sambya

raghu you have not yet answered my questions . l asked a few of them months ago when you last visited the forum . but you did not reply . in this thread this is the third time im asking this to you . repated avoidance is a clear indication of you not belonging to any sampradaya and lacking in logical answers . ill summarise the questions once more: 1-which is the supreme god in hinduism according to you and what is the process of determining this supremacy ? 2-who is your guru ? and the sampradaya ( now that you have not replied to this question for almost 4 times i have good reasons to believe thatyou dont have one !! reading this you might come up with some name in your reply . but isnt the previous silence strong enough the show the truth , that you dont have a guru ? ) 3-which time period in history can be conclusively said as the time of classical hinduism . 4-what are the main scriptures of 'classical hinduism ' ? examples please . 5- why was this thread started ? i mean what should a man do after reading this ?

what ? bhaktajan and such a small post ?? i must say , you are deviating from the tradition that you have upheld for so long .......................pull your socks up and resort back to your roots . fill up the places with pastings from e-books and hare krishna literatures !!

not alll tantra speak of sex . you are speaking of vamamarga of tantra , not the dakshinaachar . vamamarga is corruption of tantra . just like sahajiya vaishnvas are corrupted version of true vaishnavas . now if i say vaishnvas are busy with sex .... will it be just ?

there was this sankaracharya in bengal who wrote satyanarayan puja paddhati and satyanarayan panchali -- the guide to satyanarayana puja and ode to satyanarayan in medieval poetic bengali !!!! by ranjeets theory we have to count him as a authentic shankacharya . ho ho ! saguna brahman itself is an advaitic concept . you tell me , how can it be a dvaitic concept ?? if there is no nirguna brahman according to dvaitists then wherefrom the saguna word comes in ?? one just needs logic to see that !!

quite so . in the much hyped durga puja of bengal after five days of rigorous worship and after singing the highest of praises to her , entire festival is dedicated to vishnu - a typical smarta ritual .

that comes from jayadeva's dashavatara stotra . with its high popularity this concept rapidly gained foothold !! tantras themselves never claim themselves as vedic . they say vedas were true and good but no longer suitable for this age . thats why tantra was spoken by shiva . almost the same argument put forward by gaudiya vaishnavas while popularising their harinaam .

same for my posts . some of the key points which i made were either not answered or tactfully avoided by saying things like " criminal thinks entire world to be the same " " this a long justification.................." and other craps . and the questions like what is classical hinduism , what are its scriptures , what is raghu's worshippable god and sampradaya was totally left aside . lets see if he answers those .....................!!

BTW , you have not yet answered which sampradaya do you follow . which is the supreme god in hinduism according to you and what is the process of determining this supremacy ? who is your guru ? all these things are very important for me to know , in order to have a better understanding of what you labell 'classical hinduism ' secondly you did not answer which time period in history can be conclusively said as the time of classical hinduism . thirdly what are the main scriptures of 'classical hinduism ' ? and most importantly what to you intend to show with your posts about neo-hinduism ? i mean , people here already know what neo hinduism is all about . what next ? what do you intend them to understand or follow after this ? what is your ultimate advice or motive ?

well , to begin with i accept the theories what you call neo hinduism and so you might call me a neo hindu !! the second half of your previous post had less to do with providing logic but had more of personal attacks . i thought its a poll and a discussion that you wanted . whats the need of being so violent and agressive so as to use the words 'criminal' 'puppet' ? first i would like you to ask what to you intend to show by proving that neo-H actually exists ? why are you so angered at this 'N-H' ? Secondly what belief or sampradaya do you personally follow ? yes , it is much to my concern , since you are a genuine classical hindu spiritual seeker who hates non-sampradayic N-H . because many texts within hinduism are indeed shrouded in dual or multiple meanings and there is plenty of abstract ideas and extensive usage of metaphors there cannot be direct interpretations always . some interpretations have to be in the nature of extended interpretations and modifications -- otherwise things such as bhasyas wouldnt have existed at all !! understood !! but if each school distinguished itself then where are you getting this classical hinduism ? at which point in history was hinduism classical . which period in history can be said to be a period of classical hinduism, if it has been in a continuos change ?? so you are naming this overall change in approach as N-H . but such change in approach has occured many times before ....do you get my point? woudnt those also be neo-hinduism ? if classical hinduism exists then its scriptures must also exist . i want a few examples of classical scriptures . i think the point whether'shrutis were changed by smritis' is very relevent . if smrits have actually changed the hinduism of srutis then thats a complete change in appraoch again . when puranas reject ashwamedha gomedha it is a drastic and sacrilegeous change in approach . except brahmo samaj i cant remember any other neo hindus deriding idol-worship . then again brahmos were not considered hindu by the mainstream hindus . vivekanada acknowledged icon worship . but yes, it was , to him a form of saguna brahman worship which comes just below nirguna brahman worship . this he has explained innumerable times . and this is nothing borrowed form west . it is essentially the philosophy of advaita vedanta of shankaracharya. i have already said in a previous post that tolerance ultimately gave way to acceptance for most of the cases ! read it so if all puranas glorify one particular diety which one do we follow ? what is the way to determine the true one ? who is actually the 'one' accroding to you ???? repeating this beacuse i dont think you understood my point . i never said that it was the most prominent feature of hinduism . i have specifically stated that it was there already in hinduism only to be elaborated upon in 19th century . remember im not saying change did not occur . im merely sying that the contents of this change ( in approach, as you say) was already there in its scriptures . it was not something totally new . genrally they didnt comment much negetive about other faiths . but words like mleccha came into existence when muslims poured in the hindu lands with all sorts of violence . this genrated an ill feeling . it was not racism proper as used in modern sense of term. you fail to get the point . neo hindus belive in validity of all paths including vaishnvas . they dont deride vaishnava doctrines as being false or unworthy ! but they dont hesitate to say clearly what history has revelaed to them . for ex-check out shakta texts you shall find songs combining krishna and kali . archana paddhatis of gopal and krishna . but check out vaishnav texts you can never find a writing of glory towards any shakti deities . its fact !! thats what you think ! me along with many others here think just the opposite . yes yes , i know that its in the psycology of neo hindus to think themselves as intelllectually advanced bla bla ! but hey , im an neo hindu . im proud to be one after meeting with a clssical hindu such as you !! thanks a lot !! what are you speaking about ?? you are deliberately twisting my words by qoutn small portions of the entire text . here is what i actuall said--- " accusuitions have been made that Neo-Hinduism thinkers often assert their "interpretations" can be understood only by those who are on a "higher level" of sprititual understanding. this is also the case for all sects of traditional hinduism . for example orthodox vaishnavs would also claim that their interpretation of upanishads and vedic literature can be understood by a few lucky individuals with proper human intelligence . this is an old psychological trick used by all preachers to create a race among common masses to be included among that few priviledged intellectuals and thereby increase their follower count . its nothing new in the world ..........!!! " now reply properly wrong again . there are clear discussion in ramakrishna movement about his gurus . his vedantic guru was called totapuri who even has photographs. his tantric guru was a brahmin lady called bahiravi brahmani . what ramakrishna vivekanada literature have you read ......i doubt if any !! and all through your posts its your brilliant intolerance for ramakrishna vivekanada that shines through , rather than a dislike for neo hindus. <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> from here begins your bogus answers .... thats a personal attack and a rude one ! its not a proper and scholarly answer to the logic i forwarded ! not a logical answer at all . yes its a justification of my point thorugh which i have made it clear that the point that you have made about meat eating was not valid. just are you are busy justifying your stand on neo hinduism . you are angered to such an extent so as to speak illogically ! all neo hindu philosophers would accept that hindu religion is in constant change and the word sanatana dharma is used to mean the eternal principles lying embedded within its scriptures .........the eternal moral and ethical values and science of spirit which remains unchangable throughout time and place . and as hinduism is supposed to carry these hidden truths it is roughly named sanatana dharma . <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> no , i never equated crimes with hinudism . try and think properly with a open mind . a crime or a vice can never be attributed to the religion proper . but when hindu texts are chosen as a medium to perform crimes of propagate vices it is condemmable . although it does not arise out of hindusim proper it does relate back to its corrupt version . acknwledging that such vices had actuallu crept in is not bad at all . you are making personal sarcasms and assuming things. i do not atrribute evils to hinduism . they arose in the minds of some criminal minded individuals and found its way into hinduism . but after a few years when these evils principles are firmly established within hinduism it appears that they arise out of hinduism . and i do not belive that evryone has a right to be a guru . having a opinion on religion and acting as guru are not the same thing . you are assuming things because your vision is tainted with the unidimensional approach of neo-hinduism hatred. no matter how hard you try , you are mixing things up in light of your previously aqquired knowledge and biases . clean your mind and think rationally . waiting to know what faith do you follow !! that you are against neo hinduism is completely your belief and i dont accuse you of anything . because i feel that you have studied quite a deal about hinduism and then chose to believe in whatever you believe !! good ! i love what you called neo hinduism after doing my bit of reasearch on hinduism . im happy and contended . dont get into personal attacks while discussing .

this 'lay' people constituted the bulk of hinduism . obviously hinduism as percieved by anyone outside hinduism would be based on what majority follows . not by what some sampradayas practice . secondly which 'classical' sampradaya are you talking of ? dashanami sampradaya ? sri vaishnava ? madhva ? gaudiya ? kalikula tantra ? srikula tantra ? kashmiri sahivas ? tridandi sannyasa ? are'nt they themselves neo sampradayas ? they are not vedic !!!

yes tolerance and acceptance are not same terms . but in this context (history of hinduism) initial tolerance have led to gradual acceptance . tolerance is a mild form of indirect acceptance . well , interpretations doesnt necessarily amount to writing a scriptural bhasya or commentary . interpretation can also be done as regular speeches and writings . that ramamkrishna had nothing to do with vedanta is completely wrong ( i hope you arte using vedanta = advaita here ) . he did practise vedanta both in its dualistic and monistic interpretations . thats your mental speculation and vast majority of hindu scholars and commoners would beg to differ . vivekananda directly studied both the branches of vedanta . the fact that ramakrishna was semi-literate doesnt imply that he was not knowledgable enough to write a commentary . knowledge of vedanta , as prescribed in scriptures itself , comes from experience not merely by studying it .

this so called neo hindusim is nothing more than a newer interpretation of hinduism . this has already happened innumerable times in its history . can shankara's change in its structure be called neo-hinduism ? when chaitanya promoted loud chanting of otherwise guhya mantra wasnt that a deviation from the norms ? when brahmins accepted buddha as god doesnt that amount to a deviation ? what are standard scriptures of hinduism ? in the sense what scriptures can be said to be of classical hinduism ? smritis changed hinduism of the shrutis , tantra changed the hinduism of the smritis , medieval literature like ramacharita manas changed the hinduism of middle ages . all thorughout the history of hinduism newer and newer scriptures have been written and the existing ones altered . this hasnt stopped for a single day . so which hinduism can be termed as authentic classical hinduism ?? the concepts that are presently attributed to neo hinduism were already there in the scriptures . maybe it was not so pronounced as before . but it was certainly not brrowed whole from some other cultures . the principle of universality was already there in the psychology of the hindus . that is what made hinduism the most accomodating religion . buddha preached against vedas but he was not rejected or burnt at stake . grek yavanas were readily accpted as vaishnavas into indian territory . charvakas chose atheisim but was not rejected from hindu world . they were definately looked down upon but not rejected . zorastrianism came to india to find a shelter and they were happily incorporated into the society . islam came with its plunders but they were accepted and strong attempts made to unify them with us , as is evident from the stories of satyanarayan vishnu . the masses of hindus respected the sufi saints , pirs with equal reverence as any hindu saint . surely this happened before coming of british . all this ensured the existence of this noble faith and gave hinduism its strong assimilative character . 19th century philosophers merely developed this already existing thought . belief in all gods being equal was also very much present . shakta shaiva ganapatyas all follwed advaita where each sakaara murti is held to be an expansion of the same truth . most brahmans practised panchopasana which also lay emphasis of equality of all gods . there is no scpecific derogation of any other faith systems in hindu texts . use of words like mleccha or yavana shows hatred towrds a race not a faith . instead the noble belief in universlity of dharma and the concept of swadharma automatically implied that dharma followed differs from place to place . belief in validity of all religions existed with the medival saints and thinkers also . numerous reconciliation attempts have been made to unify hindus and muslims by saints like surdas kabir . this again point out the fact that universal acceptance was already there in vast majority of hindus . of course there were exceptions like the vsiahnavs !! the assumption that 'neo-hindus ' are less intellectual is purely an individuslistic speculation and not ascertained by any proper study or polls . the accussitions that 'neohindus' assign completely new meanings and interpretations can be equally applicable to almost all sects of hindu thought . no sect ever gave the same meaning to any sloka . this is a bare fact for all to see . that the interpretations are radically different can amount to no accussition at all , for that has been the very nature of interpretations itself . accusuitions have been made that Neo-Hinduism thinkers often assert their "interpretations" can be understood only by those who are on a "higher level" of sprititual understanding. this is also the case for all sects of traditional hinduism . for example orthodox vaishnavs would also claim that their interpretation of upanishads and vedic literature can be understood by a few lucky individuals with proper human intelligence . this is an old psychological trick used by all preachers to create a race among common masses to be included among that few priviledged intellectuals and thereby increase their follower count . its nothing new in the world ..........!!! the accusition that they reject guru parampara is also baseless . forming new parampara and living without parampara have been always there . mira did not belong to any parampara . chaintanya created his own parampara . next point accusses Neo-Hinduism thinkers to emphasize that a text can have a great variety of possible valid interpretations whereas traditional thinkers go for one single interpretation . this is true ................................................ but it is also a practical truth . dont we know that a text actually have a lot of interpretation ? acceptance of practical truth amounts to reform not deviation from hinduism . the point made to show how Neo-Hindus generally use the language of Vedanta to lend intellectual credibility to their philosophies is purely individual speculation and is not acceptable . all leaders or all faiths in all of history have used flowery words to lend credibility to their movement . this amight be a psycological trick or resulting out of mere love for one's own belief . this is not something unique to 'neohindus' . the next point states that Neo-Hindus are generally moral relativists. They may state that certain behaviors are good and virtuous, but will often refrain from condemning contrary behaviors. Thus, for a Neo-Hindu, vegetarianism is very good, but if someone chooses to eat meat, then that is not wrong. ibeacuse the 'N-H' are advaitins they go by the principle of shankara . vedantic "verse ahaarsuddhau satwa suddhau" has two interpretaions . according to ramanujacharya ahaar means food and shankaracharya believes ahaar is 'that which is taken in through senses' . so the shankara philosophy does not explicitely comment on food principles . in absence of direct command there is a natural freedom present in followers of shankaracharya . accepting the practical wisdom that it is not feasable for everyone on this world to turn vegetarian there is a degree of freedom allowed . this is not a deviation from the scriptures at all. next accusitions mention that Neo-Hindu thinkers have subconsciously imbibed Western biases about morality and ethics and that they often see themselves as enlightened reformers whose views represent a more "evolved" form of Hinduism. now isnt imbibing ideas have always been a key characteristical trait of hinduism . when hinduism elaborated the principles of dharma and karma after the buddhist reform , didnt it amount to imbibing ideas ?!! when hindu paintings of medival miniatures depict krishna in mughal jama pyjama then doesnt it amount to imbibing muslim ideas ? shirts or blouses never existed in traditional hinduism !!! if hindus have imbibed ideas from virtually evry culture it came in contact with , what is so sinister when it imbibes western ideas ? it is natural and inevitable and nothing new to hinduism !! the next point shows Neo-Hindu thinkers to actually believe that traditional Hinduism is riddled with social evils which they as "reformers" are in a position to change. They may even describe "idol worship" and "caste system" as being among these "social evils." now there is no denying that social evils have crept in the society . when a middle aged purana says that " a sati shall remain as many years in heaven as there are hairs on her body " and numerous ladies were pushed into flames , it can amount to nothing less than social evil which denies human rights . when a hindu is not allowed to travel overseas in a progressive era of 19th century industrial revolutuion it is undoubtedly a severe setback to the economy . when masses of people are not allowed to use the same waterbody with the high caste it is also a social evil which destroys the integrity and unity of the land. the very fact that british occupied the entire subcontinent with so less opposition shows the intensity to which our society was riddled with evils . there is absolutely no way to deny that these social evils existed . and when the 'N-H' criticise the caste system it is to be understood that it is these damaging effects of caste rigidity that is being condemmed , not the varnashrama institution in its pure form .. thus it is shown that none of the concepts attributed to neohinduism are entirely new . it might be a slight elaboration of existing principles . morales writes : "The dignity, strength and beauty of traditional Hinduism was recognized as the foremost threat to Christian European rule in India. The invention of neo-Hinduism was the response." but i fail to understand what is so diginified , strong and beautiful about a religion that does not believe in unversal values , does not believe in moral reform , does not conform to practical wisdom , is not democratic in worship , strictly adheres to caste untochablity , pushes widows to flames , rejects businessmen travelling overseas , rejects opposite philosohies of other sects within its fold . preaches exclusivity of any one particular god , doesnt like simple rituals , hates liberalism , dislikes rationalism , remains away from scientific methods !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( beacuse according to dr morales all such things like democratic worship , radical universialism are result of CHRISTIAN or WESTERN influence on traditional hinduism ) . secondly i fail to understand what is so condemmable about this so called neo hinduism ? if a change has occured at all it has occured keeeping in with the changing times . and now hinduism is spreading rapidly all over the world ........isnt this a happy news to celebrate ...... if changes in hinduism has been all along and continous then why make all this hype about this one ? if 19th an 20th century has seen the biggest changes and developements within the history of mankind , isnt it very obvious that hinduism would automtically get affected by this winds of change . change is all devouraing kala or time .....................can anyone escape that . secondly we hindus have been brought up in hindu values and ethos right since the begining . but miraculously most of the hindus see no neo hinduism at all . they are happy contended and proud ( unknowingly confused according to dr. morales) to be hindus . now by what strange means does this mleccha born in distant lands and being western bred( now im being a traditional hindu !! ) so correctly assumes about neo hinduism ? most importantly why am i going to listen to this man on what he says on basis of dry study , over my own hindu historians and hindu saints ? for believing in a non hindu mleccha scholar over a authentic hindu one would itself be a typically non - hindu behaviour and 'neo hinduist' attitude . there might be some isolated hindu historians out there supporting this theory but thats an exception . just as some hindus would take pride to shout about how tasty the beef was in order to depict his wannabe secularism . just like some hindu historians want to appease islamic world by distorting truth and saying that aurangazeb destroyed kashi temple to rescue a hindu princess hidden under viswanath grabhagriha ! ( not that im suppoting VHP to demolish gyan vapi mosque ) it is primarily because of this inablity to readjust and reassign itself to the changing world that both dinosaurs and pagan religions like that of greece rome and egypt died out . only our noble religion have mastered the art of survival ..........we are born into a world of living history . and this survival can be only attributed to its assimilative power ( again , does assimilative power come without being democratic , universal , rational ??? ) and unviversal acceptance . now it is up to us if we want to shut all doors to reform , practicality and modern wisdom and be enlisted among the extinction list . do we want to see our religion as a fossil in pages of history ???????????????????

traditonally mantras are considered as guhya (secret) because they are the gateways to liberation . so there are a number of rules while dealing with mantras . traditional hinduism(and vaishnavism) did not allow loud public chanting of mantras . although it is not explicitely forbidden , it is definately considered an inferior form of chanting. speaking the mantra audibly is called baachik jap , chanting it in a extremely low tone , so as only you can hear to yourself is called vaikhari jap and mental uninterrupted chanting is called manasik jap and is considered the best of all . chaitanya mahaprabhu brought about this change in hinduism through his congretional kirtan and loud chanting . he argued that although mental jap is uttama , nowhere it is forbidden to chant loudly . infact chanting loudly helps other fallen souls and animals to listen and be delivered . so it is even more selfless and meritorious than silent japa . if you can maintain the concentration there is no difference between mental and audible japa . but low voice japa sometimes helps us in proper concentration to the mantrartha !

not really !! i dont know god !! i have not read all the scriptures glorifying god....... actually im too far from it !! i fall short in sadhana !! but there are some threads here which try to educate people exclusively into their way of thinking . and if the one who is being thus educated chooses some alternative path of education instead , then he is cursed . i think i want to stay out of recieving such a unidimensional education system, nothing else !!! dont you think discussion is bound to lead to some speculation .....are these two terms mutually exclusive in a practical sense ? specially when there are people around who want to shove their philosophy down someone else's throat.

this forum is called spiritual DISCUSSIONS and copy pasting from other sites is no discussion at all ...............hope you understand . there is absolutely no need to educate people here . if you still persist you can merely give us the link and intersted persons would check it out.........................but stop posting such crap........!!

i knew you would say that !! sukshma sarira is ego mind intellegence etc , not invisible hands invisible eyes invisible brains ............... unauthorised later day dubious text ..... if durga narayan shiva all have the same six opulances it means that they are absolutely non-different . one cannot be forms of another . the gyana of gita is the same as advaita or gyana marga . there is absolutely no difference . if there would have been different krishna would have specifically mentioned it ......... your knowledge of gyana marga is incorrect and supercial but anyways i dont want to drag this discussion on because this has happened before a lot of times . enjoy......

the same advice i would give to you !! traditional gaudiya texts like chaitanya charitamrita fully acknowledge hereditary brahmins . in many cases you shall see clear reference using the words " brahmins and vaishnavas " . now in those days there was no system of so called brahmin initiation , you know ! so these guys have to be caste brahmins .

just see how confused you are !! just a moment ago you said that vedas proclaim three paths . now you say that gyana path is not independent . that would mean that the other two paths converge onto the central bhakti path before finally reaching god . but the paradox is that , then they wouldnthave been called paths at all ...........but again the vedas said three paths !!!

so you think that merely having eyes to look , is something exceptionally beautifull ? there's no necessity that there has to be eyes to enable a person to look . a yogi or rakshasa after becoming invisible can look around perfectly . a ghost living in sukshma sarira can also look around !! do you know the correct intonation for chanting purusha sukta ? i have it by heart . all through the purusha sukta there not even a single utterence of the word narayan !! i thought we were discussing about six opulances ......... are you having trouble understanding ranjeet ??? im really concerned about your health !! you know good english !! who taught you ???

ooh !!!!!! so you admit that there are three diferent paths ??? then what was the need of creating such a fuss over advaita mayavada etc over the last few months ??!!!!!!!!! gyana is also a path ........... leave it alone !!!

i did see no one here in this forum who ever proposed someone to try love an impersonal nirguna nirakaar brahm . but i do see someone in this forum(the person to whom im replying to be specific)whom i would like to propose that he is in mental nirakaar bhram .

firstly i cant remember of any christian glorifying the beauty of lord . this is because beauty is a characteristic feature of a humanistic person . but christian god is personal non-anthropomorphic . secondly if its is sadaishwarya or six opulences that you are speaking of then i think you are not quite educated on this yet. many other dieties of hindu pantheon also has this six opulances-complete weath, fame, beauty , renunciation , power , knowledge ...................... devi to state just an example . now its your turn to decide to whom you want to attribute all these qualities............choice is yours............go ahead and vote !!!

what a chaos !! chaos theory here again ?!! ha ha , just joking.......

true !!

yes thats true !! these words do have a subtle but prominent derogatory intention within them . maybe i shouldnt have used these words.........anyways my intention in using such words not similar to that of british though . we grew up in a city(calcutta) where the colonial influence still remains the strongest compared with the rest of india . and most older generations of educated bengali society speak in that colonial british english till date . naturally their way of speaking has influenced us unconciously right from the begining . maybe that is the reason i just used such a word . i believe in god with a form . not as inferior saguna brahman , but as a kind of parallel truth . god being infinite is sakaar and nirakaar simlutaneously .