raghu

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. 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. Neo-Hinduism as defined by the author began in the 1800s. Confused people often do not know that they are confused. An example of confused thinking is the idea that all religions, despite their differences, are actually the same. A confused person will state this as a maxim and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Similarly, a confused Hindu will talk about the greatness of Islam and Christianity as valid but different paths. But then again he will be very upset if his son or daughter converts to Islam. Similarly, there are those Hindus who uphold the greatness of other religions even when it is shown that those religions have hostility towards Hinduism built in to them. Where Morales I think is incorrect is his view that Neo-Hinduism was enforced on the Indians by the British. I disagree. It appears that belief in Neo-Hinduism has always been a voluntary effort on the part of Hindus who were educated in the British secular educational system to recreate their religion in a way that makes it more appealing to secular minded individuals. Here is another example of confusion - they will refer to it as "sanatana dharma" even though they admit to changing it. So what is "sanatana" about it?

I wanted to post a poll, but the forum rules apparently allow only one answer per question, which does not make much sense. :-)

This article was written by Dr. Frank Morales, an American convert to Hinduism. Please note that I am not a follower of Dr. Morales, but I do find the essay interesting. No one can deny that Neo-Hinduism exists and has largely replaced traditional or classical Hinduism in the eyes of practitioners and academics alike. I would like to begin a discussion on understanding and recognizing Neo-Hinduism. What are some other characteristics of Neo-Hindu thinkers? How do Neo-Hindu thinkers see themselves in relation to traditional Hindus? What influences Neo-Hindu thinkers to depart from traditional Hindu patterns of thinking? For the purposes of this discussion, I am using "Hinduism" according to the conventional definition used historically, i.e. those religious traditions that flourished on the Indian subcontinent and owe their origins at least in theory to the Vedas and their adjunctive scriptures. Please, no holier-than-thou, ethnocentric diabtribes about how we are not Hindus, about how Hinduism just refers to the body, etc. I find it easier for the purposes of discussion to say "Hinduism" instead of saying "Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaktas, Advaitins, nyaya/vaiseshikas, karma-mimamsas, followers of Patanjali's yoga," etc. --------------------- The Death of Traditional Hinduism From Dr. Frank Morales A tragic occurrence in the very long history of Hinduism was witnessed throughout the 19th century, the destructive magnitude of which Hindu leaders and scholars today are only beginning to adequately assess and address. This development both altered and weakened Hinduism to such a tremendous degree that Hinduism has not yet even begun to recover. British Attack on Hinduism The classical, traditional Hinduism that had been responsible for the continuous development of thousands of years of sophisticated culture, architecture, music, philosophy, ritual and theology came under devastating assault during the 19th century British colonial rule like at no other time in India's history. Innovative Cultural Genocide What the Hindu community experienced under British Christian domination, however, was an ominously innovative form of cultural genocide. What they experienced was not an attempt at the physical annihilation of their culture, but a deceivingly more subtle program of intellectual and spiritual annihilation. It is easy for a people to understand the urgent threat posed by an enemy that seeks to literary kill them. It is much harder, though, to understand the threat of an enemy who, while remaining just as deadly, claims to seek only to serve a subjugated people's best interests. Anglicized Hindu Intellectuals During this short span of time in the 19th century, the ancient grandeur and beauty of a classical Hinduism that had stood the test of thousands of years, came under direct ideological attack. What makes this period in Hindu history most especially tragic is that the main apparatus that the British used in their attempts to destroy traditional Hinduism were the British educated, spiritually co-opted sons and daughters of Hinduism itself. Seeing traditional Hinduism through the eyes of their British masters, a pandemic wave of 19th century Anglicized Hindu intellectuals saw it as their solemn duty to "Westernize" and "modernize" traditional Hinduism to make it more palatable to their new European overlords. One of the phenomena that occurred during this historic period was the fabrication of a new movement known as "neo-Hinduism". What is Neo-Hinduism? Neo-Hinduism was an artificial religious construct used as a paradigmatic juxtaposition to the legitimate traditional Hinduism that had been the religion and culture of the people for thousands of years. Neo-Hinduism was used as an effective weapon to replace authentic Hinduism with a British invented version designed to make a subjugated people easier to manage and control. The Christian and British inspired neo-Hinduism movement attempted to execute several overlapping goals, and did so with great success: a) The subtle Christianization of Hindu theology, which included concerted attacks on iconic imagery (archana, or murti), panentheism, and continued belief in the beloved gods and goddesses of traditional Hinduism. b) The imposition of the Western scientific method, rationalism and skepticism on the study of Hinduism in order to show Hinduism's supposedly inferior grasp of reality. c) Ongoing attacks against the ancient Hindu science of ritual in the name of simplification and democratization of worship. d) The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian / Universalist Christianity as a device designed to severely water down traditional Hindu philosophy. The Death of Traditional Hinduism 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. Had this colonialist program been carried out with a British face, it would not have met with as much success as it did. Therefore, an Indian face was used to impose neo-Hinduism upon the Hindu people. The resultant effects of the activities of Indian neo-Hindus were ruinous for traditional Hinduism. 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; and 2) With Traditionalists being the guardians of authentic Dharma philosophically and attitudinally, but not yet coming to full grips with the modern world, i.e., not yet having found a way of negotiating authentic Hindu Dharma with an ability to interface with modernity and communicate this unadulterated Hindu Dharma in a way that the modern mind can most appreciate it. A Confused Existence Hinduism will continue to be a religion mired in confusion about its own true meaning and value until traditionalist Hindus can assertively, professionally and intelligently communicate the reality of genuine Hinduism to the world.

Pradeep, I am guessing you are looking for an answer from a Hindu perspective instead of a dry secular one. After all, you are posting the question here in a forum of practitioners instead of asking a bunch of non-practitioner academics. Some early scholars have tried to argue that the ancient Vedic deities were imported from Greece just as the Roman deities were. However, there is no reason why it could not be the other way around - their deities being imported from India and renamed. Now as far as knowledge of these deities is concerned - these are atindriya entities and so they can not be known from sources that are limited to the perceptions of their authors. As per Vedantic tradition, the Vedas are apaurusheya and can give information about things that are beyond the realm of the human senses, including information about the devas who administer over this universe. To the extent that Vedas are studied and propagated within any given culture, people will have information about these devas. If there is no Vedic culture, there will be no information about the devas, unless knowledge about them is imported by a civilization. Otherwise, people will make up and worship their own "gods." Regarding the point about India being the focus - certainly that appears to be true. However, there are numerous references in the Puranas/Itihasas to far away lands, so I would not say that it is only in India where Puranic stories have taken place. As far as why children of devas are usually born in India, consider the point - if you were a celestial being who was worshipped by brahmins and glorified in Vedic hymns, would you want your child to be born in a culture that believes in the same or elsewhere? :-)

Kulapavana, I have repeatedly heard this story being offered up as proof that varna should be classified based on conduct instead of birth. However, I have been unable to locate it in the Mahabharata so far. Can you quote the exact chapter and verse numbers so that I can look it up? thanks, Raghu

I'm still going back and catching up on the threads I have been unable to access. I think this was one that I wanted to respond to but I will come back to it in a bit.

But the point is that in ancient Vedic culture, people were conventionally called as brahmins if they were of brahmin birth and were pursuing brahmana-dharma. There was no way for a common man to objectively judge if the brahman had achieved "anartha-nivriti" and "divya-jnana" Since it is only self-evident for a qualitified vaishnava, and that too only in some cases, how can society function on foundation of different social classes if most people have no practical means by which to identify a brahmana? Isn't the answer simply that brahmanas were identified as such by their birth and their adherence to brahmana dharma? So again, here we have the case of Ashvatthama who committed murder. He was Drona's son. Drona was a brahmana and thus Ashvatthama was a brahmana. And despite murdering the sons of the Pandavas, both the Bhagavatam and your guru's commentary still refer to him as a brahmana. Doesn't this show that "brahmana" just refers to a social category of people who are *supposed* to act in a certain way, but by itself is not indicative of a high level of spiritual realization? After all, you would not claim that Ashvatthama had attained "divya jnana" and "anartha nivritti," would you? regards, Raghu

Dear Ranjeet, First of all, apologies for the late reply. For the last several months I was not able to access the forum due to repeated error messages to the effect that the server as "too busy." Then I created a new userid to see if that might fix things, and for a while I was able to post as rrao, but then I started running into the same problem. Hopefully this has now been fixed. Now on to your comments. I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't taunted you or rahalkar at all. I only asked questions to clarify his/your stance regarding the "scriptural" basis of the Madhva-Gaudiya parampara. I'm not sure why you have suddenly turned hostile. This does not answer the question about the "scriptural basis" for the Madhva-Chaitanya link. Just to summarize, Rahalkar made the following claims for which I am still awaiting clarification: "Your understanding of Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya disciplic succession does not have any scriptural basis, therefore it is completely wrong." - what is the "scriptural" basis of the BMG disciplic succession? "The Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya Paramapara, Guru-Disciplic succession, was stated by Srila Kavi Karnapura and authorized by Lord Gauranga Himself." - again, where exactly did Gauranga "authorize" this disciplic succession? In what writings attributed to him has he even mentioned this disciplic succession? Furthermore, Rahalkar made the claim that achintya bedha abedha "complements" Tattvavada and furthermore he minimized the differences between the two. I asked if he had ever studied Tattvavada, and from what I can see he never answered that question. regards, Raghu

That is truly a shame. If you had instead chosen to fight over instituting Blu-Ray, you would have gotten twice the resolution for only a marginal increase in price.

In response to: Originally Posted by raghu Since I did not get any answers, and since the only responses were once again evasive, let me again put forth the questions. I really do not understand what is so childish about asking these questions. Yes, I know, I'm a new kid, i'm evil, i'm a bigot, etc. But please, can we have a focused discussion? 1) The disciples of Prabhupada who are currently gurus - are they all brahmins? Yes or no? 2) The disciples of Prabhupada who were formerly gurus but then fell down - were they brahmins? Yes or No? 3) If the disciples of Prabhupada who fell down were not gurus, then why did Prabhupada initiate them as brahmins? Did he (a) do so knowing that they were not brahmins, or (b) do so because he did not know if they were brahmins or not? 4a) If the answer to question (3) is choice (a), then how do you rationalize giving initiations to a non-brahmin when you claim that one is only a brahmin based on conduct/qualification? 4b) If the answer to question (3) is choice (b), then when even Prabhupada (whom you no doubt consider the topmost guru) could mistakenly identify someone as a brahmin, then how are other gurus supposed to correctly identify brahmins prior to initiation? If the current gurus are not brahmanas, then why are they gurus? Better to be an unqualified non-brahmin then a qualified caste-brahmin, eh? So your concept of a brahmana is that one can be a brahmana at some times and not at others. How interesting. Since varnas are totally dynamic, and a person can be multiple varnas within a single lifetime, who keeps track of that all? Is there a registry somewhere? Or does everyone just make up their own decision at any given time as to what varna one belongs to? What an admission! You just insulted thousands and thousands of iskcon disciples. So let me see I got this straight: 1) A brahmana cannot become a guru (they are "mutually exclusive") 2) I have to consult an individual no longer present on this plane of existence to find out why Prabhupada initiated unqualified people. In the meantime, I should have no doubts that his doing so was in any way improper. 3) You basically do not know what you are talking about. So, qualification for guru-hood is also a dynamic thing? It need not be a permanent feature? I am learning something new about gaudiya vaishnavism all the time! So you are saying that he knowingly initiated unqualified people. I am unclear on why (1) using birth to determine varna is evil, and yet (2) knowingly initiating unqualified rAkshasas as brahmanas is more sensible. Of course, this might just be due to my latent envy.

Mariner, that would truly be disturbing given that his body was cremated...

ok so what shAstric injunction (as in shruti, smRti, etc) allows one to become a brAhmana and a guru by worship of a pure Vaishnava?

Thank you for finally attempting to answer my very simple questions. I must say, getting answer from you is harder than pulling teeth. And I was so impressed that you didn't even insult me this time. Now in regards to your specific answers: This is a troubling answer. The Vedas only recognize four varnas - brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, and shudra. Saying that someone is "more than a brahmana" begs the question - what are they? Being a Vaishnava does not make you "more" than anything - you still belong to a varna when you live in the material world. One can be a shudra, vaishya, or kshatriya and still be a Vaishnava. You agree? If any of the current disciple-gurus falls down (statistically, a likely scenario), will the fallen still be "more than a brahmana?" So the gurus who molested disciples, embezzled money, ran off with female disciples... they are "more than a brahmana?" Ok.... Ok, now here comes the question: how does one determine who is a "devotee of the Vaishnava" and thus eligible to become a guru? Does anyone who worships Vishnu get this designation, or is there some other criterion? If someone is "more than a brahmana," then why would one initiate him as a brahmana? Does that not seem contradictory? What shastric injunction allows a person to become a brahmana and a guru merely because they worship Vishnu?

Guilty as charged. I guess I do tend to be very judgemental about some minor things. Like when a guru embezzles money. Or smuggles drugs. Or makes a homosexual advance on a disciple. Or abuses a child. In such times of doubt, I sometimes dare to think, "perhaps this person is not a brahmin...." But then Theist and Sonic Yogi come and smack me down. They remind me that as a soul born in an Indian and brahmin body, I am by the very fact, guilty of all manner of social evils in India. Consequently I cannot possibly have any reasonable concerns or doubts. And then I come to my senses and feel nothing but love again, ready once again to shut up and do as I am told.

I agree. There are plenty of other spiritual topics that better fit this forum. Like the guy who wants mantras to make his girlfriend love him. Or the various "end of the world" threads. All very spiritual. I have a better idea. Let us create two forums: - one for people who know how to read, understand, and respond to simple questions/remarks in English - the other for those people who habitually write the same things without even bothering to read

I would be happy to call myself every bad name in the book just to preempt Sonic Yogi and his gang. All I really want are answers to these questions: 1) The disciples of Prabhupada who are currently gurus - are they all brahmins? Yes or no? 2) The disciples of Prabhupada who were formerly gurus but then fell down - were they brahmins? Yes or No? 3) If the disciples of Prabhupada who fell down were not gurus, then why did Prabhupada initiate them as brahmins? Did he (a) do so knowing that they were not brahmins, or (b) do so because he did not know if they were brahmins or not? 4a) If the answer to question (3) is choice (a), then how do you rationalize giving initiations to a non-brahmin when you claim that one is only a brahmin based on conduct/qualification? 4b) If the answer to question (3) is choice (b), then when even Prabhupada (whom you no doubt consider the topmost guru) could mistakenly identify someone as a brahmin, then how are other gurus supposed to correctly identify brahmins prior to initiation?

Sonic Yogi, I understand the point that you are making. Obviously you find Indian traditions to be appalling and unacceptable. You would hardly be the first. To me, it is ironic to the extreme that some people who lived their lives consuming dead animals have become emboldened to to the point that they criticize one of the oldest civilizations on Earth. And that too while claiming to be followers of "Vedic culture." If you truly live the spiritual ideals which you profess to believe in, wouldn't you have a certain humility about your background that would preclude you from judging traditions you obviously do not understand? When the British first arrived in India, they also spoke of us just as you did here. Many people come to India thinking that they can "civilize" the "savages." I am certainly not going to try in vain to convince you that my culture deserves respect equal to any other culture. When even iskcon devotees who claim to believe so much in Vedic culture, can be so hostile to Vedic culture, then what hope is there for anyone else? I also have certain reservations about American culture. Would you like to hear them? Here they are: I object to unqualified individuals becoming gurus, then falling down and causing chaos for thousands of people who were innocent enough to follow them. I object to ignorant people using evasive and dishonest tactics to avoid confronting a corrupt philosophy that puts the unqualified gurus in the position to do harm in the first place. I object to hypocrites who claim to believe in a scripture, and then turn around and refuse to accept the point of view described in those same scriptures (i.e. bhagavad-gItA) I object to hypocrites who claim to follow a guru-parampara and then openly disagree with the gurus in that paramparA (like the way you all disagree with Baladeva) I object to hypocrites who feel that they have divine sanction to question everyone else's beliefs, but when their beliefs are questioned, they react with indignation. I object to hypocrites who claim to believe in practicing Vaishnava philosophy unchanged, and then when no one is looking, they introduce all sorts of changes (i.e. "Jesus is a pure devotee" and similar deviations) I object to the argumentative nature I see in iskcon wherein simple, reasonable, and pointed questions are met with hostility and scorn, but never answers to the questions I object to children being physically and sexually assaulted in so-called "gurukulas" I object to > 55% divorce rate in iskcon. Where is your so-called "Vedic culture?" I object to so-called "devotees" who cannot control their senses or even the urge to speak (or even type) nevertheless criticizing Vaishnavas for the sole reason that the latter believe in something that the former refuse to understand. It's strange, but when I read Gaudiya Vaishnava books, I at least get the impression that there are some interesting beliefs there. But when I see Gaudiya Vaishnavism in practice (i.e. people like you, Andy, Theist, Ghari), all I see are a bunch of ignorant bullies. How can there be such stark discrepancy between "Gaudiya Vaishnavism: the beliefs" and "Gaudiya Vaishnavism: the reality?"

Since I did not get any answers, and since the only responses were once again evasive, let me again put forth the questions. I really do not understand what is so childish about asking these questions. Yes, I know, I'm a new kid, i'm evil, i'm a bigot, etc. But please, can we have a focused discussion? 1) The disciples of Prabhupada who are currently gurus - are they all brahmins? Yes or no? 2) The disciples of Prabhupada who were formerly gurus but then fell down - were they brahmins? Yes or No? 3) If the disciples of Prabhupada who fell down were not gurus, then why did Prabhupada initiate them as brahmins? Did he (a) do so knowing that they were not brahmins, or (b) do so because he did not know if they were brahmins or not? 4a) If the answer to question (3) is choice (a), then how do you rationalize giving initiations to a non-brahmin when you claim that one is only a brahmin based on conduct/qualification? 4b) If the answer to question (3) is choice (b), then when even Prabhupada (whom you no doubt consider the topmost guru) could mistakenly identify someone as a brahmin, then how are other gurus supposed to correctly identify brahmins prior to initiation?

"At the time" is nowhere to be found in the writings of Baladeva. That is merely your interjection to make what he wrote palatable to you. Thank you for that dismissive appraisal of Vedic samskAras. But Baladeva writes that shUdras are not eligible to undergo samskAras. One of the samskAras is initiation. How can a shUdra become a brAhmana if he is not allowed to undergo initiation? You cannot simply declare one a brAhmana - there has to be a samskAra. Or was I mistaken in assuming that you are a follower of "Vedic culture?" And of course, you are about to provide the explicit references to substantiate this claim, right?

I second these questions. Theist claims that all that is necessary in this age is to teach some cleanliness and some bhakti. So what is the necessity of giving unqualified people brahmin initiations?

Andy, This forum would be served well if you could learn to read what people are writing, instead of reading *into* what people are writing.

That is always your tune when someone has presented views you want to disagree with but can't. Fine. So why was your Prabhupada initiating some of these "at or below sudra level" people as brahmins? How is the "siksa guru" supposed to know "which service is more compatable (sic) with their nature?" Kirtananda was a swami who embezzled money and was probably involved in the murder of a disciple. Did his siksa guru, in giving him thread initiation and sannyasa, correctly identify the work that was most compatible with his nature? Who said that? Can you please provide the exact quote and web link?

Andy, It seems that you are dancing around the same questions. Let us stay focused. 1) The disciples of Prabhupada who are currently gurus - are they all brahmins? Yes or no? 2) The disciples of Prabhupada who were formerly gurus but then fell down - were they brahmins? Yes or No? 3) If the disciples of Prabhupada who fell down were not gurus, then why did Prabhupada initiate them as brahmins? Did he (a) do so knowing that they were not brahmins, or (b) do so because he did not know if they were brahmins or not? 4a) If the answer to question (3) is choice (a), then how do you rationalize giving initiations to a non-brahmin when you claim that one is only a brahmin based on conduct/qualification? 4b) If the answer to question (3) is choice (b), then when even Prabhupada (whom you no doubt consider the topmost guru) could mistakenly identify someone as a brahmin, then how are other gurus supposed to correctly identify brahmins prior to initiation?

SO if you can do that, then why could not Prabhupada? Why did Prabhupada mistakenly identify Kirtananda and many others as brahmanas? What do you have that he lacks?

This would be in contrast to iskcon, where there have never been any self-aggrandizing, self-perpetuating spiritual leaders. You, Sonic Yogi, Shiva, and Theist are confused. No one is arguing in support of a system which privileges one exclusively based on birth. On the contrary, all that has been said is that in Vedic culture, one's varna was determined by birth and *then* one was raised and expected to act according to that varna. This is not an opinion but an historical fact. Arjuna is an obvious example of this. We can argue all we want about how things *could* be or *should* be, but this is the way things were. No one is arguing with the principle that even a shUdra or mleccha should be given respect equal to that given to a brAhmana when the former display brAhminical qualities. This is a theoretical point, however, since most people cannot objectively ascertain who has enough "brAhminical qualities" to merit promotion to a different varna. There is one story of VishvAmitra who became a brahma-rishi, but that was only after tens of thousands of years of penance, and it was none other that Sri Brahma himself who appeared to bestow that title on him. Look at how much chaos was generated when people in iskcon wrongly attributed "brAhminical traits" to unqualified mlecchas, and then these mlecchas when on to become "gurus." How can you support such a system when it has been such an unmitigated disaster almost from day one? Ironically, these arguments apply to you and those like you who repeatedly behave as if you do not require any support from guru, sAdhu, or shAstra for your claims. You want that everyone should believe you simply because you follow (or claim to follow) Prabhupada. Whereas many of us have been arguing based on scripture, logic, and even the testimony of your own AchAryas! We don't need anyone to believe us based on our birth. Claims for spiritual superiority privileging opinion come from your camp, not from the many who disagree with you. Sure, the Lord can do that. The Lord can appear as a giant amoeba if He wants. The mere fact that He *can* do something does not mean that he did it or will do it. Pardon me for saying this, but when I see iskcon bullies like you screaming whenever people disagree with you, I become skeptical of the view that gaudiya vaishnava ideas help you to develop more "advancement in spiritual life." Well I read it, and I do not see anything in there claiming a "disciplic succession" from Sri Madhva. Question: are you a "fanatic so-called disciple of Gaudiya Acarya." Or would you call yourself a "bona fide" Gaudiya Vaishnava?