to offer 'undying, unconditional love' to everyone. She had no [critical] insight".

This woman, called Miss X, was diagnosed with mania.
After six weeks' medication, her symptoms were controlled. A psychiatrist saw her regularly for two years and she started twice-weekly psychotherapy. Then she took part in a Zen Buddhist retreat and was hospitalised again. She couldn't sleep for five days and displayed a number of unrestrained behaviours: she was irritable, sexually disinhibited and restless, made repeated praying gestures and attacked a member of staff.

[img caption:] Gun-toting Aaron Alexis, who immersed himself in meditation, killed 12 people in 2013 Gun-toting Aaron Alexis, who immersed himself in meditation, killed 12 people in 2013 (Getty)

I looked further into the literature. In 1992, David Shapiro, a professor at UCLA Irvine, published an article about the effects of meditation retreats. After examining 27 people with different levels of meditation experience, he found 63 per cent of them had suffered at least one negative effect and seven per cent profoundly adverse effects.

The negative effects included anxiety, panic, depression, pain, confusion and disorientation. But perhaps only the least experienced felt them – and might several days of meditation not overwhelm those who were relatively new to the practice? The answer was no. When Shapiro divided the larger group into those with lesser and greater experience, there were no differences: all had an equal number of adverse experiences. And an earlier study had arrived at a similar, but even more surprising conclusion: those with more experience also had considerably more adverse effects than the beginners.

Amid the small pile of articles on the topic, I found two by Arnold Lazarus and Albert Ellis, co-founders of CBT. In 1976, Lazarus reported that a few of his own patients had had serious disturbances after meditating, and strongly criticised the idea that "meditation is for everyone". And Ellis shared his misgivings. He believed it could be used as a therapeutic tool, but not with everyone – and overall, that it could be used only in moderation as a "thought-distracting" or "relaxing" technique. "Like tranquilisers," he wrote, "it may have both good and bad effects – especially, the harmful result of encouraging people to look away from some of their central problems, and to refrain from actually disputing and surrendering their disturbance-creating beliefs."

(I agree. All Hindoo stuffs and other heathen stuffs are not for aliens. I.e. not for "everyone". Even in heathendom they are not willy-nilly assigned to all and sundry. But aliens are delusional conceited entities with a huge self-entitlement complex that always makes them feel like they were meant to dabble in the Vedam, in yoga/meditation, that the Hindoo Gods have something to do with them, blablabla. They're very good at blatantly making up stuff to make themselves feel special and have special entitlement to heathen religions that don't concern them.)

Read more: Practice Mindfulness – says mental health charity

Airports are installing yoga rooms to help tense travellers relax

Mindfulness isn't going to cure our mental health crisis

Let GPs offer mindfulness meditation to patients, say experts

Mindfulness can help prevent relapses of depression

I felt like an archaeologist digging up long-forgotten artefacts. How could this be completely absent in the recent research? It was conceivable that clinicians and researchers simply did not report the negative consequences of meditation, but it was more likely that the meditators themselves did not talk about it: many who encounter difficulties during or after their practice may feel they're doing something wrong, or even that their distress is part of the process and will eventually pass. That was the case with Miss X, who eventually refused continuous treatment, explaining that her mania was just a release of blocked energy from years of not dealing with her emotions adequately. And many meditators thinking like Miss X could go towards explaining why negative reports didn't make it into journals – because the effects were seen as mere stones on the road to peace or spiritual attainment.

However, a number of Western Buddhists are aware that not all is plain sailing with meditation; and they have even given a name to the emotional difficulties that arise – the "dark night" – borrowing the phrase coined by the 16th-century Christian mystic St John of the Cross to describe an advanced stage of prayer and contemplation characterised by an emotional dryness, in which the subject feels abandoned by God.

(Trying to encroach on meditation for christianism by drawing parallels.)

Buddhists, in principle, ought not to feel abandoned by God, but a Buddhist blog on the subject is riddled with turmoil:

"Nine years on and off of periods of deep depression, angst, anxiety and misery"; "there was a nausea that kept coming up, terrible sadness, aches and pain"; "I've had one pretty intense dark night, it lasted for nine months, included misery, despair, panic attacks… loneliness, auditory hallucinations, mild paranoia, treating my friends and family badly, long episodes of nostalgia and regret, and obsessive thoughts (usually about death)".

Willoughby Britton, a neuroscientist and psychiatrist at Brown University, is now trying to map what she calls [size="5"]"the dark side of Dharma"[/size], an interest that arose from witnessing two people being hospitalised after intense meditation practice, together with her own experience after a retreat in which she felt an unimaginable terror. And reading through the classical Buddhist literature, she realised that such experiences are often mentioned as common stages of meditation.

"I was woefully uninformed," she now admits. Meditation retreats easily lead people to sense the world differently: the hearing gets sharper; time moves more slowly. But the most radical change that can occur is in what Britton calls "the narrative of the self".
Try this out: focus on the present moment, nothing else than the present moment. You may be able to do it easily for a very short time. However, if you try extending this "presentness" for one or two hours, and keep trying for some days, your usual sense of self – that which has one foot in the past and the other in the future – collapses. The practice may feel great for some, but for others it is like being tossed around a roller coaster.

[img caption:] A study found 63 per cent of meditators in a group had suffered at least one negative effect A study found 63 per cent of meditators in a group had suffered at least one negative effect (AFP/Getty)

Other unpleasant things can happen, too, as Britton discovered through interviews with numerous individuals: arms flap, people twitch and have convulsions; others go through euphoria or depression, or report not feeling anything at all as their physical senses go numb. Still, unpleasant though they are, if these symptoms were confined to a retreat, there wouldn't be much to worry about – but they're not. Sometimes they linger, affecting work, child care and relationships. They can become a clinical health problem, which, on average, lasts for more than three years. What's more, meditation teachers know about it – Britton says – but researchers are usually sceptical; they ask about the psychiatric history of meditators who develop mental illness, as if meditation itself had little or nothing to do with it.

I used to think the same. But from the moment I started researching, I kept finding more and more evidence. Take the correspondence section on the website of the revered Deepak Chopra, where readers post their questions and Chopra answers. On 11 April 2014, an individual who had been meditating for one year – and finding in it "true bliss" – describes having twice experienced a deep emotional sensation, "like something is being ripped from me", that left her wanting to cry and yell. Chopra's reply is optimistic: "It's both normal and okay. It just means there is some deep emotional trauma from your past that is now ready to come to the surface and be healed. After meditation I would recommend you take a few minutes and sing out loud.

(Deepak Chopra is a major fraud and total new-ageist. More Hinduism Lite salesmen like this - and all salesmen of Hindoo stuffs to aliens are charlatans - and aliens will more quickly leave yoga alone.)

"Find a song you love that resonates with the emotional tone of your pain. Listen to it at above normal volume so that you can really feel the sonic effect of the song and music. When you feel it has engaged your emotions, start to sing so that your voice translates your feelings into sound. If you do this every time you feel some unresolved residue of emotion after your meditation, it will facilitate the release and healing process."

(New ageism. In case anyone wanted proof of it.)

But what if someone like Aaron Alexis had emailed Deepak Chopra and received a reply like this? Would singing along to his favourite song, turned up nice and loud, have healed his emotional traumas and led into the wisdom he sought, rather than a killing spree? Unlikely. Furthermore, there is a real danger that what Chopra's correspondent was feeling is not "normal and okay", and that if she keeps meditating without an expert teacher, it may disturb rather than heal her.

Despite its dark side and the limitations of the current scientific research, I still think meditation is a technique with real potential for personal change, if properly guided and taught within a larger spiritual-ethical framework. But I wanted to speak to someone who, coming from the West, had embraced the Eastern meditation tradition without denying its darker side – and I found that person in Swami Ambikananda, a South African woman living in England, who took religious Hindu vows and now teaches meditation and yoga in Reading.

("I still think meditation is a technique with real potential for personal change, if properly guided and taught within a larger spiritual-ethical framework." -> This argument is a way to in future introduce christianism through the backdoor, as serving that need of "larger spiritual-ethical framework" of Yoga and meditation. Modern christianism trying to appeal to backsliders tries to define itself exactly as a "spiritual ethical framework" - c.f. how it declares atheists lack both.

As if Buddhism doesn't already seek to provide just that framework for Buddhists. However, most western Buddhists - perhaps all, I don't know: there must be a reason why the Dalai Lama had always insisted (still?) that aliens should stick to their own religion - most western Buddhists tend to be sudden zealous converts, many of which deconvert in time, else borderline new-ageists or full new-ageists.

But the future hijack of yoga incl dhyana yoga is Indics' own fault. New-agey Indians and alien dabblers like Elst did try to divorce Yoga - at various levels, from a full divorce to partial divorce - from its heathen framework. Of course christianism is going to slip itself into that deliberate void others left and which cryptochristians encouraged.)

We sat in her living room and, when I told her I was looking into the potential dark side of meditation, she asked if I had heard of Aaron Alexis.

"There is a new dogma about meditation: when it fails, its limitations are never questioned," she said. "We are told they weren't doing it right. But maybe neither the practice nor the person is wrong. The truth about our human condition is that no one thing works for everyone. The spiritual journey is about the unmasking of oneself, being more authentically 'self', and whatever path leads us there is grand for each of us. That particular path is not necessarily good for all of us – but since it has moved out of the monastic environment into the wider secular world, meditation is being sold as that which will not only make us feel better but will make us better people – more successful, stronger, convincing …"

So what about the researchers claiming that meditation per se can turn you into a better, more compassionate person?

"No, no, no," she stressed. "Meditation needs to be embedded in its context; there are moral and emotional guidelines to be followed."

(I don't know if she's referring to Yama Niyama etc. But even the more determined alien dabblers that practice these things so they can dabble better in yoga are known to have crashed hard.

Many more aliens, however, just leap straight into yoguh, and then start speaking of seeing colours/having achieved some universal spiritual level and why yoga is therefore not Hindu but universal, equally christian, equally western, equally atheist, equally new-age.

If aliens tried to encroach on Taoist ritual practices, things would be even more dreary for the aliens than merely badly burning out.)

Really? Isn't the whole purpose of meditating to make you an enlightened and deeply moral individual; moral in the sense of unselfish and compassionate?

"Morality can be divorced from spirituality. My ego can dissolve while I meditate. But when I get up, it's reconstructed. You can meditate 22 hours a day, but in those two hours you have left, you're a human being living in matter, and this aspect of reality [she touched the ground] doesn't care too much if you're enlightened or not."

After our talk, Ambikananda gave me a lift to the station. I thanked her for her time and asked again about Alexis. Did she think his killing spree had anything to do with meditation?

"I don't know. I don't dispute that he had serious mental health problems; but meditation probably didn't help him either. Meditation is about looking into the abyss within. It wasn't created to make you or me happy, but to help us fight the illusions we have and find out who we truly are."

(Don't know about meditation being about looking into the 'abyss' within. Maybe in Zen. And in Hindoo heathenism, all and sundry never did hardcore yoga. In any ritual practice=serious matter, be it of mantra and other tantra/yoga, they always worked up to the level that was right for them. And never went beyond until they were allowed to.

In Taoism, Taoists practice their ritual practices and eventually the Gods or Immortals themselves will intervene directly - correcting mispractice and furthering cultivation by revealing the next stage.

Aliens and their self-entitlement never realise what heathens mean when these say that dabbling in the Vedam, yoga and tantra etc are just that: dabbling (and without exception in the alien case). It's dangerous besides.)

'The Buddha Pill: Can Meditation Change You?' by Dr Miguel Farias and Catherine Wikholm (Watkins, £10.99) is out now

Like I said: Hindoo stuffs only cause brainfry in the aliens.

But modern 'Hindus' Would -and Will- peddle it among them. Makes modern Hindus feel better about themselves when aliens dabble in their religion, as if this is a compliment to them and their heathenism, or that dabbling is anything more than vampirism.

This is actually good news. With any luck, the west will create a severe and irreversible backlash among all aliens - with or without christian conspiring, ist mir egal - against yoga including dhyanayoga, so that interest in this and all other Hindoo stuffs (or derived stuffs) die a quick and total death among aliens forevermore. And that the dabbling in Vedas and mantras/tantra too becomes totally passe and repugnant to the aliens. (Don't Hindus know that lots of alien new agey females like calling themselves "mantrinIs" and collect forms of Hindu mantras from online and dabble away, feeling more "empowered" and more "expert" and working together like this was all some wicca charm hobby).

Many of all these various alien dabbling demons have had Indics ("Hindus") invite or even "initiate" them, else there have been Indics peddling/universalising sacred Hindoo (ritual) practices among aliens out of conceit/egoistic reasons.** When in reality, Hindoo heathens never willy-nilly initiated just anyone in their own community or family, nor ever taught the Upanishads to one and all* (which has strict prerequisites and is taught in context of the Vedam in a particular way, not in some new-ageists: Vedanta is a bunch of universal sayings devoid of context and rigour).

** There should be a blowback on these traitors, these salesmen, these peddlers and universalisers of Hindoo heathenism.

* It's why modern Hindu morons peddling "advaita" or other Vedanta/Upanishadic knowledge (and are smug about their own superiority for having latched on to this) on the internet and to aliens - often while separating it from and badmouthing Hindoo heathenism - is so laughable too: what grounding do these comedians have in advaita? They're just pseudo-Vedantins. When the rest of heathenism doesn't compute to them, no wonder Vedanta is totally beyond them. Modern new-agey Hindus actually imagine that - unlike expert Hindoos in the past, who lived a full heathen/ritualistic life and worked their way to the Upanishads/Vedanta -

again: the conceited moderns imagine that they're mentally already attuned to Vedanta (a conceit deriving from only from the fact that the Gods/heathenism don't compute to them, not because they are actually advanced in any way: they find themselves agreeing only in some general universalist new-agey or otherwise deheathenised and cocky sense with the aphorisms of Advaita upon their divorcing this from its heathen context/underpinning). And they look down upon actual heathens for following actual heathenism, a.o.t. modern pseudo-Vedantists' new-ageism. (BTW the advaita mathas consist of acharyas who are heathens by heathen standards. E.g. could recently see - in print - none less than the Swami Swaroopananda insisting on and upholding the Hindoo Gods and Hindoo heathenism. Because actual advaitins are not new-ageists. Only the countless fake, de-heathenised inexperts - rambling about advaita or vedanta on the internet, often to rapt audiences - are.)


Quote:Meditation is touted as a cure for mental instability but can it actually be bad for you?

If it's so powerful, might meditation also do harm to sensitive souls? Researching a mass murder, Dr Miguel Farias discovered that, far from bringing inner peace, it can leave devotees in pieces

Dr Miguel Farias

Thursday 21 May 2015
Post 1/3

Related to news already pasted in post 290 of the Anti-Indian Nexus thread, on Modi-govt secularising yoga and removing the OM from it, in order to universalise it.


Quote:Also, officials said, the yoga protocol, prepared in consultation with Baba Ramdev, Sri Sri Ravi ShankarBaba Ramdev, Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev and yoga institutions in India, will stick to the simplest of yoga postures. "This is to ensure yoga appeals even to the uninitiated in many countries."
Not surprised that Jaggi is in on this - he started off peddling atheism (would explain why Karunanidhi was happy to promote him), realised it wasn't getting him followers and so created a fake Shivalinga-like structure to dupe Hindus, and now he gives speeches on 'Shiva'. Like the Bauddhified Shiva and the Jainised Shiva and the recently Abrahamised Shiva (invoked by Jews and Yezidis), there is also Crypto-Rationalists' Shiva. All of which are mere clones, usually used by others to peddle or to encroach.

Am surprised that Ramdev has voiced no issues, at least with OM being taken out.

Anyway, the comments at the link are relevant and are the reason for this series of posts:

Quote:K.harapriya, on 20/05/2015 at 5:35 PM said:

One day, even Vedas and Vedanta will be secular Indo-European literature with no Hinduness inherent in them. That is what Sanskrit is now being touted as an Indo-European language .

Poor Harapriya has no idea how far the IE game has progressed. IE-ists are long past declaring that Vedic Religion is not Hindoo heathenism. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that the latter is the natural continuation of Vedic Religion and IS Vedic Religion still.

(As new-ageism and subversionism increase exponentially thanks to gangrene in India, this will cease to be the case. But what will forever remain true is that the alien demons [dabblers like 'indologicals' and 'converts' and new agey tresspassers] will never have Vedic Religion, nor ever know it.)

Quote:dr. bulusu prasad, on 21/05/2015 at 12:08 AM said:

really disgusting !

we should understand that ‘yoga’ is just a small set of bodily postures !

this is how our R.shis are honored !

by ignoring OM !!

Maharshi Patanjali says :

योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः — yogaa: chitta vr.tti niro’dha:

yoga is the control of the thought-modifications of the mind ;

and to achieve that end ,

the surest , the safest , and the easiest method shown is :

( from Paatanjalayogasutras : chapter I – sutras 23 to 28 , with simple translation )

ईश्वरप्रणिधानाद्वा — Is’vara pran’idhaanaadvaa

profound devotion to Is’vara [3]

क्लेशकर्मविपाकाशयैरपरामृष्टः पुरुषविशेष ईश्वरः — kle’s’a karma vipaakaas’ayai: aparaamr.sht’a: Purusha vis’e’sha Is’vara:

here is one of the best definitions of Is’vara that can ever be found :

Is’vara is a particular kind of Being , unaffected by — kle’s’a ( ignorance ) , karma ( actions ) , vipaaka ( fruits of the actions ) , and aas’aya ( the resultant latent impressions )

तत्र निरतिशयं सर्वज्ञवीजम् — tatra niratis’ayam sarvaj*na beejam

He is Omniscient ( simple translation )

पूर्वेषामपि गुरुः कालेनानवच्छेदात् — poorve’shaam api Guru: kaale’na anavacche’daat

He is the first Guru , the Timeless One [1]

तस्य वाचकः प्रणवः — Tasya vaachaka: Pran’ava:

His vaachaka , denoting sound , is Pran’ava , OM .

तज्जपस्तदर्थभावनम् — Tat japa: Tat artha bhaavanam

This Sound is to be repeatedly chanted , and Its meaning is to be meditated upon .

and here , these people are all set to avoid and drop OM !

can anything be done ?

[1] On:

Quote:पूर्वेषामपि गुरुः कालेनानवच्छेदात् — poorve’shaam api Guru: kaale’na anavacche’daat

He is the first Guru , the Timeless One

नमो अग्रियाय च प्रथमाय च । (5.11)

नमो बृहते च । (5.9)

नमः पूर्वजाय (... च) | 6.2

[2] And on:

Quote:तस्य वाचकः प्रणवः — Tasya vaachaka: Pran’ava:

His vaachaka , denoting sound , is Pran’ava , OM .

नमस्ताराय । 8.8


Quote:Mantra 8

नमस्ताराय ।


ताराय- Of the form of Pranava.


It is stated in Veda** and Sivapuranas that the meaning of Pranava (Omkara) is Sri Parameswara. In the sense that there is no difference between word and direct meaning, and word and intended import, Sri Rudra can be said to be of the form of Pranava.

‘तारः’ can also be interpreted to mean one who helps in rescuing Jivas from the ocean of samsara and bestows Mukti.

(E.g. Sri Rama nama being taaraka mantram.)

The import of this mantra is that Sri Parameswara should be worshipped for Moksha also.

** See also next post.

[3] On this:

Quote:ईश्वरप्रणिधानाद्वा — Is’vara pran’idhaanaadvaa

profound devotion to Is’vara [3]

Does not Bulusu know that Elst, that self-declared expert who knows more* about Hindoo heathenism than actual Hindoo heathen Experts and tradition (as per himself and his fans, some of whom have crowned him their 'guru' and even gushed about him being a 'god') has declared - to the applause of his parrots - that:

Quote:Thus, "Īśvara" is defined merely as "a distinct purusa untouched by afflictions, actions, fruitions or their residue" in YS 1:24, but has been assigned the exclusive meaning of "God/Shiva", nowadays assumed in the expression "Īśvarapranidhāna" (YS 1:23, 2:1, 2:32, 2:45). It is on the basis of little else than this expression’s repeated appearance that the YS is classified among the theistic systems. Even if it means "devotion to God", that still does not make Yoga theistic, for God still plays no role in the definition and structure of the system, only the devotion itself is credited with playing a helpful role in the yogi’s progress. Nowhere does Patañjali say that "union" is sought with God nor with anything else. On the contrary, the stated goal of his system is kaivalya, "isolation, separation", the very opposite of "union", and equivalent with the notion kevala of the atheistic Jaina system. Patañjali accommodates the devotee yet avoids burdening the unbeliever with a requirement to believe.

Personally, any "Hindus" that saw no offence in ignoring Rudra in yoga need not pretend to be offended when Modi et al remove the OM from yoga too.

Continued in next, containing C&P from shruti.
Post 2/3

Some excerpts from Shvetaashvatara Upanishad (Shv.U) - translated by traditional Hindus - that are relevant to the previous post:

(Some comments interspersed. The italicised shlokas and translation are mostly lifted, but some of the bracketed text in the translations is my own insertion, often a backreference to the original word used, or to clarify a reference.)

te dhyAnayogAnugatA apashyan devAtmashaktiM svaguNair-nigUDhAm | yaH kAraNAni nikhilAni tAni kAlAtma-yuktAnyadhitiShThatyekaH || 1.3

By practising dhyaanayoga ("meditation"), they [presumably the Vaidika yogins] realised the power of the Deva Himself [=his devaatmashakti], hidden by it own effects,--the Deva ("yaH") who, alone, rules all those sources associated with (i.e. including) Time and the individual aatmas.

This is tied back to 4.10**. Note the deva is specifically named throughout the Upanishad: Hara, Rudra, Shiva, Ishaana, Maheshwara, plus entire shlokas from the Sri Rudram (often naming him again: "Giritra", "Girishanta"). =All names of Shiva. [<- Pre-emptively, so Abrahamics/Adamics can't try to encroach.] Plus the cosmology is Hindoo onlee.

kSharam pradhAnam-amR^itAkSharaM haraH kSharAtmAnAvIshate deva ekaH |

tasyAbhi-dhyAnAd-yojanAt-tattva-bhAvAt bhUshchAnte vishvamAyA-nivR^ittiH || 1.10

Nature is mutable, Hara [that other famous name of Rudra/Shiva aka Maheshwara] is immortal and immutable.

This ekadeva [the undivided primordial Tao I mean Parameshwara=Paramashiva] rules the mutable and the soul.

And from the repeated meditation on Him, union with ["yojanAt"] and contemplation on Reality ["bhAvAt-tattva"], there comes about, at the end, the cessation of MAyA in the form of the universe.

=> Note how in the above, yoga is *union* with Hara. Since the Reality spoken of is the Kosmos of Hindoo=heathen cosmology, and is repeatedly explained as Hara/of Hara/emerging from Hara too in other shlokas.

j~nAtvA devaM sarvapAshApahAniH kShINaiH kleshair-janma-mR^ityu-prahANiH |

tasyAbhidhyAnAt-tR^itIyaM dehabhede vishvaishvaryaM kevala AptakAmaH || 1.11

By knowing the Devam (the Deva under discussion, i.e. Hara), comes the snaping of all bondages; on the attenuation of kleshaH (the pain-bearing obstructions like ignorance etc, which are like fetters) comes the eradication of birth and death. From meditation on Him ("abhidhyAnAt tasya") there accrues, on the fall of the body, the third, the full divine power. (And) he* becomes absolute ["kevalaH"] and self-fulfilled [AptakAmaH].

(* I.e. the yogi who - by means of yoga - is in union with the Deva Hara residing in his own self.)

1.13 and 1.14 discuss OM's irreplaceable relevance in the context of dhyanayoga:

svadeham-araNiM kR^itvA praNavaM chottarAraNim | dhyAna-nirmathanAbhyAsAd-devaM pashyen-nigUdhavat || 1.14

1.14 Making one's own body the (lower) araNi and OM [praNava mantram] the upper araNi, one should, through the practice of dhyAna that is analogous* to rubbing, realise the Devam, which is hidden as it were.

The above is tied back to 1.13, the shloka that ends with "praNavena dehe", which used an analogy involving araNim to conclude that "(similarly, the Self is realised) in the body with the help of OM."

Note that the Self in the body, in all bodies - i.e. all jeevaatmas - are specifically said to be Shiva in shloka 4.16, who is hidden in each being.*** But the shlokas preceding 4.16 (and IIRC in a couple of other chapters) already explained how the primordial undivided Shiva is the origin of the entirety of the universe and into whom it will return; they state that Rudra-Shiva is the "All-Encompassing Entity", and that there really is nothing else. That Shiva is all there is and all who is - the whole Kosmos and all consciousness in it too - is explained much better at


Kurmapurana: "17 Unfolding of Ishwara ‘Vibhutis’ (faculties) and concepts of Pashu-Paasha-Pashupati "

Quote:(Translation of KoormapurAna shlokasSmile

I am Parameshwara who is the Maya among Paashaas or the hard rope strings, Kaala or the Mrityu among the destroyers and among the Pathways am the destination of Mukti; You should realise that the Most Lustrous and the Mightiest ‘Satwa Padaartha’ or the Virtuous Entity is myself and am the highest powerful provocator of actions among all of the Pashus or Jeevaas / Beings in the Univese is myself; as the Beings in Srishti are Pashus, I am indeed the Pashupati. I tie up the Pashus with Paashaas for fun; Vedagnaas seek to help release the Pashus from the ‘Samsaara Paashaas’ and are called the facilitating ‘Mochakaas’ or Helping Liberators as I tie them all with the strong strings from their birth to death. Let it be made clear that there could be none else that might liberate from these Paashaas excepting Paamatma the Eternal.

(Notes that the link then provides)

The twenty four Tatwaas, Maya, Karma and Tri- Gunas all put together hold the Jeevas or Pashus as ‘Paaashas’are enforced by Pashupati. The Tatwas are Manas or Mind, Buddhi or thought , Ahamkara or Ego, Prithvi, Jala, Vaayu and Akasaha; Ear, Skin, Eyes, Tongue, Nose, the two Marmendriyas, hands, feet, voice, shabda, sparsha, Rupa, Rasa, and Gandha which are all a part of Prakriti and the rest are all Vikaras or aberrations. There are two kinds of Paashaas viz. Dharma and Adharma besides the Karma bandhana; Avidya, Asmitaa or Ego, Raaga , Dwesha, Abhinivesha or attachment –these Five are constant Paashaas called Taatvika bandhanas. Maya is stated to be the root of these bandhanas. Mula Prakriti, Pradhaana, Purusha, Mahat, Ahamkaaran are all manifestations of Sanatana Deva; he is the one creating bandhanaas; he is the Paasha-Pashu-and in the final analysis, he is the Pashupati!

Further, basic intro explanations of Kashmiri Shaivam show KS repeating the same knowledge of the Vedam - seen echoed in Puranas too as above - by recognising every jeevaatma as Shiva=PuruSha, the Rudra-Shiva=Ishwara (who, as per ShvetAshvatara Upanishad) is the sole/single Consciousness that IS the universe - and all in it - and from which the universe emerges and into which it dissolves.

Predictably, the very next page is


Rudiments of Yoga Practice, Yoga Mahima and re-emphasis on the Oneness of Shiva-Narayana

Back to the Shvetaashvatara Upanishad:

The practise of Yoga is seen in 2.2, alluded to in 2.3, seen again in 2.8, 2.9 (prAnAyama), 2.10 is about what constitutes a good place to perform dhyanayoga. 2.11-2.13 specifically refers to all the aforementioned practice as "yoga": 2.11 are the signs of progress to a practitioner, 2.12 are the outward signs of a yogi to an observer.

Then 2.15 speaks again about the Yogi and what exactly he has actually attained:

yadAtma-tattvena tu brahmatattvaM dIpopameneha yuktaH prapashyet | ajraM dhruvaM sarva-tattvair-vishuddham j~nAtvA devaM muchyate sarvapashaiH || 2.15

When the yogI [=the translation given for "yuktaH", note] realises here the reality of Brahman - which is birthless, unchanging and untouched by all the categories - as the very reality of his own Self [Atma] that is comparable to a lamp, then he becomes free of all bondages by knowing the Devam.

The commentator, Shankaracharya (the Adi Shankaracharya or a subsequent one) then states as intro to 2.16:

"It has been said that the Supreme Self [DevAtma] is to be known as one's own Self [jIvAtma]. Now the upanishad shows how this is possible:"

Where 2.16 explains that the Deva (see also a few paras up) is what exists in all beings, that the Deva is the one that is born and to be born etc. <- That is, all jeevaatmas are merely the Deva. Since the All is the Deva onlee.

2.17 is a variation on a mantram from the Sri Rudram and uses "Deva" in place of Rudra (though his identification had already been made early on, when the Deva was called Hara=Shiva). But then 'Chapter' 3 - which explains who the Deva (already previously identified as Hara) is and what his nature is (i.e. how Maya is associated with him, how he uses it to create the All and become the All) - continues to name the Deva by his other personal names like Rudra, and continues to quote entire shlokas straight from the Sri Rudram.

E.g. a shloka from Chapter 3 that identifies him by name again:

eko hi rudro na dvitIyAya tasthur-ya imA.NllokAnIshata IshAnIbhiH |

pratyA~N janAMstiShThati sa~nchukochAntakAle saMsR^ija vishvA bhuvanAni gopAH || 3.2

Since Rudra--who rules these worlds through His Divine Powers, who resides within every being, who after projecting all the worlds and becoming the protector, withdraws them during dissolution--is eka, therefore they did not wait in anticipation of a second.

3.4 then refers to Deva as Rudra again.

3.5, 3.6 are direct quotes of shlokas from the Sri Rudram (YV): 3.5 Refers to the Deva by name as Rudra (and Aghora) and Girishanta, 3.6 refers to Rudra as Girishanta and Giritra. <- All personal names of Rudra=Shiva.

3.7 once again establishes him, the Parameshwara (=name and identity of Shiva), as the ultimate origin of the All, by being the origin of the Hiranyagarbha (also in 3.4, where "Rudra....projected Hiranyagarbha in the beginning"; can compare with Taoist cosmology). 3.7's translation says Rudra is the "one all-encompassing Entity of the universe".* <- What Hindoo cosmology knows as the ParamapuruSha, the Parameshwara: the only 'Entity' that is/that exists, all that is. (* Sort of like the Tao, though the Tao is not an ...'entity' in its primordial state, it is all there is/can ever be and All derives from it. On the other hand, if, like the primordial Parameshwara, the Tao is conscious too by nature - since the Taoist Gods derive from it - maybe the Tao also falls under the 'entity' descriptive?)

Subsequent shlokas then explain how this Purusha - the ParamaPurusha - is present throughout the All (being the All), and is the *Purusha* in every jeevaatma. 3.13 again explains that the Purusha is in each jeeva as the aatma. The translation of 'Purusha' for 3.13: "The PuruSha, so called because of His fullness or existence within the city (of the heart), who exists as the antarAtmA, the indwelling Self of all" (which is known to all Hindoos since they were ye high), 3.14 then proceeds to show that this same PuruSha pervades the entire Universe, being in fact the ParamapuruSha=Parameshwara. (Ishwara/Parameshwara.)

Note that this definition of Shiva=Ishwara as the Purusha, as indeed the definition of *all* Purusha, is naturally/consequently also seen in the MBh. That is because this is the original, theistic Sankhyam - the pre-classical Sankhyam. The origins of Sankhyam-and-Yoga are firmly tied to Hindoo (= a theistic) cosmology. Shvetaashvatara upanishad discusses Sankhya and Yoga, though it does namedrop them as well. See 6.13 etc. Though even if the text hadn't named sankhya and yoga, the descriptions of the Hindoo cosmological view/realisation* and the practices to know/unite with the HindOO Devam - i.e. yoga - are way too obvious to be misidentified as anything else.

[* Goes without saying that the Shv.U. - which seems to me to be an Upanishad that goes with the Sri Rudram, but in any case the Shv U factually belongs to the KYV - discusses what's already inherent in the Sri Rudram itself: Hindoo cosmology. E.g. Shv U 3.2 and Chapter 4.]

4.7 once more connects the jeevAtman with the paramAtman, Sri Rudra. 4.9 explains how the Kosmos is projected by Sri Rudra by means of his Maya -devAtmashakti, AmbaaL -, which is the start of being bound 'as a separate entity' (and an apparent multiplicity).

Then comes 4.10 and subsequent shlokas, which refer to the Deva spoken of throughout by some of his other personal names: as Maheshwara, Shiva, Ishana, and Rudra again. All Rudra-Shiva's names.

** mAyAM tu prakR^itim vidyAnmAyinaM cha maheshvaram | tasyAvayava-bhUtaistu vyAptaM sarvamidaM jagat || 4.10

One should know that Nature is surely Maya, and Maheshwara (Shiva) is the ruler of Maya to be sure. This whole universe is verily pervaded by what are his limbs.

yo yoniM yonimadhitiShThatyeko yasminnidam saM cha vi chaiti sarvam | tam-IshAnam varadaM devamIDyaM nichAyyemAM shAntimatyantameti || 4.11

By realising that undivided IshAna [=Shiva's name],

the controller who exists as the ruler in every Prakriti, into whom this universe enters and (from whom) it emerges diversely, who is benevolent, effulgent and adorable,

one attains this Peace absolutely.

4.12 then refers to Maheshwara/Ishana by his other name as Rudra, 4.13 looks to me like it's a vedasamhita mantram, but I could be totally wrong, in any case it mentions offering "haviShA" to said Devam.

4.14 refers to him by his other famous name, Shiva:

4.14: "One attains the acme of Peace by realising Shiva as subtler than the subtle, as existing in the midst of the inscrutable and the impenetrable (nescience), as the creator of the universe [as per Hindoo cosmology onlee, hence not to be confused with missionising religions], as having multifarious forms, and as the one all-encompassing Entity of the universe."

4.15 continues speaking of him as the one that the brahmarishis attained yuktam (union/translated as "identity"*) with, who is the one who "destroys the fetters of death", which is just an explication/repeat of the Sri Rudram.

[* Reminiscent of how "saMyuktam" is used, e.g. in ShAL, where traditional Hindoos IIRC translated it as meaning "oneness with" Shiva.]

4.16 Knowing Shiva as hidden in all beings like the very fine film that rises to the surface of clarified butter, and knowing the Devam who is the one all-encompassing Entity of the universe, one becomes free from all bondages:

dhR^itAt paraM maNDamivAti-sUkShmaM j~nAtvA shivaM sarvabhUteShu gUDham |

vishvasyaikaM pariveShTitAraM j~nAtvA devaM muchyate sarvapAshaiH || 4.16

[Basically, Shiva - the Devam who encompasses the Kosmos/All - exists in all as their very Self and by realising this AND by knowing ParamaShiva, one achieves mokSha.]

4.17 This self-effulgent Devam (the Hindoo Devam under discussion, i.e. Shiva aka Maheshwara aka Ishaana aka Rudra) whose work is the universe ("vishvakarma") and who is all pervasive, is revealed as the Witness through discriminating intelligence and through the knowledge of unity. Those who know this become immortal.

[I.e. ^that's *shruti* saying "need to realise the Hindoo Devam - Rudra - to become immortal" (and the Sri Rudram in the samhita part already said it, e.g. tryambaka mantram requests Rudra confer immortality and so does the final namaskaaram to Rudra in the Sri Rudram). Again, from the same authority, the Devam, Rudra aka Ishwara, is the purpose of sankhya-yoga, also seen in 6.13 - i.e. as per this pre-classical-Sankhya and pre-Buddhism/pre-Jainism, Vedic text on Yoga. It is also pre-Patanjali, though the question concerning Patanjali's Yogasutras is different: the question there is whether his YS is of the same tradition and views as this upaniShad=Veda or independent.]

Aside: 4.21 ~> dakShiNAmoorti. Related: see also Sri Rudram 10.10 परमे वृक्ष ... and of course 2.2. नमो वृक्षेभ्यो हरिकेशेभ्यः (पशूनां पतये नमः)

4.22 is a direct quote from Sri Rudram (YV samhita) again.

The Shv U covers the 5 defining acts of Parameshwara (Parabrahman): sriShTi, sthiti, samhAram, tirobhavam and anugraham. Specific to Hindoo cosmology.

The earlier-mentioned 6.13:

nityo nityAnAm chetanashchetanAnAmeko bahUnAM yo vidadhAti kAmAn |

tatkAraNam sA~Nkhya-yogAdhigamyaM j~NAtvA devaM muchyate sarvapAshaiH || 6.13

One becomes freed from all the bondages by knowing that Devam who is the Cause and who can be known through SA~Nkhya and Yoga, who--being the eternal among the eternal, the consciousness among the conscious--alone dispenses the desired objects to the many.

[Note again:

1. Shvetaashvatara Upanishad is Shruti. Can see how originally Sankhya and Yoga are tied to knowing that Devam (Ishwara aka Rudra);

2. Can see how Sankhya views were already common and Yoga was already practised among the theistic pre-classical Sankhyans of the Vedic religion, who adhered to Hindoo=theistic cosmology: since they weren't originally separate, not distinct darshanas.

The later, classical Sankhyans were not original, except in removing the cosmological part.]

5.13, 6.10 and especially 6.15 and 6.20 (the shlokas inbetween these last two being about Shiva and why the Hindoo/Hindoo Yogi seeks refuge in him: 6.18 literally says "sharaNam prapadye" toward the Devam=that Rudra) are about why there is no other path but through the Parameshwara that will allow one to attain immortality/bypass saMsAra and attain mokSha.* So yoga by necessity is associated with Parameshwara as per shruti (which would thus trump Patanjali were he not already an upholder of it), contrary to Elstian/alien/dabbling/new-ageist revisionism about what "IshwarapraNidhaana" can be made to mean.

* And although the same is already apparent in the Sri Rudram of the YV, this Shv upanishad - which quotes from it - explicates further on it/draws out the details, makes it all even more unavoidably apparent. (Not that Sri Rudram concealed the fact that Rudra is the Mahadeva, the Vishveshvara, Sarveshvara, the Sadaashiva, not to mention the Mrityunjaya. Which is why any HindOO who's never heard the vedam, nevertheless knows all this already, knowing the familiar personal names of his Divine Parents. Also the fact that the Sri Rudram contains namaskaaras to Rudra in the form of all the surrounding Hindoo-dom - humans, animals, plants, waters, everything - underlines the bit repeated in the Shv. U. on how Rudra is Paramaatman and Sarvaatman, in all beings.)

And 6.22 and 6.23 shows how none of Hindoo knowledge - including its practices like yoga but also its cosmological views - should be made available willy-nilly, and why they shouldn't be made available to aliens, dabblers, new-ageists incl Elst/Elstians: 'cause they will invariably subvert it. It's their thing.

This post contains shlokas and translations by traditional Hindus from the Shvetaashvatara Upanishad that is relevant to the previous post.

Except for my comments interspersed here and there, the rest of this post is actually relevant/non-spam.

Have deliberately not credited the laudable Hindoo publishers and translators of the book from which I stole the shlokas and translations above, because

1. Hindoos - who are the only ones who matter in this - will already be able to find it (or its equivalent) easily, if they don't already have such;

2. I don't care about anyone else other than Hindoos (well, making special exception for fellow heathens like Taoists, Shintos, Hellenes of ysee.gr etc)
Post 3/3

The previous 2 posts were relevant.

This post is my comments=spam, and only makes sense (if that) if read after the previous 2.

1. People can decide for themselves whether Patanjali's statement on 'Ishwarapranidhaana'

+ means what Elst and others "analysing" Hindoo texts want it to mean, OR

+ whether the phrase is stated - and thus to be understood - in the larger context of pre-existing Vedic works like the Shvetaashvatara Upanishad.

That is, people can decide whether Patanjali's Yogasutras are truly a standalone work (as it is increasingly presented as), or whether they're merely fleshing out in written detail aspects that were already long known by practitioners and thus form another part of the existing body of Hindoo heathen works, to complement what is already there in Shvetaashvatara and other upanishads mentioning Yoga like Pranayama etc, since Yoga and Sankhyam were clearly known to theistic Hindoos before the era of classical non-theistic Sankhyam.

And if it is complementary after all - as Hindoo tradition has upheld - then the reasoning behind the limited stress laid on "IshwarapraNidhAna" speaks for itself: as that part is well explained elsewhere (and quite literally so in the Sri Rudram), and no point repeating it and certainly no way of 'improving' on it either [whatever that could even mean].

2. There is no meaning to OM outside of Vedic religion. The other Indic religions have encroached on it and use it (e.g. like Jainism did with their mangled version of the Gayatri mantram, and on Bhur-Bhuvas-Suvah only to proclaim the superiority of their fictional backprojected 1st teerthankara in all lokas) - and the direction of how yoga came to be present in their religions is obvious when they use OM (ultimately makes as much sense for christoislam to randomly start using OM too) - but OM loses its meaning totally in all but Hindoo heathenism.

As can be seen even in the extracts from Shv Upanishad, but which is actually there in the Sri Rudram (IIRC in the central anuvaakam no less) the OM is intimately associated with Hindoo Cosmology (which IS theistic) - the Hindoo cosmology is unavoidable in the upanishad, as it actually repeatedly goes into the matter - and hence OM is a crucial part of the realisation* of the actual nature of puruSha that is in all jeevas, and which is but that one ParamapuruSha that constitutes everything. *By means of yoga to ensure this union/re-merger/realisation/whatever of the jeeva/pashu with the Paramapurusha/Pashupati.

To what extent could OM have any meaning in Patanjali's Yogasutras then, if it were not a continuation of the same? There is no OM - incl no meaning and no purpose to it - without the presupposition of Hindoo=heathen=theistic cosmology.

Also, yoga and OM are inextricably linked.

3. The Shvetaashwatara upanishad certainly (and repeatedly) describes yoga as the means of uniting the individual jeevas in manifestation with the Parameshwara. So, contrary to Elst's/Elstians' dismissal from assumed expertise, it is very true what Hindoos say, that yoga - as it exists in Hindoo cosmology - is a way for the ethnic HindOO to unite with its Parameshwara*, who is very much a Deva, as per the text itself. [Comparable to how ethnic Taoists have deep heathen practises to unite with their Gods/realise the Tao, be one with the Tao.]

* Words literally used in the text in the very context of dhyAna Yoga on Rudra-Shiva: yuktaH ("yogi"), yojanAt ("union with"). Etc. So Yoga does mean that - in shruti, which predates Patanjali (see also point 4 below).

And moreover, the Upanishad makes it clear that that Rudra-Shiva - the Devam, the Parameshwara - is the end/the aim of yoga (and actually even the means). Can contrast with Elst and other such condescendingly saying - via their conveniently-localised interpretations - that where yoga is concerned, theism can at best be a useful crutch for those so inclined.

And as for Elst's pointing to "kevala" as the goal of Patanjali's yoga and that this must be different from what the Hindoo heathens claim with yoga meaning union/unification with Bhagavaan:

Shloka 1.11 of the Shv U - already quoted in above - shows how the notion of kaivalya is tied into the yogi doing dhyaanam on Rudra:

From meditation on Him=Rudra ("abhidhyAnAt tasya") there accrues, on the fall of the body, the third, the full divine power. (And) he [=the one doing dhyanayoga on Rudra-Shiva] becomes absolute ["kevalaH"]* and self-fulfilled [AptakAmaH].

* Elsewhere, Hindoo texts translate kevala as "singular" (where Ishwara refers to himself as Kevala, which definition of singularity follows from the Sri Rudram and Shv U), as this IS the state of the Rudra-Shiva. Since Rudra is (in) the Self of all his Pashus - being the Sarvaatman - kevala becomes the state of the unfettered jeevaatman when it is unified with/merged into/otherwise united (by means of yoga, union) with Rudra once more.

Again: as per the Upanishad=shruti, dhyanam (yoga) is tied only via Rudra to the achievement of kevala and Aptakaama. Therefore, there is indeed a direct connection between yoga meaning union with Shiva and kevala as the result (in advaita this might be closer to the sense of having lost multiplicity by a more literal oneness with Shiva leading to singularity, to dvaitam where jeevas might retain distinction but now as perfected beings in company with their Devam - which is also a unification).

4. Pre-emptively, in case Elst/other anal-yzers of this type will next pretend that the Shvetaasvatara Upanishad is post-Patanjali's YS:

Elst etc pretended that the Gita postdates classical Sankhyam, whereas native Hindoo scholarship had decades before already proved that theistic Sankhyam from the Vedas (the Upanishads) to the MBh - including Gita, note - predates the classical non-theist kind.

ShvetAshvatara Upanishad is before MBh (incl Gita) too. The Upanishad is factually older than both the YS and classical Sankhya. It's not even a question*. The Shv upanishad has shlokas that the Bhagavad Gita is to have quoted from, and has shlokas apparently referenced by the BrahmaSutras. <- As per acharyas' commentary, I didn't do the cross-referencing.

* "Argument From Enemy" (not a fallacy, but rather: "look, even people I can't stand accidentally agree, since it's factual/unavoidable") -

Even that other dabbler - that other IE-ist, Victor Mair, regularly seen parasiting on Chinese (Taoist) civilisation - IIRC referred to Shvetaashvatara Upanishad's line of questioning for authority of ancient "IE" originality/uniqueness, when Mair was trying to illegally encroach on ancient (pre-Buddhist) Chinese civilisation using the Shv U.

No one - except those hoping to hijack Sankhyam and Yoga from its theistic origins - will pretend that Shvetaashvatara Upanishad (and it isn't the only one that referred to or briefly described yoga) comes after Buddhism/Jainism/etc or classical Sankhyam.

5. The necessary disclaimer:

The previous post was not to peddle Advaita or all Vedanta or Upanishads to all and sundry.* I only use such texts to mine supporting evidence from (to find out how blatantly subversionists, unHindus and anti-Hindus lie), and not to dabble in them, obviously. [* Hindoos already know all about their Divine Parents=the Hindoo Gods=Vedam, at times first-hand.]

I prefer to use evidence from stotras (which already distill the vedam, as far as I can tell) to make my point, but in this case that wasn't allowed: Elst had declared in his typical know-it-all fashion that Patanjali's Yogasutras were to have been hijacked by theistic Hindus who then supposedly "read" their Ishwara/Shiva into Yoga's purpose - see Elst's comment on Patanjali's "true" intention behind the latter's use of "IshwarapraNidhAna" - and that said Hindoos eclipsed the "real" atheistic purpose of the YS.

And that's exactly why theistic HindOO primary texts predating YS were called for (and what could be better than shruti, nah?) to make the point for the validity of Hindoos' views on the purpose of Yoga and how this is indeed tied to Shiva-Ishwara, and hence - from the Hindoo/shruti POV - is no mere definition left 'open to interpretation', as Elst-types would have it. Though the connection from Shv. U. to Patanjali's YS - "if any" - is left as an exercise, there's a reason that the ancestral heathen tradition of the Hindoos repeatedly makes the connection.

Disclaimer 2: while the advaita POV is strongly present in the upanishad, that is not at all the only Vedantic POV on it, since the other two are equally supported by the same verses (as Experts have stated, and as is often very obvious actually). Nor is advaitam the only POV on Vedanta in Shaivam in general. (E.g. the Pashupatas are IIRC said to have been dvaitins. Confirmed. Shv Upanishad seems to have been been a core scripture for the Paashupatas, which shows that dvaita POV on the same upanishad is just as valid and authoritative.)

But Advaita is the only Vedantic POV that gets hijacked - which is the correct word - by today's 'atheist and agnostic Hindus'. (The other two perspectives on Vedanta being too obviously theistic.) So it is useful to show how even the Advaitins' POV on this upanishad does not deny the theism: it cannot and will not de-emphasize Rudra. Then again, none of the expert advaitin successors of Adi Shankaracharya ever de-recognise the HindOO Gods (e.g. see Swami Swaroopaananda upholding Rama/Krishna); it's only new-ageist inexpert frauds/selfmade 'authorities' and jetsetting swamis who do. But then, [focus on] the upanishads are for Sannyasins, not for new-ageists and universalising peddlers.

In traditional Advaitam even that of the Adi Shankaracharya, there is no escaping the Parameshwara, so none of the proponents ever even bother denying it, since Parameshwara underpins their POV*. As the Paramaatman does the other Vedantic POVs. [* Advaitam views the Paramaatman like the...Tao: the all that is and can be, the only 'constituent' there is.]

6. Rudra Hrudayopanishad equates Uma-Shiva with Lakshmi-Vishnu and Saraswati-Brahma etc. And this is repeatedly upheld.

The Divine Parents of the ethnic Hindoos are factually their Divine Parents. (<- Uh that sentence sounded like "A=A", "A is indeed A onlee".) So what has been said here about (Uma-)Shiva - though sounding "unique" - is actually not exclusivist, and hence not denied of the other Hindoo Gods.

Also seen in the Shivalingam=UmaShiva being the trimoorti (wives included), and actually sarva devataaH (wives included in the very term) and being factually the All. Further, Shv U shloka 2.17 - which was a variant of the one in Sri Rudram - mentions him as being not only in all kinds of Oshadhi, but also embodied in all trees, with the Vanaspati=Ashvattha Vriksha mentioned in this particular shloka (though Rudram already mentioned all VrikShas as being/embodying Shiva too). All Hindoos know the Ashvattha Vriksha (which is also Vishnu) to be an equivalent of the Shivalingam: being the trimoorti and sarvadevaaH.

Just like the Gita, the Shv U is talking of Hindoo cosmology, hence its focus on the primordial case/state - what* everything resolves to. *Or rather "who"/Entity in Hindoo heathenism - explained as the Consciousness that gave rise to the All (including individual consciousnesses). What"/what-ness is closer to Taoism, though the Tao is also very much the source of consciousness and has to be so itself in order to give rise to Gods who are conscious, and to then give rise to the All of the Daoist Cosmos which includes all sentients/life. But the Tao is still not a 'person'/a being/a "who". For the unembodied undivided primordial Tao, What-ness is the better description.

(Then again, "that"/that-ness is used for Brahman too. So not unique to the Tao that pervades all.)

7. Traditional Hindoos from northern and southern climes have stated consistently for centuries (to the present) that the stotram from which the following shloka is taken is from the Agamic text SRY. (IIRC the current text of the RY doesn't contain it any more, and instead has lots of nonsense Buddhisms involving even the poor Chinese, which shows late Buddhist mangling of Hindoo texts.) The following shloka is meditated upon by Hindoos even without the rest of the stotram, but the entire stotram is of course concerned with the entire beeja mantram of Shiva (Ayyappa's beeja mantram is identical to that of his Father: he takes after both his parents, naturally, both Mohini Amman and Shiva. E.g. Ayyappa often wears the naamam just like his parent Vishnu).

ओङ्करं बिन्दु संयुक्तं नित्यं ध्यायन्ति योगिनः ।

कामदं मोक्षदं चैव ओङ्काराय नमो नमः ॥ १

ஓங்கரம் பி³ந்து³ ஸம்யுக்தம் நித்யம் த்⁴யாயந்தி யோகி³நஃ ।

காமத³ம் மோக்ஷத³ம் சைவ ஓங்காராய நமோ நமஃ ॥ १

(Note how it is about Uma-Shiva united (=O~Nkaram-bindu samyuktam), which yogis ever do dhyanam upon, and which gives bhukti and mukti.)

Here, from a translation of this shloka to Shiva:

Quote:This first shloka ... is also known as the OMkaara dhyaanam.

The great yogis meditate upon the praNava mantram "Aum", united with central Bindu. I offer my worship to that state of OMkaara that fulfills all desires and bestows Moksha. Note that the Central Bindu in "Aum" is the sacred dot and denotes Shakti: the Divine Mother (Uma) is that dot and Shiva is the father in the form of the sound of "Aum".

(In the 6 shlokas of the stotram, 5 of them largely parrot the Shv U. The other one parrots the Sri Rudram and other Hindoo texts.)

The previous 2 posts were relevant.

This post is my comments=spam, and only makes sense (if that) if read after the previous 2.
Post 4/4


1. Actually related to previous posts.


Quote:Mantra 1

नमस्सोमाय च रुद्राय च ।


सोमाय च- To One with Uma, रुद्राय च- to Parameswara, who relieves one of the misery of samsara, नमः- prostration.


In this eighth Anuvakam, Sri Parameswara is adored through 17 internal mantras, establishing that he is to be adored by all, bringing out some of his qualities and stating that he is the indwelling soul of all creation.

The term 'Rudra' shows that Parameswara alone is capable of removing the misery of samsara. रुतं संसारदुःखं द्रावयतीति रुद्रः- Further, Svetasvatara Upanishad states that relief from the misery of samsara will result only from knowledge of Sri Parameswara.

"यदा चर्मवदाकाशं वेष्टयिष्यन्ति मानवाः ।

तदा शिवमविज्ञाय दुःखस्यान्तो भविष्यति ॥"

"When men roll the sky like a piece of skin, it is only then that reief from the misery of samsara will result without knowing Siva." The import is that just as sky can never be rolled, it is impossible to get relief from the troubles of samsara without the knowledge of Siva.

In order to establish that Parameswara's greatness in such removal of the misery of samsara is only due to his being together with Uma, the term 'सोमाय' has been used in conjunction. In the word 'Uma', the letters of Pranava (Om) are interchanged. The meaning of the word 'Uma' is same as that of Pranava, viz. Parsasakti. The resident Devata of Brahmavidya is the power of Sri Parameswara alone, called 'Parasakti' and 'Chichchakti'. It is therefore clear that Parameswara, in association with that Sakti, bestows Atmagnanam and relieves the devotee from the misery of samsara. Passages of Svetasvatara Upanishad like 'ते ध्यानयोगानुगता अपश्यन् देवात्मशक्तिं स्वगुणैर्निगूढाम्' make it clear that Atmagnanam was attained by Maharishis only through the grace of Uma. This has also been referred in detail in Talavakara Upanishad, Sivapuranam, Kurmapuranam etc. That is why it is stated in the passage of Kaivalyopanishad,

'उमासहायं परमेश्वरं प्रभुं त्रिलोचनं नीलकण्ठं प्रशान्तम् ।

ध्यात्वा मुनिर्गच्छति भूतयोनिं समस्तसाक्षिं तमसः परस्तात् ॥'

and in passages from Puranas like

'पार्वती परमा देवी ब्रह्मविद्याप्रदायिनी ।

तस्मात्सह तया शक्त्या हृदि पश्यन्ति ये शिवम् ।

तेषां शाश्वतिकी सिद्धिर्नेतरेषामिति श्रुतिः ।'

that Parameswara is able to grant Moksha only because he is with Uma.

Parameshwara - the Ambikapati, Umapati - is forever with Uma. There is no universe where this is not true.

2. This is for the sake of it:


Quote:Mantra 5

नमो अग्रेवधाय च दूरेवधाय च ।


अग्रेवधाय च- To one who stands ahead of his devotees in the battlefield and kills the enemies, दूरेवधाय च- to one who destroys the strength, valour etc. of the enemies of devotees, who are at a great distance, even before commencement of battle.

That he fights the battle standing ahead of his devotees is described as under by Arjuna in Mahabharata in Drona Parva.

"संग्रामे शास्त्रवानीकं शरौघैर्विमृदन्नहम् ।

अग्रतो लक्षये यान्तं पुरुषं पावकप्रभम् ।।

ज्वलन्तं शूलमुद्यम्य यां दिशं प्रतिपद्यते ।

तस्यां दिशि विशीर्यन्ते शत्रवो मे महामते ॥

ततो दग्धानरीन् सर्वान् पृष्टतोनुदहाम्यहम् ।

तेन भग्नानरिगणान् मद्भग्नान्मन्यते जनः ॥"

"While felling the enemies with arrows in the battlefield, I find a Person standing ahead of me. He is brilliant like Agni, with a Trisula in the hand. In whichever direction he goes, my enemies in that direction are burnt and killed by him. I follow him and attack the same persons, who have already been attacked by him. Onlookers are unaware of this truth and think that my enemies have indeed been attacked and felled by me.

That Sri Parameswara drains away the strength etc. of the distant enemies even before commencement of battle has also been stated by Sri Krishna to Arjuna in Santhi Parva in Mokshadharma Prakaranam.

"यस्तु तेह्यग्रतो याति युद्धे संप्रत्युपस्थिते ।

तं विद्धि रुद्रं कौन्तेय.................. and

निहतान् तेन वै पूर्वं हतवानसि वै रिपून् ।

अप्रमेयप्रभावं तं देवदेवमुमापतिम् ।

भजस्व प्रयतो नित्यं विश्वेशं हरमव्ययम् ॥"

"Arjuna! Know that the person whom you saw going in front of you during the war is Rudra. You killed those enemies whom he initially attacked and killed. Hence adore with a controlled mind, that Umapati, Devadeva, of immeasurable greatness, Lord of the universe, the Changeless."

With the view that he and Parameswara are the same, Gitacharya states in the Gita 'मयैवैते निहताः पूर्वमेव', i.e. these enemies were killed by me alone earlier. Hence there is no conflict between his statements in Mokshadharma and Gita.

The import of this mantra is that as Parameswara alone is the cause of victory, those desirous of victory should worship Sri Parameswara alone.

More proof that MBH=Vedam onlee. Not "secular" "all-Indian" "heritage" "universal" "museum" - "please come dabble" - literature.
Deleted duplicate

Instead of wasting this post for having been an accidental duplicate, here is

Sri Krishna on the complicated subtleties of Dharma:


Quote:'Arjuna said, "Tell me, O holy one, this story that I may understand it, viz., this illustration about Valaka and about Kausika (living) among rivers."

"'Vasudeva said, "There was a certain hunter of animals, O Bharata, of the name of Valaka. He used, for the livelihood of his son and wives and not from will, to slay animals. Devoted to the duties of his own order and always speaking the truth and never harbouring malice, he used also to support his parents and others that depended upon him. One day, searching for animals even with perseverance and care, he found none. At last he saw a beast of prey whose sense of smell supplied the defect of his eyes, employed in drinking water. Although he had never seen such an animal before, still he slew it immediately. After the slaughter of that blind beast, a floral shower fell from the skies (upon the head of the hunter). A celestial car also, exceedingly delightful and resounding with the songs of Apsaras and the music of their instruments, came from heaven for taking away that hunter of animals. That beast of prey, having undergone ascetic austerities, had obtained a boon and had become the cause of the destruction of all creatures. For this reason he was made blind by the Self-born. Having slain that animal which had resolved to slay all creatures, Valaka went to heaven. Morality is even so difficult of being understood.

There was an ascetic of the name of Kausika without much knowledge of the scriptures. [Not to be confused with the Rishi Kaushika, obviously.] He lived in a spot much removed from a village, at a point where many rivers met. He made a vow, saying, 'I must always speak the truth.' He then became celebrated, O Dhananjaya, as a speaker of truth. At that time certain persons, from fear of robbers, entered that wood (where Kausika dwelt). Thither even, the robbers, filled with rage, searched for them carefully. Approaching Kausika then, that speaker of truth, they asked him saying, 'O holy one, by which path have a multitude of men gone a little while before? Asked in the name of Truth, answer us. If thou hast seen them, tell us this'. Thus adjured, Kausika told them the truth, saying, 'Those men have entered this wood crowded with many trees and creepers and plants'. Even thus, O Partha, did Kausika give them the information. Then those cruel men, it is heard, finding out the persons they sought, slew them all. In consequence of that great sin consisting in the words spoken, Kausika, ignorant of the subtilities of morality, fell into a grievous hell, even as a foolish man, of little knowledge, and unacquainted with the distinctions of morality, falleth into painful hell by not having asked persons of age for the solution of his doubts. There must be some indications for distinguishing virtue from sin. Sometimes that high and unattainable knowledge may be had by the exercise of reason. Many persons say, on the one hand, that the scriptures indicate morality. I do not contradict this. The scriptures, however, do not provide for every case. For the growth of creatures have precepts of morality been declared. That which is connected with inoffensiveness is religion. Dharma protects and preserves the people. So it is the conclusion of the Pandits that what maintains is Dharma. O Partha, I have narrated to you the signs and indications of Dharma.

So concealing vital information/uttering untruth to preserve innocent heathens from certain violence/destruction is not against Dharma. (But deceiving oneself that convenient lying is for some greater good is not the same. Obviously.)

But carriers of memetic diseases - like the missionary mindviruses - can't be classed in here (as "innocents" deserving of any protection; carriers are timebombs waiting to go off. And they always go off - either they do or their progeny does). <- Stating this pre-emptively: else communist hysterians (and western indologists "Vedicists", also always bringing up how being more honest about the christoislamic brutality against Hindus in Indian history may result in awareness that causes violence against their poor islamaniac friends infesting India)

Again: else the conscious and compulsive lying by communist hysterians and aliens - pretending to sympathise with (christo)islamics in India, but who actually merely want to skuttle a heathen India to control the nation themselves, even via increasing the numerical strength of their monotheist proxy incl christo-conditioning in the country - by their re-writing Indian history=lying to project some christoislamic "syncretism/composite culture" with Hindu religion and thus concealing the reality of genocide and the Replacement Theology agenda

- all such lying by the demonic opportunists would then be argued as also counting as "Dharma" too. Which it specifically isn't, and is factually adharma.

Such communist and alien lying is nothing more than an excuse to screen and continue the brutal christoislamaniac genocide of Hindoos, to blinker Hindus - by means of miseducation and creating amnesia about the past - into not waking up to the ongoing threat.

Protecting christoislamania and its carriers by lying about Indian history (or even for any reason at all) is not Dharma. Christoislamania/the christoclass mindvirus deserves to get booted out of all heathen nations and in fact the entire world.* Either by means of de-programming the zombies or - in cases where that can't be achieved - heathens have to decide whether they want to survive themselves or let the implacable mindvirus survive, since the mindvirus never entertains the possibility of letting a heathen nation remain heathen or remain unencumbered by christoclass conspiring.

* That is Dharma. E.g. because native Americans did not initially want to kick out the christos from Americas (but took pity on them and fed them when the settler demons were starving) and therefore were not able to expel them anymore later on, the native American heathens got genocided. Since dharma is what preserves [worthwhile] people as per Sri Krishna in MBh, we can see that adharma had taken hold of the Americas. And this adharma - having taken possession of the Americas - continues to emanate from there and throttle other heathen countries (e.g enslaved Africa, and today attacking Hindu India etc). Native Americans did not know enough at an early stage about the true nature of the christianised zombies to nip this great criminality - christianism/christoclass virus - in the bud.

It's not their fault: the Romans and Greeks also only realised too late the true nature of christianism and the imperative to destroy it. Modern 'Hindu nationalists' on the other hand don't really want to take advantage of hindsight (until it's too late of course) - don't want to learn from the unfortunate experience of other heathens and their nations that preceded us - and also lack foresight, so now India is repeating other people's mistakes consciously for the most part (or via willful ignorance), which has resulted in the deluge that's gathering and surrounding the heathen nation.
1. Some obvious problems in this next article. Or rather, the problem's with the author's POV that, like many modern 'Hindu' nationalists, makes equidistant and equalises all ancient Indic perspectives. In this case, the author actually presents Adi Shankara as being as equidistant from the Vedas as the Charvakas (no wonder then that everyone else is bleating that Buddhism is the same as Hindoos' heathenism, or at the very least the Vedanta part).


But best of all is that not one but two people didn't roll over (out of ~20+ or so, with the rest applauding, but can't win everything), but instead commented with their disagreement. Hardly dare pinch myself. 'Cause websurfing 'Hindus' are usually total shove-overs.

Some resistance at last.

The dissenting comments:


vaijayanthi a month ago

Perhaps you have chosen a style that would make Sankara sound appealing to modern minds or actually I don't want to even get into it. I am not sure this is the right introduction to Sankara for those who don't him. Two points I want to make - in a free flowing style you have just made a sweeping statement dragging Sri Krishna in to the picture to show Vedas are not infallible. There is no questioning the Pramanas and with reference to Sankara it is only an issue of if Karma Kanda is to be followed or not. (And even then, wouldn't any such conclusions on the Karma Kandam only be applicable to sannyasis? Plus didn't the Gita say renunciation is of the phalam not karma - or something?) That is left to experts to debate. Later to bring in Caravakas to "lambast the Vedas"? What else does one expect of Caravakas, and how on earth their non-theistic school and Sankara's theistic school both the be "dealing Vedas with impunity"?

And this:

Quote:Sharan Sharma a month ago

Am sorry to be critical - but am not sure where this article is positioned

1) The title talks of why we should venerate sri bhagvatpAda but a big

chunk is devoted to lambasting rituals and trying to propagate a

'rational' mindset.

It is the same sankarAchArya who said vedOnityamadhiyatAm (study the veda daily). Across our shastrAs, whenever a (supposed) anti-ritual stand is adopted, the context is a philosophical karma vs jnana debate vis-a-vis mokSa; nothing really changes from a practical/daily life point of view. In fact, in the sAnkara sAmpradAya, your access to vEdAnta is barred until you've been punctilious with your ordained rituals.


It is probably very fashionable to talk about how 'rational' our

dharma/saints/philosophers are - yes, but let's not throw the baby with

the bathwater. Cherry-picking verses is not helping. It's giving the

wrong impression - comparing the guru's statements to what chArvakAs say is especially ludicrous.

(To blame are all the countless universalising Indic types seen on the web, all going by the "Hindu/Hindu nationalist" tag: the ones who declare there is no such thing as a distinct Hindoo heathenism and equate it with Buddhisms and Jainisms and increasingly with the Charvakas (and then deliberately conflate Charvaka with modern day plain vanilla atheism or even communism and pseudo-'rationalism'). All in order to declare that it is all one Indic 'civilisation' or 'Dharma', which modern "rationalists" (misnomer), to whom heathenism doesn't compute, can still feel they have a right to claim. <- And that is the *only* reason that Hindoos' heathenism=SD/Vedic Religion/Hinduism/etc is being conflated with Buddhism/Jainism/current Sikhism/Charvaka etc.

Sadly for the de-heathenised who want to piggyback on Vedic religion and its inextricable cultural and civilisational expressions by claiming the now-generalised Hindu tag, heathenism is lost to them. They're just wandering post-Hindus, pretending they're a natural product of something - the ancestral heathenism of the subcontinent - that ceased to have any connection to or continuation in them.

De-heathenised should move on. They have no claims on Hindoo-dom anymore. And I doubt Jains or Buddhists want de-heathenised/post-Hindus to similarly parasite on=subvert Jainism and Buddhism either, via the universalising equations.)

2) "his ideas draw upon human experience and not belief"

This is wrong. The starting point is belief in the infallibility of the vEda. vEdic statements are taken to be axiomatic but which need to be properly interpreted and validated through personal experience. Experience and belief and not contradictory as portrayed here.

(W.r.t. the usage of the word "belief" in the above, I think the above means the infallibility is assumed by traditionalists when they're starting off, who then go on to prove it for themselves (?))

3) Finally, this: "The golden age that we must go back to, is not one of flying machines, test tube babies and nuclear technology". It's irksome when the outlier case of 'flying machines' is brought up time and again without context - proof that we seem to have bought into the mainstream media's shrill campaign. Surely, we can be proud of our scientific achievements - there's a huge amount to talk about and research there - "flying machines" is just one insignificant data point (re: Sri Roddam Narasimha's editorial in Current Science, 25/02/2015). Bringing this up here without context is doing great disservice to ancient Indian thought.

Again, sorry for being critical but i strongly feel for these points.

Then some obvious modern new ageist responded to the above with:

Quote: Indian > Sharan Sharma a month ago

The point is that Sanatana Dharma is not just Vedanta. The Charvakas, Mimamsakas and Samkhyas were also "Hindu" but were atheist. Some sects accepted the Brhman but denounced the Vedas. So, you see; dogmatism is not, and should never be a part of our culture. This piece is wonderful, in that it shows the true liberalism of Hindu culture, you can be a Hindu without believing in any God.


Quote: Sharan Sharma > Indian a month ago

The title of the article is "why India must celebrate Shankara". What has atheism or vEda-bashing got to do with bhagvatpAda? Nothing.

If you want to celebrate atheism or anti-vEdic thinking, another post would be totally appropriate. Invoking the great AchArya's name in the discussion is a sign of muddled thinking or trying to find favor with the modern Joneses.

(and, no - mImAmsakAs are not atheistic and no AstIka darsana denounces the vEda)
[INSERT aside: Just recently chanced upon another article - also at IIRC swarajyamag, not sure when it was written - which was by some team of writers and which declared that Advaita was an agnosticism. Huh? Did they even run this opinion by actual advaitins? I don't mean the mass-proliferating new-agey kind, obviously, but the established, authentic ones.

Agnostic and atheist "Hindus" are totally pulling a replacement theology on Hindoo heathenism.]

Contrary to modern "Indic universalists" (=mostly agnostic/atheist Indians who peddle the novelty that 'all Indic religions are one' and do so for pillaging and piggybacking purposes), there is a *world* of difference between the soteriological atheism of classical Sankhya (the soteriological part being inherited from pre-classical sankhyam) and the atheism of Charvakas, whose movement wanted to eradicate considerations of any afterlife including the samsaara framework.

I'd also never originally heard - not before IF, I should say - that Meemaamsa was an atheism. I only ever heard that the distinction was that for them (well, definitely for the later kind that was classed as its own darshana in the more uh classical period, can't swear to what went before*) Ishwara was not the one who ensured the phalam of the veda karmas, but that the Meemaamsakas rather held that the phalam was inevitably accrued from correct performance. Whereas Vedanta - and all other theistic Vaidika=Hindoo branches** (which also included Vedic ritualists, of course) - was to have held that Ishwara was the bestower of the karma phalam (starting with vedic karmans).

* Possibly relevant - or not - is a translation of the Aditya Hrudayam in my possession. Need to look up.

** <snipped and replaced with links below>

E.g. Darukavana narrative. Refer to, in conjunction:

- 1st paragraph of gkamesh.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/darukavana-himalaya/

- chidambaram.rajadeekshithar.com/temple_mahatmyam.htm

2. The author of the swarajyamag article is one of those types that once they learn Skt they feel expert enough to lecture on more than the lingo. If this had been a language well-known to people today, no one would take his pretence at expertise on the materials he discusses seriously. But - like a certain class of Classicists do - they take advantage of the fact that they have learnt a little of something that others have not, but then use it to interject their own views and deny tradition.

He's also an IE-ist, IIRC. Goes together, doesn't it?


Anyway, by accident the same author did provide some useful bits. But no credit to him except as a translator (besides, can find enough of those - and better - among traditionalists). That is, in spite of him and solely because of the authenticity of the original the following still comes out meaningful, but his bridging statement is typically distracting:


Quote:“मातः!” “किं यदुनाथ?” “देहि चषकं” “किं तेन” “पातुं पयः”

“तन्नास्त्यद्य” “कदास्ति वा?” “निशि” “निशा का?” “वाऽन्धकारोदयः”।

आमील्याक्षियुगं निशाप्युपगता देहीतिमातुर्मुहुः

वक्षोजांशुककर्षणोद्यतकरः कृष्णस्स पुष्णातु नः ॥

“Mother!” “What is it, Krishna?”

“Give me a cup” “Why?” “I want to drink milk”

“No drinking milk now.” “Then when?” “At night”

“What is night?” “When it’s dark”

Krishna then closed his eyes and demanded

“It’s now night. Give it now, give me, give!”

while pulling at Yashoda’s garment.

May this Krishna nourish us all.

(Līlāśuka’s śrīkṛṣṇakarṇāmṛtaṁ)

(Magnificent double meaning. But also good is to recall how Hindoos' heathenism was a lived religion, a live one, in Leelaashuka's time, as it was still until more recently, as it remains still in some ever-dwindling pockets untouched by the gangrene which hasn't reached these yet.)

रामो नाम बभूव हुं तदबला सीतेति हुं तां पितुर्

वाचा पञ्चवटीतटे विहरतस्तस्याहरद्रावणः ।

निद्रार्थं जननीकथामिति हरे हुंकारतः शृण्वतः

सौमित्रे क्व धनुर्धनुर्धनुरिति व्यग्रा गिरः पान्तु वः ||

“Once upon a time there was Rāma” “hmmm”

“Sītā was his wife” “hmmm”

“In the forest, Rāvana kidnapped Sīta”

The sleepy Krishna listening to his bed time story,

Suddenly shouted—

“Lakshmaṇa, where is my bow! my bow! my bow!”

May his alarmed words protect you.

There is yet another verse in which the sleeping Krishna fancies himself as Vishnu:

(Uh, he doesn't fancy himself as Vishnu. [And I could be totally wrong, but it looks like even the previous shloka refers to Krishna as Hari in the line where he's listening to his mother's narration of the Ramayanam, and where he is himself uttering auspicious humkaaras while drifting off, just before that line where he - ('accidentally'?) in Rama mode - calls out to the Soumitra.]

But it's illegal now to observe so, since Elst/Elstians/similar-sounding will threaten how their anal-ysis knows better*, and everyone else - those following tradition - are merely deluding themselves.

* Of course, all such should hold to this forever, and be made to forever hold to it too; and all their progeny, for all time to come. Backpeddling being utterly disallowed. There is something immensely satisfying about knowing that works like the above by Leelaashuka etc is permanently out of bounds for these people, and that they should know in themselves that encroaching and poaching on such is not allowed them.

Anyway, statements like "Krishna fancies himself as Vishnu" - no, at most it's his mother who infers that this ('fancying'/delusions of grandeur) is what the little Yadunaatha is doing while napping - is what the future state of so-called 'Hindus' is going to be like: people for whom traditional views don't compute but militate with their own tendencies~>conclusions, and their own interpretations is what they will be passing on. At most they think it's all 'quaint' and amusing - like aliens looking in - which condescension is not even accepted from non-Indian aliens. I don't know why modern 'Hindus' even bother. Gangrene.)

शंभो स्वागतमास्यतामितयितो वामेन पद्मासन

क्रौञ्चारे कुशलं सुखं सुरपते वित्तेश नो दृश्यसे।

इत्थं स्वप्नगतस्य कैटभजितः श्रुत्वा यशोदा गिरः

किं किं बालक जल्पसीति रचितं धूधूकृतं पातु नः ॥

“Shambhu, Welcome! Please sit down”

“Brahma! Come here to the left”

“Subrahmanya! Is all well?”

“Indra! Everything good?”

“Kubera! You haven’t been around”

Hearing this prattle of the sleeping Krishna, Yashoda thought

“What all this boy says!”

And chanted dhoo-dhoo to ward off evil spirits.

May it protect you too.

(Leelashuka could have mentioned the first-line as "Dear brother-in-law (Shambhu)...". Would make it even funnier/more endearing.

Isn't it 'long time no see/haven't seen you in a while' (to the Vittesha)? Am only guessing, of course, being utterly unfamiliar with Skt.)

That the shlokas are wonderful goes without saying.

But modern 'Hindus' (de-heathenising/de-heathenised) are such failures. Failed heathens. Post-Hindus.

I don't know why they don't own it to themselves, stop encroaching (by finally cutting all ties and stop pretending there are any) and move on. If only they did that, they wouldn't be gangrene, wouldn't be a danger to heathenism, as they will stop circulating their subverted and subversionist selves in heathen=Hindoo matters and among Hindoos.
1. Forgot to archive the following retweeted by Rajeev Srinivasa (who spells his name in the attractive Malayali script now).


Quote:Internet Hindoo !


Internet Hindoo ! retweeted Firstpost

Dear @firstpost it's media who is bringing politics and religion into yoga. Promote yoga & c how public embraces it.

Internet Hindoo ! added,

Quote:Firstpost @firstpost

Dear @narendramodi ,Don't take yoga out of schools. Take religion and politics out of yoga.






Kamlesh Gupta

S V K Swamy

Bimal Pr. Mohapatra




sampada nakhare

Avinash Saxena


8:52 AM - 4 Jun 2015

Good grief, someone calling itself an internet "Hindoo" stated the above.

And was retweeted and favourited by 47 and 16 people respectively. :foreboding:

Fortunately, someone else issued a necessary warning, also retweeted by Rajeev Srinivasan:


Quote:Sankrant Sanu सानु


Sankrant Sanu सानु retweeted Internet Hindoo !

De-Hinduizing Yoga has become important for its appropriation while denigrating and killing its Hindu roots.

Sankrant Sanu सानु added,

Quote:Internet Hindoo ! @DrShobha

Dear @firstpost it's media who is bringing politics and religion into yoga. Promote yoga & c how public embraces it. https://twitter.com/firstpost/status/606444345068101632 …





omprakash sharma

Atul Pratap Agrahari

tapan p

Swadeshi Vichaar

Pratima Sharma



Govind Nishar

Avinash M

9:12 AM - 4 Jun 2015

At least more (retweets and) favourites. Retweets are not always endorsements, as seen in Rajeev having retweeted both, probably to raise awareness of the bad arguments of internet Yindoo and tie it back to Sanu's warning. But the number of times each tweet was favourited do count as endorsements of the views articulated.

So: is that ratio - of those who endorsed the Internet Yindoo vs those that endorsed the warning sounded by Sankrant Sanu - indicative of the proportion of self-deluded "Hindu nationalist" vocalist Indians on twitter vs those that are more aware? <- Because such a disparity would be just among "Hindu nationalists" note, not even including every class of anti-Hindus. Yikes.

Universalising Hindoos' heathenism was always offensive and always did bode ill.

Internet Yindoo's offspring are going to see very dark days. They should blame the likes of her for making it possible, for *arguing* for it. No cure for stupidity, it's always suicidal.

2. Archiving relevant link:


The rest of the piece is worth looking over, but this bit is a good summary:

Quote:Nearly 80% of the Dalit population come from 10 Indian states. Of these Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal account for more than 30% of the Dalit population. In the case of Uttar Pradesh, over 75% of the Dalit communities consume meat but discourage beef eating. Nearly 20% encourage vegetarianism. However, fewer communities in West Bengal are into vegetarianism (around 5%). There, around 80% Dalit communities are meat eating but discourage beef.
Well of course. It's clear that the ones that don't eat beef are HindOOs, the rest are christians and christo-conditioned (aka neo-Buddhists/Ambedkarites). Don't know why people keep lumping the Hindoos (Harijan) with those who call themselves "Dalits", which last are exclusively christoislamicommunists and neo-Buddhists (who also belong under christianism).

Among Indic types, Buddhists are known beef eaters: beef was not disapproved by Buddhism. In SL, some Buddhist monks have recently started to agitate against harming cows/against beef eating, but that is from Hindu influence which has influenced SL Buddhism in many ways and continues to, but historically SL Buddhism and general Buddhism in India approved of beef even for the monkhood and definitely for the laity. When Mahayana came along in time it did a blanket ban on all meat, but nothing peculiarly against beef. <= More proof that Hindoo communities who get lumped with christoislamics under the "dalit" label were never historically "Buddhist", but were always Hindoos. And the fact that many are vegetarian and become vegetarian is more proof of what Elst etc called "self-Sanskritization" - but which is merely the innate Hindoo heathenism in these Hindu heathens developing naturally, as it does in other Hindoos.

Many Hindoos of Harijan communities are hyper-heathens. They are often the last bastion of loyalty to heathendom. One comment at HaindavaKeralam or some news site mentioned that an affluent Hindoo Harijan had donated lakhs or crores to protect his local temple and the poojaris from takeover. They have a profound love and attachment to the Gods that - in English - is comparable only to that of Emperor Julian.

I've seen far more traitors of my own background, who when faced with subversion, become more subversionist and more dangerous and scary than anyone else. There's a fickleness and a pettyness to some of these (not all, others are as loyal as the most loyal Harijan Hindoos, being all Hindoos alike).

Insubvertibility - from which follows loyalty - is a great and, as I see now, a very rare thing. I often find myself thinking increasingly of my own personal hero among the "Hindu" voices heard on the internet, M Venkatesan, who despite years of social engineering attempted against his community could never be subverted away from his unfaltering love for his ancestral=Hindoo(=Vedic) Gods and religio.


Quote:As a great believer in Hinduism and Hindu philosophy, his [Shri M Venkatesan's] sensitive soul was tortured by the baseless attacks of Periyar on Hindu Gods and Goddesses. I would like to quote his own words in this context: 'I could not help viewing Periyar's uncivilised and barbarous attacks upon my chosen Gods and Goddesses and my own Hindu faith as wanton attacks on my dear and sacred mother who begot me. My search into the works of Periyar and my extensive reading of all his articles gave a rude cultural shock to me. I was greatly dismayed by the hellish hatred of Periyar towards my faith and towards my chosen Gods and Goddesses'.
(I have of course memorised his words. And made them my own. Rather like I did with Julian's.)

And can compare his depth of feeling for his Hindoo Gods, as is evident in his expression, with that of Emperor Julian below, who likewise deeply loved his own, Olympic, Gods:

Quote:I feel awe of the Gods, I love, I revere, I venerate them, and in short have precisely the same feelings towards them as one would have towards kind masters or teachers or fathers or guardians or any beings of that sort.

There was a picture of him at the original article. Even in looks Shri Venkatesan takes directly after His Parents, there is a keen resemblance that I instantly recognised (he would of course be even more kalai were he wearing Hindoo markings like chandanam/veebuti/kungumam in his photo). IIRC, in his interview, he even insisted on the sacredness of truth, rather in the very manner of his Father Sri Rama who had insisted the same because truth was Ishwara (Sri Rama would know first-hand, first-person).

What a noble lineage of earthly parents and grandparents and ancestors Venkatesan must come from, and what fame he gives his community because of his loyalty to the Gods=religio dear also to all his ancestors (who instilled this in him). And he gives great fame to me, because, most importantly, he is my close kinsman, since I too am an ethnic Hindoo and thus directly related. Not even emperor Julian can claim as close a kinship to him as I, though those two be spiritually akin too.

May Shri Venkatesan remain ever insubvertible, and always remain loyal in his love for his(=also my) Gods. May he be happily married with many children already, with a billion strong ethnic Hindoo progeny to come that will forever remain loyal to the Hindoo Gods=heathenism as he and his ancestors. May his line redeem my species - the Hindus - from the ignominy and gangrene assailing it.

[By the way, M Venkatesan is mine. I may not have come across him first, but I call him first. (I call all insubvertible Hindoo heathens. They're all mine alone. And I never share. So everyone else can have the subvertibles.)

The working/logic for my audacious but legit claim is: 1. Shri M Venkatesan loves his Gods; 2. (for which) I love him (and the insubvertibility of heathens is a measure of my own constancy to them: I'm as loyal to them, and for as long, as they are to their Gods); 3. therefore he is mine. Minor corollary: the fact that I 'called' first on him and other insubvertibles=HindOOs, makes them 'mine and mine alone'.

^Proof by induction. "But that's not a proof by i...". Shut up.

Uh, if anyone ever actually reads this -unlikely- please don't tell Shri M Venkatesan that I said any of those things.* And especially not the way I said them, which, although it is factually the way I always think it (and is literally true), may come across as possessive and thus be misconstrued. While it is very much possessive in a sense, no design against him is implied or intended or secretly plotted or anything of that sort, obviously. Meaning: there's no actual threat to him - or to other Hindoo heathens - from my direction that are due to my 'drastic' sounding claims on them.

* My high regard is not a secret. But I don't want the very people whom I so well regard to find out how trivial I am (including even in expression). Anyone and everyone else may know this last, of course.]

3. swarajyamag.com/lite/wendys-in-gurgaon-dinanath-batra-demands-ban/

The article itself is apparently satire, and was not written in a manner that I even understood what it was trying to convey. But some comments - specifically the conversation by IIRC IndianNotAmused and Akshaya - make good points about how aliens set themselves up as "Hindus" - many of the indological and Hindu Studies kind (and many "convert" and all other dabbling types) do this - only so they can spit venom on Hindoo heathenism with impunity. Indics calling themselves Hindus and Hindu nationalists also often subvert Hindoo heathenism or make hateful statements after declaring their "Hindu" ness, e.g. NS Rajarant hissed at the Vedam after affirming his "Hindu"-ness first (SOP for anti-Hindus).

About aliens, the Hindu studies and Indology kinds pretend great expertise on Hindoo-dom after the certificates of authority they give to themselves, and always pretend they know more than actual=ethnic Hindoos (but there are no other than ethnic traditional Hindoos, after all).

IMO, if Hindoos want to nip the problem in the bud, they should issue a blanket disinvitation to all aliens dabbling in Any Way in Hindoo heathenism, including converts. Converts are NOT an asset, and are subversionists as a rule with no exception. Plus the number of conscious anti-Hindus sneaking in under the "convert" garb is an even more obvious problem.
The following is an extract from a prodigiously anti-Hindu alien psy-ops article whose sole aim is to blame communalism on the reconversion movements to Hindu religion (when 'communalism', i.e. violence deriving from fundamental intolerance, is entirely owing to the existence and presence of the terrorist missionary religions in the subcontinent=heathen space). During the course of the extract, the motivated alien author is occasionally and invariably forced to provide some factoids, but only just so that he can then colourise these with "communalism". Communalism is a word uniquely invented for India - and hereafter Nepal - so both aliens and their Indian stooges use it all the time when speaking of Hindu-dom in India. But I've never heard the word communal used with a negative connotation anywhere else. Entire public spaces in west are marked as "communal eating areas", which is the only way and only place I've seen.

In between all the lines high-handedly, dismissively and negatively conveying the Hindu POV and efforts, one can actually see some of that Hindu POV and efforts. And also the local reaction/effect.

IIRC the article is from before the recent concerted - local and international - christian backlash against the latest surge of Ghar Wapasi in the public view. Goes to show that alien disconcertedness at and subsequent condemnation of reversions to heathenism in India - using alien lying and negative spins, i.e. by "commnalising" the Hindus and making the christoislamaniac conversion machinery=terrorism seem innocent - is not a new thing.

The specific region being discussed is Tamil Nadu. The timeframe of the segment is up to the early '80s (i.e. 1980s) at least.

Watch the alien demon author - who pretends it is but an innocent objective purveyor of history, when it is actually highly motivated and peculiarly biased against Hindoo heathenism - indicate his displeasure by his choice of subject matter: he thinks Hindoo Harijan* belong to christoislam already, and hence he keeps harping on the subject of "communalism" and reconversions to heathenism, and trying to tie the two together. There is no such thing as a non-ideological alien. When they speak negatively on Hindoo matters and when reversions bother them, their christianism and foreign "policy" on India is evident, so that they need not even publicly proclaim it.

* Note that the article is from a time before the christowest - and their infestation in India (christomedia to education to governance etc) - had unanimously decided to insert the word Dalit for Harijan, as a first step in dissociating these HindOOs from Hindoo heathenism. (All these social-engineering mechanisms are ideated in alien drawing rooms, and are then implemented by christomedia, Hinduism and subaltern studies both international and local, with an eye to make it trickle down to the populations targeted for conversion to the christian fiend.)

As a result, the following excerpt uses the word "Harijan" throughout. It was only later when the alien demons and their Indian minions realised more unanimously that to start separating HindOO Harijan from other Hindoos, foreing and local aliens should not refer to these by terms that obviously indicated their inextricable HindOO-ness, but by terms that make Harijan sound magically unaffiliated, like a clean slate with no prior history/religion, as if waiting to be converted to the mono-moronisms.

Quote:The symbolic breaking of caste barriers also extended to the issue of temple entry and common worship of Harijans with what came to be called "non-Harijan Hindus". In Minakshipuram the Arya Samaj conducted prayers and performed a sacrifice with the participation of Harijans40. The Swamiji of Pejawar Mutt inaugurated tiruvillaku puja at the Kaliyamman temple in the village with participation of 300 women and a sanctum for Lord Venkateswara of Tirupati was set up at which villagers queued up for worship41. In Kuriyur village in Ramnad District the BSS organised the local Murugan festival at the request of unconverted Harijans42. In AP Chatram near Madras, Harijans "beamed with joy when enthusiastic caste-Hindus took out, for the first time, the Mariamman idol in procession to the Harijan colony during Sunday's temple festival"43 (Never doubt that the HindOOs love their Gods: the heathens beamed with joy to have darshanam of their Mother come to see them.) and in Perambalur in Tiruchirapalli District caste Hindus were reported to 14 worship with Harijan in the local Shiva temple and the 'Hindu Equality and Brotherhood Organisation' called on them to visit and worship in Harijan temples44. The head of Madurai Adhinam performed sumangali puja for the welfare of the people in honour of five women scavengers employed by Madurai city, instead of the usual Brahman women, because he considered them as "equals"45. The International Aryan League began a campaign to teach Harijans the gayatri mantram, traditionally privileged knowledge of Brahmans46. The jeer of Sriperumbudur temple assured the Hindu Solidarity Conference in Minakshipuram that his temple had employed Harijans as temple servants47 and the Kanchipuram Sankaracharya announced the establishment of a school to train Harijans as temple priests48. In June 1982 he inaugurated the gnana ratham of the VHP, a mobile idol of the Palani Murugan - one of the most famous temples in South India - mounted on a van in order to bring Brahman religion into Harijan settlements all over the state.

(^ Use of "Brahman religion" to describe the ancestral heathenism of the region. =More proof of christianism, also seen in earlier missionary writers. The alien demon's use of "brahman religion" is the typical missionary tactic - SOP employed by ALL missionary religions in India - to present Hindoo religion as alien to all non-brahmin HindOOs like Harijans. Alien christo-demons, but also Buddhists and Jains, pretend that there is no Hindoo laity, and that all non-Brahmin HindOOs have no religion therefore and belong equally to christoislamism or the Indic missionary religions. But heathenisms are the ancestral religion of every native population on the planet, from Africa to Europe, from Americas to Asia. The native religion of the Harijan HindOOs - as even seen in the paras above of how they requested a festival for their Murugan be organised, and how *they* beamed with great joy to see their divine Mother, Mariamman coming to see them, is proof that it is not any case of "bringing Brahman religion into Harijan settlements" but merely a case of the bringing of utsavamoorties of their own ancestral Gods coming into their villages.

Alien christodemons can't even hold their argument together by keeping it consistent with their own earlier statements.)

Apart from ritual paraphernalia, it also carried a public address system, cinema equipment, as well as leaflets and books for distribution. From the start of its tour of the state, its visits repeatedly led to violent communal clashes, which will be discussed below.

(Let me guess: "Communal clashes" refers to christoislamics rioting violently - as they still do* - whenever Hindoo processions took place on the ancestrally=eternally Hindoo soil of the Hindoo homeland, to allow Hindoos to have darshanam of the Gods of the procession, in this case Pazhani Murugan?

* See Tripura/NE, where christian terrorist outfits banned Hindoo processions and Durga pooja. See the countless news reports on islamaniacs in *India* pelting stones on Hindoo processions and now even throwing acid at Hindus during the recent Hanuman Jayanti procession. Alien christodemons - like their echoes in the Indian christomedia - will of course pretend that such christoislamic violence is a natural "retaliation" against Hindoos daring to observe Hindoo rituals in the Hindoo homeland among Hindoos. Hindoos are the "communal" ones for observing Hindoo festivals and rituals, despite it not even involving aliens.

In contrast, in Europe, christians used to deliberately enact jeebus-passion plays screaming out that Jews were to blame for non-existent jeebus' death - though paradoxically monogawd had willed this death himself - all specifically in order to incite christian pogroms against Jews, which was always the direct result. Comparable to Friday sermons against kafirs in mosques always resulting in muslims going on a rampage and killing Hindus.

Note how Hindoo religious practices make no mention of - and don't know of - christoislamania, and so Hindoo processions - which do not concern the christoclass terrorists and terrorisms - only feature the Hindoo Gods for Hindoos to look at, and which (totally opposite to jeebus passion plays and friday mosque sermons) makes Hindoos blissfully forget the monotheistic parasitism/terrorism. <- And yet it is this that gets branded as "communal" by alien christo writers, because of the actual crime: that Hindoo heathen observances promote heathenism and encourage reversion among rice 'converts'.)

A logical implication of the assumption that casteism was an affliction of Indian society rather than of Hindu religion, is the argument that it equally affects other religious communities in Indian society and that consequently conversion to Islam was no way to escape Untouchability. Soon after the first news of the Minakshipuram conversions reports appeared about the converts' disappointment with Islam and their desire to reconvert49. A reconvert in Ramnad was reported complaining that the converts had not been accepted as equals and expressed fear that they would remain isolated from mainstream Muslim society and not be able to intermarry with the Muslims50. The General 15 Secretary of the BJP predicted that "those getting converted would be 'disenchanted' in Islam as that religion was also beset with practices which widened the gap between groups of people"51 and claimed that many converted women wanted to reconvert to Hinduism52. In addition to facing the same castism as among Hindus, converts were said to face additional oppression due to gender discrimination in Islam. Converted women were reported to find the restrictions on leaving their houses unbearable, particularly as they prevented them from performing agricultural labour53. The MP for Tenkasi, for example, claimed that Hindu women had the utmost freedom and honour, while Muslim women were oppressed54. Others claimed that such women had never really wanted to convert in the first place and had been forced by male relatives55. Together with calls for a reform of Hindu society went therefore the allegation that Muslim society was even more oppressive. Instead of the brotherhood and equality which Harijans sought by converting to Islam, they had to labour under the double oppression of casteism and sexism, one of which Hindus were trying hard to eradicate and the other they had never known. Demands for reconversion were reported to be widespread and many of the mass rallies featured reconversion ceremonies. Already fifty reconversions were claimed to have taken place by the time the Hindu Solidarity Conference was held at Minakshipuram five months after the first conversion56. At the Second Hindu Solidarity Conference in Ramnad the organisers had secured agreement of a number of converts to reconvert, but these failed to turn up at the planned ceremony and in their place five Christians were reconverted to Hinduism57. The main Hindu organisation active in organising reconversions was the Arya Samaj. During a visit of its leader to Minakshipuram on Independence Day 1981 16 eleven Harijans reconverted58 and during another visit by Arya Samaj leaders reports spoke of the reconversion of several more families59. After a visit to the village the Janata Party leader announced that 25 families of converts had expressed their intention to reconvert60 and in November another five people reconverted in Minakshipuram in a ceremony arranged by the Arya Samaj61. Within a year of the first conversions the Sankaracharya of Kanchipuram claimed at a conference held in Madurai that there had been a large-scale return to Hinduism62. Since the causes of the conversions were defined as socio-economic rather than as religious, charitable donations and development measures were a logical strategy in the prevention and reversal of conversions. These generally took the form of distributing saris and dhotis to non-converts and reconverts, 63. for example, when Arya Samaj leaders visited Minakshipuram The Swamiji of Pejawar Mutt announced that during his visit to Minakshipuram and Ramnad he would not only give spiritual advice against conversions, but also entertain requests for financial assistance from poor Harijans64. A delegation of BSS camped in Minakshipuram and inaugurated a well project at the temple65. The Tamil Nadu Sarvodaya Mandal promised that it would start village industries, a spinning unit, and other projects for creating employment, such as a co-operative farm. It also announced that seventeen of its members had adopted twenty Harijan children from Minakshipuram and surrounding villages for whose education and boarding they would pay66 and the General Secretary of the Janata Party declared after a visit to Minakshipuram that his party had decided to adopt all Harijan villages in the District for economic development67. As a result of intense political pressure the government itself began to take economic measures to prevent further conversions. Following a 17 visit in July the Union Home Minister blamed the government of Tamil Nadu for the conversions because of its failure to implement socioeconomic reforms and protect Harijans.

Long ago the BJP actually cared about Hindoo-dom. Now what used to be called "Hindu nationalism" has evolved predictably into "Indian nationalism" and pure secularism - they are apathetic to Hindoo heathenism and utterly disinterted in reviving it. All that talk of development merely underscores the discomfort they feel in even remotely championing Hindoo heathenism which is left to its own devices while its being made to drown by christoislam. Oh, Modi will take photos bowing at a shrine in Dhaka, of course: have to keep the blind fans happy with a regular trickle of crumbs that don't actually help other Hindoos.

One day there will be no more Hindoo heathenism in the Hindoo homeland. (It will never exist among the alien demons: they couldn't even revert to their own Gods, how will they ever know ours?) And this will be entirely and directly because the people/political parties who could have a made difference to its fate today refused to lift a finger in a meaningful, worthwhile way. Modi/BJP have a lot to answer for, squandering their tenure by doing only everything else. Inaction IS a crime. And history will note they were guilty of it: "BJP, elected by many as a Hindu nationalist party in 2015 and by others for its pro-development and anti-corruption promise, was not unaware of the threats faced by Hinduism at this late stage, as signs of its impending downfall were already there for all to see, and had been for a period of many decades by then: entire blogs and twitter accounts existed, documenting the rising concern felt by even the English-educated and NRIs far removed from the direct effects. But by that time, most in the political party had fallen in line with the social engineering that had long been exercised on them and the nation, and thus chose to prove their secularism by doing specifically nothing to salvage Hinduism and avert the disaster. With this, the final opportunity to arrest and reverse the trend was wasted, after which the remaining stages to Hinduism's demise became inevitable, as no subsequent party that came to power ever even pretended to be inclined to a Hindu agenda. Several astonishing parallels with Rome's own..."

It will be a small footnote, but containing within it what is actually a very damning condemnation, as it will have described the ultimate failure of the BJP of doing anything useful when in power, and certainly nothing worth mentioning from a historical perspective (all of what they do now being utterly eclipsed by their much greater achievement of having brought down the millennia old and one of the last strong heathenisms, by inadvertently(?) pulling down Hindoo-dom by doing nothing to stop its downward trajectory schemed by christoislam).

What a waste. Sigh.

Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) -> Sanatana Dharma=Hindu Nationalism -> Hindu nationalism -> Indian nationalism (now) ~ secularism -> crypto-christianism -> christoislam -> islam.

Each stage has seen only de-heathenisation seeping through and disarming the resistance itself. Gradual, over a century or so, though it was.

Anyway, the purpose of the excerpt pasted above was to show that Harijan - being HindOOs - love their Divine Parents the Hindoo Gods greatly. And that is something not even the alien demons intent upon writing psy-ops against Hindoo heathenism, its reversion movements and its efforts to protect heathens from christoislamic predation (including subversion/social engineering) could conceal.
Meant to archive. Useful excerpt from a comment at


Related to posts 189 and 246 (3rd blockquote) of the Buddhism thread.

Quote:R Nanjappa

It is good to see an article in honour of Tamil. The issue of language is so charged with political overtones, especially in Tamil Nadu, that one feels hesitant to mention facts. Yet some facts must be mentioned.

1. Before the Dravidian parties took over, scholars had always reckoned its origin as divine, tracing it to Sage Agastya who came to the South as directed by Lord Siva. Tamil Saivite Saints like Appar talked of Sanskrit and Tamil as the two languages originating directly from lord Siva.

2 Tamil was developed by groups of poets, sitting in congregation, called 'Sangam'.. Lord Subrahmanya was also part of it at times. Any new poetic work had to be approved by the Sangam. There were three Sangams spanning long intervals. The first one was at 'Kapatapuram"; (mentioned in Valmiki); the second was at 'South Madurai'. Both these were located south of Kanyakumar but were submerged in sea. So, the last Sangam came to the present Madurai. The Pandya kings had always been associated with Sangam.

3 Many poetic works of the Sangam period , long and short,are avilable in tact. It is these which truly reflect the antiquity, magnificence and majestry of the language. They are colleced in three compilations called '10 songs', 'Group of 8' and the 'Collection of 18',, though the last is not considered strictly or wholly of the Sangam age. Tirukkural belongs to this group. Dating is subject to disputes , both scholarly and other wise.

But some clues are available. For instance, the very first work in the very first collection is dedicated to Lord Subrahmanya (Muruga) who was the Deity of the hills and hilly regions, the highest part of land, and the first to emerge out of water! Such was their devotion to God. This poem describes how the people of different tribes and communities worshiped the Lord at different centres, especally six of them. Describing how Brahmins worshipped at Swamimalai. the poem says that they had 'dedicated 48 years to 'brahmachaya and learning' The poet actually says "those who had dedicated 6x4x2 years on this path of discipline". Now, the normal reckoning for brahmacharya and Vedic learning is up to 24 years, even according to Manu. So this must be a period even prior to that!

4. Agastya was supposed to have written a grammar for Tamil but that is extinct. The oldest grammar available now is that of Tholkappiar , a student of Agastya. In the olden days, his original name was taken as 'Trunadhumagni'. But after the rise of Dravidian politics, this is obscured. This is a book not just covering linguistic grammar, but the very grammar of life!

5. Tirukkural belongs to the group of 18, which deals with Dharma, called in Tamil, Aram. In fact Tirukkural deals with Aram. Porul, Inbam, which are the exact Tamil rendering of Dharma, Artha and Kama. The only difference is that while in Sanskrit, kama stands for any desire, though predominantly associated with human sexualty in the popular mind, the Kural deals with just human sexuality. One important question here is why did Valluvar leave out Moksha (Called Veedu in Tamil) when he adopted the other 3 of the standrd 4 purusharthas? One of the celebrated ancient commentators , Parimelazhagar, answered this that while the human mind can think and talk of the other three, Moksha was beyond human thought and expression- (anirvachaniyam as we would say)it had to be realised by other means and not lalked about! ' and so Valluvar did not deal with it separately. But he does mention it in appropriate contexts.

6. It is necesary to remember that Tirukkural is a dharmasastra. It starts with praise of God and asks what is the use of learning if does not lead to the feet of God. It departs boldly from certain usages of ancient Tamils of the sangam age- such as meat eating, drinking and prostitution. The whole Kural is a reflection of our dharma sastras, without any contradiction anywhere: the panchayajna, the six duties of brahmins, the duties of the kings etc. In dealing with artha, he deals with both economic and political aspects, which are reflective of the respective provisions in Manu and Kautilya. These have led some scholars to say that the Kural belongs to a later age. Political interests today would like to paint the Kural as a secular ie non-religious, non- Hindu literature dealing with mundane matters. This is not so..Indian spirtuality never separated the two facets of life.

7. The Silappadhikaram (now written as Cilappadikaram) is a unique work, which was spedifically written to teach three truths through a tale:

i. For a ruler who falls from Dharma, Dharma itself will become (cause) death.

ii. A true Pativrata will be honoured by the sages.

iii.One's fate or destiny will pursue him, no matter what!

The work is classified as 'kappiam' ie kavya. it is rather encyclopaedic, mirroring the poltical social economic and religious life of the people and all the three kings of the Tamil land. Its coverage of music and other arts is one of the main sources of our knowledge of those aspects of ancient Tamil life.

8. In ancient and Classical times, there was no prejudice or hatred against Sanskrit or any other language. Tolkappiam in fact prescribes rules as to how those words from other languages are to be adapted into Tamill usage. But the ancient poets, including Tolkappiar and Tiruvalluvar used direct Sanskrit words where necessary. In the first Kural itself, he uses three Sanskrit words.

9. Many important words in Tamil are adaptations from Sanskrit , which most Tamilians do not know eg.

ilakkanam= grammar= Lakshana ( hence Lakshmana becomes Ilakkuvan in Kamban)

ilakkiyam = literature= Lakshya

Kaappiam = epic = kavya

deivam = deity, god, etc = Deva.

vulagam= world = Lokam

vulogam = metal =Loham

The very word Sangam is Sanskrt!


10. But Tamil also has stunning direct originals for important Sanskrit words.

eg. Veda is called Marai in Tamil It means literally what is hidden. That is because the Vedic truths are not apparent, and are to be reflected upon, intuited, and learned through proper authorities.

Veda is called Shruti in Sanskrit, because it is to be heard, not written. This is stunningly called " Ezhudhaak kilavi" ie that which is not written. It is also called 'vottu' in Tamil, because it is recited in a particlar way, which is called "Vodudal".There are innumerable such examples

11. Sri Aurobindo who studeid the Veda intensely on his own, and also Tamil has said that the knowledge of very ancient Tamil words ( of very great antiquity) enabled him to understand certain Vedic words better!
(Also useful to read point 11 in conjunction with point 10 above it.)
Related to this thread too:

Spam, but about something Malhotra has tweeted and which has been picked up and retweeted and favourited by his uncritical fandom.

^ Where Malhotra's wrought an 'armour' with so many chinks in it that even a blind enemy shooting a parting shot like a Parthian from a bounding horse in Hindus' direction can't fail to hit vitals. What to speak of inculturating christianism aiming tight.

Despite repeated and resounding praise for Malhotra, have to stick with the old assessment:

intellectuals among visible/vocalist Indian nationalists are not just scarce but non-existent.

And same old complaints about lay Hindus following blindly: lack of independent thought and they readily surrender better (or any) judgement to people prone to missteps - including severe ones.

Anyway, here is The Great One again - not even trying to be an intellectual, though he surely was (and would still be ahead of his time if he were transplanted to present-day India):

Quote:[Julian's] revulsion at [christians'] efforts to assimilate (=inculturate on) the literary and philosophic heritage of the Greeks without accepting the religious values voiced in it. To Julian's mind, that seemed wreckage, not assimilation.

On this point Julian's stance was basic and closed to argument: 'Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.'"

- The peerless Emperor of the ethnic Hellenes demanded nothing less than the complete reversion from the christian converts of his ethnic kind, as the minimum - as the entrance fee, if you will - to granting them access to any part of his sacred heathenism.

- And like the wise L/D/Nakota of the Americas have done, Hindoos should further say an absolute No to all alien dabbling (from "converts" to indologists and 'neo-pagans', often seen sampling different heathenisms like 'twere some buffet).
Post 1/2

This set of posts is related to

- posts 188 and especially 189 above on Shvetaashvatara upanishad

- a recent set of spam, posts 42 and 43 in the inculturation thread, from which this next follows

The bits in the blockquotes that are not in purple are not spam. Or, without the ever-confusing double negation: the bits that are purple or else outside the blockquotes are spam, being my comments. The rest is for archiving.

Wished others and not me - never me, it ought never to be me - would have made the argument against the claims launched by Elst and his gang and similars. But others won't of course. So, back to Transcription it is. Certainly, the source is [infinitely] more legitimate than Elst and his fandom, and more reliable too than all ethnic vocalists I've seen on the web (who are at most "Indic-universalists", i.e. of the "everything Hindoo magically equally belongs to all other Indics, including when the latter start claiming it - increasingly and increasingly loudly - exclusively for themselves").

Copying out relevant excerpts from a very brief (and not unpopular) overview of the "Yoga darshana" by an learned ethnic Hindoo of established Hindoo tradition.

- The relevant part is that the Yoga-darshana is known as the "seshvara sAMkhya" and hence distinct from classical=nirIshvara sAMkhya.

- Also, Yoga darshana is obviously sa~Nkhya-yoga. Whereas the classical sAMkhya (the sAMkhya darshana) is not just without Ishvara but without yoga (without stress on yoga as the means), since j~nAna not yoga was to have been its (primary) means to its ends.

= seems to be given as the distinction between these two classical darshanas.

Many but not all use of square brackets is by insertions for clarification or for clarifying back-references, or just for pedantry.

Quote:[The Indic Darshanas] depend on 'darshana' or 'seeing' or 'experiencing' the truth* in mystical states. Hence the appropriateness of the term ["Darshana"].

[* Not to be confused with deliriums like those concocted by the christoclass mindvirus/'monogawdisms' which these last call 'truth'. Only unsaved kafir notions of 'truth' are meant, obviously.]

The darshanas have been classified into 2 groups: the Astika and the nAstika. Those that are based on the authority of the Vedas are called 'Astika' and the rest are 'nAstika'. The chArvaka, the Jaina and the Bauddha systems come under the latter category and the ShaD-darshanas, or the six traditional systems of Hindu philosophy*, under the former.

[* The usual: N, V, [classical, atheistic] SAMkhya, Yoga darshana, M, V.

Despite some other Indic traditions poaching on SAMkhya and Yoga - via the backprojected ur-Shramanism concoction - all Yoga and sAMkhya views, pre-dating the separate categorisation of them as "darshanas", are known to be derived from Vaidika perspectives/perceptions, thereby showing the direction of travel of any of the ideas contained in these - or indeed any of the 6 classical Astika darshanas - into the so-called Shramanisms, capital-S, which eventually appeared.]

[The ShaD-darshanas of the Astikas] generally deal with four topics:

- existence and nature of Brahman or Ishvara [pre-emptively: the Vaidika Ishavara/Brahman onle; as there is no and never shall be any other. E.g. not the Buddhist clones/inculturation+re-interpretation];

- nature of the jIva (jIvAtman)

- creation of the jagat

- mokSha as also the disciplines that lead to it.

[^ Note that the above shows that these 4 pre-occupations of Vaidika religio - even the 6 eventually delineated Astika darshanas thereof - concern questions on points of interest/inquiry pertaining to Vaidika cosmological matters onlee. Some of the latecomers - the nouveau religions - being but spin-offs, poached on some of these questions/topics; but the direction of travel of such matters is again from Vaidika religion and traditions to the late Shramanisms, even though vocalists of the latter now pretend they were the originators. They were never even 'equal' originators, let alone the sole ones (as they now seek to pretend via their Ur-Shramanism nonsense theory/falsehood). Can even straightforwardly deduce the timeframe when these last entered the scene: some questions had already long been phrased and answered (e.g. upaniShads to MBh had already dealt on jIva and mokSha and jagat and Brahman/Ishvara), and some views and associated practices (sankhya-yoga) had long been established, and others were still being answered or contested by some (is Ishvara/is Ishvara relevant, is Ishvara Dhaataa or not and the old question: is Ishvara only nimittakAraNa or also upAdAnakAraNa etc), when the nouveau religions emerged and spun-off, thus inheriting certain features extant then, or specifically denying others in noticeable distinction, and further absorbing selectively or wholesale from frameworks of Vaidika cosmology already long established in detail by then.]

[In the classical sAnkhya darshana] j~nAna [is] the sole or primary means of attaining mokSha called kaivalya [here].

[The sAnkhya darshana, i.e. classical sA~Nkhya] accepts only puruSha (the jIva) and pradhAna or prakR^iti as the fundamental realities and does not accept Ishvara (Parabrahman). Hence it [classical sAnkhya] is sometimes called 'nirIshvara-sA~Nkhya' ('sAMkhya without Ishvara'). The Yogadarshana which accepts all the principles of the (classical) SA~Nkhya and also Ishvara (Parabrahman), in addition, has been designated as 'Seshvara-sAMkhya' ('sA~Nkhya with Isvara').

In the sAMkhya system [i.e. classical sAMkhya], tattvaj~nAna or enquiry into the nature of truth is of primary importance. But the Yoga system [i.e. what's dubbed the darshana by that name] deals primarily with sAdhanAs. That is why the YogasUtras of Pata~njali, the basic text of the Yoga system, begins with the words atha yogAnushAsanam ('Now the teaching of Yoga [is begun].'), instead of the words "jij~nAsA" or "mImAMsA" ('enquiry').

What is Yoga?

The word 'yoga' can be derived from two verbal roots: yuj (to yoke) or yuj (to concentrate).

Hence 'yoga' is that which helps a jIva to attain concentration on Ishvara and ultimate union with said Ishvara.

The word 'yoga' in its several senses has been used in the R^igveda and some of the upanishads like KaTha and ShvetAshvatara. [Leaving out shloka references.] The BhagavadgItA contains many ideas which appear to reflect the teachings of the YogasUtras.*

(* Why so careful in wording, why "appear to reflect"? They reflect the same because BG is *about* sankhya-yoga-vedanta, i.e. Vedic views, Hindoo cosmology.

After all, Elst and similars declare that Gita stole from classical Sankhya - in the inverse direction of time - and thus repeated much of it before adding a theistic alleged 'spin' to it. When everyone else is thus allowed to theorise as per their own interest, why aren't Hindu heathens allowed to simply state the facts?)

It is likely that there might have been a more ancient work on Yoga attributed to HiraNyagarbha, and this could have influenced other works.

The author and his times

Hindu tradition attributes the origin of the science of Yoga to HiraNyagarbha, an aspect of Ishvara himself. Two sages [Rishis]--sanatkumAra and jaigiShavya--are sometimes stated to be the authors of Yogashaastra. However, their works have not been traced yet.


Scholars opine that Pata~njali might have lived [any time] during the period 200 B.C.E.-300 C.E.

Philosophy of the YogasUtras [of Pata~njali]

Though the yogasUtras of Pata~njali is primarily a work heavily oriented towards sAdhanA or spiritual practice, a basic knowledge of its sAMkhyan background is ncessary to understand it.

Yogadarshana accepts 3 fundamental realities: Ishvara, puruShas and pradhAna or prakR^iti.**

PuruShas are the individual jIvAtmas. They are chidrUpa or of the nature of consciousness and are infinite in number.

The existence of Ishvara, called PuruShavisheSha ('special or unique puruSha') can be known only through the scriptures [i.e. Vaidika scriptures, shruti specifically, not Bauddha, Jina etc stuffs, nor for that matter babble also called 'scripture']. He [Ishvara, the puruShavisheSha who 'can be known only through the Vaidika scriptures=shruti'] is sarvaj~na. Being untouched by the shackles of prakRiti he is ever free [contrastive with jIva again.]. He is the Adiguru. He is designated by praNava, OM. It is by his will and in accordance with the karmas of the puruShas that prakRiti, comprising the three guNas, evolves into this universe. The evolutes of prakRiti are mahat, aha~NkAra, manas, the tanmAtras and so on, just as in the SA~Nkhyan system.

The puruSha [each jIvAtman], somehow--due to avidyA--forgets his real nature as pure consciousness, gets involved with the evolutes of prakRiti and suffers all the pangs of [samsAra]. However, when he performs sAdhanAs--the aShTA~Ngas of yoga--he once again realises his essential nature and is instantly freed from saMsAra. Being established in one-self, thus transcending saMsAra, is called 'kaivalya'.**

The excerpts continue in the next post. Want to spam with some comments first.

** Useful to compare with the pre-classical SA~Nkhya of MBh's mokShadharma section where the Ishwara, the paramapuruSha/puruShavisheSha, is clubbed with all other puruShas (since Ishvara is both the paramaPuruSha and all the individual puruShas [jIvAtmas]). Repeating, from another Hindu source:

Quote:Like the [later] classical sAMkhya, [the older, pre-classical sAMkhya of the MBh Mokshadharma] recognises 24 categories of PrakRiti and the PuruSha as the 25th, but it differs from the former in holding that there is no ultimacy in the multiplicity of the 25th as in the classical sAMkhya. The PuruSha in association with PrakRiti in the creative cycle seems to be many. But in liberation, with the effacement of the bondage of Prakriti, the separateness of the puruSha is effaced and it becomes the one and only puruSha that exists in the nature of things (i.e. Ishvara, paramapuruSha)*.

(Sort of comparable with the primordial undivided Tao, i.e. when in completely unmanifested state, which is also "all there is" at that stage.)

* Matches with Shiva referring to himself as Kevala in the Koorma purANa and which thus indicates the sense of 'kaivalya' in Shvetaashvatara upaniShad etc as per some Shaiva - and Vaishnava - Hindoos from ancient to more recent times, including the Advaita views.

And Kashmiri Shaivam seems to have continued developing on just this view, IIRC.

Pata~njali appears to differ from the MBh's Mokshadharma section only in that he pries loose the Ishvara=puruShavisheSha from being clubbed in the same category as all other (non-visheSha, non-special) puruShas; but placing Ishvara/puruShavisheSha in a very evident separate category as Patanjali had done, was already the case in the pre-classical sA~Nkhya of the gIta and of course before that in the shvetAshvatara upanishad, but is actually also ultimately evident in the pre-classical and also still theistic sAMkhya of the Mokshadharma section of the MBh (since it too is also of the Hindoo theistic cosmology onlee), since this last affirms that beyond the emanations of prakRiti in the cosmos, the puruShavisheSha is very noticeable (being in fact the only thing to notice).

From the above excerpts,

Can contrast the distinction made between PuruShavisheSha and other puruShas that is evident in the sA~Nkhyan backdrop to Pata~njali's yoga (which is consistent with Hindoo=Vedic cosmology/pre-classical=theistic sAMkhya) with both:

- Elst's reductive spin on the meaning of Ishvara in Patanjali's YS by divorcing it from the contextual background from which it is obviously derived (i.e. Hindoo cosmology, already seen articulated unambiguously in the Upanishads, but already present in the other parts of the vedam, which such upanishads explicated)

- the denial of a distinct puruShavisheSha in classical=atheist sAMkhya combined with its insistence on a permanent multiplicity of puruShas. Both together are a peculiarity that is obviously owing to the conscious loss of the Hindoo cosmological part from pre-classical heathen sAMkhyam in generating the later classical atheist variant (that then came to co-exist with the continuation of the older, original theistic variant, Seshvara SAMkhya). That is, lop off the Hindoo cosmological part from the original sAMkhya and what you get is unknown origins (or even background) to everything including a whole lot of puruShas and no knowledge/interest in Ishvara as being the paramapuruSha/puruShavisheSha.

Another relevant thing to note is that Elst essentially views the sAMkhya backdrop to Patanjali's retread of yoga as if it is derived from or based in classical sAMkhya. (When such a backdrop can far more easily be argued to have simply remained consistent with pre-classical=theistic sAMkhya instead, as seen in the tell-tale retention/highlighting=acknowledgement of Ishvara as being the puruShavisheSha, with the definition thereof being consistent with shruti.)

And hence Elst's choice to limit that Pata~njali's "Ishvara"/puruShavisheSha need not mean the puruShottama/paramapuruSha, despite the Ishvara keyword being very tell-tale (having a definite meaning), despite Pata~njali's own description of its distinctive features and its clear singularity vs the (at least apparent) multipicity of the puruShas, despite the sAMkhyan background to Pata~njali's yoga classifying this Ishvara - puruShavisheSha - separately from the other puruShas, when Pata~njali could have easily repeated the MBh Mokshadharma section by similarly lumping puruShavisheSha together with the puruShas category, instead of choosing to specially distinguish the Ishvara from other purushas, being thus consistent with the sankhya-yoga[-vedanta] in the Shvetaashvatara upanishad and Gita which, for the aims of their discussion, also drew attention to this distinction. One could argue that Pata~njali only chose the separate category in order to refer back to it when touching on IshvarapraNidhAna - =puruShavisheShapraNidhAna - but then the Shvetaashvatara upaniShad like the BhagavadgItA also advocate ishvarapraNidhAna, while ShU is -from one traditional perception- consistent with mokShadharma section on the paramapuruSha being all the puruShas and ultimately the only puruSha. (And one of the valid readings of the BG is similarly also consistent with this.)

Of course, aliens (and Elstians) may think that Ishvara in Pata~njali gains a whole new meaning and refers to some new class of entity (or merely an old class: any jIva once liberated, yet specifically not the Ishvara of the Vedam, i.e. to ensure an atheist spin). And the Buddhism peddlers encouraged by Elst - and by alien self-declared "experts/scholars" writing on the yogasutras - to declare that the YS is closer to Buddhism than to Hindoo cosmological views must surely be giving their own spin (inculturation+re-interpretation) to 'Ishvara' too.*** [Let me guess, YS is suddenly referring to Avalokiteshvara, but some centuries before that Bauddhified character was invented - also as a spin-off to Shiva-Maheshvara, I note, which would still imply that the original reference was to Shiva/Hindoo Gods onlee). Not to mention that the classical Yogadarshana was only ever Astika and distinct from Bauddha.]

Far easier - ockham's razor - to say that Pata~njali's views on this matter are consistent with pre-existing Hindoo cosmology*: that the Ishvara he refers to is simply the Ishvara of Hindoo shruti (e.g. shvetaashvatara upanishad). His views as a whole certainly seem derived from there alone, rather than Buddhism/Jainism, or that Ishwara is somehow a new extra variable distinct from its original meanings.

* E.g. 'svAdhyAya' listed among the Niyamas refers to Shruti onlee, identification of a puruShavisheSha as a standout - notably defined as ishvara, just like in shruti - and its distinctive features like OM obviously deriving from Hindoo cosmology too. (And everything else was only ever a spin-off and inculturation.)

*** But by that same argument, Ishvara can hereafter be defined to mean anything (e.g. jeebusjehovallah), since if it can once be made to mean anything but the Ishvara of the Vedam, it can at any time thereafter be made to mean anything and everything else too. E.g. jeebus has already been declared yogacharya <-> Adiguru of Patanjali. OM (and the entire gayatri mantram) have been attached to jeebus by inculturationists <-> Patanjali mentions OM is connected to Ishvara. Omniscience is one of the minimum characteristics claimed for monogawds too, no less than for heathens' Supreme Gods <-> sarvaj~na of Pata~njali. So all that christos need to do, if they haven't already, is to copy the name ishvara from Hindoo sahasranamas into their plagiarised yesu sahasranamam, and christians peddling christoyoga too can argue - like Buddhists have done - that the yogasUtras (being relatively short on sAMkhya and long on the practice of yoga) are actually originally christian rather than Hindoo cosmological views.

That is, if Ishvara can be removed from Yoga - such as by way of re-defining Ishvara to mean something else (something more acceptable to Elst and his kind) as was done by Elst - then surely Samkhya can be removed from Yoga too?

And if Buddhists can claim - with reference to alien authors - that Patanjali's yogasutras are more Buddhist than "Vedantic/theistic", then christians can surely also devise some convoluted excuse or other - such as by referring to interpretative spins by further alien authors - to similarly advance the claim that Patanjali's yogasutras are more christian than Hindoo. And that any Hindooism claimed therein is similarly from Hindoo "misinterpretations" of Patanjali, which is what Buddhists have accused Hindoos of (see bottom of this post) and Elst and his applauding fanbase too.
Post 2/2

Back to selectively copying out just the relevant bits from the first source:


[... the usual. But this bit is relevant:]

Niyama includes shaucha, santosha, tapas (i.e. of body, speech and mind [tapas as covered in shruti]), svAdhyAya (study of holy books [no, not the babble nor even the Dhammapaada, etc, as "svAdhyAya" originally=actually literally means the vedam, the study of veda and veda onlee, and specifically also the recitation of the Vedam] and repetition of mantras like OM), and IshvarapraNidhAna (devotion to Ishvara). [*Goes without saying but Ishvara=Vaidika Ishvara onlee (there is no other: none of the re-interpretations qualify, incl. now or in the future.)]

[...] The 3 disciplines of tapas, svAdhyAya and IshvarapraNidhAna are grouped together by Pata~njali and termed 'kriyAyoga'. It is effective as a shortcut to yoga.

[Note that tapas - the same as those specified in the upaniShads, which are specifically the various particular ritual observances used to prepare for Vaidika rites too (as explained in several upaniShads) - and especially OM (+study of the veda) and Ishvara-praNidhAna are exactly what some upaniShads including the ShvetAshvatara Upanishad were on about and which they explained as leading to mukti. That is, they already touched upon kriyAyoga as a most effective means to the ends aimed for in Hindoo cosmology.]

<The bits on Asana and prANAyAma that summarise Pata~njali's YogasUtras concerning these niyamas repeat the practices already taught and enjoined in several upaniShads.>

[The last 3 aShTangas] dhAraNA, dhyAna and samAdhi--are actually 3 continuous steps of the same process. [...] SamAdhi can be attained by IshvarapraNidhAna or devotion to Ishvara* also (1.23). Pata~njali terms these 3 steps together as 'saMyama'. And this saMyama should always be on one and the same object.


The belief that one can attain siddhis by tapas and by the grace of Ishvara is very ancient. Pata~njali describes quite a few of such...

SaMyama on different objects will endow the yogi with several siddhis. For instance, saMyama on [the pa~nchabhUtas leads to aShTasiddhis].

<Plus examples given of other siddhis.>

(Hmm, among the *additional* yogasiddhis summarised, recognised 2 among the descriptions that match Hindoos I know. -> So heathenism=Hindoo genuine tradition - as opposed to the new-age replacement - not dead yet.

On the other hand, they were born with it, which isn't quite relevant. (Unless it's residual?) Same conclusion still though: proof of Hindoo heathenism having been alive and well until the younger generations.)

Very important link as it serves as a historical record:


The christodemons infesting IIT-C/IIT-M are typically trying to destroy those temples and put churches in their place. The christoinfestation must be banished for all time.

There are photos of several of the Hindoo Gods - who are some of the Divine Parents of the ethnic Hindoo species - at the link. :woo:

My famous Hindoo direct ancestor (as in genetic) is mentioned at the link. (He's been the head of LOTS of progeny over the centuries, so I'm pretty safe and untraceable in the admission, since only the paternal lineages are public.) Such frankness is for one purpose onlee: to affirm that whatever is mine - including most usefully my heathen ancestors - belongs to Sri M Venkatesan. Did say he was mine, being my kinsman, therefore my ancestors are his by automation - proof already provided - since he loves his Divine Parents=their Divine Parents. Actually, my ancestors belong to all HindOOs=insubvertibles already, but making special mention.

There will of course be no sharing with unHindoos and subversionist "Hindus" (Elstian types etc)/gangrene.

Quote:Mahaperiyavaa told them that the lingam had been previously worshipped as “Jalakantheswara”. He also directed them to check the documents available in the nearby Raj Bhavan for further details.
Hmmm, I see Sri Jalakantheshvara and Devi Katyayani Ambaal (and all the Hindoo Gods on IIT-M campus and anywhere in the Hindoo homelands) are mine and belong exclusively to all insubvertible ethnic Hindoos, i.e. the heathen kind onlee, such as Sri M Venkatesan.

Never share, Hindoos, never share. And especially never share with 'Hindu' subversionists, other unHindoos, any aliens or zombies=those infected by the christoclass mindvirus.

Very important:


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)