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

[shvu 1]

 

And who cares how old the term sanatan-dharma is? I certainly don't. I am however concerned with what it means. The eternal religon of the self as opposed to some material designation.

 

The majority of the people who are inclined towards this term have antiquity as the reason. There will always be a handful who deviate from the mainstream, but for realisitic reasons we will stick the mainstream version and not bother with individual opinions.

 

 

Sanatan-dharma's meaning is clear and succinct. Advaitins can have no sanatan-dharma because they don't even accept the individual self as being sanatan So if you want to break it down it is a term that only proper denotes the Vaisnava.

 

There is the truth and then sometimes our own self-concoted versions of what the truth must be. Your version of Sanatana Dharma is one of these concocted cases.

 

A few years back, Sanatana Dharma was coined as a term to label Indian religion in place of Hindu by Indian Patriots much like renaming Bomaby as Mumbai. The people who coined this term did not have Hare Krishna Vaishnavism in mind nor were they trying to shut out beliefs disliked by Hare Krishnas. Now if you want to step up and redefine the meaning of this label to suit your own preferences, then that would be a gargantuan task as you will have to make a case strong enough to convince millions of Hindus who have no interest in Hare Krishna religion. Feel up to the task?

 

 

Krsna tells Arjuna to abandon all these religions so why should a student of the Bhagavad-gita want to keep identifying with them?

 

Contradicting yourself. Krishna tells Arjuna to abandon all varieties of Dharma which includes Sanatana Dharma (either the standard version or your own custom version) too, don't you think? By saying this you are just knocking off your own earlier support for Sanatana Dharma.

 

Hinduism goes far beyond Krishna, a point hard to grasp by western Hare Krishnas who mostly see Indian religion through the little Hare Krishna spyglass. The simple fact of the matter, the majority of India do not even bother with the Bhagavad Gita. But if you have not spent enough time in experiencing India's various flavors of religion, you will have no clue what Hinduism means. And since this is the case with most of the people here, sweeping statements of ignorance on what Hinduism is or isn't will only show you in a bad light.

 

The Hare Krishnas have up until now been very successful in garnering a reputation as being dogmatic and hotheaded along the same lines as born again Christians. By continuing to pass ignorant comments on Hinduism and claiming alleged superiority of your own belief over every other belief, you are upholding the Hare Krishna reputation as being incapable of looking at the big picture.

 

Western Hare Krishnas can call themselves what they want, but desi Hindus are perfectly happy with their label and have no reason to switch.

 

Cheers

[indulekhadasi 0]

 

The majority of the people who are inclined towards this term have antiquity as the reason. There will always be a handful who deviate from the mainstream, but for realisitic reasons we will stick the mainstream version and not bother with individual opinions.

 

 

 

There is the truth and then sometimes our own self-concoted versions of what the truth must be. Your version of Sanatana Dharma is one of these concocted cases.

 

A few years back, Sanatana Dharma was coined as a term to label Indian religion in place of Hindu by Indian Patriots much like renaming Bomaby as Mumbai. The people who coined this term did not have Hare Krishna Vaishnavism in mind nor were they trying to shut out beliefs disliked by Hare Krishnas. Now if you want to step up and redefine the meaning of this label to suit your own preferences, then that would be a gargantuan task as you will have to make a case strong enough to convince millions of Hindus who have no interest in Hare Krishna religion. Feel up to the task?

 

 

 

Contradicting yourself. Krishna tells Arjuna to abandon all varieties of Dharma which includes Sanatana Dharma (either the standard version or your own custom version) too, don't you think? By saying this you are just knocking off your own earlier support for Sanatana Dharma.

 

Hinduism goes far beyond Krishna, a point hard to grasp by western Hare Krishnas who mostly see Indian religion through the little Hare Krishna spyglass. The simple fact of the matter, the majority of India do not even bother with the Bhagavad Gita. But if you have not spent enough time in experiencing India's various flavors of religion, you will have no clue what Hinduism means. And since this is the case with most of the people here, sweeping statements of ignorance on what Hinduism is or isn't will only show you in a bad light.

 

The Hare Krishnas have up until now been very successful in garnering a reputation as being dogmatic and hotheaded along the same lines as born again Christians. By continuing to pass ignorant comments on Hinduism and claiming alleged superiority of your own belief over every other belief, you are upholding the Hare Krishna reputation as being incapable of looking at the big picture.

 

Western Hare Krishnas can call themselves what they want, but desi Hindus are perfectly happy with their label and have no reason to switch.

 

Cheers

 

And your pastime is focus on the bad...not one word for all those preachers who go out to preach in the snow and stuff every day, while some people claiming to be true 'hindus' just sit around and gossip (I am not reffering to the Hindu preachers)? Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting you but that doesn't sound very fair!

 

To state your point about Hinduism, you need not put down all the Hare Krishnas at once.

[shvu 1]

 

And your pastime is focus on the bad...not one word for all those preachers who go out to preach in the snow and stuff every day, while some people claiming to be true 'hindus' just sit around and gossip (I am not reffering to the Hindu preachers)? Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting you but that doesn't sound very fair!

 

To state your point about Hinduism, you need not put down all the Hare Krishnas at once.

 

Stick to the topic in hand and avoid digressing. This thread is about the validity of the label Hindu - not about patting each other on the back for preaching in bad weather. The validity is being questiond by Hare Krishnas and so I am perfectly in line.

 

This forum is mostly habitated by Hare Krishnas in case you had not noticed. Most Hare Krishnas simply criticize the label for no reason other than "Prabhupada said so". Exceptions who think for themselves are few and obviously I am not addressing them here.

 

Cheers

[mahak 0]

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="4" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2">

</td> <td nowrap="nowrap">

</td> <td width="100%"> </td><td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- / user info --><!-- message, attachments, sig --> <!-- icon and title --> Vaisnavism

<!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Haribol. This means chant the Name of Hari, the Name of the Supreme Person.

 

The term "Hinduism" is all encompassing. And basically has no meaning. There are philosophical ideologies that oppose each other within the confines of hinduism, therefore, there is no way to moderate such a wide range, a world populace that exceeds christianity and judaism combined. Hinduism actually is a term applied to those inclined to the Vedic scriptures by Muslim conquered, who were actually referring to those living with the sindu river. Hindi is a national language of India, a derivation of sanskrit, and ancient language, and the many dialects of the subcontinent. A vast undertaking describing a culture. To me personally, hindu refers to a culture of billions of planetary residents, a culture in which there are various religions.

 

Vaisnavism is the devotion sector of this culture. Vaisnavism is a word describing monotheists who worship Lord Sri Visnu (who also has many other names as he incarnates throughout history) as the Supreme Lord. The vaisnava also worships demigods as glorious assistants to the Supreme Lord, each with a specific function.

 

So, since the scripture of vaisnavism is hundreds, if not thousands, times more volumnous than the bible canon, a primer of these Gods' functions cannot be displayed. As my guru maharaja, Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, did often, parables are quite helpful, so I will give a brief one to get past this idea of many gods.

 

Pretend we are ants. There is the dog. Now, that is God, no question. Only a fool ant would deny the dog's position as supreme, so all the ants bow down. Out of thousands of ants grovelling at the feet of dog-god, one will notice the activities of this god, and be in wonder. In such observance, the ant notices that god is not supreme, that, in fact, god is bowing to another, a human. While this intelligent ant does not denigrate his awesome respect for dog-god, he is also interested in the dog's God, the human. So this ant may choose to worship that which his god worships, and thus we have Vaisnavism.

 

The vaisnava worships the god who is the Creator of the cosmos and everything we see. He is called Lord Brahma. But we take a cue from the son of Lord Brahma, Sri Narada Muni, because he has noticed Lord Brahma in meditation, and asks him who is he meditating upon. Lord Brahma, being very pleased with Sri Narada muni, initiates him as his disciple, and bestows upon him the Srimad Bhagavatam, the story of the Supreme Lord, the one even worshipped by the creator.

 

I give a humble request to the moderators to make Vaisnavism a separate thread under world religions. Another thread can be given to other cultural hindus to present their views of Advaitism, Various yoga practices such as hatha yoga various religions dedicated to the Great Gods of this culture, (whom I worship freely as well). Vaisnavism is a very large branch of those who claim hindu status. The devotees of Lord Siva are also a huge branch.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist 1]

 

The majority of the people who are inclined towards this term have antiquity as the reason. There will always be a handful who deviate from the mainstream, but for realisitic reasons we will stick the mainstream version and not bother with individual opinions.

 

 

We? Who is "we" shvu. You are an impersonalist right? Have you made a change to the Vaisnava conception?

[theist 1]

 

Contradicting yourself. Krishna tells Arjuna to abandon all varieties of Dharma which includes Sanatana Dharma (either the standard version or your own custom version) too, don't you think? By saying this you are just knocking off your own earlier support for Sanatana Dharma.

 

 

The eternal dharma of the soul IS surrender to Krsna.

[Hari Bhakta dasa 0]

 

Stick to the topic in hand and avoid digressing. This thread is about the validity of the label Hindu - not about patting each other on the back for preaching in bad weather. The validity is being questiond by Hare Krishnas and so I am perfectly in line.

 

This forum is mostly habitated by Hare Krishnas in case you had not noticed. Most Hare Krishnas simply criticize the label for no reason other than "Prabhupada said so". Exceptions who think for themselves are few and obviously I am not addressing them here.

 

Cheers

 

Mataji was responding to your post. You are in no position to chastize her. You are not her guru, husband, father or anyone else.

[theist 1]

 

Western Hare Krishnas can call themselves what they want, but desi Hindus are perfectly happy with their label and have no reason to switch.

 

 

Of course. Those that want to conceive of themselves as a Hindu are certainly welcome to as well as the Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and whoever else.

 

Vaisnavas are distinquished from this group prefering to identify themselves as part and parcel of Krsna whose eternal dharma is to render loving devotional service to the Supreme Lord and His devotees.

 

These Vaisnavas are not satisfied with any of the empheral designations that are floating around here in the wispy material world of names.

[shvu 1]

 

<TABLE cellSpacing=4 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2>

 

</TD><TD noWrap>

 

</TD><TD width="100%"></TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- / user info --><!-- message, attachments, sig --><!-- icon and title -->Vaisnavism

<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Haribol. This means chant the Name of Hari, the Name of the Supreme Person.

 

The term "Hinduism" is all encompassing. And basically has no meaning. There are philosophical ideologies that oppose each other within the confines of hinduism, therefore, there is no way to moderate such a wide range, a world populace that exceeds christianity and judaism combined. Hinduism actually is a term applied to those inclined to the Vedic scriptures by Muslim conquered, who were actually referring to those living with the sindu river. Hindi is a national language of India, a derivation of sanskrit, and ancient language, and the many dialects of the subcontinent. A vast undertaking describing a culture. To me personally, hindu refers to a culture of billions of planetary residents, a culture in which there are various religions.

 

Vaisnavism is the devotion sector of this culture. Vaisnavism is a word describing monotheists who worship Lord Sri Visnu (who also has many other names as he incarnates throughout history) as the Supreme Lord. The vaisnava also worships demigods as glorious assistants to the Supreme Lord, each with a specific function.

 

So, since the scripture of vaisnavism is hundreds, if not thousands, times more volumnous than the bible canon, a primer of these Gods' functions cannot be displayed. As my guru maharaja, Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, did often, parables are quite helpful, so I will give a brief one to get past this idea of many gods.

 

Pretend we are ants. There is the dog. Now, that is God, no question. Only a fool ant would deny the dog's position as supreme, so all the ants bow down. Out of thousands of ants grovelling at the feet of dog-god, one will notice the activities of this god, and be in wonder. In such observance, the ant notices that god is not supreme, that, in fact, god is bowing to another, a human. While this intelligent ant does not denigrate his awesome respect for dog-god, he is also interested in the dog's God, the human. So this ant may choose to worship that which his god worships, and thus we have Vaisnavism.

 

The vaisnava worships the god who is the Creator of the cosmos and everything we see. He is called Lord Brahma. But we take a cue from the son of Lord Brahma, Sri Narada Muni, because he has noticed Lord Brahma in meditation, and asks him who is he meditating upon. Lord Brahma, being very pleased with Sri Narada muni, initiates him as his disciple, and bestows upon him the Srimad Bhagavatam, the story of the Supreme Lord, the one even worshipped by the creator.

 

I give a humble request to the moderators to make Vaisnavism a separate thread under world religions. Another thread can be given to other cultural hindus to present their views of Advaitism, Various yoga practices such as hatha yoga various religions dedicated to the Great Gods of this culture, (whom I worship freely as well). Vaisnavism is a very large branch of those who claim hindu status. The devotees of Lord Siva are also a huge branch.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

Mahak,

 

it is already done. There is a seperate Hindu section on the forum as there is a Hare Krishna section.

 

But for some reason, the Hare Krishnas have hijacked the Spiritual section and choose to post here instead of in the section created for them. This becomes a problem when they step out fo their Hare Krishna world and criticize Hinduism, Advaita, etc because someone is going to counter them and they so dislike that. If they want to live in a world where criticism flows one-way, that is from HKs to others and never the other way, then obviously they should stay clear of a generic Spiritual section.

 

Cheers

[theist 1]

 

I give a humble request to the moderators to make Vaisnavism a separate thread under world religions. Another thread can be given to other cultural hindus to present their views of Advaitism, Various yoga practices such as hatha yoga various religions dedicated to the Great Gods of this culture, (whom I worship freely as well).

 

Good idea Mahak. If we check out the Audarya Fellowship website we see that so many various branches of "Hindu" forums already exist. This is a very broad and inclusive web site.

 

I would like to see a section that is dedicated to Vaisnavism and maybe even one that is specific to the Indian tradion and a separate one for those that want to express their appreciation for the bhakti the see in other religions.

 

Obviously the infants will always want to squabble about how their way is so much better and others are fools and demons etc. and they will always come to piss on any sacrifical fire that is lit by the "others." We have seen it for years on various forums and it is simply torturous.

[shvu 1]

 

The eternal dharma of the soul IS surrender to Krsna.

 

Once you call it Dharma, it comes under the net of "all varieties of Dharma" and is hence rejected.

 

Krishna's statement was unconditional - covering all forms of Dharma (eternal and transient). He does not follow it up with his new definition of what Dharma means and neither can others - if they want to conform to his statement.

 

Cheers

[Hari Bhakta dasa 0]

IMHO, the spiritual section creates confusion. It has turned into a mish mash of schools, sects and whatever else out there. I saw this coming when the moderators decided to combine their separate forums onto one page rather than keeping separate pages. More confusing answers to newcomers questions, more offenses and more arguments is all that has evolved from this combination.

[Hari Bhakta dasa 0]

 

Mahak,

 

it is already done. There is a seperate Hindu section on the forum as there is a Hare Krishna section.

 

But for some reason, the Hare Krishnas have hijacked the Spiritual section and choose to post here instead of in the section created for them. This becomes a problem when they step out fo their Hare Krishna world and criticize Hinduism, Advaita, etc because someone is going to counter them and they so dislike that. If they want to live in a world where criticism flows one-way, that is from HKs to others and never the other way, then obviously they should stay clear of a generic Spiritual section.

 

Cheers

 

Admin, please consider separating the forums again. We are subjected to mayavadi philosophy and those who hate the followers of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Imagine how confusing this must be for someone who has just developed an interest in KC thru Prabhupada's books.

[shvu 1]

 

Srila Prabhupada used the term Sanatana Dharma. He would not go against shastra. So what are you saying?

 

Using the name "Sanatama Dharma" is not going against Shastra. So what do you think I am saying?

 

 

Demigod worshipers seeking material gain.

 

Krishna is worshipped by many for material gains and there are people who worship the so called "demi-gods" for spiritual gains. Hence your statement is incorrect.

 

Material gains are important, my friend. Else, Iskcon would not have the funds to preach and thrive. You ought to be grateful to all those who have engaged in building material wealth as it has immensely benefitted your organization. Where do you think the money for the gandiose temples and ghee-rich prasadam comes from? A good number of people who flock to the Hare Krishna temples go there for material comfort. It gets them through the day and what is spiritual about that?

 

I have seen Hare Krishnas wonder why they have material diffculties like family problems, health issues, etc. in spite of devoting their lives to the worship of Krishna. Aren't they then expecting a painless material life as a side-effect of their Krishna worship?

 

Cheers

[theist 1]

 

Once you call it Dharma, it comes under the net of "all varieties of Dharma" and is hence rejected.

 

Krishna's statement was unconditional - covering all forms of Dharma (eternal and transient). He does not follow it up with his new definition of what Dharma means and neither can others - if they want to conform to his statement.

 

Cheers

 

Typical impersonalist nonsense. I know your view. And surrender means to dissolve the self into the Brahman.

 

Yawn...

[Hari Bhakta dasa 0]

Lord Caitanya forbids us to hear mayavadi philosophy.

 

Mayavadi philosophy may be hard for a newcomer to detect. Please admin separate these forums.

[shvu 1]

 

Typical impersonalist nonsense. I know your view. And surrender means to dissolve the self into the Brahman.

 

Yawn...

 

Escapist response. You contradicted yourself and have not the courage to admit it.

 

Sanatana Dharma and 18.66 do not go together based on simple logic and common sense. If you cannot admit it or if you try to run circles around it, it does not change a thing.

 

Cheers

[shvu 1]

 

Lord Caitanya forbids us to hear mayavadi philosophy.

 

Mayavadi philosophy may be hard for a newcomer to detect. Please admin separate these forums.

 

And please point out the line on this thread which is Mayavadi other than theist's attempts to divert attention to cover up his mistake.

 

Or do you follow binary logic where anyone who is not a Hare Krishna is a Mayavadi?

 

Cheers

[indulekhadasi 0]

 

And please point out the line on this thread which is Mayavadi other than theist's attempts to divert attention to cover up his mistake.

 

Or do you follow binary logic where anyone who is not a Hare Krishna is a Mayavadi?

 

Cheers

 

 

Mayavadi- a person who thinks everything is one and the goal of life is to merge within the impersonal Brahman

[mahak 0]

This was originally posted on another forum which only listed the broad term "Hinduism". The suggestion to separate different schools was for that forum, not this one, which has a very nice list of various ideologies that come under the cultural term "Hinduism".

 

As far as mayavad philosophy goes, the very best one ive seen is here, short and sweet.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZo2w7vQUOY

 

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[tackleberry 1]

 

Mayavadi- a person who thinks everything is one and the goal of life is to merge within the impersonal Brahman

Where did Shvu or any other member mention mayavada? This thread is about labels, but most HKs think anyone who isn't HK must be mayavadi. I find this very annoying, despite being a Vaishnava myself. This attitude is very similar to Christians calling Krishna 'a demon and a womanizer.'

[theist 1]

 

Where did Shvu or any other member mention mayavada? This thread is about labels, but most HKs think anyone who isn't HK must be mayavadi. I find this very annoying, despite being a Vaishnava myself. This attitude is very similar to Christians calling Krishna 'a demon and a womanizer.'

I have known shvu through this board for years and respect his interest in the spiritual side of life. During this time we have had numerous exchanges.

 

I am finding your faultfinding rather annoying.

[theist 1]

 

We? Who is "we" shvu. You are an impersonalist right? Have you made a change to the Vaisnava conception?

 

I asked you this question some time ago. You never answered. Please do now. I choose not to give credence to any impersonalist commentary on Krsna's words.

[theist 1]

 

And please point out the line on this thread which is Mayavadi other than theist's attempts to divert attention to cover up his mistake.

 

Or do you follow binary logic where anyone who is not a Hare Krishna is a Mayavadi?

 

Cheers

On this thread. Cute qualifier. Kinda like crossing your fingers when you make a promise eh?

[tackleberry 1]

 

I have known shvu through this board for years and respect his interest in the spiritual side of life. During this time we have had numerous exchanges.

 

I am finding your faultfinding rather annoying.

 

Totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion.