Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Jahnava Nitai Das

Administrators
  • Content Count

    4,026
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Jahnava Nitai Das

  1. First thing to realize is there is no "official Hinduism". So there will be all sorts of opinions depending on what type of person they are. As far as people converting to Hinduism, there are some who accept it and some who reject it, some believe it is not even necessary as worship of God is not based on an external ritual. Castism is very prevalent in India and among Hindus, so you don't have to feel as though you are being singled out for discrimination. Discrimination is there even against people born as Hindus, just because they were born in a lower caste family or a tribal family, etc. These evils exist everywhere in the world. Each culture has its own evils it needs to cross over, and India has its own share. You shouldn't let that disturb your spiritual pursuit. The key is to find the path that you actually believe in. There are thousands of traditions in India, each very different from each other. Some will reject people based on birth or caste, others are completely open and see everyone as a spirit soul (atma). You need to first decide your own belief system, and then find the tradition that fits with what you believe. For example, you probably won't agree with something like caste discrimination, so don't go looking for a tradition that supports that. Find out those traditions that are open and in line with your own beliefs. It will take some research and a lot of reading, but you will be happier with what you find. There are two types of name giving ceremonies. One is when a child is born, he is given a regular name. This is performed by any ordinary priest. The second type of name giving ceremony is when one receives initiation from a guru. That is not performed by a priest, but by a guru. There is no need to rush into getting a name change right away. First practice as much worship and sadhana as you can and let yourself be guided by God. Also don't necessarily feel the need to fit in with other Hindus. Since you are a westerner you will always stand out when you go to a temple. Some may stare at you, others may ask you childish questions. They are mostly just curious seeing a foreignor practicing Hinduism. Don't feel bad about it.
  2. For a first visit Benares, Rishikesh and Haridwar are nice. Vrindavan is also nice with its thousands of temples.
  3. I think that is more connected with your personal practice than with a physical place. If you do sadhana sincerely you may have a mystical experience in your own house, whereas if someone isn't following any spiritual path, they may live even in Badrinath and not have any experience.
  4. If you go to South, you will want to go to Tiruvannamalai (famous shiva temple), about 5 hours from Chennai. If east, then Puri (Jagannatha temple, Konarak temple, and some others), near to Bhubaneswar. If north, you want to go to Rishikesh and Haridwar at the base of the Himalayas. Also in North is Vrindavan and Jaipur, which are nice to visit if you are a devotee of Krishna.
  5. Since you live in Orissa, just go to Kakatupur and ask questions to the Achyutananda Pothi. Mahapurusha will tell you whether your problems are because of karma, ghosts, black magic, etc., and tell you how to be free of it.
  6. It is possible to appreciate truth in some teaching without accepting it as an absolute truth. This appears to be smaranam's positon, that there are relevant truths in all the acharya's writings, but he does not accept them as absolute truth (otherwise they would contradict each other). I also accept that Shankara has taught many valuable spiritual truths, but I don't accept his conclusions as being absolute. The absolute is beyond comprehension. What to speak of the absolute, even insignificant things like computers, nuclear energy, microbiology, etc., are all beyond my comprehension (but of course not beyond some other people's comprehension). Even for the scientists there are plenty of topics beyond comprehension in this mundane world. I, for one, am willing to accept the possibility that the absolute defies the logic of the human brain, making all descriptions of Him to be incomplete. I realize I won't be able to hold the title of "the person who knows the absolute truth perfectly beyond doubt", but I will just have to live with that.
  7. Again you are using different definitions interchangeably when its convenient. There is a "vaishnava" that refers to a person practicing the vaishnava religion in this world, and then there is the other esoteric definition which you keep going back to that refers to the eternal function of the soul. You can't use them interchangeably. When speaking of other worldly religious cultures or practices, the word Vaishnava must be assumed to refer to a similar worldly religious culture. For example if there are two people standing next to each other, one is a shaivite and one is a vasihnava. If you say "The person on the left is a vaishnava and the person on the right is a shaivite" it is specifically referring to the external activities they perform in the world. It has nothing to do with the eternal function of the soul. We can even refine it further, with other adjectives. There is a madhva vaishnava, a sri vaishnava, a gaudiya vaishnava, etc. None of this refers to the eternal function of the soul, which is the same for all living entities. This is how language functions, whether we accept it or not. If I say "Mr. X is a Sri Vaishnava" it specifically refers to the external beliefs, rituals and practices he does in the world. It doesn't refer to the eternal function of his soul. You are taking a word that already has an accepted linguistic usage, and then putting your own esoteric meaning on top of it and expecting non-believers (say Hindus or anyone else) to immediately understand your own private language. It is not only illogical, it goes against all rules of language. Communication means two parties speaking the same language with the same definitions. If everyone gets to make up their own definitions to words, there is naturally going to be misunderstanding. The fault lies with the person who made up his own unique definitions (in this case, us gaudiya vaishnavas). We can speak our own language amongst ourselves, and we can all understand it. But when you speak amongst outsiders, the definition of words is different, and you can't blame people for not understanding what you say or for becoming offended sometimes. To give another example, in South India "vaishnava" mostly refers to a specific brahmin caste (Iyengar), and if we use the word here we will be accused of castism and many people will be offended. We have to follow language conventions, and if one single word is not clear, use many other words to make our point. We can't insist the world understand our usage of words that differ from the standard accepted meaning. Language is about conveying concepts, not about sticking to particular code words and trying to get people to understand our unique code words. Just as Prabhupada was willing to say "Hinduism is based on the worship of Vishnu as the supreme person", so in the same way I see Hinduism as synonymous with Vedic culture, though it may have formed many new branches over the thousands of years. Today neo-advaita or neo-hinduism is more popular, so the public assumes Hinduism refers to that, but real Hinduism is a synonym of Vedic culture. If we see Prabhupada's criticisms of "Hinduism", it has always been directed to neo-advaita or neo-hinduism, i.e. the popular modern form, not the orthodox scriptural form. For example, when Prabhupada visited Tirupati, he did not say "oh, this is all nonsense hodgepodge hinduism". He appreciated the Vedic traditions being followed and the orderly system of management. Prabhupada respected Hinduism and Vedic culture when it followed tradition. He rejected it when it was modern neo-advaita or neo-hinduism.
  8. I agree with this. In India only the Arya samaj is recognized by the government to officially convert people to Hinduism for legal reasons (marriage, etc.). So I would suggest you get a certificate from Arya Samaj. They perform a simple homa, give a new name, and some other things. The cost is very minimal.
  9. Here is a letter to the Los Angeles Times where Prabhupada mentions what is Hindu religion: "With reference to your article in the Los Angeles Times dated Sunday, January 11, 1970, under the heading "Krsna Chant," I beg to point out that the Hindu religion is perfectly based on the personal conception of God, or Visnu. ... As far as the Hindu religion is concerned, there are millions of Krsna temples in India, and there is not a single Hindu who does not worship Krsna. Therefore, this Krsna consciousness movement is not a concocted idea A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Spiritual Master of the Hare Krsna Movement"
  10. But that version of Vaishnava is not referring to a religion, it is referring to an inherent natural function of the soul. When people speak of "what religion are you", they are not asking you what is the inherent function of your soul. It is a fact that there is a designation called "Hindu", just like there is a designation called American. When the elderly indian man comes to the ISKCON temple, most will likely see him as a Hindu gentleman, even if he is a Vaishnava. These designations exist, even if they are temporary and material. Once we speak of "religion", it refers to a material designation. The Vaishnava definition cited above is not a material designation, so it is not a "religion" as per the modern usage of the word. We can't expect the public to understand our words when we choose to define them in an uncommon manner. By the above definition "every jiva is a Vaishnava", so there is no question of the other religions at all. There is no such thing as Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Everyone is a Vaishnava. But factually there are other religions, as they are apples and oranges. Vaishnava is not a religious designation, so it is not mutually exclusive to the other religious designations. Religion is primarily a material cultural background. Where as Prabhupada chose to refer to it as Vedic culture, the public generally refers to it as Hinduism. Prabhupada never spoke badly of Vedic culture.
  11. That's a long topic about freewill, karma, sukriti, performing duty without expectation of result, the absolute independence of the Lord, etc. In summary, no one can come to Krishna without having performed countless pious activities in previous lives. You cannot convert someone to Krishna. It runs much deeper than simply convincing someone - it is based on your karma.
  12. As a side note, I see a difference between the following: "Vaishnavism is a branch of Hinduism." This is true based on historical and academic usage. "XYZ is a Vaishnava so he is a Hindu". This is not necessarily true based on how people choose to identify themselves. No one can decide what someone else is, even though they may hold an opinion about them based on the origins of their beliefs. Basically if someone asks what religion you are, thats your choice to define yourself. I may believe that your religion is really a branch of Hinduism, but still if that person wants to say "I am an atheist" or "I am an agnostic" or "I am a Christian", that is their right to define their belief system.
  13. Obviously I was speaking from the Vaishnava view point. You don't have to convince anyone. Life isn't about converting people to your belief. The Vedas provide all truth and people choose their paths based on their karma (sukriti, etc.). Convincing people really plays little roll at all.
  14. I couldn't understand what you wrote. Maybe if you make it clearer I can understand what you are trying to say. You quoted this sentence of mine, so even though I don't know what your point is I will try to explain my sentence: This is in reference to historical invaders of India who gave decrees that "all Hindus are to be killed" (for example in Delhi where 100,000 Hindus were massacred in a single day), or that all Hindus had to pay special taxes to be allowed to continue living. Such statements where the word Hindu was used always included all subsects of Hinduism, including Vaishnavas. Thus Vaishnavas have always been considered a branch of Hinduism. This is just to point out that the definition of Hinduism has always included Vaishnavas. Imagine back then trying to explain to the soldiers that actually you weren't a Hindu, you were a Vaishnava, which is the eternal constitutional position of the soul. It wouldn't have gotten you out of that mess because from the very creation of the word "Hindu", it included all branches of Vedic religion such as shaivism, vaishnavism, shaktism, etc. Even today Hindus must pay a tax if they live in certain regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
  15. You have sanatana dharma, the eternal Vedic religion, which contains many paths and includes the worship of all deities. In ancient times everyone followed the Vedas, that was the universal common demoninator. Their religion was the vedic religion, sanatana dharma. Service to Narayana is the perfection of that Vedic religion. Shaivites and Vaishnavas both belong to the same religion, sanatana dharma. The purpose of the religion is to free you from the bondage of karma. Different people are on different stages of the purification process, but all are on the same path. In the end, one attains the feet of Narayana, which is the conclusion of the Vedic religion.
  16. The real question is if vaishnavas would be satisfied if they had their own major religion category. Suppose the world religions were Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Vaishnavism. Would the vaishnavas now be satisfied that they had their own mundane religious designation to use? The fact is the words as being used by ISKCON followers in this forum don't refer to a religion at all, they refer to some function of the soul. If that is the case, then you should be able to be a vaishnava while simultaneously being a Christian, Muslim, Jew or even Shaivite. If vaishnavism is not a religious designation, then it has no bearing on your religious designation. If the christian can be a vaishnava, then the shaivite can be a vaishnava as well. Of course the concept starts to become ludicrous, because there is also a Vaishnava "mundane religion" which one should practice to become the "eternal constitutional function of soul" vaishnava, and that religion is called as varnashrama dharma, which includes cultural aspects defined as hinduism today. No need to get into that, as it will only lead to arguments. To give an illustration: Questioner: Are you a Hindu? Answer 1) No, I am not a Hindu, I am a Vaishnava. [Now vaishnavism is a mundane material religious designation just like Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism.] Answer 2) No, I am a Vaishnava, which is beyond all mundane material designations such as religion. [now you can be any religion and be a vaishnava, such as christian vaishnava, jewish vaishnava, shaivite vaishnava, the last of which is contradictory and acharyas have spoken against it.]
  17. This is why I said it is all based on linguistics. What the word meant "originally" is different to the definition today. The meaning of words change over time based on which culture rules the world. But having said that, Vaishnavas were equally Hindu then and now, even though the meaning of the word changed considerably over the last 500 years. Hundreds of years ago, when the Muslim kings gave orders to kill Hindus, Vaishnavas were included in that list.
  18. This chart highlights the point I made about Judaism being one of the main world religions. It doesn't even show up on the population chart. Don't confuse the blue "Other" category as representing Judaism on the pie chart. Judaism is a micro sliver about the size of Sikhism.
  19. Words are used because they convey accepted definitions. Once we start creating our own personal definitions for words the communication breaks down. World religion and its main branches is one such established concept that is based on linguistics. In the future the use of language may change, and Vaishnavism may stop being a branch of Hinduism, but in the present times it is accepted throughout the world as being a subset of Hinduism. Again this is based just on the definition of words as accepted by the world. Saying that Vaishnavism is a branch of Hinduism does not indicate anything about what you do or do not believe. It is simply a linguistic system of classification. At the preset time the world chooses to limit their subdivision of "religion" to certain major categories. One day maybe Vaishnavism will get its own heading, but that won't make it any more spiritual of a word. It will still just be a linguistic category that refers to a material designation. The fact is, religion refers to a material designation. You can't say you follow a religion, and then give a new meaning to the word that isn't accepted by anyone in the world. Some people want to bring in a complete new concept, "eternal constitution of the soul", but religion does not refer to that. Yes, the soul has an eternal constitutional function to serve Vishnu, but the word religion doesn't deal with that topic at all. Thus referring to Vaishnavism as a branch of Hinduism isn't about telling which is better, which is more spiritual, which is eternal, which is beyond the mundane... it is simply a broad linguistic classification of religions based on historical factors. The rulers of the world happen to be the Christians. So the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) get highlighted and considered foremost, even though they are basically all the same (as similar to each other as the religions clasified together under Hinduism). Take Judaism for example. How many people are practicing it in the world? There are only 15 to 20 million jews in the world, yet they get included in the list of "major world religions", whereas other religions with a similar number of followers, or more, do not get such a classification. Sikhs don't get classified as a major world religion, neither do Jains, nor Toaists, nor Confuscionists, nor Shintoists, nor those who follow Chinese folk religions, nor African religions. Basically the cultures of the ruling world powers decide what words mean, and at present Hinduism isn't considered important enough to be given seperate headings for each major religion within it. There may be hundreds of millions of Vaishnavas in India, but they will never be considered a seperate major world religion because they are not Abrahamic. Judaism on the other hand has probably one tenth of the followers as Vaishnavism, but they are considered a "major world religion". In summary, being a Hindu is not counter to being a Vaishnava. It is a simple designation. Being a Hindu is just like being an American, being a plumber, being a male, or any other designation. Our ultimate goal isn't to just have a designation. Those designations are there to convey our material position to others so they can understand us better. The "eternal function of the soul" is something on a completely different level, with no connection to the word religion. Thus it is unfair to alter definitions of words on the fly as they suit our use. We can't talk about the need for religion, and then flip and speak about all religions being mundane and useless because they aren't the "eternal constitution of the soul". No dictionary in the world defines religion as "the eternal constitution of the soul", so it is unfair to try to force such made up definitions onto words already universally defined. The problem is we are defining our words in a problematic manner. We take the word religion, and then we try to find a sanskrit equivalent - which happens to be "dharma". Then we go into the sanskrit texts and pull out esoteric definitions for dharma, and then reapply those definitions to the english word religion. Now having forced the esoteric definitions of dharma onto the english word religion, we bash anyone who doesn't accept our "higher" definition of the word "religion". But this isn't the proper way to define words or communicate. It is simply tying two unrelated words from different languages together that are not synonymous. If someone analyzes most of these statements about religion, vaishnavism, "eternal function of the soul", etc., they will see this is the exact thought process in action. religion equals dharma --> "sva"-dharma determined by "sva"-rupa --> svarupa equals soul (atma), so sva-dharma equals eternal service to krishna (jivera svarupa hoy krishnera nitya das) --> final conclusion, religion equals "eternal servant of krishna" The logical process used to come to this conclusion is faulty.
  20. For reference, here is part of the text from Bhavishya Purana regarding Jesus. It may be interpolated or it may be real. That is for individuals to decide. To me its not very important either way. http://www.indiadivine.org/articles/236/1/Bhavishya-Purana-The-Prediction-of-Jesus-Christ/Page1.html
  21. As to the original question, the shiva linga and the pillar of fire are identical. The shiva linga was composed of spiritual fire. This pillar of light still exists as a spiritual mountain in Tiruvannamalai named Arunachala. The siddhas and sages are able to see the effulgent light reaching up into the space, and for this reason they try to live around this mountain and perform their sadhana there. Shambhu is an effulgent light. From the Vaishnava viewpoint he is a light emanating from the eyes of Maha Vishnu as He glances over the material creation. That effulgent glance (shambhu) unites with prakriti (Devi) leading to the manifested material creation. Pradhana (undifferentiated material energy) transforms to mahat-tattva (the manifested principles of material existence) by the influence of time (Shambhu or Shiva). This is further explained in 13th chapter of Bhagavad Gita.
  22. Either the statement was said to mock Shiva or it was said out of complete ignorance. How else could someone say Shiva never spoke anything on such basic topics as Dharma, Moksha, Karma, etc.? When your own books (the Bhagavatam) are filled with instructions by Shiva on spiritual life, how can you accuse Shiva of never having said anything usefull on spiritual topics, especially in a thread where a Shiva devotee is asking about Lord Shiva? Isn't that insulting?
  23. I don't think it does. I don't see Sri Vaishnavas making such arguments. I don't see Madhva Vaishnavas posting such arguments. Basically it looks like it has to do with people being brought up in another culture converting to Vaishnavism. I'm not saying there is anything wrong because of that, but just that seems to be the source behind it. Those Indian vaishnavas brought up surrounded by "hinduism" don't have the habit to attack it. Where as those who convert from one religion to another religion have a tendency to "defend" their chosen religion, or even to try and convert others to their religion. There is nothing wrong with defending your beliefs or even in trying to convince others. But there is a line of decency where we should not ridicule people who don't accept our beliefs, or try to mock people who have different beliefs.
  24. A purana being in the mode of tamas or rajas does not disqualify the value of that ancient scripture in anyway. It deals with the aim of the text, the audience, and the predominating deity of the text (based on trimurti). A purana cannot be discounted simply because it is not classified as sattva. Books like Brahma Vaivarta Purana are quoted extensively by gaudiya acharyas (as it speaks about Radha, whereas sattvic Puranas do not). The Purana may be categorized as rajas, but that does not disqualify it in any way. As far as the statement someone made "show me where shiva speaks about moksha, karma, jiva..." Shiva happens to be the speaker of about 50% of all the Vedic literature (including parts of the Bhagavatam). While not knowing a topic, some people want to pose as authorities and impose their own limited viewpoint on other people.
  25. Let us reverse the rolls and see if it would be appropriate for shaivites to do the same in a Vaishnava thread: 1) A person asks a question on the Srimad Bhagavatam as to which version is best. 2) A shaivite replies "all versions are wrong. that book is in the mode of ignorance so its useless. 3) Next shaivite posts "there has never been a more gory book, its full of stories of Vishnu beheading people." 4) Another shaivite then posts 20 pages of copy pasted commentary from the Shiva Gita to convert the original poster to Shaivism. 5) Next a Shaivite posts "Vishnu is a useless person because he has never explained yoga, karma, jiva, which foods to eat, dharma or moksha." 6) The same shaivite comes and says "Oh great, looks like we have some Vishnu afficinados on board here" and then challenges all others to show him where the useless Vishnu spoke any of these spiritual topics. 7) Finally another shaivite comes and says "Certainly no shaivite has attacked this thread."
×
×
  • Create New...