Sheki

Sannyas is linked directlly to Shankara, even Chaitannya took sannyas in a lineage coming from the mayavadis. And Shankara formed his sannyas on the model of the Buddhist sangha. There were ascetics before as there are sadhus and babajis even now and Buddha was one of them before forming a monastic order, most probably a Jain ascetic (though born in a Hindu family). But the formal Hindu monastic order was developed on the example of Buddhist monasticism. There are a lot of different philosophies within Hinduism and in some less popular Upanishads there are views somewhat similar to Buddhism. Only on the account on that it would not become a separate religion. But we should consider time and again that the Hinduism of the time was not the same as the one we have today, and the one we have today was developed between other things under the influence of Buddhism too and therefore it is probably more compatible now than it was at the time.. after all at the time the very word Hinduism would not have much sense… Of course in this development the modern Vedantic Hinduism often incorporated Buddhism as a part of the theology and mythology but that is somewhat questionable. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>

Well most probably the Theravada Buddhist tradition is the closest to the original, while others are more influenced by other Hindu, Tantric, Taoistic, Shamanistic and other traditions.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Yes but there is the difference between astika and nastika. Buddhism rejects Vedas that are accepted at least formally by almost all Hindu sects, rejects the social structure and so on. It accepts reincarnation and karma, but it is a big questions if that is a Brahmanic/Vedic concept or Shramanic (together with ahimsa, asceticism and some other things) that was in time incorporated in Hinduism.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Buddha was not a Hindu monk. He developed a monastic order on his own and later Shankara reformed the sannyas inspired by his order, so it would be more accurate to say that sannyasis are an offspring of Buddhist monasticism.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> But again it’s just a meter of perspective. Religion is in a permanent change and interaction so... doesn’t meter really...<o:p></o:p>

But it is not about differences in organizations and religions as much as in the approach. For example Christianity and Vaishnavism as they are both based on a devotional approach will be guided by more similar principles than for example Vaishnavism and Hatha/Kundalini Yoga. Or Buddhism and Jainism or Advaita Vedanta will have more similarities than with devotional religions. So I was talking more about the general approach (jnana/bhakti/raja/hatha and so on) than abut outer religious differences.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p>

Depends how you define Hinduism. Today's Hinduism most probably is a combination of different influences – Vedic Brahmanism, local cults, Tantrism, Shramana traditions... Buddhism is in its teachings much more linked with Shramana traditions (Jainism for example and some now extinct) that were probably to some extent independent from Vedic ones than to Brahmanic traditions of the time (modern Hinduism was not there at all, it developed with the Vedanta Acharayas). All this influences (including Buddhism and even Islam) affect to some extent the Hinduism of our days, but when Buddhism was founded .. well again you can say that Christianity is an offspring of Judaism and Islam of Judaism and Christianity.. or that they are separate... in a way no religion is completely separate, there are always influences and backgrounds.. so it depends on the perspective, but I don't look on Buddhism as a part of Hinduism. <o:p></o:p> That is if we talk from a historical perspective of course. If we look at it from the scriptural perspective (of a specific religious tradition) and consider them more factual than historical evidence than it is about faith and there is nothing really to discuss about the subject.<o:p></o:p>

<!--[if gte mso 10]> .......> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} ........> <![endif]--> We should also not forget that he is a Buddhist. Different sadhanas have different requirements. It is easier to develop spiritually in bhakti yoga (that is based on surrender and devotion) than in raja/jnana (that is more based on the personal effort) living a grihasta life. Actually bhakti yoga is maybe the only way for a grihasta to reach the goal, in a lot of other spiritual practices it might be even impossible to reach the goal without celibacy. As he is a representative of Buddhism that is very much about renunciation, detachment and so on it is just natural that this form of spirituality very often requires complete (including outer one) renunciation to fulfill itself. In my opinion it is a big mistake to explain one spiritual tradition with the principles and philosophy of another. <o:p></o:p>

Was that not discovered to be a hoax made by the hindutva people during the BJP government?<o:p></o:p>

Medias sell what people want to buy. I'm not spiking about that. I'm speaking about more people in churches and less in eastern based groups than before. Just my subjective impression of the local situations, nothing more. Christianity has more to do with Hinduism than Druidry and similar superficial attempts to reinstall something we don't know almost anything about any more. Just some children (of any age) playing “spirituality” in their free time. Religions for adolescents and bored housewives. Well, the same segment of population than (often not less superficial) eastern sects tend to attract. Not that many people I would say. Christianity has a fine contemplative tradition in the bhakti yoga path. Just does not make so much fuss about that. And it is more “monastery oriented perhaps” Don't compare yogis with some disinterest formal believers. Compare them to contemplative monastics and I don't see so much difference. And I'm not sure who is right here when the scriptures are demanding certain prerequisites for such practices (yama, nyama (Patanjali) , solitary life, away from the human company (HathaYogaPradipika) etc. But none cares about that, just contract the annal muscles and breath like a dog and you'll get everything philosophy. Besides in all this ears I have not seen an western yogi that has impressed me much. Bhakti yoga is much better for a non-renunciate and in that Christian have nothing to look for in the east that they don't have at home. Personally I have a preference for Indian traditions, basically I grow up in that, but I would advice most of the westerners to be better Christians, why should they change? The Christianity is not just what it was in the east. It hes adjusted to the mentality of local people. Ramakrishna once said that religions are ll basically the same, the difference is in the climate, mentality etc. So it is adjusted for the people in the west. Even people who are interested in the east make their own westernized version of eastern traditions. And I'll mention Ramakrishna again when he witnessed a Yatra and said hat this is the real thing, the sanathan dharma, and all this new organizations just something temporary. You can spread a few Hatha-yoga exercises for models interested in health and weight loss, but more than that on a brother basis I'm not so sure and I don't see the need for that. In my experience (even from the private admitions of some Indian gurus) a lot of this Indian “spiritual marching” on the west has as much economical, national and other not that pure motives. Just look the attitude towards Vivekananda. How big a figure he has become. And why? Just because he become something on the west. If he remained in India no one would care. After many years of repression and unable to impose themselves in other ways they found a way of feeling proud in front of other nations through religion. Like if Vivekananda was some kind of political or military lieder. Funny cause that is exactly the typical dog-mentality Vivekananda so much detested in India. Even now it's enough tat a guru gets a few western disciples to jump in the ranks of the religious market of fairy tales. I would personally have more confidence in a teacher who avoids popularity and westerners. But even if all the world becomes a Hindu, or Christian, or Muslim or anything what would change? A good Christian is no different from a good Hindu. It's jut the outer show. Get real, the world will not be Hindu. It wont be Christian.. and even if it would be who cares. Religion is not a tool to impose one (person, religion, nation, guru, tradition, whatever) on another. That is an immature attitude of children fighting on whose father is the strongest in the world. I don't thing religion should be spread at all. When you go around asking someone to take something you are not a teacher, yo are a seller. And in time you became a beggar. Teachings are for those who ask. And prove them selfs worthy. Otherwise you have just a big prostitution going on and misuse of philosophy and practice. Where have all this rishis and yogis of old gone? This modern red-robed religion-sellers can not compare even to the smallest of the puranic demons. Just makes the contemplative practices look to cheep. It should never had left the ashrams and caves, no good will come from this profanation of religion. It has become like a cheep Chinese shop. Everything very cheep, very available and of very bad quality.

Brahmachari - celibate (non-ordained though some formal wows might be involved) Sannyasi - monk (the sannyasa as we know it today comes from Shankara) also the first and last stage in the varanashrama sistem, the traditional way of ideal dividing the lifetime in 4 stages of brahmacharya (celibate student), grihasta (hausholder). Vanaprastha (recluse, renunciate) and sannyasa (monkshood). But the varanashrama system is almost non existent in the real world today (if it ever was) and sannyasa or brahmacharya are not that much related to one's age. It is not that much different from the western monastic traditions actually.

Yes, but Hindu teachers, preachers and yogis in the west are doing the same regularly calling Christ a yogi (or a Vaishnava), quoting the Bible and explaining it as it suits them etc in the attempt to attract Christians to them. Some even taking some Christian symbols and ways of expression of religious beliefs (Yogananda was one of the first). It might be a genuine believe or an conscious manipulation or something else but it seems to me that Indians actually were the first to use this methods.

But are all Gaudiyas not initiated with the same (Maha) mantra?

I know ISKCON devotees that are not (yet) initiated but are chanting on a mala, in most of the books there are instructions about the process of chanting so obviously ISKCON advocates chanting on the mala for non-initiated devotees. <o:p></o:p> I don’t know about that. Personally I use the same mala for different mantras (but I’m not initiated in any). Why no older devotees want to comment on this? They probably know the what is the opinion in ISKCON or Gaudia maths or other traditions. <o:p></o:p> I’m not talking about wearing them (I’ve seen sannyasins wearing them and those who do not) but about chanting. I suppose they can chant, especially when following a “composite” raja yoga type of sadhana though even than it is sometimes considered to be a lesser form of mantra yoga practice to use a mala for chanting. But I don’t see why would that be a necessity in the jnana yoga process. So my question is if there are some recorded facts or traditional believes about Adi Shankaracharia’s practicing this type of spiritual discipline. <o:p></o:p> As for wearing the malas as I said earlier a lot of sadhus (and non) wear rudraksha for it’s supposed health, material and spiritual benefits.<o:p></o:p>

but then again are feelings of love and attachment notoften stronger when we are separated and longing for the object of love than when we have it near? Platonic love is often the more intense. When you get closer.. and even married it often diminishes (or transforms in a less intensive form) <o:p></o:p>

Yes, I find it strange too, that's why I'm not sure it is the truth.<o:p></o:p> In that case only initiated disciples could chant while I believe that everyone is encouraged to chant even before/without initiation. There are also a lot of “specific” mantras that are not diksha mantras but sometimes chanted for some reason and for a certain period. So I do think that any mantra can be chanted on the mala, bt maybe not on any mala. But I’m not sure what is the ISKON (or Gaudya in general) opinion about this.<o:p></o:p> Hmm that sounds a little sectarian to me. After all Prabhupada himself chanted on non ISKON malas (as all the Vaihnavas before ISKCON). So it might be something connected with internal Iskcon rules but I doubt it has any spiritual, traditional or scriptural explanation.<o:p></o:p> If there is such an rule it is probably a logical attempt to keep the money inside the organization. Iskon devotees make (I suppose), sell and buy the malas so it is a way to support their own organization.<o:p></o:p> Did he use malas at all? Not every sadhu/sannyasi/devotee uses it, more so those inclined to advaita Vedanta I suppose.. (some probably use them only as “decoration” for the benefical influence and spiritual significance, but might not use them for chanting.<o:p></o:p>

I heard that Prabhupada was asked if using rudraksha mala for chanting the maha-mantra was OK and the answer was that it is. And heard also that he used it. But it is a second-hand information and I wouldn't take that seriously unless there is a confirmation in his writings or from a direct witness. <o:p></o:p>

Well I don't know how much truth there is in it but I remember reading Swami Vivekananda stating that Catholic Church has an advantage over other Christian churches in that there is more mysticism there, I don't remember exactly but I think it was about rituals, images etc that are used in the Catholic Church and avoided in some others and he was speaking about that as conductive to spiritual development and mystic experiences even though as a vedantin ultimately probably considered them of secondary importance.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Well I tend to agree wit that because of those ascetic traditions that were at their highest point in the first centuries, but continued to some extent in monastic traditions. And I dot’s think it is for no reason that monastic often have more understanding for the eastern mysticism than the diocesan priests that are often „punditlike“ formalists without a firm practice and often not following their wows (of celibacy etc) either. So though I have some issues with the church in global I do believe that it's monastic traditions were able to keep at least something of real value thru the ages<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It should also be taken in consideration that more contemplative the monastic are less probable it is to hear about and from them. Worldly and formalistic people more into the organization than into living their fait are usually the loudest in every church ..<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> After all some strict orders like the Chartusians once ordained have no contact with the outside world whatsoever besides the family that can visit them for two day a year. So you won't hear much from people spending their entire days in spiritual disciplines and ascetic living, but most of it will came from those that actually should never be considered of any spiritual authority.<o:p></o:p>

Well speaking about contradictions I can se a big one here. If you hot Ramakrishna and Vivekananda in such esteem than you should also know from The Gospel Of Sri Ramakrisna that is the central document about his life that Vvekananda vas questioning and doubting all the time. An R, considered him always one of his greatest disciples. He also said that a teacher has to be tested and not just accepted blindly.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As for Sai Baba there are so much rumors and allegations and even clear evidences that there is something wrong ... so I wouldn't mention him together with Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. It is also a fact that a lot of questionable things can be found about a lot of gurus (Muktananda, Swami Rama, Sri Chinmoy, some ISKCON gurus, you name it... ) so to take someone who is playing the role of a teacher for granted is not really such a good idea.<o:p></o:p>

I can't post the link properly because I don't have 15 posts, the url is there.<o:p></o:p>

Well that's not exactly the truth, they do belief that pure hated people can attain salvation in other religions and often believe that the same God is ultimately worshiped, but that they do not have Christ to follow .. actually more similar to Gaudyas that can be a little one-sided also.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As for their opinions of the East that also differs as the church is not so unified an has different opinions within itself. Generally some orders like Jesuits or Camaldolese monastic are more inclined towards eastern mysticism than some others. You have priests that are trained in yoga or have the roshi title making them Zen teachers etc. I'm not saying that this is the majority, but neither can you say the church globally has no respect at all for non-Christians. It goes down to personal opinions. I’ve heard priests saying even that TaeKwonDo is a demonic practice, but also priests saying (in confidence, not in public) about monastic sent by the church to study yoga and another holding Hare Krishna’s in great esteem and defending them when local Catholics were against their temple in vicinity. Nothing is black or white.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hear is a site of the camaldolese order dedicated to the dialogue between east and west(<o:p></o:p>bedegriffiths.com/cam/camaldolese_institute.htm)

Well the best one can do is to try and search around till he/she finds where he/she is „at home“.. it is good to read the scriptures and various positions for some years before one is able to build a solid foundation and discrimination in the spiritual field.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> there are a lot of traditions and spiritual organizations. Some are more strict when it comes to their dialog with other sects, some are more open. IMHO it was probably better for the sadhana in the times when you could be confined to one path as you would have to be more focused. Unfortunately today with the „global village“ syndrome that is not possible and as a seeker one will have to get in contact with different teachings. Now you can have to positions here. Either (like most of the Gaudya Vaishnavas) consider your path the supreme one (and that's of course logical, otherwise you would not follow it) or consider everything being equal and make a difference of the methods (like bhakti, jnana or raja) more than objects of worship. But than I believe it is good to have the attitude of the Hanuan visiting Krishna story where Krishna had to take the form of Rama for him as it was his Ishta (chosen Ideal) and he did not care for his form as <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>. It is – although you might have respect for all the forms and paths it is still better to be fix on one and focus all the practice on it. I believe that the general opinion of religious <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> today goes somewhere along this lines. If you are not jet attracted by a particular path it is good to learn as much as possible about everything. But from the sources, not some syncretistic new-age „gurus“... Well besides Ramakrishna maybe as his syncretism has more of the attitude from the Hanuman story than the superficial new-age ideal. And as his was a rare instance of mystic following different paths even after realizing the goals of his own sadhanas - just to find out what it is about. So The Gospel of Shri Ramakrishnamight be a good place to start as you will find some stories and basics about the different sadhanas and religious groups from a real experience, not just philosophic speculation (You can find it easily on the Amazon.com). It is a big book but I think it is worth reading, for me it was a big source of inspiration at a time. But eventually one has to settle on a specific path and follow the tradition he has chosen.<o:p></o:p>

Actually I’m not sure what does she want. Maybe if she feels like telling us more about what attracts her in Hinduism, what is she looking for.. I suppose it is not the attraction to a particular sampradaya or teacher as in that case she would get the answers there. … I would really like to hear more about her attraction to Hinduism… <o:p></o:p>

And I think that is the right attitude. But first post, unless I misunderstood her problem, it is about becoming a Hindu, not a Vaishnava or Shakta or following another Indian system and actually I don’t see the point in becoming a Hindu in that „worldly and technical“ sense nor does that seem possible. <o:p></o:p>

Sanathana Dharma would be more accurate. Hindu was used by English first (to describe everything beyond the <st1:place w:st="on">Indus</st1:place> river) but as Indians accepted it themselves I thin it is not inappropriate to use it. As there are so many sects this is a word for something connecting them all... and as I said it seems to me to be more of en ritualistic, historic and social than of theological an philosophical nature.<o:p></o:p>

I understand but I don’t see the connection... maybe I have some wrong ideas about this. You left Christianity to became a Vaishnava... but in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> you are a stranger all the same...<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I know in ISKCON you have even the traditional initiation a regular Hindu gets but usually that is not the case. If you are attracted by Indian spiritual traditions you might find a guru who might initiate you in his tradition. Usually by mantra diksha, but not always. That is all that is needed for our sadhana and spirituality, doesn't really meter to become more orthodox than a south Indian Brahmin... <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You might even get a spiritual name. Some teachers do this as a usual practice (like giving you a new birth) but probably if you insist others will get up with a name too just to make you happy. So that we might go around in loose “yogalike” clothes with Sanskrit verses or chakra pictures on them, putting some „vegetarian smiles“ and „enlightened expressions“ to show to the world and our egos how different from those average people we now are... but all this is just a children's play, doesn't matter much. What meters is our devotion, studies, practices and if we have a genuine teacher our relationship with him.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> P.S. if I got it right ThusArtThou is not speaking about becaming a vaishnava and about ISKCON so I'm also talking in this manner, for a convinced member of your sampradaya all is clear after all and this questions would not be asked, isn't it?<o:p></o:p>

ISKON is one of rare organizations that have some kind of conversion in the sense of making one par of the Hindu tradition, at least in their eyes. Maybe even the only one. Actually maybe even the only one. You might have more yoga etc cantered organizations that will give you spiritual names, mantra dikshas and even initiate westerns to sannyas but you won't get the initiations a born Hindu gets, you wont become a Brahmin and get a sacred thread (well in case you were a man) etc.. but then why should you? This reminds me of a saintly poet of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> who in a song expressed his gratitude to be from a low caste and so not obligated to perform strict rituals prescribed to twice-born (the tree upper castes) and was free just to adore the Lord.. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hinduism is not a missionary religion. Actually Hinduism is not a religion, it is a lot of sects connected by a moral code, social structure, the Vedas and a few basic believes. But actually most of them respect most of the Vedas only nominally and base their different believes on different Upanishads, Puranas etc. , their different commentaries and explanations.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Some of these sects are missionary oriented, but they propagate certain philosophies and practices, they do not make you a Hindu. A jnani, a yogi, a bhakta.. yes, but not a Hindu. In a lot of ways Hinduism can be compared to the Jewish religion. They are more of a national religion, and can't be separate from the nationality in the way you do with Christianity or Buddhism. Actually Christianity or Buddhism can be compared to Vaishnavism or Mayavada – sects and systems of belief and practices that Hindus can take while being at the same time all Hindus (actually Christianity or Budhism will take you out of the Hindu system but I'm using the compression just for an illustration. Even then I suppose being an Indian born Christian will make you more Hindu than being a Caucasian “Hindu”). In a board sense you can also say that you already are a Hindu if you understand Hinduism as the Sanathan Dharma principle encompassing all of humanity beyond different religions and schools ,,, Though I suppose that would make us some kind of marginalized outcasts Well I’m not at all sure how the Hindus think about this…<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As I said ISKCON has a little different attitude and I think you can even get a Brahmin initiation. Bt that is an exception and I wouldn't be so sure that a lot of Indians outside this sampraday would consider them genuine Brahmins as they are not born in a Brahmin family. <o:p></o:p> The logic followed by ISKCON is that one is not a Brahmin by birth but by developing the qualities of a Brahmin, and there are instances in the scriptures to support this, but as I said it is more an exemption than a rule and I'm not sure they are accepted as Brahmins in the general Indian society though they can be accepted as vaishnavas.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> From this standpoint saying that you want to be a Hindu is like saying that you want to be an Indian or a men or a stone. Maybe that is not right but it is usually so and I have the impression that Hinduism is a strong mix of faith, nationality, family structure, social norms and relations and you will never be a real Hindu. The priest (if it was an “orginal” Indian thin, not an ISCON temple) possibly just wanted to give a polite answer to another newager that wants to become a Hindu after seeing a few nice ochre robed fellows not hawing actually a clue what Hinduism is.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If you want to be „a Hindu“ learn Sanskrit, start studying the scriptures, read a lot of books, visit India etc. Not being a Hindu you still can get all the benefit from the scriptures and sadhanas, as well as becoming a Hindu you can remain the same and not change anything for the better. Actually I don't se why should that be of any importance, as I see it is more becoming a part of a social structure than a spiritual process. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If I got a wrong impression I hope that there are people of Indian origin on the forum that can correct me...<o:p></o:p>

Well as I understand it this is a question of our „level of realization“. So if one has achieved such heights of devotion that he is constantly absorbed in His Form and Name and that he sheds tears even when someone casually mentions His Name such a devotee not only does not need the scriptures, prescribed rituals and sadhanas but will probably be unable to do that as his mind and heart will became ecstatically absorbed as soon as he starts thinking about his Lord.. But these are very rare cases of respected saints we can read about, it is not like you get there as soon as you get the diksha.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> So the scriptures, prescribed disciplines and all that are sort of tools to achieve higher levels of devotion, we can not behave and talk form the standpoint of something that might be truth, but is far from our own realizations.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> So for most if not even all of us all this aids are essential. I doubt that a lot of us at this moment can chant the names with full concentration, devotion and spiritual joy even for a very short period. So if we are not able even to do that there is no point in discussing that chanting is enough when we are not absorbed in that all the time. So besides establishing us in the proper way of thinking and giving us directions all this other practices and reading also help to keep our minds on spiritual subjects most of our time.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Well, at least that is how I'm seeing this, nothing more. And I'm not a Vaihnava so not really able to talk from that standpoint.<o:p></o:p>