krishnaleela

Dont trust wikepdia anyways,, I cn put my own things in here...

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?

Haribol, krishnaleela!

 

Although I take both siksha learning from Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, and slowly and most elegantly from Srila Sridhar Maharaj, I try to make myself aware that Srila Prabhupada essentially wanted all peoples from different religions to take up some form of bhakti practice, and in my limited and biased perspective, although he did use 'Hindu' at times to people when preaching, he proclaimed that his teachings were not Hindu because God has no religion.

 

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,".

I believe that he wanted this distinction because, in my limited understanding, a) Hindoo referred to those who were born in India or have Indian ethnicity, and thus a term latent of geographical and regional bias, and b) he could also have been referring to the so-called 'liberal Hinduism' as well as their worship of the 'demigods' save Vishnu/Krishna. Most other Gaudiya Vaishnavites outside ISKCON have no real problem of using 'Hindu' as long as the term is defined objectively, as according to belief in the Vedas.

 

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.

At times, with certain people, I usually just say that Gaudiya philosophy is on the 'fringe' of Hindu Dharma, simply because Lord Chaitanya Himself, unlike most of the 'Hindu' sampradayas, called for active preaching. But then again, although people say that Hinduism doesn't preach, I believe it does in a subtle way. Travelling swamis do not travel for nothing!

 

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.

And I do agree that the term 'Hindu' can largely ignore the more cultural and regional subtleties of religious practice. But at the same time, Wicca, a Neo-Pagan religion, proclaims itself as a religion with no constructed creed or central cult creed, object, formula, etc.

 

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.

I do like how Hinduism is a living tradition, or at least Chaitanya Vaishnavism, for the beliefs are carried on through the guru and their writings. The Guru-shastras are almost as good as the Vedas themselves!

 

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 have often wondered whether one should even separate the supposed 'denominations' of Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, and liberal Hinduism or not. I am aware that the Shaiva Siddhanta Church, although their material is largely Shaivite, likes to include the 'denominations' whilst ISKCON, a large and preaching Gaudiya organisation, rejects bunching them together.

 

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.

Forgive my naivetes, but although I am not even initiated under a guru, I still call myself a Hindu because of my practices. I practice Hare Krishna mantra-yoga via japa, puja time to time, darshana, read the Scriptures of Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-Gita and guru-shastras, and of course, believe ultimately in the Supremacy and authority of the Vedas.

 

I believe in Gaudiya Vedanta, and thus part of the Gaudiya Sampradaya of Vaishnavism. I am a Vaishnavite Hindu. I dislike the name 'Hare Krishna' because it is too ISKCON-specific; the Gaudiya tradition is by far large and each organisation, matha and temple seem to even have a different bhava.

 

Actually, I loathe the name 'Hare Krishna' as a name of what I follow. It is too specific to ISKCON, and I prefer to be called Gaudiya, (Chaitanya/Gaudiya) Vaishnavite, or Hindu, or a mixture of the three. But I refuse to be called or be known by the name 'Hare Krishna'. That is our mantra, not our philosophy (Acintya-bheda-abheda, Gaudiya Vedanta).

 

As Hinduism is becoming a world religion and is being more and more open to Westerners, it has ceased to be associated with Indian peoples (the 'Hindoos') and describes those who follow the Vedas and Sanaatana Dharma. The belief in their authoritativeness is more important than their interpretations. Many Hindus themselves claim that Hinduism is the Mother Religion and the origin of all religions.

 

And of course, the Shaiva Siddhanta Church uses 'Hinduism' frequently to mask their strong Shaivite orientation (and indeed, I was sorely disappointed that their magazine, under the assumption that it would have allowed Shaktas, Vaishnavites, and 'liberal Hindus,' was totally Shaiva Dharma). Why can't Gaudiya Vaishnavites do similarily?

 

As much as the Shaiva, Vaishnava, Smarta and Shakta paramparas (and 'liberal Hindus, if you want to count them) are constantly changing social contexts yet adhering to traditional beliefs, the word 'Hinduism' constantly changes along. As par BG 18:66, labels are still inevitable due to being an intrinsic part of maya-shakti in this short lifespan. I just try not to be so attached to them, for with attachment comes the ceasing of pure servitude, surrender and loving devotion without arguing over proper apellations.

 

Therefore, I am a Filipino Hindu, and I am proud to be so. However, I am a Gaudiya Vedantin, rejecting the Adwaita philosophy that is so seemingly popular nowadays with the liberal, almagation-of-Shaivite-and-Vaishnavite-pantheons temples.

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.

I think the Heliodorus connection in the Bible is interesting. Some on the thread do not.

I think it is way too much of a coincindence that Heliodorus of the bible is told by God (appearing as two glorious youthful men) to proclaim his glories everywhere.

The coincidence in name (Heliodorus) is the primary connection: that impels us to make the further connections.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The timeline difference mentioned in last post of Kulapavana: is that easily dismissible?

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?

Even if we assume that both Heliodorus were the same how does it show evidence of Vishnu in the Bible? HerServant ducked that question and is continuing with more meaningless posts....until Kalki will arive to put an end to this pseudo christian vaishnavism.

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.

AHAHAH! indeed...

 

 

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.

how a practitioner of any religion for decades like Prabhupada can disrespect anyone, moreso clueless how he can consciously choose to spend his time to disrespect another holy person. This behavior isn't holy or religious. Bottom line its not Vaishnavism. He accomplished many great things but this duplicitious behavior of his is rather peculiar.

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".

Personally I believe ... What else is there save Jesus?

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.

Dear Devotees,

 

Are you happy?

 

I don't mean happiness that depends on a certain fulfillment or object, but happiness that comes from within, happiness that comes with an increasing love for Krishna. Obviously, only this type of happiness can be proof that our bhakti for Krishna is genuine. That's why I am asking whether any devotee actually feels that strange kind of happiness, happiness born of love of God, happiness that has no cause.

 

Serious and honest answers only, please. Let's discuss this.

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.

For instance, from a nice website on this topic (which I can't quote here due to low post-count).

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):

the opening verse of the Gospel of John, which has been cited through the centuries as proof of the unique character and mission of Jesus, is really a paraphrase of the Vedic verse: "In the beginning was Prajapati, with Him was the Word, and the Word was truly the Supreme Brahman."

 

An Indian Christian scholar once sent me a detailed article; it contained the following for starters.

The Development of Early Christianity

Christianity in its early days was a product of the time and circumstance in which it was born and nurtured. It is the commonly held view of scholars that despite its Jewish flavor, Christianity was considerably influenced by both Hinduism and Buddhism in many aspects of its core teachings. Based on study and historical evidence, scholars maintain that a constant flow of communication existed in terms of trade and knowledge between the Mediterranean and the East, especially India, as far back as several centuries before Christ.

The meeting place of East and West, according to many historical studies, was Alexandria in Egypt, where commerce and learning were freely exchanged. Many ancient philosophers such as Pythagoras, Plato, and Plotinus, among others, are believed to have been influenced by Indian insights. Pythagoras traveled to India where he studied the philosophy of Kapila, according to historical evidence. Kapila, an ancient sage and author of the Sankhya philosophy, is considered the Father of philosophy. Pythagoras took his learning to the Alexandrian circle from which it spread gradually to the West through Plato, Plotinus, and others.

Plato is also believed to have been considerably influenced by Indian thought. Plato’s philosophic views have a great deal in common with Indian philosophic thought, as we shall see later in the discussion of Plato. In a famous work titled Life After Life, Dr. Raymond A. Moody writes: “Plato admits that he derived some of his insights partly from the religious mysticism of the East.” Dr. Moody continues: “The ideas of Greek philosophy, in turn, influenced certain New Testament writers, and so it could be argued that Paul’s discussion of the spiritual body has some of its roots in Plato.”

A.L.. Basham, a twentieth-century Oxford scholar, observes:

We can only say that there was always some contact between the Hellenic World and India, mediated first by the Achaemenid empire, then by that of Seleucids, and finally, under the Romans, by the traders of the Indian ocean. Christianity began to spread at the time when this contact was closest. We know that Indian ascetics occasionally visited the West, and that there was a colony of Indian merchants at Alexandria. The possibility of Indian influence on Neo-Platonism and early Christianity cannot be ruled out.

Upon close scrutiny of the synoptic Gospels and the life and teachings of Buddha, one cannot help but notice many striking resemblances between the teachings of the two masters—in addition to the similarities of stories surrounding their births. Many of the parables used in the Gospels are also found in Buddhist texts. Commenting upon the chronology of these occurrences, Professor Max Muller observes: “In these cases, our natural inclination would be to suppose that the Buddhist stories were borrowed from our Christian sources and not vice versa. But here the conscience of the scholar comes in. Some of these stories are found in the Hinayana Buddhist Canon and date, therefore, before the Christian era.”

 

It is natural to suppose that ideas traveled from the older to the younger system, although we cannot establish this with certainty. “The facts of religious origin and growth,” writes Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, “are most important though most uncertain, and one’s views can be stated only with great reserve. Most probably Indian religious ideas and legends were well known in the circles in which the accounts of the Gospels originated.”

What makes the Indian influence on early Christianity the stronger possibility is the fact that there are many elements in its doctrines which are obviously not of Palestinian origin. Again to quote Dr. Radhakrishnan,

Jesus, as we have seen, enlarges and transforms the Jewish conceptions in the light of His own personal experience. In this process He was helped considerably by His religious environment, which included Indian influences, as the tenets of the Essenes and the Book of Enoch show. In His teaching of the Kingdom of God, life eternal, ascetic emphasis, and even future life, He breaks away from the Jewish tradition and approximates Hindu and Buddhist thought.

These Indian insights showed up in a more pronounced form in the teachings of early Christianity.

Over the years of its long development, Christianity has assumed a Western spin, so to speak, on account of its close affiliation with Greco-Roman culture. Christianity, as we know it today, is no longer the simple teaching given to the simple folks on the green pastures of Palestine; it is rather a distorted set of teachings which Christ himself would find it hard to recognize, let alone Nietzche, Dostoevsky, or Emerson. Today’s Christianity is historical, authoritarian, and dogmatic at the expense of principles. In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion. As it appears to us, and as it has appeared for ages, it is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal, the positive, the ritual. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the ‘person’ of Jesus.”

In contrast to this, as Christianity was taking root, there were a wide range of divergent religious thoughts flourishing in Alexandrian circles. The essential elements of all these religious thoughts are believed to have come from the East. Not surprisingly, mysticism was the common denominator running through all forms of Alexandrian religious thought. One of the major forms of thought which subsequently exerted enormous influence upon the views and teachings of early Christianity is known as Gnosticism. Let us, therefore, briefly consider the history and teachings of Gnosticism.

 

Well, I could ask you the same question. This forum is about Hinduism, with an acknowledged predominantly Vaishnava leaning. There is no purpose, at the end of the day, for talks on Christ or Christianity to take place here.

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.

For nearly 40 years of being a devotee of Krishna, never onece did I see myself as Hindu. How can you dissociate yourself with something you never identified in the first place. I only made the comment I do not like the word Hindu because to me it is a pandorers box of every sadu, swami, guru woshiping the demigods for material gain or for a better next life, for a wife, for riches, for followers. Vaishnavas just want to leave this material world of birth and death and go back to serving Krishna in Goloka, and on the way tell everyone about Krishna, the original and only cause of all causes. Why worship the demigods like Ganesa for wealth or even Luxmi, Maha-Vishnu and Shiva - Why not worship beautiful Krishna?

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.

Since ISKCON is a unique product of the vision of one individual, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, its founder, we must examine his position on this issue. Central to the difficulties that commentators have had in coming to any sort of decision are the seemingly ambiguous comments and decisions that the founder made with regards to Hinduism and his Society.

 

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.

I really do not like that word Hinduism. Devotees of Krishna are NOT 'Hindu'

 

Historically the word Hindu comes from the invaders who invaded India, most recently the Muslims in the 7th Century. They could not pronounce the word Indus, referring to the river and it eventually became Hindus the Hindu. This word is not found in Sanskrit.

 

The religious name for the followers of Krishna consciousness is Sanatan Dharm “Sanatan” means original, universal, eternal and is used as “Sanatan Dharm”, the ancient name for those who follow the eternal Vedas and worship Krishna and Vishnu

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.

I really do not like that word Hinduism. Devotees of Krishna are NOT 'Hindu'

 

Historically the word Hindu comes from the invaders who invaded India, most recently the Muslims in the 7th Century. They could not pronounce the word Indus, referring to the river and it eventually became Hindus the Hindu. This word is not found in Sanskrit.

 

The religious name for the followers of Krishna consciousness is Sanatan Dharm “Sanatan” means original, universal, eternal and is used as “Sanatan Dharm”, the ancient name for those who follow the Vedas and worship Krishna and Vishnu

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.

JayaMahaDevi,

 

How about this. One path as loving devotion to to the Lord and all other living beings (Bhakti), and this love being expressed in an infinite number of ways according to the nature and desire of the individual.

 

This is the actual conception of Krsna consciousness. Everyone has their own personalized relationship with the Supreme Lord with the Love being the one true path.

 

Krsna consciousness is not limited to Hindu traditions and iconography as some think. I hear you saying the truth must be absolutely non-sectarian and I agree wholeheartedly.

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".)

"(

Not me. The "good as Jesus" champions have all fallen down.

 

If there was one, there have been many, there are many and there will be many. Give up this "one and only" business.

But as for me, I will stick with trying to be a Catholic (and take inspiration from Srila Prabhupada's works), acknowledge my failings, make small attempts at living for others, and pray to our saints who have "clothed the naked", "fed the hungry", "cared for the sick and dying" and so on.

 

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.

Yes, I see that very same energy propelling people to butcher countless thousands of people in the name of their religion. I see millions of these so called Christians supporting American "holy war" with these 'awful Muslim fanatics' which has led to at least half a million innocent lives lost and untold suffering.

 

Merry Christmas to you, brother, pass on the ammo...

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.

I would like to know how Hinduism has shaped your lives, what if any challenges are faced being a Hindu in the world today and do you believe that Hinduism has evolved or changed over time or has it remained the same?

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.

Krishnaleela, good points. What I mean by time, it is complex, because time does not exist separate from space, while simultaneously it does. Space-time is a framework for perpetual evolution in conventional existence. Space is needed for patterns to rearrange, and then time is needed to allow for this pattern-shifting through space. But if there were no space then nothing would ever move, and so what would distinguish one second from one century?

 

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.

As Einstein's theory of relativity goes, space-time is a curved surface upon which the physical realm changes... this makes sense. Basically time does not ever 'pass' us by... rather, there is simply eternity, and we traverse eternity, and as we change through space, so does the wear and tear of physical existence take its tole on us and we appear to age, but time never passes... you could say we only ever time travel, going forwards in time, and you can evolve more or less quickly depending on how you do it (take the magickal words of Set, Xepera Xeper Xeperu, for example).

[\QUOTE]

 

"there is simply eternity": is eternity an entity that is and that we traverse?

eternity implies a non-termination in existence, and "we traverse eternity" implies the conventional observation of change in this existence.

 

Again saying "time does not ...", "time never passes" seems to put the cart before the horse: the framework for analysis are used as realities unto themselves. It is easier to begin with "there is no such thing as time, except as a convention for change". Then there is no need to go into the confusion of denying its attributes.

 

("Conventional time", "spiritual time", conventional eternity, spiritual eternity... please clarify for us all. Most religious people have an understanding of what you seem to call spiritual time/eternity; but it is harder to see what exactly you mean by conventional versions.)

 

 

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?