Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

krishnaleela

Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by krishnaleela


  1. All very good points. Neo-Hindus also come forth as proclaiming freedom and equality, that they presume are restricted in traditional hinduism. Very difficult to reason with, due to their underlying disbelief in the goals of Hinduism. Talk about reincarnation, moksha, etc and they will dismiss you. So they have pre-decided the extent of limited utility of religion - anything more is 'superstition' - , and pick and choose based on what pleases their ideas of right and wrong.

     

    For some, provided they have an open-outlook and feel a sense of hindu culture, they should be free to not own up to that culture/religion explicitly in their lives. They believe all rules and regulations are chains on their freedom imposed by religion and discriminating past societies. It is truly a pain in dealing with these characters - somehow the education has to happen earlier in childhood that they may grow up with a better understanding less clouded by western views.


  2.  

    1. The first question is regarding your sampradaya within itself. Is the central deity of your Order Sri Krishna of the Bhagavatham or Sri Chaitanya? Do you keep separate deities of worship of the two personalities? Do you see glorification of Chaitanya as no different from glorification of Krishna?

    Sri Sri Radha-Krsna

    Both Deities are seen.

    Caitanya is the mercy of Krsna. His instruction was that we should worship Krsna, Govinda nicely. This will please Him. But factually, worship of Caitanya is worship of Krsna.

    2. If an outsider enters your shrine, what is the Personality most apparent or emphasized?

    Sri Sri Radha-Krsna

    Because Lord Caitanya mercifully never accepts offenses, one normally would offer his obeisances to the Deities of Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityananda first to be purified, before bowing before Their Lordships, Sri Radha and Sri Krsna.

    3. As an organization, you may regard Chaitanya as avatara of Krishna. However I am interested in how this is emphasized, if at all, to the general public. What are your opinions regarding this aspect?

    This is not so important. One may regard Him as simply a great scholar. Only by devotion is the truth revealed. Lord Caitanya is Sri Sri Radha-Krsna. The important message brought by Gaura is the dharma of the Age - the glorification of the millions of holy names of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna.

     

    4. Do you think your organization, if necessary and in terms of giving the personal-connection to God, can stand totally independent of the personality of Chaitanya, and solely on the personality of Krishna in Bhagavatham - by only emphasizing the latter and not even bringing in the former, except through his teachings about the former? (This is regarding the Bhakthi-emphasis that the organization puts forth, and not philosophy.)

    In this fallen Age of Kali, people are unfortunate, with little inclination or skills to worship Sri Sri Radha-Krsna nicely. Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya is the embodiment of Sri Radha and Sri Krsna in one form. His special mercy is that He does not accept offenses, so it is possible for the fallen to actually worship Sri Sri Radha-Krsna through this magnanimous manifestation and make advancement toward pure love of God.

    Gaura-Nitai

     

    Thanks for your answers. They are quite clear.


  3. I want to get some points clarified regarding Gaudiya Vaishnavism. (I may use Order or organization for reference).

     

    1. The first question is regarding your sampradaya within itself. Is the central deity of your Order Sri Krishna of the Bhagavatham or Sri Chaitanya? Do you keep separate deities of worship of the two personalities? Do you see glorification of Chaitanya as no different from glorification of Krishna?

     

    2. If an outsider enters your shrine, what is the Personality most apparent or emphasized? For example, if I enter a Catholic-Church, I expect Jesus to be the main personality and possibly Mary as a subsidiary personality and some other saints perhaps along the side. If I enter a GV shrine, am I first and primarily confronted with the personality of Chaitanya, and then of Krishna of Bhagavatham, or viseversa, or both,etc?

     

    3. As an organization, you may regard Chaitanya as avatara of Krishna. However I am interested in how this is emphasized, if at all, to the general public. What are your opinions regarding this aspect?

     

    4. Do you think your organization, if necessary and in terms of giving the personal-connection to God, can stand totally independent of the personality of Chaitanya, and solely on the personality of Krishna in Bhagavatham - by only emphasizing the latter and not even bringing in the former, except through his teachings about the former? (This is regarding the Bhakthi-emphasis that the organization puts forth, and not philosophy.)

     

    I don't intend this thread for arguments about the good and bad of all this. But I would like candid information from people who follow this sampradaya.

    See some of my posts in the Neo-Hinduism thread for the context in which I am interested; however I don't want this to become a fighting thread. Just clarify, and give information about your opinions on your sampradaya in this regard. Thanks for any details.


  4.  

    No. While I am not particular about fighting with gaudiyas (who I may agree are far too dogmatic to reason with), ... When the Gaudiyas did their guru-deification, we can also perhaps point to their sectarianism/dogmatism etc and that itself is a measure-stick for their dismissal from consideration.

     

    Sorry for above.

     

    In retrospect, I should not have indulged in above to this extent to make my case on RKM. My knowledge of Gaudiya Vaishnavas is far less.


  5.  

    every organisation has deficiencies and orthodoxy . infact they are the characteristical elements that help it to exist . when vivekananda was thinking of establisheing the order he said " to do or not to do " . he was fully aware of the limitations that bind true spirituality in any organisation and at the same time was also aware of the necessity to have an organisation to keep the teachings and philosophy intact .

     

    after so many years , there is a wide scope of speculation that how much RKM has adhered to its original philosophy inspite of its wide success .

     

     

    Yes. This is a young organization still and I believe formative. If we point out to certain "fault", those in charge can still make required changes if necessary. The above sort of justification is not an excuse.

     

     

    actually the problem that you are speaking of is already there in our psychology . we love to speak and preach about the charcters we love . and what to say if they become 'god' in our belief . the more you follow or love any ideal or his philosophy , the more you shall be inclined to shout his glories . this is precisely what has happened before in all such cases of these avatara and also what is happening with ramakrishna mission now . just the way krishna was glorified , or still better chaitanya was glorified , shakkaracharya was glorified . history didnt show us any organization or any group of followers that didnt preach their respective cherished ideals or beliefs . therefore it is absolutely incorrect to accuse RKM individually of intentional propagation of new god . here gaudiya vaishnavas are also equally to blame . they did what RKM is doing now ! ramakrishna and chaitanya both denied their divinity and yet they are propagated as god .

     

     

    The spiritual organization that RKM is, run by monks, has some standards; my argument is that this manner of glorification needs a careful reassessment. If what we say has any merit, it can be regarded for itself, rather than comparing with others to justify ourselves.

     

    As for Gaudiyas, I sincerely say I am not thinking about them, except at these particular forums. I do not deny that they share this blame; I already said that they were the first to begin this trend. However I am not concentrating on them, for lack of knowledge about them or their impact on Hinduism as a whole - and further reasons mentioned below.

     

     

    if you are not concerned with defending gaudiyas then bring them down to discussion instead to focussing only on the 'latter group' . you state that these ' latter groups ' are in ' developement and application stage ' . but that means that they are less influential than the former groups which are already sound established and hence more 'dangerous' to society . i think you should concentrate on these old grups which already have its roots deep inside our society than some small groups in infancy .

     

     

    Former group on this issue is only the gaudiyas; but I expect the RKM to be more reasonable to listen to these arguments. The other older organizations may have other "faults" but that should not be mixed here in a compare-contrast to justify.

     

     

     

    and from the qoute that you gave the monk began the words with -- " in our veiw ................" . now obviously these words implies that it is their own ideology and belief and has nothing to do with people's veiw . its not an attempt to convert people to their veiw . its a summary describing their own veiw . the entire quote was not atall preachy or meant for eduacting people . it was a mere stating what their belief system is .

     

    why should that bother anyone unless he/she doesnt want the believers of that faith to stop practising their beliefs ?!!!!! things do make sense hpwever if we assume the person to dislike the very concept of ramakrishna as god and disbelieve in freedom of faith !!

     

     

    No. I have said many a time, that a devotee's belief in guru's divinity is his/her private affair. My contention is that this "We believe SRK is God", as a statement of the organization, is underlying justification for "Therefore, we will tell the world so..." That is the only reason this quote is sectarian, in the context of the public-deification, which I am claiming is to be reanalysed by RKM.

     

     

     

    but nowhere in that qoute was anything negetive being said towards any other beliefs or faiths . sectarian means adhering to dogmatic limits of a faith . although RKM guys have formed a sect but they did not become dogmatic to the least .

     

     

    Again, see previous lines. They are not sectarian if seen as a devotee's private adoration of his guru. As an organization, to say "SRK is the Yuga-avatara, ... avatara-varishtha"... "the message ... is best manifested in his life...", "...following the Ideal of ...SRK, ... human beings can practically follow the path of emancipation", "the practicalization of His message is seen in ... Sri Sarada Devi", such statements are dogmatic, beyond argument, based on personal faith. Therefore when the organization flaunts such views, it can fall back on them to justify its public guru-deification, which is the main issue - SRK already being the yuga-avatar, there is no fault in making him the central deity for public worship.

     

    No. RKM is not dogmatic in general. But this issue, where Vedanta is mixed with an avatara theory to make the guru into the public-God of the organization, has to be seen carefully, and such statements indicate an underlying foundation - not for the nondogmatic universalist-Vedanta side but in terms of the other.

     

     

    from whatever you have written in the last few posts its evident that your dislike is not for so much for neo-hinduism as for ramakrishna philosophy and his subsequent deification . thats okay and your opinion , but why not be a bit more direct in approach ?

     

     

    No. While I am not particular about fighting with gaudiyas (who I may agree are far too dogmatic to reason with), I regard RKM as the best prototype for neo-hindu organizations basing themselves on a universalist Vedanta philosophy. They are the "first" in this category, and arguably, the supreme/leaders in quality as well. Most of their monks are no doubt superlative. Hence being so, and since I am somewhat familiar with them, I am directing my 'attack' on this issue on them. The others like of Satya Sai Baba, Sri Sri Ravi shankar, and so on, are in my opinion 'less-in-stature' compared to RKMission; they are coming later and seem to be following RKM in many a regard. But simply because I focus on RKM, it does not mean I am wanting to show this as a singular fault of RKM.

     

     

    by the way , what do think of mahaprabhu's case and why do you think it is different from that of RK ?

     

    I don't think it is different, except the historical times when his name was propagated were likely different. I am more aware of the present times - "the world is much smaller" and people far-more deliberate as far as running global organizations. When the Gaudiyas did their guru-deification, we can also perhaps point to their sectarianism/dogmatism etc and that itself is a measure-stick for their dismissal from consideration. Neo-hinduism, as in universalist Vedanta, has a good knowledge of history to not repeat such faults blatantly, also present a very-nondogmatic picture of themselves - hence I am calling into question their desire to follow the same path as the gaudiyas as opposed to Vedanta-Orders before (on this specific issue). Possibly the Bengal-connection may have played into the origins; but today this is becoming a 'universal' Hindu-organization phenomena.

     

    (Don't think I am only saying this. I have read RKM monk writing the very same thing regarding the abuse of 'avataara-theory' by Hindu organizations.)

     

    (I am not identifying Gaudiyas with ISKCON, BTW).

     

    As for greatness of SRK vs Mahaprabhu, that is not this topic - I said the focus for me is on their organizations....


  6.  

    just because they entered earlier doesnt make them valid . and there might not have been any backing of religous institutions of modern type , but surely there was extensive backing by his followers , mutts , sanghas , emperors , kings and preachers . the backing was always there . the source of this backing have changed .

     

     

     

    take chaintanya for example . in charitamrita , krishnadas repeatedly warns the dangers of not believing in avatarhood of mahaprabhu . this is clear backing by followers ( although i believe in mahaprabhu's avatarhood).

     

     

    I am not saying they are valid as avataaras. We don't know the exact process of how the names of Rama, Krishna, etc spread (until more recent times); likely there was backing from kings etc but "surely" is not knowledge. In particular, the Sangha aspect, I think, has historical evidence only starting with Buddha. Our process had occurred in a different era, and any reference to the personalities including their avatarahood has to be based on faith in Hindu smrithis.

     

    In the recent cases of Chaitanya, this means faith in Krishnadas and with Sri Ramakrishna, faith in Bhairavi Brahmani as well as suggestions of the saint himself. It does not matter that I agree or not with Chaitanya being an avataar; it will amount to faith in testimony.

     

    My focus is entirely about the appropriateness for their organizations to propagate this aspect; and the impact of this trend on Hinduism. Before Chaitanya (notably), this faith aspect in the Guru's avatarahood (and him/her being the organization's object of worship) was not pushed by any of the known 'Vedanta-sanghas' in this specific manner. Now we are finding a wide variety of sanghas seeking to do so. I already said that I do not support this aspect, independent of which organization is doing so, and that this should be a private aspect within the organization.

     

    The problem is: when one does it, why not everyone else? If the Gaudiyas do so, why not RKM, SaiBaba, and so on? I am not particular about defending the Gaudiyas; but I focus on the latter group which is more recent in origin and in which the process is much more in development and application stage. I am not questioning their calibre as monastic organizations nor their adherence to Vedanta (cancel my suggestions to that effect; that is a secondary issue here). It is because the RKM is strong that I want them to ask "Is this direction necessary?" Must they combine their Vedanta with an avataara theory, that justifies propagating their guru as central deity? Can they not follow the precedent of the earlier Vedanta-sanghas - why are they working hard to create this guru-centralizing character in the devotional context of their sampradaya - that is fast becoming a central aspect in 'every' sprouting Hindu organization preaching universalist-vedanta? It is a double game that is difficult to assail for the flawed side always is brushed aside by pointing to the other.

     

    By the way, here is what a monk of the Order told me sometime back:

     

     

    In our view Sri Ramakrishna is the Yuga-avatar and thus the message of ETERNAL RELIGION is best manifested in his life for the present times. We, following the footsteps of Swami Vivekananda, that following the Ideal of the life and teachings of Sri Ramakrishna - wherein we see the harmony of Bhakti-Jnana-Karma & Raja-Yoga - human beings can practically follow the path of emancipation. Sri Ramakrishna is, as told by Swami Vivekananda, "Sarva-Dharma-Swarup & Avatar-Varishtha". So we worship Him; the practicalization of His message is seen in the life of Sri Sarada Devi, the Holy Mother and Swami Vivekananda was, as told by Sri Ramakrishna and as per his own declaration, the Voice of Sri Ramakrishna.

     

    There is no conflict with any sect of so-called main-stream (?) Hinduism; we do worship Rama, Krishna, Kali, Durga, Shiva, Buddha, Jesus too, on special occasions.

     

     

    I feel this devotional perspective of one's guru should be within the organization, belonging to the followers. The RKM which is basing itself on Vedanta should not be using this type of assertive Bhakthi-conclusions about its guru to deify him to the general public. This was not done by the matha of Shankara (Ramanuja, etc) whose scriptural analysis the RKM is also standing on. It is a feature that is characteristic of abrahamic faiths and gives the organization that makes such assertions of its guru the same type of fanatical appearance. The last sentence in that quote shows the universalist-message coming along with the highly sectarian viewpoint before it - this is the genuine "check and balance" of neo-Hinduism: a fool-proof package.

     

    (In later communication, he also told me sincerely that " Sri Ramakrishna, like any other great world teacher like Sankara or Buddha has given advice according to the need, temperament etc" But this does not negate the problem in consideration.)

     

    As for these neo-organizations identifying themselves as Hindu, perhaps in India that is the case. Outside this is a questionable side; usually the only commital term that comes in view is Vedanta. One has to infer that they are not against Hindu-identity. I am aware of a Hindu telling a monk that she told a Christian that RKM (or at least his center) is not a "Hindu" organization and the monk keeping silent. There are always (practicality, universality) arguments to justify everything; but in practical terms, such things make a big difference. (Anyway this is a secondary issue; I did not want to make it the focus of my primary contention about guru-deification.)


  7.  

    krishnaleela you have not yet answered what is your defination of avataar .

     

    what are the key determining points of avataar ?

     

     

     

    I don’t know. If we place faith in the puranas, then we know of Vishnu’s avatars for example.

     

    Personally, I am not supporting any attempt at propagating guru-personalities as deities, avatars, etc. by any Hindu organization (including the earlier ones that are usually better in this regard). It should be entirely within the sampradaya, and never part of its attempt at reaching the general public. Personalities of the puranas are a different matter – they entered the Indian psyche in an earlier era, without the backing of sanghas, missions, organizations, etc. This distinction should not be muddled with “What is your definition of avatar?” since the process of determining such is entirely subjective or faith-based on others doing it.

     

    When modern Hindu organizations do this with their gurus, they run into the dangers, similar to Christianity. It depends on the checks and balances. I pointed out how the traditions of Shankaracharya, Madhva, Ramanuja, etc. did this. The personality is presented as upholder o f the Vedic dharma, rightly interpreting the Upanishads – which they do with systematic commentaries and not “my guru knows it all himself” (raghu points this out). Moreover they are not presented as the central objects of worship – this is another critical point. Only those who actually follow that sampradaya are confronted with the potential need of regarding the guru as avatar.

     

    Organizations like of Swaminarayan, Chaitanya and Sri Ramakrishna propagate their guru as avatar to the general public. This is the critical moving-away from previously held standards. (I wish this is not the case, but that does not matter). Now we have to ask, to what extent are there still checks and balances? From my own perspective, I feel a bit secure with Swaminarayan since they strongly identify themselves as a Hindu and Indian organization – that is not compromised in some universalist lingo. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas, as I understand, are thorough as far as being a Vedantic tradition – so the tradition can strictly speaking be evaluated against others on the basis of what they say of SCRIPTURES. (Of course, I get scared by the attempts at some corners to separate themselves from Hinduism; but let that be). Moreover, I already mentioned that saying “my guru is incarnation of the personal God Krishna” is a very strong link with Hinduism (again leaving out the "some corners").

     

    With Ramakrishna Math, I feel these checks and balances are not there. My article was an attempt at focusing on how these organizations are running into dangers.


  8.  

    That is the problem hinduism faces.if so and so can be an avatara why not my own guru.So you have saibaba and several such babas claiming to be avathars.

     

     

    Right. This kind of extrapolation to suit "my pet-theory of incarnation" has become the nuisance of modern Hindu organizations. It seems " 'everyone says the same-thing Vedanta' + a tinge of non-commital puranic flavour that can suggest all things to all people - except with my guru as central deity" is a defining feature of neo-hinduism.

     

    I made the couple of points I wanted to. I hope there are others also reading this than the couple who are arguing against. I want people of these organizations to look into this aspect more carefully.


  9.  

    Some of the well known God men/women of India.

     

    1. The Swaminarayan movement - Here Swaminarayan is GOD. he is considered as Krishna.

     

    2. Chaitanya Maha Prabhu whom we consider as GOD.

     

    3. Mata Amrithanandamayi.

     

    4. Ramana Maharishi.

     

    5. Mata Ananda Moyi

     

    6. Sri Ragavendra.

     

    You will find a complete list here.

     

    http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Hinduism/Gurus_and_Saints/

     

    The criticism leveled against almost all organizations in their names is similar to what you have stated.

     

    I believe for 1 and 2, they are regarded by their followers as incarnation of Krishna, the same of the Bhagavatham, and not an abstract "God".

     

    Besides, all examples you have pointed out are relatively recent, from the time of Muslim rule onwards; hence they may represent Hinduism's attempt at incorporating the newer influence of abrahamic faiths with what was earlier. And this trend is having its problem of going overboard - that is the neo-hinduism that acts like tradition and yet is pushing the alien dimensions.

     

    Some like Swami Narayan organization are very clear about their Hindu identity inspite of showing their guru as central deity - others like Ramakrishna Math, etc. are quite clear (especially in US etc) that they are "Vedantins" (representing all relgions) and their guru is incarnation of God even as Jesus, etc. This is exactly the type of subtle difference that neo-Hinduism is playing on. It needs to be understood because it tends to be abused.

     

    As for Shankaracharya etc (from before Muslim, Christian rule of India), he is regarded within the smartha tradition as Shiva's incarnation; Ramanuja of Adi-Sesha; Madhva of Bhima - the link is uniformly back to our prior deities, etc in the Puranas. But are they presented by their organizations as the central deity of worship? They have themselves made it clear that they represent the Vedas and that the object of worship of their organization is "Narayana", "Ishvara", etc - again with the central deity being from the puranas. The disciple is free to regard the guru as incarnation of a deity; but this is a private aspect within the tradition - they are not trying to "make" the next public Purana around their guru making him/her the central object of worship. That trend is neo.


  10. I had written this essay some months back, relevant to this discussion. It tries to make a connection between neo-Hinduism and the tendency to propagate the Guru as God - i.e. incarnation or prophet making. (There may be exceptions even prior to colonial times; but the tendency today is definitely more and more imitations of abrahamic faiths.)

     

     

     

     

     

    Prophetizing trend in modern Hinduism

     

     

    I would like to raise a controversial topic in our religion. No, not the caste system, rather it is the modern trend to incarnation/prophet-making by the disciples of great saints. What about Rama, Krishna – you say? Well, can you find me proof that an organized attempt to propagate their names followed from their time onward? How about we consider instead Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad – the real trend setters of prophet-centric religions? The difference may be fancied as subtle, but it is a big one if we care for the ways of pre-colonial Hinduism – think on it yourself.

    The concept of incarnation, specifically Lord Vishnu taking birth on Earth to establish Dharma, is accepted by Smartas and Vaisnavas on scriptural basis; see Bhagavad Gita 4.5-9. From the puranas, we learn of particular incarnations like Rama and Krishna. However Hinduism has (in general) no tradition of massive organizations of disciples seeking to promote their human-gurus as incarnations of God. In recent times, this concept whose roots are in Puranic lore has become liberated. Buddha, Jesus, Sri Ramakrishna and many of our times are all incarnations of God to the liberal minded Hindu, with the usage of “God” ensuring that the incarnation is not personality-subordinate to a Hindu deity. The basis of determination is no longer the scripture but rather a subjective conclusion that such great men (say) were ‘perfect from birth’ and that their influence on humanity verifies their status.

     

    Now if we properly discern, we will find that the incarnation-making tradition in post-colonial Hinduism is parallel to the prophet-centric religions. A prophet-centric religion revolves around a great saint. The message of the saint may be universally applicable, but the organization that preaches on his behalf deliberately propagates his name, not merely as a representative of an eternal message but almost as its owner/originator. Moreover, the pathetic thrust is to make universal the devotional-context of the organization, obviously directed towards or through its prophet. That is, the organization, due to inherent insecurity and greed for foreign markets, is in the business of proselytizing; in abrahamic cults, this is blatant, in modern Hinduism, more subtle but none-the-less the same.

     

    The Ramakrishna Math and organizations today of Hindu gurus who stand independent of established sampradaya have all derived inspiration from the prophet models of non-Hindu faiths. The influence is evident in the manner of expression: literary propaganda that stresses the guru’s specialty, constructions of guru-deifying temples that seem alienated from Hinduism, and most critically, directing the devotional context of the organization solely to or through the guru. This effectively allows the organization to stand independent of Hindu culture, except in a superficial sense that is equally applicable to non-Hindu faiths. The service of the poor and the garnering of human resources for this purpose may also find easier execution through the prophet-model; these may be the underlying nobler intentions. However I feel these must be incorporated without promoting our gurus as incarnations of God – this is a trap which our religion has historically avoided.

     

    Now let us consider guru-worship within our religion more carefully. At the philosophical level, every Smarta will say “Adi Shankara says this, says that…” and every Sri Vaishnava will say “Sri Ramanuja says this, says that…” Are they not prophetized? Well, admittedly the establishment of Guru-centralized sampradayas came at a later stage in our religion, but thankfully the gurus themselves made it clear that they represented only the scripture/Vedic tradition and not themselves. The disciple is of course free to worship the guru as one with, or even incarnation of a deity, but the devotional context that the sampradaya speaks for is directed to Ishvara – and very importantly, seen as Shiva, Vishnu, etc., and not as the guru (no ‘only savior’, ‘last prophet’ either). That a sampradaya’s devotional objective stands independent of its human-guru is a defining feature of traditional Hinduism.

     

    In this regard, a quote of Sri Ramakrishna is worth referring to. He said to a devotee who referred to the saint as God: “I look on myself as a devotee of Krishna, not as Krishna Himself. You may think as you like. You may look on your guru as God.” The same Sri Ramakrishna also gave more eclectic interpretations for the word “incarnation”; definitely they have their place, but in our world unfortunately any room to over-interpret can be a disaster. What may be spoken to particular devotees in particular contexts can be projected by overzealous followers as universal truth - as Christianity has done with Christ. It is the responsibility of modern Hindu organizations to stop pandering to and utilizing the ways of Abrahamic religions. Propagate your gurus as great saints who exemplified the Sanatana Dharma; build them temples if you must, but know that a “Universal temple of [My Guru who is your God]” is neither universal nor Hinduism: it is “radical” hypocrisy and ultimately hurting us all.


  11.  

    Hindus surely can be hateful too and things come out negatively due this fact that we keep hate within our mind - although like in case of Gandhi, this hate remained unseen.

     

    Why Gandhi’s experiment with Islam failed?

    Hindus are still and very much struggling with open wounds, from a history of conquests by outsiders, their country divided and culture uprooted. That people want to label it as "hateful" is irrelevant, unless they are willing to pay us by the billions on account of the past crimes.

     

    I wonder if the native americans, if one goes to their reservations, can ever come to terms with their ruthless history of the past 500 years.

     

    "Do everything, then preach "democracy", "equality" and "peace", [oh yes] 'freedom of religion' " might work for Duruyodanas. But those who bear the scars of history will always have one eye on the Kurukshetra. They may not respond as such but that awareness must grow and not drown in mindless secularism. Who can speak for the Hindus displaced from Bangladesh even today? Of course, they will carry "hate", in memory of injustice that the world will soon look askance at. It is not the same as "hate the infidel or idolator" jargon, and it does not matter that the world propagandas it as no different. Please, that they don't forget, the history of Kashmir and Bangladesh and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Indonesia and Thailand and Malaysia ... and India.


  12. ... just a mass media strategy. In fact he was very kind to his wife. Such a family man with such morals and love for his people; how could he do he endorse such acts? It is just Western media propaganda. Oh yes, he was aryan, committed to being aryan: and a true aryan is honourable -- such a true aryan could never have done such things. What he really wanted was to unify Europe and the world for a better future.

     

    One thing is probable: Habibji can trace back to a Hindu ancestor, and is now blindly searching to support/play the "confuse the history" by creating new "myths of Islam". I liked your other Islamoscope website-post (http://islamoscope.wordpress.com/) on Hindus getting displaced; strikes a better balance with present stories before it becomes his-story that can be confused ... "The Muslims never did a thing committed as they were to Brotherhood.. the Hindus just left due to their own hatred".

     

     

    [i suppose we can also add that Bush's media and the common people of Iraq will have different stories to tell. If we are to judge two hundred years later with little resources, Bush really looks good as a representative of democracy trying sincerely to cleanse Iraq and the world ... just look at how sophisticated and sincere his officers look and speak on TV about wishing only the welfare of the people...]

     

     

    Hard to say what kind of character Emperor Aurangzeb realy was?

     

    THE NEW NATION - BANGLADESH'S INDEPENDENT NEWS SOURCE

    Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad ruler or bad history?

     

    Dr. Habib Siddiqui

    posted 03 June 2008

     

    Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.

     

    Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

     

    Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known.

     

    Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.

     

    Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

     

    A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way. Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition of the jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

     

    It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and 'ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.

     

    While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.

     

    (Taken from al-Balagh)


  13. When I read this story first last week, it at once made me feel the importance of not wasting the time and opportunity that I have and to work harder. Many are struggling with basic necessities, many are unconscious of a spiritual path, and some though conscious of it are removed so suddenly it seems. Who knows when my turn comes? To have so much and waste it away in useless pursuits of the flesh and mind. At least, I am going to make a better attempt, be more aware and made some changes already. I feel this is the best way to keep the memory and its meaning alive in one's own life.


  14.  

    :( BTW, can anyone tell me why some temples don't allow non-Indians in? Is it so that people don't "disrespect" the temple or something? :confused:

     

    I believe the answer is YES. I read this from a book on Hinduism by Stephen Huyler. I think the emphasis should be more on "non-Hindu" than "non-Indian", although that distinction is perhaps not fully imbibed in those temples.

     

    Those not in tune with the Hindu culture may potentially see things wrongly or in a partial manner. A place becomes holy due to the constant presence of holy people and God-minded thoughts. The temple shrine is similar, meant for those who are seeking to commune with the Divine through that particular Aspect. It maintains the spiritual sanctity of the place. Some of these major temples therefore take utmost precaution. (Of course, it is not a perfect solution but is a precaution.)

     

    As for temple priests earning more than in US, their numbers as also the temples we are accounting for are very very small. Of course, one expects that the priests of such temples feel a greater responsibility for living as they are supposed to. But that does not represent most. For most priests who may be running after foreigners, I would guess poverty drives the corruption and decadence.


  15.  

    dm6547.jpg

     

    [...]By expanding Himself as Lord Śiva, the Supreme Lord is engaged when there is a need to annihilate the universe. Lord Śiva, in association with māyā, has many forms, which are generally numbered at eleven. Lord Śiva is not one of the living entities; he is, more or less, Kṛṣṇa Himself. The example of milk and yogurt is often given in this regard — yogurt is a preparation of milk, but still yogurt cannot be used as milk. Similarly, Lord Śiva is an expansion of Kṛṣṇa, but he cannot act as Kṛṣṇa, nor can we derive the spiritual restoration from Lord Śiva that we derive from Kṛṣṇa. The essential difference is that Lord Śiva has a connection with material nature, but Viṣṇu or Lord Kṛṣṇa has nothing to do with material nature. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.88.3) it is stated that Lord Śiva is a combination of three kinds of transformed consciousness known as vaikārika, taijasa and tāmasa.[...]

     

    source: http://vedabase.net/tlc/8/en

     

     

    Ok. That works. Thanks.


  16.  

    Lord Siva cannot be properly considered Vishnu-tattva, but He is not an ordinary ‘demigod’ either. The Vayu-Purana states that Lord Siva's abode is beyond the mundane universe:

     

     

    What do you mean by Vishnu-tattva?

     

    Vishnu is the Supreme Personal Being, right? Typically He is shown as a Person with special aspects like the Shanka-chakra, gada, etc. Are these to symbolize His special Powers by which He brings forth the Existence, Protects His devotees, etc?

     

    Is Shiva one of the smaller Personalities that Vishnu projects forth? So when we speak of Shiva, are we relating to specific tattvas/aspects that partially describe the Supreme Being Vishnu but not in a complete or ideal sense?


  17.  

    There is not a preferred form: Shiva and Vishnu are both acceptable, as the same Ishvara reveals Himself in accordance to the seeker. Now this is definitely not acceptable to Shaivites or Vaishnavites, so it is quite ok for the Vaishnavite to focus on devotion to Vishnu as the Vaisnavite scripture is certain on the Lord having the Personal aspect of Vishnu alone.

     

     

    I made this statement in the Hinduism forum regarding the advaitic/smartha viewpoint. Can the Vaishnavas clarify or correct regarding your position on the Personal aspect of Ishvara?

     

    I understand that all personalities are parts, etc. of the Supreme Person, so would guess that Shiva also becomes an aspect of Ishvara. But is it not true (as per Vaishnava sampradaya) that Ishvara possesses a definitive Personal aspect, unto Himself and independent of the devotees' seeking, and this corresponds to Vishnu/Narayana with Shanka chakra, etc.??

     

    It is not just that Vishnu is the 'preferred' or most revealing Personal aspect of Ishvara, but rather Vishnu is THE real Ishvara, who reveals Himself in other personal aspects like Shiva, Brahma, etc? Correct?


  18.  

    Well, thanks for your answer, but krishna states in Bhagavad Gita that a living entity does not do anything and all is done by the interactions between the three modes of material nature. Also, He further says that He is the one who controls the material nature. Then, how is it so that He is offended by some interaction between the three modes when He is not under the control of it (He is the one who controls it, right?)? Can you please tell me how krishna can be offended?

     

    all krishnaleela my friend:-)

     

    Krishna is never deluded and ever-aware of His play (or the play of prakrithi) ... but so long as we cannot spot Him, we will talk of offense and punishment for we have identified atma (or is that Krishna?) with the material-modes. Krishna can never be offended (ps. i don't really know Krishna:-) but if you play the part of Hiranyakasipu you know what happens next !! Call it punishment or Grace or just the fruits of actions.


  19.  

    Dear All

    Greetings. I'm a first year research student at the Study of Religions, SOAS working on the Gita-gudhartah-dipika of Madhusudana Sarasvati. In the introduction, verse no. 4 Madhusudana has termed the Vedas as tripartite having karma, upasana, and jnana kandas respectively and has mentioned the Gita too as having three kandas in 18 chapters accordingly. I've got a bit information that Sayanacarya in his Vedabhasya has also divided the Vedas into three parts and it has been a tradition to consider the Vedas as having three parts even before the advent of Sankara. Could you help me throw light on the question as to whether Sayana divided the Vedas into karma, upasana, and jnana kandas and Madhusudana has borrowed the idea from Sayana or it could be taken otherwise.

    With sincere regards

    Niranjan Saha

     

    Hi Niranjan, I am not scholarly enough to respond to this. You could try more Advaita oriented forums: in particular, there is a called "advaitin" under the category of Hinduism, and there is another email discussion list that you can access in advaita-vedanta.org. There you have scholars.

     

    advaitin/

    http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l


  20.  

    Dear Krishnaleela,

     

    If you are honestly researching this topic, it is important to not limit the research to the "neo linquistic" analysis.

     

    I merely presented the linguistics as a starting point. If I am not mistaken, India has many languages and dialects. Is Visnu worship limited to only those who worship Him with the "correct" pronounciation and dialect of His Holy Name?

     

     

    Dear HerServant, I was not at all researching this topic. In fact I was not and am not clear on your thesis based on such evidence. Only I found you posting such evidence and thought them worth questioning and I was identifying myself with your opponents: for one thing, you had perhaps "forgotten" to give this link with the previous post and people concluded it was from wikipedia and a lot of mental energy was wasted.

     

    Here is something you may like from one of my sampradaya gurus:

     

    http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap2.htm

     

    I had read this before and am not against it, in fact quite happy at the idea. Our origins may be (let me call it) the Vedic religion that was prevalent everywhere.

     

    But things add on and are developed over time. The world-religions of today obtain their identities through these developments. The same is true for the terms Vaishnava and Shaiva; they have specific connotations based on their development in India and not Africa or Jerusalem. This development includes proper interpretations of the Vedic religion and the Vedas; our acharyas have given many such on the basis of the same open scriptures and each has its place: ananda swami is pushing his evidence in one direction.

     

    I would fancy that every Muslim in India and Indonesia is really a Hindu since their ancestors belonged to Hinduism (or its offshoot Buddhism). But though one may trace the roots of their ancestry in their lives and customs, it may be blasphemy (and hazardous, to both religions) to brush aside the subsequent developments and their present identifications. The same goes for Jesus and Europe: yes, perhaps the Vedic religion was prevalent 10000 years back (that your evidence points out) but to say Jesus is a Vaishnava therefore is belittling too many other factors. If you wish to identify with the Vedic roots and to Vaishnavism (let's say as it survived/developed in India) while maintaining your Christian faith, I don't have a problem: if you want Jesus to join the bandwagon, that is not something these sort of evidences may prove. Such a strategem in argument is also suspicious enough of creating long-term confusion that I will probably oppose to be safe.

     

    Take off the Vaishnava link and say instead that Jesus also preached monotheism (or advaita if you wish) ultimately. That also is ok. But the use of an interconnection strategy with history, theology and philosophy to identify Jesus with Vaishnavism is mixing things in an undesirable manner and going deep into speculative lands.

     

    [Anycase I am off for a while.]


  21.  

    Then better not give any kinda crude conclusion....

     

    So, you think one shoould start following what these neo confused lingusits say , whose theories change over night than the realised sages...

     

     

    Sorry. There was already a plethora of such in this discussion, and your "don't trust wikipedia, i cud put my own things here" without considering the evidence presented seemed to be automatic run-out, making the rest of us look stupid. In that case, you should not have entered the discussion in the first place.

     

    The point is not whether I want to believe the neo-linguists and set the date for the Vedas and the place of origin for Sanskrit somewhere in Iran. I don't and your point is well taken here. My concern was that a certain piece of data is presented and a certain conclusion derived: to what extent can the conclusion be accepted supposing one were to entertain the evidence, i.e. what the wikipedia suggests about Hri in other cultures? The conclusion here is that Vishnu was likely known to Jesus and others and the evidence is that some variant of Hari was prevalent with similar meaning. I simply pointed out that conclusion is not necessary.

     

     

     

     

    Ignorance!!!!

     

     

    Again, you are mistaken about what I am saying. Not the exact truth of how it happened: I did not see any of it; rather if given that evidence of Hri being present everywhere but not along with the associated name of Vishnu/Shiva (as in India), what would be a more evidence-based conclusion to make (than what they are making at present), that's what I wanted to suggest.

     

    Of course, whether one should trust this sort of evidence, to what extent such may be manipulated to hint at a preferred conclusion, etc. we cannot tell and may choose to dismiss. But the forums are entertaining all such discussion, and not everyone can simply dismiss the suggestions.

     

     

    Thats the point what some people here trying to clear.. that Visnu was not followed in the Mlecha desha...

     

    And by the way Hari comes in the one of 24 names one chants during morning Achamana, which Brahmanas have been doing ever since ,, I MEAN EVER SINCE ....

     

    How do you intend to clear? By just stating "I MEAN EVER SINCE..." and expecting others to believe. That may not work with the people who are Wikipedia believers and whom you are fighting with. If we discuss with such people, we have to present our position and also where possible show why their analysis can be misleading.


  22.  

    The linguistics on Hari are decent, althought the malayalam business is more fishy. Suppose we accept that Hari was widely used. Whether the understanding of Hari is same with all who used that name, whether all who used that name knew of the established Vaishnava traditions in Bharata and to what detail are of course things for speculations.

     

    I am not an expert in this but it is worth noting. The linguistics people are trying to establish the prevalence of the root of Hari which I think is Hru or Hri in Sanskrit. That also is the root of Hara. The presence of this root-word does not necessarily indicate Vishnu as realized by Indian sages. The association of Hari with the Vishnu recognized by Vaishnavas and of Hara with the Shiva of the Shaivites might have come later and might be unique to India. In particular, the awareness of the word Hri may not indicate the same of Vishnu. (unless ofcourse the word Vishnu is also established being present in other parts of the world and as linked to Hri in its variant forms.)


  23.  

    Also, from this supposed 'reality' of an undesignated God and soul and the reality of our material existence dependent upon labels to distinguish paths and philosophies, this understanding would make many of the religions quite universal.

     

     

    Yes the central messages of many religions may be universal; the problem begins when they fancy that their labels and boxes are also universal, and all must enter their box.

     

     

    But when I hear statements from Hindus of 'all paths lead to God' 'Hinduism is the oldest religion on Earth' (for the assertion that old = original or best), or that 'all religions came from Sanaatana Dharma, Hinduism', it makes me think of how many Hindu souls' egos would float from such statements.

     

     

    True, but there are lots of factors behind this mentality. It has quite a bit of self-defense in the face of other world-religions proclaiming superiority in corresponding ways. Several theories regarding the Aryan-invasion, Christian influence on Hinduism, the backward nature of Hinduism, etc. were played decisively during the British rule to undermine Hinduism: we still suffer from such inferiority-complexes and blame ourselves and our religion with half-baked understanding. Those who want out of such try and cling their egos to these special features of the religion.

     

    To quote the Lord Macauley's address to the British Parliament Feb 2 1835:

     

    I have traveled across length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of high caliber, that I do not [think] we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage. Therefore I propose we replace the ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is Good and greater than their own, they will loose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

     

    By no small means has this fellow's statement proven prophetic !! But one wonders what he saw; somehow he saw the living Message behind the outer infrastructures (like varna, etc): he was able to sense that the religion worked and also how to damage its working.

    <!-- END MAIN APPLICATION CONTENT -->

     

     

     

    One could say that by this very definition, God is Hindu, because there is no straight definition of the religion, yet the many philosophical traditions seem to have very similar practices, beliefs and terminology. Only the theology and God-focus differs.

     

     

    Perhaps. As I said, the point is subtle and may not be amenable to a short or easy discussion; each Hindu can contemplate on it and come to their own conclusion, based on their experience.

     

     

    Although I wish I could hang out with other Vaishnavas who are part of Nimbarkacharya's (Nimbarki), Ramanujacharya's (Sri) and Vallabhacharya's (Pushtimargiya) congregations. The only association I have had is one who is a Nimbarki and another who was part of ISKCON and is now coming into Pushtimarg, both on Facebook. XD

     

     

    Yes definitely I would recommend. Perhaps you can try other forums. I am familiar with Sri Vaishnavas of Sri Ramanujacharya. If you are in Canada, there should be Vaishnava organizations and temples.

     

     

    Well, Shaivites, from what I know from Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami's books, is that Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita are Vaishnava Scriptures, and that the Tirumantiram should be read instead.

     

    I assumed the Shaiva Siddhanta Church had many branches, but I guess they only have one in Hawai'i. In any case, their literature and books and the distribution of them is amazing. I have great respect for their attempt to crystallise the essence of Shaiva Siddhanta sampradaya and to continue its existence. Just as ISKCON seems to be the main representative of Vaishnavism in the West, the Shaiva Siddhanta Church represents Shaivite Hinduism in the West as well.

     

     

    Yes, of course the Shaiva Siddhanta has strong holdings in South India and Sri Lanka. Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami established a center at Hawaii, philosophically with a greater leaning toward Advaita (although he rejects the total position) than the center in South India. But they trace their lineage back to times gone by and are part of the "Kailasa parampara". I guessed you meant this group since you said "Church"; they specifically want to bring in such an organization-principle to establish the "organized world-religion" position for Hinduism. That's fine, all relevant in the right context.

     

    It is interesting that the Guru was initially associated with the Smarthas (liberal Hindus), in particular with the Vedanta group from Ramakrishna mission. Later he rejected them, as well as the projection of the Bhagavad Gita as the Bible of Hinduism, which he saw as a preaching of violence. He went to Sri Lanka and became a staunch Shaivite. His take on the Gita also shows how Hinduism can defy the intellectual grasp, especially for those coming from other cultures. One must look to the history of the people to see how the Message permeated the lives.

×
×
  • Create New...