Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Do you have to be Born Hindu to be Hindu???

Rate this topic


boricua

Recommended Posts

 

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this. - Bhagavad-gita 2.42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And in the Bhaktivedanta Purport to the Bhagavatam 3.4.22 we find:

 

http://vedabase.net/sb/3/4/22/

 

Badarikāśrama in the Himalayas, the abode of the Nara-Nārāyaṇa sages, is a great place of pilgrimage for the Hindus. Even up to the present, hundreds and thousands of pious Hindus go to pay respects to the incarnation of Godhead Nara-Nārāyaṇa.....These are Badarikāśrama, Rameśvara, Jagannātha Purī and Dvārakā. Faithful Hindus still visit all these holy places for perfection of spiritual realization, following in the footsteps of devotees like Uddhava.

Still no comment on Theist from that or similar passages by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in which terms like "Hindu" and "Hinduism" are invoked without reservation.

 

Strange that when a spirit soul comes to this forum and asks about initiation into Hinduism, he is treated to the typical, condescending, harangue about how Hinduism is "hodge podge" and "mundane." The poster is accused of being "attached" to the term Hinduism.

 

But when Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada uses the term "Hindus" or "Hinduism" in his writings, Theist is curiously silent.

 

Will we ever see an explanation from Theist rationalizing this double standard? Obviously not, because any explanation short of "I'm sorry, I was mistaken" will not make sense to anyone who can think. Why won't Theist just admit his mistake?

 

Two possible explanations:

 

(1) Theist is a pure devotee, and beyond all mistakes, thus no need for him to admit any mistakes, even when he makes them.

 

(2) Theist is a bigot with an anti-Hindu bias. Posting condescending drivel against "Hinduism" makes him feel better about himself, and so he won't admit it when "Hinduism" is clearly shown by his own guru to mean something other than the ugly stereotypes he repeatedly propagates on this forum.

 

Now, everyone can feel free to decide which of these two possibilities seems most likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this. - Bhagavad-gita 2.42

 

?

 

Has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote:

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this. - Bhagavad-gita 2.42

 

?

 

Has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

Cheers

 

Of course not. That's why he posted it. Now that he is being called on his chauvinistic attitude towards Hindus, Theist can only change the subject and hope that no one will notice.

 

Does anyone remember the time when the Hindu priest Rajan Zed was heckled by Christian fundamentlists during his historic invocatory prayers on the US Senate floor? The entire civilized world condemned the behavior of the Christians, but not Theist. On *this* *very* *forum* Theist made a hue and cry about how the Hindu priest was not a Vaishnava and how he didn't care at all about the situation. Forget human rights or freedom of speech. The man was not entitled to respect because he did not to Theist's religious views.

 

I believe that is what we call bigotry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

oh yes !! that was a bad incident , shamefull . but i guess quite natural for christian practitioners !!

 

 

 

heres a link to the incident--

 

 

 

I am saddened by intolerance such as that shown in the vid. I am not blaming anyone, intolerance is there in every society, culture and religion nowadays. It shows that religious system as beautiful they are, they still lack something. I wonder what it is? All I can hope is the world will be a better place in the coming future. Namaste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am saddened by intolerance such as that shown in the vid. I am not blaming anyone, intolerance is there in every society, culture and religion nowadays. It shows that religious system as beautiful they are, they still lack something. I wonder what it is?

 

It is the basic nature of man to not deal well with a conflicting viewpoint. It is called intolerance.

 

The outcome of intolerance, is an attempt to convert others to one's own viewpoint - something that we all do on this forum every day or to simply eliminate conflicting viewpoints - as seen in history. And when these attempts to convert/eliminate do not succeed, some people react violently. It can be physical violence or just emotional violence.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... Hinduism is not Krishna consciousness. Just ask any Advaitin.

Do you mean Advaita is Hinduism and Krishna consciousness is not? Or do you mean Advaita is Krishna consciousness and Hinduism is not? Or do you mean Vaishnavism, including Advaita, is Krishna consciousness, but Hinduism is not per se? What do you mean? :)

 

Anyway, I think Advaita is compatible with Krishna consciousness. The difference between Advaita and Dvaita or Gaudiya Vaishnavism, seems to be mainly the different readings of the fundamental relation between God (or Krishna) and individual souls (or Jivas); I.e., monism versus dualism or inconceivable oneness and difference.

 

After all, Adi Shankara apparently wrote: "Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of grammar will not save you at the time of your death"..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you mean Advaita is Hinduism and Krishna consciousness is not? Or do you mean Advaita is Krishna consciousness and Hinduism is not? Or do you mean Vaishnavism, including Advaita, is Krishna consciousness, but Hinduism is not per se? What do you mean? :)

 

Anyway, I think Advaita is compatible with Krishna consciousness. The difference between Advaita and Dvaita or Gaudiya Vaishnavism, seems to be mainly the different readings of the fundamental relation between God (or Krishna) and individual souls (or Jivas); I.e., monism versus dualism or inconceivable oneness and difference.

 

After all, Adi Shankara apparently wrote: "Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of grammar will not save you at the time of your death"..

 

Obviously he means that Hinduism is not confined to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. That was obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Obviously he means that Hinduism is not confined to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. That was obvious.

 

It is not obvious to me. Based on his (theist) posts on this topic now and in the past, here is his positon as I understand it.

 

1) Hindu is a mundane concept.

2) Shaiva is a worshipper of Shiva (sectarian), Shakta is a worshipper of Shakti (sectarian) but Vaishnava is *not* a worshipper of Vishnu (not sectarian).

3) Vaishnavism is the only true religion.

4) Per this new definition of Vaishnavism, Christians and Muslims are also Vaishnavas. However, India based systems like Shaiva, etc., are demi-god worshippers and not Vaishnavas. Only foreign religions qualify.

5) Hindus should not call themselves Hindus as it is all one big mess.

6) The only recourse appears to be they should all become Hare Krishnas and call themselves Vaishnavas. Everything else is mundane.

7) Mayavada is poison.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is not obvious to me. Based on his (theist) posts on this topic now and in the past, here is his positon as I understand it.

 

1) Hindu is a mundane concept.

2) Shaiva is a worshipper of Shiva (sectarian), Shakta is a worshipper of Shakti (sectarian) but Vaishnava is *not* a worshipper of Vishnu (not sectarian).

3) Vaishnavism is the only true religion.

4) Per this new definition of Vaishnavism, Christians and Muslims are also Vaishnavas. However, India based systems like Shaiva, etc., are demi-god worshippers and not Vaishnavas. Only foreign religions qualify.

5) Hindus should not call themselves Hindus as it is all one big mess.

6) The only recourse appears to be they should all become Hare Krishnas and call themselves Vaishnavas. Everything else is mundane.

7) Mayavada is poison.

 

Cheers

 

I apologise for my assumptions and I apologise for using 'obvious' twice in a sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I read How to Become a Hindu (or better Hindu)

years ago and found it quite encouraging.

 

 

I to found this in the internet.

 

How to Become a (Better) Hindu A Guide for Seekers and Born Hindus'' BY Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami

 

The book is in the internet

enter and go to page 'Does Hinduism Accept Newcomers?...149

and jump to page.158 and read it

 

Its true what you and the rest say Everyone is welcome :)

I'm happy now =)

Jai MA Di!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you mean Advaita is Hinduism and Krishna consciousness is not? Or do you mean Advaita is Krishna consciousness and Hinduism is not? Or do you mean Vaishnavism, including Advaita, is Krishna consciousness, but Hinduism is not per se? What do you mean? :)

 

Anyway, I think Advaita is compatible with Krishna consciousness. The difference between Advaita and Dvaita or Gaudiya Vaishnavism, seems to be mainly the different readings of the fundamental relation between God (or Krishna) and individual souls (or Jivas); I.e., monism versus dualism or inconceivable oneness and difference.

 

After all, Adi Shankara apparently wrote: "Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of grammar will not save you at the time of your death"..

 

in his attempt to reconcile advaita and dvaita philosophies, lord caitanya came up with this creative idea, acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva(integral monism)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

in his attempt to reconcile advaita and dvaita philosophies, lord caitanya came up with this creative idea, acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva(integral monism)

 

Creative indeed, since "acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva" does NOT actually reconcile "advaita and dvaita philosophies."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Creative indeed, since "acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva" does NOT actually reconcile "advaita and dvaita philosophies."

 

I'm not aware of a Vaisnava sampradaya wanting to reconcile advaita with anything. Only that they might propound "qualitative oneness" vs. quantitative. Come to think of it though, to assume that one has the 'qualities of God' is regarded as blasphemy in Merriam-Websters.

 

Maybe you need to leave this world first to have it confirmed you have such qualities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why not? Are you just going to state how you feel or are you going to use the forum?

 

'does not' means nothing, please explain.

 

If you do not know basics, then you should go do your homework first. Discussion forums are not really well suited to learn fundamentals.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Creative indeed, since "acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva" does NOT actually reconcile "advaita and dvaita philosophies."

 

 

What do you mean do you think you know too much about dvait and by the way advait and what do you beleive in neodvait or neoadvait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What do you mean do you think you know too much about dvait and by the way advait and what do you beleive in neodvait or neoadvait.

 

As Kaiser said, do your homework. Advaita holds that Brahman alone exists, that the world is illusion, and that liberation consists of realizing the absolute identity/non-difference between the Self and Brahman. You cannot reconcile that with another philosophy that holds the opposite to be true, i.e. that the jiva and Brahman are eternally distinct.

 

Saying that Acintya Bheda Abheda "reconciles" Advaita and Dvaita because it incorporates some concept of "oneness" with "difference" is false. Advaita philosophy does not merely stand for qualitative oneness - it stands for absolute non-difference. Similarly, Tattvavada aka Dvaita does not merely advocate difference between Brahman and jiva, but other differences also, namely differences between different jivas, difference between Brahman and matter, difference between the jivas and matter, etc. According to Tattvavadi system of philosophy, all of these differences are real and eternal. Thus, "Dvaita" cannot be reconciled with any philosophy which does not also accept all of those differences as real and eternal.

 

You cannot reconcile two religions by ignoring all of the points of distinction and only accepting the common points. Perhaps you could say that you borrowed the points that you liked and made up your own religion.

 

Also, if you are planning to initiate a discussion on philosophy, may I please request you to first learn the proper use of punctuation so that your English is easier to read?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

but other differences also, namely differences between different jivas, difference between Brahman and matter, difference between the jivas and matter, etc. According to Tattvavadi system of philosophy, all of these differences are real and eternal. Thus, "Dvaita" cannot be reconciled with any philosophy which does not also accept all of those differences as real and eternal.

 

No havent you heard of samadhi.In samadhi there is no difference between the atman and the brahman.it is that state where you become one with brahman so what does dvait do there?

You cant say that there at two because samadhi actually is a state where there is no difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No havent you heard of samadhi.In samadhi there is no difference between the atman and the brahman.it is that state where you become one with brahman so what does dvait do there?

 

Samadhi as you described is purely an Advaita concept. Nothing to do with Dvaita.

 

It is not clear why this concept of reconciliation is finding supporters among Hare Krishnas. Confusion as usual? On one hand you criticize Advaita as false and then now you claim you are reconciling it with Dvaita. Why do you want to reconcile a false philosophy? Prabhupada wrote an artice titled "Mayavada is a false philosophy" and now here are some of his followers going against his own words.

 

In any event, oneness and difference at the same time is a ludicrous concept. It is like saying 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 != 4, both at the same time. Such an approach takes no positive step towards reconciliation.

 

Bheda-abheda is not new with Gaudiyas. It existed during the time of Shankara, was criticized and never found a strong foothold - most likely due its illogical approach. Ditto with Gaudiya Vaishnavism which tried the same angle. It was almost dead until it was revived in the last couple of centuries in an environment where logic clearly appears to have taken a backseat with Bhakti Vinoda writing absurd stories about Chaitanya traveling back in time and appearing in the dreams of Madhva and Ramanuja. This is perfectly acceptable to Hare Krishnas, but they are highly suspicious about a trivial ash producing miracle by Sai Baba! This is what I mean by confusion and lack of uniformity.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Samadhi as you described is purely an Advaita concept. Nothing to do with Dvaita.

 

 

Samadhi i thought it was a reality.It is mentioned in all holy books and i think even dvait wont deny it.

So why shouldnt i talk about it.I would surely want to know what raghu means by samadhi since he talks about dvait.

 

It is not clear why this concept of reconciliation is finding supporters among Hare Krishnas. Confusion as usual? On one hand you criticize Advaita as false and then now you claim you are reconciling it with Dvaita. Why do you want to reconcile a false philosophy? Prabhupada wrote an artice titled "Mayavada is a false philosophy" and now here are some of his followers going against his own words.

 

When did i say,i just beleive what mahaprabhu and what the other jagadgurus say.are you denying them.Im not hare krishna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When did i say,i just beleive what mahaprabhu and what the other jagadgurus say.are you denying them.Im not hare krishna.

 

You cannot accept all Jagadgurus at the same time, as they have conflicting views. Pick one and avoid confusion.

 

You are saying Chaitanya claimed reconciliation between Advaita and Dvaita. Do you have evidence? If yes, then he accepted Advaita and Dvaita as true at the same time. If yes, why did Prabhupada write a piece titled "Mayavada is false" and how Shiva came as Shankara to fool people?

 

You have to take a stance and be consistent.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...