• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (3rd Bin)
I don,t believe in any religion, only want peace in world, that is a true religion.
<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

[color="#0000FF"]Who or what are Cults 1, 2 and 3?[/color] And all the other variables left blank.


Quote:Calling Sangh organizations to account: When Cults replaced Ideals - I

Radha Rajan

01 Nov 2011

Two recent events provoke critical scrutiny of Hindu organizations and what is perceived as Nagpur’s inability or unwillingness to deal with the rise of cult-figure individuals within the RSS parivar, or closely associated with it, and the corresponding diminishing of idealism and the end of peoples’ movements –

1) A day-long seminar organized by Hindu Dharma Rakshana Samiti in Chennai on the Communal Violence Bill; and

2) Internet news that a certain foul-mouthed American PIO will be touring India in November to promote his second book

The driving force behind both events is Personality Cult 1and his sycophants, supported and legitimised by the Chennai RSS, which, because of Cult 1, has since 2004 been functioning like an independent NGO, conducting its affairs as if on par with Nagpur, if not cut off from it. This gentleman is charged with spawning several Chennai-based organizations with the sole intent to wield control over all intellectual activity within the RSS parivar in Tamil Nadu and set himself up as an alternate power centre.

[color="#FF0000"]In the guise of promoting the book authored by the American PIO, Cult 1 has actually played facilitator to legitimise the Harvard Jesuit Francis Clooney who, as the Vatican’s agent for penetration into high Hindu dharmic institutions, is active in Tamil Nadu, especially Chennai. This American PIO author or Cult 3 has sought and received endorsement for his book from Clooney[/color], something from which Cult 1 and his power-house the Chennai RSS are going to find very difficult to wriggle away.

Cult 1, because of his penchant to create new organizations, is charged with being responsible for weakening the VHP and splitting the Tamil Nadu VHP vertically into two. The VHP, for its part, instead of going on the warpath and confronting the gentleman, chose the easier but less noble path and created for its part Cult 2, a gentleman ‘outside the Sangh’. Thus, the VHP allowed itself, without protest, to be diminished by Cult 1.

[color="#0000FF"]The VHP Cult is emerging as some kind of Messiah, enthusiastically promoted by a section of American PIOs who think that because of his activism in Indian courts, Cult 2 is the answer to all problems.[/color] The total dependence of the International President of the VHP on Cult 2 indicates that the VHP is no longer a combative societal grassroots outfit and is content to outsource its agenda to individuals and to allow courts to decide the Hindu fate. The very designations International President and International Secretary-General indicate that the VHP has moved away from its initial inward looking objective.

The rise of Cult 2 within the VHP has caused the VHP to neglect its self-identity as being the driving force behind Hindu mass movements; there has been no Hindu mass movement for over a decade after the Ramjanmabhumi movement fizzled out when the NDA came to power in Delhi. Muslims use state power to move speedily towards their politico-religious objectives, while Hindus use state power (or any other power) to grandstand to the world their commitment to secularism.

Now the VHP has no demonstrable street or societal power only because it has come to rely upon individuals instead of strengthening the organization, and because the VHP has conceded to the courts and to the Muslim community the right to decide not only the size of the Sri Ram temple, but also the question of ownership of the janmabhumi, instead of seizing the initiative and moving resolutely towards building a grand temple as promised.

The writer suspects that Cult 3, who is closely networked with Cults 1, 2 and the Convener of HDAS, is closely involved with Hindus embarking on the dangerous mission called inter-religious dialogue and participating in international multi-religious conferences.

Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswati is the common thread connecting all three cults, and the HDAS was created to serve as an international platform for the towering ambitions of Cults 1 and 3 to play at international politics of religion.

Cult 1 and HDAS are charged with promoting this obnoxious PIO author, Cult 3, in RSS circles, in the HDAS, and other organizations created by Cult 1. Notwithstanding the fact that there is well-concealed turf war among them, there is also convergence of interest among the three Cults to silence those not amenable to their control or those unwilling to be cast in the role of adoring acolytes (read slave labour). Swami Dayananda Saraswati is to Cults 1, 3 and American NGOs like HAF what Anna Hazare is to Kejriwal and the Bhushan duo.

The time has come to call all of them to account.

They control among them – the VHP, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, Dharma Rakshana Samiti and subsidiaries, (defunct) Thinkers’ Meet, Global Foundation for Civilizational Harmony, Vivekananda International Forum, and the now defunct Vigil Public Opinion Forum. Cults 1 and 2, the VHP, HDAS, DRS, and other organizations, with all the resources available to them, with all the power they have arrogated to themselves, in spite of occupying all the intellectual and organizational space that ordinary Hindus think is Hindu in character, must now be asked to explain -


Again: Who or what are Cults 1, 2 and 3.

- I'm guessing the American PIO about to release his second book is the billionaire Rajiv Malhotra (?)

- And "his activism in Indian courts" refers to whom? Whose activism? (E.g. Subramaniam Swamy is active in the courts, but it seems unlikely he'd be the one referred to here and didn't know RR didn't approve of him.)

HDAS is already named separately and its head (Swami Dayananda Saraswati) is named as connecting the 3 Cults. Therefore, HDAS is not any of cults 1 to 3.

Is one of the cults the Nithyananda movement then - Life Bliss something? If so, which of the 3 numbered cults is it then? And which ones are the other two?

I'm so obviously too stupid to understand a cryptic game of 3+ variables. Okay, the PIO author - presumably his entourage - is equated with cult 3. That still doesn't resolve the other 2 variables....

But darn-it. What is RM (is he the one alluded to?) doing with Clooney, that inculturating terrorist Jesuit from Harvard. Search IF for his name. E.g.

[quote name='Viren' date='08 August 2005 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1123524429' post='37206']

Some questions:

What does one know about Francis Xavier Clooney (who will now move to the

Harvard Divinity School from Boston College, heading a special chair)


Divine Mother, Blessed Mother , Hindu Goddesses and the Virgin Mary

He's supposedly issued a press note which was reported in The Hindu of August 2 repeating a startling claim, with a potential to disturb the peace in the nation, that five Vaishnava mandirams were originally churches.

Any details on this?

[/quote][quote name='k.ram' date='08 August 2005 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1123525317' post='37208']

The five temples being demanded by Jesuits for Church are in Srirangam, Kulithalai, Chidambaram, Aaduthurai, and Aavoor.

^ No I'm obviously not bumping my own post because I'm conceited about it, but because it has questions.

(IF wasn't listing the above post as recent/visible. Hence adding this one.)
This goes here, since the subtitle to the thread is called "theories".

[a] There seem to be a lot of articles by one Vijaya Rajiva and possibly others on (1) "Hinduism being Polytheism onlee" and (2) "not monotheism at all".

(2) is absolutely true, both because Hindus most certainly have more than 1 "god" and because there most certainly exist multiple Gods in the world even if you don't count a single one of the Hindu Gods in the list. (E.g. there's several millions of Shinto Kamis just in Japan.)

However, claiming polytheism is a problem in itself.

Hindus don't understand words used in English. But European reconstructionists - who consider themselves "pagans" or something - will tell you that Hindus, while certainly not monotheists, are NOT polytheists either. They call Hindus soft-polytheists. And they will say this as if it's an insult, or that you are some lesser species of heathen.

Despite it being used connotatively - the way christians derided Hindus etc as "polytheists" - the "soft polytheism" accusation is true: because the reconstructionists' definition appears to be that Hindoos' Gods can (as they do) join as multiGods-in-n-forms, which is something the neo-pagans/reconstructionists (or whatever they call themselves) insist their Gods do not do.

It's a fact that Hindu Gods do come in forms where two or or more Gods appear in one manifestations. These are ALSO the natural/own forms of these Hindu Gods. E.g. Ardhanaareeshwara (Shiva and Shakti in one) and Indraagni who is one of the Nakshatra Devas (well, in TN/thereabouts at least) who is considered literally a combination of Indra and Agni in the region, etc. Indeed, even any one of Hindus' pan-Hindu Gods can be seen as vouching for the presence of all the Gods.

So we're not really polytheists, because Polytheists - the vocalists who have already reserved the word for themselves - insist that the true polytheism is "hard polytheism": one that does not know of nor allow for merged Gods. But Hindus cannot help that their Gods do merge in various forms, even into entire vishvaroopas (different Hindu Gods display vishvaroopas).

Ironically, while European reconstructionists playing at being heathens today choose to belittle the Hindus as being nothing more than "soft polytheists" and are fortunately avoiding association, one notes that other arch-heathens who still exist in unbroken and unsubverted heathen succession are JUST what we are, whatever it is we are. I'll mention only the Daoists as the example here.

There you have it: traditional Daoists AND Hindus are "soft polytheists onleeeeee and hence not serious polytheists at all", not fit to be counted among the high-handed hard-polytheists.

But let's put the question the way it should be asked: would Hindoos rather have the company of such other arch-heathens like Daoists whose traditionalists since ancient times still see their Gods too, or would Hindoos rather be in the company of the "reconstructionists"?

Repeat: Hindus are NOT monopolytheists.

Hindus are closest to that which the reconstructionists accuse them of: "soft polytheists".

Hindus have Many (very real) Gods, who are all of that undivided nature of the Hindu Divine (of which it is said all the Kosmos partakes)*. Yet some forms of our Gods exist eternally in multi-form manifestation. Ardhanareeshwara is an eternal manifestation, just as Shiva and his wife Uma are eternal manifestations in their own right of the very same Gods who also manifest as merged in Ardhanarishwara.

It's just the way it is, for whatever reason. But Hindus do not need to grovel in front of the "hard polytheists" to crave inclusion in their elitist clique, the way Hindus overseas grovelled "we're monotheists onlee" such as in America or in some Hindu-Jewish summit. For the simplest and most valid of all reasons: neither terms apply. You're just disqualified from both.

If Hindus are not familiar with these definitions, it's not their fault. This isn't Hindoos' language. But when Hindus use words of self-description, they need to know what these words mean before they try to use them:

- Hindus CANNOT be "monotheist", because by definition - part implicit, part explicit - it actually particularly means your "gawd" is jeebusjehovallah (the non-existent "one troo gawd", none other is allowed as the definition of monotheism, this is the implicit part) AND that all other Gods are false. But you don't have one "god". You have many Gods. In particular, your Gods do not include the non-existent invisible jeebusjehovallah, which is something you moreover don't believe in. And how could you believe in it, when it doesn't even exist?

Plus Hindoos would not deny the Gods of other heathens.

- Hindus are simply not (strict) polytheists. Not only because the strict/hard polytheists won't allow Hindoos in their exclusive "polytheist" party, but because their very objection to your inclusion is valid, regardless of how you feel about it: Hindoos do recognise merged forms of Hindoo Gods as existing, as being as much the own forms of their Gods.

* The line with "Hindu" replaced by e.g. "Daoist" applies in equal measure.

In fact, even "soft-polytheists" is a wholly unnecessary word, and is unwelcome too. But if Hindus are going to claim one of these words, they ought to know why monotheism is absolutely not the one, and why polytheism is off-limits and why you're stuck with a sort of "qualified-polytheism" that others (whose opinions Hindoos need not care about**) have condescendingly tattoed you with.

[** Compare with how Daoists and Shintos eagerly choose to identify with Hindoos. (I've seen Native American sites - not just Shinto ones - that explain their religions using similarities with Hindoos' religion. But they're all welcome. Feeling's mutual.) That stupid dialogue of whether Julian was a "monopolytheist" is also unending. Headache.]

But to be forever named by others...? Why not stop all this passivity?

I know it's better to sign up as a polytheist - since it's certainly closer than monotheist ever was, and am very relieved people are aggressively rejecting the monotheist label, which definitely never fit - but Hindus' religion is not the only heathen religion that posits a relation between the numberless Divine (hence often described as "one" for ease of conceptualisation since it is a unity) and the Many Gods. But, as Hindus know, this is very different from what christoislamism means with its "one" - which is an angry and jealous, male, bearded entity invented specifically in contrast and antagonism to other Gods who are recognised to be the Gods of Others as per the OT, before these real Other Gods are then demoted to "false gods" etc.

Actually here again are the experts saying things in an English that even one as dense as myself can sort of comprehend (and they can safely claim themselves to be polytheists since it is THEIR own word and they know exactly what they mean and are allowed to mean it):


Quote:How many Gods do you have, twelve?

[color="#0000FF"]The Gods as infinite expressions of Unity are naturally multiple and most certainly exceed twelve in number.[/color]


(Then goes on to explain why they have 12 in particular. IIRC Platonists include Dion in Zeus, as per his own name?)[/color]
The manifest Gods are many.

And the Hellenes provide a qualification to the word they use:

Quote:Are you therefore Polytheists?

We can answer in the affirmative, but should first reiterate that the terms 'monotheism', 'polytheism' etc are used only as conventions, as in reality the monotheists invented these terms to distinguish themselves from normal humanity. Since humanity never doubted the multiplicity of the Universe, we use 'polytheism' simply to contrast ourselves from the so-called 'monotheists'.

Unity cannot exist without the presupposition of the 'many'.

I know I keep pasting these bits over and over and over again, but there's a reason the FAQ of ysee.org is so important. English may or may not be like a first language for the Hellenes who wrote the above, but does it matter when their use of the language is so excellent?

Okay we need slightly different words (ours is not exactly the same religion) but in general it can be applied, as it's similar enough.
Nearly forgot the reason I wanted to comment at all:


[color="#0000FF"]Anyone else suspect that that serial morph - the Romanian - carefully morphed himself into one "Hariharan" to comment at the above article?[/color]

All his usual arguments about "Shankara" and "monotheism" are there:

- "hidden-buddhism" accusations (there's a simple reason Shankara can't be a Buddhist. IIRC, he declared in his writings that Buddha was either willfully or ignorantly wrong. Hard to be a Buddhist after declaring the Buddha is simply wrong...)

- that Shankara "invented nirguna/saguna". Said "hariharan": "saguna/nirguna brahman also in coined by him only to prove his point no else is using it"

Again, the same argument Romani made, except that the LalitopAkhyANam is supposed to be older than the Adi Shankara and it uses Saguna and Nirguna to describe its Subject.

- that Adi Shankara (and only that Vedantic Acharya) is selective in finding proof for his position, something which Romani also claimed:

Quote:As regards shankara he cuts and paste from the upanishads and thereby 'proves' his theory of monism. For this he disregards most of the vedas/brahmanas portion , ignores the dualistic passages in upanishads and claims he is a vedantist/vedic and further states vedas proclaim the identity of jiva and brahman. The saguna/nirguna brahman also in coined by him only to prove his point no else is using it.

- that Vaishnavam is "monotheism".

- brings in Romani's usual favourites as "argument":

"Acharyas like Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka advocate the worship the one God Narayana,Vishnu, Vasudeva as the supreme god" **

What, no mention that Shri Vaishnavam worships Lakshmi too? I count 2 Gods already.... And Shri Vaishnavam is more particular as to kuladevam than Madhvas are (e.g. in TN, I even saw some Kannadiga Madhva vedabrahmanas perform a homam to Parvati-Shiva just this year.)

Also, Vaishnava Hindus from TN are unlikely call upon all of these simultaneously, and are likely to stick to their own branch of Vaishnavam, which in TN tends to be either of Shri Vaishnavam, Madhva or the Advaitic kind - the last are the Vaishnava Hindus attached to Shankaracharya mathas)

- plus this is *exactly* the very topic that interests Romani (and hence the very arguments he brings up)

- But Hariharan does mention "Lord Muruga and Lord Indra" and speaks of "our Vedic religion" - although variations on that last phrase seems to have been used quite often by Vijaya Rajeeva and commenters in various recent articles. But this does not necessarily disprove that it could be Romani, as all this would be entirely in line with the carefully morphing Romanian, learning from each encounter with Hindus, especially when he wants to peddle his "monotheism" vs "Shankara" without being caught. (I.e. morphing into a Tamizh Hindu and speaking of "our Vedic religion" to parrot the writers would be very much the sort of thing he would do now, to lay himself above suspicion as a meddling alien. And he has amply proven his desire to meddle and influence Hindus in this very matter.)

But far better to have a look at the link for all occurrences of "Hariharan" so people can decide for themselves based on his numerous comments there.

** Meanwhile, apparently even the Srimad Bhagavatam (in Skandha IV) praises Brahma and Rudra. And thereafter it sees Vishnu identify himself with them again: saying he *is* BrahmA and he is Rudra. (That he is the trimoorti essentially. I.e. the same thing that's also regularly said of Saraswati, Lakshmi, Shiva, Ganapati, etc. etc.)

Just before all of that, it sees Rudra prostrate to BrahmA, before BrahmA then declares Rudra to be the Brahman and mentions Shiva-Shakti too.

Clearly the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB) finds BrahmA and Rudra worshipful too.

(Plus it turns out that not only Vaishnava Hindus but other kinds too use the SB for ritualistic purposes.)

I totally missed this comment last time, on the same VV page. A "Hindoo narrative" and a very familiar one at that, but with one notable point of difference:


Quote:Let me narrate something to silence those detractors who are full of animosity towards Brahmins harping on "untouchability".

It is about a Vedic Brahmin ( observing all Anushtanams ) who lived in Agraharam in a village in Seergazhi several years ago . Occasionally those working in fields were bitten by snakes. Some sos first aid was given. At once it would be reported to that Brahmin. He chanted some mantras rendering the snake venom harmless. In some rare cases also cautioned that person would not survive.



16 May 2012
Ah someone who's said something I *know* to be true. Because I know exactly the same kind: a Tamizh Vedabrahmana - though not living in SeerkAzhi but in a state neighbouring TN - whose case was quite similar. He had also been initiated into a snake mantra that was handed down in his family. But the difference is that it *always* worked when he was called: as long as the victim was still alive when he got there, they would be saved by it. (Though it would take longer to cure those who had had the venom for longer in them.) He once told me there was one rule that went with the mantram: the Hindoo initiated in it must always go to help when their aid was sought in the matter. If they *ever* failed to go, the mantra would cease to work from then on. (<- And that's an example of why Hindoo religion ain't science and anyone who tells you otherwise obviously doesn't know what they're talking about and got their "hinduism" from booking it/from armchair-philosophy, rather than from those who *know* the Gods/religion. Yes the religion always Works, but No, not always - nor even usually - "scientifically". After all, if the religion were scientific, his mantram would have continued to work even if he had ever chosen to miss an occasion. And if it was merely the "vibrations" of the mantras that are the "potent/effective" force - as all new ageists keep advertising Hindoo mantras as - then the same vibrations would clearly be there if he were to ever break the rule once and were thereafter to continue saying it. Yet it wouldn't work in precisely such a case, as per the very rule that went with the mantram. The (breaking of) the rule has no scientific relation to the mantram's efficacy, and *yet* is completely related to this anyway: stick by the rules and it will work - thereby bringing people back from the otherwise-fatal consequence of sarpa bites. Break it and it WILL cease to work.)

And the one I knew also went to every single Hindoo household that he was called to, including those homes of Hindoos whom other Hindoos did not usually visit. Back in those days there was still a lot of forest in the surroundings where he lived and the area was densely inhabited with families of nagapambus whose venom was lethal to creatures, and thus many Hindoos out on the land were often bitten (and even those at home). Among those he recalled going to help were occasionally Hindoos who actually shrank from his touch for fear that *he'd* get into trouble for it*. As touch he would: having to hold the arm of the bitten Hindoo and repeat the mantram for several long hours. And thus, very slowly but very definitely, the venom withdraws. (* He actually had to reassure them first to allay their fear, explaining there was no ban at all in his coming in contact with them, before these poor Hindoos felt comforted enough to allow him to help them.)

But then, that's what Hindoos do with their mantras: it is used for the welfare of others. It is obviously free, as all real help is, and it was specifically given to the initiates to be administered in society and to pass it down to responsible individuals (and the one I speak of was the very best and kindest of all I know) so that it could continue to benefit the Hindoo society which the Hindoos' Gods watched over. And the knowledge of this mantram was a great responsibility (and at times more than a responsibility) to those who were initiated because of the stringent Rule that went with it. The mantram in his line died with him: he deliberately chose to Not pass it on because 1. the forest had receded (no cobras in sight there now) and 2. because the responsibility of sticking to the rules was more than merely serious (and had consequences). And I suppose anti-venom would have become available so that it became unnecessary.

Something in all the above - to those Hindoos who know and hence comprehend the sort of matters it speaks of - explains what it is that Hindoos stand to lose when they allow themselves to be converted or even subverted/alienated in degrees out of their religion, or when they allow their religion to die as is happening now. Sure, all this may have become an inevitability, but it's one that's guaranteed to be something all concerned will regret more than they can perhaps imagine. (Though, if you don't know the extent of what you stand to lose, haven't you lost it already?)

There are far more such "Hindoo narratives" -absurd phrase- that underline the severity of the impending loss much more - and which show how Hindoos are defined as a population who continue to see/interact with their ancestral Gods (including even obtaining mantras and other Hindoo matters directly from their Gods). But Hindoos ought to know such things for themselves, not hear it from others let alone me (it becomes "3rd hand information"). It is when a large number of Hindoos cease to know/remember such things that their religion can be taken away from them and they can be made to believe/parrot ... anything. And then the number of subvertibles - i.e. the Gangrene - grows.

The religion of the Hindoo Gods - like those of the Daoist Gods etc, I understand - is true: because the Gods are real (and, for example, give their heathens things that Work).

I was surprised Nirnaami said it in public, while I'd have thought such things should remain private. But I'm now supposing it doesn't matter in this case for me to say stuff on top of it, because 1. only Hindoos who already *know* such things to be true - from their own family/direct circumstances - would even consider/accept it. There is no such thing as "belief" in Hindoo religion, so 2. those who don't know already, can't and won't be influenced by it just because the above has been said publicly. <- Essentially, it's like I didn't say anything. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />

[More importantly: implicit is that none of the things described let alone alluded to above is anything the Aliens will *ever* be able to know :evil-grin: At most the Aliens can become aware of what the extent of Hindoos' heathenism was and still is (for the time that remains) - i.e. how Hindoos' ancestral religion *works* for Hindoos - and then realise how these things will Never, but Never, work for Aliens nor can ever be acquired/achieved by them no matter how much they stand on their head/dabble. And not only because these things rightly will die with the Hindoos, but because these things Cannot be resurrected by Aliens or reconstructed or whatever - recall their stupid "vedic reconstructionism" hobby.

Analogy: They can't resurrect/reconstruct it, in exactly the way humanity isn't famous for bringing people back from the dead. When it is dead it will remain dead in aliens' hands, just as what lives yet in Hindoos' hands never attains to a life in aliens'. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> It is not Aliens' religion after all, dabble as they will.]

And yet another comment caught my eye:



6. Hindu students studying in famous Christian convent schools were given extremely negative picture of Hindu dharma, Lord Krishna, Lord Rama, Hindu gods, ahcaras, sankalapas and so on. When asked about her knowledge on Lord Krishna to a Brahmin student studying in Lower Primary School of a famous Christian college, she said “ Lord Krishna is a thief and a womanizer…………… “ When asked from where she got this information, came the answer “ Our teachers give this to all of us”


16 May 2012

Don't know why Nitha is complaining against christo convent schools, when it's for some time ceased to be christo teachers (let alone the missionaries of yore) saying it.

Koenraad Elst finally decided to just come out and say what one already knew he had concluded all along (but which he's been working towards telling his audience only in phases, getting them to conceed bit by bit). And if any didn't see this coming: more Fool them.

Note it's the *same* analysis by which he earlier concluded other things about Rama and Krishna in public (which Doniger had also said, but for which no Hindus had lent *her* an ear - once again proving that angelsk-speaking Hindus only object to Who is saying something and not What it is they're saying).

The context for the following: Elst is reviewing some "Hinduism" book or something by the Hinduism Today people - you know, that magazine belonging to the foreign movement that, in one of its issues some time ago, was seen *peddling* - as in *advocating* - an anti-SitaRama animation by an anti-Hindu alien which purported to be about "Sita" in the "Ramayanam":


Quote:Saturday, March 10, 2012


On the other hand, introducing the epic’s hero Krishna as “the eighth incarnation of Lord Vishnu” (p.9) [9th incarnation to not a few Hindoos], without quote marks, detracts from the book’s purpose of teaching “history”. Let alone the secularist deconstruction, even in the epic itself he is a down-to-earth war consultant and womanizer


But then, such a conclusion is only the logical consequence of the apotheosis line. (En wie A zegt moet ook B zeggen*, nietwaar? De enige weg die voor hen open blijft is voorwaarts. Terugkrabbelen is zeer zeker niet mogelijk (gelukkig maar). Bovendien zou dat je reinste schijnheiligheid zijn...)

* Not all that sure that "In for a penny, in for a pound" is the English equivalent, though it's the only one that comes to mind. Regardless, the NL phrase is the more apt.

Disclaimer: have nothing to do with what Elst etc ever declared regarding Rama/Krishna/....

(But I agree with the erstwhile Romans: the Gods can defend themselves. After all, the Olympic Gods continued to exist unperturbed throughout.)

Elst has more to declare, which I seemed to have missed the first time I came across the link:

Quote:Concerning the authorship of the Vedas, the existing belief is noted: “Hindus regard them as spoken by God” (p.3), only to return to the realistic assumption of human authorship: “the holy texts had to be composed well before 2000 BCE” (because by that time the mighty Saraswati had shriveled, p.3), and “a few [women] even composed several of the holy Vedic hymns” (p.5).So, clearly the Vedic hymns were the handiwork of human poets.
(I've heard that the claim is/was rather that the Vedas are the "lifebreath" of the Gods - or something comparable in conceptualisation - a.o.t the "words" of the Gods.)

Vedic hymns are generally considered classes of mantras - i.e. "vedamantras" are called so because they *are* mantras. While I don't know about the origins - if any - of the Vedas, *other* mantras that are in the hands of Hindus of our time and which also Work are still given directly by Gods to various Hindoos. (As a consequence, they're not in any Vedic or Pauranic etc texts and remain unknown to most if not all other Hindus for this reason.) And these are certainly still considered "eternal" by the recipient(s), since these mantras go with/belong with those Gods - who are eternal - and have nothing to do with "when" the Hindoo recipient "received" them.

Hmmm, I suppose ^that^ would/could be another reason why many Hindoos still think that Vedamantras are not originally of human origin either (and that the Vedic Rishis merely intuited - or something - what already existed): because the Vedamantras (obviously) Work too, and because it is *known* of some other mantras that these belong to/with various Gods from whom they have been personally obtained (this being a Living Religion, and all. I mean, if it were a *dead* religion, Hindoos would no longer see their Gods and no longer obtain anything directly from them, obviously.)
Yet more spam, I'll apologise at the end.

Post 1/

Seems Elst has written about Hindu survival. He's rather too optimistic. He says a lot of stuff that everyone has already discussed. But his solutions are theoretical (and some unfeasible). And on some points that he would make, he is quite wrong.


Admits to what ought to be well-known: transmission of heathenism is from heathen family and society into the heathen since infancy. And that now the continuation of the sole proper transmission of heathenism is threatened.

But I don't agree with this analysis of the problem - as it's not complete and it totally skirts over the real issue:

Quote:The law of inertia is no longer working for Hinduism; it starts to work against it. The missionaries know this; the Hindus, I am not so sure.

No, what christianism (not "missionaries") knows - and the Hindus don't - is what I already mentioned in the bit regarding the Proper (Hindoo) Viewing of Moorties in another thread, and which was of course more generally applicable: that christianism has cut the Hindoo transmission tree at the roots. It has killed the heathenism in the heathen: the heathen is still alive but his heathenism is not. It is what christianism (not "missionaries") has been consciously aiming for. Christianism has been rubbing out the heathen's proper heathen perception/view of its heathenism. This was easy enough to do when christianism took over education, media, overarching "entertainment" (cinema, etc). Heathenism is transmitted differently - and very frailly - compared to missionary/ideological religions. Christianism identified the weakness of the well-spring of heathenism in India and poisoned the spring. Parents losing their heathenism by degrees means it never gets passed on (properly) to their kids. And that means more Write-Off or even the potential for more gangrene to develop.
Post 2/

Elst writes about the need for Samskritam to be the "national language".

There was a time I thought that too. I then realised I was mistaken.

Samskritam is a *Hindu* language - intimately tied to the religion as per the Hindoos and as admitted by their competition (until the competition then tries to launch claims to the language for itself).

So do people really want to teach christoislamics Samskritam? Think about it.

Nationalists are likely to insist blindly on a Yes, but that's because they don't know what they're saying Yes too. If India becomes christoislamic and Samskritam was its national language at that time, it will be treated like Latin and Greek and Arabic are now: presented as "christoislamic" languages. [Urdu is a special case, though it is an islamised version of a very unpleasant and uncouth sounding merger of (once-)heathen languages - notably Persian, Arabic, Hindi.]

As everyone knows, neither Latin, Greek nor Arabic were originally christoislamic. They were the languages of heathens. And at the very least Greek - but perhaps not exclusively in that list, there is some indication (IIRC, even some metres employed in Latin were considered sacred to Hellenistic Romans) - was even considered a sacred language among its heathens.

So think: christoislamism won't at all mind making Samskritam its national language if that's the state of affairs it were to (illegally) inherit when it takes over the country. Moreover, christianism has already made public its eagerness to acquire Samskritam for christianism (after killing the language among the Hindus; same as it aims to do with Bharatanatyam, Carnatic music etc: christianism aims to play the "saviour" of "Indian culture" by usurping it via the claim "Hindus abandoned it". That's what christianism *does*. It's what all the christoconditioning is for: for making next generations of Hindus "progressive" and getting them to abdicate their forms of religious expression). When islam can accept Urdu in favour of Arabic in the subcontinent - at least for now - it will not have much problem in accepting Samskritam in favour of Urdu. Skt will never have first place in islam, of course - which is reserved for Arabic due to contextual reasons - but islam will cease to care about the issue of Samskritam vs Urdu if the country were islamised at a point where the lingua franca was Skt, since Urdu actually has no real special status in islam only an emotional connection to the islamics of the subcontinent. That is, Urdu is in fact replaceable, whether TSP-ers like the idea or not.

* "Ironically" (actually, predictably), significant elements in catholicism are the most willing - among all the extant christianisms - for swallowing Skt as a *major* "christian" liturgical language, despite having been pedantic about Latin in the past. But these elements in catholicism have indicated that more than mere inculturation is behind their unnatural designs on Skt. Inculturation is merely about stealing the popular local heathen religious expression by developing the falsehood that this is "national therefore christian *culture* (devoid of heathen religion)", in order to acquire converts. Christianism aims for more than that with Skt. While inculturated elements will be purged/phased out once the natives have been domesticated properly into christianism over a few generations, the literature indicates they do not plan on purging Skt.

Do not let the enemies have Samskritam and turn it into a "national language" of "Indian culture". It is a language of Hindu religion that binds Hindus from Larger Bharatam, and is indeed accorded divine status (as regional Hindu languages are too) by being identified with the Gods themselves. Indeed, Skt having been called the devabhaasha - or so it still was, at least until even my parents' time - tells you what the Hindoos think their language is. While it would be tempting for over-excited nationalist Hindus to turn this into the next Universalism - the way the exporting jetsetters did with Yoga - if Hindus don't give Skt to enemies, then at least they need not blame themselves for the blunder.

It does Not belong in the hands of the enemies. No more than the ancient Greek learning of the Hellenes should have ever fallen into christianism's hands to teach in ancient GR schools. Christianism will subvert it and use it for its own purposes, both to destroy the native religion of that language and to promote their own religion with it and then present the language as being tied to their religion.

Clearly, I can't make the argument properly. So here follows the Professional again, over 1.5 millennia ago. On Julian (via a detail taken from RSmith again):

Quote:A plain reading of his (Emperor Julian's) argument might imply the view that the best remedy against the impiety of Christians will be to educate them. Julian would indeed have assented to that, but with the crucial proviso that it is a requirement of true education that one is taught in a particular manner. What he says about education as a cure for Christian folly needs to be read alongside an immediately preceding remark in Against the Galilaeans:

'If your own Scriptures are sufficient for you, why do you nibble at the learning of the Greeks?' (229c). The comment hints at the writer's outrage at the uses to which Christians have put the cultural heritage of the Greeks - an outrage plain in remarks that Julian makes elsewhere. Two of his unplaced fragments set out the issue succinctly:

[Let us ensure] that they [the Christians] may not, by sharpening their tongues, prepare themselves to take on the Greeks in debate ... for as the proverb has it, we are struck by our own arrows. For they arm themselves from our own writings to do battle with us.75

It is well enough known that Julian did not confine himself to mere debate in this matter. An edict of 17 June 362 had ruled that would be teachers must be authorized to teach by civic councils,76 and a rescript soon followed to make it clear that Christian professors were to be disqualified in toto by this law. The rescript gives a fuller expression to Julian's grievance and an ideological explanation of his action. Proper education (paideia orthe) entails not merely expertise in language and letters, but a 'healthy disposition';77 a man who thinks one thing and teaches another fails to educate his pupils. There is passing allusion to philosophers in this connection, but once again the main focus of Julian's attention lies with the gods and their cult worship.

("Healthy disposition" <-> heathen view, as is also apparent from how this relates directly to "the main focus of Julian's attention".)
(BTW, the bit in blue of what Julian says above applies to the Alien terrorists aka dabblers and other indologicals too. And, similarly, the statement that "education (paideia orthe) entails not merely expertise in language and letters, but a 'healthy disposition'" gives you the reason why Hindus should not empower Indologicals and other Aliens to lecture Hindus on Hindu religion. The aliens are not even heathens, forget Hindus, forget having seen the Hindoo Gods. The sole reason Hindus need to popularise among their own kind to implant auto-immunity towards the Wendy Donigers is: "They haven't seen the Gods - they're not even heathens - so why would any sane person be listening to these entities?"

And when the indologicals reads into the Vedic literature that it "actually" says or means "this or that" - again, point to Julian: "Proper education (paideia orthe) entails not merely expertise in language and letters, but a 'healthy disposition'". The aliens were never heathens, they can never be heathens again, all they know is merely to decipher the *letters* and the words and from there dubbed themselves "experts" on the language and then made the miraculous leap to somehow declare themselves as "experts" on the Vedam: "vedicists" - or even alien "brahmanas", some actually call themselves. I kid you not. Looney, quite looney.)

I've gone off the point again, haven't I.

Julian could not deny the soul-terrorists - I mean, the christians - access to the ancestral language (many christians in the empire already had access to Latin and/or Greek). But we're in a position to do exactly that: deny christoislamics access as far as is in our ability.

Hindus had already committed a heinous crime before - for which Hindoos (and others) are still paying through the nose: by giving Alien terrorists access to our language and texts. Of course the alien terrorists are unable to do anything properly with it for themselves - and it has quite driven them out of their minds - but they have been damaging many native heathens' views past the point of reversal.

But don't multiply - through your own action - that earlier crime, by willingly (or even unconsciously) enabling the local terrorists' - who are alien in their own right - access to the Hindoo Skt language, and thereby giving them the three-fold advantage of

1. debasing Skt into a vehicle to propagate their own nonsense (in particular as christianism's liturgical language, or the pretence that it is somehow "equally" theirs; it is exclusively Hindoo) - I mean, *look* what they did to Latin and Greek;

2. subverting Hindoo literature hence religion further by typical christian sleight of hand

3. stealing it gradually from the Hindus (the way Hellenistic education had ended up in christian hands. But in that case, in a few short centuries, christianism utterly extinguished the GR schools and consequently all education.)

Teach all the Hindoos, certainly (goes without saying). But do not teach the enemies. What Julian said: don't arm the nemesis.

They are clearly unable to learn it (in any worthwhile numbers) at present for themselves. Allow them - indeed, help them - to remain forever illiterate in this and to keep up their hatred of it: when they hate all else to do with Hindoo religion and plot for its demise, they may be consistent and continue to equally hate the language that is so intimately and inextricably tied to it.

Until those presently infected with the mindvirus ideologies fully, truly and properly revert to their ancestral Hindu religion - forswearing completely the false non-existent "gawd" entity who has been the excuse for mankind's destruction including that of heathenism - until then, no converted individuals have right to Samskritam. Certainly not by means of being taught by Hindus.

Hindus may romantically like to imagine that their beloved devabhaashaa will "save" the christoislamics - perhaps revert them through mere contact with the pristine language, or at least make the enemies more nationalistic(ally-inclined). But Greek and Latin did not make christianism more nationalistic in a heathen Roman empire. (Plus who cares about "nationalism" among christoislamics when the latent threat of jeebusjehovallah will remain as long as the christoislamic mindvirus remains.) Also, look at the Alien dabblers who have "learnt" Samskritam and then the "Vedas". And consider the extent of their madness.

Elst's suggestion - although it's not an original suggestion, Hindus have said it often enough since long before - is a double-edged knife:

+ Samskritam *must* take its rightful place as the language of connecting Hindus India-wide, so Hindus most certainly *need* to revive it (it is intrinsically related to a significant part of pan-Hindu identity and self-heathenisation; which is exactly why alien *christians* are trying to subvert interpretation of Hindu Samskrita-language texts, while others are hoping to secularise the language into "it belongs to all Indians equally including of course christianism")

+ Yet it must be kept from christoislamics, as it is a sacred Hindoo language. Moreover, christoislamics were not and never shall choose to be "nationalists" until the nation is christoislamic. Their ideology is their primary objective (and anyone who doubts that is beyond merely delusional). In contrast, only nationalistic Hindus would *choose* to place nationalism as their first religion and subordinate their Hindu religion to their nationalism, thereby slowly killing of their heathenism.

While some among the other traditional Indic religions still object to Samskritam amidst their general aversion to anything Hindu (including especially as national or connective language), don't know the leveraging power of the objection, though they have been willing to gang up with christoislamism in the past to play the persecuted minority and may do so again if they heard murmer of Samskritam looming as the national language. But *Hindus* would not object to Skt, since it is their inherited ancestral language and also because no one is expecting people to relinquish their own regional mother tongue in favour of any other (the way English always does: English monotheistically extincts other languages and thereby other religio-cultures).

I still think my own idea on how to spread Skt among Hindus - IIRC mentioned in detail long ago - though very high on effort for those preparing it, would allow the Hindu target audience to pick up Samskritam effortlessly (and *want* to learn it and to speak it).

When well executed, I continue to be convinced it's the best (and IMO surefire) way of propagating Skt: like osmosis even. Indeed, it would achieve at least 3 Hindu targets in one go, possibly even 4. But it really needs masses of people donating their free time. Sadly it's had 0 takers among Hindus whenever I've suggested it. Confusedigh:
Post 3/

Elst has a section called don't create false problems.

a) According to Elst, Hindus discussing "polytheism" and "idolatry" to delineate what Hindus are/are not, are "creating false problems". He also mentioned how the Vedic Rishis wouldn't care whether they were polytheists or monotheists.

+ Not going to repeat how Hindus - including especially the Rishis - cannot be monotheists (by definition of monotheism), despite Elst thinking they didn't care either way (Vedic Rishis did take their manifest Gods seriously, no less so than Daoist "Rishis" or Hellenes etc).*

+ However: Hindus never "created" the problem. And sadly, it's a very 'real' problem in the sense that christianism plans to shove it in your face eventually.

Why do Hindus think that RSmith wrote Julian's Gods, with *that* title, with *that* inside flap, as an obvious response to false biographies about Julian and evil concoctions in alien scholarship about "Pagan Monotheism"* in Hellenismos? And why do people think a man like RSmith - someone who has obvious brains and skills, not to speak of his other apparent merits - should have devoted his efforts on that? He is

1. acquitting Julian of all kinds of false charges (that he was inventing and/or doing something like a "pagan monotheism" and/or subverting Hellenismos, when he was a typical Hellene);

and thereby

2. acquitting Hellenismos of those charges (that it supposedly was or was becoming a "pagan monotheism").

Note: it's not just Athanassiadi who was waxing eloquent on that concoction. And christo comments on several works manufacturing this very topic indicate exactly where christianism wants to take "pagan monotheism" to: to its logical conclusion -> "it all culminated naturally in christianism/it was all christianism=about jeebusjehovah all along." And not just one christo has indicated how *the same* works apply/can be applied to Hindu and Dao religions. It's used as an attack on Hellenismos and Hellenes, you know: christos repeatedly try to insinuate themselves and tell Hellenes "your ancient river of a religion actually ran out into the sea of pagan monotheism, so that's what you're *actually* meant to be." Do Hindus think they can take on a battle that already requires constant refuting by Hellenes?

Don't scoff at the western scholarship on the matter until you have read it. The enemies can and do rationalise "pagan monotheism" to a nicety - doesn't make it true. Yet it is this reasonable-sounding "rationalisation" that is bound to appeal to the more self-conceited among the angelsk-speaking vocalists (you know, the Self-Appointed new-agey "teachers of hinduism") and that the latter will pull their usual trick: they'll turn around and come back to peddle the poison among the Hindoos back home - to poison the Hindu tree - as they were programmed to do. (Note also how it's always only those people who have never seen the Gods who will claim they are "monotheists onlee"/"have one gawd onlee". Nobody else does it.)

More generally, christoislamism - and other monotheist religions - have *forced* the discussion of mono(poly)theism and idolatry onto heathens including Hindus, as was better explained at the YSEE.gr FAQ. It's going to be turned into Hindus' business to formulate the proper and complete answer: one that will at last silence your enemies on this point and protect your own from confusing itself. Hindus are neither monotheists nor idolators: they don't believe in any invisible monogawd nor other false gods (don't believe in the non-existent 'true god' nor in the non-existent 'false gods' of christian cosmology; indeed, Hindus don't subscribe to christian cosmology at all) and consequently don't worship images of "false gods".

Of course, christoislamism is a learning bot and will next try to attack Hindus in some other way on these same points as well as on others. It will go back to the drawing board and come up with further convoluted sophistry in its attempts to subvert (only while christianism is a minority, after which it will use more violence).

* And yet if it didn't supposedly matter to Plato (say) whether there are many Gods or not - image-worshipper that he was, IIRC we have this on Emperor Julian's own authority (and image-worship is for the numerous *manifest* Gods, whereas the [Platonist] unmanifest is not worshipped through images in Hellenismos but is worshipped through the manifest Gods, predictably/understandably) -

If it didn't matter to say Plato, then why would "neo"-Platonists have fought the christo-accusation of "you're actually a monotheism" tooth and nail even in the past? So let's not pretend it would "not matter" to Hindu Rishis or Daoist sages either, ja? Don't be ambivalent about monopolytheism, it's like being ambivalent about whether your religion is true (works) or not. It is indeed a "false problem", just not in the way Elst intimated, but rather in the way the fellow heathens - the Hellenes at YSEE.gr - clearly identified it: it's a trick question/mental manipulation that christos have prepared the answers to in advance.

I'm not saying that Hindus should go on and on discussing it - up to them what they do - but just tell your Hindus to have their answers prepared (like the YSEE FAQ is consciously prepared) and leave it at that. But there *is* an answer and it isn't Elst's "it doesn't really matter" shrug.

Insert: also, it looks as if Elst was busy writing about "monotheism" and "polytheism" in articles dated some months or so back, even going so far as critiquing modern missionising monotheisms in India himself. I wonder what made him do a 180 into dropping the subject and insisting everyone else drop it too, as if he never showed an interest in the subject let alone took a view of Hindu religion in terms of monopolytheism himself? (At that time, he *seems* to have decided "Hinduism" was polytheistic - though he now thinks it wasn't/didn't matter/whatever/"chill" - but will need to properly read his articles on the subject.)

And moreover, he's asking Hindus to drop the subject just at a time when some visible vocalists had at last started raising this issue in earnest. (Which Hindus must, if only to counteract the grand folly NRIs etc had committed in public in falsely declaring that Hindus were supposedly "monotheists". An error which may then once more have trickled onto the heathens back home, to subvert them into this falsehood.)
Post 4/

In the same section on "false problems" Elst brings up another topic. It actually wouldn't have interested me, except he just *made* it important: he's turned a false problem into a real problem. But this is going to take time to explain.

First though. He admits that rituals are not remotely Hindu religion's negative point, regardless of what aliens and alienated who don't know the religion may say about rituals being "empty". This just confirms what a few US ex-catholic ex-christians have also said: that they still choose to attend their former church for the "rituals".

However, the fact that he chooses to draw a parallel between the two, as seen in the following, shows that he thinks that *heathen* rituals are no more than similarly "quaint" - presumably (useful) for social bonding or positive emotional response or whatever:

Quote:Of course, the Jesuits know the value of ritual and also practice it, but to Hindu pupils they teach about its emptiness.

Buddhism doesn't believe in - and specifically didn't approve of existing - rituals, going so far as to condemn them among native heathens at various times, yet it still adopted rituals from pre-existing religions in competition and then learnt to live with it. This lack of seriousness concerning the real meaning of rituals in heathenism - the same view as is apparent from Elst's own comments on the matter, see below - continues to be seen in how Buddhism was again recently advised to (literally!) "evolve rituals" in India, specifically in order to acquire more converts - i.e. among the Hindus. This was IIRC from an article in the international Buddhist site buddha.tv something.)

Back to Elst's statements and why they're important - but not in the sense he may have intended:

The problem with Elst thinking heathen rituals are 'quaint and useful', particularly in an article on Hindu survival, is that he's influencing his readers into thinking that's what Hindu (and generally heathen) rituals are. But this is a matter he knows nothing of so can't comment on. He is moreover teaching his ever-eager Hindu audience - who can't differentiate between his sensible statements and where he is so obviously out of his depth - that heathen rituals are therefore replaceable: essentially, he tells them "if you lose your rituals, you can always just make them up" a la what neo-paganism does. This is seen most clearly in this dangerous statement of his:

Quote:Ritual will take care of itself, it gets reborn easily, but some matters are more serious when they are made into problems.

I.e. he imagines that genuine rituals get "reborn easily". No they don't.*

It gives Hindus a false sense of what they stand to lose. Like it's "not much" when you lose these things.

Oh but it's *everything*. Your rituals allow you to see the Hindu Gods. Do it wrong (and with an unheathen or otherwise wrong mindset/view) - or do fake/invented rituals - and nothing happens or will ever happen. That is, it won't work for you. People may as well sign up for neo-paganism then.

* That's exactly what is preventing many western "reconstructionists" from getting their ancestral Gods back. Christianism destroyed knowledge of their ancestors' authentic heathen rituals (plus oryanist/dabbling and "neo-pagan" reconstructionist movements have the wrong views on their ancestors' heathen religion and have destroyed proper perception even more.) Heathen rituals establish direct bonds between heathens and their Gods. It's consequently also the means by which a heathen religion is proved. No use dwelling on the point as people either get what I just said or not. But lose these authentic rituals (that work!) and future generations will have no means by which to commune with the Gods. You *can't* pluck them back out of the air.

Focussing on the Hindu case, it needs to be stressed that Hindoo rituals and the right view of the Gods are very important for Hindus to maintain their bonds with their Gods. (If Hindus lose their Gods, they cease to be heathens.)

Anyone who listens to Elst and takes him seriously in this matter is only going to get subverted out of a terribly important facet of Hindoo religion. If anyone *cares* about their religion - most notably cares about the Gods - do NOT take your rituals as lightly as Elst in his ignorance wants Hindus to take them. His own dismissal of the meaning of Hindu rituals, through which he may convince Hindus of the same - and he *is* influential among angelsk-speaking Hindus, who then parrot his words onwards - is no different from the christo-dismissal of Hindus' rituals as "empty" (even though he criticised this). Accepting the former is no less a subversion than the latter: because both is to perceive your rituals incorrectly (their meaning and proven efficacy) and consequently devalue them. If people who are meant to be heathens end up with the wrong views, nothing will work for them and they may as well be Aliens.

Repeat. On Hindu rituals, its other practises and the religion in general: Hindu religion *works* and proves itself. And rituals and other practises are exactly the means by which the religion proves itself. ("Tragically" for inculturators: Hindoo rituals don't transfer to other religions by means of inculturation, as Hindoo rituals are directly related to the Gods - qua identity even. As usual: I'm not the one who's saying this.)

There's a reason Elst would be naturally inclined to say the following:

Quote:Religion may be nonsense, but ritual is very important.

This is typical of non-heathen would-be sympathizers in general (invariably makes for subversionists). That he's not a heathen in any sense - possibly just an apostate, definitely new age - he already made clear long ago, as seen below. And this is why on heathen matters, Hindus should really not be looking to Elst for authority or knowledge (he *couldn't* know):


Quote:What I like about Stefaan's view of religion is that he doesn't try to revive corpses of gods, ancient beliefs which mostly are known only in distorted and incomplete form. He starts from reality, and from modern man. We have an inborn sense of the sacred as much as our ancestors did. We only need to remove the cobwebs that have covered this sensitivity in years of not paying attention.


There were, if I recall well, sixteen of us. Most were members of a neo-Pagan society on which I will write later this week. At the last station of the walk, its new chairman ritually opened the group's working year and gave a brief speech. Brief means two or three sentences, he's called Herman the Taciturn for a reason.

I was apprehensive there was going to be an invocation of some gods -- what else would you expect of Pagan revivalists? But no god or similar creature (oops, Creator) was mentioned. The universe is enough. It means something to us moderns, whereas the gods, of any pantheon, are comic characters to us, at best name-tags for the different cornerstones of the cosmos. Just as the old gods didn't need to be depicted, today they don't need to be named. Now that Christians rarely take God seriously anymore ("God, if You exist, save my soul, if I have one"), even the Pagans are doing without Him/them.

+ It's documented in several heathen religions - and perhaps one can make a generalisation to that of Elst's ancestors - that the names of the Gods are very important. Anyway, Hindus already know the value of the names of their own ancestral Gods (they're regarded as identical to the Hindu Gods and often recognised as literal mantrams in themselves). And as the ancient GrecoRomans made known repeatedly, among Hellenes the names of the Gods were ever held sacred. And of Julian too, the matter is confirmed. At this point, do I need to mention other heathens? (RSmith did a nice defence of this, I thought. But I will parrot from his words on Julian and Hellenismos regarding this in the next post.)

+ Not sure why Elst's group is calling themselves "pagan revivalists" (or even neo-pagans for that matter)? They are not reviving their ancestors' religion, nor have any interest to, nor do they have anything in common with them: even minimising and ridiculing their ancestors' Gods, imagining these have turned into "corpses" merely because the locals stopped "believing" in them and that they are no more than "comic characters". But why then do these people pretend they are the natural continuation of their ancestors' religion in the present age? That is, why pretend to be a so-called "paganism", when there's specifically nothing "pagan" about them (only new age)?

Guess this is the next phase then, in Europe's constant trending within the sphere of christianism and its repercussions...

The Gods are "comic characters" to Elst (and to his "pagan revivalist" friends, going by his statement) and religion is "nonsense", while ritual is important not because it works but because it makes people feel better/gives them something to do.

He's not a heathen. And as he's not a heathen, when he says stuff about "religion being nonsense but ritual is important" (in a social sense), etc, Hindoos - being heathens - cannot consider him an authority. He doesn't know the Gods - not even those of his ancestors', forget those of Hindus. So his remarks on heathenisms can be discarded.

When Elst says that ritualism is "valuable but replaceable" - in the way agnostic would-be sympathisers naturally do, since that is as far as they can bring themselves (note the difference with RSmith, who never reveals his view except through insisting to present the Ancient Hellenes' view) - hopefully Hindus among Elst's readership would have the good sense to reject his Mere Opinion. Demonstrably false, but Hindoos will need to demonstrate this for yourself: that's what your heathen rituals are for. Since you are an ethnic Hindoo, if you have a heathen view, and you practice them aright and with diligence, they are guaranteed to work, as many many others continue to verify for themselves.



Quote:The old religion was not centred on gods or beliefs, but on practices. One traditional practice that [...]
What does he mean the old religion of NW Europe was not centred on the Gods, the Asen en de Vanen (and more)? So all them heathens calling Odin/Wodan the "Al-Vader" (All-Father, Father of the All) thought he actually had no real relevance to them? "It was all just pretty words, a nice sentiment, poetry if you will"? And worshipping the World Tree I suppose was just for the "traditional practice" of it rather than about the sacredness of that specific Tree? To think I was convinced of how Them Heathens were heart-broken when the christos vindictively hacked it down. It's a comfort to know that it turns out De Heidenen could just gather around some other tree at random to continue "the practice", as there was no special so-called "belief" attached to the particular Tree in question.

Bij Donar, da's gewoon onzin...
Post 5/

Related to the above.

The following (RSmith, Julian's Gods again) is pasted here for the reference to the "names of the Gods" and their sanctity to Hellenes. It's also about the importance of authentic heathen rituals (to their heathens) in forming unbreakable bonds with their Gods. Alludes once more to how It Works. Note it's about Hellenes, so Hindus will find it more acceptable - since saying anything Hindu is generally not allowed (perhaps as it provides no *external* point of reference).

The rest of the text below - being context - is for RSmith's able defence of the various things mentioned as pre-existing in mainstream Hellenismos.

Quote:To understand the ritual use of symbols in the Oracles, we need

to recognize their debt to the principle of 'sympathies'. 'The Paternal

Intellect', one fragment runs, 'has sown symbola throughout the

kosmos.'60 ( <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> Read "The Paternal Intellect" alongside how Latin Magna Mater=Great Mother Goddess and hence Materia=Matter are related. Now read the line again as a Hindoo.)

According to this conception, there were 'sympathetic'

representatives of the divine in the material world which served as

symbola of the divine causes of animals, plants and minerals. By

discovering and manipulating the appropriate symbola, one could

establish contact with the gods. The fact that Hecate is the speaker

in many of the extant fragments of the Oracles clearly suggests that

she was the deity most often involved by theurgists in this connection.

To judge by a late testimony,61 the symbola manipulated by

theurgists took various forms. They might be secret symbols or

messages written on gems or stones used in the ritual; they might be

magical sounds, the secret names of gods; so too, they might be

statues of gods. Comparable texts in the Hermetica and the Magical

Papyri speak of statues 'filled with spirit' and of the manufacture of

images containing symbola intended to draw spirits into them.62 As

far as the scanty evidence permits us to judge, Julian's own theurgic

initiation seems to have involved the invocation of Hecate by this

means: our clearest testimony bearing on the detail of the rituals

practised by Maximus of Ephesus concerns his animation of a statue

of the goddess by theurgic means.63

From the manner in which we learn of these activities of Maximus,

it is clear that they were looked upon as somewhat eccentric even by

some lamblichan contemporaries.64 But it is as well to reiterate here

that we should be wary of making too much play with the peculiarity

of theurgy in this matter. The theurgic animation of statues can be

seen from one perspective as a development of a broader strand in

pagan thinking and practice. It rested, first, on the general assumption

that divinities were prone to manifest themselves in one way or

another before their worshippers - an assumption with firm Homeric

roots and a long and very lively subsequent history.65
More specifically,

the supposition that the power of a god could be contained

within a cult statue and turned to effective use finds clear parallels

outside theurgic circles. Second and third century oracular inscriptions

found at Syedra and Iconium, for instance, both of which seem

to have emanated from Apollo's oracle at Claros, record the manufacture

and setting up of statues of Ares whose function was clearly

apotropaic: in the case of the Syedran statue, the god was constrained

in a most emphatic fashion, being bound in chains.66 And evidence

of similar habits of mind persisting in the fourth century and later in

mainstream paganism is not lacking. In the early 420s, silver statues

of three figures, dressed in barbarian garb and buried under the

ground, came to light in Thrace. The governor of the region was

evidently quick to assume that the statues had been put there to ward

off barbarian invasion; following the discovery, he sent to the

Emperor to ask whether they should be removed or left in place.67

In the upshot they were removed - giving the pagan historian

Olympiodorus occasion to observe pointedly that shortly afterwards

a trio of barbarian peoples was to burst through the Roman frontier.

The notion that divinities were also invoked into the bodies of

participants at theurgic rituals is not hinted at in any of the securely

attested fragments of the Oracles, but it is not unlikely in itself: the

trance-technique was certainly employed in some broadly comparable

magical circles. A spell in the Magical Papyri offers a recipe

designed to summon a god into the body of a child, and Porphyry

dearly knew of 'theological' oracles - the products of seances rather

than temples, it may be supposed - in which gods spoke through the

body of a man.68 Proclus, at least, believed that the earlier theurgists

had practised this technique,69 and there is a strong hint in Eunapius

that lamblichus himself did something similar: he is said on one

occasion to have compelled a spirit to admit that it was not, as it

claimed, Apollo, but merely the soul of a dead gladiator,70 which

seems to imply a ritual designed to allow for the interrogation of a

god through a human medium.

If it is right to attribute the techniques I have outlined to the early

theurgists, their discipline must be assumed to have differed from

sorcery in the common run in virtue of its aim rather than its

methods. One modern definition speaks of it as 'magic applied to a

religious purpose and resting on a supposed revelation of a religious

character''71 'Magic' itself is a difficult term (oh yeah, no kidding), but this formulation

certainly fits well with lamblichus' talk of the aim of the theurgists

as being to bring about 'an ascent to the noetic fire'.72 By invoking

Hecate, the theurgist was put into contact with the channel by which

the soul had descended and could hope to reascend.

The Neoplatonists, Julian included, talk of this process as an

'elevation' (anagoge). Whether this was the term used in the Oracles

themselves is not clear; nor do the fragments yield much about the

structure of the ritual. There seems to have been a purification

intended to strengthen the 'subtle vehicle of the soul'; this will refer

to the garment which the soul had been clothed in as it descended

from the noetic world, and was doubtless intended to ensure the

soul's resistance to the 'perishable envelope of bitter matter' which

had come to cling to it in the sublunar world.73 Thereafter, the soul

was apparently conceived of as ascending in stages, drawn up by the

sympathetic power of rays of light emanating from the noetic entities

and through the visible Sun. 'Enquire', one fragment reads,

Quote:after the ray of the soul, from which she descended in a certain

order to minister to the body, and how you shall lead her up

again to her ordered place, having combined the [ritual] act

with the sacred word.74

That done, the soul will 'speed to the centre of the sounding light'

(the Sun), mingling with solar rays.75 There, finally, 'the soul of

mortals will press god to itself, having nothing mortal left in it,

utterly intoxicated with god'; and thereafter, it seems, 'the theurgists

do not fall into the common herd of men subject to Fate'.76

The ritual salvation of which these fragments speak can be assumed

to have constituted the ultimate aim of theurgy, and the likelihood

is that a ritual enactment of the 'elevation' I have outlined formed

the core of the theurgic initiation that Julian underwent at Ephesus:

Julian himself, at least, speaks of 'an ineffable mystagogia in which

the Chaldaean ecstatically celebrated the seven-rayed god through

whom he raised up the souls [of men]'.77


If too much has been made to hang on Julian's theurgy in some

accounts of his religious politics, that is perhaps because the mere

fact of it cannot but compel attention; it is the most strikingly fourth century

feature in the devotional and intellectual make-up of the

man. Who could conceive of his imperial exemplar Marcus chanting

secret names of gods and daimones in a subterranean chamber in the

expectation that the statue of Hecate before which he stood would

smile, then laugh, then draw his soul from the body and send it on

an astral journey ?126
All the more important, then, to keep the matter

in perspective. If the theurgists ascribed power to ritual magic and

acted on that belief, very many pagans who knew nothing of the

verses of 'Julianus the Chaldaean' and his son had long since done

the same. Nor did one need to study theurgic texts to believe that

the gods could teach theology through their oracles: a century and

more before Julian, we have seen, Apollo's prophets at a major centre

of his cult were giving responses in just that spirit.
(Something quite like what the Hindoos might refer to in their own languages as "Tantra" sprinkled here and there in the above excerpt too.)

1. The final bit in bold: ritual practices worked for the Hellenes no less (they knew it worked).

2. "Divinities were prone to manifest themselves in one way or another before their worshippers - an assumption with firm Homeric roots and a long and very lively subsequent history" <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />

Heathen Hellas and Rome still saw their Gods tooooooo. One always suspected it - it's there only partially-hidden in Julian's writings - but confirmation of a definite suspicion is a good thing.

3. On the blue bit: you know something similar. It's very obvious. Read it as your Hindoo self. ...And? So you conclude:

"OMGs. Julian was doing Hindooism!" (Close.)

"OMGs. Julian was doing Daoism!" (Again, close.)

"OMGs. Julian was doing Hellenismos!" Bingo.

Not the same religion, but close, nah?

(I can now already see Alien terrorists descending to declare that Kundalini Yoga - and the associated views of the Gods/cosmos - is "actually" derived in India from Hellenismos, and therefore no longer from Taoism. Taoism will then be made collateral damage again.

Surprising that Elst didn't know to declare Hellenismos - as at earlier than the 4th century - as Da Source.

Oh no. Wait wait. The silly ur-Shramanism peddlers will declare their invented ur-religion - if not Buddhism - took Kundalini Yoga to Hellenistic space. Don't put it beyond them.)

Anyway, none of points 1-3 above are surprising.

Rather, what I really like is that Julian's theurgic heathenism is repeatedly defended by RSmith as having pre-existed in some manner - as having precedent - in the state of Hellenismos as it existed before.

But note Julian's total heathenism <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />

Repeat (and this is from vague memory of my reading the following): Even during the night of the scuffle which crowned him emperor, as his own words recollected: he was at that time, which was deep in the night, busy worshipping his Father Jupiter - as opposed to napping. :lief:

(His bedroom was also separate from that of his appointed christist wife Helena, by the way. A fact which I think was alluded to in passing in the same set of statements.)

Yay, some proof that I didn't make it up. Julian's own words it is:

Quote:The legions approached. I, as usual, went out to the city to meet them, and urged them to pursue their march. They halted one day, till when I was a stranger to what they had been concerting. Jupiter, the Sun, Mars, Minerva, and all the Gods know, that I had not the least suspicion of their intentions till the evening of that day, when at sunset they were disclosed to me. [At midnight] on a sudden, the palace was invested and a universal shout was raised, while in the meantime I was deliberating with measures to pursue but without forming any determination. Though my wife was then living, I happened to sleep alone in an adjoining upper chamber from which, there being an opening in the wall, I paid my adoration to Jupiter. The clamour increasing and a general tumult prevailing throughout the palace, I intreated that God to give me a sign. This he immediately shewed me, commanding me firmly to confide in it and not oppose the resolution of the army. Though I had received these omens, I did not however yield without reluctance but resisted as much as possible, nor would I admit on the salutation or the diadem. But not being able singly to oppose so many and the Gods, whose will it was, strongly animating them and at the same time, composing my spirits, at length in the third hour some soldier, I know not whom, giving me a collar, put it on, and then reentered the palace groaning, as the Gods can witness, from the bottom of my heart.

Hindoos need Julian. Ok, Plan B: Hindoos need someone like Julian to fight for us (minus the dying of unnatural causes and prematurely, and definitely not before we've won Finally). Because at present we're just the 'unfortunate laity', quite like the trampled upon Hellenistic laity were until they got an Emperor who represented *them* (being quite one of them).

Instead all we have is a bunch of enemies in positions of power and, where a "Hindu" is finally there, it tends to be some deheathenised entity.

In the meantime, the populace whiles away its time listening to unheathens - "sympathizers" - on "what heathenism is all about"... :doom:

There's also a section on "creativity" in Elst's article. But I spammed my comments in the "contemporary painting" thread for that (#206).

Quote:High court helps Muslim girl to live with her Hindu husband

30/07/2012 14:41:28 PTI

MADURAI: Coming to the aid of a Muslim girl who alleged threats from her family members after she married a Hindu, Madras high court bench here directed them not to interfere in her life as she was a major. Disposing of a petition by 21-year old K Fathima seeking police protection, Justice K Venkataraman said the parents should not interfere and precipitate as the girl was a major.

The girl, an engineering student in Tirunelveli, was in love with her collegemate S Kannan and both got married at the famous Lord Muruga temple in Palani [color="#800080"]:clapping:[/color] in Dindigul district on June 29 despite strong opposition from her family. She claimed to have [color="#0000FF"]received many threatening phone calls from her relatives and also from a fundamentalist organisation for having married a Hindu youth.[/color]

[color="#800080"](Note how organised islam is. Not only in carrying out love jihad. But it's also as organised in preventing any flow in the opposite direction, and in retaliating brutally when such happens anyway, as seen in previous cases.)[/color]

The judge had summoned the girl, her husband as well as her parents to know the facts. Fathima told the judge she feared that she might become a victim of honour killing and sought protection. When questioned by the Judge, her parents insisted on taking her back with them but budged as the girl was adamant on living with her husband, who filed an affidavit promising to register the marriage.

The Judge recorded the undertaking as well as the presence of a police official who stood witness to the entire episode and let the girl go with her husband. He also said the police could intervene only if any complaint was lodged by either of the parties making out a cognizable offence and not otherwise.

1. Note the husband must be Hindooo, not merely some progressive sickular of Hindu parentage who still keeps the Hindu label.

(Only Hindoooooos go to Pazhani. ConfusedcoreSmile

2. Again note the contrast between islam's "love" jihadists who have to resort to deception and brainwashing, terror, assault, kidnap and threats of kafir women to acquire them.

Meanwhile Hindoo men are just being their heathen selves, minding their own business, and being generally pleasant and caring to all, and suddenly women just fall into their lap. Even brave ex-muslimahs. I mean, imagine the pull that this Hindoo youth has: she dares death - and a very painful islamic one - to be with him. And has dumped her islamaniac family since she knows she's better off without them, and better off with her husband instead. (That her family is islamaniac is obvious from the fact that she's afraid they'll kill her. I mean, if she thought they were swell people, she wouldn't be afraid of them.)

She made the right choice. Well done.
So angry.


Quote:23 Italians receive Hindu Diksha

09/08/2012 03:39:35 newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/article583641.ece

As many as 23 Italian citizens from Vatican received Diksha from Brahmasree Veda Samrat A Raja Sastrigal at a Veda Patasala (religious school) at Karuvadikuppam here on Sunday. The three-hour ceremony was held at the Gomaatha Kovil amidst chanting of mantras and hymns by the Italian devotees.

The Italian team (consisting of four children) comprised professionals like teachers, doctors and engineers. All of them had undergone a basic course under Raja Sastrigal in Vatican, before coming here. It all began with one Italian man, Flavio, who got influenced by the Hindu way of life, [color="#0000FF"]came into contact[/color] with Raja Sastrigal, way back in 2001. [color="#FF0000"]Sastrigal went to Vatican[/color] and stayed there for three months to teach Flavio, and his wife Stepano, the basics of Sanskrit hymns and Vedas. Over the years, the couple has gathered followers, who were also influenced by Hindu spirituality.

The couple developed their diction and pronunciation over the years. The few local people assembled were astonished to hear the Italians’ [color="#FF0000"]near[/color]-perfect rendering of Sri Rurdram Chamakam, Rudrajapam, Srisuktham, and portions from Upanishads.

Flavio and Stepano even changed their Italian names, adopting Hindu names Shivananda Saraswati and Savithri. Aurora, an Italian team members, told Express that she believes India is a Karmabhoomi and the Hindu way of life has led to understanding herself better.

The Italian lady, who is now known as Lalitha, said she would follow the footsteps of her Guru Shivananda Saraswati. The training for chanting the mantras and hymns lasted for about three hours and Raja Sastrigal performed kalasa theertha (sprinkling of holy water) on the trainees as per the rituals of the Hindu religion at the end.

Full report with images @


The hypocrisy is stunning.

There are countless Hindus who were never allowed deekSham into the Vedas - I'm not here to whine about feeling personally neglected (I can take a hit, plus on principle I will not try for anything that Hindooos far more Hindu than I'll ever be haven't been thoroughly authoritatively allowed. <- I oddly find the ..."principle" weighs heavier on me than even my inner greed for deeply Hindoo stuffs. But that inner greed is shallow in me - as everything is with me - and not like its steady depth in the Hindoooos I speak of).

Oh but the minute western people evince interest in dabbling in the Vedas - my gawd - Indians have to drool all over them. (And the dabblers in this case are Italians from the Vatican no less. Anyone taking bets yet on how the dabbling will slowly turn out to be catholic inculturation on the Vedas? With this sastrigal - and his pathashala - ending up as the latest Useful Idiots.

The Italians could well start their own Veda Pathashala next and be giving out "deeksha" to all aliens including catholics and slowly de-Hinduise it. And if not them, some of their students or offspring certainly will.

A la that catholic leela samson's stint taking over some bharatanatyam centre and creating a whole gaggle of "danseuses" slowly but certainly degrading the Hindu Bharatanatyam into "secular" hence "christian" stuff.)

Letting Vatican dabblers in.* What are people thinking? I'm certain Hindus will in future be paying through their nose for this one too. Nothing good *ever* came out of inducting the dabbling aliens.

I don't care if these Italian dabblers are supposedly "genuine" "seekers" (or whatever the new-age term is that I should be using): if they were genuine, would they not be in Hellenismos?

(*How christoconditioned do people imagine ex-christians in catholic territory are??? What is their success rate of properly deconverting, let alone of properly reverting to *any* heathenism, forget converting to a heathenism that isn't even their ancestral one.)

You know how "orthodox" Hindus like the Shankara MaThams regularly get derided for being "orthodox" and not just going with the flow? But I like their spine in saying a blind NO to all aliens who want to dabble. Because aliens are not allowed.

Still can't get over the ocean of native Hindoos who have the Gods tattoed all over their hearts and faces, and who've been solemnly in love with their Vedam from an unfair distance (I know they're in love with it: I've heard them hum along to the CDs playing in the background and even recite along to bits of it, sometimes without knowing it's a Veda sooktam; and always looking evidently deeply moved by the sounds).

But no: no initiation from "sastrigals" for them. They're overlooked.

Whatever rights to Hindu stuffs that these Hindoos have gained, they have had to fight for (or other Hindoos had to fight for these rights for them). And yet they are *native* Hindoos: all this ought to be their birthright. Surely? I mean, if some can think aliens can be inducted so easily into these and other mantras, or can even be considered for entry? (Even though it should actually *never* be granted aliens.)

How I hate this hypocrisy, this two-facedness. And a cruelly unfair one at that.

And what is it that makes Hindus such abominable traitors? I mean, it was bad enough to find out about the existence of "Hindus" of brahmana origin settled in the west ready to teach the Vedam to every dabbler. (And which dabblers always turned out to be nightmares. example, though the stuff that the quoted material links to has moved.)

But worse still is to find out that some "sastrigal" (please x 3 let it be a compromised fraud, not some naive entity) from my own backyard (TN) teaching *aliens* the Vedam. Bij Donar.

And did these people ever even think about the Hindoos? You know, the many Hindoos of TN who collect CDs of vedamantras recited by Sastrigal in order to at least take part in the Vedas that way? Do such Hindoos matter at all? I just don't get it. Are they not deserving?

And are aliens - the western dabbling entities - not the Most Undeserving? But Hindus will make excuses for them like "they're better than many Indian Hindus I know" etc. Not unless you make the exception the new rule. (But they can be *better* only in their *own* heathen religions, not in that of Hindus.)

The Vedas are at the heart of the very things that Hindus should have been protecting from mlechChas. And they did, for millennia. But now, some traitors will sell it to any alien dabbler who comes calling - desperate to have western people seen "doing" Hindu religion, or desperate for "converts", or desperate period. Yet the native Hindoos still get bypassed and overlooked, taken for granted. Though *they* never gave me reason to question their loyalty, or the attachment of the Gods to them.

I've stopped counting how many online Hindus sell mantras to aliens or allow aliens into their cliques, all while preaching some partial orthodoxy for a new world. (But then give aliens equal claims to Hindu women too, nah? I mean, when they can already have even the Vedam and other core mantras, why not your women? <- Why pedantically hang on to notions that are far less important?)

I'm fast losing sympathy for Hindus. They cannot - will not - protect their religion. They sell its most private, sacred aspects so fast - and to the Most Dubious - like it's worthless. (And yet never think to share it with the deserving of their own: the native Hindoos.)

Like Bhishma counting the arrows that struck dearest, I've looked over all the fatal arrows that have pierced the Hindoo body and the most deadly are all from "Hindus" alone: the ones who opened the gates wide to enemies such as by turning Hindu religion into some "universal/please come dabble" thing, despite it being an ethnic religion.

Indians, and angelsk-speaking Hindus especially, are too infatuated with the idea of western people dabbling in Hindu religion*. So I'm sure they'll all be falling over themselves welcoming this latest nightmare.

(* Actually they're too infatuated with western people period - for all the wrong reasons: they're infatuated with *dabblers*, but not with the many terribly likeable unreligious western people or with the much rarer proper western heathens.)
Pasting this article here because:

1. I didn't write it ("therefore it has a chance to be good").

2. it is on Hindus' mother - Sarasvati Amman - an appropriate 'subject' to contemplate, considering what time of year it is. Moreover, Ambaa can never be praised enough. (Note: I haven't read it entirely, so I don't know that I agree with everything. But it speaks well of Saraswati Amman, which can only be a good thing and which argues in its favour.)

3. it explains how Hindu classical music is deeply interwined with the Gods, inseparable from them/the Vedas. And why/how Hindus should never - but *never* - turn Hindoo classical music into "Indian" and "universal" nonsense. Because it's not.

4. it explains more about how DikShitar, the L-upasaka, did not merely know his Gods, but - being a Vedabrahmana - knew his Vedam and wrote karnatik kritis that were essentially equivalents of the Veda mantras, but in such a way that all Hindoos - even me! - can say these without worrying about not having deekSham, or being afraid of making errors etc. I.e. all Hindus can in this way easily sing equivalents of the Saamam to Amman, and even praise Amman with equivalents of the Riks, thanks to the likes of DikShitar (and the other Hindoo Karnatik composers, who were clearly experts on the Gods. E.g. Dasara PadalgaL like "Narayana Ninna").

And after all, the sarasijAsanadharmapatnI (to steal one of the terms Narasimha Bharati Swamigal's used to refer to his Saraswati Ambaa) is - like all the Hindu Ambaas and Gods - sangeetapriyaa, and is herself an embodiment of Sangeetam and of the very saptaswara-s of the Saamam and of the Hindoo instruments.

[And as Adi Shankara said in a stotram about Uma-Shyamalaa, the shivakAntA: "Sa Ri Ga Ma Pa Da Ni." Maybe Shankara BP sang that bit out loud when he composed it <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' /> And as Mysore Vasudevacharya said about LakshmI, the viShnu-vallabhA "saptasvara vara/prada gAnanute". Or as is famously documented about Ayyappa: he is "saamaganapriya" and "keertanapriya". Etc etc.]

Quote:Sarasvati Kritis of Dikshitar

contributed by Aravind Krishna


An elementary throb occurs due to the self-will of the unmanifested absolute. It lingers as a series of vibrations creating 'nAda' resulting as the universe with names and forms. This primordial vibration 'Adya stamba' described as the very source of creation 'vAgeva vishvA bhuvanAni' forms the eternal Vedas. 'vAk' being the very element of the Vedic lore of knowledge becomes 'vagdevi' with immense compassion, to facilitate meditation on her divine form and to enable the meek to sing her glory. She blossoms from the Vedic lake as sarasvati - veda saro jAtA. She is veda mAtA, veda svarUpiNi as well as veda pratipAdyamAna brahma svarUpiNi (the source of Vedas, the Vedas themselves, as well as its subject matter 'brahman'). Needless to say of the diversified manifestations of the divine mother, sarasvati would be the closest to her absolute nature. Veda, Agama, itihAsa purAnA and other literary lore exult her with utmost veneration. She is identified as the shakti of the creator in purAnA and Agama shastra and revered as the Goddess of learning and fine arts. Vedas salute her as the supreme plane of truth; Goddess of revelation who confers the Divine Vision; Goddess of vastness; carrier of inspirations and as a mighty river nourishing life. Agamas convey yogic connections and salute her in further manifestations as nILA sarasvati or tAra. Drawing inspirations from this traditional lore, Sri Dikshitar has composed nine beautiful krithis on devi sarasvati and has offered a resplendent navaratnamaalikaa.


These nine krithis portray her beautiful form and salutes her divine glory. The navaratnamAlA echoes with Rig vedic mantras extolling her varied manifestations as sarasvati, bhArati, illa, mahi, vAk, medhA, shAradA, brAhmi and nadi-rUpA.


Dikshitar commences his first krithi saluting sarasvati as parabrahma-svarUpiNi with Rig-Vedic verses and delights that the Supreme Mother has provided eternal shelter to him.


sarasvatyA bhagavatyA sa.mrakshitoham .

chhAyAgauratarayA varayA shrI ..

'The resplendent bright boon bestowing auspicious Goddess Sarasvati has protected me'.

Dikshitar is proud to pronounce that the Supreme Goddess has provided shelter to him and hence commences with the verse 'chhAyA-gauratarayA varayA bhagavatyA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mrakshitoham'.

Prior to commencing the prosody, Dikshitar does a complete surrender at the lotus feet of sarasvati devi and she extends her abhaya kara to ensured shelter to her dear

devotee. The pallavi echoes the most popular of all Rig Vedic salutations,

praNo devI sarasvatI vajebhir vajinIvatI .

dhInAm avitrya avatu .. 6.61.4

'May the divine Goddess sarasvati who accepts the sacrificial offering, the meditate protector; protect us.'

The prayer 'avatu' is altered as 'samrakshatu' in the pallavi. Dikshitar having obtained the protection sought in the Mantra exclaims his state and salutes her with the same adjectives (viseShaNa) that used in the Mantra.

'varayA sarasvatyA sa.mrakshitoham' - 'I have been sheltered by the boon bestowing Goddess sarasvati'.

The same idea is conveyed in the mantra as

'dhInAm avitrya avatu'. Dikshitar reserves the other characteristic 'vajebhir vajinIvatI' for later salutations.

'chhAyA-gaura-tarayA sa.mrakshitoham' - 'I have been sheltered by the shining bright effulgent Goddess sarasvati'.

ayamu te sarasvati vasiSTho dvArAvR^itasya subhage vyAvaH .

vardha shubhre stuvate rAsi vAjAn yUyaM pAta svastibhiH sadAnaH .. 7.95.6

Dikshitar salutes sarasvati as 'gaura-chhAyA svarUpiNi' - 'white effulgent Goddess' in accordance with the word 'shubhre' in the above mantra.

Similar to the phrase 'maragta chhAye' that is used to salute mInakshi, the verse 'gaura chhAyA tarayA' is used to address sarasvati in accordance to her pure white complexion. Her brightness exceeds that of 'kunda, indu, shaN^ka, spaTika and tushhAra'. All that Dikshitar is able to witness is bright white effulgence. This base white effulgence represents Sarasvati as parabrahma svarUpiNi.

The Raga selected by Dikshitar for this salutation is 'chhAyA gauLa', which is a derivative of 'mAyA mALava gauLa'. The 'raga mudrA' is embedded beautifully in the phrase 'chhAyA-gaura-tarayA'. venkaTamahI documents chhAyAgauLa Raga lakshana as, chhAyAgauLashchasa.mpUrNa AroheganivarjitaH. niShAdagraha sa.myukta sAyaN^kAle pragIyate..

'bhagavatyA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mrakshitoham' - 'I have been sheltered by the supreme Goddess sarasvti who is an embodiment of six auspicious qualities'

Dikshitar echoes the salutation in the mantra 'subhage' as 'bhagavtI'. 'subhaga' - the auspicious one; 'bhaga shabha' comprises of six important characteristics:

aishvaryasya samagrasya viiryasya yashashshriyaH .

jnAna vairAgyayoschaiva ShaNNAM bhaga itiiraNA ..

Possession of 'aishvarya' Prosperity, 'viirya' Power, 'yashas' Fame, 'shrIH' Wealth, 'jnAna' Knowledge and 'vairAgya' an impartial outlook, makes her 'bhagavatI'. This ShaDguNa paripUraNatvam indicated by Dikshitar with the word 'bhagavatI'. 'bhagavatI' is used with the same import in the mantra as 'subhage'.

virinchi prANanAyikayA vINAvAdanotsukayA .

sarasa saN^gIta sAhitya stanadvayayA parAdvayayA ..

virinchi prANanAyikayA sa.mrakshitoham - 'I have been sheltered by the beloved of the creator'.

sahasranaama salutes devI as 'sR^ishhTikartrii brahmaruupaa', She is the power of creation. Sarasvati is saluted as Brahma Shakti or the consort of Brahma for the same reason. The Rig Vedic mantra referred here is:

pAvIravI kanyA citrAyuH sarasvatI vIrapatnI dhiyaM dhAt .

gnAbhirachidraM sharaNaM sajoSA durAdharSaM gR^iNate sharma yaMsat .. 6.49.7

'May the purifying graceful Goddess Sarasvati, the bride of prajApati favor our pious deeds and be well pleased along with other celestials and provide the devote with a flawless existence'.

Sarasvati is referred as 'vIrapatnI' in the above Mantra. AchAryas have interpreted 'vIra' as prajApati or brahmA. Dikshitar's salutation is also of a similar import, 'prANanAyikayA', she is as dear as his own breath to Brahma. She is 'veda svarUpiNi', brahma creates with the help of Vedas and Vedas are his very breath. She is ever united with the creator and the creation.

VINAvAdanotsukayA - 'She delights playing the vINA'

The icon of Sarasvati playing vINA is a representation of the supreme absolute reveling in its unqualified non-dual state of bliss (brahmam in its svAtmAnubhavam). Dikshitar portrays Sarasvati as delightfully playing the vINA indicating that devI is in svAtmAnubhavam. lokAnubhavam comes in to play when she assumes rest of the forms, being parabrahma svarUpiNi, Sarasvati is ever in svatmAnubhavam.

devI bearing the vINA also symbolizes the path of liberation 'moxa-mArga darshanm'.

vINAvAdana tatvaGYaH shrutijAtI vishAradaH.

tALaGYashchAprayAsena mokshamArga.m niyachchhati.. (yAgGYavalkya smR^iti)

'One who is well versed in playing the vINA, adept in the nuances of sound and rhythm; attains salvation with little effort'.

The upaniShad vidhyA indicated here is nAda vidhyA or praNava vidhyA.

sarasa saN^gIta sAhitya stanadvayayA - 'melodious music and lyrics are her breasts'.

This is a beautiful poetic description; melody and prosody are compared to the breasts of Sarasvati. She showers the milk of saN^gIta and sAhitya to her beloved children.

saN^gItamapi sAhitya.m sarasvatyAstanadvayam .

yekamApAtamadhura.m anyathAlochanAmR^itam..

'Music and poetry are the two breasts of Sarasvati, music pleases the moment it is heard and poetry is delightful when analyzed upon.'

Music is 'ApAta madhura.m' and Poetry is 'chintanAmR^Ita.m'. The base for this description comes from the Rig Veda:

pIpivAMsaM sarasvata stanaM yo vishvadarshataH bhakSImahi prajAmiSam . 7.96.6

'May we recline on Mother SarasvtI's breast, that beautifully swells with streams, May we gain food and progeny.'

(pipivaMsaM sarasvtas stanaM bhakshImahi)'

Having fed upon the divine milk of Sarasvati, Dikshitar claims 'sarasa saN^gIta sAhitya stanadvayayA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mrakshitoham'. ParAdvayayA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mrakshitoham - I have been sheltered by the supreme Goddess Sarasvati.

The base characteristic of one who provides shelter is that, he should be capable of protecting the seeker. Once indra offered protection to takshaka against the sarpa-yaGYa of janamegaya. When janamegaya was informed that takshaka has not been sacrificed yet, he ordered both indra and takshaka to be pulled down to be sacrificed in the sarpa-yaGYa. Such is not the case

with the Supreme Mother. She is 'parAdvayA' - One who has none to equal. 'samaanadhika varjitaa' in sahasranAma language.

catushshaShTi kalAtmikayA samasta varNAtmikayA .

shR^itajana pAlakayA sevaka bhUpAlakayA ..

'catushshaShTi kalAtmikayA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mrakshitoham'

'The embodiment of the sixty-four fine arts, shrI sarasvatI devI has sheltered me.'

The supreme mother is saluted in sahasranama as 'catushshaShTikalAmayI'. bhAskararAya furnishes a list of these sixty-four art forms with reference to books like gadAkosham and laxmIpITikA.

aShTAdashalipibodhastallekhanashiighravAchane chitram.

bahuvidhabhAShAGYAna.m tatkavitA shR^itanigaditA dyUtam ..

vedA upavedAshchatvAraH shAstrAN^gaShaTke dve.

tantrapurANasmR^itika.m kAvyAlaN^kAra nATakAdi dve..

shAntirvashyAkarShaNavidveShochchATanamAraNAni cha ShaT.

gatijaladR^iShTyAgnayAyudhavAgretaH stambhasaptaka.m shilpam..

gajahayarathanarashixAH sAmudrikamallasUdagAruDakAH.

tattatsuShirAddhaghanendrajAlanR^ittAni gatitarasavAdaiH..

ratnaparIxA chaurya.m dhAtuparIxApyadR^ishyatvam.

itibhAskarasudhiyoktA niShkR^iShya kalAshchatuH ShaShTiH..

To know the linguistics of 18 languages (1), their script (2), to be able to read fast (3), Drawing (4) Knowledge in various other languages (5) capability to write poetry in them (7) fluent oration (8) gambling (9) Mastery in, the four Vedas (9-12) upavedas (13-16) twelve shastra-s (17-28) tantra, puraaNa & smR^iti (29) kAvya, alaN^kAra & nATaka (30) shAnti, vashya AkarShaNa, vidveShaNa, uchchATana & maraNa prayoga-s (31-36), To be able to control the course of jala, dR^iShTi, agni, Ayudha, vAk and retas (37-43) sculpture (44) To instruct elephant, horse, chariot and men (45-48) sAmudrikA shAstra (49) Wrestling (50) Cooking (51)garuda prayoga (viSha prayoga) (52) To play string instruments (53) Wind instruments (54) Drums (55) Metallic instruments (like tALa) (56) indrajAla (magic) (57) Dance (58) Singing (59) rasavAda (60) ratna parIxA (gemology)(61) Robbery (62) Medicine (63) adR^ishyatvam-to be able to vanish (yogic powers) (64).

(Ooooh! "Gambling"! And "Robbery"! Thank the Gods, I made it into the list. For a minute there I was getting worried, and started to feel neglected by Ambaa.

I was joking. About the gambling.

After all, I never gamble - with my own money. <- 'Cause that would be a *stupid* thing to do.)

For a true seeker the list would barely provide a thing to entertain. The beauty is, adhyAtma vidhyA is not included in the 64. After the knowledge of which nothing is to be known, that knowledge 'adhyAtma vidhyA' stands apart from this laukIka vidhyA. ShrI bagavatpAdAcharya says; 'to obtain true knowledge one needs to know the supreme mother who is beyond the sixty four art forms'.

(Vedam etc - items 9-29 in the list - are NOT laukika vidyA. As is clear from the rest of the article.

Note: The constant transliteration of [itrans] vidyA as non-itrans "vidhyA" is owing to how numerous Hindus esp. from TN choose to translate the dentals into Roman characters. Another example: many Tamizh Hindus choose to transliterate what's "lalitA" in itrans as "lalithA".)

catuShShaShTyaa tantraiH sakalamatisaMdhaaya bhuvanaM

sthitas tattatsiddhiprasavaparatantraiH pashupatiH .


svatantraM te tantraM kShititalamavaatiitaradidam.h .. 31..

As the embodiment of pure knowledge, Sarasvati is 'Atma vidhyA svarUpiNI'. She is also prapancha vidhyA' and hence shines in the form of the sixty-four fine arts.

'samasta varNAtmikayA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mrakshitoham' - 'shrI sarasvatI who is of the form of all alphabets has sheltered me'.

Devi is saluted as 'varNa rUpiNI' and 'mAtukA varNa rUpiNI' in sahasranAma. 'akArAdi-xakAranta varNa' are all Sarasvati herself. Alphabets coin to form words; that are inspirable from their meaning. They constitute the entire Vedic lore. From the very alphabets that form the Vedas to the subject matter of Vedas 'brahman', is all Sarasvati herself.

'veda svarUpiNI, veda AdhAra varNa svarUpiNI, sakala veda shabdha svarUpiNI,

veda pratipAdyamAna brahma svarUpiNI'.

There is a profound mantra in Rig Veda 10.071.01 saluting Sarasvati for her compassion to reveal the Vedas:

bR^ihaspate prathamaM vAco agraM yat prairata nAmadheyandadhAnAH .

yadeSAM shreSThaM yadaripramAsItpreNA tadeSAM nihitaM guhAviH..

bR^ihaspati uttered the first speech that gave a name to objects. That non-blemish word ('tat') is the best of all words. (Sarasvati) reveals this secretly imparted through affection.

In any language the elementary components that facilitate exchange of thoughts and revelation of knowledge are alphabets. Sarasvati facilitates this communication in the form of 'vAk' that gives intellect.

shR^itajana pAlakayA sevaka bhUpAlakayA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mrakshitoham' - 'Worshipped by rulers Sri Sarasvati; who protects the devote has sheltered me.'

'bhUpAla sevitA' is not a common salutation for Sarasvati devi. As Dikshitar's salutation is Rig Veda based, the supportive mantra is in Mandala 07.95.02.

ekAcetat sarasvatI nadInAM shuciryatI giribhya AsamudrAt .

rAyashcetantI bhuvanasya bhUrerghR^itaM payo duduhe nAhuSAya .. 7.95.2

'Pure in her course from mountains to the ocean, alone of streams Sarasvati hath listened. Thinking of wealth and the great world of creatures, she poured milk and butter for nahusha.'

shAyanAchArya refers a Puranic story in the context of this mantra. King nahusha bhUpAla wanted to perform a sacrifice for thousands of years; He prayed to Veda mAtA sarasvatI to provide him with all necessary facilities. She flowed down as a river and blessed him with lots of butter, water, milk and other riches in surplus throughout his sacrifice. Consequently Dikshitar salutes her as 'sevaka bhUpAlakayA'

Goddess sarasvatI blesses devotes with compassion and hence saluted as 'shR^itajana pAlakayA'. There is a beautiful mantra in Rig Veda Mandala 10.17.07, that hails sarasvatI repeatedly and salutes her for her boon bestowing nature.

sarasvatIM devayanto havante sarasvatImadhvare tAyamAne

sarasvatIM sukR^ito ahvayanta sarasvatI dAshuSe vAryaM dAt 10.17.7

'The devout invoke Sarasvati; they worship Sarasvati in the sacrifice. The pious invoke Sarasvati aforetime. May Sarasvati bestow blessing upon the donor of the oblation.'

The line 'sarasvatI dAshuSe vAryaM dAt' is reformatted in the krithi as 'shR^itajana pAlakayA'.

shruti pratipAditayA shubhra vastrAvR^itayA.

natendrAdyakhila devatayA nandaguruguha susevitayA ..

‘shruti pratipAditayA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mraxitoham’ – Exalted by shruti (Vedas) the supreme Goddess saravatI has sheltered me.

ambitame nadItame devitame sarasvati .

aprashastA iva smasi prashastimamba nas kR^idhi ..

sarasvatI ! The best Mother, best of Rivers, best of Goddesses, We are, as it were of no repute, Mother; grant us distinction.

O! sarasvatI, you are the supreme goddess (devi tame), the personification of absolute, You are the supreme mother (ambitame) of this universe. O! Supreme mother shArade; there is none other than you to nourish thy child (nadItame). Hail to thee! Hail to thee! Hail to thee!

Isn’t there little room for laukIka or even vaidIka vak to attempt for a panegyric when the supreme veda vak that is beyond human perception has exalted her glory with superlatives and begs for discrimination at her lotus feet.

‘shubhra vastrAvR^itayA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mraxitoham’ – Decorated with white attire sarasvatI devi has sheltered me.

sarasvatI herself is of effulgent white complexion. She is also decorated with milk white silk attire. When the Supreme mother is in other manifestations she is decorated in contrast garments. When she is of a golden yellow complexion she wears coral red garments. When she is emerald green she wears sparkling yellow. But when she is sarasvatI as pure as spaTika she is decorated with garments of similar white effulgence.

‘nata indrAdi akhila devatayA, shrI sarasvatyA sa.mraxitoham’ – shrI sarasvatI who is saluted by Indra and all other devas has sheltered me.

As the saying goes ‘yathA raja tathA prajA’, when Indra; the king of all celestials surrenders at the lotus feet of the Supreme mother its natural for other devas to follow.

AhaM sarasvatIvatorindrAgnyoravo vR^iNe .

yAbhyAM gAyatraM R^ichyate .. 8.46.10

‘I solicit the protection of Indra and Agni, associated with sarasvatI to whom this gAyatrI hymn is addressed.’

Rig Veda pleads for protection to Indra, Agni and other deva-s for the qualification that they are all devoted to sarasvatI.

‘nandaguruguha susevitayA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mraxitoham’ – Well served by the delightful guruguha, shrI sarasvatI has protected me.

When the unrivaled goddess has sheltered by removing the principal fear of samsAra, Its needless to say the devote is delighted. He at times merges in to the ocean of bliss and experiences the oneness of the supreme self, at times gains duality and delights in serving her with all devotion.


Anand Hudli:
The R^ig Veda has several very sublime sUktas dedicated to sarasvatI. Some of the commonly employed ones are 6.61 (maNDala 6 sUkta 61, this is the one which has the famous mantra praNo devI sarasvatI), 7.95, 7.96, 1.3.10-12 (maNDala 1 sUkta 3 R^iks 10-12), 2.41.16-18, 5.43.11, 6.49.7, 10.17.7-9, and 2.32.4-8. The rAtrIsUkta celebrates the devI as "bahvR^ichapriyA", one who loves the R^ig Veda. That is why even during chaNDI homa done by yajur vedic priests, they recite the rAtrI sUkta and the devI sUkta of the R^ig Veda.

ratiramA girijArchitayA ratnAbharaNAlaN^kR^itayA .

mati majjihvAgra sthitayA maN^gaLapradayA sadayayA..

‘rati ramA girijArchitayA, shrI sarasvatyA sa.mraxitoham’

ShrI sarasvati devi, worshipped by rati, ramaa and girijaa has sheltered me.

manmatha who kindles passion (prabodhyate supta ivaadya manmathaH) is assisted by other indriya and mana abhimaani devat-s in his effort.

Accompanying manmatha, vasanta R^itu provides the conducive environment when chandara acting as his shade makes the mind lose its discrimination. indriyas are controlled by rati devi who evokes passion and the mind acts in accordance. Hence rati symbolizes ichha shakti or the desiring power of the cupid.

Though reclining on a coiled serpent, shrIman nArAyaNa is tirelessly engaged in the act of preserving the universe. When he is inseparably perceived as both the materialistic and the intelligent cause of the universe, his consort ‘ramaa’ pervades the universe as the very nature (prakR^iti) that serves as the rational for its functionality. Hence ramaa or mahaalaxmi symbolizes the power of action or ‘kriya shakti’ of viShNu.

Seated under the shade of a green banyan tree, parameshvara is seen with his index curved towards his thumb symbolizing jIveshvaraikyam or the supreme state of eternal non-duality. His silence preaches the supreme wisdom that negates all dualities and bestows the ability to abide in one’s own self. girijA or the daughter of the mountains symbolizes this knowledge or GYAna of parameshvara. She is reverently referred as umA or praNavasvarUpiNi adjoined by haimavati in the famous kenopaniShad. Dikshitar prefers to refer GYAna shakti as girijA in conjunction with the Upanishad address haimavati.

rati, rama and girijA represent ichhA, kriyA and GYAna shakti-s. Dikshitar salutes Sarasvati as parabrahma svarUpiNi being worshipped by ichhA, kriyA and GYAna shakti-s. She is the turIya shakti who shines as para-advayaa or parabrahma-mahiShI as well manifests as rati, ramaa and girijA, enveloping the respective guNa for functioning the universe. In this context Rig Veda mandala 2.41.17 celebrates her as the very rationale for the functionality of the universe.

tve vishvA sarasvati shritAyUMSi devyAm .

shunahotreSu matsva prajAM devi didiDDhi naH .. 2.41.17

In you the divine sarasvatI all creations abide. Rejoice and grant us

progeny among the shunahotra-s.

Viewed from another perspective this salutation has an interesting import. sarasvatI having rati under her command provides manonirodhana.m that results in yoga (yogaashchitavrittinirodhaH). As ramaa, she blesses the devotee with the strength that is needed for saadhanaa. When saadanaa fructifies, she dawns as girijA or GYAna that removes the bondage of samsaara by the destruction of avidhyA. Having surrendered to the supreme goddess who could bless the devotee with the strength that is needed in all the three stages towards realization, Dikshitar claims that he is totally free of fear under her sheltering grace.

‘ratnAbharaNa alaN^kR^itayA shrI sarasvatyA sa.mraxitoham’

ShrI sarasvatI decked with gem-studded ornaments has sheltered me.

Glittering ornaments made of nine celestial gems ‘nava-ratna’ worn by sarasvatI on her white garments radiate her effulgent complexion.

Pearl, ruby, topaz, diamond, emerald, lapis lazuli, coral, sapphire and gomedaka constitute nava-ratna. These ratnAbharaNa add luster to Sarasvati’s

self-radiance. Rig-Veda celebrates this radiance in a beautiful mantra.

sarasvatImin mahayAsuvR^iktibhiH stomairvasiSTha rodasI .

ubhe yat te mahinA shubhre andhasI adhikSiyanti pUravaH ..

With your greatness O! Radiant sarasvatI, friend of maruts, mighty men

obtain the nourishment for both mundane and celestial existence from you.

sarasvatI being sUrya maNaDala antargatA (one who resides in the sUrya maNDala) lights the whole universe with her effulgence. The following

Rig-Veda mantra gives a pictures description.

aSTauvy akhyat kakubhaH pR^ithivyAs trI dhanva yojanA sapta sindhUn .

hiraNyAkSaH savitA deva AgAd dadhad ratnA dAshuSe vAryANi ..

savitA has lighted up the eight points of the horizon, the three regions of living beings, the seven rivers. May the golden-eyed savitA come hither and

bestowing upon the devotee the riches sought in the oblation!
(Also related to the topic of post 134 above.)

Post 1/2

What's wrong with this image?

[Image: rudram-yajna.jpg]

What traitors.

But sucking up to western people is a pastime for some, after all. Since they sold everything else for the favour, the Vedam was the last thing to still sell off. Disgusting.

So that's two wrongs:

1. Apparently, several came *this* close to snubbing Shivaji for supposedly not being a kShatriya and "therefore not deserving" to hear the veda mantras.

(Yet he was a loyal Hindu if ever there was one - a self-professed protector of the Vedam and the religion of the Vedam, not to mention devoted to his Gods. How much more deserving does one need to be? And moreover, if Shivaji's motivations and actions do not prove said ethnic Hindu was a kShatriya, then really, no evidence will ever be sufficient and very few past the epic age would have made the grade. But didn't even Yudhisthira say that he could only work out who a brahmana etc was by their behaviour, since all ancestry had come into doubt in his time? BTW: No, Yudhisthira was not thinking of European-origin mlecchas in making his statements, so his pronouncement does NOT apply to all and sundry to get a free ticket to free access. He spoke of his fellow natives of the Hindu homeland.)

2. While before our time, the deserving such as Shivaji were nearly blocked out (well, at least he was said to have got to hear the veda mantras during his wedding ceremonies to subsequent wives), in our day, as seen in the image, yet more traitors have invited mlecchas over to please come dabble in the vedam.

Even what looks like it could be a woman (I'm not familiar with the outfit, maybe it's just new age "I'm a vedicist" fashion...?)

But then of course Indian traitors - being traitors - *would* thumb their noses at every ethnic Hindu man and woman who never got the opportunity.

No restrictions - as were on Shivaji etc - are placed on the mlecchas by the traitors. Instead, mlecchas can just wander straight in and steal what belongs to others, as long as they can find the chinks in Hindu society's armour: that's what the treacherous native religion-salesmen are for, after all. So, how much time before this too blows up in Hindus' faces?

Hypocrisy and treachery. Isn't it a fine combination? The two qualities one admires most...


- Mlecchas were meant to be kept away from the Vedam. And they were: religiously kept away. Until this unfortunate time we live in.

- Meanwhile, Shivaji and other such loyal ethnic Hindus deserved to have access to the Vedam. More so now, especially considering access is being relaxed.

But it is an inverted world now, after all. (I predict no one will complain - would be typical. When they *should*: when every single native Hindoo heathen - and there is no other type of Hindoo except the native kind - who values their religion *should* complain.)

I don't need to mention the problem of mleccha's "pure vedism" type movements again do I. It was briefly mentioned in a long post in the Natural Traditions - aka heathen religions - thread. (A longer example is in the indologists thread.) But the beginnings of such movements lie exactly in cases as this one: with native traitors teaching/helping a few mlecchas to dabble. Then mlecchas find larger Hindu society does not accept/recognise them, so the mlecchas get vindictive/u-turn and run away to start their own movement, teaching more of their mleccha kind to dabble in the Vedas independent of Hindu religion/Hindus' approval, and then set up their invented "pure Vedic" religion as the "true Vedic religion" (and speak about how Hindus are practising a subverted form). It is all Replacement.

But this one was started and enabled by (treacherous) "Hindus", because the aliens could *never* have done *this* on their own. And, ultimately, it need take but one traitor to sink all Hindus. Though there are several already.

Anyway, another misfortune is born with these latest mlecchas inducted into dabbling by *natives*. And so Hindus may know who to thank: the traitors in the picture. Remember them. Find their names. List it somewhere public along with their crime - I mean their accomplishment - of encouraging mlecchas' dabbling in the Vedam. Your future generations will surely want to know and deserve to commemorate the latest Jaichands.

Recall the damage that was said to have been done by such persons like that colonial-era brahmin Hindu who was hired by the Brits to help with the English-Skt dictionary for a pittance? IIRC, his British paymasters did not compose the dictionary credited to their name, but it had since been used for a lot of subversion of Hindu religion and language. So who knows what expanse of horrors will come of this in future?

Yet another "pleasant surprise" to look forward to, no doubt.
Post 2/2

There's something rather crucial that Hindus need to keep in mind at all times about the historical progression and current state of the west, especially in the context of where some "Hindus" now seem bent on inviting the west to convert (forget allowing other Hindus to teach the west to dabble in the Vedam):

- In the early centuries CE, christianism systematically tracked down and persecuted a major chunk of heathenism in what's now called Europe out of existence. (Christianism repeated this with the last vestiges of established European heathenism in the medieval period with its crusades in the NE of Europe. And Iceland too was converted during a late time. But the rest of Europe had been christian for a long time by then.)

- in the medieval period, long-converted Europe only threw up *heresies*, new-ageisms (a.o.t. genuine heathen revivals) and various types of "witchcraft". About the last: McCabe trudges through documents to show a following for 'lucifer' - just as satanism continues to coexist along with christianism today.

So except for Gemistius Plethon (a fluke), Europe's inability to produce proper reversions to heathenism even at times long before now (hence closer in period to its own heathenism's existence), says something.

Christianised Europe had *murdered* out heathenism, then it bred out heathenism. (It thereafter also murdered out heresies and continued to murder out the Jews etc. But the topic here is heathenism.)

All the most heathen - i.e. the loyally, trustworthily heathen - *died* for their religion in the early centuries of conversion itself: note these are the inconvertibles -they didn't convert - so their genetic lines were/are dead. They've left no offspring. It was only the converted and the convertibles who survived and were allowed to breed.

*That* is the final tally of Christianised Europe's breeding and extermination program: it selectively *bred* christianism in place of the heathenism it systematically exterminated. Each living christian family copulated with further christian families. This is how a near purely "christian" society came to exist in Europe, and why its character has been so unrelentingly christian, so christoconditioned, so repeatedly reverting (u-turning) to christianism.

It is now part of their character, their psyche.

These are the people who populated the "colonies": the Americas, Australasia, South Africa and other Spanish, Portuguese, French and English settlements. The same mindset, all the mindset.

Of the *dissenters* now being thrown up (as also in the past), by far most are therefore invariably christoconditioned:

- atheists and agnostics. Their POV of the world is entirely based on a christian backdrop that they do not wish to be a part of. Having relinquished christianism doesn't mean they are attracted to (or can understand) heathenism. Not even their own kind. You can see this in Elst.

- comparatively many new-ageists, neo-pagans and people with a tendency to want to dabble in real heathenisms either via "reconstructionism" or by invading/inviting themselves to sup on *others* heathenism.

These are people who also do not understand heathenism: they have a perverted ("reconstructed") view of heathenism, including their own. What to say of the heathenism of others, which was never their own and not familiar to their minds?

But next to the above 2 types of dissenters to the christian society created in Europeans' living space, there's also the extremely rare exception:

In comparison to the relatively far larger number of atheists/agnostics and new-age/neopagans, there's a very few genuine heathens that Europe now and then tosses out. A low-probability outlier emanating from the long-controlled gene pool. A fluke, if you will. Some great fortunate coincidence. And these few individuals return to their *ancestral* religion, to their *ancestral* Gods. Indeed, their ancestral Gods seem to know to claim all of these from childhood, and these people consequently end up practising their ancestral religion from a young age. (Not some reconstructed notion of their ancestral religion. These are heathens. Not wannabe frauds.)

So you need not "worry" about Europe: as all the genuine heathens of European-origin always make it back to their religion. The rest have sanctuary from christianism in atheism and agnosticism which christianism can (for now) no longer persecute by death.

But the dabblers (especially those dabbling in others' heathen religions) are not heathens at all and *deserve* to be turned away. Actually, dabblers/alien "converts" are particularly dangerous: being christoconditioned, they always have a sense of entitlement to others' heathen religion (which manifests in predictable ways, especially when dabblers/"converts" get denied access). They think they have a *right* to others' religion and Gods.

There are also a very few people of European-origin who - despite being of a heathen mindset - are a bit confused and end up in others' heathen religion (e.g. that British colonial stationed in India, Stuart, sounds like one), though all people really belong in their own ancestral heathenism. <- This unfortunate confusion too is the fault of christianism: if it weren't for christianism all loyal-hearted European-origin heathens would still be in their own ancestral religions, devotedly attached to their own ancestral Gods, instead of pursuing other' religions and others' Gods, let alone anyone dabbling in these. Again: if it were not for christianism, Hindu and Daoist religions wouldn't be witnessing this regular attack by alien dabblers inviting themselves over, feeling they have the "right" to any if not all heathenism. If it weren't for christianism, there'd be no neopaganism (and no need for reconstructionisms), no oryanism, no mleccha's "vedic purism" nonsense etc, and no mlecchas insinuating themselves to learn the Vedam.

Consider how the traditional (ethnic) Daoists - for example - don't dabble: because they were never divorced from their religion=Gods. Neither do traditional Hindus dabble in others' heathenism, for the same reason. All these are too busy happily following their own religions and Gods and not only have a heathen mindset, but the correct one for their religion (it's transmitted by local heathen community: family, surroundings, though the proclivity is still inherited). They - heathen populations of unbroken heathen lineage - don't pretend to belong to or to have any claim to others' ancestral religions/others' ancestral Gods (i.e. no "entitlement" mentality as seen in dabblers). <- And that is how the various European populations would have been too now, if the christoclass mindvirus hadn't come along. Indeed, that is quite how Europeans were before christianism. But as I said, christianism's extermination and breeding programmes bred that out.

But by allowing and encouraging dabbling - including by recognising and enabling "converts" - Hindus are encouraging a spin-off of christianism, perpetuating christoconditioning: dabbling being a spin-off of christianism, and which keeps western heathens away from their ancestral religion/Gods. (Also, Hindus' religion seems to regularly fry the christoconditioned dabbling aliens' brains, and this boomerangs on Hindus and Hindus' own religion, so it really is the worst option.) If Hindus really wanted to help genuine western seekers, they'd tell them all to return to their ancestral Gods/religions. That is where everyone belongs: in their own ancestral religion (which is never christianism/islam or any proselytising religion, of course). Whether they recover it or not, they must *attempt* to regain it (and not by oryanist-reconstructionism or new-agey neopaganism: that's guaranteed to be an enterprise that's dead in the water). Western people with proclivities to heathenism must diligently pursue their own ancestral Gods, who - if and once attained - will restore their religion and the umbilical cord between the western populations and their Gods. <- The "umbilical cord" is something that every indigenous population has with their own ancestral Gods.

Gods are the only key to proper reconstruction of any heathen religion that has been damaged by the christoclass virus, since Gods are the repositories of their own religion. (E.g. can recall how IIRC Apollo is the God of Philosophy and hence taught the Hellenes Philosophy.) Once the west has their Gods they will have *everything* again. <- That much is guaranteed, though it is predicated on the very significant task of their recovering their Gods first (which requires them to cultivate the right mindset of their Gods, which in turn requires they shed a lot of modern nonsense accumulated about their Gods). While that's no easy task, the very few born-heathens in Europe have managed it effortlessly. The Gods of Europe never "died"/disappeared, because they can't.

So surely it can be done. But that depends on how badly the western heathens want it.

But many western people don't want their own ancestral heathenism, they just want to dabble in others' heathenism. And, like I said, these entities should be banned. They aren't heathens at all. Yet these are the very people India's religion-salesmen always congratulate themselves on having acquired and who then get *foisted* on mainstream traditional Hindu society which never sought and does not want "converts".
And that other unpleasant topic again.

Something I recently discovered.

It has to do with post 32 of the indology thread at www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1836-indology-and-indologists/page__st__20__s__5a3cbf4c059897aaae437171ae4d3147

Personally, I think it is imperative for all Hindus to have read it. Especially all the kinds that peddle Hindus' religion to aliens, and more so all the Hindus that peddle the Vedam among aliens.

In any case, if you haven't read that earlier post, there's really no point in reading the rest of this one, as it is directly connected.

Post 32 of the indology thread was a copy-and-paste affair from a forum discussion on the beliefnet site, which has since been reorganised or something so that the link I provided to the source now goes to a dead end. I searched the web for the text of the discussion, and it seems IF now has the only copy. (Someone's been cleaning up what their big mouth had given away.)

The alien "Vedic Recon" female had blabbed her gang's intentions publicly and verbosely:

- that she was inventing a new, True Vedic Religion (which wasn't Hindu religion; according to her/her alien gang Hindus are practising the neo-religion, and hers is the original/pure Vedic religion)

- that she had started in Hindu religion and wanted to be allowed to dabble in the Vedam, but that she had come up on a dead end because she realised Hindus wouldn't let her (her being an alien dabbling terrorist and all)

- that she therefore needed to start the True Pure Vedic Religion (and she's set it up in antagonism to Hindus' religion), wherein she declares she and her alien gang have right of access to the Vedam

- but she admitted repeatedly that she still needed Hindus to teach her the How To Do It All.

- she also admitted that by that point she had 'at last' found some Useful Indian Idiot (is there another kind?) to teach her proper diction in Skt. Gee, I wonder which of the long list of traitors she found to teach her and her equally poisonous like-minded kind to dabble in the Vedam. Gah of all the kinds of dabbling mlecchas to instruct - though all kinds are banned - they had to pick the worst of the lot. (And don't you know alien females are even more prone to dabbling and new-age than even the male kind. But they're all quite mad, and to distinguish between genders at this point borders on nitpicking.)

But well done, traitors, well done. I wish the many traitors inducting aliens into the Vedam would just publish their names and what they did already, so that native Hindus can shun them forever, and point to them throughout history as the source of the greatest of Hindus' woes. Personally, I wouldn't leave it at shunning *this* type of traitor, but then, I never did have a forgiving character. I really *really* wish I knew where they all lived. But as I don't have the requisite home addresses to do something about it/them, it's all only so much venting.

So on to the discovery.

When I looked up the Vedic Recom female's handle on the internet to see whether she was still on beliefnet at least, found out this particular individual hadn't merely started off dabbling in Hinduism, but had been a presumably long-term and visible participant in something called "Hindunet" - since she expected other alien (undercover?) dabblers to remember and recognise her from there:




Posts: 52

Registered: May 2005 Posted May 27th, 2005 01:14 PM IP


Hey, you guys!

All right, getting down to business:

I am a "Vedic Recon" and other user names you might recognise:

amorphous (Beliefnet)

agnihotr (Sword & Shield, Hindunet, etc.)

Good to see you guys

When Hindus say No to aliens "No, you can't convert/dabble", you always (at least eventually) start seeing the alien dabblers' true colours.

Their responses always follow along one of several lines. Ranging all the way from pleading for acceptance with arguments of how they are "true Hindus" ("truer than you, far more like your Yogis and Rishis etc than you native Hindus are, therefore it all belongs to us more than it does to you" - nice try), to arguing that most Hindus aren't really native either (Namboodiris must be Syrian, GSBs and Chitpavans must be Iranian/whatever, etc) "therefore we're no more alien than you all are, therefore we have as much right to convert/to the Vedam as all of you",

all the way down to getting really angry and starting their own independent True Pure Vedic Religion and further declaring that Hindus' religion is as miscegenated a variant of Pure Vedic Religion as Hindus are a miscegation of Oryans (Japhetites) and Hamites (Dravoodians).

Hindus don't appear to know the mindset of aliens - and the consequent typical behaviour pattern of aliens of dabbling tendencies - yet insist on peddling Hindu religion among these.

The current aliens are the offspring of people who murdered the inconvertibles of the heathen religions of Europe.

If there are any heathens among the current aliens (and there are), they would be following their own ancestral heathenism, not be dabbling in Hindu religion. Wish Hindus would get that into their heads. There's a whole ocean of decent western people out there. But the ones that want to "convert" to (dabble in) Hindu or Daoist etc religion are specifically not it.

Quote:Saturday, December 14, 2013

bhedam: the #377 issue is driving a wedge between the bad guys!

homosexuality, transgender etc have not been burning issues in hindu society: note hijras (tolerated), shikhandi (given humane, special treatment), the idea of ardhanariswara etc.

violent anti-homosexuality is a semitic thing. because of the binary semitic mindset, they cannot see any grey areas. thus they have always been intolerant of anything they perceive as outside 'the norm'. this is what led to racism, oppression of females, pogroms against religious groups, animosity towards certain animals, etc.

(The extra surrounding lines are included only for conveying the context from which Rajeev wrote the bold bit)

Rajeev ascribes to Hindus a non-existent view: that they perceive - or could perceive - the ardhanArIshwara ("idea of ardhanArIshwara" as he put it) as referring to the transgendered state. The two have no bearing on each other. And - consequently - that is NOT what Hindoos perceive when they look at Ardhanaareeshwara.

It's like claiming that Hindus perceive "the idea of a Vishvaroopa form" as representing persons with multiple personalities (bipolar people). That's not how the vishwaroopa form is seen by Hindoos at all.

Don't know how Rajeev came to express alien views. But it is alien (and aliens incl dabblers "converts" do express such views on a whole host of Hindu matters - because it's not their ancestral religion.)

As all Hindoos know full well and better -

Short version:

Ardhanaareeshwara = Maataa + Pitaa together in one form, refer to Vedam (includes Upanishads)/Shri Chakram.

*That* is what all the Hindoos perceive.

Ardhanareeshwara moorti is the embodiment that reveals to the Hindooos how paramaatman (parabrahmam) is a unity consisting of Shiva (Ishwara) and his Shakti (also called Devaatmashakti in the Upanishads and stotras, etc). From paramaatman's two parts, the Hindus' Kosmos is generated. That is why they are the Amma and Appa of all Hindu cosmology including the Hindus. Every Hindoo subconsciously knows all this - and far more - when the *Hindoo* (not alien dabbler or alienated) looks at the MAtA-PitA form that is ardhanArIshwara.

ArdhanArIshwara is *literally* equivalent (identical to) the Shri Chakram. It is the moorti form of the yantram (and vice-versa). Completely identical. (They're both full embodiments of Hindoos' ancestral Divine Parents.)

I.e. ardhanArIshwara=shrI chakram. So replace the words "the idea of ardhanariswara" in Rajeev's quoted statement above with "the idea of shri chakra" to see how inane his statement reads to Hindoos.

Longer version:

Ardhanaareeshwara is the embodiment of paramaatman/Ishwara revealing to the Hindoos how the paramapuruSha (in generative mode at least) consists partly of his Prakriti (his Shakti, aka Devaatma Shakti - literally embodied in his Wife who is ever a part of Him). The union of puruSha-Prakruti (also called Shiva-Shakti in Shaivam/Shaktam - but each/all Hindoo Deva-s and their Shaktis ultimately have ardhanArIshwara moorti forms, going by various texts: each/all the Hindoo Gods embody the paramaatman) - the union of Shiva and Shakti results in the All/Kosmos that gets generated, of which they become/are the Maataa and Pitaa obviously. It is this nature of the Paramashiva showing how parAshakti is his own shakti/an innate part of him, their union in Ishwara/paramaatman's generative form, and the result produced from it - the All of Hindoo cosmology, including the Hindoos themselves - that is revealed to the Hindoo and which the Hindoo correctly perceives (automatically, at a subconscious level - which is the only way and only level to perceive this) when Hindoos look at the Ardhanaareeshwara moorti. The puruSha ("Male", "spirit") part of Bhagavan provides the life force/the male seed (the puruSha, spirit) that combines with the matter of the universe manifested by his Shakti, the Prakriti (the 'female' part, Nature). [<snip>]

Maataa creates the All with her very being (Prakriti's essence) and Pitaa's essence (spirit) enters into it, to instill his life-essence (spirit) into it all. The Hindoos - and all the cosmology of Hindu perception - are thus made out of the 'male' and 'female' contributions of their Divine Father(s) and Divine Mother(s). These "contributions" - what aspects are of Shiva/"male" and which are of Shakti/"female" - are specifically enumerated in Hindu religion. They are 'gendered' in a specifically Sankhyan (not everyday) sense. Speaking of which, Ardhanaareeshwara is literally the same embodiment as the Yonilingam. They reveal the same vision of the nature of the Divine Parents to the Hindus: Yoni and Lingam have specific meanings in the Hindu Sankhyam (as originally seen in the upaniShads and other ancient Hindu texts etc), where they refer not to everyday organs - as all Hindoos know, so it feels stupid to even say this explicitly (but it was always nice to see alien morons grasping at straws, however) - but literally refer to the Hindu Sankhyam words for the 2 aspects/parts/"halves" of paramaatman - at least in generative mode: Shakti/Prakriti (which is called ParamapuruSha's Yoni) and PuruSha (IIRC in Sankhyam, the join pt of the Purusha in Prakriti when Prakriti evolves around it and including it is called Lingam; or something, but not sure, look it up)

- and how parAshakti, being an innate part of Ishwara, is inseparable from Shiva (i.e. she is his own Shakti) and that the combination of these two parts/aspects that form the unity of Paramaatman/paramashiva give rise to/manifest/generate the known Kosmos and form (pervade) the Kosmos which is entirely of them. Krishna said the same too in the Gita when he said how he (as the puruShottama/paramapuruSha) was the Appa/the seed of all and his Prakriti* was the Amma of all.

[* Also variously named Shakti, Maaya, Mohini, Yoni, etc - hence common names for all Devis. ParamapuruSha's Prakriti version is DevI. E.g. Durga is called Vishnu Maya/Vishnu Durga etc.<snip>]

Anyway, overlooking my lame description (just peruse any Hindu texts, even naamaavalis, which are full of instructive descriptives), ^that^ is what Hindoos perceive. They see their Maataa and their Pitaa - joined in perfect form as the Supreme Ultimate/showing the Nature of the Supreme Ultimate as made of these 2 "halves"/parts/aspects - when they look at their ardhanaareeshwara.

It is of course important to bear in mind that the Gods and their Shaktis (Devis) are not "hypothetical" - Shiva Shakti etc are not mere 'theory' with Paramaatman as the only 'reality'. <- That is something only ignorant armchair intellectuals who know nothing about the Gods/paramaatman (and never will) would conclude. The Hindoos' Divine Fathers and Mothers - all of whom are paramaatman individually, in pairs, in collections and collectively - are literally true and real. They literally also exist manifest in their joined forms (i.e. Ardhanaareeshwara moorti is naturally occurring, being an Own form of the Gods). All these Gods and Ammans and their forms are real and can be seen - and not because I say so, but because it IS so (no proof provided herewith, obviously. But being a native Hindoo you either already know the proof for yourself, or else can always obtain your own proof. Heathenism works - Hindu religion certainly.)

To repeat:

Viewing your (your ancestral religion's) "idols" *correctly* is the essence of "idolatry" - a fundamental, basic aspect of heathenism. If you can't do it, you're not a heathen (but are instead looking at the "idols" as an alien would. Which is the worst possible thing that could happen to anyone who is meant to be a heathen - i.e. of direct heathen ancestry). Moral: don't de-heathenise.

Actually, I needn't have bothered with my cringeworthy attempts at "explaining" how - in their Own form as ardhanArIshwara moorti - the Divine Parents of the native Hindoos are revealing (as in, instilling via visual *osmosis*) Vedic realities about an important aspect of their Divine Nature (but then, any moorti of the Gods is Veda-swaroopam and parabrahma-swaroopam). Instead, I could just have re-pasted the following 2 excerpts that summarise the relevant bits from original sacred Hindoo scriptures, which would have sufficed to refute the novel alien views about what ardhanaareeshwara 'supposedly' means to Hindoos:

Quote:Pre-classical Samkhya


The concepts of the Purusha, of the Prakriti, of the Gunas, of the evolution of different categories, of life being a vale of sorrows, of the doctrine of Samsara or repeated births and deaths, of gaining freedom from Samsara through spiritual striving, etc. are familiar to the Upanishads, may be with some differences of meaning, and they find a place in the classical Samkhya. The Mundaka and the Katha Upanishads, if closely studied, will be found to have much Samkhyan affinities. The Shvetashvatara Upanishad gives clear evidence of the existence of a pre-classical Samkhya that is not distinguishable from Vedantic ideals. In that Upanishad we get for the first time the expression Prakriti, which is also called Maya--a term which in the earlier literatures was known as Brahman, Akshara, Avyakta, and Mahan-atma. The theory of the three Gunas, which bind the Purusha, is adumbrated in this Upanishad in the passage IV.5, where it speaks of the "Aja" ('female unborn'), red, white and black in colour, and producing offspring resembling her. The dualism of Purusha and Prakriti is clearly visible, but unlike in the classical Samkhya they are unified in Supreme Being, all-powerful, described as Isha or Deva. Prakriti is called His Yoni (source of creative power) and also as Devatma-shakti (the inherent Power of the Lord). It speaks in the same breath in contiguous passages about Samkhya and Vedanta in expressions like samkhya-yogadhigamyam (the Highest Truth that can be attained through Samkhya and Yoga) and vedante prachoditam paramam guhyam (the Supreme Truth inculcated in the Vedanta). The Upanishad also mentions the name of Kapila, the reputed author of the Samkhya philosophy, although that word is interpreted in commentaries as the 'golden-coloured one', the Hiranyagarbha.

Gita Samkhya

The existence of a pre-classical Samkhya, which is both theistic and devotional and therefore indistinguishable from Vedanta, is most abundantly clear from the Mahabharata from its most important sections, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Mokshadharma section of the Shantiparva. [...] While in classical Samkhya, Prakriti is of the nature of the Gunas, the Gita describes the Gunas as both constituting Prakriti (Gunamayi), and as born of Prakriti (Prakritijan). It is the power [i.e. Shakti] of Ishwara (God).


Quote:The Tantra is regarded as a Shruti or Agama [...] It is thus classed with the Vedas. It is usually defined as "shrutishAkhAvisheShaH", a particular branch of the Vedas. This claim is strongly maintained not only by the later Tantras, but also by the earlier ones. One of the oldest Tantras available in manuscript, NS, holds that the Tantra is the culmination of the esoteric science of the vedAnta and the sAMkhya. In fact, it combines with the ultimate reality of Brahman or Shiva the validity of the world as an expression of His Shakti. The consort of Shiva therefore is first taught the vedAnta, then the 25 sAMkhyas [saamkhya categories], and after that the Shiva Tantra. P, which is an equally old tAntric text, says, 'The Tantra, first communicated by Shiva, came down through tradition. It is Agama with the characteristics of chandas (Vedas).'

The later Tantras reiterate the same claim. The K Tantra says (II. 140-41) that kuladharma is based on, and inspired by, the truth of the Vedas. In the same place, Shiva cites passages from the shruti in support of His doctrine. P2 and other Tantras cite vaidika-mahAvAkyas and mantras; and as mantras are a part of the Vedas, the M Tantra says that the Tantra is a part of the Vedas. The N Tantra calls the Tantra the fifth Veda, and kulAchAra the fifth Ashrama, which follows all the others. The MSM-tantra says that the disciple must be pure of soul and a knower of the Vedas. He who is devoid of vaidikakriyA is disqualified. The GT says that the tAntric sAdhaka must be a believer in the Vedas, ever attached to Brahman, living in Brahman and taking shelter with Brahman. The K Tantra says that there is no knowledge higher than that of the Vedas and no doctrine equal to the kaula.
(The final is bit is included pre-emptively so no one tries to poach on these matters for competing ideologies or by declaring it is "non-Vedic religion". When it is - of course - Hindoo onlee.)
While what I wrote above - which is a small fraction of the most basic of what the Hindoos perceive - isn't to be found explicitly stated in any Hindu writings (well, not in those lame words certainly) it's simply so obvious from Hindu stuffs - including the highly descriptive personal names of the Gods and their rituals even - that there was no need for any Hindu to ever state it and it is just regarded as self-evident. Also, these things are not for stating explicitly in the first place (but to implicitly perceive): if one can't ingest the vision of the Hindu Gods properly - their forms - what can reams of words (and embarrassingly conveyed what's more) covering the mere basics ever do?

I was angry and therefore provoked into being explicit. But at least remained acceptably superficial.

[And Alien Dabblers can gain nothing from explicit explications of Hindooism anyway: as indicated, it has no effect and carries no meaning. At most aliens can regurgitate and imitate Hindoos and try to pass off their regurgitations as their own 'insight' and 'expertise' - which they frequently do BTW: they're great plagiarists though nothing else, which can't serve them in any meaningful way.]

And so, I can continue being superficially verbose (and sound doubly lame in English) -

Sort of related to the previous post:

There are lots of obvious epithets and names of the Gods that tell the Hindoos a lot in regard to the nature of the Gods. E.g. Ayonija as the name of various Hindu Gods (especially familiar as a name of kR^iShNa) - generally translated [loosely] as 'not being born of a womb/not of human origin/without birth', that sort of thing. But in a larger sense it's also a reference to the PuruShottama being beyond the "evolution" of Prakriti (=Yoni), i.e. being beyond the triguNas and what they give rise to. That is, the Hindoo Kosmos is a product of the triguNas of Prakriti, but - like Amman/Prakriti (who is Ajaa) - Bhagavaan is called Ayonija because he is not himself a product of the 3 guNas (not born of them/what arises from them, as he yet exists beyond them) whereas the rest of Hindoo Kosmos *does* get produced from the "evolution" of his Shakti. [I feel such a fraud using such English words. But you know what I mean. I've merely tried to re-use terms that that Hindoo whom I'd quoted had used.]

The word puruShottama is also interestingly employed and intimated. Including in its literal meaning. Hindoos subconsciously or rather superconsiously/supraconsciously - oh whatever - innately ... Again: Hindus *innately* imbibe the meaning/excellences of the puruShottama and also the *identification* of the puruShottama as apparent from the various sacred narratives concerning our various Gods. Since the word's also a literal reference to the superlative male, where the puruSha- prefix further has the implication of human, traditional Hindoos are very adept at instantly absorbing such highly obvious basic realisations out of any narrative concerning the Hindoo Gods' magnificent and sacred exploits. The most basic of all being perhaps the identification of the puruShottama (which is how the Hindoo instantly identifies that an individual Hindoo God centrally featured in each narrative is in turn the Supreme Ultimate described in the Vedas incl. the upaniShads. The Gods never leave it at mere theory/words: their manifestations and exploits are what - by their very nature - impart these realisations).

In all the cases I can think of: every Hindoo God when he appears in his own narrative as the centrepiece is obviously pointed out as the paramapuruSha/the puruShottama. E.g. this is obvious from -

  • Ayyappa in the section of his famous narrative that's described in stotras using refs like "dugdha hantaaram" (i.e. bearing the Tigress milk) being the sole puruSha (male, even human), with the tridasha as Tigresses and Indra himself as the queen Tigress carrying the obvious PuruShottama Ayyappa. (Not even the MahiShI was male - it was an asurI in this case, Ayyappa famously liberated the woman in it - i.e. the jeeva's Atman/the Jeevatman - when he defeated the MahiSha form in which it was trapped.);

  • [This next example is explicated using Southern Hindu traditions/views concerning Rama:] Vishnu as Rama and his extension Lakshmana (AdisheSha and the ayudhas of Vishnu manifest with Vishnu), where the tridasha appears as the Vanara-sena and other animals around him, and with Sita being his obvious Shakti at his side. Rama alone [and obvious extension LakshmaNa] is puruSha (male, man) - not to mention that Rakshasas are literally not even human so they don't count - therefore Rama is clearly pointed out as the puruShottama here and is moreover presented as the clear earthly mirror/parallel of the obvious puruShottama in Swarga (i.e. Indra leading the devasenA in victory against the Asuras <-> Rama leading the Vaanara sena in victory against Rakshasas);

  • Then Murugan and his Shakti-vel** leading the devasenA (=also the name of his wife, i.e. the entire devasenA collectively is female compared to his captaincy thereof), with some devas even as his initial vahanas, such as the kukkuta and Agni as the meSha before the redeemed rakShasas take over these embodiments. Thus making Murugan the puruShottama (the navaratnas of his Mother's anklet become Veerabaahu and other companions, who are extensions of him just as Rama's brothers are extensions of Rama/Vishnu. ** Murugan's Shakti-Vel is specifically the embodiment of his Mother - consequently worshipped as such in dhyana mantras to the Vel too, e.g. "shakte bhajetvAm jagato janitrIm...namo namaste guhahasta bhUShe..." etc - just as Murugan himself is the embodiment of his Father Shiva: see the Skanda Laharee which addresses him as "Shivastvam, Shaktistvam" - implying again that even in "single, brahmachAri form" Murugan, who is never without his Vel since it is his Shakti, is puruSha+prakRiti/Shiva-Shakti combined as paramapuruSha). Murugan=Shiva embodiment and Vel=embodiment of his Mother Parvati/Shakti, since Murugan - as all Divine Babies and all the Kosmos - is a product or rather full combination of Shiva and his wife Shakti, aka full combination of PuruSha and Prakriti: Murugan is clearly paramaatman, since being that full combination of both Da puruSha and prakRiti himself makes him so. Further, Murugan in married form has 2 Shaktis (Wives) of his own, who altogether combined with him are the Paramaatman. [The way Ayyappa - who is Hari and Hara aatmajam (being born of the essence of both Vishnu and Shiva) - has 2 matching wives: poorNa who is literally described as "LakShmI swaroopam" and puShkalaa who is literally described as "Shakti=Parvati swaroopam", to match with Ayyappa being vishnu-shiva-swaroopam.]

  • The most obvious example however is Indra="sureDyam=surashreShTha" etc of all the Devas, head of the devasenA, the Devaraaja (with his Shakti as his raaNI, indraaNI Amman). Undefeatable, who famously always returns unscathed from battle (=his trait), etc etc. Making Indra the obvious puruShottama. Actually, his most famous personal name "Indra" already literally refers to male divine superlative, and so essentially works out as the same as puruShottama;

  • Shiva tripurAntaka goes to bring an end to the tripura asuras, with his wife/Shakti on the chariot beside him and the tridasha in the form of his 'inert' arsenal - his weapons and chariot, with brahmA as the only other male form on the scene but he appears as charioteer, making only Shiva the centrepiece <=> clearly indicating Shiva is the puruShottama. Also his famous personal name of Pashupati already indicated that he (Shiva) is the paramapuruSha being the lord of all pashus (pashu being another word that in its literal meaning singles the one who is Pashupati out as the puruShottama). [Of course, like all these Hindoo narratives, the tripurasamhaara moorti and his vanquishing the tripuras has a lot more deep stuff to innately impart to Hindoos.]

  • And as Krishna, Vishnu in the MBh via the Gita just explicitly reveals that he's the puruShottama. Actually the fact that he's literally called that by name - i.e. the fact that it's famous as his personal name - already gives it away, so one need hardly mention this as an example at all.

  • Etc.*

[* DevI however exhibits a slightly different pattern: often, when Amman is the central active character, as she is in her narratives, she often tends to quickly manifest herself as multiple Shaktis. I *think/imagine* this parallels her multiplying/growing/manifesting nature as Prakriti, which becomes vast. In any case, she is well-described as being the Shaktis of all the Devas combined and thus forms the parAshakti. Which seems to me to imply that all the Devas when combined with all their Shaktis - aka the parAshakti - form the paramaatman. Which last is also something literally embodied in the Shivalingam and (Ashwattha) vRikShas: since these are also the embodiment of all the Hindoo Gods (and their Shaktis).]

The above is again clearly not some "secret" either. It's simply an obvious pattern and a very literal truth concerning each God, but it's a pattern/truth which native Hindoos recognise (and ought to recognise/realise at an innate level for it to have any effect at all - this being a heathenism and all) so no Hindoo is likely to ever bother to explain the above explicitly the way I did either. Like Ardhanaareeshwara is perceived correctly only in implicit manner, the same is true in how the Hindoo peruses the sacred narratives about the Divine Gods and Ammans.

Anyway, this is why when the Hindoo worships each God in turn, it intrinsically recognises and remembers how that Hindoo God is the full Paramaatman. Each of these narratives - which all have much more to say, of course, than just pointing out the PuruShottama (they further describe the wondrous individual exploits and Divine Natures of the Hindu Gods besides instilling deep profound realisations in the Hindoos traditionally perceiving/perusing the Hindoo epics/puruNas/etc) - each of these narratives cement that recognition in the Hindoo for that God. So do stotras: they also describe the Gods and teach the Hindoo about the Divine Nature of each Hindoo God being worshipped. [At a deeper level, the Hindoo on contemplating its ancestral Gods via such osmosis and thereby understanding their Divine Natures is drawing its Gods to itself/drawing itself to its Gods. Superglue-ing itself to them, as it were.]

It is very important for Hindooos to innately perceive the moorties of their Gods - and understand their sacred Hindoo narratives, etc - correctly. It is a fundamentally important part of all heathenism. So fundamental in fact that it is that part of heathenism which will allow you - as a Hindoo heathen - to pull your ancestral Gods/your Divine Parents to you, and which will eventually enable you to be able to literally see them. But perceive/understand them wrong and you will Never see them, because you make no connection with who they are. Don't be like the aliens - wandering about so lost and blind that they can't find their way back to their own Gods and have started terrorising others' Gods/religions instead.

Rather, be like the traditional Daoists and Shintos: retain your traditional (i.e. family's/community's ancestral) perceptions of your ancestral Gods. It must be your Primary and your Sole understanding of the Gods. Hindoos [color="#FF0000"]must[/color] ensure this is so. It's also necessary in order to pass on the right perceptions of your Gods to your progeny. Else they will turn out more and more alien with each generation. At which point, does it even matter if they convert to christianism? What is a heathen without its [implicitly ancestral] heathenism?

BTW, I forgot to bring up a question with reference to Rajeev S's statement "homosexuality, transgender etc have not been burning issues in hindu society: note hijras (tolerated), shikhandi (given humane, special treatment), the idea of ardhanariswara etc." -

Do Indians actually refer to transgendered persons (such as those who started off 'female' at one stage) as "shikhandi"? If so, such a usage seems to be related (?) to the character Shikhandin in the MBh. (Otherwise, generally, ShikhaNDin tends to be the name of many a Hindu God. Looking it up: Means something or other to do with hair. Also means a flower or plant or something.) However, why should the MBh character have been the inspiration for the modern use of the word?

I could be wrong, but (IIRC, from reading Rajaji's MBh retelling when I was a cub):

The lady called Amba - sister of Ambika and Ambalika - killed herself after first acquiring a varan that she could be born again as a man to take revenge on Bhishma. And so she was born as a man, but into another family, into another life - where he was named Shikhandin - and Shikhandin did not come across as a man who saw himself as a woman (nor had Ambaa come across as a woman who saw herself as a man back in the Ambaa lifetime.) IIRC, Bhishma was the one to regard Shikhandin as having been a woman once (albeit in another life) and hence refused to fight her. How is either Ambaa or Shikhandin a transvestite/transgendered person then? Why has the Shikhandin name been selected as the term for (once-'female'?) transgendered persons? Are there no better cases? At least Brihannala dressed like a woman... Shikhandin was supposed to *be* a man (biologically), and dressed and lived as a man and viewed himself as one. Am I just misremembering and wrong?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)