krishnaleela

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. Each place builds from the rudiments, in accordance with their understanding. That makes the difference, even in India between advaitins and dvaitins; are advaitins also Vaishnavas (in the preferred sense) for knowing of Vishnu? You will find lots of arguments saying Jesus was really an advaitin (not Vaishnava, but Smartha:-) in final interpretations; then we can fight over them as well. Adam and Eve might have come from Atman and Jiva; some relations yes can be attached if desired, but their usage in the two religions differ considerably. As I said before, there could have been influence of thought at a preliminary level; whether we can conclude on how much Jesus or Christianity imbibed Vaishnava/Advaita thought and whether that is sufficient to label Jesus a Vaishnava or Smartha will remain for speculation. (I personally don't mind thinking of Jesus as a Son of Advaita !!! but am not going to argue. I agree that Vaishnava/Smartha has more connotations than has been presented as sufficient to call Jesus either. The term is being used more liberally in order to embrace Jesus, it seems.) PS who rates these threads, the admin or do members have a role? I noticed a "Reputation" button; related?

It may be true God has no religion, nationality or sex. It may also be true for the individual soul. In practice however, the person comes with such baggage, so the equation and its parameters must be relevant at that level, so that we can get out of that level. Theoretically speaking, when we say "Hindu", it is not to demean another religion but to identify our religious position, family and community. When Sri Prabhupada says "Hindu while preaching", it is not simply to pander to people's ignorance but to validate the word at its proper level of discussion; we cannot belittle the usage. When he rejects "Hindu", the connotation is different: there it is a rejection of the "superiority" mentality that can come with such identification. If I am asked "Who are you?", I might say "I am krishnaleela [my name]", not "I have no name, I am only the atma, etc,". Yes, practically speaking, I would guess your reasons are correct, and more precise. But then, I don't have to agree with Sri Prabhupada on everything. That is why the thread was started in the first place, because if we take up a standard objective definition like you have hinted, then the word Hindu can be dealt with without the ego-level connotations. As for Hinduism and 'India', they are inseparable. India is the birthplace of the religion, and is similar to Hindus as Jerusalem for the Jews and Mecca for the Muslims. But one does not have to be Indian (as per today's criterions) to identify oneself as Hindu; the reference is to the principles followed rather than to the birth-land or residence. Yes, of course it preaches, especially today. The world is much smaller. You are right also that the Hindu in general is not actively seeking converts from other religions, but there is the internal tradition of vada between schools of thought. But such an aspect is not a definition of "Hindu": Lord Chaitanya is a great Bhaktha and for the majority of Hindus, Bhakthi is understood as central. He was calling for all to sing the name of the Lord, more than to profess a certain dvaitha faith and beat down on mayavadis. Hindus identify with him directly and of course to Sri Krishna. There is no "fringe" with Sri Chaitanya; only sampradaya differences. Yes, this is something subtle. That is why I said the definition is relevant only in the right context. In the world-religion setting, it is important to present the fundamentals, give that top-down picture, so that others can relate to it. But if the Hindus just pander to such idea, they might be selling themselves out, creating an image that does not fit the grander nature of their religion. Recall the ideal comes from "God has no religion or nationality", God also sees your heart more than your construction creed and formula. Wicca is perhaps idealizing such a position; I don't care to beat them down. BUT the Hinduism is a living example of that ideal brought forth in religious lives of the millions. We cannot comprehend how all it works, for if we try, we start writing formulas and messing up. Just observe and know the grandeur. The urbaner is lost to the meaning and running for easy definitions; the person outside wants to belittle it and call the Whole as a sum of basically-independent parts. And in our ignorance, we want to preach, correct and make all fit the box-mentality we have entered. We have to consider this aspect carefully. This is true for most Hindus who adhere to a fixed sampradaya. But we tend not to find such Hindus who adhere!! That is a different matter. I suppose you are referring to the one in Hawaii. I have great respect for them and their position with regard to Hindu unity. See, the position of Hinduism as a world religion requires this sort of boxing, and in that context, we have to join hands even as we present our different final viewpoints and ways of worship. Our main traditions began in one land, are co-related, have primary scripture as Vedas, and so on. Krishna is God-incarnate for dvaitins and advaitins alike. And there are all the subtleties of Hinduism that relate us and cannot be brushed aside. The Shaiva Siddhanta Church (at least its founder) in Hawaii is not particularly admiring of the Bhagavad Gita, and as the connotation "liberal Hindus" show, not of that group as well. Let that be: I fall in that group (!!) and don't agree with all they say, but my focus like theirs is the Whole. It does not matter that they differ from me, so long as in the context of world-religions, there is that Hindu solidarity. I used to argue in these forums against people of other sampradayas; all fun, but now it has become a pain to do any such for the central Hindu-unity is lacking across the forums. So that is the only thing I care about.

Hi madanbhaktha, as I said the context of the definition is important. I was afraid my proposed "objective" definition was too academic to include the majority who are also to be included as Hindus, so sought to clarify. Yes, Hinduism can be taken as a world religion and approached in the sense that you and most others in urban settings (including myself) do. I am also happy on your position of being Vaishnava-Hindu. But the nature of the development of "Hinduism" is not entirely top-down. The sampradaya for most is local-tradition of worship, passed down the generations in family or village setting. And each person has a unique way of connecting to that Divine-behind-Existence. We have to see the tree in each such flower. It is different with linearly-organized religions where every member attests to a common formula, a scripture, a founder, a personality, a God. When I said "world religion", I meant it in the context of such organization (not the particular Indian nationality), which is not an inherent feature of Hinduism. Yes, we have sampradayas and scriptures, but that is but one aspect of Hinduism and its continuing evolution. The Hindu may not know the Vedas but may not be deprived or ignorant: that person's life may be in consonance with the Vedic message "All existence is Divine. Learn to see that Divinity everywhere"; that is how the message has permeated the people. (We have to resist the temptation of grading our religion with the gradesheet of other religions).

The concept of "I am Hindu" is relevant (and important) in the world-context and in urban contexts. The typical "objective definition" given above is relevant for those who are seeking religion in a methodical manner. It is also important in having that sense of religious-identity when confronted with organized religions from outside India. Sampradayas also serve to preserve the Vedic culture under assaults from those alien to it. However this approach of giving definitions, establishing sampradayas, etc. is quite contrary to the "essence of the religion/culture" as has been imbibed in the indigenous societies of India, as may be evidenced in its villages. Religion truly is intangible "way of life" there and represents the ideal, in many an uncorrupted and undiluted sense. [Remember: The concept of "Hindu" originated as a label from Moghuls and was further imprinted among urban Indians through the British.] So these literate attempts to define "Hindu" etc must be understood in the right context. Otherwise they become much too narrow and irrelevant to the majority who live that culture and ideal, without formal claims to a world-religion.

A small point on "I am Hindu". (or "I am not Hindu") We say "I am Hindu" subjectively. But do we think why? For a neutral person to decide whether a person is Hindu, some objective definition must be there. A typical objective definition comes from allegiance to a Scripture (Vedas) and (intended) adherence to a sampradya or path that guides the individual to fulfillment of the purpose (with regard to the individual) of the Vedas (i.e. our God-realization, etc). Each specific sampradaya has a particular way of interpreting the Vedas, usually with the help of other scriptures (Bhagavatham, Gita, Brahma Sutras, etc) that accept the Vedas. For instance, take the Vedic statement: Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadanthi [One Truth/Reality Sages in many ways speak of] Now the Ramakrishna mission interprets this in a broad sense and says all established religions [the many ways] show that sages from them have attained highest realization. ISKCON (if asked for) may have its own interpretation. But neither will reject the Vedic statement as false. So if the question of Hindu comes up, we will have to say objectively that both satisfy the basic criterions but belong to different sampradayas. Now if a person adheres to the Vedic life and ideals, to the scriptures that stand by the Vedas, follows a sampradaya with parampara, and still says: "I am not Hindu. I am a Vedantin" or "I am not Hindu. I am following Krishna-Consciousness", then that person wants another objective definition for being Hindu, and from there they choose to alienate themselves from the religion. For instance, I read a Ramakrishna Western (Vedanta) devotee write that the Hindu is the 'Indian Vedantin' and therefore she does not consider herself Hindu. Such a definition seems very contrived (although she quoted from Vivekananda) to suit the end-purpose, but if it works..... But by another definition, she may be very much a Hindu. So even the objective becomes subjective. Well, atleast know one before you proclaim yourself either way, and the neutral person can decide on the basis of such available definitions.

<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> The coincidence in name (Heliodorus) is the primary connection: that impels us to make the further connections.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> My last post gave some secondary reasons why I might consider the connections as possible historically. Such reasons if beneficial will impel acceptance of such connections and to make new ones upon the least suggestion. They serve the individual who accepts but can also create a false sense of confidence in theories-without-proofs and confusion in others. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The biblical story in itself is a coincidence only by a stretch of imagination. "Two glorious youthful men and a serious man on a horse" = "krishna, baladeva and kalki", and "temple in Jerusalem" = "Vishnu temple" are speculations of a higher order.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The Heliodorus column in India gives most likely evidence of what he imbibed in India. The direct mention of Vasudeva and Garuda (if we trust the websites) indicate Vaishnavism as prevalent in India.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Is there evidence of specific mention of Vishnu, Krishna, Kalki, etc in archaelogy of the West in connection with Heliodorus? He certainly seems to know the names, not just sketches of "youthful glorious" etc. Matarisvan had also asked this specifically -- its important.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The timeline difference mentioned in last post of Kulapavana: is that easily dismissible?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The king Antialkidas of the Column does not match the king Seleocus of the bible. Should we assume that they are the same, or speculate that the same Heliodorus was ambassador to both?<o:p></o:p>

The Vedic religion predates Christianity, bible, etc. and had a large area of influence. The Hindus believe the same with regard to Krishna's advent. Mahabharatha mentions places in Afghanistan, etc. Vedic religion/scriptures/stories could have travelled and influenced the developments of Christianity and the Bible. Several things were possibly borrowed from us. End result after all the stitching together and independent additions: Christianity.

Hi Kulapavana, other Hindus, etc. please read that article in HerServant's link carefully. Its purpose, etc is very much in our favour and written exactly to counter this nonsense. The guy was a Greek ambassador who erected the column in Beshanagar India. Nothing "biblical" to the column. Quote: "while Megasthenes had only written about Krishna and Vaisnavism, Heliodorus had found them so attractive that he had adopted the practice of Vaisnavism for his own spiritual advancement!" Anyway read the article completely. Good work.

Prabhupada was likely speaking out of frustration. We need not dissect his words said in general lectures or conversations and make them the cornerstones of his personality. Saintly people can take breaks and indulge in their groups at a lower level of push and shove, which may translate as slighting other groups. The Vaishnava sampradaya believes in a one-pointed approach and feels that a more embracing viewpoint can dilute the devotees' pursuit of Satya. "Nishta" to one's own ideal; unfortunately that often degenerates to abuse of other approaches in order to feel secure in one's own. One way the Hindu avoids fanaticism in the face of differences is to give accomodation for the other party and accept that their path will ultimately lead to our conclusion in understanding. The other's path is not invalid but rather incomplete. [The followers of Sri ramakrishna (and general Hindu viewpoint) will not even allow this much : they will say for example that the other person also has the same realization of Truth, only the expression differs according to the standpoint taken.] If we read Prabhupada's intro to his BG commentary, we see that this is how he accomodates the advaita viewpoint. The impersonal Brahman, according to him, is not the final aspect; it is like a glow of the Personal -- so the advaitin stops midway and will have to return to Krishna Consciousness (in Vaishnava sense) to "go all the way". Prabhupada also does not condemn Shankaracharya and considers him among the "great acharyas", and the Iskcon viewpoint gives Shankara a legitimate position as divine incarnation of Shiva for a specific purpose (of dealing with atheists/buddhists). In fact, he repeatedly points out that Shankara also holds Krishna as supreme personality and thereby tries level best to accomodate the acharya. Of course, ultimately he does not agree with advaitic position of Shankara and is more severe upon the later advaitins (i.e. mayavadis:-)) who, according to him, did more damage. This "more damage" to the Vedic position on Truth and the Vedic culture has (if I am to guess Prabhupada) led to an irrepairable degeneration among the Hindus from the Vedic ideals. He recognizes in the BG intro that the Hindu considers the Vedas infallible; hence in essence and principle he is one with us. However in practice, the general Hindu community hardly represents the Vedic life and has become a mix of "accept anything and everything under a blanket of philosophy". [but really to mention here, our subordination under Moghuls and British has a lot to do with present state.] Hence the frustration and occasional lashing out at others and apparent separating himself from the Hindus. To go back to the Vedic past, we, who are caught in today's modernisms, know is a tremendous task. We die before putting on the least of our religious symbols/dresses on our bodies. But when we see ISKCON doing it, we feel proud and think "ah, real Hindus", exactly so, until we find their views regarding us !! The point is: in order to get this march back to the Vedas (and hence to Krishna), Prabhupada had to commit ISKCON to the military one-pointed unyielding approach, in order to survive this modern world. We have to look for the positives of this movement and seek to learn: It is a Hindu group representing the Vedic ideals. Let's not get caught in the uncomprehending slogans coming from the "later ISKCONians".

there is dhaa. The word you refer to is not to the personality, but the Principle that shines forth through that personality, has shined forth through other such and which potency is in each and every one of us (if it is in the person of Jesus). The perfection you attribute to the name of Jesus is not to the particular personality (that you accept from the Bible-purana) but to the Principle of Perfection that is being glorified in that person. To the sishya, the Guru is God-incarnate, and the word "Personally" with which you begin is apt. The Hindu accepts all such so long as that word is understood and the worshipper does not lose the Principle to the person.

I am not sure you are looking for my answer; I am not officially a vaishnava. Our interpretations of "love for Krishna" may differ. Any case, I do find that happiness (as I understand). It is not quite the happiness of sense enjoyment; it is the happiness of peace, contentment, of not needing more. That comes (for me) when I can recognize Krishna as both doer and enjoyer (whenever the mind recognizes the doing and enjoying) and the notion of "i" is lost in that recognition. i.e. even that becomes His play. To be precise, not only "i" but also world and other souls etc. All that is experienced is 'understood' as the appearance of Krishna, and He alone is the Reality who thus appears. If the state of witness of the Lord is attained, then there is contentment/happiness. That is the state of surrender of the mind/self: His Presence alone remains. Not that it is perfect, and the mind brings up the ego-consciousness. But it is a thing for sadhana (practice). Ofcourse, you may contend all this, and some may call it mayavada etc. But in truth, when the ego-consciousness is there, the personal relationship with Krishna/Ishvara is stressed in one way or another. However in that as well, I find happiness in thinking of all else as His manifestation, etc: in that sense, I have His darshana wherever I see and think of Him in everything. It can get tricky however if I want to be individual soul but not allow for others as well. So in this path, this is not the final state of happiness; it philosophically may create troubles. But then again, it is a thing for sadhana. The Vaishnava approach does not encounter such a mid-point problem, since the dualistic philosophy is accepted as the end unto itself. And you have to accept the scriptures and saints of your sampradaya, and go further. I have given the advaita viewpoint and my encounters with happiness and inner understanding that that Happiness is Truth.

Now I should: Check out: http://atmajyoti.org/spirwrit-christianity.asp

Yes there are some convincing arguments that Jesus (if a real personality) could have been in India. The more important point (even if Jesus is rejected as mythical) is that there is a very good possibility that the development of Chrisitanity and its higher spirituality/mysticism as found in the Catholic or Orthodox churches may have its roots in Hinduism. There was also an important school of Christianity known as Gnosticism (note: Gno ~ gnya for gnyana) which resembled our philosophies to a great extent and which was apparently suppressed away as the cultish tendencies became strong. We need not fear this connection. We can embrace it, but we must know that our religion is complete unto itself. If these religions don't advertise themselves, the Hindus are not going to care one way or other. Since they are so keen on talking Jesus to those who don't care to hear, let us be aware that the saner points of Christianity are well within Hinduism and at best, they are the byproducts of Hindu/Indian influence. Yes, the ignorant can be duped; but let us not be ignorant of our religion, that's all !! PS. for fun, "Jesus" came from "Isha" "Adam and Eve" came from "Atman and Jiva" The opening five verses in the Gospel of John exhibit direct influence from Upanishadic/Vedic thought. For instance, from a nice website on this topic (which I can't quote here due to low post-count): An Indian Christian scholar once sent me a detailed article; it contained the following for starters.

Vikramji, your point is well-taken but we are dealing with those of Christian background leaning towards Hinduism; only they can't accept that wholeheartedly. So they create the divisions and draw lines of demarcations to take what they want in a 'cleansed' manner, or claim the good-part is really their religion in essence. Hinduism has survived millenia of such 'divide-and-conquer' abuse; don't waste too much time arguing.

You may have your subjective affiliations and decision whether to call yourself Hindu or not. But your title makes an objective statement "Devotees of Krishna are NOT 'Hindu'". It requires a proper definition for being "Hindu", something more definite than "that group with all sorts of deities, crazy worshippers, etc". I suggested one common: a person who accepts the authority of the Vedas as Scripture is a Hindu. Different sampradayas interpret the Vedas differently from the ultimate philosophical standpoint and may supplement with other scriptures, according to their approach to God. So far as the Hindu is concerned, if the devotee of Krishna or Shiva accepts the Vedas, then that devotee is a Hindu as well. If they reject outright the authority of the Vedas, then that devotee is not a Hindu in this formal sense. Of course there may also be room for broader interpretations. Your sentence on those who worship for the sake of material wealth is short-sighted. Hinduism gives room for such desires but the idea is that from lower one moves to higher. The ultimate End is stressed in all sampradayas. For a farmer needing to feed his family, the desire for good crops is inevitable; so may that desire also become the vehicle for worship. "As rivers to the ocean, so do your worships to deities reach Kesava ultimately." Your last sentence gives the ultimate goal from Vaishnava standpoint; well within Hinduism. Anyway, I have lost interest in arguing on this topic.

Actually, it is not only ISKCON that tries to dissociate itself from the label of "Hinduism" in the West. If you see other institutions rooted in the Vedic scriptures but attempting to propogate in foreign countries, the same tendency is there. Examples include the Ramakrishna Mission and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's Art of Living Foundation. Don't forget they are trying to preach a universal philosophy of "Vedanta" to audiences primarily Christian. And a "universal" philosophy can stand without emphasis of time, place and origin, for only God is the center. But whether said or not, the roots are the same Vedas to which adhere the other traditions of India and united among themselves as "Hindus" or the followers of Sanatana dharma. As I said in the other thread, this unity-in-name is in regard to a world of non-Vedic religions. Such a name was not considered necessary to those who established the various sampradayas, for their affinities in the scriptural sources and social cultures was itself the uniting factor. We did not have to further label ourselves "Hindus"; today's story is different with religions like Islam and Christianity and a world of non-Vedic traditions. Choose your name but know the family.

Ok. This is a different point and a different discussion. By Hinduism, I mean "sanatana dharma". But we use Hinduism word in general, when we want to identify ourselves among other religions. It is a label; if you prefer the more Vedic one, that is fine. But the spirit must not be lost for the word; similarly the "devotees of krishna" should allow for other words like kali, in order to fall within the sanatana dharma. I would prefer "Sanatana Dharma" before "devotees of krsna" especially when dealing with other religions: the first by definition is universal. The second is more descriptive of what exactly is "sanatana dharma" and expressed in accordance to a particular sampradaya. "Hinduism" includes a great many traditions that are rooted in that "Krsna Consciousness", so those who seek to identify with "Krsna Consciousness" bear the responsibility of not limiting from withdrawal into sectarianism. As one's path, it is ok; not as goal: that is the spirit of the religion. Now to add: what is common among our tradtions? It is the essential scriptures. The Vedas are universally accepted. Besides that, others like the Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatham, the puranas, ithihasas, agamas, etc are accepted by various subtraditions. While our interpretations vary, the source is same and within the Indian context, there will be much similarities in practices as well. The traditions are sisters to each other, not same and yet with same Source(s) and corresponding closely with each other in their developments. Thus that family that adheres to the Vedas is the "religion without a name", the sanatana dharma. Later upon the advent of other foreign faiths, we had to identify ourselves and took upon the name given by them, as you said. You can drop the name, but don't kick away at the family, please.

Ok. This is a different point and a different discussion. By Hinduism, I mean "sanatana dharma". But we use Hinduism word in general, when we want to identify ourselves among other religions. It is a label; if you prefer the more Vedic one, that is fine. But the spirit must not be lost for the word; similarly the "devotees of krishna" should allow for other words like kali, in order to fall within the sanatana dharma. I would prefer "Sanatana Dharma" before "devotees of krsna" especially when dealing with other religions: the first by definition is universal. The second is more descriptive of what exactly is "sanatana dharma" and expressed in accordance to a particular sampradaya. "Hinduism" includes a great many traditions that are rooted in that "Krsna Consciousness", so those who seek to identify with "Krsna Consciousness" bear the responsibility of not limiting from withdrawal into sectarianism. As one's path, it is ok; not as goal: that is the spirit of the religion.

Many paths to the same Goal: that is the consciousness of Hinduism. The consciousness of Hinduism is therefore universal and acceptant of traditions that fall outside of the Indian subcontinent. The definition of Goal will depend according the path followed, but It will remain what it Is and will guide the sincere seeker. This "sincere seeking" is Love and Bhathi. There are many ways of expressing this Bhakthi and understanding through intellect the object of that Love. If this fact is properly understood, then "krsna consciousness" is the consciousness of Hinduism. Hinduism does not preach that this consciousness is limited to Hindu traditions. Our sages repeatedly point to great seers of other traditions as exemplifying the same. Whether the other religions have exemplified this consciousness to such an extent as Hinduism is a different historical question, and Hinduism need not apologize in this regard, for their sake. (PS. I wonder if JayaMahaDevi is familiar with Sri Ramakrishna, a worshipper of the Mother and absolutely "krsna/kali conscious".)

If there was one, there have been many, there are many and there will be many. Give up this "one and only" business. Here you are talking sense. Follow your religion; it is great unto itself. Notice you did NOT say here: trying to be a Catholic by believing Jesus is the one and only saviour for all humanity.

Yep. All genuine bhakthi mood and good people and all that. But lets not confuse the inner worth of Jesus's sermon on the mount with the ridiculous institutionalization under his name. The colonial history of abuse is rooted in the macrodoctrines of these superiority-preaching world-advising abrahamic cults.

Yes I am happy being Hindu. Unbelievable inner strength and a search for truth that keeps revealing. Tremendous asset: religion is 'pluralistic', can accept different approaches to God/Truth. Even where there is difference, there is never condemnation, except in resistance of those who condemn. Challenges: We must retain our traditions and diversities in a positive manner. We must learn to accomodate for different viewpoints on key issues like varnaashrama dharma, vegetarianism, etc: not "this is the only view, and I will prove it by quoting this scripture". In secondary social things, the religion evolves and is not bound to one scripture. This religion looks to the saints of each era for guidance. The primary philosophical base comes from the Upanishads (part of the Vedas). That source is the constant of Hinduism. Different subgroups interpret differently and may also have some other scriptures to which they adhere.

My understanding of physics goes only to a certain extent. "Conventional existence": the convention relates to human experience from which perspective space and time are taken as a natural framework. "convention" is the framework. Is space needed as a framework for the observation of patterns, or is space a consequence implicated after the separate observation of patterns? "time is needed to allow for ..." Time seems a convention used by us who observe change to describe the observed process of change. It is not an entity unto itself, although in different relative reference frames, the change is observed in different manners, hence a different convention seems appropriate in accordance with the reference frame.

Namaste Transcix, Can you please properly define "time" as you are using it? For instance, your statement that eternity is inconceivable in time-bound conventional existence is confusing in the following sense. If time (change?)is conceived, then it can easily point to eternity. An absolute cessation of time/change ( which may be indicative of Nothing as a "Source" of time/space, etc.) is perhaps what is inconceivable within the time-bound framework. That is why most cannot conceive of time ending or beginning. (I see that you later distinguish an eternity for time/space and a "timeless" eternity which again prompts a clarification of what you mean by time.) It seems quite rational in the light of modern science to suggest a beginning and/or end of time/space, and your arguments follow this line as if they are given facts. They may be heavy presumptions at some basic level yet unknown to modern science, and a solid philosophy can hold to but not depend exclusively on such presumptions. A fundamental "dependence" on unknowns (such as Personal Divine) is often a charge levelled against the Dvaita schools, and you who are asserting an impersonal Divine must justify to the readers that "your" version is not another such (before you can rationalize about why the Ultimate is not Personal). (State for interested readers as to what may be called presumptions on your part: ideas for which your source or basis is "this" or "that". For instance, "time and space" is a cyclical process (basis?); it is possible to have a beginning and no end (going to infinity?) for a "cyclical" process. Time and space "emanated" from Nothing; again treatment of time and space as almost physical entities: can we better understand your ideas that "What IS" is characterized by change and non-change states, the change automatically implicating time and space, and the non-change implicating the lack thereof.) I have not read the whole thing, and you may answer or point to readers where in your essay the answers to such questions are. Hopefully that may get knowledgable readers to bring forth other points. Thanks.

Ok. Know the scriptures. But what are people's opinion on this? Should we try to wear traditional hindu dress like sarees and dhothi, in public in cities in India and abroad? What about forehead marks, etc? Most Hindus have given up all that cultural aspect and look Western/Christian in these things? Does this matter? Should we try and change back?