sambya

so do you undrestand and ive already told you how god of christians is vishnu.

They both beleive god is a person.

actually i dont !!

no one can !!

both are person......thats fine .

but what else ? what strong similarities are there to label christian god as vishnu ? does he have a kaustabh mani ? srivatsa , samkha chakra bla bla ? if he does not then how does he turn into vishnu merely by one distant similarity ?

Are you and I reading the same essay? I thought it was quite obvious that the author had a thinly veiled, derisive tone towards Christianity.

yes were are reading the same essay ...........its just that i presented a different perspective !!

The historical facts do not bear this out. While it was true that they denounced Hinduism, it is also true that they invested quite a bit in scholarship to decipher and dissect Hinduism. This is not the action of someone who feels that your religion is a bunch of superstitious bunk that is beneath him.

 

the research and interest that was shown towards hindusim was only by a handfull of intellectuals and historians ........and that was mostly directed towards ancient hindu civilization, not contemporary hindu religion . but the masses of western world did not hold very high opinions regarding hindusim .

anyaways , this was just my personal belief about this matter ..........

in support of my above theory i quote the following from your original post :

The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian / Universalist Christianity ............

just see the praises being sung for christianity, liberal , unitarian , universalist .........

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

 

 

fact is that british rulers for most of their time period of rule did not feel any significant threat from hinduism . at that time hinduism was a 'superstitious' pagan faith in their eyes and the faith in church was strong .

the real threat was from this 'neo-hinduism' and began to be felt from 1960's with the advent of secularism and fall of moral values in the west .

The Dilemma

The primary dilemma with Hinduism as we find it today, in a nutshell, is precisely this problem of…

1) Not recognizing that there are really two distinct and conflicting Hinduisms today, Neo-Hindu and Traditionalist Hindu;

if most hindus are not aware of this dilemma inspite of being educated(many are) and practically living in hinduism everyday , by what astonishing means does an westerner find out this invisible crisis of hinduism ??

Hinduism will continue to be a religion mired in confusion about its own true meaning and value ..................................

there has been a change in hinduism ...all right ! by why should it turn into a confused religion ? 99% of indian hindus would agree that there is no confusion at all . what big confusion is it ?

yes its true that neo hinduism does exist . but i dont think that it is as dangerous as is being said here . all religions are constantly changing and adding on new ideas ....this is more so in case of hinduism . so common sociological law indicates that newer interpretations of hinduism is bound to replace the older ones .

there have been some changes in its structure but that is not totally alien to hinduism . for example traditional hinduism was composed of distinct and seperate sects which generally did not believe in each other's pjilosophy . but modern hindusim is more open and accepts all sects as one . but this idea of onesness was already present in the hindu structure as is evident from panchopasana and similar practices.

just like sankaracharya introduced monistic philosophy in a big way , but it had existed even before that , which is evident when we see sankaracharya drawing references of earlier sutra-kaars . similarly ramanujacharya and the bhakti movement of middle ages changed the face of hinduism forever , but the essentials of bhakti were there long before them .

hinduism as a social way of life constantly adjusts and readjusts itself to the surroundings . think of the period of buddhism . with the state patronage and everything going towards the buddhists the hindu intellectuals restructured their religion to make it strong . the earlier insignificant ideas like reincarnation , karmic law etc were brought into prominence. buddha was cleverly incorporated as an avatar . this also changed hinduism forever , but for its own good .

personally i veiw this as a change in hinduism . an improvistaion of the existing ideas . but i dont agree with people derogating the idols etc. that type of hyper neo hinduism should be condemmed ( if it exists at all) . and i dont believe at all that hinduism is weakened by this . i dont think hindusim would collapse for such flimsy causes . the astounding spread of hinduism all over the west is a testimony to the fact that it is actually getting a rebirth .........who knows it might overtake the west as it once did with south east asia !!!

with due respect to dr morales i can think of another motive behind such a theory . it might be too speculative but possible .

many times we come across biased scientists and researchers ..........like the hindu shcolar who went to the extent of saying that aurangazeb demolished the kashi vishwanath temple to rescue a rajput princess , just to appease the islamic people . and beyond doubt they are scholars proper !! now if someone can prove that the most characteristic features seen in modern hinduism are nothing but reflections of western culture on the religion , he is succesfully finding a way to discredit the hinduism from the values for which it is currently prized for . and this , in the present state of decreasing influence of church and march of hinduism buddhism can create a check on its progress . and the best way to camouflage the real intentions would be to speak as a genuine well wisher of hinduism .

i know this is pure speculation .................just said it as a way of alternative thought . lets hope things are not so sinister !!!

Sambya, My sincere advice to you: Read my posts & stop thinking independently -- just read my posts.

 

humblely yours,

Bhaktajan

oh !

so youre the next ritwik who want to create a seperate organisation ?

okay. ill refer your name to those who have a year or so of spare time in hand to read over through your endless posts .

So do you think mahavir is considered as god, no read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavir...27s_philosophy,

as for guru granth sahib i dont think sikhs refer it to as god.

Its a book cmon do some research before asking.

christians pray to vishnu as i have posted it earlier from bhavishya puraan.

Ahura mazda is a name just like god.

even allah is.It refers to god as lord of universe,all pervading etc. and so this can be attributed to vishnu and even shiva .

Besides the brahman and all pervading energy of god is everywhere.

my point in asking this was whether you believe that they are also the same god .

and to make you remember i wanted causes or explanation for your answers .

for example why do you think allah is god

why do you think shiva is not god ............

to heaven

- Woman Sati: he, she plus 3 generations to heaven.

makes me remember of a puranic sloka , the source of which i cant remember right now-- " a woman throwing herself to flames at her husbands death shall live as many years in heaven as their are hairs on her body . "

shocking !!! a prime example of hindu religious corruption at its prime ............. a brahmical quest for aquairing the man's property .

this is precisely why it has been said that smritis are good as long as they dont contradict the shrutis . in most cases they do contradict in a really bad way . now its upto us which one we want to hold on-- the subtle philosophy of the shrutis or the gross stories of the smrits .

...................................................everyone will be in hell

except of the gaudiya vashnavas !!

and ‘the Vedas’ are compilations of different books of knowledge written many centuries ago by Srila Vyasadeva. It is understood that this knowledge was passed on orally since the beginning of time, spoken first by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to Lord Brahma, the creator of this material universe

vedas are not 'spoken' by any 'personality' . it was the knowledge revealed to the ancient sages by the supreme brahman which was orally passed down for centuries before finally being written down .

vyasadeva wrote the puranas .

puranas are not vedic literature . they might be called as veda -dharmi literature( literature which follows and accepts the vedas) .

so what was the objective of this thread ? i couldnt understand it !!

is it to create a fear in the minds of the people so that they may stick to spiritual values ? if thats the case , then let me tell you , that spirituality pursued in fear of hell is no spirituality at all .

the maximum benefit that such concepts as these can give to mankind is to act as a moral restraint for the masses .

what is so spiritual about the entire topic ??!!

a spiritual candidate is not concerned a bit about hell and stuff ! this sounds so christian..........you do this and you go to heaven .........you do that and you're eternally dammed .

what about mahavira of the jains , guru granth of the sikhs , ahura mazda of parsees , father of the christians and allah of the muslims . are they demi gods as well .

answer expected with revelent explanation and causes !!

Bhakti to god and bhakti to demigod are not the same or do you think they are?

who is god and who are demigods , sant ?

Very true. Moksa was their goal and they have achieved that.

yes !! moksha had been their goal and the end also . it the end not just for gyanis for also for bhaktas !! how ?

true bhaktas do not want moksha or gyana for sure but it comes automatically as an end result . theres no denying that !! bhakti yogis dont crave for mksha but dont deny it !

without moksha the entire concept of preaching and delivering the souls through krishna -naam would be useless . why would jivas turn to KC ??? what is it that creates the need to be liberated ? why do we need to chant ? to come out of this material existence and get back to god head ..........moksha again . ha ha !!

but yes , the concept of moksha varies . for advaitins it union with god and for bhaktas it is sayujya etc

now . its really tough to answer that . how do we know that we are really pleasing him ? but then again i dont think that he needs to be 'pleased' . he is infinitely compassionate ......purnamidam purnamadaha ............the complete . saying that he needs to be 'pleased' would be reducing him . his mercy and love is always there . its we who have to tune in to his mood and recieve that mercy , that bliss .

even the taliban thinks that they are serving god . that is why we must follow the methods prescribed by some god realized souls . chaitanya mahaprabhu said that taking the name of lord and having compassion to jivas are serving the lord . but many interpret this compassion only as giving in charity . whereas for some it implies preaching god's name while thousands lie starving . now , what is real compassion ?

i feel both material charity and instructing people of god are compassion . but this preaching should be done carefully . it is not the same preaching as converting a heathen into your faith . its not to make everyone a recluse yogi . it must be suitable to the person . because ultimately no one can be dragged to spirituality .

ramakrishna paramahamsa further elaborated this principal by saying that that we shoul not be compassionate towards jivas . who are we to show compassion . we must serve the jivas as though they were the shiva(god) .

i guess service to god cannot come in a day . it shows through the entire life of a man . sincere parctice of spirituality, meditation , japa , archana , kirtan , giving in charity , being compassionate to all around you , living only in the true ego , surrendering the fruits of work (both good an bad) to lord , being desireless all amounts to his service . all this requires wonerfull simplicity of the person concerned and grace from above .

service to god by being spiritual does not mean that one has to be inert . spending the entire life in a cave in himalayas is worthless . inertness is a symbol of tamoguna . all spiritual teachers have been active . dedicate your life to betterment of the world .......both spiritually and materially . i guess these might amount to service !!

spirituality is not something exclusive from philosophy . where science ends spirituality begins . and the base of this spirituality is philosophy itself . we turn religious because we want material gain . we turn spiritual because of the sublime philosophy it contains . if there is no philosophy there is no spirituality either .............what would be the ideal to accomplish ?............why would we need to turn spiritual ?

both of them are interlinked !

The problem with this impersonal liberation is that although it is capable of destroying the false ego, it is not capable of creating the true one.

only bhakti yogis and the neo vedantins of modern times accept the importance of this 'true ego' . but orthodox advaita discards both false ego( i , mine ours etc) and true ego(im god's servant,im his eternal part , everything is god's will etc) to reach the spiritual state as per their conception . they do not attach any importance to this true ego . they want to transcend ego altogether , whether good or bad .

therefore it cannot be termed as a 'problem' of the gyanis .

No he teaches mixture of zen,buddism ,gita ,etc. advait.

The one you are talking about is baba shivanand ji.

Although he is also advait. but teaches shiv sadhana

Ah yes !! shivananda ...........right !!

then i dont know this sukhabodhananda ............

personally i dont put much of trust in translations done by western people . firstly because they had to learn sanskrit from begining and tune their thinking to indian culture and ethos before they could start translating . but a learned indian scholar is already aqquainted with hindu culture and indian values along with sanskrit language . he might not know the language initially but is definately aqquainted with the metaphors and syntax used in it , because our own vernacular languages are also so close to sanskrit . so i would put a greater trust in an indian translation .

so many western translations were later termed as incorrect . even max muller's rik-samhita was discarded by tilak .

but one needs to be carefull even with indian translators . quite often i've seen sectarian preachers willfully twisting the meanings in their own favour . sanskrit being a highly abstract language actually helps in the process .

personally I would not like to go with something I don't agree with until I experience it myself. I would want to mediate on it, "experience this myself" only then I will believe it.

 

 

thats good !! it shows your sincirity in search for truth . but after initial speculations , i think you have to force yourself to believe in some basic things . because belief comes first in spirituality , then realization . that initial belief is indeed very hard to come .............. skeptical minds never wants to believe .!!

by the way , is swami sukhabodhananda the one with short beard seen on television ... shaiva is he ?

ranjeet , this is an honest request.....please dont change this nice thread into another gyana bhakti argument . if you know something about bhakti and want to share it with us say it without dragging in gyana or advaita......

ah ! so there you are !! good to hear from you after a long time .

I don’t understand the idea of omniscience in an empowered jiva. How can one know everything without being present everywhere?

nice point !! unless you are omniscient how can you know everything ?

the way the modern advaitins percieve guru is --

the grace of god manifests directly through guru . he gives you the mantra to liberate you . so indirectly it can be said that god's will is working through guru . or god is appearing in form of guru . in this way guru is 'god himself' . also the advaita makes no distinction between the soul and the brahman and hence theoretically it is true that guru = god .

bhakti is the path and sadhana is the journey along that path .

bhakti is the fruit for vaishnavs.

But for sadhaks the fruit is moksh.

 

Bhakti is done to realise god.

Sadhana is done to realise yourself as god.

sadhana can be of both . a practitioner of bhakti is also a sadhak , though of different marg .

It is not a way but the goal ,the phal.

 

bhakti is both the way and the end . you practice bhakti to attain bhakti .

like for the gaudiya vaishnavas attaining prema bhakti is considered as the goal . they strive for the rarest of rare krishna prema . and they follow the mood of parakiya rasa not dasya rasa . infact gaudiya vaishnavs have the highest regards for parakiya rasa of srimati radharani .

its not that bhakti has no goal .

bhakti is like tasting the nectar drop by drop and enjoying every day in transcendental bliss . whereas gyanmarga or moksha is like gulping it down in one shot !!!