My questions on Hinduism

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

 

Eating meat and intoxication are not parts of spiritual practices. Nor are they necessary in any spiritual sadhna including tantra dakshin marg! What's wrong with devi worship? Arjuna worshipped devi too! So did Barbarik blessed by Lord Krishna. What's wrong with that? Some of the greatest sages worshipped devis. Devi is power. Shri Gaudiya Vaishnavas chant the Gayatri mantra. And Gayatri devi and her sadhna was opened to the world by Shri Vishwamitra. This is a blessing. Whether it is saraswati, Lakshmi or kali, all are part of Lord. Lakshmi is consort of Lord Vishnu! We don't ignore her. Offering obeisances to Guru mata is offering obeisances to Guru as well.

jai shri Gauranga!!

 

Yogkriya

 

 

Beautiful indeed. This is the right way to go about it and this is also the true spirit of Sanatana-dharma. You deserve my obeisances, Yogkriyaji. May Lord Sadasiva and Maa Gauri shower their unlimited blessings upon your gracious self.

 

Om tat sat

 

Radhe Radhe

[shvu 1]

 

The word "Hindu" is not found in any Veda or any Purana.

There is no such word as Hindu in Vedic shastra

 

Neither is Sanatana Dharma found anywhere. Didn't stop you from using the term though, did it?

 

Aren't you bored with repeating the same excuses over and over again? Who cares about the origin? The term Hindu is understood and accepted by Hindu followers today and that is what matters.

 

Sometime ago there was a discussion on the origin of the name 'Sanatana Dharma' on the Indology list. This name was invented less than 200 years ago by some patriotic Indians who wanted to coin a new name of their religion. Quite an anitclimax, isnt it? The term Hindu is hundred of years older than Sanatana Dharma.

 

 

The actual Vedic term is Varnashram, not Hindu.

 

Completely wrong. Varnashrama is a social concept and was never the name of the religion. It is important that people who ask questions here should be aware of your ignorant and incorrect remarks.

 

 

Hindu is a foreign term that Muslims or some other foreign people have given to the followers of Veda and Varnashrama Dharma.

 

Who cares? Does not alter the meaning of the word in the least.

 

I bet this never occured to you. It is more interesting to find out what the Buddhists and Jains called this religion 2600 Years ago. Of course, in those days there was no concept of idol worship and temples. So all the common Hndu beliefs of today such as Rama, Krishna, Temple worship, Bhajans, etc were not yet born or were not yet mainstream. The religion was simply called the religion of the Brahmanas or the Veda-Dharma primarily consisting of Mimamsa style sacrifice rites.

 

This would be a good time for you to give up your political rhetoric of "Hindu is a foreign term". It is has gotten too boring to endure.

 

Cheers

[Guruvani 0]

 

Neither is Sanatana Dharma found anywhere. Didn't stop you from using the term though, did it?

 

Aren't you bored with repeating the same excuses over and over again? Who cares about the origin? The term Hindu is understood and accepted by Hindu followers today and that is what matters.

 

Sometime ago there was a discussion on the origin of the name 'Sanatana Dharma' on the Indology list. This name was invented less than 200 years ago by some patriotic Indians who wanted to coin a new name of their religion. Quite an anitclimax, isnt it? The term Hindu is hundred of years older than Sanatana Dharma.

 

 

 

Completely wrong. Varnashrama is a social concept and was never the name of the religion. It is important that people who ask questions here should be aware of your ignorant and incorrect remarks.

 

 

 

Who cares? Does not alter the meaning of the word in the least.

 

I bet this never occured to you. It is more interesting to find out what the Buddhists and Jains called this religion 2600 Years ago. Of course, in those days there was no concept of idol worship and temples. So all the common Hndu beliefs of today such as Rama, Krishna, Temple worship, Bhajans, etc were not yet born or were not yet mainstream. The religion was simply called the religion of the Brahmanas or the Veda-Dharma primarily consisting of Mimamsa style sacrifice rites.

 

This would be a good time for you to give up your political rhetoric of "Hindu is a foreign term". It is has gotten too boring to endure.

 

Cheers

No doubt there are lots of really mixed-up and confused "Hindus" in India and India's history of bogus gurus, bogus avatars, bogus yogis have made finding the genuine Sanatan Dharma practically impossible.

 

For the followers of Vedic religions to call themselves "Hindu" is like Americans calling themselves "gringos".

 

In Latin American they refer to Americans as "gringos", but Americans don't refer to themselves as "gringos".

 

So, for Indians who follow the Vedic scriptures to refer to themselves as "Hindu" is just like if here in America we all start referring to Americans as "gringos".

[Guest guest]

 

No doubt there are lots of really mixed-up and confused "Hindus" in India and India's history of bogus gurus, bogus avatars, bogus yogis have made finding the genuine Sanatan Dharma practically impossible.

 

For the followers of Vedic religions to call themselves "Hindu" is like Americans calling themselves "gringos".

 

In Latin American they refer to Americans as "gringos", but Americans don't refer to themselves as "gringos".

 

So, for Indians who follow the Vedic scriptures to refer to themselves as "Hindu" is just like if here in America we all start referring to Americans as "gringos".

 

I understand your point about "Hindus" and "Vedic" religions.

Also, I think we need to define how "vedic" are we. But that is for another discussion.

 

I feel there is really no need to constantly keep on stressing on "mixed-up and confused "Hindus" in India and India's history of bogus gurus, bogus avatars, bogus yogis" etc. again and again. All are people and people are not perfect! Just that they seemingly belong to the 'other camp' and can be put down. This has nothing to do with any spiritual cause. This is religious politics. India has a vast and very rich history!!! Both in spiritual and material terms! But all you felt important to mention about is 'India's history of bogus Gurus'. And I know why you are doing this. You love to provoke people on a rather unpositive note. You can have heated arguments with that, but no real spiritual benefit really.

Some one can bring up all the hippys, and drug addicts and sex scandals and the New Vrindavan murders, child molestation worldwide suits and all the dirt that got associated with Iskcon and there will be absolutely no difficulty to put down the whole thing either!! It takes one minute!!!

I believe Srila Prabhupada started the organization in good trust for a very noble cause with sincere intentions!

Similarly we can keep on repeating posts after posts about bogus Gurus, Frauds etc as Hinduism, call it hodge podge etc... and refuse to see any good in it!

If you are looking for a scandal, you can find it! If all we are looking to find in people is that they are "fools and rascals", then what happens to pandita samadarshitah?

Similarly, the American Indian issue... really there is no need for us to draw a comparison line. In spiritual terms, we are all jivas. But in worldly religious terms and again, in spiritual terms of maturity and depth of understanding, India is still the sage amongst other countries.

Just as Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada once said that all the countries are good for enjoyment. India is good for giving liberation. I can't remember exactly during what talk he said that though. Despite some bogus Gurus, there is real knowledge and sadhnas alive today!

 

But again, this is an old putting down issue about bogus Gurus etc. This cannot be our progressive point of thought. Out point of thought is what genuine Gurus are and sincere devotees and sadhaks are there and what we can learn in their association, so that we can make the most of this short pan of life! For ourselves and for others, serving the lord and the Guru! That's it.

Knowledge is not best used for arguing. Knowledge is best used when you can fulfill a task in the shortest possible way in the best possible manner - in this case our spiritual advancement.

love,

 

Yogkriya.

[Guest guest]

 

Beautiful indeed. This is the right way to go about it and this is also the true spirit of Sanatana-dharma. You deserve my obeisances, Yogkriyaji. May Lord Sadasiva and Maa Gauri shower their unlimited blessings upon your gracious self.

Om tat sat

Radhe Radhe

 

Dear Vikram,

 

Thank you for your kind words.

I think looking for too much distinctions and separations taht result in conflicts is not always good. I see Bhakti and Shakti as inseparable in the true spirit of Sanatana Dharma. Just as Shri Krsna and his Shakti are inseparable.

Please accept my humble obeisances. Jai Shri Radhe!! My best wishes to your kind soul. May you prosper and keep on expanding your spiritual horizons with the Lord Shri Gauranga's and Shri Guru's blessings!

 

Shri SambaSadaShivaya Namah.

 

Yogkriya.

[Guest guest]

 

Dear Vikram,

 

Thank you for your kind words.

I think looking for too much distinctions and separations taht result in conflicts is not always good. I see Bhakti and Shakti as inseparable in the true spirit of Sanatana Dharma. Just as Shri Krsna and his Shakti are inseparable.

Please accept my humble obeisances. Jai Shri Radhe!! My best wishes to your kind soul. May you prosper and keep on expanding your spiritual horizons with the Lord Shri Gauranga's and Shri Guru's blessings!

 

Shri SambaSadaShivaya Namah.

 

Yogkriya.

 

Sorry I forgot to sign the username in this post. Thanks.

 

Yogkriya.

[Guest guest]

 

Typical Advaitic platitudes which have been opposed time and time again by personalistic schools of thought, whether one thinks of the Brahma-sutra commentaries of Sripada Ramanujacarya, Sripada Madhvacarya, Nimbarka Maha-Muni, Sripada Visnusvami or the Gaudiya Vedantacarya Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana. I

 

The daily Pooja mantra practised by Shri Madhwacharya's followers start with (after preliminaries) "Aham Rudray".

[Guruvani 0]

 

Completely wrong. Varnashrama is a social concept and was never the name of the religion. It is important that people who ask questions here should be aware of your ignorant and incorrect remarks.

 

 

In an earlier post I stated that the followers of the Vedas were not Hindus and that the proper term was "Varnashram".

I got that from the books of Srila Prabhupada and I just happened upon that reference again, so I wanted to post it to show that I was not inventing anything and that the source was from a great authority.

 

Srila Prabhupada :

 

You may call the Vedas Hindu, but "Hindu" is a foreign name. We are not Hindus. Our real identification is varnasrama. Varnasrama denotes the followers of the Vedas, those who accept the human society in eight divisions of varna and asrama. There are four divisions of society and four divisions of spiritual life. This is called varnasrama. It is stated in the Bhagavad-gita [4.13], "These divisions are every where because they are created by God." The divisions of society are brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya, sudra. Brahmana refers to the very intelligent class of men, those who know what is Brahman. Similarly, the ksatriyas, the administrator group, are the next intelligent class of men. Then the vaisyas, the mercantile group. These natural classifications are found everywhere. This is the Vedic principle, and we accept it.

[Guest guest]

 

In an earlier post I stated that the followers of the Vedas were not Hindus and that the proper term was "Varnashram".

I got that from the books of Srila Prabhupada and I just happened upon that reference again, so I wanted to post it to show that I was not inventing anything and that the source was from a great authority.

Srila Prabhupada :

 

Its evident who had sown these anti-Hindu seeds in these western minds. How sad!

[Guest guest]

 

In an earlier post I stated that the followers of the Vedas were not Hindus and that the proper term was "Varnashram".

I got that from the books of Srila Prabhupada and I just happened upon that reference again, so I wanted to post it to show that I was not inventing anything and that the source was from a great authority.

Srila Prabhupada :

 

What's in a name? Why this heavy stress on Hindu name was in the Vedas or not? Why people are here bashing Hindus instead giving proper answers about Hinduism. There was no Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada name in the Vedas either. And thus he can be rejected right away!! He is no authority mentioned in the Vedas anywhere. What's the big deal that you keep mentioning this same old no Hindu word rant?

 

Regards,

 

Yogkriya